(12/17) Intelligence Squared - We would be better off without religion

[delataylor]

When is Intelligence Squared going to learn that this 3 questions at a time nonsense doesn't work?

[thomasmargollesable1]

How dare you!! ahhhhhh hitchens just destroying people!! oo mannn

[marimba94]

Could the Baroness be more of a bitch? Dear God.

[harkinhank]

Hitch was really a secret rabbi. The Baroness was on to him.

[Gearsmeister]

4:55 hitchslap alert, proceed with caution.

[Rabsputin]

nigel spivey is a spineless fuck.

[mcbrideless]

God does not exist in clouded skies, rather in clouded minds!

[zerobeat18]

The Jew in the audience rejects all supernatural religious aspects but accepts only those moral edicts that would apply to anybody (religious or not), like respect and restraint etc. Again, it's an intellectually empty argument FOR religion, as if those concepts couldn't exist independent of thinking that a supernatural being WANTS you to follow them.

Some people incorrectly assume that the absence of religion means the rejection of EVERYTHING that is coincidentally taught in that religion.

[RustlessPotato]

The Hitchens How Dare you. EPIC ^^

[heathdwatts]

If religion disappears, people such as rabbi Neuberger will have to find a real job.

[MrRichTard]

Good man questioner at 2.20 :D

[twooffour]

5:40 Stoned, but good man :)

[ashburnhouse]

Baroness is a filthy, filthy, filthy girl. 

[VincitOmniaVerit]

I think the point being missed by everyone is this: people are destructive, xenophobic and tribalistic creatures that do not need much to kill each other. Religion i would say is the biggest identity marker that people use to indicate members of the out-group, in other words, the enemy. I believe that it can be agreed that human nature hasnt progressed as much as technology and culture, hence the level of war and murder seen throughout history regardless of wether there was religion or not.

[howler95uk]

Michelangelo would have decorated my downstairs loo if I'd been able to pay him more than the Church would have paid him.

[throktor1]

When the lady says she resents Hitchens saying what she HAS to believe for being religious...i see a flaw there. If everyone interprets or cherry picks the parts of religion that they like/want to believe, doesnt that undermine the foundation of the "truth" that religion claims to bring to the table? There seems to be a path of - its absolutely true -> some things are just parables -> i only believe in certain parts - yet religion still claims to be the one true answer.

[fnuttskallen]

This Spivey guy, is he on meds or is he slightly retarded?

[TheGoblinCity88]

Spivey, the guy said 'slaughtered millions and hundreds killed every day' not millions killed every day, typical religious dick not even listening to what is said.

[ilyLaura1]

I'd like to conclude with a favorite saying of mine. I forgot who said it, but it rings true to me. If you found my comments too long to read, this sums it up quite well:

"Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. But if you want to get a good person doing bad things, that takes religion."

[roac7777]

@ilyLaura1 It was Richard Dawkins who coined that phrase. What a fantastic mind that man has.

[AxeHomeless]

@roac7777 It was Stephen Weinberg, Not Professor Dawkins.

[roac7777]

@AxeHomeless I thought I read that phrase in 'The God Delusion'

[AxeHomeless]

@roac7777 I read the Word "Love" in a brief history of time by stephen hawking, that doesnt mean he coined it :)

Actually, If youd watched enough debates with Mr Hitchens you would know that, he quotes Mr Weinberg almost every time :)

[roac7777]

@AxeHomeless Yes I have heard the quote many times although I have not heard who the original author was. No matter, it is the content of the phrase that counts.

[ilyLaura1]

And 2.) yes, political and economic factors may cause conflict to persist, but never quite like religion. Laws, cultural urges, familial and traditional expectations, and political influences...all pale in comparison to the absolute nature of religion's objective decrees. Moreover, nothing is more coercive, with an infinitely great reward, and infinitely painful punishment.

[ilyLaura1]

Sorry Spivey and those who agree with him; no one claimed that religion's demise would halt ALL conflict. (In fact, Dawkins made clear that this wasn't the case). What IS clear is that 1.) just because something negative is reduced rather than removed completely doesn't mean that thing shouldn't be reduced by way of getting rid of religion

[beautyinbreakdowns2]

Check out CONSCIOUSNESS-AN ANIMATION OF SPIRIT. on YouTube  Duality is the context for conflict. It is what we have to give up.

