1. Comment #157195 by Matt7895 on April 8, 2008 at 4:28 pm

How awful it is that Peter Hitchens turns out to be an Intelligent Design proponent. He's deluding himself when it comes to God, but on Intelligent Design he's either ignorant or he willfully ignores the evidence.

Other Comments by Matt7895

2. Comment #157197 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm

he's either ignorant or he willfully ignores the evidence

Or because of sibling rivalry. It is possible.

Other Comments by Bonzai

3. Comment #157199 by maton100 on April 8, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Christ, this is hilarious.

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #157209 by aquilacane on April 8, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Is Peter a middle child? Sibling rivalry sounds interesting. Are the parents highly religious? I wonder if a favoured second child could be more prone to defend the family (faith)? Perhaps he has a mind of his own (Although shared by default with millions of other worshipers of ID)?

I guess a religious person will always search the ends of rainbows for pots of gold, believing one day they'll finally find one. And agnostics casually take a look just incase it's true. Of course Atheists study the rainbow, figure out how to reproduce and improve upon it, then cast rainbows in conveniently hilarious locations, just for a good laugh.

Guess I'll watch then

Other Comments by aquilacane

5. Comment #157210 by Peacebeuponme on April 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Gonna finish this off tomorroew. Peter trots out the old "without god everthing is permitted". Embarrassing for him.

I thought he did well on the Iraq bit. Hate myself when I slightly side with him on anything.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

6. Comment #157215 by Stephen Maxwell on April 8, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Peter's weak example of countering Christopher's morality challenging made me cringe.

Christopher was highly amusing in getting his point across, even when it was a horrible thought that he was describing, for example the story about the terrorist who murdered Leon Klinghoffer.

"He avoided arrest and had to be released because he had a diplomatic passport..."

"A what passport???...A WHAT passport?????!!!!!"

"A diplomatic passport..."

"What diplomatic passport??"

"An Iraqi diplomatic passport!!"

Better to laugh than to cry I guess.

I also particularly enjoyed his dealing with the guy who posed the Stalin, Mao etc question. "You lose boychick!"

Also, he dealt amicably with the religious experience question, in that you have to accept it for the evil religious experiences as well as the good religious experiences

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

7. Comment #157220 by black wolf on April 8, 2008 at 6:00 pm

I'm still watching.
Believers should really try to avoid the Isaac story. Hmm, they'd need to delete it from the Bible. There is simply no way to justify this story, except when you're a priest king trying to justify your arbitrary totalitarian regime. Or when you try to rationalize your cosmic Stockholm syndrome. Asking a theologian to explain this is like asking a car crash victim to please stop bleeding.
edit: I just got the word "painiseek" from YT for continued commenting. How astonishingly appropriate, almost prophetic.

Other Comments by black wolf

8. Comment #157222 by xdrive on April 8, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Wow! at the old questioner in the sweater who almost broke down to tears at how much he was terrified of Atheism. That guy has issues.

Hitchstopher was infinitely patient with him.

Other Comments by xdrive

9. Comment #157223 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Da Hitch is absolutely pissed! Out of his tree.

But wins hands down regardless.

What a player. And what a tragedy to have to own up to being brother to that utter fuckwit Peter. Did he ever say more than 'er...we need god...er or we'll kill each other...er... hoodies in UK kick shit out of granny...er...get god...er...er...er...FUTILE!'?

Christopher pissed is better than most folk sober. Including his anal-retentive, unevidenced, pro-faith twat of a bruv.

What an utter disgrace.

Glad my bruv is a fellow atheist.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

10. Comment #157245 by blasphemer on April 8, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Regarding the old Stalin atheist argument it occurred to me that if you wanted absolute power and authority, you would do well either to recruit long-established authoritarian institutions like the church to your side or, if they were unwilling to go along, to destroy them; you don't want a competing dogma to the new dogma you're trying to establish.

Isn't this exactly what the god of the old testament did? Didn't he order his followers to destroy all other gods, largely be destroying all the worshipers of those gods?

If you're looking for a totalitarian model, don't look to Stalin and Mao, look to the original inspiration for those demigods, the original bad-a$$ god of the old testament.

Other Comments by blasphemer

11. Comment #157247 by black wolf on April 8, 2008 at 7:07 pm

After seeing all of it, I conclude that Peter did make one or two good attempts at forming a valid argument. I honestly can't remember them though.
The debate demonstrates that there is still very much more need to educate the public about atheism, humanism, history and science. Many people fear what they don't know.

Other Comments by black wolf

12. Comment #157292 by rhlong on April 8, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Thanks I've been looking forward to this.

Other Comments by rhlong

13. Comment #157293 by Thor on April 8, 2008 at 9:17 pm

I am so glad C. Hitchens made the very important distinction on nihilism vs. atheism, that is he in many cases shares his brother's worries about social breakdown and overboarding relativism, but this should never be equated with atheism.

As he has said on many other occasions (I am paraphrasing): would a society built on the ideas of Epicure, Spinoza, Hume, Einstein etc... be a nihilistic society? Hardly.

Other Comments by Thor

14. Comment #157306 by Mr. Flibble on April 8, 2008 at 10:01 pm

I agree with Chris on the position of religion, but I agree with Peter on the Iraq war stance. I understand Chris's position on that, but I don't believe that makes him correct on that topic.

All in all, a great thing to watch.

Other Comments by Mr. Flibble

15. Comment #157308 by Shane Williams on April 8, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Nothing is exempt from the laws of nature, and by this we no that there can be no supernatural. Use that Christopher, it's a quick and easy way to keep them inside the box of reality (it also disproves any supernatural god).
Using time as an example, we can calculate it infinitely forward and backwards and can find no reason for a start or end, thus there has always been. Nothing can escape that law, not even the "unimaginable" or "undescribable," one of many!

Other Comments by Shane Williams

16. Comment #157328 by rod-the-farmer on April 8, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Riveting. I stayed up until 0230 to watch the entire thing. I am certainly glad we have Christopher Hitchens on our side in the debate over atheism. He would be a nasty opponent on the other side.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

17. Comment #157335 by mor-o-less on April 9, 2008 at 12:02 am

I hate to give ammunition to theists but in the interest of honest debate I can think of a candidate nation that meets Christophers requirements for a fair comparison of atrocities. His requirements being that the nation is based on the ideas or philosophies of Democritus, Spinoza, Paine, Jefferson, etc. Namely the United States vis-a-vi Native American genocide. I can't be the only person that thought this unless I've misunderstood what he was saying. I only say this to suggest that people not make the same argument.

EDIT*
I did misunderstand what Christopher said by leaving off "fully embraced" as part of his requirements for the nation or state.

Other Comments by mor-o-less

18. Comment #157367 by Darwin's badger on April 9, 2008 at 2:00 am

5. Comment #157210 by Peacebeuponme on April 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Gonna finish this off tomorroew. Peter trots out the old "without god everthing is permitted". Embarrassing for him.

I thought he did well on the Iraq bit. Hate myself when I slightly side with him on anything.

I know what you mean, PBUM, but in a way, that's actually one of the things that I like the most about not subscribing to a dogma. i.e. it's okay to question or disagree with someone that one otherwise completely agrees with. I'm a big fan of the SGU, but when one of them said (paraphrased) "the only scientifically accurate position to take on the subject of religion is agnostic", I couldn't have agreed less. That didn't stop me from agreeing with nearly everything else that he said, nor did my agreeing with nearly everything else that he said influence my ability to disagree with him on religion or any other hypothetical conflict of opinion. I quite like the Bible guy, can't remember his name off the top of my head - Bob Price? - when it comes to the subject of religion, but on most other things, we are very different indeed, and that's okay. I can cope with the dissonance due to my ability to separate the topic from the person; this is something that I couldn't have done before I discovered free thought and critical thinking.

Of course, you're free to disagree or agree with me in whichever way you please. :)

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

19. Comment #157385 by ASMarques on April 9, 2008 at 3:08 am

Well, the usual Hitchens was -- as usual -- strong on the God guy and completely off the mark on the wisdom of preemptive war. His brother the exact opposite. I was reminded of Harold P. Furth's little poem on Drs. Teller and Anti-Teller. Odd couple.

Other Comments by ASMarques

20. Comment #157391 by Serdan on April 9, 2008 at 3:24 am

Excellent! The Hitch at his best.

However,

Someone who says that "Do what you will must be the whole of the law". That's supposedly what Satanists say at their ceremonies. By the way Satanists are not atheists by definition. Their Satanic majesties are not non-entities.

Lulz. Before hearing this I would have thought it a good bet to suppose that Hitch had been reading Satanic literature. His views are perfectly in tune with what LaVey proposed in The Satanic Bible and elsewhere. Indeed, one of the things LaVey felt strongly about was that of the taxation of churches, something Hitch touches upon in this debate.

Aside from that, he is very much ignorant of occultism in general.

1.) "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" - This was popularized by Aleister Crowley. However, even he did not wish to imply that you should just follow any impulse that might occur to you. He believed that following one's True Will would lead to self-realization. Of course one's True Will could supposedly be known through the help of a Holy Guardian Angel or somesuch, so it's all nonsense anyway.

2.) Moreover, the adherents of Thelema did not claim the name of Satan for themselves. LaVey was the first to do that in a coherent manner. He founded Satanism in 1966.

3.) Satanism is inherently atheistic. There is no room for gods when the most important thing in your own subjective universe is yourself.

4.) The "Satanic majesties" used in ritual are actually non-entities.

http://churchofsatan.com/Pages/PentRev.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema

Other Comments by Serdan

21. Comment #157393 by Philip1978 on April 9, 2008 at 3:26 am

Brilliant Stuff!

Quote from Christopher on God:

A Celestial North Korea!

At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea

Priceless!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

22. Comment #157417 by Ygern on April 9, 2008 at 4:26 am

Serdan, I think the point that Christopher Hitchens was making was that an atheist is no more a satanist, than a vegetarian is someone who enjoys a good steak once in a while.

Peter Hitchens is probably one of the more intelligent opponents that I've watched debating CH; however, he did trot out all the hoary auld non-arguments regarding atheism as well as make a lot of people fairly incredulous when he started advocating ID. After doing a bit of hunting it seems this is something he feels strongly about
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/11/fanatics_in_the.html
and
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/12/how_do_you_like.html

Even his fans couldn't believe it.

Other Comments by Ygern

23. Comment #157421 by Darwin's badger on April 9, 2008 at 4:34 am

Serdan,
it depends on whether or not one is referring to theistic satanism or not. LaVeyan Satanism is a relatively new take on a centuries-old tradition.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

24. Comment #157424 by AlexD on April 9, 2008 at 4:38 am

Interesting how, during the section on religion, they seem to be arguing on entirely different questions; Christopher is arguing "There is no God, and He is not great", as advertised by the moderator, while Peter goes after Dennet's "Belief in belief" angle.

Other Comments by AlexD

25. Comment #157426 by Serdan on April 9, 2008 at 4:44 am

Ygern, I know. Problem is that he was wrong on the facts. Something that is not befitting for The Hitch.

I don't get the vegetarian part..?


Badger, ORLY? Care to show me some references?

Other Comments by Serdan

26. Comment #157446 by Peacebeuponme on April 9, 2008 at 5:30 am

Darwin's Badger

I know what you mean, PBUM, but in a way, that's actually one of the things that I like the most about not subscribing to a dogma. i.e. it's okay to question or disagree with someone that one otherwise completely agrees with.

You are of course right. Its just that I have a particular issue with the Hitchens brothers. You see, when I was younger and at college I had a part time job as a sales assistant in a high street store. On my breaks I always used to read Peter's column in The Express. I was constantly amazed at how he managed to take the completely opposite view from me on absolutely everything. I disagreed with every column he wrote and he got me angry every time I saw him on TV.

Much later, over the last few years, when I started reading Dawkins, I noticed that he occasionally mentioned a Christopher Hitchens in friendly terms. Having forgotten Peter's first name by this point, my reaction was that, surely, Richard could not be referring to this man I so loathed? I then found out, that no, it was his brother. But not only that, his brother opposed him in all the ways I did, and was one of the most erudite, witty and brilliant orators around. A journalist, an atheist and a champion of freedom. I was overjoyed. An awesome discovery.

Since then, I listened to Christopher's brilliant talk on freedom of speech in Toronto. He expressed my feelings in a way I never could. You could not fail to be impressed by his argument or its delivery. Some people here talk about us "Hero-worshiping" Richard. If I could ever say I had a hero, it would be our friend Christopher. The perfect anti-dote to his misguided brother.

So, yes, agree or disagree with the argument, not the person. But when that person is Peter Hitchens I can't help but do it begrudgingly.

That's my arse-kissing bit done with.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

27. Comment #157458 by Darwin's badger on April 9, 2008 at 5:54 am

I know what you mean, I feel the same about some people and it takes a lot of discipline to adhere to sometimes.

Serdan, everything I know about it is via the internet - wikis, etc. I'm not an expert by any means.

e.g. Wikipedia: LaVeyan satanism was founded in the 1960's, based on occult influences from Crowley and philosophy from Rand and Nietzsche.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laveyan_satanism
Theistic satanists are not atheists and view satan as a deity and/or force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism

etc.

I couldn't give a monkeys, to be honest. I don't think either one is particularly humanistic.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

28. Comment #157460 by Serdan on April 9, 2008 at 5:57 am

Badger, wiki is wrong, but since you couldn't give a monkey's I'll just leave it at that.

Other Comments by Serdan

29. Comment #157495 by phasmagigas on April 9, 2008 at 7:26 am

hmm, peters brings up the attacks from teenagers and says these kids are 'active atheists'.

its true to say this type of thing is rare in say the USA, you dont get grannies being beaten up by a gang of 14 year old girls very often but of course hes got it all wrong. Had these kids been forced into moral submission by a local church then yes, they might well have not have the nihilistic, violent tendencies that they show but that says nothing about god only religion.

These kids are the product of modern times with weak family ties, weak parenting, drug use, weak schooling, a realistaion of their untouchable position as juveniles, an obsession with clothing fashion and status over any type worthwhile endeavours, often low ability kids from low ability parents, they cannot be called atheists as they dont even know what that means, they are like any 'untrained' animal, they will behave how they want.

Aside, as we are quite aware there are lots of atrocities commited by the faithful and precisely BECAUSE of it, thise kids dont think 'i can do what i want because there is no god' they simply dont think atall, our species will have always had versions of social control through its history, religion is only part of it, social control has vanished for these individuals, their minds degenerated into apathy as they have grown.

edit, i see hitchens makes a similar point in part 8.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

30. Comment #157503 by BNCbright on April 9, 2008 at 7:49 am

Why is Hitchens repeatedly referred to as Dr/Professor in the Q&A session?

Is he winding the questioners up?

BNC

Other Comments by BNCbright

31. Comment #157504 by phasmagigas on April 9, 2008 at 7:49 am

just why did peter bring up the very flimsy connection between hitch and the pornography guy???? laughable.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

32. Comment #157507 by BNCbright on April 9, 2008 at 7:59 am

Hahaha - Christopher is a real shit of a brother for throwing the 'do you believe in ID' at his brother! Set him up for a major fall there.

Christopher just oozes charisma. Love him.

BNC

Other Comments by BNCbright

33. Comment #157510 by NormanDoering on April 9, 2008 at 8:02 am

Stephen Maxwell wrote:

...the religious experience question, in that you have to accept it for the evil religious experiences as well as the good religious experiences ...

There's an interesting example of the religious experience question going on in the new Battlestar Galactica series on the sci-fi channel:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-frak-is-going-on-with-baltar.html

Has anyone here been following it?

If so, I'd like to invite you to my blog (linked above) to answer whether if you were in Baltar's position you would start praying too.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

34. Comment #157526 by phasmagigas on April 9, 2008 at 8:28 am

peters support of ID was his ultimate downfall in this debate, he called it a theory!

unlike the whole unknowable god debate evo/ID is very easy, its like showing that your pond has frogs (you can see them) but being unable to show that it has an invisible all powerful giant salamander which you can debate over forever.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

35. Comment #157591 by Mitchell Gilks on April 9, 2008 at 10:03 am

I would agree with Chistopher on his stance on the war if I thought that peace, and secularity could be delivered, and upheld in all the places he mentions. Including Iraq.

I also greatly want to see fascism, and totalitarianism, and authoritarianism, genocide, persecution, and the defamation, violation, and the marginalization of human rights and freedoms put to a stop, and ended globally. I just don't think he is being realistic, in his position that this can be done. At least currently. It perhaps could be, with the whole of enlightened society on our side. Though it would result in much death, destuction, and killing of innocence. Plus, with the current state of even the developed world, we have too many problems at home to be solving the rest of the world problems.

