101. Comment #57773 by Bonzai on July 21, 2007 at 1:30 am

You call that "admiration"? These atheist Talibans sound like teenage music fans going crazy on some rock star they worship. It is nauseating, really. Cults can be built around men just as it can be built around imaginary deities, sometimes even more irrational.

Other Comments by Bonzai

102. Comment #57776 by roach on July 21, 2007 at 1:48 am

Perhaps some people do go a bit overboard with their enthusiasm.

But it's interesting you bring up rockstars (although I would use the term musician) because that is kinda how I feel about these scientists/authors. I liken them to athletes/musicians/anyone I respect and try to emulate.

Yes cults can be built around men just as they can be built around imaginary deities. So what? Who among the posters on this site would actually DO something absurdly irrational at Hitchens' request. He doesn't even make such requests but let's assume he did. I doubt anyone would carry out his orders.

Other Comments by roach

103. Comment #57781 by Bonzai on July 21, 2007 at 1:55 am

But it's interesting you bring up rockstars (although I would use the term musician) because that is kinda how I feel about these scientists/authors...Who among the posters on this site would actually DO something absurdly irrational at Hitchens' request.

Does it matter? Most Christians (substitue followers of other religions)would not do crazy things even if their scriptures say crazy things. If you go by the mantra of the atheist Talibans here all religions are bad just because they are all "irrational" and all "irrational" things must be eradicated. Now how frigging rational is it to kiss the ground rock idols walk on or to put on 200 pounds, wear a mop and ill fitted cloths sluring in a low voice imagining that you are Elvis (or Hitchens)? :)

Frankly I find that some sophisticated religious people are more rational and wiser than many "born again atheists" here.

Other Comments by Bonzai

104. Comment #57791 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 3:09 am

"born again atheists"

Nice sound-bite. Meaningless but sounds good.

Other Comments by LeeC

105. Comment #57793 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 3:17 am

Frankly I find that some sophisticated religious people are more rational and wiser than many "born again atheists" here.

Rational? – To believe without evidence just because someone (or book) told you it was so? No – not rational

Wiser? – To believe stories written in a book over 2,000 years ago as fact and that the writers of this book have a better understanding of the universe than modern science? No – not wiser.

Of course, you are targeting the "born again atheists" - not sure who they are myself, care to give some names and examples why you think they are "unrational" and "unwise"?

Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

106. Comment #57800 by Bonzai on July 21, 2007 at 5:50 am

Lee,

Rational? – To believe without evidence just because someone (or book) told you it was so? No – not rational

Are you 100% rational? Most people are not, maybe you are an exception. Some scientist may want to study you in a lab if that is the case.

I didn't say religious people are rational,--no one is technically,-- but some are more rational than the atheist talibans here. There are ways for people to be irrational other than religion. And just because you have a religious belief it doesn't mean you cannot be a sensible person overall.

To "believe" is a loaded word, not all religious people understand the text in a linear way like the propositions in a science text book. For some the text is only a framework to construct meanings. The verses are complex triggers or raw material upon which multiple levels of meanings are created. The verses are not seen as conveying a single layer of meaning. It is a very "postmodernist" approach though it has a long history going back centuries.

In that way they read the scriptures more like poetry and literature than science. It is a different method of reading.

A muslim I debate with online says the text has to be engaged subjectively. It didn't bother him that others may get different meanings because he believes that "revelation is individual". We have strong disagreements on many things especially over religion. The debates even turn abusive at times, but I do respect him as a very wise and rational man in many ways. He impresses me much more than some of the simplistic, bumper sticker "rationalists" I encounter here who regurgitate Hitchens and Harris like bible thumbers rapping off the gospels.

Wiser? – To believe stories written in a book over 2,000 years ago as fact and that the writers of this book have a better understanding of the universe than modern science? No – not wiser.

You, along with many people here, take a very narrow view towards religion by seeing it only as explanatory theories about the world and treat scriptures almost like fundamentalists. Not all religious people "believe in the stories" literally and use their scriptures as science text books.

And, there is more to life than science and understanding the universe. For example, the human condition, about which science is mostly silent.

In case there is any misunderstanding I am not saying religion provides insights to the human condition that one cannot get in an atheistic world view, all I am saying is that religion is not just about understanding the universe. I would go further and say that for most believers it is not even the main part. Scriptural stories about creations and so on are not the reason why most people believe.

Religion appeals to most believers on an emotional, not intellectual level. Emotional needs may not be "rational" but it is a part of the human condition.

