This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← 'Christopher Hitchens' on Q TV

'Christopher Hitchens' on Q TV - Comments

DeepFritz's Avatar Comment 1 by DeepFritz

Gotta love the work of Hitch :)

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:12:00 UTC | #400568

HourglassMemory's Avatar Comment 2 by HourglassMemory

Oh! Is he working on another book?
He quickly gives it away at around 05:53 in the video.
It seems it'll be based on the tenth commandment.
For some odd unexplainable reason I smiled when he went for the straw right at the very end.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:16:00 UTC | #400570

Joe Henderson's Avatar Comment 3 by Joe Henderson

Hitchens is SUGOI!!!!


lots of respect for atheist activists!!!

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:19:00 UTC | #400572

bethe123's Avatar Comment 4 by bethe123

Excellent.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:51:00 UTC | #400578

Fuzzy Duck's Avatar Comment 5 by Fuzzy Duck

Can't wait for his documentary on religion. I'll see that opening weekend and bring friends.


Kevin

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:48:00 UTC | #400582

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 6 by Enlightenme..

Seriously enjoyed his scornful kicking of the senile old peanut-farmer and the lebensrauming 'settlers'.

Superb.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:18:00 UTC | #400584

Rumraket80's Avatar Comment 7 by Rumraket80

I love that man.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:34:00 UTC | #400586

MAJORPAIN's Avatar Comment 8 by MAJORPAIN

You've won me over Hitch! You're looking good, too! Not smoking agrees with you.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:38:00 UTC | #400588

Rawhard Dickins's Avatar Comment 9 by Rawhard Dickins

I had never noticed Hitche's halo before!

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:01:00 UTC | #400590

Big T's Avatar Comment 10 by Big T

One of Christopher's best performances. I especially enjoyed the way he pointed out several times that genocide, slavery, rape, and genital mutilation are explicity commanded, not just tactitly accepted, by the alleged deity of the three main monotheistic religions. Go get 'em, Hitch!

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:16:00 UTC | #400594

fossil-fish's Avatar Comment 11 by fossil-fish

Absolutely first class.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:23:00 UTC | #400596

Sharrow's Avatar Comment 12 by Sharrow

Everytime I hear people refer to Richard Dawkins as strident, I want to cream..."Strident? Wait 'till you get a load of Hitchins!"

Still, he always nails it - even if he is a little fond of repeating himself.

I can only imagine how the measured, deep tones of his voice must get under the skins of the religious.

They must hate him.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:50:00 UTC | #400602

Harko's Avatar Comment 13 by Harko

The host actually conducted the interview really well - he let Hitch talk, only occasionally interjecting to steer him on to something new.

Excellent entertainment :-)

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:08:00 UTC | #400618

thereisnodog's Avatar Comment 14 by thereisnodog

i enjoy Hitch so much...it seems he has a present or historical fact for all his assertions and this always has a way of being persuasive. It's great to listen to someone who doesn't just throw around wild subjective opinions...like much of the biased US (fox) media do.

Grounding what he says in reality give him the edge everytime.

go hitch

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:11:00 UTC | #400619

Luis Dias's Avatar Comment 15 by Luis Dias

I really enjoyed the interviewer. A very good questioner and devil's advocate, a seemingly agnostic chap that is willing to listen to other people's viewpoints, but not without pressing them to the challenges.

And Hitchen's at his best, of course. I'm always amazed at the ability of some people of repeating ad nausea the same lines and arguments almost everyday (and Hitch does debates every week, twice a week, or thrice), for years now, and still seem fresh at it. I mean, I'd be bored at the end of the first month. "What, I've been doing this for an entire month and there are still imbeciles who didn't get it?!?"

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:14:00 UTC | #400620

Ned Flanders's Avatar Comment 16 by Ned Flanders

"- even if he is a little fond of repeating himself. "

yes, but it never wears thin.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:42:00 UTC | #400632

helen sotiriadis's Avatar Comment 17 by helen sotiriadis

great interview.

