1. Comment #34322 by Zaphod on April 23, 2007 at 7:47 pm

This book sounds fun. Can't wait to read it.

Other Comments by Zaphod

2. Comment #34324 by Rtambree on April 23, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Hmmm.... so long as he doesn't embarrass the atheist movement, it's all good publicity in getting the message out there, challenging people to think, and exposing them to ideas that the media normally won't touch.

Hitchens' approach is different - more political and historical, rather than scientific.

Other Comments by Rtambree

3. Comment #34329 by Satanburiedfossils on April 23, 2007 at 8:12 pm

"But [Christopher "Hellbound" Hitchens] is just getting warmed up."

The irony of that statement is probably more appreciated by his religious detractors.

Speaking of Hell...

It is strange to me that people can consign others to hell without a scruple. One only has to remember a toothache, not to wish it eternally on anyone.
-- Lucy Daugalis (daugalis@arcom.com.au)

God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That's not free will. It's like a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man says this we call him a psychopath. When god says the same we call him "loving" and build churches in his honor.
-- William C. Easttom II

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/hell.html

Excerpt from "Islamic Hell: Absurdity of Science and Logic" by Denis Giron:

The idea of Hell is both illogical and scientifically absurd. How can eternal fire be any kind of divine punishment that one should fear? You cannot be burned for eternity. Your body only offers a given and finite amount of fuel for fire. Eventually there will be nothing left to burn.

Trying to get around such arguments, the believer in Hell will claim Hellfire consists of "smokeless fire" and that it "burns, but does not consume". If the fire does not consume one's flesh, there is no pain! Pain is caused by neural receptors in the brain alerting you to cells being destroyed. If the fire does not consume one's flesh, no cells are destroyed, and thus there is no pain!

Perhaps some supporters of the Hellfire theory will offer the idea that your "soul" is sent to Hell and not your body. If one is without their body, they are without cells, without neural receptors, and therefore without pain. These are scientific facts about pain that primitive cultures were not aware of. Those who believe Hell exists can only describe eternal damnation as a "phenomenon which science cannot explain".

While such a description makes belief in Hell something of the realm of fantasy, there are still stern arguments against such a concept. Whether there is pain or not, eternal flames is not a true punishment to be feared. If it is eternal, there is ample time to grow accustomed to one's environment. Surely eternity is enough time to develop a higher tolerance of pain. There have been examples of human beings who reached a mental state where they do not feel pain. An example would be Buddhist monks in Viet Nam who could set themselves on fire, and show no reaction while burning to death. Such people would have nothing to fear from Hell.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/islamhell.html

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

4. Comment #34330 by MIND_REBEL on April 23, 2007 at 8:15 pm

It was very brave of him to write this book. It's amazing that he's willing to take time out from his own personal career in order to spread the good word of rationiality in order to make the world a better place. I hope there isn't much of a backlash against him but in todays meme driven world you can't be too sure of anything. He's a hero, and in fifty years will be remembered as one of the "founding fathers" of the new age of reason and logic.

Either way, as atheists, we have a duty and an obligation to support the movement and buy his book.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

5. Comment #34331 by Dax on April 23, 2007 at 8:18 pm

I don't know about Hitchins. He accuses others of dishonesty while he himself sides with the NeoCons, who despise him for being an unbeliever and a former leftist (Trotskyist even!). He claims he cares about reason and rational thinking, yet has no problems in buying the Bush administration's lies to invade Iraq. Strange indeed. Whether you are in favor of against the Iraq invasion is besides the point: the administration lied so you, as a someone who picks on religion for being a fairytale, should not blindly follow the fairytale lies of the political elite either... especially not if it was proven to be a fairytale!

Hitchin does not seem to care about what is true (in a sense of "most likely / most probable") but only seems to care about stirring trouble (though I do agree with him on a lot, including Mother Teresa).

Other Comments by Dax

6. Comment #34332 by roach on April 23, 2007 at 8:18 pm

It does sound like a fun read. I'm looking forward to his political and historical approach. Religion and the God hypothesis need to be criticized from all angles. The God Delusion isn't a popular science book anyway.

Cheers.

Other Comments by roach

7. Comment #34335 by ketandev on April 23, 2007 at 8:24 pm

I got his book today. Apparently amazon.com has been shipping it for a few days now.

This book kicks some ass!

