"Theological ignorance and illiteracy" is a highly justified and respectable stance, given that theology is merely a self sustaining means of mental masturbation by privilieged, over fed, 'too much tie on their hands' westerners -- theology has ABSOLUTELY no value to the world. It is a non discipline, followed by people too much in love with the sound of their own idiocy. Terry whats'isface is a smug git.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
All very cool, but still dribble, try saying anything against Islam in Indonesia, when you get out of prison after 5 years or so, or your head is chopped of by the fanatical crowd maybe you will think a little differently.
For those who DO & DON’T believe in God, please read this prayer in love as a token of common goals.
Dear God, we call out to you, maybe for the 1st time or the billionth time, but today we ask for one thing, Truth. We trust that if You are there & capable that You would make Yourself known to all those who genuinely seek truth. The world we live in is full of lies & hate to the point where mankind has lost credibility. We ask you reveal Yourself to us in that we may know and understand. Amen!
@Inverita1 and big surprise that you got no answer. probably because you were praying to thin air, and the greatest lie in human history is the brainwashing propaganda campaign of the biggest load of horse shit ever, 'god'. have a nice day
@envirogrunt Who said I got no answer? The only propaganda here is the anti-religious pill you that have been swallowing. If you studied the words of Jesus you'd see the relevance and importance of it and conclude that you aren't nearly as smart as you think. Additionally, the only lie here is that you think you must think you are your own god and somehow can do what you want without consequenses. I bet you are a free thinker right? So examin the material for yourself.
@Inverita1 i AM a free thinker, have studied religion and have come to a resounding conclusion that it is complete b.s. Christianity was created by hijacking babylonian, semarian and egyptian texts dated thousands of years prior. there is absolutely no evidence to support creationism. you are the one who has taken the 'pill'. i dont need 'jesus' to tell me to be good, im good bc im a good person. if u need commandments then you are the one who needs help. free yourself from tyrannical fake gods
@envirogrunt Funny you said hijacking, because it is almost the exact opposit. I too have studied many religions.. The only claims that Chirstianity are copies are supported by the heavily disproven Zeitgeist promoters. Yet, there are some coorelations after the fact.. why? Because the Catholic church tried to pallatize the image of Christianity to appease pagan traditions. Jesus' teachings and philosophy are complete opposites from the other faiths and he rebukes the pagan practices constantly.
@envirogrunt Going to heaven/hell is not based on if you are good. Its based on a relationship with God. That is what He wants. Being good is displaying obedience to your role in that relationship, but isnt what saves anybody. You have to choose if you want to be with God or not.
God is peace, love, joy, and comfort.
Hell- absence of God- is fear, hate, sadness, and pain.
Negative things are pleasing to us here and now because we rely on God (intential or not) to suply its counter.
And I wonder... how can you SLAM someone outside their presence? Perhaps, because that someone is not there to respond to your "facts" or allegations. I find it quite absurd to even attempt to say such a thing.
@mixmastermeeks Surprised to know it's not that unique? The world is cyclical, and the popularity of some higher deity will come and go again. I do however feel that there is merit in saying that the crude logic applied by educated men is annoying.
@mixmastermeeks Atheism is very popular with babies and undoctrinated kids - they are all atheists until some arse-hole makes them kneel and worship before they are old enough to say 'no thanks'.
@mixmastermeeks Yes, undoctrinated children are atheists because the word is the correct one. It means they don't subscribe to a theology. Which is true and correct. Until an adult tells them what religion they are, they don't know. That's why on a world map you can colour in the religions by region. It's passed on parent to child. Nothing to do with which one of them is true.
Where reason ends faith begins ... what utter foolish semantical nonsense! This man makes no sense, playing fast and free with half-baked aborted concepts. Just a lot of gibberish that he enjoys rolling around in like a pig in shit. His presumptiveness is self-indulgence gone amuck.
@huwrj yeah, makes it kinda easy doesn't it... it's like shooting balls on an empty goal while bitching about how much the absent goalie sucks. hitch would've slapped the arrogance out of this clown.
You cannot attribute any positive action to a disbelief such as atheism, everybody that has murdered has done so and has also not believed in giant rape squirrels that weave baskets during full moons, we do not say that anybody has killed in the name of arapistbasketweavingsquirrelism although we all are in this "group". giving us a title for not believing in god is about as useful as giving us a billion other titles for our disbelief in fairies, dragons, unicorns, wizards, boogeymen, santa..etc
What a waffler and a twaffler. The higher than though speach pattern. Rambles and meanders. Does he actually SAY anything? What a dweeb. Stay in your adolecent fantasies buddy . . . it suites you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This might better be entitled "Eagleton bibbles about Christopher Hitchens while enjoying the slightly empty literary allusions he occasionally makes too much. For nearly seven minutes."
Look I'm an Atheist, but Hitchens was happy to blur the line between radical Islamism and Islam in general, because it served his purpose of turning popular opinion against religion. He didn't care if the civil liberties and personal safety of innocent muslims could be compromised by such conflation. He doesn't care about human abuse as long as his vision of how the world should be is advanced. Like a lot of religious zealots, in fact!
I do admit it's delightfully funny to see just about *anyone* call Rushdie an Islamaphobe, particularly this man-who is really in a better position to have a more experienced perspective on Islam as a whole? Eagleton or *Salman Rushdie*!
It's also entertaining how he asks the question, "So many of our usual guiding lights are thinking wrongly, why is that?" without apparently never asking if they ARE.
I noted he didn't actually name any theological ignorances, either.
@veronicaveil7 Jesus died twice and had 2 different shrouds? im sure theres been roughly 80 000 people at the same time that had shrouds over their faces how can u confirm its the one of a jewish male that was tortured, if its truly him there will be no imprint in existence, if its fake or someone else there will be a perfect imprint without including blood as you only get an imprint when entering the state of decomposing which the bible says he didnt. :)
The coup de d`état in Chile was in 1973, i haven`t read all the comments so if somebody else pointed that out......my bad, but on that note, my dear Mr Eagleton, you`re wrong.
Eagleton is a colossal cunt of fantastic proportions. Nothing more than an apologist for theocratic fascism and an epitome of the pseudo intellectual fatuity of the modern left.
I'm an atheist, and I find much of what Mr. Eagleton says here to be well worth thinking about. Especially his points about Hitchens and Islamophobia.
Oh, come off it, Eagleton. Enough of this "Oh, they're so crude! They just don't get the sophisticated finer points of theology" bollocks. I could offer you an eyebrow-raisingly nuanced exegesis of Jupiterism - far more subtle than anything you could ever come up with, frankly - and it would still remain a load of balls. Why can't you grasp this simple fact?
Terry Eagleton is a slightly deluded, mildly contradictory, and very mad Marxist literary critic (whatever the hell that means) who here is clearly falling down to his contradictory worldviews. Must read more Marx, Mr Eagleton.
@Strattonus If you didn’t take issue with my original comment (that Eagleton was being absurd for criticising Dawkins lack of theological grounding), then what an earth have we been debating? That I was undervaluing theology? That theology and rational enquiry both have origins in metaphysics, and therefore should be given similar levels of consideration?
@neonatalpenguin Once again, I don't wish to sound patronizing, but we're at something like a dozen posts in this exchange -- if it's still not clear to you what I'm arguing, then I confess this costs more patience than I can afford. Best wishes.
@Strattonus Fine. I tried my darnest to decipher your argument. It seemed like you changed tack an awful lot over those dozen or so comments. I probably gave you too much credit in assuming that you didn’t believe that hierology could be treated with the same reliability as rational enquiry. Metaphysics (as you seem to define it) & theology are leftovers from a less informed age. They are no more crucial to answering the question of whether a god exists than cave paintings or ancient folk tales.
@Strattonus Why is it a fallacy to say that every theology (or no theology at all) must be debated for consistency’s sake? I repeat the question; why should any one religion receive special consideration? To say “the god question is not subject to empirical testing” strikes me as a bit of nifty semantic figure skating, especially given what we’ve already discussed.
@Strattonus Eagleton criticised Dawkins for not including theology in TGD. If Eagleton is referring just to Christian hierology, why does he think his own religion deserves special consideration? At the very least, Dawkins would have to include hierology from other big world religions, just to stop Eagleton's Muslim, Hindu or Scientologist counterparts from feeling just as aggrieved. Besides, it has to be up to the believer to prove their outlandish stories, not the non-believer to disprove them
@neonatalpenguin So to repeat, you're saying that Dawkins would have to argue every individual theology for consistency and to safeguard himself from scholars of different faiths? Not only is it a fallacy to say that every theology must be debated if god is to be debated at all, but this strikes me as a red herring. When did I ever remark as to the consistency of TGD? When did I ever declare my sympathy with Eagleton, who has been excluded from this discussion until now?
