Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great
by Kevin McCullough, Townhall.com
Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=why_christopher_hitchens_is_not_great&ns=KevinMcCullough&dt=05/06/2007&page=2
The Marxist views of Christopher Hitchens have long been evident. His simple, logical support for a strong response to 9/11 had earned him as bestowed by his fellow leftists the label "necon" which he steadfastly refutes. In reality Christopher Hitchens is an angry man whose anger - while many times is justifiable - is also misplaced. The promotional tour he has embarked upon in the marketing of his newest book Why God Is Not Great demonstrates it.
When asked why he begrudged people the right to seek comfort in the thought of the Almighty he responded:
"Well, I say in the book... Absolutely fine by me if you want to believe this stuff, if you want to believe that a holy person is someone who avoids the birth canal in both directions for example. If your prophet, like every other prophet that's ever been recorded in history, had a virgin for a mother, why they think it would prove the truth of the doctrines is beyond me, but let them believe it - it's fine... as long as they leave me alone!"
He went on to support the idea that religion does oppress people because:
"They do not (leave me alone)! They want to ban the distribution of condoms in Africa. They say, 'AIDS is bad, but not as bad as condoms are.' Billions of people die on this proposition. They say they don't want me to benefit from stem cell research when I get sick... If they are Muslims they say that if I don't respect their prophet then I'm in physical danger. The parties of god are as we speak, everyday, ruining, destroying, laying waste to Iraqi society, something we can't be exactly indifferent to. A cartoonist in Denmark is not allowed to practice his trade for fear of murder or worse. And we're fed up with this... So no, they can not keep this wonderful belief as to themselves!"
His third major pillar of criticism was then leveled:
"They believe that they have a destiny in paradise, if they just observe a few stupid rules. They have a God who loves them and cares for them. Well if you believed a thing like that wouldn't you be really happy? What could hurt you? And this shows the stupidity and insecurity of the belief."
Hitchens also readily admits that he is not a scientist and that the argument of his book is to be understood from the "every man" perspective.
Even a cursory examination of Hitchens' thinking on the matter points out some needed observations. To begin with Hitchens' argument is flawed from its origin. His view that all world religions can and should be clumped into one pile of philosophical material is dishonest. As such it is illegitimate to argue against the validity of Islam and the claims of Christianity simultaneously. The distinctions that divide such belief systems are not incidental to the matter, but essential.
Hitchens blatantly misleads when he claims the "virgin birth" prophecy of the Old Testament is a wide spread historical claim of many religions. It is not, not in its most essential understanding.
But he moves beyond being wrong on substance, specifically in his claims against Christianity, to being wrong on methodologies. And again, context means everything. Evangelicals don't measure the issue of AIDS in Africa and do comparative analysis between which is worse - sexual behavior or sexual disease. Evangelicals make the argument that the sexual behavior leads to the sexual disease and that in educating people on the realities of the actual actions - lives can be saved. If education is the key, teaching someone that using a condom "may" protect them from a deadly disease is far less helpful than teaching them that a certain action will "always" protect them from it. And to assert that Africans are so animal-like in their ability to control themselves that they are incapable of making such choice is racist and violates the most fundamental of humanist's beliefs
Christians do not make their case simply on the idea that, "God says condoms are evil." Rather the long view of God shows that He created us, and in doing so gave us guidance on the absolute best way to go about life.
On stem cell research he again makes an elemental straw-man comparison. The majority of Christians on the planet today support the overwhelming majority of stem cell research. The single form of research many object to is embryonic stem cells in which the life of a child is taken for no more of a reason than to experiment upon it. In addition the revelation that placenta cells are more plentiful, more concentrated, and always come from the birth of a child, should finally put his ill-conceived straw man to bed.
Hitchens does the most disservice to his readers and listeners when he attempts to equivocate Christianity to Islam. No where in Christianity does the doctrine, text, or deity call for the cutting off the heads of those who simply disagree. No where does the biblical text instruct Christians to wage jihad for minor doctrinal differences. Jesus himself forgave the adulterer and told her accusers to only punish her if they themselves were innocent.
In Hitchens' last flailing attempt to level criticism he asserts the keeping of rules is the ticket to paradise, and such rules are stupid and insecure. Never mind the fact that someone with Hitchens' intimidating intellect wasn't even honest enough in the construct of his argument to note that Christianity is in fact NOT a religion of rules. Rather the message of Christ's death and resurrection was simple, "you're not capable of keeping rules." Hence the sacrifice Jesus Christ went through - to use a biblical word - atoned for our sins. He paid the price we owed.
Hitchens has a soul that is angry. He sees the evil of 9/11 and has no capacity to explain it. His own indulgence resists the moral guidance God has left for him. He has saturated his mind with the far less believable claims of Marx, Darwin, and Einstein. Yet even he has not escaped the moral outrage that God put within him at the site of Islamic terrorism, the sweeping pandemic of AIDS in Africa, and the hypocrisy of "religious" leaders who still fall short of God's standards.
Hitchens' contempt is real, it is justified, and for the most part it stems from one source - though that source is not God, the Creator, but rather the sin of man's heart. In experiencing this contempt he even projects it upon others. By claiming that people are not made "happy" by the "God who loves them," Hitchens perpetrates one more falsehood. Christians are happy, filled with joy, secure in their purpose and direction. They are "enthusiastic." Which is a very accurate depiction of Christianity. The word's Greek origin meant literally "the God who dwells within." Christians today refer to Him as "the Holy Spirit."
At night when Christopher Hitchens lays his head on his pillow, there is a truth that washes over him that he can not escape. None of us can. And it is good for us to recognize it...
"There is a God, and I'm not him!"
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is now available. Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.
Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Reposted from:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=why_christopher_hitchens_is_not_great&ns=KevinMcCullough&dt=05/06/2007&page=2
The Marxist views of Christopher Hitchens have long been evident. His simple, logical support for a strong response to 9/11 had earned him as bestowed by his fellow leftists the label "necon" which he steadfastly refutes. In reality Christopher Hitchens is an angry man whose anger - while many times is justifiable - is also misplaced. The promotional tour he has embarked upon in the marketing of his newest book Why God Is Not Great demonstrates it.
When asked why he begrudged people the right to seek comfort in the thought of the Almighty he responded:
"Well, I say in the book... Absolutely fine by me if you want to believe this stuff, if you want to believe that a holy person is someone who avoids the birth canal in both directions for example. If your prophet, like every other prophet that's ever been recorded in history, had a virgin for a mother, why they think it would prove the truth of the doctrines is beyond me, but let them believe it - it's fine... as long as they leave me alone!"
He went on to support the idea that religion does oppress people because:
"They do not (leave me alone)! They want to ban the distribution of condoms in Africa. They say, 'AIDS is bad, but not as bad as condoms are.' Billions of people die on this proposition. They say they don't want me to benefit from stem cell research when I get sick... If they are Muslims they say that if I don't respect their prophet then I'm in physical danger. The parties of god are as we speak, everyday, ruining, destroying, laying waste to Iraqi society, something we can't be exactly indifferent to. A cartoonist in Denmark is not allowed to practice his trade for fear of murder or worse. And we're fed up with this... So no, they can not keep this wonderful belief as to themselves!"
His third major pillar of criticism was then leveled:
"They believe that they have a destiny in paradise, if they just observe a few stupid rules. They have a God who loves them and cares for them. Well if you believed a thing like that wouldn't you be really happy? What could hurt you? And this shows the stupidity and insecurity of the belief."
Hitchens also readily admits that he is not a scientist and that the argument of his book is to be understood from the "every man" perspective.
Even a cursory examination of Hitchens' thinking on the matter points out some needed observations. To begin with Hitchens' argument is flawed from its origin. His view that all world religions can and should be clumped into one pile of philosophical material is dishonest. As such it is illegitimate to argue against the validity of Islam and the claims of Christianity simultaneously. The distinctions that divide such belief systems are not incidental to the matter, but essential.
Hitchens blatantly misleads when he claims the "virgin birth" prophecy of the Old Testament is a wide spread historical claim of many religions. It is not, not in its most essential understanding.
But he moves beyond being wrong on substance, specifically in his claims against Christianity, to being wrong on methodologies. And again, context means everything. Evangelicals don't measure the issue of AIDS in Africa and do comparative analysis between which is worse - sexual behavior or sexual disease. Evangelicals make the argument that the sexual behavior leads to the sexual disease and that in educating people on the realities of the actual actions - lives can be saved. If education is the key, teaching someone that using a condom "may" protect them from a deadly disease is far less helpful than teaching them that a certain action will "always" protect them from it. And to assert that Africans are so animal-like in their ability to control themselves that they are incapable of making such choice is racist and violates the most fundamental of humanist's beliefs
Christians do not make their case simply on the idea that, "God says condoms are evil." Rather the long view of God shows that He created us, and in doing so gave us guidance on the absolute best way to go about life.
On stem cell research he again makes an elemental straw-man comparison. The majority of Christians on the planet today support the overwhelming majority of stem cell research. The single form of research many object to is embryonic stem cells in which the life of a child is taken for no more of a reason than to experiment upon it. In addition the revelation that placenta cells are more plentiful, more concentrated, and always come from the birth of a child, should finally put his ill-conceived straw man to bed.
Hitchens does the most disservice to his readers and listeners when he attempts to equivocate Christianity to Islam. No where in Christianity does the doctrine, text, or deity call for the cutting off the heads of those who simply disagree. No where does the biblical text instruct Christians to wage jihad for minor doctrinal differences. Jesus himself forgave the adulterer and told her accusers to only punish her if they themselves were innocent.
In Hitchens' last flailing attempt to level criticism he asserts the keeping of rules is the ticket to paradise, and such rules are stupid and insecure. Never mind the fact that someone with Hitchens' intimidating intellect wasn't even honest enough in the construct of his argument to note that Christianity is in fact NOT a religion of rules. Rather the message of Christ's death and resurrection was simple, "you're not capable of keeping rules." Hence the sacrifice Jesus Christ went through - to use a biblical word - atoned for our sins. He paid the price we owed.
