i've never understood how anyone could refer to and discuss "religion" as though it were one thing. i understand that we can discuss "the practice of religion" as something. is that what hitchens says poisons? the practice of religion? surely he can't mean "religion" itself - everything that ranges from the daily meditations of a buddhist monk, the prsotrations of a hindi, the rigidity of an islamic fundamentalist, the arcane ceremonies of a wiccan, the flowing philosophies of the tao. surely someone wouldn't be as bold and nearsighted as to lump all these myriad forms, aspects, feelings, beliefs (inextricably tied to and differentiated by each individual and his or her own relationship to the specific practice)? that would be, well, absurd. that would be like saying "how talking poisons the world."

then again, maybe it's just a catchy title engineered to sell some books.

You have to think about religion this way, such as Socrates may have all those years ago; religion only blinds those who follow it. Religion is a way for people to see the world they want to see it, giving them a blind purpose in the world, as well as a hollow understanding of how the world works. Do they know it is true? No. Do they think it is true? Yes. Often the human brain confuses this. In essence, every religion you follow is simply a proposed understanding of how the world works, who rules it and what your purpose in it is. It is a weak attempt to create an order to humans, so they understand the world and understand their place. When you really think about it, do we KNOW that Jesus, the Buddha or Zeus and the other greek gods really exist? Do we KNOW who created them? Myth or fact, we do not know, so how is religion doing anything good for us besides giving us blind reassurance that the world is safe in the hands of a god?

My message is: Religion is not good. It has caused many wars, and all it is, is a blind reassurance of the world around is!
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery, but Today is a Gift; that is why they call it the Present."

axisage wrote:then again, maybe it's just a catchy title engineered to sell some books.

What can I say, ya hit the nail right on the head!

Actually, to be honest, I think the context of 'poison' in this title is the painful suffering it has caused us. Poison is a murdering substance, often slow and sufferable. In the context of this story, 'poison' is a reference to how much pain and suffering religion has caused the world. For example; the ancient greeks and spartans...they disliked each other. Wonder why? Because they belived differently! The Spartans belived in murder, theft, and war. Greece, they were more concerned with trading wares, studying and the gods. The Spartans chose to fight them because they thought the Greeks were...hmm...let's say 'Pansies', becuase they belived in praying and studying, while the spartans were concerned with hardcore battle training and war.

Another great example would be the Iraqi battle. Iraq belives in one leader; a dictator, of sorts. He convinced them that they should have war; he was like a god, of sorts. Nearly everyone else around them, however, belive in shared leadership, and peace. First class example of pure war. They hated each other because of their different beliefs and decided to have war, to see the superior of the group.

War is slow, never fast; especially the big ones I placed above. There has almost been no peace in this world, and it has slowly started to tear away at most human's sanity, as well as causing massive waves of paranoia and fear. It has brought us nothing good, and the bloody path leads to many things; including religion.

These are just a few of the great examples of why he may have placed 'poison' in the title of the book.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery, but Today is a Gift; that is why they call it the Present."

axisage
I’ve never understood how anyone could refer to and discuss "religion" as though it were one thing.

In the book Hitchens says that he is mostly talking about the major religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism. However he also says something along the lines that any belief derived from a fairy tale is a dangerous thing at worst… and guilty of perpetuating ignorance at best.

Later

axisage wrote:i've never understood how anyone could refer to and discuss "religion" as though it were one thing.

No, neither can I, axisage. Yet I admired Hitchens' book and while we were discussing it here, I tried to persuade people that the title was misleading (suggested by his publisher, according to Frank). Hitchens uses "religion" and "God" in a resticted sense. I would disagree with Frank that he identifies the three monotheistic faiths as the problem, as he also doesn't let Eastern religion off the hook. But beyond that, he doesn't object to religion (whatever it might be labeled) that he calls "private and optional," or, in another passage, "tamed and sequestered." In the book, he says he has friends who call themselves religious. The religion that "poisons everything" is basically the zealous variety that will make the pronouncements of ancient books the guiding standards for modern life, that will cause people to shut out everything that has been learned about our world if it disagrees (as it has to) with scripture.

DWill
I would disagree with Frank that he identifies the three monotheistic faiths as the problem, as he also doesn't let Eastern religion off the hook.

I did say “mostly”

And Hitchens did mention that all versions were (in his opinion) brainless fairy tales with personal belief being the least dangerous, but still bred of ignorance.

From what I have read and from watching several of Hitchens’ recorded personal appearances the man has no love of religious belief in any form... private personal belief seems to be more tolerable than others though... but I suspect that you would find that view common among many atheists.

Later

I've never been able to watch Hitchens in action on videos, but I've heard that he is not as diplomatic as he seems to be in God Is Not Great. Still, referring to axisage's original question, I can't believe that such an intelligent man would ever argue that anything connected to religiion is poison. That would be bigotry, which is one of Hitchens' hatreds.

DWill
I can't believe that such an intelligent man would ever argue that anything connected to religion is poison.

Hitchens clearly does not think that anything (everything) connected to religion is poison or even necessarily bad, he lays out his concerns specifically in both his book and his speeches.

However his attitude does seem to reflect the idea that religious belief (in general) is dishonest, harmful, limiting and unnecessary despite its good points.

Later

Frank 013 wrote: However his attitude does seem to reflect the idea that religious belief (in general) is dishonest, harmful, limiting and unnecessary despite its good points.

Well, I don't know if I'd be willing to acknowledge any good points with the strength of these charges against belief. To me, it seems to come down to what belief is for any individual. This word contains within it a whole range of possibilities and variations with regard to strength and type. Relgious belief cannot be said to be harmful in a generic sense, a point on which you seem to agree. I think CH always singles out, at least in GING, that variety of belief that takes control of the mind and wrenches it out of joint with all common sense and frequently with common standards of humanity. Not that he approves of or likes any shade of religion, but he does separate his personal dislikes from what he believes is genuinely harmful--again, in GING, if not in his speeches.