Holy %&$#, There Are Two of Them!

i agree, but i prefer this example

so certain of his, er, faith that he wars with bitter mockery against those who doubt his truth.

followed shortly by

That is practical atheism. Those who follow it probably cannot even spell it.

I can’t stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity or who is a person of faith.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could all eventually get past the need to despise and exclude others simply because we disagree with them?

I feel sorry for both Hitchens brothers. What other dysfunction must have gone on in their family that philosophical disagreements are more important than familial love? I guess in this case at least blood is not thicker than water.

i dunno that this is true

What other dysfunction must have gone on in their family that philosophical disagreements are more important than familial love?

but maybe their brotherly love and familiarity with each other has just worked against them in this case. i disagree with a lot that my brothers do/say, and yeah, sometimes i use cheap insults against them (it’s mutual). however, if an outsider did the same, i would defend them, and that’s mutual too.
it cheapens both their opinions to squabble publicly though.

What other dysfunction must have gone on in their family that philosophical disagreements are more important than familial love?

We don’t know how these brothers feel about each other, just about how they argue. If such arguments are signs of familial dysfunction, then who among the passionate and opinionated are not dysfunctional? If your role in life is to be the intellectual writer I do not expect you to restrain your passionate devotion to your ideas because of your love for anyone, or your sense of obligation to anyone, including family members. Who would say that the treasured writings of any of our great minds are less important than their familial love, their friendships, their romances–any of the mundane relations? If we want to get some insight into why Hitch is the way he is, then of course go rummaging through his family life; but, my interest in the man concerns his thoughts, and what value they may have. It appears that he’s no ‘family values’ kind of fella, but so what? Look at the personal lives of some of history’s mega-minds and ask yourself if their ideas ought to be in some way rated by an ethic. Some of our greatest and most influential artists were tortured souls that were difficult to abide. That’s a price anyone should be willing to accept.

We do have an innate set of morals,

BTW, the link you gave to “Reciprocal Altruism” is interesting. The terminology seems like an oxymoron to me. How is it “altruism” if you’re doing it in hopes of getting something in return? That’s not ethics, it’s economics.

Mike C. – okay, i take your point and agree that it’s valid, but not knowing either of them, it’s hard to know whether christopher would say that directly to peter, or whether it’s a crass generalization that looks good in print. let’s face it, christopher is trying to sell a book, and he’s probably well aware that he’ll sell more copies if he can create publicity – which is more likely to happen with controversy than the softly-softly approach.
i’m glad peter responded as ‘a witness for the defence’ as it were, but to respond in kind…? maybe they’re both in on it lol…

Christopher is much better looking. And that is what counts!

It’s a wash.

I don’t care what anyone says they believe or pretends they know, I care about what they do.

It’s really kind of instructive how many people are willing to forgive Chris Hitchens support of the Iraq invasion and occupation because he said some nasty things about Falwell. For too many people life starts with what they saw on MyTube last month. The guy is slime, has been slime and barring some kind of lightening striking will remain the piece of slime he’s always been. I don’t care what his brother says, it doesn’t change what Hitchens has done.

Among Christians we sometimes have this saying “Love the sinner, hate the sin”

This notion is just as ideal and just as unrealistic as Jesus’s teaching that his disciples were to turn the other cheek when struck in the face, and repay evil with good. What they hold in common is this: almost nobody does them. Our system of criminal justice could not possibly function by this notion, or anything like it. Neither could our economic system. Show me someone that loves while condemning–not mere talk about love, but love in action, and I’ll show you someone who operates at the margins of our culture, and is considered exceptional.

The dysfunction in the brothers’ family is beside the point. Christopher’s backing of the Iraq fraud is beside the point. The most important issue here is what Ash pointed out,

let’s face it, christopher is trying to sell a book, and he’s probably well aware that he’ll sell more copies if he can create publicity – which is more likely to happen with controversy than the softly-softly approach.

The only reason we’re discussing Chris Hitchens at all is because he wrote a book on atheism. He has established a reputation for acidic sarcasm and it has sold other works of his. Now he wants to expand his niche to be the Don Rickles of atheism. Clever put-downs are funny to a certain percent of the population; the same people who find watching someone burn their hand on a hot object funny. Ha ha. So in the short term, peppering his writing with inventive venom will sell his books but in the longer term they weaken the impact of any intelligent arguments he may have in there as well. By going for the cheap shot laughs he may have traded away the chance for writing something that could be a classic in exchange for a short-lived best seller.

