God Is Not Great?

[Lumino_Christi]

I've just started reading "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by an author named Christopher Hitchens, an avid atheist. As a seminarian and philosophy major in college, it's important to me to view all sides of an issue, regardless of my initial opinions.

With that said, has anyone read this? Or are currently reading it? If so, I'd like to discuss some of the areas he touches upon (religion's effect on government, physical health of individuals, etc.).

So, without further ado, fire away! :thumbs_up

[hellsapoppin]

Hitchens said that recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto had an electra complex which means she sought to murder her mother in order to screw with her father.

You simply cannot take his type of idiocy too seriously.

[aeroport]

I've just started reading "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by an author named Christopher Hitchens, an avid atheist. As a seminarian and philosophy major in college, it's important to me to view all sides of an issue, regardless of my initial opinions.

With that said, has anyone read this? Or are currently reading it? If so, I'd like to discuss some of the areas he touches upon (religion's effect on government, physical health of individuals, etc.).

So, without further ado, fire away! :thumbs_up

Greetings, and welcome, Lumino Christi. I've recently begun reading it (though I've been slowed down, now that classes have resumed), and would be happy to discuss.

[NikolaiI]

The effects of religion...

You could say that it is a bad thing, that it causes war...but this is not addressing the issues of religion.

And that is just this one person's opinion, their judgment, over religion and its effects on society-- it is not absolute truth. Though it almost seems like the person with that opinion thinks that it is.

Regardless, and regardless of this opinion, many people pursue religion and live in, factually, and entirely different dimension from this person, and all of his ideas. For me, for instance, religion is on another dimension from anything this person could think or imagine. It is the body of knowledge which I navigate to find my way to the spiritual path, upon which making progress I cultivate my body and mind, aiming myself towards truth; and as I make progress guided by true ideas, I come to a more true understanding of myself and my religion, and by making a covenant with God, I am able to have faith in myself, and continue making progress towards the goal, which is full realization of reality, and myself, in the light of faith, and being completely at peace-- on a spiritual level, which is another dimension from the material world, from sensations, phenomena, desires, pains, duality and time. And as I observe my own self and philosophy, and as I see that it has arrived at an advanced place, and has progressed along true ideas, therefore I am completely separated from this person's ideas-- about religion, God, society, and all of that.

Q.E.D.

[Orionsbelt]

Haven't read the book but I am interested in the discussion. Obviously, it has a big impact on current events that we won't discuss but more importantly, it has the potential to provoke thought. I'm not an atheist but no one is going to ordain me any time soon either. What are some of the things that he asserts?

[Kent Edwins]

Haven't read the book, but saw a few interviews. I will say that he did not hold up very well on the Colbert report. His arguments seemed very simplistic and based on semantics. Like saying that faith is overrated and everything, when in reality all beliefs, even those in skepticism, boil down to faith.

He also seems out of touch with what people really believe. For example, he ridicules God for being anti-female based on Biblical and historical citations. But what he does not do is offer the opinion of most people that currently believe in some kind of God.

The only thing I've heard Dawkins say that holds any weight is that Religion has had a pretty bloody and not so perfect history. That is true. But everyone knows it.

[Dark Star]

Hitchens said that recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto had an electra complex which means she sought to murder her mother in order to screw with her father.

You simply cannot take his type of idiocy too seriously.

Source?

[Dark Star]

Haven't read the book, but saw a few interviews. I will say that he did not hold up very well on the Colbert report. His arguments seemed very simplistic and based on semantics. Like saying that faith is overrated and everything, when in reality all beliefs, even those in skepticism, boil down to faith.

I find it odd that you accuse him of using simplistic arguments based on semantics then use the one in bold. Could you elucidate on that and explain what you mean in more detail? As is, its a statement made with a very wide, sweeping brush that fails to even take into account the different types of faith (E.G. there is a large difference between having faith in God and faith that your roommate isn't lying to you when he says he didn't steal the money off of your dresser).


He also seems out of touch with what people really believe. For example, he ridicules God for being anti-female based on Biblical and historical citations. But what he does not do is offer the opinion of most people that currently believe in some kind of God.

