|
Christopher Hitchens Soon to be Dead (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Alex |
| 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. |
|
|
| Redd |
| 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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Reasonable and eloquent Lira to the rescue :p |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| 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. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| god rest his soul. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
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. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
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. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| I enjoyed the one book i read by him. However he is much as a fanatic as the people he criticizes. |
|
|
|
|
