RIP Christopher Hitchens

Truthfully, I don’t think Hitchens was ever anything other than an opportunistic writer who found a niche and exploited it. I don’t think he was a “lefty” or a “rightie,” even though he pretended to be both. I think he could swing whichever way the wind blew if it gave him career security. One thing is for certain…he had an ego, and obviously someone, or many on the left, bruised it, so he found a niche in smacking them around from an ex-leftie turned rightie perspective….but that was just schtick to support his revenue stream. In the end, he was just a whore like all the rest…..turning tricks for crumbs and foolishly feeling special about it. I won’t lose any sleep over his passing anymore than I would lose sleep over some unknown old geezer passing away in a nursing home somewhere, or some murderous president (redundant, I know) being assassinated.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/12/13/the-military-and-those-strange-threats-to-obama/

It’s difficult to reconcile his contradictions; but then I don’t have to.
He’ll be hard to remember in the overall chaos…

I disagreed with him about the neocon wars and his Zionism, too.

Most of his politics, actually, except for his defense of free expression against religious opposition, Muslim in particular but not by any means only that.

But his frank and assertive atheism was refreshing and amusing.

He took his death better than most, I’d say.

Jack, perhaps not, but in my experience, the majority of them that I know, and have met over the years, are…..and to me, it’s just plain silly.

Hell, they even created an Internet Forum for these types of fools. It was called Internet Infidels….the site still exists, I believe, but the discussion forum has been renamed and is operated by another group at this time. It’s a place for non-believers to congregate and feel confidant and certain in their disbelief.

Finally. Thank you.

Cloud, I don’t worry about that. They’ll flock no matter what In evolutionary terms, religion always has been and always will be part of human life. As long as they don’t try to commandeer my womb, brain, or other body parts, I don’t care what people believe in — whether reading chicken blood or hawk innards or sacred wafers or tea leaves.

peter, I don’t want to belabor this point so this will be the last I say on the Atheism topic, but we could run around in circles and argue terminology until we’re blue in the face. Per review of Wikipedia, of which I have provided a link below, what Agnosticism is is continually changing and under debate, but regardless, the most important point that I made is that it is foolish to argue the existence, or non-existence, of something that is currently not provable or disprovable. There are more important things that need our attention that are much more pressing and infinitely more provable. In order to avoid hypocrisy, I will now mute myself about deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Richard Dawkins is a noxious human being and was before he defended an inappropriate pass.

“an innapropriate pass…” Not sure what that means.

In evolutionary terms, religion always has been and always will be part of human life. As long as they don’t try to commandeer my womb, brain, or other body parts, I don’t care what people believe in…

Yes. I agree. Religion is not about to go away. The question is, what sort of religion may be dominant in the future.

Insofar as there is a modern faith, a belief as ubiquitous as Christianity was in 11th-century Europe, it is faith in progress — the attaining of more and more complex, large-scale societies — implicitly or explicitly by means of technological progress.

This faith is identified with classical liberalism, a belief in human freedom and autonomy, as if the two were one and the same thing. But they’re not, really.

Progress can fail. Contrary to the common saying, ‘the clock’ has been turned back pretty decisively a number of times in the history of civilization, and it may happen again.

If the exhaustion of fossil fuel is likely to send civilization, sooner or later, into another ‘dark age’, as I believe — then I become rather concerned that the faith which characterizes the next age is NOT of the kind which will ‘try to commandeer womb, brain, or other body parts’, as you put it.

But if all the liberals, liberal theists and pluralists and atheists, go down with the ship of global industrial civilization and its brand of Progess — rather than repudiating it early and often — then the position of the conservative Christians and Islamists will be dominant. Not just rhetorically: materially. In practice, church and congregations are centres of social cohesion: whatever the teachings, people belong to them because one needs to belong to a community.

