Dear Chris,
The problem with atheist morality is that it finds motivation only in realism. On that principle, you should not do to the next guy what you would not want him to do to youreself, because quite realistically that is what might indeed happen.
If follows however that in cases where, all things considered, you realistically estimate that retribution will NOT be forthcoming, as for example in the many countries of the world where the law is NOT enforced, then you will feel free to go ahead and try.
That said, I think you might like to update your knowledge of Christian and Catholic theology. Motivation for behaviour no longer lies in fear of hell, that went out the door long ago.
Motivation lies in love and hope. As a matter of fact you might find Ratzinger's latest encyclical SPE SALVI quite interesting, especially with its references to Kant and the anti-christ.

Mildred and loving

Mildred and loving

I would like to comment on just one thing from the above, because I have to go out in ten minutes,
'....Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?'

The answer from any self-respecting religious entity must be a resounding 'No!'. I'm surprised you're still waiting for an answer, you should have asked me! Funnily enough the answer can be found in the telling of 'The Good Samaritan.' Anyone who helps another intuitively does so due to the understanding of the necessity of the act. The quality of character of a helping person will be seen by the level of empathy and compassion they have for the one they help. The religion, or set of beliefs of the helper is neither relevant nor helpful in satisfying the necessity to act. Nor is it appropriate to evangelise as you dress the wounds of an injured traveller. I’m sure this is what Jesus meant to convey.

This is called ‘behaving yourself’ where I’m coming from and should be practiced by everyone, especially those confused within the belief that the words and forms of religion come before ‘religious acts’. My definition of a truly religious act is one exampled above with no mention of religion at all. Atheists, agnostics, non-conformists and cat worshippers can all perform ‘religious’ acts, although they’d prefer another term no doubt. The quality of the goodness given by an atheist to someone suffering is to great degree down to it’s necessity and appropriateness, the quality of the giver I have already described and these are in no way inferior to those adherents of my religion who behave in the same manner.

I have always admired and enjoyed your well written articles and essays . If I don't agree with everything you write, something you wouldn't expect or demand I expect, what you say makes one think, or better -makes one examine your own ideas for rust and dust . That's a compliment that is and there is no 'but' hanging around the corner in ambush.

However, (damn, that's another form of 'but' isn't it?) I would like to know what your opinion of Scientology is. I can't seem to find any reference to it in your writings anywhere though I shall continue looking. Maybe you have dismissed them as a religion and therefore naturally as bad as the rest of them. But it isn't you know -a religion I mean, although it's worse than any religion I can think of by a long shot. And there are very few people un-distracted by film star PR articulate enough to dissect the animal efficiently in order to expose it's entrails to public view.

Will you have a shot at it if you havn’t already?

god gave us free will.

Mr. hitches wave your hand in the air any direction you desire.
According to nobel prize winning phyicists science does not have an answer for free will.

Your are free Mr hitches to love man hate man love god hate god. it is your choice.

you sholuld thank god.

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

The issue is not whether good or bad exists in believer or nonbeliever. The issue is if one follows the tenets of any religion does it make them a more moral and ethical person. Certainly one could argue that one does not need religion to act moral or ethical but my premise is if one does follow their religious tenets religiously if you will(not just lip service), the results will demonstrate a moral and ethical person. And the reason for that is because religion by its very nature offers morality and ethics as guidlines.

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thanks!

Hi,
I completely understand your position. Although raised in a Christian home, I saw no concrete evidence that God existed. I grew weary of accepting something on face value and no one could prove (or, at the least, successfully argue) their religious dogmas.

I felt this way until one night I was prayed for by a blind man and his wife. I was about to be married and my Mom insisted I have someone "bless it". As this man prayed over me, I was mentally preoccupied with the worry of "Happy Hour" soon expiring at my favorite bar. The couple finished their prayer and I insincerely thanked them and rushed to my car to make the last 30 minutes of half-priced alcohol.

Enroute to the bar and about 2 blocks from their home, I suddenly felt something odd happening. Even today, I still can't explain it. All I know is within a few seconds, I hollered out "Oh my gosh, there IS a God!". I couldn't believe my own ears as I involuntarily shouted that. From that moment on, the feeling I had grew stronger and stronger. By the time I made it to the bar, I was in a sort of daze (no alcohol ingested at all). I started playing billiards because I had no desire for alcohol or even cigarettes even though I smoked heavily.

As I was playing billiards alone, I began to observe other people in a totally different light. I heard a loud voice in my head that said "Chuck, that's not who they really are. THIS is who they really are!" And with that, I suddenly saw the purest, whitest light I'd ever seen in my life near the navel of everyone in the room. The next feeling I experienced really shocked me. I was suddenly drawn to that light and began to feel an avalanche of LOVE coming out of me and directed to each person I focused on. COnsidering my brawling past, that as quite unlike my normal personality. Expecially since this was a motorcycle bar with a Texas version of Hell's Angels (they were the Banditos).

This gush of love kept getting stronger until I felt totally overwhelmed. I threw my cue down and began to rush for the exit. As I looked into someone's eyes, they'd stare defiantly back (direct eye contact in that bar was usually interpreted as a challenge for a fight). But as they stared back into my eyes for more than 2 - 3 seconds, their hardened features suddenly softened as though they were feeling something they'd never felt before. I now know it was Unconditional Love they were feeling, but at the time I had no idea what was happening. So I continued to rush for the door and got to my car. I sat there for over an hour just blown away. I never said a word to anyone, not even my closest friends or fiance.

About 3 years later, a little sawed-off fireplug looking co-worker appeared in my life and constantly badgered me about "this Jesus guy". I threatened him with bodily harm and meant it. He kept at for a couple of weeks until I evening while preaching away, I finally decided to shut him up for good. So I said "Larry, I'm going to tell you a true story and when I'd done, I don't EVER want to hear another word about Jesus or anything else you're selling".

As I concluded telling the story I just shared with you (including more graphic detail), Larry suddenly slapped his knee and yelled "Brother! That's exactly what I've been telling you about all this time! You had an encounter with God".

Mr. Hitchens, I totally respect your view and wouldn't attempt to argue with you. There's nothing I can say that will probably ever convince you. I might be able to "sway you", but that's not the same as convincing you so there's really no point in trying. But I hope you one day have the same experience I was fortunate enough to have that fateful night.

Sincerely,
Chuck Frazier

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thanks!

Not applicable, to, say, Buddhism or religious ideas bottomed on PanDeism, is it? If the hypothesized God is not creating an ingroup and an outgroup then religion causes no harm.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks!

Hi Chris...this might explain why you are having so much difficulty:

1 Corinthians 1:18
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

In Christ,
Virgil

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

dnavmzb dtvji zktpdqsc mjxitwqg xcywm hbympn nsmyczrq [URL=http://www.jiphgvmn.nwjzovcp.com]qcng vtwdyh[/URL]

dnavmzb dtvji zktpdqsc mjxitwqg xcywm hbympn nsmyczrq [URL=http://www.jiphgvmn.nwjzovcp.com]qcng vtwdyh[/URL]

dnavmzb dtvji zktpdqsc mjxitwqg xcywm hbympn nsmyczrq [URL=http://www.jiphgvmn.nwjzovcp.com]qcng vtwdyh[/URL]

pmtaxcer nldtzhaus vsaquol rbagps tuzjv itwxkcub murlhiv mlwbrd qwyrvu

pmtaxcer nldtzhaus vsaquol rbagps tuzjv itwxkcub murlhiv mlwbrd qwyrvu

pmtaxcer nldtzhaus vsaquol rbagps tuzjv itwxkcub murlhiv mlwbrd qwyrvu

pynlfruk ajlq begawsit xdtcvgyuz vxkjqirbm dhcvl thgzrk

pynlfruk ajlq begawsit xdtcvgyuz vxkjqirbm dhcvl thgzrk

Hi boys!
898031233527ffd0c8917ded1670767a

I think it's sad how this forum and the rest of the mainstream media give bigots like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris (who said if he had to choose between getting rid of rape or religion, he'd get rid of religion and who is okay with torture) a platform from which to spew their hatred. As Brian Mclaren stated elsewhere on this site, the New Atheists are making things worse: we end up with more reactive religious people and more arrogant non-religious people. What should happen is that moderate secular humanists and moderate religious people should find common ground and work together on issues like separation of church and state. Moderate believers and non-believers could also join forces against the religious zealots that pose a danger to us all.

The interesting point will be when Israel is forced to appeal to Jesus whom they deny. By then their military will be removed from power. Unlike the nightime thief, most will slumber and loose their wealth but for those who prize Jesus' return the wealth of this life means nothing, having put their faith in him and daily look for his coming.

The Lord Christ is good because he saved my life from ruin and blessed me with a wonderful family full of hope, love and joy.

Words cannot express the gratitude that I have for the Father. I'm sad that Christopher has so much animosity towards Christ; if he only knew the power and the truth he wouldn't say such things about the Prince of Peace.

I hope the Prince of Peace one day will make known his love to you Christopher. All of heaven will rejoice. Luke 15:32.

Good day my friends.

Yhanks you
750fba07462b4d3e5441b06e76be1e5f

"Because people he created crucified him"
A truly silly statement. He did not create anybody. He was a creation of those times serving the interest of the Roman Empire, than the Vatican, Europe and now the new World. A very long lasting business venture which captures all simple minds opening the door for easy manipulations in politics, moral and sciences.

Lena: the intelligence of the human race is useless in proving or disproving the existence of God.

All people are capable of good or evil no matter their particular belief system. I am not sure exactly what that proves.

Thank you Christopher Hitchins first for your book"God is not Great", and for your continued efforts to appeal to the "intelligence" of the human race. Your lucid arguments should have convinced people that man created god and not the other way round. Clearly, we have a long way to go. All of this should be commonsense to anyone with average intelligence yet it eludes most of humanity. The people who surprise me the most are the so called "educated" people. I think of them as the degree collectors because truly they are completely innocent of knowledge and haven't the slightest curiosity or desire to know the truth. Keep it up! Religion has singlehandedly done more harm than all other evils of the world put together.

Christopher Hitchens is a fool. The definition of "God" is, among other things, supreme intelligence. Without supreme intelligence, how can a person explain the existence of God, or the methods of God?

But Christopher Hitchens thinks he can. Because he doesn't understand how evil or misfortune can exist in a world created by God, he believes God doesn't exist.

This is foolishness. Hitchens can no more prove his own damn religion, atheism, than he can disprove mine!

And in answer to Hitchen's challenge on naming a moral statement or action uttered by a religious person that could not have been uttered by a non-religios person, how about this?

When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees on whether one should pay taxes to Rome, he said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's".

That answer could not have been "made up" by anyone in a million years!

And if Hitchens thinks his writing can beat that, he's a bigger fool than I thought he was.

It seems to me that your questions and the answers they elicit can be used to argue that goodness is the province of God. Certainly an unbeliever can do good. God, who is perfect, created goodness along with everything else, and it is free to everyone, believer or not. But man, who is imperfect, created religion based on sometimes accurate, sometimes flawed views of God. If his faith is based on flawed views of God, he can do great evil. If his faith is based on a true notion of God, he is more likely to do good. In my opinion. But I have no doubt that you'll pick what I've said to pieces. That's what good people with flawed views of God often do.

Islamaphobes,

Here is a good article that highlights what should be the focus of the Islamaphobes: the Israeli Lobby that is pushing us over the edge of the abyss. Here are some excerpts:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=26308§ionid=3510302

‘In my analysis, which is shared, for example, by Ilan Pappe, Israel's leading “revisionist” (which means honest) historian, the answer is that it's mainly the Zionist tail that wags the American dog. As I demonstrate in my epic, two-volume book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of The Jews, it is a fact that, with the arguable exception of Lyndon Johnson, every American President, including the idiot in the White House at present, tried to draw red lines that Israel should not cross; and on most occasions Israel put two fingers up and crossed them. There is no mystery about why the Zionist lobby (AIPAC plus) has such power. What passes for democracy in America is for sale to the highest bidder, and one of the highest bidders, and certainly the best organized and the most effective, is the Zionist lobby, now in association with Christian evangelical fundamentalism and parts if not all of the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). The Zionist lobby has three main weapons of influence:

- money, apparently unlimited, to fund election campaigns (candidates who offend Zionism can be and are destroyed - outspent);

- the organized Jewish vote in close election races (in half a dozen critical constituencies); and

- the use of the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust as a blackmail card to silence criticism of Israel and suppress informed and honest debate. (On this front the Zionist lobby is assisted by the fact that, out of fear of offending Zionism, the mainstream media in America and throughout the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian or Western world is complicit in Zionism's suppression of the truth of history. What, really, does the media fear? Punishment by the withdrawal of advertising revenue).’

Rick said "Get control of our worldwide population growth (I can hear the howls already). We are already overpopulated by about a factor of two."

I say give the christians their heart's desire, crucify them. Jesus loves you, are you not his disciples. "Then Jesus beholding him, loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." "And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

From another thread:

Kavon,

Thanks for your delightful and thoughtful post. I must gently disagree with only a couple of your comments:

1. You say: ‘God? proof of God is reading this text right now...
you already know, but you can deny it to yourself....’

I must respectfully disagree. There are only two possibilities: (1) god exists, and (2) it does not. I place this probability at 50/50, and believe me I do know my own mind. I don’t need you to tell me what I believe. There is absolutely zero evidence to support either contention.

It is obviously comforting to humans to believe that god does exist, as evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of us (80-90 percent?) do believe this, or claim to. I have had supposedly devout believers tell me that you may as well believe in god. It costs nothing to do that. However, if you do not believe in god, you may (however unlikely) roast in hell, the river of fire. This hardly sounds like true belief to me.

I am glad at least that you are a Muslim who has given up faith in the hateful god of the OT/NT and Qur’an who wants to cast all nonbelievers who search for truth into hell, or the river of fire.

2. You say: ‘Great? how about dont bother wasting your time trying to understand it completely now and focus your efforts on improving humanity.’

Of course we should focus our efforts on improving humanity, but don’t ask us to give up our search for truth about the universe that we live in. This is futile, for there is no greater urge ingrained in the very fabric of our being, to strive mightily to discover who we are and what we are doing here.

From another thread:

Chip,

Thanks for the great link to Eternal Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

As you said, it is a great show. In Chapter 6 of 8 in hour 3 of 3, the eggheads get into discussing the Big Bang and origin of the universe. Their discussion parallels ours remarkably well.

David Gross, University of California Santa Barbara, notes that as we run the Big Bang backwards, we reach a point near time zero where the laws of physics completely break down.

Alan Guth says that ‘the classic Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, what happened before it banged, or what caused it to bang’.

Ed Witten says that ‘most people come at this with the naïve notion that there was a beginning; that the universe emerged into somethingness from nothingness’.

Ed Ovrut, University of Pennsylvania, says ‘I don’t like nothing; do I really believe that the universe emerged from nothing? I’m not a philosopher, but I imagine that to a philosopher, that would be a problem. To a physicist, that also is a problem’.

Alan Guth says ‘I actually find it rather unattractive to think of a universe without a beginning. I find that a universe without a beginning is also a universe without an explanation’.

So we are in good company. No one has a clue how we got here.

However, one thing that we can be absolutely sure of, and take comfort from, is the fact that Maria’s hateful god of the OT and the Qur’an (sorry Victoria and Moody), that wants all of us nonbelievers who are honestly searching for truth, to roast in everlasting hell, the river of fire, does not exist. The likelihood of existence for this god is obviously vanishingly small.

Lou Wms,

Thanks for the great post! I agree 100%. I'm sure that my good friend Victoria will also agree?

I am concerned about the Christian Right because a 2nd abuse scandal is brewing. This one isn't sexual. It is about hate and its harm. Its activity parallels and might easily exceed that of the sexual abuse scandal.

It was difficult enough when the Catholic sexual abuse scandal came out. People who were supposed to be the most trusted took sexual advantage of children. To made matters worse parishioners knowingly covered it up.

The consequences of the sexual abuse were severe. First there was the initial suffering the children endured. Then there was the economic hardship imposed on the Church. Finally there was the suffering the children and others endured after the initial abuse. Many were shunned for speaking out. Others turned to drinking, drugs, sexual promiscuity, and even suicide.

In the Catholic Church, Protecting God's Children, a program to educate about the signs of abuse was made a requirement for anyone working around children. The program was designed to help educate about sexual abuse and what signs to look for in the victim and the abuser. That should have been the end of things, but another form of abuse and cover up crept actively into Christianity. It was psychological abuse.

Psychological abuse might sound vague at first, but when one begins to look at psychological abuse on the level of what blacks endured during slavery or Jews endured during Hitler's reign, it is a little easier to comprehend. These incidents are a type of psychological abuse done on a coordinated group level to cleanse society and keep people in their place. Today instead of blacks and Jews it is homosexuals, abortionists, and others that need to be cleansed and Muslims and others who need to be kept in their place.

As a result of these viewpoints two very, very different psychological abuse patterns have escalated in society.

First, instead of looking at the behavior and actions of homosexuals and abortionists as a manifestation of a past abuse, similar to the actions of those abused who were mentioned earlier, many are unable to look beyond the signs – drinking, drugs, sexual promiscuity, suicide, homosexuality, and abortions to face the initial psychological abuse as the cause. When the abused victims act out their suffering they get abused a second time, this time by people trying to cleanse society.

The second is an entirely different perspective. Rather than looking at homosexuality and people of the Muslim faith as a difference to be accepted such as people of the Jewish faith or people with black skin color, the natural difference whether it is skin color and sexual orientation or the freedom to hold a different religious belief, the difference is seen as the problem. When this difference becomes a strong focus a segregated society and all the problems that go with it is created.

A new path needs to be taken because these two patterns only foster additional turmoil. An inspiring model is the way the Catholic Church successfully faced their issue and brought about a healthy openness and awareness of sexual abuse and prevention through the Protecting God's Children program. Christianity as a whole needs to adopt a similar method to bring about a healthy openness and awareness of psychological abuse, its consequences, and its prevention.

Lou Wms
Columbus, Ohio

Here is a question that I just posed to WP. Maybe you can help me with the answer; we have already lain some of the initial groundwork:

Atheists/agnostics believe that god does not exist, although they are very careful to leave open the possibility that it does exist. Most atheists put the likelihood of existence at near 0, or vanishingly small as they say. Agnostics (like myself) may tend to rate the likelihood of existence higher, say 50/50. Actually this is a fine distinction, and many consider there to be no difference between atheists and agnostics. Thus I say that I am atheist/agnostic.

If you are an atheist, please explain why you rate the likelihood of god’s existence as vanishingly small. Keep in mind that the only two alternatives are also not compelling: either (1) that the universe that we can all see around us sprang into existence from nothing, or (2) that it has existed forever, from negative infinity to the present. The negative infinity point on the timeline is also hard to get ones mind around. And if infinite time exists, the other dimensions of the space-time fabric are also probably infinite. These assertions of an eternal and infinite universe seem to be no more likely than the existence of god.

Great...Every cigarette Hitchens consumes depletes the rest of humanities intellectual capacity.

Mr. Hitchens,

I take it that you do not believe that god exists. But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

Or, can you say that the likelihood that the universe has always existed on an infinite timeline from negative infinity to the present time is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

From another thread:

Victoria said,

‘to me it beggars the question, well, if atheism is so intellectually superior, what alternatives, social solutions etc have they come up with?’

Speaking for myself, I don’t claim to be intellectually superior, and don’t think others have said that either.

As for social solutions, atheists are no better at this than anyone else. But I will offer a few suggestions at the risk of setting myself up for attack:

1. Get serious about energy independence from Mid East oil. This is the root cause of our disastrous invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq.

2. Get the Neo-Con Israeli lobbyists’ hands off the strings of power in our government. This is the 2nd root cause of our disastrous invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq.

3. Can you imagine how much better would be our economy and national security, if we had spent the trillion dollars squandered on Palestine and Iraq on infrastructure and alternate energy sources instead?

4. Get control of our worldwide population growth (I can hear the howls already). We are already overpopulated by about a factor of two.
I’m sure I can think of more, but that should be enough for now.
OCTOBER 3, 2007 12:46 PM

From another thread:

Daniel:

Rick

As a Christian, I have to say that I agree alot with you. You may be suprised, because many people assoicate "Christianity" with right-wing-born-again-Christian-evangelicals. They have very big and loud mouths and get all the press. But I am not one of them; I am just a "plain" Christian. As far as my faith and belief go, I have more in common with Mother Teresa than with them.

I agree with you, it is kinda scary. I also have a tip for you: most religious fantatics have a great deal of doubt, which they work feverishly to suppress, instead of allowing themselves to experience. That is what makes them so testy. So, don't think too bad of them.

October 3, 2007 10:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on October 3, 2007 10:13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rick:

Good Daniel,

I'm glad that we are able to reach a sort of meeting of the minds. I find that quite rare on these boards.

October 3, 2007 10:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments

From another thread:

Hi Victoria,

You said:

‘actually im not even one tiny bit interested in a definition of atheism- that seems elementary- but what do atheists believe in a more existential sense.’

Not speaking for all atheists of course, just for myself, existentially, I don’t have a clue what we are doing here if that’s what you mean, and neither does anyone else. Kind of scary isn’t it. I just want to get up in the morning, go to work, have three squares a day, enjoy life with my loved ones, etc, etc, etc...

Bravo Prof. Stone,

Well done. Of course the believers will say that ‘something in the human psyche that gives us all a limit on what is reasonable behavior, and what is excessive or inappropriate’ was placed there by God and is proof of God. Atheists (like me) will say that it was placed there by evolution.

I believe that the Golden Rule is the driving force of evolution’s law of natural selection at the higher levels of development that is responsible for that ‘something in the human psyche’. The cave man learned early on that if he did harm to his neighbor, his neighbor was likely to do harm to him in return.

I would also ask believers this question: "if someone did prove to you today that God did not exist, would you behave any differently? Would you start to mug old ladies in the street? Would you walk along the corridor and shoot the colleague you have hated for the last 10 years? Would you begin a string of affairs with other men/women?" I think the answer would be no. There is something in the human psyche that gives us all a limit on what is reasonable behaviour, and what is excessive or inappropriate. And it does not depend on reward or fear.

I would also ask believers this question: "if someone did prove to you today that God did not exist, would you behave any differently? Would you start to mug old ladies in the street? Would you walk along the corridor and shoot the colleague you have hated for the last 10 years? Would you begin a string of affairs with other men/women?" I think the answer would be no. There is something in the human psyche that gives us all a limit on what is reasonable behaviour, and what is excessive or inappropriate. And it does not depend on reward or fear.

I come down on the Atheist/Agnostic side. The odds are 50/50. Either an infinite and eternal god exists, who creates and destroys universes to pass the time; or the universe itself is infinite and eternal, having always been here and always will be here, no creator required. Yea verily!

What do you think?

Chris, as a religious person (of the Christian persuasion) I find your challenge interesting. The problem is that it is relatively pointless. Are nonreligious people capable of good? Of course...and religious people are capable of hideous abuses of the tenets of their own faith. I suspect no one will rise to offer an answer, because you've asked the wrong question. Anyone can utter a statement or perform an act.

The only statement I can think of that comes close to answering your challenge is, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Saying it is one thing; truly believing it and basing your life on it is something far different.

(On a related note, you make two erroneous assumptions -- first, that love of God is compulsory, and second that redemption must be earned. Neither is true. But that's a discussion for another day.)

Thanks for the stimulating words. Everyone, religious and otherwise, needs to be forced to think now and then!

Chris, as a religious person (of the Christian persuasion) I find your challenge interesting. The problem is that it is relatively pointless. Are nonreligious people capable of good? Of course...and religious people are capable of hideous abuses of the tenets of their own faith. I suspect no one will rise to offer an answer, because you've asked the wrong question. Anyone can utter a statement or perform an act.

The only statement I can think of that comes close to answering your challenge is, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Saying it is one thing; truly believing it and basing your life on it is something far different.

(On a related note, you make two erroneous assumptions -- first, that love of God is compulsory, and second that redemption must be earned. Neither is true. But that's a discussion for another day.)

Thanks for the stimulating words. Everyone, religious and otherwise, needs to be forced to think now and then!

Ms. Cogan, Which ideal or idea in particular have thousands of atheists died defending?

just curious

Every year people in this country get fatter and dumber. Religion has been a anchor on humanity from the beginning. I am 61 now and have very little doubt that religion will destroy humankind. I often wonder how people can be that stupid.
Don Mullican

God is a concept. The only way to experience true reality is to experience life without concepts.
As George Harrison wrote:

Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream,
It is not dying, it is not dying

Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void,
It is shining, it is shining.

That you may see the meaning of within
It is being, it is being

Love is all and love is everyone
It is knowing, it is knowing

Let ignorance and hate claim all the dead
It is believing, it is believing

But listen to the colour of your dreams
It is not leaving, it is not leaving

Or play the game "Existence" to the end
Of the beginning, of the beginning

Maria quoted Hitchens:

"Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever? I am still waiting, after several months, for a response to this."

Maria Replied:
"Someone may have said this already but if not, here is a response: a believer could become a martyr; an unbeliever may die while protecting loved ones or defending his/her country but would not die defending a faith he/she doesn't have."

I reply to Maria:
many thousands of atheists have died defending loved ones (often from the religious!)--that's a moral action. Many thousands of atheists have died defending an idea or ideal--that's a moral action. I doubt many atheists have died defending faith in ghosts and demons--but that is not a moral action.

Religion merely confirms what natural law proscibes, based on witness and centuries of human experience.Obviously, you don'tknow what religion is. You are thoroughly confused as you make no sense at all. Take the Ten Commandments for example. Taken together in historical context, you have a prescription for survival of a wandering nomadic tribe. It was sanctified to inspire awe and respect citing the authorship of God.

Religion merely confirms what natural law proscibes, based on witness and centuries of human experience.Obviously, you don'tknow what religion is. You are thoroughly confused as you make no sense at all. Take the Ten Commandments for example. Taken together in historical context, you have a prescription for survival of a wandering nomadic tribe. It was sanctified to inspire awe and respect citing the authorship of God.

Religion merely confirms what natural law proscibes, based on witness and centuries of human experience.Obviously, you don'tknow what religion is. You are thoroughly confused as you make no sense at all. Take the Ten Commandments for example. Taken together in historical context, you have a prescription for survival of a wandering nomadic tribe. It was sanctified to inspire awe and respect citing the authorship of God.

"Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever? I am still waiting, after several months, for a response to this."

Someone may have said this already but if not, here is a response: a believer could become a martyr; an unbeliever may die while protecting loved ones or defending his/her country but would not die defending a faith he/she doesn't have.

Is the supposed resurgence of religion caused by anything more than fear that the supernatural may not exist?
It could feel as unpleasant as discovering in adolescence that one is a bastard.

I can see your logic and it is reminiscent of the question "which came first the chicken or the egg". The evolutionist would argue that the egg came first as part of a process that occured over millions of years. The religios Judeo-Christrian based person would contend that the chicken was placed on the Earth along with all the other living creatures (including man)by a supreme creator.

If god does exist,then morality is established by His/Her/Its communication to humanity what the rules are. For without rules or guidelines, there can be no "right or wrong". Without "devine Intervention", man is left to his own invention or intellect to determine what is right or wrong based on the results or outcome of each action.

For example, is it wrong to kill? Yes, because God said so in the Ten Commandments. Or yes, because it causes sadness, heartache and infringes on a human's inalienable right to exist.

So who established man's inalienable right to exist God or man in the first place? If rules are left to the 'trials and errors' of human experience then there is the probability that the outcome of man's behavior and intellect may determine that it is an inalienable right to kill an other human. (As in the case of capital punishment, the end justifies the means). Or the phylosophy may have been derived differently: That it doesn't matter how you play the game; it matters whether you when or loose).

I agree with your antithesis that loving God and fearing God is an oxymoron. Perhaps the concept of fearing God is a mistranslation (by humans) of the verb 'respect'. Fear in a sense is involuntarily forced upon people: wereas, respect is earned and not always guaranteed. Several historical examples exist of Kings or rulers who were loved and were mutually respected by their subjects.

Likewise, one would think that if there is a God; that entity, in whatever form He/She/It exists, would realize that fear only invokes a short-term allegiance; whereas, respect requires an ongoing positive interaction by both parties involved.

Your essay presents an interesting dilemma. Many relgions proport that all truth comes from a god that is real and aware of man's affairs. As creatures made by God or placed on this planet by God, God has the inalienable right to place in the minds of all human beings the concept or seed of morality (whether or not that individual makes claim to believe in God).

So whether the chicken or the egg came first; or whether the moral thought is conjured by man or placed in the mind of man by the Omniscient Creator, that is the question.

The religious man supports his or her belief through the existence of writings such as the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon or other scripts of antiquity that claim to document or witness the communications of God to men. So if God had the power to reveal the "Word" (or rules of morality) to man in olden times; what prevents God from revealing His/Her/Its mind to the conscientiousness of any and all men or women on this Earth in modern times?

Thank you for your very stimulating remarks!

I can see your logic and it is reminiscent of the question "which came first the chicken or the egg". The evolutionist would argue that the egg came first as part of a process that occured over millions of years. The religios Judeo-Christrian based person would contend that the chicken was placed on the Earth along with all the other living creatures (including man)by a supreme creator.

If god does exist,then morality is established by His/Her/Its communication to humanity what the rules are. For without rules or guidelines, there can be no "right or wrong". Without "devine Intervention", man is left to his own invention or intellect to determine what is right or wrong based on the results or outcome of each action.

For example, is it wrong to kill? Yes, because God said so in the Ten Commandments. Or yes, because it causes sadness, heartache and infringes on a human's inalienable right to exist.

So who established man's inalienable right to exist God or man in the first place? If rules are left to the 'trials and errors' of human experience then there is the probability that the outcome of man's behavior and intellect may determine that it is an inalienable right to kill an other human. (As in the case of capital punishment, the end justifies the means). Or the phylosophy may have been derived differently: That it doesn't matter how you play the game; it matters whether you when or loose).

I agree with your antithesis that loving God and fearing God is an oxymoron. Perhaps the concept of fearing God is a mistranslation (by humans) of the verb 'respect'. Fear in a sense is involuntarily forced upon people: wereas, respect is earned and not always guaranteed. Several historical examples exist of Kings or rulers who were loved and were mutually respected by their subjects.

Likewise, one would think that if there is a God; that entity, in whatever form He/She/It exists, would realize that fear only invokes a short-term allegiance; whereas, respect requires an ongoing positive interaction by both parties involved.

Your essay presents an interesting dilemma. Many relgions proport that all truth comes from a god that is real and aware of man's affairs. As creatures made by God or placed on this planet by God, God has the inalienable right to place in the minds of all human beings the concept or seed of morality (whether or not that individual makes claim to believe in God).

So whether the chicken or the egg came first; or whether the moral thought is conjured by man or placed in the mind of man by the Omniscient Creator, that is the question.

The religious man supports his or her belief through the existence of writings such as the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon or other scripts of antiquity that claim to document or witness the communications of God to men. So if God had the power to reveal the "Word" (or rules of morality) to man in olden times; what prevents God from revealing His/Her/Its mind to the conscientiousness of any and all men or women on this Earth in modern times?

Thank you for your very stimulating remarks!

You are a danger to the Republic, Mr Hitchens.
Don't you realize the damage it would do to the already faltering economy if there were no religions to plug God. Nearly as much as the loss of the American paranoia about the body beautiful. (China is deficient in both areas - does this make a case for their booming economy?)

And what of reincarnation? Supposing you were born next time into a Roman Catholic (or, God forbid - oops - a Muslim) family without your I.Q. and your gift of the gab (both of which reduce me to a delirious shade of green). Could you guarantee that sheer common sense would straighten you out? Hold that option open, I am dying to see how your talent would cope with being Pope (or another missionary?, sorry, couldn't resist).

And what of Jesus, aka, in some versions, as Saint Paul.
The ancients, assuming he/they was one, tried to teach us in symbols, but the Christian religions bastardized the teachings over the centuries into far more numerous and deadlier renditions (nasty implication) than the fatwas of Islam.

So, are we the great ones?
Potentially. Someone better be soon.
Have you noticed how humourless religions are?

Posted by Tongue in Cheek

Someone said (predictably):
"To me the proof of religious "truth" is in the pudding. Western Christian civilization has given us all the concepts of tolerance, respect for fundamental human rights, freedmom of speech, democracy, rule of law, etc. that Hitchens no doubt would applaud. By contrast, Islam gives us burkahs, car bombs, and Osama Bin Laden, Asian religions gave us Mao, Pol Pot, and Tojo, and athiesm/paganism gave us Stalin and Hitler."

Although a small handful of brutal dictatorships have been secular, ALL religious governments have been brutal dictatorships. If you want a free, democratic society with respect for fundamental human rights, you must have a secular government. Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Saudi government cannot be distinguished from the rule of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada and John Calvin. Imagine the bloodshed and devastation those three could have caused with Hitler or Stalin's technology. No more Mr. Nice Guy!

