Christianity is false and immoral. (Hitchens)

[totalnoob]

A concise indictment of Christian doctrines from Christopher Hitchens..probably the best 12 minute polemic I've ever heard. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxOpgzkg1Uo

 

[brandonb]

I can't watch the youtube at work. So what's his theory?

 

[nageov3t]

stunned and amazed that Hitchens is speaking out against Christianity.

 

[kranky]

It's fascinating to me that anyone could get so worked up about something they don't believe. I understand Hitchens has devoted significant energy to opposing Christianity over the years. Clearly he thinks Christianity is nonsense, so why even care? I guess it's hard for me to understand how someone can be passionate about something when they think it's stupid.

 

[totalnoob]

I can't watch the youtube at work. So what's his theory?

It takes 12 minutes to explain..But basically he takes issue with the core christian doctrine of vicarious redemption..explaining why it is immoral, absurd, and damaging to humanity.

 

[soccerballtux]

unfortunately for Hitchens, if God is real, then that means Hitchen's premises went wrong somewhere and he's misunderstanding something about God.

Why? The whole notion of judging God is a dead end-- if God exists and you disagreed with him, you were wrong. Because it's a logical inconsistency for you to be right and God wrong. If you weren't wrong, that means God was somehow less than perfect and he overlooked something, which means he wouldn't really be God, and if he's not really God, then he's no more worth following than a rock.

 

[soccerballtux]

It's fascinating to me that anyone could get so worked up about something they don't believe. I understand Hitchens has devoted significant energy to opposing Christianity over the years. Clearly he thinks Christianity is nonsense, so why even care? I guess it's hard for me to understand how someone can be passionate about something when they think it's stupid.

This is the fundamental proof he exists: they hate him too much for him not to exist. How does one hate that which is fake? If he's just an intellectual construct and is not real, then whether people believe in him or not shouldn't bother him.

 

[totalnoob]

This is the fundamental proof he exists: they hate him too much for him not to exist. How does one hate that which is fake?

I always thought the toothfairy was a selfish bitch. She only left me $1.00 in quarters.

P.S. Your argument could easily be used against the Allah worshiped by fundamentalist Muslims. The 9/11 hijackers believed in the rewards of martyrdom described in their holy book. They were convinced enough to die for their beliefs, and many Americans (yourself included I presume) consider them deluded. You believe their deepest convictions are false. You believe they are worshiping a being that does not exist, that there is no realm with 72 virgins awaiting suicide bombers, and that Islamic fundamentalism is false and harmful to society. You have probably even spoken out against it from time to time. Does this prove that the 72 virgins actually exist?

ALLAH HU AKBAR!!!

 

[Atreus21]

I wish you'd summarize, because I can't watch it either.

 

[jackstar7]

It's fascinating to me that anyone could get so worked up about something they don't believe. I understand Hitchens has devoted significant energy to opposing Christianity over the years. Clearly he thinks Christianity is nonsense, so why even care? I guess it's hard for me to understand how someone can be passionate about something when they think it's stupid.

Wait... so you don't see how a global system of belief that influences the behavior of millions and millions of people might provoke a man to shout out against it?

Do you believe in Communism? If you do not, do you think there'd come a time when you felt compelled to speak out against it? If Communism doesn't work for you, I hope you might at least see the point I'm trying to make here.

 

[jackstar7]

unfortunately for Hitchens, if God is real, then that means Hitchen's premises went wrong somewhere and he's misunderstanding something about God.

God might exist, but that wouldn't inherently make Christianity correct.

 

[sandorski]

Seen it before, but spot on.

 

[child of wonder]

Hitchens delivers.

 

[zsdersw]

It's fascinating to me that anyone could get so worked up about something they don't believe. I understand Hitchens has devoted significant energy to opposing Christianity over the years. Clearly he thinks Christianity is nonsense, so why even care? I guess it's hard for me to understand how someone can be passionate about something when they think it's stupid.