A Christian may tell you the universe was created in six days by repeating what he was told in Church, but this to him is an abstract issue. He doesn't go to Church to learn cosmology. Unless he is a card carrying creationist, deep down he probably couldn't care less whether the earth is 1.5 billion year old, 6000 year old or 6 day old. He mouths it off just because it is part of the package. Other believers may throw that part out.

Now it is true that many religious people, perhaps even the majority, do take a more or less linear approach towards their faith but it is not the only possibility and it is not intellectual dishonest to see religion in a more allegorical way.

When encounter with believers who take the allegorical approach, some atheists tend to get mad because they can no longer attack them with the usual arguments, that is childish.

Of course, you are targeting the "born again atheists" - not sure who they are myself, care to give some names and examples why you think they are "unrational" and "unwise"?

Instead of scrolling back to name names, let's just say you. How's that?

Other Comments by Bonzai

107. Comment #57804 by Yorker on July 21, 2007 at 6:42 am

99. Comment #57725 by dgr8test97

"People have trashed me for showing that Buddhist mediation can lead to really amazing mental and physical acts."

I think you're over reacting, most have said that similar things can be achieved without Buddhism.

"However, Hitchens has flat out lied about Buddhism's role in Japanese aggression in WWII and no one is calling him on this."

What do you want? I and others have said Hitch does say things that are wrong sometimes, do we need to mention every error specifically? You seem to be too caught up in Buddhism, relax, there's nothing magical or mystical about it.

There's no doubt in my mind that many newcomers here are young people; such persons have a tendency towards hero-worship, that's why I mentioned the pop-star like image Hitch has engendered amongst them in comment #22. Once they gain age and experience this youthful characteristic will decline and be replaced by a more balanced view. Some even display the same behaviour towards Dawkins, it makes me cringe but I don't complain because it's natural amongst the young.

Many don't realise that skills that amaze others are simply the result of years of practice, there's no need for mystical explanations. Without being immodest, I have skills myself that would impress and perhaps even amaze you, but I'm just an ordinary guy whose spent more than 50 years attaining high performance levels. So, although I admire the skills of others -- because I know the work it takes -- I don't hero worship anyone; they are just like me.

Other Comments by Yorker

108. Comment #57820 by TIKI AL on July 21, 2007 at 9:38 am

The slave that Jefferson allegedly had sex with could have been a blatent social climber or early version of Nicole Smith.

Perhaps multiple Satanic field hands forced Jefferson to have sex with her at machete point.

Or he could have merely tripped and fallen on top of her while excited.

The above have the same historical proof as saying he raped her. None

Other Comments by TIKI AL

109. Comment #57821 by roach on July 21, 2007 at 10:03 am

Science is mostly silent about the human condition? I've always found it to be quite revealing.

Well I'm off to Ozzfest so I gotta go. I won't be kissing the ground these musicians walk on but I will be cheering and enjoying the music.

Later haters

Other Comments by roach

110. Comment #57826 by ecl6nb on July 21, 2007 at 11:18 am

"People have trashed me for showing that Buddhist mediation can lead to really amazing mental and physical acts."

I don't wish to "trash" you but as a Buddhist I'd like to make it clear to other readers that Buddhist meditation has nothing to do with developing the ability to do "really amazing mental and physical acts". Buddhist meditational practices such as Anapanasati, Samatha, Zazen and Metabhavana are purely about developing concentration, mindfulness and cultivating (by encouraging) our natural feelings of compassion. One of the 4 reasons for which a Theravadan Buddhist monk can be forced to 'disrobe' is for making any claims to have supernatural powers. Meditation may lead to amazing mental states but these have nothing to do with being able to withstand low temperatures, shatter glasss with pins or survive years of isolation.

Kung Fu is NOT Buddhism just because it was developed by Buddhist monks any more than distilling liquors is part of Christianity just because it was done by Christian monks. Some of the bloggers in this forum have enough weird ideas about Buddhism without making them think that Buddhism is about training to become Kwai Chang Caine :-)

Other Comments by ecl6nb

111. Comment #57839 by hopeful on July 21, 2007 at 2:02 pm

I thought this was a very good talk by Christopher Hitchens. Although he can be very blunt, his knowledge and eloquence allow him to command a great deal of respect in those that agree with him and those that don't. He is a great spokesman for the anti-theist position.

However there is one thing though that slightly troubles me regarding Christopher Hitchens- When challenged on the issue of morality he usually talks about it being innate (which I agree with) yet he never seems to attempt to substantiate the claim.

Perhaps he avoids doing so intentionally, however I feel that he could talk about (or at least touch on) the substantial and growing body of scientific research that is showing increasing evidence for the biological/evolutionary basis for morality. I would be very interested in knowing his thoughts on this and how it fits into his approach.