But if the liberals are caught unprepared for the new age, while meantime the conservative churches have been stocking their cellars and preaching all along against the evils of the government — and people now hate their government with good reason, because it failed them — then the conservatives stand a good chance of winning. And our descendents get hit with a renewed patriarchal-violent culture of closed thought and sexual guilt and all the rest.

… faith in progress — the attaining of more and more complex, large-scale societies — implicitly or explicitly by means of technological progress.

I do not mean that everyone believes this, but that it is the received and dominant orthodoxy. To be an ‘isolationist’ is heresy; to believe that the year 2500 A.D. will resemble 1500 more than 2000 is, for most, literally in-credible.

If you want to fault Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Sam Harris and their ilk for their smugness – look to the class, educational system and cultures that produced them.

I didn’t say the aforementioned, and their various character assessments, had to do with their Atheism. I was speaking in general, to all of the Atheists I have ever known and/or met, regardless of their status in life.

Deflections, my ass. I told you my opinion, where I stand, and what I am, or think I am. You either accept it or reject it. If you reject it, state why, and move on, but claiming people are Atheists that have not even acknowledged that they are is nonsense. Atheism is a proclamation….one heralded proudly, defiantly and ideologically by a substantial number of people.

You know what, Jack? After looking at the run around concerning the term Agnostic, I’m not sure what I would label myself. Maybe I’ll make up a new category and create a Wiki page for it. NOT!!

Now, back to Hitchens and his alcohol-soaked liver.

Re Hitchens: What’s the old expression? “If you can’t say anything good….” Nah, say it anyway. He was an ass who’s ability to occasionally turn a phrase and reflect the vanity of his class was used to justify all sorts of nonsense. RIP but good riddance.

Morocco, you made sweeping criticisms at atheists and should back down gracefully.

“Oh, and man do I hear you about Atheists. If you’re an Atheist, you are as much an idiot as the Fundamentalist creatures you consider your arch enemies. I have news for the Atheists….they’re every bit as Fundamental and Zealous as the opposite side of that ideological coin.”

You know, even if all the atheists you know make Dawkins, Harris et al seem tame by comparison, this is still wrong. Atheists aren’t required by virtue of being atheists to believe stupid shit like the world being 6000 years old or that homosexuality is a choice. Fundamentalists are. Atheists can certainly be assholes or arrogant or whatever, but they always have the fundamental advantage over fundies of basing their belief system in something compatible with reality.

Eh, I agree with Jack Crow on the whole atheist thing. The ones that I’ve run across have been nonplussed about the whole thing though there was one time that an atheist guy I know got heated when his relative kept telling him he was going to Hell and needed to repent. Of course everything is aggressive on the internet so if that’s a major contact point, I’m not surprised that some folks mileage may vary and, overall, it’s a subject that arouses passions.

The “atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin” reasoning strikes me as a bit simplistic. Even in strictly abstract “debate” terms it’s a reach but, in practical terms it’s an absurd comparison. Especially when you consider the historical and practical effect of religion on society. However you characterize atheism, it’s actual impact on society has been minimal at best. Particularly here in the US where we live in an often overwhelming and overtly religious society.

I agree that Hitchens and Dawkins get hero worshipped regarding their views on this subject and it certainly has nothing to do with their sterling personalities. I’s more of a reaction some people have to seeing something that’s not normally said on the “big stage” that they agree with.

Earlier I was just saying, basically, that when governments fail at social welfare, church-based social welfare is usually what’s left; and considering my opinion of most churches, I’d rather create my own.

Who cares about if this POS gasbag is alive or dead? Not me, anyway. But since when do atheists claim to be more moral? I’ve heard the Christianists make the claim that atheists can’t be moral because even a seemingly moral atheist has in reality *stolen* his morality from the god believers. Certainly I have met a few atheists who act as if they are intellectually superior to gullible believers. I have never heard or met an atheist who claimed or acted like they were somehow morally superior. Most atheists I know just don’t believe the bullshit and don’t give a damn about religion to argue about it one way or the other (and plenty of them go to church and go thru the mostion just to keep the peace with someone else in the family). These sweeping generalizations are becoming embarrassing.

