Unless you make people listen to you, no one is going to care. Hitchens is absolutely right in taking the approach that he does. He can get a bit rough at times but as he himself has said, we shouldn't have to tip toe around religion anymore. And we should never be afraid to question, criticize, and challenge theism.
Wow.Iraq liberated?From what?There infrastructure?Piece and Quite?Not having terorists in there streets?IT SURE AS HELL WASN<T WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION WAS IT!!!finchy633
I'm a bit of a Hitchens fan myself and i've got to say that firstly I'm still left wondering exactly what was going on in his head when he supported the Iraq war, and that the only explanation for this which I can come up with is that perhaps he is an ends justify the means sort of a guy. Which is still abhorrent.
As for arguing against religion using religious premises; it's not my favorite tactic but I think there is room under the tent of antitheism for all sorts of tactics.
Yeah, I can understand using that tactic. I think I was hard on him, a little. I should be harder on those that actively defend torture, instead of Hitchens, who is mostly an ally.
Wheather or not our leaders said our reasons for going into Iraq were valid or not is not the point, Hitchens arguements about going into war were all facts. The 4 reasons a country can lose it's sovernty is what he used in his arguement and all of them are very clear examples. You can't say the same thing about other countries, even the worst countries usually lack 2 reasons a country can lose it's sovernty.
He was a tool and a pawn, added fuel to the buildup into a war that neo cons and right wing religious zionist apocalypticos wanted.
His arguments against Sadam's reign may have amounted to something, but they didn't give cause for us to invade. Invasion must not be taken lightly, and his case could only have been made during the Kurd massacre, not decades afterwards.
His position isn't moral on Iraq. He fucked up royally. This country should not have invaded, and he pushed us to.
I disagree, we were going to go to war with Iraq anyways, because of it I think the world is a better place for Iraq. Using the same arguements you used, we could have never interveined in Sedan or Somolia, I know we can't be everywhere either but we still did a good job in Iraq. Afghanistan is a different issue, we still require alot of work there and I applaude our new president for shifting our focus to that battle instead.
We did not have to go to war with Iraq. In fact it required torture to link them with Al Qaeda to make the war politically feasible for the Bush Administration.
I hope you understand the arguements that Hitchens used for the war and against torture. I wouldn't equate the immoral preachings of religion to astrology, you are comparing apples and oranges. Hitchens is a political writer, thats part of his job, you can't really say the same thing about Dawkins (scientist) and Dennet (philosopher), I think thats the distinction. That doesn't make any of the "4 Horsemen's" arguments any less valid.
He's honest, and he's intelligent. he just shows the contradiction in religious view. Im a hitchens guy, and among the 4 horsemen, he's the aggressive one that can change hearts. He's just showing it to them, that their loving God is not so loving....
Dawkins on the other hand, attracts the science and rational loving atheist...
He always qualifies his apologies for pushing us towards the Iraq war. Sometimes he declares that idiotic act justified.
I don't think he's unintelligent or dishonest. I just think that a political truth as obvious and important as the non-existence of god is that invading Iraq was not required. We should be unified in that, yet, if you look up higher in the comments you see some assholes still pounding war drums.
Also, you take that cliche, egomaniacal attitude that religious people are incompetent and lesser than you. This is the major discrepancy between you and Hitchens (aside from his intellectual superiority). To be blunt, your arguments are empty and you sound just as xenophobic as those you criticize.
Strong insults. Very well put. I'm sincerely hurt. I hope you don't see future videos of mine, and I can't guarantee I'll change. A shame.
I don't hold the position that I'm better than every theist, but it is obvious that atheism is better than theism, so it should be equally obvious that two individuals who are similar in all other respects but differ in their understanding on theism aren't the same, and the atheist is better, in at least that one, small, respect.
The Iraq war isn't a theist-anti-theist debate. Hitchens has been to Kurdistan and Iraq and has developed a different opinion. But the beauty of being an anti-theist is that you aren't forced to fall in line with group thought.
They are separate issues. The criticism of Hitchens stands true though. He shouldn't have supported that war, no matter how he would have run it. It could have been avoided in 2002, and he didn't help.
Im sorry, but I went to volunteer in Kurdistan over the spring, and I can tell you that it is certainly not immoral to support the iraq war. i met several families who had been involved first hand with the vicious thugs of saddam hussein's racket. one man in particular had his house levelled 14 times in 36 years. the question is should we feel compelled to do something about it? I think we should, thank you very much. fascism is not okay. never.
What are you talking about my friend? The only thing that was wrong was how the Bush administration handled the reasons for going in. that was it. fighting fascism is never wrong. you just have a hatred of the west, a hatred of democracy and freedom. if we would have not gone in, there would now not be a kurdistan now, and husseins racket would have continued to torture millions. your basic stance is 'lets not tackle fascism unless its on our doorstep'. now THAT IS immoral.
You can fight fascism in immoral ways, when you fight it at the cost of the lives of innocents. The whole problem with fascism is the injustice it causes, if you fight it to the tune of millions of deaths you are causing more injustice.
