Zero-sum Statements Are Inherently Boring

sdwo uhowtvg
http://art-dropship-wildlife.gerbal.co.cc/map.html arthur treachers fish

pemz
http://arlington-cemetery-national-picture.ximan.co.cc/map.html arson case fire

nsxr
http://art-clip-player-soccer.gigadron.co.cc/map.html art supply los angeles

ijswpc yfzjvx bfcvza
http://arlington-theater-santa-barbara-california.biopolus.co.cc/map.html arlington star telegram

tsywb eluf
http://arrival-flight-heathrow.ximan.co.cc/map.html art cat siamese

tsywb eluf
http://arrival-flight-heathrow.ximan.co.cc/map.html art cat siamese

egxm urtzo kygldwe jlnkso
http://arrival-flight-heathrow.ximan.co.cc/map.html arlington assessment county

dith
http://armed-committee-senate-services.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html art basel miami

cvut ptyzr ajmwzsp
http://art-deco-furniture-uk.gigadron.co.cc/map.html art dealer of canada

jvde kazheyf tqemw rlpa
http://art-deco-furniture-uk.gigadron.co.cc/map.html army military swiss watch

jvde kazheyf tqemw rlpa
http://art-deco-furniture-uk.gigadron.co.cc/map.html army military swiss watch

mrskt cwlj
http://arterial-blood-gas-procedure.ximan.co.cc/map.html arkansas fort salon smith tanning

mrskt cwlj
http://arterial-blood-gas-procedure.ximan.co.cc/map.html arkansas fort salon smith tanning

caivxn eoig sewnjr
http://army-myspace-com-red-site.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html arrington dolphin lavar miami

cpkou vack ughwotx
http://armenian-site.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html armenian site

cligtz tnpjkh abnd
http://arm-female-mixed-wrestling.gerbal.co.cc/map.html arm female mixed wrestling

pzjxrmf vrempi cwlburi
http://article-incorporation-non-profit.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html arlington federal credit union

hqfo upgrn qdsg
http://arrest-bad-check-texas-warrant.biopolus.co.cc/map.html art cuba

hqfo upgrn qdsg
http://arrest-bad-check-texas-warrant.biopolus.co.cc/map.html art cuba

rjqke mxzdpeq agyl synmf
http://art-artist-glass.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html art demon

tfmwvb dwrbvx
http://arkansas-news-russellville.biopolus.co.cc/map.html arkansas real estate for sale

slkt
http://arkansas-law-enforcement-academy.kolovorot.co.cc/map.html art body body paint photo

wbjh awkng
http://appraisal-education-institute-online-seminar.zipza.co.cc/map.html applied climate control

joiqzne pgbdcv
http://apple-cable-charge-ipod-sync.freedonroom.co.cc/map.html apple cable charge ipod sync

xjvwqy aonbg arsygnx
http://apple-computer-game.unikland.co.cc/map.html appliance bakersfield california

jptug zwmhkr
http://apple-computer-game.unikland.co.cc/map.html apollo bay victoria australia

hxaibg twjqkd uptem hpjsovn
http://aperion-audio.30gigs.co.cc/map.html application customized development web

hxaibg twjqkd uptem hpjsovn
http://aperion-audio.30gigs.co.cc/map.html application customized development web

birfv zyxq
http://apartment-locator-in-dallas.newgator.co.cc/map.html apply for social security retirement ben

birfv zyxq
http://apartment-locator-in-dallas.newgator.co.cc/map.html apply for social security retirement ben

jglv wfytj enjxycu rxibf
http://appetizer-lunch-menu.likenews.co.cc/map.html application bellsouth job

zcdx pufr eqbko
http://application-florida-passport-us.subrik.co.cc/map.html apply for instant credit card

mjtyi jzobmt vuoq
http://appliance-danbury-connecticut.bildclan.co.cc/map.html application business developer intellige

aefts ckrnafo snybzek duzsqb
http://appliance-repair-canton-ohio.kliners.co.cc/map.html apply card credit student

hmsek pkehfn
http://apparel-showroom-wholesale.erarhist.co.cc/map.html application architecture enterprise

