how do you determine right and wrong? people of faith allow their faith to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad. history has shown that humans determining collectively or individually good orbad, right or wrong has led to many bad as well as good consequences. where do you draw the line?

sherfan, burton,

question: nascent man, modified ape. how wonderful, even noble an animal he (it) must have been. unlike its ape forefathers, this 'advanced' ape new nothing at all of violence or war-making,save to protect its clan or kill prey (advancing its selfish genes and whatnot). but its problematic frontal lobe kept expanding ('cause of the relentless inter-special arms race/fight for survival), causing pesky existential questions to arise. self, purpose, why,..god(s)! religion was born. and suddenly the squabbling began, ape lording over ape.the question: if 'primitive' man hadn't "invented" religion, would we now be living in a socialist/secularist paradise? all would be swell, all propensity for violence would have been excised (by force, if necessary) from our animal nature? if we are cruel to one another now,do you argue that "evil" is an artifact from our animal past, carried over due to the retarding effect of religion? what would you then blame for "injustice"--
godlessness?

troy martin, southfield, mi

If you want a statement by a believer that you would not hear from an unbeliever, here it is: I am an Ahmadi Muslim and when my husband told me that he didn't get the 88,000K job, I said "To Allah is my return and in Him do I put my trust." I accept the fate, although it was not what we had hoped for.

When we suffer a loss, or a great sadness, we Ahmadi Muslims say: "From God it came and to God it returned." It restores one's equanimity. How can we be sad if the Creator made us and His creation returns to Him?

Allison Knight, Powder Springs, USA

Islam on slavery: The Holy Quran says:"climb a mountain." This means "free a slave." Hazrat Usman, the third Caliph, freed 86,000 slaves. The act of freeing a slave is said to bring one closer to God.

The first act of the Holy Prophet of Islam, pbuh, after he married Kadijah was to free all the slaves. The slave, Zaid, an African, didn't want to leave the Prophet Mohamed, pbuh, and refused to leave him, even after he was freed. When his father and his uncle found him after traveling from Africa, they asked Zaid to return home. He declared that his love for the Holy Prophet was greater than his love for his family. He stayed with the Holy Prophet, pbuh.

Islam declares many reasons to free slaves. The slave could earn freedom by doing a trade or for teaching knowledge. Islam even required that Muslims dress their slaves in clothes of the same quality as the master. No such "rights" existed before that time.

Allison Knight, Powder Springs, USA

Fi, I see where you are coming from, but the traditional Christian view isn't pantheist as you describe, and the evidence that Jesus was this "divine energy made man" is astoundingly controversial, and implausible.
Just as a love letter encompasses only a glorified tribute to a loved one, and leaves out all the faults, and is written without any desire to record the true and objective reality of the object of desire, the gospels tell a glorified tale written by admiring, devoted followers, committed to portraying Jesus as Messiah and Lord. We can never know how much is true history, and how much is embellished, biased "love-inspired" fantasy.
Common sense would suggest a large proportion of the gospel stories is closer to poetic fable than true history.

jim, sydney,

Why do Christians always assume that being an athiest or a freethinker means that you reject the idea of an afterlife?
The idea that we continue after we leave the body in death is thousands of years older than the Christian religion. There has been a great deal written on this subject, not by 'cranks', but by serious, erudite scholars. Their findings are certainly worthy of respect and research. What is needed is that the matter should be considered in a way completely divorced from religion, and without any pre-conceived ideas based on certain ' happenings' for which there is no evidence that would stand up to even the mildest of scrutinies.

eileen Ó'Conor, Cordoba, Spain

If you want to strengthen religion, by all means, attack it. If you want to weaken it, shrug and ignore it like most so-called "believers" do. Most "Christians" I know are in the camp of "I believe in God, but..." and that's as far as it goes with most of them.

I doubt your frontal assault will accomplish much more than to strengthen the faith of a few marginals and leave the believers more energized.

Robert, Gainesville, Florida

Father Bryan - It's telling that you do not offer a scrap of evidence to support any of your pronouncements on this thread.

Ian, Leicester, England

Father Bryan - it's telling that you do not offer a scrap of evidence to support any of your pronouncements on this thread.

Ian, Leicester, England

I sometimes feel like atheists are more akin to the most fundementalist christians I know.... God is a man with a white beard on a throne, Jesus floated down from white fluffy clouds to save us all, all the other religions are things they dont really understand so never critique, only use as a tool in their own argument "if Christianity is real, does that mean the Hindus, the ancient Egyptians etc etc are wrong??" Im sorry but YAWN YAWN YAWN. If the universe can be reduced back to an original creation of matter and energy that no-one can explain the source of, then many believers think that God is the source of this energy. Not a man with a white beard, but an incredible, mysterious, creative force. All 'Gods' (Shiva, Raj, etcetcetc) are all ways in which we have attempted to know and commune with this energy. For a Christian, Jesus was simply that energy (God) embodied in a human, so that we could understand better its power and its relationship to us.