If you want to live in peace and freedom you'd better pray for a secular humanist government.

I was born a jew, became a christian, became a mormon and then read Christopher Hitchens new book. Wow!

I just threw away my crosses and bibles and my brainwashing, and practical ruination of my life and mind, is now on the healing trend!

Thank you CH!!!

I was born a jew, became a christian, became a mormon and then read Christopher Hitchens new book. Wow!

I just threw away my crosses and bibles and my brainwashing, and practical ruination of my life and mind, is now on the healing trend!

Thank you CH!!!

Sorry, anon was Rick.

Daniel,

You say: 'I assume Hitchens is honest enough to not quibble and to declare as a proper atheist that existence is accident if there is no God. But if existence is accident then it becomes ridiculous to speak of morality let alone moral improvement.'

1. Why do you assume that eternal god is required to create universe? If god is not eternal, then who created it?

2. Why not make simpler (and hence more likely) assumption that universe is eternal requiring no creator?

3. Why do you assume that it is required of honest atheists to say that the existence of the eternal universe is an accident, any more than it would be be required of honest believers to say that the existence of the eternal god is an accident?

4. If existence of the eternal god is an accident, is it not ‘ridiculous to speak of morality let alone moral improvement’?

Mr. Hitchens,

Are you Atheist or Agnostic? If Atheist, why do you take the position that there is no God, as opposed to the Agnostic position: 'I don't know'?

"Question: has Putin ever been seen wearing that crucifix again, or did his cynical advisers tell him that the Leader of the Free World was such a pushover for the "faith-based" that he would never check?"

Yes. He was wearing it while on holiday in Siberia a few weeks ago.

Michael Wickham, who are you talking to? If it was me, what half truths? Be specific. I hope you don't try to make a living communicating.

There are no responses here because your arguements so utterly filled with half truths as to be labeled irresponsible. No-one desires to enter into dialogue based on conclusions derived from half truths. There are simply too many other worthwhile things to do than engage in empty debate.

There are no responses here because your arguements so utterly filled with half truths as to be labeled irresponsible. No-one desires to enter into dialogue based on conclusions derived from half truths. There are simply too many other worthwhile things to do than engage in empty debate.

OK folks this is a religious website so you have to expect that it is a little biased. I would like to try to explain some things to the religious in hopes I can break through your blinders. The religious really like the word “Faith.” They use this word when logic tells them that what they believe in is a myth. They say “I don't need proof, I have faith.” “The Bible says the world is just over 6000 years old so it must be, I have faith.“ ”Noah took a bunch of animals onto the ark but I'm not sure if it was just pairs or sevens because the Bible is a little confusing about that. I guess he took all 30 million species too. I don't need proof, I have faith.“ ”The Jews are God's chosen people and he helped murder all the other people that lived in Israel including infants. He must have been right and loving because he is God and I have faith.“ So much for faith. Ask yourself what was man's first god? Do you think it might have been the sun? You bet your bippy it was the sun. Is the sun god? How many gods came before the god of the Bible? Is it logical to now all of a sudden believe that the Jews's god is the right one? How is it the people of European or African stock would assume that the God of the Bible would care about them? That is not logical. Christians don't know how to be honest, if they were they would take a good hard look at the book they worship. They could start by reading it. They then could investigate what historians have discovered about the book they worship. I know the religious experts don't really believe. They are like my first pastor, he didn't believe, he was far to intelligent and knowledgeable for that. That is why your minister says “Have faith.” He is certainly not going to say “Have Proof' or ”Have truth.“ This was probably to much for you to grasp, but I did try to keep the words simple.

This is all such a waste of time, and yet I just can’t resist putting my two cents in.

Theists, I don’t know whether there is or isn’t some kind of god(s) (although I strongly suspect there isn’t, and there is no good reason to think there is), and I’m sure you’re all decent people, but your “arguments” are exercises in self-deception. There are so many problems with the arguments theists have posted in the comments section of Sam Harris’s, Christopher Hitchens’s, and Susan Jacoby’s essays, I don’t know where to begin.

The reason for doing what one considers good is because ONE CONSIDERS IT GOOD. This is reason enough for most people. Whatever the origins of morality are (God, mindless evolution, a big rock) doesn’t matter in the least to me nor, I would guess, to Hitchens, Harris, or Jacoby. If I am morally outraged by government corruption, and someone comes along and demonstrates to me how my moral outrage is the result of a long, mindless process of evolution, how does that change the fact that I’m morally outraged? That moral outrage is a part of who I am. You might as well tell me to stop loving my nieces because that love is the result of evolution. I. DON’T. CARE. The fact remains that I love my nieces, whether or not God exists, and whether or not I have his stamp of approval.

Theists claim that if morals come from God then they are somehow more legitimate (for lack of a better word) than if they are the result of a mindless natural process. How does that follow? It doesn’t. Not in a logical sense, anyway; maybe it does in a PERSONAL sense to YOU, but in no other sense does it “follow” that if morals come from a person-like entity who is not the result of a mindless process, only then can they be “legitimate.” If fact, from my perspective, if there is a God, his moral sensibilities are no less subjective and random than my own or anyone else’s.

And, of course, there’s the whole question that goes back to Socrates: does God will things because they are good, or are things good because God wills them? If God wills things BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD, then morality does not come from God and he is not the “basis” (whatever that means) for morality as you claim. Morality in this case is independent of God, and he simply follows it. On the other hand, if things are “good” merely because God wills them, then all normative terms (moral, immoral, good, bad, ought, ought not, etc.) simply mean “God wills” or “God wills not,” and there would be no reason to be “moral” (i.e. to do what God wills) except pure self interest -- that is, because God happens to be more powerful than you and can dish out reward or punishment if he is so inclined. And in this case, God could say that rape and child porn and child abuse were “good” and, presto, these things would automatically, by definition, be “good.” And to say that God is “good” would mean ONLY that God acts according to his will, nothing more; it would be to say “God wills what he wills.” There would be none of the evaluative/normative appraisal that people normally imply when they call God “good” or terrorists “evil.” And to say that God was “morally perfect” would mean ONLY that God follows his will perfectly, nothing more.

Here’s something else theists never consider. If we are the result of godless evolution, there might still be a realm of moral truth that is not merely the creation of human beings. It’s possible that the realm of moral truth is similar to the realm of mathematical and logical truths, and billions of years of evolution simply produced minds that are advanced enough to apprehend this realm of moral truth. Who the f knows?! Who knows anything?

And even if what Hitchens and Harris consider “objective” moral truths are merely their own subjective moral sentiments, so what? So they are merely expressing their own subjective moral sentiments, and according to those moral sentiments, the Bible and the God of the three major monotheistic faiths are morally reprehensible in many respects. If you were honest with yourselves, you would admit that your own moral sentiments agree with Hitchens’ and Harris’s, and that certain parts of the Bible and certain aspects of the traditional concept of God are reprehensible to you, too. But instead of using Hitchens’ and Harris’s criticisms to rethink your own dogmatic beliefs, you dodge the issues they raise. For example, according to the Bible, slavery is acceptable to God. Is it acceptable to you? If not, you either have to disagree with the biblical God or deny that the Bible is the word of God and admit that the biblical God doesn’t exist. The Bible condones the stoning of adulteresses and disobedient children. (And Jesus apparently has no problem with these things either, since he believed the Old Testament was the word of God and said he did not come to abolish it and that not one bit of it shall perish.) Hitchens and Harris find such behavior morally repugnant. If you were honest, you would admit that you do, too, and that therefore the God of the Bible is either morally repugnant, or he doesn’t exist and these rules were simply the expressions of a primitive, morally backwards people.

And lastly, there is the biggest moral problem with traditional theism of all -- a contradiction at the very heart of Christianity (and Islam, as far as I can tell). God is morally perfect; absolutely, 100% flawless; he is pure love; his love is unconditional and never failing; he is merciful and loves humankind, who is the centerpiece of his creation. And yet this same God is going to torture the MAJORITY of humankind for eternity because of their moral shortcomings and because they don’t believe the right things about him. If Christians (and Muslims) were intellectually honest, they would admit two things about this: 1) This is contradictory. Period. There is no hair-splitting it away. If God is morally perfect, loving, and perfectly just and merciful, then there is simply no way he could EVER consign anyone to eternal torture for their flaws, certainly not the MAJORITY of the billions of people who have lived. If he is just, the punishment would HAVE to match the “crime.” If he is loving and merciful, he would lessen that deserved punishment or waive it altogether. And because this is contradictory, then such a God cannot – CANNOT, with mathematical certainty – exist and the Bible (and the Koran) cannot be the word of God since it contradicts itself in this way. And 2) If there is a God who is going to send the majority of humankind to hell for their moral shortcomings and errant beliefs about him, there is no way that normal, sentient human beings could ever worship, praise, or love him. He would be a moral monster that you would hate more, WAY MORE, than any Hitler, Stalin, or terrorist. Hitler, Stalin, and terrorists at least eventually killed their opponents; but according to traditional Christian doctrine (Protestant and Catholic) and, as far as I know, Islam, God is going to keep people who reject him alive just to torture them for not going along with his program. If you just stop and think honestly and vividly about that for one second without your dogmatic blinders and knee-jerk theological defenses, you would see that any being that would do this is beyond psychopathic, and you could never – NEVER – love, follow, or worship such a being.

And if you finally see that the Bible is not the word of God, then what possible basis could there be for believing in a God with the attributes ascribed to him in the Bible? Once you see that the Bible cannot be the word of God, for the above reasons and many others, then all we have to go on when we try to figure out the possible existence and nature of god(s) is what we can surmise from the natural world, reason, and our own moral sentiments. How far does that get you? Once you get rid of written revelation, there is no good reason left to believe in the traditional concept of God. There is no basis for thinking that whatever god(s) there might be out there is ALL-knowing, ALL-powerful, omni-present (what a ludicrous concept that is), can listen to and perfectly respond to the billions of prayers offered up to him around the world each day, knows the number of hairs on your head, has a special plan for each of us, etc., etc. etc. And there’s no basis for believing in the narratives of the Bible: Adam and Eve, the fall, the incarnation, salvation, etc.

In human history there seem to have been two types of religious traditions. Through believing or awakening, one may be able to realize heaven or nirvana on earth and die expecting to enjoy a blissful eternal life beyond. The teleological tradition has sought redemption by believing in the existence of an almighty God, and finding positive meaning in the specifically defined nature of the Creator. In this tradition, the reconciliation of religious concepts with new scientific concepts becomes a real challenge. On the other hand, the inanimate tradition has sought, without assuming design, intension or purpose in nature, salvation in the awakening to the divine dispensations of Nature. At least in the purest versions of the inanimate tradition, there seems to be no fundamental conflict with modern science. On the contrary, advances in modern science seem to facilitate the understanding of the divine dispensations of Nature.
One may perhaps take the Bible in its entirety as a parable, instead of singling out God as a metaphor. The true spirit of Christianity may not contradict the spirit of Buddhism, Daoism or Hinduism in their purest form, and at the same time it may be fully consistent with modern science. The essence of what is told by Jesus, Buddha, Lao-zi, or Hindu sages, if presented in the scientific language of the 21st century, may all be identical.
As the Hindu sages say, if you see all beings in your own self and your self in all beings, you are one with the Eternal Self. Your self becomes all beings; you see this great Unity; and your life becomes immortal. Your body goes to ashes; you leave the transient; and you find joy in the Eternal. There seems to be absolutely no conflict at all between this type of belief and the modern sciences of molecular biology and particle physics. Quite on the contrary, the knowledge of DNA in all living organisms and the knowledge of quantum mechanics in all atomic nuclei would be conducive to seeing your self in all beings, and all beings in your own self.
Quite a few Christians seem to admit that the idea of intelligent design ---some features of the universe can be explained only by the direct intervention of a Creator--- is apparently a religious theory, not the only answer to the gaps in the theories of evolution and Big Bang cosmology. They know that if the Christian churches keep teaching things about the physical universe which are manifestly false, then everything else the churches teach would be discredited too.
Neither the evolutionists nor the creationists, however, seem be focusing on the very nature and role of religion. The raison d’être of religion may be in essence to give the meaning and purpose of life for humans, not simply to give some plausible explanations for evolution and physical universe. Their debate over creation and evolution seem to have missed the point.

Here's the article in Skeptics magazine:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

Here is an excerpt:

…Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, the author of several highly regarded books on evolution through natural selection, including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker (to my mind, the very best explanation of evolution for the lay person), The Extended Phenotype, River out of Eden and Climbing Mount Improbable, and is constantly in demand as a public speaker, and by the media as an advocate for good science.

Given his position and his professional expertise, it is hardly surprising, then, that he is also a cogent and trenchant critic of the anti-scientific dogma that masquerades under the title "creation science"…

…Prof Dawkins then acquired a copy of the tape and became even more incensed as the details of what had been done to him became clearer. In correspondence to me (published here with his permission) he recounts what had happened:

As a preamble, I should explain that, following the advice of my colleague Stephen Jay Gould, I have a policy of not granting interviews to creationists or flat earthers. This is not because I cannot answer their arguments, but because I have better things to do with my time and I do not want to give them the oxygen of publicity.

On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house in Oxford to film an interview with me. I had agreed to see them, on the misapprehension (as it later turned out) that they were from a respectable Australian broadcasting company. I had no idea they were a creationist front and I would not have granted them an interview had I known this, because of my policy as mentioned above.

The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my house under false pretences.

The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time - that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts that evolution happened.

Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences - in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did.

The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house. Gillian Brown pleaded with me, saying that she had flown all the way from Australia especially to interview me. She begged me not to send her home empty handed, after they had traveled such a long way. She assured me that they were not creationists, but were taking a balanced view of all sides in the debate. Like a fool, I took pity on her, and agreed to continue. I remember that, having had quite an acrimonious argument with her, when I finally agreed to resume the interview I made a conscious effort to be extra polite and friendly…

Here is another version of the video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-WFIVIQiTo

Here is a link to Dawkins website in which responds to the hoax:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14255

Here is his reply:

New version of Australian Fake Film by Richard Dawkins on Wed May 09, 2007 7:58 pm

Some of our regulars may be aware of the Australian hoax film in which I am shown apparently flummoxed and unable to answer a question about 'information content' increasing in evolution. Somebody has just pointed me to a new version of the clip on YouTube…, which is interestingly different from the published version.

A full account of the hoax is given by Barry Williams, in the (Australian) Skeptic. I don't have the reference with me (I'm in Miami Airport, on my way to Galapagos) but it is given in the chapter of A Devil's Chaplain, called The Information Challenge. Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject.

In the original film, 'From a Frog to a Prince', the 'information content' question is put to me by a MAN. We see him in a bare room, very obviously not the well-furnished room in which I am shown (not) answering the question. The new version on YouTube is different in at least two respects. First, the question is put to me by a WOMAN (we don't see her). And while she is speaking I am obviously not listening to anybody asking questions (I would be looking straight at the questioner if so) but I am clearly lost in thought, the same long train of thought that persists for a long time after the question ends (intended to look embarrassingly long, as if I am incapable of answering the question).

There is another difference. In this new version of the film, I ask them to stop the camera (and this really happened, for the reason given above). Then there is the cut to me answering the completely different question, as if trying to change the subject. In the original film, my request to stop the camera is missing.

I've got to go and board the plane, but it might be quite interesting for somebody to post both versions of the film together on our website, so they can be compared directly.

Must rush

Richard

Have any of you seen the Australian/American You Tube hoax perpetrated by the creationist nut jobs? Here is a link to it as passed to me by a good friend (and true believer) on another thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

…its only 3 minutes long

Hitchens is a disgrace to atheists. How can a devoted neocon like himself, who has fawningly hailed the hyper-religious GW Bush as "a secular hero" and who has doggedly supported every step of the faith-based War on Terra stand in judgment of the religious? If he thinks religion poisons everything, why does he hang out with the most toxic religionists of all, as shown in this photo where he is cuddling up to the Jesoids at the Family Access Network?
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=CU05K11
Pot to kettle!
P.S. As a counter-challenge to Hitchens, I wonder if he can think of a single time his neocon buddies ever got anything right. (without lying or obfuscating. He seeems to engage in exactly the kind of self-deception he accuses the religious of.)

Dear Christopher:

The ultimate distinction is between belief and knowledge. Knowledge will always be a threat to secular or religious belief.

The more a society evolves the less it believes and the more it knows. To the degree that someone is a truth seeker they are not a believer and to the degree they are a believer they are not a truth seeker.I respect you as a truth seeker but so far your truth seeking has taken you out of the barren landscape of religion by following intellectual knowledge.

There is another realm of knowledge: the intuitive or spiritual is at least as important. By meditating and doing other spiritual practices people are not dulling or crippling the intellect. In fact, their intellect may become stronger.

Most of what you see as bad in Eastern Religion is, precisely, the religious side of it not the spiritual side: the belief systems and neuroticly based support for them. Religion is deductive. It says something is true because it's true. If you're good you believe it. If you're bad you don't believe it. Spirituality is similar to science in that it feels that a theory only has value if it can be proved. For example there is a theory that if you sit quietly and watch your thoughts without censoring them they will tend to subside and you will come closer to the core of your being and the joy and peace that lies there. Either this proves to be true or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then chuck the theory. Nothing more clearly destroys the the dualistic God delusion as effectively as the pantheistic realization that everything is part of God. This is not a self- induced illusion; it is stripping bare all the projections of the mind and revealing what is behind it.

Dear Christopher:

The ultimate distinction is between belief and knowledge. Knowledge will always be a threat to secular or religious belief.

The more a society evolves the less it believes and the more it knows. To the degree that someone is a truth seeker they are not a believer and to the degree they are a believer they are not a truth seeker.I respect you as a truth seeker but so far your truth seeking has taken you out of the barren landscape of religion by following intellectual knowledge.

There is another realm of knowledge: the intuitive or spiritual is at least as important. By meditating and doing other spiritual practices people are not dulling or crippling the intellect. In fact, their intellect may become stronger.

Most of what you see as bad in Eastern Religion is, precisely, the religious side of it not the spiritual side: the belief systems and neuroticly based support for them. Religion is deductive. It says something is true because it's true. If you're good you believe it. If you're bad you don't believe it. Spirituality is similar to science in that it feels that a theory only has value if it can be proved. For example there is a theory that if you sit quietly and watch your thoughts without censoring them they will tend to subside and you will come closer to the core of your being and the joy and peace that lies there. Either this proves to be true or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then chuck the theory. Nothing more clearly destroys the the dualistic God delusion as effectively as the pantheistic realization that everything is part of God. This is not a self- induced illusion; it is stripping bare all the projections of the mind and revealing what is behind it.

Dear Christopher:

The ultimate distinction is between belief and knowledge. Knowledge will always be a threat to secular or religious belief.

The more a society evolves the less it believes and the more it knows. To the degree that someone is a truth seeker they are not a believer and to the degree they are a believer they are not a truth seeker.I respect you as a truth seeker but so far your truth seeking has taken you out of the barren landscape of religion by following intellectual knowledge.

There is another realm of knowledge: the intuitive or spiritual is at least as important. By meditating and doing other spiritual practices people are not dulling or crippling the intellect. In fact, their intellect may become stronger.

Most of what you see as bad in Eastern Religion is, precisely, the religious side of it not the spiritual side: the belief systems and neuroticly based support for them. Religion is deductive. It says something is true because it's true. If you're good you believe it. If you're bad you don't believe it. Spirituality is similar to science in that it feels that a theory only has value if it can be proved. For example there is a theory that if you sit quietly and watch your thoughts without censoring them they will tend to subside and you will come closer to the core of your being and the joy and peace that lies there. Either this proves to be true or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then chuck the theory. Nothing more clearly destroys the the dualistic God delusion as effectively as the pantheistic realization that everything is part of God. This is not a self- induced illusion; it is stripping bare all the projections of the mind and revealing what is behind it.

I should like, for the continued vigor of this discussion, to repeat the challenge that I have several times offered the faithful in print and on the air. Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?

I would have to say "no" to the proposed question, even as a beleiver as I am. I would venture to say that we are all innately inclined for selfish thoughts and actions, which is, in my opinion, the root of most, if not all of the world's problems. Insatiability in the realm of desire, which is all any of us are trying to fulfill in this life anyways, agreed? This is the stuff of conflict, our insatiable desire and our lack of concern for another's.

In response to your subsequent recollection of an easily answered question, as follows:

"think of a wicked action or statement that derived directly from religious faith, and you know what? There is no tongue-tied silence at THAT point. Everybody can instantly think of an example."

I WOULD HAVE TO SAY I'M ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU HERE, HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN RELIGION IS BAD. SHOULD THE BLAME FOR THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF RELIGIONS SOMETIMES FUNDAMENTALIST FOLLOWERS NOT LIE ON THEIR FALLABILITY, AS ALL OF THE HUMAN RACE IS? I'M NOT EVEN TRYING TO BRING GOD INTO THE EQUATION FOR COMPARISON OF PERFECTION TO FALLIBLE, BUT IM SURE WE COULD ALL AGREE THAT IF WE WERE INFALLIBLE AS MANY PERCEIVE "THE MAN UPSTAIRS" TO BE, OUR WORLD WOULD BE A MUCH DIFFERENT PLACE.

I believe the challenge is improperly stated. Identify an act or statement that one human being can make that another can not. In the end, whether we are believers or not, we are still human beings with skills and with flaws. For some, like me, religion is the motivation to try to overcome my flaws. Unfortunately, for others, religion is the excuse they cite to get their way, which diminishes us all.

I personally believe that a selfless person who does all those things people respect (volunteers time, donates money to charity, helps old ladies across the street, etc.) is a good person regardless of whether or not they do it in the name of a religion or just do it to be a good person.

So if my "fantasy", as some of you have called it, makes me do things that benefit society beyond the bare minimum of not committing crime and paying my taxes, who cares?

I believe the challenge is improperly stated. Identify an act or statement that one human being can make that another can not. In the end, whether we are believers or not, we are still human beings with skills and with flaws. For some, like me, religion is the motivation to try to overcome my flaws. Unfortunately, for others, religion is the excuse they cite to get their way, which diminishes us all.

I personally believe that a selfless person who does all those things people respect (volunteers time, donates money to charity, helps old ladies across the street, etc.) is a good person regardless of whether or not they do it in the name of a religion or just do it to be a good person.

So if my "fantasy", as some of you have called it, makes me do things that benefit society beyond the bare minimum of not committing crime and paying my taxes, who cares?

Mr. Hitchens
What you herald as the - challenge to the faithful – harks back to the old fashion schoolyard dares, where reputations could expand at the speed of light, or just as easily perish like old produce. Now as those dares hold no meaning for us today so this question will be in due time. That said lets go to it.
Question - Name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever.

This is a performance question peddling the notion that believers should possess a capacity to pull off impressive actions or circulate words of such high quality no mere nonbeliever could ever hope of matching. This cuts across Gods reasoning revealed in His statement “Those who strive to be first will surely be last.” The Creator is not concerned with our performance, its people (the world) whose appraisal of each others entire lives is based on ones performance. In this world believers and nonbelievers alike share in heavens blessings as well as the worlds difficulties and all have equal access to Gods resources. In this sense all (humanity) are equals, yet you demand a more powerful or -- first among equals -- if you will. There is only one who has walked upon this earth whose very life is the “statement” you seek, and whose death and resurrection is the “action” you demand to see. That is the Christ man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is either a light or stumbling block in our lives.

Also your comments on redemption miss the mark. How can one “earn” redemption when the status of one needing redemption is bankruptcy? Moreover It is not a thing to be bought or earned, it is a gift given, you don’t earn or buy a gift, you simply receive it and gladly open it.

As for Grevilles sound bite “created sick; commanded to be sound.” Let’s get the facts straight here - God deemed all His creation to be very good, Not Sickly. Adam, Eve are the only “created” humans. They were created good and contracted the sin disease by their own accord; please don’t attempt to nail that onto God also. Cain,Able,Seth,Jesus,along with Christopher Hitchens and the rest of humanity are all conceived , we are Not created.

Facts are important and always trump our personal opinions, won’t you agree?
If you are so inclined please respond.

Regards

Robert,

as to the "ludicrous" atheists to whom you foist some funny ideas of yours' ( about random and logic): In your attic greek class (wow!) you certainly have learned this line:

Γελά δ’ο μωρος κ’εάν τι μή γελοιον ή!

(I couldn't find all the correct accents on the computer)

Metapysically speaking, the explanation of the origin of consciousness is faced with a paradox - intellect doesn't operate in the direct perception of being. Religion is not spirituality (necessarily) nor is it intinsically good - au contraire I would say it is simply a vehicle for the projection of ego and ethno centristic bias. What "is" sources from spirit with no need for filtering through man created religions because every being is a direct connection.

Robert,

You say: "Logic is the way the Divine Logos thinks". A statement which presupposes what it tries to prove: The existence of a divine, supernatural. Nature, as the sum of all existing possibilities, is quite enough for me to create "religious" feelings. I don't need additional layers of Super*n - natural divinities.
Circular.

By the way, nobody in his sane mind says we are "randomly occurring". We are the outcome of immense chains of very strict natural necessities (to avoid the word "law" with its double, mutually exclusive, meanings). That holds already true for my personal life since my conception, let alone for the course of evolution. The "random" part of us is actually the free will part. (That may be another discussion). This senselessly repeated accusation against our attitude to be the result of "random" is the general more or less friendly willful twisting of atheist arguments by more or less sophisticated theists.

I don't think that I attribute any bit less meaning and value to my life than you attribute to yours. That is an opinion, of course, which you don't have to believe but one which certainly you cannot disprove. May I suggest you just "believe" it?

Since I am an atheist, your arguments would "prove" that I am unable to use any reason, any mathematical argument, even any language, that all I can ever utter is complete nonsense. Thank you. Since you allowed yourself to answer my post, thereby generously acknowledging that you understand the language I used to pronounce this nonsense, part of your assertions must be revised.

To Gerry-

Thanks for the encyclical, but I'm afraid your dogmatic utterance about 'faith and reason' doesn't really address any of my points. Show were the conclusions don't follow from the premises, don't just say they're 'blurred,' for that's much more easily stated than demonstrated, as your silence upon their substance tends to prove.

But, sir, I beg to differ, 'faith and reason' are not in conflict; faith and secular assumptions are. Faith, rather, makes logic and reason possible; and moreover only by faith can we account for logic, or for something called 'argument', or for the objective meaning of language, or for validity, or for objective truth, which is presupposed in all the foregoing; this was ably argued by Douglas Wilson in his online debate with Hitch (who regrettably either misunderstood or shamelessly misrepresents Wilson's arguments and the intent behind them). [I could attempt to articulate how, through the use of a disjunctive syllogism, that in turn uses a modus tollens to prove its minor premise, but that would be involved (I just started typing it out and it looked really hairy for such a forum)].

Let me just say that Faith presupposes both a rational God/Logos, and objective truth and logical principles governing all. This is what makes it possible for us to argue something and believe we have accomplished something other than just utter nonsense (which is what is presupposed, whether you acknowledge it or not, by atheism, which ludicrously posits both that the universe is random and yet logical). If I make perfect arguments, or if I just say "fizzle-blip" and declare victory, why would one be more meaningful or 'true' in a universe as represented by the atheists? Both would have equal meaning because neither have any meaning, they're just (as Wilson pointed out) matter in motion.

Logic is the way the Divine Logos thinks (A and non-A, antithesis). If all we are (as atheists suppose) is a randomly occurring event in an accidentally occurring universe, which comes from nothing and goes to nothing, and our "thoughts" are random combinations of chemicals in grey matter, then you would be hard put to say that one random utterance from our lips is any more 'truthful' or in accord with 'objective reality' than another, and therefore it is unbelief, and not Faith, that is the foe--albeit a poorly armed foe--of logic and reason.

Keep thinking about it. I've got to get back to my Attic Greek.

ADDENDUM-

I should add, however, something important I omitted to include in my last post.

None of my arguments were intended to suggest that atheists have no moral sense of right and wrong. They do. But they do not (and as I showed in my last post CANNOT have) come about in any way that they are inclined to suggest: social convention, individual fiat, or evolutionary processes. My whole argument, being a modus tollens, depends on the fact that the logical conclusions implied by atheistic presuppositions will BOTH offend the innate moral sense of the atheist AND illustrate the impossibility of their attribution of that moral sense to inadequate sources/insufficient causes.

Atheists are in tension; their philosophies about their origins, and their ontology and anthropology("presuppositions") are all in conflict with "What they know" about Right and Wrong. My goal was to illustrate--to those atheists who have ears to hear--that what they know ("Q") cannot follow from what they have chosen to believe ("P"), and that therefore they must reexamine what they have chosen to believe. I've used a modus tollens syllogism, If P then Q, not Q, therefore not P, to this end. Their beliefs cannot account for what they know.

Christianity, however, can account for this phenomenon. For in the New Testament I am told why it is that unbelievers can still have a sense of morality within them, despite their unbelief in God, and that is discussed in the Epistle to the Romans, and is known as the "conscience" (Lat. 'with knowledge'), given by God to all mankind to accuse them of wrongdoing whatever beliefs they adopt or course they pursue.

So while Christianity can accound for the reality of the moral sense within the heart of an atheist, the atheist cannot account for it, either in himself or in anyone else.

Robert,

bible quotations point to nothing but themselves.

People who ask for obedience to the irrational ("revealed") bible and in the same vein think they can bolster their belief with "reason" show that their thinking, however opulent, is blurred completely.

Faith excludes reason, if words have any meaning: I don't have to believe something which I know.
It comes quite natural then that as they seem to recognize the impossibility of their own arguments they must resort to condescension and insult. A child stamping his foot on the ground because something is different from what he wishes it to be. A tennis player throwing his racket away because he banged the ball into the net.

Circular reasoning wherever you look. Since the bible is "revealed", it proves that it is revealed. Thank you. I have more "faith" into the "god-given" human brain.

A moral prescription unlikely to be uttered from unbelievers:

"I [claim|rule|destroy] this land in the name of [deity or prophet or fearless leader], for it is the manifest destiny of the favored people"

God
Jehovah
Yahweh
Allah
The Christ
Mohamed
Moroni
Moses
David
Hirohito
Caesar

You get the picture.

I might quibble with religion as origin of totalitarianism. But I am unread and ignorant on that subject as I am on the doctrine of manifest destiny. All I really know is that contemplation of divine justice caused Jefferson to quake a little, but not really alter his course.

Poison is a word often heard with religion these days, no doubt to bring the imagery of Jonestown to the fore of our consciousness and equate faith with the kool-aid. It may or may not be true, but it doesn't help the discourse much.

Ayn Rand had much the same gift (and concomitant problems) for pronouncing absolutes in language designed to roust the sheep from their drowsy browse. Of course it didn't help that she had social skills, similar to Hitchens (and myself), near absolute zero. ;)

Not having read Hitchens on Orwell yet, I don't know how Orwell would frame religion or if it had any impact on the Hitchens Perspective. But Orwell's essays on language and politics and his thoughtful balance between left and right would seem a better strategy with which to win the battle for secularism in our hearts and minds--notwithstanding the entertainment value of
using direct, provocative language to incite flame wars On Faith.

I guess we'll just have to see how the Harris/Hitchens/Dawking/ Gambit plays out or if it's just a blip.

I prefer the Feynman Proposition: What do you care what other people think?

Or Sagan, or Asimov, or Russell, or even James "woo-woo" Randi.

--FIUS

ON WHY THEISM IS NECESSARY AS A STARTING POINT FOR MORAL ARGUMENT-
One must posit a 'universal' source for one's morality. The atheist can respond this proposition in one of two ways, by affirming it or denying it.

If he affirms it, he is left assigning the role of Universal, of moral authority, to unthinking and impersonal Matter, which is patently ridiculous (for how can unthinking, impersonal stardust or dark matter or whatever reasonably be held to have the moral authority to bind rational, sentient humans on questions of whether to steal or kill?).

If he denies it, he falls into a different hole. Here then the atheist must assert that there is no objective morality, and that it is merely a social construct, and that it is up to each person, or each group, to establish his or its own morality.

On the group level, this involves a number of moral impossibilities: first, that whatever a group decides is in fact moral (a group of men to rape a woman, a group of Germans to perpetrate a Holocaust, etc etc). This involves the pitfall of deriving an "ought" from an "is," and, second it affirms moral relativism, which is the contrary of objective morality and a license to define barbarity as morality. It is to define as "moral" what is held to be individually or socially expedient, leaving one required to affirm that the Germans, being a group, were moral in deciding it was expedient to eradicate a minority and take their property.