[beautyinbreakdowns2]

I'm more in the atheist camp, but I thought spivey's reply was just fine. He's right. There would still be ethnic, political, economic conflicts in the absence or religion. It's not just religion that has to go, it's dualism, the "us & them" which is the context at least for the western or universalizing religions.

[420nietzsche]

Nigel Spivey was just like "Fuck me I have no idea what to say so I'm going to speak quietly and hope they forget about it...."

[areyouquitemad]

Its stupid to say 'i don't follow all aspects of my religion' but thats okay.

This says that the person either thinks god wrote the bible/torah but is INTENTIONALLY ignoring parts of it, or that the person doesn't really think god wrote it.

He wrote it or he didn't!! Are you saying he wrote parts of it and not others, hence, you can follow some of it but not all!! In this case, you're no longer a theist but just a deist.

[jonsen82]

What a Hitch-slap at 4:32!! What a brilliant (and indeed most proper ) way to answer!

[KamuiSeph]

It's funny that when asked a rhetorical question, with an obvious freaking answer "Are the slaughtered millions in the name of faith worth the sistine chapel" Spivey answers "Yes". Shows you just HOW MUCH religion can delude a person. Honestly, I would gladly save one homeless junkie from death if it meant the destruction of the sistine chapel. So much for "sanctity of life". Hypocrites.

[lovingbritpop]

I haven't read through the comments here so I'm sorry if people have already gone over this - I am a firm believer in science, still I did listen to the other group's arguments and they did give me some points to think about, which was good - up to the point where the whole ''desensitization of the new generation"' thing began. You can't have one person on your team claiming that religion is a part of human nature and another one saying that we should be worried about our children losing faith..

[gta747]

people like the line drawing jew are so annoying, if you practice the non-inharent teachings & exclude the inharent aspects of a religion then wtf is the point of saying your part of the religion? your apparently saying your nondogmatic

so stop lending creedence to the people that think being good for goodness sake means being good for the sake of a cheap payoff from santa, your just reinforcing the idea that goodness doesnt speak for itself

[OverFjell]

What is it with audiences applauding absolutely fucking EVERYTHING?

[omegavalerius]

@OverFjell

well you have several cliques in there and different groups applaud different things. To some extent it might also be courtesy.

[jjobie]

@OverFjell Bravo! Bravo! Well said! Brav - oh, sorry, I was applauding you :)

[alexanderhulse]

@OverFjell i think its so the audience dont seem to bias but not everyone will be applauding at every point.

[SwedxSimon02]

@OverFjell

It's an applaud war

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

I was in love with Hitchens' response to the Jewish line drawer's question <3

[stiimuli]

spivey's answer to the question was ver zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......­......

[Elayis2765]

What the hell is Spivey looking at?!

[M3t4lManiac]

What a fucking bitch. He was making a logical deduction, if she disagrees with the existence of a god, she isn't much of a theist, what a fucking stupid bitch.

[Popikawaii]

Considering he had the hardest question, I wasn't expecting such a face saving answer from the Sistine chapel guy.

[rafaelwaa]

How dare u ?

[insideous57]

the guy at 2:05, I had been wanting to ask that question since the debate started

[kville105125]

@MrTickleparty R'amen.

[Happyascanbe1]

This Nigel boy is something, huh. Getting rid of religion would not stop other forms of violence--but it would pretty sure remove all the religious violence. But hey, who needs that. It is like arguing that smoking is great, since if you remove it you still have the car exhaust fumes. Removing you from this planet, Nigel, would certainly not remove all the stupidity in the world but it would still do us all a tremendous favour.

[TheHippo18]

How dare you! Classic Hitchens

[GermanChocolateCake]

And yet what would be better, the sparing of the lives of the millions killed in religions name over history or they existence of Handel's Messiah.

I think the sparing of life would have been ultimately beneficial. Who knows what masterpieces or achievements might have come forth from some of the slaughtered masses.

