The ongoing fascination of British anarchos with challenging the already pathetically weak status of religion in this country is faintly ridiculous, Richard Dawkins and his good pal the Iraq war cheerleader and fellow anti-religionist Christopher Hitchens are smug western liberal snobs. Like it or not the overwhelming majority of the worlds poor (i.e. non-western) are religious, like it or not the most obscene massacres of the past couple of centuries have been perpetrated for non-religious reasons BY Non religious based regimes, WWI, WWII, VIETNAM, IRAQ etc. etc..

Of what is left of formal religion in this country nowadays many devout christians have put their bodies and liberty on the line in challenging the state and its wars, fr martin newell from catholic worker just got sent down for his actions today,

A look at the Active Distribution stall at the anarchist bookfair is a depressing example of this straw man tendency , a plethora of anti religion sloganeering in a state where religion has nigh on zero power, the state really has nothing to worry about if chanting 'no gods no masters' is considered a radical statement in modern day britain. And this is from an irish atheist who grew up in a country where religion really was a problem that needed confronting.

Nothing like making it clear to Quakers and other left-wing Christians that you don't want their support.

MF titles his comment 'paper tiger'. MF doesn't directly explain why s/he does so but I think from a reading of the comment the implication is that the religious are weak, not a threat and therefore worth ignoring. Putting aside for a moment the significant negative impact that religion has on many peoples daily life here, or instances like the increasing regular overt political interventions by theists (one sect of which is now picketing the main abortion clinic in Brighton twice a week for example) - if one sees such groups as authoritarian forces in society why would one not want to act against them when they are weak! Easy wins are better than no wins at all, never mind waiting till groups get stronger. "Paper Tiger" is a relatively unusual phrase and I would bet a pickled onion that MF is trying to use it in the European public usage that originates with Mao. Mao famously said America power was a paper tiger as an argument for attacking it - not ignoring it!

(In a 1956 interview with the American journalist Anna Louise Strong, Mao Zedong used the phrase to describe American imperialism: “ In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe that is nothing but a paper tiger.)

MF also says in his/her post: "Like it or not the overwhelming majority of the worlds poor (i.e. non-western) are religious." MF does not explain what implication we should take from this - I hope the implication is not that because the 'worlds poor' think something it shouldn't be criticized. Taking the claim that the worlds poor are mostly religious at face value for a moment could there in fact be a connection! Might the acceptance of religious dogma such as that attributed to Jesus "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" be an important ideological underpinning for social submission (and repression!).

"Sectarian"

Richards accusation that folks in a libertarian social centre showing a film on the dangerous, and stupid nature of religions is somehow "Sectarian" is hilarious. To be sectarian you have to be acting against another sect within a church! We are not a sect in a church - broad or otherwise! The fact that this is used as a political term by some of those on the Left says more about the religious nature of Marxism and the like than the poster probably realises...

No Gods, No Masters!

Love everyone!!! ,I am quite dismayed about this God delusion thing,as one who reguarly frequents and supports the Cowley Club,I am shocked that you are putting on such claptrap.
Friends what's next an evening of CONspiracy theory??

Hi there,

Don't worry - no plans to show fims on conspiracy theories, which for their adhaerents are usualy articles of faith and rarely evidence based...

Why did you think "The God Delusion" book or film (viewable at:  http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-god-delusion/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1) is claptrap and where do you see a connection between rhrm and conspircay theories?

Love Everyone (and hedgehogs!)

OK I guess anarchists will never support a God of any sort??
Is that it?
.
Do you know John Lilburn founder of the original Levellers,turned to God and became a Quaker in his last hours in the tower of London,before his execution.
I can relate to that,when you've battling all your live for a fairer way for all (animals ,etc...)spirit God call it what you a will keeps me and am sure countless others going...
If and when you hit hard times and I mean hard, homelessness,poverty without a God(call it what you will)then you'll understand.
Anyway, no matter whom you are it doesn't matter whether your a king or a street sweeper one day you'll get to dance with the reaper..then...Police,Anarchists,Rich,Poor..well on that day we are all equal! Life's great mystery awaits us all...

...

It is the year 2008, and in America there is a great lamenting. How has this country fallen to such depths of poverty and decline? Why are people so complacent, unable to act together for their own good?

Is it because we have been split up with thousands of different religions?

Within the supposed monotheism most people subscribe to, are thousands and thousands of individual churches, each with a localized philosophy based on many things, not least being the general ethnicity of the area. As well, most churches have local hierarchies to deal with; custom, culture, tradition, local environments, along with the obvious necessity of funding the workings of the church; all have a good little bit to do with how a so called temple of God is formed, what it becomes. That is rather self evident, but needs reiteration when attempting to discern the problems besetting America today.

It takes great effort to cultivate uniformity among churches, even within the same religion, and if anyone thinks that true uniformity is actually possible anywhere, especially among people, they are acting rather doltish, and need to reassess many things.

In America the one unifying force among many groups, religion included, is the Almighty Dollar. Here in America, you will seldom hear the words God, or Goddess, or the like, except during the occasional swearing of something, but anywhere you go, if you listen, you will hear the Main word, the mantra of America, and this happens in churches too! The word? MONEY. Listen for it, you may be in for a surprise.

...

I don't like Richard Dawkins, I don't like this person who says "No Gods, No Masters", I don't like Chritian missionaries and I don't like these people who say the world is godless.