I needed a dictionary to try to keep up with his amazing English, but I did enjoy it!

Good work Christopher.

Other Comments by ketandev

8. Comment #34336 by JJoe on April 23, 2007 at 8:24 pm

* On the Koran: "I simply laugh when I read the Koran, with its endless prohibitions on sex and its corrupt promise of infinite debauchery in the life to come."

I always liked this one too. Nice to see someone else highlight the hypocrisy as well.

Looking forward to this. Looks like an interesting read. I wonder if it'll have cartoons (nod, nod, wink, wink).

Other Comments by JJoe

9. Comment #34345 by Douglas Wilson on April 23, 2007 at 8:45 pm

I am looking forward to getting my copy, and reviewing it chapter by chapter just like I did with Harris and Dawkins. It should be quite a bit of fun. While I am no fan of Islam, the kind of dogmatic ignorance that could write the following will be considered by some of us as a gift from heaven.

"On the Koran: 'I simply laugh when I read the Koran, with its endless prohibitions on sex and its corrupt promise of infinite debauchery in the life to come.'"

This, about a book that gives men up to four wives and as many slave girls as they can mount in this life. Heh. Maybe he thought an editor would cramp his style.

Other Comments by Douglas Wilson

10. Comment #34347 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 8:47 pm

I'm ambivalent about Hitchens - on the one hand, he is doing a great job poking big and public holes in the fatuous arguments that supposedly support the sky fairy; he's a true iconoclast, giving Mother Theresa a richly deserved blasting and pointing out Ghandi's feet of clay; and I agree with every one of his statements in the article above. I'll happily cheer him on every step of the way.

But... (you knew that was coming, right?)

He seems so very unwilling to turn his skills on himself and his own behaviour. His support for the neocons and his willingness to get sucked into the bull surrounding the Iraq war (which is verging on being the Iraq genocide) don't say much for his ability to use skepticism as a tool to avoid fooling himself.

Add to that the fact that he is so often an utterly odious human being. His behaviour is appalling, especially during debates. Richard Dawkins can get his points across witheringly, without compromise and without kowtowing to the religious demand for unearned respect and still not lose his cool, be a perfect gentleman and earn grudging respect from his opponents. Hitchen's doesn't seem capable of that.

I'd happily read his book, laugh in the appropriate places, rant in the appropriate places, etc - I'm sure it will be excellent. I just don't want to ever meet the guy.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

11. Comment #34356 by Spinoza on April 23, 2007 at 9:33 pm

It's so funny... I got so much shit back in Catholic High school (I was never a Catholic, just FYI.. i went there to fuck with them), for saying I thought Ghandi and Theresa were both immoral.

I also got shit on for saying we have no conscience and charity is immoral.

Hitchens is clearly me mate. (if I can speak like a Brit for a minute).

This is one book I actually will purchase. I didn't buy The God Delusion because I wouldn't have read it... it's not written for me... I read the first chapter and just went "Duhhh...", being the atheist philosopher I am, it wasn't all that interesting (I'm so jaded...)

Dennett's book was awesome though.

And this one looks like it's going to be very good.

Other Comments by Spinoza

12. Comment #34357 by theorrhea on April 23, 2007 at 9:33 pm

"He accuses others of dishonesty while he himself sides with the NeoCons, who despise him for being an unbeliever and a former leftist (Trotskyist even!). He claims he cares about reason and rational thinking, yet has no problems in buying the Bush administration's lies to invade Iraq. Strange indeed."
"His support for the neocons and his willingness to get sucked into the bull surrounding the Iraq war (which is verging on being the Iraq genocide) don't say much for his ability to use skepticism as a tool to avoid fooling himself."


I have to say that you guys are completely missing your own points. You're automatically assuming that there are only two reasons for anyone to support the Iraq war - either they're stupid or evil. Now, most normal, sensible, and skeptical people are willing to at least consider the fact that people who disagree with them might do so for well-founded reasons, instead of write them off as belonging to one of those two categories.

So what if Hitchens supports the war? I don't think he's right either, but I'm not that much of a jackass to assume that if he doesn't agree with me he must be a fool. There are and were plenty of good reasons to support the war, that convinced a lot of intelligent people. The Republican constituency is not COMPLETELY made up of inbred retards, as much as it may sometimes seem that way. To assume they're either dupes or oil-thirsty supervillians is a comfortable simplification that allows you to avoid thinking about the real issues, in favor of something you can focus your energy and feelings on in an obvious and cathartic way.

