Faith and Religion

[Strontium]

7 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

Who was one of Britain's biggest proponents of the Iraq War which killed a million people. 

 

Wait until you hear how many died in WWII.

[Jordy Brouwer]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Wait until you hear how many died in WWII.

That's a fallacy of irrelevance. Hitchens supported the Iraq War. It stands condemned on its own terms. I never ever understand why people revere that guy. 

[Rico1304]

26 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

That's a fallacy of irrelevance. Hitchens supported the Iraq War. It stands condemned on its own terms. I never ever understand why people revere that guy. 

He did, but later admitted he was wrong.  Imagine that.  

[Strontium]

32 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

That's a fallacy of irrelevance. Hitchens supported the Iraq War. It stands condemned on its own terms. I never ever understand why people revere that guy. 

 

I agree that body counts are irrelevant to whether a war is moral or not, although that was something you brought up.

 

Regardless, whether Hitchens was wrong or right about Iraq (an arguable point), it's his unimpeachable views on religion which concern us in this thread.

[Jordy Brouwer]

16 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

He did, but later admitted he was wrong.  Imagine that.  

I didn't see that but it hardly makes much difference. He was one of the most influential British cheerleaders of a war which killed a million people. 

 

That's too big to be a "whoopsie daisy". 

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

I didn't see that but it hardly makes much difference. He was one of the most influential British cheerleaders of a war which killed a million people. 

 

That's too big to be a "whoopsie daisy". 

How was he influential? I’m not being snarky because 1m marched against the war and they were ignored so how do you know he was influencial?  People didn’t take a lot of notice of his stuff on religion so why, on this topic, was he influential?  Vocal, I’ll give you that.  

[Jordy Brouwer]

16 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I agree that body counts are irrelevant to whether a war is moral or not, although that was something you brought up.

 

Regardless, whether Hitchens was wrong or right about Iraq (an arguable point), it's his unimpeachable views on religion which concern us in this thread.

 

He copied and pasted his views on religion from his days as a Trotskyist. He didn't have to change them one iota.

 

 He found success with them because there was a huge market of people desperate to believe they are better than some group of people. 

 

Hitchens own life shows how little it matters whether you are religious or not. You can attribute all the negative agency to religions and religious people you want, Hitchens spent the best years of his life supporting histories' most murderous ideology (Communism) and even when he left it he attached himself to the murderous ideology of neoconservatism. Everything the guy ever supported was more steeped in blood than any ranting zealot could muster. 

 

I'm a lifelong atheist, have never believed in god for one nanosecond and I know I'm not better than all the religious people. Hitchens could never figure that out despite the stupendous piles of bodies in his ideological wake.  

[Jordy Brouwer]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

How was he influential? I’m not being snarky because 1m marched against the war and they were ignored so how do you know he was influencial?  People didn’t take a lot of notice of his stuff on religion so why, on this topic, was he influential?  Vocal, I’ll give you that.  

The made the idiotic venture more "intellectual" for the Yanks by speaking in favour of it in an eloquent way (I'll give him that) and a British accent. The yanks ate it up - I remember it clear as day. 

[Jordy Brouwer]

5 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

How was he influential? I’m not being snarky because 1m marched against the war and they were ignored so how do you know he was influencial?  People didn’t take a lot of notice of his stuff on religion so why, on this topic, was he influential?  Vocal, I’ll give you that.  

I'll ask you a good faith question. When did Hitchens admit he was wrong about Iraq. I'd genuinely like to see it. 

[Rico1304]

10 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

I'll ask you a good faith question. When did Hitchens admit he was wrong about Iraq. I'd genuinely like to see it. 

From my memory he said something along the lines of ‘he fell for the all lies’

 

My point is, if the governments wanted to invade, it happened despite 1m marching, how did he influence them?  If he had been silent do you think it wouldn’t have happened? 
 

He absolutely supported it though. 

[rb14]

Probably posted this before, but I don't really care. 

 

 

[Jordy Brouwer]

21 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

From my memory he said something along the lines of ‘he fell for the all lies’

 

My point is, if the governments wanted to invade, it happened despite 1m marching, how did he influence them?  If he had been silent do you think it wouldn’t have happened? 
 

He absolutely supported it though. 

