Third clip, talk at the college of New Jersey: is that available in full around here?

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, October 6th, 2010 12:12am PDT - promote requested by radx.

Upvoted for use of my new favorite term, Hitchslap.

Damn, he has a sharp tongue!

HITCH SMASH!

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

MMMMOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

I can't help but be fascinated at the dichotomy of people's responses to Hitchens. I'd estimate that better than half those who praise his stance on religion, abhor his identical aggressively rational stance in favor of both the Iraq and Aghan wars. Similarly probably better than half those who cheer his stance on Iraq and Afghanistan reject his stance on religion.

Up with which I will not put.

I think that Hitchens had insulted the guy he was talking to. Excellently veiled.

I believe this is it http://videosift.com/video/Turek-vs-Hitchens-Debate-Does-God-Exist

*british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Zifnab.

http://videosift.com/video/Hitch-Vs-Sharpton-God-is-NOT-Great-yesnocancel

^ My favorite Hitchslap

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, October 6th, 2010 4:43am PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

Has there ever been a more imbalanced meeting of intellects than Hitchens v Beck?

This man needs to start having children for the sake of our future.

He's already got a couple kids.
He's also got esophageal cancer.

>> ^rabidness:

This man needs to start having children for the sake of our future.

um, that's not a dichotomy.
>> ^bcglorf:

I can't help but be fascinated at the dichotomy of people's responses to Hitchens. I'd estimate that better than half those who praise his stance on religion, abhor his identical aggressively rational stance in favor of both the Iraq and Aghan wars. Similarly probably better than half those who cheer his stance on Iraq and Afghanistan reject his stance on religion.

>> ^kir_mokum:

um, that's not a dichotomy.
>> ^bcglorf:
I can't help but be fascinated at the dichotomy of people's responses to Hitchens. I'd estimate that better than half those who praise his stance on religion, abhor his identical aggressively rational stance in favor of both the Iraq and Aghan wars. Similarly probably better than half those who cheer his stance on Iraq and Afghanistan reject his stance on religion.



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.

Fuck, when I saw this was a 15 minute video I thought "I'll just watch a few minutes".
And now apparently 15 minutes have past...
Do hope he makes it.

My hero.

Man, I hope he doesn't die. Ever.

lol my favorite: 2:30

"I'm not sure god is Kim Jong Il..."
"Well ask Kim Jong Il, he has a different opinion"

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.

>> ^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.

"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?

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?

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.

First off, major LOL, I'm an atheist, so thanks for assuming I'm Christian but I ain't.

Ok, I'm wrong. You're not religious but you certainly come off as excessively and disproportionately apologetic/sympathetic towards it. Sort of an anecdote that being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean one can think clearly about all things, but is that because I've been unable to understand you or is that because you've been unable to properly lay-out-on-the-table your position?.


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.

This is a modification of your previous statement that they were just as fundamentalist as those they criticize, which I think is a tad more reasonable but still way off the mark. Please show the evidence that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or Dennett is as fundamentalist and hateful as the religious fundamentalists they criticize (or have made blanket statements about all religious people). This is a statement you made earlier and you should have no problem backing this up. I'm pissed off because you're carelessly saying stuff like this as if its an established fact. It is not. You have all your work ahead of you.

Also, Dawkins et al. do NOT just run around crudely saying ALL religious people are stupid, deluded, or idiots. This is a strawman. They reserve their scorn of the religious mindset in proportion to their nastiness/harm to society. They're very careful to not make blanket statements regarding those who, through no choice of their own, were brought up religiously and have not been able to shake it off.

Yes, people who believe things for which there is no evidence ARE deluded, irregardless of the offense taken at such a statement. You should already understand that these men value truth over comfortable lies, and when informing someone of their delusions (for example, taking calls from a religious listener on a radio station) they (with not the not surprising at all exception of Hitchens) tend to be very explicit in explaining that they aren't being contemptuous or disdainful when they say say this, it is simply the truth. They do not just outright rudely call people idiots or morons. I'd like to see an example of this as I've never seen it.