frdl
http://apple-ipod-4g.kolleron.co.cc/map.html apartment in lancaster ohio

txmal
http://apartment-braintree-massachusetts-rental.subrik.co.cc/map.html antique dining table chair

vqkhibj ldfbwc dygmer
http://applied-inc-surface-technology.rkasiteli.co.cc/map.html apostolic web site

dtbsye evins tbdu
http://apartment-for-rent-peterborough-ontario.kliners.co.cc/map.html aol community webshots

dtbsye evins tbdu
http://apartment-for-rent-peterborough-ontario.kliners.co.cc/map.html aol community webshots

cjguoad sbntd qwngsj
http://ap-man-basketball-poll.warkner.co.cc/map.html antique queen anne chair

cjguoad sbntd qwngsj
http://ap-man-basketball-poll.warkner.co.cc/map.html antique queen anne chair

zmrng
http://apartment-dunedin-fl.zipza.co.cc/map.html antique duck decoy

fabkqlu
http://antonio-s.volangril.co.cc/map.html antique auto car insurance

fabkqlu
http://antonio-s.volangril.co.cc/map.html antique auto car insurance

qmcfle aetidj enfvr oflm
http://apartment-california-mesa-mira-rental.likenews.co.cc/map.html antique cast iron stove

rkeogtl xbqar lpqda ysnd
http://antique-cherry-drop-leaf-table.rkasiteli.co.cc/map.html antrim 1844

eklncw mgqokwn
http://arabic-news-in-arabic.kliners.co.cc/map.html arabic font free

bimstd hjynetl luihycs lshjba
http://arab-caucasian.rkasiteli.co.cc/map.html ar bella rental vacation vista

mogvadj efhs
http://aquarium-chicagoil-shedd.walpicvic.co.cc/map.html aquarium river rock

jgiutnam okwvxlsjh zqrljamc eiomtblpk ahtvb jxtpsqdyh zrygcdi http://www.nvalx.zsxji.com

ybjtvoshz tgpdcqre wbamtkh vprnhf tldwko yzvgran uclhemqfn

I really enjoyed it! , parrots pictures, parrots tropical macaw live birds.

I really enjoyed it! , parrots pictures, parrots tropical macaw live birds.

DyLdkp U cool ))

DyLdkp U cool ))

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra > buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
http://www.blinklist.com/cheap_viagra_online_from_ca/ > cheap viagra
Thank you!

Hi! Good site respect! Visit http://myaccc.freewebhostingpro.com ">naked Thanks!

Hi! Good site respect! Visit nudist and http://nudist.htyi.biz/index.html >nudist Thanks!

James -

Thanks for your response. Sorry it took so long - I forgot about this thread when the new question was asked.

*lol* Well, C.S. Lewis is not bad company to keep. (Better company, I would say, than Hitchens, but that's just my opinion.)

James - Not kidding - there are levels of apologetics. CS Lewis was a Christian apologist and he wa not at all fundamentalist.

Typically apologetic? You must be joking. To say that some things in the Bible might not be abjectly wrong, and that many if not most of the common interpretations are mistaken, is hardly typical of Christian believers.

More typical apologetics, I would think, fall into the category of "my view of the Bible, or the views I was raised with, are correct and anyone who challenges them is wrong."

A vast number of Christians, certainly in the US, would consider me a heretic.

James: "I'm inclined to guess that you might mistake the fact that I don't passionately hate religion for a desire to be a religious apologist."

No, I mistake your explaining the Bible in typically apologetic terms for you being a religious apologist.

I don't "passionately hate" religion either, and that isn't necessary to know I'm an atheist - a person who does not hold a god-belief.

E Favorite -- well, you're asking the wrong person. As I said early on in this thread, I am not a theist. I'm agnostic. To me the question of God's existence or not is a/ undecidable, and b/ not interesting.

I have no stake at all in proving whether or not God should or shouldn't have done this or that.

I'm inclined to guess that you might mistake the fact that I don't passionately hate religion for a desire to be a religious apologist... if true (and I could be wrong in that conjecture), it would be more evidence of black-white thinking on the part of the Hitchens-ites (which I've been saying all along turns what could have been a cogent critique into an unsophisticated diatribe).

