Authored by: Spine on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:47 PM

his dry I'm-smarter-than-you wit makes me want to get really drunk with him and listen to him talk for hours.

That shouldn't be too difficult to arrange, as he will almost certainly be drunk already when you do eventually meet him.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: smoothie on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:03 PM

That shouldn't be too difficult to arrange, as he will almost certainly be drunk already when you do eventually meet him.

Not to mention sweaty.

Speaking of drunk and sweaty, how's your mother?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:49 PM

I caught the Cooper/Hitchins clip yesterday and was stricken by the exact same reaction: I find his complete contempt compelling. I don't mind his over-the-top vehemence, however. It's now more exaggerated than Falwell's self-righteousness or any christian's assumption that everyone is simply an over christian or a closeted one afraid to accept the faith.

I still fondly recall Madelaine Murray O'Hare in an interview trying to convince a christian that there was no logical way she COULD be going to hell (O'hare, that is) because there was no hell in her belief system (atheism). The christian guy couldn't accept the fact that hell/heaven only exist in his belief system. It's as if bsimmon told me that he didn't need the sun because his belief system didn't have it and I tried to point out that regardless of his beliefs, the sun does exist. O'Hare tried to point out that belief in heaven/hell was not analogous. Hitchins is like that: no quarter for the weird supernaturalists. I eat it up, w/ gravy ... like yer mom.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:55 PM

Great New Yorker piece on Hitchens' new book and the ascendance of atheist lit generally.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Nato on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:42 PM

Anybody catch Hitchens on Tom Ashbrook's On Point the other day? He basically made mincemeat of Stephan Munsey, Senior Pastor for a "big box" church in Indiana. As I recall, Pastor Munsey's best argument was something to the effect of, "You can't question a man's deepest-felt beliefs." Au contraire, mon Pere.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: NeilC on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 10:30 AM

I heard that On Point too. That was some good stuff.

Here's my problem with him. While I really get off on watching him tear people down (and find myself really responding on a gut level with his antitheism), I worry that, I dunno... It's too easy. He's shooting fish in a barrel. I mean, don't get me wrong -- these are fish that desperately need shooting. I'm just curious if he cares what his effect will be on God-believers. I mean, it's all well and good to those of us who agree with him. We're having a ball. But honestly, does he expect disgraced theists will come running to his side once they've been made to feel stupid and ridiculed? Does he even really care? Or is he just going about this for a laugh at their expense? That's certainly what his bum-rush no-holds-barred style would have you believe.

I think if you want to convincingly show people that there is no God, you have to first realize that they presume God=morality and that no- God = no moral code, like if Hitchens and his ilk catch on we'll wind up living in some kinda free-for-all Mad Max world where we all eat our babies and fuck our grandmas. A more effective arguement (which I've heard him touch upon, but always indirectly) is that, listen: we're all doing okay out here without God with our gay marriage and our abortion rights and what have you. We still jail criminals and raise children, and look!: The world is not caving in on us. There is no boogyman hell and we won't be driven by fear, superstition and coercion.

I just wish he'd make that point more often than the You're All Stupid thing he's so deliciously excellent at, otherwise he risks becoming a caricature of himself, the snooty Englishman who heartlessly excoriates this and that because he just has no patience with stupid yokel Americans.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 11:28 AM

Neil, I've had some of the same concerns -- not about Hitch specifically, but about Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and strident atheism in general. Sometimes I see Dawkins on TV and I wish I could make continual adjustments to his personal and rhetorical style so as to make him less blunt, less vulnerable to charges of arrogance, and more accessible, more patient, and thus perhaps more persuasive. But then I realize that the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons of the world, like the Republican party they shill for, have done quite well by charging ahead with full-throated, unapologetic attacks on the people they disagree with. And so I wonder why atheists should have to enforce a code of meekness on themselves, when their counterparts clearly do not.

That said, I do find Dawkins, Hitch et al. sort of embarrassingly caustic at times, though it's certainly gratifying at the same time, like you said. I dunno. I think these loud atheists might be like PETA, which is seen by many as an extremist fringe group, but which still manages to wedge animal-rights issues into the mainstream consciousness, arguably increasing the popularity of vegetarianism while not necessarily earning widespread respect for its methods and rhetoric. Maybe Dawkins and Hitch serve the same purpose -- they throw atheist bombs into the public square, forcing people to acknowledge that alternatives to faith do in fact exist, and then groups like the American Humanist Association and The Brights can come in and recruit the people who need a more positive expresion of nontheism.

