Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

Posted: Jan 13, 2012 - 8:30pm

Mitt.

Posted: Jan 12, 2012 - 9:38pm

It's just occurred to me that Christopher Hitchens could very well be considered the Ayn Rand of the Left.

Observe:

Both militant atheists

Both loved to belittle and slur people they disagreed with, including anyone having the slightest inkling of a belief in a Higher Being.

Both militant supporters of the military and jingoistic war propoganda, who loved to demonize and exaggerate the threat of the "enemy" (okay, Rand was anti-ish the Vietnam War but she was a huge Cold Warrior) and not only tolerated but encouraged human rights abuses as a "means to an end" of ending the threat (let the God they don't believe in sort out the innocent casualties along the way).

I agree with Rand that Communism was terrible but the Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul wing of the libertarian movement were more correct about the Soviets when they predicted they'd destroy themselves, they didn't need any help from the US and it wasn't necessary for America to overreact by meddling in Iran and Chile.

Both set pretty awful examples in their own personal lives (Hitchens — alcoholism, Rand — serial adultery, personal feuds and vendettas)

Posted: Jan 7, 2012 - 6:27am

CH is dead, but apparently his thread will live on forever

Posted: Jan 6, 2012 - 10:34pm

Lazy8 wrote:

Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

Posted: Jan 6, 2012 - 3:07pm

Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

Targeted by Khomeini in 1989, the author found himself with a formidable â¨champion: Christopher Hitchens. Salman Rushdie recalls his friend's many joyfully waged battles, not least the Hitch's magnificent argument with Death.

On June 8, 2010, I was “in conversation” with Christopher Hitchens at the 92nd Street Y in New York in front of his customary sellout audience, to launch his memoir, Hitch-22. Christopher turned in a bravura performance that night, never sharper, never funnier, and afterward at a small, celebratory dinner the brilliance continued. A few days later he told me that it was on the morning of the Y event that he had been given the news about his cancer. It was hard to believe that he had been so publicly magnificent on such a privately dreadful day. He had shown more than stoicism. He had flung laughter and intelligence into the face of death.

(...)

I have often been asked if Christopher defended me because he was my close friend. The truth is that he became my close friend because he wanted to defend me.

Posted: Jan 5, 2012 - 10:03pm

Beaker wrote:

Yup. Still dead.

i'm about willing to kick him again....

Posted: Jan 5, 2012 - 6:58am

Much ado about nothing.

Posted: Jan 5, 2012 - 6:35am

Umberdog wrote:

You sound pretty angry, whatever you call yourself, or not. I'm sorry, but I agree with most of what you wrote. I haven't watched the video yet. I bet I've heard it all before. The lady looks like Mrs. Upshaw, my third grade teacher. I'm pretty sure she hated me.

Glad I got to watch the video. Its answered a lot of questions I've had about atheists.

I'm just a spiritual being having a human experience.

I'm not really angry, just going with the theme of the video. I got my thoughts out that have been rumbling around in that vast empty space between my ears. I meant every point, it was very cathartic, but angry, no not really.

Posted: Jan 5, 2012 - 6:20am

kurtster wrote:

I get angry when people who express on openess to a God or higher power and are condemned for just thinking it possible and being lumped together with those who are sure of it. And are condemned for the acts of those who participate in organinzed religions as if they are either guilty or support these specific religions. It makes me angry when spiritual people are condemned as being religious.

People who are 100% sure there is no 'God' and want to change the world to reflect things that way make me just as angry as those who are 100% sure there is a 'God' want to do the same make me angry. Neither side can prove it. Yet they are both 100% sure.

I got taught evolution in school, creation was also mentioned, but it was taught in the context as a religious belief system unsubstantiated by any real science. I attended 12 different public schools before graduating from high school because of moving around the country When admited to hospitals, I am given many more choices to my religious preferences or afiliations other than Cathoilic and Protestant. None or other is one of the choices to which I answer as just spiritual. I have been admited to many hospitals.

I get mad when examples are presented as 100% universal in defense as a position. All schools do not teach evolution, all hospitals don't consider more than 2 religious possibilities of their patients. Or that all Catholics feel the same way about their religion or all Jews feel the same or all Protestants feel the same way. That wiccans are atheists. Don't they believe in and worship nature ? Who is Mother Nature ?

So as a spiritualist, let me express my anger at being lumped into the realm of the religious who are 100% sure there is by those who are 100% sure there isn't. I lay at your feet that if you are 100% either way, you are closed minded. And thats ok as long as you do not go around trying to change the world to fit your belief system.

Let the world be led by the open minded and you 100%ers find a way to get along with them and the moderates who can tell the difference between the good and the bad parts of a dogma. Morality is not bad or hypocritical just because it has religious references in most cases. Both of you types of 100%ers are bent on destroying each other and don't care who gets caught in the cross fire.

This is my reaction to this video half way through.

