Billy said his first word today - "Exterminate"

I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

Both liberals and conservatives base their underpinning concepts on things that are 'facts'. The interpretation of those facts is where the distortion lies. For example - Bachman’s full quote clearly proves she is talking about the dissemination of information about Cap & Trade and not violent rebellion. Obama’s “I want people angry” quote is likewise clearly not a call for violence.

Both quotes are factual. It is the interpretation that is biased. I extend both sides the benefit of the doubt and do not just go around assuming the worst on ‘their side’ and the best on ‘my side’. So when I hear leftists calling only right-wing speech 'bad' and ignoring the same crap from the left-wing, I call BS.

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Joyce Kaufman is as irrelevant to this topic as Micheal Fiengold is - the guy who said Republicans “should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” Fringe crazies do not represent the majority. And I reject as poppycock any implication that the right has a greater number or percentage of these crazies compared to the left.

Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said. The other issue is, you're quoting him way out of context

It IS in the legislation, and it is not out of context. Obamacare establishes the H&HS secretary as the party who makes decisions regarding what is and isn’t covered in plans. And his law requires all Americans to buy into these approved plans or pay fines and face possible jail time. It establishes government panels as entities that make health care rationing decisions based on economics and not doctors or patients. Calling them death panels is grandiose, but no different in concept than what liberals do when they say Bachman actually WANTS armed rebellion.

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about?

I didn’t say “Republican Plan”. I said that a private system. The systems that work best do not come from Republicans or Democrats. They come from PEOPLE in a private system who creatively seek for profit by dealing in goods and services.


I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful.

Because you agree with him. To a conservative, it is despicable. When a conservative exaggerates about a liberal, do you not find it despicable and ‘inciteful’? Is it not hypocritical to excuse it from one side, while condemning it on the other?

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own

Yes they did. Many times. Obama and the democrats rejected it and instead of negotiating they just crammed Obamacare through a midnight vote using unconstitutional processes to bypass the law and stifle debate.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/alan-grayson-to-republica_n_652244.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/best-quotes-alan-grayson
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/28/grayson-taking-opponents-quotes-context-taliban-ad/

Grayson is a source for a lot of fun stuff because he’s a certifiable lunatic.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

No –it isn’t debatable. It deliberately mischaracterizes the issue. Obama’s government solution of panel-based rationing is the exact same thing in a different form. Would you say it would be an unfair statement to say Obama’s plan is “Don’t get old, and if you get old die quickly”?

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all.

Au contraire. I understand them on more levels than liberals do themselves.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

But litanies about conservatives are fine? That was a list of ACTUAL EVENTS. Real examples of real liberals doing real violence. Why is that a 'litany' that proves I’m not interested in examining things? Sounds to me like your response shows that you are not interested in examining liberal prejudices – whereas I have examined them far more thoroughly.

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

But your litanies do no such thing, I take it? You implied that the speech of the political right gins up right-wing crazies. I ask the perfectly fair question, “Did liberal speech gin up THESE left-wing crazies?” Goose for the gander. If you make the claim that right wing speech is done to gin up crazies, do you allow the same logic to apply to the left wing crazies – of which my evidence shows there is ample existence?

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made.

Your sense is wrong. You can continue to believe it if that pleases you, but that does not make it correct.

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

Certainly. My assertion is that both sides get plenty of leeway to make strong political arguments. Free speech is hardly ever a bad thing. Let people say what they want and let the chips fall where they may. This attempt to stifle political speech has been done before, and by better people than our current crop of political doofuses. Their conclusion was the 1st Ammendment. It still works.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it
Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.
Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.
Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&sub
id=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.
So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.


I watch a lot of news especially during the Bush era. I've seen Bush compared to Hitler and Monkeys and stuff...I have never seen some of the shit you're talking about and you know why...because it wasn't trumpeted in the media. Hatred against Obama and racism is put on our TVs almost like it's a great thing...even defended and encouraged in some cases.

So yes the Left does have it's crazies and they do say stupid fucking things...but no, it's not Equal...not in coverage not in reaction. Any study of the media would tell you this but you're probably a bit busy.

there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it

Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.

Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.

Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.

So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.

This makes me want to exterminate things.

@Porksandwich those all sound like good ideas. I especially like the idea of trying to make rehabilitation more of a core function of our justice system. It seems like once someone's been found guilty, society at large just writes them off as if they're no longer fully human.

The whole concept of justice and crime and punishment is just rife with deep philosophical questions.

Take A Clockwork Orange for example. What's the just way to deal with someone like Alex? Lock him up? Execute him? Brainwash him so he's rendered physiologically incapable of giving in to his dark impulses? But he's a special case, and clearly mentally ill. A mental hospital is almost certainly the right place for him.

