• DeepCough

    If Hitchens deplored theocracy so much, then why the fuck did he support the Bush administration (2000-08)?

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      Agreed. I really think, toward the end, he had fallen into the trap of accepting one form of theocratic madness as ‘mild and to be dealt with later’…and the other, Islam, as ‘worse and needing immediate defeat’. I can’t guess at his personal internal beliefs…but it seems like that was the case…and if he had stuck truthfully to the words he uttered above…I’d agree with him completely. Tragically…he didn’t stick to those ideals…he drew distinctions and picked side…and not a very good one either. The primary focus of religion is ‘the life after this one’…which pushes adherents to take a very laissez-faire attitude toward improving this life for themselves or anyone else. If only that had been his consistent message.

      • Dacy6901

        I find his approach on point. He works on the biggest problems first.

    • Mr C

      He didn’t. He wanted to see Saddam crushed. Understand the difference.

  • DeepCough

    If Hitchens deplored theocracy so much, then why the fuck did he support the Bush administration (2000-08)?

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Agreed. I really think, toward the end, he had fallen into the trap of accepting one form of theocratic madness as ‘mild and to be dealt with later’…and the other, Islam, as ‘worse and needing immediate defeat’. I can’t guess at his personal internal beliefs…but it seems like that was the case…and if he had stuck truthfully to the words he uttered above…I’d agree with him completely. Tragically…he didn’t stick to those ideals…he drew distinctions and picked side…and not a very good one either. The primary focus of religion is ‘the life after this one’…which pushes adherents to take a very laissez-faire attitude toward improving this life for themselves or anyone else. If only that had been his consistent message.

  • Dacy6901

    I find his approach on point. He works on the biggest problems first.

  • StanChaz

    Very well put. Mr. Hitchens gives a lucid answer to the question  “why bother with something that doesn’t really exist? why waste your time with the concept of god?”. Because… while the reality of god does not exist, the belief in god does exist,and poisons all of our lives in so many ways. Christopher Hitchens does not only defend atheism – he affirms life, and the free human spirit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stan-Chaz/100002015710670 Stan Chaz

    Very well put. Mr. Hitchens gives a lucid answer to the question  “why bother with something that doesn’t really exist? why waste your time with the concept of god?”. Because… while the reality of god does not exist, the belief in god does exist,and poisons all of our lives in so many ways. Christopher Hitchens does not only defend atheism – he affirms life, and the free human spirit.

  • David Tiffany

    Mr. Hitchens,  you go against all God intended you to be.  You receive your very name and heritage from God.  God chose the Jews to reveal Himself to the world.  He gave you the Patriarchs, the divine glory, the covenants, the law, the temple worship, the promises, and through the Jews is the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all.
     God told Abraham that through him and his descendants He would bless the world.  You are one of his descendants, yet you use the gifts, talents, and abilities God has given you to war against God and to lead people away from their Maker. 
     Can a person with abilities given to him by his Creator, go to war against His Maker with those abilities and prevail?
     God is gracious.  He is in the business of forgiving.  It’s not too late for you to be the blessing God intended you to be.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

    • Test

      you do know he Hitchens didn’t post this, probably will never know of it, and will never see your post…right?

    • DeepCough

      Maybe “God” should not have given Hitchens the “talents” to argue against “Him/Her’It.”

    • SF2K01

      I’m sure as a critical thinker he’ll be very compelled by your argument from your mythical mithra/osiris idols that you’ve renamed Jesus. He’s actually helping you since you aren’t believing in anything that the “Old Testament” would consider a legitimate understanding of God anyhow.

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        I really find it amusing how much difficulty people have accepting the renamed god argument… there were so many more beyond mithra and osiris that follow the same story as jesus did

        • SF2K01

          At least the OT has an original story line (other than the questions on the flood similarities which I find spurious) with an innovative conception of God for it’s era and location, so I can give it some respect. This is what happens when people try to make crappy sequels for profit while they can retcon the rest.