It is hard to sit on the guidelines and watch, as people suffer and die under oppression, but I don't think that freedom, and civility can be imposed from without, it needs to be fought for and aquired by the people within. The most I would support is the support of oppressed people attempting to free themselves. In the way of food, medicine and perhaps other supplies and necessities.

If the free and developed world were much more powerful, and had far fewer of it's own problems, my opinions on the subject would change. I do though, see where Christopher is coming from, and do also feel the pain of watching evil occure, unchallenged, or often is infact the law of the land.

I think on this point, Peter Hitchens is right, but for the wrong reasons, and Christopher is right in his argument, but wrong in his conclusions. Because he far overestimates our ability to solve the problems, or do anyhting about it, and underestimates our own problems.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

36. Comment #157611 by Enlightenme.. on April 9, 2008 at 10:38 am

Doesn't seem to work :(

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

37. Comment #157708 by fides_et_ratio on April 9, 2008 at 12:50 pm

If the god Hitchens the elder so poetically demolishes was the God that any thinking Christian believed, in they'd have to convert to athiesm in an instant. I would.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

38. Comment #157711 by Steve Zara on April 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #157708 by fides_et_ratio

If the god Hitchens the elder so poetically demolishes was the God that any thinking Christian believed, in they'd have to convert to athiesm in an instant. I would.

I have to ask... what aspect of the God that thinking Christians believe in do you think that Chris Hitchens has not demolished?

(I have to warn you that a previously Christian friend of mine says I have moved him towards agnosticism, so I am potentially dangerous to talk to)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #157726 by Teratornis on April 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm

As far as I can recall, this is the first time I have heard Christopher Hitchens mention the word "petroleum" in connection with Iraq. He seemed to concede that the U.S. is fighting a resource war - which of course we are. The current involvement is merely an escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, which has gone on for the most part continuously since the 1970s, beginning shortly after U.S. domestic oil extraction peaked and went into irreversible decline.

I suppose I should be grateful for this rare glimpse of clarity on the issue, mentioned almost in passing, but I can't resist the temptation to wish for a bit more. While we're admitting Iraq is a resource war, can we take the next logical step and ask all those who oppose America's war of petroleum conquest to refrain from wasting petroleum?

As the film Crude Awakening mentions, oil is a magnet for war. Oil starts wars and prolongs them. Oil subverts entire national economies, by concentrating vast accumulations of unearned wealth into a few hands.

It seems to me that the only logically coherent way to oppose (actually oppose) a war of petroleum conquest is to try, as far as possible, to reduce one's personal consumption of petroleum to the bare minimum.

I wonder, of all those who cheered Peter Hitchens after he decried the Iraq war, how many arrived at the venue by driving petroleum-powered automobiles? How many of those automobiles had empty seats? What distance did they cover in this frivolous indulgence for personal entertainment? How do they manage to persist in their sleepwalking obliviousness toward the consequences of their behavior?

The U.S. is the world's largest importer of oil, by far, importing more than twice as much per year as the second largest importer, Japan. A large fraction of this oil comes from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, etc.

In the near future, the amount of oil available for the U.S. to bankrupt itself to import will inexorably decrease. Everybody will have to drive less anyway. Much less. Thus one might logically conclude that exercising some personal restraint today is no sacrifice, since everyone will have to do this anyway soon enough. It's better to start adapting voluntarily before an emergency forces our hands.

Other Comments by Teratornis

40. Comment #157743 by Artful_Dodger on April 9, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Anyone listening to C Hitchens sounding off on Stalin must see how patently absurd his opinions are. Of course Stalin set himself up as a god, and inflicted on the country a regime of hero worship, which was reminiscent of religious worship gone wrong. In that sense the evil that he perpetrated flowed not directly from his absence of a belief in God, but rather from his setting himself up as god. But the question is, where did his setting himself up as god flow from? As Peter Hitchens very incisively pointed out, Stalin's making himself god was a consequence of God having been airbrushed out of the picture. That is where the threat of atheism lies. Not so much in the absence of belief in a transcendent Deity before whom we are accountable as in what that vacuum is filled with.

