Jump to content

Hitchens: To American Atheists


Recommended Posts

As we all know, Yahweh God, the God of Abraham, has stricken Christopher Hitchens - the drinkin', profanin', militant, atheist, god-hating, extremist, Nazi-Commie, secular-socialist, filthy liberal, immigrant, intellectual elitist, subscriber to Darwininan faith, and probable Islamic terrorist and eugenics supporter - with an aggressive and malignant cancer. Out of love.For white, male, Christian, conservative right-wing dominionists of God-blessed American exceptional-ism. Awhile ago Hitchens wrote this letter to fellow non-cult members, having been unable to attend a speaking engagement due to the illness:

Dear fellow-unbelievers, Nothing would have kept me from joining you except the loss of my voice (at least my speaking voice) which in turn is due to a long argument I am currently having with the specter of death. Nobody ever wins this argument, though there are some solid points to be made while the discussion goes on. I have found, as the enemy becomes more familiar, that all the special pleading for salvation, redemption and supernatural deliverance appears even more hollow and artificial to me than it did before. I hope to help defend and pass on the lessons of this for many years to come, but for now I have found my trust better placed in two things: the skill and principle of advanced medical science, and the comradeship of innumerable friends and family, all of them immune to the false consolations of religion. It is these forces among others which will speed the day when humanity emancipates itself from the mind-forged manacles of servility and superstition. It is our innate solidarity, and not some despotism of the sky, which is the source of our morality and our sense of decency. That essential sense of decency is outraged every day. Our theocratic enemy is in plain view. Protean in form, it extends from the overt menace of nuclear-armed mullahs to the insidious campaigns to have stultifying pseudo-science taught in American schools. But in the past few years, there have been heartening signs of a genuine and spontaneous resistance to this sinister nonsense: a resistance which repudiates the right of bullies and tyrants to make the absurd claim that they have god on their side. To have had a small part in this resistance has been the greatest honor of my lifetime: the pattern and original of all dictatorship is the surrender of reason to absolutism and the abandonment of critical, objective inquiry. The cheap name for this lethal delusion is religion, and we must learn new ways of combating it in the public sphere, just as we have learned to free ourselves of it in private. Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations. As the heirs of a secular revolution, American atheists have a special responsibility to defend and uphold the Constitution that patrols the boundary between Church and State. This, too, is an honor and a privilege. Believe me when I say that I am present with you, even if not corporeally (and only metaphorically in spirit...) Resolve to build up Mr Jefferson's wall of separation. And don't keep the faith. Sincerely Christopher Hitchens

