Christopher Hitchens was recently in Australia and was a panelist on ABC's Q&A. Not exactly a stellar Australian cast appearing alongside him. They seemed either intimidated by him or a little irrationally hostile. Father Frank Brennan SJ sounded more like an agnostic, apologetic Anglican Bishop and Waleed Aly came across as rather evasive. The audience questioners weren't much chop either.

As for Hitchens, he was clearly aware he was not among peers and went a little easy (for him, that is).

Who would have been a better Australian choice as a panel member? I would've liked to have seen a theological pugilist like Cardinal Pell take Hitchens on (not that I think he'd have accepted an invitation, but).

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2695716.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/qanda/qanda_2009_ep27.flv

Christopher Hitchens is the face of ugly adversarial atheism. Apart from being a drunken lout, his politics suck bigtime. Maybe he has a place in the USA, but he has no place in Australia, where we're generally too laid-back to give a damn what religion other people have (apart from the reaction to Islam, which is seen as a threat to our easygoing lifestyle)

I'm sure that Hitchens' very existence has boosted the numbers of fundamentalist religionites.

muso wrote on Oct 5^th, 2009 at 8:15am:

Christopher Hitchens is the face of ugly adversarial atheism. Apart from being a drunken lout, his politics suck bigtime. Maybe he has a place in the USA, but he has no place in Australia, where we're generally too laid-back to give a damn what religion other people have (apart from the reaction to Islam, which is seen as a threat to our easygoing lifestyle) I'm sure that Hitchens' very existence has boosted the numbers of fundamentalist religionites.

Yep, he's heavy artillery, that's for sure, having declared himself not merely an atheist but a militant anti-theist.

Having gone from Trotskyite to neocon, there's no doubt the man likes to get around (although again it may suggest that a continuum is best represented by an arc).

He has no place in Australia? Did the thought of Christians, Muslims and 'religionites' of all degrees and persuasion coming together to take on this 'Yankee-Pom drunken lout' not appeal to your sense of irony? ;D Maybe Australia needs a six-pack of Hitchens'. ;D

And if all it took was a Hitchens to drive up the numbers of fundamentalist religionites in Australia, then what would it suggest about our tendency towards a laid-back lifestyle? If it were true, it might even suggest that we're not so much laid-back as bogged down in a swamp of existential malaise being extricated from it only when propelled by strident external forces.

But, in the end, if we’re not up for the debate, why even have one?

Quote:

Having gone from Trotskyite to neocon, there's no doubt the man likes to get around (although again it may suggest that a continuum is best represented by an arc).

That's quite a conversion.


Quote:

and Waleed Aly came across as rather evasive

The best they could bring on was Waleed Aly??

It surprises me that he gets so much media attention, I guess he presents the face of Islam that they'd like to present.

YOU MEAN HE'S AN UNABASHED MODERATE iSLAMIC APOLOGIST?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 5^th, 2009 at 10:07am:

Quote: and Waleed Aly came across as rather evasive The best they could bring on was Waleed Aly??

Apparently so. And the Catholics could only manage Frank Brennan who appears to be a nice go-along-get-along Jesuit (the supposed tempestuous intellectual storm troopers of Catholicism). Brennan looked more like a muddled religious Uncle Arthur.

Where were the giants of the Australian religious community, such as the likes of Pell. He likes to ride media bandwagon when he's beating up on a victim of child rape or condemning the evils of prophylactic contraception or declaring his unwavering loyalty to 'Vaticanism' or his undying love for Joey the rat (platonic, of course  ;) ).

Laid-back, Muso? Gutless, more like.

Pell is an; ignorant, discourteous, arrogant, coward...  been there done that...  he should stick to being a priest running a church.

Grendel wrote on Oct 5^th, 2009 at 1:38pm:

Pell is an; ignorant, discourteous, arrogant, coward...  been there done that...  he should stick to being a priest running a church.

And he gets away with it because Australia does not have its own erudite, intellectual, uncompromising, anti-theistic 'drunken lout' to keep these bastards honest.

Being a Vatican Prince, I think the church he's fixing to run is the Roman Catholic Church.

Now now Grendel, that's no way to speak to your Christian brother. Is that how you imagine Christ (pbuh) would've spoken to others? Other Christians no less??

Thou shalt not bear false witness... having dealt with Pell b4 and his minions and minders I can tell you what I said is completely true.

Unlike Muslims we do not seek to profer lies to support or defend a fellow Christian.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 5^th, 2009 at 9:37am:

But, in the end, if we’re not up for the debate, why even have one?

Suits me fine. If it ain't broken, don't try and fix it.  The vast majority of Australians are either moderately supernaturalist or moderately non-religious'. We don't have a kulturkampf here. We don't have patriotism and religion sold as a bundled lot, and we don't need it. (I'll try to keep the Muslim issue separate.)

That moderacy in society is very fragile as you implied, and  Hitchens is an expert nasal dislocator.  

muso wrote on Oct 5^th, 2009 at 3:00pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 5th, 2009 at 9:37am: But, in the end, if we’re not up for the debate, why even have one? Suits me fine. If it ain't broken, don't try and fix it.  The vast majority of Australians are either moderately supernaturalist or moderately non-religious'. We don't have a kulturkampf here. We don't have patriotism and religion sold as a bundled lot, and we don't need it. (I'll try to keep the Muslim issue separate.) That moderacy in society is very fragile as you implied, and  Hitchens is an expert nasal dislocator.

I don't believe political and religious moderation is all that fragile in Australian society because nothing irritates us more, I believe, than a religio/political zealot. What we do have are pompous religious arschlochs like Pell and clowns like Hilali and it would have been a pleasure to see these characters excoriated with extreme prejudice by an anti-theistic warlord like Hitchens, (never mind his neocon dogma).

