RIP Christopher Hitchens

[Grumman]

I see. You're taking the position that atheism and theism are mutually incompatible.

No, I'm taking the position that mistrust specifically of atheists can only come from theism. I see no reason to believe there is such a thing as an atheist that mistrusts other people for being atheists who did not reach that self-loathing conclusion due to religious indoctrination.

Good luck with trying to force your views upon the world.

Have you always been this much of a little snot? When you were in primary school, were you always railing against the teachers for having the nerve to teach you your times tables, or for telling you that pulling little Suzie's hair was wrong?

[Spice Runner]

Mr. Hitchens was a brilliant person as stated before and a force that gave voice to those opposed to religious fanaticism as evidence by the fanatic, fraudulent, Mother Terressa article posted. I did not agree with his views on the Iraq war but do agree on his stance on religion and admired his bluntness. Hopefully his ideas will be carried forward until a day when we can usher a true age of reason upon the ashes of ignorance, superstition and bigotry.

[Bakustra]

So why are you defending Hitchen's portrayal of atheism, through the "New Atheism" he popularized, as being necessarily antitheist, Grumman? Oh, I guess it's because you're a coward who'll say things like "mistrust of atheists can only come from the religious", and "if you reduce the number of religious, you reduce the mistrust of atheists" but isn't willing to cop to the conclusions of that (namely, that atheism as you present it is an existential threat to the religious by trying to force their conversion to atheism). I'm sorry that whatever philosophy led you to an atheist position leads you to think that antitheism and attempting to wipe out religion is the best way to achieve a better position for atheists as a whole.

[Count Chocula]

Well, they believe in oblivion after death. Shit, I'll take the Protestant view for a minute (as I understand it): maybe there ain't no afterlife, but if there is, what does it cost you to live in the present in a way that doesn't fuck over your fellow man? Nothing. So why not do it?

What I don't know is the moral code, or codes, that atheists follow. Are there any? Does the Golden Rule pertain if you have no faith at all? Any atheists care to chime in here? Hitchens was all over the place on morality and personal consistency, but I somehow doubt he was a typical atheist.

[Bakustra]

Well, they believe in oblivion after death. Shit, I'll take the Protestant view for a minute (as I understand it): maybe there ain't no afterlife, but if there is, what does it cost you to live in the present in a way that doesn't fuck over your fellow man? Nothing. So why not do it?

What I don't know is the moral code, or codes, that atheists follow. Are there any? Does the Golden Rule pertain if you have no faith at all? Any atheists care to chime in here? Hitchens was all over the place on morality and personal consistency, but I somehow doubt he was a typical atheist.

Are you seriously this ignorant? Okay, why does the Golden Rule depend on belief in a god? That's pretty much the first question you should be able to answer, and it should give you a hint as to how atheists can hold ethical and moral positions.

[Thanas]

What I don't know is the moral code, or codes, that atheists follow. Are there any? Does the Golden Rule pertain if you have no faith at all? Any atheists care to chime in here? Hitchens was all over the place on morality and personal consistency, but I somehow doubt he was a typical atheist.

Any atheist can pick a moral code from any number of philosophies that existed way before christianity (and who are much better anyway). Any atheist can also pick a moral code from any number of philosophies that were created independently during the reign of christianity. Even further, any atheist can also choose to follow christian morality because while the pretext may be bad to an atheist, that does not mean all part of the morality is.

I honestly am wondering why this is even a question. Morality existed long before christianity and I'll take the stoics over christianity any day.

[Aniron]

Well, they believe in oblivion after death. Shit, I'll take the Protestant view for a minute (as I understand it): maybe there ain't no afterlife, but if there is, what does it cost you to live in the present in a way that doesn't fuck over your fellow man? Nothing. So why not do it?

What I don't know is the moral code, or codes, that atheists follow. Are there any? Does the Golden Rule pertain if you have no faith at all? Any atheists care to chime in here? Hitchens was all over the place on morality and personal consistency, but I somehow doubt he was a typical atheist.

Humanism. Step out of your shell and try and think critically for once in your life.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Well, they believe in oblivion after death. Shit, I'll take the Protestant view for a minute (as I understand it): maybe there ain't no afterlife, but if there is, what does it cost you to live in the present in a way that doesn't fuck over your fellow man? Nothing. So why not do it?