Other Comments by hopeful

112. Comment #57861 by Wrought on July 21, 2007 at 5:22 pm

So, Bonzai - congratulations on:

a) attacking nearly everyone here
b) turning them into strawmen who you imagine don't hold all levels of conversations with all kinds of religous folk each with their own nuanced interpretations of their faiths
c) criticising Hitchens "worship" but setting up a fiction as to how we interpret him and his views ourselves
d) avoid making any clear criticism of any of Hitchen's actual views
e) defending irrationality in all its forms, with no consideration of the differing effects of different levels of irrationality on other people's lives
f)waving around "ockham's superglue", plugging nonsense on to fabrication with no justification
g) failing to know or notice that Hitchens doesn't have anything derisive to say about people who have an allegorical style of personal religion anyway

My hat is off to you. You should visit the axis of evil countries, debate publically, write hard hitting journalism, study intensively, devise something positive and intelligent to say, become a best selling author and then maybe we could sit on these forums and defend you to arrogant bigots who lash out when they see something that doesn't reconcile with their own views.

Other Comments by Wrought

113. Comment #57872 by dgr8test97 on July 21, 2007 at 6:52 pm

" TIKI AL on July 21, 2007 at 9:38 am
The slave that Jefferson allegedly had sex with could have been a blatent social climber or early version of Nicole Smith.

Perhaps multiple Satanic field hands forced Jefferson to have sex with her at machete point.

Or he could have merely tripped and fallen on top of her while excited.

The above have the same historical proof as saying he raped her. None"


It's call inductive reasoning. As a wise sports commentator once said, "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, It ain't a mongoose."

How many slaves do you think voluntarily had sex with the mastas?

BTW Jefferson is a hypocrite. Who is worst, someone who owns slaves because he knows that it is right and even commanded by his God or someone who knows it's wrong, tells others that it's wrong, and then goes on to not only have many many slaves but also have sex with them?

This is a hypocrite.

Other Comments by dgr8test97

114. Comment #57880 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Responding to 107. Comment #57800 by Bonzai

I will skip to the last comment you made first, then work back

Of course, you are targeting the "born again atheists" - not sure who they are myself, care to give some names and examples why you think they are "irrational" and "unwise"?

Instead of scrolling back to name names, let's just say you. How's that?

OK… first, please explain how I am a "born again atheist"? I have never believed in God and I certainly not had any ritual confirming my atheistism or had any "experience" that turned me to atheistism. These I think are what normally happens when you are a "born again Christian" are they not? Does sound like me at all with my atheistism.

Also, I asked you also to give examples of any comments from such a person that were "irrational" and "unwise".

You have singled me out, so please give me some examples and explain why I am being irrational and unwise?

Don't seem to see any of these examples? So you are just shouting blind accusations?

On to the rest of your reply…

Are you 100% rational? Most people are not, maybe you are an exception. Some scientist may want to study you in a lab if that is the case.

I never said I was "100% rational" – have to admit I do not know what that would be - but you said that "religious people are more rational". So this now an attack on me - you are claiming to be more rational than me yet I am able to point out the "irrational" and "unwise" behaviour of the theist mindset.

I didn't say religious people are rational,--no one is technically,-- but some are more rational than the atheist talibans here.

So your argument is, no one is rational, but some are more rational than others.

OK… using your logic - no one on this site is an idiot, but some are more idiotic than others.

Makes sense.

Oh… look another soundbite… "atheist talibans" – very nice.

And just because you have a religious belief it doesn't mean you cannot be a sensible person overall

You have to define "overall" for me here in this context – the very foundations of the theist worldview are based on a make believed eternity without any evidence.

I have no doubt that some religious people are sensible enough not to jump of a high building just because someone told them too – erm, but some will fasten bombs to themselves and blow themselves up for their religious beliefs – very sensible the devout are sometimes.

This takes belief and religion.

Do you know any atheist that will blow themselves up for their beliefs?

For some the text is only a framework to construct meanings. The verses are complex triggers or raw material upon which multiple levels of meanings are created. The verses are not seen as conveying a single layer of meaning.

So we can just make the verse mean anything we want it to? So they are pointless, but very dangerous.

In that way they read the scriptures more like poetry and literature than science. It is a different method of reading.

I read Shakespeare just like that… but I do not live my life according to Old Bill.

A different method of reading? This is just making it up as you go along to make the passage fit whatever you want it to.

Remember what I said about irrational and unwise – I think you are demonstrating it here.

muslim I debate with online says the text has to be engaged subjectively. It didn't bother him that others may get different meanings because he believes that "revelation is individual". We have strong disagreements on many things especially over religion. The debates even turn abusive at times, but I do respect him as a very wise and rational man in many ways.

