Just today I got into it with some asshole over Christopher Hitchens. It is true many atheists saw him as a mean drunk simply writing shit to piss people off for no good reason. But regardless of if you like him or not, please tell me how his sexuality has anything to do with him being right or wrong or the tatics he used? Because that is precisely what this fuckwad did. "Notorious cocksucker" was this idiot's words. And it wasn't simply an ad homin, this guy really thinks Hitchens sex life had to do with his political and religious views. This moron implied that a man "taking it up the poop shoot" meant that he was wrong on everything he claimed. Despite the fact that I pointed out that heterosexuals partake in anal sex as well. Despite the fact that STDs can be spread in heterosexuals as well. Now this moron may have been an atheist, but he certainly had an unhealthy and ignorant view of human evolution and human sexuality rivaling the puritanical views of believers.
The other issue I take with him, and critics of Hitchens is their wrongheaded view that he was being mean and hateful for no good reason. Did Hitchens get everything right? No human ever does. Did he have flaws, I'd say that was obvious. But on the issue of calling religion "poison" and describing the God of Abraham as the leader of "A celestial North Korea" as Hitchens put it, is dead right. Why do I agree with Hitchens on this?
If religion IN OUR ENTIRE SPECIES HISTORY, was the cure all for human problems we would have peace by now. It seems to have the opposite affect though. In evolution there is an explanation for this. Religion reflects our evolutionary grouping. Unfortunately all it is our ignorance of the nature of why we group. It sets up an in group vs out group dynamic. Now mind you, on this aspect I am talking about ALL OF EVOLUTION in our species existence.
But Hitchens most hailed and criticized book at the same time "God Is Not Great" he is specifically talking about the God of Abraham, and by proxy would include the big three. Now of course believers of all three think of their god as good. But the contradiction in such a claim is that he is good to who? Club members only. And even if we default to him being "good" for argument's sake, you still cannot remove him from his position. There is a word for people whom you cannot remove from their position. A fixed position and an unchangeable position is the very definition of a "dictator". That is not a concept or word Hitchens or I came up with. It is merely the observation he made and I agree with.
So even with humans that this God favors, he still has final say over them. In the concept of this light as a literary character, that puts humans in the position of being property. Often the "free will" argument is made to dodge this. But in reality, say like a boyfriend girlfriend relationship, we cannot give the other the same "choice" this God character does with "free will". "You can go if you want, but if you do, I will follow you, drag you back and force you to submit, or I will murder you". That is consistent with Ill and North Korea and how they treat their population. Hitchens and I both know that is an ugly view of this claimed god, we accept that and we know people don't like hearing it. But there is a reason we point it out. Because both he and I know, that this claimed leader, was written at a time of kings and back then the King, no matter how kind the population wanted their king to be(both in polytheism and monotheism) that king always had final say EVEN if you liked him. Thus God can only be as a character a reflection of the social norms of antiquity and does not match our civility today in reality where we can question our leaders and they cannot abuse us and they need our consent to have power.
So, when faced with the uncomfortable reality the likes of Hitchens and Mahar and me for that matter. We get called hateful. I am tired of trying to deny that for PC purposes. YES, tell me why I shouldn't "hate" concepts that put people in the status of not having any say in who their leader is? Tell us why we shouldn't hate concepts that divide people. Tell us why we should not hate concepts that consistently promote racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry? Tell us why we should not hate concepts that condemn science and reason and rely on antiquity and myth? Yes I hate religion, not as a human right, but the idea that it is fixed and should never be questioned.
It has always taken the skeptics and the blasphemers to be the cold water on humanity's face to get them to rethink how they view the world. "Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson. Yes we do hate old thinking and stale thinking when better tools replace the old ways. We hate what we see as clinging to an outdated past when we know how capable humans can be to improve in the future. So when you accuse me of hate, in what context? Do not ask me to feel guilty for pointing out bad logic and bad morals written by people in antiquity I had no hand in writing. It would be like getting angry at me for saying the sun is not a god, which Egyptians once falsely believed to be true.
The other issue I take with him, and critics of Hitchens is their wrongheaded view that he was being mean and hateful for no good reason. Did Hitchens get everything right? No human ever does. Did he have flaws, I'd say that was obvious. But on the issue of calling religion "poison" and describing the God of Abraham as the leader of "A celestial North Korea" as Hitchens put it, is dead right. Why do I agree with Hitchens on this?
If religion IN OUR ENTIRE SPECIES HISTORY, was the cure all for human problems we would have peace by now. It seems to have the opposite affect though. In evolution there is an explanation for this. Religion reflects our evolutionary grouping. Unfortunately all it is our ignorance of the nature of why we group. It sets up an in group vs out group dynamic. Now mind you, on this aspect I am talking about ALL OF EVOLUTION in our species existence.
But Hitchens most hailed and criticized book at the same time "God Is Not Great" he is specifically talking about the God of Abraham, and by proxy would include the big three. Now of course believers of all three think of their god as good. But the contradiction in such a claim is that he is good to who? Club members only. And even if we default to him being "good" for argument's sake, you still cannot remove him from his position. There is a word for people whom you cannot remove from their position. A fixed position and an unchangeable position is the very definition of a "dictator". That is not a concept or word Hitchens or I came up with. It is merely the observation he made and I agree with.
So even with humans that this God favors, he still has final say over them. In the concept of this light as a literary character, that puts humans in the position of being property. Often the "free will" argument is made to dodge this. But in reality, say like a boyfriend girlfriend relationship, we cannot give the other the same "choice" this God character does with "free will". "You can go if you want, but if you do, I will follow you, drag you back and force you to submit, or I will murder you". That is consistent with Ill and North Korea and how they treat their population. Hitchens and I both know that is an ugly view of this claimed god, we accept that and we know people don't like hearing it. But there is a reason we point it out. Because both he and I know, that this claimed leader, was written at a time of kings and back then the King, no matter how kind the population wanted their king to be(both in polytheism and monotheism) that king always had final say EVEN if you liked him. Thus God can only be as a character a reflection of the social norms of antiquity and does not match our civility today in reality where we can question our leaders and they cannot abuse us and they need our consent to have power.
So, when faced with the uncomfortable reality the likes of Hitchens and Mahar and me for that matter. We get called hateful. I am tired of trying to deny that for PC purposes. YES, tell me why I shouldn't "hate" concepts that put people in the status of not having any say in who their leader is? Tell us why we shouldn't hate concepts that divide people. Tell us why we should not hate concepts that consistently promote racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry? Tell us why we should not hate concepts that condemn science and reason and rely on antiquity and myth? Yes I hate religion, not as a human right, but the idea that it is fixed and should never be questioned.
It has always taken the skeptics and the blasphemers to be the cold water on humanity's face to get them to rethink how they view the world. "Question with boldness even the existence of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson. Yes we do hate old thinking and stale thinking when better tools replace the old ways. We hate what we see as clinging to an outdated past when we know how capable humans can be to improve in the future. So when you accuse me of hate, in what context? Do not ask me to feel guilty for pointing out bad logic and bad morals written by people in antiquity I had no hand in writing. It would be like getting angry at me for saying the sun is not a god, which Egyptians once falsely believed to be true.
