Christopher Hitchens Vs Armageddon (page 2)

Phizzy

I think that Richard Dawkins has done a wonderful job of explaining Evolution, and other difficult subjects, in a way that the layman, like me, can understand.

He gets a lot of flack, but not one cogent answer against what he is saying. I thought once he had dropped the ball when commenting on Islam, but when you read what he actually says, it is O.K.

As for the great Hitch, no superlative is over the top. I read a lot of his articles that he did for The Atlantic, as well as his books etc. the man had such a grasp on reality, was erudite, and especially knowledgeable on the Middle East.

A sorely missed voice of reason.

Beth Sarim

Yup. Critical thinking skills are not acquired by listening to the Borg. Such skills are attained by rational logic and independent reasoning, which are not taught by the Borg. People like Richard Dawkins do an excellent job at explaining evolution, which adds to critical thinking skills.

Secondly on a personal note, someone I like to watch on TV is Joel Osteen. Such uplifting, moving displays on TV. Now that is Christian. Making human beings feel worthy, and not dumped on with guilt or fear at assemblies or conventions.

slimboyfat

I used to be a fan, but you could say I've since become unhitched.

Finkelstein

I agree with Hitchen's philosophical viewpoint of the actual sociological harm the "Can't wait for genocidal Armageddon " to come theology expressed by religions like the JWS.

Placing mankind's hope on mythological story telling by one select ancient civilization told 2000 years ago as being absolutely truthful and accurate, is futilely redundant.

This kind of theology may sell books and literature as well cultivate money for some but its totally regressive to the possibility of humanity communicating as a whole to the betterment of humanity.

The light was never about waiting for a god to intervene or him sending special messages to certain people, it is acquired knowledge and open inquiry about the world in which we live in and of are selves, that is the only true light.

Vidiot

Hitchins' work was instrumental in helping me realize that jonesing for the Apocalypse was severely f**ked-up.

Distracted

I loved Christopher Hitchens despite his many warts. One thing I liked about him more than I do Dawkins is that he is more inclusive of agnostics as thinkers and Dawkins takes a harder line about that. Dawkins is too strident for my taste. Hitchens had more charm even though he was a bit of a rogue.

cofty

Dawkins is too strident for my taste

A lot of people feel that way about Dawkins. I always get the impression there is a smile behind the bluster. I think he would be quick to commend somebody who responded honestly to the evidence.

I love Dawkins work on biology and evolution. As far as rational debate goes my personal favourite is Sam Harris.

LostGeneration

Love how Hitch puts that smarmy dude in his place with that rebuttal.

A good read from Hitch is "Mortality" which he wrote during his cancer treatment. Extremely insightful and not a long read at all. I especially liked it coming from the "living forever" perspective we had as JWs.

Distracted

I meant to add this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-lane/hitchens-vs-dawkins-agnosticism_b_1235368.html

EDA:

I actually think agnosticism is more scientific than atheism. I guess it has to do with being raised as JW. I feel allergic to anyone who claims they have the absolute truth about anything, even whether there is a God. I think a trully scientific mind has room for uncertainty, and would want to steer clear of dogma and indoctrination even if it has to do with science.

One of things my worldly Dad asked to me to read was The Cry and the Covenant about Philip Iqnaz Semmeiweiz. My Dad usually read westerns and Ken Follett novels, etc. and he was a foreman in a factory; he wasn't a scientist. I saw that book in a library book shelf after he died. It just stood out to me. So I checked it out and finally read it. There is a couple of inaccuracies in it, but essentially it's a true story about that poor doctor trying to save women from dying after childbirth and it is compelling. The men of science in that period of time thought cleanliness and handwashing was unneccessary and denigrated the midwives who did it as believing in old wive's tales. The stubbornness of the scientific community despite Semmelweiz's carefully reported evidence was crazy.

I think there are some things out there that we still don't understand and we are limited by our bodies and our five senses. Even with all the equipment and knowledge scientists have, they still have that limitation.

Christopher Hitchens Vs Armageddon

Share this