Actually, Hitchens despises all religions, not just Christianity. Given the weight upon the whole of human society that religion imposes, it is not at all surprising or nonsensical for someone to find fault with it.

 

[HumblePie]

It's fascinating to me that anyone could get so worked up about something they don't believe. I understand Hitchens has devoted significant energy to opposing Christianity over the years. Clearly he thinks Christianity is nonsense, so why even care? I guess it's hard for me to understand how someone can be passionate about something when they think it's stupid.

How about asking your question in another context to see the relation?

"It's fascinating to me that anyone could get so worked up about something they don't believe. I understand Hitchens has devoted significant energy to opposing texting while driving over the years. Clearly he thinks texting while driving is nonsense, so why even care? I guess it's hard for me to understand how someone can be passionate about something when they think it's stupid."

The point people who don't believe in religions are trying to make is that while the people who are religious don't see the harm that all religious views has and will cause mankind, those that don't believe in religions see easily. The reason I pointed out the texting while driving bit is because of this.

Quite a few people text while driving, many of whom have never been in an accident. Many of whom would never be in one despite the "higher chance" of doing so while driving. The fact that someone can text while driving and not involve me in an accident means I should just let them do their thing and be on their merry way right? The problem is that too many boneheads who do text while driving end up involving me or loved ones when they do screw up and cause an accident. This is how I see religions as a whole with this analogy. Sure, if all religious people can stay in their lane and go about their merry way without involving me or anyone else I care about in anyway, I wouldn't care a bit. But in the real world, that doesn't happen.

 

[drebo]

The point people who don't believe in religions are trying to make is that while the people who are religious don't see the harm that all religious views has and will cause mankind, those that don't believe in religions see easily. The reason I pointed out the texting while driving bit is because of this.

I would love to see your proof that religion can only end in harm.

One thing and one thing only is illustrated by this diatribe: people scream about that which disagrees with them. There is no other truth.

There is room in the world for people of all religions, including the religions of atheism and agnosticism.

What is harmful, from everyone, are the fundamentalists and extremists. However, those fundamentalists and extremists exist from all factions, INCLUDING atheism and agnosticism.

That's the catch-22: the moment you demonize someone for believing something other than you, you become as bad as the person you're demonizing.

What needs to be done is to curb the fundamentalism and extremism. What a person believes affects no one but himself. The problem only occurs when that person attempts to force his beliefs, whatever they are (Judism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, atheism, etc), on another person.

It is in the forcing where the boundaries of acceptable behavior are broken, not in the believing.

 

[Tom]

It takes 12 minutes to explain..But basically he takes issue with the core christian doctrine of vicarious redemption..explaining why it is immoral, absurd, and damaging to humanity.

On the other hand it frees people to take risks and provides a reason to try to succeed.

Everything from the polio vaccine to the printing press, even the value of knowledge itself, wouldn't exist outside some sort of belief.

btw, what is Hitchens explanation of what immorality is ?

 

[HumblePie]

I would love to see your proof that religion can only end in harm.

Just as there is no proof that texting while driving can only end in harm. It doesn't. I've texted while driving before and never been in a car accident, nor harmed anyone else or myself. Does that make it the right thing to do? That's a philosophical question.

Can texting while driving end in harm though? You betcha. Is there a disproportional amount of idiots that text while driving that end up harming others or themselves in some way?

Do you not see the correlation I'm building here through analogy?

We can take any number of examples of things people do that may or may not harm others but have a higher chance to do so based on historical stats. Smoking, drinking, jaywalking... pick a vice!

The point I'm making is that if an activity has a potential for harm, someone is going to be vocally and passionately against it. On the flip, if there is someone addicted or "in love with" said activity, then there is going to be very vocal proponents for it.

I was merely giving a more easier to understand answer to the question above. Which is "Why would anyone get so worked up about something they don't believe?"

In this light, I would say mystery solved.