You are clearly ridiculous though, finchy, so fuck off.
you can fight fascism in immoral ways? what is this? you have to crush fascism. that is the only way. these islamofascists would not hesitate in annihilating you, so why defend them? 'the whole problem with fascism is the injustice it causes' - exactly. that it why it should be fought. we cannot live as human beings with fascistic dictators in the world. your stance has been demonstrated before. we didnt intervene in darfur and rwanda. and look what happened.
to continue from my last post...you say you can fight it in immoral ways, when you fight at the cost of the lives of innocents. do you have a better method? tell me a better way of tackling saddam hussein. the people of kurdistan fly flags with bush and blair on the their cars and from their windows. they are grateful that they saved them from years of genocide and torture. is that immoral? do u have a better method? if so, lets hear it! if not, then please go away, your comments are unhelpful
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any sense of pragmatism. It is a very unfortunate fact that casualties of yes, even innocents, must be taken for a greater endeavor or "good" as some might have put it. Nearly every great war blatantly expresses that. This is our very unfortunate, yet nonetheless candidly sordid and debauched world.
Pragmatism requires you recognize that you don't maniacally attack fascists constantly. They are simply too prevalent and dethroning them all would be simply too demanding an enterprise. War might be justified at times, but it was not justified in 2003. Certainly not justified the way it was officially sold.
your soft line approach on fascism really saddens me. when i was in kurdistan some people there took me near the mass graves, just hundreds of thousands of people lined up and shot,poisoned, and persecuted by vicious henchmen. all they wanted was our help and they got it. im sure its alright for you to say we shouldnt 'maniacally attack fascists constantly' - you have never had to put up with your family being gassed or poisoned, or your house fired to the ground. sleep well tonight.
Could they really take me to these graves? US fascism under bush? I'll have to ask you to back up these claims with some proof. I have actually been to the mass graves of the Kurdish people that were murdered by Saddams men. All of these could have been prevented if the US had removed him in the early 90's. These kurdish people in the north of iraq have been subject to rape and torture for years. if you think that it is okay to dismiss this, then fine. that shows your true colours.
well. it doesn't take much for the argument to descend into 'fuck off's now does it? you still haven't told me of any mass graves resulting from our invasion. you still haven't given me a good enough reason why fighting fascism is wrong. please drop this superior left wing smutty bullshit. it might convince little impressionable teenagers but it doesn't wash with people who have been there in Iraq themselves.
You really don't think there have been mass killings in Iraq? How many people do you imagine have died there since 2003?
Do you honestly just start killing people when you label their government as fascist? Time to shoot and bomb, eh?
Well, fuck off. I don't want to convince you to do anything but go away. The Iraq war was a mistake, and the assholes that killed over there committed more murder than anything else.
i keep wanting to abandon this argument but you are so stupid you keep reeling me in.we're not fighting the PEOPLE of iraq, as in the general public. go to kurdistan. when i went, everyone was flying flags and bumper stickers of bush and blair. they feel liberated. they've been released from the clutches of a psychopathic crime family. you could do some independent investigation, or just stick with the michael moore clang. the choice is yours. but i give up now.
finchy633: Only a minority may feel liberated; see the film "Turtles Can Fly". It's about refugee children (and their families) near the Iraqi-Turkish border on the eve of an American invasion, gauging and awaiting their fate. They are excited to be "liberated", but are left disappointed and disillusioned. Actual refugees are the actors their experiences are the stories. I can only imagine the horrible stories the Iraqi people will tell. The war was illegal - it sickens me terribly. :(
sorry but I have actually been to Kurdistan, and the area on the Turkish border is where i stayed for a while.The people there are much better off now than under saddam. I met people and talked to them. Personally. There was no slanted or weighted movie to persuade me. I saw it myself. You can't tell me I didnt see it.I was very anti-war before i went there.
You do not have the linguistic capabilities or presence to make a substantial video and certainly not enough gravitas to meet Christopher. Moreover, I have never heard Christopher or any rational and thinking person who felt the need to use "um."
Hitchens portrays things in absolutes, which appeals to the religious mentality. Furthermore he debates Christians at religious institutions in the Bible Belt and he reaches an audience that has never heard an argument from the other side. He finds common ground with Christians on issues such as the Iraq war, abortion, human liberty, and the Clintons. Finally who are you to say he is going about it the wrong way? Couldn't there be many parallel ways to reach the audience?
What common ground does he find with them on abortion? Is he against abortion entirely? Does he consider it a holocaust, as I often hear from theist-idiots?
Which trimester does he consider abortion murder during?
Well, America is a democracy, and I agree that it isn't a theocracy by most standards right now. Still, under Bush it was much closer. I think that it isn't an on and off thing, there are scales of gray.
Some believers stop being believers when exposed to logical arguments.
Religion isn't automatically immoral. Jainism seems more moral than Hitchens meat eating, country invading atheism.
I'm not that confused, it just isn't that black and white. Thanks for your input.