 

No that's not what I was saying. What I'd say his he was very useful to the Bush administration and more so than any other British public intellectual. 

 

"He fell for all the lies"? Okay I'll just file that in my groaning filing cabinet marked "it doesn't actually matter that much whether a person is religious, what tends to matter is other qualities of mind". 

 

Follow up question, since Hitchens also once called Saddam Hussein "perhaps the most visionary Arab statesman since Nasser" - https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/12/hitchens-iraq-foot-blair

 

did he fall for all the lies then? Did he fall for all the lies regarding Communism?

 

Final question - if the guy kept falling for every lie going isn't that proof that being an atheist doesn't make that much difference and that we atheists shouldn't swagger about how much better we are without any actual track record to back it up?

 

Just something to chew on. 

[Rico1304]

28 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

 

No that's not what I was saying. What I'd say his he was very useful to the Bush administration and more so than any other British public intellectual. 

 

"He fell for all the lies"? Okay I'll just file that in my groaning filing cabinet marked "it doesn't actually matter that much whether a person is religious, what tends to matter is other qualities of mind". 

 

Follow up question, since Hitchens also once called Saddam Hussein "perhaps the most visionary Arab statesman since Nasser" - https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/12/hitchens-iraq-foot-blair

 

did he fall for all the lies then? Did he fall for all the lies regarding Communism?

 

Final question - if the guy kept falling for every lie going isn't that proof that being an atheist doesn't make that much difference and that we atheists shouldn't swagger about how much better we are without any actual track record to back it up?

 

Just something to chew on. 

But none of those ‘mistakes’ were faith based. 

[Strontium]

21 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

Final question - if the guy kept falling for every lie going isn't that proof that being an atheist doesn't make that much difference and that we atheists shouldn't swagger about how much better we are without any actual track record to back it up?

 

Is that what atheists do? I was under the impression that atheists and sceptics were concerned about the verifiably false claims that religion makes, and the impact that these false beliefs have on our societies. This isn't to say that individual atheists are infallible or necessarily better people. There are plenty of things people can be wrong about even if they are right about religion.

[Creator Supreme]

3 hours ago, rb14 said:

Probably posted this before, but I don't really care. 

 

 

That's about the size of it.

[Jordy Brouwer]

21 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

But none of those ‘mistakes’ were faith based. 

Yes that's my point. Whether one has faith or not doesn't matter. A corpse killed by a communist is the same as a corpse killed by a Christian. 

[Jordy Brouwer]

21 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Is that what atheists do? I was under the impression that atheists and sceptics were concerned about the verifiably false claims that religion makes, and the impact that these false beliefs have on our societies. This isn't to say that individual atheists are infallible or necessarily better people. There are plenty of things people can be wrong about even if they are right about religion.

Yes all the time. Absolutely all the time.  Some have made lucrative careers about it on the internet so great is the market for it. Some atheists have also gotten over themselves and realise its not their business what other people believe. There are as many athesisms as atheists (that's also of religion by the way).

 

Bit of a "no true Scotsman" on the second point there. 

 

Atheists are just people. Like religious people. Flawed and frail people. Some of the most swaggering and posturing atheists illustrate that. Very much like Christopher "never supported an intellectual trend that didn't fail and leave oceans of blood" Hitchens. 

[Strontium]

24 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

Yes all the time. Absolutely all the time.  Some have made lucrative careers about it on the internet so great is the market for it. Some atheists have also gotten over themselves and realise its not their business what other people believe. There are as many athesisms as atheists (that's also of religion by the way).

 

I think the point is that religious people have made it our business what they believe, because religion taints and poisons our existence in so many ways. If people kept their beliefs to themselves, then of course it would still be nonsense, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as much of an issue. I mean, astrology is nonsense, but astrologers aren't blowing themselves up in nightclubs or demanding astrology be taught in science classes or creating patriarchal societies in which women are subjugated or stoning people to death for saying that astrology is nonsense.

Of course there are many kinds of atheist, but there is only one atheism, and that's absence of a belief in god or gods. I don't particularly like the term. Nobody would have invented the term atheism if the concept of god had never existed. And nobody who doesn't believe in astrology calls themself an anastrologist.
 

Quote

Bit of a "no true Scotsman" on the second point there. 

