http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christo ... singleton/ (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.
did someone criticize your jesus?
I was kinda wondering what the whole problem was. Your topic title makes it sound as though atheists aren't supposed to critize each other (or Hitchens) for some reason.
I critique what other atheists say all the time, right here on this forum.
I don't think anyone should be above criticism, but at the same time I don't think anyone's critique should be above criticism either.
Anytime someone thinks that any religious text is historical, or myths are, I want to cringe. Why would an atheist lambast another atheist because he criticizes religious text that he does himself? He points out errors that Hitchens makes and provides no evidence that they actually are but just gives his opinion that they are. Hitchens can be criticized for being heavy handed at times or being in error like everyone can, but being a liar or disingenuous? I think not. Solitary
Quote from: "Plu"I was kinda wondering what the whole problem was. Your topic title makes it sound as though atheists aren't supposed to critize each other (or Hitchens) for some reason.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? If someone wants to trash Hitchens or me for that matter. I don't give a fuck. I do however don't like it when the person doing it has no valid reason.
The entire article is nothing but a pc appeal to emotion talking about "metaphoric"" and "poetic meaning", and the author completely misses the point of Hitchens criticism of religion. What the author is doing is making an excuse for people to ignore that religion is a weapon. Hitchens is dead right for pointing out that danger and poison religion is. Just because people like it and it makes them feel good, does not mean it is conducive to understanding of reality, much less our common human existence.
When girls and women in many religions are oppressed and still stuck in expected gender roles, and when Christians and Muslims and Jews are constantly at each other's throats, and most importantly, that division is caused by the stupid childish fantasy that an invisible friend exists, when none of them have one lick of evidence for such, you can criticize Hitchens all you want for his bluntness and blasphemy, but it will not change on bit the fact that religion is divisive and dangerous and should ALWAYS be treated as a weapon.
We are not talking about people who read Oedipus and accept it as fiction. We are not talking about people who read Harry Potter and accept it as ficiton. We are talking about religion being used as a political tool and based on nothing but naked assertions and alpha male mentality, and want so badly the false to be fact they will fight over nonsense.
I don't think you can really trash something with a valid reason... we don't really call that trashing anymore.
You just came across as though you were upset that "a fellow atheist trashed" christopher hitchens. Really all that says is "someone (and I'm going to specifically bother pointing out what he believes, even though it doesn't matter) said something mean and unfounded about someone I like".
It's more to do with the tone of the topic than the actual article. You sound like you're upset by someone speaking ill of christopher hitchens. It just seems pointless to me to get emotional about something like that. That's all.
Quote from: "Solitary"Anytime someone thinks that any religious text is historical, or myths are, I want to cringe. Why would an atheist lambast another atheist because he criticizes religious text that he does himself? He points out errors that Hitchens makes and provides no evidence that they actually are but just gives his opinion that they are. Hitchens can be criticized for being heavy handed at times or being in error like everyone can, but being a liar or disingenuous? I think not. Solitary
"Heavy handed", yea, I am sure the Church thought Galileo "heavy handed". Some people don't get it. Just the word "atheist" itself is a threat to their position. We can be polite all we want and we are still a threat. The irony is that Jefferson, who did believe in a generic god, would bitch slap these theists, and pc atheists, and say if alive today, "Oh yea, Hitchens blew things up, slammed planes into buildings, shot abortion doctors. NOT".
Don't coddle the insecurities of theist by saying "heavy handed". There is a huge difference between blasphemy, and physical violence. Theists certainly have the right to go around and claim whatever they want, and our fellow atheists certainly do have the right to criticize even their fellow atheists. But no one has the right to be free from being offended. "Bullshit" is not "heavy handed", a law based on religion, or violence based on religion is "heavy handed".
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson. Oh, FYI Hitchens considered Thomas Jefferson one of his heros and even wrote a book about him.
Quote from: "Jmpty"I critique what other atheists say all the time, right here on this forum.
Hitchens would not tell this twit who wrote this article not to say it. He'd call him a twit because it is flat out wrong.
I critique your critique of another atheists critique of the critique by the late Christopher Hitchens.
Well, I guess he didn't like Hitchens all that much. He it got it off his chest, and the good part about writing this now is that he will never get a rebuttal from Hitchens, who let's face it, would tear him to ribbons if he wanted to bother with it. Hitchens may have been unnecessarily arrogant for my tastes, but I'd be scared to death if I had to debate him. I didn't always agree with him, but I'd be hard pressed to point out a lie on his part.