Hitchens doesn't seem to oppose torture very loudly and profoundly either. I saw an interview where he discussed his views on it, and he asked 2 questions "should we do it" and "does it work". He also doesn't slam the neocons that use his waterboarding for their pro-torture purposes. watch?v=-tSiiWSU7SA
So, he really isn't that strong against torture either.
But you see, as an Ex-Christian, I fully understand the Christian perspective.
And it is from THAT vantage point that I debate Christians. I have had fantastic success in de-converting Christians to atheism/agnosticism/anti theism, using the "give the benefit of the doubt" argumentation.
Besides, it comes closer to touching on the locus of the Christian belief... It illustrates the absurdity of their beliefs in a critical way.
I'm glad you have experience de converting Christians, and I really hope you have a lot of success in it in the future as well. Same goes for Hitchens, I want him to get people to question their faith.
I think you're way off base with the Iraq War = Theocratic war comments. You're basically saying that Bush came from the religious right,therefore Iraq was motivated by religion and therefore if you're an atheist you should be against the Iraq War. Two complete non sequiturs.If anything,we are guilty of letting him stay in power too long seeing how he broke every condition agreed to letting him keep power after Kuwait.Saying we were lied to is a canard as well.
Most of the supporters of the Iraq war were religious. I think atheist and those that support a secular moral state opposed it. Looking back at the record and public statements may clear that up, if we do it from the standpoint of religious affiliation.
Simply because a larger majority of the right wing advocate a war by no means makes it a theocratic war. This is by far a result of partisanship not religion. You make it seem as if atheists are impervious to any sort of influence. Atheists (being left-wing) can of course falter to their political ideology and be deterred by a heavy right-wing support for a cause.
Well, there were false beliefs at the basis of the justification for the war against Iraq. False beliefs are the things that I oppose about religion, as well, especially when they lead to immoral behavior, as the false beliefs at the basis of the Iraq war's start did.
I don't think I'm out of line in noticing that the major supporters of the Iraq war were maniacally right wing, and deluded with religion as they pretended their war drums were patriotism.
Correlation does not prove causation. Very simple law of logic.
You are wrong on your second point as well. At the war's outset many democrats, independents, and moderates supported the Iraqi intervention. They would later claim however to have been under a misapprehension, a rather pathetic argument in my opinion. Still, even if majority of Iraq war advocates were hopelessly right-wing, your point would still fail at gaining viability.
I think you're forgetting or misunderstanding the causes of the Iraq war, but I don't really have much interest in further exploring your understanding of it.
I think I understand it, Aceology. Even the most generous way of looking at it makes his support for the Iraq war amateurish at best.
Frankly, it was an immoral position to hold, and a fundamentally immoral one. Now he acts as if the inevitable loss of innocent life was a result of mismanagement, not the bad decision that he fueled.
I seem to be having some trouble posting comments to this video (excellent btw), please forgive me if they all pop up.
I think Hitchens has a good plan. If you can undermine the foundations that support ones belief, far easier to bring the thing down. Let them see the horror of what they're said to believe.
As for Iraq, I concur with you, but would have supported it if it were to remove a genocidal Saddam (instead of wmd lies)
Re: torture; google Vanity Fair "Believe Me It's Torture"
If we had wanted to stop Saddam's genocide we would have acted in the 80s. Afterwards it was literally too late. There was no impending genocide in 2001. That argument fails as a defense of Hitchen's (or any chickenhawk's) behavior.
I understand what you are saying, and I think Hitchens debates just as much for his own amusment and for sport as he does in an attempt to help the world. However, maybe pointing out the extremes of fundamentalism and fanaticism will gather more moderates on our side. This seems like a better route than trying to undermine all faith and belief in one huge bite like you are saying. Id rather that happen to be honest, but I have to go with Hitchens on this one.
Good points. I don't agree with Hitchens rhetoric very much. He does try to work for 'the greater good' where the greater good is Atheism; however, Hitchens tends inadvertently to patronize xtians through his rhetoric.
That being said, he is pretty intelligent. But Dawkins tends to anneal more with the style I atheists and their rejection of beliefs in god.
Considering Mr Hitchens abhorence of theistic matters, I find it laughable that commentators here want to suggest his connection to neo conservatism. As someone with a history of Marxism he would certainly balk at being called 'the elite'. It must be noted though, that his support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do seem out of character. On religion though, he has my full support. It has no place influencing political thought anywhere. Seperation of church and state, anyone?
Sure, and he rightfully defended our leaders, in my opinion, to go to war. We stuck a heavy blow against the Al-Qaeda, that was a wonderful victory, we would not be able to say the same thing today if we would listened to Cindy Sheehan. I'm greatful that we didn't pull out when most of the country wanted to, Iraq is alot more peaceful today than it has been in a long time.
I cannot honestly say that I did see his behaviour during the Iraq War build up. I have only become familiar with him in the last year or so. He didn't appear on Swedish TV. I will admit though, what I have seen him do would lead some people to think he is a neocon. My observation merely stated that despite his gung ho war cries, he is an unlikely flag bearer for the neocon cause.
