As a man of faith, its refreshing to see someone interested in real honest discussions of this sort without all the ego swinging and impoliteness that goes with it.

You say you were surprised about the southern hospitality you enjoyed. I can't see why you would be surprised, visit any church on Sunday and you will be greeted to the point of being sickened.

Its liberals that interrupt, talk over and generally try to cow any discussion they are involved in.

You said they adhere to a predictable script when debating you. Well thats to be expected, it is a debate and most good debaters have a script prepared. I expect you adhere to a pretty predictable script as well. I am not sure why you mentioned that except you trying to demean them.

You said you haven't run into an argument to make you want to change your mind. I expect thats true. Its well known in christian circles you can't "argue" someone into the faith. The real benefit of debating someone like yu to hone our own knowledge and skills of the faith.

As for the wincing when you ask someone if they really believe you are going to hell if you do not believe that Christ was the savior of the world, I wonder why you ask such a question. Of course Christian doctrine teaches that and always will. Its clearly taught in the bible and is one the clear fundamental doctrines that every christian of every denomination believes. Even Christ himself said if you do not believe it then even if someone came back from the dead and witnessed to it, you still would not believe it. (people have come back from the dead and have witnessed to hell btw)

Overall a nice civil article, i would have loved more details but i guess it was just a plug for a book you will no doubt make huge bucks off of.

Not all Christians believe that if you don't believe Jesus is the savior of the world you go to hell or its converse. You are quoting fairly fundamentalist doctrine. Second I would submit that the people who say they have come back from visiting hell were either hallucinating or lying.

bigfeet:

As a man of faith, its refreshing to see someone interested in real honest discussions of this sort without all the ego swinging and impoliteness that goes with it.

Yes, Hitch is noted for his lack of ego and his extreme politeness...

You say you were surprised about the southern hospitality you enjoyed. I can't see why you would be surprised, visit any church on Sunday and you will be greeted to the point of being sickened.

I'm sure that's true.

Its liberals that interrupt, talk over and generally try to cow any discussion they are involved in.

'Liberals' like the folks on Fox News, like Conservative radio shouters, like angry, Conservative columnists, like the Tea Baggers, like Joe Wilson?

You said they adhere to a predictable script when debating you. Well thats to be expected, it is a debate and most good debaters have a script prepared. I expect you adhere to a pretty predictable script as well. I am not sure why you mentioned that except you trying to demean them.

True enough, everyone has their arguments set.

You said you haven't run into an argument to make you want to change your mind. I expect thats true. Its well known in christian circles you can't "argue" someone into the faith. The real benefit of debating someone like yu to hone our own knowledge and skills of the faith.

You can't argue someone into the faith...but arguing helps hone your ability to do just that? A bit of a contradiction there.

As for the wincing when you ask someone if they really believe you are going to hell if you do not believe that Christ was the savior of the world, I wonder why you ask such a question. Of course Christian doctrine teaches that and always will. Its clearly taught in the bible and is one the clear fundamental doctrines that every christian of every denomination believes. Even Christ himself said if you do not believe it then even if someone came back from the dead and witnessed to it, you still would not believe it. (people have come back from the dead and have witnessed to hell btw)

True about the believe in Hell and damnation, perhaps the single biggest reason I rejected Christianty years ago. A God who is infinite love but sends people to Hell for eternity is either a contradiction in terms, or a monster.

And after-death experience claims aren't exactly reliable testimony. There are any number of possible things going on there, including oxygen-deprivation hallucination.

Overall a nice civil article, i would have loved more details but i guess it was just a plug for a book you will no doubt make huge bucks off of.

And we all know that Christians aren't just about making money, right?

One piffling argument I must make: Not all liberals are atheists, and not all atheists are liberals. Many Christians are liberal because they feel that Jesus set a liberal example. Likewise, there are some conservative atheists out there--Hitchens himself is conservative on a number of issues: abortion, the war, etc.

Notice that bigfeet said 'every christian of every denomination believes', and NOT every one that claims to be a christian. Of course those that don't believe basic fundamentalist doctrine are phonies. Why? Well because individuals do NOT define a religion. A religion is defined by it's fundamentalist doctrine. I see no reason to claim to belong to a group if one isn't going to accept the fundamentalist doctrine of the said group.

As an agnostic I clearly understand why one would reject any and all religious dogma, but I don't respect those that wish to still belong to a religion they don't accept. Most do this because they are afraid of making mommy and daddy mad. Thus they are not just phonies but cowards.

jazzguitarman:

Notice that bigfeet said 'every christian of every denomination believes', and NOT every one that claims to be a christian. Of course those that don't believe basic fundamentalist doctrine are phonies. Why? Well because individuals do NOT define a religion. A religion is defined by it's fundamentalist doctrine. I see no reason to claim to belong to a group if one isn't going to accept the fundamentalist doctrine of the said group.

As an agnostic I clearly understand why one would reject any and all religious dogma, but I don't respect those that wish to still belong to a religion they don't accept. Most do this because they are afraid of making mommy and daddy mad. Thus they are not just phonies but cowards.

You don't think it's legitimate for someone to simply believe in God and Jesus, but not identify as belonging to any particular church or denomination? I've seen an awful lot of posts in here dismissing such people as fakes or "lukewarm" in their faith. The message I'm getting is that you want people to either pick a church and strictly adhere to its doctrines, or reject religion entirely... which sort of discourages thinking for yourself about God. Which is not to say that atheists and fundemantalists aren't thinking freely, just that deviating from "the church" doesn't necessarily make you false or apathetic. It can sometimes simply mean that you've thought deeply about your faith and have found your own path, which I think is a positive thing.