---
Palabra Jot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 01:43 PM

Great points Spine and Neil. Also, it's these strident folks who are getting asked on talk shows and selling lots of books and I think it's probably good for some folks to have their assumptions directly challenged, even if the result isn't necessarily instant acceptance of what's being said. So when Hitchens says it's absurd to grant an evil bastard like Falwell our respect just because he's a "man of faith," (a point that seems lost on most TV journalists, anyway) it's sort of like radical "angry" feminists railing against feminine stereotypes in commercials and films -- some people need to have their basic assumptions jarred. In my teens I started to wake up to feminist issues through a combination of getting rankled by the more strident purveyors of feminist philosophy and conversations with thoughtful people that I respected about women's issues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Pam on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 04:29 PM

Well, he's definitely British. I didn't see anything wrong with his stance or the way he presented it from that clip. I want to read the book.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 07:07 PM

The Dems often get chastised for being to soft compared to the bullying amorality of the Replican right. But this is the basic problem: rational, thoughtful people tend to be appreciative of multiple viewpoints, and "we" understand that there are many out there who will not be converted - so what's the point in bullying. But rational, thoughtful atheists don't have a religious leader to wield the cudgel for us as do the christians. So we end up with a few boisterous types who are willing to crack a few skulls and maybe we're worrying that the christians assume they are our leaders?

But the Falwell's of the world will curse and spit on anyone who is different. So why not spit back. For most of us, this metaphorical 'spitting' is unpleasant, regardless of who does it so we tend to cringe a little regardless of which side is doing it.

I think I've become pretty caustically calloused (sorry for the nearly oxymoronic, mixed metaphor) to the point where I'm fine with Hitchins, Dawkins, etc. Even socially now, when somebody mentions their faith in a context where they are clearly assuming I'm christian, I respond with a statement that clearly indicates surprise that anyone would be.

them: are you working on friday?
me: sure, why not?
them: well, because of Lent.
me: huh? oh, that supernatural stuff? no, i'm not into that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: NeilC on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 09:44 AM

Yeah, I definitely appreciate the social usefulness of Hitchens' swashbuckling attitude. It really takes all kinds, and I don't mean that pejoratively in the least. And that's what talk shows need! My mom always retells the story of a friend of hers who, when the talk shows called, would always start by saying, "Well, it's a really complex issue..." and see how quickly they lost interest.

While I think it's necessary to take a strong stance, I think there's gotta be another choice other than wimp or jerk. I'm trying to think of an example... Bernie, maybe? It always seems in his public persona that he's fired up in the interest of the positive, about issues of justice, as opposed to simply slagging on someone, or using the dirty tactics of the opponent against them. I think he's good at giving people a positive- feeling zap about how/where we should be focusing our energies, rather than winge-ing on the ain't-it-awful tip. It'd be great to see someone of Hitchens' intelligence that actually fires people up with inspiration rather than revenge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 12:15 PM

Howard Dean may be a good example, or Richard Feynman or Bertrand Russell... whoops, two out of three are dead, aren't they. I wonder which two (ha!).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: casey on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 02:13 PM

I say fight fire with fire. We atheists/agnostics have always been too
soft. Well, that's excepting our Communist brethren, who've
massacred plenty in support of Godlessness. Go Team Mao! (kidding).

Still, when was the last time you saw an athiest recruiting children for
a bloody crusade? Or teaching youngsters how to wield an AK-47?
Shit, I just saw Jesus Camp: we can't pretend the Middle East is the
only place where kids get indocrinated as such.

Bill, I have the same feelings about Hitchens. Some guys are just like
that. Maybe he, Chris Matthews and Bill Maher can swing by the OP
for my going-away party.

Like I'd have one.

---
"As for the charges against me, I am unconcerned. I am beyond their timid, lying morality, and so I am beyond caring."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: NeilC on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 07:53 PM

WHOOPS --- it totally slipped my mind: I should give blog credit where it's due... I got hipped to this piece of video via my friend brendancalling.com, an amazing and hilariously vicious blog that covers everything from politics and Philadelphia public transit to bluegrass, old punk rock, and the vicissitudes of estranged fatherhood. I urge all to check it out. It's actually quite pertinant to our discussion, as he pulls no punches against those who richly deserve his abuse. Witness his response to the repentant US interrogator who wrote a NYT piece about his work: "Wanna do something useful? Kill yourself."

In an unrelated but funny story: I'm honored that his blog got named after a time we were in London together... he'd bought a phone card to call home and I couldn't get over how hilarious I thought it was to pogo around the phone booth during his call singing Brendan calling!! / from the underground!!

[ Reply to This | # ]