Sound familiar?


...sorry for the polemics, but it really gets my goat when people think everything is so simple. To assume the other side are idiots to to make yourself one.

Other Comments by theorrhea

13. Comment #34361 by BAEOZ on April 23, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Hey Spinoza, as an atheist philosopher in the making (I aspire anyway) can you point me to some good introductory texts? I've read Dawkins', Harris', Denetts' books and a few others in the last few months and am developing a hunger for the philosophical underpinnings of this. Any recomendations to help me along in my self study would be cool. Thanks.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

14. Comment #34371 by Kimpatsu on April 23, 2007 at 10:32 pm

'On creationism and intelligent design: "The inculcation of compulsory stupidity."'
LOL!

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

15. Comment #34377 by Janus on April 23, 2007 at 10:50 pm

That line about the Quran does seem silly. The Quran, unlike the Bible, doesn't treat several aspects of sexuality as dirty and evil.


Other Comments by Janus

16. Comment #34379 by shmooth on April 23, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Hitchens, the alky, is a first classist fantasist, opportunist, and aholist, nothing more.

Other Comments by shmooth

17. Comment #34387 by Corylus on April 23, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Yep, I have got to concur with others on here, I am intrigued but withholding judgement..

Must say though that the selection of picture of him with a cigarette in his mouth (presumably to show what a bad boy he is) irritated me no end.

NO, children, it's not big and it's not clever! ;)

Other Comments by Corylus

18. Comment #34389 by Absinthius on April 24, 2007 at 12:16 am

I cant help but feel he copied one of the great prides of Holland on the field of freedom of speech and atheism: the late Theo van Gogh. His website was even named "degezonderoker" (translated in english "thehealthysmoker". That guy also seemed to be holding a cigarette in pretty much the exact same way as depiced by this guy here on nearly every foto.

if you look at it from that point of view I suspect this guy tries to make a statement to 'challenge' religous fanaticists like the one who slaughtered our dear Theo.

Other Comments by Absinthius

19. Comment #34391 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 12:19 am

"So what if Hitchens supports the war? I don't think he's right either, but I'm not that much of a jackass to assume that if he doesn't agree with me he must be a fool. There are and were plenty of good reasons to support the war, that convinced a lot of intelligent people. The Republican constituency is not COMPLETELY made up of inbred retards, as much as it may sometimes seem that way. To assume they're either dupes or oil-thirsty supervillians is a comfortable simplification that allows you to avoid thinking about the real issues, in favor of something you can focus your energy and feelings on in an obvious and cathartic way."

I have seen a lot of this around here too. Glad someone pointed it out. I would add that it was not and is not just members of the Republican party.

Other Comments by krogercomplete

20. Comment #34392 by L.Minnik on April 24, 2007 at 12:21 am

Good - he deprives the religious of the status of being 'uncriticizable'

Other Comments by L.Minnik

21. Comment #34397 by Lee Harrison on April 24, 2007 at 12:39 am

Theorrhea (comment 34357)

You're automatically assuming that there are only two reasons for anyone to support the Iraq war - either they're stupid or evil.

Sorry, but I'd recommend you read my post again - and yours. I did not say that Hitchens was either evil or stupid. If you read the post again, you'll see that. There were many reasons to support the Iraq war - there aren't so many now. While I do consider it foolish to conclude otherwise, this does not mean that Hitchens is automatically dismissed as a fool - one decision or viewpoint does not make the whole man.

To assume they're either dupes or oil-thirsty supervillians is a comfortable simplification that allows you to avoid thinking about the real issues, in favor of something you can focus your energy and feelings on in an obvious and cathartic way.

Since my post makes it clear that despite finding the man personally odious and despite disagreeing with his, in my opinion, dubious conclusions regarding the war I still respect the man in other areas - hence the ambivalence that was the subject of the very first line of my post.

Who's really guilty here of pigeonholing in order to avoid thinking? I am, at least, grateful that you recognised your post to be polemical but perhaps that should have made you think twice.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

22. Comment #34404 by Shuggy on April 24, 2007 at 1:27 am

16. Comment #34379 by shmooth on April 23, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Hitchens, the alky, is a first classist fantasist, opportunist, and aholist, nothing more.

