I'm an atheist and I love this guy's demolition of warmongers and nationalists on all sides. I'm disgusted by the militarism of Hitchens and Harris who back the war on terror and justify killing Arabs in the name of atheism. They don't speak for me. I prefer the antiwar tradition of atheists like Russell and Sagan whom Hedges references in his work. The new atheists have nothing to teach the old atheists. They're a lot of bloodthirsty jingoists with the exception of Dawkins.
Religion is pointless. Mainline Protestantism, the system that produced Hedges, has been a joke for over 30 years. It's now down to barely 12% of the US population with barely 3% of those under 30 members. The fastest growing segment of the US population, especially among young people, is "None of the Above". What the hell were his people doing for the Fungiegelicals while his own church was shrinking away to nothing? Nothing. They were complacent and self-absorbed. They deserve this.
Neither the Christian Right or the militant Atheists give a fuck about their common man. IMO, they're two sides of the same coin. The right uses their moral superiority to hold back intellectual advancement while the atheists hide in Ivory Towers and can't be bothered to care about "mundanes". The average 9 to 5, everyday Joe is the common enemy on both sides. The Western world has been hijacked by these hoaxsters, and we're paying the price. Who gives a flying fuck about whose "right".
You Christians and other religious fantacy worshippers had better hope that us atheists are right. Because if Jesus ever did come back he'd strike all you fundementalists down for what you've done in his name!
"You Christians and other religious fantacy worshippers had better hope that us atheists are right. Because if Jesus ever did come back he'd strike all you fundementalists down for what you've done in his name! "
It doesn't matter how we got here, where we're going, or if anyone created us or not. All that matters is we're here, and we as humans will help other humans so we can achieve our own goals, not some god's. There's no need for a god or goddess or flying spagetti monster to tell us what to do, we do what we do 'cuz we do it, and that's just the way it is.
help me with the irony of christians and their end of the world is coming mantra. are they actually wishing or praying for america and the world to end?
uh yeah, i've been excommunicated pretty much. and of course they blame me for it. see how that works? unfortunately for them, i'm not going to blame me.
if its despair then why isn't the black and hispanic community from the inner citys not waging jihad and adopting insane ideologies. Generation after generation of crime drugs poverty and hopelessness. I know a few people who their whole family is either in jail, dead, or addicted. They have little hope for a good job or getting out of their situation but they dont turn into insane suicide murderers. This theory is completely wrong.
There is no empirical evidence proving or disproving God so I have no opinion on God's existence either way based on factual findings. However I believe in God for moral reasons, simply put.
It doesn't either way. What people don't seem to realize is that whether or not you believe in life after death, an outcome will occur. You may go nowhere or you may go somewhere. Although what is there left to you when you die? Your brain contains your ability to perceive, reason, feel emotions and be aware. The body clearly dies and deteriorates over time, the awareness dies. What exactly would go somewhere?
If god is omnibenevolent then why do we live in a morally imperfect world. God creates man in his image, but man chooses to sin. God is a creature of volition and so humans are too. But can god choose to sin, or is he restrained by a parameter of goodness? Humans aren't thus restrained. If god does something brutal is it good? Or does morality supercede god? So why are we morally imperfect? How does a perfect god indirectly create imperfection? Seems paradoxical & flawed.
Smart man. I have to say that he's nearly completely in line with my own views on religion. As a revolutionary Communist, I disagree with the RCP's view, much in line with Chris' arguements.
Science will never explain everything, and until it can, religion will fill the void of unanswerable questions. Rather than declaim it as classistic (disproven, by the way, by its predation of classes), we should be seeking to turn it in to, as Chris calls it, a positive force over a reactionary one.
That's all fine and good until your positive force of religion turns into a reactionary force standing in the way of science...and we see examples of that every single day.
Spiritual belief is a neutral agent of society and a natural tendency of humanity that can never be fully extinguished. If we are to take a class-based historical analysis, we will understand that religious beliefs predated class division. Classes manipulated religion - they did not create it. And if no class created it, no class can demolish it. All a revolutionary working class can do is liberate it from the fetters of class misuse.