Hitchens has a soul that is angry. He sees the evil of 9/11 and has no capacity to explain it. His own indulgence resists the moral guidance God has left for him. He has saturated his mind with the far less believable claims of Marx, Darwin, and Einstein. Yet even he has not escaped the moral outrage that God put within him at the site of Islamic terrorism, the sweeping pandemic of AIDS in Africa, and the hypocrisy of "religious" leaders who still fall short of God's standards.
Hitchens' contempt is real, it is justified, and for the most part it stems from one source - though that source is not God, the Creator, but rather the sin of man's heart. In experiencing this contempt he even projects it upon others. By claiming that people are not made "happy" by the "God who loves them," Hitchens perpetrates one more falsehood. Christians are happy, filled with joy, secure in their purpose and direction. They are "enthusiastic." Which is a very accurate depiction of Christianity. The word's Greek origin meant literally "the God who dwells within." Christians today refer to Him as "the Holy Spirit."
At night when Christopher Hitchens lays his head on his pillow, there is a truth that washes over him that he can not escape. None of us can. And it is good for us to recognize it...
"There is a God, and I'm not him!"
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is now available. Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.
Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 76 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #40581 by D'Arcy on May 14, 2007 at 2:35 pm
McCullugh hits the nail on the head when he describes where religious beliefs reside. Talking of the word Christianity he said:The word's Greek origin meant literally "the God who dwells within."
All gods dwell within peoples' imaginations much the same as the orcs, elves, hobbits and dwarfs of the Lord of the Ring do. As with all theists, Mc Cullough can or does not provide any hard evidence for his point of view, relying instead on rubbishing his target. Holy Spirit - my backside, give me a single malt any day!
Other Comments by D'Arcy
3. Comment #40583 by Frostbit on May 14, 2007 at 2:43 pm
"Hitchens blatantly misleads when he claims the "virgin birth" prophecy of the Old Testament is a wide spread historical claim of many religions. It is not, not in its most essential understanding."
Not in it's most essential understanding????? Please tell us of this ESSENTIAL understanding that is so unique to Christianity. The apotheosis of Christ and the form of his birth has been copied at lease six times before him.
"The majority of Christians on the planet today support the overwhelming majority of stem cell research. The single form of research many object to is embryonic stem cells in which the life of a child is taken for no more of a reason than to experiment upon it."
How is a blastosis of a dozen or so cells considered a CHILD.
"No where in Christianity does the doctrine, text, or deity call for the cutting off the heads of those who simply disagree. No where does the biblical text instruct Christians to wage jihad for minor doctrinal differences"
~Deuteronomy 13~If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other),do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death.
Kevin McCullough, your a liar a deceiver and a fool!!!
Other Comments by Frostbit
4. Comment #40585 by Yorker on May 14, 2007 at 2:44 pm
This tripe is not worthy of serious analysis. It is simply another feeble-minded attempt by a frightened, insecure religite to deny the power of rational argument's ability to damage his belief and need for comfort.Other Comments by Yorker
5. Comment #40586 by Fire1974 on May 14, 2007 at 2:45 pm
What a pretentious and poorly coiled pile of s*#t this is!"If education is the key, teaching someone that using a condom "may" protect them from a deadly disease is far less helpful than teaching them that a certain action will "always" protect them from it. And to assert that Africans are so animal-like in their ability to control themselves that they are incapable of making such choice is racist and violates the most fundamental of humanist's beliefs."
"Never mind the fact that someone with Hitchens' intimidating intellect wasn't even honest enough in the construct of his argument to note that Christianity is in fact NOT a religion of rules. Rather the message of Christ's death and resurrection was simple, "you're not capable of keeping rules." Hence the sacrifice Jesus Christ went through - to use a biblical word - atoned for our sins. He paid the price we owed."
Mmmm...I see. Christianity is a religion that acknowledges the incapability of humans to keep the rules, but forgives them for it. Yet (and for far too many), this is only after a tortuous death from AIDS as a result of their innate, uncontrollable and faithfully unprotected sex.
Furthermore, I never read Hitchens proclaim himself more or less sexually restrained than anyone of any particular ethnicity.
"He has saturated his mind with the far less believable claims of Marx, Darwin, and Einstein."
Far less believable as opposed to say, Michael Behe or Ted Haggard?
"At night when Christopher Hitchens lays his head on his pillow, there is a truth that washes over him that he can not escape. None of us can. And it is good for us to recognize it...
"There is a God, and I'm not him!"
As transparently a wishful self-projection as the one applied to his god.
Other Comments by Fire1974
6. Comment #40589 by FXR on May 14, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Christians are happy, filled with joy, secure in their purpose and direction. They are "enthusiastic."
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
George Bernard Shaw
Rather the long view of God shows that He created us, and in doing so gave us guidance on the absolute best way to go about life.
And he apparently gave this guidance in a book that contradicts itself 147 times. So a super being could not achieve the simple task of being unequivocal.
Never mind the fact that someone with Hitchens' intimidating intellect wasn't even honest enough in the construct of his argument to note that Christianity is in fact NOT a religion of rules.
Bye bye ten commandments....
Religion is to reason what rigor mortis is to dancing.
