Lets elect Chris Hedges president, we need an alternative to Barack Obama and the republican nominee. Americans elect is putting the winner of the ballot in every state, please educate yourself about this movement on Americans Elect's website. But also, join the facebook group I just started so we can pool our energies and come up with a plan to get him elected! Facebook search "Chris Hedges for President Americans Elect"
What Harris actually does is contrast the difference between the nuclear stand-off between the USA and USSR of the Cold War--two powers for whom mutual destruction was an rather effective deterrent--and a hypothetical future stand-off with religious radicals for whom mutual destruction is no deterrent at all, but possibly the goal.
Hedges's statement that Harris "defends torture" is similarly misleading. These sorts of unqualified statements call into question the quality of his journalism.
@cosmicartist1 Right; that is what Harris does and he is not too stealthy about the fact he is "aiming" his "hypothetical" against a Islamicist regime somewhere-this is a transparent attempt (except to New Atheist True Believers and Marks) to set up a justification for a peremptory nuclear attack on that regime. Interesting that Harris basically ignores the Just War Theory propounded by Christian Theologians which is an attempt to limit not expand war.
@cosmicartist1 If Harris was truthful about history, he would reveal that contrary to his hypothetical, during the Cold War many hawks in the West found the Communist fanatics as bloodthirsty as the Islamic fanatics of today. See "Dr. Strangelove" for instance.
Shame on you, Hedges! You are blatantly misrepresenting what Sam Harris has said about nuclear conflict with the Muslim world. He makes it sound as if Harris endorses a nuclear first strike. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Hedges' intellect and stance is so much more subtle, true and nuanced - and less ideological - than Chris Hitchens' ever was. I liked Hitchens. I even drank with Hitchens. But he was a very, very snaky debater when it came to atheism.
It is funny that an atheist extremist is the one who publicky debates religions and writes books and is at the news maybe insults some religions but does nothing illegal.Religious extremists are the ones who blow up people and wan't to control people from having sex, being gay, using contraception and condoning child marriages and stoning a woman to death for driving so hmm. Which one is worse?
That we are not collectively advancing morally as a species is a very Christian concept.
It implies that we need redemption because human nature is fundamentally bad.
Conversely, Harris and Hitchens and Dennet acknowledge that we are intelligent animals, neither inherently good or bad, but we advance through knowledge. This guy's kind of a nut bag minister.
@charlesvan13 the idea that there's a thing called "Morality" which can "advance" is a religious notion. No God= No teleology, no teleology= No moral advance.
Isn't Hedges just against Atheist extremists? Isn't he constantly reminds us that he's written books against RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS as well, saying that neither view points are healthy.
I presume most Atheists don't think of themselves as "extremists" simply because of what the term extremists implies.
I know that Hedges isn't against people using their religious principles for good deeds so I don't imagine he would be against Atheists using their view points for good deeds as well.
The fundamental diffidence between the religious extremists and Atheists such as Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is that it is the goal of religious extremists to use violence as a method of deciding which idea is dominant where as it is the goal of atheists such as those named above to draw religious leaders into rational, reasoned debate and allow people to decide which worldview is most accurate that way. Their war against faith is one of reason and moral responsibility, not of violence.
@Webster3211 Who're you kidding? Hitchens argued loudly and consistently, if incoherently, for actual war against "evil" and "wicked" regimes who he said were wicked and evil because they were Islamic. He was a vocal supporter of torture and war, legal or otherwise, so long as it was against his enemy. It's ridiculous to claim their way isn't violent when one of them is a cheerleader for invasion murder and torture.
@MitchStarRepublic why on earth would I apologise? I read it when he wrote it, it's purely a coward trying to save face after having his bluff called. I DO remember he still distinguished between waterboarding (not just the easy version he submitted to) and "actual torture".
And I don't remember him saying "Waterboarding shouldn't be used". I'm pretty sure he didn't say that. I remember there was an embarrassing amount of jingoist tripe though.
@pietzsche Hitchens 100% believed that torture was COMPLETE JUNK INFORMATION!! Your just factually wrong. Apologize for the factual misstatement and we all move on. HITCHENS NEVER NEVER ENDORSED TORTURE! He stood up against every totalitarian who practiced it his whole life.
@MitchStarRepublic This was, again, after he'd had his bluff called. Why do you think he was asked to undergo waterboarding in the first place? Because he defended it's use. Rather more strongly before undergoing it, but nevertheless.
@pietzsche Please provide a single smidgen of evidence that Hitchens EVER supported TORTURE? You are just WRONG. He was asked by Vanity Fair to be waterboarded. No one was calling his BLUFF. Who called his bluff and where and when? This is an odd story you have made up, and I do hope you share the details.
@MitchStarRepublic 1) from the article you told me to read "When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who...
@MitchStarRepublic 2)...exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint." This is a direct statement, endorsing waterboarding, shortly after admitting it is torture. He was invited to undergo waterboarding because he had dismissed the notion that it was torture previously in a Slate article. That's why the story had impact.Who'd care if somebody who'd always said it was torture still said it?
@pietzsche You are willfully misrepresenting Hitchens' statement about "moral equivalence". Read in context that statement is reporting other people's views and calling for them to be understood; it is not a statement defending the use of waterboarding, and it is intellectual dishonesty to present it as such.
@MitchStarRepublic Lolwhut? He says that waterboarding isn't that bad compared to real torture and no American should be prosecuted for it. That's a defence i. And I'm not quoting out of context, you told me to read the article so I'm assuming you KNOW the context
He also defended the American running of Abu-Garib, including the torture. He loudly supported the Bush government whom he knew were destroying civil liberties, war-mongering, and USED TORTURE. How much fucking evidence do you need?
@pietzsche How about ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE besides your simple minded rendition of events. NO WHERE DID HE EVER ENDORSE TORTURE. You have deluded yourself with wish thinking, much like Hedges when he imagined after Hitchens died that he had beat Hitch in their debate.
@MitchStarRepublic He doesn't ask for other's views to be understood, he says there's no equivalence between Americans when they torture their enemies, and those enemies when they torture Americans. If you can't see any equivalence there you're a moron. He also felt this way about Abu-Gharib, defending the difference between American and Iraqi's who tortured there as "Night and day". I find it hard to believe you've even read what he said tbh.
@pietzsche You are silly and a troll. The article is clear, your inability to follow along explains all I need to know about your ability to to reason.
@MitchStarRepublic 2) He says waterboarding is torture, and he doesn't support torture, except when it's being used by defenders of civilization against it's enemies, and he doesn't trust anyone who doesn't understand that America(ns) shouldn't be prosecuted for torture in relation to it (although I'm being generous adding the qualifier). You can call that never endorsing torture if you like, I call it hypocrisy and cowardice.
@pietzsche Keep throwing your feces against the wall. Hitchens NEVER ENDORSES WATERBOARDING AND NEVER DID!! How you can read the article and not follow the sentiment is pure folly. You really need to come up with the article or quote that made VANITY FAIR CALL HIS SUPPOSED BLUFF? Amazing that no one else has ever heard this story, or remarked about it, but you.
@MitchStarRepublic Hitchens said no American should be prosecuted for waterboarding, that's endorsing it, end of story. I'm sure plenty of people know the story, pretty sure I read it in vanity fair, but regardless, Hitchens never condemned waterboarding until after he so quickly succumbed to it, at which point he had no choice. He does not condemn it in the article you linked, nor anywhere else I'm aware of, certainly not before he had been publicly shattered by it.
atheists using violence....really Chris? Show me one act....and compare it to the violence committed by the religious.....shall we?
As for Islam.....what he says seems to come from not wanting to confront some uncomfortable untruths....hardly an academic viewpoint - given what happens to those who criticize Islam in particular. You peddle exactly the type of drivel that Hitchens railed against. I saw you in a debate against Hitchens - you were taken down with ease...I guess it still smarts.
Anybody thinking Hedges has any kind of a point here would do well to read Sam Harris' definitive response to the man's constant lies, slanders, and deliberate mischaracterizations. I can't post a link, so I'll just say go to Sam's site and search for "Dear Angry Lunatic: A Response to Chris Hedges".
You have to admit, Hitchens was the chief apologist for the Iraq war. He set fire to all that left wing street cred, his expose on Kissinger etc, and burned it all in favor of rabid fanaticism and a fundamentalist agreement that Iraq needed to be punished for 9/11. What I mean is, he sounded more like a "religious" person than a supoosedly secular athiesm. I agree with Hedges. Modern atheism has more in common with religious fundamentalism than secularism.
Just 100 years ago we had segregation, women and minorities couldn't vote, life expectancy was 50, most countries didn't have elections, most diseases weren't treatable, slavery in the middle east, wars were more common and devistating.
Now life expectancy is 80, women and minorities can vote and be elected to high office, most countries have some democracy, most diseases are treatable to some extent, and so on.
@charlesvan13 Listen again. He said "that there is no evidence that we are progressing MORALLY as a species.." and it could be argued that segregation of women and minorities still exists. Slavery is a big problem in the world today, the majority of people on Earth are serfs in some form or other. Disease is curable if you can afford the medicine and in the last 100 years we have had the most devastating wars known to man. Therefore Charles, your comment is bitter & twisted nonsensical drivel.
No. There is evidence that we're advancing morally. I could go on and on in ways that humanity is.
