Hitchens Eviscerates Rosenbaum: Flawless Victory

The bit we're seeing is edited, so we're not seeing the full discussion here. As good a debater as Hitchens is, I would assert that it's a little premature to say “Flawless Victory.”

I have a side question though. It seems to me that one could argue a case against handgun ownership using almost the precise argument that Hitchens uses here against religion. One may be comforted by handgun ownership, but there is plenty of data that a skilled debater could point to that shows the evils brought to society by handguns. The debater could say that what we need is the elimination of handguns, not a new generation of more peaceful handgun owners. Daniel, would you find that argument to be as persuasive?

“Handguns just kill one or twelve or 20.”

One or twelve or 20 PER incident you mean. Those deaths add up. From http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gun…
“In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries.”

“Religion can, quite literally, cause the end of our civilization.” I think that this is just a tad over the top. For example, handgun deaths in the US dwarf deaths caused by religious extremists (even taking into account the events of 9/11).

“In fact, that's precisely the goal of much of religion–to bring such an end about.” I'm not sure how you're defining “much” here, but to assert that this is anything but a (TINY) minority viewpoint among religious people is to be self-deceived.

“Religion is counter-science. Religion is counter-reason. Religion is counter-compassion, when not dealing with people you identify with. Quite simply, religion has the ability to cause harm on a scale FAR greater than handguns.”

I won't bother dissecting those claims (though there is much to be argued with) because you have not made a logical argument. You're simply stating what you wish to be true rather than what IS true. (Reread your quote by Julia Sweeney. I know the context of her quote. It doesn't mean that it doesn't apply here.) The following is a possible handgun version of your sentences:

Handguns are anti-peace. Handguns are violent. Handguns are DESIGNED to cause harm. Handguns are counter-compassion. Quite simply, handguns CAUSE harm on a scale FAR greater than religion.

Furthermore, religion is not only safe, it is beneficial when practiced by reasonable people, and an increase in the numbers of religious people would not necessarily erode the ability of people to remain reasonable. Handguns attack the people themselves. Killing and maiming … causing others to buy guns and in some cases seek revenge — thus compounding the problem in a domino effect.

—

A few of your claims are SO far over the top that it diminishes the power of your argument.

A two word claim given without justification is NEVER beyond contention.

“Religion does.”

Extreme claims demand a high standard of proof. Please justify this claim. I'll give you a hint as to a potential reply from my end. It would be to your advantage if you can justify your claim without reference to weapons.

Daniel, you're making assertions not a reasoned argument.

Name MANY religious groups that believe that OUR bringing an end to civilization is a good thing. You say “as one may imagine” but what “one may imagine” is not a good argument. This is the WHOLE POINT of Julia Sweeny's quote!

In my understanding of Christian belief, Christians believe that there will come a time at which our civilization ceases to exist in its current form. I have NEVER met a Christian who (to my knowledge) believed that THEIR actions (or the actions of countries) could or should contribute to this transformation.

In my understanding of Jewish belief, they don't believe this at all. Yet you seem to be pointing at them in your second paragraph. Do you think that when they expended their territory in the 1960's this was to hasten the end of civilization?

Hitler didn't believe this either, but he attempted some territorial expansion of his own. You're blaming religion for this sort of thing?

You destroy your arguments by using hyperbole. (Infinitely more dangerous? Come on.) Speaking only for myself (separate from this debate): if I had a choice between all religion being gone tomorrow and all guns being gone tomorrow, I'd choose the guns.

You keep asserting that religion has the ability to end civilization. How?

Anyway, we've discussed this before, Daniel. You have what I believe to be a flawed understanding of religious belief and people of faith. If necessary, I will go back your earlier post (the one that I said had much more to argue with) and go through it point by point.

For now, I am asking for two things.

(1) Please name “Many religious groups with significant influence” that “believe that the end of our existing civilization” should be hastened by human action.

(2) Please explain HOW religion has the ability to end civilization.

I'm replying at the top level because the indentation is getting extreme. (We've lost about half of the available real estate.)

“Many religious groups with significant influence believe that the end of our existing civilization will herald the beginning of paradise. As one may imagine, anything that can possibly bring this about quicker is considered a good thing.”

This (your second sentence) is NOT the viewpoint of either Christianity or Judaism. It is also NOT the viewpoint of Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism. I can't speak for Islam because I have inadequate knowledge of their belief system. (I am in no way implying that it IS the viewpoint of Islam.)