Sir William Robinson,
Dublin
Other Comments by FXR
7. Comment #40590 by bruno_burned on May 14, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Poor Christians - they still don't get that many atheists really do equate ALL religions into one big pile, and toss in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.Yes, Mr. Christian, I see *no difference* between your religion, their religion, their religion, and their religion - regardless of who 'their' is. For me, Bible==Harry Potter (although Potter has a more compelling story and far superior grammar).
Other Comments by bruno_burned
8. Comment #40591 by The Smart Patrol on May 14, 2007 at 2:54 pm
"If education is the key, teaching someone that using a condom "may" protect them from a deadly disease is far less helpful than teaching them that a certain action will "always" protect them from it."That is one of the most disgusting statements that I have read in the last few hours. In one fell swoop, McCullough shows himself to be amongst the most contemptible of the religious apologists. Yes, of course, condoms are not 100% safe, but people will continue to have sex even if the risks of AIDS are spelled out very clearly, and condoms are a necessary part of combating the disease. His pompous fawning over the Evangelicals' stance concerning the proliferation of celibacy over and above contraception, clearly marks this guy out as a total nut-case.
"Hitchens does the most disservice to his readers and listeners when he attempts to equivocate Christianity to Islam. No where in Christianity does the doctrine, text, or deity call for the cutting off the heads of those who simply disagree. No where does the biblical text instruct Christians to wage jihad for minor doctrinal differences. Jesus himself forgave the adulterer and told her accusers to only punish her if they themselves were innocent."
Christianity is every bit as nonsensical as every other religion that has ever been conceived. It doesn't get let off the hook on the grounds that it isn't as nasty as Islam. It's equivocal to Islam in the sense that they're both complete horse-shit.
I've been a lurker around here for a while now, and whilst I'm not even Hitchens's biggest fan, this brainless reprobate McCullough has spurred me into action.
Other Comments by The Smart Patrol
9. Comment #40595 by troodon on May 14, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Another Wow! I can't remember reading a review where just about every sentence is complete nonsense, but there's always a first. "His own indulgence resists the moral guidance God has left for him. He has saturated his mind with the far less believable claims of Marx, Darwin, and Einstein."By "far less believable" he means "Darwin and Einstein are way beyond the ability of my little brain to comprehend – much easier to just believe godditit".
It's good to read drivel like this to remind us of what would happen to civilization if we let down our guard.
Other Comments by troodon
10. Comment #40597 by Strappado on May 14, 2007 at 2:58 pm
"Why this headline is not great"Is there no end to the extremely predictable headlines and titles that these people will use ("Dawkin's Delusion", "A letter to [whatever]" and so on.)
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is now available.
I will write a book myself and call it:
"The FaithHead Revolution: Overturning Commonsense thinking with Nonsense Thinking".
Other Comments by Strappado
11. Comment #40600 by John P on May 14, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Hitchens' contempt is real, it is justified, and for the most part it stems from one source - though that source is not God, the Creator, but rather the sin of man's heart.
Anyone else tired of this metaphor? A heart pumps blood, nothing more. It does not collects "sins". It does not harden in order to dispel belief in a god.
MuscleHead is an apt description of the center of this guy's thinking process.
Other Comments by John P
12. Comment #40602 by Beave on May 14, 2007 at 3:06 pm
"Evangelicals make the argument that the sexual behavior leads to the sexual disease and that in educating people on the realities of the actual actions - lives can be saved. If education is the key, teaching someone that using a condom "may" protect them from a deadly disease is far less helpful than teaching them that a certain action will "always" protect them from it. And to assert that Africans are so animal-like in their ability to control themselves that they are incapable of making such choice is racist and violates the most fundamental of humanist's beliefs."I don't think an article on this site has ever angered me as much as this one. This self righteous moron talks about strawmen and then builds them himself. We're not saying we shouldn't educate people about abstinence, but that in addition we must distribute condoms because people are people and they have sex. DUH! He then smugly stands behind his now dismantled strawman and claims that we're racists and violating our own beliefs! What a coward and what a disgusting article.
That said, good on ya Christopher Hitchens, the more these morons reply to sound argumentation the more people will realize the ridiculous nature of their dogmas.
Other Comments by Beave
13. Comment #40606 by eirik on May 14, 2007 at 3:19 pm
"Christians do not make their case simply on the idea that, "God says condoms are evil." Rather the long view of God shows that He created us, and in doing so gave us guidance on the absolute best way to go about life."And God shows that how? Ah, yes that's right: In his fairy-tale called Genesis. Come on people! What more evidence do you want? Congrats, Mr. McCullough. You just made me a devout Christian. Um..wait. Something's not making sense here..
Other Comments by eirik
14. Comment #40614 by Civilized Worm on May 14, 2007 at 3:31 pm
He has saturated his mind with the far less believable claims of Marx, Darwin, and Einstein.So this fellow is not only anti-evolution, he's anti-relativity? Wow.
At night when Christopher Hitchens lays his head on his pillow, there is a truth that washes over him that he can not escape. None of us can. And it is good for us to recognize it...
"There is a God, and I'm not him!"
How incredibly arrogant to claim such insight in to another man's mind! And these people are supposed to be humble!
No Christopher Hitchens is not great, he's awesome.
