PDA

View Full Version : " Blair and Hitchens Have a Go At GOD !"



megimoo
11-27-2010, 01:20 PM
Tony Blair defends religious faith

Tony Blair has defended religious faith as a force for good in the world during a televised debate with atheist and columnist Christopher Hitchens.

The former prime minister said it was true that "people commit horrific acts of evil in the name of religion".

But Mr Blair, who converted to Catholicism after leaving government in 2007, said it was also true that religion inspires acts of extraordinary good.

He said it was important not to condemn all people of religious faith because of the "bigotry or prejudice shown by some".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/tony-blair/8164552/Tony-Blair-defends-religious-faith.html

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 01:32 PM
Staunch atheist wins over audience in debate with Catholic convert over whether religion is a force for good in the world

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/11/27/1290850673977/Tony-Blair-left-and-Chris-007.jpg



The motion was:

"Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world".

Both men were unabashedly stalwart in their positions. Hitchens, one of the leading "new atheists" and author of the hit book God Is Not Great, slammed religion as nothing more than supernatural gobbledegook that caused untold misery throughout human history. "Once you assume a creator and a plan it make us subjects in a cruel experiment," Hitchens said before causing widespread laughter by comparing God to "a kind of divine North Korea".

Blair, perhaps not surprisingly, was a little less forthright. On the backfoot for much of the debate he kept returning to his theme that many religious people all over the world were engaged in great and good works. They did that because of their faith, he argued, and to slam all religious people as ignorant or evil was plain wrong. "The proposition that religion is unadulterated poison is unsustainable," he said. Blair called religion at its best "a benign progressive framework by which to live our lives".

Throughout the 90-minute debate Hitchens seemed to have the crowd's sympathy. That might have been to do with his ill appearance due to cancer, but was far more likely to be down to the sharpness of his verbal barbs and the fact that 57% of the audience already agreed with his sceptical position according to a pre-debate poll, while just 22% agreed with Blair's side. The rest were undecided.

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/27/christopher-hitchens-tony-blair-debate)

megimoo
11-27-2010, 02:37 PM
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/11/27/1290850673977/Tony-Blair-left-and-Chris-007.jpg


Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/27/christopher-hitchens-tony-blair-debate)I wonder if he will go that way,All dressed up and nowhere to go !

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 03:32 PM
I wonder if he will go that way,All dressed up and nowhere to go !

I hope so, and I bet he will, too.

I have a lot of time for Hitch, and very little time at all for Tony Blair.

I am not at all surprised at the outcome of the debate. I am looking forward to seeing the video.

wilbur
11-27-2010, 03:54 PM
I wonder if he will go that way,All dressed up and nowhere to go !

Because obviously when you go to heaven, you'll be wearing the clothes that you died in! Duh, that's just common sense!

Although I prefer to rely on the arguments of the analytical philosophers to back up my beliefs about religion, I do love to hear the biting rhetoric of Hitchens. Always superb. So can't wait to hear the debate.

To me, its become pretty irrelevant whether religion has been mostly a force for "good" in the world (though I'm not conceding this point, here).

But so what if it has? There is probably another non-religious belief system/way of living out there which is both true and could act as a greater force for good in the world than any religion today. Given that religion tends to make its adherents disinterested in searching for these other systems, it means that religion imposes a substantial opportunity cost on humanity. We should be concerned about that.

Maybe religion has been 75% good, 25% evil. Well, maybe there's another way of life that can be 85% good, 15% evil, or better. Religion doesn't want you to know!

CueSi
11-27-2010, 04:16 PM
Actually, our pastor does encourage us to look at other beliefs and ideas. Some people do, some don't.

Belief doesn't force a blindfold on you. We do that to ourselves as part of the human condition.

~QC

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 04:36 PM
Actually, our pastor does encourage us to look at other beliefs and ideas. Some people do, some don't.

Belief doesn't force a blindfold on you. We do that to ourselves as part of the human condition.

~QC

Then indeed, you are lucky in your pastor. I'm guessing you attend a fairly liberal Christian church.

If you take the number of priests in each of the three Abrahamic religions and aggregate the number, I would guess that a relatively small percentage of this number would agree with your pastor's point of view.

What was the whole Adam eating the apple schtick all about, otherwise. Wasn't Adam enjoined NOT to look at other beliefs and ideas here?

And didn't he look anyway? THAT is part of the human condition, far more than your blindfold can ever be. And I'm glad for it.

CueSi
11-27-2010, 04:50 PM
Then indeed, you are lucky in your pastor. I'm guessing you attend a fairly liberal Christian church.

If you take the number of priests in each of the three Abrahamic religions and aggregate the number, I would guess that a relatively small percentage of this number would agree with your pastor's point of view.

What was the whole Adam eating the apple schtick all about, otherwise. Wasn't Adam enjoined NOT to look at other beliefs and ideas here?

And didn't he look anyway? THAT is part of the human condition, far more than your blindfold can ever be. And I'm glad for it.

Not really, it's a moderate church.

You're incorrect here. God pointed out another tree that would have given him eternal life, actually. Secondly, it was Eve who first went for the apple...partially because Adam MIS-STATED God's original message, exaggerating it, allowing for the snake to point out Adam's mistake, and take advantage of the situation.

To expand my point... God told Adam not to eat of the tree, while Adam told Eve not even to touch it. I mean, God gave them options. Adam put the blindfold on his wife and misstated God to do it.

My bible-fu isn't perfect, but I always remembered that. And you may not have intended it,I corrected my tone to be as un-condesending as possible can do the same so I don't go into my Beserk Button mode? I don't like going into that mode with people I like and have some respect for. I think wilbur's an asshat, so . . .yeah.

~QC

wilbur
11-27-2010, 05:17 PM
Actually, our pastor does encourage us to look at other beliefs and ideas. Some people do, some don't.


In my experience, this is generally just what people say in order to seem open minded or to make it appear as if they have done their due diligence by subjecting their own predispositions to the same doubt that they have towards others.

Priests can say this because personal predispositions, social and cultural pressures will generally swing their people back to familiar territory in times of doubt. But if such words would truly put their attendance records at risk, you can bet your ass they will stop saying it.

Priests are generally educated on many of the problems with the gospels, the textual criticisms and such. They don't expose congregation to such things because they are extremely hard to reconcile and to explain, in such a way as to preserve their congregation. If your priest is to deserve any accolades for fair mindedness, he'd be discussing these sorts of religious controversies with his congregates, and accepting the inevitable losses.




Belief doesn't force a blindfold on you. We do that to ourselves as part of the human condition.

~QC

That all depends on the belief...

CueSi
11-27-2010, 05:25 PM
In my experience, this is generally just what people say in order to seem open minded or to make it appear as if they have done their due diligence by subjecting their own predispositions to the same doubt that they have towards others.

Priests can say this because personal predispositions, social and cultural pressures will generally swing their people back to familiar territory in times of doubt. But if such words would truly put their attendance records at risk, you can bet your ass they will stop saying it.

Priests are generally educated on many of the problems with the gospels, the textual criticisms and such. They don't expose congregation to such things because they are extremely hard to reconcile and to explain, in such a way as to preserve their congregation. If your priest is to deserve any accolades for fair mindedness, he'd be discussing these sorts of religious controversies with his congregates, and accepting the inevitable losses.



That all depends on the belief...


IOW, they don't mean it because they're priests and think people are too stupid to get it.

He has talked about it. Some people have stopped coming, but many decide to remain.So, before you make your snap judgments, have you attended every church out there, do you know FOR SURE that is how every member of the clergy operates?

Till you do. . . it's kind of a supposition based on the stereotype of the stupid fundie...don't think I forgot that whole Indiana Jones thing, you fucking asshat.

Before you ask, I treat you like this because I don't respect you. Hamps, on the other hand... he's aight.

I'm off to hawk organic soap and have a drink afterward. Ya'll play nice ( or not).

~QC

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 05:28 PM
My bible-fu isn't perfect, but I always remembered that. And you may not have intended it,I corrected my tone to be as un-condesending as possible can do the same so I don't go into my Beserk Button mode? I don't like going into that mode with people I like.

~QC

CueSi, you're one of the best. We can agree to disagree, we can do that.

MrsSmith
11-28-2010, 09:04 AM
Whether or not "religion" has been a force for good in this world, it remains that God has been the only force for good.

Kay
11-28-2010, 10:24 AM
Belief doesn't force a blindfold on you.
We do that to ourselves as part of the human condition.

~QC

Great statement CueSi. I fully agree with that.


In my experience, this is generally just what people say in order to seem open minded or to make it appear as if they have done their due diligence by subjecting their own predispositions to the same doubt that they have towards others.

If your priest is to deserve any accolades for fair mindedness, he'd be discussing these sorts of religious controversies with his congregates, and accepting the inevitable losses.


Now who has the blindfold on. See this is the problem that I have with you atheists. You claim with 100 % certaintly that there is no God like you know that to be absolute truth. You can no more prove there is not a God anymore than I can offer absolute proof that there is.

I read about all kinds of different religions and over the years my beliefs have been influenced by more than just straight Christianity. I keep an open mind. The atheist has a more closed minded belief than a die-hard Church of Christ member does.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2010, 10:44 AM
Great statement CueSi. I fully agree with that.



Now who has the blindfold on. See this is the problem that I have with you atheists. You claim with 100 % certaintly that there is no God like you know that to be absolute truth. You can no more prove there is not a God anymore than I can offer absolute proof that there is.

I read about all kinds of different religions and over the years my beliefs have been influenced by more than just straight Christianity. I keep an open mind. The atheist has a more closed minded belief than a die-hard Church of Christ member does.

As Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God."
I believe many Christians do that. I know I do it daily; I'm not the best of Christians, and it has been a struggle for me, but at least, unlike my militant Atheist counterparts, I do QUESTION whether God or Gods exist. It seems, though that for New Atheists aka Militant Atheists, the question is already solved, and nothing will convince them otherwise, nor do they seem to have an open mind towards even the possibility. And for some like Wilbur, just being an Atheist isn't enough--They have to challenge the faith of others and arrogantly proclaim in essence, they have the patent on the absolute truth of the universe. That's where they piss me off--Belief if you want or not, but don't start trying to fuck with me on my belief.

Personally, I'm open to both ideas--God or no God--because it's a win-win. If there is a God, and we die, there might be some kind of afterlife. If there isn't a God, there's nothing and we won't even realize it. In either case, it's sort of a win-win.

But I prefer to believe in a God--My belief in there being a Supreme Being is firm; It's simply the nature of that being that I'm conflicted on, and I believe, or hope, that there is an afterlife, if not for myself, than for the many who die prematurely--the women and children who are kidnapped and murdered, for example--because at least for them, pain and misery were not the end of existence. If there's not a Heaven for me, than I hope there is a Heaven for all the children who die of horrible diseases like Leukemia or who are killed, and for the women who are abducted and disappear, likely murdered. There should be a Heaven for them, because they deserve it.

NJCardFan
11-28-2010, 01:59 PM
To simply blame religion for the acts of some of it's followers is irresponsible at best because with 6 billion people in the world, you're going to have a few knuckleheads. In any group you're going to have extremists. I find it funny how an idiot like Wilbur can cast aspersions at religion or religious followers when he is a follower of a movement(some would consider a religion) who have had followers commit acts of extreme violence in the name of their movement. As for religion, I'd be willing to bet that there have been more acts of kindness and charity in the name of religion than any other group or movement in the world today.

NJCardFan
11-28-2010, 02:04 PM
Great statement CueSi. I fully agree with that.



Now who has the blindfold on. See this is the problem that I have with you atheists. You claim with 100 % certaintly that there is no God like you know that to be absolute truth. You can no more prove there is not a God anymore than I can offer absolute proof that there is.

I read about all kinds of different religions and over the years my beliefs have been influenced by more than just straight Christianity. I keep an open mind. The atheist has a more closed minded belief than a die-hard Church of Christ member does.

I agree 100%. Look at the anti religion movement in this country. If you don't believe in something or agree with it's followers, then so be it but look at Hollywood and others like them. They mock. They make fun of. They belittle. However, when a religious person comes across an atheist or agnostic, we try to change their minds but if it doesn't work, we move on. We don't mock. We don't make fun of. We don't belittle. Now I ask, who is the more open minded and tolerant?

wilbur
11-28-2010, 08:45 PM
Now who has the blindfold on. See this is the problem that I have with you atheists. You claim with 100 % certaintly that there is no God like you know that to be absolute truth. You can no more prove there is not a God anymore than I can offer absolute proof that there is.

False. This is definitely *not* the position held by many atheists today. Arguably its not the position held by the vast majority of them.

wilbur
11-28-2010, 08:56 PM
I agree 100%. Look at the anti religion movement in this country. If you don't believe in something or agree with it's followers, then so be it but look at Hollywood and others like them. They mock. They make fun of. They belittle. However, when a religious person comes across an atheist or agnostic, we try to change their minds but if it doesn't work, we move on. We don't mock. We don't make fun of. We don't belittle. Now I ask, who is the more open minded and tolerant?

Ok, so you're saying that new atheists act like most people (say, a typical CU member) towards beliefs they strongly oppose? So are you saying that Dawkins et al, basically attack religiosity sort of like Glen Beck attacks liberalism?

I can buy that, I guess.


*Awaits with baited breath for the always predictable "but religion doesn't affect anybody!" response... which almost always seems to be used right after the "religion is causes a lot good in the world!" response, for maximum irony.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2010, 08:58 PM
Ok, so you're saying that new atheists act like most people (say, a typical CU member) towards beliefs they strongly oppose? So are you saying that Dawkins et al, basically attack religiosity sort of like Glen Beck attacks liberalism?

I can buy that, I guess.


*Awaits with baited breath for the always predictable "but religion doesn't affect anybody!" response... which almost always seems to be used right after the "religion is causes a lot good in the world!", for maximum irony.

Well...
You're not Dawkins or Hitchens, but I'll ask you:
Why do you feel the need to attack religion? You personally. Why is it not enough for you to just have your own belief or non-belief?

wilbur
11-28-2010, 09:26 PM
IOW, they don't mean it because they're priests and think people are too stupid to get it.

Actually, I prefer my position the way I phrased it and meant it.



He has talked about it. Some people have stopped coming, but many decide to remain.So, before you make your snap judgments, have you attended every church out there, do you know FOR SURE that is how every member of the clergy operates?

Till you do. . . it's kind of a supposition based on the stereotype of the stupid fundie...don't think I forgot that whole Indiana Jones thing, you fucking asshat.


Well, I'm glad it made an impression, but I sure did forget it. I don't remember that at all.

In any case sure, maybe your priest is one to shun the platitudinal filled, feel-good sermons for in-depth lectures on textual criticisms and skeptical arguments for and against religious faith. Maybe.

Good on him if he is, as I said. But he aint the general case, and single anecdotes, nor even a few exceptions, disprove the general case.



Before you ask, I treat you like this because I don't respect you. Hamps, on the other hand... he's aight.


Ok, got it!

NJCardFan
11-28-2010, 09:43 PM
Ok, so you're saying that new atheists act like most people (say, a typical CU member) towards beliefs they strongly oppose? So are you saying that Dawkins et al, basically attack religiosity sort of like Glen Beck attacks liberalism?

I can buy that, I guess.


*Awaits with baited breath for the always predictable "but religion doesn't affect anybody!" response... which almost always seems to be used right after the "religion is causes a lot good in the world!" response, for maximum irony.

