Christopher Hitchens: "I'm Absolutely Convinced That The Main Source of Hatred in the World is Religion."
Thanks to Dave at ex-christian.net for this. He also said:
The reason I am posting this video here is because I would like to point out that Hitchens does not advocate hating Christians, Muslims, or other religious people. It is religion itself that he says should be hated.
I think that hating individuals because they are infected with religious delusion is just as bigoted as hating people who are infected with a disease, or who are ignorant, or who are mistaken about something. I left Christianity when I figured out I had been duped by an ancient, well supported, propaganda campaign machine. I was angry about it. I felt deceived and cheated. But feeling anger, in my mind, is not hatred. When Christians try to evangelize me, I frequently feel irritated. Irritation, however, is also not hatred.
Although I may hate what religion can do to a thinking mind, it is the parasitic meme that I despise, not the parasite's host.
12 comments:
The reason this Blog is now moderating comments is because of a few Christian blog terrorists, who have threated me personally. Why? If God assures the victory then what's there to be upset about? He will be victorious and DC is no threat at all to him. And if the arguments are on the Christian's side then engage us and show us we're wrong, like many others attempt to do here. Join them, don't threaten us.
I can see where he's coming from. I have christian family members and I definitely don't hate them. Just the nonsense they believe in. And I can't even really hate the nonsense, I feel sorry for people that believe in a god up in the sky.
John,
Sorry to hear you are being threatened. That is not Christ like at all. You and others on this blog seem like very nice people.
Even if we don't agree on many things, it is never right to threaten.
I don't blame you at all for what you are doing.
The vast majority of any group of people larger than 50 are good, honest, hard-working people who keep their word and do the best they can.
A tiny minority of less than 5% of any group of people are unbearable and spend their lives flitting from one group to the next until they either find one that can put up with them or die trying.
Those 5% cause about 80% of the work there is to do in dealing with people.
John, I hope if you are being personally threatened that you have notified your local police. Various jurisdictions have finally started taking online threats of violence seriously after some terrible incidents, and people have to know that threats of violence are not acceptable. The police do have access to ways of overcoming many standard attempts an anonymity. It would also help establish a trail in the unfortunate event that it moves beyond threats.
Now, as to Hitchens, I have always liked his public speaking style (when he is somewhat coherent).
John-
Sorry to hear about the threats, and I wish I could say I was surprised.
Those weren't from "real Christians", you see. I wonder how many atheists threaten Christians. To be fair, I'm sure there's a few, but I'd bet it's significantly less per capita.
This kind of brings me around to Hitchens. While I'm a fan (like Shygetz--when he's semi-coherent), I never thought he made his case very well in "God is Not Great" He's an excellent wrodsmith, but I fail to see how "Religion Poisons Everything". It seems to me that human beings are quite capable of rationalizing doing terrible things to one another with or without it. Also, it has little to do with the veracity of most religious claims.
I'm only tangentially interested in which side has the higher body count, and whether they were really motivated by religion/atheism during the slaughter.
If you could convince me that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao really did kill more people than religious extremists have; and that is was really motivated by their atheism (motivated by a lack of belief in something does seem to be an oxymoron, doesn't it?), it would have no bearing whatsoever on what I believe. In the book Hitchens seemed to be jumping back and forth between reasons why he doesn't believe, and reasons why religion is bad, as if they were one and the same.
There is a thin line between hating the religion and hating the believer. Sounds too much like the bullshit we used to spread around in the church..."hate the sin, love the sinner." Religion is not just "meme" of thoughts, traditions, liturgies. It is people, who for whatever reason, have chosen to believe. People are complex, and will never do a good job of separating their beliefs from their actions, and never do a good job of drawing their own lines around what they believe. Thus, fanatical terrorism and its equivalent, Jesus Camp.
When I deconverted, I hated God for a while. Then, Christianity. It almost became hating Christians...hating people.
Rather than hate (and I do not mind the concept of hate...I hate injustice, and I do hate those who molest children and abuse women) religion has become for a me a NON-ISSUE. Boring, pedantic, irrelevant, stupid. That position has been strengthened by being part of this blogsite, and interacting with christians who come to the table here. Some appear to be decent people who are interested in an honest dialogue about the issues that separate us...but most resort to name-calling, and arguing from a "if you knew Jesus like I knew Jesus" position.
So, I challenge Hitchens and others to be careful about the hate thing. ..and don't be so arrogant to think you can be the first to hate religion but not believers. That is a slippery slope. Embrace the buddhist approach..."religion? what religion?"
John, as for threats...I am with Shygetz. In the meantime, keep your weapons loaded. Caw!
Hi guys,this is an 'analogy' that was posted while back, it revolves around the "GD" project that's attributed to the well-known author R.Dawkins. personally i thought the way R.D. cut through certain parts of the 'scriptures', then proceded to describe in 'meticulous detail' for what they are, in other words "fallacious"!....The 'analogy' in which i'm going to describe it is thus: A very skilled surgeon is cutting away at all that 'rotten flesh', then discovering a body 'riddled' with 'cancerous growth', in which case the only way to try cure it is to expose it for what it is: a festering wound; that's been cancerous ever since the "Birth of Christ"!.....In that respect R.D. had presented an exceptionally commendable written composition indeed!...
Love the christian, hate the christianity. That's not hate speach since it is not against any persons but against an ideology.
Comment 1 - It is sad that some so-called Christians have threatened you personally. Very sad.
Comment 2 - Mr. Hitchens, funny and erudite as he is, needs to read a little more history - Russian and Chinese to start.
Actually, john, I would say that the Soviet and Chinese Communists didn't hate the dissidents (both real and imagined) that they imprisoned and executed. Their actions seemed based on a Nietzchean will to power ethic (and I use that term hesitantly), where other people were just ants in their way, to be killed for convenience without emotion.
You wanna see genocidal hatred, see Hitler in re: Jews. He sought out and exterminated them, not just in his own country but just about anywhere he could get his hands on them, and even when he knew it would do him no material good. Or see the extremists on all sides in the Israel-Palestine-militant Islamist conflict. That there is some hatred. In studying Communism, I never got that impression from them. They just didn't seem to have any qualms about killing people in general.
I can't disagree more. Religion definitely gives people a "justified" reason to hate, but hatred begins as a thought of superiority over a person for any reason. Those who have used their religion to do harm were those who already wanted to do harm and found some ideas to back them up.
Attila the Hun was THE most feared war monger of his time; some believe he may have been the reason for the Great Wall in China. But from everything I've read, and it's not extensive, he didn't do it out of hate, he had a lust for power.
It seems a lust for power can exist without hate, but hate cannot exist without a lust for power, so what do you think is the difference?
Post a Comment