Agnostic.com

25 15

LINK Whether or not God exists, Christopher Hitchens is still a scumbag

For you die hard fans .... I'm not the author, I'm just the passer-on.

Although I personally found the article right up my opinion alley, it isn't for everyone but everyone might be open to opines not their own.

(Yeah, I know! WhoTF am I kidding?) 😛 😛 😛

SeaGreenEyez 9 Nov 18
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

25 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

He supported the Iraq War. He found that being pro-imperialist was profitable.

Agreed. I well remember him being on TV here in Australia early in 2000s in interviews from the UK slagging the Left viciously, calling anyone who criticised the Iraq War (Crime ) all kinds of derogatory names, most arrogantly, and I grew to dislike him. His later efforts against religion with Dawkins et.al were at times very effective, but I cannot forget his strident support for the war criminals behind the Iraq criminal war, for which he never apologised.

He was a supporter of the Kurdish people and I think the fact that Saddam was committing genocide against them coloured his views.

@Moravian Agree with your analysis. But Saddam was committing atrocities, not genocide.

@Krish55 [theguardian.com]

I don't know if he was ever tried for acts of genocide but it was certainly being considered

@Moravian Those are atrocities, not genocide. By that standard, Israel is also committing genocide against Palestinians.

@Krish55 True and Erdogan would be on a charge as well.

4

I believe it is crass, classless and of absolute poor taste to call scumbag and other epithets to someone who is dead and cannot defend himself.

Hitler? Trump after he dies?

@Krish55 Yeah. I'm okay with insulting the dead. They don't know and most of them had problems.

@Krish55 are you comparing an intellectual journalist who never harmed anyone to genocidal dictators?

@Krish55, @rainmanjr And it is still crass, classless and of absolutely poor taste.

3

Hitchens was as much a religious fundamentalist as any theist ever was, and maybe for worse reasons. When he didn’t know the mic was on he admitted he didn’t want religion to go away because he was enjoying fighting it too much. I guess it gave him a sense of purpose (not to mention considerable cash). I always thought he was a vile and hateful man. When he died, his coworkers didn’t have nice things to say about him. Dawkins is little better. Harris is a mixed bag, and Dennett is a fine gentleman. IMHO.

skado Level 9 Nov 18, 2020

I have never read any of his books but have watch several or more videos in which he was engaged in debates with various people. I have heard some people say that whilst he appeared confident he also can across as being an arrogant man. It seems that he was divisive and thrived on it. Scoring points and the annihilation of your opponent are not traits that I would wish to emulate and I consider them to be essentially no different from religious people who demonize those who do not agree with them.

I watched Dennet in a video with Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris and I have to say that I agree with your views as expressed above.

Unsurpringly, many of those who advocate war are seldom to be found on the frontline, however, they do not seem to mind others being sacrified.

I agree except on Harris. I think he is unfairly maligned and often people don't appreciate the nuance of this views and truncate them down to simple statements. Moreover, he is without doubt the most effective debater against religious people I have ever seen. He is forensically good and devastating, and I have learnt a lot from watching him dismantle religious nonsense and false assumptions.

@David1955
Harris is mostly good. I like him. Agree with him most of the time. The reason I call him a mixed bag is he, like Hitch and Dawkins, most often presents the impression that all religion is all bad all the time, and there is nothing else to say about the matter. But “religion” is much more complex and diverse than that, as Dennett often acknowledges.

They treat their atheism and anti-theism as a religion of its' own. That is - if you include humanistic approaches like nonduality and secular beliefs in your definition of religion. Since religion is just a concept (as an amalgam of different ideas) then if their treatment of their views meets that same amalgam it would also be a religion. And from a sociological perspective that is exactly what they are doing. They develop their own dogma that prevents them from examining the true deficiencies in their "proof" arguments due to their own preconceived bias. Ive tried and tried to beat evidentiary and philosophical ideas into them pointing out the faults with using static measurement concepts in a dynamic reality. They can never account for the lack of an objective viewpoint to observe the observer not can they explain the true nature of matter. This is why quantum physics baffles them and they have delusional problems with biocentrism et al. You must assume that ALL views have some merit and discover what they have to learn from.

8

Meh.
Just another opinion.

