God Is Not Great

[Charity]

In the book that I just finished reading, author David Aikman speaks against atheism. One of the books he refers to is "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. I have read this book as well as many of Dawkins books.

Aikman suggests that Hitchens appears to have contempt for people who disagree with him and an arrogance with his presumed intellectual superiority of atheism.

Hitchens states in his book " Our belief is not a belief Our principles are not a faith" then says "We believe with certainity that an ehtical life can be lived with out religion". Aikman contends that Hitchens even appears combative toward any opposition of his way of thinking, that he is inconsistent in his definitions of atheism. Aikman wonders can an atheist debate people of faith, without deliberately setting out to antagonize them?

Any thoughts on this, I know that the same could be true for religious antagonists...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Aikman wonders can an atheist debate people of faith, without deliberately setting out to antagonize them?

Sounds deliberately antagonistic.

 

[sojourner]

I have a very dear friend, whom I've known since childhood. He is an electronics engineer, retired military, and extremely atheist. I am a member of the clergy. We debate religion all the time. I believe. He doesn't. Yet, he never disrespects either me or my theology. (He does openly disrespect fundamentalists.) I think, perhaps that's because I keep an open mind. His questions are always well-thought out, and indicate that his is an open mind. I think that we run into problems when one or both sides present closed-minded, absolute attitudes.

 

[Falvlun]

Aikman wonders can an atheist debate people of faith, without deliberately setting out to antagonize them?

Obviously, this forum shows that atheists and theists can have mutually respectful debates. And even when they are not respectful, it's not necessarily from a desire to simply antagonize. I suggest Aikman visit a site like this; his question really isn't all that hard to answer.

 

[Charity]

Sounds deliberately antagonistic.

He does give several examples that are documented with tv interviews and references from newspapers and etc. I think there were some available on the net.
I think many of them are Dawkins, which is my favorite, I always like the "Bad Boy" types....

 

[Charity]

I have a very dear friend, whom I've known since childhood. He is an electronics engineer, retired military, and extremely atheist. I am a member of the clergy. We debate religion all the time. I believe. He doesn't. Yet, he never disrespects either me or my theology. (He does openly disrespect fundamentalists.) I think, perhaps that's because I keep an open mind. His questions are always well-thought out, and indicate that his is an open mind. I think that we run into problems when one or both sides present closed-minded, absolute attitudes.

Thanks for the comment, and I hope everyone notices that openly shows disrespect doesn't constitute that you wish to antagonize everyone.
I know it's off the topic but do you think that there really is anything that is an absolute? I'm not nit picking here just wondering....

 

[Kilgore Trout]

He does give several examples that are documented with tv interviews and references from newspapers and etc. I think there were some available on the net.

So he cherry-picks examples which fit his pre-conceived notion, and then "wonders" why all his examples are the same?

I think many of them are Dawkins, which is my favorite, I always like the "Bad Boy" types....

Nice girls always go for the bad boys.

 

[LittleNipper]

I have a very dear friend, whom I've known since childhood. He is an electronics engineer, retired military, and extremely atheist. I am a member of the clergy. We debate religion all the time. I believe. He doesn't. Yet, he never disrespects either me or my theology. (He does openly disrespect fundamentalists.) I think, perhaps that's because I keep an open mind. His questions are always well-thought out, and indicate that his is an open mind. I think that we run into problems when one or both sides present closed-minded, absolute attitudes.

Well, it is good (at least it would seem) one of you keeps a open mind...

 

[Charity]

So he cherry-picks examples which fit his pre-conceived notion, and then "wonders" why all his examples are the same?



Nice girls always go for the bad boys.

Well why don't you watch them for us and then give your opinion, see your giving credence to his accusation your antagonized by it....

Yeah, I can't figure the angle between me and the attraction of "Bad Boys" Maybe I do need to watch those videos of Dawkins.....

 

[gnomon]

In the book that I just finished reading, author David Aikman speaks against atheism. One of the books he refers to is "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. I have read this book as well as many of Dawkins books.

Aikman suggests that Hitchens appears to have contempt for people who disagree with him and an arrogance with his presumed intellectual superiority of atheism.

Hitchens states in his book " Our belief is not a belief Our principles are not a faith" then says "We believe with certainity that an ehtical life can be lived with out religion". Aikman contends that Hitchens even appears combative toward any opposition of his way of thinking, that he is inconsistent in his definitions of atheism. Aikman wonders can an atheist debate people of faith, without deliberately setting out to antagonize them?

Any thoughts on this, I know that the same could be true for religious antagonists...

Well, Hitchens is antagonistic. He states that in his debates and interviews and makes no apologies for it. What I like about Hitchens' is that he is not just another mouthpiece for some ideological organization. Not that I agree with him all the time. Hardly.

I don't know whether or not he's inconsistent in his definitions of atheism because I have not read any of Hitchens' books and I've probably seen more interviews and debates with Hitchens regarding non-religious topics.

Rather than worrying about Hitchens' arrogance, perceived or real, Aikman should focus on Hitchens' arguments. Arrogance doesn't really mean much. edit: And Aikman may focus on Hitchens' arguments in the book. Haven't read it so I don't know.

