Atheist trashes Hitchens.

[Jackie]

[Ben Davis]

Sam Harris is trying to organise a boycott of salon.com as a result. Facebook already abounds with boycotters.

[Psykhronic]

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.

[Faith No More]

Hmmm...I think he makes valid points.

[Psykhronic]

Yes, after a more thorough read I'd have to agree FNM. I didn't want to speak too soon, afraid I may have missed some stupid shit while scanning

[Jackie]

Hmmm...I think he makes valid points.

What valid points? That was a bunch of appeal to metaphor. That was a piece of shit article that mimics that of a theist "It's pretty and gives people meaning".

So? We are not talking about people mistaking the drama of Oedipus as being factual. We are not talking about people claiming the pretty motifs in Harry Potter make Harry Potter real.

We are talking about REAL LIFE. And in real life people, throughout our evolution have concocted all sorts of poisonous placebos and sold them falsely as fact to become political weapons used to divide humanity. The writers argument is the same as pc theists liberals, "What's your problem, there are pretty things in it and it makes them feel good".

Lots of things that can make you feel good are not good for you.

When girls and women are sold into gender roles worldwide, and when Christians, Muslims and Jews are constantly at each other's throats, I think someone does need to step in and say "BULLSHIT".

[Faith No More]

Nice rant, but perhaps you should address the problems the article cites instead of the ones in your head.

[Jackie]

Nice rant, but perhaps you should address the problems the article cites instead of the ones in your head.

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.

[Ben Davis]

...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.

[little_monkey]