Personally, I am best described as an agnostic, because I don't believe it's possible to know for sure whether or not a higher power exists. Currently I am not sure if I actually believe in God or not. But if I decide that I do (or for that matter, that I don't), it will be because that is what feels like truth to me, and not because a church or a book told me to believe it. And instead of picking a church and letting it do my thinking for me, I'd rather study various religious texts and draw my own conclusions about them. To me, this feels like the right way to go about it. Of course, other people are free to believe differently, and I have no problem with fundamentalists nor with atheists. None of us can prove the existence or nonexistence of God, so all you can do is decide what feels the most honest and truthful to you.

You are correct that one doesn't have to belong to any church or denomination but I don't think they should say they are a Christian unless one believes in some of the very basic aspects of the religion. e.g. JC is the 'son' of god, he was born of a virgin birth, he returned from the dead, etc...

If one doens't believe in these basic aspects than to me one is more of an agnostic. People of told me they are an agnostic Christian. I used to say that was BS but now I see where they are coming from, but when these people are around their parents or family then they are just Christians. This really hits home when these people have kids. To the raise the kids with the myths or not???? The grandparents insist the kids are taught the myths. I feel it is time to tell the grandparents; we will NOT teach the myths.

Maybe a compromise would be to teach them *as* myths; the same way you'd teach kids about Hercules or Zeus. Except that you'd add a bit at the end, "some people, like your grandparents, still believe this is literally true." As they get older they can decide whether they want to follow after the grandparents or the parents (or something else entirely). I think this is better than not teaching it at all, if only because I don't believe in sheltering kids from ideas the parents don't personally agree with. It's also a good opportunity to teach them to behave gracefully toward people who don't share their opinions. (Of course, this all assumes the parents merely don't believe in religion, and don't openly despise it. But people who actually hate religion probably aren't pretending to be Christian in front of their parents.)

Anyway, I basically agree with most of what you've said here. If you don't believe that Jesus was the messiah then Christian isn't really the right word for you (although your beliefs can still be legitimate without that title). I also agree that people whose beliefs change depending on who else is in the room are not being honest to anyone, or true to themselves. I just don't think that anyone who has a non-fundamentalist view of religion necessarily falls into that category.

I agree with you about NOT sheltering kids fromn ideas but these myths are not ideas. So we agree that there are values assocaited with being Christian (or any religion), and other good ideas and these should be taught.

But the key point here is that dogma and myths are NOT ideas and they really do NOT have an practical value. e.g how are the teachings of Jesus impacted if the birth was NOT a virgin birth? They are NOT, so teach the ideas and NOT the myths.

I agree with your last paragraph. I have been at family events were the grandparents (i.e. older more traditional members), make their assumptions 'well of course Joe you believe Jesus is the messiah,,,', and Joe has to say 'maybe this isn't the time to discuss', and the older one just inisist 'well don't tell me you are one of THEM now' (non believer), and because the older one pushes it Joe say 'yes, I'm one of THEM'. To me one should have this type of discussion BEFORE kids are born to ensure no misunderstanding and so it can be done is best way as to not hurt one's parents. Don't wait until your Mother in laws is asking 'when are you are going to have the baptism!'.

I think we're defining the term "idea" differently. I'm using it to refer to anything that can be thought. Just to make sure my meaning is clear.

What I'm getting at is that there is a difference between teaching kids to believe in mythology, and teaching them about mythology. If kids can read stories about ancient Greek and Roman gods while still knowing they aren't literally true, then I don't see why they can't read about Noah's Ark the same way. It just isn't a big deal to me; though maybe if I was actively angry at the people who do literally believe it I might feel differently.

I grew up in a family with multiple religions in it. It wasn't confusing to me that some of my family believed X and others believed Y. It seems to me that what you're talking about is just a variant of this. If it were me, the kids would be taught that Grandma has a religion, called Christianity, and I'd give them a basic explanation of what Grandma believes. Not so they can be indoctrinated, but so they can understand the cultural (for lack of a better word) difference. Then, when Grandma starts telling them Bible stories or talking about God, they'll understand why, and won't be confused or inclined to take it literally.

Just my take, of course. :) You don't have to agree, but I wanted to make sure I was more clear about what I meant.

The practical problem I see with what you state here all relates to how open Grandma is as it relates to teaching the grandkids about Noah's Ark as mythology.

Most believers I know of find that very insulting. i.e. to them these are truths and NOT myths.

If adults cannot understand the differences between truths and myths of course Kids cannot so the kids will get confused. Now to me confusion is great. Really, as an agnostic I admit to being confused but Grandma types (religion types), don't accept confusion and they will want to ensure the grandkids are NOT confused.

Thus I don't see how a conflict can be avoided between an agnostic parent and a grandma that wants their grandkids to understand 'truth' as they see it.

For example, if the kids ask 'well did the events around Noah's Ark as Grandma stated really happen or is it just a myth like the greek gods?' How does dad answer this without implying that Grandma believes in myths. At one point we tell kids that Santa Clause is a myth. When do we tell them what Grandma believes are also myths?

It requires mutual respect. Dad doesn't need to definitively say "what grandma believes is a lie". He can just say that some people believe it and others don't (and add that he does not). Again, this concept was not confusing to me as a child. If I could accept that some members of our family (Christians) believed in Jesus as the messiah while others (Jewish) did not, and that neither view was inherently wrong, then to me it's not much of a stretch to say that some people don't believe any of it and present that as equally acceptable and valid. I also know a girl whose mother is Christian and father is atheist (not just agnostic), and they pretty much handled it the same way. It worked because neither one insisted on being right, they were just presenting two different views. If grandma needs to be "right", well, I'm used to older family members whose views are extreme and don't match the rest of the family's. It just isn't a big deal.