by David Brill
October 30th, 2011
via SBS Dateline
Dateline heads to the United States’ Bible Belt, as hundreds gather to celebrate their non-belief in God.
The annual Texas Freethought Convention draws atheists, agnostics and humanists from around the world, and this year Christopher Hitchens is the star attraction.
David Brill meets the renowned writer and thinker, as he battles cancer and uses the last of his strength to denounce religion as immoral.
And outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins tells David he only cares about facts and is standing up against ‘outdated and rather unimaginative ideas about the world’.
Religion is a cancer on the fabric of society as is politics as is the tea party as is any entity that attempts to shape the way we think for their own agenda. Yes, Mr. Hitchens is repetitive and his explanations are not revelations – (rather any thing new) which would be more his choice of word. He has a way with words – there is not doubt but he (by his own admission) would push the boundaries to make his points, hence, the provocative attacks on Mother Teresa and other prominent figures to make his argument more salient. All clever tactics in the short term, or to use Mr Hitchens words ‘ a cheap shot’ – but in the long term I wonder if his messages will be diluted by an on occasion terse and indifferent commentary. Still, it is a public discussion that is long over due – and it is clear that all of the world’s problems are myred in religious fervour. I wish him well and hope his emminent death is as painless as possible – his humour and wit will be missed.
Religion is a cancer on the fabric of society as is politics as is the tea party as is any entity that attempts to shape the way we think for their own agenda…..
On that basis all groups with a social aims are cancers.
So atheists trying to convert religious folk is, according to you, a cancer within society.
Even if the aim is simply to make people think that science is the way and the light you are evangelising for a societal change.
The problem with religion as a social aim is that it can never be shown to be dysfunctional. Religion deals with a proclaimed afterlife, promising the benefits for adherence come after death; by the very nature of the claims, nobody can ever demonstrate that they don’t hold to their promises.
Social movements that deal with rewards in THIS life, like capitalism, socialism, rationalism, environmentalism etc. all have the property that at one point, the population can say “Well, that didn’t work; lets try something different.”.
Religion also makes some really damaging claims, like those of the abrahamic religion, such as the idea that this all knowing, all powerful being knows what you’re thinking at all times and will punish you if it doesn’t like it. This is a mind-control mechanism unsurpassed by ANY other that could possibly exist! (save for manually manipulating thoughts).
THIS is why religion is so often analogised as a cancer; it’s like an unwanted non-functional mass of flesh that you just can’t get rid of and it always seems to come back. There is no learning from history, no looking back and recognising that it’s not working.
The other comments (like the tea party movement), whilst not as bad, are still based off a rejection of reason and fact in favour of brutish tribalism (Republicans vs Liberals) and a mass media that propagates ignorance and fear; such claims are somewhat justified.
What about the good things that Christianity has brought? Check out William Wilberforce, Dr Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoffer, William Booth etc. Of course religion has done plenty of evil deeds as well but I don’t think you can discount the good things either. Calling it a “cancer” is to imply there is no good at all in it.
Just because a cancerous tumor may have aided your body in fighting a bacterial infection, that doesn’t make it any less of a cancerous tumor.
Andrew says that Martin Luther King and others have brought about good things through religion. He is mistaken. Good people do good works. Whether the person is religious matters not at all, it would be insulting to these people to suggest that if they were not persons of faith they would cease to do good works.
Andrew says that William Wilberforce who fought tirerlessly against slavery was bought to us by christianity…..I realise he was christian, but so were the other slaves…and the slave owners and most of the people he spoke to over the years trying to convince them that slavery was bad. So we have 1 Christian against slavery and millions of other Christians for slavery and against William…..Does Andrew even understand why his argument is redundant? probably not
Michael – I am against slavery and I am a christian…that makes 2 against slavery. The church I go to regularly takes up an ofeering that goes towards a program aimed at ending child sex slavery in 3rd world countries…there’s a few more against slavery. I don’t think my argument is redundant. My point is that religions doesn’t poison EVERYTHING. Everything is an all inclusive word. So even if Wilberforce was the only man against slavery then it has proven my point so I’m not sure why my argument is redundant.
I think Ian has made an interesting point – good people do good things etc. So based on that idea, religion has nothing to do with good works or bad works…doesn’t this go against the idea that “religion poisons everything”?
Man is clever. Medical science (not god) has saved my life four times;-
1. diptheria when I was a child.
2. peritonitis in middle age.
3. blood pressure.
4. bowel cancer in old age.
Man’s worst creations have been religion, law and finaance.