What I don't know is the moral code, or codes, that atheists follow. Are there any? Does the Golden Rule pertain if you have no faith at all? Any atheists care to chime in here? Hitchens was all over the place on morality and personal consistency, but I somehow doubt he was a typical atheist.

Atheists follow whatever moral code they fucking want, just like religious people do when they mix and match bible verses they decide for follow. How the hell is that hard to understand? Atheism doesn't have any tenets or teachings, so there can't be a moral code that all atheists follow.

Bakustra, I will contend that the sort of confrontational atheism that Hitchens was known for is more constructive than silent atheism. Theists ALREADY view atheists negatively. They always have. Not all of them, of course, but the existence of non-believers is a threat to theism. Just reminding Christians that atheists exist will cause someone, somewhere, some offense! You can't put up a billboard saying "Don't Believe In God? You're not alone." - a very unthreatening message other than to say 'atheists exist' - without people protesting about it, complaining about it, and there being news stories about how people are TERRIBLY UPSET over the poster.

The more vocal and confrontational atheists are, the more acceptable atheism will be seen by more moderate religious people. Homosexuals didn't earn acceptance through quietly going unnoticed. They earned what they have now through forcing people to deal with it, by saying "I'm gay, fucking deal with it". Likewise, black people in the US didn't earn the freedoms they have through silence. And atheists will have to put up with being treated with disdain by the religious and having religiously motivated laws passed unless they stand up and say "Your religion is fucking retarded and I reject it".

And frankly it works fine in my experience. Allow me to anecdote for a second - and yes, I know anecdotes aren't evidence for shit, I'm just sharing one - I've had more luck getting people to accept my atheism by arguing religion with them, than I have by just saying "I don't believe that". I dislike religion, I want it gone, but I don't dislike religious people, and that's a distinction that most people I've spoken with seem to be okay with.

Hitchens took it a little further than even I'm comfortable with, by considering theists the "enemy". That's a bit too extreme for me.

Do you really think Atheists believe in nothing you can refer to? What can you refer to?

I think Destructionator was just quoting theists. I've seen many theists use that exact line, that they can't trust or identify with atheists, because atheists don't believe in anything and thus have no religious moral grounding. Nonsense like that.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

If reducing the number of theists is the only way to reduce distrust and mistreatment of atheists, then whatever convinces theists to change their minds helps the cause, since the alternative is religiously based genocide, which besides being immoral, is hardly a practical proposition when you are the hated minority. I think Hitchens may not have been the best public voice: yelling at religious people, lumping them all into one group of simpleminded fools, and holding questionable political beliefs, is probably not the best way to convince theists that they're wrong. I'm glad he took such a public stance and was so relentless in his criticism of religion, but I think the public would have been better served if someone more like Daniel Dennett was as prominent a figure in defense of atheism. People gravitate towards Hitchens and Dawkins because they make a spectacle, but Dennett does a better job of getting across the philosophical problems with particular religious views without seeming unnecessarily condescending. He also emphasizes the moral foundations for a happy life that exist independently of religion, which Dawkins seems weak at doing. Most people, though, don't seem as interested in taking the time to look at things in a more reasoned and sedate way.

[Bakustra]

SilverWingSeraph, I'm not advocating silence, but to me it's like the difference between Gay Pride and Gay Supremacy- except that nobody has ever advocated anything like that within the gay rights movement and yet Hitchens did essentially argue for what was essentially Atheist Supremacy. Speaking up and saying that atheists are people too, your neighbor could be one, and they can be happy and moral people, is worlds away from saying that the goal of any atheist should be to eliminate religion altogether.

[Grumman]

So why are you defending Hitchen's portrayal of atheism, through the "New Atheism" he popularized, as being necessarily antitheist, Grumman? Oh, I guess it's because you're a coward who'll say things like "mistrust of atheists can only come from the religious", and "if you reduce the number of religious, you reduce the mistrust of atheists" but isn't willing to cop to the conclusions of that (namely, that atheism as you present it is an existential threat to the religious by trying to force their conversion to atheism).

That makes "New Atheism" an existential threat to religion, not the religious. And as I've already said, the method by which Hitchens is trying to "force" their conversion to atheism is to make them think about their beliefs.