 

[MSizer]

I'm a hitchens fan only because I find him funny by his incredible wit. As far as whether I like his style, I think it's fun that an academic can be such a rude bugger, but in actuality I don't believe he's helping to shed any stigma associated with atheism. He has very little tolerance and is completely open about it. I think that ends up working against him if he's trying to dismantle religious belief. That's part of the idea presented in the new book "unscientific america". They point out that you won't win anybody over by telling them they're stupid for not understanding.

On the other hand I don't know why so many people say that about Dawkins. IMO he is tirelessly rational and very matter of fact. For some reason many people seem to think he's rude. I disagree.

Since belief is not a concious choice, we have to learn to understand that both believers and non-believers will continue to exist and we may as well learn to get along, because niether of us is going away.

 

[sojourner]

I'm a hitchens fan only because I find him funny by his incredible wit. As far as whether I like his style, I think it's fun that an academic can be such a rude bugger, but in actuality I don't believe he's helping to shed any stigma associated with atheism. He has very little tolerance and is completely open about it. I think that ends up working against him if he's trying to dismantle religious belief. That's part of the idea presented in the new book "unscientific america". They point out that you won't win anybody over by telling them they're stupid for not understanding.

On the other hand I don't know why so many people say that about Dawkins. IMO he is tirelessly rational and very matter of fact. For some reason many people seem to think he's rude. I disagree.

Since belief is not a concious choice, we have to learn to understand that both believers and non-believers will continue to exist and we may as well learn to get along, because niether of us is going away.

Don't know about Hitchens. I'm a sometime fan of Dawkins, though. Even if I disagree with him, he makes some very good points that the faithful need to listen to and consider.

 

[dust1n]

In the book that I just finished reading, author David Aikman speaks against atheism. One of the books he refers to is "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. I have read this book as well as many of Dawkins books.

Aikman suggests that Hitchens appears to have contempt for people who disagree with him and an arrogance with his presumed intellectual superiority of atheism.

Hitchens states in his book " Our belief is not a belief Our principles are not a faith" then says "We believe with certainity that an ehtical life can be lived with out religion". Aikman contends that Hitchens even appears combative toward any opposition of his way of thinking, that he is inconsistent in his definitions of atheism. Aikman wonders can an atheist debate people of faith, without deliberately setting out to antagonize them?

Any thoughts on this, I know that the same could be true for religious antagonists...

Seeing how stating your atheism in Europe for about 1400 years was punishable by death...

Maybe Aikman should actually refute Hitchens (I haven't read it, so I can't say too much), instead of using ad hominem, unless he's just speculating and not making any claims (in which case, he should be speculating my first sentence.)

“No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” - George Bush Sr.

 

[Charity]

I'm a hitchens fan only because I find him funny by his incredible wit. As far as whether I like his style, I think it's fun that an academic can be such a rude bugger, but in actuality I don't believe he's helping to shed any stigma associated with atheism. He has very little tolerance and is completely open about it. I think that ends up working against him if he's trying to dismantle religious belief. That's part of the idea presented in the new book "unscientific america". They point out that you won't win anybody over by telling them they're stupid for not understanding.

On the other hand I don't know why so many people say that about Dawkins. IMO he is tirelessly rational and very matter of fact. For some reason many people seem to think he's rude. I disagree.

Since belief is not a concious choice, we have to learn to understand that both believers and non-believers will continue to exist and we may as well learn to get along, because niether of us is going away.

I look to be stoned by many Christians for saying that I find Dawkins fascinating.
In the book "God is not Great" Hitchens pulls no punches and right off the bat with the subtitle "How Religion Poisons Everything".

 

[TheNorthernExodus]

clearly I would be on the opposite side to Hitchens in a religious debate but I can still find him funny at times for my money though he is not a patch on Dan Dennet imho, all I am saying is that if I was an Atheist his works would get my money ahead of the other "horsemen"

That said, Hitchens does say a lot of what I am thinking on other topics, his thoughts on other things have tended as of late to be obscured or over shadowed by religion etc, which imho is a shame, I understand why he is going this way of late as there is a decent market for such books at the moment, I just hope the topic doesnt consume all his best thoughts for too long though.

Did anyone catch any of his debates against and with Stephen Fry on YouTube, I reckon Stephen gave him a run for his money (not an easy task though Stephen Fry is other worldly brilliant at most things)
Good debates if anyone missed them and likes debates.

 

[BruceDLimber]

He is welcome to his opinion!

A few billion of us disagree.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Sunstone]

Don't know about Hitchens. I'm a sometime fan of Dawkins, though. Even if I disagree with him, he makes some very good points that the faithful need to listen to and consider.

Hitchens rubs me the wrong way. Dawkins, on the other hand, I rather like. I admire Charity for reading Hitchens with an open mind, though.

 

[George Campbell]

I have a very dear friend, whom I've known since childhood. He is an electronics engineer, retired military, and extremely atheist. I am a member of the clergy. We debate religion all the time. I believe. He doesn't. Yet, he never disrespects either me or my theology. (He does openly disrespect fundamentalists.) I think, perhaps that's because I keep an open mind. His questions are always well-thought out, and indicate that his is an open mind. I think that we run into problems when one or both sides present closed-minded, absolute attitudes.

You're lucky. When organized relgion speaks to their congregation about political matters when the only reference and background they have for their assertions is a 2000 year old collection of "sayings" the least this great republic can do is put the churches on the tax roles.