And I support his solidarity with the Kurdish people.

I agree with some things Hitchen's says but his anti-religion rants are just mindless ignorance.

Grendel wrote on Oct 5^th, 2009 at 4:17pm:

I agree with some things Hitchen's says but his anti-religion rants are just mindless ignorance.

Dunno about it all being mindless ignorance, but I got a laugh from the guys at the Hitchens Watch website who have tagged him 'The Incredible Bullshitting Man' ;D

The Incredible Bullshitting Man

Hitchens is great. He is a gadfly in the best tradition. He is articulate, he is smart and means good (you know he would not murder you if he found out that you are religious) ). He is passionately anti-religious and that is a great service as a corrective. He and his like are absolutely essential to avoid dogmatic stupor.

The great things about people like him is that group think is not required. You can disagree with him as long as you are intelligent about it. That's the challenge.

Well as somewhat of an anti-theist myself, I had never seen or heard Hitchens before, and came to that clip totally unaware of his, or any of the other members backgrounds.
As far as intellect, and integrity went, he stood alone, he presented his views politely, but without prevarication, or compromise, which could not be said for Aleed Waly, who was the only other who offered any ideas of any substance, albeit ideas restricted by the dogma of his religion.

What shone through about the whole debate was the absolute craven cowardice of the panel, to openly champion their  individual religion's "real" beliefs, or to even attempt to challenge hitchens perspective of those beliefs, if they thought they were wrong.
The only one who tried to challenge him was the very stupid woman on the right, whoever she was, she was just a pest making noise, without any worthwhile comments to make, and Brennan was just happy to keep his head down, paying due homage to the old saying, better to keep your mouth shut, and be thought a fool, than open it, and remove all doubt.

So I do not need to know Hitchens past crimes or misdemeanors to judge the statements he made on the night, and none were unreasonable, and none were effectively challenged by anyone on that stage.
So, anti-theists one, delusionists zero.

Soren wrote on Oct 5^th, 2009 at 9:12pm:

Hitchens is great. He is a gadfly in the best tradition. He is articulate, he is smart and means good (you know he would not murder you if he found out that you are religious) ). He is passionately anti-religious and that is a great service as a corrective. He and his like are absolutely essential to avoid dogmatic stupor. The great things about people like him is that group think is not required. You can disagree with him as long as you are intelligent about it. That's the challenge.

Hmm - it seems he has some strange allies too :)

mozzaok wrote on Oct 6^th, 2009 at 6:58am:

What shone through about the whole debate was the absolute craven cowardice of the panel, to openly champion their  individual religion's "real" beliefs, or to even attempt to challenge hitchens perspective of those beliefs, if they thought they were wrong.

I guess our theologian "giants" did their homework and stumbled on what Hitchens said to a radio talkshow host, the hapless Paul Edwards, who must have woken up on the wrong side of his head and thought he had the mind to take Hitchens on.

Hitchens hangs up on Paul Edwards

mozzaok wrote on Oct 6^th, 2009 at 6:58am:

Well as somewhat of an anti-theist myself, I had never seen or heard Hitchens before, and came to that clip totally unaware of his, or any of the other members backgrounds. As far as intellect, and integrity went, he stood alone, he presented his views politely, but without prevarication, or compromise, which could not be said for Aleed Waly, who was the only other who offered any ideas of any substance, albeit ideas restricted by the dogma of his religion. What shone through about the whole debate was the absolute craven cowardice of the panel, to openly champion their  individual religion's "real" beliefs, or to even attempt to challenge hitchens perspective of those beliefs, if they thought they were wrong. The only one who tried to challenge him was the very stupid woman on the right, whoever she was, she was just a pest making noise, without any worthwhile comments to make, and Brennan was just happy to keep his head down, paying due homage to the old saying, better to keep your mouth shut, and be thought a fool, than open it, and remove all doubt. So I do not need to know Hitchens past crimes or misdemeanors to judge the statements he made on the night, and none were unreasonable, and none were effectively challenged by anyone on that stage. So, anti-theists one, delusionists zero.

Speaking as an anti-anti-theist who is totally 'non-delusional'  ;D,  I think that the best thing to do with loud mouthed zealots of any persuation is not to engage them too seriously. It takes the wind out of their sails.  

Dawkins received a similar polite and muted reception the last time he appeared in a debate in Australia.

I once went to a conference in Sydney where there was a participant from Salt Lake City. When it was his turn to speak, he launched into a diatribe which basically said that the most important thing in his life was his faith. The workshop had nothing to do with religion. You could see the body language and almost feel the rest of the (mostly Australian) delegates start to cringe when this 'embarrassing' topic of personal faith came up. We just don't revel in talking about such things - unlike the Yanks.

muso wrote on Oct 6^th, 2009 at 8:16am:

I think that the best thing to do with loud mouthed zealots of any persuation is not to engage them too seriously. It takes the wind out of their sails.

Hmm - Smells like you're apologising for cowardice.  :)

No - I just don't see the point in debating the undebatable. It's not a question of cowardice. It's a question of de gustibus non est disputandum as I've said before.

How can you debate individual taste ?

muso wrote on Oct 6^th, 2009 at 8:53am:

No - I just don't see the point in debating the undebatable. It's not a question of cowardice. It's a question of de gustibus non est disputandum as I've said before. How can you debate individual taste ?

That's true, but you must at least be prepared to defend what you say is the truth.

As Hitchens said in the clip... "I think it behoves the religious to say what they genuinely mean".