To make them think about whether vicarious redemption - to be forced to celebrate human sacrifice or suffer eternal torment - is truly moral.

To make them think about whether cutting off part of a young child's genitals for no other reason than tradition is okay, as long as it's a boy.

To make them think about whether might makes right, and whether the almighty would truly be beyond moral reproach.

[Bakustra]

Why should the goal of atheists be to convert everybody to atheism?

[UnderAGreySky]

For those who don't know it, I'm from India. Back home, when I first heard of Hitchen's opinions on Mother Teresa, I was quite outraged. There, she is a national treasure, and much deified by even non-Christians. I couldn't believe the slander I was reading and the muddying of her reputation et al.

But I did read it. And I thought about it. And thought a bit more.

It took a while, but I conceded that he had a point, and that I might be looking at things through a nationalist and rose-tinted lens.

I think this was about the time my mind really opened up.

So yes, he contributed a bit to it (though not to my atheism, I can blame my dad's side of the family for that!) and so I'm thankful for his words.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Bakustra's question gets close to the heart of the matter. When atheists either believe or seem to act like they believe that eliminating religion is a terminal value, then they are seen (rightly or wrongly insofar as the perception is accurate) as dangerous fanatics. If that is what they really believe, then they are dangerous fanatics. In any case, atheism isn't a belief system. It is a single position on a single question; everything else must be determined separately.

How many people do you know whose religion is theism? Not a theistic religion, but theism itself, with all their values determined by that belief? I'm willing to bet minor body parts that the answer is none. People aren't just theists, they're Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, whatever. Specific books from specific cultures generated a number of distinct, complete worldviews that happen to share the starting assumption that God exists and created everything. Beyond that they are free to diverge, and they have. And even then, their actual interpretation of those teachings is largely due to historical circumstance, and what school of thought they happened to be born into.

The same with atheism. Atheists can be humanists, transhumanists, objectivists, nihilists, and dozens of other things. Many of those views are mutually exclusive and radically opposed to each other, but they're all atheistic. Some are obviously better grounded than others and work as moral systems, while some are just loony. Being an atheist doesn't make you scientifically literate and philosophically coherent anymore than being a socially challenged nerd makes you a genius. It happens that most atheists come to the conclusion because it is the best available conclusion from the available evidence if one does reason based on logic and scientific evidence. You still have to construct the rest of morality yourself, aside from the conclusion that there is no God.

That said, most of us are some shade of humanist. We want people to be free to follow their consciences without undue interference, to live their lives with freedom to do whatever makes them happy without unnecessary punishment. We want scientific progress to deliver new information and provide better technology that allows for more material prosperity and security. We want people to be happy, and to be treated fairly. Insofar as religious teachings and institutions work against those goals, and they do, then we oppose religion. But exterminating religion should never be an end in itself, or we will seem as empty as the theists claim that we are.

[Flagg]

Why should the goal of atheists be to convert everybody to atheism?

Shouldn't Atheism be the "default setting", though? I mean everything works without god, so why need god? I don't have a problem with people believing in religion but I also happen to think Atheism is the correct outlook. And it also helps that there's nothing about Atheism that tells people to go kill non-Atheists or that non-Atheists are bad people who deserve to suffer for eternity.

[Bakustra]

Why should the goal of atheists be to convert everybody to atheism?

Shouldn't Atheism be the "default setting", though? I mean everything works without god, so why need god? I don't have a problem with people believing in religion but I also happen to think Atheism is the correct outlook. And it also helps that there's nothing about Atheism that tells people to go kill non-Atheists or that non-Atheists are bad people who deserve to suffer for eternity.

There's nothing about theism that says that either, though. Individual atheistic philosophies (Maoism, Objectivism) can easily produce justifications for inflicting violence and suffering, just as individual theistic philosophies/religions can do so. And I'm not talking about individual justifications for atheism, which are perfectly OK.

[Spice Runner]

For those who don't know it, I'm from India. Back home, when I first heard of Hitchen's opinions on Mother Teresa, I was quite outraged. There, she is a national treasure, and much deified by even non-Christians. I couldn't believe the slander I was reading and the muddying of her reputation et al.