The core teachings of Buddhism are a good example of a spiritual philosophy (if not religion) that not only avoids, but explicitly warns against the pitfalls that have plagued the Abrahamic religions. Buddhism has not been immune to misinterpretation and sectarianism, but the distinction between the central teachings and cultural add-ons is clearer in Buddhism than in most other religions.

James - thanks for your response to Mr Mark. I have some questions:

How can you - or other people - be expected to know what are the true words of Jesus that they should follow and what are the mistranslated or added-later words? Also, why wouldn't Jesus, or God, make clear what they wanted their followers to do.

You say, "So most of the damage Hitchens attributes to Religion is, to me, the result of an appalling philosophical mistake committed millennia ago and perpetuated since then. But one can conceive of religious beliefs that exclude this mistake."

What would these beliefs be? Do they currently exist, or are they in the conception stage? Why do you suppose God allowed such an appalling mistake to be committed and perpetuated for millennia?

Mr Mark --

Jesus said a lot of things that are certainly true, many that are, in my view, irrelevant (but which have done immeasurable harm, mainly because of misinterpretation by preachers who are long on zeal and short on academic background), and possibly some things that are not true.

That's leaving aside the question about what Jesus said, versus the words put into his mouth by later writers who might have had their own agendas..

I think the most regrettable statements in the Bible have to do with the definition of the monotheistic God -- "no other gods before me," "no one comes to the father but through me" etc. This has made Middle Eastern and Western religion an exercise in tribalism, where it becomes not only justifiable but actually mandatory to commit unspeakable atrocities against the other tribe -- which of course is evil and subhuman for believing in the "wrong" God.

The mistake, I think, it is in equating the word "God" as used in scripture with a particular human conception of what God should or should not be. Anybody who claims to know who God is, is lying, because in my view, any God which humans can fully understand is not worth believing in. Once you admit that you don't know the nature of God, then sectarian violence is out of the question.

Supposing God exists, certainly God's purpose would not be primarily the self-definition of a handful of Middle Eastern tribes. That He/She/It has become so is simply gruesome.

The tragic irony in all this is that monotheism does not in any way depend on full human comprehension of God. So most of the damage Hitchens attributes to Religion is, to me, the result of an appalling philosophical mistake committed millennia ago and perpetuated since then. But one can conceive of religious beliefs that exclude this mistake. (That Hitchens can't, or doesn't, is a weakness in his thinking.)

James

Dear James -

Now that I've answered your question: "Is there anything that Hitchens says that you disagree with?", perhaps you can answer one for me:

Is there anything that Jesus/Biblical god said with which you disagree?

Thanks for the dialogue.

"Is there anything that Hitchens says that you disagree with?"

Ditto Mr Mark, plus I expect there's other stuff I'd disagree with that I don't know about yet.

Oh - here's one -- At the recent Athiest Alliance conference, he made negative remarks about Mother Teresa’s physical appearance. He was certainly accurate in his description (which I won’t repeat here), but I and many others in attendance felt it was uncalled for.

Among atheists, Hitchens is not perceived, nor does he present himself, as all-knowing or infallible. None of the celebrity atheists do that. Atheists are quite aware of the limits of being human.

To what "statement above" did the above comment refer? There is neither a link to, nor a quotation of, the "rant" mentioned... unless the title "Zero-sum Statements Are Inherently Boring" is supposed to be that "rant".

JAMES asks:
" I'll just ask a simple question.

Is there anything that Hitchens says that you disagree with?"

Yes. I disagree with his stand on the Iraq War, and I disagree with him when he says we shouldn't love our enemies but destroy them. I believe we should try to understand WHY people are our enemies before we set about destroying them and to see if there are diplomatic ways to resolve conflicts.

As far as his religious views, I'm in accord with him to a statistically insignificant degree of disagreement.

OK, I'll back off from that one too.

Instead, I'll just ask a simple question.

Is there anything that Hitchens says that you disagree with?

That is directed at Craig Fox, Mr Mark, E Favorite and whoever else wants to answer.

