Agnostic.com

33 22

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?) πŸ˜›πŸ˜›πŸ˜›

SeaGreenEyez 9 Nov 18
Share

Post a comment Author often replies/likes Reply Author often replies/likes Add Photo

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

33 comments

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

1

I so love it when something turns out EXACTLY as I expect it will or would.

That's all.

2

Worthless ridiculous bilge.

3

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

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

No, he wasn't. He obviously had flaws, but he also did a lot of good furthering secularism and atheism. As for the author, he's also wrong about Mother Teresa. She is a fucking saint, as proclaimed by Pope Francis. Though that fact isn't any defense of her poorer character traits.

2

crap

7

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

That would need to be 100 people you agree with 100% of the time, given that 100% is an entirety of %.

Just sayin that cause it drives me FUCKING insane when people like Mama June, Honey Boo Boo and Donald Trump say ignorant shit like, "I give 110% in everything that I do." That's not a thing. 100% is all you have to give.

Anyway, I agreed 100% with Steve Irwin. There wasn't one thing he ever said that I did not agree with. Crickey!!! (I even agree that that expression is as good as "Oy vey!" )

But anyway....

4

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.

And unlike you, not one thing either of those people have even said sticks with me. This however? I'll probably giggle a little about this for a while.

#toeachtheirown

@SeaGreenEyez So pleased to know that I brightened your day. πŸ™‚

7

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

I take it your a Hitchens fan.

πŸ˜‚

3

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

Exactly! That's the point of this little blip written by who knows who.

6

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.

πŸ˜‚ I find it funny that anyone would take such offensive, at a few short paragraphs, written by a complete stranger, about a complete stranger (ie: someone they've never known nor will ever personally know) that a random Spelling Nazi moment ensues.

#butthatsjusthowIseeit

@SeaGreenEyez
I am what I am. They may be a stranger, but I am just strange. πŸ™‚

6

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.

6

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

It says nothing about me, if that's what you're inferring.

@SeaGreenEyez Originality ?

4

... never speak ill of the dead... instant karma's gonna get you.

Maybe not speak β€˜ill’ of anyone. But facts are facts.

Eh, it's OK. Speaking ill of the dead and/or even wishing someone dead isn't going to bring on some karmic fall-out or some voodoo mischief. It may not be a nice thing to do, but nothing is going to "come around" or render "paybacks." That's just woo-ful thinking. πŸ˜€

@SeaGreenEyez

... famous last words... πŸ˜œπŸ€£πŸ˜‚

3

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!

Yeah. My devolution from Bill Maher was tough a little. I got to a point where I just couldn't watch any more. Not one more minute. It took about a year and I'd still try to view little clips on Youtube and such and it became clear to me: NOPE!! I have NO thoughts on him any more. Other than to avoid his rhetoric at all cost.

@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!

4

Thanks for the article. I think you’ll love reading his autobiography Hitch-22.

Hages Level 7 Nov 18, 2020

I think I wouldn't be able to stomach that much info about him personally. Given I generally give the raccoons outside my house more thought than I've ever bothered re: Mr. Hitchens. πŸ˜‰

9

I miss Hitch.

Hages Level 7 Nov 18, 2020
4

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.

Agree. I think he had some fans simply because of his "James Dean" "bad boy" persona. At least his lady fans. I personally don't give him much if any thought. What I've read/heard/seen isn't by any means, things I hadn't personally thought of, all on my own without an audience. But to each their own.

#IloveBillNye
(No bad boy persona needed for me! LOLOLOL πŸ˜›πŸ˜›πŸ˜›

3

Mother Teresa wasn't as bad as he said she was? She sounds pretty bad to me, but I'd need to see what the author means about Indian society. Didn't she refuse to help people as much as she could have, because she fetishized poverty? And didn't she eschew her own hospital to go overseas for treatment?

I don't know much about Hitchens, but I don't think I'd be a fan, seeing how pro-war he was.

Yes Hitch cheered on Tony Blair to invade Iraq "to protect the Kurds" ..... chain smoked Marlboroughs during his CSPAN interviews ....2 things are enough to keep an asterisk over his head as many Atheists praise him .... I agree with Hitch condemnation of Teresa of Calcutta SCOURGE is a more accurate title as she is ZERO PEOPLE''s "mother" .... I reserve SCUMBAG for people like rapists Kavanaugh & Thomas on the US Sup Ct or Epstein .... Hitch belongs to us unless he molested girls like Bill Cosby

Mother Theresa was actually quite a monster. Sadly that reality is not widely shared nor believed if/when it is. That's one little two week binge "research project" I went on that left me having a tummy ache and a VERY ill feeling in the very core of who I am. Awful person hiding behind her "saintly" persona.

4

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)

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

7

On this: "Seriously, he never had any original thoughts."

I have not read Hitchens, but one of my ex BFs was a big fan of his. He told me something "wonderful" (or some such adjective) about a theory that H. had come up with. When he told me the theory of the origins of religion, I said, "That's been around for years. In fact, I discuss this in a mythology course that I teach." Never had any desire to read the guy after that.

And after that, my BF would preface information with "I know that you probably already know this . . ." and yeah, he never told me anything I had not run across in my studies. Sometimes, when people are newbies in any area, others can seem wise and original when, indeed, they are building on the ideas of others.

I prefer yuval harari's approach from a sociological perspective. He was actually on James Corden last night and I fell asleep before I could see it. If you havent read Sapiens I'd recommend it.

@JeffMesser After I grade about 999 final drafts, I might look into this!

@Gwendolyn2018 yeah it's a good one. explains the belief sets as social tools like a corporation. He talks about the inherent limits to unstructured organizations around like 150 or somesuch and after that a pseudo social contract situation kicks in and the group looks to create order.

My hundreds of pages with Hitch reminds me of his many citations references footnotes and credits.... he was a cowardly Atheist as long as Dr O'Hair was alive.... he became a US citizen a few years b4 his lung cancer.... he praised Orwell AND MARX verbally in his less famous chatter.... would have been nice if Hitch rode Cat Stevens PEACE TRAIN but he never was much for music just books and Vanity Fair

@JeffMesser I honestly have not read atheist works concerning religion as I find it redundant of what I already know. I have read/studied religion for decades both academically (I used to teach mythology) and personally. I also find atheists telling me what I should believe laughable--and they do exist. I had too much of that as a Christian.

@Gwendolyn2018 I enjoy backtracing the mythos from religions to their common sources. you can decipher a lot about human history that way.

@JeffMesser Myth is a passion for me. Archetypes essentially prove that all religions sprang from the basic faith; the myths are too much the same not to have done so. I like Jung's theory of the collective unconscious, but it is much more likely that the tales spread though immigration. Myth is often allegory for actual events and some deities/characters are likely to be based on real humans.

And on an unrelated note, I was born in OK (but raised in California).

πŸ˜‚ @ "...you probably already know this...."

Wouldn't it be great if people said that to us without a twinge of eyeroll just under the surface? I haven't been told that in about 8 years. The length of time I've NOT bothered dating/meeting or otherwise simulating the popular act of "coupling," hoping to couple, attempting to couple or pretending to couple. πŸ˜‰

@SeaGreenEyez It is, at best, an underhanded compliment. And every time he said, yeah, I already knew. On one hand, he was trying not to insult my intelligence and on the other . . . he sounded patronizing.

I have not been in a "relationship" for about five years. I am better alone. I recently met a man and though I made it clear I sought ONLY friendship, like other men whom I have told the same, he either thought I didn't mean it or that he was special. He wasn't.

The stereotype that women are desperate for a man lingers on. I have also found that most of the men whom I meet--online or in real life--think that because they are attracted me, I am automatically attracted to them. I just got an email on a dating site that attests to this!