I’m so glad to see this.

For those who hear the beat (and maybe compassion) of other drummers there are these:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16214335 and

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-1949-2011-a-thank-you-of-sorts/

alyosha, I, too, try to remind myself that “this, too, shall pass,” but it’s getting harder and harder.

Cloud, have you seen the movie “Of Gods and Men”?

Count me in with ks and Jack Crow on atheism.

MB, it sounds perhaps like you’re talking about American Exceptionalism more than simply “American.” That particular brand of obnoxious arrogance.

I’ve always realized how American I am when I’ve gone abroad — pragmatic, impatient, punctual, expecting order and efficiency. Hasn’t stopped me from enjoying every minute of my travels. In fact, if I could leave this country for good, I would. Hubby has an EU passport as well as a US one, plus he works in IT so he could always get a job. He doesn’t, however, see the urgency I do.

Ian Welsh:

Richard Dawkins is a noxious human being and was before he defended an inappropriate pass.

From what I’ve read of that bruhaha, there Dawkins was correct if overly blunt. A man invites a woman in an elevator to his room “for coffee”, she says “no”, and that’s the end of the whole matter. Nothing else was said or done. What’s really going on here is not “objectivizing women” but approaching criminalizing [what is perceived as] sex.

That being said, Dawkins is hosted on his own “meme” petard, because he fails to see the success of his selfish gene hypothesis has gained acceptance to no small part because it niches so well with the current dominant neo-liberal “selfishness is good” economic ideology.

-StewartM

I have to say I’m disappointed to see all of this outright bigotry (yes, bigotry) against atheists, here of all places.

I’m an atheist, and yes, it’s an important part of my identity in this religious society and hyper-religious world. And yes, atheism, that is to say the lack of illogical and unfounded belief in God (or Gods) is, all things being equal, an intellectually superior position to religious belief, which has no intellectual credibility. I don’t even like to think of faith and religion in intellectual terms; faith is more like a delusion of individually varying intensity than an intellectual position.

But I don’t bring up my atheism unless the topic of religion comes up first, and usually not even then, because it’s a negative belief. In a world with no religious people, my atheism would be irrelevant to my identity, much like my lack of belief in unicorns. In a world where the majority of the planet stridently believed in unicorns, and a strong plurality of my fellow US citizens believed in unicorns and tried to dictate public policy to varying degrees on Unicorn-based theology, my lack of Unicorn belief would become terribly important to me.

This isn’t that world. I’ve never commented on a Unicorn-related thread (I assume they exist, Rule 34 if nothing else.) But it is good to see myself, my family, most of my friends slandered, sorry, ‘generalized’ about in this fashion. The idea that atheists are an inherently ‘identifiable’ population, even in the West, is laughable. The rampant bigotry and active persecution atheists face, if they choose to out themselves, means that the vast majority never do, beyond a close circle of friends anyway.

Ever seen this polling? http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx

Atheists are the most despised group in America, and Americans generally feel perfectly open about candidly admitting their prejudices to a pollster because there’s no stigma in hating us.

And yes, it is active persecution, thanks much. When I was in high school my atheistic beliefs became known more broadly than was safe, and my school had me surveilled, harassed, and even attempted to have me institutionalized as a result. They succeeded, briefly, in convincing a friend’s parents to have him put in a psych-ward. That’s life for an atheist in rural Indiana.

So yes, some atheists are quite pushy and defensive about it, when they feel safe enough, and some idolize those who are so very public about it, like Dawkins et al. And many of the Dawkins type are, to varying degrees, assholes. It often takes a certain kind of asshole to stand up and risk that kind of social stigma (or worse). So the vast majority of atheists *I* know (and that’s apparently a valid basis for generalization now) are quiet about it, unassuming, and hide it from most people, including their families, most of the time. We put up with the constant low-level bombardment of religiosity, the proselytizing from well-meaning religious coworkers, friends, neighbors and family, suck it up when our tax dollars are handed to unaccountable religious organizations in great big sacks so they can discriminate against us in the provision of services. (Thanks Obama for continuing that ‘faith based services’ crap btw).