By neutral, I mean it is inherently in favor of no class. It is only after a class finds a strategic value in manipulating it that it takes a side. In a post-class world, religion will cease to be a protheletyzing, organized force, for it will have no master to build it up to such heights.
And my apologies if the class discussion escapes beyond the scope of your response. It is, however, an integral part of understanding religion's past, present and role throughout history.
True, but that wasn't the topic of discussion. You said religion should be used as the positive force to "fill the void" of the unknown that science can't yet explain. I merely responded that it's fine for religion to do that as long as it doesn't cross the line and get in the way of science. And it does on a near constant basis. I fail to see how this particular discussion this particular topic has any relation to religion being related the class distinction.
I never suggested anything should be used for anything, but merely that if it is going to be used, it should be used constructively and progressively, complimenting scientific advancement rather than hindering it. At least this is what I meant.
As I said, that view of religion and its purpose is fine. But that's not the religion and purpose practiced by the masses. It's an ideological view of religion's purpose which is very rarely exhibited by theists today. If religion complimented science, I don't think anybody would have a problem. But there are obvious huge disagreements between religion and science that disallow religion from truly complimenting science and vice versa. These disagreements then stand in the way of science daily.
So, because religion is being used in a way that obstructs science, it must be struggled against? Hmm, perhaps that's why I clarified the role of class in manipulating religion... Because the problem is not and has never been religion, which is merely a tool of a deeper source. The real problem is class division (and in its current inception, that's called Capitalism.) If you want to end religion's clash with science, your criticisms should have nothing to do with religion.
It is ironically an unscientific proposal (from the point of view of sociology and anthopology) to suggest that human society will ever "do away with all gods." Humanity will always (until some revelation brought on by the advent of a unified theory of everything) seek to explain that which cannot be explained by searching for a creator. This is the reality of our species. Flawed though you may see it, immutable it most assuredly is.
last time i checked it was my sociology teacher that got her phd that said 'once you get a phd they tell you not try to discover anything else, everything is already discovered'. then there is what i read recently that cern was able to move mass faster than the speed of light, and everyone in the 'scientific community' not religious is fighting it.
Firstly, sociology is the study of society, and really has no relevance to physics. As per CERN labs moving mass faster than light speed, they have stated themselves that they have not yet confirmed this. Due to the scientific method, they aren't going to jump to conclusions without being certain that they actually did move neutrinos faster than light. In addition, there is no law of science that states that matter cannot move faster than light, merely a theory. (character limit)
firstly, what sociology is is irrelevant to what i said. that being that when she got her phd they told her 'not try to discover anything else, everything is already discovered'. something she said that all people with phd hear. no one said it had to be relevant to physics.
as for the cern bit, they tested it 1500 times with the same result, then they sent it to the us to verify. my bio teacher talked about this. i dont need you to tell me any of this.
name a law of science then? all i see are 'theories. gravity, e=mc^2, etc.
'Science offers room to be corrected, religion offers burning people who disagree, and I mean that both literally and figuratively'
- so science offers infinite continues, infinite chances to say 'sorry, we had you believing this for 10-100s of years demonizing anyone who didnt take it as absolute, but we where wrong, too bad'. religion tells you whats going to happen and u can choose freely
Due to character restrictions I was unable to finish my thought. The theory of special relativity is just that, a theory. It is widely accepted, however has never been proven, ergo is subject to change. The latter part of Einstein's life he called his 'cosmological constant' his biggest blunder, and spent his time trying to disprove himself. Science offers room to be corrected, religion offers burning people who disagree, and I mean that both literally and figuratively.
Religion fills nothing. Science explains natural events through testing, facts, hypothesis, and developing theories. Religion takes something that has yet to be determined by science and just says, "God did it!". This explanation fill nothing. Religion delves into the supernatural so obviously science cannot test supernatural being as science explains natural things. By the way, there is nothing supernatural!!!