For me, not one of these people knows what God is, but all are willing participants in discerning what faults God has. Why do you think you can have an opinion on something you have no knowledge of? Isn't that the very same as beleiving in a conspiracy without having any evidence?

It is true. The only people who believe God is an elderly man with a white beard wearing a white robe sitting in a six tonne golden throne floating ten miles up in the sky somewhere...are athiests!

Atheism is for the closed minded. Richard Dawkins is a man of science...and only science. Christopher Hitchens is a man of literature, and only literature. Neither of these individuals can make a claim to be open minded. They are flawed minds struggling with the imprisonment of their own inability to 'SEE' those around them. If either of these men could honestly claim to be genuinely in pursuit of knowledge, then they would not pursue the pious with such hostility. You cannot come to an understanding of God by provocation. That cannot be done.

The real credo of Dawkins and Hitchens is the cult of individualism and their perception of freedom through the logic of abstract regulated and academic thought. These men are pragmatists and scowl at any and all sorts of collectivism. Ultimately, what they really beleive in is the fragmentation of humanity and the complete disempowerment of the individual. That is the ultimate prison to be in. It matches perfectly their own disability. What they are really about, is describing their own hell to the rest of us through criticism of those who are free of it!!!

To follow the logic of Dawkins and Hitchens, is to follow them into a prison of their own construction.

I recall seeing on TV a debate attended by Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens. It was about faith and God. Neither of these two men came anywhere near even close-by the actual subject matter, both choosing instead to simply repeat oft used words to describe the subject. These words make good TV sound-bites...but they do not describe God, or faith. And yet both claim to be godly!

In this world, there is great evil biting at the ribs of the pious. It is not outwardly violent, disheveled or beset by the obvious visibilty of crime. It is polite, careful and overtly respectable. It claims to be in service to God. It mixes with the pious at all times careful not to be detected. It talks about itself and its work persistently. You would not know it...half the time. But it is evil nonetheless.

I don't know if Anarchists are athiest. If they are then failure is a permanent fixture in the athiest frame. There is no possibility of revolution away from the industrial cartels of disorganised consumption without the inclusion of God and the pious. If you make a politik out of atheism then you are excluded from the masses by default. Failure is the beginning and end of all your possibilities. Nothing else is possible.

Creative to see people who are completely stuck, worm their way through theology, but I feel complimented when I hear a Christian swear at me. That may redeem him.
But would you think my purpose in life is given me by the editor’s delusion about discriminating Eve? The wide open gaps in the Bible that serve as a landfill for contemporary intellectuals explain everything, even a Milton couldn’t figure.

Even if we ignore the political and ethical implications of religion, the basic facts are that gods don't exist. Not the Judeo-Christian one, not the Hindu ones, not the Scientology ones, not the pagan ones, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And not Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy either.

It's not right that the establishment persists in this charade of pretending they do. Most politicians only pay lip-service to religion for pragmatic reasons, they don't really believe it. It's like a collective form of insanity and shows how so many people can be conned into going along with the mainstream view, even if it is completely absurd, rather than thinking for themselves.

So promoting atheism is good just from the point of view of being for truth rather than falsehood.

The benefits of ending religious conflict, paedophile priests, genital mutilation, oppression of women, etc. are just welcome extras.

Will the world instantly become all sweetness and light if religion ended? No, of course not, but at least it will be an improvement if critical thinking replaces dogma.

"It's not right that the establishment persists in this charade of pretending they do. Most politicians only pay lip-service to religion for pragmatic reasons, they don't really believe it. It's like a collective form of insanity and shows how so many people can be conned into going along with the mainstream view, even if it is completely absurd, rather than thinking for themselves."

The establishment does not persist in any charade. It exploits the public beleif in God in order to maintain power and dominion over us. Politicians do not generally beleive in God. They have more concern with ensuring the agenda of corporations, business and industry because that is who pay their way. If they think that beleiving in God will get them into a position of trust with the public then they will wave the bible and be the sinner in pursuit of forgiveness. Religion and beleiving in it is just a means to an end. The politicians want power and nothing else.



"So promoting atheism is good just from the point of view of being for truth rather than falsehood. The benefits of ending religious conflict, paedophile priests, genital mutilation, oppression of women, etc. are just welcome extras."

Every single one of the causes you outline are political tricks and agenda's put forward by politicians and political parties. The bonus is political.

1. Religious conflict...the UK and US's agenda for deflecting attention away from the state of Israels land/resource grab in Palestine.
2. Pedophile preists...exploitation of child abuse by politicians in order to garner deal cutting with the Catholic Church in northern African states.
3. Genital mutilation/oppression of women...all used by British politicains to justify armed conflict with oil rich states.



"Will the world instantly become all sweetness and light if religion ended? No, of course not, but at least it will be an improvement if critical thinking replaces dogma."

You assume that religiousity and beleif in God is learned only. I believe in God and have done for the last 10 years. I found God without the help of the church and its preists. God appeared to me through my sense of reason and cursory thought. God guides me and protects me. And yet I have never succumbed to dogma or religious credo.

How do you explain the fact that it was critical thinking that led me to God?

What you appear to be saying is that you just want an end to religion...and you aren't really willing to spend too much time thinking about what that might mean in the long run.

Forgive me for saying this, but you sound like a politician.