Fi, Melbourne,

Methinks, you wriggled over seeing, Jim. Look again, please.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan, I thought it would be obvious that by "can't see" that I meant can't discern, recognize, detect any convincing evidence for a supernatural being in the universe. I didn't realise you would be so concrete, and that you would consider atheists or agnostics to be daft enough to expect to visually see a visible god!
The rest has been answered before.

jim.rogers, sydney,

And the explanation of all the contingencies which has to be invisible or else part of our material world and in the same boat, needing explanation, Jim of Sydney ?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Of course, Jim. God is invisible but if He's not there, neither are you and I.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Maybe I just can't see what's not there. I see nature in the universe.

jim rogers, sydney,

To understand the 'senses of Scripture' would release you of at least 50% of your anxieties in connection with the Scriptures, Jim of Sydney but why do you not see God peeping out of the Universe. It's just overpowering. It's a necessary truth before going to logic.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The OT and NT are not all fable, but most of the bible is not straight factual record. The OT was written only a few hundred years BC, by unknown multiple authors, and takes on many forms and literary styles. The creation accounts are myth, and much of the rest is also made-up legend, mixed in with some historical facts or possible near-the-truth histories. Archaeologists and historians still argue about much of it, and where the truth lies between the fables, and which major players were real people, or may have been based on real people, and which were characters in a novel. It is doubtful that Moses even existed, and Abraham's story is so filled with tall tales and ripping yarns that he is more myth than reality.
It doesn't take much thought to dismiss the magical angel sightings and impossible miraculous happenings, unless you are credulous in the extreme, and accept events that contravene nature, and which today you would dismiss outright without solid evidence. The NT authors are also unknown, and not reliable if common standards of evidence are applied.

jim rogers, sydney,

Mark, you have to open up more than a little to what I said about the contents of the envelope and the envelope itself. This would help you see what you do not see.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Here is a clear challenge to Christopher Hitchens show me a war or conflict that is primarily caused by religon in the last 2000 years and the approx death toll and I will show you a war or conflict with a greater death toll ( in fact I'll be able to triple it) primarily caused by politics , empire building or capitalism....over to you.

John Richard Smith, Toormina, Australia

If anyone is crazy enough to take the bible as 100% reality, then that person accepts the OT God was all the nasty things Dawkins points out: arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. That believer is also deliberately putting his head in the sand, and choosing to live in a fake world of make believe, scared to admit the human faults of the bible, for fear of losing his faith, which shows extreme weakness of character.

mark, sydney,

Mark of Brisbane, I don't go in for dancing around. I avoid diversions. Why are you denying God whose existence is more real than yours and mine? To your diversionary question I answer ' I accept the content of the envelope with all my heart'. You have thrown both in the waste paper basket.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

There are many books that point out contradictions in the bibles (old & new) ranging from such as the two creation stories, to the bible stating that Pi (3.14...) is "3."! Why not have a site that lists all these, from reputable bible scholars. I think that not only anti-religion people would use it, but one could direct the "faithful to it. Like the sreligious sites and TV programs that answer questions in the faith.

D. Meks, fullerton, USA/CA

So Bryan, do you really believe there were individuals called Adam and Eve who spoke directly to God? Do you really believe a Moses parted the Red Sea? What is truth and what is myth? I bet you refuse to give a direct answer. You refused to answer frank and jim before............You prefer to dance around the issue of scriptural illegitimacy.

mark, brisbane,

Muz and Mark of Australia, it really is so true to the point of not being noticed that brain washing, intolerance and narrowness of vision pertain much more to the anti God world. So do not be deluded in your quest.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

To Matt, Guilford... that's the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? Haven't christians been forcing their beliefs on the innocent 'unbelievers' for centuries? Finally athiests can have their say without fear of being burnt at the stake! (although there's still the chance the extremists will resort to violence)

Muz, Newcastle, Australia

Yet there's a rational basis to belief which is not shallow, Paul Harris of UK. So not just like that.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Joe, there was no adam and eve (remember evolution?), and no original sin, no 7 day creation, there has never been a confirmed angel sighting (I discount unreliable psychotic and delusional visions), no satan, no hell.
We are human, and therefore imperfect, for 25,000 genes and billions of neurones only get us so far.
There are numerous books explaining the development of human morality. The narrowness of your religious view is mindboggling.

mark, brisbane,

"I Think" vs "I Believe" ... No contest, really, if you think about it. Rationally.

Paul Harris, UK,

Reflecting on Science leads one to be more and more religious. There are plenty of warts in the scientific and non scientific world. We have to get beneath it all through prayer and meditation, to sift the wood from the trees, constantly to work through the never ending illusions to the reality of self forgetfulness - only possible under the inspiration of the latent God concept. The collapse of religious man made empires is nothing compared with our real needs.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I support the views of Jay Nair of Dallas, TX/USA.
Religion served its purpoase in the past, but now it becmae a divisive issue and a burden. I believe religion has reached its peak, and for this reason we see extremism growing among many sects in all corners of the globe, in a final attempt to protect the nests of ignorance. Once we take those out this nest, and help them to improve their living standards, they will start to believe in science and technology. Let us spend more money and time on education and infrastructure, keep them busy in developing lands, agriculture and farms, rather than leaving them for others to indoctrinate their brains. Education is the answer and Science is the future faith.

Ziad Chreih, Kingston Upon Thames, UK

Christopher, surprisingly you have "Christ" embedded in you name.
Let me tell you that Yes God created all that is Good but he also gave (his angels) and us the free will to choose between "Being with him" which means "being good" or to choose "being without him" i.e. not choosing what is Good.
The devil was an Angel in heaven who chose to be without God and formed evil and created hell of his own accord. God did not create hell.
The devil is constantly trying to capture souls of men right from Adam and Eve.This life is a war for each man to resist the devil through prayer and thereafter be with God.
Adam's sin causes us to become weak and vulnerable to being influenced by bthe devil. Therefore we humans who deliberately choose to be without God and sin through the flesh open ourselves to the likelihood of going to hell.
I wish you will realise that thinking about what is good does not come innately to us but it is through the Holy spirit of God which is poured out on all flesh

Joe, Dubai, UAE

I think the time of religion has come and gone. What we see in the world today is probably the last gasp of organized religion. Religion served a wonderful purpose in teaching morality to largely illiterate populations across the world. In some cases, it was an incentive for people to become literate. (In ancient India, Sanskrit was the so called "language of the gods" and obviously this was an added incentive for people to learn the language).