The real tragedy here is all the trees that gave up their lives to print both Christopher’s book and Peter’s newspaper article.

You know Hermant, I agree with some of what Hitchens brother says. Not everyone appreciates C. Hitchens brash and intolerant approach. It seems like you automatically dislike the brother just b/c he doesn’t agree with his brother and you. In your book you talk about breaking stereotypes, but what did you just do here? I thought you were supposed to be friendly????? I thought you understood that the stereotypes on both sides are often wrong. I agree with what Richard Wade said: If we atheists don’t like the asinine stereotypes and fallacious arguments used against us we first have to stop using them against others, and stop living up to some of them. Like arrogant, snide hostile, and as demonstrated here, hypocritical. Clean up your own side of the street before you complain about the mess on the other side.

He has established a reputation for acidic sarcasm and it has sold other works of his. Now he wants to expand his niche to be the Don Rickles of atheism. Clever put-downs are funny to a certain percent of the population; the same people who find watching someone burn their hand on a hot object funny.

I remember the kids like that in Junior High. They were the ones that nobody really liked, but were afraid to cross for fear of become the next target of ridicule.

I don’t believe Peter Hitchens could be so ignorant of his brother’s views that he could write that review. Not only that, I find it hard to believe he could be so ignorant of atheist thought, to use some of those arguments.

At the time of this revelation, he knew nothing of the vast, unending argument between those who maintain that the shape of the world is evidence of design, and those who say the same world is evidence of random, undirected natural selection.

There is no evidence of design. The argument never started.

Atheism does not require faith.
Awe and mystery do not require the supernatual.

It doesn’t matter where morals come from, if we don’t know, you certainly don’t either. Yet we have a good idea, some morals evolved while our brains did.

@Richard Wade

That’s a straw man extreme characterization. I don’t think that’s what Peter was saying.

What do you think a world without morals would be like? That’s exactly what Peter is saying:

Where is his certain knowledge of what is right and wrong supposed to have come from?

How can the idea of a conscience have any meaning in a world of random chance, where in the end we are all just collections of molecules swirling in a purposeless confusion?

If you are getting inner promptings, why should you pay any attention to them? It is as absurd as the idea of a compass with no magnetic North. You might as well take moral instruction from your bile duct.

Lets ask our imaginary friend instead? Read a book written by men a few thousand years ago? Imagine what an all powerful intelligence that created the universe, but we have no evidence for, would like us to do?

Aj,
I’m not sure if you’re arguing with Peter Hitchens or me. I’m not defending Peter; I disagree with just about everything he believes. But I’m going to disagree with what he actually says, not what somebody else interprets and extrapolates with great creativity and bias. If he doesn’t say we’ll all be raping and murdering without belief in his god then I’m not going to buy into somebody’s inference that that is what he means.

I’m objecting to false, unfair and manipulative extreme characterizations of an opponent’s positions. Any opponent. It serves no one other than hate mongers of any persuasion. There are people in both camps who don’t give a rat’s ass about what’s true or fair or what will further their group’s interest. They’re only interested in venting their own childish anger, or worse in gathering profit and influence by peddling fear and loathing. We should repudiate that crap wherever we find it, and especially in our own midst. We don’t agree with somebody else? First stop doing what they do. It doesn’t matter that we oppose their views if we still use the same destructive, dishonest and self-defeating tactics.

@Richard Wade

If he doesn’t say we’ll all be raping and murdering without belief in his god then I’m not going to buy into somebody’s inference that that is what he means.

He says that if we haven’t got a purpose, why should we obey our “inner promptings”. He thinks it doesn’t make sense to. Granted, he is not saying atheists would. He is saying he would, because he sees no reason to obey his morals without God.

This assumes that when you don’t obey your morals, you would rape and kill. I accept that this might not be his belief. I think it’s reasonable to assume when he talks about morals, he’s talking about the things that tell us “stop”, when we’re thinking of killing someone.

