Hitchens has some provocative thoughts about where much of today's monotheist beliefs originated which came out of inarguable human ignorance and how potentially dangerous and redundant they are in this modren day.
Christopher Hitchens at the "Festival of Dangerous Ideas"
Just passed the one hour mark, listening while l make spoons.
A fearsomely crisp thinker. Logic runs like a train on its track. He will not turn aside to accommodate any sensibilities that step in his way.
My son who was baptized at age 20 (in for a brief stint) told me later that he had a great desire to listen to Hitchens but also dreaded what effect Hitchens might have on him. His siblings saddened by his yielding to the religion often pressed him to listen.
Hitchens is doing well to debunk our god myths but he cannot nor does he try to promote a better way for us to conduct our selves in these fleeting moments of life...
well - perhaps he does in saying that do onto others as you would have them do to you—is a universal teaching that is well to follow.
I recommend a listen.
You can’t go wrong listening to Hitchens.
One hour and 45 minutes.
We spent more time at a Sunday meeting.
His observations on religion and god and morality are good thinking and witty.
Hitchens has some provocative thoughts about where much of today's monotheist beliefs originated which came out of inarguable human ignorance
And Hitchens was able to acheive a life of human ignorance all on his own as a drunk and chain smoker.
His wife said he was “obviously an alcoholic”.
"Accounts of his drinking, usually in the form of all day lunches, where one wine bottle followed the next, are the stuff of legend among his fellow writers. They invariably describe themselves as being unable to keep up with Hitch"
Are you trying to attack his character or the information he presented ?
Please read Perry .......
Ad hominemFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search"Personal attack" redirects here. For the policy on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The terms ad mulierem and ad feminam have been used when the person receiving the criticism is a woman.
Who adheres more to intellectual honesty when discussing religion, Hitchens or "any" religionist ?
Hitchens drank and smoked and did other things Christians might call sinful. But the remarks he makes in the above interview at 1:39 -1:42 are fairly said.
He makes the case for honesty in a person’s not believing in God. The penalties imposed by religion for a person who cannot find belief should make religious people ashamed.
I like that "hierarchy of disagreement" Finky, says a lot about the mentally diseased appostate tag.
Perry, Hitch made so much more sense with a drink than you ever have sober.