eh. i'm a little sick of stuff like this. and why do some atheists seem so religious in their hatred of religion?

"In the end, this maddeningly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens's pet themes -- the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep." from a review on amazon

no one will get out of the age of absolutism challenging one belief with another.
secular fundamentalism does nothing but strengthen the convictions of all involved, no matter the side. preaching any sort of dogma is very revolting and seems to only poison the ground water.

@ Strangerbox - Sick of stuff like this? Sorry, no sarcasm here, I just got back into the country and am totally unawares of 'stuff like this'.

@ Fujimoto - I can kinda see it going there. I took a nap instead. Will start later.

@ Nadir - I agree. Atheists are just as faithful as those of religious faith. Telling someone that their version of it is wrong is just foolish. I'm wondering though if this book doesn't have more to say...

NO no no.  it's not faith vs. other faith, it's faith vs. skepticism.  when you're talking about something as supremely unlikely as a god-like entity that remotely cares about humanity, the burden of proof is totally on you, and there's just not a shred of proof.  theists conveniently find that they are arguing points for which proof is irrelevant, but this form of faith is an outright attack on rational thought, which damages young minds by shutting down critical thinking.  religion indoctrinates people to believe that "what X says" (where X is their parents, their pope, or whatever) is unassailably true, with no way to change their mind, because the belief is not about any evidence or logic, but about what they've been told.  and as is abundantly evident, people make major life decisions based on these "truths," such as who to vote for, whether it's ok for a woman to decide whether or not she's pregnant, whether it's a good idea to kill people because they believe something else.

look, guys.  everything that was ever figured out to improve freedom and quality of life for everyone was figured out using logic and the scientific method (which demands falsifiability as its core tenet).  it's nifty when subjective religious experience makes people feel happier and inspires them to do cool things, but those same feelings and inspirations happen all the time without religion, and in the mean time, it clouds judgment, undermines critical thinking, and in every place in the world where there's a majority religion, oppresses people who think differently.

atheism is the anti-dogma.  any good atheist, Hitchens included, will happily accept your god if you provide some evidence.  calling atheism dogma is like when people say it's wrong to criticize racism or homophobia because it's hypocritical to be intolerant of intolerance.

@ le_sacre - Fucking chill dude. Your tone in this post is insanely judgemental.

While I agree with much of what you're saying, as an atheist, I feel that to move beyond relating to the simple skepticism of agnosticism to the belief of atheism, is to take a leap of faith. I didn't call it dogma. To have faith in something is not exactly the same as dogmatism.

Further, as you've pointed out, there are 'good atheists' and, I'll assume the opposite. Much in the same way there are 'good theists' and their reverse. In my humble opinion, the 'good' and 'bad' correlate strongly to someones' ability to tolerate those who think and feel differently than they themselves. Don't go lumping them all into one bunch.

@Katymonster:  it's a topic i feel really strongly about because i grew up with fundamentalists as peers in my christian school, and i think especially right now because it is almost SOLELY on account of religion that i may permanently lose my right to marry in november, and we may get a president who'll pack the SCOTUS with justices who'll overturn Roe v. Wade, and otherwise trash the country.

but regardless, i also feel strongly that there needs to be a distinction between the two definitions of "judgmental."  there are in fact important judgments to be made!  and risk of offending someone or hurting someone's feelings isn't a good reason to refrain from expressing one's judgment if the facts are correct and the consequences important.

and what really bugs me about religious people, even the ones who don't feel that religion should influence government, is that they're (practically without exception) raising their kids to believe unquestioningly in their religion also.  for the reasons i stated earlier, i think this is a terrible influence on kids' ability to think critically, and in this way people aren't "keeping their religion to themselves."

@ le_sacre - I think you're rad. I think you're wicked smart. I find myself agreeing with almost everything you've said here. I'm just saying, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar'.

xo,

*Katy

Oh! Your last paragraph is so spot on. And actually, I had hoped the book would focus on that. Sort of analyzing the fact that religion is so very pervasive here. After close to two years in Japan, I found that the absence of religion was quite lovely.

But so far, I'm pretty over this book and I'm on chapter Two. Fail. Hitchens is just as preachy as Jimmy Baker and that does not make for good reading, imo.

@katymonster:  just for clarity's sake, i think you're rad, too!  gti-smiles.  :-)

the real wonder about Hitchens is how he manages to say very intelligent things while sounding completely soused off his ass.  and for sure he's not always right:  he was a strong promoter of the iraq invasion early on.