Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[Bach]

Not true. If you're wrong, you'll possibly have the wraths of Zeus, the Allah of the Koran, Thor, L. Ron Hubbard, and the evangelical conception of Jesus, etc. visited upon your head. The problem with Pascal's wager is that it's a false dichotomy -- it says that there's either one religion or no religion, when clearly there are many different religions out there.

[Anijen]

Not true. If you're wrong, you'll have the wraths of Zeus, the Allah of the Koran, Thor, and L. Ron Hubbard, and the evangelical conception of Jesus, etc. visited upon your head. The problem with Pascal's wager is that it's a false dichotomy -- it says that there's either one religion or no religion, when clearly there are many different religions out there.

LOL Hmmm to Zeus sorry bro. I am willing to wager that Pascal had bats in the belfry.

[Bach]

Well, you essentially just parroted his most famous piece of religious philosophy, so where does that leave you, except in a similar bat/belfry predicament?

[jwhitlock]

I missed that did I?.

And for Hitchens's crimes he should be bound, taken before the religious leaders, and expelled from society. Thus are the dictates of this most uncharitable book.

Are you listening to yourself Mr. Whitlock?

Is that a fact?

You are prohibited from abiding by the precepts established by the keystone of your religion? At any rate, I readily acknowledged that the Mormon people are not likely to lynch doubters as in the theocratic days of yore. My point was merely that the authors of the BoM are far less charitable to the Gentiles and heathens than the author of ginG is toward the righteous frauds.

You make the mistake, Monte, of claiming to have the authority to interpret our scriptures for us - even when our actions, as you acknowledge, do not support your interpretation.

Our interpretation of our scriptures and how we live them are the only valid point of discussion here. Your misinterpretation of them is a straw man. But then again, given the comments I find on Dawkins' site, it appears to be SOP among far too many atheists to argue a fantasy world about religion to justify their preconceived notions. Stick to the facts; I outlined how I, as a practicing Latter-day Saint, view Korihor's story; please don't presume to tell me how I should be viewing it, especially (again!) since Latter-day Saints don't live according to your interpretation.

The key ingredient in your minds no doubt, being atheism. Is it true, Mr. Whitlock, that it is in fact, atheism, which poisons everything? And which results of "Soviet communism" does Hitchens praise? Is it the starvation of millions at the hand of Joseph Stalin to which Hitchens raises a toast?

You'll have to ask Hitchens about his opinion on whether atheism poisons everything; it's at least as valid a premise as the subtitle to his book.

One does indeed wonder what Hitchens toasts, given his glorification of Lenin and Trotsky.

Which facts concering God's existence are presented? There is no god, no devil, no spooks, and no tooth fairy, thus saith Mr. Hitchens, and I'm inclined to agree.

'Tis a shame that you think that way. However, unlike the shallowness of the FSM that atheists so like to use in their mischaracterization of religion, there is overwhelming evidence of God's existence, whether it be rational, spiritual, or anecdotal. Your connection of God with the tooth fairy is irrelevant, for it does not stand up to detailed scrutiny. Hitchens (and many other atheists, judging by the comments I've seen) consider it valid to present sloppy research, mischaracterization of facts, and inaccuracies as the basis for their pronouncements that there is no God. That fact, in and of itself, is significant evidence of the weakness of the position atheists have.

[jwhitlock]

I think Monte Jefferson is having us on.

You are most likely correct (do you mean egging us on?).

However, I still have this odd fascination about why some people think the way he does. What was very interesting, after listening to your presentation at FAIR, and then digging around on the Internet about what other people thought about Hitchens' book, was that the glaring errors you found in the book didn't seem to matter to many atheists. For some bizarre reason, according to these people, Hitchens' pronouncements are an end in themselves as self-evident truths, despite their lack of support in the book.

This overriding hatred of religion that many (not all) atheists have seems to lead to some significant irrationality, and I'm trying to get a handle on it, at least in my own mind.

[Daniel Peterson]

Blaise Pascal was neither nuts nor stupid. (He was, in fact, one of the greatest geniuses in human history.) Nor is his famous "Wager" as obviously loopy as some would have us believe. The philosopher Stephen Davis, for instance, offers a respectful treatment of it that is worth reading in his book on theistic proofs .

[Scott Lloyd]

You are most likely correct (do you mean egging us on?).

I think he means putting us on.

[Monte Jefferson]

You make the mistake, Monte, of claiming to have the authority to interpret our scriptures for us - even when our actions, as you acknowledge, do not support your interpretation.

Now I've really done it! I've infringed upon the immutable papal authority which solitarily holds the right to read the word of god. If you, Mr. Whitlock, decree by the priesthood of Aaron that "black" means "white" I, most humbly and unquestioningly, am obliged to obey.

Our interpretation of our scriptures and how we live them are the only valid point of discussion here. Your misinterpretation of them is a straw man.