What's an aholist? (or is that just a-hole with a matching suffix?)

Other Comments by Shuggy

23. Comment #34409 by John A. Michon on April 24, 2007 at 1:58 am

13. Comment #34361 by BAEOZ on April 23, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Hey Spinoza, as an atheist philosopher in the making (I aspire anyway) can you point me to some good introductory texts? I've read Dawkins', Harris', Denetts' books and a few others in the last few months and am developing a hunger for the philosophical underpinnings of this. Any recomendations to help me along in my self study would be cool. Thanks.

Although your request is not addressed to me, I thought Spinoza is just about the best source to consult if you want to know what the struggle between religion and atheism is all about. But you're approaching very, very much the wrong Spinoza (I leave it up to you to consider why).

The real Spinoza (in space almost my neighbour just around the corner, in time sadly some 350 years away) was a very quiet, soft-spoken and articulate person, one of the deepest thinkers of all time (as even his fiercest religious opponents had to admit).

BAOEZ, I think it would offer you a great deal of illumination if you would start with Matthew Stewart's brilliant and almost breath taking "The courtier and the heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the fate of God in the modern world". New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005 (and recently, 2007 in paperback).

Spinoza -- the real, civilized one, I mean -- did in fact offer the world the most intelligent (ultimately: atheistic) way out of the struggle between science and religion. He simply equated the two (God sive Natura, i.e. God, also known as Nature)... Well, simply is not the right word, but he worked out in detail what this step implies -- religiously, psychologically, ethically and politically. Leibniz, on the other hand, who met Spinoza only once (that's what the book is about) got away from that encounter with ruffled feathers, spending much of his further life trying to regain his intellectual equilibrium (by defending some middle of the road Good-God idea).

And if that story appeals to you, you might turn next to Jonathan Israel's "Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity, 1650-1750". Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001. That volume (~800 pp.) will give you the full works: all ideas that now circulate in the debate did so at that time. The difference is that most of the participants in the debate knew what they were talking about, philosophically, religiously and scientifically (although, yes, of course science was only just beginning: Darwin and Crick & Watson were nowhere in sight yet, and Newton hadn't even published his Principia).

And perhaps, to wet your appetite, here is a quote from Matthew Stewart's book:

"Spinoza did not invent the modern world, but he was perhaps the first to observe it well. He was the first to attempt to answer the ancient questions of philosophy from a distinctly modern perspective. In his philosophical system, he offered a concept of God befitting the universe revealed by modern science -- a universe ruled only by the cause and effect of natural laws, without purpose or design. He describes what it means to be human after our pretension to occupy a special place in nature has been shattered. He prescribes a means to find happiness and virtue in an era when the old theologies have no credibility. And he advocates a liberal, democratic system of government suitable for an inherently fragmented and diverse society." (o.c., 15-16)

Enjoy!

Other Comments by John A. Michon

24. Comment #34423 by Logicel on April 24, 2007 at 2:39 am

Hitchens, who says he was once mistaken for the god "Sai Baba" in Sri Lanka, writes, "If I am hit by a bus on the day this book is published, there will certainly be people who will say it was no accident."
________

Hilarious.

Other Comments by Logicel

25. Comment #34449 by Pieter on April 24, 2007 at 5:31 am

If anyone wants to get started on the highly profitable road of professional philosophy the book i would recommend to read first is Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. It has good sections on just about everyone from the pre-socratic up to himself.

Other Comments by Pieter

26. Comment #34451 by WilliamP on April 24, 2007 at 5:33 am

I think Hitchens is pretty consitent about his support for the 2003 Iraq war and his atheism. I saw a debate between him and George Galloway which Galloway turns into a long ad hominem attack against Hitchens. Hitchens talks a lot about his reasons for supporting the war. If you want to spend an hour on it, you can watch the first half here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INy2ysHhgYM

Surprisingly, Hitchens actually didn't support the 1991 Gulf War, and changed his mind later. He also didn't seem to care much about Bush's WMD claims, but supported it more for the Iraqis' welfare. I think his claims on al Qaeda-Saddam connections are sketchy, and I don't know from this how far he goes to support Bush.

Other Comments by WilliamP

27. Comment #34452 by Azven on April 24, 2007 at 5:40 am

Is the bit about Sai Baba a joke that's gone over my head? Because I don't get it!