Another attack piece by someone Hitchens would likely have dismantled in a debate.

I didn't agree with everything he said, or all of his positions, but I found myself in agreement more than I didn't.

@SeaGreenEyez I disagree. He was far more than "just a prolific writer".
I've also not heard anyone refer to him as a "visionary".

Like I said, I didn't agree with him on everything. He was very anti-choice, and I definitely thought he was wrong about that.

5

I read this the other day. It's a hatchet job. I'm not a big admirer of Hitchins, mostly his political views. But he despatched religion right well enough.

1

I am on the fence with this one. Even as I have become totally disillusioned with Bill Mahr. Their opinions have taken on a curveball effect! They must live with their public words, but at the same time, they hold nothing of substance in their later life, that I can use!

@SeaGreenEyez I was trying to study his last week’s show to figure out if he was being serious or what? But something was way off the rails!

5

You post a hatchet job by some anonymous writer who says Hitch. didn't have an original thought ?. Think about it.

@SeaGreenEyez Originality ?

5

I find this article extremely offensive! They misspelled despicable, and no one caught it! Flaunting your vocabulary when you can't spell it loses points with me.

@SeaGreenEyez
I am what I am. They may be a stranger, but I am just strange. 🙂

3

The author of this rant (toxic34) is entitled to his opinion but it doesn't make it accurate or correct. I enjoy much of what Maher and Hitchens have had to say over they years. However, nothing from (toxic34) comes to mind as memorable.

@SeaGreenEyez So pleased to know that I brightened your day. 🙂

3

He's just typical illogical atheist.

Word Level 8 Nov 18, 2020

Atheists may not always be logical, but believing of fairy tales is always illogical. Fairy tales abound in holy books.

4

I don't compare Hitch and Bill Maher but I like both of them. That doesn't mean I agree with their every word. I also bet this writer of the piece you posted was writing just because he needed a byline by a certain deadline.

Yep far,far easier to lay the blame, etc, on the shoulders of the dead than it is to find the REAL truth.

9

Hitchens like everyone else may NOT have been 'perfect' but he was a truly outspoken Anti-religion/religious person and I thank him for being so.

Never read anything from him, but watched a few panels /debates he was in. I can’t speak to the depth of the man, but he was a talented force to reckon with...

2

I have read some of his books and I find him to be simplistic and not really understand some of the history of political thought. Not that I am an expert. I think he got some of his creditability by not believing in God.

3

A barely literate tirade, void of argument or substance. Opinions are a dime a dozen.

5

OH fuck off, what a waste of time and eyesight.

4

Name ONE person, just one, that you agree with 1000% with......I'll wait right here.....

3

Not an article, just a blog. No supporting evidence. Not even signed.

0

“Article”. Just a long YouTube comment really. Don’t bother.

Mvtt Level 7 Nov 18, 2020
2

Hitchens made and defended his points. If it was wrong, how come no one called him on it in a very decisive way?

I'll be honest I never understood his beef with the Clintons but I think he had some points about Teresa, though I admit I am only taking his words as true because no one would ever correct him in debate lol

1

Hitchens was definitely polarizing and antagonistic in his approach. Fine to have different opinions, but would sure like a bit more objective evidence in a hit job. We are not republicans after all.... ( I know , some are , suck it up)

3

So what if the gross overstatement that he had no original thoughts may in some small measure have some validity? For example, the concept of monotheism making one a serf may have derived from Robert Ingersoll. And there have been other examples I can't recall at the moment. But at least he stole from the best, and had the style and guts to promote such views to a new generation, most of whom are probably ignorant of their source. I sometimes hear complaints about the lack of "new" arguments against religion as if that counts in theism's favor. No need to re-invent the wheel for what is already valid.

1

it's important to learn about these things before you completely dismiss them. htchens lacked tact because he was stuck at that level and couldnt advance. you never get past the hard consciousness problem until you take a leap and he couldnt ever get past his own ego to look further than his dogma.

3

"Not a believer, in the theistic sense"? In what sense then?

2

Worthless ridiculous bilge.

0

I had to block a know it all here so now I am free of her insinuations and fictional expertise upon the history of religions but now she cannot learn from my sharings of fact....

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:553949
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.