Im not sure which part of the quotes anyone could genuinely brush aside.
And why should we take seriously anyone who has a faith and feels that alone entitles them to a say in how others live their lives? It entitles them to nothing except their faith. Again, to quote Hitchens, "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Now if they were basing their opinion on historical fact or some genuine experience in a relevant field of work, and could demonstrate that, I might understand. But to have someone prove their point of view today because it says, in a book written and rewritten by 100s, perhaps thousands of unknown people, that someone woke from the dead, claimed to be the son of god, walked on water, told stories and turned water into wine 2000 years ago is just, well, ridiculous. I understand the parables and the nice, ethical meanings and they have their place in Sunday schools for kids. But thats just teaching common sense and calling it religion.
The amount of good theology/religion has done, as you point out, in the arts, literature etc is undeniable, although the Catholic church is still guilty of some scurrilous attempts to defame some who disagreed with it in these fields. Science and innovation is debatable...
What I don't appreciate is is the power over people and the fanaticism that comes with religion. You might argue thats just a minority, but unfortunately, like other groups they judge so quickly, thats what people focus on. Take a look at the world just now and tell me honestly if you think religion as a whole is doing well? Fanatics threatening to wipe countries, races and other religions off the face of the planet, the proliferation of Aids throughout Africa, the gaudy riches within the vatican with beggars lining the streets outside holding pictures of the virgin Mary (I was there a few years ago and walked passed them all), the raping, and subsequent denial by senior members of the vatican, of children for years etc etc
Again, I would stress, I haven't any issue with individuals who get comfort and hope from their beliefs, just don't follow the diktat that forces you to impress that belief on others!
Im not entirely sure about religion's contribution to science either-I understand the burning, persecution and house arrest others risked to further scientific ideas though.
Lastly, to compare Hitchens and Dawkins to a madman like Pat Robertson smacks of desperation and uses the same tactics of the extremists who they bravely attack (Im not calling you an extremist btw!). Both put forward reasoned arguments with evidence to back up EVERY SINGLE thing they say, so the comparison isnt the best
Sorry i can't muti quote you because i'm using my phone and it's just to annoiong to do so. I really can't keep up a proper debate because of my aforementioned using of said crapppy phone
.
Even though i brought up a few things there i felt you missed my overall point that calling anyone who believes in religion stupid or naive is incredibly offensive, even though i'm not religious most of my family are. You are using baseless tactics some religious people use against Atheists, in that you are accusing Christians as a whole as attemting to have a say in aspects of everyones life, as you clearly know The Bible, Quran, whatever is up to interpretation just as much as anything, and some use quotes to verify their beliefs; there are plenty of Religious people who don't care about/ support some of the issues you are clearly referring to here.
I don't really have the time nor feel the need to debate miracles since i don't believe in them myself, but there is a ton of more pragmatic Theologists and areas of Theology like Moral Relativism that may interest you, that's if you even have any interest in debating this subject with believers without having to pull out Christopher Hitchens quotes; just saying.
Anyway it's took me ages to write this out on my phone, so i'll just wrap it up with a few words on my Hitchens,Dawkins/Robertson comparison before returning to this later if i have the time. While my comparison was no doubt extreme, i feel that Dawkins and Hitchens work appeal more to the popular market, and they spend(t) their time debunking Creationists and the like rather than debating genuine Theologists they clearly take awway exposure from people much more qualified than themselves, who usually only find an audience from fellow intellectuals. I'm also not a fan of the militant atheism they show, something that has got a load of criticism from the Atheist/ Skeptic community as a whole.
Sorry for any typos, missing words, sentences that don't make sense i'll edit this later.