You are right that some suicide bombers are making what they believe to be a religious statement and that some believe that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. You are also right that some people don't give a crap about THIS world because they believe that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Indeed, I believe that many (but FAR from all) of the most evil acts ever perpetrated by the human race were done in the name of one religion or another. This doesn't condemn religion any more than it condemns humans as a species. It is ALSO true that many (but not all) of the BEST acts ever done by humans were done in the name of one religion or another. Humans are capable of both great evil and great good. Throughout history religion has been widespread throughout the species. Therefore it is not surprising that there are examples of both good and evil that are linked to religious people. This remains as true today as it ever has.

In any case, all of that still doesn't tell me how religion has the power to end civilization. It is simply not true that the majority of the believers in ANY of the major religions are uncaring about this world. I remain FAR from convinced that those few who care so little for this world have the power to end civilization as we know it. (This is the crux of your argument and what needs some actual justification. Claiming that it is true doesn't convince me. I'm not a viewer of Fox News.) For that matter, I am far from convinced that religion is the only thing to blame for the attitudes that these despairing people have about the world.

You probably subscribe to the belief that “Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.” Why is that saying any truer than the following one? “Religion doesn't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.”

> How is this sort of event any less damaging to the fabric of civilization than a suicide bombing?

Because religion inspires people to do this with a nuke in the middle of New York City, whereas someone with a handgun just wants to do it in his home, or his school, or at work.

The guy who hates his life just kills the people around him (perhaps using a handgun). The person who's convinced the creator of the world wants non-believers to die wants to kill their entire civilization (perhaps using a nuke).

It's a whole separate scale.

Carl,

If the problem were guns then the Swiss would have major issues. Why don't they?

You say I'm admitting that religious people would need weapons to do harm to millions of people. Carl, the problem is the willingness to kill MILLIONS of people based on a fantasy. The means of how they will carry it out is an insignificant detail. Technology will continue to make this easier and easier as time goes on.

One point on the Sweeney quote: The way she was using it was in the context of WANTING to believe she wouldn't die. WANTING to believe she would see her family and friends again in heaven. Those were the wants. The REALITY was that this wasn't going to happen. Hence, believing what was true rather than what we wanted to believe was true.

So, given that, which of us is doing the WANTING more in this debate? Do you think I WANT the religious to be more clueless than they are more than you WANT them to be more logical than they are? Or is this not even an issue for us?

The notion that Hitler was some sort of anti-religious personna is mostly a pc-based contortion. He was exceedingly close with the Christians, and had their full backing for much of his reign.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm?

I know the context of her quote. The point of it is to be at peace with TRUTH. I entirely respect your lack of religious beliefs. What I have issue with is that you let this prejudice your views of religious people and you let this interfere with the logic in your arguments.

You paint religious people with an extraordinarily wide brush AND you make claims that are simply not true. Or rather you have been making the SAME false claim OVER and OVER. Here's one version.

“Handguns don't have a real-world, significant chance of ending civilization. Religion does.”

Religion simply does NOT have a real-worl, significant chance of ending civilization.

The WANTING something to happen doesn't MAKE it happen. Furthermore, even al Qaeda doesn't seek the end of civilization. Remove the hyperbole from your arguments and they will be strengthened.

My wish (in these threads) is for YOU to be more logical, and part of being logical is to start from reasonable premises. You can't just start with “These guys want to destroy civilization and have the power to do it” as your initial premise. That sort of assertion needs lots of justification.

I have NEVER denied the existence of dangerous religious nutcases. In fact, there are dangerous nutcases of many kinds including those who are unreligious or antireligious (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). You're blaming RELIGION as the source of the danger in exactly the same way that some people blame GUNS as the source of the problem in gun-related crime. Your response to THEM would probably be “Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.” The LOGIC is precisely the same to say that “Religion doesn't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.”

“the problem is the willingness to kill MILLIONS of people based on a fantasy.”

That is indeed a problem.

“The means of how they will carry it out is an insignificant detail.”

It is NOT.

“Technology will continue to make this easier and easier as time goes on.”

Then we should fight to keep this sentence from being true.

Now we're somewhere we can agree.

There are nutcases who want to kill millions based on some fantasy. (Hitler is a good example of this. I'll keep him in mind.)

It is important to keep those with these murderous desires from attaining the ability to carry out those desires. We don't want a repeat of the Holocaust (6 million +) or even Hiroshima and Nagasaki (200000+) or Dresden (20000+).

(As an aside, and as evidence that ending civilization is no small feat, I would point out that civilization endured those events.)

I would simply argue that it isn't RELIGIOUS nutcases we need to worry about. It is NUTCASES that we need to worry about.

—-
Finally .. “If the problem were guns then the Swiss would have major issues. Why don't they?”

You can make the same statement about any religious country that isn't bent on ending civilization. THAT is MY POINT.

Fine .. that's not my main point. Count him as religious if you wish. I don't think that you can argue that his religion was what drove his madness, but that's REALLY not my point. Stick to Stalin if you wish. He was an athiest.