Comments:Tony Blair debates religion with Christopher Hitchens in Canada
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Comments from feedback form - "What motion do you refer to in..."||4||22:47, 5 January 2011|
|Comments from feedback form - "no objection"||0||15:11, 1 December 2010|
|Comments from feedback form - "more detail of argument would ..."||0||04:23, 1 December 2010|
|Comments from feedback form - "This is quite old news really...."||1||02:02, 1 December 2010|
|Comments from feedback form - "Excellent!"||0||22:51, 30 November 2010|
|So||2||16:51, 30 November 2010|
What motion do you refer to in the closing paragraph? Nowhere could I find a logical antecedent.
The motion is in the lede: "That religion is a force for good in the world".
Consider how the [true] religions of God served the world of humanity! How the religion of Torah became conducive to the glory and honor and progress of the Israeli nation! How the breaths of the Holy Spirit of His Holiness Christ created affinity and unity between divergent communities and quarreling families! How the sacred power of His Holiness Muhammad became the means of uniting and harmonizing the contentious tribes and the different clans of Peninsular Arabia -- to such an extent that one thousand tribes were welded into one tribe, strife and discord was done away with, all of them unitedly and with one accord strove in advancing the cause of culture and civilization, and thus were freed from the lowest degree of degradation, soaring toward the height of everlasting glory!
Heh. Ignoring the first 2 bits of dren and moving on to the third, Muhammad united the arab tribes completely did he? No internal strife at all, eh? Cause, it's not like there exists any strife between the Shi'ite and Sunni movements, right? Nope, none at all. In fact there is so little strife that it would be completely incorrect to claim that there has been a low grade (and sometimes not so low grade) civil war going on within Islam for the past 1350 years.
The reason I felt it was important to post it, even though it was a few days late, was that it was of some significance: namely, that Tony Blair was involved. If it was just some random religious apologist, it wouldn't be significant but Blair was (and to some extent still is) an important political figure, so while it isn't news in the sense of being up-to-the-minute breaking news, it is news when someone of the political importance of Tony Blair is involved in something like this.
The world is moving away from religion. It would worship itself, instead of asking for help from a higher source, imagined or otherwise. Is that good or bad?
That is certainly debatable. See Secularization.
Always a good target for provocative comments. Many renowned philosophers have commented on religion. Take your pick: Marx described it as 'The opiate of the masses'. Emile Zoe spoke more strongly: 'The world will not know peace until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest'.
Neither of these points posit that human beings are universally substituting themselves, or material wealth, for what I assume you consider 'god'.