Science can explain how the world is, but it has almost nothing to say on how the world should be. This is the domain of religion, philosophy, and the humanities
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm an atheist and I love this guy's demolition of warmongers and nationalists on all sides. I'm disgusted by the militarism of Hitchens and Harris who back the war on terror and justify killing Arabs in the name of atheism. They don't speak for me. I prefer the antiwar tradition of atheists like Russell and Sagan whom Hedges references in his work. The new atheists have nothing to teach the old atheists. They're a lot of bloodthirsty jingoists with the exception of Dawkins.
TenuredPhysicist 1 month ago
Comment removed
TenuredPhysicist 1 month ago
Religion is pointless. Mainline Protestantism, the system that produced Hedges, has been a joke for over 30 years. It's now down to barely 12% of the US population with barely 3% of those under 30 members. The fastest growing segment of the US population, especially among young people, is "None of the Above". What the hell were his people doing for the Fungiegelicals while his own church was shrinking away to nothing? Nothing. They were complacent and self-absorbed. They deserve this.
NixonisLord 4 months ago
Neither the Christian Right or the militant Atheists give a fuck about their common man. IMO, they're two sides of the same coin. The right uses their moral superiority to hold back intellectual advancement while the atheists hide in Ivory Towers and can't be bothered to care about "mundanes". The average 9 to 5, everyday Joe is the common enemy on both sides. The Western world has been hijacked by these hoaxsters, and we're paying the price. Who gives a flying fuck about whose "right".
EcologicalFighter 7 months ago
You Christians and other religious fantacy worshippers had better hope that us atheists are right. Because if Jesus ever did come back he'd strike all you fundementalists down for what you've done in his name!
somethingdiffereable 1 year ago
@somethingdiffereable
"You Christians and other religious fantacy worshippers had better hope that us atheists are right. Because if Jesus ever did come back he'd strike all you fundementalists down for what you've done in his name! "
one in a million that gets it.
niinja2 8 months ago
It doesn't matter how we got here, where we're going, or if anyone created us or not. All that matters is we're here, and we as humans will help other humans so we can achieve our own goals, not some god's. There's no need for a god or goddess or flying spagetti monster to tell us what to do, we do what we do 'cuz we do it, and that's just the way it is.
Spreading the truth,
MarshmallowRadiation.
MarshmallowRadiation 1 year ago
great lecture, odd title for his book.
help me with the irony of christians and their end of the world is coming mantra. are they actually wishing or praying for america and the world to end?
uh yeah, i've been excommunicated pretty much. and of course they blame me for it. see how that works? unfortunately for them, i'm not going to blame me.
tomitstube 1 year ago
where are those video he mentioned aat the start... I'd like to see those? anyone find em?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
if its despair then why isn't the black and hispanic community from the inner citys not waging jihad and adopting insane ideologies. Generation after generation of crime drugs poverty and hopelessness. I know a few people who their whole family is either in jail, dead, or addicted. They have little hope for a good job or getting out of their situation but they dont turn into insane suicide murderers. This theory is completely wrong.
sakdiesel86 1 year ago
There is no empirical evidence proving or disproving God so I have no opinion on God's existence either way based on factual findings. However I believe in God for moral reasons, simply put.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
the highest power in the world is not God, nor love; it is logic.
simsoy55 1 year ago
Chris Hedges, you are a breath of fresh air!
cakemix2 2 years ago 7
fine author
generalzeedot 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its a Big Sign
If you want to know if god exist or not I give you the answer
You will not believe what I discovered, I advice all to read about this religion Called
( ISLAM) it will surprise you and you will be passion of it
You can search for the Islam thru internet or reading some books
You will lose nothing
If you want to know meaning of Happiness read about this religion
To understand what I am trying to say Do search for person called
yusuf estes by youtube
samosclerosis 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a respectful, less confrontational look at Atheism and Christianity, check out "The God Debate" on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Great journalist.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
The bible doesn't teach you how to be a moral person, it teaches you how to be obedient.
Jesus died for your sins...so all you have to do is believe in God.
Sshelly34213 2 years ago
The idea that we can be absolved of our responsibilities...that we can have another person pay for our crimes, is absurd.
Atheistjeremy 2 years ago
I replyed to the wrong person. Opps.