It should be obvious that he ridicules God for being anti-female based on the grounds that many religious believers currently worship that same God and think he is correct, even if he doesn't say it. Since there are no polls out there indicating exactly how many people still believe in the alpha-male God that wants its people to slaughter the unbelievers and oppress women opinions on this manner are going to vary based on a person's own religious bias. That said, its quite obvious that many, many people in the US and in particular in the Muslim world still believe in this sort of God.


The only thing I've heard Dawkins say that holds any weight is that Religion has had a pretty bloody and not so perfect history. That is true. But everyone knows it.

I'm just going to point out that judging someone based on a comedy show interview is not a good way to get a feel for their arguments or the points they make as the format is ridiculously short for any kind of serious argument to be made, or for that matter for anything other than empty rhetoric. Try looking for some lectures on YouTube, or some debates that the person participated in. On that note: You mentioned Dawkins; this thread is about Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great. Did you perhaps mistake that for The God Delusion and meant to deliver a critique of Dawkins rather than Hitchens or did you just get the names mixed up?

I'll also note that 'everyone knows it' is something that can be contested. I've met more than one religious apologist that claims that everything from the Crusades to 9-11 had little to nothing to do with religion and was really just politics masquerading under the guise of religion. That said, even if it is something that 'everyone knows' the historical damage religion has done is still a salient point since the past can and does (at times) inform us about the present.

[crazefest456]

Q.E.D.

Wha--? Are you referring to the thing I think you're referring to? If you are, right on! :thumbs_up

[Kent Edwins]

On that note: You mentioned Dawkins; this thread is about Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great. Did you perhaps mistake that for The God Delusion and meant to deliver a critique of Dawkins rather than Hitchens or did you just get the names mixed up?

You've got me. I won't try to defend any of my statements. But I will say that though, generally speaking, Hitch and Co. make good points worth knowing, from the little I've heard I see nothing really new or interesting. I see a lot of brash statements like "religion poisons everything", but I fail to see a truly analytic look at religion. I fail to see a real measure of pros and cons, and I see a lot of these sweeping statements made based on arguments that are true of only a particular denomination. I see a lot of preaching to the converted, and aside from that shock value. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, and like I say I have not read the book, but I just don't take this wave of in your face atheism seriously. I think it's shock value and maybe an attempt to make some money of philosophy on most levels.

I'll admit, this might be because most of my experience with Hitchens comes from defending religion (though I'm no big believer in it myself) against his, as well as Dawkin's and other's, extreme followers (get rid of religion and let's have a society based on pure science!). If I'm too far off the mark, then let me know and I'll stand corrected.

[aeroport]

Welcome to you as well, Kent Edwins. (Excellent avatar :thumbs_up )

I fail to see a real measure of pros and cons, and I see a lot of these sweeping statements made based on arguments that are true of only a particular denomination. I see a lot of preaching to the converted, and aside from that shock value.
There is plenty of that, to a point that it really is beginning to annoy me (and I’m a supporter); nevertheless, there is more, and it really wouldn’t hurt to have a look at the books, just to investigate. So far, I’m finding that Dawkins seems to deal a little bit more directly with religion itself (in The God Delusion) than Hitchens is doing so far in his book. But then, the subtitle of CH’s book – “How Religion Poisons Everything” – really kind of suggests that it will be a lot of gruesome examples, perhaps meant to some degree for shock value, but still important. I’m not too far though – I’m on chapter 3 or 4, “A Note on Health, to Which Religion can be Hazardous”, or something like that – and it’s primarily a lot of terrifying information about what representatives of various religions have done. Obviously, because a lot of the events described are disturbingly recent, I wouldn’t be too dismissive of it, but I do hope the enumeration of terrors lets up a little soon…


If I'm too far off the mark, then let me know and I'll stand corrected.
It is only reasonable to subject the proponents of reason to rational argument.