I think Hitchens is entertaining with his rhetoric even if he does go too far with "nasty elderly virgins teaching lies to children" talk.
I just put up a video on Calvinism doing the very thing you disagree with - work with their premises. John Loftus did the same with "Why I Became An Atheist" and some atheists didn't like him assuming the Christian view and challening it from the inside out.
But I think there is a place for that, because internal doubt causes cognitive dissonance and points out what believers already struggle with. An atheist who was never a Christian simply don't relate to books like that. I do think different tactics speak to and put off different people, so I'm for the variety.
Hitchens is against torture and against Saddam as a tyrant. He admits the mistakes we've made going in and doesn't care what theocrats think, he is just happy to oust tyrants.
He wasn't speaking of revolution during the Bush tyrrany, yet Bush 1. didn't win his first election. 2. was torturing as far back as 2001 3. was responsible for untold murders.
I don't think that aspect of Hitchen's history is defensible. It isn't ok to oust tyrants, and devil take the hindmost. Most of us are the hindmost.
Hitchens uses his verbal abilities to bring crowd and sell his work. Otherwise, he is a sham. Any person who still refuses to acknowledge the mess called Iraq is a liar and not credible. Being part of elite, he has an access to resources, politicians, etc. to find the truth. Simply put, he's a liar.
It doesn't matter what else he says as he is not to be believed.
If he can lie about something so obvious, I won't waste my time giving him platform on other issues.
That being said, he's right about religion in some respects. I hate bringing him down, maybe I should have spent time with his opponents as well, since they are worse ideologically. Ugh. Why did he have to be for the Iraq war. I want to pull for him here (after having attacked him...).
Agree. Hitchens does more damage to Athiests than good. Hitchens is Anti-thiest. To be frank, listening & reading to hitchens reminds me of the extremists on the other side: both zealots in their beliefs & blaming the other side for everything wrong.
Any psychologist would agree that, however wrong an atheist believes to be, religion has done a lot good as well. It creates a sense of belongingness, has kept communities safe (less gangs), etc.
I don't know whether he does damage to atheists or not. I'm coming out against his methods, but not entirely against him. I actually am sometimes astounded by what he can accomplish in a room of theists.
I think you and I see pretty eye to eye on this. He fills a weird gap in the atheist group.
My understanding was that Hitchens was always in favor of ousting Saddam coincidentally to the neocons & that he continued his support more in spite of their wankery, He's commented/mourned his chickenhawkery & he got waterboarded to speak with more authority on the subject. (that it is torture, natch) search it.
Yeah, I saw the waterboarding. He does agree that it is torture. I just think he played into their hands really hard there. That was a time when few Americans were trying to stomp on the brakes, and he was jumping on the gas with the rest of the neo-cons.
I get it though, I had no love of Saddam, but I don't have much love of a lot of foreign leaders, am I going to publish pro-war statements at a time when a predictable mistake is looming?
I guess I just take his moral arguments with salt.
Unless you make people listen to you, no one is going to care. Hitchens is absolutely right in taking the approach that he does. He can get a bit rough at times but as he himself has said, we shouldn't have to tip toe around religion anymore. And we should never be afraid to question, criticize, and challenge theism.
nosajj12345 8 months ago
The only problem with Hitchens is cancer.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
Wow.Iraq liberated?From what?There infrastructure?Piece and Quite?Not having terorists in there streets?IT SURE AS HELL WASN<T WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION WAS IT!!!finchy633
slopmaster1 2 years ago
I'm a bit of a Hitchens fan myself and i've got to say that firstly I'm still left wondering exactly what was going on in his head when he supported the Iraq war, and that the only explanation for this which I can come up with is that perhaps he is an ends justify the means sort of a guy. Which is still abhorrent.
As for arguing against religion using religious premises; it's not my favorite tactic but I think there is room under the tent of antitheism for all sorts of tactics.
boobmcnutt 2 years ago
Yeah, I can understand using that tactic. I think I was hard on him, a little. I should be harder on those that actively defend torture, instead of Hitchens, who is mostly an ally.
Iraq was just unbelievably unconscionable.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Wheather or not our leaders said our reasons for going into Iraq were valid or not is not the point, Hitchens arguements about going into war were all facts. The 4 reasons a country can lose it's sovernty is what he used in his arguement and all of them are very clear examples. You can't say the same thing about other countries, even the worst countries usually lack 2 reasons a country can lose it's sovernty.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
He was a tool and a pawn, added fuel to the buildup into a war that neo cons and right wing religious zionist apocalypticos wanted.
His arguments against Sadam's reign may have amounted to something, but they didn't give cause for us to invade. Invasion must not be taken lightly, and his case could only have been made during the Kurd massacre, not decades afterwards.
