I believe he is speaking of the fact that the act/belief doesn’t require a religious motive. They’re inextricably tied in his negation of the believer’s assertion that religion is necessary.
It doesn’t seem to me he’s separating the act from the motive; you have a positive act done by a believer; that act could just as well have been motivated by atheism as by religion. The motives are attached. The religious person did it for a religious motive. The atheist did it for his secular motive.
Therefore, religion isn’t necessary as a motive for that good act.
The negative acts are actually moot to that aspect of his point; that’s just something that interests me (net negative effect of religion on the world).
What he’s doing is defending against the assertion that religion is necessary for the commission of good acts, as believers claim.
I don’t even think that’s something you claim, is it?
You may not even disagree with Hitchens on that point.
It seems to me what we can’t measure is the good done in the name of God vs. the bad. Not only that , I tend to think that if we had no organized religion then there would be other organizations doing pretty much the same balance of good and evil acts. It’s just humanity with it’s mix of good and bad, regardless of what labels we put on it.
Did you see the South Park where the two atheist groups of the future were fighting and killing each other? Pretty funny, but the best humor is based in the truth.
Well, that may very well be the case since it would require – in the literal sense – a listing of every act ever done and the objective motivation for it and then a really large abacus and a lot of coffee. 
But the simple point Hitchens is defending against is the assertion by believers that religion is necessary for certain good acts.
The mix of good and bad, regardless of what labels are put on it, is the syntax way of expressing what my abbreviations were doing with 100/100, that is a ‘wash’; in other words, pretty much the same balance. You can call it 90/10 if you want or 10/90 but the point is that my personal idea is that man is about as good as he is bad. bb2 doesn’t see any reason to believe that, but then again he’s an avatar. :eek:
My friend told me about that and I loved the notion of poking holes in the sacred cows of the dogma of progressives, atheist/agnostics, etc.; I think doing that kind of thing is just fucking great because it gives us all perspective and lets us take ourselves less seriously.
I hasten (what an odd word) to point out, however, that the converse is not so typically true; that is, religious folks seem to get offended a bit more by parodies than non-religious folks when it comes to skewering their holy cows.
Not that the dogma of the atheists can’t be just as rigid very often but I confess I don’t think that’s purely 50/50. 51/49 perhaps 
For example, I’m sure you know the guy that did the chef quit because his religion was being mocked although he had no trouble mocking xianity all those years; I get the feeling that kind of thing is less likely to offend a non-religious person.
Less likely, not impossible.
My own position is that the superficial structure that houses us and whatever label we give it for communications sake isn’t that significant when looking at the plus or negative effect. Marriage can be a place where two people help and support each other and they both grow or a place where one cruelly dominates the other, and all the levels of subtlety in between the two extremes. Take any organization or group and you’ll find something similar.
ftr when religious leaders from any religion states something that smells like “You must think, and feel, and worship, the way we tell you too or you’re dammed for eternity” I call bullshit. In this case though Hitchens has countered with his own assertion and I call bullshit on his as well.
I haven’t seen a negative act listed yet that I’d concede can only be done with belief. would person X who uses religion to manipulate others for the thrill or control and money still do those things if there was no religion. Of course. person x would become a politician.
I think Hitchens point is far to broad to really have any use. He might as well say religion sucks just to vent rather than cloak his feelings in this pretense of intellectualism but that doesn’t sell books. I understand the backlash against religion Organized religion has oppressed thousands largely unchallenged for too long. I’d be interested in hearing Sam Harris discuss Hitchens point. I find him much more analytical and unbias.
This really surprises me. I know we haven’t agreed much but did you read the link? Under legal analysis of murder.
Does human sacrifice qualify? If someone was arrested after they had sacrificed someone what would they be charged with? I mean please. Your argument is nonsense, and even though we’ve disagreed I expected better of you.
Finding a definition that is worded to better support your particular slant doesn’t help. Wouldn’t that be the parsing to avoid admitting an error that you seem to despise?
Yes, they believe it to be true. It’s still manipulation using whatever as leverage to control the other person. Love, Money, excommunication form the church, family, group. It’s all the same act with different clothes on.
Some kids are smart enough to realize that an imagined hellfire doesn’t hurt as much as a belt across the ass. 
I think I understand the attempt. I just think that stripped down to the act it’s a wash. There aren’t any evil acts that aren’t committed in a secular way as well. I hope I’ve demonstrated that human sacrifice is murder and hell fire threat is manipulation.
Let’s try this.
How about AA? The goal is to help people escape addiction and improve their lives and a key component of the twelve steps is belief in a higher power. Would you say that’s a positive act directly attributed to religion?
How about an order of nuns who vow to live in poverty and work providing food, shelter and basic medical needs to the impoverished as an expression of their devotion to God. Would that be a positive act directly attributed to religion?
I’m not so certain believers many believers claim religion is necessary for the commission of good acts. They believe you must worship Jesus or whomever to get into heaven. They might believe following Jesus makes us better people, but that’s not the same thing. It seems to me that Hitchens is trying to make his own assertion which is encapsulated in the excerpt I quoted.
In another post I called bullshit on the religious claim and on Hitchens.
The question of whether religion is necessary eventually breaks down to the individual and after years of thinking about and studying this my own conclusion is that I can’t say with certainty what is necessary for another person. {extreme examples aside}
It’s clear that for some religion isn’t necessary to do good but if we try to extend that to conclude, “and that means religion isn’t necessary period” we’ve reached an erroneous conclusion. For others some form of spiritual belief may be necessary for their emotional and mental make up, in order to motivate them to do good. It may only be necessary for a portion of their lives but remains a part of their moral make up.