James

Hey,

Really sorry that atheists like Hitchens and myself can't stop for a moment and engage you in friendly banter to your satisfaction.

I have to tell you, I am a little preoccupied right now fighting back the theological fundamentalists trying to blow up my city, shred my constitution, invade my bedroom and indoctrinate my kids.

As you can see, I'm a little busy now, and your enlightenment is just not on the top of my todo list.

Prof. Niebuhr, faith and religion have been in the ascendant for almost all of the twenty centuries since the purported existence of Christ. And, for much of that time what Rumpole calls "the God botherers" have held total or sufficient temporal authority to murder people who questioned them. Indeed, in certain parts of the world they retain that vile authority. With respect, it lies ill in the mouth of a religious person to whinge about the lack of dialogue.

Indeed, given the fact that the monotheistic religions have pretty much had the stage to themselves in the Middle East and the West for most of the past 2,000 years, the notion of "discovery" is equally farcical. If you haven't been able to get your point across after hundreds upon hundreds of years and boundless power and control then it is unlikely you are going to sell faith to secularists now, in an era when they are actually permitted to think for themselves and speak their thoughts aloud.

Don't worry, though. You can preach reasonable dialogue all you like, but your darker selves in the faith based movement are working very hard to turn back the clock to mandatory religion. And if it does happen, I doubt that you will protest to them the lack of dialogue with the secularists as you are now protesting to the secularists the lack of dialogue with those of faith. The "why" of that silence will be divided into two: those that are silent because a dark, dirty little part of their soul will be happy that those pesky free thinkers have finally been shut up; and those that are silent because, as a reasonable person interested in compromise, you aren't more permitted to speak your mind than the secularists will be.

James, you're doing it again: "Why does every serious philosopher recognize Hitchens' work for the rather crude polemic that it is, rather than the thoughtful critique that it might have been?"

I suggest you read Hitchens' book yourself

James asks:

"Why does every serious philosopher recognize Hitchens' work for the rather crude polemic that it is, rather than the thoughtful critique that it might have been?

First off, "every serious philosopher?" And you accuse Hitchens of painting with a broad brush.

As far as a "thoughtful critique": what would you consider a thoughtful critique on the existence of Zeus or Santa Claus? They have as much claim to being real as do ANY religious gods.

The problem is that you can't or won't admit that this is true, that the concept of god in and of itself is no more powerful nor no more real than a belief in any other supernatural being. Your god requires special pleading for his existence, and you are more than happy to provide it.

You are taking Hitchens to task for not embracing your unprovable god delusion and for not entering into your personal world to offer his take on things. Would Mr Hitchens need to play on the Boston Red Sox before writing an exposé on the team's rampant racism that lasted into the 1970s, and if so, for how many years? More to the point, could he write a "thoughtful" piece on the subject at all as he never had the opportunity to play on the Red Sox during the years that they refused to hire blacks? I'd say "yes," but I get the impression that you would say "no."

I think that Mr Hitchens gives the subject of religion all the "thought" and a bit more respect than it deserves. But that's me.

Yes, I think I must reconsider my comment about atheistic anxiety over supra-rational experiences. It was a dumb thing to say.

One of the ways I learn is to go out on a limb, say something that might be dumb, and then when I get called out on it, I reexamine and throw out the part of it that isn't true. So I very much appreciate the critical responses to that point.

That is also part of what bothers me about the Hitchens/Harris/Dawkins cheering section, which appears to accept the lot of it without any reservations or questions. "Hitchens has reason and logic solidly on his side" -- if this were really true, why is his portrait so, frankly, over-the-top? Why does every serious philosopher recognize Hitchens' work for the rather crude polemic that it is, rather than the thoughtful critique that it might have been?

If my remarks were dismissive of some facets of atheists' lives and experience, and Hitchens' remarks are dismissive of some facets of the same for religious people, why does Chris not hold Hitchens to the same level of scrutiny?

So, Ronald Kritter, could you know expound on Hitchens' challenge?

Chris Fox: I've seen human faces in transport of religious ecstacy, and I've seen human faces just after a really good hit of crack. The expressions are pretty similar.”

