Something to watch.

[Lavabug]

[youtube]fkGPceR-pIs[/youtube]

[youtube]e4dANEsd5so[/youtube]

[Verbal]

i pretty much instantly disliked christopher hitchens from the very first clip i saw of him

[Meat Engine]

Why? I have thought just the opposite.

[Lavabug]

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]I have thought just the opposite.[/quote]

[Verbal]

i get the impression he seems more interested in sounding intelligent than in actually getting any point across. when talking he seems to choose the way that will make him sound most wellread/smart/big vocabulary rather than striving for concise clarity. i watched some of his religion videos on youtube and he is just unimpressive. in one of his videos he said that he doesnt actually want religion to be gone. when pushed for a reason he said it was because he enjoys the argument (which is just stupid imo). i think people are impressed by his accent and diction and he gets much more credit/acclaim than he deserves. he does come out with the odd good line or well put together point, but a lot of what he says is oratorical onanism.

that being said, what im basing this on is mostly youtube clips of interiews/religious debates that i watched a good while ago. maybe his books/articles and discussions on other issues are better. maybe im being unfair.

[Meat Engine]

From what I have watched and read, he is consistent anti-theist. I disagree with your assessment of his oratory. He makes the philosophical case better than most. Likewise, Dawkins defends science better than most.

[Abzu]

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="The Fu Monster"]I have thought just the opposite.[/quote][/quote]

[Lavabug]

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]From what I have watched and read, he is consistent anti-theist. I disagree with your assessment of his oratory. He makes the philosophical case better than most. Likewise, Dawkins defends science better than most.[/quote]

This. He is not RD. He does not argue exclusively from a "evidence, please" perspective. You have to understand that he's a polemicist, not a senior scientist like RD.



His literature and debates allow the concession for a religion to be true. Then he lays out how absurd, solipsistic and immoral the real-world implications of religion are.



He comes from a very different perspective than Dawkins (obviously humanities). Most people unfortunately are not very scientifically literate/fascinated as much by science and I think Dawkins alienates many because of this, so I'm glad there's Hitchens communicating a similar message from an ethics perspective. They complement each other.

[Meat Engine]

On the Dawkins tangent, it is my understanding his most recent book sums up the case for evolution in a way that most can understand. It won't overcome confirmation bias, but still.

[jawn galliano]

[quote name="Lavabug"]He comes from a very different perspective than Dawkins (obviously humanities). Most people unfortunately are not very scientifically literate/fascinated as much by science and I think Dawkins alienates many because of this, so I'm glad there's Hitchens communicating a similar message from an ethics perspective. They complement each other.[/quote]



i think more than anything, dawkins and perhaps more generally, the 'new atheists'/antitheists alienate a lot of people because they come across as arrogant douchebags.



hell, i shy away from identifying myself as an atheist mostly because i don't want to be associated with the loudmouthed militant set, who have kind of co-opted that term for themselves.

[Lavabug]

You were being sarcastic right?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man]

Hitchens is a warmongering neocon douche

[Meat Engine]

I disagree with his support for the current set of wars, but respect that he's thrown the weight of his words behind the atheists and the skeptics.



[quote name="hard-on bearer Incognito"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]He comes from a very different perspective than Dawkins (obviously humanities). Most people unfortunately are not very scientifically literate/fascinated as much by science and I think Dawkins alienates many because of this, so I'm glad there's Hitchens communicating a similar message from an ethics perspective. They complement each other.[/quote]



i think more than anything, dawkins and perhaps more generally, the 'new atheists'/antitheists alienate a lot of people because they come across as arrogant douchebags.



hell, i shy away from identifying myself as an atheist mostly because i don't want to be associated with the loudmouthed militant set, who have kind of co-opted that term for themselves.[/quote]



Wait, what? Candor should not be mistaken for arrogance or militancy.

[Lavabug]

[quote name="Subcomandante Marcos"]Hitchens is a warmongering neocon douche[/quote]

He is not. He's simply way, way ahead of his time.

[Meat Engine]

He thought it would be a fantastic idea to go over and kick Saddam Hussein's ass. He remains unapologetic for that support. To that extent, he is a warmonger.

[jawn galliano]

[quote name="Lavabug"]You were being sarcastic right?[/quote]



nope, not on either count. from a PR standpoint, i find them a bit lacking in the tact/diplomacy department. is it so much of a stretch to imagine their brand of hard-line rhetoric is a bit off-putting to a considerable number of people?



i am somewhat reluctant to embrace the atheist label, because more and more, it's becoming conflated with antitheism, and i am not an antitheist.

