I'm just startint this book and wanted to hear other people's input on it. Have you read it and what did you think?

I know many fellow, exMormons, who grasp on to the words of the 'new atheists', such as Hitchens.

I find him and those with similar views to be just as dogmatic about their atheism, as a TBM is about their Mormonism. He is not balanced and unwilling to look at the evidence against many of his positions.

For example, he likes to try and put all religions and religious people in one big category that he mocks and deems nonsensical.
This is factually incorrect.

Many atheists cannot stand the concepts Hitchens promotes. I recommend more reasonable approaches to atheism, such as Sean Carroll. I also recommend reasonable, thinking Christians, such as William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias (who was a former atheist and became Christian through using reason).

Lol

I love when christers review atheists.

They come up with some real comedy gold such as...

"...Ravi Z. (who was a former atheist and became Christian through using reason)."

sonoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lol
>
> I love when christers review atheists.
>
> They come up with some real comedy gold such
> as...
>
> "...Ravi Z. (who was a former atheist and became
> Christian through using reason)."


sonoma, please define 'christer' and explain, factually, how it is a relevant concept to my comments above.

I have a great sense of humor, but, do not see the above comment as 'real comedy gold'. It is a factual statement about the process Ravi Zacharias went through to leave atheism and became a Christian. Those were his own words about his own journey. I don't care to defend Zacharias. I just value transparency and do not like dogma.

It is equally laughable AND equally legitimate to say, for example, "Erhman was a former Christian and became agnostic through using reason." My point is, sweeping commentary, founded in dogma, helps no one. I was very balanced in my commentary.

Your comment demonstrates the exact dogmatic response that I disdain from TBMs, as well.

Here's an example, using your own words to apply to a different situation, but same in principle-

A TBM could say to you and me:

I love when apostates (like sonoma) review Mormon Church Historical figures like William Law.

They come up with some real comedy gold such
as...

"William Law (who was a former Mormon and became Christian through using reason)."

So, before you jump to conclusions about me, focus on the facts with facts that you can back up-instead of sweeping generalizations that come across as dogmatic and condescending.

For example, in demonstrating balance, I also mentioned that there are atheists who do not take Hitchens seriously:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christopher_hitchens_lies_do_atheism_no_favors/

How does one "leave atheism?"

Can one not "leave atheism" to join the religious masses, for any number of reasons?

Like people "leaving Catholicism" due to its history of child abuse and its record on (mis)handling the crisis.

Or "leaving Christianity" to become a non-believer (i.e., atheist)?

"Grasp onto the words of 'new atheists," such as Hitchens," is not "balanced" commentary. As one of the graspers, I consider your word choice diminishing of atheists.

Please explain how "put[ing] all religions and religious people in one big category that he mocks and deems nonsensical" is "factually incorrect."

I agree with the others. I've found that Christians frequently mis-understand atheists when they explain their position to mean they are simply not theists, insisting the atheists have to have "faith" to not believe in god. I think they're getting this argument from Frank Turek book by the same name. It's a lame cop out of an argument.

I read the book about 8 years ago. I really enjoyed it at the time. I found it a much easier read than the Dawkins book that came out at the same time. Hitchens was just a better writer and a lot more confident in his argument/position than Dawkins. I think Dawkins tries to hard to prove his credentials through his writing/speaking. He comes across as a little insecure. The Hitchens book was just much better.

onlinemoniker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Grasp onto the words of 'new atheists," such as
> Hitchens," is not "balanced" commentary. As one
> of the graspers, I consider your word choice
> diminishing of atheists.

Fair enough. I apologize because I am not trying to diminish atheists. I have many close friends who are atheist. The reality is most of them appreciate much of what Hitchens has said, but, the whole 'new atheist' movement has become too dogmatic for them and me. That's what I was thinking when I wrote that.

> Please explain how "put all religions and
> religious people in one big category that he mocks
> and deems nonsensical" is "factually incorrect."