On an individual level, this implies that personal morality is self-referencing, and that therefore the will of the individual being the standard, the actor can never do something objectively or even subjectively immoral: the former is obvious, but the latter is implied too, in that if the starting and ending point of moral reasoning is the actor's own will, he can engage in charity on Monday and murder on Tuesday and never violate his own principles, given that the principle is acting on his own immediate moral sense. This is poison for civil society, and it also involves moral schizophrenia for the individual. Moreover, such is the definition, not of the moral man as he has always been understood, but the identification of the sociopath as the moral man.

Therefore, moral argument is beyond the ken of those adhering to atheistic presuppositions. Unless and until one can have a sufficient cause, an adequate Universal (one that is personal and rational and authoritative and so can intelligibly bind rational, personal Particular actors) as a source for moral standards, one cannot discuss morality intelligently.

ON THE PUTATIVE 'AD HOMINEM ATTACKS' OF CHRISTIANS IN RESPONDING TO HITCH-
Hitch, and his flock, have started a knife fight. Don't cry foul when we defend ourselves well. Moreover, an "ad hominem" is an attempt to discredit an argument based on the identity of the one making the argument. This is not what we are doing. We are showing the impossibility of your conclusions by attacking the validity of your propositions, by employing argumentum ad absurdam arguments, and by modus tollens syllogisms: showing that if your argument were true, an impossible consequent is necessarily implied, and that therefore your argument can't be true: If P then Q, not Q, therefore not P).

ON THE PUTATIVE "LOGIC AND REASON" OF ATHEISM AS OPPOSED TO THE CONTRARY OF THEISM-
See supra-- quod erat demonstrandum.

IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES-
If you tell children long enough that morality is merely a social convention, that we are trousered apes who come from impersonal, unpurposeful Matter, and come from Void and go to Void, then you reap what you sow. Here is the poison Hitch ought to decry. An atheistic youth, who carries your propositions out to their logical conclusions, will logically deduce that mass murder has no more moral significance than a battle between bacteria in a pond, that Right and Wrong is relative to the will of the individual actor, and that the only "moral" calculation is whether one is likely to get caught.

For the atheist then to refrain from such things, he must live inconsistently with his own presuppositions, and at best can parrot the fixed moral standards of the theist, who posits a credible Universal for the standards which bind all Particulars.

The Christians, however, are in a different boat. We posit a Personal, Intelligent, Rational, Moral Creator Who created man righteous, but whose creatures through free will fell into a state of sin and rebellion and death (and its allies, disease, hunger, war, etc). Both our fallenness and the reality of lost perfection is tacitly confirmed by everyone who has ever said "nobody is perfect" (which is theologically profound in that it not only correctly appraises our current state, but also necessarily implies a standard from which we have all fallen and can never attain to again by our own efforts).

God, knowing this, has made provision Himself for our salvation, by coming to earth in the Person of the Son, being born of a woman, living a perfect, sinless life, being cruficied, dying, and rising again, all so that He could save and grant eternal life to those who would believe. Accept this gift of God's free grace. If you believe in Christ, and embrace God's only plan for your salvation, He will impute Christ's righteous life to you, and impute your sins to Christ on the Cross, thereby justifying you before His lawful requirements and all by His own grace.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Ro. 6:23.

Robert
Washington, DC.

If Professor Hitchens is right, that is ``God doesn't exist'' then each of us is responsible for our acts of commission as well as omission. If God exists (Chris has too much integrity to take Pascal's Wager) then we are still not off the hook. The issue becomes relevant, as Hannah Arendt indicates in ``Reflections on Little Rock'', when we move from the private to the public space.

WASAN't one thing that superstitions of faith can do that an Atheist could do better for the simple reason that We Atheists are Responsable, Actives and know why the World is getting worse every day because of the acts of the superstitions and the religions.

Sometime, I'd like to hear Mr. Hitchens say whether his argument is with "god" or, rather, with "organized religion." I've read his new book as well as the article here. It seems to me that his real argument is that all organized religions do an awful job of representing god. It's sort of like, "with friends like this, you don't need enemys." Ultimately, I'd like to see Mr. Hitchens apply his intellect to what god REALLY wants -- contrary to what is presented by organized religion.

As a Buddhist I find the debate about religion to be quite interesting. Most critics of religion such as Hitchens and Sam Harris seem to be careful not to lump Buddhism in with other "religions of faith" and certainly trying to pin historical calumny on Buddhism is a heavy task. The Buddhist perspective on sin, evil, morality, etc. centers around an understanding of the human condition, the causes of suffering, and the path to removing the causes of suffering. This begins with the understanding of the emptiness of concepts such as ego, I, etc., which lead to "sins", bad behavior, etc. In the Buddhist world view, there is no need for a God, a prime mover, and the responsibility for morality belongs to the individual. Because of the understanding of reincarnation and the continuity of the mindstream, directly experienced rather than believed in, a lot of issues that crop up in discussions of religion and morality, are seen as illusions. Energy spent either in anger, whether it is denouncing religion or defending it, would be better spent in quiet meditation. Samsara cannot be fixed.....

TOM NEALON:
"Where is the atheist Mother Theresa?"

If recent reports are to be believed, MT was an atheist herself.

That said, considering what MT actually did (as opposed to what the PR would have you believe), the religionists can have her. She was a friend of poverty, not of the poor who caused pain and suffering on an immense scale.

Three words can debunk the "rational" humanist philosophy of Hitchens:

THE IRAQ WAR

A war created on the blue prints of a secular political philosophy: neo conservatism

This was not a "religious evil", it was a humanist evil, a humanist blunder (supported by a warmongering, drunk egoist named Chris)

(neo conservatism was as started by three liberal scholars at the university of chicago - strauss, podhoretz, and kristol)

Mr. Hitchens,

The horrors committed in the name of God point to the fallibility of man, not necessarily to his supposed Creator. Certainly, religious intolerance is an absurdity. But do we not show an intolerance of our own by labeling all believers fools or tyrants?

Matt Zobian

". . . name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

I am no writer or theological expert. I am, however, a person of religious belief who believes it makes me a better, more grounded and yet more hopeful person. Belief - to me - is similar to food, too much or too little are both damaging (one creating laziness and one leading to starvation) but the correct balance of nutrition is vital to life.

To answer your challenge I would submit one who has recently been in the news - Mother Theresa. Her much talked about diaries reveal the long dark night of the soul she endured, but yet she continued to fight for Calcutta's poor and downtrodden because she believed that is what her (absent and unfelt) Lord would have her do.

A person without this guiding principle would have long ago been crushed under the weight of the task and given up or burnt out. You see this is charity work all the time.

Yes, anyone can do good works irrespective of their motivation but it is (in my experience) the belief in something higher that causes this one act to become the path of an entire life.

Christopher, did you notice the comment above by Ellen O'Neill? She wrote the following comment:

Mr. Hitchins,

I recently read The God Delusion and it has made me very skeptical about the existence of god. I was raised a Roman Catholic and have routinely prayed to god, lit candles, blessed myself with holy water, and so forth. Now I am reluctant to perform these actions. I have forced myself to follow these rituals out of indoctrination and guilt, not divine faith. Therefore, I feel that I have been a hypocrite.

I am on my library's waiting list for your latest book; many people are ahead of me, so I might not get my hands on a copy before then. At any rate I look forward to reading your thoughts on the subject of god.

Sincerely,
Ellen O'Neill
Buchanan, Virginia
SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 10:58 AM

Christopher, if one of the reasons for your anti-religion diatribes is to help people throw off the irrational fetters of religion, then here is a golden opportunity! This woman is beginning to doubt her Catholic beliefs. Help her! Offer to send her a book, or get my and Ellen’s e-mail addresses from the owners of this website and help coordinate my sending a book to Ellen. If your intention is to help humanity throw off religious superstition, and not just belittle people with your superior intellect, then let’s help a budding doubter out in her moment of transition.

And, Ellen, for what it’s worth, above I posted a much lengthier response to your comment. I posted it at September 28, 2007 3:23 AM

Where is the atheist Mother Theresa?

Your rejection of original sin begs the question of why people are so selfish and often act so wickedly. I get the atheist position, that it isn't fair that I punished for a sin I didn't commit, but even if there is no God, people suffer all the time for the sins of their parents, friends, countrymen and leaders. We're all connected.

If I were an atheist, I think I would be haunted by the goodness of a Mother Theresa or a Mother Seton.

I hope you find peace and meaning, they await you in Christ Jesus.

"In the field of moral action(s), the unbelievers are suspiciously absent. Talk is one thing and genuine, constant action another."

So, would you assume unbelievers are really absent from the field of 'moral action,' ...or might you observe that only certain beliefs have any *reason* or even *inclination* to *talk* about how moral they're being for all to hear?

I mean, if someone's not attached to doing something *and advertising it* in a given name....

Why would you expect them to advertise doing it in the name of 'Unbelief?'

Come, now.

Dear Mr. Hutchins,

I would like to start by making what I believe to be a moral statement: I proclaim loyalty to my Creator – God, whose every action (and inaction) is logical and reflective of his love and ministry to his inconceivably vast and complex creation. I consider this “proclamation” to be my own personal vision statement, where my vow of loyalty requires me to seek a greater understanding of God’s purpose, and to act in a way that I believe best advances that purpose. An avowed atheist such as yourself cannot utter the above statement sincerely; nor could they identically perform many of the moral actions that would derive from the underlying intent. Don’t you agree that the moral flavor of any action must be evaluated in context of the perceived intent of the actor?

I agree with much of your criticism of the ancient and modern religious beliefs. To me, religious investment in the concepts of Hell, blood sacrifices as expiation, Original Sin and it’s direct connection to Christ’s death on the cross could not possibly be “paid off” by a God who is kind, understanding, and just.

Modern religions may all have their logical flaws and pedantic peccadilloes, but they also enjoin their constituency to: 1) love God and one another; and 2) treat others as you would like to be treated. I therefore disagree with your generally negative characterization of religion. I believe the net effect of world religion is to the good. I am confident that the majority of practicing Muslims are opposed to the violent acts committed by those on the fringes of their faith, just as I must disagree with anyone who believes that God’s purpose can only be spread by religious indoctrination.

Christians are fine as long as you're not threatened by them.

Christians are fine as long as you're not threatened by them.

Christians are fine as long as you're not threatened by them.

While listening to some ditsy person on TV talking about World Peace, it came to me----we just might be able to achieve it if we could find a way to rid the entire world of organized religion!

RAVI ZACHARIAS writes:
"How little Hitchens understands his own question and lacks philsophical sophistication is revealed by his purported challenge. The issue has never been whether an atheist can make an equally moral statement. The admission by a host of atheists is that there is no rationally compelling basis for it and there is no rational compelling basis to challenge an alternative."

Who lacks sophistication?

Long before religion reared its ugly head, mankind evolved simple social structures to stay alive and to preserve the tribe. Strength in numbers, protecting one's own, etc. Archaeological evidence traces mankind's development of "morals," including the time when man started to bury his dead to the earliest trappings of religion born of ignorance.

Many of these same traits can be seen in the "lower" species of primates. Would you suggest that "god" is teaching the apes their "morals?" If so, what book do they consult?

Contrary to your assertion, there IS a sound and rational alternative to the question of where our morality comes from, and it is, "from ourselves." Religion is, in fact, the outright theft of our own evolved better selves, assigning to a non-existent supernatural being the source of morals that are wholly the creation of ourselves. Truth be told, morals are our birthright as an evolved species, and I'll take our morals over those of the god of the OT any day of the week.

I suggest that you're hanging out with the wrong "host of atheists."

SCKERSHAW writes:
"I think the question that Mr. Hitchens should answer is whether he thinks that if the rise of Christianity had been the rise of atheism, would the world have been less violent? If he does, then he should present the evidence."

You ask Mr Hitchens to prove a hypothetical. Why not ask him to "prove" what type of life forms would have evolved on Earth had its orbit been closer to Mars?

You then write:

"I cannot say that I have ever witnessed the broad based spontaneous development of self-restraint unaccompanied by religious commitment."

Really? Perhaps you would like to compare the living, education and health standards of the Bible-thumping USA to the increasingly atheistic Europe?

Just because you haven't witnessed it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. You need to get out more.

E Favorite:
Tampa, you say, “What matters to me is where we each end up, not the path taken to get there.”

Are you saying both believers and atheists can be moral during their earthly life, but only believers can go to heaven?
*************

No, not at all. I believe that mainstream religions (including mine, I'm Episcopal) give a truthful, but not exhaustive or exclusive, revelation of truth. So, since I believe that Christianity isn't exhaustive or exclusive, who am I to assume that other paths aren't valid?

To me, truth is God. To others, truth may mean something else.

So what matters in my view is that we each find a way to get closer to the truth, not how we get there.

As far as "heaven", I've got no real idea of what it may be, or whether it really exists in any way that humans can understand it. It's a mystery. Assuming it exists and that there is some type of afterlife, then I can't help but think and believe that its available to all. To think that heaven is somehow exclusive is a concept that that sounds most un-Christian to me.

Christopher, why are there not more like you? I know that your brother is a god-botherer how come you both had the same up-bringing but you turned out fine and he didn't?

Gerry,

Bush is an idiot; however, he did not come up with the neo conservative political philosophy that justified the Iraq war and changes in the Mid east.

Your point is?

PS - Luther does not equal Christianity...he is just one thinker (that some Christians dont even recognize)

First of all, this is improperly titled. It should say the subtle, lethal poison of Christianity. There are several other beliefs that don't believe in a singular "God". Also, there are many that ddon't believe in any "God". Aside from this, your questions are not fair. "Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?" Of course not, everyone is capable of good. What you are not taking into account are the millions of people who would not do good if it was not for their faith. Your other question, "I have also asked large and divergent audiences if they can think of a wicked action or statement that derived directly from religious faith". This is also completly unfair. Let me ask you, can you think of an immoral incident that derived from a government? I'm sure you would find no shortage to the answers from that question as well. Should we do away with government, as well? Can you think of any incident where an unbeliever did something immoral? Again, no shortage of answers. Naturally, religion will look poisonous to those that list all the things wrong with it and none of the good and never compare it to anything else. Ultimately, a very narrow-minded point of view.

I think the question that Mr. Hitchens should answer is whether he thinks that if the rise of Christianity had been the rise of atheism, would the world have been less violent? If he does, then he should present the evidence. I cannot say that I have ever witnessed the broad based spontaneous development of self-restraint unaccompanied by religious commitment. Even should it happen now, its occurrence would still be inseparable from the ethic that currently prevails, an ethic that has been acutely informed by the Christian religions.

Its important to distinguish the religious traditions like Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc, from the religious movements, which are more or less concoctions by 'clever' dupes. While religious traditions hardly cause trouble because they hardly proselytise, religious movements are trouble-makers because they want everybody to believe the 'revelations' they got. Its important for you to have this in mind so that you do not throw the child away with the bath water.

Its important to distinguish the religious traditions like Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc, from the religious movements, which are more or less concoctions by 'clever' dupes. While religious traditions hardly cause trouble because they hardly proselytise, religious movements are trouble-makers because they want everybody to believe the 'revelations' they got. Its important for you to have this in mind so that you do not throw the child away with the bath water.

Its important to distinguish the religious traditions like Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc, from the religious movements, which are more or less concoctions by 'clever' dupes. While religious traditions hardly cause trouble because they hardly proselytise, religious movements are trouble-makers because they want everybody to believe the 'revelations' they got. Its important for you to have this in mind so that you do not throw the child away with the bath water.

Its important to distinguish the religiuos traditions like Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc, from the religious movements, which are more or less concoctions by 'clever' dupes. While religious traditions hardly cause trouble because they hardly proselytise, religious movements are trouble-makers because they want everybody to believe the 'revelations' they got. Its important for you to have this in mind so that you do not throw the child away with the bath water.

Christopher,
I think it is so very true that religion as such is limited to man's ability in what he does in anything, and also is subject to all man's failures, passions, instincts, desires. Power struggles, wars, corrupt officials, inhumane treatment of people is the lot of religion.
Christanity, those who have had the heart changed by the Holy Spirit, do not fit the religion label. Christanity is not a religion. Religion is man seeking God, through all means he can devise, sacrifice of humans, voodoo, ad infintium. Christanity is a person, Jesus Christ, God's Son, who came and died voluntarily, on His own volation, to reconcile those whom He has called to Himself, to redeem from the curse of God's law against all unrighteouness, which man is cursed with. Only those whom God has called, the Holy Spirit has quickened to understand, and Jesus has redeemed, will have any part of eternal life with Christ in Heaven. No natural man can understand this. Unless you have had the Spirit quicken you, you will forever reject God, live in this worldly system, never understand the cross and the sacrifce made on behalf of those who will be redeemed.
I think it is very iteresting that you are acting true to form for those who are not redeemed, or know who Christ is. But you don't have to stay that way. "All who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus will be saved." Christ rejects no one who will acknowledge they are a sinner, in need of salvation, confess their sin, turn to Him for salvation. Call upon Him to illuminate you, to save you, and under His Grace, perhaps He will. I don't know. Christanity is very simple. Trust Christ to Save You. Man can never save himself, never be good enough on his own for Heaven, never please God on his own, never devise a plan that suits God. The only one God accepts is the perfect God-Man, Christ Jesus. Man needs to have someone interceede and be a substitue for him. Jesus Christ is that Holy One. He is sovereign. Only He can save from God's Wrath.
I trust you will turn your life over to Him.

In the blessed Name above all Names, Jesus Christ, I am
Bill Teal

How little Hitchens understands his own question and lacks philsophical sophistication is revealed by his purported challenge. The issue has never been whether an atheist can make an equally moral statement. The admission by a host of atheists is that there is no rationally compelling basis for it and there is no rational compelling basis to challenge an alternative. As Chesterton said, "The tragedy of disbelieving in God is not that one ends up believing in nothing. Alas! one may end up believing in anything." That is the moral hedonism and anarchy to which they will move us."

How little Hitchens understands his own question and lacks philsophical sophistication is revealed by his purported challenge. The issue has never been whether an atheist can make an equally moral statement. The admission by a host of atheists is that there is no rationally compelling basis for it and there is no rational compelling basis to challenge an alternative. As Chesterton said, "The tragedy of disbelieving in God is not that one ends up believing in nothing. Alas! one may end up believing in anything." That is the moral hedonism and anarchy to which they will move us."

How little Hitchens understands his own question and lacks philsophical sophistication is revealed by his purported challenge. The issue has never been whether an atheist can make an equally moral statement. The admission by a host of atheists is that there is no rationally compelling basis for it and there is no rational compelling basis to challenge an alternative. As Chesterton said, "The tragedy of disbelieving in God is not that one ends up believing in nothing. Alas! one may end up believing in anything." That is the moral hedonism and anarchy to which they will move us."

In the field of moral action(s), the unbelievers are suspiciously absent. Talk is one thing and genuine, constant action another. While your arguments that religion is poison are valid, I think it's also valid to say that religion is the one humanizing and civilizing factor in society.

Yes, a lot of atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But the way I see it, it's not poison per se, but rather poisonous. In the way a (medicinal) drug can be poisonous, but in the proper amounts can be curative.

In the field of moral action(s), the unbelievers are suspiciously absent. Talk is one thing and genuine, constant action another. While your arguments that religion is poison are valid, I think it's also valid to say that religion is the one humanizing and civilizing factor in society.

Yes, a lot of atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But the way I see it, it's not poison per se, but rather poisonous. In the way a (medicinal) drug can be poisonous, but in the proper amounts can be curative.

In the field of moral action(s), the unbelievers are suspiciously absent. Talk is one thing and genuine, constant action another. While your arguments that religion is poison are valid, I think it's also valid to say that religion is the one humanizing and civilizing factor in society.

Yes, a lot of atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But the way I see it, it's not poison per se, but rather poisonous. In the way a (medicinal) drug can be poisonous, but in the proper amounts can be curative.

All I can say is that I wish I was that eloquent in print. Please keep it up, as people like you and Sam Harris represent our only hope against the coming dark ages of religious militarism.

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to be vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

Mr. Hitchens, of course I will readily---even eagerly---admit that there is nothing the religious person can assert that cannot be easily affirmed as well by the atheist. But I will go on to say the same of a parrot. Moreover, when the atheist makes his affirmation on the subject of morality and ethics he does so with a moral significance equal to that of the parrot squawking back the Commandment or the stricture of the Sermon on the Mount to the Christian. Both the parrot and the atheist are able to say such things, but neither have a basis to do so, and having no basis, their respective allocutions carry an equal moral weight.

Morality and ethics are exercises in futility for the atheist. Thinking people for centuries must have recognized this fact in having dismissed the rantings of the village atheist along with the ravings of the village idiot. But, since we are living in an age when the nuts are running the nuthouse, it shouldn't prove very remarkable that atheism is on an upswing and that Christianity is being vilified. For an atheist to be making moral arguments is, as I said, an exercise in futility (not to mention an intellectual swindle) and for the following reasons.

For anything to be morally binding upon particular agents (you and me), one has to make an appeal to a universal. Something outside the system of particulars, something above and ontologically authoritative to the particulars, must be posited as having communicated the binding universal standard on the particulars. Otherwise, each particular is forced to admit that if one says murder is forbidden and another says it is required, neither can bind the other and it is each man and each morality for himself. It then becomes a matter of might makes right, and then most powerful or the greater number of particulars gets to decide what's right, and we are left with the patently immoral conclusion that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were Right. (this reduces morals to the sorry state of deriving an "ought" from an "is.")

Mr. Hitchens recognizes the need to place his unwritten moral strictures into some universal when he says that morality is "self-evident." (see his online debate with Douglas Wilson). Poor Mr. Hitchens, who for all his bluster and technical brilliance, cannot appreciate the fatal flaw in his argument.

Firstly, what was Right was also self-evident to actors like Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot, whose calculus of what is morallly self-evident still left millions murdered. On what basis does Hitch dispute their understanding of what is self-evidently right?

Secondly, what is actually self-evident is that if (as atheists assert) mankind is an evolutionary accident, who comes from Void and goes to Void, who is merely matter in motion, and whose emotions of love and hate (and the actions that flow from them) are random mixtures of chemicals in grey matter, then mass murder has no more moral significance than a life and death struggle between bacteria in a bit of standing water.

Thirdly, if the morals adhered to by the atheist are (alternatively) self-generated and self-authenticating and self-referencing, Mr. Hitchens can conclude, with equal moral weight, that rape and murder are immoral on Monday and yet adopt the very opposite moral conclusion on Tuesday, all the while affirming that to him it is self-evidently true on either day. If Hitch says on Tueday that rape and murder are self-evidently moral, what universal is about to stop him? If his will or sense of right and wrong are the reference point, such is nothing more than a recipe for moral schizophrenia.

A man that affirms that his morality begins and ends with the will of the actor is not sensibly defined as a moral man, but as a sociopath.

Hitch's only hope in making his "self-evident" morality objectively real and of a nature of a universal, is to hoodwink you into believing that somehow, the Crab Nebulae is the source of your self-evident morality, or that what chimpanzees do is the basis for condemning Hitler, or that Matter tells us what is right and wrong and bindingly so.

Which of these sources of self-evident morality will bind the next generation when they ask our enlightened tinkerers WHY they ought not rape and murder and steal if they can get away with it? None will because none can. All this generation of atheists can resort to then are arguments from expediency---in the final analysis---and when morals are reduced to the expedient, all is lost.

For the time being, civil society is still possible, but only due to the happy inconsistency that Hitch and his ilk manage to both reject Christianity and yet adhere to most of its morality. When the next generation of unbelievers comes along, they will sensibly discard with the latter as having no basis without the former, and will have lost their grounds for condemning people like the Virginia Tech shooter who, they will correctly conclude, was only carrying Hitch's presuppositions to their logical conclusion.

It's clear that we are rushing headlong into the abyss as a civilization, and Hitchens and his sheep are slapping one another on the backs as we go over the edge.

THE 'DON'T TAKE IT SO LITERALLY' PARABLE

In the course of my work I have cause to visit a school for the children of unusually rich people.

I once asked the religious studies teacher how he got around teaching the 'easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God' sermon to these fantastically wealthy children.

The response was masterly. Apparently the 'eye of a needle' refers to a small, but not too small you understand, door!

So there we have it. What Jesus really meant was 'it's a bit of a struggle' or 'weeell, it's not so hard really mate'.

I'm satisfied with that!

Warpimps,

didn't Bush brag about asking god for advice before invading Iraq?

You should get yourself a better smelling tobacco!

As a German boy many years ago, I would have thought that anybody who was against Hitler would be completely crazy, demented. Later, after the war, I felt the same of anybody who would be in favor of Hitler and against religion.

I am way, way beyond puberty. My point is not only the wonderful possibility of an evolving process of a person (in which "I firmly believe", lol!), but more important: I am referring to the feeling of complete persuasion of a creed, be it ideological or religious. Persuasion is a feeling, an emotion. People want emotions, not thoughts.

Persuasion, as we see so much in these posts, means absolutely nothing as to truth. It is an element of religion. The fact that someone is persuaded about something can never be an argument and means nothing but the information that this person is persuaded.

Now, somebody certainly comes up with the argument that "that is true of course also for your atheism". Yes, of course, unless you can produce some evidence instead of persuasion.

Nobody, over the course of millenia and billions of desperate attempts ever produced any evidence as to the existence of any god (or of the spaghetti monster). Luther condemned reason as the arch-enemy of faith, as the favorite tool of Satan! In other words, he admitted implicitly that religion is based on lie. Tertullian: Credo quia absurdum. It is a mental exercise which I remember trying (with mixed results, lol!), when I was a religious child. ("If you don't become like children...!").

I derive my personal human dignity from honest reason, not from make-belief faith. Faith erases reason, because if you can prove something you don't have to have faith in it anymore. You just simply know it. Knowing and believing are mutually exclusive, logically (unless, of course, you follow Luther's argument... lol! There are people around here who say that god invented logic, so faith beats logic - a nice example of circular reasoning!).

Hello Mr. Hitchens,

How can we overcome religion without deifying whatever takes it place?

Josiah Marineau
Fairbanks, Alaska

A commenter above, by the name of Ellen O’Neill, wrote the following comment:

Mr. Hitchins,
I recently read The God Delusion and it has made me very skeptical about the existence of god. I was raised a Roman Catholic and have routinely prayed to god, lit candles, blessed myself with holy water, and so forth. Now I am reluctant to perform these actions. I have forced myself to follow these rituals out of indoctrination and guilt, not divine faith. Therefore, I feel that I have been a hypocrite.

I am on my library's waiting list for your latest book; many people are ahead of me, so I might not get my hands on a copy before then. At any rate I look forward to reading your thoughts on the subject of god.

Sincerely,
Ellen O'Neill
Buchanan, Virginia
SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 10:58 AM

Ellen, my heart goes out to you. I wish I could just snap my fingers and free you from religion’s tyranny of mind and spirit. Or just empty my mind into your own and you would instantly see how utterly baseless and absurd religious beliefs and practices are, and how believing in and practicing religion is akin to going through life in a kind of straitjacket. Catholicism is especially oppressive because of the huge role that guilt plays in it and the century upon century of ritual and doctrine that it has accumulated. It kills me to think of people going through life with that mountain of tradition weighing upon their every thought and decision, and to think of their wasted time and futile effort devoted to prayer, ritual, study of religious texts, etc. My heart goes out to them just as it does to the people I sometimes see on TV kneeling five times a day, groveling in fear of Allah. Or when I see Mormons on their bikes, or Jehovah’s witnesses going door to door, ad infinitum. “The tolling of the iron bell calls the faithful to their knees, to hear the softly spoken magic spells.”

I was a devout, Bible-believing Christian from the time I was just a few years old until my early twenties. I swallowed the whole thing, hook, line and sinker: I believed the Bible was the word of God, that Jesus was God’s son, that he died for our sins, and that I had to ask Him “into my heart” to be saved. I had “religious experiences,” went to church, took communion, was baptized, believed that I had a personal relationship with God/Jesus, and could communicate with him through prayer, etc., etc.

In my late teens I started reading Christian apologetics (so-called rational defenses of Christian beliefs) by C.S. Lewis and many lesser-known Christian writers like Ravi Zaccharius, Norman Geisler, and Josh McDowell, and I thought I had everything figured out and that everyone who didn’t believe what I believed was wrong and would go to hell if they didn’t accept the same beliefs as I before they died.

But all the while, I kept reading… and thinking… and I started to take some college classes that occasionally challenged various aspects of my rigid belief system. And slowly I began to realize I didn’t really KNOW what I thought I did, and that there were many people past and present who were much smarter/more knowledgeable/wiser/more experienced than I was (and every bit as intellectually honest and sincere) and who were perfectly familiar with Christianity and my particular version of it. And yet, somehow, for some unfathomable reason, they didn’t believe in it. There were even towering figures in the history of western culture who started out as Christians but after years of reading and reflection, gave it up (David Hume, Nietzsche, George Eliot, etc.). It also really sank in for the first time that there are (and have been) billions upon billions of people who have (or had) hundreds, maybe thousands, of different religious belief systems, which they are every bit as sure of as I was of mine, and some of those belief systems, like Judaism and Islam, even have a rich tradition of apologetics – just like Christianity. And yet, despite their unshakable certainty, all or most of these billions of people have to be wrong since every belief system contradicted all the others, at least in some respect.

And I kept reading, and thinking, and questioning, and taking courses – philosophy, ancient history, anthropology, logic. And finally, sometime in my early to mid twenties, the scales fell from my eyes – and I was FREE! I could see religion for the wholly human creation that it is. I could poke holes in all the religious arguments. I no longer had to tote the line of some inscrutable ancient text. I no longer had to feel like some sort of societal outcast, part of a heaven-bound minority that could be “in the world but not OF the world.” I no longer had to feel the weight of the lost souls of certain of my “unsaved” relatives and friends or try to get them to believe in some ancient myth that would save them from never ending suffering in the afterlife. I no longer had to give allegiance to irrational doctrines – like the doctrine that one person committed a minor “sin,” and therefore an unconditionally loving, perfectly just being considered ALL human beings guilty and deserving of eternal torture (like the sadistic gym coach who makes the entire class run laps if one kid screws up); or the doctrine that even though this being is perfectly loving and as spiritually and morally mature as a being could possibly get, he nonetheless required the most primitive, horrific type of atonement for human shortcomings imaginable, an atonement which in any other context we “moderns” think is as ugly and irrational an act as the human race can commit: human sacrifice; before this being of light and love and mercy could forgive his beloved peoples’ faults, someone had to die; or how about the doctrine that states that at some point in human history, an unchanging, morally perfect God changed the rules that the human race had to live by, and therefore we no longer had to stone to death adulteresses and disobedient children, and we could now enjoy a ham sandwich with impunity. And on and on and on… and on… the irrationality goes. And I’m free of it all. And I truly hope you will be soon, if you’re not already.

Just keep reading, widely: analytic philosophy, anthropology, ancient history, textual criticism,…. Take courses in these subjects if you can. Read Sam Harris, Robert M. Price, Bart Ehrman, Michael Martin, William Rowe (if you’ve never read any philosophy of religion, his intro. to it is the place to start). If you’ve ever read any of C.S. Lewis’s defenses of Christianity and thought there might be something to his arguments, read John Beversluis’s “C.S. Lewis and the Search For Rational Religion.” Work your way through a book on formal logic. Read some of Sam Harris’s articles and watch some of his debates on his website, SamHarris.org. (He has a discussion board on his site, too, but the hateful, belittling tone of some of Harris’s fans will probably be a turn-off to you.) You might also check out the site WhyDoesGodHateAmputees.com. Or listen to some of the many in-depth interviews with secular writers and thinkers at PointOfInquiry.org, including Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris.

In the end, there is probably no one argument that somehow “disproves” religion; you will simply come to see how utterly baseless, absurd, and undignified the whole thing is, and how religious believers torture logic and common sense to hold on to their particular set of beliefs. And please know this: whenever someone seems to have come up with a sound argument justifying belief in religion, no matter how novel the argument seems – whether it’s an evidential-type argument [like the cosmological argument, or intelligent design], an argument from religious experience, a prudential argument [like Pascal’s Wager], an argument based on divine revelation, an argument based on miracles, the argument that it’s not a question of “argument” at all but of “faith” [which is a type of argument in itself] – no matter what the argument is or how sound it may seem, it has been refuted by someone, somewhere, at some point. Just keep reading.

If I could, I would buy Hitchens’ book for you, so you didn’t have to wait for a library copy. If the editors of this site want to facilitate the private exchange of e-mail addresses between Ellen and me, I would be willing to get a mailing address (maybe just a post office box) and send Hitchens’ book to you using Amazon.com. Carpe Diem.

Ger,

Iraq is a secular war created by neo conservative intellectals (liberal scholars from univ of chicago) ...........

lots of damage/death/destruction based on secular ideas/hubris and Amercian secular imperalism (promoted by trotskyite, Chris H)

Cant blame this one one religion ...... nor the 100 million killed by the rational, instrumentalist commumist regimes.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Gerry.

This is what you refuse to think about here.....you people are narrow ideologues! And hypocrites....