@neonatalpenguin "Besides, it has to be up to the believer to prove their outlandish stories, not the non-believer to disprove them" This would be another red herring (or a non sequitur at best), since I've never said anything to the contrary. But I repeat, the god question is not subject to empirical testing. My central point, if you've forgotten, is that Dawkins not only lacks understanding needed to argue this effectively, but he scoffs at the relevant schools of thought.
Wonderful talk, humorous, well worth watching. And I'm pretty sure that Eagleton feels that the ways of western, secular liberalism are superior to the ways of religious fanatics. He is merely questioning the timing of this intellectual war on religion.
Much as I admire Terry Eagleton and am grateful for so much of his work, he shouldn't get wrong the date of the US's 9-11. It happened in 1973, not 1971.
This angry old man is jealous of The Hitch. Hitch has such an immense intellect that no one can keep up. He wields logic and reason like a môhel at a Bar Mitzvah. Hitchens is a god among men, a real god that you can talk to. Gotcha there religitards.
@Seigu007 Hitchens had more influence on mankind than Jesus the murderer or Muhammad the child rapist. Calm down superstitious child or ill tell your mommy to turn off the internet
Strange how you get these "sophisticated" critics. Funny how Hitchens debated anyone and constantly wanted and demanded to be challenged by the most sophisticated and the toughest arguments.
Strange how none of them made it to any debate. Or how no one has ever confronted ANYONE with a "sophisticated" argument. Honestly, the only time you ever see the word sophisticated used along side theology is in the absense of any atheists.
10,000 years have passed and there are no new arguments.
The "revival" of atheism isn't due to a "theological illiteracy and ignorance" but a greater understanding of our world and the universe through science.
@Cathain78 You might not have mentioned Christianity by name, but theology is a Christian convention. I’m perplexed by the idea that Dawkins is “a fraud” for omitting all types of religious hierology from The God Delusion. My point was; why does Christian hierology deserve special consideration?
Of course I realise that there have alays been non-superstitious people throughout history. But atheism is not a religion. It’s a lack thereof. All newborn babies are atheists, after all.
Eagleton is a self serving twit who wishes he had just a fraction of Dawkin's and Hitchen's pulling power, and hence their earning power. He's WELL JELL of those two!
Other twits include people who can't see that there is a difference between theology and other subjects. Theology benefits no-one but those academics making a living off the back of it. It's a house of cards which collapses once you reject the supernatural premise. Other subjects don't contain real, useful knowledge..
Eagleton doesn't even say if he believes in this idiocy himself; he simply thinks that Catholicism is a good training for thinking about social life. Why bother with Father O'Buttf*ck, though? Why should I waste my time, effort and money on something nobody can prove? Even Eagleton doesn't think religion makes you more moral. So why run twice as fast to get to the same place? Why pay attention to people in stupid outfits who claim to talk to someone nobody can see or hear?
Eagleton is an idiot. Yes, a culture that embraces free speech, democracy, gay rights, women's rights, children's rights, religious freedom, etc. is superior to a culture that does not. We should not be scared of saying that. Why do we inflate the egos of the theocrats by pretending that they represent the interests of subjugated peoples?
After about 5 minutes I'd hate to endure an entire lecture from this a vapid "talking head".
So in summary 1) Atheist cannot be called Theologians 2) Hitchens supported American interventionism 3) Atheists are liberal elitists 4) Atheists often talk about the problems of Islam.
From this he draws the following:
1. Atheists are Islamophobic
2. They are vaguely "political"
Where do the words "Literary Critic" come into play when describing this joke?
You obviously weren't paying attention to what Mr Eagleton actually said. He didn't say that "atheists cannot be called theologians", but that the new atheists are ignorant of theology and therefore of what they are attacking; he didn't say that "atheists are liberal elitists", but that some new atheist have elements of this liberal elitist attitude in their writings; and he didn't say that "atheists often talk about the problems of Islam", but that some atheists conflate Islamism with Islam.
You're completely right, I was paraphrasing him. I just don't find any of these summations convincing, he simply states what appears obvious to himself. About theology: I think being an Atheist prohibits the idea of being a theologian. Which is different than understanding theology and studying religion. I think the complaint is really that Atheists don't think like Theologians. Because then we'd be compelled to prove the bullshit by writing exponential volumes on minute points *Theology*
@fromwilliams Don't flatter yourself, my dear fellow, I don't care enough about you to become condescending towards you, or your views. I do, however, note that you failed entirely and exactly in regard to addressing my points made, and can only assume you concede said point(s). I guess, however, we'll have to differ on the opinion of Hitchens' excellence in debate. I think, at the risk of putting rather crudely, public sentiment is on my side of the house.
At one point, in referring to Hitchens and others like him who used to be identified as liberals but have become "conservative", Eagleton states: "Liberalism is valuable insofar as it can retain its values under pressure". Hitchens retained his liberal values (still mostly does) until the outrageous acts committed against the USA and its allies were minimized or even justified by leftist apologists such as Eagleton and Chomsky. Hitchens didn't give in to "pressure", he acknowledged reality...
The reason they use Islam as an example is because people will immediately take offense when you ring out their specific religion, and there are recent social memories about the troubles of fundamental Islam. If you critique all religion, that doesn't mean you're merely 'islamophobic'. There is plenty to be said for all religions causing trouble, aside from the issue of deluding and deceiving people out of tradition.
This man seems to be saying that he doesn't like that these guys are serious.
So Dawkins can’t claim “there almost certainly isn’t a God”, because he hasn’t read enough theology? That's like claiming you can’t prove Star Wars isn’t true because you haven’t read enough fan fiction.
@ I would have thought that Eagleton's point would have been understood even by a bigoted atheist zealot such as yourself. If Dawkins and Hitchens are going to attack religious belief then they have to have done their homework. In other words, I expect them to know what they are attacking, which they don't. What they attack is nothing more than a caricature of religion. This is why even serious atheists attacked "The God Delusion". You do know that Dawkins is making millions from your credulity?
@bayreuth79 Yes, Dawkins had a big payday. Sometimes the good guys win. But who are these “serious atheists”, and how do they differ from others who don’t feel the need to believe in a god? The God Delusion says ‘there almost certainly is no god’, because there isn’t ‘a scrap of evidence’ to suggest so. Presumably you’d prefer it if Dawkins had spent decades gaining theological knowledge of every world religion. Would that appease coprophiliacs (since you’re dishing out random insults) like you?
@neonatalpenguin "The God Delusion" received searing reviews from a few atheists and agnostics, but the most interesting were by Prof Anthony Kenny and Prof Michael Ruse. Richard Dawkins is a good biologist and a gifted scientific populariser; but he is no philosopher and certainly no theologian. For one he seems to accept an outdated epistemology called "Logical Positivism" or "Scientism"; it is just not credible for it is self-refuting and far too limited in its epistemic scope.
@neonatalpenguin The difference between what I describe as serious atheism and 'new atheism' is that I can respect the atheism of the former but not of the latter. I would describe Jean-Paul Satre and Albert Camus as serious atheists. They have good reasons to be atheists; and they also understand the consequences of atheism. Dawkins and Hitchens, et al, engage in what can only be described as polemical caricaturing and misrepresentation. That is dishonest.
@neonatalpenguin When you say that "there isn't a scrap of evidence" for the existence of God what you mean is there isn't a scrap of scientific evidence for the existence of God. Sure, I can accept that. Dawkins and Hitchens, etc., including yourself, assume that the only knowledge is scientific knowledge; but I think that is nonsense. If, as Bertrand Russell said, "what science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know", then this statement cannot be verified by science, therefore false.
@bayreuth79 I’d prefer to say that knowledge is only really gained by rational enquiry, rather than just by science. I’ve no reason to believe that any other proposed method isn’t just wishful thinking and doublespeak. I’m not sure what that has to do with whether Dawkins et al should have referred to theology more. Does Eagleton think TGD should have contained Muslim hierology and Zoroastrian hierology, etc? Or was it just his own religion whose hierology he wanted addressing? What about you?
@neonatalpenguin I would argue that there are good philosophical arguments for the existence of God. In his book "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins attempts to refute some of the classical arguments for the existence of God (those of Thomas Aquinas) but unfortunately he merely caricatures these arguments (straw man) and then knocks them over. That is not very impressive. Dawkins is not a very good philosopher; if you are interested in the philosophy of religion I would look at Plantinga.
@neonatalpenguin I have a question for you. There are different definitions of rationality; and therefore corresponding definitions of irrationality. Is it rational or irrational to assent to Christian teachings? Well, according to Immanuel Kant, faith is not irrational because the contents of faith can neither be proved nor disproved, therefore such beliefs might be true. As a consequence, for Kant it is legitimate to hold out a "rational hope".
