Hitchens - Spokesman For Atheism?

[jwhitlock]

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

Would you rather that I term it as "inaccurate"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

Ok...not sure why the personal attack...

Just a heads up, there, pal: I wasn't offering to do a scholarly analysis or peer review, as I'm not really a scholar on their level, nor a peer; I was offering advice as a technical editor because I am like a technical editor. And by that, of course, I mean I'm an ice cream man.

I think Hamblin and Peterson can handle their book, otherwise.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think Hamblin and Peterson can handle their book, otherwise.

Contentwise, the book practically writes itself. Hitchens's errors abound, beyond what either of us had realized at the beginning.

There is not a single ambiguous issue where, upon checking the facts, things have come out in his favor. Not one. It's truly astonishing.

The only problems are trying to keep the book within manageable length and getting it done within a reasonable amount of time. Both of us really need to be done with it, essentially, by the first week in September.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Contentwise, the book practically writes itself. Hitchens's errors abound, beyond what either of us had realized at the beginning.

There is not a single ambiguous issue where, upon checking the facts, things have come out in his favor. Not one. It's truly astonishing.

The only problems are trying to keep the book within manageable length and getting it done within a reasonable amount of time. Both of us really need to be done with it, essentially, by the first week in September.

I know it's a longshot, but nevertheless, I am serious about assisting if needed.

(Reviewing a manuscript, checking sources, punctuation, grammar, etc.)

I am studying editing, journalism and technical writing, so I'm more than happy to offer any suggestions.

[cinepro]

If I may chime in...

- Hitchens is the guy with the british accent that has popped up on various conservative talk shows (Prager, Medved) to debate religious issues. He usually holds his own very well, and his accent and measured tone certainly give him an air of credibility.

- I haven't read his book, but after reading this thread, I'm curious why his book is a national best seller (and currently ranked #31 on Amazon). Is it the "Da Vinci Code" effect? Is the main audience of the book already skeptical of religion? Or are people abandoning their belief after reading it?

- South Park has been mentioned for their lampooning of Mormonism, but we shouldn't ignore last year's two part episode that mocked atheists. To summarize, Eric Cartman freezes himself to speed the wait for a Nintendo Wii, only to awake in the 25th Century. Because of Richard Dawkins' teachings on evolution in the 21st Century, the world is now entirely atheist, devoted entirely to science, logic and reason. Ironically, there are disagreements on who has the best "science, logic and reason", and the world has split into three warring atheist factions: the Unified Atheist League, the Unified Atheist Alliance, and the Allied Atheist Allegiance (the third being a race of highly evolved sea otters). Each of these groups insists they have a superior answer to something, and the others are wrong. Everyone runs around saying "Thank Science" and "Oh My Science!".

It is later revealed that the factions are warring over "The Great Question" ("The Great Question" being: "what should atheists call themselves?")

The episode even has Dawkins insisting ""Logic and reason aren't enough: You also have to be a [jerk] to everyone who doesn't think like you!"

As this thread has shown, it's easy to dump on atheists. But it's really hard to do it with style.

[Monte Jefferson]

- I haven't read his book, but after reading this thread, I'm curious why his book is a national best seller (and currently ranked #31 on Amazon). Is it the "Da Vinci Code" effect? Is the main audience of the book already skeptical of religion? Or are people abandoning their belief after reading it?

Cinepro, I wager plenty of religious folks are simply curious and will venture a peek on an impulse. Many will no doubt get more than they bargained for, ill prepared for Hitchens's penetrating insight and also his venom. We must remember, Cinepro, that for the vast majority of these religious folks, much of the straightforward religious debunking isn't old hat, as it may be for the hardened message-board warriors that we break bread with here. Something Hitchens says will leave a lingering doubt in many of these minds and they will never be the same, the damage will be done. And correcting parenthetical matters of history won't heal them, even if it might make them feel better to know that Hitchens slipped up in places.