Warpimps,

you are bolstering my stance on religion(s), thank you. That's what we are talking about here.

Dear Christopher:

Did you read the copy of Saharasia that I gave you? The Reichian analysis of society based on character structure is the deepest way to understand fascism.

Although you are a living embodiment of evolved man's lack of need for religion, I suggest you look at the lumpenproletariat's amoral tendency to break into your house, get your daughter strung out on meth and other wondrous works. Don't tell me that religion does them no good. I've, over and over again, seen religion get them on a more positve track, problematic as it is. The problem is when religion goes beyond the role that it should take in society.

Sam Harris may call himself an atheist and then sit down and do Vipassana meditation. By so doing he's showing that spirituality is separate from religion. Spirituality is a form of awareness compatible with rationality and due a place senior to religion.

I have enjoyed the integrity you have displayed in attacking all forms of sophistry and moral pretension, especially the Chomsky Left's morally bankrupt position on Bosnia. I hope to hear you speak again in Seattle.

Dear Christopher:

Did you read the copy of Saharasia that I gave you? The Reichian analysis of society based on character structure is the deepest way to understand fascism.

Although you are a living embodiment of evolved man's lack of need for religion, I suggest you look at the lumpenproletariat's amoral tendency to break into your house, get your daughter strung out on meth and other wondrous works. Don't tell me that religion does them no good. I've, over and over again, seen religion get them on a more positve track, problematic as it is. The problem is when religion goes beyond the role that it should take in society.

Sam Harris may call himself an atheist and then sit down and do Vipassana meditation. By so doing he's showing that spirituality is separate from religion. Spirituality is a form of awareness compatible with rationality and due a place senior to religion.

I have enjoyed the integrity you have displayed in attacking all forms of sophistry and moral pretension, especially the Chomsky Left's morally bankrupt position on Bosnia. I hope to hear you speak again in Seattle.

"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."

Hmmmm, Chris - sounds like the Republican party, particularly circa the W era! God is not the problem - people's interpretation and co-opting of Him is.

Gerry...

Want to hear about the holocaust of Christians? The one hollywood/liberal elites do not like to talk about?

Look at the millions starved in eastern europe at the hands of a jewish bolshevik general, or the revolt in hungary or Trotsky's control of the Red army during the revolution and their deliberate destruction of the Russian church and their followers... -

This toll was many millions more than the jewish holocaust shown in on tv and on movie after movie.

Even read the Talmud? This is the only text you need to justify the whole sale slaughter of Christians in Russian and eastern Europe.

Enough with your holocaust.....and why not start by recognizing the Armenian genocide? (thats right, because the jewish leadership does not want to offend turkey....too bad for those millions killed)

Look and learn:

And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men that were with him unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath.
And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath, saying, Lest they should tell on us, saying, So did David, and so will be his manner all the while he dwelleth in the country of the Philistines.
And Achish believed David, saying, He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant for ever.

Look and understand "believed David, saying, He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant for ever."

Look at the Judgment of Solomon:

Pro 24:23 These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.
Pro 24:24 He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
Pro 24:25 But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.
Pro 24:26 Every man shall kiss his lips that giveth a right answer.

Look at the judgment of Solomon, “He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous”
Look at what the centurion said, “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.” What does Solomon say, “him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:” Cursed is the centurion, a servent of the cross. Look "nations shall abhor him" Look and understand "believed David, saying, He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant for ever."
Judge thesee words “But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.” Look at what Solomon said, “Every man shall kiss his lips that giveth a right answer.” Whose lips do you think that are kissed.

Look at the Prayer of David:

Psalms 109

1. Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;
2. For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3. They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.
4. For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.
5. And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
6. Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

Do you see "Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin." What does Solomon say, “him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:” Cursed is the centurion, a servent of the cross. Look "nations shall abhor him" Look and understand "believed David, saying, He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant for ever."

Words in the Psalms "For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off." Judge these words Of Solomon “But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.”

The Law of Moses is clear "The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing." Neither the cross or the servent of the cross, the centurion (christians) are part of the House of the LORD. “him shall the people curse:” Cursed is the centurion, a servent of the cross.

"Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.” Look "And David commanded to gather together the strangers that were in the land of Israel; and he set masons to hew wrought stones to build the house of God. And David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the joinings; and brass in abundance without weight;"

Look "to build the house of God" "prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates" The only way to go to the kingdom of the God of the christians is to be cruxified. "he glorified God" Bring glory to your God, cruxify youself and go to paradise.

Have I shown you something no one else has or could.

Dr. Shawn,

you are uninformed.

Do you regard Luther as a Christian? Most people do.

Original Martin Luther quotations (he wrote in 1543), everybody can google it for themseves:

"Die Juden sind ein solch verzweifeltes, durchböstes, durchgiftetes Ding, dass sie 1400 Jahre unsere Plage, Pestilenz und alles Unglück gewesen sind und noch sind. Summa, wir haben rechte Teufel an ihnen. . . ; Man sollte ihre Synagogen und Schulen mit Feuer anstecken, . . . unserem Herrn und der Christenheit zu Ehren, damit Gott sehe, dass wir Christen seien (. . .) ihre Häuser desgleichen zerbrechen und zerstören. "

I try to translate:

„The Jews are such a desperate, evil, poisoinous thing, that for 1400 years they have been our pain, pestilence and calamity and they still are. In short, we have real devils in them. . . one should burn their schools and synagogues to honour our Lord and all Christianity, so that God will see that we are Christians. . . destroy their homes as well“.

"Darum wisse Du, lieber Christ, und Zweifel nichts dran, dass Du, nähest nach dem Teufel, keinen bittern, giftigern, heftigern Feind habest, denn einen rechten Juden, der mit Ernst ein Jude sein will."

„Therefore you should know, dear Christian, and never doubt, that next to the devil you have no more bitter, poisonous, atrocious enemy than a real Jew, who seriously wants to be a Jew. “

"Ich will meinen treuen Rat geben.
Erstlich, dass man ihre Synagoge oder Schule mit Feuer anstecke, und was nicht verbrennen will, mit Erde überhäufe und beschütte, dass kein Mensch einen Stein oder Schlacke davon sehe ewiglich.“

„I will give you my faithful advice. First, that one must burn their synagogues and schools with fire, and that which will not burn, be covered with soil, so that in eternity no human shall see a stone or cinder thereof.“

„The Jews are such a desperate, evil, poisonous thing, that for 1400 years they have been our pain, pestilence and calamity and they still are. In short, we have real devils in them. . . one should burn their schools and synagogues to honor our Lord and all Christianity, so that God will see that we are Christians. . . destroy their homes as well. “

„Therefore you should know, dear Christian, and never doubt, that next to the devil you have no more bitter, poisonous, atrocious enemy than a real Jew, who seriously wants to be a Jew. “

"I will give you my faithful advice. First, that one must burn their synagogues and schools with fire, and that which will not burn, be covered with soil, so that in eternity no human shall see a stone or cinder thereof.“

"Wenn ich könnte, wo würde ich ihn [den Juden] niederstrecken und in meinem Zorn mit dem Schwert durchbohren."

"If I could, I would strike the Jew and in my wrath pierce him with my sword."

Sounds pretty much like holocaust to me.

Hitler said: „I am only doing what the church does for the last 1500 years, only more thoroughly“.

There are so many faith-based charities that have done so much good in the world. Where are their atheist or secular humanist counterparts? Also, why do religious people make about twice the charitable contributions as non-churchgoers? And why do nonbelievers have so few children? They don't even replace themselves. And why do nonbelievers get duped so easily into ersatz religions like Marxism or radical environmentalism?

Below is a saying attributed to Jesus in the gospel account attriuted to John:

"When the unbelieving Jews and the agents of the Sanhedrin who had gathered about by this time heard these words, they raised a tumult, shouting: "You are not fifty years of age, and yet you talk about seeing Abraham; you are a child of the devil!" Jesus was unable to continue the discourse. He only said as he departed, "Verily, verily, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Many of the unbelievers rushed forth for stones to cast at him, and the agents of the Sanhedrin sought to place him under arrest, but the Master quickly made his way through the temple corridors and escaped to a secret meeting place near Bethany where Martha, Mary, and Lazarus awaited him."

I doubt an unbeliever could have uttered or performed Jesus' statement from the excerpt above, "Before Abraham was, I am."

John: "So count me (and no I'm not really converted) in the pro religion camp"

You say you're a professional scientist, but you've drawn conclusions based on a very small sample - your set of colleagues and one church group. Please consider that neither may be very representative. Many atheists are very involved in volunteer work - they just don't label themselves - nor do they proselytize. and many churches promote fear and hate -- not to mention that they teach myth as truth.

I apologize for the triple post...

Q. "Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

A. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Q. "Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

A. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Q. "Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

A. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Dr Daniel Shawn – Regarding the Eucharist – Jesus is God made man, right? God incarnate. God doesn’t have body and blood, does he? It’s not mentioned anywhere that I know of. That was the whole point of Jesus, wasn’t it, to be one of us. To suffer and die like a human. That makes eating his body and blood cannibalism. I’m not mocking it at all. Those are the grisly facts – but only if you believe that Jesus was the son of God.

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

What can you appeal to in an attacker to dissuade the assault when you are defenseless? People are not going to become paragons of virtue by becoming faithless. Afterall, why should you engage in activities that do not give you satisfaction if sacrifice for the benefit of others does not bring a heavenly reward. I believe all governments should be completely secular and I believe in God. This might be incongruous to some and self-delusional to others but I do not think that Mr. Harris or Mr. Hitchens would like to live in an atheistic society.

I find the evolutionary roots of morality to be one of the most fascinating topics I've ever delved into. The fact that most of my neighbors are Fundamentalist Christians who love to tell me that morality began with Jesus; and the Godless atheists, homosexuals, woman's libbers, scientists, liberals, etc, can't possibly be moral...is almost beyond contempt. At a minimum, they are in for one hell of a tongue lashing if they presume to persist at such nonsense.
Scotty

Elizabeth Renant:

You are uninformed. Exactly ZERO Christians perpetrated the Holocaust. Evidently you are no student of history, or you would know that Hitler infamously asserted, "You can be a Christian or a Nazi, but not both." You are evidently oblivious to the fact that many of the victims of the Holocaust were Christians. You will no doubt be impressed to learn that Dachau was known as "the largest monastery in the world" because of the thousands of ordained Catholic clergy who were imprisoned and slaughtered there (e.g. St. Maximilian Kohlbe). As for your tiresome reference to the Inquisition, I could point out to you that it was the secular arm of the Spanish law which actually tortured and executed heretics and not the Church... but what good would it do? You are one of those savants who wraps her arguments around convenient buzzwords like "Inquisition" because it saves you the trouble of thinking. The Inquisition and other episodes of its ilk do not in any way reflect upon religion; they are merely examples of religion being misused. If everyone truly lived according to the teachings of Christ then the world would be heavenly. Instead we have hatred, greed, adultery, mendacity, and uneducated polemics against organized religion (like Hitchens', and yours).

As for Phil C and his vitriol about the Sacrament of Holy Communion: "cannibalism" refers to the consumption of a member of one species by a member of the same species. When a Christian partakes of the Eucharist s/he is experiencing divine union with Christ, and all other communing Christians. Go ahead and mock that too. It won't change a thing.

And as for abortion-promoting Charles... it's a good thing your mother didn't feel the same way you do or you wouldn't be alive to spread your bigotry on the Internet.

Religions which promote eternity as a product can't even offer life-time guarantees. Religions are as temporal as mankind.

Notwithstanding, few religions have actually died because hope springs eternal, and that's all any religion can hope for.

Religions seek to become universal because it is the universe they want to control. Religions prefer all-powerful gods because they want to become all-powerful. But beware! Don't be fooled by any religion that only bans things that are tempting.

Matritheism was reduced to a cult millennia ago but is reborn in every infant. The sins of the fathers are revisited upon the sons because mothers are tempted to forget them. Mexican women will climb hundreds of thousands of stone steps on their bare knees before they are rendered obsolete.

There is only one god, the god of reason; and reason dictates that he doesn't exist because we can't conjure up a reasonable god. When we do, god shall exist; but until we do, we have only the poisonous politics and demented distractions of religions pushing products that don't work.

No reasonable, no sensible, no godly god would choose religion as a medium for any message he might have to give.

But don't give up hope!

SPECIAL THIS WEEK ONLY! Some slightly used gods for sale, some of them golden (some gold-plated), some of them antiques, provenances supplied on request, sure to brighten up the post-modernist home or office.

Also, numerous out-of-print prayer books, 17th-century Puritan tracts (some malsey stains), God Comix, prayer beads and prayer wheels (not guaranteed to work anymore), St Paul crucifixes (plastic, good for vertigo, fainting spells, lack of faith, spasms, etc.), boiled, bleached relics (some slightly scortched), vintage nuns' habits (some stains), 1-oz vials of holy water direct from the Ganges, Gideon Bibles (guaranteed never stolen), forfeit indulgences (half price!), copis of Playgirl seen by the Pope from his popemobile (only 3 left), and a large collection of plaster saints requiring some minor supernatural repairs.

Also: Mary Baker Eddy Telephones $59.95 (plus shipping) -- exact replicas of the actual telephone with which the founder of Christian Science was buried, apparently not alive.

Revive Your Faith! Buy DIRECT! Buy NOW! while the religion market is bottoming out. Major credit cards accepted. Hell, even minor credit cards accepted! We accept your money, just your religion does: no questions asked!

Religions which promote eternity as a product can't even offer life-time guarantees. Religions are as temporal as mankind.

Notwithstanding, few religions have actually died because hope springs eternal, and that's all any religion can hope for.

Religions seek to become universal because it is the universe they want to control. Religions prefer all-powerful gods because they want to become all-powerful. But beware! Don't be fooled by any religion that only bans things that are tempting.

Matritheism was reduced to a cult millennia ago but is reborn in every infant. The sins of the fathers are revisited upon the sons because mothers are tempted to forget them. Mexican women will climb hundreds of thousands of stone steps on their bare knees before they are rendered obsolete.

There is only one god, the god of reason; and reason dictates that he doesn't exist because we can't conjure up a reasonable god. When we do, god shall exist; but until we do, we have only the poisonous politics and demented distractions of religions pushing products that don't work.

No reasonable, no sensible, no godly god would choose religion as a medium for any message he might have to give.

But don't give up hope!

SPECIAL THIS WEEK ONLY! Some slightly used gods for sale, some of them golden (some gold-plated), some of them antiques, provenances supplied on request, sure to brighten up the post-modernist home or office.

Also, numerous out-of-print prayer books, 17th-century Puritan tracts (some malsey stains), God Comix, prayer beads and prayer wheels (not guaranteed to work anymore), St Paul crucifixes (plastic, good for vertigo, fainting spells, lack of faith, spasms, etc.), boiled, bleached relics (some slightly scortched), vintage nuns' habits (some stains), 1-oz vials of holy water direct from the Ganges, Gideon Bibles (guaranteed never stolen), forfeit indulgences (half price!), copis of Playgirl seen by the Pope from his popemobile (only 3 left), and a large collection of plaster saints requiring some minor supernatural repairs.

Also: Mary Baker Eddy Telephones $59.95 (plus shipping) -- exact replicas of the actual telephone with which the founder of Christian Science was buried, apparently not alive.

Revive Your Faith! Buy DIRECT! Buy NOW! while the religion market is bottoming out. Major credit cards accepted. Hell, even minor credit cards accepted! We accept your money, just your religion does: no questions asked!

The greatest demonstration of faith that I've ever seen is the belief of those who continue to post to this comment board that anyone will actually take the time to read their comments. That alone should suggest the presence of god, and were I a less rational man I'd fall to my knees right now in awe of his power and tolerance for blather.

Hi, read your reference. The sad thing is that these so called Christians believe that Jesus is God. He isn't...he said he was God's son. He said he was never equal to God, plus he died. God cannot die. These people are christians in name only. There actions prove they are not true Christians. They believe in traditions of men and church doctrines, not Bible principles. All things written and said in the Bible were for all mankind to read and understand. So non-believers as well as those with faith can adhere to the Bibles message and theme. So therefore your question cannot be answered. All utterances given to men from God are for all, not just Christians.

Yoo Hoo, re: Hitchens, from a nobody.

I am amazed at how a person can make such a statement, and yet the (presumptuously) educated audience are all agog about what this man is saying. Clearly, Mr. Hitchens does not know about Buddhism, or perhaps he does not think of Buddhism as a religion. However, as a Buddhist (although a not so devout one at that), I truly wish that these authors and commentators, and whoever these people are who have the ability to have their voices heard, would really try to at least inform themselves before claiming the authority to inform others.

The majority of Buddhists are people who have adopted a philosophy as religion, and live by it. Buddhism is religion without a GOD (oh, that cumbersome being at times, and a very convenient one at others, who is quoted or whose authority is called upon, to evoke the reaction desired) that is required in most other religions. We don't have a GOD that would poison our world, we don't believe in one. We don't have a GOD that urges us to go to war with other religions like the crusaders and the Jihadists, nor do we have monks (rabbis in the case of Jews) who command us to go ahead and make sombody else's life as miserable as can be.

Now, does that make us evil, satanic, or what-will-you? Well, it doesn't matter to us what anyone else thinks of us, anyway, because we know that in our hearts that we are all right (mind the words, I am not saying that we are RIGHT, most Buddhists would never do that) - we are comfortable in our skins knowing that we are living the lives that we have at present, to the fullest. And that keeps us happy and smiling. We wish we could also make all or some of you in the media and the press (supposedly knowlegeable, and, I assume, among the best educated creme de la creme public figures) happy and smiling too, and believe me, we do try.

I hope I will see a smile on Mr. Hitchen's face the next time he appears in public, because he does seem oh, so miserable!

Name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever:

"I believe."

100% correct in all conclusions. Religion is and always has been both totally irrational and dogmatic. The pursuit of various " faiths " has caused more death and destruction throughout human history then all the diseases of mankind put together.
The most unfortunate thing is that today with the weapons available throughout the world these " faiths " have for the first time the ability to destroy the entire human race.

Found this posted on another thread:

*Is America a Christian Nation? The answer could be found last night in New Hampshire:

During the 30-second lightning round at Dartmouth College, moderator Tim Russert of NBC News asked all the Democratic candidates about their favorite Bible verse.

-Joe Biden: Christ's warning about the Pharisees from the gospel according to John.

-Hillary Clinton: The golden rule from the gospel according to Luke.

-Chris Dodd: The parable of the Good Samaritan from Luke.

-John Edwards: Christ's admonition to help the least among us from the gospel according to Matthew.

-Mike Gravel: Love as the most important value, from Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

-Dennis Kucinich: St. Francis's prayer to make us instruments of peace.

-Barack Obama: Sermon on the Mount from the gospel according to Matthew.

-Bill Richardson: Sermon on the Mount from Matthew.

"war allegedly being waged for Christian civilization"

The key word there is allegedly...

Islamofacism is a piece of rhetoric devised by the neo-conservatives to promote never ending war and control of the mid east.

Islam does not threaten Christian countries (how many Christian countries are occupied by third world Muslim armies?)

The one country threatened by Islam is.... Israel!

This is a war promoted by Zionists (Kristol, Hitchens, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle) for Zionists.

I bet Hitchens coined the axiom: "if we dont fight them there...."

Hitchens = zionist NEOCON

VOTE RON PAUL - all troops home now!

I'm rather amazed at all the invective hurled to and fro from this little essay by Hitchens, which seems rather benign compared to his book and other essays.

His conjectures and questions are reasonable, such as the view that we are born bad (of sin) and only through religion can humans be moral. Poppycock! There are moral people of no faith and of faith, just as there are actions by religious and nonbelievers that we might all agree are depraved.

Unfortunately, fundamentalists who seem so concerned with morality, often appear to to have wandered into the the equivalent of a moral Bermuda Triangle, where their compass of right and wrong spins wildly.

Finally, on another point. People are just as likely to give up their religious beliefs as they are to give up the idea of true love. If one were to ask Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins or Dennett to stop believing in and practicing love because both love and religion are not real unto themselves, but rely on biology, they would probably look at you like you are crazy. I know Dawkins in madly in love with wife. He would no more give up his love for his wife (because his love is no more than biological chemistry) than many religious people would give up their love for god. I think it is foolish to think otherwise. Nonetheless, when people espouse ideas of idiocy and mad lunacy, they must be countered, whether those ideas are by religious people or NONBELIEVERS. We should respect the rights of people to believe or not to believe. However, their ideas are another matter. If ideas stand on their merits (without reference to some infallible text), then fine. If the idea is just crazy, that is a different matter.

What I cannot understand is Mr. Hitchens' support for the violence unleashed on Iraq by a moralising. self-characterizized, born again Christian who justifies his mass homicide in terms of the immorality of "Islamo-fascists." Mr. Hitchens wants to have it both ways--denying that religion is a force for good, but supporting a war allegedly being waged for Christian civilization.

Sully,

Although this 'discussion' has degenerated into mudslinging, I would like to thank you for your post here about what good religion really does, and how this is never addressed by its detractors. Very well put.

Also - you said: "God's existence can be proven by his continual meddling in the last 2 minutes of every Redskins game."

Hmmm. My take on that is that Gods existence was proved in October of 2004, when Boston came back from being 3 under in the AL pennant race and utterly defeated the Evil Empire by winning the next 4!

Religion in baseball? Well, here is what Hammerin' Hank Aaron said: "When I walk into a ball park, I feel like I am surrounded by angels and God's hand is on my shoulder."

Love that quotation. As far as I am concerned, his 755 still stands. Bond's 'record breaking' baseball, by the way, will be branded by an asterisk.

Mr. Kulls, Aren't we seeing the results of a society made up of 90% believers of which 80% are christians? Are the non-believers causing all the problems?

Mr. Hitchens- Your incessant diatribes against religion in any form makes, one wonder who or what do you fear? I detect hate in all your texts.
You attempt to deride people such as Mother Teresa
but may I suggest to you that she accomplished more good works in one week than you have in your entire life.
What I sense you don't like Mr. Hitchens is, that
there are do's and don'ts in religion and Faith. And you don't ascribe to that as an Atheist. Because Atheism is driven by the changing values of secularlism, which in fact is your God. We see the results of secularlism in society today. Need I say more.

William Kulls

Mr. Hitchens- Your incessant diatribes against religion in any form makes, one wonder who or what do you fear? I detect hate in all your texts.
You attempt to deride people such as Mother Teresa
but may I suggest to you that she accomplished more good works in one week than you have in your entire life.
What I sense you don't like Mr. Hitchens is, that
there are do's and don'ts in religion and Faith. And you don't ascribe to that as an Atheist. Because Atheism is driven by the changing values of secularlism, which in fact is your God. We see the results of secularlism in society today. Need I say more.

William Kulls

Very good points Christopher. The tendency of religionists is to take credit for the 'good', and none of the blame for the 'bad.'

Faith is definitely used to both cover and justify ignorance and irrationalism.

It should be the default position to openly declare "my god says so" is not an argument, and and argument *plus* "my god says so" is not a better argument.

Felix mumbles: "These religious nuts of the world are all ignorant, and evil, SHEEP that cant think for themselves"

All evil sheep, eh?

Ha! Thanks for proving the simple-minded nature of the atheist argument....

If anyone is biased and ignorant it is the hard headed/hearted, war-loving, communist-worshiping Christopher Hitchens.....

I agree with you on just about everything!! First, with all due respect,please STOP MUMBLING during your interviews. I love to listen to your ideas about religion...but half the time I CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.Keep up the good work . These religious nuts of the world are all ignorant, and evil, SHEEP that cant think for themselves

I agree with you on just about everything!! First, with all due respect,please STOP MUMBLING during your interviews. I love to listen to your ideas about religion...but half the time I CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.Keep up the good work . These religious nuts of the world are all ignorant, and evil, SHEEP that cant think for themselves

John and Daniel,
What profound and insightful comments--thank you!

Hey "humanists"....

How is it that religiously oriented people (no matter the religion) are MUCH more generous with time and money to those less fortunate????? According to sociologist Arthur Books, a liberal policy prof.:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

Stingy utopians, such as trotskyite Chris Hitchens, would rather pull the trigger (Iraq War is a perfect example) than help / co-exist with those who think differently then themselves.

No compassion, no connection with those who are different....it is easy to see how atheism was the official position of the communist states that murdered (starved) more people then EVER killed in human history.

I agree with you on just about everything!! First, with all due respect,please STOP MUMBLING during your interviews. I love to listen to your ideas about religion...but half the time I CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

I agree with you on just about everything!! First, with all due respect,please STOP MUMBLING during your interviews. I love to listen to your ideas about religion...but half the time I CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

I agree with you on just about everything!! First, with all due respect,please STOP MUMBLING during your interviews. I love to listen to your ideas about religion...but half the time I CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

to agnostic,

that is not a moral statement or action, it is just a reason not to do some sort of immoral action.

Way to go, Hitch! You hit the nail on the head time after time.

Everyone has an executioner.

Dear Mr. Hitchens,
Your question is irrelevant. It proves nothing in particular. The problem is with your basic reasoning. Because an atheist can do a moral good says nothing about religion. If God created man to be rational like He is, then it is easy to see how a rational atheist can use his intellect to understand God's laws. These laws are called "natural laws" because any sane person can understand them. These laws are written on our souls, but of course, since God gave us free will we don't need to follow the natural law. I think that your question is childish and has nothing to do with your hatred of religion.
Your basic argument is that because some religious people or religions are bad, then all religion is bad. Since I know that you are an intelligent man, I think that your hatred of religion is based upon some past bad personal experience or you have a personal vice or should I say sin, that you don't wish to repent of or wish wasn't sinful , so you can continue this vice and not feel shame or guilt. Is it one or the other or both?

God bless you,
Sean

Your question is irrelevant. It proves nothing in particular. The problem is with your basic reasoning. Because an atheist can do a moral good says nothing about religion. If God created man to be rational like He is, then it is easy to see how a rational atheist can use his intellect to understand God's laws. These laws are called "natural laws" because any sane person can understand them. These laws are written on our souls, but of course, since God gave us free will we don't need to follow the natural law. I think that your question is childish and has nothing to do with your hatred of religion.
Your basic argument is that because some religious people or religions are bad, then all religion is bad. Since I know that you are an intelligent man, I think that your hatred of religion is based upon some past bad personal experience or you have a personal vice or should I say sin, that you don't wish to repent of or wish wasn't sinful , so you can continue this vice and not feel shame or guilt. Is it one or the other or both?

God bless you,
Sean

Tampa, you say, “What matters to me is where we each end up, not the path taken to get there.”

Are you saying both believers and atheists can be moral during their earthly life, but only believers can go to heaven?

Plastic Man is the only true god.

Plastic Man is the only true god.

Plastic Man is the only true god.

I think alot of what Christopher Hitchens says has to be said by somebody. Even relious people must admit, religion does alot of harm. Too much Bible-reading can make a man go crazy. Relgion is fine, but wild-eyed fanatacism, well that does not do anyone any good. I think a poorly founded fundamentalis belief, suddenly weakened, can devolve, weirdly, and rapidly, into nihilsm. We associate the relious with church, gentle music, pretty images, love, tenderness, mercy, nuns; but we also associate the reigious with insanity, psychosis, suicide, murder, torture, pedephilia, Jesus-paranoia, suicide-bombing. Religious people, should keep all this in mind, when going too far off the deep end.

Christopher Hitchens, Have you ever thought of changing your name to Anti-Christopher Hitchens?

Dear Mr. Hitchens

You have made some errors in your thinking. While I appreciate your tack of asking believers to name moral actions, etc. etc. which unbelievers cannot accomplish etc. etc. (and in fact this is a much better line of attack than trying to logically grapple with whether or not God exists, saying things like "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"--because obviously we are far from being able to disprove the existence of God), you have made the colossal blunder of putting the burden on believers in especially this instance rather than on atheists.

In this instance success for atheists depends on the burden being on themselves. It is one thing to put the burden for proof of God on believers and quite another when we enter questions of morality--especially as you have entered the problem.

What you have done is essentially challenge the moral imagination of believers when precisely all of morality so far has been inextricable or at least concurrent with religious views of the world. It should not be believers having to name what atheists cannot do but rather atheists having to demonstrate a moral imagination that believers cannot demonstrate. What you are essentially doing is shirking the need for atheists to create morality beyond all which has existed so far. Your challenge makes me think of a student in class telling his teacher from whom he has learned everything to either think up something he, the student, cannot do or he the student must be considered the superior one.

Or if you need another example, a counterfeiter specializing if fake Picassos telling Picasso that he the counterfeiter is the better painter.

Why you even think in terms of a moral standard which is a concept impossible to consider unless morality is quite fixed, which is to say rooted in not the temporal, which is to say having originated in God!...If you do not believe in God then there are no moral absolutes...

Or to put things in a different sense, if you believe in a moral standard then it makes no great difference between believing or disbelieving in God...But I suppose you do not believe morality is very fixed because you constantly point out the evil of religion...So...There is really very little logic in expecting believers to name moral actions, etc. etc. which nonbelievers cannot do...

So really it is up to the nonbelievers to name moral actions, etc. which believers cannot do. The burden is on atheists to demonstrate moral imagination superior to believers.

Mr Mark,

Your an insulting terd

Mr Mark,

Your an insulting terd

Hans, you said:

"So yes, we non-believers can reason our way to the very moral conclusions that the believers do, but the argument on the other side is that the believers' conclusions have a metaethical status that yours and mine don't, and as such, have a much weightier pull on their conscience. They have moral beliefs; we have moral preferences"

That is very candid of you. Upon what do you base your preferences? And by what means do you evaluate the preferences of others?

Regards,
TP

Although I agree with almost everything in your above passages, I have a problem with:

"Name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever."

Isn't the narrow wording of your question the reason you have received no responses?

If you substitute "would" for "could," do you see how religion does matter?

Thank you.

Although I agree with almost everything in your above passages, I have a problem with:

"Name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever."

Isn't the narrow wording of your question the reason you have received no responses?

If you substitute "would" for "could," do you see how religion does matter?

Thank you.

Although I agree with almost everything in your above passages, I have a problem with:

"Name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever."

Isn't the narrow wording of your question the reason you have received no responses?

If you substitute "would" for "could," do you see how religion does matter?

Thank you.

I've been a agnostic strongly leaning toward atheism for 45 years or so. I've spent my entire adult life among highly intelligent, glib, secular academics. I am a professional scientist. I've heard and made every argument involving religion versus reason versus science versus whatever that you can imagine. I've also talked with fire-breathing fundamentalists, and frankly they remind me of no one quite so much as Mr Hitchens himself. The words are harsh, the ability to see the good or the accomplishments of the other side nil. Zealots are mostly the same, only their causes are different.
This does not mean, however, that I have not taken a position in this battle. My choice could not have been made for more childish, or mundane reasons. Give me the benefit of the doubt and call it existential.
About four years ago I accompanied my wife to a local church. There after walking around for some Sundays with my usual sense of academic superiority observing the yokels with their
quaint practices in their native habitats I began to learn a few things:
1) the ladies during the week ran special classes after school to help the local Hispanic kids with the language and their schoolwork.
2) There were constant food/relief drives for disaster victims and the poor.
3) the men and retirees would take 2 weeks off (often vacation) to go south and help clean and rebuild houses after the hurricanes and care for the sick and injured.
4) the old were visited and remembered and there were car pools to help the old and infirm. And so on......

Were there also jerks: absolutely.

Meanwhile my academic friends clucked about what a terrible state society is in and how something should be done: to demonstrate their commitment to the cause they are determined (big surprise) to rectify things by voting for those caring Democrats in the next election. Meanwhile let's sit, chat, drink the wine, eat the cheese, discuss the sad state of everyone else, and make a buck.

I don't find Mr Hitchens arguments persausive. What he describes is the human condition not unique in any way to the religious.

So count me (and no I'm not really converted) in the pro religion camp for the simplest of reasons: I like them a hellava lot more than I like their detractors.

I find it interesting that the Panel, with the exception of course of Mr. Harris, to a person throw up pseudo-intellectual obstacles to avoid dealing with Mr. Hitchens directly on the evidence. Prof. Stevens-Arroyo will only "dialog" with anyone on the subject of religion's authenticity after one reads his 40 articles and 9 books, Mr. Tauber wants someone else to do his dirty work for him in a debate, and Rev. Cooper, well, bless his heart, seeing safety in numbers, i.e., if there are millions of believers, then they must be on to something, wants us to just get along. Mr. Hitchens poses too great a challenge to these panelists I'm afraid.

daniel wrote (September 26, 2007 8:15 PM): "A question to counter Hitchen's big question: Are we so sure the atheists uttering their moral statements and performing their moral actions which they believe rival or even surpass the religious could even begin to do so without all around them the thousands of years old traditions espoused by the religious? We are led to believe that atheists are as moral as believers, but they are so few in number, so embedded in a world of belief, that how can we even know they could have conceived the very morality they espouse in the absence of believers all around them? How creative are atheists is the question..."