@bayreuth79 There are an unlimited number of hypotheses than can never be proved or disproved, which is why I think it’s irrational to take any into consideration until evidence suggests they may be true.
I’m not sure why you seem to think that Christianity is any more deserving of rational consideration than any other religion past or present. And I’m interested to know what these “consequences of atheism” are.
Let's try this again. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who is making a name for himself by writing on the subjects of philosphy and metaphysics. He adds in an argumentum ad verecundiam to fields he isn't qualified in in order to lend them credibility. Would you be happy with a professor of theology writing a book on evolutionary biology? Dawkins is little more than a charlatan, and even honest atheists admit this.
@Cathain78 Personally, I’d have no problem if a professor of theology decided to write non-fiction.
But you write as though Christianity & atheism are the only possible states of belief. What about all the other past & present religions? Should Dawkins have included Muslim & Zoroastrian hierology, etc? Why does Christianity deserve special consideration? Dawkins work leads him to conclude that millenia-old middle eastern folk anthologies might not have all the answers. Why should he keep quiet?
You would have no problem with it unless that person was using their credentials in academia ro make lots of money and persuade people of his opinion in an inherently dishonest manner, I assume.
BTW, I didn't write as though C and A are the only possible states. I didn't even mention Christianity. Dawkins is opposed to all theism so that includes all religions except Atheism. Dawkins doesn't need to keep quiet, but neither do the people exposing him as a fraud.
As for "millenia-old middle eastern folk mythologies" as you referred to them, you do realise that atheism and many of the materialistic theories which are currently espoused as the pinnacle of human thought and science are in fact even older. Plato was debating and refuting atheists half a millenia before Christ. What's interesting is that they are still using the same arguments. A wise man once said,"There are no new ideas - just old mistakes being repeated".
So to clarify, I have no problem with atheism. It's an individual's personal choice as is theism.
But while I don't have a problem with atheism, I have a problem with people like Dawkins who are not even atheist but anti-theist. They are militant and fundamentalist, ironically a charge they through out at others. They are on a crusade against theistic belief and feel the need to snear at it and denigrate it. I used to be like them, sadly enough.
@ThomasCarson1982 Typical atheist kook, do us all small favor and go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favour by removing yourself from the gene pool.
@neonatalpenguin Whether Dawkins is qualified to write on this subject is left to individual standards, it seems to me. However, one can objectively argue that he is far less studied in matters relevant to the god question (theology, epistemology, ontology, etc.) than others on either side of the debate. In his magnum opus, Kant observes that it's equally reasonable to take either side where metaphysics are concerned. Dawkins carefully avoids this stipulation...
@neonatalpenguin ... by stepping away from "total certainty" about disbelief. Speaking of Kant, I wonder how Dawkins would respond if asked his opinion on transcendental idealism? Perhaps he would call him an "unendurable cunt."
There’s an unlimited amount of contradictory hierology out there, concerning 1000s of past and present religions. Under what criteria should Dawkins choose which ones to include and exclude?
Science has its basis in experimentation and rational enquiry. Metaphysics does not. When it comes to the big questions, Dawkins puts his trust in evidence and probability, rather than philosophy and conjecture.
@neonatalpenguin Well, whatever his criteria are, Dawkins seems to be including all of them in his dismissal. Just because the task of religious analysis is difficult doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and accept the uncomprehending views of people whose expertise lie in unrelated fields (in Dawkins' case, zoology).
@neonatalpenguin You're right that metaphysics is non-empirical, in fact that was Kant's point. There's no hard evidence on either side of the god question, thus either side can be rationally advocated. Besides, your first point is erroneous -- science has its basis in metaphysics.
"Mathematics has not a foot to stand upon which is not purely metaphysical." -Thomas De Quincey
By association this applies to all sciences. If you doubt it, I'm prepared to argue my point.
@Strattonus Science has its ORIGIN in metaphysics. Are you saying that Dawkins should have included the hierology of all the religions that have ever existed? The God Delusion would have been 1000s of pages long if he had! Hypothetically, I could claim to have ‘expertise’ in the belief that a giant pan-dimensional Elvis impersonator belched the universe into existence. In that situation, would you diligently listen to my intricate philosophy, or would you dismiss it because I have no evidence?
@neonatalpenguin "Science has its ORIGIN in metaphysics." Perhaps you could spell out your thoughts on this? It doesn't seem to contradict my earlier statement. At what point does science cease to remember its metaphysical foundation? However convoluted an experiment becomes, a scientist still must make the essential metaphysical judgments at its core...
@neonatalpenguin ... To reuse De Quincey's example, before applying mathematical principles in material sciences, one must judge whether those principles hold true at all outside of human cognition. This remains a point of contention in the philosophy of mathematics.
To the rest of your post, I feel like you've said this before, but I'll assess it anyway...
@Strattonus It’s possible to postulate on the nature of existence without resorting to wishful thinking. It’s possible to postulate on the metaphysics of fiction (how did Dr Frankenstein really reanimate human body parts?) without believing those events are true. You keep conflating 2 different definitions of metaphysics into one.
If science, mathematics & rational enquiry are, in a sense, offshoots of metaphysics, it doesn’t mean that theology/hierology can be treated with the same reliability
@neonatalpenguin "You keep conflating 2 different definitions of metaphysics into one." You haven't yet demonstrated that religious thinking is wishful or that religious texts are fictional. Please detail which two definitions I'm confusing?
"theology/hierology can be treated with the same reliability" Why not? You haven't given a reason other than you find religious claims unlikely.
@neonatalpenguin ... I don't know why you think Dawkins would have to include all religions in his book, neither have I said anything to indicate that. It is certainly necessary in other fields of study. My question about Dawkins is very simple: why accept his views when there are far more qualified people on either side of the debate? I repeat, he is a zoologist.
@Strattonus The only consistent courses of action for Dawkins would be to either include all available hierology in The God Delusion, or to include none of it. Why should any religion receive special consideration? Sorry if I keep repeating that point, but you keep evading it.
And a Zoologist seems like just the right sort of person to write about the lack of evidence of a creator in the natural world. Should Dawkins have got additional qualifications in Cosmology or Geology before writing TGD?
@neonatalpenguin "The only consistent courses of action for Dawkins would be to either include all available hierology in The God Delusion, or to include none of it." I ask again, how did you arrive at this false dichotomy?
"Sorry if I keep repeating that point, but you keep evading it." This is simply disingenuous. I would quote my responses but the character limit makes it too cumbersome.
@neonatalpenguin A zoologist is a good person to ask about the behavior of condors or orangutans. What does a zoologist know about metaphysics or theology, the crucial schools of thought with respect to this subject? I read TGD and I will even venture to say that Dawkins showed a -strong- ignorance of these fields. I think perhaps my initial assertion about metaphysics did not sink in.
@neonatalpenguin A zoologist is a good person to ask about the behavior of condors or orangutans. What does a zoologist know about metaphysics or theology, the crucial schools of thought with respect to this subject? I read TGD and I will even venture to say that Dawkins showed a -strong- ignorance of these fields. I think perhaps my initial assertion about metaphysics did not sink in.
@neonatalpenguin I will listen to any intricate philosophy, as long as it's intricate. I'm charmed by your use of "evidence" here at the end. Without even knowing it, you're making metaphysical judgments. But I don't wish to sound patronizing.
well Mister ,you seem to meto have a delusional senseof being a nice christian gentleman,who would be able to persuade any foreigner to be a nice person.I myself have been to Russia and been in Lenins tomb,1987 with the sacked miners of Scotland.There are good and bad people everywhere you go and your tinted view wont change a thing
"Ignorance" and "illiteracy" are not words one normally sees attached to Christopher Hitchens.....not by any intelligent person who can read. Disagree with him and Dawkins all you like, but to say they're ignorant is laughable and silly.
This is exactly the form of intellectual apologist that Hitchens is rightly warning against. The dangers of religion are evident - by their works shall ye know them. Islam is explicit in its violence if you care to read their texts. Christianity and Judaism are only mildly less barbaric.
This idea that 'people should be allowed to believe whatever they want' is obviously not true. We do not allow racism, sexism and homophobia and religion is simply a way of getting it in by the back door.
Hitchens, simply put, is a revivalist preacher for the New Atheism - and his writings should be taken as the sermon for the faithful that it is. Hitchens, illogically draws particular conclusions out to a general critique by stating that anything that is religious is bad, and anything that is good must a priori be not religious. Most problematic is Hitchens' neo-conservative condescension toward other cultures and the "illiterate," another unfortunate Enlgihs vestige of colonialism.