[darris321]

i think that religious doctor answered that last question very respectfully

i was expecting him to deflect it.

[asf4321]

to you it might as well be rocket science ... you're beginning to piss me off bud... its called a fucking analogy

[TomFynn]

@asf4321

There is no analogy.

Rocket science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

[Crowbot28]

4:34 HITCHSLAP!!!

[cleaboy1]

Hitchens commentary -sublime.  Spivey's commentary - pathetic

[TheOmegajuice]

My definition of religion has always been:

An organised group of people, with shared practices and rituals, who have some shared beliefs and shared dogmas that include beliefs in and beliefs about supernatural entities.

Confucianism isn't religious by this definition but I'm ok with that.

[atheistkyo]

hahaha Hitch pissed of the Rabbi so easily, it's funny how religious people are the ones that get angry the most. If you have the ultimate truth why would you care what stupid atheist says.

[sweetpeajunglebean]

the most hilarious part of the whole thing happens at 0:36 when a woman from the

audience, who is asking about the future, says

"my children, i have three, one's a doctor....."

any chance to brag about your kids!

i wonder how the other two feel? they must be real losers!

c

[Pitfytr]

ideal, or most suited, is an opinion. In my opinion

[asf4321]

"Slaughtered millions ......."

.

Problem is not in religion, problem is in us humans. Blaming something on beliefs, God, church, synagogue is denying that WE as human beings are flawed and indeed the cause of those slaughtered millions.It is a denial of responsibility at its worst.

.

AND yess they are better off for Sistine chapel, because they should recognize the value of ideal, and constantly trying to improve ourselves.

[youandwhosearmy2]

@asf4321 Quite so. But if you make this claim, you can't then give credit to religion for good works and artistic insipiration. If the worst comes from inside us, then so too does the best, and this is what makes religion redundant.

[asf4321]

@youandwhosearmy2

key words that you say there is "artistic inspiration". that is not true religion is there for spiritual inspiration which is something quite different from the "artistic" and yet quite necessary. by that virtue religion is there for "good works" as well.

i speak from orthodox christian background which differs fundamentally from any from of protestanism and chatolicism.

[TomFynn]

@asf4321 Those slaughtered millions are slaughtered *exactly* because their killers value their ideals over the lives of others.

[asf4321]

@TomFynn

then why are we having this discussion about religion and god... democracy, capitalism etc. are also ideals

cheers

[TomFynn]

@asf4321 Because democracy, capitalism, human rights AFAIK are man-made ideals, of which no one has ever claimed that they are anything else. Religion claims to be be made by someone's invisible friend, and therefore superior to whatever anybody else's invisible friend cooked up.

That's why. And democracy in general and capitalism especially *are* under discussion. See Richard Wolff "Capitalism hits the fan". A discussion in which no one blows up other people. Other than, say, in Religion.

[asf4321]

@TomFynn

you have no idea what religion is... but more importantly you have no idea what the point of religion is..

blows up other people? i dont get it man

if you're referring to islamic fundamentalists then i'll counter that with the fact that there is all kinds of extremism around the world..are these people true followers of their faith? don't think so

and you cannot have a valid argument if you want to throw ALL religions into a basket labeled "bloodthirsty people killers" lol thats silly

[TomFynn]

@asf4321 Religion is to claim that there is an invisible, ineffable, all-powerful being that made us and gave us rules by which we must live. So when you act in the name of Religion you are in fact following orders. Which is the point of Religion. It isn't about Good or Bad. It's about obedience.

And till you can tell me what inherent mechanism there is in Religion itself that will keep people from blowing up other people in the name of God, I will lump all Religion in the basket "Dangerous".

[asf4321]

@TomFynn

no that is not what religion is. if you at least took university level courses on religion (by the way not theology), you would know that. point is that there is so many "religions" and types of "religion" that it is in fact very hard to define the term. and yes if you are going to have that dogmatic view solely coming from western christian perspective, you cannot have an objective world view or a reasonable debate here. you are simply off-mark.