Well... you might try chewing on this tidbit for a while, Buckwheat. Christians make up about 75% of the US population and 75% of the US prison population. No big surprise there.

Atheists, on the other hand, make up about 10% of the US population... but they only make up 0.2% of the US prison population. Now, isn't THAT a surprise? That means that on a per-capita basis, atheists are FIFTY (50) times LESS LIKELY to be incarcerated than Christians. Pretty strange, huh, for a group that has no god-given guiding moral principals?

I can only think of two possibilities that might reasonably be said to account for this discrepancy:

1. Atheists are of a higher ethical and moral caliber than Christians, and thus are less prone to do the same kinds of nasty things that land so many Christians in the slammer;

OR,

2. Atheists are, overall, a lot smarter than Christians and thus, they are less likely to get caught in the course of their transgressions.

It's GOT to be one or the other... take your pick.

(Statistics from US Bureau of Prisons, 1997)

Christopher,

I've read God Is Not Great and, I hope, every smaller piece you've written on the same theme. I'm a huge fan. But here's the best response, I would think, to your challenge. I can of course believe, for plenty of reasons having nothing to do with God, that you shouldn't kill people, shouldn't steal the property of others, and should operate with a baseline level of respect for the rest of the world, including future persons. But I think the point the believers want to urge isn't an ethical point; rather, it's a METAethical point that morality can't be normative--can't be binding, that is--unless its demands are the edicts of, in your words, a celestial dictator. For example, if I think it's wrong to murder because (as Judge Posner tells us) allowing murder would lead to all kinds of social inefficiencies, I might have no problem knocking someone off who has gotten to a remote campsite in the Grand Canyon that I'd like to have for the night. Or, I might just say "Inefficiency Schminefficiency" and pull the trigger on a crowded bus. So yes, we non-believers can reason our way to the very moral conclusions that the believers do, but the argument on the other side is that the believers' conclusions have a metaethical status that yours and mine don't, and as such, have a much weightier pull on their conscience. They have moral beliefs; we have moral preferences.

Dear Sir: In response to your challenge: "I should like, for the continued vigor of this discussion, to repeat the challenge that I have several times offered the faithful in print and on the air. Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

I would like to respond.

Of course I cannot name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever (I assume you mean an atheist). Unbelievers can do anything believers can do and vice versa. What I would suggest, however, is that you HAVE NO ULTIMATE REASON for saying or doing "those things." You have no ontological grounds for "being good" or "moral" or "decent." Bully for you if you are but my question to you would be WHY? For what reason would you be motivated to be "a good guy,” a “moral guy,” a “decent guy?”

The old canard that “natural selection” made us this way doesn't fly, by the way. Because the words "good," "moral," and "decent" have a component in them that you cannot account for with “natural selection” and that is OUGHT. Some things I OUGHT to do and some things I OUGHT NOT to do. Ought, the last time I checked, does not reduce to physics. So how do you account for that? Do you deny the existence of any OUGHTS? I think the word that describes that person is sociopath. What is the source of "your deepest integrity?" What does that even really mean within the context of your world view? Why would it matter a whit if I possessed "integrity" since, after all, I am only a couple of pounds of dirt suspended in a really cool bag of water that winks into and out of existence in cosmic time with no eternal consequences, no eternal accounting, no nothing, just oblivion. So why should I care about anything if that is true? Other than getting all that I can as fast as I can in any way that I can from anyone that I can and damn the expense to you or anyone else. How could you or I be any different in the long run from Adolf Hitler? We’re all dead, right? And who cares what any of us did during our glimmer of sentient existence? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IN THE LONG RUN IF I’M “MORAL” OR IF I SLAUGHTER MILLIONS? WHO CARES? In your universe, that is.

I’d like for you to give me a really good reason to be good, moral, and decent. Because society says so? Because I’ll go to jail if I get caught? Because I’ll be happier if I’m good, moral, and decent? Because people will care about me after I’m gone? Because I’ll have the good will of my fellow cosmic accidents? NONE OF THOSE THINGS matter. If I live to be a 100 that is literally the blink of an eye in cosmic time. And I’m an accident anyway? Right? I mean, evolution has no ends in mind because it has no mind. Evolution (natural selection) is the blind watchmaker, right? Evolution doesn’t care about anything much less whether or not I’m kind to my fellow human beings. All “natural selection” cares about is that my genes survive. I don’t quite get that either, by the way. Why should “natural selection” care about whether life exists or not or whether or not I pay my taxes or help feed the poor or hell, if I’m just rude to waiters? The idea that “natural selection” has somehow given human beings a moral compass is beyond hilarious. Natural selection doesn’t really even mean anything other than that “I’m alive.”

The irony of this, which I don’t imagine you will appreciate, is that you are making a MORAL argument for the non-existence of God. How funny! You are taking the position that God does not exist because, well, I need for you to run that by me again. I’m not sure that I can even really begin to understand that kind of rationale but I’ll try if you want to convince me. But for now I just really need a reason for doing “good” in your universe. Which, if you’re a proper atheistic materialist pretty much leaves the laws of physics to explain everything that matters to human beings as well as everything that doesn’t. While you are trying to explain morality to me in terms of physics, you may as well go ahead and cover consciousness, purpose, design, reason, information, mathematics, love, well, you get the point. Go for it.

Regards,
Tom Peeler

Catholic parents beget Catholics, Protestant parents beget Protestants. Jewish parents beget Jews. Mormon Parents beget Mormons. Muslim parents beget Muslims. Wiccan parents beget Wiccans.

What a coincidence,that most children have the same faith as their parents.Must be the work of God making sure that little Protestant babies go to Protestant parents,and little Shia Muslim babies go to Shia Muslim parents,and Jewish babies to Jewish parents.

Imagine if a Catholic couple ended up with a Protestant baby,or worse,if a Shia couple had a Hindu baby.It would never work.

Mark Twain looked at the above and saw the obvious implications of it all,that people simply believe what they are raised to believe.Which also means that the only reason we believe it is because mom and pop and our community told it was so.And they believed it because their mom and pop told them it was so,which is what they were told by their parents,and repeated back for 70 generations or more.
Mark Twain said,"The quiet confidence with which I know the other man's religion to be foolish,makes me suspect that mine is also."

Would that others could see it as clearly as Mr Twain.It shouldn't take a genius to figure it out.
Gods and religions are man made,and differ because of it.

I'll take a stab at your question, although we can quickly get tied up in semantics.

First what do you mean by an unbeliever? Are you merely talking about someone who does not believe in an anthropomorphic diety? That leaves the door open for some other type of metaphysical state.

For the sake of clarity, I'll define an unbeliever as someone who believes that we and everything in the universe is nothing more or less than a collection of atomic and sub-atomic particles, for lack of a better term, bumping into each other.

In that case, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong", or "principled" or "unprincipled". It's just merely action or inaction. True, an unbeliever can make (and believe) any kind of statement that we as a society would consider to be "moral", but in a purely physical world, "moral" is essentially a meaningless word.

This then gets to reason for an unbeliever's action. In my opinion, it is entirely irrational for an unbeliever to act fully in what we would consider to be a purely "moral" manner, with all the self-sacrifice that implies. Rather, the most rational thing for an unbeliever to do would be to give the appearance of morality, while doing whatever they can get away with to advance their self.

I guess I'm not really answering your question except to say that while an unbeliever can believe in any of what is commonly believed to be "moral" actions and statements, they would be succumbing to a different form or irrationality than what you say the "believer" succumbs to.

My general opinion is that there are very, very few true "believers" and very, very few true "unbelievers". Most of us move around in the broad spectrum in between.

"Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

To me, that the answer to this questions is "no" doesn't prove Hitchens to be correct. Why? Because I view religion and faith as a means to an end, and not an end itself.

So, if person A gets to the same moral endpoint as does person B, but person A gets there through organized religion and person B gets there by some other means, what difference is there? I submit there is no difference.

What matters to me is where we each end up, not the path taken to get there. I know this puts me in the minority of believers, but it makes sense and even seems rational.

(I haven't read all the 500+ posts, so I don't know if this has been said before.)

Dear Christopher

In responding to your question "Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?" - may you perhaps not have asked a right question?

If it is indeed the case that we are the creatures of a loving God then it should be no surprise that we encounter moral statements or actions which are, to whatever extent, of a piece with, in line with the character of, that creative Love. This would be - I would say, is - a consistent outcome regardless of whether any particular individual, so created, recognised it to be so or no.

Kind regards

David (Hares)

Dear Chris:
the Russians are a very religious people - they have considered themselves the center of Orthodox Christianity for centuries. It was ironic that they became an atheist country. Of course atheism was pushed on them by Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin. The first two were Jews and Stalin studied to be a Russian Orthodox priest. Stalin's recant of his faith turned a mean, nasty youth into a monstrous adult - so monstrous that even Lenin from his sick bed turned on him. And of course Stalin drove one of his wives to suicide.
Why Chris would you bring up Russia? Stalin is such a wonderful study in paranoia and beligerency.
If I were an atheist I would never bring up Russia because that might bring up the 60 million Russians that the KGB murdered or the millions of Kulaks that were starved to death by the farm land collectives - some merely peasants and some better off. The millions that were tortured by Stalin's henchmen, the sadistic cruelty, the terror and the lack of tolerance for anyone different including those who were homosexual. Atheists sometimes becry how christians are small minded - well guess what Chris Stalin didn't like homosexuals either.
So if the Russians are making sure they never have another monster like Stalin in command by drumming religion into the minds of little Russian children - I see no harm in that Chris do you?

It seems the theists are more diverse in their opinions in what constitutes the basis of their beliefs than are the atheists, which suggests that much of god belief lies in the head rather than in heaven. God-believers are all over the place in terms of what their deity is. Check out these results from a Templeton Foundation-funded study at Baylor University. Note the fairly high percentage of deists in this country (which I'm happy to see, given our Founders were largely deists). In terms of divine intervention, the deists are essentially atheistic.

Highlights of Baylor's analysis (excerpted from USA Today):

• The AUTHORITARIAN GOD (31.4% of Americans overall, 43.3% in the South) is angry at humanity's sins and engaged in every creature's life and world affairs. He is ready to throw the thunderbolt of judgment down on "the unfaithful or ungodly," Bader says. Those who envision God this way "are religiously and politically conservative people, more often black Protestants and white evangelicals," Bader says. "(They) want an active, Christian-values- based government with federal funding for faith-based social services and prayer in the schools." They're also the most inclined to say God favors the USA in world affairs (32.1% vs. 18.6% overall).

•The BENEVOLENT GOD (23% overall, 28.7% in the Midwest) still sets absolute standards for mankind in the Bible. More than half (54.8%) want the government to advocate Christian values. But this group, which draws more from mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews, sees primarily a forgiving God, more like the father who embraces his repentant prodigal son in the Bible, Froese says. They're inclined (68.1%) to say caring for the sick and needy ranks highest on the list of what it means to be a good person. This is the group in which the Rev. Jeremy Johnston, executive pastor and communications director for his father's 5,000-member Southern Baptist congregation in Overland Park, Kan., places himself. "God is in control of everything. He's grieved by the sin of the world, by any created person who doesn't follow him. But I see (a) God ... who loves us, who sees us for who we really are. We serve a God of the second, third, fourth and fifth chance," Johnston says.

•The CRITICAL GOD (16% overall, 21.3% in the East) has his judgmental eye on the world, but he's not going to intervene, either to punish or to comfort. "This group is more paradoxical," Bader says. "They have very traditional beliefs, picturing God as the classic bearded old man on high. Yet they're less inclined to go to church or affiliate seriously with religious groups. They are less inclined to see God as active in the world. Their politics are definitely not liberal, but they're not quite conservative, either." Those who picture a critical God are significantly less likely to draw absolute moral lines on hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research. For example, 57% overall say gay marriage is always wrong compared with 80.6% for those who see an authoritarian God, and 65.8% for those who see God as benevolent. For those who believe in a critical God, it was 54.7%.

•The DISTANT GOD (24.4% overall, 30.3% in the West) is "no bearded old man in the sky raining down his opinions on us," Bader says. Followers of this God see a cosmic force that launched the world, then left it spinning on its own. This has strongest appeal for Catholics, mainline Protestants and Jews. It's also strong among "moral relativists," those least likely to say any moral choice is always wrong, and among those who don't attend church, Bader says. Only 3.8% of this group say embryonic stem cell research is always wrong, compared with 38.5% of those who see an authoritarian God, 22.7% for those who see God as benevolent and 13.2% who see God as critical but disengaged.

Right on!

Gutsy and insightful analysis.

Thx

Right on!

Gutsy and insightful analysis.

Thx

To conclude that ethical statements can be made in a vacuum completely devoid of all forms of faith is a sterile intellectual conclusion.

How often do you, Christopher Hitchens, open up your carton of milk to inspect that it's really milk while waiting in line at the supermarket? Assuming that you do your own shopping, I would guess that you have faith that the milk you buy is milk..based on probabilities. But isn't this belief the parent of "all things will be what they appear to be unless evidence to the contrary arises?" We are all believers.

I concur that religion is the first implement of budding fascist movements every time.
But all spiritualism should not be judged as if it were a manifestation of organized religion.

As to ethics, where on the scale of moral behaviour do you put the profiteering by Halliburton and others from the Iraq war?

If you did not reside in this country during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years you have missed the best of what America was and what it could have been had the country followed the path of vigilance against those in our own government who would unlease the dogs of war without a measured effort to ameliorate problems through other means. (see: Kennedy/Soviet missile standoff).

Congratulations Christofer Hitchins!!
I am reminded of a statement made by Jacob Bronowski In his book and TV series named The Ascent of Man in 1973:
It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false., tragically false.....This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz..... Into this pond were dumped the ashes of four million people....It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance.When people believe that they have absolute (read: divine) knowledge with no test in reality, this is how they behave.
Science is a very human form of Knowledge. We are always on the brink of the known....every judgment in science stands on the edge of error...Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell,'I beseech you in the bowells of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken'."
There are many who profess that the Holocaust was a consequence of an atheistic movement. This is nonsence. Ot was the outcome of two thousand years of Christian Dogma.

Faith exists and God exists. Denial of this is only to limit one's choices. So what if man invented it, you can hardly overlook the evidence of thousands of churches that exist at this moment. This doesn't necessarily mean that morality derives from God or faith, actually quite the opposite. Morality is in the domain of knowledge and reason, not faith.

Certainly there are ridiculous religions and theological propositions, but it doesn't mean there is absolutely no value to faith or religion, nor that at some time the perfect religion will come into being.

I am overwhelmed by the stupidity that prevails about right and wrong. People question where morals come from, if not from religion/God. The answer is as plain as the nose on your face. Any normal child soon learns not to touch something that is hot. In other words "don't do anything to other's such as killing them or running off with their spouse", that you wouldn't want done to you.

I can't think of any immoral or vicious act that is not covered by just plain common sense and the "Golden Rule". Religion, unfortunately, provides the violater with a good lawyer, Jesus, who just say's believe in me and your terrible acts are forgiven. That was one smart violater that had that revelation.

Never mind the humaness of any organized religion.

For all the "enlightened Athiests" out there I have a couple of questions.

Since you don't believe in God, do you believe thar miracles do happen? If not, have you ever heard of people who were terminally ill with something like cancer and have had a complete recovery without logical explaination?

Never mind the miracles that Jesus performed, your argument would be simply "prove that they aren't just fiction". Can you explain miracles that are present today? Explain the tilma from Our Lady of Guadaloupe.

Do you believe in Ghosts or apparitions? How do explain that to those who have encountered such things?

There are many more questions to be answered by those who don't believe as opposed to those who do.

Thanks for a rational look at an irrational concept - religion. Only when people think beyond biblical dogma will they realize that they are worthy, humanistic and capable human beings who can create the only heaven there is right here on earth.

"I am the way, the truth and the life", John 8;12.

I have read several of your pieces and finding your arrogance amazing. You refer to yourself as a critic of Mother Teresa. How can a lady who devoted her life to caring for the sick and poor actually have a critic? Regardless of your Athiestic mentality, no rational person can find fault with her life's work. Yet, you are a critic.

You seem to confuse humans who use God's name to committ evil as God himself being evil. An analogy would be a Math teacher who erroneously calculates an equation as somehow disproving the Math Theorem all together.

I will pray for you and those like you.

As I live my life in the bible belt, I am consistently amazed by the extreme religious beliefs espoused publicly in both government and even the media. You will certainly here of the District Attorney's personal comments at the end of today's "Jena 6" press conference at which he stated that certain tragedy was diverted at the protests in that city last week only because of the prayers to Jesus Christ who then influenced his minions to remain peaceful. A black minister took immediate issue with the DA because of the implicit suggestion that the white community's prayers prevented the mostly black protestors from rioting. Man, religious people are just plain crazy and don't mind demonstrating it publicly on an ever increasing basis. It is a true "blessing" that there are persons such as you who are educating the vast majority of believers of the foolishness of the premise underlying their faith.

As usual, Christopher Hitchens shows that he's smart and articulate.

I have basically one comment. Like many people who argue against religion Hitchens makes a sort of standard "prove it" challenge. Fundamentalists always do the same thing with various pieces of evidence which, supposedly, "prove" that their religon is true. This discussion of proof is should be left out of both sides of the arguement.

For one, you'll never get anyway with it. Either side can easily come up with example and counter example, and people like me looking for discussion will get bored pretty quickly. But, most importantly, it's beside the point. The entire concept of faith is that you don't need the evidence. You feel your spirtuality. You can't argue about its importance in you life or in the world.

Hitchens always has interesting things to say, but here he should leave out the "challenge."

Elliott

Pastor Diaz, you mention, "..the factual claims of the great monotheistic faiths of the world...."

Could you name some? Then provide the evidence? After all, evidence is needed for factual claims.

Turns out there's no evidence for Exodus - considered a fact in the foundation of the three monotheistic religions. Did you know that? It's no secret, There are respected books and articles about it. It's widely accepted in scholarly circles and published in the latest edition of the conservative Jewish paryer book, found in every Conservative temple. I saw it there myself. But word is getting out slowly to the public. I'll post a couple of links for you to get your facts straight. “The Bible Unearthed” by archeology scholars Finkelstein and Silberman. Here’s the first paragraph of it’s Amazon description: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869128/ref=olp_product_details/002-1878591-2519231?ie=UTF8&seller=

“The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon.”

And here’s a link to an article about how this information has been included since 2002 in the “Tree of Life” books found in all Conservative Jewish temples: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Nu, lighting shabbas candles when it was dark...

Nu, lighting shabbas candles when it was dark...

My dear Hitchens,
You just remind me of the enormous effort put in by late G.K.Chesterton in favour of Faith.
I must inform you, if you are not alredy aware, that in Traditional spiritual thought of Hinduism we do recognize the Charvakas the ATheists.I must relate
Khalil Gibrans short piece made even shorter and more profound(if at all)
An Atheist and a Theist were friends. They started a discussion about their Faith and Unfaith one evening.At the end of the discussion, the Theist had become and Atheist and the Atheist a Theist. Such is the restlessness of the human mind.
Hey Atheists whatharm do we cause you Pray that you should be so acerbic in your pronouncements.?

Shander: "Many people ascribe Naziism to atheism but the Holocaust was undeniably the direct out come of 2000 years of Christian dogma."

Wrong, Nazism borrowed from a variety of sources....including SCIENCE for its ideas of racial superiority.

As for Communism, an ideology that killed 20x the number of people that Nazism killed, it used ATHEISM as a major tool in stripping the people of their individual rights and gaining power/influence of the masses.

Atheism was made for collectivism!

PS - it seems to be quite the coincidence that there were extremely high percentages of atheistic jews (like Hitchens who also is a trotskyite) within the early communist party....go figure

Thanks for so ably voicing viewpoints that many of us hide around most of our neighbors and/or friends.

Christopher Hitchens:

Religion is not about coming up with new moral values, as they are instilled in us, both good and bad moral values. The question is who instilled these values (equally) in all of us? Religious people have an answer, and that's God. Even with you claiming that unbelievers and believers know these values, yet they divert in their behavior. The role of religion was NEVER to teach people new things but to bring them back on a straight path. A path that never changed from day 1 till today. Perhaps "brining people to the straight path of rightousness" is the one moral that neither you or any of the unbelievers would offer to humanity.

In some sense, you are helping people stir a new debate and reconnect with their believes. Me, as a Muslim, claim a monopoly over the truth since, for me, it is quite easy to see where others have gone wrong. It is enough to search the history of other religions to see how they "invented" their faith and to read the old and the new testaments to figure out why people should move on to a better place. I think you feed your energy off of the christian ideology because it is human based. Their straight path is your energy caravan, where you can snap a thought anytime. I would imagine that "your straight path" would be the 100% freedom to do anything and everything under the pre-text that God is not out there. Then I have to chose between two paths: one which leads to a meaningful life and one that leads to all kinds of troubles (sexual tendencies, alcohol, lost causes and meaning of life, ..etc).

I'm not surprised that you have had no takers. Your argument is irrefutable.

Re: "Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

I think if the word "love" or "romantic relationship" is replaced with "religion" in Hitchens arguments, their goofiness becomes clear. Is there anything a person in love can do that a person who has never been in love can't say or do? No. (Sex can be had without love.) As Edna St. Vincent Millay said, "Love is not all; it is not meat nor drink... Yet many a man is making friends with death, even as I speak, for lack of love alone."
When people say they can survive, they can be good, etc., without religion/God/etc., I say, we can also survive, be good, etc., without love. But I believe we would be diminished somehow, we would be less than fully human. How ridiculous would this essay sound if it were entitled "The Subtle, Lethal Poison of Love."
Love, like religion, also causes people to make terrible mistakes and do awful things. So why is it still worth it, if we can be good without it, and if we risk being WORSE by gaining it?
If you can answer that, then you can understand why humans keep striving to reach God, to live morally through religion, even at the risk of committing atrocities.

Lastly, I don't personally know even one serious religious person today who is religious out of fear of punishment. When I went to Jewish day school, I was never told to focus on God being a punisher, on each sin being a strike against me. Instead, we were to focus on doing the good and positive.

Hitchens' description of God as the distant, overbearing, Fearless Leader who must be feared himself, I'm sure, sounds like nonsense to most serious religious people. It certainly does to me, as God is not something or someone "out there," but something "in here."

But Hitchens is obviously insistent on destroying not God, but a straw man, a shadow of Him.
To quote J.A. Robinson, God simply means depth, and if you know depth of human nature and of reality, you know what God is. You can not be an atheist, unless you truly do not believe in the depth of being and the ground of reality.
So to the current crop of "atheists" who are busy destroying idols, I say: bravo. Just don't attack those of us who already know God.

Two words:

IRAQ

WAR

Hitchens is a hypocrite!

Hurrah for Christofer Hitchens!!!
I am reminded of a statement by Jacob Bronowski in his book and TV series entitled The Ascent of Man published in 1973.
He was at Auschwitz and said "It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false. Tragically false. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz....Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people.... (That) was done by dogma.It was done by ignorance. When people think that they have absolute knowledge with no test in reality, this is how they behave. ....Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known.....Every judgment in science stands at the edge of error,...Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell, 'I beseech you in the bowells of Christ, Think it possible you may be mistaken'."
Many people ascribe Naziism to atheism but the Holocaust was undeniably the direct out come of 2000 years of Christian dogma.

Re: "Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

I think if the word "love" or "romantic relationship" is replaced with "religion" in Hitchens arguments, their goofiness becomes clear. Is there anything a person in love can do that a person who has never been in love can't say or do? No. (Sex can be had without love.) As Edna St. Vincent Millay said, "Love is not all; it is not meat nor drink... Yet many a man is making friends with death, even as I speak, for lack of love alone."
When people say they can survive, they can be good, etc., without religion/God/etc., I say, we can also survive, be good, etc., without love. But I believe we would be diminished somehow, we would be less than fully human. How ridiculous would this essay sound if it were entitled "The Subtle, Lethal Poison of Love."
Love, like religion, also causes people to make terrible mistakes and do awful things. So why is it still worth it, if we can be good without it, and if we risk being WORSE by gaining it?
If you can answer that, then you can understand why humans keep striving to reach God, to live morally through religion, even at the risk of committing atrocities.

Lastly, I don't personally know even one serious religious person today who is religious out of fear of punishment. When I went to Jewish day school, I was never told to focus on God being a punisher, on each sin being a strike against me. Instead, we were to focus on doing the good and positive.

Hitchens' description of God as the distant, overbearing, Fearless Leader who must be feared himself, I'm sure, sounds like nonsense to most serious religious people. It certainly does to me, as God is not something or someone "out there," but something "in here."

But Hitchens is obviously insistent on destroying not God, but a straw man, a shadow of Him.
To quote J.A. Robinson, God simply means depth, and if you know depth of human nature and of reality, you know what God is. You can not be an atheist, unless you truly do not believe in the depth of being and the ground of reality.
So to the current crop of "atheists" who are busy destroying idols, I say: bravo. Just don't attack those of us who already know God.

"Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

Sure. "Mission Accomplished." To the extent one considers the invasion of Iraq as a moral action, of course.

Only one vain enough to believe that some invisible omnipotent father figure living in the sky, creator of the entire universe, would have nothing better to do than watch their every move in order to decide whether to reward or punish them for eternity after they're dead could possibly make that statement -- a statement so consumed by that vanity as to be totally disconnected from reality. This is from a man who speaks to Jesus and claims Jesus is actually answering him, a condition most would seek medication to keep in check.

Unless you're making Bush out to be a simple schoolyard liar, that is. But we've seen no collaborating evidence of that, have we?

Respectfully, Mr. Hitchens tirade of extremist atheism is quite tragic actually. It is amazing that a "thinker" of his reputation could so easily miss the forrest for the trees.

His line of logic must equate with the idea that because some tainted Tylneol led to several deaths years ago, ALL pain releivers must be tainted and risky.

Rather than argue the factual claims of the great monotheistic faiths of the world, which resonate with so many millions, he paints with the broadest brush possible, not even bothering to contextually understand the theology and orthodoxy of religion before attacking it.

What is amazing is that any thinking skeptic would be influenced by such inflammatory tripe, void of any philosophical or intellectual substanbce whatsoever.

Respectfully, Mr. Hitchens tirade of extremist atheism is quite tragic actually. It is amazing that a "thinker" of his reputation could so easily miss the forrest for the trees.

His line of logic must equate with the idea that because some tainted Tylneol led to several deaths years ago, ALL pain releivers must be tainted and risky.

Rather than argue the factual claims of the great monotheistic faiths of the world, which resonate with so many millions, he paints with the broadest brush possible, not even bothering to contextually understand the theology and orthodoxy of religion before attacking it.

What is amazing is that any thinking skeptic would be influenced by such inflammatory tripe, void of any philosophical or intellectual substanbce whatsoever.

I once read of a professor of Religion who routinely asked his atheist students to describe the god they didn't believe in. Without exception, he found they described a god he didn't believe in either.

While the few clips I've read by Mr. Hitchens do not provide any clear, well thought out, coherent conception of God, they do hint at a god I could never believe in either.

God remains the ultimate mystery. Nobody has conducted an interview with God and come back with a trip report.

"Our doctrines are not photographs of Reality. They are the attempted descriptions of heavenly things by means of the hints and guesses which earthly things provide." --From "Tensions" by H.A. Williams

Mr. Hitchens needs to read some of the more coherent "hints and guesses" and put the square pegs in the square holes and the round pegs in the round holes. Maybe then he would find a god he could believe in.

"So to the current crop of "atheists" who are busy destroying idols, I say: bravo. Just don't attack those of us who already know God."

If you mean to say you "believe" (as a matter of faith) as opposed to "know" (a matter of fact), then we have a deal.

If you claim that athiests are lesser in some way because we don't believe what you believe, then no deal.

If you use your beliefs to manipulate and control others (especially children), then no deal.

If you admit that your beliefs are merely your beliefs and you promise to leave it at that, then we have a deal!

Well, Hitch, drop off that hitchhiker, and hitch up your ol' hoss to the hitchin' post, Hitch, hitch up those pants, and go out and take a hitch pass. (Even your name is a hint that maybe, God is poking a bit of fun at you)... It seems that there is possibly a hitch in your logic. Let's see you prove that God Doesn't exist! And we all know that you will spin out Cosmology, Darwinism, Logic, mathematics, string theory, Physics, Einstein, Mandelbrot, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Mike Shermer, etc, etc, etc, but at the end of the day, Hitch, YOU STILL CANNOT PROVE THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD...Could you possibly be wrong? NAH. Ol' Hitch, wrong? How could that be, with Hitch's superior intelligence...and those stupid Ol' Christians, lacking any brains, credentials, and especially, having such a humble attitude, how could they be right?

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? As though, Mr. Hitchins, you've made some big point in your question. I mean makig love and just having sex can look no different to the observer.
In short, I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? As though, Mr. Hitchins, you've made some big point in your question. I mean makig love and just having sex can look no different to the observer.
In short, I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

That's the wrong question. It's not naming, it's performing. On balance, religion transforms character and causes more people to perform good deeds than non-theistic personal ethics does.

Well, Hitch, drop off that hitchhiker, and hitch up your ol' hoss to the hitchin' post, Hitch, hitch up those pants, and go out and take a hitch pass. (Even your name is a hint that maybe, God is poking a bit of fun at you)... It seems that there is possibly a hitch in your logic. Let's see you prove that God Doesn't exist! And we all know that you will spin out Cosmology, Darwinism, Logic, mathematics, string theory, Physics, Einstein, Mandelbrot, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Mike Shermer, etc, etc, etc, but at the end of the day, Hitch, YOU STILL CANNOT PROVE THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD...Could you possibly be wrong? NAH. Ol' Hitch, wrong? How could that be, with Hitch's superior intelligence...and those stupid Ol' Christians, lacking any brains, credentials, and especially, having such a humble attitude, how could they be right?

Hi Christopher -- Your "challenge" is an empty and meaningless one, because the influence of religion-based ethics goes so far back in history that non-believers are part of it whether they acknowledge it or not. None of us are original in thought or deed. That being said, basic human nature is demonstrably the source of cruelty and violence, not the excuse (religion, politics, etc.) we try to cloak them in. Striving toward a divine source of good is hugely liberating -- I have a feeling that after all of your kicking and fussing, you will eventually find this out. God bless you.

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? As though, Mr. Hitchins, you've made some big point in your question. I mean makig love and just having sex can look no different to the observer.
In short, I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? As though, Mr. Hitchins, you've made some big point in your question. I mean makig love and just having sex can look no different to the observer.
In short, I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

Also, I think the people who are staunch believers in religion, what ever it is, are gullible. If they can believe in that far fetched stuff, they'll believe ANYTHING, including what ever Pres. Bush says. They lack some kind of intellect.

Hi Christopher -- Your "challenge" is an empty and meaningless one, because the influence of religion-based ethics goes so far back in history that non-believers are part of it whether they acknowledge it or not. None of us are original in thought or deed. That being said, basic human nature is demonstrably the source of cruelty and violence, not the excuse (religion, politics, etc.) we try to cloak them in. Striving toward a divine source of good is hugely liberating -- I have a feeling that after all of your kicking and fussing, you will eventually find this out. God bless you.

Also, I think the people who are staunch believers in religion, what ever it is, are gullible. If they can believe in that far fetched stuff, they'll believe ANYTHING, including what ever Pres. Bush says. They lack some kind of intellect.

Hi Christopher -- Your "challenge" is an empty and meaningless one, because the influence of religion-based ethics goes so far back in history that non-believers are part of it whether they acknowledge it or not. None of us are original in thought or deed. That being said, basic human nature is demonstrably the source of cruelty and violence, not the excuse (religion, politics, etc.) we try to cloak them in. Striving toward a divine source of good is hugely liberating -- I have a feeling that after all of your kicking and fussing, you will eventually find this out. God bless you.

I am an atheist, I read your book and I like your arguments. You do a great job with the "who" "what" and "how" parts, but I would like to read something that dives into the pyschology and sociology of believer to figure out "why" they are such suckers.

And here I think you do get a bit astray. You seem to have an idealistic tendency to give too much power to the leaders and not enough to the followers. You tend to blame and hold accountable and fight a dirty fight on enemy territory.

I don't think it's necessary and I don't think it can win. Instead, remove emotion, free will, and subjectivity from the equation. Look at religion like an alien would - that's its manmade. Focus on why it exists despite its falsity. When people understand why what they are doing is irrational, they are far more apt to fix it than if they are told that what they are doing is immoral.

You do both, but I think only one can ultimately destroy religion.

BTW, Paglia's comment was ridiculous. There are too many non-religious expressions of meaning and beauty to count, and there would be far more if religion didn't suck most of the oxygen out of the room.