Source?
http://www.slate.com/id/2180952/fr/rss/

"The fact of the matter is that Benazir's undoubted courage had a certain fanaticism to it. She had the largest Electra complex of any female politician in modern history, entirely consecrated to the memory of her executed father, the charming and unscrupulous Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had once boasted that the people of Pakistan would eat grass before they would give up the struggle to acquire a nuclear weapon. (He was rather prescient there—the country now does have nukes, and millions of its inhabitants can barely feed themselves.)"
That's basically all he says, though, so for my part I assume he doesn't expect us to take it literally; all the same, I wouldn't dismiss as "idiocy" the ideas of someone who met and - as he puts it - was personally deceived by B.B. *ends political strain of discussion here*

[nobrainer]

Pardon my ignorantly conceived post, but is it going too far to suggest that atheism, agnosticism, or even total apathy toward religion is a kind of religion in itself--that religion is inescapable?

[hellsapoppin]

Source?


Log on to his web site.

[aeroport]

Pardon my ignorantly conceived post, but is it going too far to suggest that atheism, agnosticism, or even total apathy toward religion is a kind of religion in itself--that religion is inescapable?

Personally, I would say so.

[Dark Star]

The problem with this idea is that something must involve a belief system to constitute a religion. A lack of a belief or disbelief (atheism) or a claim that you lack knowledge (agnosticism) is only, if we wish to put it in these terms, ONE belief. One belief doesn't constitute a system by any means, so no, those aren't religions.

[El Viejo]

Everyone has a religion. Everyone's life is guided by some principle or set of principles. A free-market zealot believes that by selfishly pursuing his own interests he does the greatest good for his fellows. That he is a Baptist or a Presbyterian or whatever on Sundays doesn't change the fact that his religion is commerce.

A person's religion consists of the core beliefs by which they direct their lives. If we think of beliefs in terms of a painting or drawing, what is absent is as important as what is present. Present in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is the omniscient, omnipotent creator. That being is not present in the beliefs of the Atheist, and is a silhouette in those of the Agnostic. But the presence or absence informs and shapes the rest of the picture.

[Dark Star]

The problem with this is that if we give religion such a vague definition as 'a set of principles that guides one life' then it becomes absolutely meaningless. You also run into problems trying to re-define the word that way since religions generally have a set of beliefs and and rituals that go with them which would not qualify for, say, an atheist or an agnostic since the beliefs that guide those (whether ethical, political, or what have you) vary widely. I simply don't see why we need to re-define religion in such a broad sense as to make it meaningless just to say that everyone has a religion.

[Nightshade]

The problem with this is that if we give religion such a vague definition as 'a set of principles that guides one life' then it becomes absolutely meaningless. You also run into problems trying to re-define the word that way since religions generally have a set of beliefs and and rituals that go with them which would not qualify for, say, an atheist or an agnostic since the beliefs that guide those (whether ethical, political, or what have you) vary widely. I simply don't see why we need to re-define religion in such a broad sense as to make it meaningless just to say that everyone has a religion.

I dont think that is a redefinttion, really. I mean if you look at the older 'traditional ' religions some of them speak of the worship of money, use it to describe people who are obsessed with money and gaining wealth. Surley its one and the same. Religion, in it self, is basically a core value that dictates the way you lead your life, not thing more nothing less.
:D

[Dark Star]

I dare you to name one single organized religion (let's not cheat by speaking about those on a 'personal spiritual path' or something along those lines, whom I would still consider religious, though) that constitutes nothing but a core value that dictates the way you live your life and nothing more and nothing less. :p

[NikolaiI]

Well, by the mere fact that you add the word "organized" to "organized religion," you show that organized religion is something different from just "religion." Otherwise there is an endless loop in the vein of "organized organized organized organized organized, etc...religion." So religion means something different from organized religion. Anyway, I agree with the definition, more or less, that it means core values or whatever. Of course it means different things, but I think this is true and a good way to look at it.

Well, here (from m-w.com):


1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

#4 would be like, "baseball is a religion with him" I think...or...well you know.

And #2 is the way we're (er, El Viejo) is using it.

[Britva]

A person's religion consists of the core beliefs by which they direct their lives. If we think of beliefs in terms of a painting or drawing, what is absent is as important as what is present. Present in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is the omniscient, omnipotent creator. That being is not present in the beliefs of the Atheist, and is a silhouette in those of the Agnostic. But the presence or absence informs and shapes the rest of the picture.