God Is Not Great was a scathing book. I'd never read a book that came down that hard on religion. There were certainly things he addressed that I knew nothing about, but those things I did know and the things I could test for truth, I could find no intellectual fault with. I think he had an unusually clear mind. I could see why he would piss off a lot of people, but I'm not sure that is entirely his fault.
Quote from: "Plu"I don't think you can really trash something with a valid reason... we don't really call that trashing anymore.
You just came across as though you were upset that "a fellow atheist trashed" christopher hitchens. Really all that says is "someone (and I'm going to specifically bother pointing out what he believes, even though it doesn't matter) said something mean and unfounded about someone I like".
It's more to do with the tone of the topic than the actual article. You sound like you're upset by someone speaking ill of christopher hitchens. It just seems pointless to me to get emotional about something like that. That's all.
Yes I was upset. FOR FUCKS SAKE, when someone goes around masking the same skunk of a dead argument of "They like it, it is pretty, what is wrong with that", which is ultimately their argument. I don't give one flying fuck if I wrote "God Is Not Great", this is not about Hitchens. Hitchens would be the first to say "say whatever you want about me, it does not make your argument valid"
Hitchens was a drunk who died from his smoking and drinking. It still does not change his rightful call of "bullshit" that people claim faith is pretty or a virtue.
Hitchens happens to be the target of the author, that is all, and merely because of his fame. But what he said in that book, I had heard in many ways long before I read his book.
For you to focus on Hitchens because I defended him, is absurd. I defended him because he was right. Long before I read one book of his, other no name atheists were making the same arguments online.
No one is a god, and if you had read all my posts in my history of online posting, I had issues with some things he said myself. I hated his support of the Iraq and Afgan wars. And most of his books I thought were dog whistle 50 character words which would not appeal to masses.
I am pissed off because people are still stuck on this childish sense of fairness. It is one thing to give fairness in ability to do and say what you want. I am fine with that. But it is another to say that blasphemy or being offended are calls for silence or even punishment.
Hitchens is right, religion IS and always will be a weapon. THAT, not him, was what I was defending.
I'm not really sure what the problem is and you really are coming off as an upset Hitch fanboy (former Hitch fanboy here). The author is correct, Hitch was wrong about a helluva lot of things, like most people tend to be. Some of the instances when Hitch has been wrong do often seem to have been done for rhetorical flair.
In regards to the Abraham story, I agau-in have to agree with the article's author. I enjoyed Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling", even though I disagree with his take on it, which was strikingly original. The point is, is by merely reducing the Abraham and Isaac story merely to that of a father nearly sacrificing his son because he heard a voice tell him to is to miss much of how the story has been taken to mean to some (most notably Kierkegaard), especially Jews. I'm not defending Abraham, but as I've become more widely read, I've begun to better understand that such a reading of a historically/socially important myth is in error.
And I think it's fairer to say that religion can, and often has been, a weapon of various sorts. It doesn't have to be one by necessity.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Solitary"Anytime someone thinks that any religious text is historical, or myths are, I want to cringe. Why would an atheist lambast another atheist because he criticizes religious text that he does himself? He points out errors that Hitchens makes and provides no evidence that they actually are but just gives his opinion that they are. Hitchens can be criticized for being heavy handed at times or being in error like everyone can, but being a liar or disingenuous? I think not. Solitary
"Heavy handed", yea, I am sure the Church thought Galileo "heavy handed". Some people don't get it. Just the word "atheist" itself is a threat to their position. We can be polite all we want and we are still a threat. The irony is that Jefferson, who did believe in a generic god, would bitch slap these theists, and pc atheists, and say if alive today, "Oh yea, Hitchens blew things up, slammed planes into buildings, shot abortion doctors. NOT".
Don't coddle the insecurities of theist by saying "heavy handed". There is a huge difference between blasphemy, and physical violence. Theists certainly have the right to go around and claim whatever they want, and our fellow atheists certainly do have the right to criticize even their fellow atheists. But no one has the right to be free from being offended. "Bullshit" is not "heavy handed", a law based on religion, or violence based on religion is "heavy handed".
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson. Oh, FYI Hitchens considered Thomas Jefferson one of his heros and even wrote a book about him.