He wrote another piece for Vanity Fair recently concerning the loss of his voice. (There's a page 2, btw, which I didn't notice when I first read it on my phone.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of love.
Who told you that we are supposed to view God's decisions through a lens of human emotion? Couldn't God be merciful to some people and not to others? Why does He have to have grace for all people? If He saves everyone, then it wouldn't mean much.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Who told you that we are supposed to view God's decisions through a lens of human emotion? Couldn't God be merciful to some people and not to others? Why does He have to have grace for all people? If He saves everyone, then it wouldn't mean much.
Yea, I guess the most merciful being imaginable wouldn't just save anybody... oh, wait...
Link to post
Share on other sites
If He saves everyone, then it wouldn't mean much.
Why not? Step me through the logic there.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Note to self, don't try reading articles heavily-laden with $5 words early in the morning with a hangover. You'll have better success reading sheet music upside down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If He saves everyone, then it wouldn't mean much.
Who told you that we are supposed to view God's decisions through a lens of human emotion?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not? Step me through the logic there.
Jesus supposedly died to "save us". If everyone is saved, why die? What are we saved from? It doesn't even matter, because everyone is saved.
Link to post
Share on other sites
He said "logic".
Ha. Yeah, brv, that was awful.
Whatever, losers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the logic usually is that Jesus died to give us a chance to be saved. If we reject Jesus then we are not saved, and possibly sent to eternal hell depending on the sadictiveness level of the belief system. Although some Christians reject this in an attempt to solve the free-will contradiction and believe in predestination instead. As for the spockblock, looks like he got there a little too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Although some Christians reject this in an attempt to solve the free-will contradiction and believe in predestination instead.
I agree with this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Who told you that we are supposed to view God's decisions through a lens of human emotion? Couldn't God be merciful to some people and not to others? Why does He have to have grace for all people? If He saves everyone, then it wouldn't mean much.
I wouldn't have near the problem with religion as I have, if all the true believers that I run into didn't prove themselves to be complete and utter douche bags. And what makes it worse is they have absolutely no awareness of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't have near the problem with religion as I have, if all the true believers that I run into didn't prove themselves to be complete and utter douche bags. And what makes it worse is they have absolutely no awareness of it.
Like the old saying goes, it's not God I have a problem with, it's his fan club.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't have near the problem with religion as I have, if all the true believers that I run into didn't prove themselves to be complete and utter douche bags. And what makes it worse is they have absolutely no awareness of it.
I think you mean "true believers" as more of the evangelical or fundementalist type of religiosity. I don't think most people really give much of a thought about it to be honest and don't care too. It's something they learn as a kid and it's a card they pull out in dire circumstances and such, but doesn't really factor into their thinking on a daily basis or anything. I guess I am saying that I don't think 94% of the American population are douchebags.It's probably more like 86%.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't have near the problem with religion as I have, if all the true believers that I run into didn't prove themselves to be complete and utter douche bags. And what makes it worse is they have absolutely no awareness of it.
In what way are they douchebags?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish Brvhrt hadnt skipped over LLY's retort. LLY brought some sweet chin music there. Real nasty cheddar.
"It wouldn't mean much" wasn't supposed to conveying emotion, but reality. What would be the point of Jesus dying?
Link to post
Share on other sites
"It wouldn't mean much" wasn't supposed to conveying emotion, but reality. What would be the point of Jesus dying?
but that's still you using human faculties to evaluate god's choices, is it not? how can we judge anything about god if he exists outside of our reality? how can we know what it means? and i dont accept "because the bible tells us what it means" as an answer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
but that's still you using human faculties to evaluate god's choices, is it not? how can we judge anything about god if he exists outside of our reality? how can we know what it means?
I think this is fair.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is fair.
You've been providing some striking examples of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization on this type of issue (your god being "outside of our ability to comprehend" vs. you making explicit statements that claim to comprehend your god). Striking enough that it bears highlighting.It happened also in the thread discussing morality where I hammered your "sniff test" analogy as being able to know what rules would be of god and which wouldn't when you had earlier claimed god was outside of our ability to understand in such a way.You concluded, "that's fair". Basically falling back on your god being unknowable.What has happened in both instances (and I think there are more but these are the two I remember off hand) is you have attempted to defend the absurdity of describing the god of Abraham as "moral" by, at first, stating that humans can't know your Imaginary Conception's mind, therefore maybe it is more moral. A higher, incomprehensible morality. This is challenged in some way, "that means baby rape can be moral if god says so", for example. Examples that show your position is stupid, or at the very least devoid of any "morality" in any sense that is not arbitrary or revolting. You intuit the position is stupid - you don't actually see that it's stupid - and, instead of recognizing the absurdity of your position your brain switches gears. That "unknowable" position heads off to squirrel itself away in another part of your brain. A different compartment. In it's place you personify god - bring your conception of god back into knowable reality and defend it with a variation "god wouldn't do that" or "maybe it's because of this [human reasoning]". Explicitly claiming that human moral reasoning can "sniff out"... you know... morality. Implying that it isn't, in fact, some arbitrary thing based upon what some nebulous unknowable being commands. This allows your god concept to survive the arguments being made against you. You've switched gears and answered the issue, to your mind.Then, once it is pointed out that you have contradicted yourself by claiming you know what god's morality is, and you're claiming to know what would be "gods moral directive" and what wouldn't... the same thing happens, in reverse.Namely, you go back to "I think it's fair to say we have no idea what is 'moral' or 'not moral' according to the unknowable god".In your mind you've successfully addressed the problem raised, again. It's remarkable. You hold, simultaneously, two completely incongruous ideas in your head. And whichever is necessary, depending on the moment, to preserve your belief in the "absolute morality of god" is swiftly switched into the foreground. This is one of the most insidious traits of the