Other Comments by Civilized Worm
15. Comment #40615 by BicycleRepairMan on May 14, 2007 at 3:32 pm
"No where in Christianity does the doctrine, text, or deity call for the cutting off the heads of those who simply disagree."Deuteronomy 13:7-11:
"If your brother ... or your daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to ... seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' unknow to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the people surrounding you, whether near to you or far away, anywhere throughout the world ... you must not listen to him; you must show no pity, you must not spare him ... No, you must kill him, your hand must stike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he tried to divert you from Yahweh your God." -
You are quite right, no head-chopping mentioned, that would be outright barbaric. No, STONING, thats the true Christian way.
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
16. Comment #40620 by CF1 on May 14, 2007 at 3:36 pm
McCullough's title of this piece (of crap) is: "Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great".In case you hadn't noticed, Christopher Hitchens does not claim to be great. The Abrahamic god however does claim to be great, yet he is not. He is a murderous crybaby whos explosive rage demands bloodshed when not worshipped. Then again, I wonder if it's possible that this particular god (one of thousands) is merely a construct of a primitive, petty, superstitious bunch of goat-herders. Hmmm?
Other Comments by CF1
17. Comment #40621 by Mudskipper on May 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Wow - another: 'insert-author's-own-name-into-author's-own-title' witty riposte.Gosh, when I regain my composure, having been quite overcome by the originality, I may read the article.
Or I may throw myself into a different puddle.
Other Comments by Mudskipper
18. Comment #40627 by the great teapot on May 14, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I ve just thought of a really god subtitle.....or how the hitch poisons everything.
Other Comments by the great teapot
19. Comment #40632 by Bookman on May 14, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Thanks for posting this article to remind us how frighteningly loony the American religious right is. I'm not going to visit the Townhall website myself as I find it too depressing, so I appreciate you doing the work for us. When people claim that Dakwins creates a strawman of religion, I will point them to this, and the many articles like it.Other Comments by Bookman
20. Comment #40634 by Veronique on May 14, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Evangelicals make the argument that the sexual behavior leads to the sexual disease and that in educating people on the realities of the actual actions - lives can be saved. If education is the key, teaching someone that using a condom "may" protect them from a deadly disease is far less helpful than teaching them that a certain action will "always" protect them from it.Excuse me Mr McCullough. What planet do you come from? Abstinence? That's the answer?
We are, all 6.6 billion of us, here to tell you, as a methodology, it doesn't work.
You have the corner pub, TV, radio, theatres and cinemas, libraries, opera and ballet to entertain you.
The people who are dying from AIDS, because people like you, the Pope, all mealy-mouthed religions and Bush et al are (and are in favour of) withholding a reproductive health measure, have no entertainment whatsoever.
All they have is the comfort of each other.
You arrogant little p***k. You stunningly smug a******e. And you have the temerity to try (and fail) to take Hitchens apart? So you hump happily with your condom &/or vasectomy and deny safe sex to others? Well, that feels better! (smiles..)
I looked at the original article and the comment thread. McCullough was writing for the conservative choir. He got quite a drubbing on the thread though.
Most of you guys have said everything that I would want to say.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
21. Comment #40636 by pewkatchoo on May 14, 2007 at 3:55 pm
This is fuckwittery of the absolute highest order. It made me laugh anyway.However, I had a thought (probably not very original) about religious belief and why it is so difficult to erradicate. It is possible that it has become a defense mechanism. After all, in the not so distant past (and still in some areas of the world) people were persecuted, tortured and burned at the stake for apostasy or heresy. Perhaps this has become genetically imprinted at some level (help me out here I am not a biologist) and that it is only lately that the imprimateur is weakening because, at least in western society, there is less need for it. However, genetic traits, particularly survival based, are difficult to do away with entirely. Stronger minded people may overcome these genetic based inclinations quicker than weaker minded people.
Thoughts please. At least a discussion on the above is surely more thought provoking than the original nonsense.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
22. Comment #40638 by ButteryAtheist on May 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Anybody want to keep a tally of the ratio of "Hitch is not Great" variations to "Dawkins' Delusions?"This is already the second one of these I've seen today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-robbins/christopher-hitchens-is-n_b_48452.html
Yawn.
Other Comments by ButteryAtheist
23. Comment #40644 by Jolly Wally on May 14, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Christopher Hitchens is not Great!? OBJECTION!!(yeah, that's right, I didn't even read the article. Take THAT Kevin!)
Other Comments by Jolly Wally
24. Comment #40646 by Dower on May 14, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Jesus himself forgave the adulterer and told her accusers to only punish her if they themselves were innocent.
Hitchens made it pretty clear (showed the evidence) that this passage was not in the original text of the sacred book. McCullough chose to pass over that evidence (for which he had no answer?).
Other Comments by Dower
25. Comment #40649 by grolaw on May 14, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Christopher Hitchens is a jerk. And, so are a lot of other people. I have bought three of Mr. Hitchen's books and this was one of them.Sam Harris did a cleaner job disemboweling Christianity in his, Letter to a Christian Nation. Both Dr. Dawkins and Mr. (when are you going to complete that Ph.D., Sam?) Harris' major books on the subject are far, far better works.