Worse. As I said, look at Hollywood and at how Christians are portrayed in movies. And your strawman doesn't make sense. Beck attacks liberalism because it directly has an impact on our lives. Welfare affects me because I'm being taxed to fund it. Same with any social program I don't receive a benefit from, which is pretty much all of them. And religion doesn't affect anyone in the sense you're comparing to liberalism. Religion isn't the basis for government. Liberalism is. Liberalism ran congress from 2006 until the GOP takes over in January. Liberalism is prominent in the senate. Liberalism is in the White House. Religion doesn't set policy and isn't the ruling body in this country. Oh, you may have Christians holding office but Christianity doesn't make policy. So, again, you're strawman fails.

wilbur
11-28-2010, 09:48 PM
Worse. As I said, look at Hollywood and at how Christians are portrayed in movies. And your strawman doesn't make sense. Beck attacks liberalism because it directly has an impact on our lives. Welfare affects me because I'm being taxed to fund it. Same with any social program I don't receive a benefit from, which is pretty much all of them. And religion doesn't affect anyone in the sense you're comparing to liberalism. Religion isn't the basis for government. Liberalism is. Liberalism ran congress from 2006 until the GOP takes over in January. Liberalism is prominent in the senate. Liberalism is in the White House. Religion doesn't set policy and isn't the ruling body in this country. Oh, you may have Christians holding office but Christianity doesn't make policy. So, again, you're strawman fails.

Annnnnnd, my prediction is fulfilled:


*Awaits with baited breath for the always predictable "but religion doesn't affect anybody!" response... which almost always seems to be used right after the "religion is causes a lot good in the world!" response, for maximum irony.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2010, 10:12 PM
Annnnnnd, my prediction is fulfilled:


*Awaits with baited breath for the always predictable "but religion doesn't affect anybody!" response... which almost always seems to be used right after the "religion is causes a lot good in the world!" response, for maximum irony.

How does religion effect YOU, Atheist warrior man?

NJCardFan
11-28-2010, 10:23 PM
Annnnnnd, my prediction is fulfilled:


*Awaits with baited breath for the always predictable "but religion doesn't affect anybody!" response... which almost always seems to be used right after the "religion is causes a lot good in the world!" response, for maximum irony.

OK asshole, tell me where religion, in the UNITED STATES is responsible for the policy set in this country. And just because it's something you predicted, doesn't make it incorrect. Religion IS responsible for a lot of the good in the world. Also, and I want an answer, current policy, was it dictated by liberalism or religion? Let me help you a bit:

Cap & Trade-liberalism or religion
Obamacare-liberalism or religion
Stimulus-liberalism or religion
Obama apology tour-liberalism or religion


C'mon. Defend your strawman. I'll wait.

wilbur
11-28-2010, 11:34 PM
9/11

*Waits for the goalposts to be narrowed to Christianity

CueSi
11-28-2010, 11:49 PM
Actually, I prefer my position the way I phrased it and meant it.



Well, I'm glad it made an impression, but I sure did forget it. I don't remember that at all.

In any case sure, maybe your priest is one to shun the platitudinal filled, feel-good sermons for in-depth lectures on textual criticisms and skeptical arguments for and against religious faith. Maybe.

Good on him if he is, as I said. But he aint the general case, and single anecdotes, nor even a few exceptions, disprove the general case.



Ok, got it!

With all the condescending in it's place implied, I'm sure.

General. . .in other words, stereotypical.

Come back when you have examined all churches, till then, it's a generalization based in prejudice.

BTW, I'm Protestant... I have a Pastor (as I said in my first post in this track of conversation), not a Priest. The fact that you haven't caught onto that tells me you're just spitting out a BS response.

~QC

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 11:59 PM
9/11

*Waits for the goalposts to be narrowed to Christianity

and was 9/11 committed by the religion of islam or by fanatics?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-29-2010, 12:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBxE4vkgu5g

wilbur
11-29-2010, 10:20 AM
and was 9/11 committed by the religion of islam or by fanatics?

Are you prepared to side with the Marxists today, and say that Marxism killed no one, only some fanatics? One of the material consequences to the world of the religion of Islam, is fanatics like those who committed 9/11, just like one of the material consequences to the world of Marxist philosophy, was despotic communist regimes.