[TomFynn]

@asf4321 Since no one knows what religion is, I simply define it as best as I can from my westerly perspective, until someone - perhaps from an university (not theology) - proves to me objectively otherwise. I find that spot on the mark of what a reasonable discussion is.

[asf4321]

@TomFynn

i personally i would never claim that what i am saying is right or reasonable if i did not look at the issue objectively. it's like saying "you know...i'm a carpenter, and i came here to talk to you guys about rocket science. im not a rocket scientist, but i'll try my best from a carpenter perspective. and i'll hold onto my narrow beliefs strongly until a rocket scientist comes and PROVES me otherwise".so..i really dont know why u engage in this discussion at all.

[TomFynn]

@asf4321

We’re talking religion here, not rocket science.

In religion – in sharp contrast to rocket science - everybody knows exactly as much as everybody else.

Which is exactly nothing.

So everybody is as entitled to state their point of view as everybody else.

Which is what I'm doing.

[asf4321]

@TomFynn

no one seems to be discussing the flaws of those ideals as vigorously

[V45Rider]

@asf4321 Don't you think they are a bit too busy being MURDERED to want to appreciate a fucking ceiling in a church? How are dead people supposed to improve themselves? Do you religious people hear the garbage that you're saying? Go to hell, you god fearing fucks!

[asf4321]

@V45Rider

and personally i've never seen anyone murdered at the doorstep of my church lol...ever. so we usually really enjoy "looking at the ceilings"...w.e the fuck it is that you're referring to.

[TheFoemp]

Something completely unrelated... Does Spivey remind one of Ross Geller (Friends)?

[Megmanitee]

So she is basically saying that religious people should be moderate in their beliefs. Why not just keep the good parts of religion (kindness, love, responsibility, moral etc.) and accept it as human traits (which they MUST be if we are capable of showing them no matter what the influence)? She's basically proposing a world where religion was an interesting boost in certain morals, but our knowledge and reason has let us evolve above and beyond them. Which side is she on again?

[FLUSEM666]

I really do like this Julia Neuberger. Moderates, believers and none believers banding together to defend against the extremists.

[111E982a]

The last ques! OWNAGE!

and what bullshit is he talking about? just because of the art and beauty religion bring, we MUST NOT banish it? WTF? So he's saying that the killings are all ok because of the art...

that ques was good, should all this killings be allowed to continue just because for the religious artpieces? the ques may be rhetorical, but IT'S A FACT..

[LeatherCladVegan]

I feel a bit bad for Pivey (sp?); the question posed to him was a nasty rhetorical one, phrased solely to make him sound callous, which he clearly is not. He looked pretty hurt by that :(

Maybe he doesn't really belong up there - no doubt he's a very smart guy, but he doesn't seem like the type of brainless religious fanatic who can go round for round in an arena like this.

[deepenhancer]

Battle of words. Just amazing and brilliant.

[oliverwright19]

How dare this rabbi say that we (I am a young person by the way) will not have anything concrete 'enough' to be sensitive, tolerant, democratic and moderate in future societies. I for instance believe in the equality of women, being gentle, kind to animals, that slavery is unacceptable, all things that come about thanks to a consensus of reasoning, of sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy, not religion.

[faustus999]

all religions are man-made we create god in our image why oh why cant people see this. morons

[HumaninSeoul]

She attempted to refute Hitch's idea that to be religious one has to believe in a god?

Are there religious people who do not believe in a god or supernatural being?

[igniteice]

Do you need religion to create a great fantasy painting? No. Do you need religion to kill people in the name of that religion/faith? Yes.

[jonsen82]

He never said "millions slaughtered every day" Nigel Spivey, pay attention. Or did that too fall into the "Cease to Excist Once Ignored"?

[bfoaliali]

Hitchens scared me... HOW DARE YOU.... Anyways, someone should REALLY WAKE UP NIGEL. 

[areyouquitemad]

The irony of the questioner to say that he doens't follow at 800+ psalms, but that in 'his book' (read: his opinion) his faith is about 3 things?! I think its a question of do you believe a supernatural person wrote your book or not, and if you think so, then are you claiming that he made mistakes to which you will edit his work?! If a god wrote a book and you bellieve in it, you HAVE to follow it all, otherwise you're saying "he's wrong, i'm right"!!