"- even if he is a little fond of repeating himself. "
don't forget that there are always people who haven't heard these arguments before. and don't forget that a lot of them are not original to hitch -- they've been around forever.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:50:00 UTC | #400634

ComradePorkie's Avatar Comment 18 by ComradePorkie

I've never been a huge fan of Hitchens but he made some great points. I'm still not sure about his emphasis on schadenfreude (laughing at the misfortune of others) - it may undermine his argument that you can be moral without God. I'll make sure to read his book, though.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:24:00 UTC | #400642

ViciousCircle's Avatar Comment 19 by ViciousCircle

I like it when Hitch says his book is "available in all good bookstores."

It's also available in Bargin Books for £2 with a funky red cover! I bought several copies and gave them to friends :)

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:00 UTC | #400644

JimmyGiro's Avatar Comment 20 by JimmyGiro

When I first became aware of this site, and then the 'horsemen of the Apocalypse', I was reticent about Hitchen; I didn't care for his dual citizenship or pro-Iraqi invasion stance.

But the more I hear and read his work the more I'm impressed by his integrity, and the less I care for the other horsemen. Although I like Dan's intelligence and style of reasoning, and Richards command of language in explanation; they lack Christopher's fundamental moral axioms or arguing from the self to the belief. The others try to fit their science to their belief, which I find disingenuous, as any flag waving jingoistic patriot hiding behind their mother's apron.

The 'New Atheism' seems to be nothing short of an alternative intellectual fascism: "think like us, or you're dim, or worse". Christopher's stance is one that begins with freedom of thought, then argues toward the conclusion by condemning those politics and philosophies that oppose freedom of thinking.

Christopher is a free agent, but I suspect that the other three horsemen are politically manipulatable, owing to their reliance on the orthodoxy of science; which is a politically funded philosophy, therefore susceptible to purchase. For example, the science departments are very heavily pushing feminism owing to government funded interest groups, and not pushing religion in British institutions; yet none of the 'New Atheists' seem to care enough about the integrity of science, to mention this or challenge it. I put it to you 'New Atheists' that science is suffering more from feminist political meddling than anything else; but I see no confrontation between yourselves and the religion of feminism.

If you want to test my hypothesis, try asking who would argue against the feminists for prescribing Ritalin to boys who 'fail' to behave during public schooling: Christopher or the other horsemen?

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:49:00 UTC | #400645

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 21 by Quetzalcoatl

JimmyGiro-

When I first became aware of this site, and then the 'horsemen of the Apocalypse', I was reticent about Hitchen; I didn't care for his dual citizenship


What a bizarre thing to dislike.

The others try to fit their science to their belief, which I find disingenuous, as any flag waving jingoistic patriot hiding behind their mother's apron.

The 'New Atheism' seems to be nothing short of an alternative intellectual fascism: "think like us, or you're dim, or worse"


Atheism is an absence of belief, not a belief. Evidence that "the others" try to fit the science to their beliefs? This of course implies that the science actually says something else to what they say it does. Examples please.

Christopher is a free agent, but I suspect that the other three horsemen are politically manipulatable, owing to their reliance on the orthodoxy of science; which is a politically funded philosophy, therefore susceptible to purchase. For example, the science departments are very heavily pushing feminism owing to government funded interest groups, and not pushing religion, in British institution, yet none of the 'New Atheists' seem to care enough about the integrity of science, to mention this, or challenge it. I put it to you 'New Atheists' that science is suffering more from feminist political meddling than anything else; but I see no confrontation between yourselves or the religion of feminism.


I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:00:00 UTC | #400646

AllanW's Avatar Comment 22 by AllanW

Hitch is devastating to people who rely on faith because he calmly, clearly and rationally holds the mirror up to their moral underpinnings. With beautifully intoxicating language he smoothly removes the unthinking props which weakens the entire structure of their views. He is a master of verbal Jenga.

There were so many points in this interview when one line of his dialogue exposed the rotten wood behind the facade of monotheistic religions;

"Not 'in the name of', by explicit authority. The books give a warrant to slavery, murder, genital mutilation."

I think it unfortunate that Jimmy above falls into the false dichotomy that so many of us are prone to; the elevation of one person does NOT mandate the reduction of another. I'm glad you more fully appreciate Hitch's erudition and command of the arguments but that does'nt allow you to denigrate the contributions of the other horsemen for failing to be exactly like Hitch. Enjoy their contributions in their own way, they do not have to be clones of each other. If you enjoy Dawkins' explanatory powers how are they lessened by your advancing understanding of Hitch's command of the language? They are complementary not excusive.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:32:00 UTC | #400647

JimmyGiro's Avatar Comment 23 by JimmyGiro

Quetzalcoatl wrote: "I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about here."

