I'm certainly not pro religious fundamentalism these days, but I wonder:
Is it just me, or does anyone else, when they see and listen to
/Christopher Hitchens/, can't help but find him disgusting (both
optically and in attitude)?

From the way he talks, I'm no longer too surprised that fundamental
Christians think moral doesn't grow in the field of atheism, with
Hitchens openly calling them his "enemies" and such
(https://youtu.be/UOtQPHMYlNA). Now I'm not saying that he's an immoral
person, but he makes it easy to /imagine/ that, were it not for secular
laws, he might just walk out tomorrow with a shotgun and go out hunting
some fundamental Christians.

Doesn't do his cause no good, I think.


I guess when it comes to prominent figureheads claimed by contemporary
atheists, I'd pick Neil deGrasse Tyson any time:
https://youtu.be/Adg0I0nGczg?t=1h3m2s


Thinking about it, I think we should file Hitchens not under "A" as in
"atheist", but "F" as in "fundamentalist", along with the very rat pack
he's campaigning(*) against.

(*etymological pun intended)

Post a reply to this message

On 11-9-2015 12:52, clipka wrote:
> ...  he might just walk out tomorrow with a shotgun and go out hunting
> some fundamental Christians.
>

He is dead (15-12-2011)...


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.09.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 11-9-2015 12:52, clipka wrote:
>> ...  he might just walk out tomorrow with a shotgun and go out hunting
>> some fundamental Christians.
>>
> 
> He is dead (15-12-2011)...

Didn't know that.

Now that certainly reduces the need for aversion against him.

Post a reply to this message

On 11-9-2015 13:54, clipka wrote:
> Am 11.09.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 11-9-2015 12:52, clipka wrote:
>>> ...  he might just walk out tomorrow with a shotgun and go out hunting
>>> some fundamental Christians.
>>>
>>
>> He is dead (15-12-2011)...
>
> Didn't know that.
>
> Now that certainly reduces the need for aversion against him.
>
Indeed. However, one still can have doubts/misgivings about the kind of 
argumentation he - or others in his wake - followed.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.09.2015 um 14:21 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 11-9-2015 13:54, clipka wrote:
>> Am 11.09.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> On 11-9-2015 12:52, clipka wrote:
>>>> ...  he might just walk out tomorrow with a shotgun and go out hunting
>>>> some fundamental Christians.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He is dead (15-12-2011)...
>>
>> Didn't know that.
>>
>> Now that certainly reduces the need for aversion against him.
>>
> Indeed. However, one still can have doubts/misgivings about the kind of
> argumentation he - or others in his wake - followed.

I think it's not so much the kind of argumentation he followed (in the
sense of what points he made), but rather the vehemency with which he
put them forward, combined with his (as it would seem to me) refusal to
try to understand the other side.

I think the latter is what really constitutes fundamentalism.

I'd like to point out that understanding someone and agreeing with them
are two entirely different things. The latter isn't necessary for a
peaceful coexistence, but the former ultimately is.

Post a reply to this message

On 11-9-2015 14:51, clipka wrote:
> Am 11.09.2015 um 14:21 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 11-9-2015 13:54, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 11.09.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>> On 11-9-2015 12:52, clipka wrote:
>>>>> ...  he might just walk out tomorrow with a shotgun and go out hunting
>>>>> some fundamental Christians.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He is dead (15-12-2011)...
>>>
>>> Didn't know that.
>>>
>>> Now that certainly reduces the need for aversion against him.
>>>
>> Indeed. However, one still can have doubts/misgivings about the kind of
>> argumentation he - or others in his wake - followed.
>
> I think it's not so much the kind of argumentation he followed (in the
> sense of what points he made), but rather the vehemency with which he
> put them forward, combined with his (as it would seem to me) refusal to
> try to understand the other side.
>
> I think the latter is what really constitutes fundamentalism.
>
> I'd like to point out that understanding someone and agreeing with them
> are two entirely different things. The latter isn't necessary for a
> peaceful coexistence, but the former ultimately is.
>

It is what I meant to say but you formulated that better than I did :-) 
I fully agree.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 11-9-2015 12:52, clipka wrote:
> > ...  he might just walk out tomorrow with a shotgun and go out hunting
> > some fundamental Christians.
> >
>
> He is dead (15-12-2011)...

Not only that, Christians wasted no time in claiming he had a deathbed
conversion.  (Though they wouldn't have claimed that if they'd really listened
to him.  If I were the Christian god, I'd be very afraid if he showed up at my
gate.)

Seriously, though, he was a polemicist, not an advocate for violence against the
religious.  (Though he did support the Bush the Lesser's invasion of Iraq.  I
never did find out what that was about.)

Hitchens was really popular among atheists in the USA.  Perhaps we have a bigger
problem with fundamentalist Christians than you do in Germany.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I guess when it comes to prominent figureheads claimed by contemporary
> atheists, I'd pick Neil deGrasse Tyson any time:
> https://youtu.be/Adg0I0nGczg?t=1h3m2s

More NdGT:  The bull vs. the china shop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z4gISBuDVU

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.09.2015 um 10:04 schrieb Cousin Ricky:

> Hitchens was really popular among atheists in the USA.  Perhaps we have a bigger
> problem with fundamentalist Christians than you do in Germany.

That is certainly the case. While we also do have the occasional
fundamentalist Christian sect, they're just a fringe group here, and
they know and acknowledge it; for instance, over here, nobody even in
their sane(?) mind would try to push ID into public school education -
rather, at worst they'd try to get their own children out of public
schools; but even that seems to be pretty rare.

Maybe here in continental Europe we have the questionable benefit of
having suffered from so many wars over religion -- even and especially
between Christians -- that we have become weary of it and turned to a
now deep-rooted secularism.

It may also play a great role that many of the waves of emigration to
America were motivated by religious persecution; such people obviously
belonged to communities with strong religious beliefs. In addition, they
were also more likely to not have had much exposure to secularist ideas
(otherwise their oppressors would have been likely to have been exposed
to those ideas, too, and might have exerted less pressure on the
community in question), or dissent with spreading secularist ideas might
even have been one of the reasons for emigration. Thus, such emigrants
would have brought with them more religious fanatism and less secularism
than what was the typical average at that same time in Europe.

While waves of emigration to America became more and more economically
motivated over time, and certainly also brought with them the secular
ideas that were evolving in Eurpoe, the earlier settlers' asecular
mindset may have persevered comparatively easily based on a "first dibs"
claim of authority to define American culture.

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.09.2015 um 10:13 schrieb Cousin Ricky:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> I guess when it comes to prominent figureheads claimed by contemporary
>> atheists, I'd pick Neil deGrasse Tyson any time:
>> https://youtu.be/Adg0I0nGczg?t=1h3m2s
> 
> More NdGT:  The bull vs. the china shop:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z4gISBuDVU

"A-ha! He invited Dawkins, so he /must/ be an atheist!"

Post a reply to this message