@Gwendolyn2018 I was just discussing this with a colleague a bit ago ... those myths typically spring from some initial truth that we have lost over the years. I often use the example of david and goliath. Modern human beings did NOT all come from strictly homo sapien ancestry. We have a mixture of DNA sequences from homo sapiens as well as homo neandertal and homo denisovan and the homo erectus peoples of northern asia as well as the homo florensis in the west indies and phillipines. Those homo erectus and denisovan ancestors had super-archaic mDNA in some cases and with an admixture change or two you had giants and lizard people and a variety of other physical conditions that would/could be radically different from our own now. Many old myths speak of giants and fair-haired folk etc... I know this author named andrew collins who published a book entitled Denisovan Origins with Prof. Greg Little and it spoke at length of the evidence supporting ancient cultures with denisovan and homo erectus influences. Much of the mythology in my own (by religion) SE Asia centers around the period when there were 3 great rivers in India - a period we have geologically isolated to period prior to the last mini ice-age. The fertile crescent area that American education taught as the origins of ancient civilizations was actually pre-dated by the Indus Valley civilizations. There is so much more history to this world than we commonly seem to know about.

@Gwendolyn2018 as for Oklahoma - be glad you're not here now. half these morons think covid is a hoax. it's terrible here right now.

@JeffMesser Jung said that archetypes are the repeated experiences of humans over thousands of years. I would love for science to prove that they are embedded in our DNA, but not holding my breath!

Xtians use the widespread flood myth as proof that a worldwide flood actually happened, but there is simply no proof of that. However, floods are scary, and when one's world is a "small," a disastrous flood is "worldwide." There are theories that the flood myth arose with the end of the last ice age when the sea levels rose and another on a Black Sea deluge. I have read where at one point in human history, we also became extinct around 70,000 years ago--what stories were handed down from those who survived? And the contributions of Neanderthals/Denisovans will never be known, but how can we discount them?

The Demeter/Persephone myth was lifted from the myth of Isis/Osiris, but where did the Egyptians get? Where did the Sumerians get their version?

If you get a chance, check out this video about David and Goliath; it shows how little we understand about the realities of myth;

@JeffMesser My sister lives in a small town in SE OK. She is horrified by the reactions of the people there. They refuse to wear masks; she is Baptist, but she stopped going to church for a couple of reasons; one is because she and one other woman were the only ones who wore masks. Another is because they are all Trumpers (which is the reason they don't wear masks). Covid has swept through the town and the result is horrifying.

She might be Baptist, but she ain't no fool!

The numbers continue to rise here, but I personally know only one person who has tested positive for Covid, and that is a former student/friend whom I "see" only on Facebook. She was exposed at work. I work online, so my exposure is limited to people at Walmart and the fabric store. Most people wear masks as it is mandated, but those who do not are the same type/group of people, and I will not go into stereotypes (even if they are applicable).

By the way, all patrons of the fabric store wear masks; we quilters and sewers are just more responsible. (Grin.)

@Gwendolyn2018 no offense intended but all those issues in his TED talk are pretty old hat. I'm not trying to prove that the story was true or there was any miracle involved or anything like that. I am merely stating that there are other explanations and possibilities to account for the wealth of ancient lore concerning giants and a variety of other conditions - even aside from genetic abnormalities. Native american and norse and S. American and Russian (caucuses) and a litany of other ancient cultures have stories of giants and people with distinguishing features different from what we consider the norm. You might check out the molar size of the denisovan remains that have been uncovered (here is one from the denisova mountain cave but there are others [cbc.ca].

@JeffMesser No offense taken. The point of the video for me was not the issue of the giant (Goliath would have been about 6'6" or so), but the armor and the issues of the slingshot. I know a lot about myth, but not about those types of logistics. Giant and little people are a fairly common staple of myth.

7

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

He fell for the cries of the neocons.

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

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.

6

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.

The religious right are probably still triggered by him to this very day.

Just because something goes against YOUR opinion doesn't mean it's a "hatchet" job. It means it doesn't match your opinion.

7

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 8 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 β€œreligion” 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.

Write Comment More
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.