Let me tell you something, Cinepro. Hitchens's choice for the title of his book is one of the most important aspects of it, condescending as it is, and mostly for one particular reason I don't think will be obvious to most, and probably wasn't even intended by Hitchens. A very large portion of believers don't really understand what atheism is. Outside of a family member, the black sheep cousin with long hair who went on to drop out of school, drink, and spend more on a lift kit then he did for the rest of the truck he bought from a junkyard, most God-fearing folk have never really met an atheist. At best, they're aware that scientists are often haughty and explain the world without a creator, raining on our parade by making us out to be apes. They really seem to think that atheists are out there, trying to be bad. Atheists are trying to lead the world into destruction and reckless abandon. They are jealous of God and out to dethrone him. Atheists are either the self-destructive backslidden cousin or the Mormon's shallow Korihor. They don't understand that atheists see their own position as a moral one, and in fact, religion as a barrier to moral progress. Most religious folks not only think unbelief is the cause of the world's ills, but that unbelievers intentionally solicit these ills. With Hitchens's title, it's clear that atheists are greatly concerned with the good of the world, and that, ironically, it's the atheists calling the religious to task for making the world a worse place to live. This alone Iâ??m certain makes believers curious.

[jwhitlock]

Cinepro, I wager plenty of religious folks are simply curious and will venture a peek on an impulse. Many will no doubt get more than they bargained for, ill prepared for Hitchens's penetrating insight and also his venom. We must remember, Cinepro, that for the vast majority of these religious folks, much of the straightforward religious debunking isn't old hat, as it may be for the hardened message-board warriors that we break bread with here. Something Hitchens says will leave a lingering doubt in many of these minds and they will never be the same, the damage will be done. And correcting parenthetical matters of history won't heal them, even if it might make them feel better to know that Hitchens slipped up in places.

Let me tell you something, Cinepro. Hitchens's choice for the title of his book is one of the most important aspects of it, condescending as it is, and mostly for one particular reason I don't think will be obvious to most, and probably wasn't even intended by Hitchens. A very large portion of believers don't really understand what atheism is. Outside of a family member, the black sheep cousin with long hair who went on to drop out of school, drink, and spend more on a lift kit then he did for the rest of the truck he bought from a junkyard, most God-fearing folk have never really met an atheist. At best, they're aware that scientists are often haughty and explain the world without a creator, raining on our parade by making us out to be apes. They really seem to think that atheists are out there, trying to be bad. Atheists are trying to lead the world into destruction and reckless abandon. They are jealous of God and out to dethrone him. Atheists are either the self-destructive backslidden cousin or the Mormon's shallow Korihor. They don't understand that atheists see their own position as a moral one, and in fact, religion as a barrier to moral progress. Most religious folks not only think unbelief is the cause of the world's ills, but that unbelievers intentionally solicit these ills. With Hitchens's title, it's clear that atheists are greatly concerned with the good of the world, and that, ironically, it's the atheists calling the religious to task for making the world a worse place to live. This alone I'm certain makes believers curious.

Actually, Hitchens' "penetrating insight" and my reading on those who support him have revealed how incredibly weak their particular brand of atheism really is. His excerpt on Mormonism, from Slate, did not introduce any doubts into me about my religion; indeed, it strengthened my determination that Hitchens is not a reliable source to be trusted for anything, including his "penetrating" conclusions.

I have gained a better understanding that Hitchens' true family is not other atheists, but the fringe nut cases of religion who screech hatred on the streets, and who also value emotional content over accuracy in their rants. Both have far more in comment than either group will admit.

Our world is not a better place for people like Hitchens and his followers. Such baseless, emotional hatred can not breed that which is good, and so it gives the lie to atheism's claim that it alone can bring about utopia in this world. One can only hope that trendiness of Hitchensism will pass quickly onto something more productive.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Monte: It is amazing that such lofty goals are couched in such inaccurate hate speech.

Honestly, from the excerpts I've read, Hitchens gives atheists a bad name.

[Daniel Peterson]

Hitchens's penetrating insight

That must be in the sequel, because two readings of the present book haven't revealed much in the way of "penetrating insight."