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? Like Chris you've made some big point in your question. I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

I suggest that's the wrong question. Naming isn't the point, performing is. On balance, religion reforms character and causes good deeds more broadly and more often than personal, non-Deistic ethics does.

A large percentage of our problems with our southern border can be layed on the door step of the Catholic Church..They have consistently preached go out and multiply to the point Mexico can't sustain itself therefore ,,we in the United States must pay the PIPER to help these exploited people...Mexicans are for the most part a very gentle people and hard working folks,,but they listen too much to the church's propaganda and should spend more time and effort in building a network of Planned Parent-hood clinics,,,The news media never mentions this fact,,they know the reaction this would cause with the CHURCH and churches,,it's time for this policy to come to an end ,, these insane policies of vast over-population.........................Charles Belenchia.....Plymouth,, Mich.

I am an atheist, I read your book and I like your arguments. You do a great job with the "who" "what" and "how" parts, but I would like to read something that dives into the pyschology and sociology of believer to figure out "why" they are such suckers.

And here I think you do get a bit astray. You seem to have an idealistic tendency to give too much power to the leaders and not enough to the followers. You tend to blame and hold accountable and fight a dirty fight on enemy territory.

I don't think it's necessary and I don't think it can win. Instead, remove emotion, free will, and subjectivity from the equation. Look at religion like an alien would - that's its manmade. Focus on why it exists despite its falsity. When people understand why what they are doing is irrational, they are far more apt to fix it than if they are told that what they are doing is immoral.

You do both, but I think only one can ultimately destroy religion.

BTW, Paglia's comment was ridiculous. There are too many non-religious expressions of meaning and beauty to count, and there would be far more if religion didn't suck most of the oxygen out of the room.

Hi Christopher -- Your "challenge" is an empty and meaningless one, because the influence of religion-based ethics goes so far back in history that non-believers are part of it whether they acknowledge it or not. None of us are original in thought or deed. That being said, basic human nature is demonstrably the source of cruelty and violence, not the excuse (religion, politics, etc.) we try to cloak them in. Striving toward a divine source of good is hugely liberating -- I have a feeling that after all of your kicking and fussing, you will eventually find this out. God bless you.

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? Like Chris you've made some big point in your question. I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

PS - since you secular atheists love to base all on science, here is some sociology for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has compiled years of research and found that religious people were much more generous across the board than non-religious.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Hitch.

********Hard to explain considering you consider yourselves "humanists"

A large percentage of our problems with our southern border can be layed on the door step of the Catholic Church..They have consistently preached go out and multiply to the point Mexico can't sustain itself therefore ,,we in the United States must pay the PIPER to help these exploited people...Mexicans are for the most part a very gentle people and hard working folks,,but they listen too much to the church's propaganda and should spend more time and effort in building a network of Planned Parent-hood clinics,,,The news media never mentions this fact,,they know the reaction this would cause with the CHURCH and churches,,it's time for this policy to come to an end ,, these insane policies of vast over-population.........................Charles Belenchia.....Plymouth,, Mich.

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? Like Chris you've made some big point in your question. I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

To David Hartman:
I can show you outbursts by Jesus against the Pharisees in the bible that go against the "Love your enemies." Surely you know these too. Here's one:

In Matthew 24:27, Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.”

A little analysis:
“Woe to you” does not mean you love them – it means you are condemning them.

Re: "Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

I think if the word "love" or "romantic relationship" is replaced with "religion" in Hitchens arguments, their goofiness becomes clear. Is there anything a person in love can do that a person who has never been in love can't say or do? No. (Sex can be had without love.) As Edna St. Vincent Millay said, "Love is not all; it is not meat nor drink... Yet many a man is making friends with death, even as I speak, for lack of love alone."
When people say they can survive, they can be good, etc., without religion/God/etc., I say, we can also survive, be good, etc., without love. But I believe we would be diminished somehow, we would be less than fully human. How ridiculous would this essay sound if it were entitled "The Subtle, Lethal Poison of Love."
Love, like religion, also causes people to make terrible mistakes and do awful things. So why is it still worth it, if we can be good without it, and if we risk being WORSE by gaining it?
If you can answer that, then you can understand why humans keep striving to reach God, to live morally through religion, even at the risk of committing atrocities.

Lastly, I don't personally know even one serious religious person today who is religious out of fear of punishment. When I went to Jewish day school, I was never told to focus on God being a punisher, on each sin being a strike against me. Instead, we were to focus on doing the good and positive.

Hitchens' description of God as the distant, overbearing, Fearless Leader who must be feared himself, I'm sure, sounds like nonsense to most serious religious people. It certainly does to me, as God is not something or someone "out there," but something "in here."

But Hitchens is obviously insistent on destroying not God, but a straw man, a shadow of Him.
To quote J.A. Robinson, God simply means depth, and if you know depth of human nature and of reality, you know what God is. You can not be an atheist, unless you truly do not believe in the depth of being and the ground of reality.
So to the current crop of "atheists" who are busy destroying idols, I say: bravo. Just don't attack those of us who already know God.

Hitchens' post and the subsequent brouhaha only serve to illustrate the monumental and tragic waste of time and human effort engendered by magical thinking.

All this piddling around about Great Supernatural Ooga-Boogas is way past due for the trash heap.

Though I agree with much of what Hitchens says, I do think he asks the wrong question. He wants to know if there is any moral act that a religious person could do that a non-religious person could or would not do. As he knows, the answer is no.

I think the more interesting question is probably whether there are any moral acts that a religious person would be more LIKELY to do than a non-religious person. If there are some (and I don't know if there are), this would at least give religion a kind of utilitarian foothold which might at least partially offset the fact that it is filled with historical inaccuracies and metaphysical absurdities.

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? Like Chris you've made some big point in your question. I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

The claim that moral capacity derives from religious belief involves a little confusion of cause and effect. Both our moral capacity as humans and our tendency to want to worship were put into us by our Creator. Neither depends upon the other. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be morally upright; and it is likewise perfectly possible for a devoutly religious person to be extremely wicked.
The question I would pose to Dr. Hitchens is, how would you explain our capacity and desire to worship in terms of survival of the fittest? How would a tendency and desire to believe lies make us more fit to survive? If natural selection were the explanation not only for how we got here but for why we are the way we are, wouldn't you expect atheism, rather than religious belief, to be prevalent among the human species?

I won't go into a prolonged or pompous eruditation on morality or theology, but defend Hitchens' thesis. Religion is often toxic and manipulative. It is myopic myth created by man. The fanaticism it inspires seeks to excuse hatred, intolerance, and violence. Religion can be self-serving, self-absorbed, and self-righteous. Faith is something apart from religion. Goodness is inherent in many species. We haven't got a lock on it. Life is the ultimate leap of faith. No one knows with any certainty what lies ahead.

Religion destroyes natural morality which all animals display without the pretense of having to "be saved." Kids are taught not to share, and instead to own. A cat will risk its life going into a burning building to save its young long after people would stop. Pack animals ensure that even the D members eat, conservative "christian" humans let others starve. Morality and doing no harm are natural, yes a tiger takes a zebra for food, but it does not take 20 to stick on its wall. The conservative brand of authoritarian religion drives the gluttony that destroyes morality in humans. Yes, other animals do not have religion or gluttony. Just a cooincidence? I don't thinks so!

I won't go into a prolonged or pompous eruditation on morality or theology, but defend Hitchens' thesis. Religion is often toxic and manipulative. It is myopic myth created by man. The fanaticism it inspires seeks to excuse hatred, intolerance, and violence. Religion can be self-serving, self-absorbed, and self-righteous. Faith is something apart from religion. Goodness is inherent in many species. We haven't got a lock on it. Life is the ultimate leap of faith. No one knows with any certainty what lies ahead.

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? Like Chris you've made some big point in your question. I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

Ha!

Hitchens, the cheerleader of the violence and never ending wars in the middle east - calls other "dogmas" as evil???

Hitchens pushes "liberal" ideals at the barrel of a gun! (Iraq ring a bell?) He is a collectivist and trotskyite.

And he calls religion dogmatic?!

At least in religion - while there are rules - you have free will and free thought as an individual.

Iraq is evil, forcing your "correct" values on others is evil.

Hitchens is an idiot, a neocon, and a hypocrite........

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? Like Chris you've made some big point in your question. I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

The claim that moral capacity derives from religious belief involves a little confusion of cause and effect. Both our moral capacity as humans and our tendency to want to worship were put into us by our Creator. Neither depends upon the other. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be morally upright; and it is likewise perfectly possible for a devoutly religious person to be extremely wicked.
The question I would pose to Dr. Hitchens is, how would you explain our capacity and desire to worship in terms of survival of the fittest? How would a tendency and desire to believe lies make us more fit to survive? If natural selection were the explanation not only for how we got here but for why we are the way we are, wouldn't you expect atheism, rather than religious belief, to be prevalent among the human species?

I won't go into a prolonged or pompous eruditation on morality or theology, but defend Hitchens' thesis. Religion is often toxic and manipulative. It is myopic myth created by man. The fanaticism it inspires seeks to excuse hatred, intolerance, and violence. Religion can be self-serving, self-absorbed, and self-righteous. Faith is something apart from religion. Goodness is inherent in many species. We haven't got a lock on it. Life is the ultimate leap of faith. No one knows with any certainty what lies ahead.

I have seen you many times on the tube and have read your pieces in Vanity Fair. I seldom agree with you but always listen to you and read your scrivenings with a dictionary at my side- dimwit that I am.

I must confess that I can't determine if your miniscule is a well-written, well-honed tautology or a well-written, well-honed non sequiturial bit of sophistry-- or is that a distinction without a difference.

You set a bit of a straw man at the top with the example of the school teacher, Ms. Donshina and
get to the crux of your argument with the following:

"But Ms Donshina's nonsensical propaganda is actually a mainstream statement of what the truly religious are bound to believe. Without god, how could we tell right from wrong, or learn how to do the right thing? I have never had a debate with a religious figure of any denomination, however "moderate, where this insulting question has not come up."

The example you gave does not provide much support for that statement. After all, the women asked "Whom SHOULD we learn to do good from?" (emphasis added), not whom MUST or whom is the ONLY entity to learn do to good from.

However, I can see your point. A religious person or a religious leader, and I make a distinction, of the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim faith making this assertion might want to go back and read their holy book. They need only start at the beginning and proceed a short way, for the story of creation comes early on.

Their own canon states, to paraphrase, that God created everything and towards the end of his labors created man and woman. They were created butt-arse naked. They did not know that this was right or wrong until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In short, this omnipotent, all knowing God, when he or she had the chance, decided to withhold this information.

Man and woman got this info on good and evil from a fruit, so a religious leader or person practicing this faith ardently arguing that God is the only source of knowing about good and evil could be construed as insulting. But I must confess you take offense rather easily for a person in the public eye.

More troubling from the those professing to practice this religion is their insistence on the belief, after having been cast out from Eden for acquiring knowledge, that if we only turn our back on knowledge, turn our back on continuing to learn, we will get back into Eden. That they insist on this for themselves is troubling, that they insist it for me is beyond insulting.

I know some are saying that the teacher was using Yeshua ben Joseph as an example, and in this the Christian insistence that Christ's way is the only way to salvation, into heaven, is insulting only if they insist it for others and not just for themselves. Besides, Mr. Hitchens is writing about all religions, so starting with an example about God when talking about the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths seems like a better starting point.

As far as naming "a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever", I think faith healing would be such an act. An unbeliever at the first instance of performing or attempting to perform a faith healing would become a believer of sorts- a successful faith healing might leave them in a state of panic or, at least, a weakened belief in non-belief.

To Robives,
If one is an atheist, s/he already accepts all men are created equal --on the moral plane. It is religious systems that assume one group is inherently immoral (because they do not believe in THEIR God.)

Born equal physically does not apply because some babies are born horrifically deformed. (Believers must accept the Deity wanted babies to be born deformed.)

Babies are also not born SOCIALLY equal – with some starving soon after birth.

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? Like Chris you've made some big point in your question. I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

Ha!

Hitchens, the cheerleader of the violence and never ending wars in the middle east - calls other "dogmas" as evil???

Hitchens pushes "liberal" ideals at the barrel of a gun! (Iraq ring a bell?) He is a collectivist and trotskyite.

And he calls religion dogmatic?!

At least in religion - while there are rules - you have free will and free thought as an individual.

Iraq is evil, forcing your "correct" values on others is evil.

Hitchens is an idiot, a neocon, and a hypocrite........

The claim that moral capacity derives from religious belief involves a little confusion of cause and effect. Both our moral capacity as humans and our tendency to want to worship were put into us by our Creator. Neither depends upon the other. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be morally upright; and it is likewise perfectly possible for a devoutly religious person to be extremely wicked.
The question I would pose to Dr. Hitchens is, how would you explain our capacity and desire to worship in terms of survival of the fittest? How would a tendency and desire to believe lies make us more fit to survive? If natural selection were the explanation not only for how we got here but for why we are the way we are, wouldn't you expect atheism, rather than religious belief, to be prevalent among the human species?

It's not that belief (or non belief) would make a difference in the PROCESS of your actions, but in the meaning of them. Sure, we might not kill so as to avoid punishment or out of a evolutionary angle that expects a "rule of law" to govern, verse the believer who does it out of a respect for life based on a higher force (e.g., God). The process of living is the same, but the reasons are very different. I say, so what if the process is the same? Like Chris you've made some big point in your question. I think, rather, you miss the point. The WHY we behave makes a difference to whether we connect to something larger then ourselves is the issue. Bach tied into this force (called God) and made beautiful music. What's radical is Jesus themes in History, -note pre-Jesus times were a time when life was universally less respected. Would the Holocaust been as shocking and evil in 100 A.D.?

Catholic parents beget Catholics, Protestant parents beget Protestants. Jewish parents beget Jews. Mormon Parents beget Mormons. Muslim parents beget Muslims. Wiccan parents beget Wiccans. Atheistic parents beget Atheists.

What a coincidence,that most children have the same faith as their parents.Must be the work of God making sure that little Protestant babies go to Protestant parents,and little Shia Muslim babies go to Shia Muslim parents,and Jewish babies to Jewish parents.

Imagine if a Catholic couple ended up with a Protestant baby,or worse,if a Shia couple had a Hindu baby.It would never work.

Mark Twain looked at the above and saw the obvious implications of it all,that people simply believe what they are raised to believe.Which also means that the only reason we believe it is because mom and pop and our community told it was so.And they believed it because their mom and pop told them it was so,which is what they were told by their parents,and repeated back for 70 generations or more.
Mark Twain said,"The quiet confidence with which I know the other man's religion to be foolish,makes me suspect that mine is also."

Would that others could see it as clearly as Mr Twain.It shouldn't take a genius to figure it out.
Gods and religions are man made,and differ because of it.

"I do find it interesting that atheists/agnostics seem to spend a lot more time thinking about religion than your average professed believer."

Yes, I find that interesting also. Why is that? Could it be because atheists/agnostics spend more time thinking, period? Or because they are a minority in a majority theistic world and are striving to understand where these other people are coming from in their thinking? Or because they have seen what radical religious belief has done in recent years and find it alarming?

The Templeton Foundation has recently completed a survey that shows religious belief in the US is all over the map in terms of what attributes a believer gives to his deity. The diversity of god concepts is such that one might come to the conclusion that god is entirely in the head of the believer. There are a remarkable number of deistic believers in the US, something like a quarter or more of the population, which suggests that the micromanager god concept is not nearly as widespread as many of us supposed.

Here's a question: If the US has a significant number of deistic believers ... who are not atheists, but don't believe that god in any way intercedes in our lives ... the notion that morality comes from god would seem to be weaker than many followers of the Abrahamic faiths might think. A deist and an atheist are not that different when it comes to the idea that morals are human-made, not god-made.

Right on, Hitchens.

FYI Liz

FYI Liz

FYI Liz

FYI Liz

Christopher,

Your challenge and its corollary are bogus. If the challenge is "name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever," then the corollary should be "name a wicked action or statement, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever." I would suggest that you would have a hard time coming up with an answer for the latter. After all, murder, violence, and hatred are perpretrated by unbelievers the world over.

If you would like to use the formulation of your corollary (actions or statement that "derived directly" from belief), then you must use the same for the original challenge: name a moral action or statement that "derived directly" from religious faith. I suspect you would find a substantial loosening of tongues at that point.

re: "The Challenge"

Mr. Hitchens,

Is this not an example of a "challenge" that is impossible to meet? Or if so decends immediately into wordplay?

One might argue as to what makes a statement "moral". To a religious minded sort the declaration "I believe in God" is a moral statement that could not be made by an unbeliever.

If one accepts that premise then your challenge has been met.

Perhaps a more interesting line of thought is whether there has ever been a culture that has not had some set of "external/internal" beliefs that from a reason based viewpoint cannot be proven.

If not, then one might make the supposition that some type of non-provable set of "beliefs" are essential to the development of the human species. Right or wrong, good or bad, is irrelavent. Is it essential?

What say you, wordsmith?

Bob Baer

re: "The Challenge"

Mr. Hitchens,

Is this not an example of a "challenge" that is impossible to meet? Or if so decends immediately into wordplay?

One might argue as to what makes a statement "moral". To a religious minded sort the declaration "I believe in God" is a moral statement that could not be made by an unbeliever.

If one accepts that premise then your challenge has been met.

Perhaps a more interesting line of thought is whether there has ever been a culture that has not had some set of "external/internal" beliefs that from a reason based viewpoint cannot be proven.

If not, then one might make the supposition that some type of non-provable set of "beliefs" are essential to the development of the human species. Right or wrong, good or bad, is irrelavent. Is it essential?

What say you, wordsmith?

Bob Baer

free will Mr baum??? Regardless of what the 10 comandments say, "thou shalt or thou shalt not" takes away the "free will" gift. Of course we shouldnt kill or covet, but "thou shalt" still takes away. I have been living by the teaching of six people for many years now. I am a good person. Spike Lee: Do the right thing The Beatles: All you need is LOVE and last but not least Jesus: LOVE each other. Try these guys You might like them Michael

Mr Hitchens

I am always insulted by the notion too that in order to be good, you need to be "religious". To me there is no correlation at all between being religious and being of sound moral character. There is no other cause other then religion that has so universally justified the killings of millions of people. The native people of the Americas had to be converted to Christianity or be murdered by the thousands. All made easier because they were "godless savages". THe flow of religion around the world is driven by the explorers that brought a religion with them. At no time did Christianity exist in the New World before it was brought here by Europeans. Religion equals culture. There is no outside validation for any religion. Only within a religion is it validated. In other words, there aren't many Muslims who have had a vision of the Virgin Mary. This clear association between culture and religion would make it easier, I would hope, for people to be more tolerant. Instead, religion breeds intolerance and has been the root cause of more misery in mans history then any other single cause.

Christopher,

Your challenge and its corollary are bogus. If the challenge is "name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever," then the corollary should be "name a wicked action or statement, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever." I would suggest that you would have a hard time coming up with an answer for the latter. After all, murder, violence, and hatred are perpretrated by unbelievers the world over.

If you would like to use the formulation of your corollary (actions or statement that "derived directly" from belief), then you must use the same for the original challenge: name a moral action or statement that "derived directly" from religious faith. I suspect you would find a substantial loosening of tongues at that point.

re: "The Challenge"

Mr. Hitchens,

Is this not an example of a "challenge" that is impossible to meet? Or if so decends immediately into wordplay?

One might argue as to what makes a statement "moral". To a religious minded sort the declaration "I believe in God" is a moral statement that could not be made by an unbeliever.

If one accepts that premise then your challenge has been met.

Perhaps a more interesting line of thought is whether there has ever been a culture that has not had some set of "external/internal" beliefs that from a reason based viewpoint cannot be proven.

If not, then one might make the supposition that some type of non-provable set of "beliefs" are essential to the development of the human species. Right or wrong, good or bad, is irrelavent. Is it essential?

What say you, wordsmith?

Bob Baer

Bravo Chris!!! There will be no peace in the world until we start to think reasonably - and reasonable thought is impossible when weighed down by delusions and the 'otherness' created by those delusions. Keep it up!!! Thank you!

I'm afraid Mr. Hitchens is overlooking a deeper issue: the epistemological relationship between the act of faith and the experience of sin.
For the sake of argument, let us allow that the foundation of knowledge manifests as a luminous sphere devoid of both identity and substance. As such, it may be characterized as ineffable, transcendent. (Whence the origin of such concepts?)
In the midst self-reflection the religious, through a conscious act of faith, imbue the singularity with either identity or substance or both.
Alas, for the faithful the now sacrosanct definition of this reified singularity, this paradigmatic truth must be forever undermined by its true ineffability, its true transcendence. Herein lies the genesis of original sin.
Spontaneity, the antithesis of faith, illuminates the illusion of truth imparted by the act of faith. Is it any wonder then that the faithful perceive spontaneous acts to be "sinful."
The bitter irony here is that the act of faith itself is responsible for the existential angst, the uncertainty that plagues the faithful.
Of course they feel separated from that truth to which they have committed themselves. It is illusory.
Of course they war among themselves, each group of the faithful firmly committed to the accuracy of their definition of the ineffable.

re: "The Challenge"

Mr. Hitchens,

Is this not an example of a "challenge" that is impossible to meet? Or if so decends immediately into wordplay?

One might argue as to what makes a statement "moral". To a religious minded sort the declaration "I believe in God" is a moral statement that could not be made by an unbeliever.

If one accepts that premise then your challenge has been met.

Perhaps a more interesting line of thought is whether there has ever been a culture that has not had some set of "external/internal" beliefs that from a reason based viewpoint cannot be proven.

If not, then one might make the supposition that some type of non-provable set of "beliefs" are essential to the development of the human species. Right or wrong, good or bad, is irrelavent. Is it essential?

What say you, wordsmith?

Bob Baer

Although I have strongly disagreed with some of your political positions, I absolutely love what you're doing for the cause of rationality as a bulwark against the superstition of mainstream religion.

I would enjoy someday hearing what you have to say about more philosophical "religions" like Taoism and Buddhism.

Your hyperemotional outburst, Mr. Kitchens, is it not the acting out of certain fears? Beyond your appeal to the pedestrian by offering a false challenge, are you not in effect tilting at windmills in the hope that the opponents are manifestations of the Great Spaghetti Monster?

You do not get any points for arguments from caricature.

Your hyperemotional outburst, Mr. Kitchens, is it not the acting out of certain fears? Beyond your appeal to the pedestrian by offering a false challenge, are you not in effect tilting at windmills in the hope that the opponents are manifestations of the Great Spaghetti Monster?

You do not get any points for arguments from caricature.

Christopher,

Your challenge and its corollary are bogus. If the challenge is "name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever," then the corollary should be "name a wicked action or statement, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever." I would suggest that you would have a hard time coming up with an answer for the latter. After all, murder, violence, and hatred are perpretrated by unbelievers the world over.

If you would like to use the formulation of your corollary (actions or statement that "derived directly" from belief), then you must use the same for the original challenge: name a moral action or statement that "derived directly" from religious faith. I suspect you would find a substantial loosening of tongues at that point.

Studies have shown basic trait of 'morality' exist in communities of primates. These traits are necessary for species that live in groups to survive. The human idea of 'morality' is nothing but safety mechanism for group survival. You don't steal all the food and I won't either; we can all survive. Group dynamics require these social norms. The idea that 'morality' came from god is simply a 'default' for something that humans have long struggled to understand. Somethings are so ingrained in our behavior that we fail to recognize their true purpose.

Christopher,

Your challenge and its corollary are bogus. If the challenge is "name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever," then the corollary should be "name a wicked action or statement, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever." I would suggest that you would have a hard time coming up with an answer for the latter. After all, murder, violence, and hatred are perpretrated by unbelievers the world over.

If you would like to use the formulation of your corollary (actions or statement that "derived directly" from belief), then you must use the same for the original challenge: name a moral action or statement that "derived directly" from religious faith. I suspect you would find a substantial loosening of tongues at that point.

I'm always amazed that religious people seem not to understand this very simply point.

How do you know if what a religion teaches is good or bad?

How do you know the values Jesus taught are good values?

What if Jesus had said "Give all your money to the poor, and put to death all wealthy people"? (It's not THAT far off -- he DID say rich people go to Hell...)

You use your OWN morality to decide what religion to follow in the FIRST place, no?

Studies have shown basic trait of 'morality' exist in communities of primates. These traits are necessary for species that live in groups to survive. The human idea of 'morality' is nothing but safety mechanism for group survival. You don't steal all the food and I won't either; we can all survive. Group dynamics require these social norms. The idea that 'morality' came from god is simply a 'default' for something that humans have long struggled to understand. Somethings are so ingrained in our behavior that we fail to recognize their true purpose.

re: "The Challenge"

Mr. Hitchens,

Is this not an example of a "challenge" that is impossible to meet? Or if so decends immediately into wordplay?

One might argue as to what makes a statement "moral". To a religious minded sort the declaration "I believe in God" is a moral statement that could not be made by an unbeliever.

If one accepts that premise then your challenge has been met.

Perhaps a more interesting line of thought is whether there has ever been a culture that has not had some set of "external/internal" beliefs that from a reason based viewpoint cannot be proven.

If not, then one might make the supposition that some type of non-provable set of "beliefs" are essential to the development of the human species. Right or wrong, good or bad, is irrelavent. Is it essential?

What say you, wordsmith?

Bob Baer

Basically true,

Morality, based on fear of what happens if you get caught, is not morality, only self-interest; yet that appears to be the basic argument most commonly utilized by fundamentalists everywhere proselityzing their version of the faith .

Regarding being "created sick." There is some truth in that description in that we are created, born into a Darwinian world which operates to all appearances as based on nothing more than survival of the fittest. Plants, animals, bacteria, viruses, and all people to some extent, some people to every extent, seek to benefit themselves regardless of the well being of others, their victims in many cases. Acting in accordance is most probably the most natural state of every living creature, man included. If this is "original sin," and it can be thought of as such, then rising above it is a function of morality, and this morality can be equated with God, whether one presumes that God created man, or that man created God, morality exists and it is readily observable in the actions of people every day. In knows no geographic or temproal boundries, and arises spontaneously in so many people in so many places. So, on balance, and on a very deep level, the question may inherently be a matter of semantics.

It is a question of semantics, because if one accepts God as the spiritual embodiment of morality, nothing else much matters. Agrument over such semantical differences seems pointless. You can call such morality divinely created and accepted by man, as a person of faith might, or created by man, as an athiest might, but the reality, and the spiritual nature of morality, can be seen everywhere, in actions in disregard of self interest, by people, and dare I say it, even some animals, everywhere in the world. Clearly we do not fully, or even minimally, yet understand the full nature and effect of this phenomena, this morality and the inherently spiritual nature to which it conforms, and perhaps we are incapable of doing so, limited by our senses and are intellectual capacities.

Perhaps this view gives little comfort to those who need faith, and the divine intervention it seeks, as support for continuing the daily struggle of life, as we all do at certain times, but it is based on reason, however limited or defective, rather than suppression of disbelief, or by willful self delusion. It requires more courage, in that it recognizes that however it was created, the actions and effects of the spiritual nature of morality, call it God's will, are brought into this world by our actions, and not likely by direct intervention of supernatural power.

Ok, now I get it.....it's the whole "higher power" thing that's keeping Chris out of AA. It all makes sense now.

Still, if the guy had even three friends in this city, someone would have forced an intervention by now.....

re: "The Challenge"

Mr. Hitchens,

Is this not an example of a "challenge" that is impossible to meet? Or if so decends immediately into wordplay?

One might argue as to what makes a statement "moral". To a religious minded sort the declaration "I believe in God" is a moral statement that could not be made by an unbeliever.

If one accepts that premise then your challenge has been met.

Perhaps a more interesting line of thought is whether there has ever been a culture that has not had some set of "external/internal" beliefs that from a reason based viewpoint cannot be proven.

If not, then one might make the supposition that some type of non-provable set of "beliefs" are essential to the development of the human species. Right or wrong, good or bad, is irrelavent. Is it essential?

What say you, wordsmith?

Bob Baer

You do realize that your "corollary" isn't truly a corollary. First off your "challenge" to name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever? This is frankly silly. Of course many things done and said by religious leaders could also have been done or said by non-believers- We are all born with a conscience- Now why don't you show me a "non-believer" meaning someone who is an atheist who has the track record of Mother Theresa? Her compassion and work for the poor is unparalleled and it came from her desire to follow Christ.
Now your supposed corollary about showing you if they can think of a wicked action or statement that derived directly from religious faith- How about evil done not out of faith but out of athiesm?? The Soviet Union alone in its 70 year reign of communism (where atheism is the state religion) had an average of over 126,000 deaths per year caused by democide (murdered by the state or government) http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF
Have people killed or done evil in the "name of religion" yes- but I think you will find most people of those faiths would say that those groups or individuals acted out of a missenterpretation of that faith. It was for a desire for religious freedom that the pilgrims came here- it was out of the founding fathers faith that we have the declaration of Independance and our Constitution. It was because of the faith of Quakers that the abolitionist movement began in this country.
The "fear" that is mentioned in the King James Bible is a deep reverence. I follow Christ out of love and faith. Remember he said the greatest Commandment was to love the Lord thy God with all your heart soul and mind, and the 2nd was like unto it (in otherwords as important) Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself- he then gave the parable of the Good Samaratan.
I think you should consider how many people who are in great need- who are poor, or starving, or sick who would be getting no help at all if suddenly all the people of faith stopped giving, and helping. Show me the great helping charities that have been set up by Atheist groups..HMM? You seem to me to be a very angry man, don't worry, I'll pray for you.

You are right.
God lives in all of us. We are living temple of God/Parmatma/Allah/Energy/Nature. Therory of Karma explains what you are saying. Our Karma decides our future.

Takecare...

You are right.
God lives in all of us. We are living temple of God/Parmatma/Allah/Energy/Nature. Therory of Karma explains what you are saying. Our Karma decides our future.

Takecare...

You do realize that your "corollary" isn't truly a corollary. First off your "challenge" to name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever? This is frankly silly. Of course many things done and said by religious leaders could also have been done or said by non-believers- We are all born with a conscience- Now why don't you show me a "non-believer" meaning someone who is an atheist who has the track record of Mother Theresa? Her compassion and work for the poor is unparalleled and it came from her desire to follow Christ.
Now your supposed corollary about showing you if they can think of a wicked action or statement that derived directly from religious faith- How about evil done not out of faith but out of athiesm?? The Soviet Union alone in its 70 year reign of communism (where atheism is the state religion) had an average of over 126,000 deaths per year caused by democide (murdered by the state or government) http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF
Have people killed or done evil in the "name of religion" yes- but I think you will most people of those faiths would say that those groups or individuals acted out of a missenterpretation of that faith. It was for a desire for religious freedom that the pilgrims came here- it was out of the founding fathers faith that we have the declaration of Independance and our Constitution. It was because of the faith of Quakers that the abolitionist movement began in this country.
The "fear" that is mentioned in the King James Bible is a deep reverence. I follow Christ out of love and faith. Remember he said the greatest Commandment was to love the Lord thy God with all your heart soul and mind, and the 2nd was like unto it (in otherwords as important) Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself- he then gave the parable of the Good Samaratan.
I think you should consider how many people who are in great need- who are poor, or starving, or sick who would be getting no help at all if suddenly all the people of faith stopped giving, and helping. Show me the great helping charities that have been set up by Atheist groups..HMM? You seem to me to be a very angry man, don't worry, I'll pray for you.

According to Immanuel Kant and his 'categorical imperatives' to lead a moral life it is not necessary to turn to divine sources for moral instruction.

The habit of mindless obedience is certainly taught by both religions and totalitarian states, and established religion has long been the handmaiden of temporal power. But I think Mr. Hitchens is missing something here: Both religion and totalitarianism play on a common, human, vulnerability, one that is probably genetically programmed: The parent/child bond. Both totalitarian and religious leaders insert themselves, or their gods, in the place of the big, powerful, all-protecting parent of infancy. They thrive by reducing adults to an infantile state, which can be a win-win relationship: The infantilized citizen feels less doubt and stress, and the state and church need fewer carrots and sticks to obtain the behavior they want.

Awesome. Thanks for reminding me that not everyone are sheep.

Dan mathews: "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you"

Barf – since when is cannibalism moral? Please, stuff “radical secularism" “down my throat” any day!

I have an answer to your riddle, oh lord of elocution, earl of imbibery, and count of contrarianism (or read as count on contrarianism).

Mother Teresa could not have done that she did had she not felt an apparantly desperate, desperate desire to remove the cloud of doubt which hung over her internal soul! Obviously, you wrote a book about a self-serving Mother Theresa who took from tyrants to buy a way into heaven, so you may argue that her work was not so benevolent. HOWEVER, you can not escape the fact that she helped thousands of the most impoverished and down-trodden souls in the world. She did so to serve the lord. She may have been trying to prove something to herself or to achieve something, personally, but those things were because of religion, plain and simple.

