niftydrifty

I'm talking about "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"

I'm reading the book now, and I'm just wondering. has anyone else here read it? Does Hitchens ever get around to explaining how religion poisons everything? Or is the entire book just full of anecdotes about Mel Gibson, random verses, etc.

This book should be called, "Many People are Confused About Religion: And So Is Christopher Hitchens"

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

Lachean

Just what is he confused about? By what standard does he not understand religion? Quote the mischaracterization if you please...

__________________
"Men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality. " - Ayn Rand

niftydrifty

Does Hitchens ever get around to explaining how religion poisons everything?

Imagine reading a book called, "how to bake a cake." and the book contained example after example, stories about people that had baked cakes.

let's leave it alone for now that Hitchens has used an absolute in his title. Does Hitchens ever get around to explaining HOW "religion" poisons everything?

Lachean

I figured it was quite clear that he goes through each kind of thing that religion poisons, be it politics, scientific discourse, warfare, etc... then he explains and gives examples of that manner of trespass.

Or did you expect him to list every thing in existence that religion poisons, and how, in alphabetical order? That would be absurd and unfollowable. Yes he used an absolute, and I'm sure you could make the argument that religion does not poison Willy Wonka candy production for example. But that would be utterly irrelevant and beside the point.

He explains how it poisons everything in the first few chapters, if you haven't understood his arguments the inherent problems with mysticism and accepting things on faith.

Do you actually have an argument against what he has said, rather than what you're claiming that he hasn't?

VTA

More misplaced responsibility...
It appears no matter how hard people try to maintain an intellectual impression of themsleves and their ideologues, they always fall back on the same principles (crutches) of failure: humans aren't responsible. Bodiless, non-tangible ideals are.

Humans don't practise greed and avarice, they're conditions forced on mankind, by non-physical entities. Rape is not a consequence of a broken mind, much like burnt toast is the product of simply a broken toaster, they are simply the product of outside forces.

Psuedo intellectuals have to creatively concoct extra-terrestial/psychological substances that just bedevil that innocent creature known as mankind.

For a people who claim not to believe in such things, they sure have no problem blaming them for all of mankind's ills... While exhonerating the most obvious culprit: Mankind.

__________________
-VTA

new coup for you

atheists remind me of fat girls talking about pretty girls. they contend that they don't care about pretty girls, they swear that the opinions and activities of pretty girls are unimportant of trivial to them and yet they do nothing but obsess over the most inane minutiae of pretty girls lives.

who cares about superstition? I care about actions.

I can get behind this:

"Christian (Muslim, Jew, whatever) does _____ (insert atrocity)...that is bad."

However these endless books refuting and listing the crimes of religion is pointless. Yeah they're wrong. It's obvious. They believe in made up things. Why are we even still discussing it?

__________________
And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike.

Lachean

Because they break the rules of logic and reason, defy the findings of science, fight our secularism, and attempt to bring their dogma into science and history classes.

If these beliefs were only personal ones and did not effect the rest of us, then you would have an argument for you apathy; but given the status quo you do not.

Some of the problems with the world (geopolitics, terrorism, etc...) are caused by the dogmatic, and those who give cover to the dogmatic:
- Religious moderates who fight to protect religion from the taboo that is logical criticism.
- People like you, consumed with apathy for that which is a matter of life and death for some people.

When good people do nothing in the face evil, like the preaching that condom use causes aids to subsaharan africans, is the only time that evil has power.

mikhail

The subtitle is "How religion poisons everything"

This is maybe because

("how religion poisons everything, that is to say virtually every issue can be conflicted with religious opinions to achieve an illogical and/or harmful result. Not to say all religious people are evil or believe exactly the same thing but do provide a support network for those who do")

Isnt very snappy.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

niftydrifty

I think I get it now. I didn't expect Hitchens to list everything in existence that religion poisons, although, he did make an effort to, for a while there. what I did expect was for Hitchens to explain how religion poisons anything. Someone that believes that religion is always a problem can't believe that religion ever becomes a problem.

Hitchens is talking about a "how," in the sense of "this way" and "that way." I'll call this "how #1"

correct me if I'm wrong, because I didn't finish this pathetic book, and I skipped around a lot. but, Hitchens is not discussing a "how" in the sense of "here's how it happens." that's "how #2." that's the how that I was anticipating.

keep in mind, I'm a guy that, yknow, accepts Jesus. and for me, the people that are "religious" and that are also "poisoning" anything, are corrupt. not the real deal. and by the way, plenty of people "get it." not just, ahem, me. I think that a book explaining how religion becomes poisonous would be very interesting and helpful. it would deal with some elements of psychology. but this is not a book that Hitchens could write, because Hitchens can't conceptualize how it happens (I mean "how #2"). Hitchens can't do that because he believes that religion is a problem to begin with.

I confess that I gave up on this book. it's useless, to see a philosophical Magoo stumbling around, whom can't see the forest for the trees.

the only readers whom would enjoy, or find use for, such a book are those that don't get spirituality, either.

why would anyone want to compound their own misunderstanding of spirituality? it's like going backwards instead of forward. it makes no sense to me.

Lachean

It seems that you believe that only religion that has "become" poisonous is the problem, and that there is some sort of pure kind of religion that gets perverted.

First of all you're wrong and should read the book cover to cover. Hitchens goes into many examples of how a harmless belief can be perverted, and how many falsehoods begin in truths.

Also, its not that he believes religion is a problem to begin with, its that he things that mysticism rather than science, and using faith rather than reason is a mistake to begin with.

What do you mean by that? He has not misrepresented anyone when he points out things people actually believe, and the things that they do in result.

1. I enjoyed this book.
2. By implication you're stating that I do not "get spirituality." Just how does he or I not "get" spirituality? What have we gotten wrong?
3. Even the harshest critics of this book will admit that the book is witty, funny and enjoyable.

Reading one man's take on spirituality does not in any way mean that you will agree and hold those positions.

IMO I see this response of yours as the typical reaction one makes when they see the logical validity of some of his arguments, yet feel that they do not apply to ones own particular brand of mysticism.

Just what is he WRONG about? Are the Christians he talks about, who really do believe what he says they believe, "not true Christians" in your book?

If we are looking at only the bad apples, where is the fresh fruit?