Opinion of Christopher Hitchens

[Insula Dei]

Hitchens seems to be what in Dutch would be called 'Weldenkend Links' (tough to translate, but something like 'the Sensible Left'), which roughly indeed is an elite version of liberalism, with some disdain for the 'Leftwing Church' and a semi-arrogant anti-PC posturing on 'controversial' issues  (most of these people are virulently anti-Islam), which in Hitchens case appears to be Religion.

That said, he's a brilliant polemicist and seems like a nice person to deal with, so I guess he's not an HP, even if I find most of his positions all but repulsive.

[WillK]

... the fact that his atheism is all he is known for ...

I really disagree. Until reminded by someone else, I dont think about his atheism.   When I hear his name I generally think about his stance on Clinton, Bush, and the Iraq War as well as the way he comes across in general as a blowhard douchebag.

[Gustaf]

Hitchens seems to be what in Dutch would be called 'Weldenkend Links' (tough to translate, but something like 'the Sensible Left'), which roughly indeed is an elite version of liberalism, with some disdain for the 'Leftwing Church' and a semi-arrogant anti-PC posturing on 'controversial' issues  (most of these people are virulently anti-Islam), which in Hitchens case appears to be Religion.

That said, he's a brilliant polemicist and seems like a nice person to deal with, so I guess he's not an HP, even if I find most of his positions all but repulsive.

Is "Weldenkend" something like "world-knowing" in literal translation?

[Gustaf]

Unfortunately, this isn't the Supreme Court. I'm using the same definition to reach a different answer

Actually I'd not been off a train long and was looking for a cheap answer...

But, basically, I don't consider Hitchens to be on 'the Left' for a couple of reasons that I'll now fail to explain very well.

Fundamentally Hitchens stands for a certain sort of establishment (as in the highly specific context of 'literary establishment'; see also tossers like Martin Amis) liberalism (which is in practice highly conservative, at least in its position within intellectual tendencies) and that's not something that I would ever consider to be left-wing in a meaningful sense. Even the contraryism noted earlier fits into that pattern quite clearly, though not nearly so much as his tireless defence of a certain ideal of Western values. He's not strayed far from this territory for a very long time, whatever his views on issues outside the remit of that intellectual territory might be.
Hitchens, of course, has a great deal of left-wing baggage (as noted earlier his more unpleasant intellectual habits are clearly influenced by his time as a youthful Trot, and then you also have his things for Orwell and Marx), but then so do/did the neoconservatives. Unlike them, though, he's not actually crossed over to the Right and if what is not Right is Left, then he must be considered as Left. But I would always demand a little more than that.

Ramble, ramble, ramble.

Hm. How would you classify some random wild examples like Wilde, Zola, Chomsky or Vonnegut?

[Insula Dei]

Hitchens seems to be what in Dutch would be called 'Weldenkend Links' (tough to translate, but something like 'the Sensible Left'), which roughly indeed is an elite version of liberalism, with some disdain for the 'Leftwing Church' and a semi-arrogant anti-PC posturing on 'controversial' issues  (most of these people are virulently anti-Islam), which in Hitchens case appears to be Religion.

That said, he's a brilliant polemicist and seems like a nice person to deal with, so I guess he's not an HP, even if I find most of his positions all but repulsive.

Is "Weldenkend" something like "world-knowing" in literal translation?

It breaks up 'Wel (right) -denkend (thinking)'. So, I think the most literal translation would be 'right-thinking' of some variation thereof.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I respect him utterly for having the cajones to not give a toss what people think.

However, I agree that he really isn't not as clever or insightful as he believes he is.

He was wrong on Iraq, I think he's wrong to consider all people of faith to be mentally deficient...

etc etc

[John Dibble]

I think he's wrong to consider all people of faith to be mentally deficient...

I don't think I've ever read or heard him say that religious people are mentally deficient, rather that they are deluded. (the difference being that you can be intelligent but still horribly wrong about something)

Though deluded or not, I think it goes without saying that religious people would disagree.

[afleitch]

I think he's wrong to consider all people of faith to be mentally deficient...

I don't think I've ever read or heard him say that religious people are mentally deficient, rather that they are deluded. (the difference being that you can be intelligent but still horribly wrong about something)

Though deluded or not, I think it goes without saying that religious people would disagree.

He believes that religion can make 'good people do bad or irrational things.' He also believes that the 'good things; for which religion takes credit in motivating people to do are innate in human nature as part of a shared humanism at any rate and that it is religion that barrows from this.

Again, it's an argument that annoys alot of people, but it's not unique and it's not new.