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 6^th, 2009 at 9:07am:

muso wrote on Oct 6th, 2009 at 8:53am: No - I just don't see the point in debating the undebatable. It's not a question of cowardice. It's a question of de gustibus non est disputandum as I've said before. How can you debate individual taste ? That's true, but you must at least be prepared to defend what you say is the truth. As Hitchens said in the clip... "I think it behoves the religious to say what they genuinely mean".

On the whole, like human beings of all persuasion, they genuinely mean what they genuinely believe.

muso wrote on Oct 6^th, 2009 at 8:04am:

Soren wrote on Oct 5th, 2009 at 9:12pm: Hitchens is great. He is a gadfly in the best tradition. He is articulate, he is smart and means good (you know he would not murder you if he found out that you are religious) ). He is passionately anti-religious and that is a great service as a corrective. He and his like are absolutely essential to avoid dogmatic stupor. The great things about people like him is that group think is not required. You can disagree with him as long as you are intelligent about it. That's the challenge. Hmm - it seems he has some strange allies too :)

You are puzzled by the requirement of intelligence, I see.

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2009 at 10:38pm:

You are puzzled by the requirement of intelligence, I see.

I have no doubt that he is intelligent and that he encourages intelligent debate. However he should use his intelligence for more a worthwhile cause.

Considering your defence of religion in past posts, I just find your defence of Hitchens to be incongruous, although I share your implied suspicion of fundamentalism.

muso wrote on Oct 6^th, 2009 at 2:59pm:

On the whole, like human beings of all persuation, they genuinely mean what they genuinely believe.

Unless they intend to deceive.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 7^th, 2009 at 1:04pm:

muso wrote on Oct 6th, 2009 at 2:59pm: On the whole, like human beings of all persuation, they genuinely mean what they genuinely believe. Unless they intend to deceive.

( Eeek I just noticed that typo.)  I think most religious people are fair dinkum. That's why I said 'on the whole"  The ones who are not, are generally following another 'god' (Mammon). Most Tele-evangelists probably fall into that category.

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2009 at 2:54pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 7th, 2009 at 1:04pm: muso wrote on Oct 6th, 2009 at 2:59pm: On the whole, like human beings of all persuation, they genuinely mean what they genuinely believe. Unless they intend to deceive. ( Eeek I just noticed that typo.)  I think most religious people are fair dinkum. That's why I said 'on the whole"  The ones who are not, are generally following another 'god' (Mammon). Most Tele-evangelists probably fall into that category.

Yes, all true. But referring to some comments of Brennan's and Aly's, Hitchens was calling them on their disingenuous intent. He was literally keeping the religious honest... which, of course, is an irony in itself.

That's why Australia could do with a Hitchens in Australian religious debate...

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2009 at 8:13am:

Soren wrote on Oct 6th, 2009 at 10:38pm: You are puzzled by the requirement of intelligence, I see. I have no doubt that he is intelligent and that he encourages intelligent debate. However he should use his intelligence for more a worthwhile cause. Considering your defence of religion in past posts, I just find your defence of Hitchens to be incongruous, although I share your implied suspicion of fundamentalism.

I don't have to agree with everything he says to think of him as a valuable  and intelligent man. He offered his hand to Brennan at the end. He is a gentleman. And needless to say, he could only speak, write, publish (or indeed live) in secular countries which is in itself a great testament to such countries' Christian heritage.

He is intelligent and he is not malvolent. Compatred gto that, whether he agrees with me or I with him is a lot less important. Debating such men improve you, l either by making you reconsider untenable ideas or confirm those that withstand intelligent challenge.

Like the best debaters, he is not for group think. And I am glad to see that he confounds your reflex to box him (or me) in.

helian I can't believe you think this pompous little turd has anything valuable to say. I'm just watching him now on ABC, and he's just babbling on with a load of crap, and the sheeple in the audience are just laughing on cue...

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 15^th, 2009 at 5:08pm:

helian I can't believe you think this pompous little turd has anything valuable to say. I'm just watching him now on ABC, and he's just babbling on with a load of crap, and the sheeple in the audience are just laughing on cue...

Were you amused by Aly's apparent suggestion that Islamic morality is relative? That it's something that could possibly be put to a vote?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 15^th, 2009 at 10:37pm:

I watched his speech at the FoDI, not the panel with Waleed Aly, although I did see a little bit of that as well. I think Aly spoke well actually, in the short time I watched it.

'well actually'? Sure, his diction was perfect, he was polite... but relative Islamic morality? Would you subscribe to that? I bet Aly doesn't either... He was clearly over-awed by the task... Sad actually.


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 15^th, 2009 at 10:37pm:

Hitchens was just pathetic. Regurgitating the same dull challenges to theists like "The Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with us, what kind of benevolent God could let this happen".... Couldn't he come up with anything better? Sure they used to make this argument about natural disasters, and he did update it according to our new knowledge about cosmology... but it's the same tired old argument it always was. I can't see what people find so appealing about him.. it's the same old same old.

Well, yes Hitchens spiel is repetitive as are theistic ones. In the end you either believe or you don't... There'll never be a knockout in this ring, not even a TKO. But it's fun to watch theists bouncing off the ropes.

Abu?
Strange that you consider something as a tired old argument, when no theist has ever been able to offer anything cohesive, or intelligible, in response to it.

It is just a way to bring theists to question their whole dogma being built upon the idea of their god as the puppet master interventionist "being" that they portray him to be, and why so many find that to be a preposterous basis for any concept of the divine.

Muso?
Your continued defence of theists is frankly disturbing, because it smacks of the same moral cowardice that was seen displayed by the theists in the debate, as it willfully ignores the massive evils perpetrated upon the human psyche by "good" theists, who deem it appropriate to threaten all who will listen, with eternal tortures, of the worst kind they can imagine, as the penalty for not believing exactly the same things they do.

Religion is not, as innocuous as you like to portray it, there is a deep malevolence rooted in the basis of all creeds, that is unhealthy for any normal persons psyche, if they actually believe, and accept as unquestionably true, "All" the dictates of their relative dogmas.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 16^th, 2009 at 7:07am:

Muso? Your continued defence of theists is frankly disturbing, because it smacks of the same moral cowardice that was seen displayed by the theists in the debate, as it willfully ignores the massive evils perpetrated upon the human psyche by "good" theists, who deem it appropriate to threaten all who will listen, with eternal tortures, of the worst kind they can imagine, as the penalty for not believing exactly the same things they do. Religion is not, as innocuous as you like to portray it, there is a deep malevolence rooted in the basis of all creeds, that is unhealthy for any normal persons psyche, if they actually believe, and accept as unquestionably true, "All" the dictates of their relative dogmas.

Mozzaok,

I think we have just about got the balance right in Australian society. You're confusing moral cowardice for what is actually intestinal fortitude to stand up for what I feel is right. I don't happen to believe in the Supernatural, but I respect the rights of other people to do so, and that respect transcends supporting the tenets of ugly anti-theism. These people are no better than the religious fundamentalists they oppose.

I am actually much more opposed to the concept of anti-theism than I am to moderate religion. Moderate Christianity (mainstream Anglican, Catholic etc) is a religion of love, tolerance and rationality (yes rationality). So too is Buddhism, and the vast majority of Muslim adherents.

You might argue that creationism represents a danger for our next generation. However, if you look at the demographics of religion in Australia, it becomes apparent that religion is the endangered species.    

You may argue that extremist religion brings out the worst in us, but I'd argue that it's actually the reverse. Those people who already have a predisposition to being socially destructive may choose to use extremist religion to further their mindset. Others may choose an ideology such as communism to focus their malevolent intent.

I don't buy into the Dawkins or the Hitchens type of argument that religion poisons society, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the non-religious in Australia just don't think that way.

So you can try to whip me into marching in your atheist parade all you want, but I will continue to have the courage to maintain my personal world view. That's a world view that has no place for extremists and boot-boys.

Please don't let that discourage you from following your growing flock of anti-theists, but just try to keep the noise down.

Fundamentists like Jimmy Swaggart and Pol Pot are equally anathema to my way of thinking. Pol Pot may have killed more people, but Jimmy Swaggart killed more brains in his time. They both share a psychopathic lust for power, and in reality they are not too different from each other.

Religion and culture are intertwined and difficult to separate. Like languages, religions represent another way of thinking - another way of seeing the world. They bring with them all kinds of interesting things - like Christmas, and those amazing whirling dervishes in Islam.  It will be a sad day if  Australia ever became a nation of atheists. Kill religions and you kill all kinds of cultural aspects which make life interesting.

Religions may have their faults, but I support the principles of religio-diversity.  Maybe I should start a charity and set off on my own lecture tour.

I might add that I take a position that alienates me from possibly every other poster on this forum.

If that represents moral cowardice, then it's in a very strange format.

If, any religion had the decency to review their teachings, and adapt them to actually mirroe the standards of decency and morality that we would wish for our society, then your point would be valid.

Do you think they do that?

I don't.

You have a strange misconception that anti-theists are actually about trying to denigrate peoples' beliefs, when all they really want is for people to honestly evaluate the belief systems, that are imposed on them from birth, in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, and question the aspects that are unacceptable in a modern society, and seek to have those negative elements removed from their dogma.

I have no issue with people believing what they want, up to the point where that belief starts to promote behaviours which have a negative impact on our society, and unfortunately all religious doctrines promote such beliefs.

The fact that most people ignore the teachings which promote such unacceptable behaviours is testament to the basic decency of all humans, rather than their respective dogmas removing abhorrent teachings from their fantastic scriptures.

Of course they are hamstrung by the fact that they have to allude to these abominations as "mysteries" beyond our ken, for to admit that their divine being, or prohet made an error, is something they consider anathema.

This inviolable wedding of anachronistic teachings onto a moral framework suitable for the 21st century, is where religions fail their followers miserably, and they need to somehow devise a way to address that issue, before they can be considered as anything less than a negative influence in our society.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 16^th, 2009 at 9:59am:

If, any religion had the decency to review their teachings, and adapt them to actually mirroe the standards of decency and morality that we would wish for our society, then your point would be valid. Do you think they do that?

Actually I do. Certainly in the case of Roman Catholicism. They even have a tacid acceptance of intermarriage from other faiths and even contraception in Australia. There is a growing discontinuity between the position of Rome and the position of most Roman Catholics in Australia. They had a Galileo exhibition at the Vatican recently. Moderate religions evolve and they genuinely regret mistakes made in the past.  However, they don't answer to Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, and they tend to sort out these things for themselves. That's what I think, but maybe you should ask a Christian or a Muslim if their religions change to reflect the times.


Quote:

You have a strange misconception that anti-theists are actually about trying to denigrate peoples' beliefs, when all they really want is for people to honestly evaluate the belief systems, that are imposed on them from birth, in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, and question the aspects that are unacceptable in a modern society, and seek to have those negative elements removed from their dogma.

So titles like "The God Delusion", comparing Theism to a mental illness do not denigrate people's beliefs? Of course they denigrate. They take great delight in doing so.


Quote:

I have no issue with people believing what they want, up to the point where that belief starts to promote behaviours which have a negative impact on our society, and unfortunately all religious doctrines promote such beliefs.

