this post was submitted on
1,959 points (63% like it)
4,690 up votes 2,731 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,183,998 readers

1,824 users here now


Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes


Related Subreddits <--the big list

GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ


Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow all 452

[–]Universus[S] 20 points21 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For those who are wondering where this is from: the Hitchens/Harris/Wolpe/Shavit debate on "Is There An Afterlife?", fyi

[–]karnoculars 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

OH SHIT, Hitchens and Sam Harris in one debate? Good bye, morning.

[–]BogieFlare 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You were there too?

[–]abc0815 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ty for the link. gona watch it later

[–]sickasabat 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was disappointed that neither Hitchens nor Harris addressed the seemingly reasonable statement by the rabbi that science has been allowed to be wrong and correct itself, nobody mocks scientists because science once said that healing was due to humours. But it's ok to mock current religion for things that they once believed.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]sickasabat 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am aware of this. I was bemoaning the fact that neither Harris nor Hitchens addressed this point in the debate which I imagine will leave some believers thinking that it's an acceptable one to make.

[–]blitzkannon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's worth watching for the last five minutes alone where Hitch is allowed to take the floor. I cried.

[–][deleted] 91 points92 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fucking nailed it. It drives me batshit. The religious point out the tenderness and kindness of religion today, but forget how we got our minds into that religious compromise. They logically deduced that people could still believe in their God and not kill people of other faiths. They had to. Religion was way too big to just go away, so the next step had to have been, "Well, let's calm this shit down a bit. I still believe in you, but I'm a little wary of accepting your barbaric rituals and traditions."

But yeah, Hitchens said it much better.

[–]NukeThePope 34 points35 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I hope nobody will mind me latching on to your popular post to point at my explanation of the secret of Christianity's success, wherein Richard Carrier teaches us that intolerance is what made Christianity the world's #1 religion.

[–]metnavman 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The part where he explains the hilarious irony of the "evolution" of religion is probably the best segment of that entire passage. The doctrines behind Christians and Muslims are genocidal towards other religions. Amusing how they both preach "peace and love"...

[–]NukeThePope 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm glad you enjoyed that as much as I did. The hypocrisy is staggering once you look behind their double talk!

I'm plugging the book really hard. I want other people to become aware of and understand this. I think even a lot of Christians may run into serious cognitive dissonance if they are made to understand what's going on.

[–]metnavman 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm just now starting into "God is not great". After I finish that up, I forsee my newly piqued interests making Carrier's next on my reading list.

[–]NukeThePope 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I envy you for GinG! I don't want to take the time to read it again, but I sure enjoyed it when I did! It's such a pleasure to see Hitchens destroying shit.

[–]Ferrofluid 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

standard practice for sociopaths to smile and then silently stab you in the back when you are not looking.

[–][deleted] 73 points74 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

...when it really did believe that it had god on it's side.

The "it's" should be "its" for possessive form. Just a heads up.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh you gorgeous piece of sweet humanity, I came in here to say just that. And to make that error on a Hitchens quote, no less... I CALL FOR BLOOD IN THE NAME OF INTELLIGENCE AND ATHEISM!

[–]Soothsweven 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

SCIENCE DAMN THEM!

[–]trollmaster5000 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

OH. MY. SCIENCE.

[–]MoroccoBotix 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How's this?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nice fix!

[–]Universus[S] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

realized that after I made it. after poring and poring....

[–]sebnukem 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Then please fix it.

[–]gfixler 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, don't change anything upon noticing errors. Just have faith that it is right and that everything will work out.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If I was God, I would have fixed that mistake of creating humans. Just saying.

[–]Aesthete 238 points239 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Every step away from religion is a step towards progress.

Only when we've left religion to the pages of history will humanity be free.

If we look at the attitude the average westerner has towards religion, we can see we've already taken many steps. Here's to hoping we'll be free from this disease in a hundred years.

EDIT:

Holy crap on a stick! I sure struck a cord with the hivemind.

Delicious upboats...

[–]brianbrianbrian 87 points88 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What's the saying? Man will only be free when the last king is strangled to death with the entrails of the last priest?

[–]weareyourfriends 34 points35 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre, Au défaut d’un cordon pour étrangler les rois.

  • Denis Diderot

Literally:

And his hands would plait the priest's entrails, For want of a rope, to strangle kings.

Although, you'd have to do a bit of searching to realise it in its original context. I believe Diderot was a theist.

Edit:

I believe in God, although I live very happily with atheists... It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God.

As quoted in Against the Faith (1985) by Jim Herrick, p. 75

Heaps more on his Wikiquote page.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A great debate between Hitchens and a Christian scholar is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boH_tJ0mCrU

[–]plaguelocust 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I shared this quote with a friend of mine who graduated from BIOLA with a bachelors in apologetics.

...He thought Hitchens had a great point.

[–]Visconde 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Diderot was one of the bravest and most important atheist in history.

Every non-believer should read Philipp Blom's book "A Wicked Company: The Forgotten Radicalism of the European Enlightenment"

[–]Ag-E 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wait so was he or was he not an atheist? Weareyourfriends seems to say he wasn't (and offers citation), you say he is but offer no citation. Which is it?

[–]Visconde 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Together with d'Holbach he can be considered as a founding father of atheism. He started out his life wanting to become a priest, so I think that's where the "I believe in God" quote comes from.

[–]notorious_pcp 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

he rather specifically declares himself a theist. so while he may have laid some of the philosophical groundwork for materialism, it's rather incorrect to call him an atheist.