As far as its bestseller status goes: I haven't looked at the figures lately, but what I was hearing a month or so ago was 250,000 to 400,000.

In other words, about one American in a thousand has bought the book.

Its sales figures are impressive, but not that impressive.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That must be in the sequel, because two readings of the present book haven't revealed much in the way of "penetrating insight."

As far as its bestseller status goes: I haven't looked at the figures lately, but what I was hearing a month or so ago was 250,000 to 400,000.

In other words, about one American in a thousand has bought the book.

Its sales figures are impressive, but not that impressive.

Rough Stone Rolling sold about 70,000 by the time Bushman finished "On the Road With Joseph Smith," to give a comparison.

[jwhitlock]

Rough Stone Rolling sold about 70,000 by the time Bushman finished "On the Road With Joseph Smith," to give a comparison.

To a much smaller market than Hitchens is huckstering to.

[The Dude]

As this thread has shown, it's easy to dump on atheists. But it's really hard to do it with style.

LOL.

And Southpark did it with style.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOL.

And Southpark did it with style.

Hitchens didn't, but that doesn't stop you from quoting him.

[The Dude]

Hitchens didn't, but that doesn't stop you from quoting him.

I thought the quote was pertinent to Ruski Canuk's thread about spiritual arrogance. I happen to agree with it:

The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.

Do you have anything to say about the idea expresed in this pithy quote? Or are you just so wrapped up in the cult of dys-personality re: Hitchens? Or is it me that you're so angry towards?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I thought the quote was pertinent to Ruski Canuk's thread about spiritual arrogance. I happen to agree with it:

Do you have anything to say about the idea expresed in this pithy quote? Or are you just so wrapped up in the cult of dys-personality re: Hitchens? Or is it me that you're so angry towards?

Standing alone, Hitchens quote amounts to "if you believe in God you are a doo doo head." It's a little sound bite of pure rhetoric. It has no substance. What, pray tell, is the "infancy of our species"? He's calling us simple-minded babies? If you find substantial truth in what amounts to a simple insult I can't help but question your own arrogance. Ironic you would include that quote in a thread discussing that subject.

[The Dude]

Standing alone, Hitchens quote amounts to "if you believe in God you are a doo doo head." It's a little sound bite of pure rhetoric. It has no substance. What, pray tell, is the "infancy of our species"? He's calling us simple-minded babies? If you find substantial truth in what amounts to a simple insult I can't help but question your own arrogance. Ironic you would include that quote in a thread discussing that subject.

Emphasis added -TD

Two things:

Irony is overrated. What is meaningfult about me bringing up that quote in that thread, that you would call it ironic? What in the world are you saying here?

What about that quote actually insultsy you?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Substitute "illustrative" for "ironic," then.

Hitchens has reduced his argument in that quote to "I know you are, but what am I?" What insults me about it? Not much. When people call me a doo doo head, especially people who ought to know better, I can't do much more than point it out, disagree, and move on with my life.

[Monte Jefferson]

Standing alone, Hitchens quote amounts to "if you believe in God you are a doo doo head." It's a little sound bite of pure rhetoric. It has no substance. What, pray tell, is the "infancy of our species"? He's calling us simple-minded babies? If you find substantial truth in what amounts to a simple insult I can't help but question your own arrogance. Ironic you would include that quote in a thread discussing that subject.

You're an editor, right? As a man who makes his living with words, I can't imagine how you confuse the phrase "infancy of our species" with "infants of our species". I hope you are more careful as you proofread Mr. Hamblin's forthcoming book.

--Great quote, by the way, from "The Dude"!

[The Dude]

Substitute "illustrative" for "ironic," then.

Hitchens has reduced his argument in that quote to "I know you are, but what am I?" What insults me about it? Not much. When people call me a doo doo head, especially people who ought to know better, I can't do much more than point it out, disagree, and move on with my life.

