"In a June diary piece for his old parish the New Statesman, Christopher Hitchens explored possible monikers for the recent raft of atheist writers. He noted that as a quartet (Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris) they would inevitably attract such hackneyed shorthands as the Gang of Four or the Four Musketeers. Thus, he offered an alternative, the Four Horsemen of the Counter-Apocalypse, now refined into the more succinct Four Horsemen. Shorn of its playful end the title may only further the religious association between atheism and evil, but im just relieved that Hitchens and Harris havent been conscripted into the sickly sweet Brights favoured by Dawkins and Dennett.
It now emerges that the Four Horsemen were recently gathered at Hitchenss Washington apartment, with the two-hour discussion on religion that ensued filmed for our enjoyment. Released on DVD on January 2nd, you can view it all now courtesy of Dawkinss site.
Watching the discussion i was reminded of those collaborative Marvel comic books that crop up occasionally, Spiderman and Superman: United at last!, X-Men and the Fantastic Four join forces! Far more interesting than what the four agree on is what they dont. The differences, between Hitchens and Dawkins on the Iraq war as a secular project, and betwen Harris and the others on the relationship of atheism to Eastern spiritualism, do much to prove that the new atheists are far from a homogeneous block.
The most compelling discussion occurs when Hitchens argues that hed miss religion in a hypothetical atheist world since then the debate would end; hed have no one to refine his arguments against, no one to hone his wit in opposition to, no one to face down in swathes of smoke long after the bulk of audience have retired. It proves once more that an admiration for the dialect is one feature that remains from his Trotskyist days. An incredulous Dawkins is baffled by this stance and at a later stage Hitchens, maintaining hed like to see all the churches empty, concedes its essentially contradictory nature. Which all goes to prove that a meeting of two atheists is still likely to produce three opinions."
How awesome it would have been to of sat in the room and listened to those four men.
accent77 3 months ago
All this and not a suicide belt in sight.
JanineRobin 1 year ago
4 crazy old dudes.. in a single room.. epic..weird?? im surprise some religious fundamentalist didn't crash the meeting.
mmmodafoca 1 year ago
I have looked at history. The story of mankind speaks for itself. I was never a general in any of the armies in any of the wars that were ever fought. I never cheered on Syria, Jordan, and Egypt when they used soviet-equipped armies to attack Israel. When they lost and refused to agree to an armistice, I didn't jump out of my seat and cheer knowing another conflict was inevitable. I didn't celebrate when Arafat missed the best opportunity he had to save the Palestinians. They did it themselves.
paradirob 2 years ago
Americans were already in America before they defeated England in the War of Independence. However, When new settlers reached America's shores by boat, they discovered native Americans. That indigenous population was decimated completely. Would you say that New Englanders were ethnocentric or that they had an occupation going? I don't think Israelis want to kill every last Arab like Anglos killed every last Indian. If extreme Orthodox Jews do, then the Israelis police will have to stop that.
paradirob 2 years ago
On the matter concerning the term 'ethnocentric Zionist,' I only have a minor qualm about that. It seems artificially redundant for the purpose of calling people names. If it wasn't for Zionism, the Jews would probably have just shrugged their shoulders when boatloads of them were turned back and then later perished at sea. Or, they could have said, 'Hitler lost the war, but he beat us. Let's not continue being the ethnicity we are and just remain trapped in Europe. Let's not start a new nation.
paradirob 2 years ago
O.K., I take it back. Technically speaking, there is an occupation. I think, however, if Israel had not been drawn into war in 1948 with Jordan, Egypt, and Syria attacking her from all sides; and, if after they had been defeated by a moderately armed Israelis force they would have signed the armistice, there would not have been what is technically referred to as an 'occupation,' today. So you are right, there is an occupation.
paradirob 2 years ago
When all threats have been neutralized, then the new double state of Israel-Palestine can learn to work together and prosper together in peaceful co-existence. Syria will eventually get its Golan Heights back; however, they will have to reign in the Hazbinolla (as in 'has-been'). This sorry group of thugs cannot continue to be allowed to aim its lethal rockets at Israel any more. Syria will be subject to attack by Israel as long as it refuses to act. If all this gets done there will be peace.
paradirob 2 years ago
Everyone in Lebanon was expecting the March 8th coalition to win. That coalition contains the so-called Haz-bin-olla or His-bolla (of-one-day-olda-granola). Either way, and anyway, they lost the election. The Western-backed coalition won instead. Something no-one was expecting to happen. On June 12, Iran will elect a new President. Whoever is elected better be prepared to agree to inspections. Iran cannot build a nuke without bringing about a war. Nuclear power for electricity is acceptable.
paradirob 2 years ago
And Jordan will not give an inch to the Palestinians to broaden the boundaries of the West Bank. Any new state will have to settle for what room is currently available in the West Bank. The new state will not be allowed to have an army. However, it will need a beefed up police force just to keep order within its borders. Gaza's Iranian missiles will have to go, and Iran will have to agree to inspections of its nuclear facilities. Once cleared of weapons, Palestinians will be able to live there.
paradirob 2 years ago