Is Religion Force of Good? Christopher Hitchens & Tony Blair Debate

[tomm2thumbs]

Run time: 106:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA   Posted on YouTube: December 28, 2010 By YouTube Member: CSPANJUNKIEd0tORG Views on YouTube: 173   Posted on DU: December 28, 2010 By DU Member: tomm2thumbs Views on DU: 2166

 

The Munk Debates in Toronto - a very entertaining and insightful debate on the role of religion as a force in the world. Christopher Hitchens, for currently fighting cancer of the esophagus, is in top form. Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Great Britain (1997-2007) delivers an interesting contrast. Overall, nice to see an intelligent debate on this subject.

[Ken Burch]

1. I really find it disgusting that Tony Blair is the voice of "religion" in this debate

Most of what he did as Labour Party leader(stripping it of its commitment to defend working people and emancipate the poor from their suffering)and as prime minister(his championing of the Iraq War, his increasing use of repression against dissent, his giveways to the rich through privatizations)had NOTHING to do with what religion, and especially the Christianity that Blair claims to believe in, stand for.

[stockholmer]

13. Blair is a War Criminal and should be prosecuted under....

The Genocide Convention, 1948.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
The Nuremberg Principles, 1950.
The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1968.
The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War, 1949; its supplementary protocols, 1977.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Interesting conversation.

I agree with Tony Blair's comments on the idea of Essence of scripture, that's how I think of it also. I also agree religion should not create a superiority complex, but to help find ways to improve oneself.

I think Christopher Hitchens was saying he does not agree with coercion used by some faiths, or faiths for claims of material goods or material claims. I understand that and agree that creates many problems, and think faith should not be coercion, or for claims over other people.


I personally believe the supernatural exists, and there are many ways that can create fear, although I think those ways can be overcome, and there is much comfort in much of the supernatural also.



Great post, thanks it was interesting.



There is one more thing, if people don't learn of the supernatural, that wont stop things that can use those forces against them. So actually think people should know the supernatural exists, but also have teaching to think of the better ideals and concepts.

[AlbertCat]

8. and there is much comfort in much of the supernatural also.

Guffaw!

There simply is no need for the supernatural... unless you are really desperate. And then it doesn't work.

I rejected the notion that anything that exists is supernatural: if it exists it's because the laws of physics allow for it. The "anarchy" of the supernatural leads nowhere and has no power. It just mucks up the works. It cannot achieve anything the "natural" can, because the supernatural does nothing. It only exists in your mind. It's a distraction that can lead to much misery because of false promises and distractions from what NEEDS to be done. Since I threw it away, my life has been GREAT!

[RandomThoughts]

15. I understand that concept.

Although part of the proof was that it does not only exist in my mind, but across many minds and in many forms.

If it was only in my mind it could be imagination, by proving it is connective across many minds it removes that possibility. And once it is connective across many minds, it no longer can be said to not be able to do anything. However I agree 'doing something' could be against many concepts I think are better.

There are some issues the normal has chosen not to correct, therefore for those corrections to occur it is logical for the supernatural to be required, since accepting a wrong situation is not acceptable.



Here is an example of something in my mind.


In many stories people speak of multiverse, the concept that at ever point ever decision creates a new universe. It is common in scifi for shows to be written with that concept of multiverse. Basically mutliverse doctrine says that from every choice a new possible universe is created.

That can not be created from within any universe, and can be shown not possible.

For one universe to become two based on two different possibilities, then a set of conditions must be able to have two results, but only one result will occur from any set of situations. Many shows speak of a new universe being picked for every possible choice, but every choice is a combination of all the electrons and atoms in their specific position leading to that choice. Their is only one choice that can be picked, and no second universe can be spawned from any set of situations.

Or the choice someone makes will always be that choice they made and not some another choice, that is the fate argument, also the predicting the future argument. To predict the future, all you would have to know is the state of ever atom and electron in existence, and the functionality of all interactions of every thing in existence. Then the complete coarse of everything would be known. Yet people would still have free will while making those choices, even if only one universe exist and no second possibility could exist. That is the argument of free will as an illusion, however it is only an illusion outside of linear time, in linear time it is the choices that come from the life time experiences that make up a choice. That is why it is said there are no coincidences, or more accurately nothing is actually random, since they all have a precursor of events that lead up to the choice made.

So multiverse can only occur by effect from outside of the universe that splits into two possibilities, or change from any coarse of 'only coarse' actions can only occur from outside the system, explaining interventions by supernatural, since within a system, the coarse would always be a same without an external effect.


So I can prove the concept of multiverse used in many theories of time travel, or theories of existence can not exist in the form used in those shows and thoughts. That comment is in my mind, so you could also say that proof has no effect. However if someone were to read it, they would have to conclude that a theory that would use that concept would not be valid, thereby changing how they think on things. So only being in my mind is only a non effect if it is not discussed.

Furthermore the supernatural is shown to exist in many minds outside of linear time, so a change in existence can occur from the supernatural 'only in your mind' by simple connection to the supernatural also 'only in someone elses mind' making your statement of no effect inaccurate.