This guy is essentially a minister. That's the only reason I can gather for taking such an absurd, manifestly false position. It's something preachers do all the time, admonishing people that the world is filth, we have darkness in our hears, and we better turn back before it's too late.
I did listen to what he said, but those are the reasons why he's wrong.
"segregation of women and minorities still exists"
That doesn't support his position, by a long shot.
200 years ago that was the norm, now it's an exception.
Superstition, racism, tribal, conflict, child abuse, sexism, zenophobia, slavery, barbaric punishments and unfair trials, censorship were all previously the norm in human society, and now they are not, or at least much less prevalent.
Hedges and you are pushing "bitter & twisted nonsensical drivel".
as a futurist & world traveller I'd say you are way off. Those things are just as prevalent now as they have been,but now you may be punished quicker.What hedges is saying that intellectually there has been no moral progress.Its true to an extent,because men are still as barbaric:They still eat red meat,slaughter millions of animals,create violent wars, & watch football matches on a neanderthal level.Only tech has advanced.Its always been a minority that is morally/intellectually moving forwards
@charlesvan13 unfortunately you are listening in a simplistic way to re-affirm your prejudices. Listen to what he is actually saying don't decipher info in such a crude obvious manner. He is talking about something more fundamental. I've been promoting "progress" and futurism for over 30 years but still hedges is metaphysically on to something that needs addressing.
I've tried giving him a chance, wanting to hear different views.
But I think this is just another way of spinning it to be the "meek and mild pious religious" are the victims, even when they are the ones scolding and casting aspersions at people.
@Hirnlego999 Sam Harris and Hedges are the best known "new aetheists" and are both Zionist jews. Can you name a new aetheist who is not Jewish and who does not support wars with Iraq and Iran? No?
@Uncle99B Hedges isn't part of the new atheists, he dislikes them.
Dennett and Dawkins do not seem to support wars, and I'm not sure Harris does either, as I've read some responses to those who have taken his comments out of context.
Hitchens had a lot to say about jews who take land simply because an old book claimed that it was their right. In one video he calls the whole idea of zionism a poor idea to begin with (bad source - religious).
@Hirnlego999. Hedges was the reason the term new aetheists was coined. While Hedges did criticize Zionism infrequently, he spent a whole lot of time pushing their war with Iraq, war with Iran agenda. Hedges was gutless and dishonest
@Uncle99B No idea where the idea came from but it's a foolish idea in the first. There is nothing new about religious criticism. Are you confusing Hedges with Hitchens? Hedges has nothing to do with the new atheists.
All this guy really says is to literally look. All he argues for is that all people are one and life has meaning. All he argues against (seen in who he references) is people who do not recognize the first two points.
Fuck all you Christopher Hitchens cultists. Listen to both sides of the argument. Christopher Hedges is a brilliant writer. You folks would realise that if you read his books.
Hedges says that "science and reason" is as delusional as "Jesus is going to descend from the sky and lift us all to paradise". How ridiculous. Shame on you, Hedges.
Atheism is the result of a skeptical and evidentiary scrutiny of the claims that fundamentalist religions assert. The religious claims are unfounded.
Hedges seems to weasle his way into the conversation as an unscrupulous middleman to play the two sides like a politician. He's a media whore and he's happy for any press he can get.
Hedges is spot on. The vitriol in the comment section just shows these "New atheist" with their ridiculous prophets( Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harrii) are just as bad(and intolerant) as your run of the mill Religious cult...
Fundamentalist materialists and fundamentalist religionists are *both* in error.. If you say: "Well, what does that leave..?" you need to do some homework..
i can't agree more with Hedges. I am an atheist, and I hate to be grouped with radicals of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. It's a personal preference, it's like arguing that Tea is better than coffee and so on. I do believe that religion must be secularized from the state, but not eradicated.
@YourFriendHerbie Umm, I watched both the debates and I'd say he won both. Hitchens just came across as frighteningly absolutist in his debate. I'm an atheist but I honestly think what this man says sounds much more sense than what Hitchens and Harris write about.
As an atheist I partly agree with Hedges, however I get the feeling he has gone too far in his viewpoints on this subject. Haven't really read what his views are on this. Even though I don't totally agree with Dawkins for example, I mostly do and really like him. He's one of the smartest people out there.
Although Hedges nailed it with his book on American Fascism, his antiphathy towards Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens & Co. simply attests to the fact that the effects of childhood indoctrination (his) may be very difficult if not impossible to eradicate. He can't quite accept the obvious conclusion that Christianity - and theism in general - is a dangerous mythology .
christopher hitchens,sam harris,richard dawkins and daniel dennet are different..... you can't attack "atheism"! I christopher hitchens, does not wake up and say "my atheist values lead me towards believing this".
"There is nothing [that] supports the idea that we are advancing collectively, morally as a species." Sacrifices, witch hunts, slavery, honor killing? Isn't that progress? His statement is either false or very pessimistic about human nature and societies.
Intolerance to religious intolerance is the new victimization of the religiously intolerant, so says the apologist of the religiously intolerant, so lets bend over and strike a bow to religious intolerance that must be allowed to remain intolerant unless we be made out to be intolerant of their intolerance. No matter what we do, the religious people are the victim. If they shit on our porch, and we complained, we would be made out to be intolerant to their natural expression of their faith.
Hedges is in some leftist postmodernist school of thought, which he proves is non-sensical.
He is trying to agressively be in the middle, incisively taken no absolute stance, and to demand moderation in views. Those are contradictory, of course.
Conversely, Harris is a scientist, so he values clarity of concept and thought above all else.
He seems conveniently, for some vague reason, both sides of arguments.
The net affect of the christian right is that casino gabling and prostitution are illegal most places in the US, a real frightening danger to society.
A secular morality cannot be defended without attacking religion. If I say to you "raping children is wrong" and you say "how do you know this without a God?" I have to provide a secular answer (which I can do). This secular answer must specifically exclude any notion of a God as the source of morality. Without describing the foundations of secular morality, any moral statement I make will seem to be merely opinion.
So because you don't believe in the people who don't believe in celestial super-heros, this makes your position closer to the truth? Hell, I don't believe in people who don't believe in the people who don't believe in religion. That's you. Am I closer to the truth? Don't believe it!
I see his point. I'm an atheist too but don't think that identity as one necessarily makes one a better person. Throughout history there have been tyrants of diverse metaphysical viewpoints. Rather than place ourselves above other belief systems and be satisfied with that, we need to identify oppression in society and of the environment, which, yes, is often perpretrated in the names of various faiths (a reason to reject them) and target that oppression.
What is this guy for? I don't understand his stance. He's in the middle of fucking nowhere. He can point out problems left right and centre but never comes up with solutions, so he is still part of the problem.
Atheism, if not given full awareness, can easily turn into a fundamentalist group in that it separates itself off from "others". One can just as easily fight for atheism as one can fight for God. Both positions create division and polarize one against another. I happen to be an atheist but I don't like the label.
@meghan42 I'm atheist but certainly DONT see atheism as a sect. and certainly Not to fight in its name ! ATHEISM by definition is simply NOT believing in a supernatural being,we are here by means of a natural universe and not unnaturally created. Atheism is not SOMETHING in itself..it simply means NOT BELIEVING in "God". So like you I dont want a fallacious label !
@brindow1 That may be true for you, but it's certainly not true for all Atheists. A number of people who self-identify as Atheists are not simply atheistic - in the sense of merely holding a passive non-belief. Instead, they're actually zealous adherents to a materialist ideology. So, their atheism is not born from a passive non-belief, but from an active belief that their ideology is true.
@BloatedSensations ok,but how EXACTLY does one become a zealous atheist ? What are you doing? I'm not being facetious,just practical. For the likes of Dawkins,Harris,etc.they simply incude the atheistic belief in their lectures. I suppose I could walk around with a banner saying there is no entity as God..would you do that? I am not passive,its just that I cannot think of a PRACTICAL way to be proactive. Can you suggest anything ?
The theosophical thinkers are proven more and more correct, day by day..It's the fundamentalist materialists and the the fundamentalists religionists-be they Jewish, Christian, or Muslim- that are the (unresolvable) PROBLEM.
Hedges is not anti-atheism. He merely critiqued "New Atheism" for what he perceives is an intolerant streak that he feels can be rivaled by Right Wing religious fundamentalism. I have to agree. But I also agree with Hedges conclusion that New Atheism is not nearly as dangerous to Democracy as the forces of Christofascism.
Mr. Hedges is a smart guy, but i don't get and don't agree with his reading of Sam Harris, etc. He's ignoring the facts about Muslims and "religiosity" in general. I agree that there should be tolerance for belief systems no matter how non-sensical or -in the case of Islam- harmful to the progress of society at large, but we need to shine a light on what they actually believe and how they operate - which is just what Sam Harris for instance is doing.
I`m an atheist and have to admit that he speaks the truth. When I was transitioning from a moderate muslim to atheism I, I adopted a similar radical viewpoint. I once looked up to the likes of Hitchens and many other popular atheists like Dawkins, but that has slowly changed over time. Science and reason are most definitely not the solution the world problems and the atheist community needs to take their heads out of their asses.
The fact that this video has so many dislikes is proof.
I agree with everything other then your view that science, and reason not being the solution to our problems.