Today, religions feel threatened (especially Islam and Catholic faiths) because they see their very foundations cracking under the assault of reason, logic, individualism and modern science. If a religion finds it difficult to co-exist with the modern world, it is not the modern world that will be destroyed in the end. This is because, the modern world has cured diseases, lifted billions out of poverty and slavery, created a level playing field for lots of people and made life easier for the human race. Religion can not claim any such thing.

Jay Nair, Dallas, TX / USA

Thanks, Zach Beauvais, there's much to think about in your contribution.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

There is a distinction I believe is lacking completely in this argument. There is a distinction between the existence of the divine and the interpretation of that divinity. In other words, there can be a God, but religion can be mistaken.

Because every man-made institution has its flaws (it doesn't take long to begin a list: governments, NATO, corporations, certain institutional relationships [forced marriage, domestically violent relationships set up by a society]), it would be remarkable indeed for religions to have no mistakes.

Reading an article about Dr Akinola (Archbishop of Nigeria) and the difference of opinions expressed at the very top of religious structures supported by dozens of millions reminded me that religions cannot be absolutely true in their interpretations or actions.

People are flawed, and our understanding of God. This carries into religion. This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the existence of the divine.

Zach Beauvais, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Hitchens response to the question about the intrinsic worth of human beings is interesting: "We have no choice but to make that assumption, even if it is subjective and even if it is mistaken." This claim undermines any attempt to dismiss religion on the grounds that it is inherently irrational, since Hitchens is admitting that there are possibly irrational things that we are committed to believing in.

I am curious about the studies that show that 10 to 15 percent of people cannot make themselves believe in religious concepts. How would one measure that? How is it possible to limit this "inability" to something like our genes, rather than some life-experiences or such? Can't someone think they are unable to believe in religious concepts just because they can't actually make themselves want to believe in those concepts, because they already don't believe in them? And what, exactly, are religious concepts? How about guilt? Free will? Necessary limits on human knowledge?

Roman Altshuler, Cologne,

What is the problem with accepting that a young, unmarried teenage girl called Mary had sex, fell pregnant, and had a baby called Jesus? The father is unknown, and could have been the love of her life whom she couldn't marry, or a one-night stand or casual friend, or she may have been raped, or she may have conceived Joseph's child out of wedlock. We will likely never know, and 2,000 years on, why should anyone care?

frank, sydney,

The descriptions of the post-resurrection appearances make great sci-fi reading, and vary across the 4 gospels. Different numbers of angels, variable locations, unreliable witness reports. The risen body goes through walls, but can be touched? Why didn't a "touch" go through the body part touched? Why did ingested food not fall to the floor? It's fanciful stuff. Did the body consist of matter or not? Were all cells miraculously regenerated after suffering cell death? Did it have metabolism or blood flow, did the marrow spring back to life, along with trillions of other chemical reactions needed for life? If no metabolism, why eat? Was the food metabolised, or mysteriously vaporised? If it ate, did it defaecate too? Why need it have any resemblance to pre-death Jesus. Why would it have wounds at all, if other processes were magically fixed? If there were wounds and injuries, they didn't stop him walking, or ruin his hand function, presumably. So some things repaired, but not others. If he'd been beheaded, would the neck wound have still been there? Could he have let his head slide off like the Blackadder King, and kept on talking? The gospel accounts of the resurrection are fantastic flights of imagination, written with the passion to create a written legend. It is a lovely myth, but to believe it is as fact is extraordinarily blinkered and childish.

jim rogers, sydney,

The Cat in The Hat Theory of God:
There are estimated to be up to as many as 500 billion galaxies in the universe, with likely 100 billion stars in each, with a significant percentage of these stars having orbiting planets. Even if only 1 planet in 100 million or less has the "Goldilocks" environment for life, the potential for life out there is massive, potentially occurring on millions or billions of planets.
If, out of those planets with life, on a percentage life develops with moral consciousness...? Would Christians assume those beings also have "original sin"? Could they develop without it?
If the have original sin, will they also have to be saved by a Saviour? Will other Sons (or perhaps this time Daughters) of God have to be born (of other Virgins?), live amongst them, and die to save them? If so, then is the Holy Trinity in fact an unknown "Multiplicity" of God?
Does this make God more like The Cat In The Hat, with a host of Sons and Daughters within??

jim rogers, sydney,

No sensible (or moral?) person could believe a God spoke so manipulatively to an Adam and an Eve, or ordered an Abraham to murder his own son, or spoke from a burning bush to a Moses, or parted the Red Sea (and deliberately closed it again to engulf an army), saved a Noah and members of all the animal kingdom from the flood (while happily drowning everyone else) in an ark (which must have made the Queen Mary 2 look tiny!) , turned Lot's wife to salt for a minor indiscretion, caused the walls of Jericho to fall (and therefore helped in "righteous" mass murder), or could give credence to any other fantastic story depicted. Why would God favour one blood-thirsty murdering army or conquering horde over another?