So would you need to understand that or even read it?

The supernatural you speak of would be a non connective supernatural.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Can you demonstrate that the supernatural exists?

Because that would be an awesome party gag.

[Stuckinthebush]

10. My thoughts exactly

Give me one damn example of the "supernatural" that is testable.

Just one.

[RandomThoughts]

16. The supernatural is outside of space time, and can not be seen.

You can never actually see it from inside the natural, you can only see its wake.

As the supernatural has effects, you do not see the supernatural, you see the patterns of effects that ripple outward.

So you have to show the ripples moving outward from a point, to show that an interaction happened at some point. With a set of consistent examples of effect connected and outward from some point. you prove the supernatural exists, although do not prove its exact form.


The form and sequence of many of my posts shows the ripples moving outward from a point outside of space time.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. If it has a 'wake' I can measure it.

Please point me to a 'wake'.

[RandomThoughts]

21. considering I been posting that for years.

It might be that you are not seeing it.

Martin Sheen yelling Wake up during a rally, although clip has been Censored from the internet.

Although you have to remove the economic, and nationalism filters. You can see the 'good day' in this clip also


http://mubi.com/films/1537



If you want to know more about how they use the dark powers to make people sleep and not see what is going on, and more about why people do not see what is going on. There is a twilight zone episode on that topic also. It is set in the civil war, but has label traps in it also.


Wake Up!


Seriously, if you saw the sequence of posts you would see it. They are all connected.

There are some label traps in there, but it is a deep concept on many things.

Helicopter Attack Flight of the Valkyries Wagner.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/859285/


Good day is in this song.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8nec2_simon-garfunkel-slip-sliding-away-final-fantazy_music

However it is no longer found on Internet searches, they are trying to scorch or hide anything that could have meaning. What does that say, why do they fear such thoughts? Because they claim to have the knowledge of good and evil. It is them taking from that tree over and over.

It is also in the movie the 13th warrior, it is also in the Braveheart speech.

The error is the education of what is fighting, that is transposed from the song into the movies, so you have to remove the filter of military, violence or fighting by ways of warfare to get back to the song that is in those movies.


Some would say that me posting such stuff leads to censorship, a plausible conclusion since exact clip I posted was edited out of movie Lord of the Rings on TNT. However that shows they are censoring, and goes against their view of not rocking the boat, and how do you thing powers of kindness will feel about not having there works seen.

So while they say they are afraid to not rock could be the bad boat, they rock what could be the good boat of better thoughts, in that what is seen is there acts of censorship. And what they really are. It is because they think good thoughts are limited. It shows those that censor beautiful thoughts are darkness and secrecy.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. You are talking about human opposition to an ideal.

Whether it be political or religious. That lends no credibility to a supernatural.. being or force, or anything.

That is not a 'wake' of supernatural force/activity/influence.

[RandomThoughts]

23. That is not what I am saying, I am talking about a force that works through many people.

Without them always knowing it or discussing it, without them being in a conspiracy.

I am talking, as I posted years ago, about 5 people in 5 different rooms posting the same thing without knowing that someone else does. And not only grand concepts of right and wrong, but entire conversations.

That is why people think masons, or world government is a conspiracy it is not a conspiracy, and not all bad or all good either. It is supernatural, and most don't even know why they post a compartmentalized part, or repeat of what someone else says.

And why the bankers did not even understand their own banking, because they weren't doing it. And why complexity is a brother of secrecy.


you could say it is because there is absolute truth that many recognize, but that would not be the only explanations.


I am saying many people are saying the same things by either there being an absolute truth, or by that truth working through many people, in the same way, there is a side that wants worse results and does the same thing with ideas and effects most think are not as admirable.


The 'saw movies' I only saw a couple scenes of that movie, but it is about getting you to fight to hurt yourself by thinking that will get you free. Bad can not hurt you, it has to get you to hurt yourself.

But good also works through people to help many people also.


And to maintain balance, and maybe humor. I need a drink :D

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Incorrect.

You don't even have the 'saw' movies right. In those movies, you must go to extreme lengths to save yourself. Commit some sacrifice, to live, showing how very badly you wish to live.
Doing nothing gets you killed, in those movies.


And sorry, 5 people posting similar things simultaneously, without interaction is a little thin for 'evidence'.

[Stuckinthebush]

27. No it doesn't

There is no proof. Just speculation.

[RandomThoughts]

14. Yes

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Please do so.

[tomm2thumbs]

3. Debate Results....

For those that were wondering how it turned out re: audience before/after opinions....

'Pro' means you agree that religion is a force for good in the world
'Con' means you disagree that religion is a force for good in the world

Pre-Debate

Pro: 25%
Con: 55%
Undecided: 20%
_________

Post-Debate

Pro: 32%
Con: 68%
Undecided: --

[AtheistCrusader]

20. The 'pro' side did better than they did at the IQ2 debate, with Hitchens and Fry.

Surprised it went up a bit.