Hitch likes to go for the gut - he slashes and bashes and generally makes a big mess (the Rabbi completing a Brit milah orally is a pretty low gut-shot - it would be nice if Hitch had figures about the frequency of such things...) and then he walks away and finds new targets.
The "reviewer" could have done a better job - Hitch is far from being truly knowledgeable about the subject matter. I think that Sam Harris has an encyclopedic knowledge of the field (and, well he should have - he has a Stanford B.A. in Philosophy) and Dr. Dawkins is a close second.
Hitch is nothing more than a debate bully itching to draw blood. Well, the subject matter could use some roughhousing...Hitch has his place.
Other Comments by grolaw
26. Comment #40655 by Nails on May 14, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Why Christopher Hitchens is not GreatIrreelavant.
He doesn't need to be great.
Only right.
Other Comments by Nails
27. Comment #40663 by eccles on May 14, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I admit I have not read Hitchens, but from what I see here is the rantings of another fool: McCullough. I call anyone who believes in a "God" a fool. If only these "believers" would read about the foundations of Christianity they would see that they are based on forgeries, a huge case of plagiarism in the form of the bible and for 2000 years "believers" have been hoodwinked into this by people who want to control them. Just look at the history of the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church since it was founded by Constantine I. Look at the oppression of all non-believers, especially during the Holy Inquisition. Most Catholic Doctrine like the "Virgin" Mary is recent and that is based on a mistranslation of a word meaning "young girl". Other Comments by eccles
28. Comment #40665 by Aaron SF on May 14, 2007 at 4:43 pm
So dumb... just so dumb... can't take the dumbness... AAAAGH! Other Comments by Aaron SF
29. Comment #40676 by The author on May 14, 2007 at 4:52 pm
After throwing rubbish at Dawkins they are throwing rubbish at Hitchens. What I really don't get is: Why should anyone print such awfully researched und badly reasoned nonsense? Why should anyone want to pay "journalists" for such stuff? If they just collect some gangstas from the streets they will get about the same result for less money.I have a dream: One day someone will critizise the "New Atheists" rationally by good reasoning. He will perhaps be wrong then, but at least he would have honestly tried it.
Other Comments by The author
30. Comment #40677 by firemancarl on May 14, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Yet another apologist twit who has made the bible what he wants it to be. No need to read it, just use the same tired ol arguments that have been used before. Other Comments by firemancarl
31. Comment #40689 by the great teapot on May 14, 2007 at 5:18 pm
is the author ( of this article) actually aware that God is Great is the final mantra of all homocide bombers.Other Comments by the great teapot
32. Comment #40699 by MiloC on May 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm
"No where in Christianity does the doctrine, text, or deity call for the cutting off the heads of those who simply disagree. No where does the biblical text instruct Christians to wage jihad for minor doctrinal differences."What bible is this idiot reading? I will refer to one of many verses in the scriptures where Jesus is alledge to have said; 'But those, mine enemies, which would not that I shouold reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' Luke 19:27.
Other Comments by MiloC
33. Comment #40702 by Thor on May 14, 2007 at 6:12 pm
grolaw,sorry, but as the big Hitchens fan that I am I just don't want to let this go without comment.
Hitchens can most definitely be a jerk - when he wants to. And on some occassions I immensely enjoy it when he is a jerk to someone who deserves it - other times not so much.
And why are you hung up on academic titles? I have no axe to grind with academia, but your conclusion that a Stanford B.A. in philosophy equals "encyclopedic knowledge" in some field is a little naive.
I am not trying to slam Harris, mind you - I think he is a very smart and eloquent guy and has written two very successful and important books.
But do you have any idea how many Stanford B.A.s of philosophy are running around in this world who don't know Zeus from Apollo? No?
Well, I don't either but I'd am sure there are SOME.
My point is this: whether you like him or agree with him is not the issue here - Hitchens is in my opinion one THE most well-read and erudite intellectuals alive today.
He has been working as a journalist and literary critc for over 30 years, he can quote you every important Enlightenment thinker, be it Locke, Mill, Paine, Jefferson (of the latter two he has written biographies) or many others, to the ancient Greeks from Socrates to Epicure, to literary figures like Oscar Wilde or W.H. Auden to his ultimate hero, George Orwell.
I will vouch for his encyclopedic knowledge of all things Marxism and Trotskyism - and as much as I disagree with a lot of it, criticism of religion was always part of that.
He is somewhat of an American First Amendment "fundamentalist" and values state non-intervention into private lives as one of the highest goods.
He has repeatedly stated that in some ways he has been writing this book - "God is not Great" - all his life and, having read many of his books and much of his writing in newspaper columns and opinion magazines I will say that this sounds quite plausible:
he nearly alwys finds some angle - no matter how obscure the topic he is writing about - to link it to one of his two "hobby horse" (though that expression doesn't really do justice to the passion he has for these issues) of personal liberty and religious superstition - which are, as most people here are hopefully aware of, in themselves often inextricably linked.
So, disagree with him all you like - I would probably also have something to say in that case - but what I really find hard to take is someone saying that Hichtens doesn't KNOW what he is talking about because he doesn't have an academic degree - which would be laughable enough to begin with but is not even true.
He actually has Bachelor's from the famous Balliol college at Oxford, an institution that has an impressive list of alumni - among them some guy called Richard Dawkins...