[Lavabug]

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]He thought it would be a fantastic idea to go over and kick Saddam Hussein's ass. He remains unapologetic for that support. To that extent, he is a warmonger.[/quote]

Wanting to remove a genocidal dictator with imperialist aims makes one a warmonger? I have read a bit of his literature on Iraq, his support for the intervention doesn't boil down to something as simple as what the Bush administration was peddling. He was entrenched in the subject of Iraq since the 80's, when Saddam invaded Iran and when Kurds came close to being wiped out entirely, both events which the UN watched with folded arms, much like they still do currently on the Israeli-Palestine conflict (which he's also written extensively on, as well as Israel's and Iran's nuclear capabilities).



His support for intervention has a foundation far back into the past, the only problem is that he found himself continuing his support for Saddam's disposal in a middle of an enormous worldwide backlash from the pseudo-left against the US for attempting to correct things, mainly due to long held resentments and prejudices. Any young liberal-leaning person would immediately pass him off as right-wing for supporting Iraqi intervention when in reality he's a real-deal Marxist, who's been writing about the struggle for Kurdish independence since way back.



He is really way, way ahead of his time and I'd quiver if I ever had to disagree with him on anything, because he can really hand anyone's own ass to them.

[Lavabug]

[quote name="hard-on bearer Incognito"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]You were being sarcastic right?[/quote]



nope, not on either count. from a PR standpoint, i find them a bit lacking in the tact/diplomacy department. is it so much of a stretch to imagine their brand of hard-line rhetoric is a bit off-putting to a considerable number of people?

[/quote]

They don't make any frivolous or intentionally offensive statements, the problem is a lot of people including atheists are excessively sensitive towards religious convictions, when they shouldn't be. To the point where any questioning of them gets you called shrill or arrogant, when in reality we have yet to hear a good explanation why religious convictions can't be subjected to the same scrutiny we use for music taste and political leanings.



Outside of the inappropriate naming of the "brights movement", there's really nothing that could make RD qualify as arrogant in the least in my book.

[Meat Engine]

[quote name="hard-on bearer Incognito"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]You were being sarcastic right?[/quote]



nope, not on either count. from a PR standpoint, i find them a bit lacking in the tact/diplomacy department. is it so much of a stretch to imagine their brand of hard-line rhetoric is a bit off-putting to a considerable number of people?



i am somewhat reluctant to embrace the atheist label, because more and more, it's becoming conflated with antitheism, and i am not an antitheist.[/quote]



Being diplomatic gets you groups like the Templeton Foundation and BioLogos. We should not abide absurdity in the name of tact. There is no middle ground between science and religion. That people are offended when they hear such things is not a measure of diplomacy or tact. It stems from the inability of those with faith or belief to scrutinize. A person cannot reason himself or herself out of a situation into which said person did not reach by reason. This is why we have cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias or a complete persecution complex. I say be candid and truthful.



[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="The Fu Monster"]He thought it would be a fantastic idea to go over and kick Saddam Hussein's ass. He remains unapologetic for that support. To that extent, he is a warmonger.[/quote]

Wanting to remove a genocidal dictator with imperialist aims makes one a warmonger? I have read a bit of his literature on Iraq, his support for the intervention doesn't boil down to something as simple as what the Bush administration was peddling. He was entrenched in the subject of Iraq since the 80's, when Saddam invaded Iran and when Kurds came close to being wiped out entirely, both events which the UN watched with folded arms, much like they still do currently on the Israeli-Palestine conflict (which he's also written extensively on).



His support for intervention has a foundation far back into the past, the only problem is that he found himself continuing his support for Saddam's disposal in a middle of an enormous worldwide backlash from the pseudo-left against the US for attempting to correct things, mainly due to long held resentments and prejudices. Any young liberal-leaning person would immediately pass him off as right-wing for supporting Iraqi intervention when in reality he's a real-deal Marxist, who's been writing about the struggle for Kurdish independence since way back.[/quote]



My problem with his position is that it's difficult to draw a line. What about the military juntas in land of ps2 emulators and Fiji? Russia has the Chechans. Georgia has the Ossetians. Turkey has its own issues with the Kurds. After two major wars the world has some crazy borders, which more often than not lead to ethnic and religious strife. How can we sustain a policy of intervention, especially when we can expect to receive little or no help?

[Lavabug]

I was specifically talking about Saddams ethnic cleansing programs, my bad, not the founding of a Kurdish nation (although he's written on that too).



As far as intervention goes, I'm no longer as opposed to it as I used to be. Justice should be upheld even if its not economically viable, for fuck's sake do we really have to count our pennies just to see if we can afford to stop a genocide a la Somalia or Rwanda? Why do we even have the UN? We should be more demanding with said organization.



And I think the US received plenty of support, both Iraq and Afghanistan have coalition forces from many European countries and Australia don't they?

[Meat Engine]

[quote name="Lavabug"]I was specifically talking about Saddams ethnic cleansing programs, my bad, not the founding of a Kurdish nation (although he's written on that too).