Really don't understand how you view that, and I would like to see what you support this with. To me reason would fix all the problems in our world, to often the conflict between our conscious mind, and our instinctual desire's lead us to ruin. With reason we would be able to distinguish between which to use, and progression of our species would be the ultimate goal.
@NeutralExistence Reason alone cannot solve anything unless it is absolutely independent of ideology. There's a whole lot of 'reasoning' that happens to develop an ideology, but reasoned extrapolation of a core belief will always threaten to lead an ideology into evil actions. Ideology ruins everything.
One can have their ideology rooted 100% in reason, and base their entire ideology off reason for that matter. So I really don't see how one's ideology really ever gets in the way if you are shaping it based on reason, and logic. Evil is a subjective thing, I am sure your idea of evil is a-lot different then mine, and others. Some people would consider a lion killing an animal for food "evil", however in all reality nature has no evil/good.
@NeutralExistence An easy example is Libertarianism: government should never diminish any aspect of individual freedom. BUT without regulations limiting pollution thresholds & political donations, polluters are 'free' to poison the world until The Individual finds nowhere can sustain life & corporations have too much influence over government, The latter is fascism, the former is suicide, both resulting from fundamentally flawed ideological reasoning.
What is your point? Libertarianism is a flawed ideology not grounded in reason, is clear that to be liberal in the fascist society we live in is highly illogical. I personally do not like telling others what to do, but if it will save our species/planet, then so be it. One cant expect people who had the idiocy to vote for say Bush to follow the footsteps of those who want to positively effect our world. There is always a balance that can be found.
@AnimeTV100 Hedges misrepresents atheism. He also uses Sam Harris' quotes like a fundamentalist uses quotes from Darwin. The reason for the dislikes is that (most) atheists realize how dishonest Hedges really is.
@JeanetteTherese Nah thats bollox Atheists today are what Hedges refers to as "New" Atheists meaning they adhere to a belief that manifests itself in a militant, antidemocratic fashion...the likes of which can also be found on the Christian Right. And typical of a New Atheist as it is typical of a Christian Fundamentalist you only hear what you want to hear.
@StrangeIsMyWorld Militant? Antidemocratic? Examples please. As said, Hedges misrepresents (new?) atheists and quote mines Harris. He also uses Hitchens' stance on Iraq, which I know of no atheist who agrees, and many christians who do, as an example of this "militant" movement and use of violence. Show me examples of violence perpetrated by other atheists?
Funny, you read like you hear only what you want to. You watched this and regurgitated everything he said. Yes, strange is your world.
@AnimeTV100 I'm not religious but I very much agree with Hedges here. Myself I'm a futurist cyberpunk that promotes emerging technologies, but I feel Atheists that push a form of self-satisfied supercilious superiority are egoistic and delusional in their understanding of world. They are the mirror image of dogma and fanaticism, lazy assumption and simplistic reductive thought. Einstein promoted the middle balance between logic and intuition, Atheists are nothing like Einstein...or Tesla...
Is the way to get about to strawman your opponent? This is the kind of shit that comes about from that bit of irrationality. Walk further down that path and see where it gets you.
I regret to inform you that the Muslim world has a dearth of education, a dearth of science, a dearth of culture, and that it is a cesspit of humanity primarily for the reason that it has a deficit of science.
Hedges is extremely deceitful in the way he discusses the issue of the nuclear first strike. He acts as if Harris suggested we do a first strike to rid the world of islam. Rather, Harris said that if a jihadist regime gets a hold of a long-range nuclear weapon then we may have to consider a first-strike because we cannot depend upon them being afraid of Mutually Assured Destruction. This is a hypothetical, not a plan.
What, we're not becoming more moral? We've eliminated slavery, emancipated women and provide systemic support for the less fortunate. It's a job that will never be complete but things are certainly better than the dark ages when religion ruled.
Science and reason are the primary movers of human civilization and have provided almost everything of value in this modern world. Religion is anti-science, anti-intellectual and anti-freedom. The entire objection to civil rights for gays is religious.
Emancipated women from what? Why don't you research the rape statistics of women just in the US Armed Forces, let alone the country itself. We went from slavery of blacks to wage slavery for all. The US has more people in prison than any other country in the world. The US consumes 75% of the world's resources with a population of only 312,507,000, so everything of "value" it provided to the modern world was stolen. But please, keep flapping your cock trap & amuse me.
@Medvetz63 I'll not bother responding to your poor trolling but agree with much of your post. However, while far from perfect, we are indeed far more moral than at any time in human history. That's surely beyond dispute and, you'll note, the essence of my post; had you bothered to read it.
@agroundhere, I love how you admit you agree with my post (the Truth can't be denied), but then feebly try to save face by saying I'm a "troll". LMAO.
And I read your post, I've read so much of that sort of drivel from AmeriKKKan Joe Sixpacks like yourself. What I'm eager to see is how you & those like you will be when America collapses under the weight of it's rot & all you've held so dearly is gone forever. You'll all be wandering around in a daze, babbling like idiots. That'll be funny.
@agroundhere, Again, Joe Sixpack, your feeble attempt at saving face FAILS, and makes you look worse than if you admitted defeat or simply said nothing. I gave you numerous irrefutable FACTS as to why you're wrong to which you admitted I'm correct (thus admitting defeat), but then say I'm a "troll" with "poor judgement", but offer nothing to refute what I said. Joe Sixpacks use these lame tactics all the time & are oblivious to how foolish they look & to the shame they bring on themselves.
I'm not drawn into a dialogue with you because I don't respect your opinion. This is based entirely upon the comments you have imposed on me, and anyone else still interested in this now dated issue. Random association and incoherent babbling is less impressive than you may suppose. News.
How 'bout you make one last desperate appeal to salvage your internet cred before dinner, and I'll save the electrons and delete it. Ready?
There's nothing for me to salvage. I gave you solid facts, you agreed with "much of my post", and then you contradict yourself in this last comment by saying you don't agree with my opinion.
Talk about incoherent babbling. I think your lithium prescription has run dry. Better get it refilled.
@agroundhere while I agree that we have made some significant progress in certain areas, we have fallen behind in others. I cannot agree that we have become more moral overall - not even since the dark ages. There are thousands of examples of why this is so, .... far too many for this forum.
2:20 if it's not science/reason who is going to create the perfect world who will get the job done? Religion had it's turn and we all know what that turned out into
@YourFriendHerbie "[Hedges] has had his ass handed to him too many times in debates"
That's wishful thinking on your part. I've watched those debates that are available online. Next to Hedges, both Hitchens and Harris are intellectual spoiled children. Hedges brings too much historical weight and knowledge to bear in the discussion making Harris/Hitchens look petulant. And, since you're obviously a Harris/Hitchens fanboy, I doubt that you'll ever get that that is so. Maybe one day you will.
@HalfFullYeah I believe he is talking about Hitchens and Harris, as representatives of the "New Atheists". Hitchens was/is well-known as being all for the preemptive war in Iraq. Harris has that same "bomb them because they are dangerous" attitude. I could try to run down the references if you are interested. He's not saying atheists can't be pacifists, but that at least these two "New Atheists" are as violent as the hair-brained religious fundamentalists that they rail against.
@YourFriendHerbie It's incredible how brainwashed the average atheist is. You guys are even group trolling Hedges videos. Shameless. Disgusting and vile tactics that discourage real discussion and intellectualism. You should all be shamed. That said: Chris isn't even a theist, you kids just can't handle the fact that Hitchens and Dawkins and many of the 'radical atheist' movement are just as Chris describes here.
It is funny to see less qualified people disrespecting this man who is much smarter, much more learned, and much more experienced than themselves, simply because he disagrees with them. Obviously, his arguments have hit a nerve. In order to defend against their own insecurity in their long held beliefs they attempt to discredit Hedges' points by discrediting the person, saying that religion has twisted his mind..an example of how a persons insincerity twists the mind, religious or not.
@shadowkill546 Please lead me to some recent examples of "new atheists" running around starting wars, burning churches, oppressing gay rights, women's rights and killing believers ?? You realize you can't even be elected president if you are an Atheist...
Religion is a problem in the US. Haven't you read Hedges other book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" ???
John Hick has reffered to dogmatic atheists as "fundamentalists without a scripture". Whether religious or secular, dogmatism is a huge intellectual problem.
@OppressedAnarchist by creating a group that act the same way ? I mean if you put the beliefs aside, they act very similar, which is what I think Hedges is saying. IMHO they arin't solving anything, just adding another group to the fray.
@IMBUED The "new atheism" is a response to the threat of Fascist right wing christian groups. If people don't stand against those evil morons then the US is going to be the new middle-east. The only way a society can run peacefully is if it is a secular society. Christianity had it's "Taliban" for nearly 1000 years. It was called the "inquisition". Religion has had thousands of years to get it right and has failed miserably. It's time to put god away...
@IMBUED The "new atheism" is a response to the threat of Fascist right wing christian groups. If people don't stand against those evil morons then the US is going to be the new middle-east. The only way a society can run peacefully is if it is a secular society. Christianity had it's "Taliban" for nearly 1000 years. It was called the "inquisition". Religion has had thousands of years to get it right and has failed miserably. It's time to put god away...
"For the sake of common worship they've slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, "Put away your gods and come worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!" And so it will be till the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same." - The Grand Inquisitor, The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky
Atheism is not a movement! Has anyone seen lately that individuals blew them self up in the name of atheism??? Or stoned women in the name of atheism?
Ok, first of all, NEW Atheism could be called a movement, even if not an organized one, especially if you look at its "representatives" that often express similar views, know each other and collaborate in debates - second, a "movement" doesn't imply violence of any kind.
@HitchSlapYouSon Why do you misrepresent the newish atheist movement ? Dawkins, when sitting together with Hitchens, Dennett and Harris, was very clear about his wish to annihilate religion, while Hitchens refused that notion; not because he thought it was impossible, but because he didn't want to.
And in opposite to you, I can prove my point:
Search youtube for "Christopher Hitchens makes a shocking confession".
Excuse me Mr Hedges, but your quotation of Sam Harris' book in reference to a nuclear first strike is grossly inaccurate to the remainder of the quote. Stop reading between the lines and actually start reading.
This guy talks out of his ass,see how he insinuates that the Muslims will cause the next big terror event,why does he believe this? also saying that the Atheists will join the Christian fundamentalists in condemning it is also a load of crap,The atheist condemn ALL religious fundamentalists who ever they are, This guys views comes across to me as a bit racist if I'm honest,and one more thing is that being an atheist,is to just not believe in a higher power or god, It is NOT a religion/movement
@justgold76 You are missing the point. Snitch and company might feel some personal snobbery but would have no problem being the bombadier attacking the evil Muslims along with the "Christian" Zionist redneck from Alabama.
You are not a 'secular fundamentalist' because you stop treating religion as some 'sacred cow'. You are not a fundamentalist because you defend rationality from bronze age myths and superstitions. Science and reason has to fight the ignorance of religion. When was the last time anyone ever blew themselves up in the name of rationality or committed genocide in the name of science and reason? This mans pseudo- intellectual nonsense is laughable. uniteordie1
@nigelsenchez "When was the last time anyone ever blew themselves up in the name of rationality or committed genocide in the name of science and reason?" That time can come soon. Terrorism isn't based on religion; it's based on hate, tyranny & violence, and you don't need to be religious or even theist to be any of those.
If someone doesn't value evidence then what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it. If someone doesn't value logic what logical argument can you provide to show the importance of science. All we can do is appeal to scientific values.
You are not a 'secular fundamentalist' because you stop treating religion as some 'sacred cow'. You are not a fundamentalist because you defend rationality from bronze age myths and superstitions. Science and reason has to fight the ignorance of religion. When was the last time anyone ever blew themselves up in the name of rationality or committed genocide in the name of science and reason? This mans pseudo- intellectual nonsense is laughable.
I find it comical that Hedges misrepresents Harris with that first strike line any chance he gets. Try reading the book. Sam lays out a scenario and calls it lunacy- the reality is that Sam feels that killing millions of innocent people is a bad idea. I can’t speak for all New Atheists, but branding them all as fundamentalist is just hypocritical of you. I don’t think all religious people are foolish or misguided, I just think that science and reason are better options for a peaceful coexistence
One observation Hedges makes in his book that I agree with: People don't need religion in order to be willfully ignorant or in order to dehumanize others. The view that if religion were eliminated that we would be significantly better off IS probably a lot of wishful thinking. If people were rational beings, they wouldn't need people like Hitchens to tell them how transparently false a lot of religious dogma is.
Hedges ends by warning of the fallout if another attack from the muslim world occurs, that intolerance will result........What the fuck am i missing? Granted, i can see Hedges as a child being used as a punch-bag in the school playground and tolerating it, but he's precisely the product of that toleration, for he remains eminently punchable still.....if only for the fun of it.
He nailed H&H. They're essentially political toads who toe the aprty line. Neither Hitchens nor Harris exhibit any understanding of Mid East. Just compare their understanding with people like Robert Fisk, Amira Hass, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Zeev Maoz....
In other words... I think Hedges is basically saying "the new atheist" are the hipsters of believers/non believers. Too cool for school. Too enlightened. No Im not religous
This has been flagged as spam show
Lets elect Chris Hedges president, we need an alternative to Barack Obama and the republican nominee. Americans elect is putting the winner of the ballot in every state, please educate yourself about this movement on Americans Elect's website. But also, join the facebook group I just started so we can pool our energies and come up with a plan to get him elected! Facebook search "Chris Hedges for President Americans Elect"
Dissidentsdissent 1 week ago
Bullshit relativism.
ashburnhouse 1 week ago
Viewers, see for yourself what Harris actually wrote in The End Of Faith.
cosmicartist1 1 week ago
What Harris actually does is contrast the difference between the nuclear stand-off between the USA and USSR of the Cold War--two powers for whom mutual destruction was an rather effective deterrent--and a hypothetical future stand-off with religious radicals for whom mutual destruction is no deterrent at all, but possibly the goal.
Hedges's statement that Harris "defends torture" is similarly misleading. These sorts of unqualified statements call into question the quality of his journalism.
cosmicartist1 1 week ago
@cosmicartist1 Right; that is what Harris does and he is not too stealthy about the fact he is "aiming" his "hypothetical" against a Islamicist regime somewhere-this is a transparent attempt (except to New Atheist True Believers and Marks) to set up a justification for a peremptory nuclear attack on that regime. Interesting that Harris basically ignores the Just War Theory propounded by Christian Theologians which is an attempt to limit not expand war.
RPenta 1 week ago
@cosmicartist1 If Harris was truthful about history, he would reveal that contrary to his hypothetical, during the Cold War many hawks in the West found the Communist fanatics as bloodthirsty as the Islamic fanatics of today. See "Dr. Strangelove" for instance.
RPenta 1 week ago
Shame on you, Hedges! You are blatantly misrepresenting what Sam Harris has said about nuclear conflict with the Muslim world. He makes it sound as if Harris endorses a nuclear first strike. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
cosmicartist1 1 week ago
Hedges' intellect and stance is so much more subtle, true and nuanced - and less ideological - than Chris Hitchens' ever was. I liked Hitchens. I even drank with Hitchens. But he was a very, very snaky debater when it came to atheism.
livingstonmail 2 weeks ago
It is funny that an atheist extremist is the one who publicky debates religions and writes books and is at the news maybe insults some religions but does nothing illegal.Religious extremists are the ones who blow up people and wan't to control people from having sex, being gay, using contraception and condoning child marriages and stoning a woman to death for driving so hmm. Which one is worse?
ItIsBadForU 2 weeks ago
Chris Hedges is a smuck who got owned by Harris and Hitchens. Sour Grapes.
MitchStarRepublic 2 weeks ago
That we are not collectively advancing morally as a species is a very Christian concept.
It implies that we need redemption because human nature is fundamentally bad.
Conversely, Harris and Hitchens and Dennet acknowledge that we are intelligent animals, neither inherently good or bad, but we advance through knowledge. This guy's kind of a nut bag minister.
charlesvan13 2 weeks ago
@charlesvan13 the idea that there's a thing called "Morality" which can "advance" is a religious notion. No God= No teleology, no teleology= No moral advance.
pietzsche 2 weeks ago
Isn't Hedges just against Atheist extremists? Isn't he constantly reminds us that he's written books against RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS as well, saying that neither view points are healthy.
I presume most Atheists don't think of themselves as "extremists" simply because of what the term extremists implies.
I know that Hedges isn't against people using their religious principles for good deeds so I don't imagine he would be against Atheists using their view points for good deeds as well.
enticed2zeitgeist 2 weeks ago 5
Is it really that hard to correctly pronounce NUCLEAR ? George W, had the same problem.
jcezary 3 weeks ago
The fundamental diffidence between the religious extremists and Atheists such as Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is that it is the goal of religious extremists to use violence as a method of deciding which idea is dominant where as it is the goal of atheists such as those named above to draw religious leaders into rational, reasoned debate and allow people to decide which worldview is most accurate that way. Their war against faith is one of reason and moral responsibility, not of violence.
Webster3211 3 weeks ago
@Webster3211 Who're you kidding? Hitchens argued loudly and consistently, if incoherently, for actual war against "evil" and "wicked" regimes who he said were wicked and evil because they were Islamic. He was a vocal supporter of torture and war, legal or otherwise, so long as it was against his enemy. It's ridiculous to claim their way isn't violent when one of them is a cheerleader for invasion murder and torture.
pietzsche 2 weeks ago
@pietzsche You are just wrong. Read Hitchens piece in Vanity Fair about waterboarding, then come back and apologize.
MitchStarRepublic 2 weeks ago
@MitchStarRepublic why on earth would I apologise? I read it when he wrote it, it's purely a coward trying to save face after having his bluff called. I DO remember he still distinguished between waterboarding (not just the easy version he submitted to) and "actual torture".
And I don't remember him saying "Waterboarding shouldn't be used". I'm pretty sure he didn't say that. I remember there was an embarrassing amount of jingoist tripe though.
pietzsche 2 weeks ago
@pietzsche Hitchens 100% believed that torture was COMPLETE JUNK INFORMATION!! Your just factually wrong. Apologize for the factual misstatement and we all move on. HITCHENS NEVER NEVER ENDORSED TORTURE! He stood up against every totalitarian who practiced it his whole life.
See his clear feelings here, then apologize.
/watch?v=HslR9UaVuXA
MitchStarRepublic 2 weeks ago
@MitchStarRepublic This was, again, after he'd had his bluff called. Why do you think he was asked to undergo waterboarding in the first place? Because he defended it's use. Rather more strongly before undergoing it, but nevertheless.
pietzsche 2 weeks ago
@pietzsche Please provide a single smidgen of evidence that Hitchens EVER supported TORTURE? You are just WRONG. He was asked by Vanity Fair to be waterboarded. No one was calling his BLUFF. Who called his bluff and where and when? This is an odd story you have made up, and I do hope you share the details.
MitchStarRepublic 2 weeks ago
@MitchStarRepublic 1) from the article you told me to read "When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who...
pietzsche 2 weeks ago
@MitchStarRepublic 2)...exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint." This is a direct statement, endorsing waterboarding, shortly after admitting it is torture. He was invited to undergo waterboarding because he had dismissed the notion that it was torture previously in a Slate article. That's why the story had impact.Who'd care if somebody who'd always said it was torture still said it?
pietzsche 2 weeks ago
@pietzsche You are willfully misrepresenting Hitchens' statement about "moral equivalence". Read in context that statement is reporting other people's views and calling for them to be understood; it is not a statement defending the use of waterboarding, and it is intellectual dishonesty to present it as such.
MitchStarRepublic 2 weeks ago
@MitchStarRepublic Lolwhut? He says that waterboarding isn't that bad compared to real torture and no American should be prosecuted for it. That's a defence i. And I'm not quoting out of context, you told me to read the article so I'm assuming you KNOW the context
He also defended the American running of Abu-Garib, including the torture. He loudly supported the Bush government whom he knew were destroying civil liberties, war-mongering, and USED TORTURE. How much fucking evidence do you need?
pietzsche 1 week ago
@pietzsche How about ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE besides your simple minded rendition of events. NO WHERE DID HE EVER ENDORSE TORTURE. You have deluded yourself with wish thinking, much like Hedges when he imagined after Hitchens died that he had beat Hitch in their debate.
MitchStarRepublic 1 week ago
@MitchStarRepublic He doesn't ask for other's views to be understood, he says there's no equivalence between Americans when they torture their enemies, and those enemies when they torture Americans. If you can't see any equivalence there you're a moron. He also felt this way about Abu-Gharib, defending the difference between American and Iraqi's who tortured there as "Night and day". I find it hard to believe you've even read what he said tbh.
pietzsche 1 week ago
@pietzsche You are silly and a troll. The article is clear, your inability to follow along explains all I need to know about your ability to to reason.
MitchStarRepublic 1 week ago
@MitchStarRepublic 2) He says waterboarding is torture, and he doesn't support torture, except when it's being used by defenders of civilization against it's enemies, and he doesn't trust anyone who doesn't understand that America(ns) shouldn't be prosecuted for torture in relation to it (although I'm being generous adding the qualifier). You can call that never endorsing torture if you like, I call it hypocrisy and cowardice.
pietzsche 2 weeks ago
@pietzsche Keep throwing your feces against the wall. Hitchens NEVER ENDORSES WATERBOARDING AND NEVER DID!! How you can read the article and not follow the sentiment is pure folly. You really need to come up with the article or quote that made VANITY FAIR CALL HIS SUPPOSED BLUFF? Amazing that no one else has ever heard this story, or remarked about it, but you.
MitchStarRepublic 2 weeks ago
@MitchStarRepublic Hitchens said no American should be prosecuted for waterboarding, that's endorsing it, end of story. I'm sure plenty of people know the story, pretty sure I read it in vanity fair, but regardless, Hitchens never condemned waterboarding until after he so quickly succumbed to it, at which point he had no choice. He does not condemn it in the article you linked, nor anywhere else I'm aware of, certainly not before he had been publicly shattered by it.
pietzsche 1 week ago
atheists using violence....really Chris? Show me one act....and compare it to the violence committed by the religious.....shall we?
As for Islam.....what he says seems to come from not wanting to confront some uncomfortable untruths....hardly an academic viewpoint - given what happens to those who criticize Islam in particular. You peddle exactly the type of drivel that Hitchens railed against. I saw you in a debate against Hitchens - you were taken down with ease...I guess it still smarts.
72group4 3 weeks ago
Anybody thinking Hedges has any kind of a point here would do well to read Sam Harris' definitive response to the man's constant lies, slanders, and deliberate mischaracterizations. I can't post a link, so I'll just say go to Sam's site and search for "Dear Angry Lunatic: A Response to Chris Hedges".
reallyordinary 3 weeks ago
You have to admit, Hitchens was the chief apologist for the Iraq war. He set fire to all that left wing street cred, his expose on Kissinger etc, and burned it all in favor of rabid fanaticism and a fundamentalist agreement that Iraq needed to be punished for 9/11. What I mean is, he sounded more like a "religious" person than a supoosedly secular athiesm. I agree with Hedges. Modern atheism has more in common with religious fundamentalism than secularism.
WarTard13 4 weeks ago
bravo chris hedges
artrant 4 weeks ago
If Mr.Hedges thinks that science is self delusional he doesn't understand what science is.
Lyserge 1 month ago
@Lyserge He never said that. Go listen again.
arealbladeofgrass 3 weeks ago
And "We're no progressing as a species."
What???
Just 100 years ago we had segregation, women and minorities couldn't vote, life expectancy was 50, most countries didn't have elections, most diseases weren't treatable, slavery in the middle east, wars were more common and devistating.
Now life expectancy is 80, women and minorities can vote and be elected to high office, most countries have some democracy, most diseases are treatable to some extent, and so on.
charlesvan13 1 month ago
@charlesvan13 Listen again. He said "that there is no evidence that we are progressing MORALLY as a species.." and it could be argued that segregation of women and minorities still exists. Slavery is a big problem in the world today, the majority of people on Earth are serfs in some form or other. Disease is curable if you can afford the medicine and in the last 100 years we have had the most devastating wars known to man. Therefore Charles, your comment is bitter & twisted nonsensical drivel.
arealbladeofgrass 3 weeks ago
@arealbladeofgrass
No. There is evidence that we're advancing morally. I could go on and on in ways that humanity is.
This guy is essentially a minister. That's the only reason I can gather for taking such an absurd, manifestly false position. It's something preachers do all the time, admonishing people that the world is filth, we have darkness in our hears, and we better turn back before it's too late.
I did listen to what he said, but those are the reasons why he's wrong.
charlesvan13 3 weeks ago
@arealbladeofgrass
"segregation of women and minorities still exists"
That doesn't support his position, by a long shot.
200 years ago that was the norm, now it's an exception.
Superstition, racism, tribal, conflict, child abuse, sexism, zenophobia, slavery, barbaric punishments and unfair trials, censorship were all previously the norm in human society, and now they are not, or at least much less prevalent.
Hedges and you are pushing "bitter & twisted nonsensical drivel".
charlesvan13 3 weeks ago
as a futurist & world traveller I'd say you are way off. Those things are just as prevalent now as they have been,but now you may be punished quicker.What hedges is saying that intellectually there has been no moral progress.Its true to an extent,because men are still as barbaric:They still eat red meat,slaughter millions of animals,create violent wars, & watch football matches on a neanderthal level.Only tech has advanced.Its always been a minority that is morally/intellectually moving forwards
earthacademy 3 weeks ago
@charlesvan13 unfortunately you are listening in a simplistic way to re-affirm your prejudices. Listen to what he is actually saying don't decipher info in such a crude obvious manner. He is talking about something more fundamental. I've been promoting "progress" and futurism for over 30 years but still hedges is metaphysically on to something that needs addressing.
earthacademy 3 weeks ago
@earthacademy
You probably shouldn't be so silly arrogant.
"As a world traveller"???
What are you going to list your degrees now?
I predict that you would lose there also; I have lived in 5 countries on 3 continents.
charlesvan13 2 weeks ago
I've tried giving him a chance, wanting to hear different views.
But I think this is just another way of spinning it to be the "meek and mild pious religious" are the victims, even when they are the ones scolding and casting aspersions at people.
charlesvan13 1 month ago
"Secular fundamentalist" doesn't mean anything.
By analogy with "Christian fundamentalism" it would refer to someone who:
Believes in the infalibility and literal truth of the secular, i.e. the non-religious.
The only part of that that could mean anything is a "belief in the infalibility of the secular."
Nobody believes that; atheists don't believe it anymore than preachers.
This guy just talks like a sanctimonious preacher, casting aspersions on people with little self reflection.
charlesvan13 1 month ago
...against his intellectual opponents...
charlesvan13 1 month ago
Hitchens had more class than to make an entire monologue against his intellectual behind their backs.
He would criticise people he didn't like, but only in context of larger points he was making.
charlesvan13 1 month ago
The "new aetheists" are primarily right wing zionist jews
Uncle99B 1 month ago
@Uncle99B Nonsense.
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
@Hirnlego999 Sam Harris and Hedges are the best known "new aetheists" and are both Zionist jews. Can you name a new aetheist who is not Jewish and who does not support wars with Iraq and Iran? No?
Uncle99B 1 month ago
@Uncle99B Hedges isn't part of the new atheists, he dislikes them.
Dennett and Dawkins do not seem to support wars, and I'm not sure Harris does either, as I've read some responses to those who have taken his comments out of context.
Hitchens had a lot to say about jews who take land simply because an old book claimed that it was their right. In one video he calls the whole idea of zionism a poor idea to begin with (bad source - religious).
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
@Hirnlego999. Hedges was the reason the term new aetheists was coined. While Hedges did criticize Zionism infrequently, he spent a whole lot of time pushing their war with Iraq, war with Iran agenda. Hedges was gutless and dishonest
Uncle99B 1 month ago
@Uncle99B No idea where the idea came from but it's a foolish idea in the first. There is nothing new about religious criticism. Are you confusing Hedges with Hitchens? Hedges has nothing to do with the new atheists.
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
@Hirnlego999 Oops. Replace Hedges with Hitchens
Uncle99B 1 month ago
All this guy really says is to literally look. All he argues for is that all people are one and life has meaning. All he argues against (seen in who he references) is people who do not recognize the first two points.
What's the problem?
wildbunchdreamteam 1 month ago
Fuck all you Christopher Hitchens cultists. Listen to both sides of the argument. Christopher Hedges is a brilliant writer. You folks would realise that if you read his books.
Wolfovicz 1 month ago
Hedges says that "science and reason" is as delusional as "Jesus is going to descend from the sky and lift us all to paradise". How ridiculous. Shame on you, Hedges.
Atheism is the result of a skeptical and evidentiary scrutiny of the claims that fundamentalist religions assert. The religious claims are unfounded.
Hedges seems to weasle his way into the conversation as an unscrupulous middleman to play the two sides like a politician. He's a media whore and he's happy for any press he can get.
NimbleWitz 1 month ago
Hedges is a dishonest person. Sad.
Aeresy 1 month ago
truth
ishiali100 1 month ago
Hedges is spot on. The vitriol in the comment section just shows these "New atheist" with their ridiculous prophets( Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harrii) are just as bad(and intolerant) as your run of the mill Religious cult...
zhohaq 1 month ago
@zhohaq. These "new" aetheists all seem to be the same old Zionists
Uncle99B 1 month ago
Fundamentalist materialists and fundamentalist religionists are *both* in error.. If you say: "Well, what does that leave..?" you need to do some homework..
TwoPointsUp 1 month ago
i can't agree more with Hedges. I am an atheist, and I hate to be grouped with radicals of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. It's a personal preference, it's like arguing that Tea is better than coffee and so on. I do believe that religion must be secularized from the state, but not eradicated.
TheDepreso 1 month ago
@YourFriendHerbie Umm, I watched both the debates and I'd say he won both. Hitchens just came across as frighteningly absolutist in his debate. I'm an atheist but I honestly think what this man says sounds much more sense than what Hitchens and Harris write about.
SimpVeggie 1 month ago
As an atheist I partly agree with Hedges, however I get the feeling he has gone too far in his viewpoints on this subject. Haven't really read what his views are on this. Even though I don't totally agree with Dawkins for example, I mostly do and really like him. He's one of the smartest people out there.
ridewave444 1 month ago
Although Hedges nailed it with his book on American Fascism, his antiphathy towards Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens & Co. simply attests to the fact that the effects of childhood indoctrination (his) may be very difficult if not impossible to eradicate. He can't quite accept the obvious conclusion that Christianity - and theism in general - is a dangerous mythology .
vjwebster 1 month ago
christopher hitchens,sam harris,richard dawkins and daniel dennet are different..... you can't attack "atheism"! I christopher hitchens, does not wake up and say "my atheist values lead me towards believing this".
hormoaning11 1 month ago
"There is nothing [that] supports the idea that we are advancing collectively, morally as a species." Sacrifices, witch hunts, slavery, honor killing? Isn't that progress? His statement is either false or very pessimistic about human nature and societies.
num3ric 1 month ago
Intolerance to religious intolerance is the new victimization of the religiously intolerant, so says the apologist of the religiously intolerant, so lets bend over and strike a bow to religious intolerance that must be allowed to remain intolerant unless we be made out to be intolerant of their intolerance. No matter what we do, the religious people are the victim. If they shit on our porch, and we complained, we would be made out to be intolerant to their natural expression of their faith.
JusticeIsWhere 1 month ago
Hedges is in some leftist postmodernist school of thought, which he proves is non-sensical.
He is trying to agressively be in the middle, incisively taken no absolute stance, and to demand moderation in views. Those are contradictory, of course.
Conversely, Harris is a scientist, so he values clarity of concept and thought above all else.
charlesvan13 1 month ago
@YourFriendHerbie
He seems conveniently, for some vague reason, both sides of arguments.
The net affect of the christian right is that casino gabling and prostitution are illegal most places in the US, a real frightening danger to society.
charlesvan13 1 month ago
@YourFriendHerbie he s got it on the state of the world but delusional in his beliefs
phildirt3 2 months ago
A secular morality cannot be defended without attacking religion. If I say to you "raping children is wrong" and you say "how do you know this without a God?" I have to provide a secular answer (which I can do). This secular answer must specifically exclude any notion of a God as the source of morality. Without describing the foundations of secular morality, any moral statement I make will seem to be merely opinion.
TaylorThaHick 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So because you don't believe in the people who don't believe in celestial super-heros, this makes your position closer to the truth? Hell, I don't believe in people who don't believe in the people who don't believe in religion. That's you. Am I closer to the truth? Don't believe it!
Yavor54 2 months ago
Comment removed
Yavor54 2 months ago
I see his point. I'm an atheist too but don't think that identity as one necessarily makes one a better person. Throughout history there have been tyrants of diverse metaphysical viewpoints. Rather than place ourselves above other belief systems and be satisfied with that, we need to identify oppression in society and of the environment, which, yes, is often perpretrated in the names of various faiths (a reason to reject them) and target that oppression.
normanwells100 2 months ago
1:15 Nucular.
Aeschylus 2 months ago
What is this guy for? I don't understand his stance. He's in the middle of fucking nowhere. He can point out problems left right and centre but never comes up with solutions, so he is still part of the problem.
stratocaster1986able 2 months ago
@stratocaster1986able His answer is 'Stop.' Stop being racist, stop being pro-fascist, stop lacking empathy.
Yours is an idiotic idea, that someone who knows something's wrong but doesn't know how to fix it, is 'part of the problem.'
RoosterTreeComicLit 2 months ago
"so this is his idea of payback"
It's spelt "paycheque". Gosh he is tiresome.
Grundibular 2 months ago
This man doesn't have the intellectual tools to debate with either of those men.
oldstock1607 2 months ago
chris, you are a sanctimonious tool
iamthe3rd 2 months ago
Atheism, if not given full awareness, can easily turn into a fundamentalist group in that it separates itself off from "others". One can just as easily fight for atheism as one can fight for God. Both positions create division and polarize one against another. I happen to be an atheist but I don't like the label.
meghan42 2 months ago
@meghan42 I'm atheist but certainly DONT see atheism as a sect. and certainly Not to fight in its name ! ATHEISM by definition is simply NOT believing in a supernatural being,we are here by means of a natural universe and not unnaturally created. Atheism is not SOMETHING in itself..it simply means NOT BELIEVING in "God". So like you I dont want a fallacious label !
brindow1 2 months ago
@brindow1 That may be true for you, but it's certainly not true for all Atheists. A number of people who self-identify as Atheists are not simply atheistic - in the sense of merely holding a passive non-belief. Instead, they're actually zealous adherents to a materialist ideology. So, their atheism is not born from a passive non-belief, but from an active belief that their ideology is true.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations ok,but how EXACTLY does one become a zealous atheist ? What are you doing? I'm not being facetious,just practical. For the likes of Dawkins,Harris,etc.they simply incude the atheistic belief in their lectures. I suppose I could walk around with a banner saying there is no entity as God..would you do that? I am not passive,its just that I cannot think of a PRACTICAL way to be proactive. Can you suggest anything ?
brindow1 1 month ago
The theosophical thinkers are proven more and more correct, day by day..It's the fundamentalist materialists and the the fundamentalists religionists-be they Jewish, Christian, or Muslim- that are the (unresolvable) PROBLEM.
TwoPointsUp 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hedges is not anti-atheism. He merely critiqued "New Atheism" for what he perceives is an intolerant streak that he feels can be rivaled by Right Wing religious fundamentalism. I have to agree. But I also agree with Hedges conclusion that New Atheism is not nearly as dangerous to Democracy as the forces of Christofascism.
StrangeIsMyWorld 2 months ago
Comment removed
StrangeIsMyWorld 3 months ago
Mr. Hedges is a smart guy, but i don't get and don't agree with his reading of Sam Harris, etc. He's ignoring the facts about Muslims and "religiosity" in general. I agree that there should be tolerance for belief systems no matter how non-sensical or -in the case of Islam- harmful to the progress of society at large, but we need to shine a light on what they actually believe and how they operate - which is just what Sam Harris for instance is doing.
ajerseykid 3 months ago
@ajerseykid Hedges was kidnapped by Islamic fundamentalists. He is all to aware of the danger they represent.
StrangeIsMyWorld 3 months ago
@StrangeIsMyWorld Very true..they must have frightened the life out of him ! Wouldn't be surprised now if he turns muslim !
brindow1 2 months ago
I`m an atheist and have to admit that he speaks the truth. When I was transitioning from a moderate muslim to atheism I, I adopted a similar radical viewpoint. I once looked up to the likes of Hitchens and many other popular atheists like Dawkins, but that has slowly changed over time. Science and reason are most definitely not the solution the world problems and the atheist community needs to take their heads out of their asses.
The fact that this video has so many dislikes is proof.
AnimeTV100 3 months ago 14
@AnimeTV100
I agree with everything other then your view that science, and reason not being the solution to our problems.
Really don't understand how you view that, and I would like to see what you support this with. To me reason would fix all the problems in our world, to often the conflict between our conscious mind, and our instinctual desire's lead us to ruin. With reason we would be able to distinguish between which to use, and progression of our species would be the ultimate goal.
NeutralExistence 2 months ago
@NeutralExistence Reason alone cannot solve anything unless it is absolutely independent of ideology. There's a whole lot of 'reasoning' that happens to develop an ideology, but reasoned extrapolation of a core belief will always threaten to lead an ideology into evil actions. Ideology ruins everything.
RoosterTreeComicLit 2 months ago
@RoosterTreeComicLit
One can have their ideology rooted 100% in reason, and base their entire ideology off reason for that matter. So I really don't see how one's ideology really ever gets in the way if you are shaping it based on reason, and logic. Evil is a subjective thing, I am sure your idea of evil is a-lot different then mine, and others. Some people would consider a lion killing an animal for food "evil", however in all reality nature has no evil/good.
NeutralExistence 2 months ago
@NeutralExistence An easy example is Libertarianism: government should never diminish any aspect of individual freedom. BUT without regulations limiting pollution thresholds & political donations, polluters are 'free' to poison the world until The Individual finds nowhere can sustain life & corporations have too much influence over government, The latter is fascism, the former is suicide, both resulting from fundamentally flawed ideological reasoning.
RoosterTreeComicLit 2 months ago
@RoosterTreeComicLit
What is your point? Libertarianism is a flawed ideology not grounded in reason, is clear that to be liberal in the fascist society we live in is highly illogical. I personally do not like telling others what to do, but if it will save our species/planet, then so be it. One cant expect people who had the idiocy to vote for say Bush to follow the footsteps of those who want to positively effect our world. There is always a balance that can be found.
NeutralExistence 1 month ago
@AnimeTV100 Hedges misrepresents atheism. He also uses Sam Harris' quotes like a fundamentalist uses quotes from Darwin. The reason for the dislikes is that (most) atheists realize how dishonest Hedges really is.
JeanetteTherese 1 month ago 15
@JeanetteTherese Nah thats bollox Atheists today are what Hedges refers to as "New" Atheists meaning they adhere to a belief that manifests itself in a militant, antidemocratic fashion...the likes of which can also be found on the Christian Right. And typical of a New Atheist as it is typical of a Christian Fundamentalist you only hear what you want to hear.
StrangeIsMyWorld 1 month ago
@StrangeIsMyWorld Militant? Antidemocratic? Examples please. As said, Hedges misrepresents (new?) atheists and quote mines Harris. He also uses Hitchens' stance on Iraq, which I know of no atheist who agrees, and many christians who do, as an example of this "militant" movement and use of violence. Show me examples of violence perpetrated by other atheists?
Funny, you read like you hear only what you want to. You watched this and regurgitated everything he said. Yes, strange is your world.
JeanetteTherese 1 month ago 2
@AnimeTV100 I'm not religious but I very much agree with Hedges here. Myself I'm a futurist cyberpunk that promotes emerging technologies, but I feel Atheists that push a form of self-satisfied supercilious superiority are egoistic and delusional in their understanding of world. They are the mirror image of dogma and fanaticism, lazy assumption and simplistic reductive thought. Einstein promoted the middle balance between logic and intuition, Atheists are nothing like Einstein...or Tesla...
earthacademy 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@earthacademy
Is the way to get about to strawman your opponent? This is the kind of shit that comes about from that bit of irrationality. Walk further down that path and see where it gets you.
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnimeTV100
I regret to inform you that the Muslim world has a dearth of education, a dearth of science, a dearth of culture, and that it is a cesspit of humanity primarily for the reason that it has a deficit of science.
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
chris hedges was significantly smartin economics, but in common sense he is a retard... this saddens me to see a smart man soo deluded
G0sentrick 3 months ago
Hedges looks like he is from Innsmouth
TheTorJohnson 3 months ago
Hedges is extremely deceitful in the way he discusses the issue of the nuclear first strike. He acts as if Harris suggested we do a first strike to rid the world of islam. Rather, Harris said that if a jihadist regime gets a hold of a long-range nuclear weapon then we may have to consider a first-strike because we cannot depend upon them being afraid of Mutually Assured Destruction. This is a hypothetical, not a plan.
prescod 3 months ago
What, we're not becoming more moral? We've eliminated slavery, emancipated women and provide systemic support for the less fortunate. It's a job that will never be complete but things are certainly better than the dark ages when religion ruled.
Science and reason are the primary movers of human civilization and have provided almost everything of value in this modern world. Religion is anti-science, anti-intellectual and anti-freedom. The entire objection to civil rights for gays is religious.
agroundhere 3 months ago
@agroundhere,
Emancipated women from what? Why don't you research the rape statistics of women just in the US Armed Forces, let alone the country itself. We went from slavery of blacks to wage slavery for all. The US has more people in prison than any other country in the world. The US consumes 75% of the world's resources with a population of only 312,507,000, so everything of "value" it provided to the modern world was stolen. But please, keep flapping your cock trap & amuse me.
Medvetz63 3 months ago
@Medvetz63 I'll not bother responding to your poor trolling but agree with much of your post. However, while far from perfect, we are indeed far more moral than at any time in human history. That's surely beyond dispute and, you'll note, the essence of my post; had you bothered to read it.
Don't drink so much.
agroundhere 3 months ago
@agroundhere, I love how you admit you agree with my post (the Truth can't be denied), but then feebly try to save face by saying I'm a "troll". LMAO.
And I read your post, I've read so much of that sort of drivel from AmeriKKKan Joe Sixpacks like yourself. What I'm eager to see is how you & those like you will be when America collapses under the weight of it's rot & all you've held so dearly is gone forever. You'll all be wandering around in a daze, babbling like idiots. That'll be funny.
Medvetz63 3 months ago
@Medvetz63 You have astonishingly poor judgement. But, you're consistent. Kudos.
agroundhere 3 months ago
@agroundhere, Again, Joe Sixpack, your feeble attempt at saving face FAILS, and makes you look worse than if you admitted defeat or simply said nothing. I gave you numerous irrefutable FACTS as to why you're wrong to which you admitted I'm correct (thus admitting defeat), but then say I'm a "troll" with "poor judgement", but offer nothing to refute what I said. Joe Sixpacks use these lame tactics all the time & are oblivious to how foolish they look & to the shame they bring on themselves.
Medvetz63 3 months ago
@Medvetz63 Apparently I've been unclear.
I'm not drawn into a dialogue with you because I don't respect your opinion. This is based entirely upon the comments you have imposed on me, and anyone else still interested in this now dated issue. Random association and incoherent babbling is less impressive than you may suppose. News.
How 'bout you make one last desperate appeal to salvage your internet cred before dinner, and I'll save the electrons and delete it. Ready?
agroundhere 3 months ago
@agroundhere,
There's nothing for me to salvage. I gave you solid facts, you agreed with "much of my post", and then you contradict yourself in this last comment by saying you don't agree with my opinion.
Talk about incoherent babbling. I think your lithium prescription has run dry. Better get it refilled.
Medvetz63 3 months ago
@agroundhere while I agree that we have made some significant progress in certain areas, we have fallen behind in others. I cannot agree that we have become more moral overall - not even since the dark ages. There are thousands of examples of why this is so, .... far too many for this forum.
meghan42 2 months ago
2:20 if it's not science/reason who is going to create the perfect world who will get the job done? Religion had it's turn and we all know what that turned out into
flpflpflp 3 months ago
Whatever happened to freedom?
bozolazic 3 months ago
Too emotional. Just relax. You make yourself look desperate.
angellicvoices 3 months ago
@YourFriendHerbie "[Hedges] has had his ass handed to him too many times in debates"
That's wishful thinking on your part. I've watched those debates that are available online. Next to Hedges, both Hitchens and Harris are intellectual spoiled children. Hedges brings too much historical weight and knowledge to bear in the discussion making Harris/Hitchens look petulant. And, since you're obviously a Harris/Hitchens fanboy, I doubt that you'll ever get that that is so. Maybe one day you will.
bapyou 3 months ago in playlist CHRIS HEDGES
Atheists believe in the use of violence????? (1:50)
WTF???
Man, since when? Where did he get that data?
I'm happy he went to Occupy WS, but this is cheap journalism.
HalfFullYeah 4 months ago
@HalfFullYeah I believe he is talking about Hitchens and Harris, as representatives of the "New Atheists". Hitchens was/is well-known as being all for the preemptive war in Iraq. Harris has that same "bomb them because they are dangerous" attitude. I could try to run down the references if you are interested. He's not saying atheists can't be pacifists, but that at least these two "New Atheists" are as violent as the hair-brained religious fundamentalists that they rail against.
drchaffee 3 months ago
@YourFriendHerbie It's incredible how brainwashed the average atheist is. You guys are even group trolling Hedges videos. Shameless. Disgusting and vile tactics that discourage real discussion and intellectualism. You should all be shamed. That said: Chris isn't even a theist, you kids just can't handle the fact that Hitchens and Dawkins and many of the 'radical atheist' movement are just as Chris describes here.
lamuziq 4 months ago
Listen guy; if you believe in a fucking benevolent force in this universe controlling everything, you are instantly WRONG, now FUCK OFF!
ajnode 4 months ago
It is funny to see less qualified people disrespecting this man who is much smarter, much more learned, and much more experienced than themselves, simply because he disagrees with them. Obviously, his arguments have hit a nerve. In order to defend against their own insecurity in their long held beliefs they attempt to discredit Hedges' points by discrediting the person, saying that religion has twisted his mind..an example of how a persons insincerity twists the mind, religious or not.
shadowkill546 4 months ago
@shadowkill546 Please lead me to some recent examples of "new atheists" running around starting wars, burning churches, oppressing gay rights, women's rights and killing believers ?? You realize you can't even be elected president if you are an Atheist...
Religion is a problem in the US. Haven't you read Hedges other book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" ???
OppressedAnarchist 4 months ago
John Hick has reffered to dogmatic atheists as "fundamentalists without a scripture". Whether religious or secular, dogmatism is a huge intellectual problem.
TheRugbyidiot 4 months ago
I think Hedges really misses the purpose of the new atheists as a healthy response to religious nuts
OppressedAnarchist 4 months ago
@OppressedAnarchist by creating a group that act the same way ? I mean if you put the beliefs aside, they act very similar, which is what I think Hedges is saying. IMHO they arin't solving anything, just adding another group to the fray.
IMBUED 4 months ago
@IMBUED The "new atheism" is a response to the threat of Fascist right wing christian groups. If people don't stand against those evil morons then the US is going to be the new middle-east. The only way a society can run peacefully is if it is a secular society. Christianity had it's "Taliban" for nearly 1000 years. It was called the "inquisition". Religion has had thousands of years to get it right and has failed miserably. It's time to put god away...
OppressedAnarchist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IMBUED The "new atheism" is a response to the threat of Fascist right wing christian groups. If people don't stand against those evil morons then the US is going to be the new middle-east. The only way a society can run peacefully is if it is a secular society. Christianity had it's "Taliban" for nearly 1000 years. It was called the "inquisition". Religion has had thousands of years to get it right and has failed miserably. It's time to put god away...
OppressedAnarchist 4 months ago
TOOL!
geetarjohn 4 months ago
"For the sake of common worship they've slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, "Put away your gods and come worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!" And so it will be till the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same." - The Grand Inquisitor, The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky
sageSPH 4 months ago
I am motivated by my non-belief in unicorns. This tends to govern by actions more than my non-belief in god.
quanta407 4 months ago
he even looks like an asshole.
8ballsix27 4 months ago 2
Atheism is not a movement! Has anyone seen lately that individuals blew them self up in the name of atheism??? Or stoned women in the name of atheism?
ivanaamidzic 5 months ago
@ivanaamidzic
Ok, first of all, NEW Atheism could be called a movement, even if not an organized one, especially if you look at its "representatives" that often express similar views, know each other and collaborate in debates - second, a "movement" doesn't imply violence of any kind.
twooffour 4 months ago
This video is a complete mis-representation of CH's and SH's positions. It is typical of the religiously brain-washed to distort things like this
phixl 5 months ago 2
@HitchSlapYouSon And since Snitch believes the Islam is so aggressive that motivates his unholy alliance with the neocon war mongers.
RPenta 5 months ago
@HitchSlapYouSon Why do you misrepresent the newish atheist movement ? Dawkins, when sitting together with Hitchens, Dennett and Harris, was very clear about his wish to annihilate religion, while Hitchens refused that notion; not because he thought it was impossible, but because he didn't want to.
And in opposite to you, I can prove my point:
Search youtube for "Christopher Hitchens makes a shocking confession".
sooperfukker 5 months ago
Excuse me Mr Hedges, but your quotation of Sam Harris' book in reference to a nuclear first strike is grossly inaccurate to the remainder of the quote. Stop reading between the lines and actually start reading.
dblacky1977 5 months ago
Atheism is not a belief system,fucking moron
justgold76 5 months ago
This guy talks out of his ass,see how he insinuates that the Muslims will cause the next big terror event,why does he believe this? also saying that the Atheists will join the Christian fundamentalists in condemning it is also a load of crap,The atheist condemn ALL religious fundamentalists who ever they are, This guys views comes across to me as a bit racist if I'm honest,and one more thing is that being an atheist,is to just not believe in a higher power or god, It is NOT a religion/movement
justgold76 5 months ago
@justgold76 You are missing the point. Snitch and company might feel some personal snobbery but would have no problem being the bombadier attacking the evil Muslims along with the "Christian" Zionist redneck from Alabama.
RPenta 5 months ago
@RPenta
But you nor Hedges can explain why most Afghans don't want NATO to leave, though redneck Alabamans and Neocons are supposedly bombing them.
And I personally know muslims who love americans for what they did in Iraq.
You're not speaking for muslims.
charlesvan13 1 month ago
Comment removed
justgold76 5 months ago
You are not a 'secular fundamentalist' because you stop treating religion as some 'sacred cow'. You are not a fundamentalist because you defend rationality from bronze age myths and superstitions. Science and reason has to fight the ignorance of religion. When was the last time anyone ever blew themselves up in the name of rationality or committed genocide in the name of science and reason? This mans pseudo- intellectual nonsense is laughable. uniteordie1
nigelsenchez 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nigelsenchez "When was the last time anyone ever blew themselves up in the name of rationality or committed genocide in the name of science and reason?" That time can come soon. Terrorism isn't based on religion; it's based on hate, tyranny & violence, and you don't need to be religious or even theist to be any of those.
cleanhomer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If someone doesn't value evidence then what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it. If someone doesn't value logic what logical argument can you provide to show the importance of science. All we can do is appeal to scientific values.
nigelsenchez 5 months ago
What a sniveling worm. A leading apologist for theocratic suicide-murderers.
rleeermy 5 months ago
You are not a 'secular fundamentalist' because you stop treating religion as some 'sacred cow'. You are not a fundamentalist because you defend rationality from bronze age myths and superstitions. Science and reason has to fight the ignorance of religion. When was the last time anyone ever blew themselves up in the name of rationality or committed genocide in the name of science and reason? This mans pseudo- intellectual nonsense is laughable.
uniteordie1 6 months ago
I find it comical that Hedges misrepresents Harris with that first strike line any chance he gets. Try reading the book. Sam lays out a scenario and calls it lunacy- the reality is that Sam feels that killing millions of innocent people is a bad idea. I can’t speak for all New Atheists, but branding them all as fundamentalist is just hypocritical of you. I don’t think all religious people are foolish or misguided, I just think that science and reason are better options for a peaceful coexistence
digitalhat 6 months ago
I'm sure Hitler did some good things too, now please shut up..
DiverseThoughts 6 months ago
You must be a South Pole elf.
delataylor 6 months ago
I have seen nothing in either Dawkin's, Harris's or Hitchen's writings that advocate violence.
They all do fear the violence inherent in most religons.
Hedges is an ex-theology student and retains remnants of a god-delusion.
His views are understandable. His arguments are just not plausable.
One, for example, states that fundamentalism is due to poverty.
Yet, one has only to look at Pat Robertson (700 Club), B. Graham, or any other wealth, well-educatedy preacher to see this isn't so..
cnt66 6 months ago
Well spoken. War never is a solution.
rebel7332 6 months ago
A demonstration how religion twists the mind.
SpeedySteveUK 6 months ago 9
@SpeedySteveUK I think his mind was probably already sufficiently messed up even prior to his idiotic religious beliefs.
jds127b123 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tell me again what it is like to be a woman in the Muslim world. You are out of touch with reality. You're delusional.
evadnie100 6 months ago
One observation Hedges makes in his book that I agree with: People don't need religion in order to be willfully ignorant or in order to dehumanize others. The view that if religion were eliminated that we would be significantly better off IS probably a lot of wishful thinking. If people were rational beings, they wouldn't need people like Hitchens to tell them how transparently false a lot of religious dogma is.
105Mittens 6 months ago
Hedges ends by warning of the fallout if another attack from the muslim world occurs, that intolerance will result........What the fuck am i missing? Granted, i can see Hedges as a child being used as a punch-bag in the school playground and tolerating it, but he's precisely the product of that toleration, for he remains eminently punchable still.....if only for the fun of it.
gallus1 6 months ago
"6 billion muslims within our society" - I think he may have those numbers wrong.....
screamoutpeace666 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your an ass Mr. Hedges.
TheFlameoftheWest 7 months ago
what a waste of time.
torputube 7 months ago
Wtf, where's the Hitchens part?
DasKrabbe 7 months ago
He nailed H&H. They're essentially political toads who toe the aprty line. Neither Hitchens nor Harris exhibit any understanding of Mid East. Just compare their understanding with people like Robert Fisk, Amira Hass, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Zeev Maoz....
gunnerfan87 7 months ago
In other words... I think Hedges is basically saying "the new atheist" are the hipsters of believers/non believers. Too cool for school. Too enlightened. No Im not religous
houston56able 7 months ago
lier, I have never seen any aggressiveness in any of those atheists...
1Delu 7 months ago