[mpawlak10]

That Spivey guy sounds like Alan rickman

[ForYeensSake]

Nigel reacts so calmly and wise to such a (funny nonetheless) rude question. Theists or not, can't we all agree that he has some valid points ?

[niginit]

The panel against the motion are all slithering actors, playing on emotions, ignorance and evoking drama to win over lesser minds. It's like they've watched movies like 'The Davinci Code' a few too many times and figure ''Eureka! I've got it, I just have to act SUPER serious and dramatic and people will believe anything I say!"

Disgusting line of work, lying to people to keep their minds in the doldrums.

[davidmichael3d]

It's curious that religion has given us so many great things, and yet has not bestowed on even its most intelligent defenders the ability to give even one mildly convincing argument in its defence.

[hopokuk]

A threesome called Frederick, Gavin and Sue who exist outside of space and time created the entire the universe and provide us with meaning and purpose.

[Vidar1979]

Nigel Spivey is the most tolerable theist I have seen lately. While possibly overly sedated.

[Kn0wnIssues]

"Yes, I have a question, but I need to set it up with 10 minutes of exposition and preaching."

[5147848amp]

Neuberger, at 3:15, is a bumface. Here's hoping that the next generation can shed limiting beliefs!

That's not to say they shouldn't have a spiritual character; just that they drop the religious baggage..

[zanzibartraveler09]

2:06 is an epic win

[zanzibartraveler09]

ha...I dont practice all 613, I draw the line and practice the ones that I do...well so do I, so I guess I am a line-drawing jew, christian, muslim, hindu, and so many others. failure of an "argument"

[bigjo66]

@zanzibartraveler09 What he's really saying is that he applies the laws that he believes in and ignores the ones he doesn't, essentially no different than just living by secular standards.

[Ilikenuman]

my god... these guys keep owning themselves. theyre all moderate.. they all KNOW theyre religions cause shit. theyre all saying "well i only beleve it a little bit" and spivey is not even trying anymore. he didnt answer the question.

I think the last guy was good though

[artyfarty2]

It's a shame the atheist panel didn't get to answer the question:

"what are our children going to believe?"

My answer would be:

"I would hope they would believe what they have good reason and evidence for and not believe that which they don't have good reason and evidence for"

[artyfarty2]

I actually quite like Nigel Spivey. He seems like a really nice and intelligent guy despite his moral and intellectual apathy.

[artyfarty2]

Despite all of here other nonsense I have to agree with her on the issue of faith schools.

[OohLiverShot]

nigel spivey is captain scarlet.

[queenastilon]

The rabbi is completely wrong to say she is better qualified to define what being religious means than Hitchens, exactly because she is religious she is not impartial; definitions are a matter of intellectual investigation. She does however neatly demonstrate the arrogance of the religious: "I know things that you don't"

Hitchens is the bee's knees responding to the line drawer who picks & chooses

[queenastilon]

Mollkatles, no. I'm saying what I'm saying, not what you're saying.

Let me try again: anyone having religious faith, i.e. believing things for irrational reasons, is less able to be impartial

Furthermore, their judgement is clouded by devotion to, & the desire to ingratiate themselves with their god (& with fellow believers). Anyone inside a cult is less qualified to judge what constitutes a cult

Hitchens is not uniquely qualified just

more qualified than any religious person

[LordCustard]

@queenastilon: Another thing on defining religion- the word is in the motion. If that's how the proposers of the motion are defining religion, then that's what's being debated. I'm sure if Julia said that she DIDN'T believe in the supernatural or have a dogma, then they'd have no problem with her at all.

[babuwhite2010]

@queenastilon While I gravitate to the table on the left, I disagree with your point that impartiality is a prerequisite for definition. Indeed, Hitchens is an Anti-Theist. Does that not make him impartial also? Furthermore, definitions are not always a matter of intellectual investigation. Especially not self-definition. Am I not free to define myself as Star Wars fan, without the participation of an impartial secondary person to confirm (or rebuke) this?

