TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Christopher Hitchens Soon to be Dead
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Christopher Hitchens Soon to be Dead

Quite sad, really. He's been so influential as an atheist, journalist and political activist.

Many Christians that I know are sad to see him go, and are praying for him (even if most people think that's a waste of time...I mean what can prayer do vs oesophageal cancer).

I'm not an atheist myself, but I fully respect this man and believe his legacy will continue on. And that the theist vs atheist debates will continue worldwide in his memory!

you're going to hell

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit you're going to hell

there's always a spot for Hitchens in the kingdom of God. Jesus gives second chances.

quote:

Originally posted by Mattinsanity there's always a spot for Hitchens in the kingdom of God. Jesus gives second chances.

Oh boy. Don't let Nou see that post.

Who cares? An alcoholic journalist who never contributed much of value to anything other than over-zealously taking a position that millions of others already take is dying. Oh no.

haters going to hate.

Right, like how he greatly admires a well known slave owner, yet condemns people like the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa.

The guy is a complete fraud.

It's funny the outpouring of mourning that will surely follow his death, especially since he was really nothing more than a very opinionated journalist.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit haters going to hate.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Right, like how he greatly admires a well known slave owner, yet condemns people like the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa. The guy is a complete fraud. It's funny the outpouring of mourning that will surely follow his death, especially since he was really nothing more than a very opinionated journalist.

you're an idiot

I love listening to Hitchens speak. He bullies and banters like no one else. Sruss, you don't have to agree with every opinion he has to admit the guy is fucking spot on in numerous respects. And many of his critiques of public figures aren't without merit. I'll be sad to see him go.

quote:

Originally posted by Redd

Also, he wasn't even a particularly good journalist. The only reason anybody has even heard of him is because of his being so overly vocal in his criticisms of theists and theism.

And honestly, I do agree with a lot of what he had to say, but that doesn't mean that it was in any way profound new thoughts that he was the first to introduce. He was simply the most notable figure in the new-atheist movement.

We get it, you don't believe in god and think theists are stupid people. The guy is essentially a more well-spoken Nou.

quote:

Originally posted by Redd you're an idiot

Don't you see how calling people names is pointless? It really makes YOU look like an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Don't you see how calling people names is pointless? It really makes YOU look like an idiot.

sometimes you just can't be bothered to go through a reasonable discussion with people who obviously don't know what they're talking about.

doesn't*

There's a difference between being amazing and amusing: It's unfair to say Hitchens isn't the latter, that's for sure; but it's a bit of an exaggeration to claim he was anything of the former.

Reasonable and eloquent Lira to the rescue

See, that was wonderful until he started turning it into a slight against theism. He could have made an equally strong point had he completely left that out of it.

god rest his soul.

oh you

It's important to appropriately parse the differences between religion and theism. I think he was on the mark about the repeated condemnation of religion, and as much as he argues against theism, it wasn't his aim to insult that, but to rather vindicate it as an integral opposition to his own views; That no matter who comes out "on top", the notion that there exists a discussion, an argument about any given idea, is a healthy thing, and merely vindicates its every participant.

I'm going to have to go full woscar in this case and side with Sam Harris in that there are facts of conduct, and the listless proselytizing of dogmatic systems is only a means to disseminate viral authority, rather than the fostering of skepticism and analysis: the foundations of a rational society that facilitates development beyond survivalist tendencies.

It's quite a far reaching sentiment to condemn "religion." A more reasonable stance would be to condemn monotheistic/Christian/Judaic religions, as they tend to be the ones stifling forward thinking.

It's unfair to simply speak out against religion as a whole, simply for the fact that there are so many religions, many of which I'm sure he knew very little about, and that have practices which don't run in opposition to what Hitchens deems beneficial and/or necessary.

A person being religious (regardless of which religion) and a person being a skeptic aren't mutually exclusive. There are, I'm sure, countless scientists and skeptics who are religious.

His mistake, I think, is that he tends to condemn the religious person sometimes, and doesn't always leave his criticisms to the institutions or doctrine of said institutions. When he does this, he is weakening the points he tries to make, regardless of how reasonable the points are. Blanket statements, such as surmising that all religion inhibits the progression of knowledge, are rather unnecessary and even flat out wrong in many cases.

I enjoyed the one book i read by him. However he is much as a fanatic as the people he criticizes.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I'm going to have to go full woscar in this case and side with Sam Harris in that there are facts of conduct, and the listless proselytizing of dogmatic systems is only a means to disseminate viral authority, rather than the fostering of skepticism and analysis.

I wouldn't say these are mutually exclusive. It's precisely the collision between different dogmatic systems that, more often than not, trigger scepticism and require the use of a more rational analysis:

• Old Asia Minor was a hotbed of religious proselytising, with different cultures making different judgements about pretty much everything there is to be judged. It's no wonder it came from the fringes of the Greek Empire (that is, in today's Turkey) and not from the core.
  
  
• India and China sparked similar traditions, albeit way less rigorous than what we're used to, under similar circumstances (hate to link to dodgy Wikipedia articles, sorry about that).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.