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.

[Faith No More]

---

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.

---

Don't get me wrong. I think this is a shameless smear campaign brought about posthumously to avoid having to defend himself against Hitchens. But there are a couple of things I believe he gets right.

Firstly, there is the fact that the "new atheists" seem only to be concerned with fundamentalist interpretations of religion. Secondly, Hitchens does kind of gloss over Buddhism, which comes across as an attempt to broadly paint large group with the same bunch. Thirdly, Hitchens claims religious people make assertions without supporting them, but then claims we should all use reason without supporting it.

I do think, however, that the author's derogatory tone is akin to a coward suddenly acting tough when his friends appear. I doubt this guy would be so ballsy and brazen if he had to answer to Hitchens himself.

---

---

When one has the use of telescopes it is absurd and dangerous to use the fantasy of Kaleidoscopes.

It is certainly understandable when we didn't know better. But it is beyond laughable when we do, and down right deadly.

This is merely a well intended atheist who like most humans wants us to "get along". Where they go wrong is where you just did. You assume that blasphemy and being offensive is how to avoid conflict. I am glad , for example someone bothered to "offend" the likes of slave owners. I am glad someone bothered to "offend" the likes of sexist assholes who didn't want women to vote.

This moron who wrote this article is, without knowing it, handing the keys to the very oppression they say they don't want.

---

Whenever I read your posts, I get the image of an old, senile man standing face first in the corner of a room screaming at something that no one else can see.

[thesummerqueen]

Rather long article - i read the beginning and scanned the rest. I'm not sure how valid his criticisms are, but I see no reason to boycott salon because an atheist doesn't like hitchens.

Both Salon and Slate deserve boycotting for allowing shitty opinion writers to come in and spew their barely literate and whinging bullshit onto the internet in order to generate site pageviews.

The articles that have come across my G+ feed are disappointing at best and not what I had come to expect from either.

[Brian37]

---

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.

---

Don't get me wrong. I think this is a shameless smear campaign brought about posthumously to avoid having to defend himself against Hitchens. But there are a couple of things I believe he gets right.

Firstly, there is the fact that the "new atheists" seem only to be concerned with fundamentalist interpretations of religion. Secondly, Hitchens does kind of gloss over Buddhism, which comes across as an attempt to broadly paint large group with the same bunch. Thirdly, Hitchens claims religious people make assertions without supporting them, but then claims we should all use reason without supporting it.

I do think, however, that the author's derogatory tone is akin to a coward suddenly acting tough when his friends appear. I doubt this guy would be so ballsy and brazen if he had to answer to Hitchens himself.

---

---

When one has the use of telescopes it is absurd and dangerous to use the fantasy of Kaleidoscopes.

It is certainly understandable when we didn't know better. But it is beyond laughable when we do, and down right deadly.

This is merely a well intended atheist who like most humans wants us to "get along". Where they go wrong is where you just did. You assume that blasphemy and being offensive is how to avoid conflict. I am glad , for example someone bothered to "offend" the likes of slave owners. I am glad someone bothered to "offend" the likes of sexist assholes who didn't want women to vote.

This moron who wrote this article is, without knowing it, handing the keys to the very oppression they say they don't want.

---

Whenever I read your posts, I get the image of an old, senile man standing face first in the corner of a room screaming at something that no one else can see.

Where does he "gloss over Buddhism"? I think that is bullshit to claim that he would say they all fall in the same camp, Buddhism also has different sects, and different traditions, it does spread over both communist countries and westernized countries.

I have myself said about Buddhism it is not a religion of peace, no religion is long term, push any group of people too far and they will get violent, and it also has its own tribalism and different incantations and prayers and traditions depending on what sect you are observing.

It would not surprise me at all if Hitchens was generalizing to make the point just like he would Christianity. Both Catholics and Baptists worship the same characters. Buddhism doesn't have to agree either in it's different sects to know the same central figure is the guiding principle regardless of the different stripes. And like Jews and other cultures you also have people who like the rituals but call themselves "secular". It would be stupid to assume Hitchens was not aware of that.

[Ben Davis]

Don't get me wrong. I think this is a shameless smear campaign brought about posthumously to avoid having to defend himself against Hitchens. But there are a couple of things I believe he gets right.

Firstly, there is the fact that the "new atheists" seem only to be concerned with fundamentalist interpretations of religion.

Not a fact. Many arguments are targeted at fundamentalist interpretations because the causes of much of the harm are the fundamental tenets of those religions. But it's not just the fundamentals/ists which are criticised: many arguments are aimed at religious 'moderates'. It's always worth reminding ourselves that many religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) were always meant to be interpreted fundamentally and that modern, 'moderate' views have been, in the main, forced upon religious interpretation by those who opposed the fundamentals.

Secondly, Hitchens does kind of gloss over Buddhism, which comes across as an attempt to broadly paint large group with the same bunch.

I've heard Hitchens refer to a variety of types of Buddhism and clearly differentiate between philosophical & religious interpretations. He often used Buddhists as an example of the variety of beliefs in 'atheism' when countering atheist stereotypes. His main point regarding Buddhism has always been that even religions which seem peaceful can cause harm when fundamentalist interpretations are applied. There's no reference to that in the article, just a misrepresentation of his views on Buddhism.

Thirdly, Hitchens claims religious people make assertions without supporting them, but then claims we should all use reason without supporting it.

This is just a nonsense statement, an unsupported bold assertion from Curtis which can be easily rebutted. Hitchens has always championed the need for support for one's arguments, for the use of evidence, for arming oneself with knowledge & information, for studying & critiquing one's own position. He's been explicit in saying so on many occasions. One of his most famous quotes is "That which can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence". It's one of the reasons why he developed such powerful arguments and why he was such a remarkable, successful journalist, author & contrarian.