Thanks!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality

Hitchens does a great job here. Not sure what the title is all about. It's yet another awesome Hitchslap upside some fundy's head, but I don't feel right about upvoting something with such a ridiculous title. Let it flounder.

>> ^Asmo:

Side note, what the fuck is wrong with that guys face??


My guess is that it is a side effect of his cancer treatment.

>> ^packo:

>> ^dannym3141:
Massive minus credits for repeatedly talking over the guy's reply. Clearly withholding a reply, waiting to speak over him, as well.

no, when he did speak, he switched his avenue of debate... because Hitchens was beating him to the punch... because the moron playbook is very predictable and simple
if you want to debate with someone like Hitchens, have a little more tactical thinking ready than simply repeating the rhetoric you've already bought into... unfortunately, thats the rub... if you start thinking rationally about it, you dismiss the rhetoric
and in matters of faith, "I don't know" = non-believer


"no" what? He did, whether you like it or not, speak over the guy 3 or 4 times. I don't like that, and i will exercise my to do so!

>> ^dannym3141:
Massive minus credits for repeatedly talking over the guy's reply. Clearly withholding a reply, waiting to speak over him, as well.


no, when he did speak, he switched his avenue of debate... because Hitchens was beating him to the punch... because the moron playbook is very predictable and simple

if you want to debate with someone like Hitchens, have a little more tactical thinking ready than simply repeating the rhetoric you've already bought into... unfortunately, thats the rub... if you start thinking rationally about it, you dismiss the rhetoric

and in matters of faith, "I don't know" = non-believer

I believe that's why it's called stoning...>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Quboid:.

[...]which is why I stone horoscope writers in my freetime... with rocks!

Your video, Hitler the humanist? Hitchslapped!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Quboid:

It does sound a bit like he's avoiding the question about morality the other guy wants to ask.
Of course, I believe that morality must come from the bible, which is why I think virgin women who are raped must be sold to their attackers for marriage as they're now no use to other men (Deuteronomy 22:28). Those who say otherwise are disgusting monsters.


He isn't avoiding anything, he's simply not letting the ridiculous (and yet so often used) Hitler "argument" slide by unnoticed.



BTW, I also get my morals from the Bible, which is why I stone horoscope writers in my freetime... with rocks!

@messenger, @Sketch

I don't disagree with your sentiment at all; I find it quite frustrating at times as well, but I stand by my assertion that it won't help to be confrontational. I expect this shift will literally take generations to come about. Arguing with individuals in an effort to "convert" (perhaps de-convert) them rarely works, regardless of how sound your reasoning is.(as you have both noted) Everyone wants to win. Everyone wants to make up their own mind. For a lot of adults, it's quite simply too late to make such a radical change in their concept of existence. The young aren't as rigid, however, and this belief structure can diluted from one generation to the next. I assert the most effective way to change minds over time is to change our culture, and we're well on our way. The beacon of truth shines brightly on its own, while lies take significant maintenance. The more (effectively) open our society becomes the more difficult it will be to spread the influence of obvious lies. This will require work on our part, however, to call out specific, organized and systemic deception efforts over the course of our lives. We've got a long road ahead of us, but it should be interesting if nothing else.

That ad campaign is interesting; that's the sort of effort that we can aspire to in our daily lives. Not confrontational, but when the situation arises, let others know they're not alone with their doubts. Movements need leaders, and we're all capable of that role if we can be disciplined and patient enough.

I don't normally do quotes because it's easy to take someone out of context for your own purposes, but I especially like this one as I interpret it to pertain to this situation:

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." -Sun Tzu

Edit: Example of more constructive, (in terms of construction and delivery) yet just as scathing (in terms of content) criticism. Starts @ 8:07... man I envy the Hitchslap ability...

*promote the Hitchslap

bcglorf:
By and large people love Hitchens when they agree with his conclusions and loath him when they don't with equal passion. I think it quite interesting how much praise there is for his impeccable logic and reasoning for one, and sudden loathing and hatred when he turns that same logic and reasoning to reach a conclusion an audience dislikes. The underlying truth is people just like/hate him based on the conclusion he reaches and not his methods or reasoning. His methods and reasoning just make people's love/hate more passionate. It is the most jarring among those who love him for one argument, and loath him for another.



i wouldn't know. i can only speak for myself. i disagree with some of his older opinions on the iraq and afgan wars (which have changed over time) but i disagree with his reasons not his conclusions. i still love hearing him talk about it though because the thing i think is great about him is his rhetoric and the way he presents his arguments.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

You misunderstood me. I am not interested in why Hitchens is so against religion--it honestly doesn't matter to me. What interests me is why, despite being such an intelligent person who is claiming to "look for the evidence," he is only willing to look at the evidence that supports his own position. And to be clear, I refer to his position that religion is, in his words, "the main source of hatred in the world." This flies in the face of common sense. Were it true, we would expect predominately religious countries (like Peru or the U.S., for instance)to be hotbeds of hatred. So where's the empirical evidence for this? I certainly haven't heard of any. But that won't stop Hitchens from continuing his rant.

I do want to give Hitchens credit--he makes very pointed cases against certain practices of particular religions. But showing that a particular practice of a particular religion is unethical or immoral is not the same thing as showing that all religions are evil, religious people are stupid, deluded, etc., or the host of other claims that Hitchens (and those like him) makes.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^SDGundamX:
Hitchens is a sharp orator, but I can't understand why people think his arguments are either "rational" or "logical." The following author and his Hitchens' own brother pretty much explain more clearly than I ever could why I can't take Hitchens' arguments (or Dawkins' or Harris' for that matter) seriously.
What Christopher Hitchens and the New Atheists Can Learn from Malcom X
Atheism Aside: Peter Hitchens Journey to Faith
I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against. The cynical part of me thinks its because they get paid a lot of money to write books and appear on TV acting that way. The more hopeful part of me is that they are just over-enthusiastic and will one day realize that the best way to accomplish your goals is probably not to make an enemy out of everybody who doesn't think the same as you.

Rather than 'guessing' at where Hitchens stance on religion came from you could read his autobiography. He has several very personal reasons for hating religion. He opens talking about his mother, who fell for a guy that was a bit of a cultist which eventually led to the double suicide of his mother and the nutter. Then upon going to bury his mother, the local church was reluctant to perform the funeral services because of the stigma around suicide. He found that money was able to smooth over those 'reservations'.
I'm by no means agreeing with Hitchens position on painting all religion that same shade of black, but he hasn't exactly just adopted that stance for no reason.

Wow. Where'd all that anger come from? Which posts are you referring to exactly so I could reply more thoroughly? Maybe PM me with the details?

First off, major LOL, I'm an atheist, so thanks for assuming I'm Christian but I ain't. I believe Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those like them are doing atheists everywhere a disservice with their absolutist language (i.e. all religious people are crazy, stupid, etc., all religions are evil, etc., and so on and so forth). This makes atheists everywhere look like some kind of reverse hate-mongers. It is exactly the kind of language of the fundamentalist opponents they profess to hate. Think about radical Islam--we're all Western devils because we don't subscribe to Sharia law, right?

The link I posted that compared Hitchens to Malcom X is spot on. Malcom X got a lot of media attention for his radical views, but in the end what did he accomplish? We don't celebrate Malcom X Day, you'll notice. Martin Luther King's Jr.'s message of cooperation and mutual understanding is what moved people's hearts on both sides of the divide and got us moving forward as a country, not Malcom X's divisiveness.

I absolutely agree there is a serious problem in the world in that some people try to use their religion to push their own worldly agendas (whether it be a political grab for power or what-not). Confronting and dealing with those people is going to require cooperation and dialogue between both the religious and non-religious people, between theists and atheists, between gnostics and agnostics. The failure of incredibly intelligent men like Hitchens to see this and their insistence on furthering the divisiveness on this issue is a great tragedy in my opinion. They don't see the forest through the trees. You want to prevent religion from dominating the political and cultural scene? So do a lot of religious people (the vast majority in most Western states). And their numbers VASTLY outnumber the atheists. Insulting those people who are clearly your potential allies hardly seems like a good way to go about getting them to see your point of view. When was the last time someone called you an idiot and you just sat there calmly and said, "You know what, you're right! I AM an idiot!"

On a side note, I included the clip from Hitchens' brother because he points out the fact that Hitchens has built himself a tower, secluded himself inside of it, and is simply hurling missiles at anything that moves outside without bothering to try to engage in real dialogue. I think the clip in this vid from the Glenn Beck show is the most telling of this, where Beck is trying to tell him that he doesn't consider Hitchens an enemy and Hitchens is actively trying to make Beck an enemy. He's not interested in real dialogue (to be fair to Hitchens, neither are many of his debate opponents). He's interested in making smart-alec comments and getting good sound bites--which is fine for an entertainer but doesn't get my respect for him as a thinker.

Hope that answers your question. I'm not going to respond to your other comments because, if you read my post again, you'd see clearly I was not at all making an attempt to defend any particular religion or religious activity.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

"I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against."
Examples, please. Put up or shut up. I am really getting sick and tired of you leaving your ineffable statements on video's regarding atheism without even the pretension of backing them up. How in the hell are you to persuade anyone by being so vague? Please show how Dawkins et al. are just as fundamentalist as those they deride. Show us this great evidence to the contrary. Those links you provided don't really help your argument at all. Where's the evidence that Christianity or ANY religion is true or that there is any GOOD reason for believing in something for which there is no evidence? Peter Hitchens lamenting the fact that everyone isn't a Christian or being afraid of God's wrath because he looked at a painting is NOT sufficient. Neither are his arguments that you must have an extensive knowledge of theology to make an assessment about the REAL WORLD claims that religion so carelessly expects everyone to accept by default. You're basically taking his word for it because hey, he's Christopher Hitchen's brother, he can't possibly be full of it! Which is a pretty weird inversion of argument from authority, the only reason it is authoritative at all is because he is related to the dude you think is so NOT authoritative, because I'm not seeing any coherent arguments from ole Petey.
Neither is the second link was which was just a bunch of waffling nonsense that was misleading and all over the place and inherently WRONG on the differences Chris has gone to great lengths to make between attacking religion and those who vary in their level of involvement in which they practice/contribute to it as an institution in his books. To compare him to a young white-hating Malcom-X is sheer hyperbole and a cheap caricature. It was so full of "gotcha!" moments that could only be called so because the author either didn't understand what he was reading or just flat out didn't read them (maybe he read the SparkNotes versions?); the article is based on a limited, superficial understanding of the New Atheist's position.
My question to you is: Why are you lying for Jebus? Is it intentional or can you just not help yourself?

Congratulations! Your video, Hitchslapped - The best of Christopher Hitchens, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 2 Badge!