    • eyebeam

      He’s not warring against God. You can’t war against something that doesn’t exist, or that at least, you don’t believe exists. He’s warring against a stupid, evil, misguided mindset, based on fear and ignorance, that drives its believers to hate the life God has given us (or as Hitchens would put it, the life that we have, through whatever cause that may be), seek to set up walls of suspicion and hatred between the people of the world, and yearn for death and destruction.

      THAT is what he fights against. There’s quite a significant difference between the two goals.

    • Anarchy Pony

      Your god is fantasy ancestor traitor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Tiffany/100001926356049 David Tiffany

    Mr. Hitchens,  you go against all God intended you to be.  You receive your very name and heritage from God.  God chose the Jews to reveal Himself to the world.  He gave you the Patriarchs, the divine glory, the covenants, the law, the temple worship, the promises, and through the Jews is the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all.
     God told Abraham that through him and his descendants He would bless the world.  You are one of his descendants, yet you use the gifts, talents, and abilities God has given you to war against God and to lead people away from their Maker. 
     Can a person with abilities given to him by his Creator, go to war against His Maker with those abilities and prevail?
     God is gracious.  He is in the business of forgiving.  It’s not too late for you to be the blessing God intended you to be.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • Test

    you do know he Hitchens didn’t post this, probably will never know of it, and will never see your post…right?

  • DeepCough

    Maybe “God” should not have given Hitchens the “talents” to argue against “Him/Her’It.”

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure as a critical thinker he’ll be very compelled by your argument from your mythical mithra/osiris idols that you’ve renamed Jesus. He’s actually helping in you since you aren’t believing in anything that the “Old Testament” would consider a legitimate understanding of God anyhow.

  • Ginthelowest

    There is no such thing as god.  
    There is no higher judgement than your own.
    AAA
    t y r a n t l e r

  • Ginthelowest

    There is no such thing as god.  
    There is no higher judgement than your own.
    AAA
    t y r a n t l e r

  • Anonymous

    He’s not warring against God. You can’t war against something that doesn’t exist, or that at least, you don’t believe exists. He’s warring against a stupid, evil, misguided mindset, based on fear and ignorance, that drives its believers to hate the life God has given us (or as Hitchens would put it, the life that we have, through whatever cause that may be), seek to set up walls of suspicion and hatred between the people of the world, and yearn for death and destruction.

    THAT is what he fights against. There’s quite a significant difference between the two goals.

  • mole_face

    Several years ago, I had to temporarily move to a small right-wing hick town. Christians are omnipresent there, as are churches.
    I’m not sure if the average person is aware of how inhuman Christian middle America truly is. 
    These are the types of people who will literally flip out and complain to the store manager when they hear John Lennon’s “Imagine” on the intercom at Walgreen’s. Total fucking filth. 

    From my experience here in recent years, the average Christians are some of the most vicious, bloodthirsty anti-human creeps of all time. I’ve never encountered such a hostile environment in my life. These twisted Tea Party drones relish mass murder and want the government to cut ALL social programs, while they simultaneously try to claim some sort of high moral ground simply for being involved in a sex/death cult. 

    I’ve been atheist since I was six, but I grew somewhat tolerant of Christians over the years(partially as the result of my Nick Cave fandom) and took an agnostic stance. Fuck making ANY concessions to these people though – IF Jesus had ever existed, he would have fucking hated these people. If you examine their cowardly, spiteful, vehemently pro-murder M.O., they’re precisely the types of people who went along with the German Holocaust. Fuck them all. 

    • Stacy

      Well put, and your experience of small-town / small-minded Christians mirrors my upbringing in a small Texas burg. Most of these people never had an original thought in their lives and are absolutely devoid of anything approaching intellectual curiosity. I even have some of these in my family and, while I do love them, I have to minimize the time I spend with them. I just cannot identify with them.

    • jasonpaulhayes

      The Parent Religion of Christianity and Islam is Judaism which was the first to fall yet Islam was once a religion of Peace (supposedly) and Scholarship (historically), seeking to achieve a closeness to God in the face of both Judaism and Christianity that did not have any such teachings. Clearly it fell to radicalization a long time ago … along with Christianity, which never was scholarly or a religion of Peace. Islam emerged in opposition to Christianity and Judaism (if anything) from a once peaceful tribe but not as a “Religion of Peace”. The Scholarly Achievements of Islam are legendary and have left their mark in the pages of history … but that’s hardly intended to be an argument in support of Islam, only in homage to Scholarship.