supernatural. Whether it be aliens, bigfoot and other monsters, gods, ghosts, psychics - anything that people can make up that is "outside of our ability to understand" and "outside of testable reality". It allows for an excellent place to compartmentalize away from all reason, logic, evidence, empiricism, and critical thought. A place unassailable by any actual means of knowing. It can be accessed and used at any time. Then, once the assault is over, the old positive claims can return. The claims that can be questioned or dissected. And the believer isn't even aware this switch is happening, in any real sense. They are utterly oblivious to the contradiction. And will follow the same process when a variant, or even the same problem arises in the future. We really need to have a focus on critical thought in early education. A huge focus. We aren't equipping our youth with the tools necessary to help them decipher nonsense from sense. Allowing someone to slip through a high school degree believing that faith is as valid as evidence, in terms of knowledge, is outrageous. I'd wager even the word "epistemology", for example, is utterly foreign to a vast majority of high school graduates, which would be outrageous. Not equipping a student with the ability to self-regulate cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias - to lessen their effects at the very least - is outrageous. Ending a high school career without learning that the beginning of any hypothesis should be the null hypothesis:H0: There are no bigfoot. Even if you believe there is a bigfoot, even if you have evidence for bigfoot, the correct methodology is to have your first hypothesis as the null hypothesis... and you set to disprove this hypothesis via evidence. This is in your own mind, in your own research, in your own formulation of belief, before even adopting the position - and certainly before presenting it to others as true. To allow someone to finish their basic education thinking an acceptable way to go about understanding things, knowing things, or believing things is to adopt a positive hypothesis and defend it from there, is outrageous. Just begging for cognitive dissonance, compartmentalization, and confirmation bias. Leading to BG's and brv's and fundies and conspiracy nutters and YEC's and every other flavor of credulous idiot buying into innumerable frauds, shams, systems, cons and ideologies of abject quackery. *note*This is muddled as hell, I'm sure, but at the moment I'm way too lazy to clean it up, edit it for clarity or, well, anything really. So deal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You've been providing some striking examples of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization on this type of issue (your god being "outside of our ability to comprehend" vs. you making explicit statements that claim to comprehend your god). Striking enough that it bears highlighting.It happened also in the thread discussing morality where I hammered your "sniff test" analogy as being able to know what rules would be of god and which wouldn't when you had earlier claimed god was outside of our ability to understand in such a way.You concluded, "that's fair". Basically falling back on your god being unknowable.What has happened in both instances (and I think there are more but these are the two I remember off hand) is you have attempted to defend the absurdity of describing the god of Abraham as "moral" by, at first, stating that humans can't know your Imaginary Conception's mind, therefore maybe it is more moral. A higher, incomprehensible morality. This is challenged in some way, "that means baby rape can be moral if god says so", for example. Examples that show your position is stupid, or at the very least devoid of any "morality" in any sense that is not arbitrary or revolting. You intuit the position is stupid - you don't actually see that it's stupid - and, instead of recognizing the absurdity of your position your brain switches gears. That "unknowable" position heads off to to squirrel itself away in another part of your brain. A different compartment. In it's place you personify god - bring your conception of god back into knowable reality and defend it with a variation "god wouldn't do that" or "maybe it's because of this [human reasoning]". Explicitly claiming that human moral reasoning can "sniff out"... you know... morality. Implying that it isn't, in fact, some arbitrary thing based upon what some nebulous unknowable being commands. This allows your god concept to survive the arguments being made against you. You've switched gears and answered the issue, to your mind.Then, once it is pointed out that you have contradicted yourself by claiming you know what god's morality is, and you're claiming to know what would be "gods moral directive" and what wouldn't... the same thing happens, in reverse.Namely, you go back to "I think it's fair to say we have no idea what is 'moral' or 'not moral' according to the unknowable god".In your mind you've successfully addressed the problem raised, again. It's remarkable. You hold, simultaneously, two completely incongruous ideas in your head. And whichever is necessary, depending on the moment, to preserve your belief in the "absolute morality of god" is swiftly switched into the foreground. This is one of the most insidious traits of the supernatural. Whether it be aliens, bigfoot and other monsters, gods, ghosts, psychics - anything that people can make up that is "outside of our ability to understand" and "outside of testable reality". It allows for an excellent place to compartmentalize away from all reason, logic, evidence, empiricism, and critical thought. A place unassailable by any actual means of knowing. It can be accessed and used at any time. Then, once the assault is over, the old positive claims can return. The claims that can be questioned or dissected. And the believer isn't even aware this switch is happening, in any real sense. They are utterly oblivious to the contradiction. And will follow the same process when a variant, or even the same problem arises in the future. We really need to have a focus on critical thought in early education. A huge focus. We aren't equipping our youth with the tools necessary to help them decipher nonsense from sense. Allowing someone to slip through a high school degree believing that faith is as valid as evidence, in terms of knowledge, is outrageous. I'd wager even the word "epistemology", for example, is utterly foreign to a vast majority of high school graduates, which would be outrageous. Not equipping a student with the ability to self-regulate cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias - to lessen their effects at the very least - is outrageous. Ending a high school career without learning that the beginning of any hypothesis should be the null hypothesis:H0: There are no bigfoot. Even if you believe there is a bigfoot, even if you have evidence for bigfoot, the correct methodology is to have your first hypothesis as the null hypothesis... and you set to disprove this hypothesis via evidence. This is in your own mind, in your own research, in your own formulation of belief, before even adopting the position - and certainly before presenting it to others as true. To allow someone to finish their basic education thinking an acceptable way to go about understanding things, knowing things, or believing things is to adopt a positive hypothesis and defend it from there, is outrageous. Just begging for cognitive dissonance, compartmentalization, and confirmation bias. Leading to BG's and brv's and fundies and conspiracy nutters and YEC's and every other flavor of credulous idiot buying into innumerable frauds, shams, systems, cons and ideologies of abject quackery. *note*This is muddled as hell, I'm sure, but at the moment I'm way too lazy to clean it up, edit it for clarity or, well, anything really. So deal.
I agree. This should be a primary goal of education
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...