If he’s talking about some other morals, I think he needs to qualify what he means.

olvlzl, no ism, no ist;-

i’ve been thinking about what you said and my knee-jerk reaction to it, and i think i should explain myself further…

atheists not being a club, we don’t get to pick our poster boy for it. i’d never before heard of chris hitchens, so i don’t know his political agenda, musical taste, or any other personal details. nor his brothers. i suspect however, that his pro-war stance (which incidentally, i have seen no support or sympathy for on these pages) has been used as a tool to undermine his views on faith precisely because it is so unpopular. as an atheist, i think it’s fairly important to qualify my lack of belief in individual terms, coz if you do what hitchens did, i.e. “WE atheists” you allow for people to judge everyone by one persons failings. for his brother to then point to iraq and claim chris only supports the war BECAUSE he’s an atheist is pretty damn galling, and you know at least some religious crazies are gonna buy into that.

yes, chris hitchens views on iraq are important. yes they need to be addressed and hopefully changed. but to use it as an example of what atheism could do for you is just muddying the waters – i’d point to similarities with child-on-child murder, and the one time popularity of attributing this to listening to metal or watching a horror movie. a singular factor does not cause pre-meditated crime.

also, how would you suggest we remove hitchens as a public face? denounce atheism? say atheism’s great, but you can only call yourself that if we approve of your political views? form a club which we can kick people out of? kinda kills the point doesn’t it?

olvlzl, you and I agree on issues of bigotry as you so well defined above and the importance of repudiating it wherever we find it.

I have only read excerpts of Chris Hitchens’ works, only seen two television interviews of him and mainly know anything about him only through other’s writings about him. I had never heard of him until a few months ago.

From what I have read, seen and heard, I find him annoying and embarrassing.

You call him slime, evil, malignant, backstabber, and jerk, and you have said similar things on other postings when he has come up. I’m not saying you’re wrong to feel so strongly; I’m sure you know a lot more about him than I do. I’d like to know what you know. Could you help me with some specific reasons why your opinions about him are so very strong?

Darryl, are you familiar with what Hitchens said about The Nation and the people who worked there, his colleagues for years and years after he decided his future was with the neo-cons? George Galloway was as right about Hitchens as anyone has ever been.

You don’t get the point about stereotyping and how members of minority groups get painted with what one of their number says? Read Peter Hitchens and you’ll find a good example at the end of the piece. Where he says that atheists end up worshiping Trotsky or others. That is exactly my point, individuals only have responsibility for what they have said and done but they are burdened with answering for other people simply because they are in the same minority. Like making all Christians responsible for what Falwell did and said, like Chris Hitchens did to widespread acclaim among SOME, SOME, of the anti-religious.

olvlzl, no ism, no ist –

George Galloway was as right about Hitchens as anyone has ever been.

great points, bad example.

ewwwwwwww *shudders*

Quite frankly, I’m kind of surprised more atheists aren’t condemning C. Hitchen’s frankly stated hatred of people who hold religious beliefs.

Maybe it’s like the majority of Christians who silently tolerated the bilious hate-mongering of Falwell for so long. Apathy, shortsightedness, lack of awareness of how much damage was being done to their reputation, something like that. I’m not sure how I personally could repudiate Hitchen’s negativity other than by not purchasing his books, or talking about it on a blog like this. Not that this gets that much public exposure.

Hitchens, with his support for mass slaughter has done considerably more than just express hatred, he’s doing what he can to get the policy put into effect.

You’re beating a dead horse. Hitchens will wear this one like all the other stupid ideas that he’s had through his life. He’s got lots of company.

olvlzl, no ism, no ist,

You belie your handle by your seeming-ideological ranting over Hitchens. The beating of the “dead horse” is your persistent castigation of views that no one is defending. As I said, Hitchens will wear this one, and so will we all. Don’t kid yourself, we’re all, in one way or another, to some extent, responsible for what is happening now in the middle east. We will all be haunted by these tragedies.

. . . Hitchens support [of the war in Iraq] . . . should make anything his says worthless.

That’s a silly notion. Try that out on anyone who’s work you admire–nobody’s a saint all the time. Woody Allen diddles little girls; so does Roman Polanski. Stravinsky was an arrogant patrician. Jackson Pollack was a hard-drinking son of a bitch. Richard Wagner was an antisemite. Bill Clinton is a sex addict. You can’t dismiss every product of a creative person because you detest one of them.

My bullshitometer just pegged–I give up.