As far as intervention goes, I'm no longer as opposed to it as I used to be. Justice should be upheld even if its not economically viable, for fuck's sake do we really have to count our pennies just to see if we can afford to stop a genocide a la Somalia or Rwanda? Why do we even have the UN? We should be more demanding with said organization.



And I think the US received plenty of support, both Iraq and Afghanistan have coalition forces from many European countries and Australia don't they?[/quote]



To the issue of material support in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is not as much as advertised. Britain has a large commitment to Afghanistan, with smaller contributions coming from other NATO countries, but the great majority of the cost in manpower and money has been borne by the U.S. The portion is even larger in Iraq, which had little actual support from the beginning. We also have the odd consequence that with every election it seems allied governments reduce their commitments further.



The U.N. is something else altogether. Post-Korean War, it has been in the business of peacekeeping, not peace making. It isn't even good at the former. You've got a security council with permanent members, and the only thing it takes to stop an authorization of force is one no vote. If there were some equitable way to right the wrongs of the world, I would love to hear it. As it stands, when things go bad everyone looks to the U.S. for a major material commitment, and that is something that we cannot afford. Maybe the problems in Africa will be solved one day by the AU forces and external nation building efforts. Maybe the problems in Eurasia will be solved when countries mature and care less about territorial integrity. Right now, though, the military solution is not a practical one.

[Abzu]

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]On the Dawkins tangent, it is my understanding his most recent book sums up the case for evolution in a way that most can understand. It won't overcome confirmation bias, but still.[/quote]

The Greatest Show On Earth? It's next on my reading list (after Bad Astronomy by Phil Plait, currently reading, and Carmilla by le Fanu).

[Lavabug]

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]Maybe the problems in Eurasia will be solved when countries mature and care less about territorial integrity. Right now, though, the military solution is not a practical one.[/quote]

Well if you have a better idea of what to do when an ethnic cleansing program is 100,000 fatalities into success, everyone would want to hear it. In the meantime, the military giants of the world should be putting their excessively funded armies to some good use for once.



Btw, it might not win any credibility points with people who are already prejudiced against Hitchens, but he fiercely opposed the Vietnam war throughout his history as a columnist, calling it an imperialistic war(which it was). He even argued against the famous conservative William F. Buckley on television.

[Abzu]

I agree that 'nam was a dumb idea.

[Meat Engine]

I blame France for Vietnam. I also blame the dickhead that postulated the domino effect.

[Abzu]

I blame karmakanallucination :manbearpig:





...or is that manpigbear?

[Lavabug]

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]I blame France for Vietnam. I also blame the dickhead that postulated the domino effect.[/quote]

Well yes it was an extension French colonialism, assisted by the US.

[Haunty]

[quote name="hard-on bearer Incognito"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]You were being sarcastic right?[/quote]



nope, not on either count. from a PR standpoint, i find them a bit lacking in the tact/diplomacy department. is it so much of a stretch to imagine their brand of hard-line rhetoric is a bit off-putting to a considerable number of people?



i am somewhat reluctant to embrace the atheist label, because more and more, it's becoming conflated with antitheism, and i am not an antitheist.[/quote]



I'm not an antitheist, due in large part to the fact that I don't give a flying fuck about what complete strangers think or do to each other. Which would seem to be a normal attitude, but it's apparently the exception.



People like Hitchens irritate me, because he sounds so fucking pleased with himself for being smarter than superstitious people. He's a great speaker, and I agree with his talking points, but that doesn't mean he doesn't come across like a pompous ass-clown. On the other hand, it also doesn't mean that I'd rather hang out with the people he's debating against.

[Lavabug]

[quote name="hbw"] so fucking pleased with himself for being smarter than superstitious people.[/quote]

Does he? Anyone who feels that way has an inferiority complex. His statements -after you get past the initial shock of them being politically incorrect- are actually way, way more humble than anything a theist says in the debates. In fact he often is incredulous that people can seriously believe certain tenants of religion and proclaim them with a straight face, he really gives people the benefit of the doubt.

[Abzu]

I'll admit to antitheism and proudly so. I agree with Dawkins that theist moderates open the door for the extremists. I think it's sad that children are taught fantasy as reality. I abhor the ways in which the religious lobby and push to hold back science. I also, however, give people that benefit of the doubt. I, maybe a little too optimistically, think that with the proper education and proof, nearly anyone is capable of shedding their delusion. However, I am not a teacher and too much of an asshole 80% of the time to be the one to do that. Still, I think it is possible.

[Meat Engine]

[youtube]BEqJAKliQG8[/youtube]



Where is the offense in his rhetoric? I see a man picking at the absurdity and moral bankruptcy of religious dogma. If it is indeed offensive, it is only because the followers of these religions lack the willingness or capacity to engage critical examination of their beliefs.

[Haunty]

Well in that clip he seemed entirely different. I withdraw my previous appraisal.