Yet, you and Mr. Peterson seem to think that Hitchens's interpretation of Trotsky and Lenin -- Hitchens being a Marxist and you not being a Marxist -- are open to challenge. I might think, a dogmatic and religiously infected Hitchens would insist on the same insanity you do, that one must be a Marxist to interpret Marxists. And that a Marxist's sure word on the meaning of the critical texts of Marxism is not open to dispute by anyone who is not a Marxist of the same persuasion.

there is overwhelming evidence of God's existence, whether it be rational, spiritual, or anecdotal.

There is no evidence for the existence of god, a laughable and preposterous posit.

Your connection of God with the tooth fairy is irrelevant, for it does not stand up to detailed scrutiny.

And where is this detailed scrutiny?

[Daniel Peterson]

Now I've really done it! I've infringed upon the immutable papal authority which solitarily holds the right to read the word of god.

When people resort to the puerile stunt of writing God with a lower case g, they reduce the prospects of mutually respectful conversation.

Bertrand Russell didn't lower himself to such juvenility. Perhaps lesser lights feel they must.

Yet, you and Mr. Peterson seem to think that Hitchens's interpretation of Trotsky and Lenin -- Hitchens being a Marxist and you not being a Marxist -- are open to challenge.

Where does Mr. Hitchens offer an "interpretation of Trotsky and Lenin," and where do I comment on this supposed exegesis?

There is no evidence for the existence of god [sic], a laughable and preposterous posit.

In fact, there is evidence. One can quarrel, of course, over whether there is sufficient evidence, but to say that there is no evidence whatever to suggest the existence of God is merely silly. And, given the extent and richness of the literature on this question, it implies either ignorance or insufferable arrogance on the part of the person advancing the claim. Or else, more charitably, a cavalier disregard for accuracy.

[Monte Jefferson]

Where does Mr. Hitchens offer an "interpretation of Trotsky and Lenin," and where do I comment on this supposed exegesis?

Mr. Peterson,

As an admirer, in some sense, of Trotsky, Hitchens surely has an interpretation of Trotsky. You've made mention of Hitchens's damnable charity toward the man, whom in your opinion, does not merit the nomination and defense of mitigating circumstance for many of his beliefs and deeds. If you're not careful, you're bound to ruin the lesson here for Mr. Whitlock. I do not fault you for holding your own considered opinions of Trotsky or your opinions on Hitchens's opinions of Trotsky. I will, however, fault you if you flatly deny the uncircumsized the ability, or rather to use the verbiage of our common Judge in Israel, Mr. Whitlock, the authority to piece together the rather clear narrative of the Book of Mormon and formulate an opinion on it. It's a dangerous supposition indeed that only the believers of a text may interpret the text. God help us all, if that's the world we tarry.

[jwhitlock]

As an admirer, in some sense, of Trotsky, Hitchens surely has an interpretation of Trotsky. You've made mention of Hitchens's damnable charity toward the man, whom in your opinion, does not merit the nomination and defense of mitigating circumstance for many of his beliefs and deeds. If you're not careful, you're bound to ruin the lesson here for Mr. Whitlock. I do not fault you for holding your own considered opinions of Trotsky or your opinions on Hitchens's opinions of Trotsky. I will, however, fault you if you flatly deny the uncircumsized the ability, or rather to use the verbiage of our common Judge in Israel, Mr. Whitlock, the authority to piece together the rather clear narrative of the Book of Mormon and formulate an opinion on it. It's a dangerous supposition indeed that only the believers of a text may interpret the text. God help us all, if that's the world we tarry.

I am, indeed, learning some lessons here.

Mostly about perspectives and personalities and mischaracterization.

It's not my intent to match my prose with yours, Monte; you can shovel it better than me. Nor is it my hope to convince you of anything, since your perspective enables you to modify and deflect facts that do not conform to your beliefs.

It has been a pleasure to have you comment, since I have been exposed to the atheistic mindset that allows someone to accept Hitchens at face value. Presentation without substance, pandering to the emotions in order to sell books sway the masses who are willing to support such priestcraft.

For the record, you've mischaracterized at least the following:

Holding up Hitchens as a man of charity while denouncing the Book of Mormon as containing no charity at all.

Telling us what the Book of Mormon says and that this is our belief (falsely!), and then, when confronted with that, whining that our papal authority denies you the right to form an opinion when reading (if we should so allow you) the book.

Your denial of God, at least, has been consistent; it fits the given patterns.

Here's a lesson for you, if you like. Marx and Trotsky can and should be interpreted in the light of the results of what they contributed to, which is Soviet communism. The Book of Mormon can and should be interpreted in the light of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has become. To pull inaccurate conclusions about either, without the history of how their followers implement the concepts contained in those writings, is dishonest.

Have a great day, and thanks again for what you reveal as you write!

[Bill Hamblin]

Let me know if you want any amateur input from an amateur editor.

I's appreciate any comments. Thanks.

[Bill Hamblin]

Now I've really done it! I've infringed upon the immutable papal authority which solitarily holds the right to read the word of god. If you, Mr. Whitlock, decree by the priesthood of Aaron that "black" means "white" I, most humbly and unquestioningly, am obliged to obey.

Feel free to make any interpretation you'd like. But please refrain from telling us what our scripture means to us.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I's appreciate any comments. Thanks.

