Comments on: Hitchens: He's no Dawkins or Harris http://telicthoughts.com/hitchens-hes-no-dawkins-or-harris/ An independent blog about intelligent design Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:48:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: keiths http://telicthoughts.com/hitchens-hes-no-dawkins-or-harris/#comment-101871 keiths Sun, 06 May 2007 10:20:00 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/hitchens-hes-no-dawkins-or-harris/#comment-101871 Three interviews with Christopher Hitchens: <a href="http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/05/god_is_not_grea_1.html" rel="nofollow">The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart</a> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/hitchens_on_rose.php" rel="nofollow">Charlie Rose</a> <a href="http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/05/lou_dobbs_chris.html" rel="nofollow">Lou Dobbs</a> The first one is a bit disappointing. Hitchens is obviously drunk and not on top of his game. He's his normal eloquent self in the second two videos. Three interviews with Christopher Hitchens:

The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart

Charlie Rose

Lou Dobbs

The first one is a bit disappointing. Hitchens is obviously drunk and not on top of his game.

He's his normal eloquent self in the second two videos.

]]> By: Brian Killian http://telicthoughts.com/hitchens-hes-no-dawkins-or-harris/#comment-100450 Brian Killian Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:53:42 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/hitchens-hes-no-dawkins-or-harris/#comment-100450 In my view, Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins are three peas in a pod. None of them really merit any serious intellectual consideration. Mainly because they don't take religion seriously enough to warrant a serious response. Ever since the Enlightenment, science has been used by materialists as a hammer to beat religious people over the head with. But that hammer has been getting smaller and smaller, and people can now see what materialism really is: a parasite which can not exist on its own, but must latch on to its host to survive. Materialism needs the authority of science to appear credible. What I find really interesting is how antiquated the atheists' arguments are. They haven't been updated for centuries. Hitchens, for example, is using the old "if they just knew more about nature they wouldn't be religious" premise. Newsflash: decades of the study of religion from a historical, sociological, and philosophical view has invalidated this premise. Its obvious to anyone that cares to take this subject seriously that religion has to do with human, metaphysical and existential questions, not scientific ones. Religion is not some sort of pre-scientific attempt to understand how the world works in a proximate and instrumental sort of way. Some of the most religious societies in the past also knew quite allot about how nature works. Enough to create feats of engineering and architecture that still astound us today. Technology and religion have always existed side by side. It has only occurred to some moderns to pit the two against each other. Primitive people knew enough about how agriculture worked to develop technology for producing crops; that didn't prevent them from also performing agricultural-religious rituals. And of course, religion is alive and well in our oh-so-mature scientifically sophisticated society. What is it with the atheists, do they fail to see that time has elapsed between the Enlightenment and the present moment? How do they manage to be so out of touch with reality? In my view, Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins are three peas in a pod. None of them really merit any serious intellectual consideration. Mainly because they don't take religion seriously enough to warrant a serious response. Ever since the Enlightenment, science has been used by materialists as a hammer to beat religious people over the head with. But that hammer has been getting smaller and smaller, and people can now see what materialism really is: a parasite which can not exist on its own, but must latch on to its host to survive. Materialism needs the authority of science to appear credible.

What I find really interesting is how antiquated the atheists' arguments are. They haven't been updated for centuries. Hitchens, for example, is using the old "if they just knew more about nature they wouldn't be religious" premise. Newsflash: decades of the study of religion from a historical, sociological, and philosophical view has invalidated this premise. Its obvious to anyone that cares to take this subject seriously that religion has to do with human, metaphysical and existential questions, not scientific ones. Religion is not some sort of pre-scientific attempt to understand how the world works in a proximate and instrumental sort of way.

Some of the most religious societies in the past also knew quite allot about how nature works. Enough to create feats of engineering and architecture that still astound us today. Technology and religion have always existed side by side. It has only occurred to some moderns to pit the two against each other. Primitive people knew enough about how agriculture worked to develop technology for producing crops; that didn't prevent them from also performing agricultural-religious rituals. And of course, religion is alive and well in our oh-so-mature scientifically sophisticated society.

What is it with the atheists, do they fail to see that time has elapsed between the Enlightenment and the present moment? How do they manage to be so out of touch with reality?

]]>