"This hasn't been preached to children by gruesome elderly virgins, backed by force, for centuries?"

Nice quote.

I just like to hear Hitchens argue. As for his positions, that's a different story, but he does provide entertainment nontheless.

^I agree with you there. I don't always like what he says, but I always like how he says it. I do happen to agree with him 100% on this though.

Great stuff from the Hitchens!!

At 0:10 Hitchens facepalmed

Well that's some impressive logic, but there's this story about a guy knocking on a door, but leaving the choice up to us. Case closed, Mr. Hitchens!

And if you don't open it, Mr. Chilaxe?

This entire debate is very well worth watching.

>> ^HadouKen24:
And if you don't open it, Mr. Chilaxe?


Judging by my experience from the point at which I rejected my previous religious beliefs, and comparing the subsequent outcomes to those experienced by my still-religious friends, my conclusion would be that not opening that particular door - or closing it after it's been opened - can lead to greater intelligence and greater quantifiable success across all socially valued outcomes, including religiously valued outcomes like marriage and contributing to humankind.

I think Hitchens' point here (and I believe a good one) is that say whatever you will about God knocking on the door and the "choice" being yours as to whether you open it or not, he's saying years of dogma and religious "scaremongering" if you will don't really make it a choice.

Do I accept God and lead an eternal life? Or, do I admit he doesn't exist and burn in the firey depths of hell? Not much of a choice for the those that don't have the benefit of rational, real world thinking (no offence intended to anyone).

Especially, when you start this indoctrination at such an early age, it's often a "customer for life", as McDonalds would say.

heres a metaphor for you
your walking down a path which leads over a cliff, do you go ahead across the cliff and then if you fall blame gravity?

Hell, in the christian world view, is a constant of the human condition, it is the nature of the world, not of God. He doesn't send you to hell, you send yourself to hell - essentially speaking (although crudely put)

Now this leads you theological and cosmological problems about who created the world etc. but thats not his current argument.

The exclusionary nature of religion should be enough to tell anyone that everyone is going to hell.

everyone, indeed, is.

Pretty much the exact logic which led me away from the mass hysteria of Christianity. I don't think I truly understood the aspect of the holy spirit until after wholeheartedly leaving the faith. Instead of moments of ecstasy, my heart is lightened with the wisdom and reassurance of the choice I made to not believe such obvious, peer pressured, fear-driven baloney.

Every now and then I witness the strife many of my peers go through as they lose their faith and then "regain" it. It's sort of like watching a high schooler struggle through their very first calculus exam -- Thank God(ha!) I don't need to go through any of that again.

It is clear that the world is purely parodic, in other words, that each thing seen is the parody of another, or is the same thing in a deceptive form.

Ever since sentences started to circulate in brains devoted to reflection, an effort at total identification has been made, because with the aid of a copula each sentence ties one thing to another; all things would be visibly connected if one could discover at a single glance and in its totality the tracings of Ariadne's thread leading thought into its own labyrinth.

But the copula of terms is no less irritating than the copulation of bodies. And when I scream I AM THE SUN an integral erection results, because the verb to be is the vehicle of amorous frenzy.

Whether Hitchens is right about Christianity being imposed or not, it still hasn't reached the point where people are Executed (physically speaking) for not believing in it.

Wow how can that guy think it's not imposed. Perhaps 'by law' it isn't, but by scripture, it absolutely is (though it's only been through the centuries of reiteration that such 'imposition' was implemented.) How that guy convinced himself that Christianity is not imposed, at least philosophically, must have required quite the leap.

I would love to see the entire thing of this, anyone know if it can be watched in it's entirety online?

I find it funny that Christians, particularly the real hard core believers, think there is a war on Christianity. There certainly isn't a war, but it is true that they are being opposed more and more each year. This is an age of reason and there is no reason in Christianities dogma.

I respect the religious, being so myself, (though my faith is not part of any of the 'major' religions,) and I understand it on a psychological and physiological level as well as it's benefits, and I have beliefs that many would consider illogical if only for the evidence that has presented itself to me over the decades.

But even with that, the pure lack of reason and logic and the absolute warping of minds that goes on in countries like the US with Christianity, etc, is a travesty in my opinion and nothing less. One that is thankfully being over-come year by year.

^ bravo Xaielao it's refreshing to read people on my side of the debate articulate points well.

bluecliff on the other hand, your head is still up in the clouds. You're not looking at this in an objective way.
when you say things like "It is clear that the world is purely parodic, in other words, that each thing seen is the parody of another, or is the same thing in a deceptive form." you're making HUGE assumptions.