So when Hitchens wrote: "The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty...", you insert yourself as the person and take offence that he calls you conservative to the point of primitive. ("Infancy" he said)

Well, Hitchens lives in a global world and you do not, LOP. The argument that "God gives me certainty" doesn't work anywhere except in your religion. It abosulutely doesn't work across religions, and that's an obvious flaw with the claim. It doesn't work in government or any secular setting. It's really quite limited and frankly primitive. I agree with Hitchens as I understand him, and that's why I quoted him.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You're an editor, right? As a man who makes his living with words, I can't imagine how you confuse the phrase "infancy of our species" with "infants of our species". I hope you are more careful as you proofread Mr. Hamblin's forthcoming book.

--Great quote, by the way, from "The Dude"!

I make my living fixing computers and doing tech support. I'm currently in school. You'll notice I left "infancy of our species" in quotes. In a sound bite I choose to leave the author with his words.

[LifeOnaPlate]

And Monte: if you think I'm going to give as much attention to every post I make on the board as I would while editing a work for publication I'm afraid you live in a more perfect world than I.

So when Hitchens wrote: "The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty...", you insert yourself as the person and take offence that he calls you conservative to the point of primitive. ("Infancy" he said)

Well, Hitchens lives in a global world and you do not, LOP. The argument that "God gives me certainty" doesn't work anywhere except in your religion. It abosulutely doesn't work across religions, and that's an obvious flaw with the claim. It doesn't work in government or any secular setting. It's really quite limited and frankly primitive. I agree with Hitchens as I understand him, and that's why I quoted him.

The global world of Hitchens includes blanket statements I apparently am supposed to apply to anyone but myself?

[jwhitlock]

The argument that "God gives me certainty" doesn't work anywhere except in your religion. It abosulutely doesn't work across religions, and that's an obvious flaw with the claim.

Wrong.

LDS doctrine indicates that certainty from God, in truths applicable to individual situations, does work across religion. It also works in secular settings, even though it may not be acknowledged as such.

You should already have known that from posting on this board.

Hitchens' quote was a throwaway statement, typical of his "penetrating insights" that really don't stand up under even casual scrutiny.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wrong.

LDS doctrine indicates that certainty from God, in truths applicable to individual situations, does work across religion. It also works in secular settings, even though it may not be acknowledged as such.

You should already have known that from posting on this board.

Hitchens' quote was a throwaway statement, typical of his "penetrating insights" that really don't stand up under even casual scrutiny.

jwhit: I agree, but I've been over that topic with The Dude so often it has become fruitless for me to discuss it further.

It is no surprise that a person who-- for some unknown reason believes the Church must have and ascribe to all truth as it is right now, and no other religion can contain any truth-- would leave the Church.

The Dude taking that quote as a rallying cry either shows shortsightedness on his part, or ignorance of the shallow rhetoric penned by Hitchens. Or perhaps Hitchens' blanket statement is right! But then, how can Hitchens truly know that if certainty is folly?

[The Dude]

jwhitlock-

Here's what I'm talking about:

If you claim to know X because God told you so as a personal revelation, that only carries meaning to other people who share your beliefs about God, who are followers of your same religion. It carries no weight to people who have a different belief or who don't believe in God at all. In a secular setting where people of different beliefs must interact socially (like a court of law, or the practice of medicine), there is no place to assert "God told me so" as a basis for some decision you would like other people to accept. To even try to do that makes one look childish or crazy.

LDS doctrine indicates that certainty from God, in truths applicable to individual situations, does work across religion. It also works in secular settings, even though it may not be acknowledged as such.

So to support your claim that "God told me so" does work in all these settings I'm talking about, you assert that LDS doctrine just says so. "God told me so" works because "God told me so". Now that's rich!

You should already have known that from posting on this board.

I know that not all Mormons on this board think like you, JW.

[The Dude]

But then, how can Hitchens truly know that if certainty is folly?

Except that Hitchens doesn't claim any certainty from God, and that's the whole point of the quote.

I agree, it is fruitless for you to discuss this further.