4me2cclearly 2 years ago
So you say. But, what if you are wrong?
What if there is no God? How would that change things?
I do not need forgiveness from a sadistic, imaginary God. Thanks but no thanks.
4me2cclearly 2 years ago
It doesn't either way. What people don't seem to realize is that whether or not you believe in life after death, an outcome will occur. You may go nowhere or you may go somewhere. Although what is there left to you when you die? Your brain contains your ability to perceive, reason, feel emotions and be aware. The body clearly dies and deteriorates over time, the awareness dies. What exactly would go somewhere?
Sshelly34213 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@}-,-`-
Click on my name for the U R L to see how I **WON** the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
@}-,-`-
felixmab 3 years ago
If god is omnibenevolent then why do we live in a morally imperfect world. God creates man in his image, but man chooses to sin. God is a creature of volition and so humans are too. But can god choose to sin, or is he restrained by a parameter of goodness? Humans aren't thus restrained. If god does something brutal is it good? Or does morality supercede god? So why are we morally imperfect? How does a perfect god indirectly create imperfection? Seems paradoxical & flawed.
reasonableHUMAN 3 years ago
I didn't believe in shit-heads until I saw this video.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
Just out of curiosity why is he a shit-head?
shallbeagain 3 years ago
To my shame, I hadn't watched the video when I made that knee-jerk comment. I retract the statement.
iconoclastic23 3 years ago
God is the force
that created Universe!
Anticrist is the Mirror reflection of Crist!
GiveUpJesus 3 years ago
Your God, Christ and Anti-Christ are make believe. You're suffering a delusion.
Atheistjeremy 2 years ago
Religion, like the means of production, should be expropriated from the hands of the Bourgeoisie in to the hands of the working class.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Smart man. I have to say that he's nearly completely in line with my own views on religion. As a revolutionary Communist, I disagree with the RCP's view, much in line with Chris' arguements.
Science will never explain everything, and until it can, religion will fill the void of unanswerable questions. Rather than declaim it as classistic (disproven, by the way, by its predation of classes), we should be seeking to turn it in to, as Chris calls it, a positive force over a reactionary one.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
That's all fine and good until your positive force of religion turns into a reactionary force standing in the way of science...and we see examples of that every single day.
longwayhome617 3 years ago 2
Spiritual belief is a neutral agent of society and a natural tendency of humanity that can never be fully extinguished. If we are to take a class-based historical analysis, we will understand that religious beliefs predated class division. Classes manipulated religion - they did not create it. And if no class created it, no class can demolish it. All a revolutionary working class can do is liberate it from the fetters of class misuse.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
What do you mean by neutral? And when did the discussion become about class division? I didn't respond to your first comment about the working class.
longwayhome617 3 years ago
By neutral, I mean it is inherently in favor of no class. It is only after a class finds a strategic value in manipulating it that it takes a side. In a post-class world, religion will cease to be a protheletyzing, organized force, for it will have no master to build it up to such heights.
And my apologies if the class discussion escapes beyond the scope of your response. It is, however, an integral part of understanding religion's past, present and role throughout history.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
True, but that wasn't the topic of discussion. You said religion should be used as the positive force to "fill the void" of the unknown that science can't yet explain. I merely responded that it's fine for religion to do that as long as it doesn't cross the line and get in the way of science. And it does on a near constant basis. I fail to see how this particular discussion this particular topic has any relation to religion being related the class distinction.
longwayhome617 3 years ago
I never suggested anything should be used for anything, but merely that if it is going to be used, it should be used constructively and progressively, complimenting scientific advancement rather than hindering it. At least this is what I meant.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
As I said, that view of religion and its purpose is fine. But that's not the religion and purpose practiced by the masses. It's an ideological view of religion's purpose which is very rarely exhibited by theists today. If religion complimented science, I don't think anybody would have a problem. But there are obvious huge disagreements between religion and science that disallow religion from truly complimenting science and vice versa. These disagreements then stand in the way of science daily.
