Fellow atheist trashes Christopher Hitchens.
Offline http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christopher_hitchens_lies_do_atheism_no_favors/singleton/
Now this is where the critic lost me, QUOTE ARTICLE "At one point he calls the story of Abraham and Isaac “mad and gloomy,” a “frightful” and “vile” “delusion,” but sees no reason to mention Kierkegaard’s complex, poetic, and deeply felt philosophical retelling of the story in “Fear and Trembling”. In this way, Hitchens is often as much a textual literalist as the fundamentalists he criticizes."
Typical tactic of the politically correct atheist. They point to the "rich history" and "beauty" in the words and the "poetry" of it all. Hichtens did not lie about a fucking thing about any religion. If alive today he'd argue "so what" pretty does not mean good. It is like pointing at the volcano when it isn't active and sticking your head in the sand and pretending it is not dangerous. That is what this author is doing. And as far as Hitchens being a literalist, no, he reads it through the minds of literalists because there are people who use holy books as weapons. This author is the deluded one. Hitchens wasn't ignoring anything or leaving anything out. His focus was on the dark side of religion, this author is the one chosing to ignore reality, not Hitchens. A pretty hand grip on a handgun does not make it safe or good.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Hitchens spoke about factual stuff rather than poetic bull. It wasn't about art or being popular. It was about shoving people's noses in to the shit and saying, "HERE SMELL THAT SHIT FOR WHAT IT IS!"
Not everything he said was factual. Much of the reason he became so popular was because his passion and emotion lead his arguments. He was dead wrong on all sorts of things. Everyone is. I'm sure if he were still around he'd be amongst the first to admit it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
BING AND FUCKING GO! AMUN RA BROTHER!
This moron writer is falling for PC crap. What the writer stupidly does is like pretending the dormant volcano never erupted or will erupt again.
"Those pyramids are pretty" yea (to the writer of the article) they certainly are, and look at all the fucking time wasted falsely believing the sun was a thinking being when they could have spent that 3,000 years actually trying to figure out what the sun actually was.
The problem this moron doesn't understand is that we are not talking about a book people accept as fiction. No one writes Harry Potter based laws or starts wars over them. In real life all that "poetic bullshit" is taken as fact and people center government and laws around that "poetic bullshit".
I love the left and it's good intent of getting along, but saying "It's ok to pretend the earth is flat, when we know now it is not" is not the way to "get along".
This pc bullshit is what stifles human progress. Hitchens should be thanked for calling "bullshit" just like we should thank Galileo for telling the truth about the earth rotating around the sun. If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.
I also get sick of idiots saying "I agree with him, but why does he have to be such an asshole about it?" Really? So people are more concerned with being offended, than the real offense of violence in the name of stupid naked assertions of imaginary friends?
When you have the major 3 religions holding the entire population of the world hostage over their childish capture the flag alpha male bullshit, with their hands on nukes, considering I live here too, I think "FUCKING KNOCK IT OFF ASSHOLES" is perfectly acceptable. ESPECIALLY when there is absolutely ZERO evidence for any deity by any name.
Thank you DB, you hit the nail on the head.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Ok, saying "that car has a flat tire" when it is a truck, still would not change the fact that it has a flat tire.
This is bad logic that theist use about anything that Darwin might have gotten wrong makes the entire batch bad, when you look forward any "mistakes" are merely semantic and do not change the outcome. Theists have tried to point out Darwin's errors, but DNA still bitch slaps them.
His basic argument is "religion is poison". I fail to see how he was wrong on that. I am sure you can argue details and get him to admit he got details wrong, but it still would not change that religion is bullshit and divides humanity.
You are still talking about a species that socializes by centering life around the placebo of superstition. Just because it feels good does not mean it is good for you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
That's one of the dumbest things you've ever said. Working on a record or something?
Hitchens was WRONG about a LOT of things, religion included. Period.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
he can't be "wrong" on that, but he can't be "right" either, because the position is nonfalsifiable, so you can't draw unqualified conclusions from it. we've never had a world without religion, so we don't know if humans would have been kinder to each other or not.
ultimately, hitchens's overall position was speculative. you agree with his axioms, so you say his sloppy treatment of history is justified in that light. fine. another who disagrees with his axioms will undoubtedly see his sloppy treatment of history as unjustified. neither one of you can "prove" you are "right."
as i look at the title of this thread, i also hope you're not trying to push some kind of "atheist solidarity" bullshit, because, historically, solidarities have always led to attempts at suppressing open dialogue. the example that springs to mind is gershom scholem's condemnation of hannah arendt's eichmann in jerusalem because she offered data of collaboration in the holocaust by sections of the worldwide jewish community, inside and outside europe--because of this, scholem accused her of hurting jewish (and/or israeli) solidarity.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I didn't say he was always correct. A bunch of his tirades were just pure emotion, but when it came down to the science of it all he stuck to the facts.
(edit) and yes, I've seen him stumble during debates, correct himself, backtrack. I mean, the guy was human, he did make mistakes.
Exactly! Listening to Brian talk you'd think he was an infallible god of atheism.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well Brian can get really emotional depending on the subject. He also has a habit of always talking about... never mind I don't want to get him started again.