C Hitchens said at one point that no country that has based its constitution on Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Galileo et al has ever perpetrated the kind of crimes perpetrated by Stalin and company, rooted as they were (supposedly) in Czarist, priest-ridden regimes. A couple of things need to be said about that. In the first place, how could the constitution of a country be based on a cast of names arbitrarily plucked out of the air by Chritopher Hitchens? Secondly, Lenin's Russia was actually based on the writings of Marx and Engles, whose ideas were in turn rooted (as atheists keep telling us) in the Enlightenmnent. And enlightened many of Marx's ideas may have been. The same could be said of Rousseau's and Voltaire's ideas which inspired the Jacobins. The problem comes when someone sets about implementing these "enlightened" ideas. After the French absolutists were got rid of, the revolution became a bloodbath. After the Czars were overthrown it was not long before tyranny set in. Or is Hitchens going to blame the Bourbons for the excesses of the revolution, just as he blames the Czars for the excesses of Stalin. His naivety or wilful ignorance beggars belief!

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

41. Comment #157749 by Cartomancer on April 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

That is where the threat of atheism lies. Not so much in the absence of belief in a transcendent deity before whom we are accountable as in what that vacuum is filled with.

Translation: we must blindly defend, tooth and claw, the most deeply flawed system we have - simply out of fear that things might get worse if we don't. Sounds like a wonderful dramatic conceit for dystopian science fiction.

How blithely pessimistic you are! It's also where the greatest benefit of atheism lies - not in the absence of belief in a transcendent deity before whom we are all enslaved, but in the opportunity it provides us to fill that gap with something much, much better.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

42. Comment #157750 by chileman on April 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

"Mommy, Chris is beating me up again." Brings back the memories, eh Pete.

Other Comments by chileman

43. Comment #157752 by fides_et_ratio on April 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm

One thing that irks me is his Polpotisation of God, his totalitarian theory. I agree with Hitchens that God knows everything I've ever done, everything I've ever said and everything I've ever thought. Our paths diverge at this point. I am taught and believe that God loves and accepts me in full knowledge of me. I work towards accepting myself in the same way.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

44. Comment #157755 by al-rawandi on April 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm

fides_et_ratio,




Just don't accept yourself being gay, or we are getting together for a stoning. Then you go to hell.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

45. Comment #157757 by Cartomancer on April 9, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I am taught and believe that God loves and accepts me in full knowledge of me. I work towards accepting myself in the same way.

The North Koreans are taught and believe much the same thing about Kim Il Sung. Neither of you has any evidence that this is the case. Why not try working towards acceptance of that instead?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

46. Comment #157759 by Artful_Dodger on April 9, 2008 at 2:01 pm

it provides us to fill that gap with something much, much better.

Let's not hold our breath!

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

47. Comment #157766 by Cartomancer on April 9, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Let's not hold our breath!

No, let's not hold our breath. Lets get out there and do something to make it happen - sure as hell no imaginary god or daemon is going to do it for us. We know it's possible - it already has happened. Since religion lost its grip on Britain, and the bigoted theistic moralists no longer hold sway, the lives of gay men such as myself (and lesbians) have become immeasurably better. The rights of women have been properly enshrined in law and science has proceeded apace without any of the silly barriers presented in theistic america. We have also become much more tolerant and morally aware. The zeitgeist has changed for the better.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

48. Comment #157770 by Peacebeuponme on April 9, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I am taught and believe that God loves and accepts me in full knowledge of me. I work towards accepting myself in the same way.

So no-one is going to hell then?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

49. Comment #157771 by Steve Zara on April 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm

How blithely pessimistic you are! It's also where the greatest benefit of atheism lies - not in the absence of belief in a transcendent deity before whom we are all enslaved, but in the opportunity it provides us to fill that gap with something much, much better.

As usual you put things so well.

Atheism is freedom. It isn't lack of meaning. It is freedom of meaning. It isn't lack of morality. It is that we get to define who we are and what our morality is.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #157782 by Quetzalcoatl on April 9, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Artful_Dodger said:

That is where the threat of atheism lies. Not so much in the absence of belief in a transcendent Deity before whom we are accountable as in what that vacuum is filled with.

I suggest we fill it with reason, science and free-thinking. Either that or turnips.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl