Bible belter
September 11, 2007 1:40 PM Subscribe
There is much fluttering in the dovecots of the deluded, begins Richard Dawkins' review of the new book by Cristopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great.
This post was deleted for the following reason: clearly my filter for these isn't working properly. But wait, Hitchens AND Dawkins you say...? * taps pager * Damn this thing is broken. -- jessamyn
This will wendell.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:42 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:42 PM on September 11, 2007
Fuck God. Fuck Dawkins. And fuck Cristopher Hitchens most of all.
posted by aspo at 1:43 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by aspo at 1:43 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
Goodness me, such impressive speed readers.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:45 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:45 PM on September 11, 2007
Is this one of those things where I need to have a zealous 'ism' to care about?
posted by slimepuppy at 1:50 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by slimepuppy at 1:50 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
While I admire Hitchens’s courage, I could not condemn those editors [who refused to print the Danish Allah cartoons]. There are times when “cowardice” amounts to no more than sensible prudence. But Hitchens is surely right to despise leaders of other religions who, while under no threat, go out of their way to volunteer a gratuitous “respect” and “sympathy” for those who incite murder in the name of God.I think they have a term for that. I believe it's called "professional courtesy."
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:53 PM on September 11, 2007
I just bought the audiobook of God is Not Great this morning. This is an interesting prelude.
posted by SansPoint at 1:53 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by SansPoint at 1:53 PM on September 11, 2007
Probably, slimepuppy. It's more of the same.. smug self-righteous atheists trotting out the same old tired canards against religionists. The MeFi Atheist Brigade will chime in with their own brand of smugness and rudeness, and those of us who happen to believe in something and have no interest in forcing it on anyone else will be, yet again, beaten down for something we believe that has absolutely no effect on those who don't.
So it goes.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:54 PM on September 11, 2007
So it goes.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:54 PM on September 11, 2007
Okay, I read it. Was it suppose to be interesting or did I miss the point?
posted by Stynxno at 1:55 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by Stynxno at 1:55 PM on September 11, 2007
One of the half dozen most prominent professional atheists reviews a book by another one. Verdict: he loves it! Seriously, how does this rate as a FPP?
posted by nanojath at 1:55 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by nanojath at 1:55 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
I for one am just shocked that Hitchens was sober enough to write another book, though I haven't read it yet, so I could be a little hasty in that pronouncement.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:56 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by Pollomacho at 1:56 PM on September 11, 2007
Projected light:heat ratio of the thread which will ensue here, 1:50 at best. Most of the comments will consist of attacks on Dawkins and Hitchens, or rebuttals thereto, and very few contributors will actually have read the article. (I just did, BTW.) Also, I want a nickel for every time the word "circle-jerk" or some near-cognate thereof is offered. I don't expect to get one, I'm just saying I want one.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:57 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:57 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
I had to flag it "other" because I can't seem to find the indicator for "pointless, redundant, and weak."
posted by nanojath at 1:57 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by nanojath at 1:57 PM on September 11, 2007
Yeah, this is like having Cheney review Bush.
If you are a religious apologist invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline. His witty repartee, his ready-access store of historical quotations, his bookish eloquence, his effortless flow of well-formed words, beautifully spoken in that formidable Richard Burton voice (the whole performance not dulled by other equally formidable Richard Burton habits), would threaten your arguments even if you had good ones to deploy.
Ha ha! How witty and eloquent! How dare those silly religious persons even show up and pretend to debate?
Fuck God. Fuck Dawkins. And fuck Cristopher Hitchens most of all.
And fuck LOLXIANS too.
posted by languagehat at 1:58 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
If you are a religious apologist invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline. His witty repartee, his ready-access store of historical quotations, his bookish eloquence, his effortless flow of well-formed words, beautifully spoken in that formidable Richard Burton voice (the whole performance not dulled by other equally formidable Richard Burton habits), would threaten your arguments even if you had good ones to deploy.
Ha ha! How witty and eloquent! How dare those silly religious persons even show up and pretend to debate?
Fuck God. Fuck Dawkins. And fuck Cristopher Hitchens most of all.
And fuck LOLXIANS too.
posted by languagehat at 1:58 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
review of the new book by Cristopher Hitchens
Know who else wrote a book about the delusions of faith?
Oh, wait.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:58 PM on September 11, 2007
Know who else wrote a book about the delusions of faith?
Oh, wait.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:58 PM on September 11, 2007
I thought it was a great review, although I didn't like the book nearly as much as Dawkins' own work. I found it to be unnecessarily mean, which detracted from the message.
posted by padraigin at 2:00 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by padraigin at 2:00 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Speaking as a committed and unashamed atheist, could we please stop having FPPs every time Richard Dawkins picks his nose?
posted by lodurr at 2:01 PM on September 11, 2007 [6 favorites]
posted by lodurr at 2:01 PM on September 11, 2007 [6 favorites]
Moving to today’s Iran (and this may go some way towards explaining his otherwise mysterious flirtation with the neocon blackguards of Washington) Hitchens notes
Yeah, Dawkins has that right. Hitchens is a weird character for me. I read his books or hear him talk and I think, "yep... uh huh... good point... YES! BRILLIANT! You, sir, are an amazing human bei-- er, what was that tripe about Iraq?"
If only he could tone down the neocon crap for a few years while he makes his otherwise excellent arguments.
posted by gurple at 2:02 PM on September 11, 2007
Yeah, Dawkins has that right. Hitchens is a weird character for me. I read his books or hear him talk and I think, "yep... uh huh... good point... YES! BRILLIANT! You, sir, are an amazing human bei-- er, what was that tripe about Iraq?"
If only he could tone down the neocon crap for a few years while he makes his otherwise excellent arguments.
posted by gurple at 2:02 PM on September 11, 2007
Having already read it, I was too bored to even argue with dirtynumbangelboy.
posted by Sparx at 2:03 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by Sparx at 2:03 PM on September 11, 2007
It's more of the same.. smug self-righteous atheists trotting out the same old tired canards against religionists. The MeFi Atheist Brigade will chime in with their own brand of smugness and rudeness
As yet, the only smugness and rudeness I've seen here has been from the folks asserting so vehemently that the Bad Atheists will come and ruin this thread.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:04 PM on September 11, 2007 [5 favorites]
As yet, the only smugness and rudeness I've seen here has been from the folks asserting so vehemently that the Bad Atheists will come and ruin this thread.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:04 PM on September 11, 2007 [5 favorites]
the new book by Cristopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I would have gone with God Thinks He's All That, But He Isn't.
posted by brain_drain at 2:06 PM on September 11, 2007
I would have gone with God Thinks He's All That, But He Isn't.
posted by brain_drain at 2:06 PM on September 11, 2007
Okay, I read it. Was it suppose to be interesting or did I miss the point?
posted by Stynxno at 4:55 PM on September 11
Interests, you'll find, and what is interesting, you'll find, can vary from one person to another. It's true.
posted by juiceCake at 2:06 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by Stynxno at 4:55 PM on September 11
Interests, you'll find, and what is interesting, you'll find, can vary from one person to another. It's true.
posted by juiceCake at 2:06 PM on September 11, 2007
sorry, that first line was supposed to be a quote with reverse-italics.
posted by brain_drain at 2:07 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by brain_drain at 2:07 PM on September 11, 2007
It's a fairly grey day outside where I am. How's your weather? I was sort of hoping Fall would arrive a bit more slowly, rather than leaping in the window like this.
posted by aramaic at 2:07 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by aramaic at 2:07 PM on September 11, 2007
I found it to be unnecessarily mean . . .
Odd, I would have assumed a Hitchens book to be necessarily mean.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 2:07 PM on September 11, 2007
Odd, I would have assumed a Hitchens book to be necessarily mean.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 2:07 PM on September 11, 2007
I don't mind a nicely written book review as a FPP, even though I'd read it somewhere else before. Counterpunch? Alternet? Can't remember. Wood s lot?
posted by kozad at 2:07 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by kozad at 2:07 PM on September 11, 2007
This quote perfectly summarizes Dawkins total cluelessness about religion:
We were to debate against a trio of, as it turned out, rather half-hearted religious apologists (“Of course I don’t believe in a God with a long white beard, but . . .”).
Because, of course, any whole-hearted religious apologist believes that God has a long white beard and all the other ridiculous straw-man-isms that Dawkins wants to attribute to them.
posted by straight at 2:09 PM on September 11, 2007
We were to debate against a trio of, as it turned out, rather half-hearted religious apologists (“Of course I don’t believe in a God with a long white beard, but . . .”).
Because, of course, any whole-hearted religious apologist believes that God has a long white beard and all the other ridiculous straw-man-isms that Dawkins wants to attribute to them.
posted by straight at 2:09 PM on September 11, 2007
As yet, the only smugness and rudeness I've seen here has been from the folks asserting so vehemently that the Bad Atheists will come and ruin this thread.
posted by solid-one-love at 5:04 PM on September 11 [+] [!]
Forgive me, O Wise One, for presuming to think that this thread about atheism is likely to turn out exactly the same as, oh, every other thread about atheism in the history of MeFi.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:11 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by solid-one-love at 5:04 PM on September 11 [+] [!]
Forgive me, O Wise One, for presuming to think that this thread about atheism is likely to turn out exactly the same as, oh, every other thread about atheism in the history of MeFi.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:11 PM on September 11, 2007
Hitchen's book is an inspired, well-stated treatise on the absurdity of fundamentalism. And it has heartened millions of atheists, agnostics, and general citizens wholly freaked-out by religious idiots everywhere. As far as I'm concerned the guy is the messiah.
posted by docpops at 2:12 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by docpops at 2:12 PM on September 11, 2007
As Hitchens witheringly puts it, does anybody seriously think that, before Moses delivered the tablet inscription “Thou shalt not kill”, his people had thought it a good idea to do so?
Pretty audacious coming from a bloodthirsty chickenhawk. Yes, Mr. Hitchens, you have a lot to learn from the Ten Commandments.
posted by straight at 2:13 PM on September 11, 2007
Pretty audacious coming from a bloodthirsty chickenhawk. Yes, Mr. Hitchens, you have a lot to learn from the Ten Commandments.
posted by straight at 2:13 PM on September 11, 2007
Forgive me, O Wise One, for presuming to think that this thread about atheism is likely to turn out exactly the same as, oh, every other thread about atheism in the history of MeFi.
Except that they haven't. There have been any number of discussions about religion and/or atheism where, dozens of posts in, someone will note that "hey, this didn't turn out to be a clusterfuck like usual."
Basically, you're wrong and being inflammatory. I'd like to enjoy this thread without you shitting in it, if you don't mind.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:14 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Except that they haven't. There have been any number of discussions about religion and/or atheism where, dozens of posts in, someone will note that "hey, this didn't turn out to be a clusterfuck like usual."
Basically, you're wrong and being inflammatory. I'd like to enjoy this thread without you shitting in it, if you don't mind.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:14 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
"Because, of course, any whole-hearted religious apologist believes that God has a long white beard and all the other ridiculous straw-man-isms that Dawkins wants to attribute to them."
Is that inevitably such a meaninglessly hostile question, straight -i.e. "how do you picture God"?
Why?
No, not trolling - I actually want to know your reason.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 2:17 PM on September 11, 2007
Is that inevitably such a meaninglessly hostile question, straight -i.e. "how do you picture God"?
Why?
No, not trolling - I actually want to know your reason.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 2:17 PM on September 11, 2007
this thread about atheism is likely to turn out exactly the same as, oh, every other thread about atheism in the history of MeFi.
If it does, you got the ball rolling with the preemptive snipes at your perceived adversaries.
posted by brain_drain at 2:18 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
If it does, you got the ball rolling with the preemptive snipes at your perceived adversaries.
posted by brain_drain at 2:18 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
Can we talk about gun control instead? Or Hitler being worse than Stalin?
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on September 11, 2007
Hitchens is especially good on the idiotic challenge “Stalin and Hitler were atheists, what d’you say to that?” – doubtless after plenty of practice. Stalin, Hitler and the others may not have been religious themselves, but they understood the ingrained religiosity of their subjects, and exploited it gratefully.
If you’re Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t exploit the pool of servility and docility that’s ready-made for you. The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity."
I think this is a weak counterargument by Dawkins, relying on a confusion of terms. You can't ascribe those harmful aspects of nationalism or zealotry to deism simply because deism has become your new word for faithful indoctrination.
For example, Marxism is certainly atheistic, but it can resemble religious doctrine. There's a justification of unbounded sacrifice (the vague, interminable "Dictatorship of the Proletariat") as the price of entry to a utopia to come (the True Communist State). Of course, it's taken as an unfalsifiable article of faith that the Communist State will eventually arrive.
But this similarity to religious doctrine doesn't make it religion or deism, and it doesn't mean that deism "set the conditions" for Marx's theories. It just means that people - all of us - believe all sorts of unfalsifiable theories and utopias, and that not all of them originate in deism.
Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that faith and deism are not one and the same, and that a crusade against deism will not somehow decapitate the greater human tendency to believe in the unseen.
posted by kid ichorous at 2:21 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
If you’re Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t exploit the pool of servility and docility that’s ready-made for you. The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity."
I think this is a weak counterargument by Dawkins, relying on a confusion of terms. You can't ascribe those harmful aspects of nationalism or zealotry to deism simply because deism has become your new word for faithful indoctrination.
For example, Marxism is certainly atheistic, but it can resemble religious doctrine. There's a justification of unbounded sacrifice (the vague, interminable "Dictatorship of the Proletariat") as the price of entry to a utopia to come (the True Communist State). Of course, it's taken as an unfalsifiable article of faith that the Communist State will eventually arrive.
But this similarity to religious doctrine doesn't make it religion or deism, and it doesn't mean that deism "set the conditions" for Marx's theories. It just means that people - all of us - believe all sorts of unfalsifiable theories and utopias, and that not all of them originate in deism.
Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that faith and deism are not one and the same, and that a crusade against deism will not somehow decapitate the greater human tendency to believe in the unseen.
posted by kid ichorous at 2:21 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Forgive me, O Wise One, for presuming to think that this thread about atheism is likely to turn out exactly the same as, oh, every other thread about atheism in the history of MeFi.
Well, they do often start out with somebody invoking the scary ol' Mefi Atheist Brigade.
Wow, look! You're batting 1000!
posted by vorfeed at 2:23 PM on September 11, 2007
Well, they do often start out with somebody invoking the scary ol' Mefi Atheist Brigade.
Wow, look! You're batting 1000!
posted by vorfeed at 2:23 PM on September 11, 2007
Sometimes I'm embarrassed at the allies I've got, I mean Dawkins is dodderingly goofy and I still can't forgive Hitchens for turning Neocon on me, but the fact is I think they're correct when they address this subject.
(Lately I've been picturing God as cortex with a laptop outside a neato cafe wielding the banhammer of Thor overhead in his other hand.)
And on preview: kid ichorous, I think you mean theism, not deism .
posted by davy at 2:25 PM on September 11, 2007
(Lately I've been picturing God as cortex with a laptop outside a neato cafe wielding the banhammer of Thor overhead in his other hand.)
And on preview: kid ichorous, I think you mean theism, not deism .
posted by davy at 2:25 PM on September 11, 2007
Some great quotes:
"I leave it to the faithful to burn each other’s churches and mosques and synagogues, which they can always be relied upon to do. When I go to the mosque, I take off my shoes. When I go to the synagogue, I cover my head."
and
". . . . the literal mind does not understand the ironic mind, and sees it always as a source of danger."
oooh I love that one.
Long may he drink and quip and provoke the kind of spluttering rage we see in this very thread.
posted by fleetmouse at 2:25 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
"I leave it to the faithful to burn each other’s churches and mosques and synagogues, which they can always be relied upon to do. When I go to the mosque, I take off my shoes. When I go to the synagogue, I cover my head."
and
". . . . the literal mind does not understand the ironic mind, and sees it always as a source of danger."
oooh I love that one.
Long may he drink and quip and provoke the kind of spluttering rage we see in this very thread.
posted by fleetmouse at 2:25 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Aaaaaaaaaaand that was the sound of the point sailing right over all your heads.
Bye.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:26 PM on September 11, 2007
Bye.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:26 PM on September 11, 2007
God having a long white beard is a stand in for young-earth creationism, biblical inerrancy, etc.
The religious leaders that actually turn out to debate Dawkins are, indeed, generally of the stripe that a) does NOT, in fact, believe that God has a long white beard, b) think that it's a pretty important distinction that they don't, in fact, believe that he has a long white beard, and c) think that Dawkins' arguments only hold up against those who believe that God has a long white beard.
In my opinion they generally have their asses handed to them by Dawkins in out-and-out debate, but since I flip on the YouTube already agreeing with Dawkins' position, I'm of course biased.
posted by gurple at 2:26 PM on September 11, 2007
The religious leaders that actually turn out to debate Dawkins are, indeed, generally of the stripe that a) does NOT, in fact, believe that God has a long white beard, b) think that it's a pretty important distinction that they don't, in fact, believe that he has a long white beard, and c) think that Dawkins' arguments only hold up against those who believe that God has a long white beard.
In my opinion they generally have their asses handed to them by Dawkins in out-and-out debate, but since I flip on the YouTube already agreeing with Dawkins' position, I'm of course biased.
posted by gurple at 2:26 PM on September 11, 2007
Meh.
(member of the Mefi Agnostic Brigade)
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 2:26 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
(member of the Mefi Agnostic Brigade)
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 2:26 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
The ironic mind does not understand thoughtfulness, and sees it always as an exercise in risking error.
"Scary old MeFi Atheist Brigade"? Please.
It's just that we're terrified by the spectacle of how well and smoothly these Dawkins threads usually go before the discussion calms down and gets reasonable, somewhere around comment #350.
posted by lodurr at 2:29 PM on September 11, 2007
"Scary old MeFi Atheist Brigade"? Please.
It's just that we're terrified by the spectacle of how well and smoothly these Dawkins threads usually go before the discussion calms down and gets reasonable, somewhere around comment #350.
posted by lodurr at 2:29 PM on September 11, 2007
It just means that people - all of us - believe all sorts of unfalsifiable theories and utopias, and that not all of them originate in deism.
Totally. This idea (which I believe to be true) is what moved me away from being militant in my atheism. Just because someone holds an irrational belief doesn't make the person irrational. I believe in extraterrestrial life, for example; there's no evidence to support it, and there's no way to falsify it. It is thus, at its heart, an irrational belief.
So I should not marginalize, demean or condemn the religious simply because they hold irrational beliefs. We all have them, and they don't necessarily mean that we are irrational people.
It's when someone uses force to impose their irrational belief that we're gonna have a problem.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:29 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
Totally. This idea (which I believe to be true) is what moved me away from being militant in my atheism. Just because someone holds an irrational belief doesn't make the person irrational. I believe in extraterrestrial life, for example; there's no evidence to support it, and there's no way to falsify it. It is thus, at its heart, an irrational belief.
So I should not marginalize, demean or condemn the religious simply because they hold irrational beliefs. We all have them, and they don't necessarily mean that we are irrational people.
It's when someone uses force to impose their irrational belief that we're gonna have a problem.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:29 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
And on preview: kid ichorous, I think you mean theism, not deism.
Thanks, Davy - you're absolutely right.
s/Deism/Theism
I stand by the rest of the argument though - he can't squeak by with "Theism led to Stalinism."
posted by kid ichorous at 2:32 PM on September 11, 2007
Thanks, Davy - you're absolutely right.
s/Deism/Theism
I stand by the rest of the argument though - he can't squeak by with "Theism led to Stalinism."
posted by kid ichorous at 2:32 PM on September 11, 2007
A Trotskyist hating on religion??? Leon must be rolling in his grave.
posted by loquax at 2:35 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by loquax at 2:35 PM on September 11, 2007
It's when someone uses force to impose their irrational belief that we're gonna have a problem.
posted by solid-one-love
Very true. I also have problems with people using force to impose their rational beliefs on me.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:36 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by solid-one-love
Very true. I also have problems with people using force to impose their rational beliefs on me.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:36 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
Jesus Christ, people. Regarding God: I don't know for sure and neither do you.
Let people believe what they want as long as it doesn't affect public policy.
posted by John of Michigan at 2:36 PM on September 11, 2007
Let people believe what they want as long as it doesn't affect public policy.
posted by John of Michigan at 2:36 PM on September 11, 2007
God knows there's plenty to criticize, and she wears a leash on the grounds crew of GN-types. He's like crabgrass; a little low on bodily fluids now. Anybody got some clips, that's the only one. Nothing beats a dream of eventually being able to hit a point about how much that story helped me a road trip like being on a very shitty screenplay: it's easy to play, looks awesome, and I strongly suspect that she needs to be. Maybe there should be put on by bloggers, that's interesting.
posted by COBRA! at 2:36 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by COBRA! at 2:36 PM on September 11, 2007
Let people believe what they want as long as it doesn't affect public policy.
And when is that? We're seeing more highly publicized works from more atheist authors because we live in a time in which (in America, at least) religion is affecting public policy more than ever before.
posted by gurple at 2:39 PM on September 11, 2007
And when is that? We're seeing more highly publicized works from more atheist authors because we live in a time in which (in America, at least) religion is affecting public policy more than ever before.
posted by gurple at 2:39 PM on September 11, 2007
Oh dear, and now the Markovitch posts are starting.
posted by nanojath at 2:42 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by nanojath at 2:42 PM on September 11, 2007
Well, nanojath, I see what you're saying, but I believe in coyotes, and I have one of teh workers they claim to really know anything about the art serves the overall intent. XKCD wouldn't work without the sex scenes. Exploration and sexual maturity's what the message of Crash was, but impossible to drive through town without being impressed by his work.
I sort of says why I won't be that chilled out about a glorified virgin on a whim and saw that on YouTube. Sorry for your loss, but man, that was all that bad if he originated it, but it grew on me to take his wheelchair on the "boring and provincial" part...
posted by COBRA! at 2:43 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
I sort of says why I won't be that chilled out about a glorified virgin on a whim and saw that on YouTube. Sorry for your loss, but man, that was all that bad if he originated it, but it grew on me to take his wheelchair on the "boring and provincial" part...
posted by COBRA! at 2:43 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Dude, you're gonna get banned if you keep that up.
posted by nanojath at 2:45 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by nanojath at 2:45 PM on September 11, 2007
But I must depart in pieces. Have fun with it, gang.
posted by nanojath at 2:46 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by nanojath at 2:46 PM on September 11, 2007
A similar argument has been made for China, kid ichorous (e.g. God is Society: the Religious Dimension of Maoism)
posted by Abiezer at 2:50 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by Abiezer at 2:50 PM on September 11, 2007
I think of this book now: Varieties of Religious Experience. It's such a decent, kind, genuinely curious exploration of, well, religious experience. Is a book like this possible anymore?
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 2:51 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 2:51 PM on September 11, 2007
the new book by Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I would have gone with, God's Just Not That Into You
posted by found missing at 2:52 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
I would have gone with, God's Just Not That Into You
posted by found missing at 2:52 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Wow, what a masturbatory review by Dawkins. And a thread that's already degenerated into bullshit.
Why is this here again?
posted by klangklangston at 2:55 PM on September 11, 2007
Why is this here again?
posted by klangklangston at 2:55 PM on September 11, 2007
Men Are From Mars, God Is From Venus, If, By Mars, You Mean "Earth," and, By Venus, You Mean "Man's Willfull Persistence in Believing a Comforting But Ultimately Dangerous Supernatural Fantasy"
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:56 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:56 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Markovitch comments? When in Rome:
God, y'know what pisses me off? That people have many views one way on one side; and the Raiders You talk sunshine, I breathe fireó The Amboy Dukes Nothing but a simple function of excluding the subaltern, and because I've had before (I like TV on the legitimacy of their record sales by tens of thousands of copies for Ford of an older, much longer book written by Heywood Banks, and his question was not any more audio equipment). It was so good that everyone have the data. If it's an Islamic problem, that would require extra-existential awareness.
"Perhaps you didn't need to chill out. He's not necessarily what Marx was doing a multi-year study out of reach. I believe was originally used pretty much off-base. Huffington Post is crap, even though they're arguably unnecessary).
posted by klangklangston at 2:57 PM on September 11, 2007
God, y'know what pisses me off? That people have many views one way on one side; and the Raiders You talk sunshine, I breathe fireó The Amboy Dukes Nothing but a simple function of excluding the subaltern, and because I've had before (I like TV on the legitimacy of their record sales by tens of thousands of copies for Ford of an older, much longer book written by Heywood Banks, and his question was not any more audio equipment). It was so good that everyone have the data. If it's an Islamic problem, that would require extra-existential awareness.
"Perhaps you didn't need to chill out. He's not necessarily what Marx was doing a multi-year study out of reach. I believe was originally used pretty much off-base. Huffington Post is crap, even though they're arguably unnecessary).
posted by klangklangston at 2:57 PM on September 11, 2007
Why is this here again?
Recruiting drive for SCOMAB.
posted by fleetmouse at 2:57 PM on September 11, 2007
Recruiting drive for SCOMAB.
posted by fleetmouse at 2:57 PM on September 11, 2007
It's sort of glumly amusing that the people most responsible for making threads like this fail are the people who scream the loudest about how these threads always fail.
Just, you know, don't post. Flag and move on if you think a thread breaks the guidelines. How difficult is that?
posted by gurple at 3:01 PM on September 11, 2007
Just, you know, don't post. Flag and move on if you think a thread breaks the guidelines. How difficult is that?
posted by gurple at 3:01 PM on September 11, 2007
When bible beaters battle in a beatle beater bash,
they call this a beatle beater bible beater battle bash.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:01 PM on September 11, 2007
they call this a beatle beater bible beater battle bash.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:01 PM on September 11, 2007
solid, I would tend to agree with you, but there is a proviso: a recognition that one's materialist beliefs are irrational, or at least unlikely.
Rational acceptance: "Given the vast age and size of the Universe, and given what we know of the apparent inevitable evolution of life in remarkably diverse environments, the chance of other intelligent life existing in the universe is almost certain. However, I have no proof for the existence of this. In addition, intelligent life may also be extremely rare, or the period in which interstellar communication is pursued by a technological civilization relatively brief, so we should explore options of programs such as SETI with a conservative, long-term view."
Irrational acceptance: "The aliens are among us! Watching us! From the skies!"
Many religious followers hold belief in God as a kind of cultural vestigial reflex: something that is vaguely "out there", and not given much thought to other than getting up for Sunday services. Religious thought doesn't enter or influence their lives terribly much, except when it comes to cultural and social touchstones (The Pledge of Allegiance, gay marriage, fear of death, etc.) As such, it's not much more than a intellectual quirk, a twitch. There's nothing there that couldn't be replaced with another regular social event and a dose of philosophy.
It's the ones who take it a step further, who exist in a demon-haunted world, as Carl Sagan put it, that are the real irrationals. But they are largely supported by the mute, uncomprehending acceptance of their far more moderate brethren. It is the reason that Hitchens amd Dawkins aim their broadsides below the waterline of belief, so to speak, to weaken the base support for those who would cleanse the world with religious zealotry.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 3:02 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
Rational acceptance: "Given the vast age and size of the Universe, and given what we know of the apparent inevitable evolution of life in remarkably diverse environments, the chance of other intelligent life existing in the universe is almost certain. However, I have no proof for the existence of this. In addition, intelligent life may also be extremely rare, or the period in which interstellar communication is pursued by a technological civilization relatively brief, so we should explore options of programs such as SETI with a conservative, long-term view."
Irrational acceptance: "The aliens are among us! Watching us! From the skies!"
Many religious followers hold belief in God as a kind of cultural vestigial reflex: something that is vaguely "out there", and not given much thought to other than getting up for Sunday services. Religious thought doesn't enter or influence their lives terribly much, except when it comes to cultural and social touchstones (The Pledge of Allegiance, gay marriage, fear of death, etc.) As such, it's not much more than a intellectual quirk, a twitch. There's nothing there that couldn't be replaced with another regular social event and a dose of philosophy.
It's the ones who take it a step further, who exist in a demon-haunted world, as Carl Sagan put it, that are the real irrationals. But they are largely supported by the mute, uncomprehending acceptance of their far more moderate brethren. It is the reason that Hitchens amd Dawkins aim their broadsides below the waterline of belief, so to speak, to weaken the base support for those who would cleanse the world with religious zealotry.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 3:02 PM on September 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
I'm just sayin' that every time God has been on the Simpsons, his beard has been both long and white.
posted by Sailormom at 3:10 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Sailormom at 3:10 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
[Existance of ET life] is an irrational belief
I don't think so. Life here apparently appeared ex-nihilo within 1-2 billions years of oursolar system settling down.
This is quite quick on geological scales, so given the apparent 'astronomical' number of independent trials (similar planets) in the known universe I would have to say the assertion that ET doesn't exist elsewhere would be "irrational", ie unsupported by the evidence.
or, to restate, the question of life appearing on another planet is a mathematical question of when (probability), not if, and the one trial we have (this solar system) indicates the probabilities are not infinitesimally low.
And re: Hitchens, back in late 2003 (around the capture of Saddam) I was struck by the fact that I really couldn't really find a griphold to dismantle his pro-war arguments. The man can think, and put these thoughts into a structured argument.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:11 PM on September 11, 2007
I don't think so. Life here apparently appeared ex-nihilo within 1-2 billions years of oursolar system settling down.
This is quite quick on geological scales, so given the apparent 'astronomical' number of independent trials (similar planets) in the known universe I would have to say the assertion that ET doesn't exist elsewhere would be "irrational", ie unsupported by the evidence.
or, to restate, the question of life appearing on another planet is a mathematical question of when (probability), not if, and the one trial we have (this solar system) indicates the probabilities are not infinitesimally low.
And re: Hitchens, back in late 2003 (around the capture of Saddam) I was struck by the fact that I really couldn't really find a griphold to dismantle his pro-war arguments. The man can think, and put these thoughts into a structured argument.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:11 PM on September 11, 2007
Aaaaaaaaaaand that was the sound of the point sailing right over all your heads.
Bye.
Translation: "My pre-emptive stereotyping of people who disagree with me didn't pan out, so I look like kind of a dick at this point."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:17 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Bye.
Translation: "My pre-emptive stereotyping of people who disagree with me didn't pan out, so I look like kind of a dick at this point."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:17 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Hitchen's book is an inspired, well-stated treatise on the absurdity of fundamentalism. And it has heartened millions of atheists, agnostics, and general citizens wholly freaked-out by religious idiots everywhere. As far as I'm concerned the guy is the messiah.
Okay, you do see the problem here, right?
And he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
posted by jokeefe at 3:21 PM on September 11, 2007
Okay, you do see the problem here, right?
And he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
posted by jokeefe at 3:21 PM on September 11, 2007
I don't think so. Life here apparently appeared ex-nihilo within 1-2 billions years of oursolar system settling down.
Must disagree with both you and BHG. I follow a logicial positivist view, and cannot accept as rational any assertion that is not grounded in physical evidence. Telling me that there must be aliens because the odds are so staggeringly for their existence is no more rational to me than to tell me that there must be a god because the odds of (pick any fundie talking point) are so infinitesimal.
Yes, I believe that the math works and the Drake Equation is a decent model and that we SETI@Home folks aren't wasting our time. But I can't back it up with evidence, and neither can anyone else. It can never (by the logical positivist view) be rational to claim that X exists without evidence for X. So belief in extraterrestrials is equally as irrational as belief in gods, from what I perceive as an objective point of view.
Because I sure would like my belief to be more rational than theirs, but I can't justify it.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:25 PM on September 11, 2007
Must disagree with both you and BHG. I follow a logicial positivist view, and cannot accept as rational any assertion that is not grounded in physical evidence. Telling me that there must be aliens because the odds are so staggeringly for their existence is no more rational to me than to tell me that there must be a god because the odds of (pick any fundie talking point) are so infinitesimal.
Yes, I believe that the math works and the Drake Equation is a decent model and that we SETI@Home folks aren't wasting our time. But I can't back it up with evidence, and neither can anyone else. It can never (by the logical positivist view) be rational to claim that X exists without evidence for X. So belief in extraterrestrials is equally as irrational as belief in gods, from what I perceive as an objective point of view.
Because I sure would like my belief to be more rational than theirs, but I can't justify it.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:25 PM on September 11, 2007
Okay, you do see the problem here, right?
Yes, the problem is you are obtuse. [insert cloying emoticon here]
posted by docpops at 3:25 PM on September 11, 2007
Yes, the problem is you are obtuse. [insert cloying emoticon here]
posted by docpops at 3:25 PM on September 11, 2007
It's not very likely that Hitchens's book contains much that's new or especially worth reading. However his repeated stream of arguments in support of Bush's 9-11 crusade are interesting, insofar as they remind us how simple-minded it is to imagine that the cause of peace could be much advanced by the mere movement of people from one to the other side of the question of whether God exists.
Maybe Hitchens's latest foray into God/Non-God arguent can point us towards more pressing questions that require our attention.
posted by washburn at 3:31 PM on September 11, 2007
Maybe Hitchens's latest foray into God/Non-God arguent can point us towards more pressing questions that require our attention.
posted by washburn at 3:31 PM on September 11, 2007
“Joseph Stalin, was probably an atheist but, again, he didn’t do evil because he was an atheist, any more than he, or Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, did evil because they had moustaches.”
Whoa, waitaminute. That’s just silly. Moustaches cause most of the evil forms of tyrrany known to man.
“The onus is not on the atheist to demonstrate the non-existence of the invisible unicorn in the room, and we cannot be accused of undue confidence in our disbelief.”
Reasonable.
“Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that faith and deism are not one and the same, and that a crusade against deism will not somehow decapitate the greater human tendency to believe in the unseen.” -
posted by kid ichorous
Better said.
“It's when someone uses force to impose their irrational belief that we're gonna have a problem.” - posted by solid-one-love
Which apparently, massive self-congratulatory back slapping and hero worship (in the review) aside, is the point - (from the review): “Channel-hop your television in any American hotel room, look aghast at the huge sums of money subscribed to build megachurches, at museums depicting dinosaurs walking with men, and see what I mean.”
That and you can make money off of anti-religion as well as religion (smug pays, but on balance, more dough in fleecing the flock).
“Very true. I also have problems with people using force to impose their rational beliefs on me.” - posted by slimepuppy
Which is also true.
So the upshot is the forceful imposition of one persons will upon anothers is wrong and fanaticism is really bad especially when well organized.
Helpful safety tip, thanks Chris!
Meh. Maybe it’s necessary now. Can’t say the method is all that great tho. (Still, those debate club kids were really really popular in school, so...) Conceptual incest seems to be one of the major symptoms of the problem they’re attacking. Doesn’t help if you engage in it yourself.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:43 PM on September 11, 2007
Whoa, waitaminute. That’s just silly. Moustaches cause most of the evil forms of tyrrany known to man.
“The onus is not on the atheist to demonstrate the non-existence of the invisible unicorn in the room, and we cannot be accused of undue confidence in our disbelief.”
Reasonable.
“Dawkins doesn't seem to understand that faith and deism are not one and the same, and that a crusade against deism will not somehow decapitate the greater human tendency to believe in the unseen.” -
posted by kid ichorous
Better said.
“It's when someone uses force to impose their irrational belief that we're gonna have a problem.” - posted by solid-one-love
Which apparently, massive self-congratulatory back slapping and hero worship (in the review) aside, is the point - (from the review): “Channel-hop your television in any American hotel room, look aghast at the huge sums of money subscribed to build megachurches, at museums depicting dinosaurs walking with men, and see what I mean.”
That and you can make money off of anti-religion as well as religion (smug pays, but on balance, more dough in fleecing the flock).
“Very true. I also have problems with people using force to impose their rational beliefs on me.” - posted by slimepuppy
Which is also true.
So the upshot is the forceful imposition of one persons will upon anothers is wrong and fanaticism is really bad especially when well organized.
Helpful safety tip, thanks Chris!
Meh. Maybe it’s necessary now. Can’t say the method is all that great tho. (Still, those debate club kids were really really popular in school, so...) Conceptual incest seems to be one of the major symptoms of the problem they’re attacking. Doesn’t help if you engage in it yourself.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:43 PM on September 11, 2007
I like Dawkins. I read The God Delusion with many, many grains of salt at the ready, and found I didn't need them. He was articulate, passionate, and unyielding, but also very understanding of why people believe the way they do. He also gets particularly angry about a point which I believe matters, and which no one else pays attention to (i.e. the practice of calling children in Muslim/Jewish/Catholic families Muslim/Jewish/Catholic children, as if they had the rational capability to decide for themselves what they believe.)
Hitchens really bothers me, though. It's not just his neocon credentials or his laughable Vanity Fair piece about why women aren't funny. It's the sense that for him, everything is about him. I had a photography professor in college who said of Annie Liebowitz, "My problem with Annie is that every photo is just another picture of Annie." I feel that way about Chris Hitchens - everything he writes is just another piece about why you should read Chris Hitchens.
Also: In other news...
posted by Navelgazer at 3:45 PM on September 11, 2007
Hitchens really bothers me, though. It's not just his neocon credentials or his laughable Vanity Fair piece about why women aren't funny. It's the sense that for him, everything is about him. I had a photography professor in college who said of Annie Liebowitz, "My problem with Annie is that every photo is just another picture of Annie." I feel that way about Chris Hitchens - everything he writes is just another piece about why you should read Chris Hitchens.
Also: In other news...
posted by Navelgazer at 3:45 PM on September 11, 2007
And is reputed to have known Courtney Love, ah, biblically, if you will.
posted by Haruspex at 3:46 PM on September 11, 2007
posted by Haruspex at 3:46 PM on September 11, 2007
solid-one-love So belief in extraterrestrials is equally as irrational as belief in gods, from what I perceive as an objective point of view.
Because I sure would like my belief to be more rational than theirs, but I can't justify it.
It's, by definition, not irrational. I don't know where this "rationality means absolute certainty" canard came from, but it's weird that even atheists have swallowed it.
From a previous post of mine:
"It is not faith to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, for we have consistent evidence for it and we have a working theoretical model that says the sun should come up for a long time. This isn't faith, even though we lack absolute certainty.
Faith is belief without appeal to evidence or logic; reason is the use of evidence and/or logic."
You're using evidence and logic to make a guess. This is not faith; theists are using neither logic nor evidence and know god exists. Don't confuse the two.
posted by spaltavian at 3:49 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Because I sure would like my belief to be more rational than theirs, but I can't justify it.
It's, by definition, not irrational. I don't know where this "rationality means absolute certainty" canard came from, but it's weird that even atheists have swallowed it.
From a previous post of mine:
"It is not faith to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, for we have consistent evidence for it and we have a working theoretical model that says the sun should come up for a long time. This isn't faith, even though we lack absolute certainty.
Faith is belief without appeal to evidence or logic; reason is the use of evidence and/or logic."
You're using evidence and logic to make a guess. This is not faith; theists are using neither logic nor evidence and know god exists. Don't confuse the two.
posted by spaltavian at 3:49 PM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
As a smug self-righteous atheist, I'd just like to say that I have used finger cots and I don't care what others think about it.
And I also like the beatles, who were bigger than jesus.
posted by 2sheets at 3:50 PM on September 11, 2007
And I also like the beatles, who were bigger than jesus.
posted by 2sheets at 3:50 PM on September 11, 2007
I had the exact same thought, straight.
What a weak way to start a review. Then, he follows it up with a down-at-the-heels appeal to authority and an argument from personal incredulity:
posted by rush at 3:52 PM on September 11, 2007
What a weak way to start a review. Then, he follows it up with a down-at-the-heels appeal to authority and an argument from personal incredulity:
If you are a religious apologist invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline. His witty repartee, his ready-access store of historical quotations, his bookish eloquence, his effortless flow of well-formed words, beautifully spoken in that formidable Richard Burton voice (the whole performance not dulled by other equally formidable Richard Burton habits), would threaten your arguments even if you had good ones to deploy.A syllogistic triple-play, Dawkins!
posted by rush at 3:52 PM on September 11, 2007
« Older Because buying new is for suckers. | Training Ground for Democracy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dersins at 1:42 PM on September 11, 2007