      Christianity on the other hand is entirely dependent upon the concept of The Devil, as it is in reality the God they serve when called to Arms. They blame the Devil for all their wrong doing to be unconditionally forgiven by Christ the Redeemer, no matter the offense and chalk up any argument that their scriptures or their religion is in fact a religion of death … to parables. It really does seek to work the ultimate corruption, which leaves one to only hope that such societies as the Illuminati still exist and stand in opposition to all religions of the world.

      The God all religion seeks is and only ever was a linguistic misnomer from ancient cultures that used personification and deification to explain the subatomic relationship they (somehow) knew humanity has to all things … a reality that only the most advanced sciences of today pay any level of respect to.

      • http://www.facebook.com/elpolloloco52 Josh Adkisson

        Wait, what? Islam never “fell to radicalization.” That’s just a piece of propaganda popular in America,  propagated by the likes of Hitchens with his strict “anti-religion” attitude (actually, I think he goes further and argues that religion was never beneficial). There are a few loons out there, but to say that these represent Islam in the slightest is just false. Furthermore, Islam did not arise in opposition to Christianity and Judaism. Read the Qur’an. It arose in opposition to Arabian polytheism, and sees Christians and Jews as allies, albeit mistaken ones.

        Likewise, your assertion that Christianity has never had any contributions to scholarship is also false. What was the enlightenment? An attempt to say that somehow the enlightenment was not originally Christian does not have much basis in history. I’m not saying that everyone in the enlightenment was a Christian, but a great many were, especially in the earlier part of the enlightenment. But regardless, even those who did not profess a belief in God were working within the bounds of a Christian culture and mindset.

        Finally, your talk of subatomic relationships and linguistic misnomers makes no sense. If you are talking about animism and the idea of “oneness,” modern science really doesn’t have much of a similarity. The entire mindset produced by our understanding and practice of science fundamentally disagrees with the original animistic religion. Science separates; animism combines.

        • FilthyPazuzu

          There’s a tremendous difference between many Enlightenment-era philosophers identifying as Christian and the Enlightenment itself being considered ‘originally Christian’.

          Christianity is almost entirely responsible for the misery and ignorance of the Dark Ages. The Renaissance was in large part due to the result of the recovery of Greek science and philosophy, as opposed to the supernatural superstitions of the Church. One of the results of the Enlightenment was a decrease in the power of the bounds of the “Christian culture and mindset”, which has a long and bloody history of suppressing knowledge of the natural world. Tell me how the Jesuits promoted the Enlightenment.

  • fuzzgun

    Several years ago, I had to temporarily move to a small right-wing hick town. Christians are omnipresent there, as are churches.
    I’m not sure if the average person is aware of how inhuman Christian middle America truly is. 
    These are the types of people who will literally flip out and complain to the store manager when they hear John Lennon’s “Imagine” on the intercom at Walgreen’s. Total fucking filth. 

    From my experience here in recent years, the average Christians are some of the most vicious, bloodthirsty anti-human creeps of all time. I’ve never encountered such a hostile environment in my life. These twisted Tea Party drones relish mass murder and want the government to cut ALL social programs, while they simultaneously try to claim some sort of high moral ground simply for being involved in a sex/death cult. 

    I’ve been atheist since I was six, but I grew somewhat tolerant of Christians over the years(partially as the result of my Nick Cave fandom) and took an agnostic stance. Fuck making ANY concessions to these people though – IF Jesus had ever existed, he would have fucking hated these people. If you examine their cowardly, spiteful, vehemently pro-murder M.O., they’re precisely the types of people who went along with the German Holocaust. Fuck them all. 

  • Wanooski

    Your god is fantasy ancestor traitor.

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    I really find it amusing how much difficulty people have accepting the renamed god argument… there were so many more beyond mithra and osiris that follow the same story as jesus did

  • Anonymous

    At least the OT has an original story line (other than the questions on the flood similarities which I find spurious) with an innovative conception of God for it’s era and location, so I can give it some respect. This is what happens when people try to make crappy sequels for profit while they can retcon the rest.

  • Stacy

    Well put, and your experience of small-town / small-minded Christians mirrors my upbringing in a small Texas burg. Most of these people never had an original thought in their lives and are absolutely devoid of anything approaching intellectual curiosity. I even have some of these in my family and, while I do love them, I have to minimize the time I spend with them. I just cannot identify with them.

  • Yer Dad

    An argument against all Christians demonstrates a
    lack of critical reasoning. Basic logic – All X are Y is a fallacy.

    I’ve met great Christians who are wonderful examples of compassion
    and humanity and give of their time to those in need (homeless, battered women,
    displacedhomeless families) without expectation of anything in return, and no desire
    or attempt to convert anyone to anything.

    Conversely, I’ve met far too many very vocal Christians who in no way even approach
    living their life in a way that resembles what their Christ taught. They are judgmental, intolerant
    war like and hateful.

    Not a Christian myself, nor do I care to be one. But I’ve noticed the New Atheism is as
    arrogant, hateful and intolerant of the Christianity is criticizes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/elpolloloco52 Josh Adkisson

      All X are Y isn’t a fallacy (in this case, it may be false, but its not a fallacy), but otherwise I agree with you.

  • Yer Dad

    An argument against all Christians demonstrates a
    lack of critical reasoning. Basic logic – All X are Y is a fallacy.

    I’ve met great Christians who are wonderful examples of compassion
    and humanity and give of their time to those in need (homeless, battered women,
    displacedhomeless families) without expectation of anything in return, and no desire
    or attempt to convert anyone to anything.

    Conversely, I’ve met far too many very vocal Christians who in no way even approach
    living their life in a way that resembles what their Christ taught. They are judgmental, intolerant
    war like and hateful.

    Not a Christian myself, nor do I care to be one. But I’ve noticed the New Atheism is as
    arrogant, hateful and intolerant of the Christianity is criticizes.

  • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

    The Parent Religion of Christianity and Islam is Judaism which was the first to fall yet Islam was once a religion of Peace (supposedly) and Scholarship (historically), seeking to achieve a closeness to God in the face of both Judaism and Christianity that did not have any such teachings. Clearly it fell to radicalization a long time ago along with Christianity, which never was scholarly or a religion of Peace. Islam emerged in opposition to Christianity and Judaism (if anything) from a once peaceful tribe but not as a “Religion of Peace”, The Scholarly Achievements of Islam are legendary and have left their mark in the pages of history … but that’s hardly an argument in support of Islam, only in homage to Scholarship.

    Christianity on the other hand is entirely dependent upon the concept of The Devil, as it is in reality the God they serve when called to Arms. They blame the Devil for all their wrong doing to be unconditionally forgiven by Christ the Redeemer, no matter the offense and chalk up any argument that their scriptures or their religion is in fact a religion of death to parables. It really does seek to work the ultimate corruption, which leaves one to only hope that such societies as the Illuminati still exist and stand in opposition to all religions of the world.

    The God all religion seeks is and only ever was a linguistic misnomer from ancient cultures that used personification and deification to explain the subatomic relationship they (somehow) knew humanity has to all things … a reality that only the most advanced sciences of today pay any level of respect to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/elpolloloco52 Josh Adkisson

    Wait, what? Islam never “fell to radicalization.” That’s just a piece of propaganda popular in America,  propagated by the likes of Hitchens with his strict “anti-religion” attitude (actually, I think he goes further and argues that religion was never beneficial). There are a few loons out there, but to say that these represent Islam in the slightest is just false. Furthermore, Islam did not arise in opposition to Christianity and Judaism. Read the Qur’an. It arose in opposition to Arabian polytheism, and sees Christians and Jews as allies, albeit mistaken ones.