The third quarter tells me how anger is good and the only way change has been affected through out history. I'm being told that anger is good and that we should submit to an emotion to guide our thoughts as opposed to calmness, thought and civility. And now I'm being told because I have no religious afiliation, I'm an atheist. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

And now two Icons, one religious believer MLK and one spiritualist, Ghandi are used to support the atheist position to justify anger really makes me really f'ing angry. If it wasn't for their beliefs, they would not have positions to exploit to support her nonbelief. How f'ing dare she. So go ahead condemn the very thing that was the inspiration for the foundation for your just use of anger, f'ing hypocrite.

Yes, I watched the whole video and even backed it up many times to make sure of what I was hearing before commenting.

All that anger isn't good for you, Use your belief to let go of your anger.

Posted: Jan 4, 2012 - 9:20pm

kurtster wrote:

I get angry when people who express on openess to a God or higher power and are condemned for just thinking it possible and being lumped together with those are sure of it. And are condemned for the acts of those who participate in organinzed religions as if they are either guilty or support these specific religions. It makes me angry when spiritual people are condemned as being religious.

People who are 100% sure there is no 'God' and want to change the world to reflect things that way make me just as angry as those who are 100% sure there is a 'God' want to do the same make me angry. Neither side can prove it. Yet they are both 100% sure.

I got taught evolution in school, creation was also mentioned, but it was taught in the context as a religious belief system unsubstantiated by any real science. I attended 12 different public schools before graduating from high school because of moving around the country When admited to hospitals, I am given many more choices to my religious preferences or afiliations other than Cathoilic and Protestant. None or other is one of the choices to which I answer as just spiritual. I have been admited to many hospitals.

I get mad when examples are presented as 100% universal in defense as a position. All schools do not teach evolution, all hospitals don't consider more than 2 religious possibilities of their patients. Or that all Catholics feel the same way about their religion or all Jews feel the same or all Protestants feel the same way. That wiccans are atheists. Don't they believe in and worship nature ? Who is Mother Nature ?

So as a spiritualist, let me express my anger at being lumped into the realm of the religious who are 100% sure there is by those who are 100% sure there isn't. I lay at your feet that if you are 100% either way, you are closed minded. And thats ok as long as you do not go around trying to change the world to fit your belief system.

Let the world be led by the open minded and you 100%ers find a way to get along with them and the moderates who can tell the difference between the good and the bad parts of a dogma. Morality is not bad or hypocritical just because it has religious references in most cases. Both of you types of 100%ers are bent on destroying each other and don't care who gets caught in the cross fire.

This is my reaction to this video half way through.

The third quarter tells me how anger is good and the only way change has been affected through out history. I'm being told that anger is good and that we should submit to an emotion to guide our thoughts as opposed to calmness, thought and civility. And now I'm being told because I have no religious afiliation, I'm an atheist. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

And now two Icons, one religious believer MLK and one spiritualist, Ghandi are used to support the atheist position to justify anger really makes me really f'ing angry. If it wasn't for their beliefs, they would not have positions to exploit to support her nonbelief. How f'ing dare she. So go ahead condemn the very thing that was the inspiration for the foundation for your just use of anger, f'ing hypocrite.

Yes, I watched the whole video and even backed it up many times to make sure of what I was hearing before commenting.

You sound pretty angry, whatever you call yourself, or not. I'm sorry, but I agree with most of what you wrote. I haven't watched the video yet. I bet I've heard it all before. The lady looks like Mrs. Upshaw, my third grade teacher. I'm pretty sure she hated me.

Posted: Jan 4, 2012 - 8:12pm

p4jkafla wrote:

I get angry when people who express on openess to a God or higher power and are condemned for just thinking it possible and being lumped together with those who are sure of it. And are condemned for the acts of those who participate in organinzed religions as if they are either guilty or support these specific religions. It makes me angry when spiritual people are condemned as being religious.

People who are 100% sure there is no 'God' and want to change the world to reflect things that way make me just as angry as those who are 100% sure there is a 'God' want to do the same make me angry. Neither side can prove it. Yet they are both 100% sure.

I got taught evolution in school, creation was also mentioned, but it was taught in the context as a religious belief system unsubstantiated by any real science. I attended 12 different public schools before graduating from high school because of moving around the country When admited to hospitals, I am given many more choices to my religious preferences or afiliations other than Cathoilic and Protestant. None or other is one of the choices to which I answer as just spiritual. I have been admited to many hospitals.

I get mad when examples are presented as 100% universal in defense as a position. All schools do not teach evolution, all hospitals don't consider more than 2 religious possibilities of their patients. Or that all Catholics feel the same way about their religion or all Jews feel the same or all Protestants feel the same way. That wiccans are atheists. Don't they believe in and worship nature ? Who is Mother Nature ?

So as a spiritualist, let me express my anger at being lumped into the realm of the religious who are 100% sure there is by those who are 100% sure there isn't. I lay at your feet that if you are 100% either way, you are closed minded. And thats ok as long as you do not go around trying to change the world to fit your belief system.

Let the world be led by the open minded and you 100%ers find a way to get along with them and the moderates who can tell the difference between the good and the bad parts of a dogma. Morality is not bad or hypocritical just because it has religious references in most cases. Both of you types of 100%ers are bent on destroying each other and don't care who gets caught in the cross fire.

This is my reaction to this video half way through.

The third quarter tells me how anger is good and the only way change has been affected through out history. I'm being told that anger is good and that we should submit to an emotion to guide our thoughts as opposed to calmness, thought and civility. And now I'm being told because I have no religious afiliation, I'm an atheist. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

And now two Icons, one religious believer MLK and one spiritualist, Ghandi are used to support the atheist position to justify anger really makes me really f'ing angry. If it wasn't for their beliefs, they would not have positions to exploit to support her nonbelief. How f'ing dare she. So go ahead condemn the very thing that was the inspiration for the foundation for your just use of anger, f'ing hypocrite.

Yes, I watched the whole video and even backed it up many times to make sure of what I was hearing before commenting.

Posted: Jan 3, 2012 - 7:08pm

Belief is an exit strategy from reality.

Posted: Jan 3, 2012 - 8:17am

Posted: Jan 3, 2012 - 8:06am

hippiechick wrote:

It's not because non -believers force their beliefs on the believers, it's because believers think that everyone else must believe what they do.

Yeah, that's the part I can't stomach. Kurt mentioned it as well. I don't understand what part of 'leave me alone' is so complicated.

Posted: Jan 3, 2012 - 7:51am

cc_rider wrote:

Yep.

It's not because non -believers force their beliefs on the believers, it's because believers think that everyone else must believe what they do.

Posted: Jan 3, 2012 - 7:45am

kurtster wrote:

...

I once believed that the US was the place where all religions or nonreligions could peacefully coexist. I no longer believe that.
...

Yep.

Posted: Jan 3, 2012 - 6:43am

<—- comes ridin' up fast, swingin' his Bible over his head. {#Motor}

...
Actually, I have nothing to say but someone was expecting me to... I know it. {#Lol}

Posted: Jan 3, 2012 - 6:41am

Proclivities wrote:

Posted: Jan 3, 2012 - 6:37am

Posted: Jan 2, 2012 - 8:05pm

winter wrote:

I chose fictional characters to directly counter your "you must believe if you capitalize" assertion. I don't believe in Sam Gamgee, but since his name is a proper noun I capitalize it. I am not one of those atheists who finds it entertaining to mock others' belief - as Lazy8 pointed out, I merely believe in one less god than most Christians.

As for the rest: if you truly think that a secular worldview is devoid of meaning, joy, and wonder - if you truly feel that there can be no cause for celebration or commemoration without a god- if you truly believe that secularism leads to oppression and a bleak tyranny, then I really have nothing to say to you. Because I can tell you that I and other atheists here have answered those questions over and over, have shared with everyone here the wonder and freedom we feel in our views, and have expressed time and again our opposition to the stark, rigid autocracy you fear.

The capitalization debate is closed, I accept your point. In my meager defense, I truly thought what I stated, and I asked another after the fact if they had the same thought. They did, but no matter. We are here, and the discussion here is all that matters.

I have largely missed any discussions here about atheism other than a couple of exchanges in some of the other threads. I stayed out of the Gervais thread back in the day. I never shared my thoughts here before of my view of a secular world, I have just raised my objections in some of the poly threads without really ever stating why as I did earler today. Yet they are my concerns, especially when a government leads the charge.

I have always seen the state being the religious authority as it was by default in the Soviet Union where religion was banned outright. That is the model I have seen in practice. The Soviet Union was an atheist state, IMHO. That is what I have to work with. Are there other examples other than China and other communist countries of how a secular state works ? Perhaps Turkey. But Turkey is a much smaller scale compared to the US, USSR and PRC. Turkey relies on the military to overthrow any government that strays from its secular constitution. That however is changing as Sharia is taking over that country with little opposition by the military, who have been the traditional standard bearers of its secularism.

I once believed that the US was the place where all religions or nonreligions could peacefully coexist. I no longer believe that. I lay that at the feet of the radical Christian right, whose over zealousness has polarized this country to the point we are at today. And Madison Avenue who exploits anything for a buck. I have little use for organized religion, especially any that says their way is the best or only way to go. Organized religion should be taxed, especially as it sticks its nose into politics more and more. How would that impact our deficit, eh ?

I believe that it was you IIRC who stated something to the effect that just because one does not believe in a higher power or deity, that doesn't mean that they don't believe in another existence after death. If it wasn't you, I apologize for forgeting who expressed that thought. It took a little time to wrap my head around that idea. I have other questions about how atheism functions as a (non)belief system, but I won't press you to repeat yourself. I'll just accept your take with respect and let it be. I'm sure each person's explanation will be different from the next one's. There is little to gain in that pursuit other than sating personal curiosity.

My personal sense of wonder is rooted in the thought that life is more than just a collection of random events. There is an order to the physical universe. Order is not a random event, therefore ... something is responsible for this order.