"by stating that anything that is religious is bad, and anything that is good must a priori be not religious"
Sounds like a misrepresentation - where did he say that? He said that the good things in religion can also be done without it, while religious dogma itself adds more kinds of evil to the game - he also criticized many supposedly "good" aspects of Christianity as bad.
@fromwilliams He's not a preacher, he's a polemicist. Yes, many of his conclusions do not logically follow; not that they're illogical, but they're merely his point of view. Nonetheless, he also scores blows with logic.
@fromwilliams you mean the "illiterates" the catholic church and other christian institutes want to take over during missionary work, because they are too uneducated to see that religion in non-sense? well, I think Hitchens does, and I think he is fucking right in putting that forward! the church doesn't care about the weak and illiterate, they need them in order to survive the 21st century!
listen to wat dis idiot said basically if you cross the line between criticising radical islam and critising islam itself your a islamphobe wat an idiot if i critisize the christian faith am i a christianaphobe?
Why is this the case: I understand every comment made in defence or support of Christopher Hitchens (or for that matter any of the rational, reason chasing athiests of his ilk)..but i get thrown into confusion every time i read one of his religious critics comments who seem determined to overlay inexplicable nonsense and desperate explanations to their beliefs? Am i just so made that way?
Hmm, books critically analyzing the legitimacy of religion are "pretty silly books";
whereas books about miracles and blind faith are "legitimate".
He calls Hitchens "illiterate", who can quote the versus from the Old and New Testaments, and who has written about hundreds of authors, while he himself has read one book over and over again. Which one can be called illiterate?
Eagleton has come a long way from his working class background, and the scorched earth campaign of the "New Atheists" is rather unsettling to the his present comfort of being a literary elite. I agree that it's a stretch to call Hitchens/Dawkins illiterate on the question of theology. It's the Bible that's the problem, though, not theology, and Eagleton seems to miss that. Intentionally, I'd imagine.
Ah! I get it. Hitchens and Dawkins are not biblical scholars--they dont really "know" the field. What a pathetic loser in Terry Eagleton--a literary critic--perhaps the lowest life form so far discovered. Of course Hitchens hasnt spent a lifetime mastering scripture; the basic premise of scripture is absurd. SO how much time are you going to give to old jewish books that claim to be "inerrant".
And I'd love to know who thinks Eagleton is "influential". I think he's a wanker
@powereddrive Ahh--powerdrive! Is it Eagleton's heartfelt anti-Americanism that cheers your soul? If so, that is at least one point of agreement between you and me. And him. It is Hitchens relative blindness to the real evils of the United States that can make him appear a little foolish...belligerantly foolish. Naive even. Anyone with any judgement knows that in addition to being the most powerful nation on earth, the US is also the most frightening and the most dangerous. And getting worse.
I've read a review that Eagleton did of Dawkins' The God Delusion. It was pathetic. It caricatured Dawkins' arguments, whilst chastising the fact that those arguments were caricatures of religion. Such a douche.
@HarrynJessie I think I read the same review. London Review of Books? I actually wrote to them(I'm a subscriber) asking them to try to maintain a highers standard of article in future. If you listen to him talk you can see he's just a grumpy old sod . And jealous.
@CobinRain Yes that's precisely the one! I thought it was very unedifying on Eagelton's part. For one of the premier atheist (i think he's atheist) critics of Dawkins and Hitchens, he's not very impressive.
He doesn't realize that radical Islam is true Islam, just as the people who undertook the Crusades were true Christians. According to their own holy books. According to the things they're supposed to believe. It's funny how he never gets around to critiquing the words of Hitchens or Dawkins. Like that ass clown Boteach he's too busy begging for laughs. This is a pro-Eagleton audience but look at the few meagre, weak, pitying laughs he gets. Btw, how far left can a dude with 3 homes be?
"Theological ignorance and illiteracy" is a highly justified and respectable stance, given that theology is merely a self sustaining means of mental masturbation by privilieged, over fed, 'too much tie on their hands' westerners -- theology has ABSOLUTELY no value to the world. It is a non discipline, followed by people too much in love with the sound of their own idiocy. Terry whats'isface is a smug git.
mmartini50 3 days ago
This guy is really unlikely to talk about god. He just knows that skull cap is way cool! :)
OurFadedGarden 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
All very cool, but still dribble, try saying anything against Islam in Indonesia, when you get out of prison after 5 years or so, or your head is chopped of by the fanatical crowd maybe you will think a little differently.
Slothy691 1 week ago
Terry is hilarious here! Proper dry sense of humour
BenNCM 1 week ago
1973 actually Terry not 1971.
podfunk 2 weeks ago
burn baby burn
Seigu007 2 weeks ago
For those who DO & DON’T believe in God, please read this prayer in love as a token of common goals.
Dear God, we call out to you, maybe for the 1st time or the billionth time, but today we ask for one thing, Truth. We trust that if You are there & capable that You would make Yourself known to all those who genuinely seek truth. The world we live in is full of lies & hate to the point where mankind has lost credibility. We ask you reveal Yourself to us in that we may know and understand. Amen!
Inverita1 3 weeks ago
@Inverita1 and big surprise that you got no answer. probably because you were praying to thin air, and the greatest lie in human history is the brainwashing propaganda campaign of the biggest load of horse shit ever, 'god'. have a nice day
envirogrunt 1 week ago
@envirogrunt Who said I got no answer? The only propaganda here is the anti-religious pill you that have been swallowing. If you studied the words of Jesus you'd see the relevance and importance of it and conclude that you aren't nearly as smart as you think. Additionally, the only lie here is that you think you must think you are your own god and somehow can do what you want without consequenses. I bet you are a free thinker right? So examin the material for yourself.
Inverita1 1 week ago
@Inverita1 i AM a free thinker, have studied religion and have come to a resounding conclusion that it is complete b.s. Christianity was created by hijacking babylonian, semarian and egyptian texts dated thousands of years prior. there is absolutely no evidence to support creationism. you are the one who has taken the 'pill'. i dont need 'jesus' to tell me to be good, im good bc im a good person. if u need commandments then you are the one who needs help. free yourself from tyrannical fake gods
envirogrunt 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@envirogrunt Funny you said hijacking, because it is almost the exact opposit. I too have studied many religions.. The only claims that Chirstianity are copies are supported by the heavily disproven Zeitgeist promoters. Yet, there are some coorelations after the fact.. why? Because the Catholic church tried to pallatize the image of Christianity to appease pagan traditions. Jesus' teachings and philosophy are complete opposites from the other faiths and he rebukes the pagan practices constantly.
Inverita1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@envirogrunt Going to heaven/hell is not based on if you are good. Its based on a relationship with God. That is what He wants. Being good is displaying obedience to your role in that relationship, but isnt what saves anybody. You have to choose if you want to be with God or not.
God is peace, love, joy, and comfort.
Hell- absence of God- is fear, hate, sadness, and pain.
Negative things are pleasing to us here and now because we rely on God (intential or not) to suply its counter.
Inverita1 1 week ago
great man, he's absolutely right!
JagjeetMann 3 weeks ago
Christopher Hitchens - still unslammed.
reservoirhamster 4 weeks ago
And I wonder... how can you SLAM someone outside their presence? Perhaps, because that someone is not there to respond to your "facts" or allegations. I find it quite absurd to even attempt to say such a thing.
alfredoquinterog 4 weeks ago
What a boring old fart!
577666 1 month ago
Religion = street shit
Reido2828 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Revival of Atheism? I didn't realize Atheism was popular at any point.
mixmastermeeks 1 month ago
@mixmastermeeks Surprised to know it's not that unique? The world is cyclical, and the popularity of some higher deity will come and go again. I do however feel that there is merit in saying that the crude logic applied by educated men is annoying.
deklerkify 1 month ago
@mixmastermeeks Atheism is very popular with babies and undoctrinated kids - they are all atheists until some arse-hole makes them kneel and worship before they are old enough to say 'no thanks'.
huwrj 1 month ago
@huwrj I don't think you can call a person who doesn't have the capacity to understand religion either atheist or any other religion.
mixmastermeeks 1 month ago
@mixmastermeeks Yes, undoctrinated children are atheists because the word is the correct one. It means they don't subscribe to a theology. Which is true and correct. Until an adult tells them what religion they are, they don't know. That's why on a world map you can colour in the religions by region. It's passed on parent to child. Nothing to do with which one of them is true.
huwrj 1 month ago
@mixmastermeeks By the way .... I see what you did there. You said atheism is a religion. It isn't. Atheism is having NO religion.
huwrj 1 month ago
Where reason ends faith begins ... what utter foolish semantical nonsense! This man makes no sense, playing fast and free with half-baked aborted concepts. Just a lot of gibberish that he enjoys rolling around in like a pig in shit. His presumptiveness is self-indulgence gone amuck.