The amount I respond and my passion when I hold a position in no way constitutes me thinking I am a god. No one deserves a perch, not even me. If you think am full of shit on an issue, go for it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Everyone in the world is never right all the time. I never said Hitchens was. I have disagreed with him on the Iraq war, and his Harvard words and name dropping wont reach the average masses, and he was an alcoholic. I said about religion and the criticism in that article that author was wrong. Hitchens intent wasn't to address people's "rich" metaphors and pretty traditions. His intent was to say that people ignore that this placebo superstition causes us needless tribalism and division and excuses cruelty to others and ignorance of science.
No one is a god, Hitchens was not, I am not. But this author was wrong on this issue.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I really wish you'd quit making shit up. I never said you said that. Every single fucking time you quote me you misrepresent me or you blatantly lie. It is quite tiresome.
And yet he wasn't. Not about everything anyway. Much of what he said I can't comment on because I'm not familiar with the material, but much of what he said was completely accurate.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
no, he was not "wrong," you just disagree with his starting point. he believes that the metaphors and other accretions that have built up around religions in the millennia since their foundational myths were laid are too important to ignore. you believe that the "tribalism" that you allege is caused directly by the foundational myths of religion is a negative effect that far outweighs any cultural value resulting from the historical development of religions.
neither of you can prove your position empirically so stop throwing words like "right" and "wrong" around.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
"As Nietzsche wrote in “Beyond Good and Evil,” “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.”
I like Nietzsche, he often has quotes that strike my brain like a knife!
Once again, the author failed to take into account Hitchens intent of that book. The entire message in that book is that pretty stories and pretty traditions combined with credulity and willful ignorance, do not constitute truth, and on top of that are used as excuses to remain ignorant and wallow in selfish tribalism that end up with far too often deadly results.
The author's argument is "Hitchens ignores the "rich history". No Hitchens deconstructed the illusion that religion is always pretty and forced people to look at the damage it does.
Arguing over details that Hitchens was wrong on some things, is like when theists point out errors scientists have made means scientific method itself is invalid.
Whatever Hitchens got wrong does not change that religion is a weapon and is poison.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Now IN WHAT CONTEXT?
Again, no one is arguing human rights here or morality here. On a very evolutionary sense groups do form and become successful even surrounding themselves around a false claim. The Ancient Egyptians falsely believed the sun was a god for 3,000 years. They have lots of pretty monuments and stories and metaphors, but none of that made the sun a god. THAT is the poison Hitchens was talking about. Imagine instead how far humanity could have gotten if they had not wasted all that time thinking the sun was a god, and actually tried to figure out what we know now.
It is not wrong to believe false things, strictly in the evolutionary context, because we observe false claims all the time. It is however stupid and outright dangerous to wallow in myth after you know the truth. It was once acceptable to own slaves, but it sucked for slaves, and the people who owned them used religion to justify it.
We know now the earth is not flat, but because of stupid theists, it took hundreds of more years for society to be dragged into the future by the truth.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
There is not one human that does not make mistakes. But Hitchen's overall message is dead on. The title of "God Is Not Great, How religion poisons everything" is spot on as a summery. He wasn't saying that as a call to become fascists as atheists, but to put religion on notice that it does not deserve a pass.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
number one, that's a gross oversimplification of human history, even for you.
number two, yes, brian, that's all we can do--imagine. that was my whole point. we have no clue how humanity might have developed without religion. it's speculation, and nobody can be right or wrong when they speculate about nonfalsifiable things.
you say this guy is wrong to attack hitchens because you agree with hitchens's speculations about how much better the world would be without religion. therefore, you say this writer's criticism of hitchens's hamfisted treatment of history is missing the point. those who disagree with hitchens's speculations would say there's no point to miss and that hitchens was just a demagogue. neither position can be proved "right" or "wrong."
we don't know if the world would have been or would be better, or worse, or the same without religion. the first question can never be answered. the second one can, in theory, but it's extremely unlikely it ever will be.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Irrelevant. The author was correct on many points, period.
And religion is not automatically a poison. We wouldn't be here if not for religion. Hitchens was delusional to suggest otherwise.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't see how you can make that claim with certainty. I lean towards believing that not only would we be here but we'd be abundantly more advanced. Religion has hindered us. The societal structure, and positive tenets imposed by religion all existed before religion. Religion has beneficial aspects because those elements existed before religion. Those elements, if allowed to flourish without the hindrance of dogma might have taken hold much firmer in society by now.
Don't get why you made this argument. Even if I'm wrong, I don't see how you can be so sure you're right.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
We'd be more advanced if we'd dropped religion 2 or 3 thousand years ago, sure. But we wouldn't be here at all without the binding attributes it gave us for thousands of years before that. Religion was a significant influence in tying groups of people together to band against nature and other animals, and overcome them. It was like oil in an engine, making communities stronger and more robust in a time when everything was dangerous and frightening.
No social structures comparable to civilisation can be said to have existed before religion. All the earliest civilisations bear evidence of belief in some kind of 'supernatural' entities. All evidence points to them arising simultaneously.
We did outgrow it a very long time ago, and it has been a hindrance ever since, but you can't say it was always a hindrance.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Let me put it this way:
Religion has been steadily declining for the past couple years. Have you noticed less stupid over those years? I haven't.