Prema Sai Baba is supposed to be born in the 21st century so unless Hitchens is under 7 years old I think he's out of the running.

Seriously! Can anyone explain?

Other Comments by Azven

28. Comment #34456 by BAEOZ on April 24, 2007 at 6:02 am

John A. Michon: Thanks for your welcome contribution. I'll look those references up. I must confess, I know little of philosophy, but do wish to learn. I knew that there was a dutch philospher called Spinoza, (I dearly hope that he was indeed Dutch and not Italian as his name suggests, lest I be smitten/smote by your indignance (just kidding) can I do double parenthesis with out being redneck? ). As they say in spanish, En fin pensé que el que se puso de Spinoza sabría de Spinoza, si me captas... ;-)
Thanks again. One of your quotes said Spinoza didn't invent the modern world. That idea strikes me as curious. I would've thought the Greeks did, but just didn't realize it. Thanks again.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

29. Comment #34457 by BAEOZ on April 24, 2007 at 6:05 am

Oh, by the way. Pieter, I've read some quotes by Bertrand Russell and they make me wish I knew the man. Thanks dude.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

30. Comment #34460 by Linda on April 24, 2007 at 6:12 am

Hitchens is so deliciously proactive that it may take some of the nasty anti-Dawkins rhetoric down a notch since there is fresh blood for the religion defenders to attack.
Yummy!

It really does grow tiresome listening to the pompous on both sides of the argument who seem a tad jealous of the super stars of New Atheism for making waves accusing people like Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens of neither having a background in or experience of theology therefore discrediting their inspiring contribution to New Atheism. Everyone one of us over a certain age did not escape being conditioned into superstition as children. Some like me at the age of six knew that what I was hearing and forced to regurgitate was ridiculous but had no opportunity to escape. Even as adults those who do not go along with superstitious rites and rituals tend to be marginalized by family and friends. Most want everyone to like them so sitting quietly mumbling to oneself during rites it not unusual.

To suggest that Atheism is not new is of course true. What is new is that we are FREE!
Thanks to the Internet, feminism and Western concepts of free speech we can mostly say things out loud and inspire others without fear of personal harm. This is the right time and place to express the ideas. Yes of course there are backwater locals in the USA and Europe where superstition peddlers still are sanctimoniously protected yet that will change when more people grow backbones and speak up.

Other Comments by Linda

31. Comment #34462 by SteveKisko on April 24, 2007 at 6:25 am

Read the first chapter of this book on the job last night at Barnes & Noble. Fantastic! Delicious, inspired prose. I'm buying it.

Other Comments by SteveKisko

32. Comment #34463 by scooternyc on April 24, 2007 at 6:27 am

Dax and some others who are on the fence about Hitchens, I would recommend and challenge you to research, even through a Google search of videos, and listen to him speak about the many issues for which you may have doubt.

Then do your own research, as I have, and see these things for yourself. For instance, one factoid he revealed was that there was a law on the books, created in October 1997 – Public Law 105-338, had I not researched him and then the law, certainly I would have remained ignorant to the facts.

Hitchens is not prone to side with either party, if you read and listen to him long enough, you'll realize that he's more about being responsible than anything else; making choices and being accountable for those choices.

He, himself, will take responsibility for his views on the war and enumerate the many FACTS as to why, not just some anti-war opinion. He doesn't stop there though; he criticizes the ups and downs of how it was handled, etc.

Don't dismiss Hitchens because you think he's too far left or too far right; he has so much more to offer and is really one of the more responsible and reasonable voices of this time.

If you haven't read any of his other books, I highly recommend The Missionary Position (I just finished it); Thomas Jefferson: Author of America; The Long Short War, all very good books. Also check out his website with his articles, great stuff. The man knows his facts and isn't just speaking rhetoric.

http://www.hitchensweb.com/


Cheers!

Other Comments by scooternyc

33. Comment #34465 by Jack Rawlinson on April 24, 2007 at 6:43 am

I like Hitchens even though I disagree with some of his political views, and even though he can be a cantankerous old cuss. Actually, that's probably part of the reason I like him, come to think of it. I certainly like his bulldog obstreperousness and his unflinching honesty about his opinions. I admire anyone who isn't intimidated by opponents and is not afraid to tell them exactly what he thinks of them. He was SO right about Mother Teresa, and he said what needed saying about her at a time when to offer even mild doubts about her sanctified bullshit was akin to pissing on the flag. That took guts, and earned him a few death threats.

