Atheist trashes Hitchens.

[Brian37]

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christop...singleton/

Now this is where the critic lost me, QUOTE ARTICLE "At one point he calls the story of Abraham and Isaac “mad and gloomy,” a “frightful” and “vile” “delusion,” but sees no reason to mention Kierkegaard’s complex, poetic, and deeply felt philosophical retelling of the story in “Fear and Trembling”. In this way, Hitchens is often as much a textual literalist as the fundamentalists he criticizes."

Typical tactic of the politically correct atheist. They point to the "rich history" and "beauty" in the words and the "poetry" of it all. Hichtens did not lie about a fucking thing about any religion. If alive today he'd argue "so what" pretty does not mean good. It is like pointing at the volcano when it isn't active and sticking your head in the sand and pretending it is not dangerous. That is what this author is doing. And as far as Hitchens being a literalist, no, he reads it through the minds of literalists because there are people who use holy books as weapons. This author is the deluded one. Hitchens wasn't ignoring anything or leaving anything out. His focus was on the dark side of religion, this author is the one chosing to ignore reality, not Hitchens. A pretty hand grip on a handgun does not make it safe or good.

[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

[Brian37]

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.

[Brian37]

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]

Read the article, not impressed, especially with this tidbit about :

No Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode either, even in passing. . . . All the Mosaic myths can be safely and easily discarded.” These narratives can be “easily discarded” by Hitchens only because he has failed to do even a superficial survey of the evidence in favor of the historicity of the biblical traditions. Might we suggest that Hitchens begin with Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai? It should be noted that Hoffmeier’s books were not published by some small evangelical theological press but by Oxford University—hardly a bastion of regressive fundamentalist apologetics. Hitchens’s claim that “no Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode [of Moses and the Israelites] either, even in passing” is simply polemical balderdash.

Sorry Curtis White, but Hitchens was right on that issue. Finkelstein and Silberman , archeologists who spent more than 30 years in the Sinai desert comes to the same conclusion: not one single evidence was ever uncovered about the EXODUS.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPjrZWXca68