Stats

Comments Posted By KevenSeven

Displaying 871 To 900 Of 1,300 Comments

Destroying Religion: The Essential Task at Hand?

I assure you that Hitchens has only contempt for the CofE. And I think that goes for Fry as well.

This was a debate. The question was posed. It would have been stupid and off topic to discuss the other religions.

I disagree utterly that it is weak to remind the Church of all the crimes it committed in the past, and I think you’re falling into exactly the same hole the MP did. You say and she said “don’t blame the Church for doing evil things like torturing Jews and promoting the slave trade and supporting Fascism in Europe, they were only existing in their time”.

To which Stephen Fry demands “Then what are you for???”

Most religions, but the Catholic Church in particular(in which I was indoctrinated) claim to a moral authority. The Catholic Church claims to have the final word from God. The Pope is infallible. How is that not horseshit if the Catholic Church was rabidly anti-semetic, on an official level, until 1964?

No. Your point is bogus. The fact that the Church has a long and storied history of horrific crimes, including the very recent protection of rapists in their ranks, including the assertion by Mr. Ratzinger that the use of condoms in Africa is morally wrong, just a sin against God, the fact that the Pole made a saint of a man who tortured people to death for the crime of owning a bible in English, is a severe indictment.

If the Church does not know that torture and slavery are wrong, regardless of when they did not know this, then what freaking good are they? Why should anyone give a good goddam what they say today with such a wretched track record?

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 10:31 am

1) the question is indeed about the “Church” and its dogmas. The fact that lots of nice people believe things and are nice is immaterial. I think your mother did not need a church and its dogmas to be a good person. I think it is innate in her.

BTW, does your mother think homosexuality is morally wrong? How does she stand on abortion? Contraception? Does she agree with Mr Ratzinger that it is more morally wrong to use condoms to fight AIDs in Africa than to accept them as a necessity in that fight?

2) tossing out charity as a defense means that you must defend Hamas and Hezbollah, as both of those organizations do enormous charitable work.

3)Hitchens would very gently and politely demolish your mother in any debate. You can find him going up against a dozen or more real thinkers on the subject. He has toured for going on three years debating theologians. The finest minds in the business. Plus Al Sharpton. He does not flinch from the debate.

Don’t get me wrong. Hitchens pisses the living hell out of me on many things. But not this, and not a great many other things.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 10:16 am

“Why do you need to think it is all about you?”

Kalima.

You are not the only person reading this thread, and I cannot sting you because your mind is closed.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 10:07 am

When you write “you….hate” in English, it comes across as an accusation. Your usage is incorrect. And keep the sarcasm to yourself, if you are going to demand respect from me.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 1:02 am

This is an interesting debate that just went down in England:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw&feature=related

It is in five parts. It can be frustrating to find them in the right sequence.

Two Atheist, Stephen Fry (actor) and Christopher Hitchens (polemicist) up against two Catholics. It is amazing how poorly the two Catholics hold up, especially as one of them is a politician of some rank.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 12:55 am

Anyway, getting on to 1 am. Going to sleep.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 12:50 am

Well, in English, as you know, “you” is both plural and singular. You might want to remember that when you write “You….hate” in a sentence, your correspondent might think that you mean him or her.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 12:44 am

Hithches never implied that only religious people can hate. You might infer that.

It does not mean that he ever said any such thing, nor implied it. You cannot show me anything that he has written or implied or any such.

Your regular ad hominen attacks on him do not advance your argument.

You hold prejudices against him. You have pre-judged him. You have “heard enough about him”.

I’m telling you, you are quite wrong about the man.

And he pisses me off as well, but I know why.

As in know. You do not know about Hitchens.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 12:39 am

“You can analyze or criticize all you want, it won

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 12:24 am

Testy testy. If you don’t want to debate, why do you make assertions. Espcially incorrect ones.

“According to Hitchens theories, only religious people have the capability to hate, what a lot of crock.”

That is utter bull. I defy you to show me anywhere he wrote that or said it out loud. You will not be able to.

Hitchen’s beef is not with you. It is with those who would impose themselves based on some BS justification of doing God’s work.

You really do not know much of anything about Hitchens, I assure you.

He aggravates the shit out of me too. But not on this. And he is spot on about torture, the education of women and global climate change. Among other things.

People who push the idea that religion is necessary for morality are those that his question is directed at.

As for “hate”, you throw the word around casually and indiscriminately on this thread. You certainly lit into Bernard.

This is a discussion board. You are expressing opinions, several of which are quite incorrect, which I can back up. Really, you have no business getting mad at me for contradicting you.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 23, 2009 @ 12:15 am

All that can be managed without a religious framework.

And if that is all religion is for, then where does God fit in?

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

Hithcens is not an Islamaphobe.

You really do not know the man at all.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

Hitchens opposes torture, supports the education of women in the third world as the solution to poverty and misery, was a named plaintiff against the NSA in the illegal wiretapping, opposes Israeli expansionism, insists that confronting global climate change is a moral necessity, what else do you need me to tell you that you will understand that you have a simplistic and mis-informed view of his views?

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 11:42 pm

Oh, and you did not address the question. Can you name a generous act or sentiment that an atheist would be incapable of?

And the corollary.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 11:38 pm

Then you have a very broad and elastic definition of religion. I say you are wrong.

Atheism means to deny that there is a sentient being who demands our fealty and devotion.

Theism (religion) means the opposite: That there is a being out there somewhere to whom you owe everything. Further, it means that the believers know the mind of this being. And it most often means that the believers either are superior to the non-believer or the believer has a duty to convert the non-believers.

It is nonsense to insist that atheism is a religion. It is an anti-religion.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

1) Your ad hominen attacks on Hitchens does not in anyway erase his perfectly lucid points. He has been an atheist since he was eight. One of the many things that I like about him is that he had the same reaction to BS religiosity that I did.

2) I never said that believing in forces higher than one’s self is insane, nor has Hitchens. I don’t know where you got that from. And both Hitchens and I are perfectly happy that you meditate or do whatever, especially seeing as you don’t seem to insist on foisting it on the rest of us.

3) This accusation of hate is bullshit. I see nothing hateful in anything that I have written here. You want to believe, go ahead. Just keep me out of it.

The problem is that most people who have religion insist on foisting it on others. One of the things that I respect about Judaism is that it has no need to proselytize.

You clearly have no idea what it is that Hitchens is talking about. You have clear prejudices against him, suit yourself. But I can direct you to all sorts of lectures he has given on the subject, and I assure you that you will find virtually your entire comment to be incorrect.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

What has it to do with free speech?

Bernard is proposing to persuade everybody that the only real God is the Earth we live on.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

Bernard,

Your God grows my tomatoes and lettuce and fruit.

Praise to your God!

Keep them coming.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

This “defense” of religion has been blasted before.

As Hitchens would challenge you:

Think of a kind act or generous expression that is impossible to a non-religious person. You will be lucky to come up with one.

Now think of a hateful act or cruel statement that could only be justified by a person of faith. You have already thought of half a dozen.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

I disagree with a proposition that religion is essential to human “sanity”.

I would say it is completely possible to be both moral and sane and be an atheist or anti-theist.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 1:03 pm

Our 10,000th Comment!

Hi,

I’m responding to you over on the religion thread.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 22, 2009 @ 11:47 pm

Senate debates Health Care Bill

My opinion is that one needs to have a very thin skin indeed to be wounded, as an anonymous person, by such a correction from another anonymous person.

But what do I know?

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 21, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

The Rethugs absolutely will filibuster if they can.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 21, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

Doo doo head!

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 21, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

Yeah, it is a real pity.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 21, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

Hang on, hang on, hang on!

What? This is not the LAST cloture motion?

This business is killing me.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 21, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

She called me an asshole. Strangely enough, she though that that might have consequences.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 21, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

They are Republicans. That trumps having a uterus, apparently.

Or having had one. Most of them are rather mature.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 21, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

Now now. That was a description of her behaviour. Another thing all together.

Kind of like when I called you honest and mature. See?

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 21, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

Not quite as harsh.

But I did withdraw it.

» Posted By KevenSeven On November 21, 2009 @ 7:35 pm