Atheists do NOT believe in non-believing. If religious apologists reveal only ONE piece of evidence that can prove their biggest claim-the existence of God- a true atheist would give up her previous opinions and accept such claims. Obviously this is not the case for many religious believers. They've asserted that they'd continue to have faith even in the face of manifest evidence.

So let's not fall for extravagant relativism and give all beliefs equal value just because they're beliefs. Sacrificing humans for the God of sun and humanism are both beliefs. Call the second one religious, but please don't try to say that they have no inherent difference.

[NikolaiI]

Well, everyone here will agree sacrificing humans to the Sun God is wrong. So let's at least take that...now about the question of religious...let's look at it again...

Everyone that's living in this world, living, eating, thinking, breathing...lives, thinks about certain things, and thinks according to patterns. They consider objects and solve problems, learn different subjects and do all sorts of different activies. Everyone has some experiencial knowledge and some knowledge they've gotten from others. The majority of humans have also have the priviledge to read books, too.

Now, obviously not everyone has the same morals or precepts. This causes great conflict. To say that anyone believes nothing couldn't really be true... or perhaps it COULD, but see how difficult it would be. Who in the world believes absolutely nothing? If you know anything, then you believe in the existence of something. Even if you have never been talked to, and don't know language at all, then you still have some sort of belief in some way, even if it isn't expressed or understood the same way. Now, saying everyone BELIEVES something is not saying that everyone believes the same thing. And the way they're using religion is in that way. It is not saying at all that there is no difference between religions, it is just saying that everyone has religion.

[Orionsbelt]

Well, so far I can summarize most of this by saying that ideas cause people to do some pretty crazy things. I can only add that the lack of ideas also causes people to do some pretty crazy things.:yawnb:

[Redzeppelin]

Atheists do NOT believe in non-believing. If religious apologists reveal only ONE piece of evidence that can prove their biggest claim-the existence of God- a true atheist would give up her previous opinions and accept such claims. Obviously this is not the case for many religious believers. They've asserted that they'd continue to have faith even in the face of manifest evidence.

"Evidence" for God? You're kidding, right? That's part of God's "problem." God wishes to be freely loved by His creations - just as human beings want to be loved for who they are (not because we can "prove" to other people we're worthy of their love). If God provided "evidence" in the form that many atheists want (and one wonders if even then they wouldn't dimiss it as "hallucination" or "mental illness" - right? Because we can always come up for an excuse for what we don't want to believe), then they would be compelled to fall down and worship Him by very nature of His glory and all-powerful, perfect being. That's worship via "coercion" of a sort - who wouldn't worship God if He appeared as He is described? As CS Lewis wrote: "God cannot ravish, He can only woo." (Screwtape Letters) When God finally shows up, all will "believe" - but that will be too late, because that belief will be due to fear or awe, but not of love - because love cannot coerce or overpower - it can only gently call.

Second: what's all the "manifest evidence" that has banished poor God from existence?


So let's not fall for extravagant relativism and give all beliefs equal value just because they're beliefs. Sacrificing humans for the God of sun and humanism are both beliefs. Call the second one religious, but please don't try to say that they have no inherent difference.

That was well-said, and I do agree.

[Kafka's Crow]

I read the Benazir Bhutto article with baited breath waiting for the description of her desire for her dad etc but it never came about! What a wastage of time. He used 'electra complex' figuratively implying that she fascinated her father's 'politics', yeah, only politics, nothing more nothing less. Taking things out of context and screwing their meanings is the oldest trick in the book. I must confess that I have not read God is Not Great yet although it is waiting on my bookshelf and will be read within a week or so. I finished The God Delusion yesterday and it is very, very impressive. Although Dawkins shows more respect for Sam Harris (also on my reading list) still I will not skip Hithchens. We, all of us, should accept that we have not read God is Not Great and we are discussing it, arguing its merits, authors faults, his theory etc without even reading the book. How intellectually honest..... NOT!

[Dark Star]

Well, by the mere fact that you add the word "organized" to "organized religion," you show that organized religion is something different from just "religion."

