LONGECITY

Christopher Hitchens is a master rhetorician and professional sophist who makes his living by writing and public speaking. In order to stay in business, he needs to provoke, captivate and charm his audience. Under these circumstances, I wouldn't pay any attention to his opinion about God or the Bible.

Christopher Hitchens is a master rhetorician and professional sophist who makes his living by writing and public speaking. In order to stay in business, he needs to provoke, captivate and charm his audience. Under these circumstances, I wouldn't pay any attention to his opinion about God or the Bible.

It is obvious you won't pay any attention to his opinion Elijah but in fact you have not challenged a single proposition of the author, all you did was attack the author in an obvious attempt to dispel his credibility. While subtle and forgivable (in your case) it is nevertheless a classic ad hominem attack.

This has been your response whenever confronted with unassailable logic, you either attack the source or offer the bible as an alternative. What you are not doing is confronting the logic in a prima facia manner. Show where the facts are wrong, show where the author is inconsistent or irrational, that is valid argument but simply telling others to ignore the subject because the author is a "sophist" and it is just his "opinion" anyway, is just name calling and a diversion from the core elements of the presentation.

You do more to validate Hitchens by the manner of your response here than by any thoughtful attack you could have made instead.

Thanks for posting Zoo, that was a great video. I've been meaning to read his book for some time but I'm making it a priority now. His arguments against religion are the most persuasive I've ever heard.

I did read "God is not great". It's a very dense book and Hitchens is a gifted writer. Since english isn't my native language, it was not an easy read. Indead, Hitchens is a polemist and doesn't bother much with nuances. I think you have to know the personage to really enjoy the book and take it with a grain of salt. "God is not great" is also available as an audio book (search for it on a torrent search engine..) but the strong british accent combined with the drunkenness voice of Hitchens made it too hard to understand to me.

isn't Hitchens also a supporter of Bush’s Iraq war?

Yes he is Mike though at least he was honest about why.

Hitchen's was a first hand witness to Saddam's use of WMD's on the Kurds back awhile and openly said he felt that all the lying about why we were going into Iraq was unnecessary and counter productive; just taking out Saddam was sufficient justification. He has however often lamented since the incompetent handling by this administration of the entire event.

Hitchens also vehemently opposes fundamentalist Islam in every way shape and form and thinks a very different approach to dealing with global terrorism is necessary. He evolved from a socialist into a quasi neo-con globalist and does now assert the need for the aggressive use of force in certain instances but also openly defends overt nation building.

Here are some examples on the subject Mike.

http://www.hoover.or...uk/9456506.html

http://video.google....732924208320875



What if we lost the war in Iraq?

Restating the case for the War on Iraq

Here are many of his papers on various subjects; http://www.hitchensweb.com/

He is a very vehement supporter of the Kurds BTW. Almost to the very sectarian extent he also laments in others. He is generally however one of the more informed debaters of the entire subject and speaks with greater alacrity than many politicians. I do not agree with him but I always learn something when listening to him. He reminds me a little of William F. Buckley and his evolution.

http://ritestuff.blo...ns-on-iraq.html

BTW Hitchens is also one of the writers that exposed Kissinger's war crimes in the Vietnam War period.

Yes he is Mike though at least he was honest about why.

Hitchen's was a first hand witness to Saddam's use of WMD's on the Kurds back awhile and openly said he felt that all the lying about why we were going into Iraq was unnecessary and counter productive; just taking out Saddam was sufficient justification. He has however often lamented since the incompetent handling by this administration of the entire event.

Hitchens also vehemently opposes fundamentalist Islam in every way shape and form and thinks a very different approach to dealing with global terrorism is necessary. He evolved from a socialist into a quasi neo-con globalist and does now assert the need for the aggressive use of force in certain instances but also openly defends overt nation building.

Its too sad that an intellectual of his caliber would justify such a thing.

Here is another good video on the actual subject of this thread.

Christopher Hitchens on - "The Moral Necessity of Atheism"

In what I can only call a kind of doppleganger parody of reality here is Hitchens debating Al Sharpton on the subject of this book at our local public library.

I find his argument style prone to using strawmen, which is aggravating because such arguments only then convince the already converted.

I find his argument style prone to using strawmen, which is aggravating because such arguments only then convince the already converted.

Q you will really enjoy the Sharpton/Hitchens example then because that is often Sharpton's criticism. It is surprisingly very interesting.