[Torie]

What pisses Hitch off is not religious beliefs per se, but when people act on them in ways Hitch considers bigoted, or otherwise damaging to the public square and a civil society. I don't think Hitch gets very upset that some folks believe Christ turned water into wine.

[John Dibble]

Again, it's an argument that annoys alot of people, but it's not unique and it's not new.

Really there isn't much of anything in terms of atheist arguments that are unique or new - what's newer and seems to really be pissing people off is that there's more and more people, including some who are very eloquent and charismatic speakers, who have the balls to unapologetically state them publicly.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

No One Left to Lie To was a great read, so I voted FF.

[milhouse24]

I think atheists believe in something that is undefinable. 

Its okay to be agnostic, but I don't know what atheists believe other than what they don't believe, which is a cowardly way to rebel.  It basically it means I'm undecided on a religion and don't know what I want. 

[John Dibble]

I think atheists believe in something that is undefinable.

Its okay to be agnostic, but I don't know what atheists believe other than what they don't believe, which is a cowardly way to rebel.  It basically it means I'm undecided on a religion and don't know what I want.

You seem to think that being atheist and agnostic are somehow mutually exclusive things. This is erroneous.

Atheism is opposed to theism - these two things have to do with belief.
Agnosticism is opposed to gnosticism - these two things have to do with knowledge.

An agnostic atheist lacks a belief in any gods but does not claim to know for certain whether or not any gods exist. A gnostic atheist both lacks a belief in gods and goes so far as to claim that they do know for certain that no gods exist. (In a similar vein you can have agnostic theists and gnostic theists) Most self-described atheists I've ever had any form of communication with have been the former as I myself also am. Most self-described agnostics are atheists as well. The one and only requirement to be an atheist is to not believe any god claims. There is no dogma, no official meeting places that we're required to go to on specific days of the week, no "atheist Pope" or other central authority figure. Atheism by definition is only a stance on one type of claim.

I also take issue with your assertion that atheists take their position in order to rebel - this claim is asinine. The vast majority of modern atheists lack a belief in gods because those claiming that they exist have not met the burden of proof for their claims. That is not rebellion, that is called being rational.

[milhouse24]

I think a lot of atheists are pre-occupied with organized religion or politicized religion or group-think.  I meant that they are rebelling against group-think and dogma. 

They are obsessed with proving something wrong, than finding their own path.  If atheism is unorganized, then this is an individual path/religion.  In that sense, atheism is pro-individuality of mind and spirit.  But there are individual questions that should be answered.  What is the purpose of life?  Does God exist?  What is your definition of God?  Is there an after-life? 

In addition, while organized religion may be deemed evil.  A godless society, tends to lead to a selfish society, which tends to lead to anarchy and a lack of morality. 

Also, there are things like miracles, luck, karma that in some shape or form may motivate our daily actions, whether to help someone or not, etc.  There are lots of other religions besides catholicism and christianity.  Just because you don't believe in God or Jesus Christ does not mean that other non-christian religions are also wrong.

Another question, if organized religion did not exist today, and if no one had considered monotheism, would the Idea of God still develop today?  Even the idea of God is undefinable and undescribable, its whatever and whoever someone wants to believe in or project their own ideals into that monotheistic God. 

There are also multiple gods like Zeus, Poseidon, etc.  Humans are curious and will always examine the metaphysical and philosophical provided they have the time to think about these things.  Even in their greatest moment of despair, when you are between life and death, you pray for a miracle to save your own life, if you are not ready to go.

I think atheists believe in something that is undefinable.

Its okay to be agnostic, but I don't know what atheists believe other than what they don't believe, which is a cowardly way to rebel.  It basically it means I'm undecided on a religion and don't know what I want.

You seem to think that being atheist and agnostic are somehow mutually exclusive things. This is erroneous.

Atheism is opposed to theism - these two things have to do with belief.
Agnosticism is opposed to gnosticism - these two things have to do with knowledge.

An agnostic atheist lacks a belief in any gods but does not claim to know for certain whether or not any gods exist. A gnostic atheist both lacks a belief in gods and goes so far as to claim that they do know for certain that no gods exist. (In a similar vein you can have agnostic theists and gnostic theists) Most self-described atheists I've ever had any form of communication with have been the former as I myself also am. Most self-described agnostics are atheists as well. The one and only requirement to be an atheist is to not believe any god claims. There is no dogma, no official meeting places that we're required to go to on specific days of the week, no "atheist Pope" or other central authority figure. Atheism by definition is only a stance on one type of claim.

I also take issue with your assertion that atheists take their position in order to rebel - this claim is asinine. The vast majority of modern atheists lack a belief in gods because those claiming that they exist have not met the burden of proof for their claims. That is not rebellion, that is called being rational.