I admit my statement was clumsily worded and it may have came across wrong. I simply wanted to avoid getting into ridiculous semantical arguments about whether people 'on a personal spiritual path' as they say are religious or not. I've had someone tell me before that atheism is a religion and his Christianity is not a religion or set of religious beliefs because he doesn't go to church. I was trying to avoid that sort of thing. That said, if we divide religious people from organized religion there is still a key factor: Religion is a system of beliefs so these people saying that atheists are religious too are wrong. One belief (if you choose to call it a belief) does not constitute a system of them. I also tend to find that there is usually a dishonest intention behind it when people try to paint atheism as a religion which makes me get defensive when I see such comments.


Well, here (from m-w.com):

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices [Emphasis added]
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

#4 would be like, "baseball is a religion with him" I think...or...well you know.

And #2 is the way we're (er, El Viejo) is using it.

No, he is not using two, or rather, he is using a bastardization of two (from my understanding of his post) and that is the problem I have. He is saying that a person's life philosophy is itself a religion, not that a person's religious views or ideas make up their belief. This makes no logical sense since people within the same religion will have different life philosophies and different views of their religious beliefs, and thus, by his definition will have different religions. I don't think it takes much to see the problem with defining religion in such a broad manner that you are claiming that two Christians of the same sect of Christianity, two Muslims, what have you are NOT of the same religion unless they share the exact same 'core values' (let's say political views, views on ethics, that sort of thing).

[NikolaiI]

Okay. So # 4 uses the word "cause" or "system," but I don't think these words are necessary for a certain use of the word. I think the lyric "losing my religion" would be an example of this use of the word, although of course it could mean losing my cause which I hold to with ardor or faith. I think a person's "religion" could be anything in that use of the word. My religion could be blinking my eyes at cats.

The other use of the word-- to argue over it is rather meaningless. Religion in the previous sense is used as an emphasis of something that we do-- blinking at cats is my RELIGION because I DIG it. Using religion to say that everyone has religion is using it to define something that already has emphasis, so it's then religion. Now you may say it's meaningless to say that everyone has a religion, because it means that everyone has a different religion, but again; this is only opinion of how the words should be used and their meaning, it's not an important issue other than that. All I am saying is that I personally support this use of the word, and I think it's respectable. Without going off into what beliefs are, which I've studied and written about too, I would just like to ask what is the difference between a system or a non-system. One is organized, and one is un-organized, perhaps. But this is completely insubstantial. A Christian does not have a religion as opposed to not having one if his beliefs are structured or organized. Nor if they can or cannot be expressed in words-- nor even, if he has never thought about it at all.

Nor are beliefs completely separated by a chasm from what is logical, as some seem to believe. After all, if we believe something, and if we also use reason, then we believe in what we think is reasonable, and we think is true what we believe. Belief or religion in this sense-- as something that everyone has-- does not need to be a system or cause or scheme, it could be a counter-cause or counter-system, or it could be un-organized, etc.,-- all it needs to be is "something" that could be expressed as a whole, either you know in an article, or maybe a work of art. And I am even saying that it can't be contradictory! But maybe it can be contradictory-- maybe that doesn't mean it can't be a religion either.

[Dark Star]

I'll try to respond to that in short:

One reason I do not 'support' that meaning of the word is because it is not what the word means (by modern definition, at least). We could say the word 'computer' means a person's life philosophy but it is obviously not true. Another reason I take issue with it is a more pragmatic one; that it is generally the basis of starting some sort of ridiculous argument against atheism; E.G. 'Atheism is a religion and therefore atheists shouldn't complain about the bad affects of religious beliefs!' Or even worse: 'Darwinism is a religion, so we should teach Creationism in school too since they're both religious beliefs!!!' To extend this a bit further 'Anything taught in astronomy class is the religious beliefs of scientists, therefore we need to force them to teach astrology in there, too!!!'...I think you see where I'm going with this. If the actual danger present behind this kind of thinking and vague semantics isn't obvious, I don't know what more to say.

Also, I think one thing that defines a system and a non-system is that a system must contain more than one component. One component (or belief) alone does not constitute a system.

[blazeofglory]

I've just started reading "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by an author named Christopher Hitchens, an avid atheist. As a seminarian and philosophy major in college, it's important to me to view all sides of an issue, regardless of my initial opinions.