longwayhome617 3 years ago
So, because religion is being used in a way that obstructs science, it must be struggled against? Hmm, perhaps that's why I clarified the role of class in manipulating religion... Because the problem is not and has never been religion, which is merely a tool of a deeper source. The real problem is class division (and in its current inception, that's called Capitalism.) If you want to end religion's clash with science, your criticisms should have nothing to do with religion.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
When you want to weed the garden, you don't stop where the ground begins; you go to the roots - the root cause of the problem's existance.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
It is ironically an unscientific proposal (from the point of view of sociology and anthopology) to suggest that human society will ever "do away with all gods." Humanity will always (until some revelation brought on by the advent of a unified theory of everything) seek to explain that which cannot be explained by searching for a creator. This is the reality of our species. Flawed though you may see it, immutable it most assuredly is.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
@longwayhome617
stand in the way of science? how?
last time i checked it was my sociology teacher that got her phd that said 'once you get a phd they tell you not try to discover anything else, everything is already discovered'. then there is what i read recently that cern was able to move mass faster than the speed of light, and everyone in the 'scientific community' not religious is fighting it.
so how is religion to blame
TENNSUMITSUMA 5 months ago
@TENNSUMITSUMA
Firstly, sociology is the study of society, and really has no relevance to physics. As per CERN labs moving mass faster than light speed, they have stated themselves that they have not yet confirmed this. Due to the scientific method, they aren't going to jump to conclusions without being certain that they actually did move neutrinos faster than light. In addition, there is no law of science that states that matter cannot move faster than light, merely a theory. (character limit)
shrimpcracker888 4 months ago
@shrimpcracker888
firstly, what sociology is is irrelevant to what i said. that being that when she got her phd they told her 'not try to discover anything else, everything is already discovered'. something she said that all people with phd hear. no one said it had to be relevant to physics.
as for the cern bit, they tested it 1500 times with the same result, then they sent it to the us to verify. my bio teacher talked about this. i dont need you to tell me any of this.
TENNSUMITSUMA 4 months ago
@shrimpcracker888
(cont)
name a law of science then? all i see are 'theories. gravity, e=mc^2, etc.
'Science offers room to be corrected, religion offers burning people who disagree, and I mean that both literally and figuratively'
- so science offers infinite continues, infinite chances to say 'sorry, we had you believing this for 10-100s of years demonizing anyone who didnt take it as absolute, but we where wrong, too bad'. religion tells you whats going to happen and u can choose freely
TENNSUMITSUMA 4 months ago
@TENNSUMITSUMA
Due to character restrictions I was unable to finish my thought. The theory of special relativity is just that, a theory. It is widely accepted, however has never been proven, ergo is subject to change. The latter part of Einstein's life he called his 'cosmological constant' his biggest blunder, and spent his time trying to disprove himself. Science offers room to be corrected, religion offers burning people who disagree, and I mean that both literally and figuratively.
shrimpcracker888 4 months ago
Religion fills nothing. Science explains natural events through testing, facts, hypothesis, and developing theories. Religion takes something that has yet to be determined by science and just says, "God did it!". This explanation fill nothing. Religion delves into the supernatural so obviously science cannot test supernatural being as science explains natural things. By the way, there is nothing supernatural!!!
TILLEYJS 3 years ago 7
@TILLEYJS IGNORANT FOOL YOU CANT PROVE NOTHING. SEE THE THUNDER THATS ZEUS GO AND PRAY TO ZEUS IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE TAKEN BY HADES.
(sarcasm) you telling the truth!
HUNAdamus94 11 months ago
@TILLEYJS
it is naive to think that religion is only a failed attempt at science
religion primarily deals with questions of purpose
if there is such a thing as supernatural and if we found a way to examine it, it will stop being supernatural and science will deal with it.
niinja2 8 months ago
@TILLEYJS
You abviously know nothing about religion.
WilhelmDrake 7 months ago
@TILLEYJS
Science can explain how the world is, but it has almost nothing to say on how the world should be. This is the domain of religion, philosophy, and the humanities
WilhelmDrake 7 months ago
@TILLEYJS Straw men are awesome, huh?
83169 4 months ago