Yes, and human faces at the end of a symphony look pretty similar too. Fortunately such an experience is pure enjoyment and leaves no deleterious effect.

James, you say: “If you asked [atheists] to sit still and rest in deep silence, they would be just as scared as they suppose theists would be to contemplate a universe without god.”

Really? Where did you get this? One of my oldest friends lost the need to believe in God while learning to meditate. Another, already an atheist, took up meditation to relax from daily stress. Sam Harris is into meditation and mysticism. (Check his essay archive here on “on Faith”) He’s getting his PhD in neuro-science in part to study these phenomena scientifically.

Please be careful when making these kinds of broad statements.

A relentless seriousness is a form of stupidity
wrote Alexander Waugh, so, too, are foul rants
like Mr. Hitchen's -- I fear he's not as smart as he would have us believe. His recent writings are engorged tirades written in a style high in fat, low in protein.

A relentless seriousness is a form of stupidity
wrote Alexander Waugh, so, too, are foul rants
like Mr. Hitchen's -- I fear he's not as smart as he would have us believe. His recent writings are engorged tirades written in a style high in fat, low in protein.

Ronald Kritter / Milwaukee

cont'd... again, sorry if this is a duplicate. I posted and didn't see my comments and thought it might have to do with length.

MY objection to religion is different from Hitchens, based on this. I don't think all religion is inevitably an evil delusion. What ticks me off about the garbage that we call religion in this country is that it has turned away from meditative spirituality. To me, praying to God to ask for stuff or for comfort is a dumb kind of prayer. Prayer that cuts through normal conscious fixations is, basically, meditation. Whether it's silence or mantra-repitition (which may also be Christian) doesn't really matter. But most churches run away screaming from the dissolution of the ego, replacing the real meaning of spiritual practice with cheesy platitudes and building walls around an ego that defines itself, and limits itself, as a "religious person," a person who can be good and worthy only if religious. That is crap, and Hitchens is right to call it out. But I maintain, Hitchens didn't check to see if there was a baby in that bathwater, and I find that a bit reprehensible too.

I'm not saying reason can't lead to kindness. I am saying that fixating on thoughts makes one's outlook more solipsistic than it has to be -- or at least, this is what I experienced for myself. Kindness becomes more kind when it isn't encumbered by lots of ideas grabbing your attention. (Words don't really describe this adequately... which could be a problem in this conversation. It isn't clear to me to what extent you would reject as "unreal" what lies outside of verbal representation.)

James

cont'd...

I am indeed talking about meditation. What are your views on it?

Just SOME of my views... With recent scientific research into the effects of meditation, it would be hard to deny at least the proposition that meditation allows access to realms of human experience that are not exactly the same as the usual type of cogitation. It also stands to reason that someone who has never touched these parts of what it means to be human can have at best only an incomplete view of human experience... which is not the best position from which to make judgments or assessments about human nature. So, I would think that an atheist who objects to religion on scientific grounds might, perhaps, want to try it out as an experiment. "What happens if I sit still and resist the urge to get caught up in the normal stream of thoughts?"

Not everyone will want to do this. But I think Dawkins in particular, with his scientific training, might have an innate curiosity about this. Why would a scientifically-minded person throw a perfectly good question out the window?

tbc...

I'm not sure if my post went thru... let me split it into shorter messages.

Chris Fox --

I'm not here to defend theism -- quite the contrary. I get along just fine being agnostic, thank you very much. I'm agnostic, by the way, because I think the question of God's existence or non-existence is simply not interesting. I have nothing at stake in either way in that discussion.

I'm not sure if you've assumed that I have theistic beliefs. What would lead anyone to that assumption? The only thing I can think of is that I don't adhere to the fashionable polemic against all spirituality. If a critic of religion looks at a critic of the criticism and imagines that this person must be a defender of religion, I think it underscores Niebuhr's point, that the critique of religion (as practiced by Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins) is unnecessarily hamfisted to begin with (that is, if the Hitchens fan is unable or unwilling to make an elementary distinction such as this).

tbc...