Maybe we write a few checks, to the ACLU, the FFRF, etc. That’s about it.

Because, again, we’ve been instructed what can happen if you’re too ‘pushy’ about it.

Atheists are the most despised group in America, and Americans generally feel perfectly open about candidly admitting their prejudices to a pollster because there’s no stigma in hating us.

You charge bigotry in your latest post, yet applying your “liberal” definition of it, engage in it yourself with this statement.

Been there, John, experienced that and still do experience it with the ubiquitous religious solicitation and/or condemnation for not believing. In fact, my son, who is nine years old, reported to his mother and I a couple of months prior that someone had made him cry in school. As a parent, it hurts to know that your child was hurt enough to cry, although it is a part of life and can’t be entirely avoided. It wasn’t something physical, rather it was psychical. One of his classmates asked him if he believed in Evolution. My son responded that he did. The classmate told him that according to the Bible, Evolution is not true. My son said he didn’t believe what the Bible said, and instead believed in science and the scientific method. The boy told him he was going to burn in hell for eternity and he wouldn’t let it go…he kept saying you’re going to burn, burn burn with zealous conviction until my son finally broke down and cried. A week later, my son attended his Birthday Party and it was as if the event never happened. So, this is my experience, and I’ve had many more like it, believe me, and I still stand by what I’ve said thus far.

Morocco:
How, precisely, am I displaying bigotry when I state that the Gallup polling shows that a large number of Americans freely confess that they will not vote for an Atheist for high office? And that, of the often-hated groups asked about, atheists polled worst, below gays, african-americans, Jews, etc?

Because that’s precisely what they said, to a pollster, knowing it was being recorded. Because they don’t care. Because it’s perfectly socially acceptable to hate Atheists in this society; in fact, it’s actively and daily encouraged.

How is that not bigotry?

How is that not bigotry?

I wouldn’t argue that it’s not bigotry, but come on, you’re citing a poll? Polls aren’t any more reliable than direct observation and/or experience, and in my opinion, perhaps less reliable. So, you’re citing an unreliable measure to confirm your preconceived notions about “Americans,” calling them prejudiced. You’ve generalized to an entire group in critical fashion, so according to your loose definition, you’re engaging in bigotry yourself.

“People who think you can’t make generalizations about identifiable groups amuse me.” Laff-my-ass-brilliant, and more than worthy of a post concerning our newest dead guy. You, as usual, ain’t wrong..but I’ll cop to it- his stuff was a big-time guilty pleasure for me, too 🙂

More for Morocco:

Here’s a study from the Uni of Minnesota on how, aside from political concerns, Americans hate atheists: http://www.soc.umn.edu/assets/pdf/atheistAsOther.pdf

And here’s a bunch of cases where the courts discriminated against Atheist parents in child custody decisions: http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/30/atheists-discriminated-against-in-child-custody-cases.htm

So in addition to not being willing to vote for us, Americans also don’t think we have American values, don’t want us marrying their kids, and the courts often don’t want us to be allowed to raise our own.

Why is the issue of atheism always presented in opposition to Christianity? I think both are rather silly since neither side is willing to put in the effort to formulate a proof. And, yes, it is possible to prove a negative … see Nagaruna’s proof of “no independent origination”.

It’s seems to be difficult to find an atheist who doesn’t claim to also be spiritual, which generally suggests the admittance of something larger than human behavior being in play. So what i take most Western atheism to mean is simply, “I don’t believe in the Christian God.” Is it ok to be an atheist and a Buddhist?

And as much as i like reason, the cult of it is a little much at times. Like atheists who want proof of God’s existence, i want proof of man’s rationality. I’m not willing to structure my life around Christian myth without some proof that its central figure exists; just like i’m not willing to structure my life around Enlightenment axioms without some proof that the majority of humans behave rationally in the majority of cases and do so naturally. And i can prove that they don’t.