Please tell me that was deliberate.

[Bill Hamblin]

Please tell me that was deliberate.

As deliberate as any spur-of-the-moment decision can be! Seriously, I appreciate any constructive criticism and correction of errors.

Monte's type of posturing, on the other hand, I can do without.

[jwhitlock]

Monte's type of posturing, on the other hand, I can do without.

Actually, it's giving me an insight into a certain segment of atheists that I thought would be a small minority. I am reading the same type of blathering on other sites. Of course, not all atheists do this, but it's almost as if Hitchens has finally validated the behavior of a certain type of personality and approach, and these people are coming out of the woodwork in droves. And they can teach some lessons on the level of hype in a presentation to the good folks on the screeching anti-Mormon fringe.

[Daniel Peterson]

As an admirer, in some sense, of Trotsky, Hitchens surely has an interpretation of Trotsky.

He probably has interpretations of Chaucer, too. (He's into literature.) But I've seen neither. And I certainly haven't commented on either of them.

You've made mention of Hitchens's damnable charity toward the man

I've mentioned his continuing admiration of Trotsky and Lenin, and, in particular, his sympathetic non-judgmentalism toward Trotsky (a principal architect of the early Gulag system who famously said that it was time to move beyond "Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life"), which contrasts so obviously with his fierce and unrelenting denunciations of Mother Teresa, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Graham.

[karl61]

I would like to see a Monte vs. Pahoran ; maybe they could put it in the pundits area.

[Daniel Peterson]

I vote against that.

Monte has offered nothing of substance regarding Hitchens thus far.

[karl61]

and Pahoran has?

"Absolutely not, no. His deft (if mixed) metaphors, his adroit turns of phrase, his pithy observations all combine to make the most readable empty vapourings I have ever seen on any Internet forum. Nobody with so little to say has ever said it with more panache than Monte.

Regards,

Pahoran"

[Kevin Christensen]

It just occured to me to consider Rene Girard's I See Satan Fall Like Lightning in comparison to Hitchen's claims about religion poisoning everything. Girard's grand theme involves an anthropoligists concern with mimetic(imitative) rivalries that escalate to violence. Pagan societies managed the outbreaks of mimietic violence through scapegoat rituals. The group isolated the blame for social ills on some defenseless party, and so defused tensions, and temporarily united the community torn by rivalries. Girard argues that whereas myths universally assume the guilt of the scapegoat, Judeo-Christianity subverts such systems by showing the innocence of the victim of social violence. Once the possibility that the victim might be innocent arises, the whole scapegoat system erodes. He argues that the concern for victims that is demonstrated in modern societies is a direct outcome of the Judeo-Christian message, that one looks in vain in any ancient society to see any concern for those outside the community. For all the faults of Christian society, for all it's failures and violence, he shows that the concern for victims arises in response to the Christian message. And so, in his penultimate chapter, Girard observes that the Satan must change tactics now that the old game has been exposed. Now Satan loudly proclaims his victimhood at the hands of Judeo-Christian faith, blaming all social ills on religion. Thus, Satan imitates Christ as innocent victim, and becomes the anti-Christ.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[jwhitlock]

It just occured to me to consider Rene Girard's I See Satan Fall Like Lightning in comparison to Hitchen's claims about religion poisoning everything. Girard's grand theme involves an anthropoligists concern with mimetic(imitative) rivalries that escalate to violence. Pagan societies managed the outbreaks of mimietic violence through scapegoat rituals. The group isolated the blame for social ills on some defenseless party, and so defused tensions, and temporarily united the community torn by rivalries. Girard argues that whereas myths universally assume the guilt of the scapegoat, Judeo-Christianity subverts such systems by showing the innocence of the victim of social violence. Once the possibility that the victim might be innocent, the whole scapegoat system erodes. He argues that the concern for victims that is demonstrated in modern societies is a direct outcome of the Judeo-Christian message, that one looks in vain in any ancient society to see any concern for those outside the community. For all the faults of Christian society, for all it's failures and violence, he shows that the concern for victims arises in response to the Christian message. And so, in his penultimate chapter, Girard observes that the Satan must change tactics now that the old game has been exposed. Now Satan loudly proclaims his victimhood at the hands of Judeo-Christian faith, blaming all social ills on religion. Thus, Satan imitates Christ as innocent victim, and becomes the anti-Christ.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Good insight.

[Calm]

It just occured to me to consider Rene Girard's I See Satan Fall Like Lightning in comparison to Hitchen's claims about religion poisoning everything.

Very interesting.

[Monte Jefferson]

For the record, you've mischaracterized at least the following:

Holding up Hitchens as a man of charity while denouncing the Book of Mormon as containing no charity at all.

I've mischaracterized "Holding up Hitchens as a man of..."? Mr. Whitlock, that makes no sense.

[Monte Jefferson]

As deliberate as any spur-of-the-moment decision can be! Seriously, I appreciate any constructive criticism and correction of errors.

And you will get little if any criticism from "Lifeonaplate". A lot of back patting, no doubt.