With that said, has anyone read this? Or are currently reading it? If so, I'd like to discuss some of the areas he touches upon (religion's effect on government, physical health of individuals, etc.).

So, without further ado, fire away! :thumbs_up

What is your opinion after reading the book. Comment.

[blazeofglory]

Everyone has a religion. Everyone's life is guided by some principle or set of principles. A free-market zealot believes that by selfishly pursuing his own interests he does the greatest good for his fellows. That he is a Baptist or a Presbyterian or whatever on Sundays doesn't change the fact that his religion is commerce.

A person's religion consists of the core beliefs by which they direct their lives. If we think of beliefs in terms of a painting or drawing, what is absent is as important as what is present. Present in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is the omniscient, omnipotent creator. That being is not present in the beliefs of the Atheist, and is a silhouette in those of the Agnostic. But the presence or absence informs and shapes the rest of the picture.

This is indeed a matter of fact I always subscribe to. Indeed you have redefined religions along different lines. You seem to have broken with traditional approaches to religions. The way you included a trader in a particular sect, commerce, really deeply moved me.

Yours is of course a mature observation or understanding of religion.

[aeroport]

I read the Benazir Bhutto article with baited breath waiting for the description of her desire for her dad etc but it never came about! What a wastage of time. He used 'electra complex' figuratively implying that she fascinated her father's 'politics', yeah, only politics, nothing more nothing less. Taking things out of context and screwing their meanings is the oldest trick in the book. I must confess that I have not read God is Not Great yet although it is waiting on my bookshelf and will be read within a week or so. I finished The God Delusion yesterday and it is very, very impressive. Although Dawkins shows more respect for Sam Harris (also on my reading list) still I will not skip Hithchens. We, all of us, should accept that we have not read God is Not Great and we are discussing it, arguing its merits, authors faults, his theory etc without even reading the book. How intellectually honest..... NOT!

:lol:

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who didn't see that as literal...

[El Viejo]

Oops. I wasn't paying attention. I jumped into this thread without realizing we were supposed to have read "God Is Not Great" first.

I have not read the book. I apologize for wasting space.

[aeroport]

Oops. I wasn't paying attention. I jumped into this thread without realizing we were supposed to have read "God Is Not Great" first.

I have not read the book. I apologize for wasting space.

Best I can tell, most of the participants have not - me included. It seems it doesn't matter so much...

[NikolaiI]

Well, okay, but I was discussing things people were already discussing. :)

[hellsapoppin]

''electra complex''

Such images rarely are a fitting description of one's inclinations and do not serve to give one much credibility.

As for Hitchens' he deserves a small measure of credit for defeating Schmuley Boteach as to the merits of his recent writing:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/02/hitchens-v-bote.html


Boteach is even more hostile to Muslims than is Hitchens so I won't give him any sympathy for being made a fool of in public.

[blazeofglory]

God is something that has nothing to do with attributes and since he exists in our minds or projections to say he is good or bad great or small are simply our imaginative faculties and nothing else.

[slobone]

I read part of the book, but didn't have the patience to read the whole thing. He tries to cover too much ground, and he clearly is not as well-informed as he would need to be to be convincing.

Just as one example, on p. 112 he says "The book on which all four [gospels] may have been based, known speculatively to scholars as 'Q', has been lost forever, which seems distinctly careless on the part of the god who is claimed to have 'inspired' it."

This is a pretty elementary mistake. For those of you who don't know, Q refers to a hypothetical early document that's believed to have been the source of those sections of Matthew and Luke that are worded similarly, but that don't match anything in Mark. So by definition it wasn't a source for Mark, and most scholars wouldn't call it a source for John either.

Anyway, he's confusing two kinds of Christians here: 1) those who are interested in tracing the history of the composition of the gospels, who generally consider themselves objective scholars (mostly liberal Protestants), and 2) those who believe the New Testament was inspired by God and don't accept the existence of intermediate documents (most fundamentalists). So Hitchens is trying to simultaneously attack two groups who don't agree with each other anyway.

As you can tell from the snotty tone of the sentence I quoted (which is absolutely typical), Hitchens is pretty arrogant, not particularly funny, and seems to be stuck in a rather adolescent stage of intellectual development. All of which may make him an effective blogger and polemicist but not somebody who's qualified to write a book on a subject of this magnitude and depth.