A non-religious person does not dedicate their life with the same zeal that one does when serving a higher power.

I am an unbliever, but I support the gist of your post. However, as a Christian, are you willing to stand up and demand that the Christian crap be removed from our money and our Pledge? Are you willing to stand up and oppose property tax exemptions for churches that force secular Americans to subsidize that which we find deeply offensive? If yes, count me in. If not, then your post is just more of the SOS.

One of the most persuasive sections of Hitchens' book is the chapter arguing that religious education is inherently coercive and cruel. It is the one chapter Christians ought to consider even if they otherwise reject his arguments for atheism.

To teach small children that they had better behave because they might be headed to the fiery furnace of Hell is of course threatening and barbaric. To teach them the notion of original sin, let alone predestination, is ludicrous.

But even the most benign and reassuring teaching, "Jesus Loves You," has unsettling implications for children, because it so quickly leads to "Jesus is keeping track of your every move," or "Jesus knows your thoughts," or "Jesus is disappointed in you every time you mess up."

Adults can decide how to literally to take these ideas, but children just take it as fact, as they do the Easter Bunny.

Many churches don't allow children to officially join a congregation until 13 or 14. So maybe that is the age before which children shouldn't even be introduced to supernatural religious notions.

So what to do, if we don't want to abolish Sunday School? Let me propose an alternative Christian education, basically leaving the supernatural out of it. Don't ask children to believe anything on pain of eternal damnation.

For the tots and pre-teens, teach Albert Schweitzer Christianity. Teach Christ as a teacher, teach the example, teach the ethics, the self-control, the compassion. Teach Christian love, teach about law and the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. But scrupulously stay clear of asking the very young to carry the burden of an omniscient God watching and judging.

Would this be the end of Christianity? Or might it be truer to Christ's example as we know it.

"The most valuable element of faith, often neglected by its most zealous advocates, is humility. This, more than anything else, is what's missing in humanism, and what is sorely lacking in your own writing, your own certitude, and everything you and your political bedfellows have said and done since 9/11.

"I don't claim to have the answers to all the troubles in the world or all the mysteries of life, but I'm quite sure that you don't either."

Quite so, Shrieking Violet. And to that I would add, provocation, (such as Hitchen's alluring, red-flag-before-a-bull-like title) for provocation's sake, is simply, well, boring! It does not inform, or add anything to the dialogue whatsoever!

I apologise for the multiple posts back there..
pc problems....

If what we do to our children in the name of religion isn't child abuse, I don't know what is. Just look at the current polygamist trial happening in Utah; if I, a secular person did that, I would be in jail for a verrrrry long time, no? But because religion is involved, there is some doubt as to this animal's guilt.

One of the most persuasive sections of Hitchens' book is the chapter arguing that religious education is inherently coercive and cruel. It is the one chapter Christians ought to consider even if they otherwise reject his arguments for atheism.

To teach small children that they had better behave because they might be headed to the fiery furnace of Hell is of course threatening and barbaric. To teach them the notion of original sin, let alone predestination, is ludicrous.

But even the most benign and reassuring teaching, "Jesus Loves You," has unsettling implications for children, because it so quickly leads to "Jesus is keeping track of your every move," or "Jesus knows your thoughts," or "Jesus is disappointed in you every time you mess up."

Adults can decide how to literally to take these ideas, but children just take it as fact, as they do the Easter Bunny.

Many churches don't allow children to officially join a congregation until 13 or 14. So maybe that is the age before which children shouldn't even be introduced to supernatural religious notions.

So what to do, if we don't want to abolish Sunday School? Let me propose an alternative Christian education, basically leaving the supernatural out of it. Don't ask children to believe anything on pain of eternal damnation.

For the tots and pre-teens, teach Albert Schweitzer Christianity. Teach Christ as a teacher, teach the example, teach the ethics, the self-control, the compassion. Teach Christian love, teach about law and the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. But scrupulously stay clear of asking the very young to carry the burden of an omniscient God watching and judging.

Would this be the end of Christianity? Or might it be truer to Christ's example as we know it.

Why doesn't the Post retitle the "On Faith" corner as "Against Faith", or maybe "Your daily atheist". While I find the secularist point of view interesting, isn't it a bit overrepresented (it seems that I see at least 1 or 2 atheists rants a week), considering that atheist/agnostics are a rather small minority in this country? I do find it interesting that atheists/agnostics seem to spend a lot more time thinking about religion than your average professed believer.

What you are saying is that the super-ego cannot differentiate between the highest patriotic power (the commander and chief, provided he identifies himself with the religion) and the highest religious power, i.e. Jehovah. Right on.

What you are saying is that the super-ego cannot differentiate between the highest patriotic power (the commander and chief, provided he identifies himself with the religion) and the highest religious power, i.e. Jehovah. Right on.

Can't we all just get along. Over the last year or so the Post has hosted this constant harangue of believers vs. non-believers. It has at times been enlightening and frightening. Certainly, I have witnessed in the words of these posts ugliness and thoughtfulness, as well as hate and love. Why is all this so necessary? Well, b/c someone will write , the other side is so bad, and so wrong, blah, blah, blah. Can't anyone seem to get that the entire issue is one of the nature of human beings, not God. Humans harm and help each other. If you believe (I do) then you acknowledge that free will exists and we all choose our own actions. God does not control our behavior. If you believe, and you act badly, it is you, not God. If you don't believe, and you act good, it is you, not God. He gives you free will to act -- you act. If you interpret His Word and use it to harm another, you act, not Him. Read the Gospel and tell me where Jesus ever uttered a word of hate or greed or selfishness. Tell me where He suggested we harm another person. He preached love and hope and concern for one another. Remember He told us to love one another as ourselves. He directed us to act a certain way if we believe and seek salvation -- If you choose to believe, fine, if not, OK as well. But if anyone, religious or not acts badly, its not Him, its not religion, its not a lack of religion. In the end, whether you believe or not is not the cause of poor, boorish or bad behavior -- it is you. I believe that following Christ's words and deeds would make a better world -- and calling me names for doing so doesn't improve things, just like directing vitriol at those who don't believe fails. Can't we all just get along?

I think you are exactly right.

Organized religion is nothing more, and has never been anything other than a control mechanism for those in power or those trying to gain power over the masses. We humans are a simple lot for the most part, easily cowed into submission by bright lights, smoke, and voodoo. It has always be thus, and shall remain so until we evolve or perish. I have my money on the latter, but then I am a nattering nabob of negativism. Perhaps a good Billy Graham revival meeting will buck up my spirits, but I doubt it.

What you are saying is that the super-ego cannot differentiate between the highest patriotic power (the commander and chief, provided he identifies himself with the religion) and the highest religious power, i.e. Jehovah. Right on.

I apologize for the multiple posts,
something wrong somewhere....

I think you are exactly right.

Organized religion is nothing more, and has never been anything other than a control mechanism for those in power or those trying to gain power over the masses. We humans are a simple lot for the most part, easily cowed into submission by bright lights, smoke, and voodoo. It has always be thus, and shall remain so until we evolve or perish. I have my money on the latter, but then I am a nattering nabob of negativism. Perhaps a good Billy Graham revival meeting will buck up my spirits, but I doubt it.

This quote from Blake's Everlasting Gospel implies that Christians place morality at the center only when they have lost their religion:

If moral virtue was Christianity
Christ's pretensions were all vanity
The moral Christian is the cause
Of the unbeliever and his laws

I think you are exactly right.

Organized religion is nothing more, and has never been anything other than a control mechanism for those in power or those trying to gain power over the masses. We humans are a simple lot for the most part, easily cowed into submission by bright lights, smoke, and voodoo. It has always be thus, and shall remain so until we evolve or perish. I have my money on the latter, but then I am a nattering nabob of negativism. Perhaps a good Billy Graham revival meeting will buck up my spirits, but I doubt it.

I think you are exactly right.

Organized religion is nothing more, and has never been anything other than a control mechanism for those in power or those trying to gain power over the masses. We humans are a simple lot for the most part, easily cowed into submission by bright lights, smoke, and voodoo. It has always be thus, and shall remain so until we evolve or perish. I have my money on the latter, but then I am a nattering nabob of negativism. Perhaps a good Billy Graham revival meeting will buck up my spirits, but I doubt it.

I apologize for the multiple posts,
something wrong somewhere....

Two points were made in postings way up in the list that I think are important.

One was: "I am hard pressed to believe that Irish atheists will ever surpass the goodness, and usefulness to humanity, shown by Irish nuns in African hospitals over the past one hundred years."

Another asked: where are the athiest equivalents to Ghandi, MLK, Mother Teresa, Tutu, and other great leaders of faith who brought about moral awareness on a truly grand scale.

I think these are worth considering, whether you think God exists or not, because it shows that religion has the ability, through organization and the power of a shared belief system, to do very good things on a grand scale that without religion can only be done on a smaller scale. For example, I'm sure there were athiests among the firefighters who risked their lives on 911 in NY. I'm sure there are very moral athiests who work daily to improve the lives of many people. But without something like religion, good is very hard to spread. You need a liked mindedness to convince people not only to agree with you, but to pick up the cause and fight for moral change with you.

Now the Peace Corps is a good example of providing people of any religious or non-religious background the ability to go out and do moral things, and its managers work hard to reinforce its secular mission. But this type of secular force for good is rare, and it rarely stands up in the face of injustice. There are others: Amnesty Intl., Doctors Without Borders, and others that do great moral work, but I think religion is unique at getting into people's minds to change their moral compass.

So I would ask all of you and Hitchens, setting aside the question of whether God exists? Is religion worth keeping around as an organizational institution whose mission it is to push for peace, justice and equality? A place of refuge in dark times, a organization that can pull together many people to work on issues guided by a code of morality that has been honed over centuries. In other words, is the existence of God really the issue or is it the existence of religion that is what is really important, and should religions accept the non-believers into their organizations to work toward common moral goals? I know many athiests who work with churches and synogagues because they want to do good and they are good place to volunteer for such morally inspired work. But most keep their atheism closeted.

"What makes a statement or action moral? For a religious person, it is God. For Mr. Hitchens, it appears to be the individual, or society."

You are wrong. What makes a statement or action moral for a religious person is the individual, or society, but they try to make it sound God's words. That's the key that religious folk don't realize--that the moral direction they claim comes from God in fact comes from their fellow men.

Rich Hunter

I'm sorry, but large chunks of your post are pathetic drivel. Nietzsche had no problems with his parents until he rejected Christianity and became an atheist at age 20. His mother was the one who took greatest offense at this change. Also, he didn't become insane until age 45, and it was syphillis that caused that.

Where is your evidence for the obscene statement that "most well-known atheists are insane"? What disgusting anti-intellectual nonsense.

BTW, it is not possible to believe in the existence of God through human reason because there is not one shred of evidence. You are free to believe what you wish, but believing in something for which there is no evidence is the antithesis of human reason.

"Phil:

I do not have faith but I figure it is probably like romantic love or LSD. It may sound silly or crazy to the uninvolved but when it hits you understand. Also it can both be deeply rewarding or very dangerous.
I'm not going to argue god on a logical basis. I have no clue if he she or it exists but god does not have to be logical. Putting a bunch fossils in the ground and backdating them sounds like one god's practical jokes or tests of faith (however one wishes to look at them).
Religion has been both a force of good and of bad. However atheism breaks about the same way. If their was no religion the world things would not go into moral chaos, at least right away. Some people would take their new found lack of belief and decide to make the world a better place since it is the only one we have. Others will say this is the only chance I have so I'm going to get mine and step on everyone else.
Gradually religion would be replaced by faith in things such as science or the environment. So instead of killing people for worshipping the wrong god we'll be killing them because their destroying the environment. People need to have faith in something and this faith guides them through dark times and often when their doing dark things."

I have say that this is the best post on this board. I have done a lot LSD and I have experienced something dramatically more powerful and LIFE CHANGING when I gave my life up to Christ. Considering what I have experienced, it would be irrational for me not to be a Christian. I'm not saying there is not a lot of questions, I'm saying I can't deny what I know.

Though I agree with much of what Hitchens says, I do think he asks the wrong question. He wants to know if there is any moral act that a religious person could do that a non-religious person could or would not do. As he knows, the answer is no.

I think the more interesting question is probably whether there are any moral acts that a religious person would be more LIKELY to do than a non-religious person. If there are some (and I don't know if there are), this would at least give religion a kind of utilitarian foothold which might at least partially offset the fact that it is filled with historical inaccuracies and metaphysical absurdities.

Piggly Wiggly

The death bed argument is like the 'no atheists in fox holes' argument.
It says that we believe in god out of fear of death.
It says that believers are so afraid of reality and death in particular,that they need a god like a kid needs his teddy bear.
It also suggests that atheists are braver than christians,because,while we all would wish to spend eternity with a loving god,on cloud 9,atheists have the guts to face reality,including the reality of death,and the icy nothingnessm that awaits us all.

Dear Ms. or Mr. Antha - how typical of the righetous believer to equat stating an opinion in a newspaper column with "force-feeding of your radical secularism down the throats of the unwilling."

Did someone force feed this column down your throat? Or is it your opinion that the mere voicing of opinions that you don't like constitutes "force-feeding" while the airings of your own opinions come under the heading of "free speech"?

And while we're on the subject of higher purposes, how about a nice discussion about all those nice Christians who perpetrated the Holocaust and the Inquisition in Spain and burned upwards of a million people over three hundred years on witchcraft charges?

What I see in your comment is the underlying assumption that any opinions other than yours on this topic are worthy of a hearing, but the airing of those who disagree with you constitute "force-feeding".

If you're unwilling, all you had to do was not read the column.

"As a christian I believe that jesus the christ died in Judea about 2000 years ago, and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. His was not a moral utterance/ action; it was a salvific one. It is for salvific reasons I follow jesus the christ. I accept that mr hitchens does not believe in the veracity of that event. That is his right. However since he was not in Judea 2000 years ago, I shall for the present content myself with the accounts of the eyewitnesses who were"

Wow that is incredibly insightful!!!. I guess you would also believe that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Since your eye-witnesses also believed that. Oh and I am glad you believe in a bodily ascent defying gravity. Let me challenge you. Go to a cliff and then go over the edge carefully holding to a branch to prevent you from falling. Now pray to God and let go the branch. Do you believe that you will be suspended in air? According to your eye-witness sources that should happen.

Why is Hitchens all over the place? I can't stand to read him anymore. I read his attack on Blessed Teresa of Calcutta in Newsweek -- now Newsweek's subsidiary the Washpost has to give him space too.

If you want to see a response from the Pope's preacher Fr Cantalameesa, check out Zenit:
http://www.zenit.org/article-20578?l=english

"An English reviewer (J. Cornwell of The Tablet) has compared the author of this book to 'a tired old prizefighter throwing weary punches at an inert punching-bag while the true champ he'd like to duff up is absent from the gym.'

He does not demolish the true faith, but a caricature of it. Reading the book, I was reminded of the sport of clay pigeon shooting: The ready-made targets are hurled into the air, and the marksman, aiming his shots with fine precision, blasts them to bits effortlessly."

By the way, if you look at the lives of most infamous atheists -- e.g.,Nietzsche -- they had serious and often tragic problems with their parents. I don't know what Hitchen's father did to him, but I won't read Hitchens taking it out on Our Father in Heaven.

In fact, many of the well-known atheists were insane -- which makes sense, because the Church has always taught that a belief in a supreme being can be arrived at through human reason, without need of divine revelation (which was required for the Church to believe, for example, in the Trinity). Let us hope that those still professing this faddish belief from the late 1800s will be able to reconnect with their human reason.

Why is Hitchens all over the place? I can't stand to read him anymore. I read his attack on Blessed Teresa of Calcutta in Newsweek -- now Newsweek's subsidiary the Washpost has to give him space too.

If you want to see a response from the Pope's preacher Fr Cantalameesa, check out Zenit:
http://www.zenit.org/article-20578?l=english

"An English reviewer (J. Cornwell of The Tablet) has compared the author of this book to 'a tired old prizefighter throwing weary punches at an inert punching-bag while the true champ he'd like to duff up is absent from the gym.'

He does not demolish the true faith, but a caricature of it. Reading the book, I was reminded of the sport of clay pigeon shooting: The ready-made targets are hurled into the air, and the marksman, aiming his shots with fine precision, blasts them to bits effortlessly."

By the way, if you look at the lives of most infamous atheists -- e.g.,Nietzsche -- they had serious and often tragic problems with their parents. I don't know what Hitchen's father did to him, but I won't read Hitchens taking it out on Our Father in Heaven.

In fact, many of the well-known atheists were insane -- which makes sense, because the Church has always taught that a belief in a supreme being can be arrived at through human reason, without need of divine revelation (which was required for the Church to believe, for example, in the Trinity). Let us hope that those still professing this faddish belief from the late 1800s will be able to reconnect with their human reason.

Piggly Wiggly

The death bed argument is like the 'no atheists in fox holes' argument.
It says that we believe in god out of fear of death.
It says that believers are so afraid of reality and death in particular,that they need a god like a kid needs his teddy bear.
It also suggests that atheists are braver than christians,because,while we all would wish to spend eternity with a loving god,on cloud 9,atheists have the balls to face reality,including the reality of death,and the icy nothingnessm that awaits us all.

"As a christian I believe that jesus the christ died in Judea about 2000 years ago, and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. His was not a moral utterance/ action; it was a salvific one. It is for salvific reasons I follow jesus the christ. I accept that mr hitchens does not believe in the veracity of that event. That is his right. However since he was not in Judea 2000 years ago, I shall for the present content myself with the accounts of the eyewitnesses who were"

Wow that is incredibly insightful!!!. I guess you would also believe that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Since your eye-witnesses also believed that. Oh and I am glad you believe in a bodily ascent defying gravity. Let me challenge you. Go to a cliff and then go over the edge carefully holding to a branch to prevent you from falling. Now pray to God and let go the branch. Do you believe that you will be suspended in air? According to your eye-witness sources that should happen.

Piggly Wiggly

The death bed argument is like the 'no atheists in fox holes' argument.
It says that we believe in god out of fear of death.
It says that believers are so afraid of reality and death in particular,that they need a god like a kid needs his teddy bear.
It also suggests that atheists are braver than christians,because,while we all would wish to spend eternity with a loving god,on cloud 9,atheists have the balls to face reality,including the reality of death,and the icy nothingnessm that awaits us all.

Why is Hitchens all over the place? I can't stand to read him anymore. I read his attack on Blessed Teresa of Calcutta in Newsweek -- now Newsweek's subsidiary the Washpost has to give him space too.

If you want to see a response from the Pope's preacher Fr Cantalameesa, check out Zenit:
http://www.zenit.org/article-20578?l=english

"An English reviewer (J. Cornwell of The Tablet) has compared the author of this book to 'a tired old prizefighter throwing weary punches at an inert punching-bag while the true champ he'd like to duff up is absent from the gym.'

He does not demolish the true faith, but a caricature of it. Reading the book, I was reminded of the sport of clay pigeon shooting: The ready-made targets are hurled into the air, and the marksman, aiming his shots with fine precision, blasts them to bits effortlessly."

By the way, if you look at the lives of most infamous atheists -- e.g.,Nietzsche -- they had serious and often tragic problems with their parents. I don't know what Hitchen's father did to him, but I won't read Hitchens taking it out on Our Father in Heaven.

In fact, most well-known atheists are insane -- which makes sense, because the Church has always taught that a belief in a supreme being can be arrived at through human reason, without need of divine revelation (which was required for Christians to come to believe, for example, that God consists of three divine persons). Let us hope that those still professing this faddish belief from the late 1800s will be able to reconnect with their human reason.

Piggly Wiggly

The death bed argument is like the 'no atheists in fox holes' argument.
It says that we believe in god out of fear of death.
It says that believers are so afraid of reality and death in particular,that they need a god like a kid needs his teddy bear.
It also suggests that atheists are braver than christians,because,while we all would wish to spend eternity with a loving god,on cloud 9,atheists have the balls to face reality,including the reality of death,and the icy nothingnessm that awaits us all.

moses here. there was originally only 1 commandment that had to do with how deep the soil should be plowed. even the smart people had problems with plowing depths. but then i had to come up with 10 new ones for the dumb people. i could only shake my head. even my asses shrugged their, uhm, shoulder like shoulder things up they have.

Why is Hitchens all over the place? I can't stand to read him anymore. I read his attack on Blessed Teresa of Calcutta in Newsweek -- now Newsweek's subsidiary the Washpost has to give him space too.

If you want to see a response from the Pope's preacher Fr Cantalameesa, check out Zenit:
http://www.zenit.org/article-20578?l=english

"An English reviewer (J. Cornwell of The Tablet) has compared the author of this book to 'a tired old prizefighter throwing weary punches at an inert punching-bag while the true champ he'd like to duff up is absent from the gym.'

He does not demolish the true faith, but a caricature of it. Reading the book, I was reminded of the sport of clay pigeon shooting: The ready-made targets are hurled into the air, and the marksman, aiming his shots with fine precision, blasts them to bits effortlessly."

By the way, if you look at the lives of most infamous atheists -- e.g.,Nietzsche -- they had serious and often tragic problems with their parents. I don't know what Hitchen's father did to him, but I won't read Hitchens taking it out on Our Father in Heaven.

In fact, most well-known atheists are insane -- which makes sense, because the Church has always taught that a belief in a supreme being can be arrived at through human reason, without need of divine revelation (which was required for Christians to come to believe, for example, that God consists of three divine persons). Let us hope that those still professing this faddish belief from the late 1800s will be able to reconnect with their human reason.

Why is Hitchens all over the place? I can't stand to read him anymore. I read his attack on Blessed Teresa of Calcutta in Newsweek -- now Newsweek's subsidiary the Washpost has to give him space too.

If you want to see a response from the Pope's preacher Fr Cantalameesa, check out Zenit:
http://www.zenit.org/article-20578?l=english

"An English reviewer (J. Cornwell of The Tablet) has compared the author of this book to 'a tired old prizefighter throwing weary punches at an inert punching-bag while the true champ he'd like to duff up is absent from the gym.'

He does not demolish the true faith, but a caricature of it. Reading the book, I was reminded of the sport of clay pigeon shooting: The ready-made targets are hurled into the air, and the marksman, aiming his shots with fine precision, blasts them to bits effortlessly."

By the way, if you look at the lives of most infamous atheists -- e.g.,Nietzsche -- they had serious and often tragic problems with their parents. I don't know what Hitchen's father did to him, but I won't read Hitchens taking it out on Our Father in Heaven.

In fact, most well-known atheists are insane -- which makes sense, because the Church has always taught that a belief in a supreme being can be arrived at through human reason, without need of divine revelation (which was required for Christians to come to believe, for example, that God consists of three divine persons). Let us hope that those still professing this faddish belief from the late 1800s will be able to reconnect with their human reason.

moses here. there was originally only 1 commandment that had to do with how deep the soil should be plowed. even the smart people had problem with plowing depths. but then i had to come up with 10 new ones for the dumb people. even my asses shrugged their shoulders.

"Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

How about this: "Unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood you shall not have life within you"?

Mr. Hitchens, your search for an answer to your pointless question is over. Now perhaps you can devote your philosophical energies to finding the true meaning of your life, and a higher purpose than squandering your formidable intellectual talents on the force-feeding of your radical secularism down the throats of the unwilling.

Message from a member of the Nitpicker Brigade. You forgot to close quotes in this sentence:

I have never had a debate with a religious figure of any denomination, however "moderate, where this insulting question has not come up.

"Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

How about this: "Unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood you shall not have life within you"?

Mr. Hitchens, your search for an answer to your pointless question is over. Now perhaps you can devote your philosophical energies to finding the true meaning of your life, and a higher purpose than squandering your formidable intellectual talents on the force-feeding of your radical secularism down the throats of the unwilling.

God's existence can be proven by his continual meddling in the last 2 minutes of every Redskins game.

ECHIDNA1 writes:
"Moral words a nonbeliever couldn't utter:

God is love."

?????

How is that a moral statement, anymore than saying "Oreo cookies are love"?

The OT should be taken for what it really is. It is a written record by a sect describing their myths and legends and possibly some of their history. I see nothing divine in it. As for its utterances on morality etc., one has to look at that in the context of the times when it was written. If I were living two thousand years ago, I would probably also believe in all this nonsense and also believe in the NT, since the OT and NT provided the only rational explanation of the world available in those days.

"When a man is on his death bed, the faithful fill him with hope for the future. Atheists, by and large, don't want to lie to him. Most people would rather hear lies."

...and most atheists as well. I suppose you are unfamiliar with Marxist propaganda but I suggest you visit any university library where there are serious tomes dedicated to this topic.

Religious thinking is by definition thinking inside the box.The bigger picture is outside the box.
In pondering the cosmos and the meaning of life
the God hypothesis prevents any further inquiry into what life is really all about.
Our ancestors,the people who invented religions and gods in the first place,were ignorant,illiterate and superstitious beyond our wildest imaginations.
Unable to make any kind of sense of their situation
they figured that there must be SOMEONE responsible for all this. If any of us had been around in those frightening times we would have agreed with them;and we would have used the god idea to explain everything,from the trees moving in the wind to the patterns of the clouds drifting by.
We've come a long way since then.We no longer have to pray to everything that moves.We know better.
We are now able to think outside the box called religion,and get a clearer picture of reality.
There should be no need of the supernatural in this new century.Surely we've moved beyond that.

Mr. Hitchens: First of all, let me congratulate you on your wonderful first name. I am guessing that you did not choose it for yourself, but that maybe you were given it by those you hold dearly. Is that why you still employ it and surely not for any religious connotation? I now will take three of your quotes, hopefully not out of context, and provide responses.

1. Christopher Hitchens Quotation:

“Without god, how could we tell right from wrong, or learn how to do the right thing? I have never had a debate with a religious figure of any denomination, however, ‘moderate’, where this insulting question has not come up”

Response:

In the Roman Catholic moral theological training to which I subscribe, I was taught that it IS possible to tell right from wrong through the employment of human reason, but that the ability for one to choose what is right and avoid what is wrong depends upon cooperation and participation with God. Read how Paul of Tarsus explains his condition in the letter to the Romans:

“In fact, this seems to be the rule, that every single time I want to do good it is something evil that comes to hand. In my inmost self I dearly love God’s law which my reason dictates. This is what makes me a prisoner of that law of sin which lives inside my body. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body doomed to death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Chapter 7, Verses 21-24, The Jerusalem Bible translation)

I can easily relate to Paul’s words, as have many others throughout history. I am very happy for you if are always able to choose what is good and avoid what is evil. However, that might be easy for you if you consider yourself to be the sole determinant of what is right and wrong.

2. Christopher Hitchens Quotation:

“Does it not degrade us in our deepest integrity to be told that we would not do a right action, or utter a principled truth, were it not for fear of punishment or hope of reward?”

Response:

In the Roman Catholic moral theological training to which I subscribe, I was taught that it was primarily the fear of offending a person, and secondarily “for fear of punishment or hope of reward” that wrong actions were to be avoided. Here is the actual quote taught to Roman Catholics penitents when they are going to individual confession before a priest:

“Oh, my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you and I detest all my sins because of your just punishments, but MOST OF ALL BECAUSE THEY OFFEND YOU, MY GOD, WHO ART ALL GOOD AND DESERVING OF ALL MY LOVE.”

Mr. Hitchens, If you are married, then I am certain that you avoid things like adultery, not” for fear of punishment or hope of reward”, but because you do not wish to hurt your wife and children. As you can see in the penitential rite, Roman Catholics are taught to see God in a similar way.

3. Chistopher Hitchens Quotation:

“Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?”

In strict logic, the answer is no, since all human beings are capable of uttering or performing seemingly identical moral statements and actions. However, examine the following statement and reflect upon its consequences in human history:

“I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.” (Gospel of John, Chapter Six, Verse 53)

Any human being could say these words, but if taken seriously, the utterer would have to be considered either insane or divine. The Roman Catholic Church’s understanding of what Jesus Christ actually meant as it pertained to the sacred word and action at his last supper would provide the most performed rite and ritual of a newly created organization that would eventually outlast an ancient Roman civilization and be the basis upon which a new Western civilization was built. Today that organization, continuing the rite and ritual that incarnates the above quotation of Jesus Christ, is the largest provider of health care in the world, with a great deal of it given to the poor for free without consideration for race, gender, or religion.

Can you name any unbeliever who could utter these words and produce the same historical consequences nearly two thousand years later? Perhaps you could, Christopher?

Are you up for a discussion on the Trinity?

"Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

How about this: "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you"?

Mr. Hitchens, your search for an answer to your pointless question is over. Perhaps now you can focus your philosophical attention on finding out the true meaning and purpose of your life, instead of endeavoring to force your radical secularism down the throats of the unwilling.

"Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

How about this: "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you"?

Mr. Hitchens, your search for an answer to your pointless question is over. Perhaps now you can focus your philosophical attention on finding out the true meaning and purpose of your life, instead of endeavoring to force your radical secularism down the throats of the unwilling.

"arranging a human sacrifice in Palestine in which we had no say, for example, and informing us that we are all guilty of it"

I had forgotten all about this!!!
I attended Catholic school. I remember now going into the deepest depression as a child when I was told that it was because of my sins that Jesus had to suffer and die. I asked my parents for a table and I created a little altar in my room - where every night I cried and prayed for forgiveness - for my childish sinful thoughts.

When I became an adolescent and my thoughts became even more "sinful" I completely lost hope for my spiritual life. I eventually discovered Buddhism - by attempting to disprove it! Through Buddhism I eventually regained the empowerment to perceive myself as a living spiritual being.

I do not believe Religion is so much the problem. It is the application of Religion that can either help or hinder. If the Religious purpose is to support our spiritual lives - without damning our physical aspects - then Religion can be great.

I believe that Religions are only a problem to the extent that they attempt to diminish or to deny the reality of our every day existence.

I chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to discover and enhance the spiritual aspect of my every day existence.

Thank you for your writing. You have helped me to exhume the core of the problem that I suffered as a child. Now I will chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to completely vaporize this most core delusion of my childhood.

Thank you very much again!
Joe Parks
Arlington VA

The Secular created the Holy. Therefore there is nothing that separates each others actions.

Dear Mr Hitchins,
I've seen your lectures on the net and thoroughly enjoyed them but your militant atheism reminds me of a funny story. A philosopher giving a lecture finished up by telling his audience "...and so you see we are mere cosmic dust and in the great scheme of things we are NOTHING!!"
In the Q&A that follows each erudite and wealthy member of the audience gets up to say how humbled they are by his lecture and how they now realize that indeed they are NOTHING.
Meanwhile, the janitor at the lecture hall has been sitting in the back and rises up to announce how he has always felt inferior but he now realizes that he too is NOTHING. A wealthy gent in the front row sneeringly remarks "Look who wants to be a NOTHING.."
That is to say I fear that the ideas espoused by yourself or Dawkins or Jonathan Miller (is there something in the English water?) might just become the popular sentiment and will be hijacked by even more militant atheists who will call for a jihad against believers.

Religious thinking is by definition thinking inside the box.The bigger picture is outside the box.
When we ponder the cosmos and the meaning of life
the God hypothesis prevents any further inquiry into what life is really all about.
Our ancestors,the people who invented religions and gods in the first place,were ignorant,illiterate and superstitious beyond our wildest imaginations.
Unable to make any kind of sense of their situation,they figured there must be someone
responsible for all this. If any of us had been around in those frightening times we would have agreed with them;and we would have used the god idea to explain everything,from the trees moving in the wind to the patterns of the clouds drifting by.
We've come a long way since then.We no longer have to pray to everything that moves.We know better.
We are now able to think outside the box called religion,and get a clearer picture of reality.
There should be no need of the supernatural in this new century.Surely we've moved beyond that.
There is no god except in our imaginations.

"arranging a human sacrifice in Palestine in which we had no say, for example, and informing us that we are all guilty of it"

I had forgotten all about this!!!
I attended Catholic school. I remember now going into the deepest depression as a child when I was told that it was because of my sins that Jesus had to suffer and die. I asked my parents for a table and I created a little altar in my room - where every night I cried and prayed for forgiveness - for my childish sinful thoughts.

When I became an adolescent and my thoughts became even more "sinful" I completely lost hope for my spiritual life. I eventually discovered Buddhism - by attempting to disprove it! Through Buddhism I eventually regained the empowerment to perceive myself as a living spiritual being.

I do not believe Religion is so much the problem. It is the application of Religion that can either help or hinder. If the Religious purpose is to support our spiritual lives - without damning our physical aspects - then Religion can be great.

I believe that Religions are only a problem to the extent that they attempt to diminish or to deny the reality of our every day existence.

I chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to discover and enhance the spiritual aspect of my every day existence.

Thank you for your writing. You have helped me to exhume the core of the problem that I suffered as a child. Now I will chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to completely vaporize this most core delusion of my childhood.