How about someone like Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller for running an abortion clinic? He's probably not clinically insane, he's just acting in what he considers a highly moral fashion -- he's preventing the extermination of hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives, by taking the life of one man, knowing that his life, and possibly even his immortal soul is forfeit in doing so. I say that's mental illness too, but there's more than a few people out there who think he's a hero and a martyr. Would it be serving justice if we could "cure" him of his convictions? I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I don't see how he's safe to release back into society with his beliefs intact.

How about Lloyd Blankfein, or Tony Hayward? They gambled the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, knowing that it was a "heads I win", "tails they lose" situation. But that's their entire job function -- to find a way to exploit economic opportunities to make money, wherever they find them. Every pressure on them inside the company and within the culture they live in was for them to do the immoral, profitable thing. In this case, I think these guys' real crime is that they gave in to peer pressure, which is not exactly a tremendous moral failing. Shouldn't we blame those who pressured them? Maybe the entire social and economic structure that's designed to encourage this kind of behavior in the first place? What court can rule on that?

Instead, on VS, the only debate people seem to want to have is "are cops evil or not?"

Since when is life so black and white?

@SDGundamX

I hope I've done the tag properly. I prefer notifications to be set to 'off' because I get enough junkmail from the other bazillion websites I'm registered to as it is, so yeah I don't pay much attention to that stuff.

Anyway, on to your reply!

Speaking of assumptions...

Oh boy! Here we go!

...I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice.

Yes, I did, as I've already admitted. It was a fine display of all the common symptoms of a religious apologist/troll, touting all the usual old and tired canards I've heard repeated ad nauseum; unjustified and arrogantly pronounced assertions with no evidence to ground them to reality, a blatant false equivocation, and flat out wrong characterizations of Hitchens et al's position. I'm genuinely sorry I had you falsely pegged but when it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...well, y'know. In other words, you probably could have done a better job of elucidating and then justifying your opinion.

You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

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.

Your words are right there above mine. They are zealots that rival the fundamentalists they are opposed to, in their zeal to exterminate (I call bullshit on this, they seek to marginalize it not destroy it) religion. On what planet is this not a false equivocation? On what planet am I to not take you at your word? You still haven't provided evidence for this or the other claim that they even wish to exterminate religion, as well. Because they don't. If you don't stand by your wording then retract it. You really haven't read anything from them other than what you have learned from secondary, tertiary sources, have you?



...that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable.


Are you seriously attributing the fact that moral people can exist within the institution of a religion and still be moral, to the religion itself? Could you name a single decent thing a religious person can do that a non-religious person couldn't? What kind of morality do you think preceded the origins of the Muslim cab driver's religion? The exact same morality that has always existed between humans and other humans on some level, that of mutual altruistic behavior, the "golden rule" and that the Abrahamic religion has co-opted into the rest of their vile ideology. You have your causes and effects here reversed, human morality is what it is in spite of religion, and to invoke religion where its not even a necessary requirement is to trivialize the very thing that enabled homo sapiens, as inherently social animals, to get to where we are today in this technological age without destroying ourselves in the process.


In regards to the so-called ad hom: I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly.

Well, you are wrong. I obviously read your whole reply before I responded. What you feel is irrelevant. Did you just read that one line and then ignore everything else I said? I mentioned the "not thinking clearly thing" purely as an aside, I then went on to address your points. Ad hom doesn't apply, sorry. It would've if that was all I supplied as the basis of my argument; I didn't say "You do not think clearly, therefore you are wrong". Ad hominem isn't what you wish it to be so stop abusing the term.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is.


Being unflinchingly truthful and not kowtowing to the religious lies/claptrap and ridiculing those whose faith is threatened (who would have no qualms about being as rude and demeaning as possible in telling me so) by my sole existence is rude now. You should tell those uppity gays to be more polite and not stand up for equal treatment, in whatever way they choose as long as its non-violent/within the boundaries of the law, maybe their oppressors would stand down. No, confrontation is the answer if you want to change speak out and "business as usual". I consider lies to be harmful and rude and demeaning to an individual deserving of being treated like an adult in the marketplace of ideas, even the most comfortably benign, fluffy touchie-feelie ones.


I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

It was already pretty clear to me but thanks. It looked to me like you had already decided. You may NOW be appearing to question that, but again, what you may have meant certainly isn't what you wrote and to expect others to be able to know is dickish. I agree it's a good question still but haven't provided evidence to show its efficacy. So let's refrain from the assumptions. All I know is it wasn't some accommodationist, overly polite wank, unwilling to get his hands dirty to enlighten me, that stirred the feelings I've secretly held for so many years about my existence and God, it was someone who was NOT afraid of confrontation in surgically disillusioning my cherished notions of reality, of showing just how ridiculously absurd the whole thing is. It is a matter of ethics to value truth more than(key words) some default arbitrarily designated level of respect.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary.

Saying religion, of all kinds, is the primary (meaning secondary and tertiary factors also contribute but don't even approach the monopoly religion has on spreading misery, violence, and hatred) isn't really a controversial statement at all to me. History tells us much. Can you think of any other more divisive human social construct that has caused more strife throughout history? Shall we play the game of "add up the bodies"? It boggles the mind to think of where humanity might be right now if not for the Dark Ages.

For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil.

Communism is as much an ideology based on fantasy as religion. In so far as it is not based on evidence and reason and being willfully enforced/propagated, it is harmful.

So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas.


It certainly can be effective. I have no real evidence besides anecdotes and the correlative fact that religious membership levels in the US/Britain have been slowly declining since around the time the Gnu Atheists began to speak out and be more prominently featured in the media/Internets in general. The level of ridicule should be in proportion to the level of bat-shit insanity of the beliefs held. No one is championing a one-size-fits-all approach.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

Fair enough, I wouldn't accuse someone of dodging for being busy. I do not expect replies either, I hold you to nothing except your own words. I accused you of dodging because, when asked, you didn't provide much in the way of evidence to justify your assertions or a flat-out retraction. I could say this in any number of polite ways, you simply didn't.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight.

Guilty as charged!

You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me.

I made the assumption you were religious and was wrong, the rest still stands. You don't want others to take your word for it? Then add some more words! What you may have "meant" is not what I got pissed off at and responded to, understand this already.

Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

That's my whole point! You shouldn't have said anything at all if you didn't have anything truthful to say in the first place. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about when you talk about them and you rightly got called on it. I already addressed where I made any assumptions about you, the rest is through your own doing. You have NOT shown that they rival those fundamentalists they oppose, you have NOT shown that they wish to eradicate religion, you haven't even shown how they are zealots. You are being incredibly dishonest to the point of absurdity!


Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.


I've already read them and just re-read. Joilet comes off as incredibly honest, humble considering his position, and its pretty plain to see that the response he got, while initially bumpy, gradually warmed up to him as he elaborated and made it well known he is relying solely on his personal feeling in the matter and not trying to assert an attribution of those feelings onto actual reality. I think its great your attitude aligns with his, it may not be logically consistent but at least it's pretty harmless on the whole. Notice he wasn't tossing out baseless assertions, straw manning, or falsely equivocating.

I'd really enjoy it if you were to paste/copy what you said on Pharyngula and see how different the reaction would be. Such tasty schadenfreude! My guess is you would be entertainingly dismantled, rudely perhaps, but dismantled nonetheless. Welcome to the Internets.

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation, as lovely and downright tedious as it has been. I am done responding the minutiae of your several attempts at special pleading. Think whatever you want about the Gnu Atheists, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

@AnimalsForCrackers

First off, I’d like to thank you for your lengthy replies to my posts. I’m sure you, like me, are a busy person and have plenty of other things you could be doing.

Second, thanks again for the link. Read it and also clicked through some of the forums. It does indeed help me understand where you’re coming from. I can say that I disagree completely with the “Gnu Atheists” strategy (more on that later), but at least now I know what their strategy is and why they believe it is necessary.

Third, I’d like to give you a VideoSift user tip (just in case you’re unaware of it). On VideoSift, if you don’t use the quote function when replying to someone, the person you’re responding to won’t receive any notification that you’ve responded. If you’d rather directly quote by copying and pasting text for yourself (as you’ve been doing), you need to use @username (as I’ve done for your name in this post) in order for the person to get a notification you’ve responded. I bring this up because since you’ve neither been using the quote function nor using the @username tag, I haven’t been receiving any notification of your messages. I only found out about your response accidentally after I came back to check something after viewing this other Hitchens video. Just wanted to give you a heads-up about this because if someone doesn’t reply to a discussion you’ve been having, I wouldn’t want to you to assume, say, that the person was ignoring you.

Speaking of assumptions, I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice. You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

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.

And I see now where the breakdown in communication between us occurred. I certainly could have been clearer here. You assumed I meant they were fundamentalists. What I meant was exactly what I said—exactly what the author of the blog that talked about Malcom X said: that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable. The best he can say is that religion might cause hatred in some people. And even then, the burden of proof is on him and the rest of the Gnu Atheists to show that it is religion itself and not, say, humans subverting religion for their own purposes as they do every other human constructed system. For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil. Likewise, people abusing capitalism and producing massive rich-poor gaps doesn’t make capitalism the source of evil. Religion is no different—it can be used for great good or great evil. These are systems—by themselves neither good, nor evil, but capable of both depending on how they are used and/or abused.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary. That is similar to fundamentalists who say, for instance, that the world is only 6000 years old and ignore any scientific evidence to the contrary. I find it ironic to be able to see any similarity between two such diametrically opposed opponents. And, to me, it weakens the Gnu Atheists argument since they are so interested in “the truth”.