Atheists are just people. Like religious people. Flawed and frail people. Some of the most swaggering and posturing atheists illustrate that. Very much like Christopher "never supported an intellectual trend that didn't fail and leave oceans of blood" Hitchens.

 

I can't see any No True Scotsman there. But you are indulging in a bit of a sleight of hand here by talking about atheists rather than atheism. Atheists are flawed like any other person, but - crucially - they are not flawed because of their atheism. It wasn't Hitch's atheism that inspired him to follow Marxist-Leninism, or to abandon it.

[Jordy Brouwer]

1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I think the point is that religious people have made it our business what they believe, because religion taints and poisons our existence in so many ways. If people kept their beliefs to themselves, then of course it would still be nonsense, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as much of an issue. I mean, astrology is nonsense, but astrologers aren't blowing themselves up in nightclubs or demanding astrology be taught in science classes or creating patriarchal societies in which women are subjugated or stoning people to death for saying that astrology is nonsense.

Of course there are many kinds of atheist, but there is only one atheism, and that's absence of a belief in god or gods. I don't particularly like the term. Nobody would have invented the term atheism if the concept of god had never existed. And n obody who doesn't believe in astrology calls themself an anastrologist.
 

 

I can't see any No True Scotsman there. But you are indulging in a bit of a sleight of hand here by talking about atheists rather than atheism. Atheists are flawed like any other person, but - crucially - they are not flawed because of their atheism. It wasn't Hitch's atheism that inspired him to follow Marxist-Leninism, or to abandon it.

 

 

I think the point is that religious people have made it our business what they believe, because religion taints and poisons our existence in so many ways.

 

Can you give examples? Don't atheists sometimes stick their noses into what people believe (I'm asking that rhetorically)? Are you daily assailed by religious people trying to convert you in this oh so religious country? How are those dastardly religious people victimising you?

 

Atheists are flawed like any other person, but - crucially - they are not flawed because of their atheism

 

So atheism is except from having negative agency and religion isn't? So when Chinese communists killed religious people specifically because they were religious and specifically for atheistic reasons that isn't atheisms fault merely the fault of individual atheists, but when a Muslim straps a bomb to himself that is religions fault in general terms. THAT, my friend, is sleight of hand. It is playing silly buggers with agency - where one's tribe always magically comes out clean. 

 

Militant (literally militant) atheism has indeed been an historical phenomenon.

 

Spoiler alert- there are no clean tribes. Just people. 

[Strontium]

3 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

I think the point is that religious people have made it our business what they believe, because religion taints and poisons our existence in so many ways.

 

Can you give examples? Don't atheists sometimes stick their noses into what people believe (I'm asking that rhetorically)? Are you daily assailed by religious people trying to convert you in this oh so religious country? How are those dastardly religious people victimising you?

 

Atheists are flawed like any other person, but - crucially - they are not flawed because of their atheism

 

So atheism is except from having negative agency and religion isn't? So when Chinese communists killed religious people specifically because they were religious and specifically for atheistic reasons that isn't atheisms fault merely the fault of individual atheists, but when a Muslim straps a bomb to himself that is religions fault in general terms. THAT, my friend, is sleight of hand. It is playing silly buggers with agency - where one's tribe always magically comes out clean. 

 

Militant (literally militant) atheism has indeed been an historical phenomenon.

 

Spoiler alert- there are no clean tribes. Just people. 

 

You're seriously asking for examples of the ways in which religion has tainted and poisoned our existence? I can just point to the innumerable theocracies on the planet, or the illiberal religious-inspired laws in many countries on everything from abortion and blasphemy to homosexuality and adultery.

 

Do I need to be assailed daily, or just occasionally? Does it need to happen to me personally, or can it be other people, perhaps in other countries? Really weird attitude.

 

Atheism isn't exempt from having negative agency, but you would need to demonstrate it has negative agency. You can't just say "An atheist did this, therefore he was motivated by his atheism".

 

When Chinese communists were purging their society of the clergy, were they doing it to advance the cause of reason? The cause of scepticism? Was Richard Dawkins egging them on? Or was it because traditional religions like Buddhism and Confucianism and Christianity were at odds with the new secular religion of communism?

 

We know why suicide bombers or any other religious-inspired terrorists do what they do, because they tell us. They tell us they are motivated directly by their faith, and because they hate the permissiveness of our society and so on.