This book sounds like it's going to be pretty exhilarating to read and I shall be buying my copy next time I pass a bookshop. I also agree that as a matter of principle we should support works by our fellow atheists. To do so is a way of keeping atheism in the spotlight and raising awareness of just how many of us exist. Also, getting a book into the best seller list means that people who would not normally seek it out become aware of it and are more likely to take a chance with it. Maybe they see it in the best-seller pile at the airport, or when idly looking for something to read... so let's keep getting them into that pile!

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

34. Comment #34472 by Dax on April 24, 2007 at 7:09 am

In response to comment #34357 by theorrhea on April 23, 2007 at 9:33 pm:

You are able to quote, but not to read my post fully. I wrote "Whether you are in favor of against the Iraq invasion is besides the point: the administration lied so you, as a someone who picks on religion for being a fairytale, should not blindly follow the fairytale lies of the political elite either... especially not if it was proven to be a fairytale!" (Emphasis added).
If you would do your background research, read some of his articles (try running a search on Slate.com), you would've found out that Hitchins supports the notion of WMDs in Iraq, the contacts with Al-Quaida and all those other NeoCon lies, that have been refuted by now. And that is exactly my point!

Although he's been proven wrong he still sticks with his own crackpot beliefs. Sounds familiar?

So, it is not that he is in favor of the Iraq invasion and I am not -- besides, I'm still undecided on the invasion myself, but have some problems with the hypocrisy of the current argument ("we got rid of an evil tyrant, but we let Ghadaffi alone"). It is that he is dogmatically wrong in the reasons why we should've invaded Iraq.

Other Comments by Dax

35. Comment #34474 by John A. Michon on April 24, 2007 at 7:16 am

Re: Comment #34456 by BAEOZ

Baruch (later Benedictus, and Bento for his friends) de Spinoza (1632-1677) was of Portuguese extraction. In those days many Portuguese Jews found a relatively safe haven in the Dutch Republic.

And you may believe Matthew Stewart when he writes "We live in an age defined by its reaction to Spinoza and all that he recorded in his philosophy." (o.c., p. 17). The reaction is by far not over yet. A year ago a committee under the president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences published a so-called historical 'canon', a list of the 50 most characteristic events and people that have shaped the culture and (international) influence of the Netherlands through the ages. Spinoza is one of these, and the only philosopher. The Evangelicals (yes we have these too, but they less numerous here, thank ... Oopss!), these Evangelicals then, are really furious and try to move heaven and earth to get poor Bento removed from the list... "and if not, they will not accept the canon and make one that suits them better."

But, mark my words and read my lips: It took the Vatican 390 years to retract its opinion about Galileo. Therefore we can expect the Vatican to recognize Spinoza's worldview 390 years after Spinoza's death, that is 60 years from now. Church bells ring slowly, but they definitely ring!

In philosophy Modern Times started once the public got fed up with the Renaissance, say around 1600. Modern philosophy includes such people as Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant, Rousseau, Marx, James, Whitehead, Russell, Wittgenstein, and Quine. Now, however, Post-Modernists want you to believe that Modern Times were over... well, after the Second World War.

Which remains to be seen.

Other Comments by John A. Michon

36. Comment #34479 by BAEOZ on April 24, 2007 at 7:28 am

Thanks again John A. Michon.
Don't post modernists want us to think that the guy assaulting us isn't being violen, it's just a cultural thing ;-)
As for the Catholic Church well, they just said unbaptized babies go straight to heaven now, no limbo. I'm sure that'll make a lot of dead parents who sorrowed during their now finished over their unbaptised babies lives a lot happier, if they too made it to heaven. Bastards.
Cheers.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

37. Comment #34485 by Sargeist on April 24, 2007 at 7:52 am

I am another who shall certainly be buying a copy of Hitchens' book as soon as it is available. I recently watched his lecture about free speech on YouTube and it was fabulous. And to think I'd always been labouring under the misapprehension that he and his brother Peter were the same person! :)

Hitchens' is *so* correct when he says that religion poisons everything. I've been with my girlfriend for over 8 years, but because her family is Muslim and believe she is too, they've told her that she has to choose between me and them, because I won't convert.