Happy to explain. There is a HUGE difference between a Universalist Christian and a Pentacostal Christian. There are big differences between a Southern Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, and Lutheran. There are big differences among non-denomination and Bible Fellowship Christians. And there are many non-literal Christians out there, like myself, that cannot be put in to one 'religious category' that fits my current belief system. Furthermore, the eastern religions (Buddism, Taoism, etc.), Islam, and Judaism are all vastly different. The differences are staggering (theology and practice) and it is factually incorrect to lump them all together.

> I agree with the others. I've found that
> Christians frequently mis-understand atheists when
> they explain their position to mean they are
> simply not theists, insisting the atheists have to
> have "faith" to not believe in god. I think
> they're getting this argument from Frank Turek
> book by the same name. It's a lame cop out of an
> argument.

After I left Mormonism, I explored everything and for quite sometime considered myself agnostic/atheist. I have close friends who are atheist. I'm a good listener and understand where they are coming from. And I agree with you on this point.

> I read the book about 8 years ago. I really
> enjoyed it at the time. I found it a much easier
> read than the Dawkins book that came out at the
> same time. Hitchens was just a better writer and
> a lot more confident in his argument/position than
> Dawkins. I think Dawkins tries to hard to prove
> his credentials through his writing/speaking. He
> comes across as a little insecure. The Hitchens
> book was just much better.

That's great for you! I read Dawkins and Hitchens and a lot of others and it was very 'so-so' for me.

My point, in this thread, is that I'm not a fan of dogmatic thinking in any area. The 'new atheist' movement is filled with extremely reasonable people and others who are too dogmatic and condescending. Christianity is the same way too. I would never say that it is MORE reasonable to think like I do. However, too many 'new atheists' say that about anyone who thinks different from them. It is possible to be reasonable and Christian and it is possible to be reasonable and atheist.

Thanks for your explanation.

I totally get that you want to distinguish between the liberal religions (i.e., Unitarian Universalists) and liberal philosophies (Buddhism/Taoism) and the nut job religions (evangelicals.) On the religious continuum, they are at opposite ends. Atheists know there's a big difference between the religious traditions.

But the atheist's beef with all the religions is that they all contend there is a supernatural explanation for the reason we exist on the planet and what's going to happen after death despite the fact that there is NO scientific evidence to support any claim like that. That's my beef, anyway. And as I understand the complaints of the Four Horsemen and various hangers on, they echo my skepticism. I do not find them dogmatic at all but rather really poised and calm--with the exception of the aforementioned Dawkins.

Let's be honest here, REAL Buddhism along with Taoism are both philosophies, not religions. I would consider myself a Jain, personally, if it weren't for the non-attachment extremism of that philosophy. So I just define myself as a plain old atheist.

All that said, I totally get the attraction to religion. I do not mean to sound condescending and am very genuine when I say everyone needs to self-soothe. I do it by enjoying nature. There is nothing wrong with it. The problem comes when religious adherents try to foist their beliefs into the public sphere in their human interactions and (worse) public policy.

Thewhyalumnus asked...

"Sonoma, please define 'Christer'..."

Here goes!

christer

Noun

One who can use the phrase "...became Christian through using reason" without being intentionally ironic.

I was scared to look but that turned out to be really funny, sonoma!

I seem particularly sensitive to the word 'christer'. I usually see it in posts by "Dave the Atheist". To me, it is an especially pointed barb at Christians and our beliefs. I'm sure it is meant that way.

Some of the barbs hit their mark more than others. Maybe it's just me and many other readers (Christian or not) wouldn't particularly notice the term. It's very ugly to me. But then I notice words and feel their edge and still, after all these years here, feel the pinpricks, never mind the knife thrusts. So really, it's my thing to cope with.

Re this former atheist and his newfound religious belief, I'm interested in reading his reasons, based on reason. :)

There was a journalist who set out to disprove Christianity, apparently, but ended up becoming a believer. I can't remember his name right now. He referred to "reason", supposedly unbiased information that convinced him to convert. I was very disappointed in his conclusions, feeling they were not unbiased, or factual, at all.

I find Hitchens interesting, despite the wide gulf in our way of looking at things.

sonoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thewhyalumnus asked...
>
> "Sonoma, please define 'Christer'..."
>
> Here goes!
>
> christer
>
> Noun
>
> One who can use the phrase "...became Christian
> through using reason" without being intentionally
> ironic.

LOL

Now that was a good one! See, I do have a sense of humor.

Since I don't know you, sonoma, I have no issue with you. My sole focus was your words.

And now that you have defined 'christer'. You have exposed one thing about yourself. You have bought into the brand of atheism that dogmatically closes the mind to think it's possible to be a Christian and use reason at your level. This is from the Mormon playbook. I have talked to GAs who use this very logical conclusion about people like you and me, who have left Mormonism. In fact, a member of the 70 said this to me, "[thewhyalumnus], I have worked in the Church History Department, rubbed shoulders with the best and the brightest. You have attempted to reason your way out of the church, while these men (myself included) are more reasonable than you because we have used reason to remain."

My point is simple. You can be both reasonable and unreasonable and believe many different things.

I admire Hitchens and his work. I would recommend "The Portable Atheist" for everyone. "God is Not Great" is also a very enjoyable read. I would suggest that you give them a look.

Also, check out the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens on YouTube.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 02:46PM by prefan84.

I read the book and enjoyed it, but Hitchens makes the same mistake many other atheistic writers make of conflating religion with God or first cause. The two are not the same thing.

It does not follow that because Mormonism or Catholicism are demonstrably false that there was no intelligent first cause (for all I care it could be Aliens). Destroying religion has no bearing on the first cause version of God argument.

That said Hitchens in largely enjoyable to read.

Christopher was well aware of Deism vs Theism and always argued separately against both.

I enjoyed "God is not Great," but did find Hitchens very intense. One I really enjoyed, and could even share with my TBM family, was "Good Without God" by Epstein. It focuses on Humanism and positivity, without having to tear down those who believe.

Hitch changed my life.

Read it. Loved it. It is in my carry-bag at this moment. Also love Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion," and Sam Harris, "End of Faith." Their writings helped me go from Christian to Humanist/atheist/UU, and I am grateful to them. I was well on my way, of course, before I ever picked up any of their books, but I'm very glad I did, because I just find them so darned enjoyable to read. :)

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,37732



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 06:50PM by steve benson.

I always liked Hitchens for his frankness and forthright condemnation of religion. He was a pitbull of atheism and sort of an extremist, but firebrands are necessary, in my opinion. He may have been offensive and brash, but it takes all kinds. He said the things that many of us can only think.

I like his political writing much better than his atheist writing, The Trial of Henry Kissinger is gripping.

Hitchmas, December 15th.

Hitch and the other three horseman provided information and new logical perspectives that I was deliberately starved of when inside the Mormon bubble.

Hitch was the one who pointed out clearly what an immoral act it was to die on a cross for others supposed sins. Whether a fairly tale or real it mattered not one whit. It is still an immoral act.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 06:57PM by AmIDarkNow?.

I read the book a few years ago and liked its historical perspective. He makes a pretty compelling argument that nearly all large scale human conflict in history has stemmed from religion. Other than that part of it, which I think was spot on, it was pretty dogmatic as others have said. I have a phrase "evangelical atheists" to describe those who are so outwardly vocal in their atheism that they almost seem to have made atheism a religion unto itself. I can see how Hitchens would be in that category.

>" It is a factual statement about the process Ravi Zacharias went through to leave atheism and became a Christian."

No, actually, it's not.
It's another bare assertion -- and demonstrably false.

