Agnostic.com

3 12

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: As ever, an erudite voice of reason against religion…and greatly missed.

….apologies for the video being slightly out of sync.

Marionville 10 July 24
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

3 comments

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

3

Praise the lord we didn’t have to watch the rebuttal!!! 😎

Buck Level 7 July 24, 2021
2

He, like Dawkins, was not a voice of reason against religion, but a talented comedic performer (note all the bursts of laughter in this clip) who blamed religion for human fanaticism, which infects everything humans do, not just religion. And made his living entertaining with this ruse, while privately admitting an affection for religion.

His actual grasp of religion, also like Dawkins, was either grossly uninformed scientifically, or deliberately skewed to appeal to his paying audiences.

What we get from Hitchens is not truth, or reason, but comedic relief from our frustrations with our fellow humans. Anthropology (actual science) tells a very different story.

skado Level 9 July 24, 2021

I’m not sure I actually agree with your summary of Hitchens, in fact I know I don’t, although I do concede he earned a substantial living from being able to draw audiences to his public debates, which were usually highly entertaining.

Very insightful analysis! Atheists often overlook the anthropological view of religion, which is the scientific way to view it.

He was charismatic and eloquent, with reasonable arguments. That he could get a laugh, further showed how ridiculous the nature of the topic could be.
He toured the Bible Belt rather than take the easy progressive book tour.
He took the anthropological view on board, and you can hear that in his arguments re. abrahamic religious believers are asking us to believe that for hundreds of thousands of years, only in the last few thousand the god of Abraham decides to intervene.
I won’t go on about all his achievements. Except to say that even the religious tend to respect him.
Insignificant people of little substance and contributions to humanity, reveal their jealousy of him.

1

Unfortunately he turned into a shill for imperialism! He forgot that religion isn't the only evil in the modern world...

I’m sure he had opinions on many other subjects I wouldn’t agree on, but they are immaterial as far as his views on religion go, I think his arguments were absolutely correct.

@Marionville They are not immaterial. Religion and religious fanaticism emerge, exist and change within a context. A historical, economic, and political context. Religion is not something that just floats unattached.

Hitchens used to be a good fighter against both religious fanaticism and imperialism. I knew of him before he became famous in the mainstream. But later in his life, he let the racism of his British upbringing influence his views on both Islam and US imperialism.

He knew that the US had encouraged Islamic fanaticism around the world in order to protect its own imperialist interests. And he knew that that the US arming and training of Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan led to 9/11.

But after 911 his views focused solely on religion and Islam. This was greatly helped by the money to be made by shilling for US imperialist intervention around the world. This former Marxist suddenly became a big celebrity in mainstream news.

His monomaniacal focus on religion and Islam and arguing for US wars greatly increased his bank account. He should have heeded the Biblical advice to avoid the evils of manna. Or recalled Jesus saying "For what shall it profit a man that he gains the whole world but loses his soul?"

Later in his life, Hitchens ceased being both an incisive thinker and a compassionate humanist!

@Krish55 you are entitled to your opinion…I reserve the right to keep my own.

@Marionville You cannot engage with facts? Your opinion is only shaped by an emotional reaction against the idiocy of religion, without looking deeper?

@Krish55 I don’t feel the need to engage, and frankly I don’t have to. I have spent a lifetime engaging and arguing my point of view, but only if I feel inclined to, at the moment I don’t. I only posted this because I thought Hitchens had a good few points correct in this video clip, and never intended it to be an in-depth discussion on his entire life belief system or career.

@Marionville Just because you didn't intend this, it doesn't mean that this discussion is not relevant.

@Krish55 What discussion are you referring to? A discussion necessitates at least two parties engaging, and I have made it clear that I’m not inclined to expand any discussion to anything beyond this actual video clip. If you wish to address any specific points arising from anything in this clip I’ll be happy to oblige.

@Marionville You replying to my comments is a discussion, even if you choose to ignore their relevance to the real world shaped by Hitchens' later hypocrisy. A discussion that is devoid of content provided by one party is still a discussion.

@Krish55 The evils of manna ? Don't you mean mammon from heaven ?

@Moravian You are right.
Manna is what fell from the sky the sky during the Exodus myth. I should have said Mammon, which refers to the debasing influence of wealth.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:611400
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.