Gelinde gesagt[ Bearbeiten Quelltext bearbeiten ] Engl. Putting It Mildly. Deren zum Teil textanalytische Lehrmethoden z. Religion Kills.
|Country:||Sao Tome and Principe|
|Published (Last):||8 January 2008|
|PDF File Size:||20.25 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.55 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Yes, really. So my opinion about this book really has nothing to do with my personal convictions. Well, not my personal religious convictions, of which there are none. It has everything to do with my personal convictions as an atheist. Hitchens is not, and I quote from the numerous book reviews so helpfully printed on the first few pages of my paperback copy,"witty, impressive, entertaining, funny, challenging" or, GOD forbid pardon the pun , "excellent".
He is not even polemical, since that would require some factual discussion. He is simply inflammatory. Hitchens bashes religion in pages, complete with references and an index. I guess that way he can pretend that his "work" has some academic value.
Now, the book is called "God is not great - How Religion poisons everything". What the hell did she expect this to be, you will probably ask. Let me tell you. I expected this to be a serious, well presented argument of why the world would be better off without religion. I expected there to be a theoretical discussion about how a world without religion can not only work, but work better than one with religion.
Cause you can never be wrong with the human baby argument. Cause not eating pigs is really one of the worst problems caused by religions in modern times. Poor pigs, they feel all left out. But wait, the pig thing is leading somewhere. It is leading, piggies beware, to the oh so representative story of the muslims who, because of the ban on pigs, try to ban things like "Winnie-the-Pooh", or "The Three little piglets". And I really think pointing out the tiny minority of FREAKS in a religion, any religion, btw, in order to ban the whole thing, is kind of ineffective.
What does Hitches want to say with that? That religion is okay, as long as they keep in check the radicals? And then the normal religious people will lean back and stay as happily religious as they are.
That there is a reason why people are religious, that religions have shaped our societies and our behaviors as humans for as long as we can think? And that there is no more need for religion in the present we live in, that religion has in fact become THE factor that is most likely to hinder the evolution of humans as a race?
Not a word. Or wait, maybe he does mention that somewhere in the pages I chose not to read, because I have better things to do with my time. But I doubt it. I bought this book because I was led to believe that Hitchens is one THE top intellectuals of the USA, and one of the important proponents of the so-called "new atheism". Hitchens may think that he is an atheist, and he may argue on behalf of atheism.
But in doing so, he turns his atheism into the one thing that I am strongly against: a new religion. And that does not only offend my as an atheist, it also harms atheism as such.
Which is the fundamental difference between me and Hitches: we both are convinced that there is no god. But where I only want people to take responsibility for their own mistakes and to not blame a superior being, where I want them to be human because they are, and not because some religion dictates how and why they should be human, Hitchens does not seem to think that far. He just jumped onto the popular train "new" atheim?
Newsflash, Mr. Hitchens: there are idiots everywhere, but you cannot judge the whole system upon them. Case in point. The language, especially the first chapter, is pompous. The structure of the "arguments" is, at best, random.
Also, the author seems to have chosen not to religiously follow the rules of logic. Or to, you know, be logical at all. Some I have given this book to many friends and family not as present for Xmas but as a must read before the the gregorian calendar comes to an end. Some of the recipients have read the book already with praises and civil discourses already purged in its credit.
The read books are being shared to other reason seeker brains. The age of reason is not back because it never left. Great book! This seems like a good place to summarize my objections. I would first like to draw a clear distinction between dogmatic and sceptical atheism. If someone blindly believes that there is no God, and no evidence whatsoever would change their opinion, then I quite agree that, for such people, atheism is indeed another religion.
If you still wish to argue that sceptical atheism is a faith, it seems to me that you are in general arguing that one should abolish the distinction between faith and reasoned judgement, a step most people would be reluctant to take.
Most of it was white some was a dirty gray , and none of it was green. I have never even been in the Himalayas, and directly verifying the claim would also involve visiting and measuring every mountain in the world, a difficult undertaking. Nonetheless, I have met people whose job it is to verify claims of this kind, and I know that they are good at what they do.
Soon the debate would be over, and almost everyone would agree. I also know that the statistics on the efficacy of lightning conductors are very one-sided. None the less, if I were to meet Thor in person, as Natalie Portman does in the recent movie, I would no doubt revise my opinions. My lack of belief in that God is pretty much the same as my lack of belief in green snow, my lack of belief in a mountain taller than Everest and my lack of belief in big blond guys in thunder clouds throwing hammers.
Der Herr ist kein Hirte
John Whitmer Samuel H. Keiner von ihnen hat jedoch jemals sein Zeugnis widerrufen. Whitmer u. Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit.
Der Herr ist kein Hirte: Wie Religion die Welt vergiftet