His position isn't moral on Iraq. He fucked up royally. This country should not have invaded, and he pushed us to.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
I disagree, we were going to go to war with Iraq anyways, because of it I think the world is a better place for Iraq. Using the same arguements you used, we could have never interveined in Sedan or Somolia, I know we can't be everywhere either but we still did a good job in Iraq. Afghanistan is a different issue, we still require alot of work there and I applaude our new president for shifting our focus to that battle instead.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
We did not have to go to war with Iraq. In fact it required torture to link them with Al Qaeda to make the war politically feasible for the Bush Administration.
It was a foul and immoral mistake.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
I hope you understand the arguements that Hitchens used for the war and against torture. I wouldn't equate the immoral preachings of religion to astrology, you are comparing apples and oranges. Hitchens is a political writer, thats part of his job, you can't really say the same thing about Dawkins (scientist) and Dennet (philosopher), I think thats the distinction. That doesn't make any of the "4 Horsemen's" arguments any less valid.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
Both astrology and religion are fruits of nonsense then, comparing apples and oranges can provide a lot to an interested party.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
He's honest, and he's intelligent. he just shows the contradiction in religious view. Im a hitchens guy, and among the 4 horsemen, he's the aggressive one that can change hearts. He's just showing it to them, that their loving God is not so loving....
Dawkins on the other hand, attracts the science and rational loving atheist...
Hitchens made a mistake. He's human.
Nades129 2 years ago
I recognize that.
He always qualifies his apologies for pushing us towards the Iraq war. Sometimes he declares that idiotic act justified.
I don't think he's unintelligent or dishonest. I just think that a political truth as obvious and important as the non-existence of god is that invading Iraq was not required. We should be unified in that, yet, if you look up higher in the comments you see some assholes still pounding war drums.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Yeah, that was lousy rationale on his part. But hes regretting it...
dont mind the trolls. no use in paying them attention.
Nades129 2 years ago
Trolls influence this social landscape. I don't know how best to handle them.
Thanks for commenting.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Also, you take that cliche, egomaniacal attitude that religious people are incompetent and lesser than you. This is the major discrepancy between you and Hitchens (aside from his intellectual superiority). To be blunt, your arguments are empty and you sound just as xenophobic as those you criticize.
Mike3303 2 years ago
Strong insults. Very well put. I'm sincerely hurt. I hope you don't see future videos of mine, and I can't guarantee I'll change. A shame.
I don't hold the position that I'm better than every theist, but it is obvious that atheism is better than theism, so it should be equally obvious that two individuals who are similar in all other respects but differ in their understanding on theism aren't the same, and the atheist is better, in at least that one, small, respect.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
The Iraq war isn't a theist-anti-theist debate. Hitchens has been to Kurdistan and Iraq and has developed a different opinion. But the beauty of being an anti-theist is that you aren't forced to fall in line with group thought.
thinair88 2 years ago
They are separate issues. The criticism of Hitchens stands true though. He shouldn't have supported that war, no matter how he would have run it. It could have been avoided in 2002, and he didn't help.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Im sorry, but I went to volunteer in Kurdistan over the spring, and I can tell you that it is certainly not immoral to support the iraq war. i met several families who had been involved first hand with the vicious thugs of saddam hussein's racket. one man in particular had his house levelled 14 times in 36 years. the question is should we feel compelled to do something about it? I think we should, thank you very much. fascism is not okay. never.
finchy633 2 years ago
It was immoral in 2003. The war's beginning was immoral, and that tainted support for it that followed.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
What are you talking about my friend? The only thing that was wrong was how the Bush administration handled the reasons for going in. that was it. fighting fascism is never wrong. you just have a hatred of the west, a hatred of democracy and freedom. if we would have not gone in, there would now not be a kurdistan now, and husseins racket would have continued to torture millions. your basic stance is 'lets not tackle fascism unless its on our doorstep'. now THAT IS immoral.
finchy633 2 years ago
Nonsense, you twit.
You can fight fascism in immoral ways, when you fight it at the cost of the lives of innocents. The whole problem with fascism is the injustice it causes, if you fight it to the tune of millions of deaths you are causing more injustice.
You are clearly ridiculous though, finchy, so fuck off.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
you can fight fascism in immoral ways? what is this? you have to crush fascism. that is the only way. these islamofascists would not hesitate in annihilating you, so why defend them? 'the whole problem with fascism is the injustice it causes' - exactly. that it why it should be fought. we cannot live as human beings with fascistic dictators in the world. your stance has been demonstrated before. we didnt intervene in darfur and rwanda. and look what happened.
finchy633 2 years ago
to continue from my last post...you say you can fight it in immoral ways, when you fight at the cost of the lives of innocents. do you have a better method? tell me a better way of tackling saddam hussein. the people of kurdistan fly flags with bush and blair on the their cars and from their windows. they are grateful that they saved them from years of genocide and torture. is that immoral? do u have a better method? if so, lets hear it! if not, then please go away, your comments are unhelpful
finchy633 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any sense of pragmatism. It is a very unfortunate fact that casualties of yes, even innocents, must be taken for a greater endeavor or "good" as some might have put it. Nearly every great war blatantly expresses that. This is our very unfortunate, yet nonetheless candidly sordid and debauched world.