    Likewise, your assertion that Christianity has never had any contributions to scholarship is also false. What was the enlightenment? An attempt to say that somehow the enlightenment was not originally Christian does not have much basis in history. I’m not saying that everyone in the enlightenment was a Christian, but a great many were, especially in the earlier part of the enlightenment. But regardless, even those who did not profess a belief in God were working within the bounds of a Christian culture and mindset.

    Finally, your talk of subatomic relationships and linguistic misnomers makes no sense. If you are talking about animism and the idea of “oneness,” modern science really doesn’t have much of a similarity. The entire mindset produced by our understanding and practice of science fundamentally disagrees with the original animistic religion. Science separates; animism combines.

  • http://www.facebook.com/elpolloloco52 Josh Adkisson

    All X are Y isn’t a fallacy (in this case, it may be false, but its not a fallacy), but otherwise I agree with you.

  • Zencloud

    One of the most prolific militant atheist philosophers began to believe in god toward the end of his life, much to the dismay of his stupid, cruel and feminist lover Simone de Beauvoir. Sartre supposedly confessed to his friend… that he could not conceive of himself as a product of chance, but as a being that came from a creator. How will atheist hide behind existentialism now that it’s creator ended up believing in a creator himself?

  • Zencloud

    One of the most prolific militant atheist philosophers began to believe in god toward the end of his life, much to the dismay of his stupid, cruel and feminist lover Simone de Beauvoir. Sartre supposedly confessed to his friend… that he could not conceive of himself as a product of chance, but as a being that came from a creator. How will atheist hide behind existentialism now that it’s creator ended up believing in a creator himself?

  • Zencloud

    One of the most prolific militant atheist philosophers began to believe in god toward the end of his life, much to the dismay of his stupid, cruel and feminist lover Simone de Beauvoir. Sartre supposedly confessed to his friend… that he could not conceive of himself as a product of chance, but as a being that came from a creator. How will atheist hide behind existentialism now that it’s creator ended up believing in a creator himself?

  • Zencloud

    One of the most prolific militant atheist philosophers began to believe in god toward the end of his life, much to the dismay of his stupid, cruel and feminist lover Simone de Beauvoir. Sartre supposedly confessed to his friend… that he could not conceive of himself as a product of chance, but as a being that came from a creator. How will atheist hide behind existentialism now that it’s creator ended up believing in a creator himself?

    • jsgc

      Sartre may have been a great philosopher and writer, but he was no scientist. The physical evidence shows that humans and other species evolved by a long process of natural selection — not by “chance.” The inability to understand the huge difference between natural selection and chance is a persistent fallacy.

  • jsgc

    Sartre may have been a great philosopher and writer, but he was no scientist. The physical evidence shows that humans and other species evolved by a long process of natural selection — not by “chance.” The inability to understand the huge difference between natural selection and chance is a persistent fallacy.

  • Leaveamessage

    Notice who claps and who doesn’t at the end… : )

  • Leaveamessage

    Notice who claps and who doesn’t at the end… : )

  • Mr C

    He didn’t. He wanted to see Saddam crushed. Understand the difference.

  • Pingback: Observations on Atheism | Disinformation()

  • http://twitter.com/FilthyPazuzu Filthy Pazuzu

    There’s a tremendous difference between many Enlightenment-era philosophers identifying as Christian and the Enlightenment itself being considered ‘originally Christian’.

    Christianity is almost entirely responsible for the misery and ignorance of the Dark Ages. The Renaissance was in large part due to the result of the recovery of Greek science and philosophy, as opposed to the supernatural superstitions of the Church. One of the results of the Enlightenment was a decrease in the power of the bounds of the “Christian culture and mindset”, which has a long and bloody history of suppressing knowledge of the natural world. Tell me how the Jesuits promoted the Enlightenment.

21
More in Alternatives, Armageddon, Atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Counterculture, Debate, Doomsday, Freedom, Freedom Of Religion, Philosophy
Wrangling The Giant Vampire Squid

Matt Taibbi has been waiting to watch Goldman Sachs executives go to jail for a while--at least since 2009 when he called Goldman the "great vampire squid wrapped around the...

Close