[queenastilon]

@babuwhite2010 Self definition is not at all the same thing as defining commonly used terms.

I don't think being an anti-theist makes one less impartial. It's been proven that the ones reading articles & reviews on new cars consist mostly of those who've just bought one, more than any other group. They are seeking validation for their choice. Someone who doesn't use cars, as a matter of principle, would be a more impartial judge.

[babuwhite2010]

@queenastilon Defining ‘commonly used terms’ IS analogous to the process of self-definition, as both are subject to a number of variables, preventing a truly ‘common’ definition from ever emerging. Take another term e.g. ‘sports fan’. Now, finding a minimum core meaning is easy. Indeed, it doesn’t require an ‘intellectual investigation’ at all. However, the moment you decide to engage in such an investigation, then that minimum core meaning is likely to be breached, seeming less ‘common’.

[babuwhite2010]

@queenastilon Also, your car analogy is a dubious one. If religion is a car, then Hitchens is by no means a non-driver. He drove them in his youth – didn’t care for them much, doubting whether they really did get him or anyone from A to B. As he grew older, he learned more about them, studied them, growing to question cars – to detest them. Of course, he no longer drives a car, but he still has a strong opinion about them. Hardly impartial.

[queenastilon]

@babuwhite2010 You are splitting hairs re definitions. I'm sure you know what I meant.

"Also, your car analogy is a dubious one" Car analogy?? You have me confused with someone else. Your statements about Hitchens are false; he was never religious so your conclusions on that are invalid.

I didn't say prerequisite; it makes one more qualified, not less so. Spectators see more of the game. The rabbi may be better placed to define what it is to be Jewish, but not to be religious in general.

[babuwhite2010]

@queenastilon Where did I say that Hitchens was religious!?! My point - that 'he drove them in his youth' - was to demonstrate how he ENCOUNTERED religion early in life, but was not impressed (hence my 'didn't care for them much' bit). So, to reiterate, I didn't say Hitchens was religious - quite the opposite! I agree, to some extent, that 'spectators see more of the game'. However, is Hitchens, as a self-proclaimed ANTI-theist, a mere spectator, completely removed of bias?

[babuwhite2010]

@queenastilon Indeed, isn't proclaiming oneself an 'ANTI-theist' a indicator of one's 'impartiality' in the matter?

[queenastilon]

@babuwhite2010 It may be to some extent but at least it's still more impartial than someone who insists that irrational beliefs be respected.

If small children fight about what colour the Easter Bunny is, and Easter Bunny Fur Colour-ism becomes a major cause of conflict, assault, bullying, etc., at their school, I'm impartial because I don't believe it's real at all while also Anti-Bunniest because of the misery it causes.

[babuwhite2010]

@queenastilon 

[babuwhite2010]

@queenastilon Finally, I reiterate my disagreement with your initial point (that impartiality is a prerequisite for definition). To use your car analogy again, the non-driver may well be impartial, but so what? You still, as Hitchens would say, “have all your work ahead of you”.

[bonesstorage]

@queenastilon RE:"

The rabbi is completely wrong to say she is better qualified to define what being religious means than Hitchens, exactly because she is religious she is not impartial; definitions are a matter of intellectual investigation. She does however neatly demonstrate the arrogance of the religious: "I know things that you don't"

Hitchens is the bee's knees responding to the line drawer who picks & chooses

"

This argument can be argued in the reverse quite easily.

(run out of chara

[queenastilon]

@bonesstorage No, the argument really can't be used in reverse.

If you share a house with an alcoholic who vomits on the couch & sleeps 'till noon, and a heroine addict who drops needles & crap everywhere, they claim rights, accuse each other & will do/say anything however immoral or dishonest to keep their addictions, feeling they cannot function otherwise. Only the non addicted one can clearly see the harm they do themselves & the nuisance and harm they inflict on the world around them.

[bonesstorage]

@queenastilon

So what you're saying is:

The alcohilic who is the quantum physicist and heroin addict who is the particle physicist argues whilst the priest looks on in dissmay.

QED

[queenastilon]

@bonesstorage OMG, there's a priest there as well??

