Atheist trashes Hitchens.

[Brian37]

...I see no reason to boycott salon because an atheist doesn't like hitchens.

Agreed. It seems like a knee-jerk, emotional reaction. I certainly think the discussion would be better served by people making reasoned rebuttals of the article rather than trying to shut salon.com up.

---

Hmmm...I think he makes valid points.

I have to side against Curtis White, here.

Simply the title got my ears pricking as Hitchens' track record is one of shameless and brutal intellectual honesty & opposition to dishonesty; I've not come across a case where he's been intentionally dishonest but I have come across cases when he's been unintentionally dishonest (i.e. misinformed) and he's publicly retracted his statements and corrected his position. This track record gives me confidence in Hitchens' analyses although I recognise that he was as prone to error as any human being (well, maybe not any but you get my point).

So does the article provide evidence to the contrary? No.

- Appeals to emotion? Check.
- Bold assertions? Check.
- False Equivocation? Check.
- Misrepresentations of Hitchens arguments? Check.
- Misrepresentations of facts? Check.
- Appeals to authority? Check.
- Failiure to address the argument? Check.
- Evidence in support of the article's premise? No.

If the article is representative of the entire book, I don't think I'll buy it. Further, I'd suggest that it's a poor attempt at making money, at the expense of the reputation of someone who isn't around to defend themselves.

I'd have to agree. Most of the so called "liberal" media is on the right side of history when it comes to minority rights and woman's rights and gay marriage. And to say no one should criticize Hitchins, is absurd. No one should treat what he wrote as "gospel". He'd be the first to say "bring it on".

I got upset not because someone attacked him. I got upset because it is flat out wrong.

Again, this author's long winded wordy argument once you peal back the elaborate tripe, is blatantly stupid, "Hitchens isn't taking into account the rich history of religion". That is the sum of the writer's argument. "Its got pretty motifs in it so what's all the fuss".

It is as stupid as pretending a dormant volcano never erupted and will never erupt again. "Look at all the pretty nature that lives on that volcano".

Hitchens simply cut through the crap and rightfully pointed out that religion is a weapon and should be treated as such. But even before he wrote "God Is Not Great", other skeptics and atheists, and even our founders were warning of the dangers of pulpit politics.

We are not talking about a book review of a work of fiction here. We are talking about humans who take superstition as fact and base politics and war on those superstitions.