If you enjoy the clean water that comes out of your faucet thank a scientist, not a priest. The world is random, and looking at things from an objective viewpoint lets us organize it into things that are useful. If it really were parodic as you say, then why not fertilize your lawn with oil to make your drinking water cleaner. Hah! not the best example in the world but hey im trying to use your messed up logic to make sense of something.

>> ^bluecliff:
heres a metaphor for you
your walking down a path which leads over a cliff, do you go ahead across the cliff and then if you fall blame gravity?
Hell, in the christian world view, is a constant of the human condition, it is the nature of the world, not of God. He doesn't send you to hell, you send yourself to hell - essentially speaking (although crudely put)
Now this leads you theological and cosmological problems about who created the world etc. but thats not his current argument.


That interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the New Testament. Damnation always presented as an act of condemnation by a divine Judge. A more poetic interpretation may serve to salve one's conscience, but probably isn't very sound doctrine by Scriptural standards. The prose of the Pauline epistles does not really admit of the looseness of poetic interpretation.

Hell is not merely the suffering one inflicts upon oneself, either here or in the afterlife, but suffering that is inflicted by another.


I have no idea what you mean with your rant about how "the world is purely parodic." Whatever logical connection it has with the argument at hand didn't make it out of your head and into the post.

To say that God offers but does not FORCE would be a more correct statement than suggesting that He offers but does not impose.

Many, many Christians have historically and still do fail to understand this principle. One of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is free will. Therefore, if they really understood scripture, they would realize that God would never, ever force someone to accept Christianity. He does, however, give commandments. To command and to force are very different things because we each have the choice to obey or disobey. Christians have often committed a very serious error in attempting to remove the God-given free will of people by forcing them into Christianity. I think that the God in which they believe would be extremely displeased with this behavior. Therefore, if Christianity is imposing and forceful, it is the fault and folly of Christians themselves, not Christianity.

I think that the first man was attempting to explain that God does not force (he said "impose" but I don't think that this is what he really meant), and Hitchens responded by talking about the imposing nature of Christians and Christianity, not God himself. Yes, he is right about Christians imposing and forcing Christianity, but he is not right about God doing so. To command and require is not, I believe, to force or impose. We still have the choice.

>> ^thepinky:
To say that God offers but does not FORCE would be a more correct statement than suggesting that He offers but does not impose.
Many, many Christians have historically and still do fail to understand this principle. One of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is free will. Therefore, if they really understood scripture, they would realize that God would never, ever force someone to accept Christianity. He does, however, give commandments. To command and to force are very different things because we each have the choice to obey or disobey. Christians have often committed a very serious error in attempting to remove the God-given free will of people by forcing them into Christianity. I think that the God in which they believe would be extremely displeased with this behavior. Therefore, if Christianity is imposing and forceful, it is the fault and folly of Christians themselves, not Christianity.
I think that the first man was attempting to explain that God does not force (he said "impose" but I don't think that this is what he really meant), and Hitchens responded by talking about the imposing nature of Christians and Christianity, not God himself. Yes, he is right about Christians imposing and forcing Christianity, but he is not right about God doing so. To command and require is not, I believe, to force or impose. We still have the choice.


What you're missing is the fact that Hitchens doesn't believe in a God, so he properly addresses Christians. If God were self evident, I'm quite certain Hitchens would direct the sentiments at Him, but God isn't therefore the only logical ones to blame are the Christians and their methods prescribed by the B-I-B-L-E.

Imagine a man with a gun at your door. He's selling subscriptions to Nature magazine. I don't know why, but he is. And it's your choice whether you want to purchase the magazine, but if you don't he's going to shoot you in the fucking head... don't mean to impose, but BLAM! Hey, I gave you a choice.

Christian logic is dumb.

pinky does make a better argument than the man opposing hitchens in this debate does. Changing the word does make a difference, however i think that only raises question as to the different ways a person can be "forced" into doing something.

If i am raised and spoken to in english my entire life, am i forced into being an english speaking person? I certainly didn't make the choice but i have had no other and people were only doing for me what they thought was best. If i am raised as a christian, i have no other choice, but the situation wasn't caused through neglect or threat, simply a lifestyle that i knew no alternative to. Is THAT forcing?

I certainly feel sorry (this is a poor phrase but the best i can grasp at the moment) for children->adults who are raised as christians and argue in the face of logic and common sense the values that they've been raised under. I respect anyone for making the choice to be christian, but - and this may seem arrogant or disrespectful - whilst i respect someone for choosing to be christian from a neutral/anti stance, i almost immediately discount the "christianity is what i want, it's my choice" arguments of people who were raised christians. Call me out on that if you like, it's how i am.

Back on track:
It's a good point pinky, i'll give you that, but i think humans accept at least in law that you can be forced to do something without having divine powers - and that means "by offering no decent alternative". Soldiers who followed the orders to commit genocide in WW2 had the alternative "otherwise you (and maybe your family) will be killed." Were they forced? Yes, according to the justice that was served regarding the evils of that war.

Even to a lesser extent the law (and therefore accepted human values, they are derivative of each other as time has passed) say that people may be forced without being remotely possessed and/or controlled and without being offered the alternative of death. There are MANY ways in which humans percieve "force". (Keeping to the context of the word)

bluecliff I would say has his head up his own arse, rather than in the clouds, with pretentious and essentially meaningless relativistic drivel of that magnitude.

To command and require is not, I believe, to force or impose. We still have the choice.

Please stand on one foot, jump up and down and squeak like a chicken. I am not forcing you, I wont touch your leg or vibrate your tongue for you, but unless you do so, I'm afraid you'll have to be sent to a very hot place where you will burn and suffer and scream FOREVER. Its your choice, no forcing, you have the offer, you can choose completely of your own free will to accept it or not. Noones forcing you. You are free, I've even GIVEN you the freedom, as MY blessing. Am I not the nicest guy?

>> ^furrycloud:
Whether Hitchens is right about Christianity being imposed or not, it still hasn't reached the point where people are Executed (physically speaking) for not believing in it.


Like this?

"I am a C. I am a C-H. I am a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. And I have C-H-R-I-S-T in my H-E-A-R-T and I will L-I-V-E E-T-E-R-N-A-L-L-Y!"

I remember joyfully singing (more like chanting) this at Orthodoxy camp in NH around a bonfire along with many other hymns among my Christian peers, thinking how humble and pious and special we all were.

In retrospect I realize this type of pretentious group-think is anything but humility. I still feel disgusted that I spent weeks out of each year at this place being trained to be an ignorant and unquestioning/credulous little godbot.

>> ^furrycloud:
Whether Hitchens is right about Christianity being imposed or not, it still hasn't reached the point where people are Executed (physically speaking) for not believing in it.


You might want to reconsider this statement, every religion is guilty of this.

>> ^HadouKen24:
>> ^bluecliff:
heres a metaphor for you
your walking down a path which leads over a cliff, do you go ahead across the cliff and then if you fall blame gravity?
Hell, in the christian world view, is a constant of the human condition, it is the nature of the world, not of God. He doesn't send you to hell, you send yourself to hell - essentially speaking (although crudely put)
Now this leads you theological and cosmological problems about who created the world etc. but thats not his current argument.

That interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the New Testament. Damnation always presented as an act of condemnation by a divine Judge. A more poetic interpretation may serve to salve one's conscience, but probably isn't very sound doctrine by Scriptural standards. The prose of the Pauline epistles does not really admit of the looseness of poetic interpretation.
Hell is not merely the suffering one inflicts upon oneself, either here or in the afterlife, but suffering that is inflicted by another.

I have no idea what you mean with your rant about how "the world is purely parodic." Whatever logical connection it has with the argument at hand didn't make it out of your head and into the post.


I was trying to discombobulate the torrent of sociological shit that often ails most of the comments.
(anyway its a quote from a french guy)
I suppose it ended as a FAIL...


But
I really don't think hell being "inflicted by another" is accurate. The standard theology goes (as far as I know) - hell is the absence of God. And the choice, in christian terms, is between the search for God and a life of sin, which is inherent to the world. It's a much more naturalist world view, if you look at it from that perspective. The "act of condemnation" is there, but need not be, it's only because the judeo-christian God communicates with his people, in a sort of one on one, that this is possible. As far as I know christians take this communication to be an act of divine mercy


(You may be right about St. Paul.)

I would like to know all the quotes about hell in the bible...

I am pretty sure the idea of hell came as a sort of social control. The idea of hell has been used for this for a long time before Christianity. But, the idea of hell certainly didn't come from the Jews.

>> ^rottenseed:
I would like to know all the quotes about hell in the bible...
I am pretty sure the idea of hell came as a sort of social control. The idea of hell has been used for this for a long time before Christianity. But, the idea of hell certainly didn't come from the Jews.