Ok, so I'm sharing a house with THREE self-deluding addicts who display aberrant behaviour. I'm the clean atheist who tries to make them see reason.

[bonesstorage]

@queenastilon

'*sigh*'

The priest is the athesist in reverse. So there's three now? Typical. Can't win and too proud to admit defeat defeat so move the goalposts.

There are always two sides to every question.

[asf4321]

@queenastilon

and spivvey BECAUSE hes an ATHEIST he is impartial?? of course he is not impartial ... he is PARTIAL to atheism.

what a foolish way of thinking with a binary mind. "i have this view, therefore your view is clearly wrong" by same virtue "because i DOUBT i have an open mind, and you, because you DON't DOUBT you are not open minded" .. that is stupid and ignorant and i dont know why 65 liked this hypocritical comment

[duralaster]

@queenastilon You're saying people of faith can't have a say?

[stravos11]

@queenastilon so by the same logic I take it that a physicist would be Completely Wrong to say to a priest that he's better qualified to define Quantum Physics ? ...since after all "he knows things that the priest does not" and exactly because he is a scientist he's not impartial..

[HoneyIEducatedTheWeb]

@stravos11

Uh. You missed the point slightly.

Hitchens probably knows more about religion than her. He might not. What we can both say is that one probably does not know WAY more than the other. However, I certainly think Hitchens is FAR more intelligent.

Now, you have made a mistake. The priest could have studied quantum physics, but just not want to become one. THAT is the correct analogy.

[nemirn]

This guy is a grade A, ingenuous asshole.

Granted, the question was a cheap shot, but reiterating his flawed ideas doesn't impress me.

[villeppi]

Spivey spews bullshit. Being without religion definitely isn't physically and psychologically impossible. What a retarded thing to say. And nobody's saying getting rid of religion would make ALL conflicts and problems disappear. Only the ones CAUSED BY RELIGIOn would be gone.

[queenastilon]

Some would be gone, others would become a great deal less severe without religion used to aggravate the situations.

[queenastilon]

mollkatles, re the standard Soviet and Chinese arguments:

1. No, they are NOT the worst crimes in human history; start with the great flood and go on from there;

2. don't need to reconcile it, but in Russia the population was already conditioned to see the Tsar as divine, their religious devotion was transferred to Lenin & Stalin

Most important, none of it was done in the name of atheism but to keep certain people in power. Atheists can be evil too, just as religious people CAN be good!

[8thArmada]

@villeppi very well said. i completely agree.

[ForYeensSake]

@villeppi I'm afraid religion could well be a cloak. I'm not afraid religion will disappear nor do I encourage it (I frankly don't care, I'd just like people to become conscious and whether that is with or without religion is up to them) but really ? Do you really believe that alot of problems "in the name of god" are honestly in the name of god ? And not just because of the feeling of power and control it gives ?

[villeppi]

@ForYeensSake You don't care whether people are religious or not but you'd like people to become more conscious? Eh, what? Religion is one of the greatest enemies of consciousness. I'd like people to become conscious too, and that's why I'd like to see religion loosen its grip on peoples minds.

[ForYeensSake]

@villeppi No, Only when indoctrinated people become less conscious. Religion does not exclude consciousness. I know several people who are religious yet act conscious. The biggest enemy of consciousness are the people themselves. Most of them don't want to act fully aware and stuff. (Again religion =/= indoctrination).

[villeppi]

@ForYeensSake "I know several people who are religious yet act conscious."

Act conscious? It's not a black and white thing. It's not like "you are conscious or not conscious". There are different levels of consciousness. On avarage, non-religious people are more conscious than religious people. There are non-religious people who are less conscious than the most conscious religious people but religion pretty much always hinders people from being as conscious as they potentially could be,

[ForYeensSake]

@villeppi You're proly right.The fact that the overwhelming majority of religious people don't act conscious because they don't want to proves your point. It looks like religion is stopping consciousness in almost all cases,therefor I admit that for the world to be conscious we're better off without religion. However I do wonder what happens first : People dropping their religion or becoming conscious. Also the gradations of consciousness reflect the % of conscious actions. Right?