Mike3303 2 years ago
Pragmatism requires you recognize that you don't maniacally attack fascists constantly. They are simply too prevalent and dethroning them all would be simply too demanding an enterprise. War might be justified at times, but it was not justified in 2003. Certainly not justified the way it was officially sold.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
your soft line approach on fascism really saddens me. when i was in kurdistan some people there took me near the mass graves, just hundreds of thousands of people lined up and shot,poisoned, and persecuted by vicious henchmen. all they wanted was our help and they got it. im sure its alright for you to say we shouldnt 'maniacally attack fascists constantly' - you have never had to put up with your family being gassed or poisoned, or your house fired to the ground. sleep well tonight.
finchy633 2 years ago
They got it decades late, you fucking moron. Modern Iraqis could take you to other graves that resulted from our invasion.
Go away. Your "hard on fascism approach" enabled a modern US fascism under Bush that severely damaged this country.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Could they really take me to these graves? US fascism under bush? I'll have to ask you to back up these claims with some proof. I have actually been to the mass graves of the Kurdish people that were murdered by Saddams men. All of these could have been prevented if the US had removed him in the early 90's. These kurdish people in the north of iraq have been subject to rape and torture for years. if you think that it is okay to dismiss this, then fine. that shows your true colours.
finchy633 2 years ago
They probably wouldn't take you anywhere, since they are war ravaged.
Fuck off. War apologists need not apply.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
well. it doesn't take much for the argument to descend into 'fuck off's now does it? you still haven't told me of any mass graves resulting from our invasion. you still haven't given me a good enough reason why fighting fascism is wrong. please drop this superior left wing smutty bullshit. it might convince little impressionable teenagers but it doesn't wash with people who have been there in Iraq themselves.
finchy633 2 years ago
It doesn't take much at all. Fuck off.
You really don't think there have been mass killings in Iraq? How many people do you imagine have died there since 2003?
Do you honestly just start killing people when you label their government as fascist? Time to shoot and bomb, eh?
Well, fuck off. I don't want to convince you to do anything but go away. The Iraq war was a mistake, and the assholes that killed over there committed more murder than anything else.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
i keep wanting to abandon this argument but you are so stupid you keep reeling me in.we're not fighting the PEOPLE of iraq, as in the general public. go to kurdistan. when i went, everyone was flying flags and bumper stickers of bush and blair. they feel liberated. they've been released from the clutches of a psychopathic crime family. you could do some independent investigation, or just stick with the michael moore clang. the choice is yours. but i give up now.
finchy633 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
finchy633: Only a minority may feel liberated; see the film "Turtles Can Fly". It's about refugee children (and their families) near the Iraqi-Turkish border on the eve of an American invasion, gauging and awaiting their fate. They are excited to be "liberated", but are left disappointed and disillusioned. Actual refugees are the actors their experiences are the stories. I can only imagine the horrible stories the Iraqi people will tell. The war was illegal - it sickens me terribly. :(
lulupaloozatv 2 years ago
Sorry guys, had trouble posting for some reason. Peace.
lulupaloozatv 2 years ago
sorry but I have actually been to Kurdistan, and the area on the Turkish border is where i stayed for a while.The people there are much better off now than under saddam. I met people and talked to them. Personally. There was no slanted or weighted movie to persuade me. I saw it myself. You can't tell me I didnt see it.I was very anti-war before i went there.
finchy633 2 years ago
You do not have the linguistic capabilities or presence to make a substantial video and certainly not enough gravitas to meet Christopher. Moreover, I have never heard Christopher or any rational and thinking person who felt the need to use "um."
orangeleviathan 2 years ago
Ouch.
Well, uhm, I hope you don't watch any more of mine. Sorry to have wasted your time. Bye.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Comment removed
orangeleviathan 2 years ago
Hitchens volunteered to be tortured and has been one of the strongest opponents of waterboarding. Go look it up before you assume otherwise.
pcspeaker 2 years ago 2
Hitchens portrays things in absolutes, which appeals to the religious mentality. Furthermore he debates Christians at religious institutions in the Bible Belt and he reaches an audience that has never heard an argument from the other side. He finds common ground with Christians on issues such as the Iraq war, abortion, human liberty, and the Clintons. Finally who are you to say he is going about it the wrong way? Couldn't there be many parallel ways to reach the audience?
pcspeaker 2 years ago 2
What common ground does he find with them on abortion? Is he against abortion entirely? Does he consider it a holocaust, as I often hear from theist-idiots?
Which trimester does he consider abortion murder during?
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
There is no American theocracy.
Hitchens opposes torture.
Religion IS immoral.
There is no logical arguments that work on believers.
You are very confused.
thruthem 2 years ago
Well, America is a democracy, and I agree that it isn't a theocracy by most standards right now. Still, under Bush it was much closer. I think that it isn't an on and off thing, there are scales of gray.
Some believers stop being believers when exposed to logical arguments.
Religion isn't automatically immoral. Jainism seems more moral than Hitchens meat eating, country invading atheism.