You are right, it didnt come for "the jews" as you put it, nor from the torah, or Old Testament as Christians call it, the Old testament God was a terrible, vindictive, sadistic God, but once you were in the ground, he was done with you, but the so-called New Testament mentions and describes hell several times.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htm

>> ^JuliusP:
>> ^furrycloud:
Whether Hitchens is right about Christianity being imposed or not, it still hasn't reached the point where people are Executed (physically speaking) for not believing in it.

Like this?


If you will briefly read into the link that you posted, you will notice that when it refers to Christian Europe, it is actually referring to what is known as Catholicism. There is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism, and it's an important distinction to make.

>> ^thepinky:
To say that God offers but does not FORCE would be a more correct statement than suggesting that He offers but does not impose.
Many, many Christians have historically and still do fail to understand this principle. One of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is free will. Therefore, if they really understood scripture, they would realize that God would never, ever force someone to accept Christianity. He does, however, give commandments. To command and to force are very different things because we each have the choice to obey or disobey. Christians have often committed a very serious error in attempting to remove the God-given free will of people by forcing them into Christianity. I think that the God in which they believe would be extremely displeased with this behavior. Therefore, if Christianity is imposing and forceful, it is the fault and folly of Christians themselves, not Christianity.
I think that the first man was attempting to explain that God does not force (he said "impose" but I don't think that this is what he really meant), and Hitchens responded by talking about the imposing nature of Christians and Christianity, not God himself. Yes, he is right about Christians imposing and forcing Christianity, but he is not right about God doing so. To command and require is not, I believe, to force or impose. We still have the choice.


The threat of eternal torture in HELL is the most gruesome kind of force imaginable. Your entire argument rests upon the tiny consolation that in the biblical myths, God did not make humanity to be perfectly obedient robots.

The meaning of force used by Hitchens is duress, which can only exist relative to the violation of a being's preferences. If a being has no preferences, it cannot be under duress. Perfectly obedient automatons don't have to be forced to obey.

>> ^furrycloud:
Whether Hitchens is right about Christianity being imposed or not, it still hasn't reached the point where people are Executed (physically speaking) for not believing in it.


350 years ago in both Europe and America, people were executed for heresy, immorality (in the eyes of the clergy), or suspicion of witchcraft. Jews were persecuted often by Christians throughout Europe for over a thousand years before the holocaust. Some large Muslim countries still behave in the manner that Europe did 400 years ago with respect to religious freedom and tolerance (the lack thereof).

And free will doesn't exist, we just think it does.


(I just blew your mind.)

And free will doesn't associate with whether or not you're going to Heaven.

Free will is an illusion caused by a misunderstanding of the functioning of causality.

Freewill was a loophole created by the Church, after philosophers stumped Christians with the existence of evil. I believe the argument is summed up as:

The traditional conception of the Christian god is that he/she/it/whatever is:
1. All knowing.
2. All powerful.
3. Good.

So why does evil exist? If "god" was good, he wouldn't let something as bad as evil continue to exist, surely if he was all powerful...so, "god" either:
1. Doesn't know about it, therefore not all-knowing
2. Can't do anything about it, therefore not all-powerful, or
3. Won't do anything about it, therefore not good.

So the Church created the idea of "god" giving you a freewill, where you can choose. If you don't choose, or choose to go against what God wants, then you go to "hell", which isn't a choice at all.

This is elementary logic, based on the rules that govern our reality (which "god" supposedly created).

God didn't create man; Man created god.

The modern Christian understanding of hell is surprisingly convoluted. They seem to resent the obvious implications that god created hell, and is cruel enough to torture his "children" who misbehave in the worst ways imaginable forever. Possibly because we would find the same behavior monstrous in a human parent. This is as close as I can figure to what the average christian believes:

God, who created everything, did not create hell. People (who god did create) are for some reason (other then god) naturally supposed to go to hell. God, who is all powerful, does not have the power to save everyone. God is kind enough to WANT to save everyone, but he is physically incapable of saving you unless you praise him, love him, tell him how great he is, and believe in him.

Who's this character "God" everyone so passionately speaks of?

Visions and warnings about "Hell" and "Doom" are nothing but manifestations of the individual's neurotic obcession with his/her own feeling of guilt and misery, to which he/she BELIEVES he/she deserves PUNISHMENT.