So, are you satisfied with his "credentials" now? :-)
Other Comments by Thor
34. Comment #40706 by Russell Blackford on May 14, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I seem to recall a while back predicting that someone would write a book called Hitchens is Not Great. Well, there's still time for someone like Professor McGrath to do it.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
35. Comment #40710 by Dower on May 14, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Sam Harris not only has a bachelor's degree in philosophy, he is working on a doctorate in neuroscience.Other Comments by Dower
36. Comment #40714 by Thor on May 14, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Dower,I know - it is rather difficult not to notice, after all it is mentioned either by him or by the interviewer whenever he is on some TV or radio show :-)
Other Comments by Thor
37. Comment #40715 by Canuck#1 on May 14, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Saw the article's title and the author and said to myself-"DON'T READ IT, Don't Read It, don't read it....... I read it. The Christian Right may be holding a special meeting to celebrate how Hitchens was destroyed once and for all. "Praise the Lord." I hereby swear I am not going to read the next "christian soldier who steps forward to defend the faith. Perhaps a warning should come with the article-"too much drivel is bad for your health" Other Comments by Canuck#1
38. Comment #40723 by Zaphod on May 14, 2007 at 7:35 pm
I was expecting the "Hitchens is not great" articles a lot sooner. Hitchens doesn't claim to be great. People do claim god is. Other Comments by Zaphod
39. Comment #40729 by Veronique on May 14, 2007 at 8:03 pm
39. Comment #40715 by CanuckLOL. What a terrific post! I loved it.
I am thoroughly enjoying Hitch. He's got just the right amount of sarcasm, crossness and snippiness for me. And with a few errors (what the hell, they are tiny), just to make him human! His knowledge is prodigious and his asides are great. But we know he's not:-)
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
40. Comment #40731 by GodlessHeathen on May 14, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Yet another article that reads like someone soothing his own fears. Other Comments by GodlessHeathen
41. Comment #40742 by Beachbum on May 14, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I have just come back from the townhall website regarding this article, commented on theHitchens' intimidating intellect wasn't even honest enough in the construct of his argument to note that Christianity is in fact NOT a religion of rules.with the "what are the ten commandments? Suggestions?
Thank you, FXR for the reminder.
But ye'all don't fret nun yahear...(end of satirical slang) I am quite surprized at the number of rebutal comments I read, further more, the chap that posted ahead of me hit the target with both barrels, full of direct rebutals from the bible.
Side note: The neocon attaboys seem to come from an understanding of gospel garnered from old B&W American TV shows ie. Leave It to Beaver can we just wait for them to die off? Ah, humour - I'm Back! Sorry, but that article "torqued my wrench".
Other Comments by Beachbum
42. Comment #40753 by Roy_H on May 14, 2007 at 10:43 pm
"He has saturated his mind with the far less believable claims of Marx, Darwin, and Einstein"OK leaving Marx out of the equation, claims LESS believable than Darwin and Einstein? This just shows how scientifically ignorant this guy is!
Other Comments by Roy_H
43. Comment #40799 by Logicel on May 15, 2007 at 2:42 am
The Smart Patrol, nice post.pewkatchoo, Humans have evolved social abilities/skills to survive--or a better word is to flourish--within a particular group or society. The group's beliefs, attitudes, priorities are often internalized, allowing individuals to identify personally with the group. Even after the group is dissolved, a former member will still have vestiges of a personal identity derived from this no longer functioning group.
In the web discussion between Harris and Sullivan, this ability was well displayed by Sullivan, when despite all of Harris' excellent dismantling of the reasons why Sullivan's particular faith is unreasonable, Sullivan is able to conclude that the discussion only made his unreasonable faith stronger--or in my words--his personally identifying with a group, in Sullivan's case, Roman Catholics remains intact. Sullivan could be the last Roman Catholic alive, and this mentality could still remain intact.
We all know humanity is social, and the choice of what kind of social identity one creates/embraces as an individual is as varied as there are individuals, but yet, this embracing is strongly stamped with a group identity--religious stamping being particularly powerful, but so are national identities.
In the film, Cast Away, Hanks, amidst the howling winds--made more frightening and identity crushing because of the absence of background music--of the small island on which he is marooned, creates a friend, using a coconut on which he paints a crude face and puts some fake hair on its 'head'. In this way, Hanks is less alone, at least, in his head.
Existentialism, especially espoused by Beauvoir--Sartre is too dense for me--human reality is the balancing between the self and the other. And what astounding balancing acts can be produced!
Other Comments by Logicel
44. Comment #40802 by Logicel on May 15, 2007 at 2:52 am
The Christian emperor is getting consistently recognized as being NAKED. Now, of course, NAKEDNESS shows the innate sinful nature of humanity, so it must be covered up at all costs. How to accomplish a re-clothing of said NAKED emperor? Yeah, I know the trick: LYING!The emperor will be grateful and not send you hell for another sin, LYING, because NAKEDNESS must be covered, and that is what is important.
So, dear author of this article, keep spinning your immoral wheels in the sand.