Hmm the dismantling of a moral framework has probably done more harm to society than moderate religions ever did. I'm talking about Vicar of Dibley type Christianity rather than  Jerry Falwell style evangelism. The former is charming and rustic, the latter is insidious in an exclusivist and 'xenophobic' (or intolerant) way.


Quote:

The fact that most people ignore the teachings which promote such unacceptable behaviours is testament to the basic decency of all humans, rather than their respective dogmas removing abhorrent teachings from their fantastic scriptures.

It's all in the interpretation - and the interpretation has changed and evolved through the years to fit the changes in society.  A theist might call that divine inspiration. The scripture can certainly be misinterpreted by those of other faiths, or those atheists who think they know more than those who actually practice the faith. Yeah - anti-theistic atheists are arrogant. No argument there.


Quote:

This inviolable wedding of anachronistic teachings onto a moral framework suitable for the 21st century, is where religions fail their followers miserably, and they need to somehow devise a way to address that issue, before they can be considered as anything less than a negative influence in our society.

You need to step back and see the whole elephant. As an anti-theist, you are like the blind monk holding the elephants trunk and proclaiming - It's a thick rope!  You see what you want to see.

Hey - where are all the theists?

---

Fair point about the God Delusion bit, I will concede that for many being confronted by people saying their deeply held beliefs are delusional, is confronting, but then again, if you do not want people to make fun of your beliefs, maybe they shouldn't have such funny beliefs.

As far as the elephant analogy, I contend that it is you, and theists who deliberately avert your eyes from the big picture, by harking back to the fact that moderate interpretation is somehow evidence of a religion's worth, when it merely displays the individuals worth, by ignoring the more obscene teachings of their religion, but that they should need to do that at all, is surely indicative of their religions malevolence, and their own ability to pretend the contradictions and ugly teachings are not really there.

Cherry picking philosophies that you like selectively from a creed is hardly displaying a real belief that the text they cherry pick from is truly of divine origins, but that sort of duplicity is what we expect from theists, if they are decent, and have a conscience, it is their only recourse, apart from admitting that their religion is all based on a totally false premise.

Better to maintain their delusion, than to have to develop a personal moral code that does not rely on accepting the mythical mish mash that is provided as god's unerring word.

Speaking frankly, and I'm not trying to score any debating points here, I think that Dawkins, Hitchens and others (including yourself) maintain a myth that the religion of today is totally immutable and that they somehow have an expectation of deference by society.

That's far from the truth. A couple of days ago I heard a program on ABC Radio that showed what it was like growing up as a Catholic in Australia in the 50's and 60's. Catholics wore brown shoes to school, protestants wore black, and Catholics were called "Catholic dogs', were spat on regularly, and intermarriage was regarded as 'living in sin'.  

Maybe that was the case back then, but we listen to stories like that with horror nowadays - Catholics, Protestants and the rest of us alike. We don't want to go back to those days. In that respect, society has changed for the better.

We live in a society where most people (by a slim majority) never actually marry, even if they want to have kids. Attitudes have changed in most churches because they had to change. The term 'bastard' is not really used nowadays, although it used to attract a great deal of stigma for those born outside wedlock.  

OK, I'll grant you that the Muslims seem to be a bit slower than others to adapt, but even there things will change eventually. Some of the younger people at least, seem to be less fundamental.

Some things have changed for the better, some things have got worse, but you certainbly can't blame religion for the dysfunction that exists in Australian society, because we're living in a Post-Christian society in Australia now - and churches at least are fully cogniscant of that fact, and  they have adapted to it. When were you last in church? Try going one day. You might see the light  ;D about immutable religions.

I've said this many times before, but the human brain is not 100% logical. Some of the ways we think are very 'idiomatic'. The vast majority of the human population loves 'irrational thought'. If you want the biggest religion in the world, it's Astrology. Some people make decisions on compatibility of a life partner on the basis of their star sign.  They don't get vaccinated, even though the risk assessment shows that the dangers of not getting vaccinated exceed those of vaccination complications by a factor of 1000 or more.  People are quite comfortable in their irrationality. Don't try to scare them with facts - it makes them uncomfortable.  That's how it is - tear your hair out all you like but it isn't going to change. Most people seem to muddle through life wthout thinking too deeply, and if something irrational gives them comfort, it's not a big deal. They still seem to have fun in life. They laugh, they love and they reproduce. Nothing is going to change that.

The latest stats show that only 9% of the population regularly attend religious worship. The remaining 91% are either religious and apathetic, agnostic or generic "non religious'. Having said that, there are a few worrying trends in the Federal government as evidenced by the protests of the so-called 'sex party' in Canberra recently.

I think public opinion will sort out things like that pretty quickly.

Quote:

Speaking frankly, and I'm not trying to score any debating points here, I think that Dawkins, Hitchens and others (including yourself) maintain a myth that the religion of today is totally immutable and that they somehow have an expectation of deference by society.

How is that a myth?
It is a fact.
They have locked themselves into an ideology by setting the parameters when they first invented it.
As soon as they proclaimed they were delivering the "Word Of God", they were precluded from ever being able to change, and the fact that humans disregard what they claim as god's instructions, selectively, is testament to the human decency that most people are thankfully blessed with.

So whilst people can adapt their behaviours, the fact of their core dogmas immutable evils can only be overlooked by willful ignorance, and that is a good thing for us, but it also shows how silly, and flawed that their core creed is, and untiul that core creed is changed, so fundamentalist wackos cannot reference it as god's word, then religion will continue to receive the disdain it deserves, from people like me.

Do you think that the mainstream religions in Australia  (Anglican and Catholic) have an expectation of deferance or respect from the rest of society?