His contempt for religion is evidently so great that he doesn't even consider it worth his time to study enough to refute it effectively.

[Trystan]

It's a good book by a great iconoclast who isn't afraid to voice his opinion. I liked it better than 'The God Delusion' - Dawkins is a little too pompous in my opinion, and most of the arguments in his book are not his own but those of Russell and other philosopher and scientists. Hitchens is a great advocate for enlightenment principles, the book being a great exposé of their enemies.

[NikolaiI]

It's a good book by a great iconoclast who isn't afraid to voice his opinion. I liked it better than 'The God Delusion' - Dawkins is a little too pompous in my opinion, and most of the arguments in his book are not his own but those of Russell and other philosopher and scientists. Hitchens is a great advocate for enlightenment principles, the book being a great exposé of their enemies.

What are enlightenment's principles? Principally, no God?

[Trystan]

What are enlightenment's principles? Principally, no God?

Principles of freedom, and anti-tyranny etc. As Hitchens points out, the idea of God is antagonistic towards these.

[Redzeppelin]

Principles of freedom, and anti-tyranny etc. As Hitchens points out, the idea of God is antagonistic towards these.

Might I ask how he frames his argument on this point?

[Trystan]

Might I ask how he frames his argument on this point?

He calls God a 'celestial dictator'. He watches us at every move, he can even listen to our thoughts; constantly scrutinizing us. Hitchens uses North Korea as an analogy - but, he says that at least you can die in North Korea and escape that tyranny.

[blazeofglory]

God is something we imagine based on our mental frames. But God, if he is the one to set everything in order is far from our understanding.

Different religions frame their own pictures of God.

A projection is not God.

The name is not God.

Your imagination can not delimit God.

Your prayer has nothing to do with God. And just because you pray God does not take your side and God does not thwart them just because they do not pray.

[Redzeppelin]

He calls God a 'celestial dictator'. He watches us at every move, he can even listen to our thoughts; constantly scrutinizing us. Hitchens uses North Korea as an analogy - but, he says that at least you can die in North Korea and escape that tyranny.

I hope Mr. Hitchens can do better than this. God's existence is not confined to our 4 dimensions - that He is omniscient and omnipresent does not in-and-of-itself = "tyrant." Where does Hitchens get the idea that God is "constantly scrutinizing" us? The North Korean analogy is silly - North Korea is a repressive government - God gives us complete freedom of will.

As I've said before, why would a tyrant or "celestial dictator" suffer Hitchens and his criticism to continue existing? North Korea's tyrant would not suffer the likes of Hitchens and his criticism very long.

Certainly Hitchens can do better. I'll assume you've oversimplified his argument, because this is hardly compelling.

[Hypercrit Htd]

main reason is in agreement with posters here...Hitchens thinking too derivative. The man should give up try to convert sinners, write poetry instead-"Celestial Dictator"-now thats lovely phrase.

[blazeofglory]

God is great as a father figure. But at times he fails, and succumb to fakes and nothing else.

[curlyqlink]

I have read Hitchins' book. I found it amusing, and a bit informative. He is of course preaching to the converted (or should I say the unconverted?) There is really nothing new to say in the arena of atheism; it is after all a negation (and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense at all), the most powerful argument in favor of atheism being the absolute lack of any physical evidence of God's existence. The other atheist arguments are the historical retreat of belief in the supernatural as rationalism and science have advanced, and the linking of modern religion to various mythologies that are nowadays recognized as absurd. All three arguments have been around for a very long time.

Still, there is value in a systematic restatement of these ideas every now and then. God is Not Great is not going to make an unbeliever of a true believer, but it offers hope to the serious doubter, to those who don't really care to believe but who were perhaps raised to be religious and know nothing of rational disbelief. Religion is everywhere, and is almost universally praised as good or at the very least harmless. As the book itself points out, it is only recently in the history of civilization that such freethinking has become permissible; religious faith has long been compelled under threat of the harshest possible of punishments.

Sure, Hitchins' book is partisan. He makes no bones about it, and I see nothing wrong with it.