The New Atheists....

[Rogue Cardinal]

I dunno where you guys get this.
I just read a transcript of a debate where Hitchens got his *** kicked by Al Sharpton

Sharpton kicking Hitchens ***, yes, I said AL SHARPTON

I`m unimpressed.

Granted I haven`t read Hitchens yet and am at the moment less inclined to do so after seeing a couple of his debates.
He seems to have a quick wit that can cut an opponent but he also seems unable to build an argument with any weight.

Debate....you never know what you are goign to get with Hitchens. Soemtimes he is in rare form and sometimes he is oblivious. He's an alcoholic...perhaps that plays in somedays. I could imagine him getting a bit trashed before a debate with yet another silly Christian.

However, I don't watch many of his debates....it's his research and writing that I appreciate. I think he tends to be very honest and well studied and then presents his case very well in writting. Some people are just like that.....better writers than speakers.

 

[yossarian22]

Hitchens is a worthless hack.

 

[richardlowellt]

Hitchens is a worthless hack.

In your opinion, don't forget to end your thoughts with that otherwise you appear like dogmatic Christians with their "We are all born with sin" and you know how insulting that can be.

 

[linwood]

- Unfair and harsh generalizations that are unqualified. You do not know enough of the millions of atheists on a personal level to make this generalization.

This thread isn`t about atheism in general.
It`s about the atheist posts I`ve seen on this particular forum.
I`d say in that respect it`s qualified.

- It does not take into account theist ignorance on some topics, the total apathy when it is pointed out their arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, theists who hold absurd generalizations and maintain they are true (the same works in reverse), and other such factors that contribute to the strident nature of some atheists.

I believe this thread does take this point into account as darkendless and I discuss the frustration of debating ignorance in the first page or two of this thread.

My position:

While I agree that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, if you pay too much respect to a horrible idea, it lends weight to that idea - at least to the person holding it. The person holding it isn't likely to change their mind, anyway. So in some cases, all this does is reinforce absolutely logically and intellectually abysmal arguments in their minds.

Again, I`m not suggesting the atheist give an iota of respect to any literal interpretation/belief of theistic myth.
In fact I`ve said the opposite(post #19).

However what I`m ******** about here is the personal attacks and very often the lack of civility in disrespecting those previously myths.
You can let someone know what you think of their fairy tale without insulting them on a personal level.
Considering the fact that they will take your polite disrespect of their theology as an insult despite of how you phrase it it will only make you look like an *** if you phrase it within an actual personal insult.

It's warranted when willful ignorance is shown. I'm not advocating ad hominems in lieu of argument with substance. I'm merely suggesting stronger wording of arguments.

I agree and I`m also suggesting a more meaningful basis for those arguments.

The whole focus should not be atheism. The focus should be free thought, science and rational ethics. Atheism is just a likely consequence of these far more important things.

Exactly.
That`s a more meaningful basis for argument.

Atheism isn`t the point, belief or unbelief ultimately isn`t the point.
I think we should be able to couch our arguments with a contemporary slant that has some actual relevance to the differences between the two worldviews.

That is how people remain ignorant about someone's position. His book is to the point, historically accurate, and extremely logical, sometimes he generalizes too much but most of his points are hard to refute.

Dear god if you people make me put yet another book on my already endless and impossible book list I may turn to theism.
There`s usually only one or two books needed for that worldview.

I disagree, but how would you know, you haven't read his book.

No I haven`t read Hitchens book.

I have however viewed hours of debate transcripts and video discussions with the man.
My impression is that he`s careless with his words.
He doesn`t always speak on point.(to the extent of making himself look a bit ridiculous)
He is very witty and very sharp with a word.
He is entertaining.

It does seem as if I`ve seen more Hitchens being emulated than Dawkins around here lately.

 

[MSizer]

Yes, Hitchens is very witty and entertaining for sure, but "God is Not Great" (I found at least) to be quite boring. My wife and I tolerated the mundane literary style though and trudged through becuase he brought up a lot of events in recent history that we didn't know about, so we enjoyed that part of it.

 

[Magic Man]

I agree with all of the OP except for this:

*Atheists using the argument from authority concerning science and scientific models with a dogmatic fervor that would make the Pope blush.

You just keep thinking that, linwood. Long live the conspiracy theory!

 

[linwood]

I agree with all of the OP except for this:



You just keep thinking that, linwood. Long live the conspiracy theory!

Yes and my conspiracy theory will be destroyed the moment you supply evidence of your particle.

That`s the dogmatic fervor I`m talking about folks.
Hasn`t an ounce of material evidence for the point of debate but feels confident enough to be unable to drop it.