Religion certainly doesn't inspire all violent fanatics, but it inspired *these* fanatics. So yes, I would say that the religion of Islam caused 9/11.

PoliCon
11-29-2010, 10:26 AM
Are you prepared to side with the Marxists today, and say that Marxism killed no one, only some fanatics? One of the material consequences to the world of the religion of Islam, is fanatics like those who committed 9/11, just like one of the material consequences to the world of Marxist philosophy, was despotic communist regimes.

Religion certainly doesn't inspire all violent fanatics, but it inspired *these* fanatics. So yes, I would say that the religion of Islam caused 9/11.

OK. And what violent fanatics have any of the other major religions in the world spawned?

wilbur
11-29-2010, 10:27 AM
With all the condescending in it's place implied, I'm sure.

General. . .in other words, stereotypical.


Sure, stereotypes. In reality, there is nothing pejorative or bad about the word stereotype. It's simply a generalization... we often use it to describe prejudiced generalizations, but it doesnt have to be.



Come back when you have examined all churches, till then, it's a generalization based in prejudice.


No, its a generalization based on my experience attending churches all my life, seeing sermons in many churches besides my own, talking to congregates, and religious people.




BTW, I'm Protestant... I have a Pastor (as I said in my first post in this track of conversation), not a Priest. The fact that you haven't caught onto that tells me you're just spitting out a BS response.

~QC

Priest/Minister/Paster/whatever

wilbur
11-29-2010, 10:28 AM
OK. And what violent fanatics have any of the other major religions in the world spawned?

Christianity spawned Islam, and Judaism spawned Christianity... so its all the Joooooo's.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-29-2010, 10:54 AM
Really, every ideology has blood on it's hands.
Should we outlaw ideology in general, Wilbur?
Oh no, because then your fucking Marxism would be outlawed.
You fucking Militant Atheist piece of garbage.

wilbur
11-29-2010, 11:02 AM
Really, every ideology has blood on it's hands.


Sure, ok.



Should we outlaw ideology in general, Wilbur?


How many times are you going to ask this question, and how many times am I going to have to answer "No" before you hear it?



Oh no, because then your fucking Marxism would be outlawed.


<facepalm>



You fucking Militant Atheist piece of garbage.

Good day to you too!

PoliCon
11-29-2010, 11:19 AM
Christianity spawned Islam, and Judaism spawned Christianity... so its all the Joooooo's.

HTF do you figure Christianity spawned islam??? :confused:

PoliCon
11-29-2010, 11:21 AM
Really, every ideology has blood on it's hands.


Case in point, Atheism has more blood on it's hands than any other ideology in the last century.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-29-2010, 11:26 AM
Case in point, Atheism has more blood on it's hands than any other ideology in the last century.

Yeah I know.
These "New" Atheists piss me off.

Odysseus
11-29-2010, 11:45 AM
9/11

*Waits for the goalposts to be narrowed to Christianity
Because, of course, it was all relgious thought that was responsible for the destruction of the WTC, right? :rolleyes:

Are you prepared to side with the Marxists today, and say that Marxism killed no one, only some fanatics? One of the material consequences to the world of the religion of Islam, is fanatics like those who committed 9/11, just like one of the material consequences to the world of Marxist philosophy, was despotic communist regimes.
You comparing apples to oranges. Marxism is one form of government/economics, just as Islam is only one form of religion. To claim that all religions are responsible for 9/11 is like claiming that all economic systems are responsible for the gulags. Clearly, this is a false analogy. Adam Smith is no more responsible for the gulags than Moses is responsible for 9/11. Those atrocities can be laid at the feet of Marx and Islam, respectively.

Religion certainly doesn't inspire all violent fanatics, but it inspired *these* fanatics. So yes, I would say that the religion of Islam caused 9/11.
But you aren't claiming that one religion inspired 9/11, you are claming that all religion is responsbile, that it was "religion" that cause it, rather than one religion whose tenets demand the murder of the unfaithful.