townsendjean 1 month ago
@townsendjean ...i was about to comment on this video, then I read yours and thought "oh, ok. my comment has already been written."
phezla 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Slamming Christopher Hitchens without him being there.... LOSERS
huwrj 1 month ago
@huwrj yeah, makes it kinda easy doesn't it... it's like shooting balls on an empty goal while bitching about how much the absent goalie sucks. hitch would've slapped the arrogance out of this clown.
phezla 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Stalin didn't believe in unicorns either... so...
dopeasfuckk 1 month ago
You cannot attribute any positive action to a disbelief such as atheism, everybody that has murdered has done so and has also not believed in giant rape squirrels that weave baskets during full moons, we do not say that anybody has killed in the name of arapistbasketweavingsquirrelism although we all are in this "group". giving us a title for not believing in god is about as useful as giving us a billion other titles for our disbelief in fairies, dragons, unicorns, wizards, boogeymen, santa..etc
dopeasfuckk 1 month ago
As Martin Amis said, 'Terry Eagleton couldn't get out of bed in the morning without the dual guidance of God and Karl Marx'.
kkwillsaveus 1 month ago
It's easy to talk shit about hitchens and Dawkins when they aren't there. You people are a sad, sad bunch if you buy into this garbage
kengel214 1 month ago
What a waffler and a twaffler. The higher than though speach pattern. Rambles and meanders. Does he actually SAY anything? What a dweeb. Stay in your adolecent fantasies buddy . . . it suites you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
evidenceonlythanx 1 month ago
@evidenceonlythanx "though"? "speach"? "suites" ???
someone hand this iLLiterate kid a dictionary
omniphichipsi314159 1 month ago
He was very rude and imperious on radio nz . I wouldn't like him even if I understood him .
troleary 1 month ago
I like the way Terry beats Dawkins like a rented mule!
yistackness 1 month ago
4 minutes of disinteresting rubbish so far..Bye Bye!: )
winterstellar 1 month ago
he s boring. and his writing is too..
nigusberries 1 month ago
This might better be entitled "Eagleton bibbles about Christopher Hitchens while enjoying the slightly empty literary allusions he occasionally makes too much. For nearly seven minutes."
luckyswine 2 months ago
Look I'm an Atheist, but Hitchens was happy to blur the line between radical Islamism and Islam in general, because it served his purpose of turning popular opinion against religion. He didn't care if the civil liberties and personal safety of innocent muslims could be compromised by such conflation. He doesn't care about human abuse as long as his vision of how the world should be is advanced. Like a lot of religious zealots, in fact!
handofsutekh 2 months ago
Eagleton is a very boring man who is making comments but not backing them up in any way.
oscar11972 2 months ago in playlist Panel 1
@oscar11972 True, but you can still verify his claims
handofsutekh 2 months ago
I do admit it's delightfully funny to see just about *anyone* call Rushdie an Islamaphobe, particularly this man-who is really in a better position to have a more experienced perspective on Islam as a whole? Eagleton or *Salman Rushdie*!
It's also entertaining how he asks the question, "So many of our usual guiding lights are thinking wrongly, why is that?" without apparently never asking if they ARE.
I noted he didn't actually name any theological ignorances, either.
RakeeshJ4 2 months ago
@veronicaveil7 Jesus died twice and had 2 different shrouds? im sure theres been roughly 80 000 people at the same time that had shrouds over their faces how can u confirm its the one of a jewish male that was tortured, if its truly him there will be no imprint in existence, if its fake or someone else there will be a perfect imprint without including blood as you only get an imprint when entering the state of decomposing which the bible says he didnt. :)
Thelondonbadger 2 months ago
Wait to
OktoPlasm 2 months ago
The coup de d`état in Chile was in 1973, i haven`t read all the comments so if somebody else pointed that out......my bad, but on that note, my dear Mr Eagleton, you`re wrong.
maynardhouse 2 months ago
Eagleton is a colossal cunt of fantastic proportions. Nothing more than an apologist for theocratic fascism and an epitome of the pseudo intellectual fatuity of the modern left.
PierreBayle1697 2 months ago
i just don't get this bore,what is he on about.Seems he's a big bit jealous.
tontobones 2 months ago
The patter gets a little wearing after a while, doesn't it?
firestartertwistedfi 2 months ago
lol @ 'slamming' Hitchens.
kinc1967 2 months ago
I'm an atheist, and I find much of what Mr. Eagleton says here to be well worth thinking about. Especially his points about Hitchens and Islamophobia.
Beelzebubbbbles 2 months ago
Oh, come off it, Eagleton. Enough of this "Oh, they're so crude! They just don't get the sophisticated finer points of theology" bollocks. I could offer you an eyebrow-raisingly nuanced exegesis of Jupiterism - far more subtle than anything you could ever come up with, frankly - and it would still remain a load of balls. Why can't you grasp this simple fact?
oxcme85nfuynjesw8 2 months ago
Terry Eagleton is a slightly deluded, mildly contradictory, and very mad Marxist literary critic (whatever the hell that means) who here is clearly falling down to his contradictory worldviews. Must read more Marx, Mr Eagleton.
bnzss 2 months ago
@Strattonus If you didn’t take issue with my original comment (that Eagleton was being absurd for criticising Dawkins lack of theological grounding), then what an earth have we been debating? That I was undervaluing theology? That theology and rational enquiry both have origins in metaphysics, and therefore should be given similar levels of consideration?
neonatalpenguin 2 months ago
@neonatalpenguin Once again, I don't wish to sound patronizing, but we're at something like a dozen posts in this exchange -- if it's still not clear to you what I'm arguing, then I confess this costs more patience than I can afford. Best wishes.
Strattonus 2 months ago
@Strattonus Fine. I tried my darnest to decipher your argument. It seemed like you changed tack an awful lot over those dozen or so comments. I probably gave you too much credit in assuming that you didn’t believe that hierology could be treated with the same reliability as rational enquiry. Metaphysics (as you seem to define it) & theology are leftovers from a less informed age. They are no more crucial to answering the question of whether a god exists than cave paintings or ancient folk tales.
neonatalpenguin 2 months ago
@Strattonus Why is it a fallacy to say that every theology (or no theology at all) must be debated for consistency’s sake? I repeat the question; why should any one religion receive special consideration? To say “the god question is not subject to empirical testing” strikes me as a bit of nifty semantic figure skating, especially given what we’ve already discussed.
neonatalpenguin 2 months ago
the gross theological ignorance and illiteracy of a man like hitchens? how fucking dare he.
waterboy799 2 months ago
@Strattonus Eagleton criticised Dawkins for not including theology in TGD. If Eagleton is referring just to Christian hierology, why does he think his own religion deserves special consideration? At the very least, Dawkins would have to include hierology from other big world religions, just to stop Eagleton's Muslim, Hindu or Scientologist counterparts from feeling just as aggrieved. Besides, it has to be up to the believer to prove their outlandish stories, not the non-believer to disprove them
neonatalpenguin 2 months ago
@neonatalpenguin So to repeat, you're saying that Dawkins would have to argue every individual theology for consistency and to safeguard himself from scholars of different faiths? Not only is it a fallacy to say that every theology must be debated if god is to be debated at all, but this strikes me as a red herring. When did I ever remark as to the consistency of TGD? When did I ever declare my sympathy with Eagleton, who has been excluded from this discussion until now?
Strattonus 2 months ago
@neonatalpenguin "Besides, it has to be up to the believer to prove their outlandish stories, not the non-believer to disprove them" This would be another red herring (or a non sequitur at best), since I've never said anything to the contrary. But I repeat, the god question is not subject to empirical testing. My central point, if you've forgotten, is that Dawkins not only lacks understanding needed to argue this effectively, but he scoffs at the relevant schools of thought.
Strattonus 2 months ago
Comment removed
neonatalpenguin 2 months ago
Supercilious self serving sphincter of a man.
I would rather watch paint dry.
PiskieBenWa 3 months ago
*yawn* eagleton's lips move and some sounds come out but it kinda ends there.
Where is the substance, where is the "slam?"
Bah, I want my 6 minutes back.
Sybsop 3 months ago
I need to go and buy this guy some cheese.....
To have with his FUCKING WHINE.
stonewickison 3 months ago
Wonderful talk, humorous, well worth watching. And I'm pretty sure that Eagleton feels that the ways of western, secular liberalism are superior to the ways of religious fanatics. He is merely questioning the timing of this intellectual war on religion.
florisv59 3 months ago
Much as I admire Terry Eagleton and am grateful for so much of his work, he shouldn't get wrong the date of the US's 9-11. It happened in 1973, not 1971.
axwall84 3 months ago
atheists fools.