In that respect they have changed.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 15^th, 2009 at 5:08pm:

helian I can't believe you think this pompous little turd has anything valuable to say. I'm just watching him now on ABC, and he's just babbling on with a load of crap, and the sheeple in the audience are just laughing on cue...

Well, Abu… Now its my turn to be nonplussed... By your faux apoplexy (having myself just watched Hitchens at the FODI) and I don’t believe you’re convinced that you’re not being disingenuous by it. Far from being pompous, Hitchens was the most relaxed, entertaining and funny as I’d ever seen him. He seems more happy in Australia than in the US…. Even sang a song at the end ;D

Don’t you think it was incredible that at a debate titled “religion poisons everything”, there was not a single religious figure on stage to challenge Hitchens? It didn’t appear that it was lost on Hitchens himself, who referred to Tony Jones jokingly as “the Reverend Jones” – a light hearted dig most probably to register his awareness of the cowardice of the religious elite in Australia. No Pell, no Hilali, not even an Aly.

And surely you’d applaud his offering a posthumous voice to the young Yemeni girl, compulsorily married at the age of eleven to a man three times her age, who died in childbirth, trying to give birth to a dead baby. He was highlighting the plight of the one quarter of Yemeni girls who are legally married before puberty.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 17^th, 2009 at 7:30am:

So whilst people can adapt their behaviours, the fact of their core dogmas immutable evils can only be overlooked by willful ignorance, and that is a good thing for us, but it also shows how silly, and flawed that their core creed is, and untiul that core creed is changed, so fundamentalist wackos cannot reference it as god's word, then religion will continue to receive the disdain it deserves, from people like me.

I guess the first major revision of Christianity took place at the First Council of Nicea in 325.  That gave rise to the Nicean Creed, one of many non scriptural sources that defines and changes the nature of religion.  Within all the mainstream churches, there is a process of review. Within the Catholic Church such changes are finally declared by the Pope himself, and the Anglican Church has a similar process.  

The interpretation of Scripture has changed enormously through the ages.

Take the case of the interpretation of adultery for example. The original intent of the adultery related commandment was that one man should not steal another man's wife. If a married man and a single woman had a sexual relationship, then there would be no question of adultery, even if the man was married already.

Obviously through the ages, the interpretation of that scripture has changed. You might see it as hypocritical, but a theologian sees it as a necessary adaptation to keep in line with society. Such change is seen as divine inspiration.

So to say that religion is totally immutable is a gross simplification.

I was hoping that some of the faithful would come to my aid here, because I'm probably getting beyond my depth.  If you really want better clarification of this subject, I can email a friend of mine who is a theology professor in Austria.

God you can denounce all you like -you are going to be talking to the mirror anyway, to the god you imagine in your own image.

But go into an old church whose threshold has been worn hollow over the centuries. Stand in the stillness of that church - and then denounce the centuries of prayers, hopes and curses that were uttered by the men and women whose feet wore that threshhold hollow. Denounce them as deluded and I will call you a complete and utter prick. Whoever you are.

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2009 at 9:20pm:

God you can denounce all you like -you are going to be talking to the mirror anyway, to the god you imagine in your own image. But go into an old church whose threshold has been worn hollow over the centuries. Stand in the stillness of that church - and then denounce the centuries of prayers, hopes and curses that were uttered by the men and women whose feet wore that threshhold hollow. Denounce them as deluded and I will call you a complete and utter prick. Whoever you are.

Aw Soren... You lachrymose old dweeb ;D

You are quick - keen even - to get the wrong end of the stick, aren't you? Is this a pattern in your life?

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2009 at 9:46pm:

You are quick - keen even - to get the wrong end of the stick, aren't you? Is this a pattern in your life?

That's enough sherry for you, tonight.  :'(

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 17^th, 2009 at 9:23pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 9:20pm: God you can denounce all you like -you are going to be talking to the mirror anyway, to the god you imagine in your own image. But go into an old church whose threshold has been worn hollow over the centuries. Stand in the stillness of that church - and then denounce the centuries of prayers, hopes and curses that were uttered by the men and women whose feet wore that threshhold hollow. Denounce them as deluded and I will call you a complete and utter prick. Whoever you are. Aw Soren... You lachrymose old dweeb ;D

I got the same feeling when I entered a 2500 year old Etruscan tomb in Italy, or when I stood on the limestone blocks of the now ruined  temple called the Ara Della Regina in the ruins of Etruscan Tarquinia. It's a 'spiritual' thing.

This was a civilisation that was long dead and almost forgotten even in the days of the Romans.

As Propertius wrote of another Etruscan city (Veii)

heu Veii veteres! et vos tum regna fuistis,
et vestro posita est aurea sella foro:
nunc intra muros pastoris bucina lenti
cantat, et in vestris ossibus arua metunt.

Veii, you had a royal crown of old,
And in your forum stood a throne of gold!
Your walls now echo but the shepherd’s horn,
And over your ashes waves the summer corn.


Yes, You have to maintain a certain respect and a sense of awe for the past.

muso wrote on Oct 17^th, 2009 at 10:03pm:

I got the same feeling when I entered a 2500 year old Etruscan tomb in Italy, or when I stood on the limestone blocks of the now ruined  temple called the Ara Della Regina in the ruins of Etruscan Tarquinia. It's a 'spiritual' thing. You have to maintain a certain respect and a sense of awe for the past.

Yes... understand all that... Who wouldn't feel a sense of awe? And it's even more poignant for those of us from young cultures... Like standing in an empty ancient European church at night, listening to someone playing 'The Lonely Shepherd' on a flute.