[–]Visconde 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

Among those accused of atheism was Denis Diderot (1713–1784), one of the Enlightenment's most prominent philosophes, and editor-in-chief of the Encyclopédie, which sought to challenge religious, particularly Catholic, dogma: "Reason is to the estimation of the philosophe what grace is to the Christian", he wrote. "Grace determines the Christian's action; reason the philosophe's". Diderot was briefly imprisoned for his writing, some of which was banned and burned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_the_Age_of_the_Enlightenment

D'Holbach and Denis Diderot seem to be two of the very small number of publicly-identified atheists in Europe during this period.

[–]Visconde 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wow, this man devoted his life to the spreading of atheism. He risked his life, his family, his possessions, agonizing torture and you are calling him a theist because of some letter he wrote as a young man.

Even Hitchens at one point declared himself a theist, it very rarely happened that people were born atheist.

[–]GenericSpecialty 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Even Hitchens at one point declared himself a theist, it very rarely happened that people were born atheist.

Isn't everybody born as atheists initially?

[–]Visconde 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You were probably born with an uneven amount of chromosomes

[–]sirbruce 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think Hitchens covered some of this ground in his writings. A lot of early atheist literature, what is often called "free thinker" literature, is nevertheless genuinely thoughtful writings of otherwise nominal Christians. You can basically see from their writing about the problems of religion that they lead right up to the edge of atheism but rarely are willing to come out and publically state the final step. There's a lot of "Of course I believe in God, but I see nothing wrong with the atheist position..." or "Some of my best friends are atheists..." and so on. Some may have clung to religion purely out of habit; others were keenely aware of the social price (if not the price of their life) they would pay for admitting to being an atheist. They would cloak their words with lipservice to religion for the church but with a wink and a nod to the more discerning reader who could read through to their true beliefs.

[–]ATTENTION_EVERYBODY 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I believe in God, although I live very happily with atheists... It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God.

  • As quoted in Against the Faith (1985) by Jim Herrick, p. 75

But it is important, vital even, to not believe everything you hear. Especially if "god" is the one saying it.

[–]plaguelocust 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"God" at the time meant your dearest beliefs about ethics and metaphysics. It just came with a personality attached.

He was one of the following:

a brave agnostic

a brave atheist

a brave theist

Does it really matter which he was, if our goal is truly to learn from the relevance of his works?

[–]PenAndSword 40 points41 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While it will be good to free from religion, it will hardly set humanity free. The masses will just be controlled by another medium.

What will get us closer to freedom is working toward our betterment rather than working for a wage.

[–]ExogenBreach 73 points74 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Getting rid of religion is like getting rid of one shackle. It frees up your hand to tackle the other one.

[–]ExistentialEnso 25 points26 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree. Imagine a world in which people don't raise a fuss over stem cell research, where people actually take the time to understand evolution, where people who get abortions and gay people aren't harassed.

A world without religion would be far from perfect -- people would probably still get up in celebrity gossip, and those sorts of distractions. However, it would be a world free from the crippling cries of theists who think their opinion is valid because some archaic book says so.

[–]rushmc1 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Celebrities are our Greek and Roman gods, our saints. Human nature changes slowly.

[–]hflat 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is amazing.

[–]Aesthete 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Let me refine my train of thought.

It is of course naïve to think religion and only religion is holding us back. We become free when we become disillusioned about our place in the universe and see how we share our fleeting existence with the billions of people who are just like us. Just looking for happiness.

It so happens that religion has always been a dividing force. It's always been about god's chosen people against the heathens. While religion isn't the only thing we fight over, it has always been the mother of all conflicts.

It's been shown time and time again that morals aren't god-given so I say we're ready to let this one go for the sake of progress.

[–]visarga 13 points14 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Anything that puts ideas above people is just as bad: patriotism, unethical medical research, party ideology in communism, tribal and gang warfare, corporate interests, etc.

To generalize, all of these play with values and skew meanings. They attach new conditions and exceptions to the definition of humanity: Jews are not real people like arians, blacks are slaves because they are different, Chinese, immigrants don't deserve to get to our side of the fence and so on.

Christianity too put people of other religions through fire and sword for centuries for the sake of their precious beliefs.

tl;dr People matter more than ideas.

[–]OrganicCat 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What do you mean by 'party ideology in communism'?

I also believe ethics in general won't be agreed upon even without religion, so 'unethical medical research' will still vary by personal definition.

[–]visarga 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

party ideology in communism

It was OK to kill and torture people who did nothing other than talk of freedom and basic human needs, or simply crossed a high level party official in some way.

[–]ExistentialEnso 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just wanted to remark that there's a difference between a true patriot and the post-9/11 "patriot." I think the problem is with the latter, not the former.

I think a big difference is a true patriot loves his country and wants to make it better; a "patriot" loves his country to the point of thinking she can do no wrong, to the point they'll stand by needless wars, crackdowns on civil liberties, etc.

The irony is the "patriots" are not patriots at all, because they support policies which erode the precious freedoms upon which the US was founded.

[–]nblsavage 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Patriot" - "My country right or wrong" True Patriot - "My country when right to be kept right, when wrong, to be put right"

[–]PhallusGreen 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Or just

Jingoist != Patriot

[–]iamalwayshere 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What if the people who keep us working for a wage are the same ones that created religion, a mechanism that persuades its followers to discredit themselves and to "thank god" for their value and presence?