But I did read it. And I thought about it. And thought a bit more.

It took a while, but I conceded that he had a point, and that I might be looking at things through a nationalist and rose-tinted lens.

I think this was about the time my mind really opened up.

So yes, he contributed a bit to it (though not to my atheism, I can blame my dad's side of the family for that!) and so I'm thankful for his words.

Same here. Being from India, I've heard the same praise heaped upon MT. That article by Hitchens as well as further research was a real eye opener.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Back to the original topic, there are three things I love about Christopher Hitchens: his criticism of Mother Theresa, his willingness to be waterboarded and change his mind about the torture issue, and his closing comments on Jerry Falwell's death. It was cruel, but too accurate and too funny to be forgotten. Otherwise, I think he was a dangerous lose cannon.

[NoXion]

There's nothing about theism that says that either, though. Individual atheistic philosophies (Maoism, Objectivism) can easily produce justifications for inflicting violence and suffering, just as individual theistic philosophies/religions can do so. And I'm not talking about individual justifications for atheism, which are perfectly OK.

The difference as I see it is that atheist (or more accurately, non-supernatural) philosophies/ideologies cannot plausibly claim cosmic/divine sanction, and I think this makes an important difference. It's one thing to oppose a human tyrant, but it's quite another to pit yourself against an invisible dictator who sees everything, and whom most people have been brought up to believe in.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

But nontheistic beliefs can claim the sanction of logic, whether properly or no. The cold hard universe does not care for us, we must do whatever is necessary to survive. This unpalatable thing me must choose is forced on us by necessity. That sort of thinking can be correct or not; historically usually not, and unnecessary atrocities can be committed without requiring divine sanction.

[NoXion]

But nontheistic beliefs can claim the sanction of logic, whether properly or no.

They can claim sanction from logic, but an examination of the logic used as well as its premises can independently determine whether that claim is cobblers or not.

The cold hard universe does not care for us, we must do whatever is necessary to survive. This unpalatable thing me must choose is forced on us by necessity. That sort of thinking can be correct or not; historically usually not, and unnecessary atrocities can be committed without requiring divine sanction.

Sure they can, but it's harder to excuse after the fact, and I think that counts for something important.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Actually, you are right there that that is one of the benefits of relinquishing divine sanction: you can improve because you never claimed to be perfect, only to have made the best choice with the knowledge at the time. Religions cannot admit to any actual error, because that undermines the entire basis for their existence, so ugly coverup attempts or tortured processes of apologetics or reinterpretation are required, to sugar coat the poison for the next generation.

[weemadando]

I'll not have this thread turned into a flamewar.

Isn't that what he would have wanted?

[Count Chocula]

This has turned into a somwhat productive discussion, not a flamewar. Have you missed the last two pages?

Anyway, back to Chris Hitchens: he strikes me as a Hunter S. Thompson wannabe. However, Thompson was consistent in his hedonism, alcoholism and drug use. The man was smart and crazy and consistent. Hitchens was NOT consistent, with the exception of his hatred of organized religion. The man lurched from topic to topic like a drunk bouncing off lampposts and walls as he made his way back home down a sidewalk at 3AM. Torture BAD; kill all Muslims GOOD. Religion BAD; kill the religious GOOD. Sobriety BAD because all people suck; inebriation GOOD because then I can deal with the troglodytes that surround me.

Shit, the more I read about Hitchens the more contempt I have for him.

[Bakustra]

This has turned into a somwhat productive discussion, not a flamewar. Have you missed the last two pages?

Anyway, back to Chris Hitchens: he strikes me as a Hunter S. Thompson wannabe. However, Thompson was consistent in his hedonism, alcoholism and drug use. The man was smart and crazy and consistent. Hitchens was NOT consistent, with the exception of his hatred of organized religion. The man lurched from topic to topic like a drunk bouncing off lampposts and walls as he made his way back home down a sidewalk at 3AM. Torture BAD; kill all Muslims GOOD. Religion BAD; kill the religious GOOD. Sobriety BAD because all people suck; inebriation GOOD because then I can deal with the troglodytes that surround me.

Shit, the more I read about Hitchens the more contempt I have for him.

This is childishness.

By the way, I asked you a question. What part of the Golden Rule requires belief in a god?