Hitchens, the Iconoclast without Meaning

from JoeUser Forums

Who gives a hoot what Christopher Hitchens thinks about Mother Teresa’s dark confessions? He’s only venting reference to them to justify his atheism in tandem with sadistic pleasure in lambasting the Catholic Church in having allowed Teresa to continue on with her overly “enthusiastic” good will works while it knew that she was but creating maddening busy work to offset and to spite her loss in faith.

From Peter’s thrice denial, Judas’ treachery and Jesus utterance of being forsaken by his father to those in working daily in homicide, coal miners trapped, Red Cross workers, and our troops in Iraq have all questioned negatively their god. Only artists of self-deception would not face up to doubt, like Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, the Pope, and Billy Graham, all of whom had little if any on the scene duration of poverty and conflict, are blessedly pure in their unshakable faith.

Missionaries of integrity are a unique breed and miles apart from the normal us who are too busily engaged in the secular whirlwind along the highway to abundance. These dedicated persons take a vow of poverty and commensurate sufferings as it would be grossly unseemly to do otherwise in the midst of others’ trying desperately to stay alive with minimal comfort or to die in peace, though seldom achieved. This is normal for “saintly” do-gooders who feel they must do more to diminish the lack of regard by God. This is somewhat akin to keeping busy after having lost a loved one. What human coming from a world of plenty while immersed in the brutality of want of healthcare, food and housing, not to mention numerous natural disasters, and most of all humanity’s indifference to millions in dire need would not say to God, “Where art Thou?”

That Hitchens the atheist is against Teresa’ canonization is a laughable tautology. Granted, in looking over the sea of clean, healthy faces of the Nobel audience in sharp contrast to a lifetime of daily living in destitution, she uttered the conceit that abortion threatened world peace. However, ludicrous to many, it was her icon for commitment to life apart from Conrad’s Heart of Darkness: “The horror, the horror.”

And surely her speech was a courageous affirmation of her own unique faith.
religion
4,607 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hitchens seems more intent on tearing apart the faith of others to justify his own non-faith, than to come to an understanding of what it is he truly beleives.  This appears to be all too common in the world of the radical Atheist these days.  Their faith in nothing is threatened if anyone believes in something.

And so it goes.  Instead of convincing others of the validity of their non-belief, they only serve as examples of how lack of faith is a poison of the soul (or Id for the atheists), not a way of life.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
How someone that proclaims to believe in something that does not exist {G-D} can raise such a ruckus about people who do believe in something {G-d} is beyond my thought process. They so want to believe there is no G-D that they go to extreme measures to prove to others the non-existence of HIM/HER, that they become parodies of themselves. Hitchens is a fine example of wasted oxygen.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hitchens is just another example that lends credence to my theory that for every extreme an opposite extreme must exist. They create each other.

For every "fundie" there's going to be a radical atheist and vice versa.If the fundies don't want there to be radical atheists, and the radical atheists don't want there to be fundies, they BOTH need to stop being so extreme.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

For every "fundie" there's going to be a radical atheist and vice versa.If the fundies don't want there to be radical atheists, and the radical atheists don't want there to be fundies, they BOTH need to stop being so extreme.
Reply By: OckhamsRazorPosted: Friday, September 07, 20

Interesting thought there Ock, by this yard stick if all fundies ceased to exist, then all atheists would disappear too?

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
all atheists would disappear
If as Guy said the Id were to cease. Who would give up his sex drive?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

DR GUY POSTS:
Hitchens seems more intent on tearing apart the faith of others to justify his own non-faith, than to come to an understanding of what it is he truly beleives.


Bingo!

The atheisistic literature of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens which openly assails theism in general and Christianity in particular has made the top seller lists.

What we seem to be witnessing is the passing from a stage of practical atheism (which is where they have been ever since the beginning of the sexual revolution to a stage of practical plus theoretical atheism. There's no doubt that practical atheism will continue in the form of sexual liberty, abortion, homosexual "marriage", and euthanasia. Today, we see that practical atheism being defended by attacking Christianity.

OCKHAMSRAZOR POSTS:
If the fundies don't want there to be radical atheists, and the radical atheists don't want there to be fundies, they BOTH need to stop being so extreme.


Stop being so extreme as in "why can't we all just get along in the middle of the road"? Speaking as a Catholic, and I think Blessed Mother Theresa would agree, it'll never happen and that's because of the question of moral absolutes. The Christian way of life with its "strange" virtues of piety, chastity, and humility is radically different from modernist's fashionable way of life, i.e. the way of life of practical atheism.

Therefore, it's impossible to blend Christianity and practical atheism. What Hitchen's can't understand or if he does refuses to acknowledge is that Blessed Mother Theresa was one of those individual Catholics whose life bore witness to the validly of their religion by living a way of life in defiance of the moral norms prescribed by practical atheism.


Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

If as Guy said the Id were to cease. Who would give up his sex drive?