 

[BurnItDwn]

This is the fundamental proof he exists: they hate him too much for him not to exist. How does one hate that which is fake? If he's just an intellectual construct and is not real, then whether people believe in him or not shouldn't bother him.

If you had friends who told you a magic unicorn told them to do shit, you would probably want help for your schizophrenic friend, no?

People who talk to god = schizophrenic.

Schizophrenia = dangerous for people's own good, as well as the public at large.

If you hate something enough, then it exists?
I hate unicorns!
Ohh shit, look at that, a fvckin unicorn!
not how it works.

 

[sandorski]

I would love to see your proof that religion can only end in harm.

One thing and one thing only is illustrated by this diatribe: people scream about that which disagrees with them. There is no other truth.

There is room in the world for people of all religions, including the religions of atheism and agnosticism.

What is harmful, from everyone, are the fundamentalists and extremists. However, those fundamentalists and extremists exist from all factions, INCLUDING atheism and agnosticism.

That's the catch-22: the moment you demonize someone for believing something other than you, you become as bad as the person you're demonizing.

What needs to be done is to curb the fundamentalism and extremism. What a person believes affects no one but himself. The problem only occurs when that person attempts to force his beliefs, whatever they are (Judism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, atheism, etc), on another person.

It is in the forcing where the boundaries of acceptable behavior are broken, not in the believing.

Your Irony is strong.

 

[HumblePie]

There is room in the world for people of all religions, including the religions of atheism and agnosticism.

And please stop calling something a religion when it is not. Atheism is not a religion. Period.

Just because there are people passionately against religions who are atheists, doesn't make it a religion. I know plenty of people passionate over many things. That doesn't make them religions either. I know someone very passionate about avon products. It's her life, but it's not her religion. Just because someone has made a goal of theirs a life calling, doesn't make it a religion either. People may be devoted to a calling, a career, or any other number of goals, INCLUDING a religion, but again that doesn't make them all religions. Simple math fallacy on your part here.

Because A can be a part of B and C doesn't make B equal to C.

A being devotion
B being Religion
C being anything else

 

[Scotteq]

As above - Atheism is not a religion. Atheists do not believe in any god.

Agnostics do believe in a god. But assert that the mind/will of God is unknowable and (therefore) it is false to practice a codified religion.

 

[brandonb]

Atheism is a religion, look up the word on dictionary.com.

Here is a hint:

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

 

[Scotteq]

Atheism is a religion, look up the word on dictionary.com.

Here is a hint:

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

Dictionary.com says:


a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

 

[HumblePie]

Atheism is a religion, look up the word on dictionary.com.

Here is a hint:

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

And that is where you are wrong. Atheism is DISBELIEF. Not belief.


But since we are playing this game.. let us continue...

–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

Those are the dictionary definitions for religions. Let us see how they apply to definition of Atheism which is..

–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

1) Neither the disbelief in a supreme being or the belief that there is no supreme being is a set of belief concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Nor does it pertain to anything else as just as not believing in santa claus, the tooth fairy, elves, or the boogeyman or believing those don't exist either mean this as well.

2) There is no "set" of beliefs for any atheist. There are a lot of things I believe in that I know other atheist friends don't. For example, I believe that one day I'll finally be rich, they may or may not believe that. I also have different ethical beliefs than other atheists. For example I don't believe it is right for a company to charge restocking fee's to process returns. Other atheists may disagree on that ethical point.

3) This ties in with 2. Why they are listed separately I don't know but a bigger subset doesn't justify a new definition.

4) Last I checked, I never heard of a nun of atheism, or a monk, or warlock, or whatever.

I would explain the rest, but it is too stupid to do so. There is no set of ethics, practices, or observances that encompasses all atheists. There is no preachers, monks, nuns, warlocks, or the equivalent for atheism. There is no governing body, no established organization, and no need for devotion.


Again, people can be devoted to something without it being a religion. Devotion is just one PART of what entails a religion. You need the rest of the ingredients to make that pie.