"God Is Not Great"

[Comsatangel]

Has anyone read Christopher Hitchens' book "God Is Not Great?" A friend of mine copied the audiobook for me and I've been listening to a bit of it on my way to work. I must say, I'm appalled, but not surprised by Hitchens' pro Bush, pro war stance and I was initially not keen on giving the book a chance. However, from the first couple of chapters I've listened to, it seems to be quite a good critique of organised religion. Similar to Dawkins' "God Delusion" but with less emphasis on the scientific side of things and more emphasis on the cultural side.

[Mandy]

[web]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not ... Everything[/web]

Ironic he supports Bush (and by association Blair) who wraps themselves in religion [answering to a "higher father"]


Disclaimer : I do believe in God ..

[faceless]

any chance you can upload the files comsatangel?

[Comsatangel]

I'll see what I can do. I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to that, but I'll see if I can give myself a quick tutorial!

[Salim201]

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

That pretty much defines human civilisations throughout history, religion doesn't even come into it.

[luke]

there was an interesting debate the other month with hitchens and dawkins

[web]https://heathlander.wordpress.com/2007/0 ... -religion/[/web]

[nekokate]

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

That pretty much defines human civilisations throughout history, religion doesn't even come into it.

Exactly. That's human nature - the unconscious effects of testosterone and oestrogen - not a by-product of faith.

[til661]

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

That pretty much defines human civilisations throughout history, religion doesn't even come into it.

Exactly so.

BUT...

The argument isn't and never was that religion invented these traits but that it reinforced and amplified them. As Dawkins (and by proxy Hitchens) has said repeatedly it is the concept behind religion, the idea of irrational or blind faith as virtue which is the problem not the messages of religion itself (which are usually trite platitudes, at best). The most dangerous aspect of religion, as a concept, is the promotion of superstition and credulous thinking and the blind acceptance of the authority of a higher power. It intentionally promotes unquestioning subservience as a virtue and of accepting your 'lot in life' as just.

Nobody suggested a world without religion would be without blemish, but it would give one less reason for people to justify their ignorance and cruelty.

The fact that we are still arguing about bronze-age creation myths at all is a depressing thought indeed.

[Mandy]

The most dangerous aspect of religion, as a concept, is the promotion of superstition and credulous thinking and the blind acceptance of the authority of a higher power.

Can't help feeling some governments would rather replace religion (since you can't control what god said) to indoctrination to obey and die for the commander-in-chief or the royal family or the flag.

Nobody suggested a world without religion would be without blemish, but it would give one less reason for people to justify their ignorance and cruelty.

Religion is important, and I, for one, do believe in God. Without it, people will tend to follow dictators.

[til661]

Can't help feeling some governments would rather replace religion (since you can't control what god said) to indoctrination to obey and die for the commander-in-chief or the royal family or the flag.

Or more often they use religion to bolster Nationalism. W. is a case in point. And what did "God" say? You do know the New Testament, Old Testament, Koran etc. are all written by man, centuries after the supposed events. They can and HAVE been changed many times.

Religion is important, and I, for one, do believe in God. Without it, people will tend to follow dictators.

If you look at the figures you'll find that the countries with higher % of atheism are liberal democracies, Scandinavia, Czech Republic, Britain, France etc. The idea that religion is a preventative against dictatorship is a nonsense you only need to look at the history of our own country, the divine right of king's et al

Your idea is not a prevantative against dictatorship it is a recipe for it. "Believe this because it's good for you" completely untrue of course but hey, people need to be controlled right?

It wasn't until people threw of the shackles of religion that we actually began to understand the world, and understand ourselves.

[Mandy]

Dictators may use religion when it suites them (if they can get a religion to closely identify with them as head, e.g. Protestants), but more often than not, dictators tend to hate religion. Look at all the middle eastern dictators .. they are all secular [indeed, that was a pre-requisit of the west to find secular dictators who will control their people, and open up their countries to western trade]

Recall Saddam Hussein [the West's ex-friendly dictator] ? He was the biggest bulwark against Islam.

Though religion itself can be used for wars (e.g. the Crusader wars, or the 3 C's in Colonialism [Civility, Commerce, Christianity I believe])

[til661]

The only middle eastern dictator who is secular is Assad with the departure of Hussein. The rest are theocrats. As has been the case throughout history.

[Mandy]

The only middle eastern dictator who is secular is Assad with the departure of Hussein. The rest are theocrats. As has been the case throughout history.

You must be kidding .. Ever been to Dubai ? You think their rulers, or even Saudi Arabia etc, are religious ? How many casinos do they own or frequent in London, Paris etc. ?

Some rulers allow "Religious police" some latitude .. but that is all for show for the plebs .. look at what the rulers do for themselves.

Note : I thought the Turkish Empire controlled the middle east . till Laurence of Arabia time, when the house of Saud were "picked" to run the place by the west.

The middle east is controlled by PUPPETS of the west [easily knocked off or replaces at will]. How is that a theocracy ?

[til661]

I don't know them personally, but i know that Dubai or the UAE generally isn't a secular state.

I'm not sure you understand what theocracy means, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan,Qatar etc are all theocracies.

[Mandy]

I don't know them personally, but i know that Dubai or the UAE generally isn't a secular state.

I'm not sure you understand what theocracy means, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan,Qatar etc are all theocracies.

Dubai is INCREDIBLY secular. Feels like London, Paris, NY etc.

I only count Iran as a theocracy.


Whilst Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Qatar are run by puppet dictators of the west. These rulers hate religion, because they realise it would undermine them, which is why the USSR clamped down on religion (or at least the religions which didn't support them).