That pretty much summarizes my original opinion. I hope that is clear enough for you.

Now that that is out of the way, let me continue to address some of your other assumptions.
(I hope you pardon the length of this reply. I’ve read every word of yours and I hope you will do me the same courtesy.) You assumed that I didn’t know what ad hominem meant. Thanks for the link, but I’m actually not sure you know what it means so I’m actually going to post the definition here for both of us (from Wikipedia):

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly. That, of course, would be a logical fallacy according to this definition. However, having browsed the website you sent me I understand why you use this tactic, as it is rampant on their forums--ironically proving the truth of your statement (when applied as a generality) that being an atheist does not necessarily mean being able to think clearly about all things.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is. I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

Think of it this way: when you want to learn something there are many ways you can go about getting the knowledge you seek. You can ask someone who’s an expert on the topic. You can search the Internet. Or, you can put a book on your head and hope the information seeps into your head through some kind of information osmosis. Some of these techniques will clearly be more effective than others.

I think we can safely say that, when you are trying to convince someone of your opinion, some tactics work better than others. So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas. As this article explains, we can make a distinction between respecting ideas and respecting people.

The fact of the matter is, in Western society we have standards of conduct. Civility is one of those standards. The failure to obey those standards results in the offender being ostracized. What that means is, when you disrespect people they are unlikely to listen to what you have to say. You can gnash your teeth and complain about this all you like, but it is “the truth.” And for someone who, as a Gnu Atheist, claims to be interested in the truth it seems irrational to ignore it and go about being rude to others if you really have any hope of convincing people of your position and aren't just talking for the sake of talking.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight. You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me. In your attack, instead of remaining logical and rational, you resorted to personal attacks to try to make your points.

As I said, I have a limited amount of time. Why should I use that time to even bother with someone who doesn’t seem to understand the social convention of civility? Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

The answer is, of course, I shouldn’t. But I did anyway. I’ve spent several hours on a Friday night composing this message with the sole hope that maybe you’d be willing to try to see things from my point of view rather than just attack line by line everything I say (because that’s not a discussion—it’s a monologue). I firmly believe it is dialogues—and not diatribes—that are going to solve the problems we currently face between secular and religious thinking. I respect your right to disagree, though, too. Like I said, I come to VideoSift to watch videos and occasionally comment on them—not convince the world I am right.

Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.

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?

"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?

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^crotchflame:
>> ^coolhund:
What I learned from all these questions and discussion (not only this one) after 20 years is that atheists tend to be far more fanatic and totalitarian about their view than agnostics.

What about the agnostic atheists?
I've heard so many people say this and I still have no idea what a fanatic atheist would look like.

There are many different forms of agnosticism and atheism. But as long as someone calls himself atheist, its far more drastic than someone who calls himself an agnostic.
Also agnostics tend to be far more tolerable of religion, because they acknowledge that religion is a part of the human race and you simply cant imagine what would happen (or would have happened) if people wouldnt believe in anything bigger.
But a lot of atheists are pretty totalitarian. Religion is bad, needs to be exterminated, caused billions of deaths, you name it.


Uh no. Atheism is the lack of belief in God, not necessarily a belief in no God. Like crotchflame already mentioned, Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutally exclusive and most of the people you're referring to as agnostic are also atheist.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^crotchflame:
>> ^coolhund:
What I learned from all these questions and discussion (not only this one) after 20 years is that atheists tend to be far more fanatic and totalitarian about their view than agnostics.

What about the agnostic atheists?
I've heard so many people say this and I still have no idea what a fanatic atheist would look like.

There are many different forms of agnosticism and atheism. But as long as someone calls himself atheist, its far more drastic than someone who calls himself an agnostic.
Also agnostics tend to be far more tolerable of religion, because they acknowledge that religion is a part of the human race and you simply cant imagine what would happen (or would have happened) if people wouldnt believe in anything bigger.
But a lot of atheists are pretty totalitarian. Religion is bad, needs to be exterminated, caused billions of deaths, you name it.


Agnosticism is a statement on the nature of knowledge while atheism is a statement of belief (or non-belief); the two don't seem like different points on some scale of religiosity to me. You can be an agnostic Christian as well as an agnostic atheist. Saying you're not sure doesn't say anything about what you believe since any sensible person would say that they're not sure.

I simply object to labelling a non-believer as a fanatic because it implies that they're holding to some belief without critical analysis and no such prescription can be attributed to atheism. An atheist that is completely intolerant of other people's beliefs isn't a fanatic he's an asshole. Anyone who claims that the pope is infallible on the other hand is a fanatic. I've never personally met an atheist that fits your description, though.

Atheism doesn't reject a belief in 'something higher.' It's a non-belief in Jehovah, Zeus, Thor, etc. I can experience the numinous while still insisting that the theistic description of a personal God is incorrect.