Old worlders feel it in their blood, so they're not as shaken to the core as we are by an old church.

I would enjoy Hitchens a lot more if he hadn't generated an enormous cadre of adulating little drones. The worst thing about the "New Atheists" is that their followers always tend to fancy themselves as insightful critical thinkers but are really as rigid as the people they criticise. This doesn't make them incorrect, of course.

Doesn't not make them twats either.

wrote on Oct 17^th, 2009 at 10:57pm:

I would enjoy Hitchens a lot more if he hadn't generated an enormous cadre of adulating little drones. The worst thing about the "New Atheists" is that their followers always tend to fancy themselves as insightful critical thinkers but are really as rigid as the people they criticise. This doesn't make them incorrect, of course. Doesn't not make them twats either.

Would you rather watch the fawning audiences of creationists and intelligent designists as they mangle logic with their outrageous sophistry?

Now that's what I'd call twattery unmitigated.

No poo, but let's face it; the science-worshipping New Atheists hate Darwin too, just in different ways from the creationists. While they will (and perhaps rightfully so) ridicule and scoff at the egregious distortion of logic by creationists, their own rational facade always breaks down almost instantly whenever science runs counter to their own egalitarian world views. Their dedication to Darwin runs as far as their own self-imposed perception of how they would like the world to look, and if the trifling matter of the truth compromises this, they edit, ignore and compartmentalize it. At least the creationists, with their overt disdain for the scientific method, are internally consistent.

wrote on Oct 17^th, 2009 at 11:55pm:

No poo, but let's face it; the science-worshipping New Atheists hate Darwin too, just in different ways from the creationists. While they will (and perhaps rightfully so) ridicule and scoff at the egregious distortion of logic by creationists, their own rational facade always breaks down almost instantly whenever science runs counter to their own egalitarian world views. Their dedication to Darwin runs as far as their own self-imposed perception of how they would like the world to look, and if the trifling matter of the truth compromises this, they edit, ignore and compartmentalize it. At least the creationists, with their overt disdain for the scientific method, are internally consistent.

Drunk in charge of a post-modern essay generator, tonight? ;D

It's all of this Czech beer I've been drinking!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 17^th, 2009 at 11:06pm:

Would you rather watch the fawning audiences of creationists and intelligent designists as they mangle logic with their outrageous sophistry? Now that's what I'd call twattery unmitigated.

Oh yes, if Pseudoscience were an Olympic event, Intelligent Design advocates would take the gold medal.

Unfortunately there are twats abounding in every hue and colour of philosophical debate, which makes the idea they ascribe to neither right, nor wrong, so leaving the fact aside that you do not have to throw a rock far in any direction, to hit an idiot, the truth is that the image that some try to portray of anti-theists as some type of obsessive extremists, is innacurate, and a mere distraction from the core questions that they raise.

Most I would certainly expect to be a lot like me, people who see religion as a tool, misused by so many, to attempt to control, and/or influence, people to march to their particular tune.
When that tune inspires a merry jig, then all is well and good, but when it is used to inspire a goose step, then we have real problems.
The fact that the pipers who play these tunes are self appointed social engineers whose tools are fanciful threats and promises, is what causes some, like myself, to question just why should we allow them to call the tune at all.

If they did not seek to influence society beyond the walls of their temples, my position would be one of sad observation, that they impose their reckless rules and imagery onto their young, in a totally dogmatic environment which rejects open and thoughtful enquiry, in favour of unquestioning adherence to their creed, which still mixes the vile and malevolent with the spiritual and sublime, to the point where many can not recognise the difference.
This is when you see what would be normal, caring people, calling for those that transgress their particular codes rules, to be consumed by hellfire.
The degree of intolerance that is promoted, as protecting "god's word" is of real concern, for god's word still thinks homosexuality is an abomination, and that adulterer's need the death penalty, in this world, not in the make believe next, that they subjugate their very existence in favour of pursuing.
So while I know that most people ignore these obscene idiocies, their creeds, and religion's most certainly do not, they are their in the books, just waiting for the next piper to come along and start piping their tune again, and that is an intolerable threat on all our freedoms.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 18^th, 2009 at 8:27am:

Unfortunately there are twats abounding in every hue and colour of philosophical debate, which makes the idea they ascribe to neither right, nor wrong, so leaving the fact aside that you do not have to throw a rock far in any direction, to hit an idiot, the truth is that the image that some try to portray of anti-theists as some type of obsessive extremists, is innacurate, and a mere distraction from the core questions that they raise. Most I would certainly expect to be a lot like me, people who see religion as a tool, misused by so many, to attempt to control, and/or influence, people to march to their particular tune. When that tune inspires a merry jig, then all is well and good, but when it is used to inspire a goose step, then we have real problems. The fact that the pipers who play these tunes are self appointed social engineers whose tools are fanciful threats and promises, is what causes some, like myself, to question just why should we allow them to call the tune at all.

Undoubtedly.

However, consider this. Sociology has some answers, usually small and peripheral. Its take on religion is an example. That organised religion has aspects of social and political control is commonplace. (What social organisation or interaction doesn't?) From this to deduce that all social organisation and interaction are only, or mainly, political or that organised religion is primarily concerned with social and political organisation is erroneous.
Anti-clericalism has a lot going for it, as all correctives do. But to reduce the "god question" to a political or sociological one is grossly reductive and leaves out what is really important. Life is much too large and complex to be modelled and then explained away by "social science".