Hitchens has a great one liner quoting Hume on the subject of virgin birth in the Sharpton debate:


"Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that some Jewish minx has told a lie?"

It is obvious you won't pay any attention to his opinion Elijah but in fact you have not challenged a single proposition of the author

That's cuz I only listened to the first few minutes of the video. I got really turned off with his comment about "the pinched and flabby faces of the faithful." Hitchens doesn't look like he's doing any serious calorie restriction to me. If I was in the audience, I would've asked him to pull up his shirt and show me his belly.

Show where the facts are wrong, show where the author is inconsistent or irrational, that is valid argument but simply telling others to ignore the subject because the author is a "sophist" and it is just his "opinion" anyway, is just name calling

I'll have to get back to the rest of the video later and see what more I can come up with. When I call Hitchen's a sophist, I'm not trying to insult him. I'm only describing his method of reasoning and his persuasive technique. I've watched other Hitchen's videos so I'm aware of his technique.

It's obvious to me you're a Hitchens fan. Like mike250 I have to recognize the flaws in character and reasoning. He wasn't joking when he mentioned the cocktail hour early in the video. He certainly must of been drinking too much when strayed from the left. I think all his reasoning is muddled by his alcoholism, and he needs to overcome this serious problem in order to be a positive role model to the youth he frequently speaks to.

It's obvious to me you're a Hitchens fan.

Being aware of someone, their history, writings, achievements and intelligence does not make me a fan Elijah.

One can show respect for one's enemy even as a form of love but that does not confuse the goal, one must know one's enemy to defeat them.

Jumping to conclusions will get you in trouble good man.

I am less worried about defeating his personal weaknesses than the strength of his ideas.

You are concerned with his views on religion, which I happen to empathize with. I have long been concerned with his views on the war, which I strongly contest but do not blithely dismiss as ignorant in the manner of our venal culpable idiots in office.

It's obvious to me you're a Hitchens fan.

Being aware of someone, their history, writings, achievements and intelligence does not make me a fan Elijah.

One can show respect for one's enemy even as a form of love but that does not confuse the goal, one must know one's enemy to defeat them.

Jumping to conclusions will get you in trouble good man.

I am less worried about defeating his personal weaknesses than the strength of his ideas.

You are concerned with his views on religion, which I happen to empathize with. I have long been concerned with his views on the war, which I strongly contest but do not blithely dismiss as ignorant in the manner of our venal culpable idiots in office.

his views on the war are troubling and you seem to justify them. Hitchens is not an idiot, he is an intellectual and he should know much better.

his views on the war are troubling and you seem to justify them. Hitchens is not an idiot, he is an intellectual and he should know much better.

Find a single time I justified his views. I said he personally witnessed many of the horrors of Saddam against the Kurds by way of explaining some of his passion, not as a rationalization for those views.

Like I said, you really need to know your opponent. Life is not as simplistic as many would want.

Those who want to get out of this war need to be able to debate Hitchens not the Neo Con cowards that hide behind him.

I should not need to explain this because a review of the archives will show that I have been arguing against this war since long before it happened and more over every dire argument I made fell on deaf ears and has come to pass.

The subject of this thread is "Hitchens on god", not "Hitchens on the war in Iraq." Let's try and keep it that way, please. You should feel free to open a debate on Hitchens and the war separately because they do not necessarily belong together here but due to the religious nature of the cultural aspects of the conflict, they at times do overlap.

That makes it harder to keep the war out of it here but does not justify Hitchens support for the War in Iraq. It goes toward explaining it. For Hitchens this is sort of an *Anti* religious war. Hitchens does repeat many of the warnings we hear elsewhere about the overt threat of fundamentalist Islam to modern culture. For him the war in Iraq is a means to confront al Qaeda AND that threat.

Did you listen to the first video on him I listed up there by the Hoover Institute?

http://www.hoover.or...uk/9456506.html

He takes great pains to separate himself from the incompetent handling of the war by this administration but goes on to support it and explain why. I think many of his points on that subject merit being challenged but just not in this thread.

Q you will really enjoy the Sharpton/Hitchens example then because that is often Sharpton's criticism. It is surprisingly very interesting.

Yes, I've seen that one. It's tough comparing to Sharpton, because that man is prone to rhetoric as well.
I really don't like strawmen, though. They're really good as 'sound bytes' for one's own side, but they're aggravating to debate against.