Is that because he is religious like you, so you think anyone who can have faith in something without evidence is a "very wise and rational"?

How wise is it to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden?
How wise is it for me to persecute someone because of what I think the fairies are telling me?

It would be stupid… would you agree?

Yet people can persecute homosexuals because it is written in the bible. This is how wise and rational a theist can be. And all this without any evidence in the authorship of the book they claim has all the answers.

You, along with many people here, take a very narrow view towards religion by seeing it only as explanatory theories about the world and treat scriptures almost like fundamentalists.

This is a rather strange comment.

If the holy book is not explaining the world and how we are suppose to live then what is the point of the book?

If you cannot treat the scriptures are the true word of god, what are they then?

Just words written by man over 2,000 years ago who knew less about the world and universe we live in than my 10 year old nephew.

The words in such a book would be worthless. If they are not written by god they are just words that can be misinterpreted for someone's own political gain. If they are written by god, why are they not clear and so require interpretation? (Which no group can agree on)

And, there is more to life than science and understanding the universe. For example, the human condition, about which science is mostly silent.

So you think living in the Middle Ages would be a good thing then?

You think the science of medicine is a waste of time. You use a computer but think that it was god who gave it too you?

No, this is from science and understanding… not the bible.

Without science the middle ages is where we probably still be, when you could be burnt at the stake for believing in the wrong type of god. For even having a copy of the bible in your native language so you could read it for yourself.

I am holding back on what I really think of such views… you are showing me why I am not a fan of religion.

Religion appeals to most believers on an emotional, not intellectual level.

You were saying earlier about the religious people being more rational and wiser than an atheist?

This statement says you are ignoring intelligence (unwise) and following emotions (not rational)

Do want to try this argument again?

He mouths it off just because it is part of the package.

Wise and rational? I do not think so.

When encounter with believers who take the allegorical approach, some atheists tend to get mad because they can no longer attack them with the usual arguments, that is childish.

I do not get mad for those reasons… I will happily debate a theist on religious matters without getting mad – sarcastic maybe, but not mad.

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

115. Comment #57894 by Yorker on July 22, 2007 at 3:39 am

What's all this stuff about Jefferson being a rapist? If he had sex with one of the slaves he owned, what's wrong with that? I'd bet most slave owners took advantage of slaves and would have laughed at those who called it rape. In Jefferson's time slave ownership was considered right and proper and so owners felt able to do as they pleased with property. Obviously, I'm not saying it's right but in his era they thought it was and that's all that mattered!

Rape is only rape because we name it so, it is a crime by the societal rules we -- rightly -- apply today; nature does not punish rapists because it has no concept of crime.

It's a mistake to judge historic people by the rules we apply today.

Other Comments by Yorker

116. Comment #57896 by LeeC on July 22, 2007 at 3:51 am

It's a mistake to judge historic people by the rules we apply today.

I totally agree with that statement.

In modern terms, Henry V is a right bar-stool, but a hero in the 1400's.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

117. Comment #57905 by Logicel on July 22, 2007 at 5:40 am

I love metaphors/allegories. I use them in my writing and enjoy them in other's writings. Unlikely connections between known information can trigger a new angle from which to view, prompting deeper appreciation and understanding of a concept, fact, etc.

However, using God as a metaphor for mystery is dead on arrival. God supposedly is the glop that fills in all the gaps of knowledge. Once God enters the picture, mystery goes out the window.

If I correctly understand Bonzai's objections to his fellow atheists, here are his main points:

1) Many theists do not literally--cherry-picked or not--read holy books, they read them in a metaphorically/allegorical manner. Atheists at this site do not adequately address this aspect of religious beliefs.

2) Atheists at this site do not appreciate the important value of an individual interpreting and utilizing religion in the way she/he chooses.

3) Sociology of religion (NB: this is not theology) is an important topic of study because religion as a social entity is omnipresent in human history.

Other Comments by Logicel

118. Comment #57915 by Cool on Oolon on July 22, 2007 at 9:07 am

Great listening to him, can't wait for it to come out in paperback.
BTW re buddhism came across this the other day:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2733252.ece
I would call that child abuse.
Talking of which
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3175846.stm
Not just our western priests then.

Other Comments by Cool on Oolon

119. Comment #57934 by robotaholic on July 22, 2007 at 12:44 pm

yes, I'm addicted too - but I like hearing it - Christopher Hitchens is refreshingly outspoken just like Richard Dawkins - that's why I'm like them so much. I consider myself an anti-theist too. lol I like his phrase "the celestial north korea" - I'd hate to go heaven - I'm glad it's fiction.

Other Comments by robotaholic