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?

Exactly, eh? Well then you should have no problem supplying some quotes with the full context (no quotemines) that measure up then. Regurgitating ignorant, second-hand blanket statements don't count.


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.

This comparison is vague as hell. One could replace Hitchens with most any influential/controversial thinker and it would still sound as if it were authoritative. Who the hell is saying Christopher Hitchens HAS to be that guy and why? There's plenty of room for all kinds, the MLKs and the Malcom-Xs. Basically you want Christopher to be something other than what he is.


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.

You'll find no disagreement there from me. We only differ in our approach.


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."

Do you really believe those leaders of the major religious institutions will relinquish their incommensurable power and malign influence on society if atheists (and the common people in general) just start fawning and kissing their asses and showing undue respect to these self-appointed, inherently corrupt, deluded arbiters of a lying morality? Pointing out their harmful ideology is hurting the cause of reason? You're placing far too much importance on tone and not truth.


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!

Provide some examples of the New Atheist's doing literally this and you may have a point. They don't. I have never once seen Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, or Harris calling saying "You're stupid, an idiot, a moron." UNLESS they (I really think only Hitchens would qualify here) were thoroughly provoked by an incredulous and ignorant bigot. More to the point, if one infers from the sum total of the reasoned arguments leveled against them that the only conclusion is that they must be an idiot for believing nonsense then that does NOT reflect on the person making the argument.

It seems as if you want moderate religious people to be coddled and not treated as the adults. Kid's gloves are for kids.


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.

And that's simply his opinion, in which he didn't really even attempt to qualify. Family members are probably the least objective source of information when it comes to the psychological state of another member that one could possibly ask for! Ask any practicing psychiatrist. The only reason this is authoritative to you at all is because it perfectly reaffirms a bias you've already held. This seems to be a common theme here.


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)

<groan> He's not TRYING to make Beck his enemy. It'd be like me constantly provoking and demonizing and lying about someone and then wondering why he/she would have the nerve to not be my friend, it beggars belief! Beck has made himself an enemy of the reasonable, not the other way around and he most definitely isn't trying to "have a dialogue". I'm really starting to question why I even bothered responding at this point.


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.

He loves a good debate, why is this surprising? It is what he is good at and his life's blood. Being entertaining does not by fiat exclude the substance of his arguments, which he is able to deftly supply in spades with incredible recall and erudition. Since you haven't argued the substance but merely the style in which its delivered (and shown yourself to have not even bothered to read their written works before you impugn your own personal bias onto them), you basically have just openly admitted that it isn't substance you place importance on in a good thinker but TONE. Well, to that I say, good luck.

Please read this for a better, much clearer understanding of my position and why I think you're misguided.

*promote the *controversy

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, October 6th, 2010 5:43pm PDT - promote requested by cybrbeast.

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by cybrbeast.

@AnimalsForCrackers

Just wanted to say thanks for the link... I'll give that a read later. I don't possibly have the time to address every single comment you made. I might have been more willing to talk with you if you didn't start out your post with a thinly veiled ad hominem opening about me not being able to think clearly. If I am not thinking clearly, then what I have to say can't possibly be worth taking the time to write and then have you read and respond to. I only came to this video to state my opinion, which I will re-iterate:

I don't find the arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens, or the rest logical or rational when they veer to absolutes. I find their arguments divisive and, while they certainly are entertaining and their ideas appeal to certain atheists, they probably don't do much to get the already religious to re-examine their values--which is what their end-game is supposed to be right? It makes no difference to me whether they state explicitly somewhere that all religious people are stupid or whether they just constantly insinuate it, the elitist attitude pisses me off--and I happen to be an atheist, so I can't even imagine how it is coming across to the religious.

If you are interested in my views on religion, you can do an advanced search for my posts--in the years I've been on the Sift I've posted lots about my thoughts and experiences. For starters, on my profile page you can look through a long dialogue BicycleRepairMan and I had on the subject. There's more out there dispersed through several videos and SiftTalks as well.