Thank you mball people were asking me to supply examples for my complaints.

 

[yossarian22]

In your opinion, don't forget to end your thoughts with that otherwise you appear like dogmatic Christians with their "We are all born with sin" and you know how insulting that can be.

No thats pretty much objective if you have ever read the majority of his works, which typically misrepresent or blatantly distort his opponents position. Admittedly he tends to do this far more with his political writings.

 

[rojse]

The sad thing is athiests have to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard, and a much higher quality of debate style. It's not easy being the better person all the time.

It must be hard to breathe up there.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes and my conspiracy theory will be destroyed the moment you supply evidence of your particle.

The evidence has been supplied. I'm sorry you put so much faith in pseudo-scientists. I'll continue to trust real scientists, though.

That`s the dogmatic fervor I`m talking about folks.
Hasn`t an ounce of material evidence for the point of debate but feels confident enough to be unable to drop it.

Thank you mball people were asking me to supply examples for my complaints.

You're welcome for supplying an example of your misconstruing of a situation. I'm always happy to point out misinterpretations like yours. I'd be happier, though, if you understood the problem in your thinking.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No thats pretty much objective if you have ever read the majority of his works, which typically misrepresent or blatantly distort his opponents position. Admittedly he tends to do this far more with his political writings.

I have read most of his works. And no, that's not objective.

For example, in The Missionary Position, all he does is regurgitate plain fact in an entertaining and humorous way and let's the reader build the implications. He doesn't generalize much, if at all, in The Missionary Position. It's almost like an entertaining list of who Mother Teresa was involved with and what she did and facts about her, etc., he connects it to the Catholic Church and their role in everything and the picture unravels by itself.

And that's just one book of his. In God is not Great, he does generalize more than in The Missionary Position, but he makes some very solid points. All Hitchens does, really, is point out the implications of what his opponents are saying in an entertaining way and let's his opponents destroy themselves. It's not misrepresenting them. If someone says "Anyone who doesn't believe goes to Hell and all who believe go to Heaven", and Hitchens brings up the point "If that's the case, then the requirement for staying out of Hell is believing in God. That's a lack of moral accountability. You can do anything you want, any evil and disgusting moral act and still be rewarded with eternal paradise", he isn't misrepresenting. He's taking the implications of his opponents point and throws it back at them, forcing them to reconsider. That's mainly what he does, in a very comical way.

People might construe it as misrepresenting because nobody making that theistic argument would phrase it in terms of their negative implications: "There is no moral accountability. You can rape, kill, lie, and steal, so long as you believe." On the surface, he seems like he is misrepresenting, but he just takes the point made and states the implications, maybe exaggerates a little for effect, and implies that the negative implications are greater than the positive ones. And you might also think he's equivocating the implications of the point with the point itself. Sometimes he does that, but rarely. He usually just lets the implications speak for themselves.

 

[Autodidact]

Debate....you never know what you are goign to get with Hitchens. Soemtimes he is in rare form and sometimes he is oblivious. He's an alcoholic...perhaps that plays in somedays. I could imagine him getting a bit trashed before a debate with yet another silly Christian.

However, I don't watch many of his debates....it's his research and writing that I appreciate. I think he tends to be very honest and well studied and then presents his case very well in writting. Some people are just like that.....better writers than speakers.

According to Andrew Brown, he trounced the Catholics here.

 

[Vile Atheist]

According to Andrew Brown, he trounced the Catholics here.

I think Pharyngula covered that.

 

[linwood]

You're welcome for supplying an example of your misconstruing of a situation. I'm always happy to point out misinterpretations like yours. I'd be happier, though, if you understood the problem in your thinking.

Wrong thread Mball.

I understand why you don`t want to finish the discussion in the thread where it began because in THAT THREAD we`re at the point where I asked you to supply evidence for your assertion and you certainly can`t do that so it`s going no where over there.

 

[Magic Man]

Wrong thread Mball.

I understand why you don`t want to finish the discussion in the thread where it began because in THAT THREAD we`re at the point where I asked you to supply evidence for your assertion and you certainly can`t do that so it`s going no where over there.

As I said, the evidence is out there and has been pointed out to you. If you refuse to accept it, that's your problem. I just think it's funny that you see someone say "Hey, wait a minute, but what about this?", and then don't actually research the response to the question. You just assume that person has a valid question that hasn't been answered, and then when it's explained to you that there is a valid response to it, you won't look at it, but you'll continue to claim that you're the one not being willfully ignorant. Good luck with that.