I like your comment, but I feel the points you raised and divided (Religion & a free humanity) are in fact deliberately and excruciatingly conjoined.

The creative hands of humanity are tied tight by a mind suckled and schooled to be blind to its own confinement and immensely powerful nature.

Religion is against many things and has caused much suffering, however its most damaging and destructive reach is not seen by the eyes, but carried behind.

If you dare see how life can be, if you dare challenge convention, if you dare break those chains, you will suffer. And this story I'm sure you know.

They put him on a cross, for all to see.

Bettering = battering

For the sake of humanity, for the sake of children, the story of christ must be replace with a more useful one.

I'd love to hear suggestions.

[–]NukeThePope 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I do consider religion a special kind of tyranny, essentially different from other -isms and ideologies. I explain why here.

[–]SkepticallySkeptical 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You often link to previous discussions that you've already had, so I ask you: how on Earth do keep up with such comments? Do you save them somewhere else and ctrl-f to find them again? Or do you have some sort of organized system?

[–]NukeThePope 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

<scenery> Picture a portly man in his middle age and his eager, sprightly son, recently graduated from an expensive college, in Dad's office high rise, overlooking his empire. </scenery>

My son, some day all this will be yours. You will inherit everything I've done, you will sit in this office, making important decisions, and yes, this desk will be yours!

[–]SkepticallySkeptical 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Bookmarked, thanks! And while I have your attention, why aren't you a mod? I've always thought of you as a mod anyway, but I think it should be official.

[–]NukeThePope 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks a lot, but I think that idea doesn't work well with the different tasks of contributors and moderators.

I've played a few multiplayer games and, after killing my way to the top, became a "wizard" or something similar. It was kind of a natural progression. But "mod" is not a progression from "commenter."

A mod is something like a janitor and referee. I'm much too busy (and having too much fun) writing my own posts to be an effective keeper of other peoples', and I'm much too partial, and much too hot-tempered, to be an even-handed referee of other peoples' disputes. If it were up for a vote, I wouldn't vote for me.

I appreciate our gentle mods for staying calmly in the background and running this place with a very light hand. They do it well. All's good :)

[–]GyantSpyder 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One of the main criticisms of religion is that it is essentialist, whereas life and reality are not and must be investigated skeptically through criticial thinking and supported by burdens of proof.

Ascribing essential qualities to religion under the auspices of weakening its influence undermines the notion that there is nothing special about it. If religion can have special, essential bad qualities, then that makes it a lot harder to refute that it can have special, essential good qualities.

I'd suggest staying away from becoming what you despise.

[–]NukeThePope 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think that what you're doing here is referred to as a red herring. Religion is a set of ideas, and it turns out those ideas have some horribly bad effects. I wouldn't dream of denying that religion has some good effects too; but I feel it would be trivial to demonstrate that the ill effect of religion by far outweigh the good.

All this was done in response to the suggestion that there is something to redeem religions (Christianity in particular), of which statement I've endeavored to show the falsehood.

But all this doesn't touch on the reason why atheists reject religion, and the reason why its effect is necessarily negative: All religions are lies.

[–]dwitman 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A society that learns to despise dogma of any kind will have taken the largest step possible towards enlightenment.

[–]matt_i 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

People seem to have a deep need to be part of some "group-think"; maybe it's part of what makes us social creatures. In many ways, Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism exhibit traits of religions. Obviously, the huge difference, and what can make religion so injurious, is that the former do not claim holiness or any claim to your being (soul) after death.

[–]infinity777 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Communist!

[–]Ferrofluid 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A philosophy is better than religion, philosophy can be debated and changed accordingly to how people think and act, religions tend to be set in stone and heretics murdered and mistreated.

[–]Swashy660 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Goddamnit fuck the hivemind. Last time I posted saying the world would be much better off if we eliminate religion I got downvoted by like 9. Bah whatever, have an upboat...

[–]zane17 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think wording matters, eliminated implies violence. Leaving religion behind implies progress.

I'm sure you didn't mean the violent extermination of religion though, have an upboat.

[–]Dawens 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The funny thing is, Hitchens has said if he could have religion disappear, he wouldn't. That is what is so ironic about the man. He claims that religion is this sinister, truculent, totalitarian system and we all nod in agreement; yet he wouldn't rid the world of it. Sigh lol...

[–]napoleonsolo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No he didn't. I believe he's said he wouldn't ban religion by force, but he'd certainly be happy if it disappeared.

[–]Dawens 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Watch his 4 horsemen discussion and his movie with Douglas Wilson. Richard Dawkins was absolutely shocked to hear it. Hitchen's reason for not wanting it to disappear is because he enjoys sparring against theists.

[–]sirbruce 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's a certain logic to the notion that no idea should be completely eradicated, if only so that bad ideas could be observed "in action" by observers and serve as an example of what not to believe. Already we have a generation of children who have grown up without the threat of Communism who don't regard it as an actual evil but rather as some exagerrated boogeyman created by Republicans to scare voters.

[–]Psy-Kosh 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

IIRC, his position with respect to that is he would almost rid the world of it, but as a simple matter of preserving ancient culture and such, he wouldn't want to take it away from, say, the last five people in the world to still be religious.

[–]BrokenDex 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

100 years, maybe not. But it will be gone eventually. It's either that or the human race will eventually end itself.

[–]Spiro_Agnew 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry, but you're delusional. You seem to think that if all obstacles to absolute freedom are removed, man will somehow become perfect or near-perfect. This type of unrealistic, naive utopanism is just as dangerous as tyranny under religion.