Other Comments by Logicel
45. Comment #40833 by scooternyc on May 15, 2007 at 4:32 am
These are some good sites to refute this trash writing that does happen regarding Hitchens and others, about their stupid bible(which I agree, most have probably never read).www.godisimaginary.com
www.godvsthebible.com
If anyone knows of other good ones, I'm always wanting to add to good research.
Did anyone watch the Panorama special on scientology?
Other Comments by scooternyc
46. Comment #40849 by pewkatchoo on May 15, 2007 at 5:02 am
LogicelThanks for your response. Yes I understood most of what you said from TGD. Particularly about the social grouping phemonenon. However, I never saw the possibility explored that it could also be a survival or fear factor. As I said, they used to burn heretics and not so long ago. They even tortured and burned people they thought might be heretics. Could these terrible acts have somehow become imprinted on our genes and now many people are frightened, though they don't actually know it as fear or why they might be afraid, to question their religocity. It is just a proposition, not even a theory.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
47. Comment #40855 by grolaw on May 15, 2007 at 5:20 am
Thor:BFD that Hitch has a trade and a baccalaureate - Hitch is just another writer. Hitch is both a writer and a brute - his favorite style is attack-mode.
Dawkins and Harris are both academics, both in hard science. Harris has more than just the B.A. from Stanford - he specialized in religion and is integrating that study into his neurology Ph.D.
The critical reasoning and analysis of the scientists is quantitatively different from those employed by a mere journeyman hack. Hitch is an opportunist - Dawkins and Harris have other motivations than money driving their work and an honest comparison of these books leaves Hitch's effort a distant third.
Answer this question: would Hitch have written this book in the absence of Dawkins' and Harris' preceding volumes (and, successes)? I'd say that he just hopped on a hot topic to make a fast buck.
His gutless attack on his former friend Sidney Blumenthal, well documented by both men, was done for no other reason but to harm an innocent "friend" for Hitch's personal intrinsic and extrinsic profit.
The social compact does not apply to Hitch - according to Hitch. Were I on a life raft together with Hitch - he'd be the first one I jettisoned - because he is a human embodiment of Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. He takes all he can whenever he can; he makes messes and lets others clean them up.
Hitch's work is the text equivalent of a shock jock. Dawkins and Harris construct nuanced, multilayered studies of the subject.
Hitch is FAR from the top intellectual in the western world. I could name hundreds who eclipse him - but let me suggest comparison to Douglas R. Hofstadter (a Pulitzer Prize winner for his First Book). Hofstadter is a professor of Cognitive Science, a best selling author and the mentor to dozens of post-docs. Hitch - he drinks and thinks about Hitch.
Shall I put Mjölnir down now, Thor? Or, do I have to whack Hitch a few more times with it?
Other Comments by grolaw
48. Comment #40864 by mandelstam on May 15, 2007 at 5:56 am
One thing about the abstinence/ condom thing. Hitchens points out that a religion must have rules or standards you cannot meet. Then you are in perpetual supplicant mode. They love the missionary position, those christians.Other Comments by mandelstam
49. Comment #40869 by Bayle on May 15, 2007 at 6:09 am
Reading the first line was enough of a clue that this was going to be a terrible argument, since Hitchens's Marxist views are entirely irrelevant to his argument against religion. After that, I skimmed and got the major impression of: mealy-mouthed duplicitous dissembling and hairsplitting. Yep.Edit: Woops, I accidentally scrolled up and read more. This guy is a total idiot rambling on about Hitchens resisting the morality that God set out for him. Damn you for drinking and smoking Chris! Literally, you're damned.
Other Comments by Bayle
50. Comment #40871 by D'Arcy on May 15, 2007 at 6:13 am
He has saturated his mind with the far less believable claims of Marx, Darwin, and Einstein.
This windbag McCullough couldn't hold a candle to these three. Better by far to be saturated with scientific ideas than the mind numbing lofty spirituality of the Christians.
I notice no kind words for Marx, so I will say some. It was Marx who coined the phrase "religion is the opium of the people". It was Marx who wrote to Darwin in 1859 congratulating him on his revolutionary discoveries in biology. It was Marx who showed how the various religions were co-opted by the ruling class as instruments of oppression and maintaining social order on behalf of the privileged class, the owning class.
Marx died in 1883, long before Lenin and his cronies were able to so distort and misrepresent their twisted system of state capitalism as "communism". Don't blame Marx for Russia, China etc.etc.
Read the man's ideas for yourself, and don't trust someone like McCullough to give you a clear picture.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #40579 by Devolution on May 14, 2007 at 2:29 pm
"to assert that Africans are so animal-like in their ability to control themselves that they are incapable of making such choice is racist and violates the most fundamental of humanist's beliefs"
Yes, they are animals and so are you and I. The inability for Christians to realize the innate desire and need for sexual intercourse is mind boggling to me.
And now my favorite quote:
"No where in Christianity does the doctrine, text, or deity call for the cutting off the heads of those who simply disagree."
Haha has this moron read the bible? The Bible may not explicitly call for "cutting of the heads", but a sentence of death is to be your fate for cursing your parents, tempting others with rival gods, working on the sabbath, blah blah.
I'm nominating McCullough for "Biggest Douche in the Universe".
Other Comments by Devolution