Peter Hitchens (Paleoconservative?)

[The Idler]

Anyone ever read Peter Hitchens Mail on Sunday blog? The comments are very educational though I think he is a paleoconservative. Unlike most right-wingers he hates the Conservative party and the government and writes quite unique and original articles.

[Demogorgon]

He makes his brother look reasonable. I don't read his articles when I can avoid it and I certainly don't read the right-wing rags that he appears in, but he is frequently on Question Time so I have been well-exposed to him there.

As right-wing as they come unfortunately.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hitchens is an illustration of the pitfalls of bourgeouis atheism. One of his books, the title of which escapes me at this moment, starts off well, but by the end he argues that Islam is the worst of them all, which as bad as it is, simply isn't true.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

[FONT=Arial]The term paleoconservative conjures up images of Pat Buchanan. (Shudders)
[/FONT]

[Demogorgon]

Hitchens is an illustration of the pitfalls of bourgeouis atheism. One of his books, the title of which escapes me at this moment, starts off well, but by the end he argues that Islam is the worst of them all, which as bad as it is, simply isn't true.

Given that Peter Hitchens is not an atheist, that is a bit of an empty statement. You are thinking of his brother Christopher whose atheism is really obnoxious anti-theism. Not unlike your own in fact.

[Trystan]

Anyone ever read Peter Hitchens Mail on Sunday blog?

I prefer to bang my head against the wall. It saves bandwidth usage.

I like this brother, though. His views on Iraq are shit, but he's spot on when it comes to religion.

[Zurdito]

he might look ok to some people because his views are so out of fashion and because he clashes with the current manifestation of the borugeoisie, neo-liberalism. but we have to ask ourselves, what interests do his views express?

in my opinion, he is the classic petty-bourgeois, resentful on the one hand of the bourgeoisie which has put his class in debt-slavery and taken away their poltiical influence.

but towards the working class, the poor and the oppressed what are his politics? basically, that they are scum, they should stop complaining and work work work, and if they don't, then send the troops in. worse, he thinks that the worst betrayal of the bourgeoisie against his class is that they, the "liberal elites", force him to live with foreigners and criminals, and lower him, through debts etc. (what we understand as the "proletarianisation" process), to the level of a common worker. which he finds disgusting.

so ultimately I think he is a prick.

[Zurdito]

His views on Iraq are shit, but he's spot on when it comes to religion.

that the religious are stupid, that their stupdiity is the cause of the world's evil, and that if only they would stop being stupid everything would be ok?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Given that Peter Hitchens is not an atheist, that is a bit of an empty statement.

That'll teach me to pay more attention.

You are thinking of his brother Christopher whose atheism is really obnoxious anti-theism. Not unlike your own in fact.

You say that like it's a bad thing! Better than your "let them wallow in their own superstition" position which is far more condescending and obnoxious than any of my statements against religion. At least I credit believers with the potential of lifting themselves out of superstition.

[Zurdito]

You say that like it's a bad thing! Better than your "let them wallow in their own superstition" position which is far more condescending and obnoxious than any of my statements against religion. At least I credit believers with the potential of lifting themselves out of superstition.

but as long as the material conditions for religion exist, then so will religion.

in any case excessive emphasis on religion as a concept has little use when arguing with people you wnat to recruit as real militants. I mean philosophically it is useful and improtant (as long as you do so from a marxist perspective and nto a vulgar materialist perspective), but are you really going to go into a factory to recruit people who may be deluded by religion, by ridiculing the concept of God?

Doesn't it make more sense to argue against the practical, real world harm causes by religous institutions: - i.e. dividing workers, discriminating against women and homosexuals, telling workers to concentrate on their own morality instead of the social system, telling owrkers not to try to influence this life, but rather to wait for the next one, etc. - than actually proving to them that "God doesn't exist"? Which to be honest is not very hard or intellectually advanced, but does have a strong possibility of making you look more interested in being intellectually superior than in fighting the real life battles workers face...

that is my take anyway.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

[FONT=Arial]Militant atheism just creates a batch of new reactionaries who feel that we will ban their religion. I used to post at a forum called TheologyOnline.com. NuSocialist could attest to the fact it's a home for the most right-wing Christians you'll ever see. I'm talking about people who want to execute homosexuals and abortion doctors. Some even want an active Christian monarchy. But for every one person they converted, five Christians were turned off, and many became socialist in the process of evaluating just what it meant to be "right-wing." I was one of them.

'Course being a self-identified Taoist atheist, maybe I'm biased.


[/FONT]

[Demogorgon]

You say that like it's a bad thing! Better than your "let them wallow in their own superstition" position which is far more condescending and obnoxious than any of my statements against religion. At least I credit believers with the potential of lifting themselves out of superstition.

There is nothing condescending about my position which holds that religious belief can be as intellectually robust as atheism and at any rate we must respect freedom of thought, expression and association.

I respect critical thinking and questioning beliefs as much as possible, for that reason I have far more respect for thoughtful religious believers than i do for knee-jerk atheists. Some of the atheism you see here is no better than religious fundamentalism and is based more on lack of knowledge concerning religion than anything else.

[Killfacer]

I like him (Christopher Hitchens), i think he wrote a tepid book which wasnt particuarly interesting, then he would not get published.

[Demogorgon]

I like him (Christopher Hitchens), i think he wrote a tepid book which wasnt particuarly interesting, then he would not get published.

There are plenty of tepid books that aren't that interesting that do get published.

[GPDP]

Yeah, I can echo the ill-feeling I get from militant atheists. Though I am an atheist myself, I never get into atheism vs. religion arguments, because I believe they are ultimately unconstructive, and only breeds resentment among the religious, further cementing them into religious extremism. Plus, most militant atheists seem to think that all the evils in the world are because of religion, and that were everyone to stop believing in God, the world would be a far better place. These are the kind of people that think the USA is the warmongering country it is because Bush thinks God told him to invade Iraq and spread the Christian faith!

So yeah, I don't like to associate myself with militant atheists. Most of them, again, tend to be liberals and right-wing libertarians, anyway, so other than the atheism part, I have nothing in common with them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

but as long as the material conditions for religion exist, then so will religion.

That's no excuse not to criticise religion in the harshest possible terms. Does the fact that the material conditions are currently not suitable for communism mean we shouldn't argue against capitalism? Of course not.

in any case excessive emphasis on religion as a concept has little use when arguing with people you wnat to recruit as real militants. I mean philosophically it is useful and improtant (as long as you do so from a marxist perspective and nto a vulgar materialist perspective), but are you really going to go into a factory to recruit people who may be deluded by religion, by ridiculing the concept of God?

The serious believer percieves any criticism of their religion as a personal attack. In any case, it is extremely rare for anyone to be convinced by a single debate session. If the deconversion stories of atheists are anything to go by, then it is a gradual process in which the believer's reactions can be roughly characterised (depending on how pious they were in the first place) as the stages of Rejection, Denial, Doubt and finally Acceptance.

Doesn't it make more sense to argue against the practical, real world harm causes by religous institutions: - i.e. dividing workers, discriminating against women and homosexuals, telling workers to concentrate on their own morality instead of the social system, telling owrkers not to try to influence this life, but rather to wait for the next one, etc. - than actually proving to them that "God doesn't exist"? Which to be honest is not very hard or intellectually advanced, but does have a strong possibility of making you look more interested in being intellectually superior than in fighting the real life battles workers face...

The existance of a supernatural is the central tenet of the religions which dominate our planet. If that is discredited and shown to be worthless, then all else follows. Criticising homophobia, sexism and interfaith violence is well and good, but if you don't challenge the primary justification for such behaviour, the believer can turn around say to you "God told me to do it. Who are you to question his wisdom?" Without challenging the assumption of God's existance, you, along with the agnostics, are powerless to reply.