Never mind that most of our heroes of the Enlightenment were deeply enchanted with a long line of esoteric wisdom traditions. Replace “reason” with “wisdom” in the manner it was used by ancient traditions and the Enlightenment makes just as much, if not more sense as it does revolving around “reason”.

Can i be a devotee of the cult of Isis and still qualify as a modern atheist? What if i’m a believer in Gnostic Christian sect that sees the Christian God as an evil demi-god and that the prime mover of human spirituality is Christ’s aeon pair, Sophia … i.e. wisdom? Do i get some sort of bonafides by declaring that the imperfect “God” raped Eve and created our imperfect race, which can only be saved through esoteric wisdom? What if i replace “wisdom” with “reason” and argue that in the 17th and 18th Centuries, science was rather esoteric in-and-of itself, so the pairing of reason and wisdom makes sense. It makes even more sense if i attempt to draw a line between early science and the very ancient wisdom traditions going back to Egyptian magic practices that manipulated the corporeal world through a profound knowledge of it. (Or at least that’s what the fragments of ancient texts i adhere to seem to suggest.)

My (and it’s a perspective of one raised without religion of any kind) feeling is that the whole argument is rather silly, because everyone’s believing something and is, consequently, behaving irrationally. Therefore, no conclusion will be reached. No one will be proven wrong or right. So while it’s incredibly interesting to me – and i have a degree in religion to prove my interest – it is, in the end, all futile.

There, i’m a Buddhist…or at least ready to accept the first noble truth of Buddhism.

Oh my. Here we go again. It is beyond tedious to have non-atheists (once again) schooling atheists what we are all about. Atheism is not a religion. We have no holy books, no rituals, no hymns. As John Sears and others have said atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) – that is all. As far as Christopher Hitchens goes, I completely disagreed with him on Iraq (and other things as well). He could be an ass, but he was also an unapologetic atheist, and for that I was glad he existed. His writings since his diagnosis moved me deeply, especially his last. So yes, I mourn his passing. But I never idolized him. I left that behind when I let go of wanting to believe. Greta Christina said it far better than I ever could:

A fair amount of what he wrote irritated and angered me. And that’s one of the things I like best about the atheist movement. We don’t have to idolize our leaders and our heroes. We can disagree with them. We can recognize that they’re human. We can say to them one day, “Damn, that was brilliant”… and the next day say, “You’re being a fucking asshole, this is beneath you”… and the next day say yet again, “Okay, that was brilliant.”

Sometimes, Christopher Hitchens was a fucking asshole, and said and wrote things that were beneath him. Most of the time, he was brilliant. I’m deeply sorry that I never met him.

We are your neighbors, your co-workers, your family.

And it’s pretty shitty when alleged liberals display the same sort of wide-brush bigotry towards atheists that you would decry if done toward any other minority. You think you’re not? Just substitute “gay” or “Black” or “Latino” for “atheist” in any of the atheist bashing comments above and it should be clear.

and said and wrote things that were beneath him

This statement, in and of itself, gives the thing away, and supports the point Ian was making, both about Hitchens, and the points Ian made, and I made, about Atheists and Atheism. It’s unfortunate you can’t see it….but then again, neither can Fundamentalist Christians, so it’s nothing new.

Gee, I wonder what else was beneath Hitchens? Quite a bit when you occupy such an intellectually lofty tower as did he.

Just substitute “gay” or “Black” or “Latino” for “atheist” in any of the atheist bashing comments above and it should be clear.

Or better yet, how about substituting “1%ers” or “Republicans” or “Conservatives” or “Fundamentalists” or “Rednecks” or “Teabaggers” or “Capitalists.” Last time I looked, 1% was a relatively small number, so we can consider it a minority. On the basis of your logic, to call people out and label them as part of the one percent with all its attendant criticisms, is bigotry….so in one fell swoop, you’ve condemned the Occupy thing (I can’t call it a movement as of yet, because I don’t believe it fits the criteria of a movement) to the same fate as the KKK.

John, your tenacious Exceptionlism is admirable and on full display.

It’s not an insult, it’s an observation. You’re engaging in Exceptionalism. How’s that an ad hominem?

You’re not engaging in a criticism of Atheist beliefs, like one might if talking about ‘capitalists’, or political ideology like with ‘Republicans’. You can’t do that because atheists as a whole don’t share any, they simply don’t believe in one particular thing. But you aren’t even engaging with that in any meaningful way.

This is beyond ironic. If it were true, which it’s not, you wouldn’t be here right now arguing this with me. I agree that there aren’t nearly as many Atheists as you imply. It’s a rather small group when you compare it to the much larger group that is “without God.” However, that much larger group are not Atheists, no matter how badly you want them to be. Atheism is more than the technical definition, and I’m sure many whom you are labeling as Atheists wouldn’t subscribe to being labeled Atheists for one reason, or another, so my criticism applies to those foolish and arrogant enough to engage in serious debate over the existence, or lack thereof, of a deity with the other side of that Fundamentalist coin. Those who confidently, boldly and smugly proclaim their disbelief and argue it endlessly, forming a back-slapping, cozy little cocooned clique that considers itself intellectually superior, and therefore better, than those half-wit believers.

If anyone’s been insulting it’s you for abusing the bigotry charge. It’s a serious charge, and when you loosely interpret it and apply it, it loses it credibility as a condemnation, and does a severe disservice to all those who are the recipients of real, honest to goodness bigotry. The Boy Who Cried Wolf applies here.

As for the rest of your argument, it’s a Strawman. No one here is arguing that religion doesn’t have an influence on public policy in very direct and manipulative ways, and that it isn’t a serious matter for concern and debate.

There are many reasons people are “without God.” Probably one of the most prominent reasons is the same reason people don’t vote….shear apathy and laziness….it’s just not important enough to them. I can’t say that I respect that approach. As Celsius mentioned, and I underscored, I cannot and will not criticize “anyone who is undergoing a deeply personal process of introspection and doubt about their own personal beliefs and the beliefs and behaviors of the society in which they live, and Civilization in general.” In fact, I not only wouldn’t criticize this approach, but my wish is that everyone would do so, because in all sincerity, we don’t have an effective Democratic Republic until that is accomplished, amongst other things.

Once again, Morocco, you fail to actually engage a single one of my points. NOT ONE. You’re off arguing with yourself over your own incredibly conceited, small-minded conception of a group of people you already didn’t like, and opened this whole conversation by insulting gratuitously.

I will not respond to a single one of your asinine comments until you answer, simply yes or no:

-Is it bigoted that the majority of Americans polled by Gallup over the last 50 plus years state that they will refuse to vote for a qualified Atheist candidate for President?
-Is it bigoted that Atheists are discriminated against by their own government in the provision of services, by the awarding of tax dollars to religious charities that discriminate against them, by the official use of religious services in many public forums (schools, local governments, etc)?
-Is it discriminatory that the tax code which is riddled with deductions and exemptions for the religious that Atheists cannot claim?
-Is it bigoted atheists literally have their children taken away from them by family courts for not worshipping God?
-Or that a sizeable plurality of Americans do not want their children to intermarry with Atheists?

These things are reality. I have documented them here. If you cannot address reality I have nothing further to say to you. If you can, and declare these obvious and insidious forms of prejudice acceptable, then you, sir, are a bigot.

I agree with Dan’s sentiment and ideas here, and he handled Rick Warren perfectly. That’s how it’s done…..on your terms, not Rick Warren’s.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html

Juxtapose Dan with Hitchens…..the difference is stark. Dan’s a class act here compared to the egotistical Hitchens is nothing more than a glorified Carnival Barker.

Dan’s not an idiot. Hitchens was.