The article is bogus.
It seeks, by application of ALL of the logical fallacies known to mankind, to flatly deny the explicit demands of these dangerous lunatic’s ‘holy books’.
Religion DOES incite violence; that is PROVEN by those violent folk who proclaim as much.

No amount of pathetic incoherent apologetics by a mealy-mouthed supporter of non-consensual infant mutilation can convince ANY independent thing person otherwise.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Nice grammar Dolores. It is typical that someone who believes in Armageddon and that America should preemptively utilize nuclear weapons should have such grammar.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The problem, Dolores, is the proliferation of nuclear weapons in general, which only increases the odds that they will fall into the hands of someone who will use them. Unfortunately, when people (like you, apparantly) believe in a biblical end to the earth, it gives them a reason to envision (and even eagerly anticipate) our ultimate destruction.

Furthermore, some Iranian leaders have stated that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth, and I for one take them seriously, given their ridiculous religious beliefs. There are thousands of radical Muslims who would gladly carry a briefcase bomb into Tel Aviv.

If everyone who gets nuclear weapons behaves rationally, as you suggest in your closing argument, then we may be able to maintain some balance based on the fear of mutually assured destruction. Sadly, religious fanatics are not rational, so our only alternative is to do everything we can to prevent their obtaining the technology.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The first paragraph was enough to let me know that this author is irrational. I don’t think Harris or Hitchens have said religion is the cause of all our problems. Obviously it is a useful tool for despots, dictators, terrorists and others. It is also one of the easier ways to get human beings to do terrible things to one another and that alone is enough reason to end it or at least minimize it
. Delores - why are you quoting biblical mythology to make a point? Did you notice the title of this website - Its the REASON project.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

A Marxist would at least agree with some of this, since they think money is the main cause of conflict, and spiritual beliefs a secondary post hoc rationalization. But even if not a cause of war, it can certainly exacerbate a pre-existing tendency.
  Also, I’m not sure that a ‘tendency’ shouts anything. Doesn’t he mean ‘movement’?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“liberalartist: I don’t think Harris or Hitchens have said religion is the cause of all our problems.”

Hitchens said in his book (which you should read!), that “religion poisens everything”, so you are wrong.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It’s not just religion stupid. But religion seems to be an integral part of much of the violence in the world—now and throughout history. And when we talk about religion as the problem, we are also talking about ideology, since there is much less difference between religion and ideology than, say, religion and atheism. So you can try to blame Nazism or Soviet Communism on atheism, but since these were deep ideologies that involved a great deal of worship, it would seem more reasonable and logical to blame them on what is indistinguishable from religion.

Further, maybe I’m stupid, but it seems to me that people who have a deep belief in things which either do not exist, or that are perceived to exist in a utopian state (eg. Nazism, Communism)—in short, a mental illness—will always have a greater capacity to do violence and injustice toward others.

And even if we argue that tribalism and differences are just as much the cause of wars or conflict, by what means shall we make progress or change this trajectory? By embracing more unreason in the form of religion and ideology or by pursuing reason and rationale?

It appears that Hasan is naive and childish in his suggestion, not to mention his logic, because in fact, some religions do promote global unrest. So if violence and unrest (eg. Jihad) are a part of a religion, how can we say that religion “neither provokes war nor peace.” Yes, man is ultimately responsible. But it doesn’t make much sense to separate man from the institutions of man. By this logic, man is responsible for nothing and everything. Finally, the idea that human beings can co-exist in the 21st century outside of their social constructs is illogical and, dare I say, stupid.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Very nicely said jabeles.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

your name, no, I’m not wrong and I have read the books. Perhaps you should read beyond the title. Its blanket statements like the author made that I find irrational and immature.
Jabeles makes many good points.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Religion, in and of itself, doesn’t kill people. People kill people,”  Hasan says.  Sounds familiar?  I seem to recall another group whose lobbyists say: “Guns don’t kill people. People do.”

As it happens, an Iranian movie called “The Stoning of Soraya M”  opens June 26, 2009, in the USA. It’s an Iranian movie that’s based on a true story about a young Iranian woman who was falsely accused of adultery and stoned to death. The trailer is here: http://todayinreligion.blogspot.com/2009/06/stoning-of-soraya-m.html

I defy anyone to claim that the crime that befell this poor woman had nothing to do with religion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This guy is a fool.

Hitchens and Harris have both said that religion can (and does, in some cases) exist without causing war.  The problem is, when you accept “faith” as a reason, there is no way to argue against the dangerous forms.  If it’s OK to say we shouldn’t murder adulteresses because Jesus said so, then it’s equally OK to say we MUST kill homosexuals because “god” said so.