Christianity spawned Islam, and Judaism spawned Christianity... so its all the Joooooo's.
Christianity didn't spawn Islam. Mohammed was an illiterate bedouin who concocted a religion to inspire and justify conquest. His knowledge of Christianity and Judaism was highly limited, and his nods to those religions were based on tactical consideration (he wanted followers and tried to co-opt the other religions, just as he eventually claimed that Allah would accept the idols of his own tribe before realizing that he had gone to far and recanted), rather than any belief in the tenets of Christianity or Judaism. In fact, it was the rejection of Mohammed by Christians and especially Jews that resulted in his rabid denunciations of both faiths and their followers.

Islam is to the other Abrahamic religions as a virus is to a healthy organism.

PoliCon
11-29-2010, 11:58 AM
Yeah I know.
These "New" Atheists piss me off.

There's a reason why I avoid arguing faith with atheists.

megimoo
11-29-2010, 01:02 PM
Christianity spawned Islam, and Judaism spawned Christianity... so its all the Joooooo's.
Mohammed spawned Islam, Christ,the Messiah, wasn't ' spawned ' HE was promised by GOD.

CueSi
11-29-2010, 01:28 PM
Sure, stereotypes. In reality, there is nothing pejorative or bad about the word stereotype. It's simply a generalization... we often use it to describe prejudiced generalizations, but it doesnt have to be.
No, its a generalization based on my experience attending churches all my life, seeing sermons in many churches besides my own, talking to congregates, and religious people.
Priest/Minister/Paster/whatever

'In reality'... fuck you and the horse you rode in on with that implication. You know what I meant in this context. In this context, stereotype is a negative...Based on your experience which, let's be honest, is colored by your atheism.

And lack of respect for people of faith.

~QC

wilbur
11-29-2010, 04:09 PM
Because, of course, it was all relgious thought that was responsible for the destruction of the WTC, right? :rolleyes:

You comparing apples to oranges. Marxism is one form of government/economics, just as Islam is only one form of religion. To claim that all religions are responsible for 9/11 is like claiming that all economic systems are responsible for the gulags. Clearly, this is a false analogy. Adam Smith is no more responsible for the gulags than Moses is responsible for 9/11. Those atrocities can be laid at the feet of Marx and Islam, respectively.

But you aren't claiming that one religion inspired 9/11, you are claming that all religion is responsible, that it was "religion" that cause it, rather than one religion whose tenets demand the murder of the unfaithful.


Obviously *all* religions didn't cause 9/11. Seriously?!

Saying something to the effect of "religion caused X", is not equivalent to saying "all religions caused X".

In the first instance, "religion" signifies one or more items belonging to the category called "religion". In the second sentence, "all religions" signifies *all* items belonging to the category religion (duh).

And in this thread, I have spoken of religion in the manner of the first sentence, not the second, since it was the manner in which the topic of the Hitchens/Blare debate in the OP was framed. Basic English... its pretty cool.



Christianity didn't spawn Islam. Mohammed was an illiterate bedouin who concocted a religion to inspire and justify conquest. His knowledge of Christianity and Judaism was highly limited, and his nods to those religions were based on tactical consideration (he wanted followers and tried to co-opt the other religions, just as he eventually claimed that Allah would accept the idols of his own tribe before realizing that he had gone to far and recanted), rather than any belief in the tenets of Christianity or Judaism. In fact, it was the rejection of Mohammed by Christians and especially Jews that resulted in his rabid denunciations of both faiths and their followers.


It doesn't matter what Mohammed's motivations were - Islam is indelibly linked with the other Abrahamic religions. It was born out of Christianity and Judaism together in a way similar to the way Christianity was born from Judaism. One tangible and practical consequence of both religions existing in the world is the religion of Islam. The objection you're raising is *exactly* like the objection that Marxists use, when defending their belief that "Marxism hasnt been tried".