jim, sydney,

Jesus birth to a supposed virgin mother is a nice enough myth from the gospel writers. It wasn't a new idea. Virgin birth stories from antiquity include Horus (mother Isis, ancient Egypt), Montezuma, Zoroaster, Deganawidah, Dionysius (to Semele), Krishna (to Devaka), Minverva, Perseus (to Danae), Romulus, and in some accounts Cuchulainn, Mithras, Alexander the Great, and others.
If the virgin Mary story had stayed purely a myth that would have been fine, but it has been unfortunately turned into a definitive part of Christian dogma. How could anyone truly believe such unsubstantiated nonsense?

jim rogers, sydney,

I can't resist a final comment. Do any of you believe in Ra (the Egyptian sun god) or Thor (the god with the hammer) or Zeus or Jupiter? If not, the reason is obvious. -Gods (all gods) no longer exist when nobody believes in them any longer. Gods exist only in the minds of the believers.

alan, cologne,

Kathleen, there are numerous non-miraculous explanations for the Fatima sun experience, but you and the Church simply prefer the most unlikely explanation out of all of them, as you want to believe it more than you want to examine it critically. I bet you're superstitious about lots of things. Open your mind!

mike, perth,

Ironic Hitchens can rail about the stupid irrationality and violence of religious believers - while he himself is an oh so very rational alcohol and tobacco abuser!
How rational is it to indulge unapologetically in a practice like smoking which kills 400,000+ Americans a year, including 30,000 2nd hand smoke victims of smokers? Religious wars/terrorism kill far fewer. From a mortality standpoint, it seems wiser to practice religion than smoking, Hitchen's irrational choice!
There's a kind of ugly hypocrisy there.
I also suspect HItch, like Dawkins, is as true believing a fundamentalist in his own materialist ideology, as Osama is in radical islam.

Bob B. , Vancouver, Canada

Western Scholars seemed to have limited worldview when making a parallel comparison between what they postulate and what is available at present. I found that atheism proponents always compared science with the religion of Christianity. It seems that Christianity's theology is the only yardstick that they can compare and bash against without considering other religion like Islam. Many simply dismissed Islam as a derivative of Christianity. I do suggest that these atheists scholars to really open their mind (like they tell other people to) to understand other religion as well in depth especially Islam.

Sheila Majid, Oxford, United Kingdom

Sara Pattinson of Glasgow, how do you say religion is based on blind faith?. Nothing enhanced questioning more than acceptance of God who is deeply in human Conscience. Disbelief is entirely based on emotional illusions.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

A question which always gets rid of the god botherers on my door is this...if a large celestial body slammed into the earth and wiped out all life (yes all of it) would the sun come up tomorrow and the universe carry on its merry way? Yes it would and anyone who thinks otherwise has totally lost their way. We dont exist before birth or after death. if humanity could just accept that fact the world would be a better place.

mike mines, london, uk

If the so called monotheistic religions are less than 5,000 years old. What was the religion before them? Isn't religion itself Darwinian?

Akbar, Cambridge, U.K

My response to your challenge at the beginning of the article, "come up with a moral statement made[...] that could not have been uttered by an unbeliever. "

Here goes: "I don't know what I don't believe in."

Is there a prize?

Mike, Beverly Hills, MI

Sally Pattinson of Glasgow, it's 'atheism' that has to lead to irrationality because it ignores what breathes in the depths of human nature.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

This hopefully will be read by Comrade Hitchens as it is his opinion i value most. If you do read this, i would like to say i am a huge fan of yours and am proud to have read almost every word you have ever written and share your adoration for George Orwell!

People seem to be so agressive towards this work of agnosticism, which suprises me. Religion is not based on fact or rationality, but blind unquestioning faith and people who posses this should not waste their time with this book. All your agression shows is the merit and esteem which you give to such works, perhaps it illuminates your own quams or suspicions about god? We must realise that religion is no longer about god, in its most basic form the church is just another patriarchal business which abuses peoples insecurities, their desire for safety and the wishfulness of evading responsibility. You need only to research the facts of the history of religion to understand this, the bible is not the only religious document!!

Sara Pattinson, Glasgow,

Read Surah 109 Al Kafiroun. "To you be your way and to me mine"

if you are really so irreligious why are you so desperate to publicly deny the value of religion? If God doesn't exist then why bother? What do you gain from this denial? I hope that God speaks to you before the Last Day so that your soul will no longer be in torment.

Lesley Rickard, Sheffield,

"I am absolutely SICK to death of atheists telling people who believe in religion they are wrong- what proof do they have?"

The absence of proof is sort of the point, isn't it?

Matt, Guildford,

Religion needs to be judged for what it is.It's not for the abuse of religionassumed up as a cover up for power. Religion is the worship of God. WIthout this, there's not a chance of moving towards a more permanent love through coping with our great selfishness and ego.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

It's really quite simple,-- all of the signs, or proof you may say, have been given to us over the past 2000 years, (blessed are those who don't need any signs, but God knows how we are...) The miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal 1917, is one recent example. Even American newspapers reported on these events! One should learn the entire history of The Fatima Apparitions...extraordinary. Also the lives and writings of St. Padre Pio of Italy, who died in 1968, and St. Faustina of Poland, are worth learning about.. Pope John Paul II had a fascinating connection to all of these examples.( I assume Mr. Hitchens would say these individuals were all hallucinating what they experienced.) There are so many 'signs' that God has sent to us, one only needs to open their eyes, and see like a child, with humility and love. We shouldn't get too intellectual and heavy, that is what turns people off, and keeps them from seeking the Truth.