 

None of this has anything to do with the cleanliness of tribes. It is about what motivates people. 

 

But even if atheists were doing things because they are atheists, it still wouldn't mean that God exists. Which, after all, is the main point.

[Bjornebye]

Religion is a cunts trick. I'll always respect somebody's beliefs, it's up to them what they want to believe in and how they want to behave but history has shown that religion is nothing but a menace. 

 

Not a Prick > Prick. End of. 

[Jordy Brouwer]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

You're seriously asking for examples of the ways in which religion has tainted and poisoned our existence? I can just point to the innumerable theocracies on the planet, or the illiberal religious-inspired laws in many countries on everything from abortion and blasphemy to homosexuality and adultery.

 

Do I need to be assailed daily, or just occasionally? Does it need to happen to me personally, or can it be other people, perhaps in other countries? Really weird attitude.

 

Atheism isn't exempt from having negative agency, but you would need to demonstrate it has negative agency. You can't just say "An atheist did this, therefore he was motivated by his atheism".

 

When Chinese communists were purging their society of the clergy, were they doing it to advance the cause of reason? The cause of scepticism? Was Richard Dawkins egging them on? Or was it because traditional religions like Buddhism and Confucianism and Christianity were at odds with the new secular religion of communism?

 

We know why suicide bombers or any other religious-inspired terrorists do what they do, because they tell us. They tell us they are motivated directly by their faith, and because they hate the permissiveness of our society and so on.

 

None of this has anything to do with the cleanliness of tribes. It is about what motivates people. 

 

But even if atheists were doing things because they are atheists, it still wouldn't mean that God exists. Which, after all, is the main point.

 

You're seriously asking for examples of the ways in which religion has tainted and poisoned our existence?

 

Actually no, I was asking you what religions has done to you. 

 

Do I need to be assailed daily, or just occasionally? Does it need to happen to me personally, or can it be other people, perhaps in other countries? Really weird attitude.

 

It has to be happen to you personally if your assertion is "religion taints and poisons our existence in so many ways." "Our" has to include you. I was trying to see what is bother you personally or how religious people are bothering you personally. 

 

You can answer if you want. 

 

Atheism isn't exempt from having negative agency, but you would need to demonstrate it has negative agency. You can't just say "An atheist did this, therefore he was motivated by his atheism".

 

Quite, in that and all other cases. 

 

When Chinese communists were purging their society of the clergy, were they doing it to advance the cause of reason? The cause of scepticism?

 

In their own minds, yes most likely. 

 

We know why suicide bombers or any other religious-inspired terrorists do what they do, because they tell us. They tell us they are motivated directly by their faith, and because they hate the permissiveness of our society and so on.

 

Serious researches of suicide bombers such as Robert Pape ("Dying to Win) have identified resistance to foreign occupation as the primary factor with religious motivation secondary. 

 

Until recently the organisation that used the most suicide attacks were the Tamil Tigers a Sri Lankan socialist organisation. 

 

But even if atheists were doing things because they are atheists, it still wouldn't mean that God exists. Which, after all, is the main point.

 

That's correct, god doesn't exist. However, atheists aren't per se better than religious people and the contrary conceit is what gets me. Its all bullshit. What originally pissed me off was people like the late Hitchens going on about how terrible religion is and how it leads to wars when Hitchens supported every war going and histories bloodiest ideology. To use religious language Hitchens saw the mote in his neighbour's eye and not the beam in his own. Its always better to mow one's own lawn than worry about the state of one's neighbours' and if peacefulness is the concern then the likes of Sam Harris and Hitchens always had more than enough of their own business to be getting on with. 

 

[Creator Supreme]

I wasn't sure where to put this as it's FF on the GF (I await and accept the negs), but I find this interesting but at the same time very worrying (especially as a couple of our lads are involved with this religion).

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60483820

 

Unsurprising to see Neymar front and centre, the creepy little cunt. Also unsurprising that he's Bolsonaro's bitch.

 

I've no issue with people practicing religion in their church, mosque, synagogue, temple etc, or own living room for that matter. Just keep it the fuck out of sport!

[Gnasher]

Just thought I'd raise the bar a bit as mothers day soon be on us;

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]