Doing this "Good" deed in return (to adulate "God", aka the result of gaps in personal and Humanity's knowledge) may clear he/she out of the so-called fatidically deserved punishment.

Answering this question with an explanation of what "God" is or isn't, basing one's self on the assumption that "God" can in fact Be or not Be, just shows how centered in those feelings of guilt and misery one is.

Ignore "God" is the only solution against religion. Against religious people, now that's a whole opposite story.

>> ^furrycloud:
If you will briefly read into the link that you posted, you will notice that when it refers to Christian Europe, it is actually referring to what is known as Catholicism. There is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism, and it's an important distinction to make.


This statement is a perfect example of what many in the US believe, and it always makes me giggle.

Catholicism is the descendant of the original christian church. A splinter group broke off, protesting some of the more absurd practices of the church, and are known as Protestants. The Protestants have broken into many sub-groups, like Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, and such. But the two primary branches of christians are catholics and protestants.

So saying there is a difference between christianity and catholicism is like saying there is a difference between fish and trout.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^furrycloud:
If you will briefly read into the link that you posted, you will notice that when it refers to Christian Europe, it is actually referring to what is known as Catholicism. There is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism, and it's an important distinction to make.

This statement is a perfect example of what many in the US believe, and it always makes me giggle.
Catholicism is the descendant of the original christian church. A splinter group broke off, protesting some of the more absurd practices of the church, and are known as Protestants. The Protestants have broken into many sub-groups, like Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, and such. But the two primary branches of christians are catholics and protestants.
So saying there is a difference between christianity and catholicism is like saying there is a difference between fish and trout.


To say that Catholicism is not Christianity is of course false, but Protestants these days think that they have the corner on Christianity. If you don't fit the mold, you are not a Christian. It is very annoying to me. You may believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, but if you don't believe in certain doctrines, you aren't allowed to call yourself Christian and they get really pissed off at you. Can you tell that I'm bitter? Well, I wouldn't want to lump myself in with that lot, anyway.

This hasn't stumped philosophers. I solved The Problem of Evil in an 8-page double-spaced paper. No problem.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
Freewill was a loophole created by the Church, after philosophers stumped Christians with the existence of evil. I believe the argument is summed up as:
The traditional conception of the Christian god is that he/she/it/whatever is:
1. All knowing.
2. All powerful.
3. Good.
So why does evil exist? If "god" was good, he wouldn't let something as bad as evil continue to exist, surely if he was all powerful...so, "god" either:
1. Doesn't know about it, therefore not all-knowing
2. Can't do anything about it, therefore not all-powerful, or
3. Won't do anything about it, therefore not good.

So the Church created the idea of "god" giving you a freewill, where you can choose. If you don't choose, or choose to go against what God wants, then you go to "hell", which isn't a choice at all. This is elementary logic, based on the rules that govern our reality (which "god" supposedly created).God didn't create man; Man created god.

>> ^thepinky:
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^furrycloud:
If you will briefly read into the link that you posted, you will notice that when it refers to Christian Europe, it is actually referring to what is known as Catholicism. There is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism, and it's an important distinction to make.

This statement is a perfect example of what many in the US believe, and it always makes me giggle.
Catholicism is the descendant of the original christian church. A splinter group broke off, protesting some of the more absurd practices of the church, and are known as Protestants. The Protestants have broken into many sub-groups, like Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, and such. But the two primary branches of christians are catholics and protestants.
So saying there is a difference between christianity and catholicism is like saying there is a difference between fish and trout.

To say that Catholicism is not Christianity is of course false, but Protestants these days think that they have the corner on Christianity. If you don't fit the mold, you are not a Christian. It is very annoying to me. You may believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, but if you don't believe in certain doctrines, you aren't allowed to call yourself Christian and they get really pissed off at you. Can you tell that I'm bitter? Well, I wouldn't want to lump myself in with that lot, anyway.


While it's true that Catholicism and Protestantism have a lot in common, the doctrinal differences between the two are so significant that lumping them together under the generic term Christianity is to err. Especially for the sake of discussion. And yes Pinky, you do seem bitter.

Yeah, I will definitely give you that Catholicism is far, far removed from what we commonly think of as Christianity these days. Even their use of the Bible is limited.

Do you believe that christ is the son of god and the only way to heaven is through him?

That makes you christian. That's it. Are you saying Catholics don't believe this?

If you want to say that your flavor of christianity is not responsibly for the atrocities of the church in centuries past, then that is a slightly different argument. But you cannot claim that they weren't christians.