Kathleen , Exeter , NH

Any quick glance at history screams out the truth that religion is the bane of mankind. Go to Iraq and argue that religion is good for us.

James R.Conrad, New Orleans , Louisiana

I am absolutely SICK to death of atheists telling people who believe in religion they are wrong- what proof do they have? Too many people complain that religious people ram religion down your throat- I find that atheists try to ram their beliefs down my throat than any other group.

The vast majority of people belief in religion for the greater good and I applaud them for standing up to society telling us its wrong.

I think more people need to look at themselves before criticising others. I will believe in religion till I die, I'm not really bothered whether others do or not and I'm not here to question it either, so I don't expect to be hounded about my own beliefs. I think the Times is becoming slightly obsessed with proving religion is wrong.

Sam, Manchester,

Why is it that when people talk about 'religion', in 99% of all cases they talk about Christianity? Or possibly Islam? If you mean Christianity, say Christianity. There are a lot more religions out there. Equating them all to Christianity shows the same short-sightedness as fundamentalist believers are being accused of. If you're going to criticise, at least do your research properly.

Jacco Versteeg, London, UK

Many people here claim that morality is not possible without religion. Here follows a list of subjects that have become a moral issue in recent history. None of these issues has any root in religion, and religion has generally played little no part in bringing them to our moral consciences

Women’s rights
Gay rights
Animal rights
Environmental protection
Corporate ethics
Medical ethics
Racism
Freedom of speech

Neil, Brighton, England

Mainstream religion, in my opinion, is perfectly safe and practical. The problem is when people are blinded by cultural or personal values which cause them to lose focus on the big picture. For example, here in the USA, we still have a Puritanical streak that has been here for hundreds of years which causes many Americans to be strongly homophobic and anti-abortion, yet other acts that are definitely sinful are ignored. Religion is never the problem in my view, it's the people who interpret the message.

Preston Lewis, Antelope, California

The one thing I would like to add is to draw attention to the lack of any perscriptive and normative philosophic foundation for these atheists. Hitch, bless, describes himself as a 'humanist', as if that condition would be possible outside of the confines of the Western tradition of Christianity. What irks is the lack of any acknowledgement that pan-European civilization has evolved to the point where he is able to critique the basis of this civilization in safety and propose absolutely nothing new, while donning revolutionary regalia. Dworkin and Hitch et al. don't write any books of philosophy or practical moral instruction; they carp about the delusion of the 'believers', When they finally attempt to create a coherent and systematic moral approach to life along the lines of the non-specific-deist-Epicurians or Stoics, perhaps I will give them an ear.

Hitch is not the devil. Please, place a real picture on the website. He looks poached.

bob, pho, AZ

Believers live longer than non-believers? So do people who take vitamins and walk several miles a day.

James R.Conrad, New Orleans , Louisiana

Ed. W. believes there is a god because, he says, believers live longer. True or not, it is also true that people who take vitamins and walk a few miles a day live longer than those who don't. Not much about walking for your health in the bible.

James R.Conrad, New Orleans , Louisiana

How are you meant to take anything Mr Hitchens says seriously when, in the opening paragraph of this article he is already shown to be incorrect and inaccurate. He says he cannot see any scriptural authority for the freeing of slaves but the main premise of Christianity and this is very clearly stated in the Bible, is that we love our neighbour as ourselves and treat others the way we would wish to be treated. If he is unable to see in that ideal, the authority for the feeing of slaves then I feel he has a very blinkered view and it calls into question anything else he cares to espouse.

Steven Albrecht, London,

Aetheism: not for me. I could never follow the logic! They say when religion presupposes evil it is evil, but when it creates good it is not necessary. They want us to think that just because an action done by a religious man could not have been concieved by secular morals that his religion matters not!

I don't blame them though, it's hard to be faithful, and it seems so wrong to follow a religion that contradicts your personal morals. As history shows however, to condem something global based on one's personal conflicts with its ideas has never been justified, and so I pay aetheists no mind.

Douglas, Richmond, Virginia

He is right. Religion is the worst thing there is. The only peace is through trusting The Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone for salvation. Read John Chapter 3 in the Holy Bible. He spoke to the most religious person in His day. There is no other answer. I was very religious and only found peace in trusting The Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone for not only my soul's salvation, but for direction in my life. There is one verse in the Bible that no one can get around. "It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgment. The true Christian "religion" is the difference between trying to do something to be at peace with God and accepting the gift of God and it is done.

grogier, Greenville, SC

Yes, those rotten Christians with their food banks and their homeless shelters and their donations to the poor!

Larry, Seattle, WA, USA

Answer to the challenge regarding the moral imperative or actions between a believer and unbeliever: there can be no answer, as the question is couched in an atheist paradigm in its formation. The way the question is presented, it doesn't matter if there really is a God or not, as you are only measuring the physical actions of people on earth (which in itself assumes then that there is no God). Anyone can say or do whatever anyone else says, regardless of his/her faith. What is lost is that many of Christianity's concepts, unconditional love, mercy, grace really make no sense without a belief in something higher, as in a physical/scientific sense they really aren't beneficial for the grantor. That being said, many "unbelievers" certainly adopt such concepts, and practice them, so in the modern age it appears as if God doesn't have to be part of the equation. But I would say it is nothing more than an unconscious acknowledgement of something higher and of the truth of God's laws.