"If he loved you then he would give up his principles" is, apparently, a direct quote from her mother yesterday. So, yes, religion is crawling up my arse and gnawing on me from the inside. And what drives me so totally mad beyond measure is the fact that, from their point of view, surely they *must* be aware that I'm not likely to *actually, really* convert to Islam overnight and really really believe it all. Surely? So they must be wanting me to lie. Just wear the f-ing badge and everything will be ok. But, again, from their point of view, wouldn't this actually be worse than being honest in my disbelief? Or do they think that I can pull the wool over their god's eyes?

If you're going to have stupid f-ing beliefs, at least make sure they're consistent!

Sorry to be so off-topic. Hitchens is great. His book will be, too.

Other Comments by Sargeist

38. Comment #34501 by Greg23 on April 24, 2007 at 9:03 am

To Lee Harrison -

I have met Hitchens. He can be quite cordial and is always interesting. Of course, as someone else noted, he can also be quite cantankerous.

To Azven - The bit about Sai Baba and being hit by the bus were not directly connected in the book. I think (from memory) they were in the same chapter though and related to the same theme.

The people he was with thought Sai Baba was acting through him when he (Hitchens) got them out of a sticky situation.

Other Comments by Greg23

39. Comment #34522 by AdrianB on April 24, 2007 at 10:45 am

I feel for you Sargeist, you will have a tough time ahead. I had a friend at uni that was in the same position as you and it did not end happily. Good luck.

Other Comments by AdrianB

40. Comment #34552 by franciebrady on April 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I just picked up "god is not Great" a couple days ago, and I'm halfway through chapter 3, and I must say, there's quite a lot to make you laugh, a lot of excellent barbs, but the strength of the work seems to rest on his ability to make a point. In this respect, he is terrifying and does not disappoint.

Other Comments by franciebrady

41. Comment #34555 by ghostbuster on April 24, 2007 at 1:25 pm

It is rather funny he should mention Gandhi because I remember him having a conversation with Rabindranath Tagore who also declared Gandhi as being one of the worse things to happen to India. Not very many people think like that about Gandhi, then not many people know Tagore either.
Power of the media, of course. Hitchens always startles one out of linear thinking.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

42. Comment #34563 by Edouard Pernod on April 24, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I also have met Hitchens. He seemed quite pleasant in person, though honestly he seemd to be a bit of a souse. He also seems to take the contrarian approach first and then finds ways to support it, as he did with the Iraq nonsense. I saw him speak at a panel with Katrina VanDenHeuvel on the Iraq war pretty early on into it, and while he did make a compelling case, it had a lot more to do with, how, in principal, removing Saddam would be a good idea, if it were done right, with 500,000 troops, a massive humanitarian effort and a well-organized exit strategy.

Obviously he was dead wrong, partly because he's dead right when it comes to religious fundamentalism. It seems that, of all people, Hitchens would have realized that handing the country over to Islamic radicals like Al-Sadr would be no better than Saddam running the country. While Saddam was obviously a vile murdering pig, his country was not an outright theocracy in which any fundamentalist of any persuasion could run around heavily armed executing rival Muslims with no consequences. One of the ONLY good things Saddam did was he successfully kept fundamentalist Shiites in check, and was also a necessary buffer to Iran, although Saddam's methods were obviously reprehensible and in violation of international Law. Sadly now Iraq is a anarchic breeding ground for radical Islam, and a rallying point for Jihadists, in a way it never was before the invasion.

All that being said, however, I'm glad Hitchens is on our side when it comes to religion. He is a masterful and compelling orator, and I'm glad he's adding his eloquent and firm voice to the Atheist movement. I'll have to get the book shortly.

Other Comments by Edouard Pernod

43. Comment #34572 by Steven Mading on April 24, 2007 at 2:40 pm

In reply to: 12. Comment #34357 by theorrhea

What you're missing is that is that the reasons the neocons gave for the war were lies. Yes, there might be reasons to support the war. But if so, they weren't the reasons that were being given. The ones that were given are now *objectively* known to have been lies. And that's not just a difference of opinion - that's objective fact. They claimed they had evidence of WMD's. It is now known that they invented this evidence from thin air. That's lying. Plain and simple. That was a lie. And for Hutchins to come down against lying about religion he needs to be fair about it and also come down against the lying that started the war. Now, if he wants to put forth OTHER reasons he thinks the war is still a good idea despite the lying that started it, fine. But if he wants to defend what was said to get it started, then he's a hypocrite.

