Christopher Hitchens on Think Tank 25-Apr-02 (Part 1)

however because some, like Hitchens and apparently yourself, believe that the concept of Hell itself is wrong and immoral. He might say, for example, that the New Testament is more "evil" than the Old simply because it teaches the concept of Hell. Others find the concept of Hell to be morally useful because they believe that there should be a place where people like Hitler go to.

I bring this up because this is more of a subjective question. Most rational people can agree that honor killings

I did read your words, and you waffled.

Honor killings can occur without religion. It is ridiculous to say otherwise. Religion might make it more likely, but that is another argument.

Circumcision can, could, and would exist without religion. You can repeat that Hitchens talking point as much as you like, it is utterly baseless.

As for Hell; two points. A) there is nothing particularly wrong in my mind with the concept of Hell. This, however, is simply my opinion. I mention that

I never denied that circumcision is touted in some circles for its hygienic aid, I'm aware that it is. It got here by religion, however.

I WILL, however, continue to point out how much you're missing the point. Fearing death is part of the human experience. Children will always fear death, and they'll keep being afraid of it until they die.

Death from the point of view of an atheist, however, would never be used by any moral person to frighten children into behaving. You could only get that with, survey says? Religion.

I promised I wouldn't repeat myself and I'm holding to that. I would suggest you continue to re-read what I said regarding science until you understand.

Honor killings can occur without religion? Well, technically, yes. It's not physically possible for a father to murder his daughter without religion. But he wouldn't. Only with religion could you possibly have such a barbaric concept in the 21st century.

You can repeat Hitchens' line about circumcision from now to eternity; it is still incorrect. Circumcision is endorsed by some secular institutions that have no link to religion, on the basis that it improves hygiene or prevents AIDS. Whether it really does or not is besides the point. And there are cultures that perform circumcision or other kinds of genital mutilation for non-religious reasons. Therefore; the notion that circumcision would not happen without religion is nonsense.

Abolishing birth control? That is indeed much less likely to occur without religion. It might still be possible on philosophical grounds, perhaps. I would agree that this one would be a good example of your claim that religion makes something unsavory more likely. But as for frightening children; children could just as well be frightened by the notion that everything ends at death, as most Atheists would believe. That, in and of itself, does not make the proposition itself true or false.

I get it. I get that you're waffling.

There might not be much secular opposition to evolution in particular. But, I repeat, the notion which you stated, that suppression of scientific facts, in or out of schools, could not occur without religion is absurd. Science can be suppressed without religion being involved.

I see you're back to repeating Hitchens' lines. Honor killings? That can obviously occur without religion being involved.

No serious secular doctor would recommend circumcision. It's like ripping the lips off to keep the teeth cleaner.

If you aren't twisting my words then you simply don't understand them. So I will, for the last time, repeat myself: only through religion could something as obvious as the theory of evolution be considered controversial. Got it?

Nothing exclusively bad about religion? Did you really say that? Honor killings. Frightening children with hellfire. Abolishing birth control.

Again, I repeat, there is nothing exclusively bad about religion. To counter Hitchens' claim, there is nothing that a theist can do that a secular person cannot. And on these three points- government repression, circumcision, and repression of science- I think I have demonstrated that, and I have not seen you or anyone else show otherwise.

I did not twist your words. You stated that only through religion is science suppressed in schools. Then, when I challenged you, you conceded that other forces besides religion can suppress science. When I pointed out this shift in your reasoning, you now tried to distinguish them. But what exactly is the difference? Are you suggesting that suppression of science can occur without religion, but suppression of science in schools occurs only with religion? If so, that is not a logical conclusion.

We can wrangle for as long and as much as you like, but circumcision's origins are disputed, and the practice of circumcision is not exclusive to religious believers. Secular people might circumcise their children for the perceived sake of hygiene.

Circumcision is not a rite of passage, unless a father counts his son being born alive as an achievement. Regardless, it DOES have its origins rooted in religion.

Don't attempt to twist my words. If you'll care to look, I originally said that only with religion would you see a rejection or suppression of science IN SCHOOLS. *only* due to religion would anybody even think of dismissing the clear evidence of evolution. Religion has nothing good exclusive to it and plenty of bad.

Circumcision is a sort of rite of passage and can be defined as one. Either way, we do not know that it was originally done as a religious ceremony and neither is it something that secular people abstain from. It is not a practice exclusive to theists.

And it seems that you are now changing your position. You originally said "only WITH religion would you see circumcision, rejection of science in schools." Now you say "of course not ONLY through religion would you see suppression of science."

Circumcision is not a rite of passage. It's mutilation to the genitals of infants who have no say in the matter and it originates from religion.

Again you miss the point. Of course not ONLY through religion would you see suppression of science (just look at the suppression of global warming facts). But religion certainly doesn't help in any sense.

And I still contend that there ARE certain barbaric acts that could only happen through belief.

It does not take much of an imagination to picture why someone, without religious motives, might prohibit the teaching of some scientific facts. Prohibition of science can exist without religion. I, on the other hand, am a Christian and believe that big bang and human evolution occurred.

Anything that a religious person might do that would be considered unsavory could easily be done by a secularist for any given non-religious reason.

That is one of Hitchens' arguments, that circumcision could not happen without religion. Which is untrue. Rights of passage exist in many societies, and they don't always have to do with religion. The origins of circumcision, for example, are unclear, and might not have a religious origins. Circumcision exists today for secular reasons as well; some believe that it is improves hygiene, which may or may not be true.

You're undermining a position I never claimed to hold. As I said, atheism DOES NOT make one necessarily a better person. As you rightly point out there is no crime an atheist cannot commit. However, only WITH religion would you see circumcision, rejection of science in schools, etc. Being religious doesn't automatically make anybody a zealot but there are a large amount of unsavory activities that could only be accepted in society due to religion.

That is a baseless claim, and I have illustrated why it is. There is no crime that a theist has perpetrated that a non-believer in power has not. Rejection of religion clearly does not make one a more moral person, though it does not necessarily make one a less moral person. And that claim also flies in the face of all the people who have bettered themselves because of religion.

Atheism doesn't make one better, but religion certainly does make one worse.

Yes i agree but communisim and atheisim has nothing to do with the other and those that were imprisoned in russia at that time werent imprsioned because of their religious denomination it was because they economically oppressed by a tyrannical party that thought it was god.

Well, as you say, all Atheism is is the belief that there is no God. That is what the Communists believed, that God does not exist; they also described themselves as Atheists and they imprisoned and killed many who were religious believers. Belief in a religion was the reason why those people were being imprisoned and killed.

Again; my main point is that human beings are capable of murder, and it does not matter what their motivation is, whether it is religion or not.

Lombard that is incorrect,communisim has nothing to do with atheisim.

But, again, if the question is has someone been killed for believing in a God; the answer is yes. The Soviets were killing and persecuting religious people in an attempt to create an Atheistic society.

Communisim is what imprisoned them not atheisim.But we agree on certain issues.