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 18^th, 2009 at 12:03am:

wrote on Oct 17th, 2009 at 11:55pm: No poo, but let's face it; the science-worshipping New Atheists hate Darwin too, just in different ways from the creationists. While they will (and perhaps rightfully so) ridicule and scoff at the egregious distortion of logic by creationists, their own rational facade always breaks down almost instantly whenever science runs counter to their own egalitarian world views. Their dedication to Darwin runs as far as their own self-imposed perception of how they would like the world to look, and if the trifling matter of the truth compromises this, they edit, ignore and compartmentalize it. At least the creationists, with their overt disdain for the scientific method, are internally consistent. Drunk in charge of a post-modern essay generator, tonight? ;D

Helian, your chase after what eludes you most - wit. And in that rush, understanding also evades you. This is what I mean by the wrong end of the stick. You sacrifice understanding just to appear witty but more often than not you are left standing both witless and confused.

When you are not trying to appear witty you do say interesting things - you do get the right end of the stick. So invert the priorities, pal. You can do it.

Soren wrote on Oct 18^th, 2009 at 9:09am:

Helian, your chase after what eludes you most - wit. And in that rush, understanding also evades you. This is what I mean by the wrong end of the stick. You sacrifice understanding just to appear witty but more often than not you are left standing both witless and confused. When you are not trying to appear witty you do say interesting things - you do get the right end of the stick. So invert the priorities, pal. You can do it.

Sleepless night, Soren? ;D

Yea, ‘Drunk in charge of a twat-o-graph’ would’ve been funnier, but it sounded a bit more confronting than I was intending.

wrote on Oct 18^th, 2009 at 12:15am:

It's all of this Czech beer I've been drinking!

Ah, Czech beer... That'll do it ;D

Psst... Uncle Soren's got a sore head today, so we gotta keep the noise down  ;)

mozzaok wrote on Oct 18^th, 2009 at 8:27am:

So while I know that most people ignore these obscene idiocies, their creeds, and religion's most certainly do not, they are their in the books, just waiting for the next piper to come along and start piping their tune again, and that is an intolerable threat on all our freedoms.

Probably correct, but you could just as easily be speaking about the internet. You could very easily make a case for the fact that the world wide web carries the seeds of the next "intolerable threat on all our freedoms" and then through a leap of logic deduce that all internet users are dangerous.  We have seen examples of such leaps of logic by past contributors. Remember "Atheism is a religion" ?

I still think you're blindly clinging to that Elephant's trunk and not seeing the whole picture. Religions, like the Internet probably do a lot more good than harm if you are honest enough to move away from your position of advocacy and look at the big picture.    

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 18^th, 2009 at 9:27am:

wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 12:15am: It's all of this Czech beer I've been drinking! Ah, Czech beer... That'll do it ;D Psst... Uncle Soren's got a sore head today, so we gotta keep the noise down  ;)

Witless and confused. Why do you insist?

Getting back to the useful aspects of religion - In a recent speech, I see that avowed atheist Lord May of Oxford made the point that religion may play its part in organising people to take action to avoid dangerous Climate Change.

Prior to that, he also made the point that "Fear of God has kept humans in check"

http://news.scotsman.com/science/Fear-of-God-has-kept.5622255.jp


Quote:

Belief in a god, or gods, that punish the unrighteous could be part of the mechanism of evolution that has maintained co-operation in a dog-eat-dog world, he argues.

Religion could prove very useful yet. Mozzaok, so get that soapbox out and let's start converting the masses........... Whaddya mean No??   :P

Soren wrote on Oct 18^th, 2009 at 8:56am:

organised religion is primarily concerned with social and political organisation is erroneous.

Well, religious primates give a bloody good impression of that being their churches’ primary concern.

However, these primates (Popes, Ayatollahs, Dalai Lamas et al) have a daunting task ahead of them upon their ascension… being the personification of god on earth can’t be easy (;D) and probably lends credence to the age old story of cardinals at a Papal electoral conclave praying not to be chosen.

But then there is the darkly comedic story of Cardinal Montalto who became Pope Sixtus V. A stooped and wizened old man at his election and chosen for that reason – to be a harmless caretaker pope until a more suitable candidate was considered more ready to ascend. However, upon his election, as the story goes, he physically straightened, threw away his crutches and stood to accept his ascension, raising his arms up declaring, “Now I am Caesar”. For the five years of his Papacy, he worked like a man possessed, reasserting the political authority of The Vatican with a vengeance in his attempt to single-handedly reverse the reformation. They included executing thousands of heretics without mercy, reversing the poverty of the Vatican by any means available including the selling of Church offices, demanding the complete and undivided loyalty of European heads of state to the Pope by the real threat of excommunication, war and guaranteed execution when defeated… and, his most bizarre enterprise, personally rewriting the Latin Vulgate.

What keeps the Vatican in check today is the terminal decline of Christianity as a world religious socio-political force through the rise of secularism and education of the masses.

Soren wrote on Oct 18^th, 2009 at 10:14am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 9:27am: wrote on Oct 18th, 2009 at 12:15am: It's all of this Czech beer I've been drinking! Ah, Czech beer... That'll do it ;D Psst... Uncle Soren's got a sore head today, so we gotta keep the noise down  ;) Witless and confused. Why do you insist?

Time for a nana nap, old fella ;D

muso wrote on Oct 18^th, 2009 at 9:35am:

Probably correct, but you could just as easily be speaking about the internet. You could very easily make a case for the fact that the world wide web carries the seeds of the next "intolerable threat on all our freedoms" and then through a leap of logic deduce that all internet users are dangerous.

There is something in that. As a direct result of the rise of the internet, there's no doubt our concept of privacy must be redefined and by that our freedom to say whatever we like, whether we mean it or not and get away with it. Obama's advice to a question from a kid about what she can do now to aspire to the Presidency... 'Be careful what you write on facebook'.