I always thought the 2 were from separate places on the male.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Teresa did good things. That is all that really matters. Her political or social/religious beliefs were her own and she is as entitled to them as numbnuts Hitchens. I wonder what sort of good things he has done in his life to make him think it is all right to tear down hers.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Stop being so extreme as in "why can't we all just get along in the middle of the road"?


Sorry Lula, being Buddhist points me to the center path. I don't agree with the radicalism in any form because by its nature, it's divisive.

The Christian way of life with its "strange" virtues of piety, chastity, and humility


Would the above quote about my extremism be an example of your humility? This is just an opinion, but I find nothing humble about either radical side of any argument.

Therefore, it's impossible to blend Christianity and practical atheism.


To blend, yes. To have tolerance and compassion across both groups, no.

Interesting thought there Ock, by this yard stick if all fundies ceased to exist, then all atheists would disappear too?


I think "fade" would be a better choice of words, MM. I find that if you take one group of extremists and give them a vehicle for voicing their beliefs - in the strongest possible terms - that a group of others will hear it and feel like they are having their thoughts dictated to them. "If you guys don't believe what I'm saying, you're WRONG!" Due to this violence against individual thought, (the interruption of people seeking to learn for themselves), some of that group, but not necessarily all, will gravitate in the other direction until they become counter-extremists. The psychological attribute in all this is the fight against control - something that historically triggers the fight or flight response. The flighters remain silent. The fighters become counter-extremists. I find it an observable fact of human nature throughout all of human history. One group seeks to control and gives rise to an equal and opposite force of resistance.

So my suggestion, which I guess isn't humble enough for Lula, is for all peoples to have tolerance and compassion for views differing from their own so that we can all grow and evolve (the mind - not Darwinistic evolution) and get along with life and maybe generate something similar to peace and love. This is what she calls my "extreme middle of the road" - which any linguist might notice is an oxymoron.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hitchens, love that guy. Tells it like it is, even if he doesn't quite get it all right.

Just finished watching his 3 hour CSPAN interview. I for one agree with a lot of his points.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
OCKHAMSRAZOR POSTS:
If the fundies don't want there to be radical atheists, and the radical atheists don't want there to be fundies, they BOTH need to stop being so extreme.


LULA POSTS:
Stop being so extreme as in "why can't we all just get along in the middle of the road"?


it'll never happen and that's because of the question of moral absolutes. The Christian way of life with its "strange" virtues of piety, chastity, and humility is radically different from modernist's fashionable way of life, i.e. the way of life of practical atheism.


OCK POSTS:

Would the above quote about my extremism be an example of your humility? This is just an opinion, but I find nothing humble about either radical side of any argument.


Ock,

In the event that you took what I said personally, I want you to know that I wasn't referring to you and certainly not your extremism (whatever that might or might not be for I do not know you). I was simply pointing out that your idea that fundies and radical atheists find a center path can't happen.

As to my saying, The Christian way of life with its "strange" virtues of piety, chastity, and humility is radically different from modernist's fashionable way of life, i.e. the way of life of practical atheism."

I was referring the Christian way of life to Blessed Mother Theresa and the way of life of practical atheism as those I listed in post # 6.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
So my suggestion, which I guess isn't humble enough for Lula, is for all peoples to have tolerance and compassion for views differing from their own so that we can all grow and evolve


Stop it Ock. My remarks have not been about you.

Where is the tolerance and compassion for Hitchen's remarks? Is he not attacking people of faith when he says in "God is not Great: How religion poisons everything", that faith "is violent, irrational, anti-intellectual, and is allied to ruin, turbulance, and bigotry, invented in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry."

His attack on intelligence and character of people of faith is a cheap shot. Admit it. Hitchens blames belief for all sorts of violence...and their is a historic correlation...but given that is he complaining about the bloodiest 20th century and worst dictatorships the world has ever seen? How about 50 million babies aborted from the safety of the womb? Abortion is very bloody and gory? Blessed Mother Theresa spoke up against it time and again. Abortion was born of the doctrine of macro-Evolution which spurned traditional faiths and belief in God.

The principle of Ockham's Razor that the simplest solution is likely the right one applies to faith as well...and it isn't that Blessed Mother Theresa exhibited disbelief, but the deepest trust in God and His promises without experiencing what would seem to be earthly reward.

But the human spirit and God's ways are mysterious. Well go ahead read Hitchen's and take him seriously if you feel you must. Then read C.S.Lewis essays, Miracles and Myth becomes Fact. They are both included in the anthology God in the Dock, 1970.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The principle of Ockham's Razor that the simplest solution is likely the right one applies to faith as well...


I agree that it should. I don't witness that it does.

But the human spirit and God's ways are mysterious.


I don't find that to be the simplest solution. I find that God's "ways" are mysterious at all.

Well go ahead read Hitchen's and take him seriously if you feel you must.


I don't take any extremists seriously.

Then read C.S.Lewis essays, Miracles and Myth becomes Fact. They are both included in the anthology God in the Dock, 1970.


Perhaps when I'm done with The Screwtape Letters that Sabrina and Simon so kindly sent me and the book KFC mentioned "The Case for Christ" which hasn't arrived yet, but should soon.

In the meanwhile, I'm finding it quite interesting to read about the history of Ur of the Chaldees. As you'll recall from Gen 11:31. Know anything about the place? Quite enlightening.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
Well go ahead read Hitchen's and take him seriously if you feel you must.


OCK POSTS: I don't take any extremists seriously.


Sorry Lula, being Buddhist


Now, this is interesting...perhaps you don't take Buddhism seriously then for isn't being Buddhist in the very least a bit extreme? I mean, isn't its utter pessimism which declares every form of conscious existence an evil---a bit extreme? How about the doctrine of Karma with its imaginary reincarnations?

I'm finding it quite interesting to read about the history of Ur of the Chaldees. As you'll recall from Gen 11:31. Know anything about the place?


All I know of Ur of the Chaldees is what I read from Scripture and from my Catholic encyclopedia.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now, this is interesting...perhaps you don't take Buddhism seriously then for isn't being Buddhist in the very least a bit extreme?


It's everything BUT extreme.

I mean, isn't its utter pessimism which declares every form of conscious existence an evil---a bit extreme?


That isn't at all what Buddhism teaches. Where'd you get that?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
That isn't at all what Buddhism teaches. Where'd you get that?


This is very similiar to what I have put forth to So Daiho in some of our discussions. Could it be that there are different kinds of Buddhist beliefs?

Isn't Buddha's way attaining the goal of nothingness?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't Buddha's way attaining the goal of nothingness?
Not really. Nirvana is mistaken as that but it is really consciousness of complete,but disinterested wisdom and passion. 
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I always thought the 2 were from separate places on the male.
How can you separate the bubbling consciousness of lust from the actual drive?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is very similiar to what I have put forth to So Daiho in some of our discussions. Could it be that there are different kinds of Buddhist beliefs?


Could it be? It's practically encouraged. Buddha basically said "Here's how I did it, but it doesn't matter how I did it. What matters is that YOU do it, and how you do it is something you have to work out."

That's an argument I, myself, have with "sects" (Zen, Mahayana, Theravedan, etc...) They fall into the labelling trap and begin to proselytize on the way Buddha said it's supposed to be without remembering what I wrote above. Buddha said "To be attached to one thing (to a certain view) and to look down upon other things (views) as inferior - this the wise men call a fetter."

Isn't Buddha's way attaining the goal of nothingness?


That's kind of a rough translation that is very often, and improperly, interpreted as pessimistic.

One of he basic premises of Buddhism is that the spirit is continually reborn until it achieves Enlightenment. It is reborn because it is attached to this phisical form in some way(s) or another. Following that is the four Noble truths (so they are called).

1. That Life is suffering (another word where people often stop at the first common definition and go no further. In Buddhism, suffering can be anything from having your arm ripped off to just missing a friend or being slightly hungry. Any lack you perceive in your life is suffering. This is where it gets pretty scientific (in my opinion) It deals with the nature of attachment and how consciousness arises when a sensory organ (your eyes, nose, skin, etc...) encounter an object that can be perceived by that sensory input followed by an attachment of meaning to that experience.

2. The Origen of this suffering. The arising of "suffering" is caused by thirst for those attachment experiences. And you should note it not only includes those who thirst for everlasting life, but those who thirst for everlasting death as well...which flies in the face of the goal of Buddhism to achieve perfect nothingness - as you understand nothingness.

3. The Noble truth of Cessation means that there is a way to stop the endless cycle of rebecoming into a world where all there is, in one form or another, is suffering of some variety.

4. The Way. This last noble truth is the way out. It leads into what Buddhists call the eight-fold path, which I won't get into for brevity's sake.

Perhaps I'll write a bit more later, but my attachment to paying my bills says it's time to go to work
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm finding it quite interesting to read about the history of Ur of the Chaldees. As you'll recall from Gen 11:31. Know anything about the place? Quite enlightening.


It is very fascinating. Ur of Chaldees is also known as Mesopotomia also known as part of Iraq. Its about 200 miles from Baghdad. It's where Abraham was called OUT of. One of the gods worshipped there was the Moon God. I'm thinking the god of the sun and fire was also worshipped there. Seems kind of interesting that the Muslims have a crescent on their shrines.

Ur also dervived from fire which is another interesting tidbit.

You can see more of this in Acts 7:2-3 in Stephen's speech.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
One of the gods worshipped there was the Moon God. I'm thinking the god of the sun and fire was also worshipped there. Seems kind of interesting that the Muslims have a crescent on their shrines
Not surprising that the primitives needed their icons just as we do today, except theirs were more natural.