John, Sarasota, Florida

Would like to thank Mr. Hitchens for a great discourse. And would like to pose a question/problem now to him . . .
If all we (human beings) are is the genetic code of our DNA, cells and matter, which will all cease to exist upon our death (exept the passing on of some of our DNA through offspring), what is the point of such concepts as unconditional love and grace? They make absolutely no sense in an evolutionary sense.
Stepping back a bit, I believe what the previously presented problem also does is make one answer the basic question of existence: do I have a soul? That is, is there anything unique about me, outside of the physical body, anything that will last beyond my physical death. If you believe the answer is "no", then I believe that one must view the world in a truly evolutionary, scientific sense (which few do), as there is no reason for any sort of moral code, beyond the threat of actual, enforced punishment, and there is certainly no reason at all for altruism.

John, Sarasota, Florida

Dear Chris

Yes I do find the bible offensive, forgive your enemies, pray for those who persecute you. Just how offensive can you get! The Son of God dying in agony for the sins of people commited against him. He's a bit arrogant isnt he, who asked him to help.

My experience of this Son of God is that I found out I was the arrogant one in his presence I who broke down in tears at the awareness of how fantastic he is to suffer agony to have a relationship with me, a sinner. I found that it was me who had the problem not him.

And another thing, I think you and this Jesus bloke might get along quite well. He had a lot of criticism for the religious people of his day and in the end it was they who had him killed.

Oh happy days.....

Liam McCann, Bristol, S Glos

All answers are to be found in the understanding the underpinnings of epistemology ("knowledge"and what is knowable) and axiology ("value" and the interplay of ethics and morals in various communities/societies). Here's the bottom-line, theistic and deistic notions are by definition belief/nonbelief conceptualization . Constructs of the mind (not realizations of physical matters). Epistemology establishes that "faith" is certainly NOT knowledge, but merely "belief". Belief is a pschological condition which all of us are indeed subject to in one form or other. Simply put, one can only know knowledge empirically. Though deistic belief systems serve a basic individual emotional need, its been a Pyrrhic victory for humankind. I personally find ethical monothism rather immature and banel in their theodicy. Lastly: morals are always personal, ethics are always communal.

Rene' Schreier, royal oak, Michigan, USA

When all the religions of the world bring all people together in peace instead of driving them apart in violence I will become a religious man

David, Sharbot Lake, Canada

Alex in Rockville, you proceed from the false belief that someone who does not credit the innate human moral sense to a fictional deity has no moral sense. That is madness. The atheist believes in "moral law," they simply don't believe that it comes from a god. We can, and do, justify our belief that murder is wrong by referencing this innate human sense of morality, which was a product of our evolution.

"A believer, on the other hand, can say 'murder is morally wrong because it contradicts the Law of God." Perhaps, but a believer can ALSO say, "I can murder you [infidel, witch, apostate, disobedient child, worker in the World Trade Center, etc.] because your actions violate the Law of God." That is infinitely more dangerous and frightening than an atheist relying on his innate morality.

Woody Tanaka, Lahaina, Hi, USA

"You have to come up with a moral statement made, or a moral action performed by a believer or a person of faith, that could not have been uttered by an unbeliever."

How can a person that does not believe in a moral law say that any action is morally 'good' or 'bad'? They may be repulsed by certain actions, but at the end of the day, feeling alone cannot be held as a moral compass for all people. Some people love their neighboors, some people eat them, both on the basis of feeling.

So a non-believer may say for example, 'murder is morally wrong', and they may earnestly feel that way, but ultimately, they cannot justify their statement.

A believer, on the other hand, can say 'murder is morally wrong because it contradicts the Law of God.

Alex, Rockville, United States

Christopher,
Look up--if you have access to a bible--Isaiah 45:7.
King James Version states, "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD (written in all caps replaced THE NAME, Yahweh) do all these things." The word translated from Hebrew into the English word "evil" is ra' (rah) which means bad, grief, evil, misery, wickedness, adversity, affliction, distress, etc.,etc., etc.(Strong's Concordance)
Back up to Isaiah 45:5, "I am the LORD(Yahweh), and there is none else, there is no God beside me; I girded thee, though thou hast not known me."
In Genesis 6:5 "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen.6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." (Before he told Noah how to construct the Ark.)
Instead of the preacher, read the book for yourself. So much more for the inquisitive mind.

Bridget, Tigard, OR

I have yet to find the atheist that explains love, its origins in the Darwinian scenario nor how it could be construed as an advantage. Imagine a scene in which two rival males compete for a female: the one is purely intent on satisfying his carnal urge, while his rival wastes time and energy contemplating such ethereal delights as her hair, her eyes, the way she moves and whether or not she will like him. Like him, for crying out loud. On top of that, while he worries about her feelings, he stifles fruition by indulging in a sense of fair play as regards of all things, his rival! Why has this nonsense flourished in humanity? In a purely Darwinian setting, how is love anything but a pitiful weakness when pitted against raw intent and what possible reason can be given for raw intent to yield to it?

Whit Haydon, Fullerton, USA, California

I do believe that there is al Sa-tan(The Adversary) who formerly had the name Lucifer when he was one of Yahweh's chief angels--the covering cherub..."until iniquity was found in him". Decided that he should ascend above the stars(angels) of heaven and replace the Creator because he could run heaven and earth superiorly. "Will you surely die? Try that one, Eve, and see as god, knowing good from evil."
Besides, those creatures from Adam's rib were too voluptuous from which to refrain; he and his left their former habitation.
And what fun diverting the degrees from the truth. "How many versions?" And we'll call these "religions" and those "denominations", "temple without a god, temple with a god, temple of many gods, church with three gods in one...celibate priests without celibacy, married wives plus concubines...Oh what fun we will have...while we await the inevitable...And delude as many as possible??? If there is truth, then, isn't there one?