Seigu007 3 months ago
Fucking hell,Eagleton is a real bore. Supercilious is the word most befitting this idiot !
naybobdenod 3 months ago
Poor slobbery old man is jealous.
vigil 3 months ago
This angry old man is jealous of The Hitch. Hitch has such an immense intellect that no one can keep up. He wields logic and reason like a môhel at a Bar Mitzvah. Hitchens is a god among men, a real god that you can talk to. Gotcha there religitards.
699backstab 3 months ago
@699backstab A god among men? You’re just another paper tiger that wouldn’t know real science from a horses ass, you talking monkey.
Seigu007 3 months ago
@Seigu007 Hitchens had more influence on mankind than Jesus the murderer or Muhammad the child rapist. Calm down superstitious child or ill tell your mommy to turn off the internet
699backstab 1 month ago
@699backstab Uh, Hitchens is dead. Not much of a conversationalist now.
karlg1965 1 month ago
Strange how you get these "sophisticated" critics. Funny how Hitchens debated anyone and constantly wanted and demanded to be challenged by the most sophisticated and the toughest arguments.
Strange how none of them made it to any debate. Or how no one has ever confronted ANYONE with a "sophisticated" argument. Honestly, the only time you ever see the word sophisticated used along side theology is in the absense of any atheists.
10,000 years have passed and there are no new arguments.
riggermortisify 3 months ago
The "revival" of atheism isn't due to a "theological illiteracy and ignorance" but a greater understanding of our world and the universe through science.
d34d23 3 months ago
What a smarmy, snide son of a bitch. I would *love* to see him try to apologize for Islam ("the Other") on stage against Hitchens himself.
Aeschylus 3 months ago
@Cathain78 You might not have mentioned Christianity by name, but theology is a Christian convention. I’m perplexed by the idea that Dawkins is “a fraud” for omitting all types of religious hierology from The God Delusion. My point was; why does Christian hierology deserve special consideration?
Of course I realise that there have alays been non-superstitious people throughout history. But atheism is not a religion. It’s a lack thereof. All newborn babies are atheists, after all.
neonatalpenguin 3 months ago
Somehow I think Eagleton is jealous of Hitchens' success.
patrick112590 4 months ago
Eagleton is a self serving twit who wishes he had just a fraction of Dawkin's and Hitchen's pulling power, and hence their earning power. He's WELL JELL of those two!
Other twits include people who can't see that there is a difference between theology and other subjects. Theology benefits no-one but those academics making a living off the back of it. It's a house of cards which collapses once you reject the supernatural premise. Other subjects don't contain real, useful knowledge..
mmartini50 4 months ago
@mmartini50 ...should read "Whereas other subjects contain real, useful knowledge...."
mmartini50 4 months ago
Eagleton doesn't even say if he believes in this idiocy himself; he simply thinks that Catholicism is a good training for thinking about social life. Why bother with Father O'Buttf*ck, though? Why should I waste my time, effort and money on something nobody can prove? Even Eagleton doesn't think religion makes you more moral. So why run twice as fast to get to the same place? Why pay attention to people in stupid outfits who claim to talk to someone nobody can see or hear?
NixonisLord 4 months ago
Eagleton is an idiot. Yes, a culture that embraces free speech, democracy, gay rights, women's rights, children's rights, religious freedom, etc. is superior to a culture that does not. We should not be scared of saying that. Why do we inflate the egos of the theocrats by pretending that they represent the interests of subjugated peoples?
SkullOfYorick 4 months ago 14
@SkullOfYorick
What do you base that supposed "superiority" on other than you own opinion?
Cathain78 4 months ago
After about 5 minutes I'd hate to endure an entire lecture from this a vapid "talking head".
So in summary 1) Atheist cannot be called Theologians 2) Hitchens supported American interventionism 3) Atheists are liberal elitists 4) Atheists often talk about the problems of Islam.
From this he draws the following:
1. Atheists are Islamophobic
2. They are vaguely "political"
Where do the words "Literary Critic" come into play when describing this joke?
MostlyReading 4 months ago
You obviously weren't paying attention to what Mr Eagleton actually said. He didn't say that "atheists cannot be called theologians", but that the new atheists are ignorant of theology and therefore of what they are attacking; he didn't say that "atheists are liberal elitists", but that some new atheist have elements of this liberal elitist attitude in their writings; and he didn't say that "atheists often talk about the problems of Islam", but that some atheists conflate Islamism with Islam.
bayreuth79 4 months ago 2
Comment removed
MostlyReading 4 months ago
You're completely right, I was paraphrasing him. I just don't find any of these summations convincing, he simply states what appears obvious to himself. About theology: I think being an Atheist prohibits the idea of being a theologian. Which is different than understanding theology and studying religion. I think the complaint is really that Atheists don't think like Theologians. Because then we'd be compelled to prove the bullshit by writing exponential volumes on minute points *Theology*
MostlyReading 4 months ago
@fromwilliams Don't flatter yourself, my dear fellow, I don't care enough about you to become condescending towards you, or your views. I do, however, note that you failed entirely and exactly in regard to addressing my points made, and can only assume you concede said point(s). I guess, however, we'll have to differ on the opinion of Hitchens' excellence in debate. I think, at the risk of putting rather crudely, public sentiment is on my side of the house.
MattSingh1 4 months ago
At one point, in referring to Hitchens and others like him who used to be identified as liberals but have become "conservative", Eagleton states: "Liberalism is valuable insofar as it can retain its values under pressure". Hitchens retained his liberal values (still mostly does) until the outrageous acts committed against the USA and its allies were minimized or even justified by leftist apologists such as Eagleton and Chomsky. Hitchens didn't give in to "pressure", he acknowledged reality...
beeroosterm 5 months ago
The reason they use Islam as an example is because people will immediately take offense when you ring out their specific religion, and there are recent social memories about the troubles of fundamental Islam. If you critique all religion, that doesn't mean you're merely 'islamophobic'. There is plenty to be said for all religions causing trouble, aside from the issue of deluding and deceiving people out of tradition.
This man seems to be saying that he doesn't like that these guys are serious.
scionicspectre 5 months ago
Tremendous smugness does not equate with truth.
awnok 5 months ago
So Dawkins can’t claim “there almost certainly isn’t a God”, because he hasn’t read enough theology? That's like claiming you can’t prove Star Wars isn’t true because you haven’t read enough fan fiction.
Eagleton really is an unendurable cunt.
neonatalpenguin 5 months ago 12
@ I would have thought that Eagleton's point would have been understood even by a bigoted atheist zealot such as yourself. If Dawkins and Hitchens are going to attack religious belief then they have to have done their homework. In other words, I expect them to know what they are attacking, which they don't. What they attack is nothing more than a caricature of religion. This is why even serious atheists attacked "The God Delusion". You do know that Dawkins is making millions from your credulity?
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 Yes, Dawkins had a big payday. Sometimes the good guys win. But who are these “serious atheists”, and how do they differ from others who don’t feel the need to believe in a god? The God Delusion says ‘there almost certainly is no god’, because there isn’t ‘a scrap of evidence’ to suggest so. Presumably you’d prefer it if Dawkins had spent decades gaining theological knowledge of every world religion. Would that appease coprophiliacs (since you’re dishing out random insults) like you?
neonatalpenguin 4 months ago
@neonatalpenguin "The God Delusion" received searing reviews from a few atheists and agnostics, but the most interesting were by Prof Anthony Kenny and Prof Michael Ruse. Richard Dawkins is a good biologist and a gifted scientific populariser; but he is no philosopher and certainly no theologian. For one he seems to accept an outdated epistemology called "Logical Positivism" or "Scientism"; it is just not credible for it is self-refuting and far too limited in its epistemic scope.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@neonatalpenguin The difference between what I describe as serious atheism and 'new atheism' is that I can respect the atheism of the former but not of the latter. I would describe Jean-Paul Satre and Albert Camus as serious atheists. They have good reasons to be atheists; and they also understand the consequences of atheism. Dawkins and Hitchens, et al, engage in what can only be described as polemical caricaturing and misrepresentation. That is dishonest.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@neonatalpenguin When you say that "there isn't a scrap of evidence" for the existence of God what you mean is there isn't a scrap of scientific evidence for the existence of God. Sure, I can accept that. Dawkins and Hitchens, etc., including yourself, assume that the only knowledge is scientific knowledge; but I think that is nonsense. If, as Bertrand Russell said, "what science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know", then this statement cannot be verified by science, therefore false.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 I’d prefer to say that knowledge is only really gained by rational enquiry, rather than just by science. I’ve no reason to believe that any other proposed method isn’t just wishful thinking and doublespeak. I’m not sure what that has to do with whether Dawkins et al should have referred to theology more. Does Eagleton think TGD should have contained Muslim hierology and Zoroastrian hierology, etc? Or was it just his own religion whose hierology he wanted addressing? What about you?
neonatalpenguin 4 months ago
@neonatalpenguin I would argue that there are good philosophical arguments for the existence of God. In his book "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins attempts to refute some of the classical arguments for the existence of God (those of Thomas Aquinas) but unfortunately he merely caricatures these arguments (straw man) and then knocks them over. That is not very impressive. Dawkins is not a very good philosopher; if you are interested in the philosophy of religion I would look at Plantinga.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@neonatalpenguin I have a question for you. There are different definitions of rationality; and therefore corresponding definitions of irrationality. Is it rational or irrational to assent to Christian teachings? Well, according to Immanuel Kant, faith is not irrational because the contents of faith can neither be proved nor disproved, therefore such beliefs might be true. As a consequence, for Kant it is legitimate to hold out a "rational hope".