 

[Smoke]

I always find it interesting how Hitchens takes a beating but is rarely proved wrong. You may not like his methods but IMO he is right on target most of the time. I have heard countless rants about Hitchens but very little in the way of refuting his arguments.

Most of the time I dislike his personality more than his opinions, and I suppose that's just a matter of taste. However, while I can't prove it, his support of the neo-con War on Terror seems to me quite likely to be wrong, And his former opinion that waterboarding is not torture is one he himself admitted to be wrong once he had experienced it himself.

 

[linwood]

As I said, the evidence is out there and has been pointed out to you. If you refuse to accept it, that's your problem. I just think it's funny that you see someone say "Hey, wait a minute, but what about this?", and then don't actually research the response to the question. You just assume that person has a valid question that hasn't been answered, and then when it's explained to you that there is a valid response to it, you won't look at it, but you'll continue to claim that you're the one not being willfully ignorant. Good luck with that.

Mball again,

If you wish to continue this discussion do so in the proper thread.
I relish the opportunity.

Stop derailing this one.

 

[Magic Man]

Mball again,

If you wish to continue this discussion do so in the proper thread.
I relish the opportunity.

Stop derailing this one.

You brought it up in this thread, so I responded to it. As I said, there's nothing really to discuss. If you really wish to have your questions answered, you'll research it. You don't seem to want that, though.

 

[yossarian22]

I have read most of his works. And no, that's not objective.

Then you obviously did not read particularly. Hell, just read the Chomsky-Hitchens 9/11 correspondence if you want it clearly pointed out to you.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Most of the time I dislike his personality more than his opinions, and I suppose that's just a matter of taste. However, while I can't prove it, his support of the neo-con War on Terror seems to me quite likely to be wrong, And his former opinion that waterboarding is not torture is one he himself admitted to be wrong once he had experienced it himself.

He doesn't exactly support the neo-con War on Terror for the same reasons the neo-cons do. He supports it pretty much for the same reasons I would support an international military action in Iraq. To remove Saddam Hussein from power and to do humanitarian work. I support (well he's dead, so I guess "would have supported") taking Saddam from power because regardless of who attacked who and who did what to who first, he killed 5000 Kurdish civilians and injured 10,000 more.

Granted, to do that would be a little late, considering when Saddam was killing Kurds (1988 in Halabja). And would be highly hypocritical for the U.S. to do that, considering they brought him to power when Saddam illegally attacked Iran. Iranian Shi'ite radicalism was spreading. so presumably the U.S. wanted to stop that advance and funded Saddam to attack Iran and Iranian-supported Kurds.

And consider the reasons for Saddam attacking the Kurds in the first place. They were being supported by Iran to stir crap up in Iraq.

And consider his reasons for invading Kuwait. After the war with Iran, Iraq was in heavy debt. Saddam wanted Kuwait to forgive the $30 billion debt Iraq had to Kuwait. Kuwait told him to shove off. Saddam wanted the oil-producing countries to cut back oil production. They needed to sell high-priced oil to get rid of their debt. Less supply equals higher price. So Saddam urged oil-producing countries to cut back. Kuwait told him to shove off again, and not only that, but was urging oil-producing countries to increase oil production to keep prices low to screw over Saddam.

Saddam really wanted Kuwait's oil reserves because taken together, Iraq and Kuwait's oil reserves equal 20% of the world's reserves. He was looking for excuses to invade Kuwait (namely Kuwait had long been part of Iraq, it is a vassal of Britain, etc, etc.) to take the oil reserves and was trying to predict how the US would respond. He thought the Americans wouldn't do anything because the Reagan administration gave Saddam $40 billion in aid and billions more to stop him from forming an alliance with the Soviets. They had invested a lot of time and money into building relations with Saddam.

Gorbachev gave Saddam military advisors and aid, and he attacked Kuwait, thinking the Americans wouldn't respond. He miscalculated and the Americans pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait.

Saddam may have been a dictator, but it was the United States that put him in power and supported him until he warmed up to the Soviets. So I would have supported an international, UN-backed mission to remove Saddam. One that is NOT headed by the United States. A mission headed by the U.S. is doomed to failure because the Iraqis have not forgotten who put Saddam there.

And all the sectarian violence in Iraq? It's the dregs of the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. funded Saddam to take out Shi'ite radicals and now Sunnis and Shi'ites want to kill each other in whatever way possible. The Americans have caused enough trouble in the Middle East. I understand the desire and sentiment to correct things (and perhaps I'm giving to much benefit for the doubt), but they are not the people to fix the problems they started. The Americans will never bring peace to Iraq simply because they are the ones who stirred things up in the first place to protect their oil interests.