Bridget, Tigard, OR

The cannon of science is now closed. How dare one be sceptical of the tenants of science and present any other hypothosis of the meaning of life.

AS, Phoenix, AZ

Why all this publicity for H.? He's not particularly theologically literate, and the book just recycles the same old objections people such as Chesterton and Huxley went round about at the turn of the last century. Aren't the Brits already tired of Dawkins' whining.

james, Milwaukee, US

Bob Finbow, HAverhill, England wrote

"Can you not revel in the fact that evolution has produced, in you, someone capable of taking pleasure in the world as it is?"

Do you live your life that way? Just existing and reveling in what you say evolution has produced? I have yet to meet an atheist that lives the way that is consistent with their "theory" about humanities existence. You may steer clear of the word "pupose" in a gramatical sense but I doubt you do in a practical sense. Nor should you, it is one of the "marks" left by God to point you to him.

I contend that the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only worldview that is consistient with what we experience around us and what we experience inside of us in terms of sense of purpose, emotions and the like.

Nigel, Charlotte, USA

Design can be a big red herring. It's proper explanation that should be the focus.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Wonderful discourse! Regarding the idea of innate morality not being evolutionary sound...I disagree. Evolution favors the elements that make continuation of traits more likely. Morality could be thought of as 'social instincts', it underlies our ability to be a community and civilization. Amorality breeds chaos, morality in its truest sense breeds cooperation. Thus, it IS a likely result of evolutionary forces.

Chris, Montreal, Canada

I think Kenny Parker has missed an important point. Hitchens says that if you want to infer design it would be easier to infer design by a devil than by a benign god, and if you analyse our world you will find that this is true, as it is actually a very unpleasant place. For example, the creatures in our world are (mostly) designed to kill other creatures and then consume the dead bodies in order to obtain the nutrition to survive. Not exactly All Things Bright and Beautiful, if you think about it, is it? If you are saying that god is responsible for this system then he must be a very unpleasant person indeed. Surely if a benign god had really done the designing he would have made us all able to live on (say) water or oxygen alone?

Michael, Maidstone, Kent

mm good question. Personally i don't have a religious faith, it's a daily spiritual one. For me, if your faith is making you feel bad about yourself, about others or in any way perturbed, then you need to rethink it. And your faith is your own, if god has a problem with it he'll handle it. It's not my business. If anyone needs my help then i'll help them but your life is your own and your understanding of god is your own matter. In short, whatever gets you through the day.
My life is good, thanks to my god. It's that simple.
So, in summary Christopher, free the slaves, it'll make you feel good :-)

rupe, Birmingham,

In answer to the first question raised by Hitchens, the first of the greatest commandments, taught by Jesus, to 'love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy srength' is a moral precept, a moral obligation to our Creator God, that could not be uttered by an unbeliever. Its pretty central to the purpose of our existence, and our inability to fulfill it reveals our weakness, and our need to be saved.
Besides other insufficiencies in Hitchens logic, such as that the existence of evil makes questionable the existence of God, is it not a glaring contradiction that Hitchens on the one hand recognises an 'irredicable' (God given!) instinct to religion yet on the other says that design can reveal nothing about our origins? Isn't that a matter of interpretaton? To quell our instinct like he suggests, is a denial of our make-up, and is reminiscent of the truth manipulation of Orwell's 1984. It could also bring about damnation to hell.

Kenny Parker, Liverpool, UK

In answer to the first question raised by Hitchens, the first of the greatest commandments, taught by Jesus, to 'love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength' is a moral precept, a moral obligation to our Creator God, that could not be uttered by an unbeliever. It’s pretty central to the purpose of our existence, and our inability to fulfill it reveals our weakness, and our need to be saved.
Besides other insufficiencies in Hitchens’ logic, such as that the existence of evil makes questionable the existence of God, is it not a glaring contradiction that on the one hand Hitchens recognizes an 'ineradicable' (God given!) instinct to religion yet on the other says that we can infer nothing from design? Isn't that a matter of interpretation? To quell our instinct like he suggests, is a denial of our reality, and is reminiscent of the truth manipulation of Orwell's 1984. It could also bring about damnation to hell.

Kenny Parker, Liverpool, UK

Moral poison only comes through negligence of God. Without relating to Him, all attempts at morality badly limp.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Sorry. Correction to earlier note: 'ineradicable' not 'irradicable'. And other spelling mistakes.

Kenny Parker, Liverpool, UK

I love how an American, to which I am ashamed of being, says that evolution equates humans to apes. The theory of evolution says that humans came from proto-humans, and that we share a common ancestor with primates.

Also, to think that morality is dependent of religion is insane. Plato and Aristotle were talking about ethics and morals way before Jesus was born.

We should not be wasting our time trying to impose personal beliefs onto others. If you believe in god, fine, if not, that's also fine. Just keep it to yourself because not everyone wants or needs "to be saved."