I'm not that confused, it just isn't that black and white. Thanks for your input.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Hitchens doesn't seem to oppose torture very loudly and profoundly either. I saw an interview where he discussed his views on it, and he asked 2 questions "should we do it" and "does it work". He also doesn't slam the neocons that use his waterboarding for their pro-torture purposes. watch?v=-tSiiWSU7SA
So, he really isn't that strong against torture either.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
But you see, as an Ex-Christian, I fully understand the Christian perspective.
And it is from THAT vantage point that I debate Christians. I have had fantastic success in de-converting Christians to atheism/agnosticism/anti theism, using the "give the benefit of the doubt" argumentation.
Besides, it comes closer to touching on the locus of the Christian belief... It illustrates the absurdity of their beliefs in a critical way.
You underestimate Hitchens.
hybridamerica 2 years ago
I'm glad you have experience de converting Christians, and I really hope you have a lot of success in it in the future as well. Same goes for Hitchens, I want him to get people to question their faith.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
I think you're way off base with the Iraq War = Theocratic war comments. You're basically saying that Bush came from the religious right,therefore Iraq was motivated by religion and therefore if you're an atheist you should be against the Iraq War. Two complete non sequiturs.If anything,we are guilty of letting him stay in power too long seeing how he broke every condition agreed to letting him keep power after Kuwait.Saying we were lied to is a canard as well.
Aaron518 2 years ago
Most of the supporters of the Iraq war were religious. I think atheist and those that support a secular moral state opposed it. Looking back at the record and public statements may clear that up, if we do it from the standpoint of religious affiliation.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Simply because a larger majority of the right wing advocate a war by no means makes it a theocratic war. This is by far a result of partisanship not religion. You make it seem as if atheists are impervious to any sort of influence. Atheists (being left-wing) can of course falter to their political ideology and be deterred by a heavy right-wing support for a cause.
Mike3303 2 years ago
Well, there were false beliefs at the basis of the justification for the war against Iraq. False beliefs are the things that I oppose about religion, as well, especially when they lead to immoral behavior, as the false beliefs at the basis of the Iraq war's start did.
I don't think I'm out of line in noticing that the major supporters of the Iraq war were maniacally right wing, and deluded with religion as they pretended their war drums were patriotism.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Correlation does not prove causation. Very simple law of logic.
You are wrong on your second point as well. At the war's outset many democrats, independents, and moderates supported the Iraqi intervention. They would later claim however to have been under a misapprehension, a rather pathetic argument in my opinion. Still, even if majority of Iraq war advocates were hopelessly right-wing, your point would still fail at gaining viability.
Mike3303 2 years ago
I think you're forgetting or misunderstanding the causes of the Iraq war, but I don't really have much interest in further exploring your understanding of it.
Take care man.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Watch
Christopher Hitchens Interview On C-SPAN April 26, 2009
to understand hitchen's position
AceoIogy 2 years ago
I think I understand it, Aceology. Even the most generous way of looking at it makes his support for the Iraq war amateurish at best.
Frankly, it was an immoral position to hold, and a fundamentally immoral one. Now he acts as if the inevitable loss of innocent life was a result of mismanagement, not the bad decision that he fueled.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
You mean this: watch?v=-tSiiWSU7SA
He wants to shut down the CIA, which I didn't know before. That's interesting.
He doesn't present a meaningful defense of the Iraq war in that interview. He shouldn't have endorsed it. We did it instead of doing anything about
1. Saudi Arabia (the home country of over 10 of the hijackers)
2. The Taliban (which is now swarming Pakistan).
He played into the hands of Bush and Cheney, and acted like a neo con when we needed peace.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
I seem to be having some trouble posting comments to this video (excellent btw), please forgive me if they all pop up.
I think Hitchens has a good plan. If you can undermine the foundations that support ones belief, far easier to bring the thing down. Let them see the horror of what they're said to believe.
As for Iraq, I concur with you, but would have supported it if it were to remove a genocidal Saddam (instead of wmd lies)
Re: torture; google Vanity Fair "Believe Me It's Torture"
CatharticWeek 2 years ago
:-) Glad you enjoyed it.
If we had wanted to stop Saddam's genocide we would have acted in the 80s. Afterwards it was literally too late. There was no impending genocide in 2001. That argument fails as a defense of Hitchen's (or any chickenhawk's) behavior.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
By the way, is that a tatoo or face paint?
BrettSchall 2 years ago
Tattoo.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
I understand what you are saying, and I think Hitchens debates just as much for his own amusment and for sport as he does in an attempt to help the world. However, maybe pointing out the extremes of fundamentalism and fanaticism will gather more moderates on our side. This seems like a better route than trying to undermine all faith and belief in one huge bite like you are saying. Id rather that happen to be honest, but I have to go with Hitchens on this one.
BrettSchall 2 years ago
Good points. I don't agree with Hitchens rhetoric very much. He does try to work for 'the greater good' where the greater good is Atheism; however, Hitchens tends inadvertently to patronize xtians through his rhetoric.