EDIT:

Actually, I will respond to this comment because I feel it is important:

It seems as if you want moderate religious people to be coddled and not treated as the adults. Kid's gloves are for kids.

I want all people to be treated with respect.

I absolutely believe Dawkins and the rest (including you) believe they are treating people with respect. But let me ask you this... in this post if I had (as you did in your response to me), insinuated that you couldn't think clearly and later on asked exasperatedly why you were even bothering to respond (implying that you couldn't possibly understand my arguments), would you have felt respected? It's exactly these kinds of insinuations that I see Dawkins and the rest making all the time. That's one of the problems I have with their arguments. There are others, but I only wanted to address that particular one (because I think it comes to the heart of the matter of why I posted in the first place--the absolutist language that is most likely keeping the people who need to hear what they have to say most from listening).

"I might have been more willing to talk with you if you didn't start out your post with a thinly veiled ad hominem opening about me not being able to think clearly."

Ahem, Ad hominem.

I was hoping you would bring some evidence to bear in support of your argument. "You're a meanie, so I don't have to support my original assertions or address the content of your arguments, neener neener!" How delightfully convenient for you. I find it rather depressing. You can always apologize and retract those statements if you feel they may have been unreasonable/indefensible, y'know.

"the absolutist language that is most likely keeping the people who need to hear what they have to say most from listening)."

Oh, you mean like the absolutist language you used in calling far more nuanced men than yourself or I a bunch of fundamentalists, virtually unevidenced? I think its far more rude to literally ignore the content of one's speech, as you did, and focus on tertiary factors such as the way in which its delivered. That, to me, is childish and petty and not deserving of the respect due for those who actually argue in good faith and don't get hung up on trivial stylistic differences and then feign righteous indignation on behalf of their poor, grievously besmirched honor.

LOL, why am I not surprised that you would use my intentional rudeness towards you, a reaction to your rather "disrespectful" caricatures if I may say so myself, as another bullet-point in support of your sweeping indictment of those damn fundamentalists atheists! Self-reinforcing much?

"I find their arguments divisive and, while they certainly are entertaining and their ideas appeal to certain atheists, they probably don't do much to get the already religious to re-examine their values."

Maybe, maybe not (and that is solely granted that we are talking about the actual Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, and not the straw men you've constructed) . See, its careless stuff like this that really upsets me, instead of reserving judgment until there's evidence in favor of the notion either way(whatever the hell happened to the phrase "I don't know" in the absence of y'know, knowing?) you automatically jump from one assertion to the next through nothing but sheer word-play/weasel words. One cannot internally induct out the reality of things just because they can't be arsed to actually find out for themselves (often due to being too enamored with often incorrect notions of what "common sense" would dictate) and then expect others to sit there and blithely accept their sophistry.

"If I am not thinking clearly, then what I have to say can't possibly be worth taking the time to write and then have you read and respond to. "

You know, that's not true at all. I'm trying to help demonstrate the obvious prejudice you hold against the so-called New Atheists for the sake of yourself and anyone else who comes across this. To leave your original statements unchallenged would indicate a silent consensus on the matter to any unassuming passerby.

I can only really urge you again to read the article I originally linked. I've really nothing else to add if its only going to be met with further stone-walling.

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.

@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.

@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.

*promote

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011

*gets teary eyed*

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, October 11th, 2010 12:06pm PDT - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

promote
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memo
riam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011
gets teary eyed


Thanks for the promote Jigga, I didn't see this one the 1st time around. I'm gonna miss the Hitchslaps...

A friend of mine found this quote from Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's wife, after he died. Found it pretty inspiring:

"When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me - it still sometimes happens - and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous - not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance… That pure chance could be so generous and so kind… That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time… That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it's much more meaningful…

The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful."

Thank whatever mythical deity you please that Hitchens is captured on video for posterity.

As another hero of mine once wrote, "Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?".

Long live Hitchens.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, December 16th, 2011 6:26am PST - promote requested by Fletch.