Christopher Hitchens

bipedalhumanoid · **Joined:** Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm **Posts:** 2675

CitizenPaine wrote:

ClickHere for Village Mag's take on Hitchens, Waters and Keven Myers. Just to give a flavour:

Quote:

Myers’ extraordinary overblown praise for his book – “… God is Not Great is easily the most brilliant and fascinating contemplation upon the role of religion in human society in recent times, the Das Kapital of a tolerant, if exasperated, atheism”

CitizenPaine

This pseudointellectual had me going for a while until I read this...

Pseudointellectual wrote:

But in fact there is nothing particularly brilliant about Hitchens’ book. In style and content it is essentially the same as last year’s atheist blockbuster The God Delusion by Prof. Richard Dawkins.

Yes they're basically the same in the sense that they are both books containing text that advocates atheism... but that's where the similarities end. There was a tiny bit of crossover in the arguments used, which is to be expected, but Hitchens's (to the best of my knowledge there was only one Hitchens involved with writing this book) writing style, the bulk of his arguments and the manner in which the arguments were presented bore little or no resemblance to the god delusion. I hate it when people pretend to read books.

Pseudointellectual wrote:

Nor is there anything particularly challenging about the arguments it contains

Yeah the arguments for atheism are quite simple and unchallenging... which makes me wonder why there are any theists left. Complex arguments are consistent with the act of rationalisation which is what you have to resort to when you have irratational beliefs.

Pseudointellectual wrote:

: just like the Dawkins book (which is by no means the genius professor’s best) it fails to land punches with any real force on any type of pro-religious view other than the sort of literalist nonsense found in American mainstream Protestantism, Roman Catholic orthodoxy, conservative Islamic thought and the like.

err... so it only challenges the religious beliefs of the majority of religious people on earth... Wanker.

brianmmulligan · **Posted:** Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:10 pm

bipedalhumanoid wrote:

CitizenPaine wrote:

ClickHere for Village Mag's take on Hitchens, Waters and Keven Myers. Just to give a flavour:

Quote:

Myers’ extraordinary overblown praise for his book – “… God is Not Great is easily the most brilliant and fascinating contemplation upon the role of religion in human society in recent times, the Das Kapital of a tolerant, if exasperated, atheism”

CitizenPaine

This pseudointellectual had me going for a while until I read this...

Pseudointellectual wrote:

But in fact there is nothing particularly brilliant about Hitchens’ book. In style and content it is essentially the same as last year’s atheist blockbuster The God Delusion by Prof. Richard Dawkins.

Yes they're basically the same in the sense that they are both books containing text that advocates atheism... but that's where the similarities end. There was a tiny bit of crossover in the arguments used, which is to be expected, but Hitchens's (to the best of my knowledge there was only one Hitchens involved with writing this book) writing style, the bulk of his arguments and the manner in which the arguments were presented bore little or no resemblance to the god delusion. I hate it when people pretend to read books.

Pseudointellectual wrote:

Nor is there anything particularly challenging about the arguments it contains

Yeah the arguments for atheism are quite simple and unchallenging... which makes me wonder why there are any theists left. Complex arguments are consistent with the act of rationalisation which is what you have to resort to when you have irratational beliefs.

Pseudointellectual wrote:

: just like the Dawkins book (which is by no means the genius professor’s best) it fails to land punches with any real force on any type of pro-religious view other than the sort of literalist nonsense found in American mainstream Protestantism, Roman Catholic orthodoxy, conservative Islamic thought and the like.

err... so it only challenges the religious beliefs of the majority of religious people on earth... Wanker.

To be honest, I think his point was that it is easy to prove that religion is nonsense and even evil. It is more difficult to suggest what can be done about it. I'm in the middle of reading it and so far it has given me few new ideas. However, it might be useful to others who are not as confirmed in their views as I am.

Mind you the rest of the article on the need to challenge post-modernists - I really was not convinced of the point of this.

Neesik · **Joined:** Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:19 pm **Posts:** 284

Christopher Hitchens interview on point of inquiry click the listen now button on the right. Recorded last Friday.

Martha · **Joined:** Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm **Posts:** 1084

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1391, ... hens-Slate

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

Remember that Stalinism itself was self-defined as "a great experiment" on the human being and that fascists loved to say that they were cutting out the tumors of society and extirpating the "bacilli" that caused disorders in (another revealing phrase) "the body politic." Even our metaphors of healing can be turned into horrible negations.

What is more probable than that the oldest and latest form of totalitarianism, religious mania, will come to infect doctors as well?

The latest form of totalitarianism? Religious mania has been around for as long as we humans have existed - we (not the other animals) invented it, after all!

I think Christopher Hitchens is having a problem with separating himself from the other animals, as it were. Its like he's both ape and man at the same time, but he can't make up *his* mind which one he is.

Note, I was more than a little intrigued when he said (its one of his favourite mantras) that Stalin would have been mad not to exploit the conditioned masses which he had inherited from his predecessor's regime.