Nick, New York, New York

Note that Kiran states "I believe there's a god" without any evidence whatsoever, and that Ed W. has made an argument that was destroyed by George Bernard Shaw: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point then the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." (And, in fact, there's evidence to the contrary; namely, that religious anxiety is bad.)
Kenny Parker: read Daniel Dennett to see that Hitch is not at all merely making "his own felt assertion". Your promiscuous teleology is plain for all to see.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence for the supernatural, and that good people do good things and evil people do evil things, but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion. (Stephen Weinberg.)
So, what good does believing do when there is no evidence? More to the point, why believe in the Sky Fairy but not the Tooth Fairy? Such a position is logically incoherent. But then, logic was never a believer's strong point, was it...?

Kimpatsu, Tokyo, Japan

What about the studies that show believers are generally happier and longer-lived than non-believers? Is that not evidence that religion does some good?

Ed W, London,

I do believe there is God! People give religion(whatever yours might be) a bad name, they interpret it they way they think it is and become too fundamental! hence the whole religious suicides, its absolutely absurd! a bit too extreme I think. whatever you believe in, believe in it from you heart and soul and let others be, free to choose!

Kiran, wherever,

Hitchens is right that slavery is condoned in the Old Testament. However it is of a compassionate kind, where God commanded that the Israelites treat the slaves with dignity and set them free after six years, unless the slave desired to remain. This would have been in contrast probably to the undignified and morally reprehensible treatment of slaves by the people around them. Also Hitchens may well be aware that it was the perseverance and determination of two devoted Christian believers, Wilberforce and Newton, who brought about the abolition of slavery 200 years ago, one of whom was a converted slave trader himself.
His argument that our capacity to understand right from wrong, though 'very interesting', is not at all from God, is grounded simply in his own felt assertion. That is not a credible argument. Nor is his simple assertion that it is impossible to infer anything from design. Self evidently that is not true.

Kenny Parker, Liverpool, UK

Nigel, Charlotte, USA. I think you’ve got it right. In the absence of any evidence for a ‘purpose’ to life, it is indeed illogical to believe one exists. There is no purpose to us being here but there most definitely is a reason – that reason is that we are a result of evolution by natural selection. What I can’t understand is why you see this lack of purpose as “totally depressing”. Can you not revel in the fact that evolution has produced, in you, someone capable of taking pleasure in the world as it is and in your interactions with it and the other creatures who inhabit the earth?

Bob Finbow, HAverhill, England

Has atheism ever poisoned anything?

Simon Moore, Waltham, USA/MA

If someone sincerely believes in Unicorns then they have belief. There is no difference from them and those that sincerely believe in God. Apart from centuries of indoctrination, that states that the Unicorn worshipers are in fact mad.

woody, southern , England

Whilst I am pleased to see Mr Hitchens benefiting from the recent success of Richard Dawkins, I am slightly worried about the fact that he appears to be poisoning his children (by sending them to faith schools).

William, Liverpool, Merseyside

Define "science and evidence", Sean of Edinburgh. I see evidence of God everyday. No one can convince me that we are equal to apes because the scientific evidence around me says otherwise.

Mark, Washington D.C., USA

David Easlea, Philadelphia, USA wrote

"All life, including human life, is a result of random elements combining in a random fashion, and a great deal of time. Morality is an excuse"

You can take this stand sure, but then to say life has any purpose is illiogical (which you didn't directly state)

If you are going to be logical in thought you must follow it to it's logical conclusion. Evolution says we are nothing but acidents in space and time and there is no purpose, rhyme or reason to us being here (random elements, random fashion), to say otherwise (such as ascribing purpose based on opinions) is delusion on the grnadest scale and very illogical.

Why do Atheists never follow their beliefs to the logical and totally depressing conclusion?

Nigel, Charlotte, USA

Mark in Bristol.

Belief in the existance of anything is dependent on evidence of the facts.

Unicorns (as postulated - a horse with a large single horn) have no evidence for their existance and therefore, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence for its absence when coupled with the unlikelihood of such a hybrid creature existing contrary to the knowlege of biological evolution.

If one postulates "God" in such a way that there lacks direct evidence for it AND it is contrary to the laws and theories of science and evidence, then one can safely assume it does not exist. We would therefore be wrong to "believe" in either gods or unicorns.

However. One can say we have trust or faith in a person, without belief. I could lend you £20 if I had faith or trust that you would pay me back even though it contravened the evidence (you had not paid me back last time) but even this would likely be trumped by the evidence of a second default in all but the deluded!

Sean Slater, Edinburgh, UK

"Surely "I believe in God" is not of the same order as "I believe in unicorns" (or whatever)? The former is more akin to trust - perhaps risky and misplaced - while the latter is clearly barking mad without evidence to support it.

Mark, Bristol, United Kingdom"


I have read of unicorns in books, we read of God in books, neither has any supporting evidence. Perhaps you could clarify why they should be treated differently?

PJ, Chinnor, UK

“I think, … , we have an innate morality.” What nonsense. How could such a thing have evolved? It’s evolutionarily plausible to say that we have an innate desire to survive which, under certain circumstances, can manifest as “morality”. Evolution does not permit statements such as “we do have a knowledge of the right thing and how to perform it” to be scientifically meaningful. All life, including human life, is a result of random elements combining in a random fashion, and a great deal of time. Morality is an excuse.

David Easlea, Philadelphia, USA

Are you not confusing belief and opinion (and so unfairly denigrating the former)? Surely "I believe in God" is not of the same order as "I believe in unicorns" (or whatever)? The former is more akin to trust - perhaps risky and misplaced - while the latter is clearly barking mad without evidence to support it.

Mark, Bristol, United Kingdom

Very interesting questions and answers. Thankyou.

Philipa, Middle, England