Opponents included a cardinal and a former PM.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Yes indeed a force for good imho. NOT.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=501208


Religious Conflicts (selected)
Generally speaking, in most of the following cases, religion is both
the stated cause of the killing and the only substantive difference
between the two opposing groups. Obviously, there would be many
additional conflicts where religion is just one of several divisions.
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
Early Christian doctrinal disputes
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon
1860
1975-92
Martyrs, generally
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Responsibility generally (Is religion responsible for more deaths than ...?)
Christian culpabiltiy
Russian pogroms:
1905-06
1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
In addition, here are a few noteworthy conflicts where dissimilar
ethnic groups fought for primarily religious reasons:
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s

[KansDem]

7. Also add the "Mountain Meadows Massacre."

Mountain Meadows was a regular stop on the Old Spanish Trail from Santa Fe to Los Angeles and in 1857 the place where John D. Lee led a massacre of 120 emigrants at a time when Mormons feared they would again be driven from their homes by "gentiles."

PBS

[tomm2thumbs]

30. interesting story - never come across that

and wiki was helpful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre

and
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_mass.htm

thanks for the lead on that - insightful

[old mark]

5. Not necessarily, especially when combined with politics or armed force

as it so often has been for all history.

mark

[TACFIRE]

6. Cause of War and conflict?

Aquisition of Resources/Power/Wealth

Religion is just a method whereby those that fight and support will do so with greater fervor.
I still can't name a single atheist suicide bomber...
That's a tough message to market:
"Gravity Akbar"
"Onward, and you shall be rewarded with seventy two..m uh...well...
"death and dissolution actually!":sarcasm:

[stockholmer]

11. I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Mahatma Gandhi

[RandomThoughts]

17. Someone asked for a wave in a past post yesterday.

I think Gandhi waves to people in many ways.


But anyways, I think Ghandi is connected to the better spirit of God, goodness and kindness and concepts of justice with love.

From my point of reference, I would say he is a Christian. From his point of reference, he would probably say I was part of 'some concept' from his belief system. Does that make sense? Or I would presume he would say that, he might not, but it is the concept of relativity in viewing other systems of belief from your perspective, but there also being a totality of truth that contains many things seen in many different ways.

I think we believe in many of the same things, although not exactly the same, the same concept of better ideas. And since what he showed in his teachings fit what I think a Christian is, then from my viewpoint of understanding that concept he would fit into it. (Although I do not put myself on his level of effect or even thought, if someone thinks that, I do not try to compare in that way, although if someone thinks that is what I am doing you missunderstand. Any person doing a kind thought, no matter how small, anytime in their life, in that moment would be equal to Gandhi during any of his actions of kindness. As they would be the same as anyone else in a better spirit of kindness in that moment.) It is not an elevation or a devaluation of status, but more an acknowledgment that many people all over do many things in a better spirit through their lives, and it is that spirit of doing things that has more of a determiner then what is actually done.

For those that say he was not becuase of some requierment from scripture. How would you know what is in his heart?

This is not meant to be disrespectful to his beliefs, it is meant to say that other beliefs can be seen to be part of the same spirit of better ideas that I think is taught in my belief system.

[DeSwiss]

12. "Is Religion Force of Good?"

- Ahhh.... NO!

It is exactly the opposite because it excuses man from taking responsibility for his actions. His choices. And it blames our numerous stupid acts upon devils while giving credit for our few good acts to some faraway god. Pah!!!

"I consider it an extremely dangerous doctrine, because the more likely we are to assume that the solution comes from the outside, the less likely we are to solve our problems ourselves." ~Carl Sagan

"The average man, who does not know what to do with his life, wants another one which will last forever." ~Anatole France

"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction" ~Judith Hayes

"Did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That's right, half of America looks at books called the old testament and the new testament and cannot figure out which one came first." ~Bill Maher

"God is a placeholder for our ignorance. Saying God did it is just saying that some phenomenon that is hard to understand is caused by some being that is impossible to understand." ~Jeremy Beahan

"Science is an attempt, largely successful, to understand the world, to get a grip on things, to get hold of ourselves, to steer a safe course. Microbiology and meteorology now explain what only a few centuries ago was considered sufficient cause to burn women to death." ~Carl Sagan

[CrawlingChaos]

24. Well Christopher Hitchens is definitely NOT a force for good

I can say that much with certainty!

[t0dd]

26. Yes, he is. He speaks beautifully about the moral imperative for atheism

even while dying from cancer. Please re-evaluate your "certainty".

[CrawlingChaos]

28. Bullshit - he's a warmonger

He spent years as a tireless cheerleader for the BushCo wars of aggression.

Moral imperative my ass. I suggest you re-evaluate.

[MrModerate]

25. Hitchens was brilliant; Blair somewhat less so.

Partly because Hitchens is simply a sharper intellect (even with one foot in the grave!) than Blair, but because Blair chose a very weak defense: religion is a force for good because it channels the charitable impluse (secondary notion: not all evil is caused by religion).

But I agree with others -- very refreshing and instructive to have a debate on the topic that was not at the top of the lungs with implicit fisticuffs outside between the debaters.