In other words, in Hitchens's view, anyone who doesn't salivatingly exploit a vulnerable person/people is a fool. Sounds to me like Christopher Hitchens is more of a religious parasite than he cares to admit!

sharon · **Joined:** Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:49 pm **Posts:** 151

brianmmulligan wrote:

To be honest, I think his point was that it is easy to prove that religion is nonsense and even evil. It is more difficult to suggest what can be done about it. I'm in the middle of reading it and so far it has given me few new ideas. However, it might be useful to others who are not as confirmed in their views as I am.

I thought the book was enlightening. I stopped believing in god a few years ago, but I was always sort of hoping to be convinced again that I should go back to religion. The problem was, the arguements against god and religion were just so much better. :lol:

I read 'God is Not Great' and I felt those last feeble threads snap for good. There is no way I will ever go back to religion.

So I fell into the 'not as confirmed in their views' camp, and yes, it has made a big difference in my life. I'm still learning too.

smiffy · **Joined:** Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:58 pm **Posts:** 374

Martha wrote:

The latest form of totalitarianism? Religious mania has been around for as long as we humans have existed - we (not the other animals) invented it, after all!

Yes, that's why he says "oldest and latest".

Quote:

Note, I was more than a little intrigued when he said (its one of his favourite mantras) that Stalin would have been mad not to exploit the conditioned masses which he had inherited from his predecessor's regime.

Have you got a link for where he says that?

Quote:

In other words, in Hitchens's view, anyone who doesn't salivatingly exploit a vulnerable person/people is a fool. Sounds to me like Christopher Hitchens is more of a religious parasite than he cares to admit!

Well, if you're quoting him accurately, that doesn't follow at all. It doesn't follow from that idea that everyone should exploit people's superstitions. Rather, it's more likely that he's saying that if you're going to be a totalitarian dictator, it's probably best to do it in a society where generations of religious indoctrination have reduced the capacity of the citizenry for dissent, freethinking and critical analysis.

bipedalhumanoid · **Joined:** Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm **Posts:** 2675

Hitchens on Paisley and Adams...

http://www.slate.com/id/2163217/?nav=navoa

micfur · **Joined:** Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:17 am **Posts:** 171

bipedalhumanoid wrote:

Hitchens on Paisley and Adams...

http://www.slate.com/id/2163217/?nav=navoa

I have a lot of sympathy for Hitchens view point here. But thats the difference between journos and politicians isnt it. Politicians dont have the luxury of spouting on about how things should be in an ideal world. Sometimes they have to dance with the devil for the greater good. Its just compromise.

brianmmulligan · **Posted:** Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:59 am

micfur wrote:

bipedalhumanoid wrote:

Hitchens on Paisley and Adams...

http://www.slate.com/id/2163217/?nav=navoa

I have a lot of sympathy for Hitchens view point here. But thats the difference between journos and politicians isnt it. Politicians dont have the luxury of spouting on about how things should be in an ideal world. Sometimes they have to dance with the devil for the greater good. Its just compromise.

micfur you are quite correct in this observation. I'm sure that Hitchens knows this. I don't think that he is criticising other politicians for dealing with these two and keeping their mouths shut. However, as a journalist he has a duty to some extent to express the truth.

micfur · **Joined:** Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:17 am **Posts:** 171

brianmmulligan wrote:

micfur wrote:

bipedalhumanoid wrote:

Hitchens on Paisley and Adams...

http://www.slate.com/id/2163217/?nav=navoa

I have a lot of sympathy for Hitchens view point here. But thats the difference between journos and politicians isnt it. Politicians dont have the luxury of spouting on about how things should be in an ideal world. Sometimes they have to dance with the devil for the greater good. Its just compromise.

micfur you are quite correct in this observation. I'm sure that Hitchens knows this. I don't think that he is criticising other politicians for dealing with these two and keeping their mouths shut. However, as a journalist he has a duty to some extent to express the truth.

fair point

Martha · **Joined:** Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm **Posts:** 1084

One of Hitchen's best interviews (IMO).

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707u/ ... r-hitchens

Martha · **Joined:** Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm **Posts:** 1084

Christopher Hitchens in Seattle]

Enjoy, I did!

smiffy · **Joined:** Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:58 pm **Posts:** 374

So you like him now?

It's getting hard to keep up.

FXR · **Posted:** Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:20 am

smiffy wrote:

So you like him now?

It's getting hard to keep up.

There's always Viagra (or so I'm told I wish to state quite catgorically I've never needed it myself. I still intend to sue that lying prostitute that sold that spurious story to the Sunday Wurld when I get time)

bipedalhumanoid · **Joined:** Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm **Posts:** 2675

Did anyone ever manage to find out if this event (Hitchens' Dublin Writers' Festival 2007 debate) was recorded?

http://2007.dublinwritersfestival.com/event_19.php

Atheist Ireland Forum

Christopher Hitchens

Who is online