People like Mehdi Hasan don’t understand that a bad thing done for a bad reason, plus a good thing done for a bad reason, is not a moral wash.  It’s a foolish standard and it is dangerous.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

And for the love of no god, will these lame columnists PLEASE stop pretending to be clever by adding the comma-stupid tag to their headlines?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Anyone who has cared enough to actually find out why people like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris say that religion is a huge source for agony and conflict in the world must be ignorant, blind - or, to borrow from the author - stupid. Women would not be stoned to death and children would not be withheld from medical care, to name only two examples where religion quite directly causes suffering and unnecessary conflict.

And while I’m a stark defender of always considering that someone who writes poor English grammar may simply not speak English natively, it only takes analysing the contents of words rather than their capitalization to see that people like Dolores are in fact prime examples for the dangers of religion: It seems that too much time spent faithfully on religious texts does cloud your mind and steals your rational overview over the world. Who can pretend that this is not dangerous as a mass-phenomenon?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Armageddon is dumb. Religion is crazy. And english grammer aint all that sensable.

...saed

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Hitchens said in his book (which you should read!), that “religion poisens everything”, so you are wrong.”

Poisons…not poisens.  Any hoo, yes, in this ONE sentence you are using from the cover it says that religion poisons everything.  Meaning everything it touches.  It doesn’t mean that other factors can’t poison as well.  He’s not saying religion is the ONLY cause of war, but it will poison what it is involved in.  Open that cover and check out the rest.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I would suggest that a more reasonable interpretation of Revelations would be to assume it was written for contemporaries of the time ~100-150 CE and that the meaning is perfectly clear and directed against Rome. It fits well with other similar writings that somehow were ignored during canonisation.

To look to two thousand year old texts as if they were foretelling our time is not sane. Then again, I must admit that Jonathan Swift’s work, as well Voltaire’s does seem as applicable today as when written, but, that is to be expected on the grounds that people just haven’t changed much—-Sorry, I got totally off topic!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mehdi Hasan’s analysis is decidedly reductionist and pregnant with illogicalities, for example, the straw man fallacy.  Hitchens and Harris do not say that only religion causes war, but this is how Hasan constructs their argument.  In their writings and speeches, Hitchens, Harris, and others present innumerable examples of religion’s protagonists and authors of “holy” texts advocating the crassest forms of violence, often in the name of God.  Hasan reduces this plethora of arguments and evidence to a claim, which he imputes to Hitchens and Harris, that only religion causes violence. He misses the sociological thrust of Harris’ theses— (1) “beliefs are principles of action,” or cognitive frames for action (2) Abrahamic proclamations, voiced in the Bible and the Quoran—such as violence is necessary, therapeutic, and divinely justified and one’s religious belief makes one a representative of that religion—become institutionalized and internalized through the merger of religion and state to produce violence-prone religious selves.  On the other hand, Hitchens and Harris exhibit a contradiction.  They condemn Church and Mosque-inspired violence and endorse the invasion and occupation of Iraq and torture—crass forms of violence from representatives of the State some of whom describe themselves as Christians and claimed to be acting in defence of Christianity, the Jewish State, and Western civilization.  Hitchens and Harris’ ambivalence on violence place them, logically and morally, on wafer-thin ice.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

(God said to Moses,) “… Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations [in the land of Canaan]. But of the cities of these people [in the land of Canaan] which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 20: 13-16)”

(God said to Moses,)“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31: 17-18)”

(Jesus said,) “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4: 4).

Jesus taught in parables that those who do not want him (Jesus) to reign over them shall be slain before him (Luke 19: 12-28).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place (Matthew 24: 34).

“Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16: 28)’

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live” (John 5: 25).

Jesus said to him [Caiaphas, the high priest] “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26: 64).

“Never think that those who were slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, and well provided for by their Lord; pleased with His gifts and rejoicing that those they left behind, who have not yet joined them, have nothing to fear or to regret; rejoicing in God’s grace and bounty.  God will not deny the faithful their reward” (Koran 3: 169).

“Let not unbelievers think that We [God] prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them: (Koran 3: 178).

“Those that suffered persecution for My sake and fought and were slain: I shall forgive them sins from God; God holds the richest recompense. Do not be deceived by the fortunes of the unbelievers [especially Jews and Christians] in the land. Their prosperity is brief.  Hell shall be their home, a dismal resting place” (Koran 3: 195-96).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“7. your name”:

“Religion poisons everything” is not equal to “religion does all of the poisoning”, so I guess that makes you an idiot.

Back to the 4th grade you go…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Once again this discussion assumes that what we call religion is ‘Religion’ the one and only. On this blog [http://hypertiling.wordpress.com/] you can find a good articulated argument for what religion is NOT.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.