There is nothing condescending about my position which holds that religious belief can be as intellectually robust as atheism

Comedy gold. over 2500 years and not a scrap of evidence has turned up for religious claims, yet you think religious belief can be "intellectually robust". The sheer audacity!

and at any rate we must respect freedom of thought, expression and association.

1. What about the freedom for kids not to be dragged to church or Sunday School by their religious parents? How is it respecting "freedom of thought" to allow parents to fill their childrens' heads with nonsense while they are intellectually defenceless?

2. "Freedom of Expression" is an arbitrary concept. Society will decide what forms of expression will be acceptable, and I do and will argue that it should not include the public expression of religious superstition.

3. You can gather in each others' basements if you want (no kids!) but if you preach in public, then I and like-minded folks might just decide to "pie" you. It's hard to credit someone with a "personal line to Almighty God" when they're dripping pineapple custard. We have pies, they have lies.

I respect critical thinking and questioning beliefs as much as possible, for that reason I have far more respect for thoughtful religious believers than i do for knee-jerk atheists.

I'll stop being a "knee-jerk atheist" (evidently you've forgotten that the default assumption in the absence of evidence is that there is no God) as soon as conclusive evidence of God(s) is forthcoming. Until then...

Some of the atheism you see here is no better than religious fundamentalism and is based more on lack of knowledge concerning religion than anything else.

Centuries have passed us by without one single shred of evidence turning up, and you have the sheer unmitigated gall to talk of my lack of knowledge.

[Killfacer]

There are plenty of tepid books that aren't that interesting that do get published.

And how many of these sell even half of what his books sell? To be a popular writer you have to spark peoples interest.

[Demogorgon]

Comedy gold. over 2500 years and not a scrap of evidence has turned up for religious claims, yet you think religious belief can be "intellectually robust". The sheer audacity!

If you think Aquinas, Kant, Copleston etc were not intellectually robust, I can only conclude that you are too blinded by prejudice to look at things rationally.

1. What about the freedom for kids not to be dragged to church or Sunday School by their religious parents? How is it respecting "freedom of thought" to allow parents to fill their childrens' heads with nonsense while they are intellectually defenceless?

I am not particularly fond of children being involved in such things, but banning it is likely going to be worse. What do you propose to do with parents who wish to teach their children about religion?

2. "Freedom of Expression" is an arbitrary concept. Society will decide what forms of expression will be acceptable, and I do and will argue that it should not include the public expression of religious superstition.

3. You can gather in each others' basements if you want (no kids!) but if you preach in public, then I and like-minded folks might just decide to "pie" you. It's hard to credit someone with a "personal line to Almighty God" when they're dripping pineapple custard. We have pies, they have lies.

Evidently you support totalitarianism and I do not. It seems we have nothing to say to one another that will change our views.

I'll stop being a "knee-jerk atheist" (evidently you've forgotten that the default assumption in the absence of evidence is that there is no God) as soon as conclusive evidence of God(s) is forthcoming. Until then...

Why don't you stop being a knee-jerk atheist when you understand religion? Your opposition to religion is opposition to something that you have invented in your own mind. Anyone can do that. Actually opposing something that exists is harder.

Centuries have passed us by without one single shred of evidence turning up, and you have the sheer unmitigated gall to talk of my lack of knowledge.

Many proofs of God have been offered down the centuries. I have spent much time arguing against them. You have spent much time trying to ignore them.

My atheism is based on years of study of the matter, yours is based on a strawman on religion. On that basis it seems likely that you will come to believe in God long before I do.

[Demogorgon]

And how many of these sell even half of what his books sell? To be a popular writer you have to spark peoples interest.

I don't know. I have read quite a few bestsellers that are absolute drivel though.

[Killfacer]

My atheism is based on years of study of the matter, yours is based on a strawman on religion. On that basis it seems likely that you will come to believe in God long before I do.

Get out of your ivory tower you condescending pretentious (edit, it did say cretin but it was a bit rude so ill replace it with something else) person.