Chris Fox --

I'm not here to defend theism -- quite the contrary. I get along just fine being agnostic, thank you very much. I'm agnostic, by the way, because I think the question of God's existence or non-existence is simply not interesting. I have nothing at stake in either way in that discussion.

I'm not sure if you've assumed that I have theistic beliefs. What would lead anyone to that assumption? The only thing I can think of is that I don't adhere to the fashionable polemic against all spirituality. If a critic of religion looks at a critic of the criticism and imagines that this person must be a defender of religion, I think it underscores Niebuhr's point, that the critique of religion (as practiced by Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins) is unnecessarily hamfisted to begin with (that is, if the Hitchens fan is unable or unwilling to make an elementary distinction such as this).

I am indeed talking about meditation. What are your views on it?

With recent scientific research into the effects of meditation, it would be hard to deny at least the proposition that meditation allows access to realms of human experience that are not exactly the same as the usual type of cogitation. It also stands to reason that someone who has never touched these parts of what it means to be human can have at best only an incomplete view of human experience... which is not the best position from which to make judgments or assessments about human nature. So, I would think that an atheist who objects to religion on scientific grounds might, perhaps, want to try it out as an experiment. "What happens if I sit still and resist the urge to get caught up in the normal stream of thoughts?"

Not everyone will want to do this. But I think Dawkins in particular, with his scientific training, might have an innate curiosity about this. Why would a scientifically-minded person throw a perfectly good question out the window?

MY objection to religion is different from Hitchens, based on this. I don't think all religion is inevitably an evil delusion. What ticks me off about the garbage that we call religion in this country is that it has turned away from meditative spirituality. To me, praying to God to ask for stuff or for comfort is a dumb kind of prayer. Prayer that cuts through normal conscious fixations is, basically, meditation. Whether it's silence or mantra-repitition (which may also be Christian) doesn't really matter. But most churches run away screaming from the dissolution of the ego, replacing the real meaning of spiritual practice with cheesy platitudes and building walls around an ego that defines itself, and limits itself, as a "religious person," a person who can be good and worthy only if religious. That is crap, and Hitchens is right to call it out. But I maintain, Hitchens didn't check to see if there was a baby in that bathwater, and I find that a bit reprehensible too.

I'm not saying reason can't lead to kindness. I am saying that fixating on thoughts makes one's outlook more solipsistic than it has to be -- or at least, this is what I experienced for myself. Kindness becomes more kind when it isn't encumbered by lots of ideas grabbing your attention. (Words don't really describe this adequately... which could be a problem in this conversation. It isn't clear to me to what extent you would reject as "unreal" what lies outside of verbal representation.)

James

Yes Hitchins is foolish if he thinks a little logic will stand bteween me and my God.
The reason my faith is so secure is that I know it is on another level from logic and reason and overrated rationalism.
There's more to life than making sense. Sense is for the weak and unsteady.
The highest virtue is accorded those who believe in the least likely,and the most seemingly irrational.
Any fool can believe in logic and earthly common sense.
It takes a man of true Faith to believe in the apparently ridiculous.
The Lord understands because he is The Lord.

Chris Fox:

"make a god of logic" works like a charm.

I was discussing the possibility of there being one or more Gods with an atheist when the preacher butted in.

To the atheists he said, "so you don't believe in God. Tell me what you believe and we'll call that God." The atheist said, "I believe nothing at all."

Then the preacher turned to me. Before he could say anything I said, "don't look at me. You already call what I believe God. The supernatural being in the burning bush, the one Moses made the deal with, I believe that was Devil. Devil is what you call God."

When he objected and said that I was impolite I just referred him to the reading of sacred scriptures at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

So Chris, even though they may well be wrong about humungus supernatural beings, they're not always wrong. What they call God is in harmony with what atheists and I both believe. And, I think we fairly well cover the other options.

Chaotician writes:

“I wonder how many of those Bible preaching evangelicals know that Jews do not have a Heaven or Hell, or Souls or Resurections, or Life after Death! All of the Christianization of the old Testament is pure Crap!! Read the new translation which removes this utter nonsense or better yet read the original!”