Though Hitchen's has an interesting tack: he debates that belief in God makes society worse off. I'm more used to arguments about whether gods exist at all. But when discussing the actual effects of religion, it's important to be as honest as possible.

his views on the war are troubling and you seem to justify them. Hitchens is not an idiot, he is an intellectual and he should know much better.

I would agree, that I don't care for Hitchen's position on the "War on Terror" and all of its 'warlets'. The four horseman often remind us of how the angry endoctrinated suicide bombers killing themselves are the quintessential example of religious zealousness.

Unfortunately, Hitchens fails to consider the socio-economic conditions and moral outrage from which the suidice bombers arise. Rich and satisfied people are not going to kill themselves with a bomb to blow up people they don't know just because they are indoctrinated by some religious organization. (It certainly is possible to get them to enlist that way though) Most suicide bombers are expressing outrage against being occupied:

95% of suicide attacks in recent times have the same specific strategic goal: to cause an occupying state to withdraw forces from a disputed territory. [Pape, Dying to Win (2005) p.128]

While religion certainly does a more than to just greese their wheels, it is foolish to look at the problem one dimensionally. Especially since doing so, makes one miss the fact that 9/11 was in part blow back. US administrations have a pretty poor track record in foreign intervention and not surprisingly some people get pretty upset. Ask the question: "Why doesn't Canada get attacked by terrorists?"

However, I find Hitchens asks and answers some great questions about morality in context of religion. While he certainly isn't afraid to call names, he does make plenty of solid points.
Edited by lucid, 31 March 2008 - 08:58 PM.

Let's take a look at Dawkins on this subject.

OK I apologize because that was a little sneaky so here is the real subject: Dawkins explains his book: "The God Delusion".



Should complete that reading. Begin after 10 minutes to avoid the overlap:


Second part Q & A.

Clearly historic injustice towards the Palestinians breeds hatred and anger. But we must face up to the fact that in creating the death cults of suicide bombers its unshakable and unreasonable conviction in one's own faith that is the key. If preachers then tell the faithful that paradise after martyrdom is better than existence here in the real world, it is hardly surprising that some will swallow it; leading to a crazed cycle of violence.

Dawkins has a much more reasonable position, he acknowledges that there are some real injustices in the world but also how religious zealotry makes the cycles of agression difficult to get out of and a world of peace difficult to obtain.

Thanks for the link laz.

Thanks for recognizing that Lucid and sitting through to the end because it is important to place the whole piece in context. I also feel it is important that the issue for Dawkins is not to vilify Islam in particular as Hitchins might but to highlight the hazard represented by religious zealotry in any form to rational society.

More videos of this guy: Yusuf Alkatab (A jewish person converted to islam):

Pathology runs deep. This guy does scare me. While I can understand his feelings about justice in Israel and Palestine, the expansionist and kill those who do not believe ideology certainly is frightening. The more wealthy and less oppressed the population is the less their tendency towards extremism of this kind.

Here Yusuf says that he was misrepresented in the previous video:

Very interesting. He seems much more calm mannered in this video, very weird.

Indeed, Dawkins has a much more reasonable position but its nice to hear Hitchen's views on Edward Said.

Recently I read that Islam has grown larger than Catholicism and is gaining fast demographically with Christianity. As I read the article I thought of this thread and I also thought about Dennett. Violence is not a solution to the problem of cultural conflict in a global society. In fact it is a great part of the problem.


Islam overtakes Catholicism as world's largest religion

Daniel Dennett--Breaking The Spell (talk at Caltech)


The Purpose Driven Life: Dennett on "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"

I am less worried about defeating his personal weaknesses than the strength of his ideas.

You lack compassion Laz! You place more importance in his ideas than in his personal welfare and the welfare of others who might be influenced by his example. As a part of your love for God, the welfare of one's neighbor should always be of utmost importance in the scheme of things. http://www.biblegate...amp;version=31;

The problem I have with Dawkins and Hitchins is that they are far too prepared to go after the most flimsy of targets in order to assert their own views. They perpetually criticise and debate the most pervasively stupid ideas that exist within the diverse, worldwide religious culture, and I think this discredits them. Al Sharpton is not a representative of sophisticated, scholarly Christianity. And while that is not to say that his ideas ought not be criticised, these criticisms must be seen for what they are. That is to say, they must be seen as criticisms not of religion itself, but of one peculiar manifestation of religion. Religion is not a cause of evil or ignorance in the world. It is however on some occasions a tool for the advancement of these human characteristics, just as it has been as tool for the advancement of others, such as compassion, scholarship, etcetera.