The fact, as downvote inducing as it is, is that humans are not perfect creatures. As a species, they do not work fundementally towards good, and as individuals, they are concerned with their own advancement above all.

[–]crayonleague 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry, but you're retarded. You seem to think that just because he stated the death of religion would bring humanity one step closer to realizing something near its true potential, this means if we "remove" religion, man will "somehow become perfect or near-perfect". This kind of dishonest strawman argumentation is just as stupid as any theist reasoning.

I think that the natural death of religion will be another further step in progress, similar to the evolution of governments and the abolition of the caste system and other similar social hierarchies, but this does not means that if we "remove" religion, mankind will instantaneously become "perfect". Just because someone believes in progress doesn't mean they believe in utopianism.

As for this gem:

Removing traditional institutions of control is a good way to destroy ourselves.

Yeah, you mean like removing slavery? What about the American or French Revolution? Totally destroyed Western civilization, didn't they?

As for the rest of your cute little rants, it's nothing more than the pretentious and contemptuous theist apologetic argument that "the poor huddled masses of retards need our God to keep them in check, but we educated, wealthy elite know it's just a fantasy and system of control". Yeah. Fuck that. Oh, and "worship of the individual"? Are you sure you're not a Christian? Because now this is starting to sound like what backwater white trash Christians think "evilutionists" believe.

Neocons are such a joke.

[–]Aesthete 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, yes. We are selfish and tribal. I get that. I just think that we'll eventually evolve to be social on a much larger scale, what with globalization and all that, so we mustn't destroy ourselves before we reach that point.

[–]Spiro_Agnew 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

we mustn't destroy ourselves before we reach that point.

Sorry for sounding like a mean ol' neocon, but religion has done a pretty good job so far. Removing traditional institutions of control is a good way to destroy ourselves. Progress should be gradual and guided by powers other than the despotic will of the masses. Of course, power should be accountable to the people, but mass democracy without a moral framework derived from a higher power is dangerous.

Of course, this power doesn't have to be "God", it can be dedication to traditional principles like those set out in the constitution or through many years of convention, but a divine mandate is a good way to gurantee stability in a world where instability can lead to total destruction with literally the push of a button.

Idealism is all fine and dandy, we all want to live in a better world, but idealism without realism is dangerous.

/neconservative rant

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is so much bullshit I don't even know where to begin. This is basically the same argument for religion that says "but it is useful, it may all be BS but belief has pragmatic benefits" When are religious people going to learn that they do not need a "higher power", be it god or country, to dictate to them what is right and wrong. The very best and most highly prized moral ideas are acheived not through an external entity telling you what to do, but rather from an educated and objective internal dialogue. Religion tells you the world is black and white, and that only it can tell you right and wrong (usually), it literally stifles thinking. And it is precisely when politicians in power agree with Spiro_Agnew that the largest of atrocities are commited. "The public are idiots, we know what is best for them" they say, "but let's not tell them the truth because it would induce instability and it would undermine their faith in the system" Well no fucking shit, if the populous weren't under the thumb of religion in the first place they wouldn't be so damn accepting to the lies in the first place. This is what it boils down to, that religion is based upon no evidence, and therefore people in other areas of their lives are less likely to demand evidence. Fox news is case in point.

If civilization is ever destroyed odds are a religious person commanded or pushed the button, to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

/former neo-con

[–]Cryptomeria 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

These two posts (Spiro_Agnew and Vietarmis) are really great. Spiro swayed me with his points, his argument was cogent and supported. Vietarmis addressed those points and showed the error of his argument. Both great posts.

But, the fact that in this forum, only the post that disagrees with the hivemind is getting down-voted is shitty.

Is there any other reason that Spiro_Agnew's post would be down-voted other than a knee-jerk almost "fundamentalist" reaction?

Editted for grammar/formatting.

[–]PhallusGreen 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While he may have good posts, upvoting/downvoting is not based purely on content, but also how closely it aligns to a someone's personal truths; however false they may be.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I upvoted him, so it's not my fault =).

Edit: Made a post about this on /r/reddit.com.

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/g1en1/discussion_of_voting/

[–]Spiro_Agnew 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

do not need a "higher power", be it god or country, to dictate to them what is right and wrong.

But people do. It's all very well to say that some nice contemplation and education will result in an ideal moral individual, but that just isn't the case. That's some extreme idealism. It's the false notion that humans are perfectable and that it is possible to reveal eternal "truths" applicable across all cultures and times through "internal dialogue". That just isn't possible. People will come to different conclusions and that will cause conflict. Not to mention that most people don't have the opportunity and/or desire to go through this process of discovery. The individual is not the highest form of authority, and there is no such thing as objective truth.

Society rests on submission to authority. I'm an atheist, and I'm not defending religious ignorance and anti-intellectualism, but claiming that the removal of religion and the worship of the ability of the individual to reveal his own morality will result in a vastly better world is wrong.

A religious person may or may not push the button, but you can assume that his reason for doing so will not be based purely on religion, but on what he believes to be a sound rationalization based on real circumstances.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A religious person may or may not push the button, but you can assume that his reason for doing so will not be based purely on religion, but on what he believes to be a sound rationalization based on real circumstances.

I rest my case.

[–]Spiro_Agnew 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ಠ_ಠ

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ok, I feel bad for leaving it so abruptly. I will explain myself, but I rather enjoy the look of disapproval, makes life more interesting...

But people do. It's all very well to say that some nice contemplation and education will result in an ideal moral individual, but that just isn't the case.