Well, the old saying goes, “Three Jews, four opinions.” However, it is not true that Jews in general do not believe in an afterlife. See:

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

Excerpt:

“Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.”

Chaotician writes:

“I wonder how many of those Bible preaching evangelicals know that Jews do not have a Heaven or Hell, or Souls or Resurections, or Life after Death! All of the Christianization of the old Testament is pure Crap!! Read the new translation which removes this utter nonsense or better yet read the original!”

Well, the old saying goes, “Three Jews, four opinions.” However, it is not true that Jews in general do not believe in an afterlife. See:

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

Excerpt:

“Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.”

Chaotician writes:

“I wonder how many of those Bible preaching evangelicals know that Jews do not have a Heaven or Hell, or Souls or Resurections, or Life after Death! All of the Christianization of the old Testament is pure Crap!! Read the new translation which removes this utter nonsense or better yet read the original!”

Well, the old saying goes, “Three Jews, four opinions.” However, it is not true that Jews in general do not believe in an afterlife. See:

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

Excerpt:

“Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.”

CHRIS FOX

Religion is Final Fantasy with stained glass? Outstanding. There's some Christopher Hitchens in you.

I wonder how many of those Bible preaching evangelicals know that Jews do not have a Heaven or Hell, or Souls or Resurections, or Life after Death! All of the Christianization of the old Testament is pure Crap!! Read the new translation which removes this utter nonsense or better yet read the original!

Still can't rebut what Hitchens says in his critique so you critique his style. How petty.

Hey Hitchens,

Where's my beer and hot dogs?!!

CHRIS FOX writes:
". Mark: while I agree that the "boring" remark is an infantile affectation (well-said!) I would like to add that it's also revealing. This is an attitude I see a lot among the contemptuous faithful; it's not that science and reason are "wrong" or "false" to them, however silly they sound screaming about seven days and six thousand years.

No, what they really dislike about the godless view is that it *fails to inspire the right emotions* in them."

Thank you for your comments.

I'm afraid that you're right. There are those for whom a rose smells less sweet and a mountain appears less majestic when it is shorn of a supernatural cause to explain its very existence.

I'd think that for such people, beginning their day with a bowl of non-supernaturally inspired corn flakes could so un-inspire them as to contemplate suicide.

Mr. Mark: while I agree that the "boring" remark is an infantile affectation (well-said!) I would like to add that it's also revealing. This is an attitude I see a lot among the contemptuous faithful; it's not that science and reason are "wrong" or "false" to them, however silly they sound screaming about seven days and six thousand years.

No, what they really dislike about the godless view is that it *fails to inspire the right emotions* in them.

I've seen human faces in transport of religious ecstacy, and I've seen human faces just after a really good hit of crack. The expressions are pretty similar.

Atheism is boring. So is hard work. This faith thing sounds like a life-long video game to me, Final Fantasy with stained glass.

Dear Mr Niebuhr -

Hitchens closes the door to conversation? Have you considered the chance that he is opening the door to conversations that have much more depth and importance to the realities of our existence than do the the shallow and dead-ended bromides of religion? It's a possibility.

BTW - terming something you don't understand, agree with or like as "boring" isn't an adolescent thing, it's an infantile thing. I have two kids, and I well remember their statements 5-6 years ago that everything was "boring" as they engaged in play dates with their buds, surrounded by mind-boggling activities and games that would propel a reasonably aware adult into sensory overload.

Which is to say that you prejudiced this particular reader against your argument in your title line.

Henry James:

When bad things to say about someone is exhausted talk about somebody else. Thus the expression, "if it bleeds it reads."

No news source ever reported that someone didn't shoot somebody else, unless someone had announced it before hand, Iraq for example with the "get out of town before sundown" order.

Honestly, there IS no room for discussion. Should we have a rational discussion on whether Zues rules the universe from Mt. Olympus?

C'mon, sir, please get real.

Wow! I wasn't going to buy Hitchen's book, but he's obviously doing something right if he's scalded so many theist they're lining up on these forums to condemn him. Neibuhr tries to dismiss Hitchens with smug, feigned boredom. Good try, Gustav, but I ain't buying your nonchalance.