I suspect that you and I have taken some of the more positive aspects of our church going backgrounds with us into who we are today and discarded what we felt wasn’t positive. We might say organized religion isn’t necessary for either of us right now today, but we’d have to say it is still a part of who we are, and influenced us. So, looking at others we can’t know or say, religion isn’t necessary for them.
I have my own generalization that I proposed in another thread and got into an elongated discussion on. I don’t want to do that here but since it relates to the subject here so I’ll toss it out, not as a firm assertion but just to get thoughts on.
In discussing the question of whether religion or spiritual beliefs have a net positive or negative I proposed that since most of humanity has been believers by a huge percentage, and humanity has progressed within recorded history as slavery and the oppression of women declines , human and civil rights progress, movements to end poverty and widespread suffering increase, then it appears to me at least superficially that religion must have a more positive influence.
If religion was a net negative then how could mankind slowly steadily progress with the vast majority being believers?
reasonable? Unreasonable?
No, it’s evil and parasitic. They are not really trying to help people, but switch them from one addiction to another. It’s no better than “helping” an alcoholic by convincing him that PCP is a better high.
I hear that claim all the time. The idea that without God we are all monsters is a standard claim from the religious.
Because it’s not the only force in the world, although I expect we’d be far ahead socially and scientifically if we never had religion. If religion was the only force driving people we’d be living in caves, or extinct.
As religion decreased in importance, the pace of progress increased. The most religious 1000 of the past 2000 years were nearly stagnant. But as the Reformation loosened the stranglehold of the Catholic church and the Age of Enlightenment sought to replace biblical teachings with science, the opportunity to advance knowledge and improve quality of life outpaced anything that had been seen before, IMHO.
Wow. You just don’t get it do you? Read what you quoted. It specifically says with “malice” aforethought. Look up malice. It says acting out of hostility.
That’s not human sacrifice. Of course they’d be charged because the secular law ignores the intention. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s not morally murder as defined by the dictionary. It’s not that hard to grasp:
Human sacrifice is not done with malice aforethought, as required by “murder.”
Malice means acting out of hostility (see dictionary).
I agree religion is nonsense.
ROFL Now that’s funny. “Finding a defintion that…support your particular slant.”
Well, if you’re throwing out the dictionary as a way to define the meaning of a word, there’s no talking to you. I’m sorry, but words are what we use to communicate meaning. There’s no error in defining the meaning of human sacrifice as motivated by religion.
Yes, and the point remains: that parent wouldn’t have expressed that threat if they didn’t believe it to be true. One less threat. Net good.
I don’t think I know what that bolded part is referring to. **No **evil acts that are not done in a secular way. What? Human sacrifice is an evil act that is not done in a “secular way” as you put it. It’s a religious act. So there’s one.
As for AA, I’d say it’s a positive act that didn’t require religion. That’s the point.
As for the nuns, religion isn’t necessary for that action because those actions can be motivated and justified without religious belief. That’s the point.
I think we may have a confusion here on what we’re talking about and it may or may not include bbert’s take as well: I’m not talking about acts that can be attributed to religion as their cause in any given case, I’m talking about acts that are not conceivable without religion as their motivation. Without religion, there’s no possible motivation to do that specific act for any other reason (such as human sacrifice).
That’s different than saying that people have done good things because they were motivated by their religion. They could have done those anyway, without religion which is the point. But while there are evil acts that **require **religion (human sacrifice), there are no good acts that **require **religion.
He’s been debating religious person after religious person after religious person that expressly state “religion is necessary for the commission of some good acts.”
I assume you don’t agree.
By progressively throwing off the religious belief, without which mankind would have otherwise advanced farther than it has. That would be my first thought as a theoretical response to that assertion. I don’t have cites, that’s just one possible answer to that assertion.
By the way, let me try and help out your argument for a moment for the sake of moving past this cul-de-sac we’ve gotten into on the difference between the definition of murder (a secular legal term) and human sacrifice (a religious concept).
I’m not trying to be condescending, but I’m not sure it’s possible to convey the above without appearing to be so but it really isn’t my intention as I’m enjoying the new tone that our conversation seems to be taking, so here goes:
The original point to which you were replying was someone stating that human sacrifice is an example of an act that is philosophically inconceivable without religion.
You responded by saying that it’s murder.
So, the subject has changed from ‘human sacrifice’ to ‘murder’ which are two different things and rely for their meaning on two different premises (religion, secular law).
So, instead of ‘murder’ let me posit that you meant/could equally well use the word ‘killing.’
In that case, it’s stated that ‘human sacrifice is inconceivable without religion.’
To which you’d reply ‘killing is not inconceivable without religion; secular ideologies motivate killing all the time and religion isn’t necessary to motivate killing someone.’
True enough. And that secularly motivated killing will go on regardless.
However, human sacrifice (this **specific **form of killing) requires religion.
I don’t know if that helps to clarify what I’m saying or not hopefully it does.
I’m not saying that without religion there would be no killing. I’m saying that without religion there would be no human sacrifice killing. Net good. One less reason to kill on top of all the other ones that will remain unchanged for better and for worse in the secular world.
And, by the way, do you (cdan) agree with this statement?
“Religion is necessary for the commission of some good acts, without which those good acts are inconceivable and couldn’t possibly occur.”
Now, I know there are also bad acts that don’t require religion, etc. but if you’d please just answer that question in and of itself first I think we’d come much closer to understanding what we’re respectively talking about.
If your answer is no, then you agree with that aspect of Hitchens’ position. There are people that do believe that specific sentence to be true and it is those people that Hitchens is debating.