But no they don't. No one is saying that contemplation and education will result in ideal moral individuals. We are saying that we should simply strive towards better, always evolving morals, and that one of the prime obstacles to the learning of morals is religion. Very few of the Judeo-Christian adhering believers have even explored alternative versions of moral universes with any true pursuit, for if they had they would have followed the evidence and realized their error. Religion is anti-intellectual at it's core. It say's, "shhhh, don't question my authority, because, umm... it's god....yeah!....GOD SAYS SO!".

Then I propose, how do you know god says so? If a person responds "the bible" (or any given religious text) I can simply say that the bible is full of lies (brace yourselves for I am about to be brutally honest) and deceit and is at the least a partial fabrication used in control of the masses, and that anyone who believes it's words are divinely inspired to be either ignorant or stupid, according to the definitions of the words. Stupidity is knowing something is wrong (religion) and doing it anyway. The alternative is that person has personal experiences with god, in which case I postulate them genetically inculpable but logically mad. Here you are, here is the evidence, and when you reject the evidence, you are excused from the table of discussion. So, while I understand that you are an atheist, what I am trying to address is this perverse idea that seems far too wide-spread, that religion fills a moral gap that would otherwise be empty. It just simply isn't true. In fact, and I think many atheists might agree with me, that indeed religion is amoral if not immoral, and that the gap we have in our moral and other knowledge will not be properly filled until we remove the obstacle that is religion. Empty your cup before filling it and all that.

[–]icebraining 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What's the higher power from which the moral framework is derived in countries like France, where 64% are atheists and/or agnostics?

The moral frameworks don't cease to exist because religion loses its power. I'd say the inverse is more likely: that religion often loses its power because it can't keep up with the evolution of society's moral framework, because of its ultra-conservative posture.

mass democracy without a moral framework derived from a higher power is dangerous.

Can you cite any example of where it has gone wrong?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A free world would be were everyone is educated and willing to learn. Getting rid of religion simply isn't enough.

[–]NukeThePope 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Getting rid of religion looks like a very sensible step on the way there. Notice how religion is actively interfering with education these days?

[–]cookiesone 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

amen, brother

[–]prof_doxin 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Same for stepping away from the state. Exact same thing.

[–]routari 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pharyngula working for you?

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A great point by Hitchens, and something theists would be well to keep in mind. The mere ability to question one's faith is something modern theists take for granted, and it is incumbent upon us to have these conversations that were once forbidden. We must always remember that, in essence, the grave crime of heresy was nothing more than questioning the official story, which says volumes about the quality of that story.

[–]LittlemanTAMU 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

which says volumes about the quality of that story

You're welcome to that opinion, but mine is that abuses say nothing about the quality of the story and everything about the abuse of power. When you control the official story and no one but the select, who know to toe the official line or they'll die, can read the actual story, I think it says very little about the actual story.

Just look at it on the other foot, if someone was in power now and was saying that evolution was untrue and restricting access to actual studies and evidence and executing people who questioned the official line, would that impact how you felt about evolution? Would it make it less true? Would that affect the quality of the evidence?

I agree with everything else you said. Open debate and discussion is healthy, needed, and beneficial to all people.

edit: I misunderstood the last sentence (the one I quoted). We are in agreement on all points.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't see how your example is any different from mine, and both make the same point. If the official story is a lie, it must be protected from both examination and questioning. If the official story is the truth, it does not suffer from exposure. The vehemence with which people are denied access to information is roughly proportional to the extent that they are being lied to.

In the case of the historical church, people have been denied (forcefully) from even considering the possibility of God's nonexistence. Is it possible that those in power have known all along that God does not exist, but that they maintained appearances to ensure their continued place atop the power structure? The parallels in your example are obvious; do you think the people behind the creationist movement really believe all the gibberish they spout? The Wedge Document puts the lie to that; they've made it abundantly clear that creationism is just a tool used to 'defeat scientific materialism'. And why? Because scientific understanding diminishes the likelihood of religiosity, and with it diminishes the incomes of those who run churches. Not to say it's a nefarious conspiracy or plot, but rather that you cannot ask someone to understand something that their paycheck relies on them not understanding.

A hypothetical; suppose a current or future Pope, in the face of increasing scientific evidence for god's nonexistence, comes to the personal conclusion that god, in fact, does not exist. Do you suppose he'll come out and tell anyone this and be struck from his position, or will he lie and continue to be waited on like royalty within his gilded trappings? I'd wager the latter is more likely.

[–]LittlemanTAMU 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Our examples are basically the same, somehow I missed the word "that" at the end and interpreted your last statement to mean censorship = the real story is false. I blame it on posting right after I woke up.

I do think many Creationists believe what they say, but you make a good point about distrusting those who have a vested interest in a certain outcome. That's always been my problem with the way a lot of scientific research is funded in the USA. I perceive at least that more than an insignificant amount of research is a conclusion in search of evidence rather than the other way around. That could just be my perception though since I'm not in that arena. I do see parallels in my area so I guess it's a bit of extrapolation.

[–]ouranosfallen 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A quote from over 2 centuries ago still says it best:

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” - Denis Diderot

[–]YosserHughes 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How christianity became so widespread:

Xtian: hey pagan wanna worship my god.

Pagan: No that's OK.

Xtian: see that wooden stake over there?

[–]NukeThePope 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Need a comic for this.

[–]IslamIsTheLight 33 points34 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As much as I want to enjoy this image, poor apostrophe use just kills it for me. I think religious people may be right, I might be a bad person.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]Universus[S] 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you magnificent bastard.

[–]Universus[S] 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I realized that after I made it. Humble apologies, sir.

[–]IslamIsTheLight 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nothing to worry about, we live in an age where it's okay to discuss such things.

[–]synthaxx 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're right IslamIsTheLight.

...wait

[–]srob101 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He has my approval.

[–]thajugganuat 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

don't worry on the internet it's Ironic.

[–]endr 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can you fix it?

[–]MoroccoBotix 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How is this?

[–]endr 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yay, now I can enjoy it fully

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But that is a great picture!

[–]digitalchris 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just stopping by to make sure the discussion is about the misplaced apostrophe and not the content at hand....

[–]Shikadi314 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

it's?!?!

[–]vrilro 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

great quote my brain can't get past the contraction BLEGgg

[–]Universus[S] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I just realized - why did he say "hundreds and thousands of years"?

[–]Unikraken 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Because "hundreds of thousands" would be inaccurate.

[–]Universus[S] 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'll just go hang myself now, thanks.

[–]koprofile 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

DON'T DO IT!

[–]Unikraken 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

;)

[–]Ferrofluid 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

hundreds AND thousands, not hundreds of thousands.

Meaning 100s to 1000s of years.

[–]marshallt 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, that's true. Religion came over to my house last night and was all like, "Dude, let's be friends." And I was all like, "No, Religion, you're an asshole. Get off of my lawn."

[–]YesItsthatbig 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Do you think a few years after religion is abolished, hipsters will start believing in God for the irony?

[–]jamabake 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For a gory, greusome portrayal of just how things were when religion was strong (particularly Christianity during the plague), check out Black Death. It's a little slow, but an excellent movie ... if not a little depressing.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

After I grew a pair and finally left my religious days behind (I'd long been apathetic towards religion, but I couldn't bring myself to start looking at writings by the big four or anyone else), I purchased Hitchens' memoir. He's one of my heroes now.

For the record: if anyone's interested, the graphic novel Persepolis (which is in two volumes) made me completely reevaluate my social, political and spiritual life. As a person, I'm almost the polar opposite of what I was a year ago. Hitch is partially responsible for that too.

[–]Stereotypical_INTJ 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm going to echo others in saying that poor grammar never makes my desktop background, especially when it's quoting someone who speaks eloquently.

[–]jxhn 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Rogue apostrophe.

[–]momfood 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, I sincerely doubt that Hitch spelled "its" wrong. Still, great quote.

[–]aazav 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"god on it's side"

It's? You have to be kidding me. Get it all right and then get that wrong.

ಠ_ಠ

It's = it is.

[–]Athiostitarian 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

*Its side

[–]Purehatred 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How is he doing?

Last time I saw him he was very ill.

[–]MoonDaddy 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This guy is your SAVIOR!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If Hitchens had been around 2000 years ago, he would have nailed it then, too.

[–]Nethius 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

hmmm... new wallpaper perhaps...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

nails it, as usual

I find that Hitchens quite often "nails it" and has a great writing style and perspective but there are other times where he gets things wrong. I could do without the "as usual" in the title of this post.

[–]phixson 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is how I'm going to remember Hitch.

[–]fryinpan 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It kinda seems like religeon has served it's purpose.

Just because it was good for us when we were primitive doesn't mean it's good for us now. Who is he to tell me if I have the right to speak on it's discredit?

[–]Eonir 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh look, is that a grammar mistake?

Great quote though.

[–]twoblades 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I seriously doubt that Christopher Hitchens misused "it's" to mean "its".

[–]blackstar9000 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Counterpoint. Especially the second and seventh essays.

[–]OriginalStomper 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I read the intro and I am part way through the first essay. So far, they are great reading. Google did not give me any data about the author, however. Is the pseudonym still impenetrable?

[–]blackstar9000 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As far as I know.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I hope our atheist-from-day-one posterity won't forget how awful religion was when it's finally gone. Knowing religion is harmful is one thing, but knowing why is another. There are so many unknowns in life that there will still be room for crazy philisophical religions that provide "all the answers" but don't necessarily have a stance on gods, such as Objectivism or Anarchism. If there's going to be a religion, it should be one that celebrates uncertainty and doubt rather than deny it.

[–]joedude 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is my argument to my religious friends, i just calmly explain, remember 200 years ago, when your "loving church" would have chopped my fucking head off for having this civil argument with you? "oh yea....." edit: fixed my quotations for added comedic value

[–]twistedcain 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What I can't stand is the sympathizers who are so worried about offending a religious person that they do their best to tip toe around them at every chance they get. You never know, we may not get a chance like this again. Just know, if religion does ever take control again, they will be very sure to never let go of their grip again.

[–]twr8801 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]Gahahaha 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hitchens sure nailed the war in Iraq.

/s

[–]Ka-Jay-Jay 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

after reading his autobiography, I found his stance much more understandable, though not necessarily agreeable

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]Ka-Jay-Jay 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Basically his history as an International Socialist and first-hand experience in regimes run by brutal dictators, many of whom he's felt the US enabled through inaction and indifference. He visited Iraq itself during Bush Sr's war, initially opposed to the American prescence but witnessed the extent of Saddam's tyranny as well as many Kurdish people in Kuwait that he feels were saved thanks to American interference, making him reevaluate his stance on pacifism.