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 There are an unlimited number of hypotheses than can never be proved or disproved, which is why I think it’s irrational to take any into consideration until evidence suggests they may be true.
I’m not sure why you seem to think that Christianity is any more deserving of rational consideration than any other religion past or present. And I’m interested to know what these “consequences of atheism” are.
neonatalpenguin 4 months ago
@neonatalpenguin
Let's try this again. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who is making a name for himself by writing on the subjects of philosphy and metaphysics. He adds in an argumentum ad verecundiam to fields he isn't qualified in in order to lend them credibility. Would you be happy with a professor of theology writing a book on evolutionary biology? Dawkins is little more than a charlatan, and even honest atheists admit this.
Cathain78 4 months ago
@Cathain78 Personally, I’d have no problem if a professor of theology decided to write non-fiction.
But you write as though Christianity & atheism are the only possible states of belief. What about all the other past & present religions? Should Dawkins have included Muslim & Zoroastrian hierology, etc? Why does Christianity deserve special consideration? Dawkins work leads him to conclude that millenia-old middle eastern folk anthologies might not have all the answers. Why should he keep quiet?
neonatalpenguin 4 months ago
@neonatalpenguin
You would have no problem with it unless that person was using their credentials in academia ro make lots of money and persuade people of his opinion in an inherently dishonest manner, I assume.
BTW, I didn't write as though C and A are the only possible states. I didn't even mention Christianity. Dawkins is opposed to all theism so that includes all religions except Atheism. Dawkins doesn't need to keep quiet, but neither do the people exposing him as a fraud.
Cathain78 4 months ago
@neonatalpenguin
As for "millenia-old middle eastern folk mythologies" as you referred to them, you do realise that atheism and many of the materialistic theories which are currently espoused as the pinnacle of human thought and science are in fact even older. Plato was debating and refuting atheists half a millenia before Christ. What's interesting is that they are still using the same arguments. A wise man once said,"There are no new ideas - just old mistakes being repeated".
Cathain78 4 months ago
@Cathain78
So to clarify, I have no problem with atheism. It's an individual's personal choice as is theism.
But while I don't have a problem with atheism, I have a problem with people like Dawkins who are not even atheist but anti-theist. They are militant and fundamentalist, ironically a charge they through out at others. They are on a crusade against theistic belief and feel the need to snear at it and denigrate it. I used to be like them, sadly enough.
Cathain78 4 months ago
@neonatalpenguin 'unendurable cunt' is perhaps the most apt description of Terry Eagleton ever! Well said!
ThomasCarson1982 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThomasCarson1982 Typical atheist kook, do us all small favor and go park your car on a busy motorway, in the fast lane, in heavy fog for a nap and do natural selection a favour by removing yourself from the gene pool.
Seigu007 3 months ago
@neonatalpenguin Whether Dawkins is qualified to write on this subject is left to individual standards, it seems to me. However, one can objectively argue that he is far less studied in matters relevant to the god question (theology, epistemology, ontology, etc.) than others on either side of the debate. In his magnum opus, Kant observes that it's equally reasonable to take either side where metaphysics are concerned. Dawkins carefully avoids this stipulation...
Strattonus 3 months ago
@neonatalpenguin ... by stepping away from "total certainty" about disbelief. Speaking of Kant, I wonder how Dawkins would respond if asked his opinion on transcendental idealism? Perhaps he would call him an "unendurable cunt."
Strattonus 3 months ago
There’s an unlimited amount of contradictory hierology out there, concerning 1000s of past and present religions. Under what criteria should Dawkins choose which ones to include and exclude?
Science has its basis in experimentation and rational enquiry. Metaphysics does not. When it comes to the big questions, Dawkins puts his trust in evidence and probability, rather than philosophy and conjecture.
neonatalpenguin 3 months ago
@neonatalpenguin Well, whatever his criteria are, Dawkins seems to be including all of them in his dismissal. Just because the task of religious analysis is difficult doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and accept the uncomprehending views of people whose expertise lie in unrelated fields (in Dawkins' case, zoology).
Strattonus 3 months ago
@neonatalpenguin You're right that metaphysics is non-empirical, in fact that was Kant's point. There's no hard evidence on either side of the god question, thus either side can be rationally advocated. Besides, your first point is erroneous -- science has its basis in metaphysics.
"Mathematics has not a foot to stand upon which is not purely metaphysical." -Thomas De Quincey
By association this applies to all sciences. If you doubt it, I'm prepared to argue my point.
Strattonus 3 months ago
@Strattonus Science has its ORIGIN in metaphysics. Are you saying that Dawkins should have included the hierology of all the religions that have ever existed? The God Delusion would have been 1000s of pages long if he had! Hypothetically, I could claim to have ‘expertise’ in the belief that a giant pan-dimensional Elvis impersonator belched the universe into existence. In that situation, would you diligently listen to my intricate philosophy, or would you dismiss it because I have no evidence?
neonatalpenguin 2 months ago
@neonatalpenguin "Science has its ORIGIN in metaphysics." Perhaps you could spell out your thoughts on this? It doesn't seem to contradict my earlier statement. At what point does science cease to remember its metaphysical foundation? However convoluted an experiment becomes, a scientist still must make the essential metaphysical judgments at its core...
Strattonus 2 months ago
@neonatalpenguin ... To reuse De Quincey's example, before applying mathematical principles in material sciences, one must judge whether those principles hold true at all outside of human cognition. This remains a point of contention in the philosophy of mathematics.
To the rest of your post, I feel like you've said this before, but I'll assess it anyway...
Strattonus 2 months ago
@Strattonus It’s possible to postulate on the nature of existence without resorting to wishful thinking. It’s possible to postulate on the metaphysics of fiction (how did Dr Frankenstein really reanimate human body parts?) without believing those events are true. You keep conflating 2 different definitions of metaphysics into one.
If science, mathematics & rational enquiry are, in a sense, offshoots of metaphysics, it doesn’t mean that theology/hierology can be treated with the same reliability
neonatalpenguin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neonatalpenguin "You keep conflating 2 different definitions of metaphysics into one." You haven't yet demonstrated that religious thinking is wishful or that religious texts are fictional. Please detail which two definitions I'm confusing?
"theology/hierology can be treated with the same reliability" Why not? You haven't given a reason other than you find religious claims unlikely.
Strattonus 2 months ago
@neonatalpenguin ... I don't know why you think Dawkins would have to include all religions in his book, neither have I said anything to indicate that. It is certainly necessary in other fields of study. My question about Dawkins is very simple: why accept his views when there are far more qualified people on either side of the debate? I repeat, he is a zoologist.
Strattonus 2 months ago
@Strattonus The only consistent courses of action for Dawkins would be to either include all available hierology in The God Delusion, or to include none of it. Why should any religion receive special consideration? Sorry if I keep repeating that point, but you keep evading it.
And a Zoologist seems like just the right sort of person to write about the lack of evidence of a creator in the natural world. Should Dawkins have got additional qualifications in Cosmology or Geology before writing TGD?
neonatalpenguin 2 months ago
@neonatalpenguin "The only consistent courses of action for Dawkins would be to either include all available hierology in The God Delusion, or to include none of it." I ask again, how did you arrive at this false dichotomy?
"Sorry if I keep repeating that point, but you keep evading it." This is simply disingenuous. I would quote my responses but the character limit makes it too cumbersome.
Strattonus 2 months ago
@neonatalpenguin A zoologist is a good person to ask about the behavior of condors or orangutans. What does a zoologist know about metaphysics or theology, the crucial schools of thought with respect to this subject? I read TGD and I will even venture to say that Dawkins showed a -strong- ignorance of these fields. I think perhaps my initial assertion about metaphysics did not sink in.