Thank you very much again!
Joe Parks
Arlington VA

The Secular created the Holy. Therefore there is nothing that separates each others actions.

The Secular created the Holy. Therefore there is nothing that separates each others actions.

Mr Hichens

How about, "I forgive you!"

I am truly able to forgive because I have been divinely forgiven, something an unbeliever cannot possibly be morally able to do outside of God's grace.

henryM

Mr Hichens

How about, "I forgive you!"

I am truly able to forgive because I have been divinely forgiven, something an unbeliever cannot possibly be morally able to do outside of God's grace.

henryM

Dear Mr. Hitchens,

Perhaps what you perceive as "tongue-tied silence" is, in fact, a lack of interest on the part of religious intellectuals to engage someone who is so caustic.

Intellectual bigotry is not the exclusive purview of religious hypocrites.

Why the fevered pitch in your search? Has this tenor become your brand, i.e., are you driven by economic remuneration? That seems unlikely to me.

Most persons, whether of faith or no, can recall myriad examples of holy pagans and despicable preachers. The silence you hear after offering your challenge might also be a product of boredom with the question, not fear. In my view, it's far more compelling to study dramatic changes wrought by conversions--how do we explain those?

Sincerely,
Steve Carr

Chrisopher,

What can you expect of peoples who celebrate the torture and murder of their God, believe that eating his flesh and drinking his blood is holy and beneficial, who believe in "Virgin" births, divine revelation in subway stains, doughy twists in cheese sandwichs and shadows in a windows. etc.??

Any religion worthy of the name would at least see some benefit in appreciating a God that walked the Earth, lived the common live, and died a human death; but all Christians are obsessed with death and follow the most venal of men!

Right on Mr. Hitchens. Religion is brainwashing pure and simple.

Arrabiato, aka speed123, is a beautiful example of what Hitchens is talking about.
An educated mankind will get rid of this demented, hateful kind of "believing". He fits beautifully into the long historical post of anonymous (why?) Thumping his foot on the floor because white is not black. It will take a few generations, unfortunately.

I must say that I agree with Mr. Hitchens on all his points. I can't, for the life of me, see how seemingly intelligent people, with the power of reasoning, just submit blindly to religious dogma without any critical review.

I grew up going to Sunday school and church and having this dogma forced upon me as a child, and whenever I questioned something that didn't make sense to me, I was always admonished in the most forceful way. One of my favorite questions was: "did a snake really talk?" If the bible would have said a primate tempted Eve, it would have been more plausible to believe. I think Marx was correct--religion is the opium of the mind.

P.S. I enjoyed the book "god is not Great."

I am an atheist. I was raised as an atheist, and, at age 60, I still am one. In terms of seeking true religious freedom - something we do not have in this country - I am a militant atheist. BUT, Hitchens and Harris are disgusting warmongering, torture supporting scum. They wouldn't know morality if it kicked them in the face. Personally, I will support any Christian, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan or other who opposes preemptive war and torture over any atheist who supports such filth.

Just my $1.00

Right on Mr. Hitchens. Religion is brainwashing pure and simple.

Mr Hichens

How about, "I forgive you!"

I am truly able to forgive because I have been divinely forgiven, something an unbeliever cannot possibly be morally able to do outside of God's grace.

henryM

Mark Lawrence says: “I am failing to see where your 'ethics' or 'morality' comes from if not from a good God. Is it nothing more than a social construction?”

Morality is in our DNA. It existed before religion and exists in higher primates: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/science/17chimp.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/W/Wilford,%20John%20Noble&oref=slogin

Also: “If so, morality would change daily, there's no absolutes.” It does! Haven’t you noticed, it’s no longer moral to keep slaves and stone women

Steve Blevins: “As long as the avatar of atheism remains the drug-addicted, thrice-divorced Hollywood nihilist, you can count on me joining my fellow provincials in church.”

I didn’t know Atheism had an avatar. Who is this person, in your opinion? Also, Do you know any drug addicted, divorced Christians? Would they stop you from going to church?

Joe: “Why can't he just leave those who happen to believe in God alone? We can all go on our merry way, leave this hyperbole behind, and do our own thing.”

You mean like try to teach creationism in public schools? Fly airplanes into buildings? Force teenagers into polygamous marriages? Maybe you don’t believe in those things, but lots of believers in “God” do

Dear, dear Mr. Hitchens. It's always a pleasure to see you vent your spleen.

"Yet is it not positively immoral to argue that our elementary morality and human solidarity derive from an authority that we must simultaneously (and compulsorily) love, and also fear? Does it not degrade us in our deepest integrity to be told that we would not do a right action, or utter a principled truth, were it not for fear of punishment or hope of reward?"

This is probably the best, most succinct representation of your case against religion that I've yet seen. I certainly do agree that totalitarianism and fundamentalist religion both share the same roots in this pathological melange of reverence and fear. And I'm not the right person to answer your challenge, being as my own faith is lukewarm on a good day. I can only muster the shopworn rebuttal that this disturbing element of the human psyche has been amply abused by the irreligious as well as the faithful, and atheists such as Stalin and Pol Pot have abused the human soul to an extent that flawed, but usually well-intentioned Christian Churches have rarely approached.

What I don't see is an explanation for how a rejection of the totalitarian kernel of religious faith leads one inexorably to atheism-- a categorical denial that any higher power exists. Why should it not lead to a more mature, sophisticated faith that embraces both reason and doubt? Or a Deist appreciation for the fact that the universe is far greater and more powerful than we can ever hope to understand?

The most valuable element of faith, often neglected by its most zealous advocates, is humility. This, more than anything else, is what's missing in humanism, and what is sorely lacking in your own writing, your own certitude, and everything you and your political bedfellows have said and done since 9/11.

I don't claim to have the answers to all the troubles in the world or all the mysteries of life, but I'm quite sure that you don't either.

To Mr. Hitchens: Thank you for expressing my feelings about religion better that I can. Good luck on getting a coherent answer.

To "Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:" Would you please stop posting your rant about your 5Fs crap. We've seen it enough, you've had your say, now please try to write something original instead of copying and pasting the same tired BS.

To all the Anonymouses: Own up, dudes, and at least give yourselves a usable name of some sort. I believe Dumb Ass is available.

"I should like, for the continued vigor of this discussion, to repeat the challenge that I have several times offered the faithful in print and on the air. Can they name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?"

Why this challenge? It is utterly irrelevant. It is as easy to inhabit and interact within a moral universe as it is within a physical one without acknolwedging any transcendental authority. The existence of that transcendental authority is not dependent on ones' awareness of it. It must be argued for or against with other means.

No one argues that atheists are incapable of making moral judgments. In fact, Mr. Hitchens feels free to turn his moral judgments against religion in general and Christianity in particular. What he wilfully ignores (because he is not stupid enough not to understand) is that there is no way to account for moral valuations in an entirely materialistic world view.

No matter how you peel the onion of atheism and its consequent material reductionism, it renders moral valuations of mere entities logically impossible. You cannot infer a should from an is. Emergent properties of moral consciousness and the proposed evolutionary advantages of altruism are only more sophisticated ways of connecting the mechanical dots. It still reduces down to the chance collisions of atoms in the brain. There is no way to extract moral values from that mere ontology.

The delightful inconsistency of atheists whose wolrd view is unable to explain their moral intuition is the achilles heel of atheism. If Christians cannot satisfactorily explain how a good and all powerful God allows suffering, atheists are compelled to admit that there is more on heaven and earth than is dreamed of in their philosophy.

How can anybody doubt that there is very little overlap between religion and morality or ethics? However, as regards religion's instigation of so much cruelty and destructiveness, there may be a problem over what is cause and what is effect.
Since I do not believe that our species was supernaturally (and most definitely not intelligently) created in the image of the unbelievably nasty, brutal, vicious entities described by the world's "great" monotheistic religions, I am left believing that those monsters were created in the image of our species. That is not a reassuring thought.
Why is it not likely that even if suddenly all references to the wild ideas of religion were suddenly erased from earth, a new viril growth of similar nastiness wouldn't almost immediately emerge in our species and quickly be playing the same role as the old ideas? Where does that leave our ability to be "humanists?!" Given the observed destructive results of multiple attempts by the traditional religions of merely trying to smash the images and prohibit the rites of the previous religions, how will attacks on prevailing current religious ideas be likely to help?
Just what are we, anyway? And where can DNA like this in an environment like this be expected to take us? Reading each day's news (both the parts related to religion, and the parts not) does not yield reassurance regarding our future, does it?

Well done, Mr. Hitchens.

When examined in a critical light, the basic tenets of all religions I've looked at, or, at one time, practiced, are really pretty ridiculous.

IMO, goodness and rightness come from the heart and the brain, not from books written by men 1300+ years ago who invented one or more gods to explain phenomena that we now understand as normal, natural events.

Of course if you insist on a take it or leave it definition of 'religeous,' you win the argument hands down. But what if you admit "God" as shorthand for our "better angels" and the latter a shorthand for civilization itself?

Every childs first word is "NO" and her second is "WHY"? Can any of us be blamed if we invoke a hierarcy of authority from "because I said so" to "almighty God of whom there is non greater" for the complex, historical, and nuanced answers that comprise "civil behavior?"

For some time now, humankind has been at the top of the food chain. We humans define "good," "evil," "base," and "devine."

But of course you know all this. And you know that many difficulties arise at the margin of "my" and "your" definition of civil behavior; ex.(Johny's mom says he can). You may say that tribalism is rooted in a lie named "God," but do you propose that every one of us, indidvidually, in every generation re-examine every premise personally before deciding what to do next?

My "God?" man, who will take out the trash?

The ubiquity and intransigence of belief in religious dogma is hardly a mystery.

Parents unwittingly practice the “big lie” on gullible and credulous young, thereby programming their read-only memories (brain-washing them) with belief systems with which they, themselves, were earlier brain-washed. In this obvious way, children grow up with the unshakable conviction faith is the one area of humanity exempt from critical inquiry.

Thus, the beliefs of the parents are instilled in their progeny even unto the seventieth generation.

Catholic parents beget Catholics, Protestant parents beget Protestants. Jewish parents beget Jews. Mormon Parents beget Mormons. Muslim parents beget Muslims. Wiccan parents beget Wiccans. Atheistic parents beget Atheists. And genetic inheritance has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s not a matter of nature but of quasi-natural nurture.

Occasionally evangelism or delusional epiphany ostensibly convert an individual from one belief system to another, but in virtually every case, the core cultural imperatives associated with their “cradle faith” will remain largely intact. That is why, for example, many fallen away Christians continue, as if by knee-jerk reflex, to behave impulsively in supposedly “Christian” ways.

It all began with a comprehension of death which egotistical humans deplore and do not share with other animals. By providing the “sure and certain hope” of life after death, manipulators in all ages and places have invoked a “soul wrenching” tool to bend others to their temporal will. Never mind that a thoughtful person might find such promised eternal life to be quite tedious.

I consider myself a Born-Again Heathen. Like everyone else, I was born a Heathen without any sort of faith. By the chance of the draw, my parents were Christians and instilled their religious beliefs and related cultural value system in me - their faith by precept and their value system by their behavioral example. Monkey see, monkey do.

Eventually, I came to see my instilled faith as nonsense and was ultimately able to reconcile myself with the reality of my mortality - that when life is over, it’s all over. At that point, I realized I had become a Born-Again Heathen, returned to my original, natural, faithless state. Nevertheless, I continue to practice “turn the other cheek” as a part of my cultural legacy. This is perversely nonsensical because I know how that imperative was imprinted and fully understand intellectually that it is now known to be contraindicated. So much for free will.

It now seems clear to me that “free will” is an illusion and that everything, including everything I am and do, is deterministic - the inexorable result of cumulative antecedent genetics, experience, and possibly influences which, albeit not consciously perceived, have helped to shape my subconscious from which all my decisions actually emanate.

It has always puzzled me as to the true poison. Is it god-based religion per se, faith itself for any big "moral" idea such as religion, or the willingness or tendancy of we humans to place our faith and resultnat actions that follow in leaders or purneyors of these ideas.

I do not personally act morally because I feel it is a pathway to a life hereafter, so I may be reinforcing Mr. Hitchens' point.

On the other hand, I can not discount that my having a typical Christian upbringing did not influence my approach to personal morality.

Are you still milking this topic for cash, Hitchens?? Newsweek as well, it seems....

Why not write about your cheerleading up to and during the Iraq war???

This evil was not created by religion.....it was created by secular political philosophers i.e. NEO CONS like yourself.....

You are a shameless blowhard, a lout and a drunk."

You know, Speed has got some VERY valid points here with his post-Hitchens was one of the prime cheerleaders for the Iraq war, and him being an "atheist" and all, went on every media outlet I can think of to flack for the Iraq war and Bush-and SO, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT HITCHENS???, THE IRAQ WAR WAS PREMISED ON THOSE ILLUSIONARY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHICH YOU RAH-RAHED TO THE HILT....AND YOU CAN TURN TO YOURSELF AS ABSOLUTELY BEING ONE OF THOSE WITH BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS, BECAUSE YOU AIDED AND ABETTED THE WHITE HOUSE IN THEIR DECEPTION...WHAT WAS IT, YOUR "ATHEISM" THAT MADE YOU DO IT? HA! HA! HA!

And as for you being "a shameless blowhard, a lout and a drunk." That's actually quite well documented. But you see, most Americans don't read the English press, and you, who are molly-coddled to death in this country, get a far chillier, and critical reception in your own-because THEY KNOW YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE.

Yeah, that's right! Americans always treat smooth-talking Brits like royalty, the charletans and con artists alike!

Great points, Christopher. Humans always credit their faith and God for doing good things but how come they do not credit their God for bad things they do (except Muslims who always say they are blowing up people in the name of their Allah).
How come Hindus do not credit Hindu Gods for caste system, female infanticide...?
How come Christians do not credit Jesus for priests abusing children, their stance on homosexuality...?

Mr. Hitchens,

I thought you might be interested in knowing about my book, The Nature of Information (www.thenatureofinformation.com). It defines information and the fundamental creative force in the universe in entirely mass-energy terms, mind and consciousness as wholly material phenomena, thereby solving, conceptually, the so-called brain/mind-mind/body problem, and describes a mass-energy universe that operates with its own immanent creative and control mechanisms, without the use of or need for any metaphysical or supernatural force to explain them. The review of the book by the Australasian Journal of Philosophy (Vol. 68. No. 2) reads, in part:

"Mind, self-consciousness, and other such obstreperous rebels against the creeping materialist hegemony are cajoled into peaceful co-existence with science, by turning them into sophisticated patterns of flow of form...The doctrine that...mind is just matter is taken not as demeaning mind, but as ennobling matter...Materialism takes on the mantle of evangelical deep ecology.”

Paul Young

Pagan religion was first prohibited wholesale in 392 by emperor Theodosius. Heavy financial penalities were enacted, but it was not initially very effective. In Theodosius' code it was written:

We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retributions of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment.

And later, with regards to Pagan buildings:

We command that all their fanes, temples, and shrines, if even now any remain entire, shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates, and shall be purified by the erection of th sign of the venerable Christian religion.

This resulted in further legislation, culminating in the death penalty for non-Christians in 435. All citizens had to belong to the official "Catholic" Christianity - the only other permitted religion was Judaism, and Jews were isolated as much as possible from the rest of the population. As the geopolitical and military position of the failing Roman Empire gradually deteriorated, people readily turned towards the activity of trying to appease God - a reaction which is not unknown in contemporary society. Between 429 and 439 about 150 different laws were passed defining and defending the "Catholic faith." Church lands became exempt from taxation and bishops became immune to any sort of secular oversight or punishment.

Taking the heads of slain enemies and impaling them upon pikes appears to have been a favorite pastime among crusaders. Chronicles record a story of a crusader-bishop who referred to the impaled heads of slain Muslims as a joyful spectacle for the people of God.

When Muslim cities were captured by Christian crusaders, it was standard operating procedure for all inhabitants - no matter what their age - to be summarily killed. It is not an exaggeration to say that the streets ran red with blood as Christians reveled in church-sanctioned horrors. Jews who took refuge in their synagogues would be burned alive, not unlike the treatment they received in Europe.

In his reports about the conquest of Jerusalem, Chronicler Raymond of Aguilers wrote that "It was a just and marvelous judgment of God, that this place [the temple of Solomon] should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers." St. Bernard announced before the Second Crusade that "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

Sometimes, atrocities were excused as actually being merciful. When a crusader army broke out of Antioch and sent the besieging army into flight, the Christians found that the abandoned Muslim camp was filled with the wives of the enemy soldiers. Chronicler Fulcher of Chartres happily recorded for posterity that "...the Franks did nothing evil to them [the women] except pierce their bellies with their lances."

Although members of other religions obviously suffered at the hands of good Christians throughout the Middle Ages, it should not be forgotten that other Christians suffered just as much. Augustine's exhortion to compel entry into the church was used with great zeal when church leaders dealt with Christians who daredto follow a different sort of religious path. This was not always the case - during the first millennium, death was a rare penalty. But in the 1200s, shortly after the beginning of the crusades against the Muslims, wholly European crusades against Christian dissidents were enacted.

The first victims were the Albigenses, sometimes called the Cathari, who were centered primarily in southern France. These poor freethinkers doubted the biblical story of Creation, thought that Jesus was an angel instead of God, rejected transubstantiation, and demanded strict celibacy. History has taught that celibate religious groups generally tend to die out sooner or later, but contemporary church leaders weren't anxious to wait. The Cathari also took the dangerous step of translating the bible into the common language of the people, which only served to further enrage religious leaders.

In 1208, Pope Innocent III raised an army of over 20,000 knights and peasants eager to kill and pillage their way through France. When the city of Beziers fell to the besieging armies of Christendom, soldiers asked papal legate Arnald Amalric how to tell the faithful apart from the infidels. He uttered his famous words: "Kill them all. God will know His own." Such depths of contempt and hatred are truly frightening, but they are only possible in the context of a religious doctrine of eternal punishment for unbelievers and eternal reward for believers.

Followers of Peter Waldo of Lyon, called Waldensians, also suffered the wrath of official Christendom. They promoted the role of lay street preachers despite official policy that only ordained ministers be allowed to preach. They rejecting things like oaths, war, relics, veneration of saints, indulgences, purgatory, and a great deal more which was promoted by religious leaders. The church needed to control the sort of information which the people heard, lest they be corrupted by the temptation to think for themselves. They were declared heretics at the Council of Verona in 1184 and then hounded and killed over the course of the following 500 years. In 1487, Pope Innocent VIII called for an armed crusade against populations of Waldensians in France. Some of them still apparently survive in the Alps and Piedmont.

Dozens of other heretical groups suffered the same fate - condemnation, excommunication, repression and eventually death. Christians did not shy away from killing their own religious brethern when even minor theological differences arose. For them, perhaps no differences were truly minor - all doctrines were a part of the True Path to heaven, and deviation on any point challenged the authority of the church and the community. It was a rare person who dared to stand up and make independent decisions about religious belief, made all the more rare by the fact that they were massacred as fast as possible.

Varying attempts to stamp out infidels and heretics often proved to be inadequate, so the Holy Inquisition was formed to make the efforts more organized and efficient (not to mention putting them all under more official church oversight). Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition in 1231, and burning was quickly decided upon as the official punishment. Administrators and Inquisitors were all answerable directly to the Pope - which essentially made him directly responsible for their actions. In 1245, the Pope gave Inquisitors the right to absolve their assistants of any acts of violence which they might commit in the fulfillment of their duties.

Following church traditions, Inquisitor Franciso Pena declared in 1578 that:

We must remember that the main purpose of the trial and execution is not to save the soul of the accused but to achieve the public good and put fear into others.

Torture of suspects was authorized by Pope Innocent IV in 1252, and thus inquisition chambers were turned into places of abject horror. I don't know what he was thinking when he signed the proclamation, but I am starting to suspect that "Innocent" was an inappropriate name for many of these church leaders to be choosing. Torture was not finally removed as a legal option for church officials until 1917 when the Codex Juris Canonici was put into effect

Some inquisitors really excelled at their job. Robert le Bourge sent 183 people to the stake in a single week. Conrad of Marburg burned every single suspect who came before him and had the audacity to claim innocence. Bernard Fui convicted 930 people - confiscating all of their property for himself, of course. Inquisitors like him grew rich in their jobs with little or no oversight.

Even the dead could be accused of heresy, allowing Inquisitors to confiscate property from their heirs. It is ironic that the office of Inquisitor was usually filled by Dominican and Franciscan monks whose monastical orders were founded upon vows of poverty. Franciscans who actually attempted to uphold Francis' ideal of poverty were in fact persecuted as heretics.

The Inquisition was not limited to Europe, as Spaniards brought it to the Americas and used it to punish the native inhabitants. Through the 1500s, 879 heresy trials were recorded in Mexico alone. Thus, other than people, the Inquisition was one of Europe's first exports to the Americas. Church leaders supported the suppression, enslavement and murder of native inhabitants - a 1493 papal Bull justfied declaring war on all non-Christian natives in the Americas. Jurist Encisco wrote in 1509:

The king has every right to send his men to the Indies to demand their territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally fight them, kill them and enslave them, just as Joshua enlsaved the inhabitants of the country of Canaan.

One factor often ignored is the devastating impact which the Inquisition had on the basic economic life of Europe. The tragedy of seizing vast amounts of property is the most obvious but perhaps not even the worst part. Some occupations became suspect, like map-making. It is unquestionable that map-making was essential to navigation and trading of all sorts.

But inquisitors regarded the printed word as a vehicle for heresy and for this reason they seriously hampered communication of all sorts. In addition, when a person was accused of heresy by the Inquisition, all of their debts became null and void. Because no merchant could be certain of the religious orthodoxy and reliability of another, it became difficult to trust others enough to allow them to go into debt to you.

The effect upon how people lived their lives was clear to all people - the Inquisition was not a secret affair by any means. In the 1490s Juan de Mariana reported that people "...were deprived of the liberty to hear and talk freely, since in all cities, towns and villages there were persons placed to give information of what went on." Some people regardthis time period as the "Spanish Inquisition" and claim that it existed more under the secular authority of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella rather than the authority of the church.

But in fact, the Spanish Inquisition's most influential leader was the Dominican Monk Tomas de Torquemada, appointed Inquisitor General by Pope Sixtus IV and not a secular ruler. The reason that the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition persecuted the Jews and eventually called for their expulsion was the fear that they would contaminate Christians.

The Catholic Church was obviously corrupt throughout the middle ages - and this corruption resulted in regular calls for reform and improvement. Pope John XII had open love affairs. Urban VI tortured and murdered some of his cardinals. Innocent VIII proudly acknowledged his illegitimate children and heaped church riches upon them. Simony and nepotism were rampant. Most efforts ended in the reformers being called heretics and dying for their troubl

In the 1100s, Arnold of Brescia was excommunicated, hanged and then burned. John Wycliffe of England translated the bible into English, and his followers were later hunted down and killed. John Hus from Prague was excommunicated then in 1415 he was captured and burned, despite the fact that he had a letter of safe passage from the Emperor.

But eventually the weight of the reformers grew strong enough to survive, but only at the cost of millions of lives as the Protestant Reformation battled the Catholic Counter Reformation in towns and fields throughout Europe. Martin Luther's 95 theses, nailed to a church door, set off a fire storm of violence and blood. German princes managed to fight Catholic armies to standstill by 1555, which resulted in the Peace of Augsburg. Protestant "heretics" were allowed to live in Germany, but that level of tolerance was not extended to other countries.

Unfortunately, that "peace" didn't last - from 1618 to 1648 Europe experienced The Thirty Years' War which left Germany a wasteland after millions and millions were slaughtered. Catholic armies under the leadership of Catholic Emperor Ferdinand II kept defeating Protestant armies, but then made the mistake of trying to eliminate Protestantism completely, engaging in terrible repression and persecution.

This caused new Protestant armies in foreign lands like Denmark and Sweden to be called up to oppose him. The result of all this was a victory for no one, and an estimated drop of Germany's population from 18 million to 4 million. With too few people left to work the field and trade for goods, starvation and disease ravaged the miserable survivors. Such are the fruits of European Christianianity.

Catholics Killing Protestants

In France, the largest Protestant group was known as the Huguenots. They were mercilessly persecuted, and King Henry created a heresy court known infamously as The Burning Chamber because that was the standard punishment for heretics. On the night of August 24, 1572 - known as St. Bartholomew's Day - Catholic soldiers swept through Huguenot neighborhoods of Paris in a foreshadowing of what would happen to the Jews under Nazi rule.

Thousands were slaughtered in their homes and other massacres timed for the same night occurred in cities across France. In response to this, Pope Gregory XIII wrote to France's King Charles IX: "We rejoice with you that with the help of God you have relieved the world of these wretched heretics."

Pope Pius sent Catholic troops into France to aid in the repression efforts, ordering the army commander to kill all prisoners. Pius, unsurprisingly, was later canonized as a saint. In the Catholic Church, sainthood is an honor which goes not to the nicest person or to someone who has aided humanity, but to those Catholics who have done great deeds to advance the cause of Catholicism. As a result of such treatment, Huguenots fled France in large numbers. One group reached what would later become Florida - and when they were discovered by a Spanish expedition, all were killed.

In Flanders, all heretical Protestants were ordered executed and thousands were burned at the stake. But queen Mary was merciful to Protestants who recanted - instead of burning, the men would be killed by a sword and women buried alive. Philip II, Spanish king and also ruler of Holland and Belgium, was positively obsessed with eliminating Protestantism and ordered that all prisoners be killed so that there would be no chance that they might escape through neglect or mistakes. The Duke of Alva was sent in and began what became known as the "Spanish Fury" in which thousands of Antwerp Protestants were killed and almost all "heretics" in Haarlem were massacred.

Protestants Killing Catholics

several centuries of developed church tradition, Protestant theology focused instead upon stricter adherence to scriptures. As an example, the harsher laws of the Old Testament developed greater prominence in Protestant lands than they did in Catholic lands. Protestant leaders also embraced some of the nastier doctrines of a few Catholic theologians, like Augustine's ideas about free will and predestination. Luther wrote in 1518: "Free will after the Fall is nothing but a word. Even doing what in him lies, man sins mortally."

In Switzerland, John Calvin created a vicious theocracy in which morality police were employed to control people's behavior. Citizens were harshly punished for a wide variety of moral infractions, including dancing, drinking, and generally being entertained. Theological dissidents were summarily executed, like Michael Servetus who was burned for doubting the Trinity. It isn't surprising that some of the nastiest Christians in America today, like Christian Reconstructionists, are unabashed Calvinists

During the many Huguenot wars ravaging France, Huguenot soldiers hunted priests like animals and one captain is reported to have worn a necklace of priests' ears. In England, after King Henry VIII created the Anglican Church, he went after both Catholics and Protestants. Catholic loyalists like Sir Thomas More were quickly executed, but Lutherans who doubted retained doctrines like transubstantiation were also not spared. When his daughter Mary reached the throne in 1553 she became known as "Bloody Mary" because she attempted to reinstitute Catholicism through violence - but she only managed to make the country even more Protestant.

Unsurprisingly, not all Protestants were created equal - some wretched groups were uniformly hated by all parties. One example of this is the Anabaptists, who were martyred for their faith in huge numbers. Anabaptists briefly took the German city of Munster, but Catholic armies regained control, torturing to death Anabaptist leaders with red-hot pincers. Their bodies were hung in cages from a church steeple where they remained for many years as a visible reminder of what happens to those who dare to oppose church authority.

Once again, there is quite a lot more to cover on the topic of religious violence, but I think that we've seen even more now which should lead reasonable people to conclude that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, doesn't do a very good job at all in preventing human violence. At a minimum, it does a wonderful job at serving as a justification for violence. In many cases, however, religious beliefs and attitudes appear to form the basis for violent acts or movements. In these instances, the violence would not have occurred if it had not been for religion.

The Catholic Church was obviously corrupt throughout the middle ages - and this corruption resulted in regular calls for reform and improvement. Pope John XII had open love affairs. Urban VI tortured and murdered some of his cardinals. Innocent VIII proudly acknowledged his illegitimate children and heaped church riches upon them. Simony and nepotism were rampant. Most efforts ended in the reformers being called heretics and dying for their trouble.

In the 1100s, Arnold of Brescia was excommunicated, hanged and then burned. John Wycliffe of England translated the bible into English, and his followers were later hunted down and killed. John Hus from Prague was excommunicated then in 1415 he was captured and burned, despite the fact that he had a letter of safe passage from the Emperor.

But eventually the weight of the reformers grew strong enough to survive, but only at the cost of millions of lives as the Protestant Reformation battled the Catholic Counter Reformation in towns and fields throughout Europe. Martin Luther's 95 theses, nailed to a church door, set off a fire storm of violence and blood. German princes managed to fight Catholic armies to standstill by 1555, which resulted in the Peace of Augsburg. Protestant "heretics" were allowed to live in Germany, but that level of tolerance was not extended to other countries.

Unfortunately, that "peace" didn't last - from 1618 to 1648 Europe experienced The Thirty Years' War which left Germany a wasteland after millions and millions were slaughtered. Catholic armies under the leadership of Catholic Emperor Ferdinand II kept defeating Protestant armies, but then made the mistake of trying to eliminate Protestantism completely, engaging in terrible repression and persecution.

This caused new Protestant armies in foreign lands like Denmark and Sweden to be called up to oppose him. The result of all this was a victory for no one, and an estimated drop of Germany's population from 18 million to 4 million. With too few people left to work the field and trade for goods, starvation and disease ravaged the miserable survivors. Such are the fruits of European Christianity.

Catholics Killing Protestants

In France, the largest Protestant group was known as the Huguenots. They were mercilessly persecuted, and King Henry created a heresy court known infamously as The Burning Chamber because that was the standard punishment for heretics. On the night of August 24, 1572 - known as St. Bartholomew's Day - Catholic soldiers swept through Huguenot neighborhoods of Paris in a foreshadowing of what would happen to the Jews under Nazi rule.

Thousands were slaughtered in their homes and other massacres timed for the same night occurred in cities across France. In response to this, Pope Gregory XIII wrote to France's King Charles IX: "We rejoice with you that with the help of God you have relieved the world of these wretched heretics."

Pope Pius sent Catholic troops into France to aid in the repression efforts, ordering the army commander to kill all prisoners. Pius, unsurprisingly, was later canonized as a saint. In the Catholic Church, sainthood is an honor which goes not to the nicest person or to someone who has aided humanity, but to those Catholics who have done great deeds to advance the cause of Catholicism. As a result of such treatment, Huguenots fled France in large numbers. One group reached what would later become Florida - and when they were discovered by a Spanish expedition, all were killed.

In Flanders, all heretical Protestants were ordered executed and thousands were burned at the stake. But queen Mary was merciful to Protestants who recanted - instead of burning, the men would be killed by a sword and women buried alive. Philip II, Spanish king and also ruler of Holland and Belgium, was positively obsessed with eliminating Protestantism and ordered that all prisoners be killed so that there would be no chance that they might escape through neglect or mistakes. The Duke of Alva was sent in and began what became known as the "Spanish Fury" in which thousands of Antwerp Protestants were killed and almost all "heretics" in Haarlem were massacred.

Protestants Killing Catholics

Of course, Protestants should not be imagined as innocents in all of this. Attempting to abandon several centuries of developed church tradition, Protestant theology focused instead upon stricter adherence to scriptures. As an example, the harsher laws of the Old Testament developed greater prominence in Protestant lands than they did in Catholic lands. Protestant leaders also embraced some of the nastier doctrines of a few Catholic theologians, like Augustine's ideas about free will and predestination. Luther wrote in 1518: "Free will after the Fall is nothing but a word. Even doing what in him lies, man sins mortally."

In Switzerland, John Calvin created a vicious theocracy in which morality police were employed to control people's behavior. Citizens were harshly punished for a wide variety of moral infractions, including dancing, drinking, and generally being entertained. Theological dissidents were summarily executed, like Michael Servetus who was burned for doubting the Trinity. It isn't surprising that some of the nastiest Christians in America today, like Christian Reconstructionists, are unabashed Calvinists

During the many Huguenot wars ravaging France, Huguenot soldiers hunted priests like animals and one captain is reported to have worn a necklace of priests' ears. In England, after King Henry VIII created the Anglican Church, he went after both Catholics and Protestants. Catholic loyalists like Sir Thomas More were quickly executed, but Lutherans who doubted retained doctrines like transubstantiation were also not spared. When his daughter Mary reached the throne in 1553 she became known as "Bloody Mary" because she attempted to reinstitute Catholicism through violence - but she only managed to make the country even more Protestant.

Unsurprisingly, not all Protestants were created equal - some wretched groups were uniformly hated by all parties. One example of this is the Anabaptists, who were martyred for their faith in huge numbers. Anabaptists brie