The idea of "Reds for Bush" might seem incongruous, but it was a very great deal more wholesome than "pacifists for Saddam."

You should check out his debate with his brother, Peter Hitchens, it's interesting to see because the two topics are the war in Iraq and existence of God, and their stances betray cookie-cutter left/right wing politics.

[–]sid13 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The title is:

Hitchens nails it, as usual

I only disagree with the "as usual" part.. Usually, Hitchens is wrong about everything other than his stance on religion and atheism

[–]MagnifiedAttitude 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But you've no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong and when it really did believe that it had God on its side.

While I agree with the unquoted part of what Hitchens says, there's no way this last sentence is correct. So what, just because some Popes several centuries ago got a boner over slaughtering Muslims we should now hate all current Popes? That logic makes no sense, and frankly I expected better from Hitchens.

EDIT: clarity

[–]Ekorn 35 points36 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He's not talking about a pope years ago, or popes today. He's talking about how religious institutions will behave, and have behaved when they are in absolute power over your life

[–]MagnifiedAttitude 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was just using Popes as an example of how religious institutions in general have behaved. I still say however that we can't prejudge religions based on how they have behaved in the past, that's just plain unfair. Trying to draw as best an analogy as I can here - and it may be an inaccurate analogy - but how would you like it if law enforcement assumed you were a criminal because you came from a family of criminals?

[–]Sharkoffs 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree with your logic and your statement, but I feel you are committing a strawman logical fallacy.

Hitches is not saying that we should assume that current religions are evil because of what has happened in the past.

What he is saying is that we should remember the journey that took us to this place where religion is a friendly kind of thing, and that when religion was truly in power it achieved alot of destruction.

[–]pimpbot 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

we can't prejudge (X) based on how they have behaved in the past

Just wanted to highlight the absurdity of this claim.

[–]ultrane 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you may want to check out how 100% non/anti religious institutions behaved, when they had absolute power over lives. there are plenty of examples in the past century, involving 100s of millions. I'm not sure RELIGION is the driving force behind absolute power corrupting, or that removing religion would make any difference.

[–]randomletters 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We don't have to look back several centuries to find actions by the Catholic church, or any church for that matter, to find reprehensible behavior towards those in their power.

[–]NukeThePope 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For your arguing needs: Shit the Catholic Church does

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The ideology they profess is inherently destructive. They assume authority over all people as it is granted by their god, and believe that there will be a apocalyptic war that will end the world and justify everything they have done.

[–]MagnifiedAttitude 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maybe the Abrahamic religions do, but not all of them believe in an apocalyptic war. However, all religions to some extent have a tarnished past - this doesn't mean we should assume they have a tarnished future.

[–]jplvhp 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What? How did you equate "never forget" with "we blame all of you for all eternity"?

[–]ohaithurqtpi 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you. Now, please talk some sense into this guy:

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/g1451/hitchens_nails_it_as_usual/c1k5ekp

[–]mindbleach 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So what, just because some Popes several centuries ago got a boner over slaughtering Muslims we should now hate all current Popes?

That's overspecific, but yeah, kinda. Massive organizations structured by divine right and given power far in excess of their utility are a bad idea. Medieval Catholicism perfectly illustrates why. Modern Catholicism remains a sociopolitical power structure centered around beliefs in stark conflict with observable reality and its noteworthy actions absent absolute rule remain severely objectionable.

In short: we should hate John Paul II for mishandling AIDS and we should hate Benedict XIII for personally sheltering child molesters within the church. Nothing has changed since the days of "Deus vult!" except the laity's level of education.

[–]QuickDragon 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I feel like this post might get destroyed but meh I'll put in my two cents.

People make stereotypes of other people an things. This is true of everyone. For example if I act good around you all the time, you are going to assume I am a good person. Similarly, if I do bad around you, you are going to assume I'm a pretty fucked up guy.

In both cases we make a stereotype that may or may not be true. I contend that stereotypes are acceptable until counter-arguments or evidence is brought to light because they allow us to judge the world pretty accurately and make choices that will not have to take into account people not behaving like they normally do.

I know this can be brought back to racism against blacks, or other racism, but I contend that people who have had stereotypes of blacks as being less then human or less intelligent, have had their view points changed and can see some stereotypes that aren't true. However we still have some stereotypes that we consider ok like black people like watermelon or fried chicken. It's natural to classify people as individuals and as a group and that is why we can classify religion and the catholic church.

They have acted horribly in the past and they are still under the same name and doing the same actions. I think the stereotype of their goodness is justified from the past and until they prove themselves to be better their past selves, I will hold this image of them in my head.

[–]Soothsweven 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is a man no longer a wife-beater as soon as he stops beating his wife, or has he demonstrated that capacity for unacceptable violence regardless of his current behavior? I'm not saying that we should consider religion as it stands today to be the exact same beast it was when it was strong, but let's not take our eyes off of the abuser simply because he's calmed down and is washing the blood off of his knuckles.

[–]Theres_A_FAP_4_That 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

People wonder why I hate religion, priests, imams, the pope and those that follow religion so much, it's because I have read history, and to me it was like only yesterday, the Inquisition, the Crusades, tithing, now pedo-gate. Time has no meaning to me, and all those that follow religion are guilty by association. You are guilty of being fooled, by poisoning your children with myth and hate and fear. I loathe you, and if I didn't care for my parents so much not to 'embarrass' them, I would see you all suffer the fate of those you've made suffer before you.

[–]duphre 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

and to me it was like only yesterday, the Inquisition, the Crusades

Huh?

and all those that follow religion are guilty by association.