Its interesting that you're always the one to draw amazingly tenuous connections between Judao-Christian thought and every positive idea in the 20th century, all of which are far, far weaker than its strong connection to Islam. Classic (and monumental) double-standard.

Odysseus
11-29-2010, 06:42 PM
Obviously *all* religions didn't cause 9/11. Seriously?!

Saying something to the effect of "religion caused X", is not equivalent to saying "all religions caused X".

In the first instance, "religion" signifies one or more items belonging to the category called "religion". In the second sentence, "all religions" signifies *all* items belonging to the category religion (duh).

And in this thread, I have spoken of religion in the manner of the first sentence, not the second, since it was the manner in which the topic of the Hitchens/Blare debate in the OP was framed. Basic English... its pretty cool.

You are contradicting yourself when you claim that "religion" signifies one or more items belonging to the category called "religion", since religion in the singular refers to the category as a whole. In fact, the category of religion includes many religions. By saying "religion caused X", you are stating that the causation was not one religion, but religion as a whole, i.e., all of them. Had you said, "One religion caused X," or "religions caused X", then you would be specifying parts of the whole, and would be correct. However, since you did not, you are not.

Basic English is pretty cool. You should try to use it.


It doesn't matter what Mohammed's motivations were - Islam is indelibly linked with the other Abrahamic religions. It was born out of Christianity and Judaism together in a way similar to the way Christianity was born from Judaism.
Not even close. Jesus was a Jew who preached within the tradition of Hebrew prophets. Mohammed was neither a Christian nor a Jew, and had no understanding of either religion beyond the most superficial aspects of either. Jesus did not seek to supplant or overthrow Judaism, nor did he embark on a mission of conquest to do so. Mohammed sought temporal power through religious authority, and used Islam as an excuse to conquer the Arabian Peninsula. To say that Islam was born out of Christianity in the same way that Christianity was born out of Judaism demonstrates ignorance of all three religions.


One tangible and practical consequence of both religions existing in the world is the religion of Islam. The objection you're raising is *exactly* like the objection that Marxists use, when defending their belief that "Marxism hasnt been tried".

That is a stretch worthy of an Olympic gymnast. The correlation of certain commonalities between the three religions is not a causation, and this is where Mohammed's motivations are not only relevant, but critical. Islam adopted some superficial aspects of Judaism and Christianity because Mohammed wanted to present himself as a prophet to Jews and Christians, not because he believed in any of the tenets of either faith. When that failed, he reversed course and declared Jews and Christians to be apostates. To claim that Islam is a consequence of Judaism and Christianity is like saying that suffocation is a consequence of respiration.


Its interesting that you're always the one to draw amazingly tenuous connections between Judao-Christian thought and every positive idea in the 20th century, all of which are far, far weaker than its strong connection to Islam. Classic (and monumental) double-standard.
This is what we call "projection". In fact, it is you who draws amazingly tenuous connections between Judeo-Christian thought and every negative idea in history, including the rise of Islam. Let's remember that Mohammed briefly entertained the idea of allowing idol worship, only reversing himself when he realized that he was alienating his supporters without endearing himself to his tribesmen, hence the famous "Satanic Verses" controversy in the Qur'an. Mohammed was an illiterate opportunist who took elements of everything around him in order to try to appeal to the widest possible group of potential converts, and when that failed, he embarked on a campaign of conquest and forced conversion.

NJCardFan
11-29-2010, 07:29 PM
Mohammed was an illiterate opportunist

Not to mention a pederast.

Zathras
11-29-2010, 08:05 PM
Heh heh, I love watching the Major take little wilbur's postings behind the woodshed and ripping the guts out of them.....over and over and over and over again.

hampshirebrit
12-01-2010, 05:58 PM
I hate like hell (:rolleyes:) to drag a thread back to the intent of the OP, but the video of this event is now available on YT, and for a paltry fee, hopefully for better video quality, also at the munkdebates.com site.

I have to say, this is one of the better debates I've seen. I think both Hitch and TB came across very well.

90 minutes or so of content. From a real debate p.o.v, it is a joy to watch, whatever your inclination.