My take on this is that there were possible ways to have done it that would have been good. But they all would have required totally different strategies from day one than the ones they did take. For one thing they would require a leader in charge of the effort that actually knew there were such things as Sunni and Shia.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

44. Comment #34579 by Yorker on April 24, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Like many, I don't always agree with Hitchens but overall I like him. Apart from being a very clever guy, he also does not shy away from confrontation, indeed, he seems to welcome it. If Dawkins could handle confrontation like Hitch does, he'd be a formidable debating adversary, Richard comes across well when dealing with people friendly to his cause but not so well when faced with an intimidating opponent.

I sometimes think Hitch takes the unpopular, perhaps erroneous viewpoint simply as an intellectual excercise, just to see if he can still make a good case out of a dubious point. He certainly knows how to, and enjoys the fun to be had from, getting up noses. A pastime I occasionally indulge in myself and which I highly recommend, but only in certain situations.

Other Comments by Yorker

45. Comment #34584 by Yorker on April 24, 2007 at 3:15 pm

37. Comment #34485 by Sargeist

Take a tip from an older man Sargeist; never live a lie, it will always fail in the long term. Sounds like your girl friend needs to come clean about her religiosity or lack of it, to her family.

Other Comments by Yorker

46. Comment #34595 by Russell Blackford on April 24, 2007 at 3:48 pm

On a lighter note, the words above, "cantankerous old cuss", caught my eye. Hitchens is, indeed, not a young man ... well into middle age, and, hey, even older than me. But he's so baby-faced that he could pass for about 30 or 35 in that photo and not much older in some of his TV appearances. Admittedly he's a bit chubby, but y'know I assume he must have a portrait in the attic that looks really worn and sinister by now.

The bastard. ;)

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

47. Comment #34705 by AdrianB on April 25, 2007 at 1:09 am

Sargeist – just to add some meat to the bones over my previous post I will say this was 20 years ago but my friend and a Muslim girl were crazy in love for 3 years and hoped to marry. I call her a Muslim girl, but of course for the three years when she was free from the shackles of her family she chose not to be a Muslim.

Of course, (you know where we're going) the girlfriend was given the same ultimatum by her family that you will be given. She leaves my friend, my friend converts, or neither can darken their doorstep ever again.

They ended up parting quite quickly after uni, and my friend has made another life for himself with a wife a kids. What is deeply sad is that he still sees his ex from time to time, and she ended up being married to a man she does not love with 6 children and all her dreams shattered.

Other Comments by AdrianB

48. Comment #34719 by Sargeist on April 25, 2007 at 1:56 am

Hi AdrianB and Yorker,

It was basically off-topic, because I was ranting about my personal situation rather than taking up the godlike qualities of Mr Hitchens. But I was led into it by the way in which religion, at least in my case, is very good at making a mice situation become one made entirely of dung.

What makes me so sick is that it is all based on an opinion. As I said to my girlfriend: If your parents can demonstrate the truth of Islam to me, then I won't have to make an effort to believe it - it will simply be true. We don't have to make an effort to believe that the Earth is round, it just is, and we know it. But, of course, if it were possible for the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Mormons etc etc etc ad vomitorium, to demonstrate the truth of their opinion, then we'd all just know that the (numerous) others were wrong, and they'd pretty much have to STFU.

Thanks again.

Other Comments by Sargeist

49. Comment #34781 by Vinelectric on April 25, 2007 at 8:28 am

"I simply laugh when I read the Koran, with its endless prohibitions on sex and its corrupt promise of infinite debauchery in the life to come."

As already pointed out the Koran is criticized for its overprescription of sex rather than 'endless prohibitions'. The infinite debauchery Mr Hitchens point to may be in referrence to the famous 70 virgins promised to each martyr. However that is derived not from the Koran but from the collection of sayings and other traditions commonly known as the Hadith.

I wonder what else the man is bullshitting about. His writing appears to be world's apart from the delightfull reads of RD or Vic Stegner. Hope the book is not as bad as the excerpts.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

50. Comment #34810 by Greg23 on April 25, 2007 at 10:19 am

Virgins? I thought it was white raisins!

It's somewhere in the first half of the book. (Something to do with translation snafus).

Other Comments by Greg23