Strattonus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neonatalpenguin A zoologist is a good person to ask about the behavior of condors or orangutans. What does a zoologist know about metaphysics or theology, the crucial schools of thought with respect to this subject? I read TGD and I will even venture to say that Dawkins showed a -strong- ignorance of these fields. I think perhaps my initial assertion about metaphysics did not sink in.
Strattonus 2 months ago
@neonatalpenguin I will listen to any intricate philosophy, as long as it's intricate. I'm charmed by your use of "evidence" here at the end. Without even knowing it, you're making metaphysical judgments. But I don't wish to sound patronizing.
Strattonus 2 months ago
"Islamophobic"? We call all use quasi-meaningless words, Terry.
You, for example, are a Cuntlebrox.
neonatalpenguin 5 months ago
This idiot need a nice hot cup of objectivity.
rerhart585 5 months ago
well Mister ,you seem to meto have a delusional senseof being a nice christian gentleman,who would be able to persuade any foreigner to be a nice person.I myself have been to Russia and been in Lenins tomb,1987 with the sacked miners of Scotland.There are good and bad people everywhere you go and your tinted view wont change a thing
bonesandanne 5 months ago
Talking shit about Hitchens when he is not there to defend himself....... typical......
Xalimander 5 months ago
@Xalimander Yeah, Hitchens never does the same.
GohModley 5 months ago
"Ignorance" and "illiteracy" are not words one normally sees attached to Christopher Hitchens.....not by any intelligent person who can read. Disagree with him and Dawkins all you like, but to say they're ignorant is laughable and silly.
samswank 5 months ago
This is exactly the form of intellectual apologist that Hitchens is rightly warning against. The dangers of religion are evident - by their works shall ye know them. Islam is explicit in its violence if you care to read their texts. Christianity and Judaism are only mildly less barbaric.
This idea that 'people should be allowed to believe whatever they want' is obviously not true. We do not allow racism, sexism and homophobia and religion is simply a way of getting it in by the back door.
LudvigIndestrucable 5 months ago
@LudvigIndestrucable
Well, actually, racism is allowed as long as it isn't enacted or prosletyzed, and so is and should be religion ;)
twooffour 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens, simply put, is a revivalist preacher for the New Atheism - and his writings should be taken as the sermon for the faithful that it is. Hitchens, illogically draws particular conclusions out to a general critique by stating that anything that is religious is bad, and anything that is good must a priori be not religious. Most problematic is Hitchens' neo-conservative condescension toward other cultures and the "illiterate," another unfortunate Enlgihs vestige of colonialism.
fromwilliams 5 months ago 5
@fromwilliams what a load of absolutely opprobrius bullshit
slimone87 5 months ago
@fromwilliams
"by stating that anything that is religious is bad, and anything that is good must a priori be not religious"
Sounds like a misrepresentation - where did he say that? He said that the good things in religion can also be done without it, while religious dogma itself adds more kinds of evil to the game - he also criticized many supposedly "good" aspects of Christianity as bad.
But where's this a prior thing?
What's this guy's point?
Iraq aside?
twooffour 5 months ago
@fromwilliams He's not a preacher, he's a polemicist. Yes, many of his conclusions do not logically follow; not that they're illogical, but they're merely his point of view. Nonetheless, he also scores blows with logic.
baigandine 4 months ago
I wonder if he was as so brazen ,condemming and sniding with his comments were Christopher Hitchens in the room and was able to respond? I think not.
vashna3799 5 months ago
No, he doesn't.
TheWinstonOrwell 5 months ago
I just wonder how can you "slam" someone who isn't there? I mean -- everyone here knows what would happen to Terry if Christofer were present, right?
So learn a bit how to use the language from the master. And don't say "slams". I'd suggest to replace it with "backbites". Or maybe even "bitches"...
kkanishev 5 months ago
considering Terry Eagleton's comments on Hitchens, Dawkins, Rushdie. i would like to say this to him -
Recognize an enemy when you see one.
LucaEnzo 5 months ago
I thought I was about to hear an insightful opinion. Guess I was wrong.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@fromwilliams you mean the "illiterates" the catholic church and other christian institutes want to take over during missionary work, because they are too uneducated to see that religion in non-sense? well, I think Hitchens does, and I think he is fucking right in putting that forward! the church doesn't care about the weak and illiterate, they need them in order to survive the 21st century!
doyoublush 5 months ago
@fromwilliams failed.
momentofsciencetx 5 months ago
listen to wat dis idiot said basically if you cross the line between criticising radical islam and critising islam itself your a islamphobe wat an idiot if i critisize the christian faith am i a christianaphobe?
timetochilli 6 months ago
You know we on the inter-webs call something like this: FAIL
Xetrill 6 months ago
Why is this the case: I understand every comment made in defence or support of Christopher Hitchens (or for that matter any of the rational, reason chasing athiests of his ilk)..but i get thrown into confusion every time i read one of his religious critics comments who seem determined to overlay inexplicable nonsense and desperate explanations to their beliefs? Am i just so made that way?
MrFitz7 6 months ago
Eagleton manages to say nothing with none of the eloquence Hitchens employs when he says something.
Amistavia 6 months ago
Hmm, books critically analyzing the legitimacy of religion are "pretty silly books";
whereas books about miracles and blind faith are "legitimate".
He calls Hitchens "illiterate", who can quote the versus from the Old and New Testaments, and who has written about hundreds of authors, while he himself has read one book over and over again. Which one can be called illiterate?
MaskedMarvyl 6 months ago
Eagleton has come a long way from his working class background, and the scorched earth campaign of the "New Atheists" is rather unsettling to the his present comfort of being a literary elite. I agree that it's a stretch to call Hitchens/Dawkins illiterate on the question of theology. It's the Bible that's the problem, though, not theology, and Eagleton seems to miss that. Intentionally, I'd imagine.
crabbieappleton 6 months ago
Ah! I get it. Hitchens and Dawkins are not biblical scholars--they dont really "know" the field. What a pathetic loser in Terry Eagleton--a literary critic--perhaps the lowest life form so far discovered. Of course Hitchens hasnt spent a lifetime mastering scripture; the basic premise of scripture is absurd. SO how much time are you going to give to old jewish books that claim to be "inerrant".
And I'd love to know who thinks Eagleton is "influential". I think he's a wanker
CobinRain 6 months ago
@CobinRain
Hitchens is a godless warmongrer, a muckracker the lowest form of life discovered, or undiscovered.
powereddrive 6 months ago
@powereddrive Ahh--powerdrive! Is it Eagleton's heartfelt anti-Americanism that cheers your soul? If so, that is at least one point of agreement between you and me. And him. It is Hitchens relative blindness to the real evils of the United States that can make him appear a little foolish...belligerantly foolish. Naive even. Anyone with any judgement knows that in addition to being the most powerful nation on earth, the US is also the most frightening and the most dangerous. And getting worse.
CobinRain 6 months ago
I've read a review that Eagleton did of Dawkins' The God Delusion. It was pathetic. It caricatured Dawkins' arguments, whilst chastising the fact that those arguments were caricatures of religion. Such a douche.
HarrynJessie 6 months ago
@HarrynJessie I think I read the same review. London Review of Books? I actually wrote to them(I'm a subscriber) asking them to try to maintain a highers standard of article in future. If you listen to him talk you can see he's just a grumpy old sod . And jealous.
CobinRain 6 months ago
@CobinRain Yes that's precisely the one! I thought it was very unedifying on Eagelton's part. For one of the premier atheist (i think he's atheist) critics of Dawkins and Hitchens, he's not very impressive.
HarrynJessie 4 months ago
what a moron
doubletap333 6 months ago
A detail to one of our leading minds: the CIA-backed coup in Chile occurred in 1973.
But then what's detail to a man whom Martin Amis so brilliantly said "can't get out of bed in the morning without love of God or Marx."?
89oconnor 6 months ago
What a moron...WOW.
illbeatsblog 6 months ago
This guy is an ass talking in circles.
tiltomatic1 6 months ago
He doesn't realize that radical Islam is true Islam, just as the people who undertook the Crusades were true Christians. According to their own holy books. According to the things they're supposed to believe. It's funny how he never gets around to critiquing the words of Hitchens or Dawkins. Like that ass clown Boteach he's too busy begging for laughs. This is a pro-Eagleton audience but look at the few meagre, weak, pitying laughs he gets. Btw, how far left can a dude with 3 homes be?
davenielsen78 6 months ago
he dint utter one word in defense of his Santa Claus!!
googlibrary 6 months ago
@googlibrary Why would he? Everyone already knows Santa exists. Please stop talking rot! ;-)
davenielsen78 6 months ago
I have a feeling his book didn't sell as well as Hitchens, just a hunch...
styot 6 months ago