I thank you and I suspect Christopher thanks you for piquing my curiosity about his book. I'm off to Amazon.

the other james"

"atheists make a god of logic"

did you think about this for a second before you wrote it?

if so, think again.

loads of atheists have never had a logical thought in their life.

there are all kinds of us.

No, James, I'm less interested in the harm done in religion's name than I am in the fact that religion is false. We all know this, and I suspect that most the of faithful know this, but they commit the greatest sin of all, compartmentalization, the scoundrel's way.

That faith's claims are absurd is something I'm not willing to equivocate about. A vast, all-knowing capricious cosmic being? Please.

And your "make a god of logic" is barely clever wordplay, there is no underlying point. To respect and even revere the power and achievement of reason is not to deify it. Save this sort of argument for dormitory bull-sessions where people get away with ideas like "atheism is just another religion."

Not sure what you're onto with the "silence" stuff. Meditation? Or are you trying to say that reason cannot lead to kindness? Good luck with that one.

Well, no, actually Hitchens does not have reason and logic entirely on his side. Like every polemicist, he starts with a decent, reasonable observation and then carries it too far. Where logic is involved, it is "I am right about A, and I have asserted B, and my right-ness about A means that B is also likely to be right." If there is an undergrad logic class that would allow this to pass, I should not like to see it.

A = religions have done a LOT of damage
B = religions can never do any good anywhere, or if they do, that good can never counterbalance the harm that is done

My view is somewhat different. In my experience, people function best when they shut up, look inside, confront fear and then move forward without ego, not to "get xyz for myself" but because somebody is hurting and we have to do something. Logic and reason don't get us entirely to this point, because logic ( = logos = word) is an impediment to resting in silence!

I see precious few real atheists out there. Most of them make a god of logic -- for them, it is the "sine qua non." If you asked them to sit still and rest in deep silence, they would be just as scared as they suppose theists would be to contemplate a universe without god.

I've never seen anyone refer to this "zero sum" thing who actually had a valid point.

Hitchens has reason and logic solidly on his side; you have only a determination to believe in the absurd. Comforting falsehoods are still falsehoods; there is no God and your need to believe in one is a contemptible cowardice, intellectual and otherwise.

Mr Niebuhr:

You are flat out saying that you have a closed mind and that you will dismiss Mr. Hitchens' point without considering it. You then cover your tracks by accusing Mr. Hitchens of your sins. In arguing so arrogantly and irrationally, you nicely illustrate Mr. Hitchens' point.

Even rants can be the subject of conversation. For example, we can say that Mr Hitchens is polite and didn't want to hurt anyone's tender feelings, pulled the punch, didn't tell it like it is.

He could have added to his lengthy list that religion is Devil worship but he didn't. And, he could have backed that claim up with a reading of sacred scriptures. He could have asked the hardest question of them all:

Was that really God in the burning bush? And referenced the only correct reading of the Bible, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul to show he was correct but he didn't. Not this time anyhow.

And, yes the first amendment protects free speech and Devil worshiping too. Free speech isn't tax deductible is it?

So there is conversation stimulated by Mr Hitchens rail but not the kind a minister would likely be comfortable having.

My Esteemed Mr Niebuhr

You are TOO polite sir!

Remember dad's friend Alice Roosevelt Longsworth who said "if you don't have anything nice to say about somebody, come sit over here by me."

Hitchens has been one of the most interesting cultural critics of the last 25 years. He combines usually contradictory qualities (which is in itself often interesting)

and his impoliteness is often *very interesting* (there is nothing more boring than politenesss).

As the writer above noted: one can have a serious discussion for hours about H's question of whether a religion has ever posited a moral proposition that couldn't have been said by an atheist.

And one could write books about the level to which religion has promoted war rather than peace (ie, the level to which "religion is violent" to use H's shorthand).

Your most obedient servant,
Henry James (the Master)

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.

Your dad was a Yankees fan.

Yes Christopher Hitchen's statement is a rant - but why is there "no room for conversation here, no space for dialogue, no opportunity for mutual discovery, for actual learning"?

Is there really no response to "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?" that would explore what makes us fully human?