That was just my point, that Hitchens is criticized for being heavy handed, not that I think it is wrong to do so. And you quoted:"our fellow atheists certainly do have the right to criticize even their fellow atheists." So why blame me for coddling just for pointing out that Hitchens can be heavy handed according to a lot of people? Am I or anyone else that criticizes Hitchens coddling if we believe it is true? Was I using childish sense of fairness when I stuck up for Hitchens that he wasn't a liar or being disingenuous? [-X I personally think Hitchens could be a pompous ass at times like a lot of people including myself. :shock: :lol: Solitary
After reading the entire article, I thought he made some good observations.
Relatively unknown writer making his reputation by taking on big names. Nothing to see here, move along.
Quote from: "Jmpty"After reading the entire article, I thought he made some good observations.
Again exactly what "good observations"?
The entire article is arguing the same stupid crap I have argued for 12 years now online. "You are not taking into account the beauty of it, it isn't all bad". That is the crux of the writer's argument.
Again, if we were talking about people who were viewing the bible merely like a fictional book or movie review, certainly you can find some pretty motifs in that book. The problem is it is taken as fact and people act politically and even in violence over their holy books, not just the bible.
I can find pretty motifs in Star Wars or Harry Potter, but no one writes Star Wars or Harry Potter based laws, and no one starts wars over those works of fiction.
Hitchens simply cuts through the crap and puts a mirror to the face of superstition.
What this author is doing is as stupid as saying "The pyramids are pretty", yea they are, but that doesn't change the 3,000 years the Egyptians wasted falsely believing the sun was a god, instead of trying to figure out what it actually was.
It takes people like Hitchens saying "bullshit" to be the cold water on humanity's face to wake them up out of their fantasies. People think of hippos as cute, but the reality is that they kill more humans than gators in Africa. Religion is not cute. It is a self inflicted placebo that retards human intellect and progress.
If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.
Quote from: "Brian37"If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.
that's ironic given the title of this thread.
Quote from: "Brian37"Again exactly what "good observations"?
How about his observations that Hitchens was wrong, and numerous times it seemed to have been done for rhetorical flair, such as with regard to the historicity of the Exodus account, his hand-waiving about Eastern religions and his somewhat simplistic take on the Abraham-Isaac story? The author made good and valid points.
QuoteThe entire article is arguing the same stupid crap I have argued for 12 years now online. "You are not taking into account the beauty of it, it isn't all bad". That is the crux of the writer's argument.
That was not the crux of his argument. Most of the article is pointing out the topics on which Hitchens seemed to be intellectually dishonest, or at least lazy and exaggerating.
QuoteAgain, if we were talking about people who were viewing the bible merely like a fictional book or movie review, certainly you can find some pretty motifs in that book. The problem is it is taken as fact and people act politically and even in violence over their holy books, not just the bible.
His critique of Hitchens in that regard was the fact that Hitchens mostly acted as if the only thing that people "got" from the Abraham story was that of a father trying to kill his son, when so simplistic a message is rarely, if ever, what people got from the story.
It would be tantamount to saying that all the Greeks and Romans ever got from their myths was that there were innumerable powerful assholes that ruined your life and like fucking every female in sight.
QuoteI can find pretty motifs in Star Wars or Harry Potter, but no one writes Star Wars or Harry Potter based laws, and no one starts wars over those works of fiction.
Wrong again.
QuoteHitchens simply cuts through the crap and puts a mirror to the face of superstition.
If in the process of having done so he had to sometimes seem intellectually dishonest, was it really helpful?
QuoteWhat this author is doing is as stupid as saying "The pyramids are pretty", yea they are, but that doesn't change the 3,000 years the Egyptians wasted falsely believing the sun was a god, instead of trying to figure out what it actually was.
Exaggeration. It's not like they spent the entire 3000 years "wasting their time". Not to mention, the author's main point is - again, I repeat -
not merely that Hitchens didn't acknowledge that the story was "pretty".
QuoteIt takes people like Hitchens saying "bullshit" to be the cold water on humanity's face to wake them up out of their fantasies. People think of hippos as cute, but the reality is that they kill more humans than gators in Africa. Religion is not cute. It is a self inflicted placebo that retards human intellect and progress.
Again, if in the process of calling "bullshit" you make a number of haphazard and exaggerated assertions, that sort of defeats the purpose.
QuoteIf our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.
As the last poster said, that's kinda've ironic given the thread title. :rollin:
Curtis White is entitled to his opinions but not to "his" facts. The whole episode of the Exodus was debunked by Finkelstein and Siberman. And so trashing Hitchens that he was wrong on the Exodus, when in reality he was right, makes Curtis White look like an ignoramus.