Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
GOD is not great
#1
Posted 30 March 2008 - 03:21 AM
#2
Posted 30 March 2008 - 02:30 PM
#3
Posted 30 March 2008 - 03:01 PM
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.
#4
Posted 30 March 2008 - 03:38 PM
#5
Posted 30 March 2008 - 04:23 PM
#6
Posted 30 March 2008 - 04:50 PM
#7
Posted 30 March 2008 - 05:01 PM
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.
#8
Posted 30 March 2008 - 05:12 PM
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.
#9
Posted 30 March 2008 - 05:15 PM
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.
#10
Posted 30 March 2008 - 05:33 PM
#11
Posted 30 March 2008 - 05:44 PM
#12
Posted 30 March 2008 - 06:03 PM
#13
Posted 30 March 2008 - 06:32 PM
#14
Posted 30 March 2008 - 06:36 PM
Q you will really enjoy the Sharpton/Hitchens example then because that is often Sharpton's criticism. It is surprisingly very interesting.I find his argument style prone to using strawmen, which is aggravating because such arguments only then convince the already converted.
#15
Posted 30 March 2008 - 06:51 PM
"Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that some Jewish minx has told a lie?"
#16
Posted 30 March 2008 - 07:38 PM
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.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
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.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
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.
#17
Posted 30 March 2008 - 07:46 PM
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.
#18
Posted 30 March 2008 - 07:53 PM
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.
#19
Posted 30 March 2008 - 07:59 PM
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.
#20
Posted 30 March 2008 - 08:17 PM
Yes, I've seen that one. It's tough comparing to Sharpton, because that man is prone to rhetoric as well.Q you will really enjoy the Sharpton/Hitchens example then because that is often Sharpton's criticism. It is surprisingly very interesting.
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.
#21
Posted 31 March 2008 - 08:56 PM
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.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.
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:
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?"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]
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.
#22
Posted 31 March 2008 - 09:48 PM
#23
Posted 31 March 2008 - 10:16 PM
Should complete that reading. Begin after 10 minutes to avoid the overlap:
Second part Q & A.
#24
Posted 31 March 2008 - 10:19 PM
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.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.
Thanks for the link laz.
#25
Posted 31 March 2008 - 10:24 PM
#26
Posted 01 April 2008 - 06:27 AM
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.
#27
Posted 01 April 2008 - 07:33 AM
#28
Posted 02 April 2008 - 02:52 AM
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"
#29
Posted 05 April 2008 - 12:20 PM
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;I am less worried about defeating his personal weaknesses than the strength of his ideas.
#30
Posted 22 April 2008 - 11:06 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users