What a narrow-minded, ignorant statement..

[–]iamalwayshere 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Religion is humanities thorny crown, lovingly pressed into the skin. Away with it! Away with it's wretched barbarism!

[–]arnizach -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So religion can't improve? Religious insight can't grow? It's special pleading to say that it's religion when it's bad and somehow not religion when it's good. Maybe religion just changed for the better and not, as Hitchens suggests, gave up ground and became smaller. This is a problem with Hitchens. He's awesome and all that, but he's gotten the idea that religion is essentially bad stuck in his mind and so he simply can't conceive of good religion as religion. Case in point: His comments about Martin Luther King.

[–]Universus[S] 28 points29 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Religion doesn't need to be. Period. If people can be good without religion, why even invoke religion?

[–]Mop1c 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If the word of God needs to be changed by Humans why call it the word of God?

Also ad hominem argument.

[–]Universus[S] 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Jesus, I bring this up so many times (in a different way) it really does feel good to see someone else say it as well. I usually say it in the way "If the word of God is open to so many interpretations (all the different denominations/how "liberal christians" pick and choose what they want to follow from the scripture"), why follow it at all?

[–]Anon_is_a_Meme 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly. If a text can be interpreted to mean anything, it means nothing.

[–]Aesthete 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To quote the aforementioned Christopher Hitchens, religion ends and philosophy begins.

When religious insight starts to grow and adapt to modern standards, It becomes the philosophy of ethics. Is there really a space left for superstition?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Religion is an inherently harmful thing from the perspective of humanists such as myself and Hitchens. But that point aside, no Religions can NOT improve without becoming hypocritical.

The texts (supposedly) don't change and they are the word of God. So for Christians to roll up and say 'Sorry guys for the last thousand years, we aren't the same people any more' either means they're not Christians or they're hypocrites of the highest order for wanting a world based on rules they changed for themselves anyway.

[–]Impressario 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem with a changing religion is that it either needs a direct line open to its god(s) for updates, or humans need to update their interpretations. The former is no longer tenable in these modern skeptical times, and the latter can only lead to schisms or they risk violating internal divine infallibility.

What happens in reality, hopefully, is that the secular components of society continually grind down religious teeth to stubs (both by the religious and non-religious alike). In the end, leaving progressive/moderates who push for all the things the secular work out through debate using data and logic, except the former are still stuck with divine authority for preaching it. At this/that point a very disputed, convoluted authority.

Even if I agree with Jesus or God, why do they think these certain things bad and these certain others things good? If someone replies in place of them "because they say so" then forget them. If someone replies for them "because of these specific, actual reasons" then we don't need them as an authority because those reasons are owned by no one, and we can down-rank them from divine to philosopher, and study them like Socrates. And agree and disagree with them freely.

Progress.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

he simply can't conceive of good religion as religion

lol, can you?

[–]thajugganuat 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Look at the current state of the world and also notice how religious the world is. Are you honestly trying to tell us that religion has now helped billions of people?

[–]nogoodtrying 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can someone give me the whole quote? Can't get imgur at work.

[–]Helen_A_Handbasket 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch, that's a damned good quote.

[–]grubbler 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Where is this from?

[–]Atrista 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can't upvote enough.

[–]denim-chicken 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

wooooww this stopped me in my tracks for a sec.... the crusades? the inquisition? burning at stakes, stoning, you name it. I'm glad i read this.

[–]dudewhatthehellman 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree but it wasn't religion's fault per se. Religion was used as an excuse to retain power as we were simply more barbaric. Same happened with political systems. That said, religion is poisonous for a hundred other reasons.

[–]vdirequest 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I like one of his quotes from a few weeks ago, when he was interviewed by Bryan Lamb:

"I have stage 4 cancer. The important thing to know about stage 4 cancer is there is no stage 5."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hows that guy doing anyway? I heard he was dying pretty fast.

[–]Workaphobia 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He had to cancel an appearance at my university just the other day.

He's Stage IV, and there is no Stage V. So yeah, he'll be going soon. I'm just glad he's leaving behind so much content to peruse after he's gone.

[–]limak 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Link is broken, can someone post an alternative or paste the quote, thanks.

[–]neurot 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Link isnt working for me. Can someone repost it here?

[–]MonkeyRaptor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This always bewilders me. I don't understand why people feel the need to associate themselves with these ancient religious institutions that have so much blood on their hands. If you believe in a certain doctrine or practice, fine, but why limit yourself to such a concrete interpretation and such a historically compromised community?

[–]Newkingdom 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]kanooker 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Religion deals with history, with poetry, with great literature, with ethics, with morals, including the morality of treating compassionately the least fortunate among us. Where religion gets into trouble is when it pretends to know something about science

-Carl Sagan

So much hate on here.

[–]tnk13 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm going to deify him when he dies! (hopefully never)

[–]NYCCine 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i have an atheist boner now.

[–]Kendown 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Right click... Set at Desktop Background... Done!

[–]dufus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't like the anthropomorphism of saying that "religion" does this or that. (I hated it when I was a Christian and people talked about "The Bible testifies to its accuracy" - the Bible is a book. It doesn't do anything but sit there.)

[–]Automaticwriting 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Man he's a badass!

[–]CarolinaSon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Most truthful desktop wallpaper I've ever used, thanks.

[–]robotluvhottub 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

my god is the sun

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I just wanted to post to move Hitchens up the All-Time list on Reddit.