Don't let that stop you. By the way, are you also ignorant of Polly Toynbee?

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:33:00 UTC | #400648

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 24 by Quetzalcoatl

JimmyGiro-

Don't let that stop you. By the way, are you also ignorant of Polly Toynbee?


That was the point at which you could have elaborated on your argument. And stop me from what? All I said was that I was unfamiliar with your points about feminism.

And you ignored the rest of my comment.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:41:00 UTC | #400650

epeeist's Avatar Comment 25 by epeeist

Comment #418818 by JimmyGiro:

Christopher is a free agent, but I suspect that the other three horsemen are politically manipulatable, owing to their reliance on the orthodoxy of science; which is a politically funded philosophy, therefore susceptible to purchase. For example, the science departments are very heavily pushing feminism owing to government funded interest groups, and not pushing religion in British institutions
This would be standpoint feminism and feminist epistemology would it?

From what I understand it is prevalent (though less so than it was) in sociology and social anthropology departments and to a small extent in biology departments. However, it isn't prevalent at all in other science subjects.

Unless you know better of course and can point us to some specific references.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:45:00 UTC | #400652

JimmyGiro's Avatar Comment 26 by JimmyGiro

AllenW wrote: "I think it unfortunate that Jimmy above falls into the false dichotomy that so many of us are prone to; the elevation of one person does NOT mandate the reduction of another. I'm glad you more fully appreciate Hitch's erudition and command of the arguments but that doesn't allow you to denigrate the contributions of the other horsemen for failing to be exactly like Hitch. Enjoy their contributions in their own way, they do not have to be clones of each other. If you enjoy Dawkins' explanatory powers how are they lessened by your advancing understanding of Hitch's command of the language? They are complementary not exclusive."

I disagree; if I am right about 'New Atheism', and it is being manipulated by those with political interest (vis Polly Toynbee of the Fabian society for example), then Christopher's stance of freedom of thought, stands to mock that of a political stooge.

The kindest thing I can say about the other horsemen and 'New Atheism' in general, is that they are political ingénues. They are led to practice 'New Atheism' on prime time TV, or any other venue, without any government interference. This strikes me as suspicious until one considers who benefits; and that must be the government agencies, who must be laughing down their sleeves whilst 'scientists' chase vicars and ignore the government.

The Communists rightly feared scientists; I put it to you that our bent governments also fear scientists, therefore they must be relieved by the Pied Piper like distraction that 'New Atheism' offers to malfeasant government.

And speaking of "false dichotomies", what was wrong with old atheism that the 'new' kind fixed? Or is this a mechanism to trammel precious thought?

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:00:00 UTC | #400657

AllanW's Avatar Comment 27 by AllanW

Ah! Thank you Jimmy Giro for confirming two things;

1. The spelling of my name still serves as an initial marker of nutjobness. Thanks for that.

2. You are a conspiracy-theory nutjob.

Thanks for playing. Bye.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:09:00 UTC | #400661

SamKiddoGordon's Avatar Comment 28 by SamKiddoGordon

They only call Richard strident cause they can get away with it(and doesnt really affect him). Hitch would tear them an new orifice with just a few words.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:09:00 UTC | #400662

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 29 by Quetzalcoatl

JimmyGiro-

And speaking of "false dichotomies", what was wrong with old atheism that the 'new' kind fixed? Or is this a mechanism to trammel precious thought?


It wasn't the Four Horsemen who invented the term "New Atheists". It was the media and the religious people who argued against the 4H. Take it up with them.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:14:00 UTC | #400663

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 30 by Quetzalcoatl

JimmyGiro-

The rest of your comment seems distinctly lacking in evidence. Earlier I asked you:

Atheism is an absence of belief, not a belief. Evidence that "the others" try to fit the science to their beliefs? This of course implies that the science actually says something else to what they say it does. Examples please.

Please provide evidence to support your claims.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:18:00 UTC | #400664