That being said, he is pretty intelligent. But Dawkins tends to anneal more with the style I atheists and their rejection of beliefs in god.
anonymoususer120 2 years ago
Considering Mr Hitchens abhorence of theistic matters, I find it laughable that commentators here want to suggest his connection to neo conservatism. As someone with a history of Marxism he would certainly balk at being called 'the elite'. It must be noted though, that his support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do seem out of character. On religion though, he has my full support. It has no place influencing political thought anywhere. Seperation of church and state, anyone?
630633 2 years ago
Did you not observe his behavior during the Iraq war build up?
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Sure, and he rightfully defended our leaders, in my opinion, to go to war. We stuck a heavy blow against the Al-Qaeda, that was a wonderful victory, we would not be able to say the same thing today if we would listened to Cindy Sheehan. I'm greatful that we didn't pull out when most of the country wanted to, Iraq is alot more peaceful today than it has been in a long time.
MysteryManoLove 2 years ago
I cannot honestly say that I did see his behaviour during the Iraq War build up. I have only become familiar with him in the last year or so. He didn't appear on Swedish TV. I will admit though, what I have seen him do would lead some people to think he is a neocon. My observation merely stated that despite his gung ho war cries, he is an unlikely flag bearer for the neocon cause.
630633 2 years ago
The initial invasion into Iraq was not a victory over Al Qaeda. This is the fundamental problem with our invasion, and how it was sold to us.
You defend a war that was founded on lies. Lies put on the record through legalized torture.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Thanks for your thoughts and response.
I think Hitchens is entertaining with his rhetoric even if he does go too far with "nasty elderly virgins teaching lies to children" talk.
I just put up a video on Calvinism doing the very thing you disagree with - work with their premises. John Loftus did the same with "Why I Became An Atheist" and some atheists didn't like him assuming the Christian view and challening it from the inside out.
PaulHarrison1976 2 years ago
But I think there is a place for that, because internal doubt causes cognitive dissonance and points out what believers already struggle with. An atheist who was never a Christian simply don't relate to books like that. I do think different tactics speak to and put off different people, so I'm for the variety.
Hitchens is against torture and against Saddam as a tyrant. He admits the mistakes we've made going in and doesn't care what theocrats think, he is just happy to oust tyrants.
PaulHarrison1976 2 years ago
He wasn't speaking of revolution during the Bush tyrrany, yet Bush 1. didn't win his first election. 2. was torturing as far back as 2001 3. was responsible for untold murders.
I don't think that aspect of Hitchen's history is defensible. It isn't ok to oust tyrants, and devil take the hindmost. Most of us are the hindmost.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Hitchens justifies the war in Iraq differently than the Bush administration did. Conflating the two makes you seem like a demagogue.
pcspeaker 2 years ago
It is the same war and result, sir!
I know that there are differences, but everyone else knew what was going to happen and that it would be a clutserfuck, why couldn't he figure it out?
I don't think your comment is fair, or his actions were justifiable.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Hitchens uses his verbal abilities to bring crowd and sell his work. Otherwise, he is a sham. Any person who still refuses to acknowledge the mess called Iraq is a liar and not credible. Being part of elite, he has an access to resources, politicians, etc. to find the truth. Simply put, he's a liar.
It doesn't matter what else he says as he is not to be believed.
If he can lie about something so obvious, I won't waste my time giving him platform on other issues.
rodeo179 2 years ago
That being said, he's right about religion in some respects. I hate bringing him down, maybe I should have spent time with his opponents as well, since they are worse ideologically. Ugh. Why did he have to be for the Iraq war. I want to pull for him here (after having attacked him...).
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
Agree. Hitchens does more damage to Athiests than good. Hitchens is Anti-thiest. To be frank, listening & reading to hitchens reminds me of the extremists on the other side: both zealots in their beliefs & blaming the other side for everything wrong.
Any psychologist would agree that, however wrong an atheist believes to be, religion has done a lot good as well. It creates a sense of belongingness, has kept communities safe (less gangs), etc.
Hitchens is against torture... search youtube
rodeo179 2 years ago
I don't know whether he does damage to atheists or not. I'm coming out against his methods, but not entirely against him. I actually am sometimes astounded by what he can accomplish in a room of theists.
I think you and I see pretty eye to eye on this. He fills a weird gap in the atheist group.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago
My understanding was that Hitchens was always in favor of ousting Saddam coincidentally to the neocons & that he continued his support more in spite of their wankery, He's commented/mourned his chickenhawkery & he got waterboarded to speak with more authority on the subject. (that it is torture, natch) search it.
WholeDarnShow 2 years ago 2
Yeah, I saw the waterboarding. He does agree that it is torture. I just think he played into their hands really hard there. That was a time when few Americans were trying to stomp on the brakes, and he was jumping on the gas with the rest of the neo-cons.
I get it though, I had no love of Saddam, but I don't have much love of a lot of foreign leaders, am I going to publish pro-war statements at a time when a predictable mistake is looming?
I guess I just take his moral arguments with salt.
AtheistHQ 2 years ago