As there is no evidence of any kind a "god" exists, one cannot use "reason" to conclude one does. One can use "faith," or fallacy, or wishful thinking, or fear, or any number of other things...one cannot use "reason."

>"For example, he likes to try and put all religions and religious people in one big category that he mocks and deems nonsensical.
This is factually incorrect."

I notice you presented no "reason" (nor evidence) to show WHY that's "factually incorrect." When at the core of "belief" in a claimed "god," all religions ARE in "one big category" -- and there's no reason involved. It's not "factually incorrect" to point out the commonality in all religious belief, and demonstrate why that belief is fallacious.

>"It does not follow that because Mormonism or Catholicism are demonstrably false that there was no intelligent first cause (for all I care it could be Aliens). Destroying religion has no bearing on the first cause version of God argument."

Yes, but since the "intelligent first cause" argument is fallacious and worthless on its face, why does that matter?

All versions of the "first cause" (cosmological argument) are fallacious. Therefore worthless. That many (most?) religions use that fallacious argument is worthy of mention, and is a commonality among those that do use it.

And here's the fun part: even IF you could come up with a valid logical argument for a particular kind of claimed "god" thing, that would only demonstrate that the particular claim about that particular god was logically valid. It would NOT indicate that "god" existed -- to show that, you'd still need to produce evidence of its existence, and there is no such evidence.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >" It is a factual statement about the process
> Ravi Zacharias went through to leave atheism and
> became a Christian."
>
> No, actually, it's not.
> It's another bare assertion -- and demonstrably
> false.
>
> As there is no evidence of any kind a "god"
> exists, one cannot use "reason" to conclude one
> does. One can use "faith," or fallacy, or wishful
> thinking, or fear, or any number of other
> things...one cannot use "reason."
>
> >"For example, he likes to try and put all
> religions and religious people in one big category
> that he mocks and deems nonsensical.
> This is factually incorrect."
>
> I notice you presented no "reason" (nor evidence)
> to show WHY that's "factually incorrect." When at
> the core of "belief" in a claimed "god," all
> religions ARE in "one big category" -- and there's
> no reason involved. It's not "factually
> incorrect" to point out the commonality in all
> religious belief, and demonstrate why that belief
> is fallacious.


First of all, I can't get that song out of my head from your moniker. ha ha

Anyways, I addressed your comments in subsequent comments above.

Please explain why you have the authority to define when a person can and cannot use reason. I noticed you put reason in quotes. I'm hoping this is because you do not believe in a universal correct reasoning, as an authentic atheist. If that is so, then there is no such thing as reason, unless you believe in a sovereign God, who established reason within the construct of His creation. But, if you are an atheist, then this discussion really doesn't matter because it is necessary to use metaphysical constructs known as reason and logic.

"Please explain why you have the authority to define when a person can and cannot use reason."

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that using fallacies is not using "reason." The two are mutually exclusive.

"I'm hoping this is because you do not believe in a universal correct reasoning."

I don't "believe" in anything. Using the "rules" of logic/reason as we humans have come up with them simply helps us avoid obvious, gross errors that can be shown to NOT be reliable ways to reach conclusions. I don't claim that those rules are or aren't "universal" -- just that they're reliable.

"But, if you are an atheist, then this discussion really doesn't matter because it is necessary to use metaphysical constructs known as reason and logic."

Neither of those are "metaphysical" (a nonsense word anyway). They're rules we humans have come up with for analyzing claims and observations. The rules aren't "absolute," they're simply useful, and using them it can be shown that we can reach conclusions that are reasonable (supportable by facts and evidence), and by violating the rules it can be shown that conclusions we reach are *not* supportable by facts and evidence. We use them because they work, not because they're some "metaphysical" something or other.

All of the claimed "god" arguments -- deistic, theistic, whatever -- are at their core arguments from personal ignorance and incredulity. That includes all of the cosmological arguments. If you think, "I don't know how this works and it's amazing, so god must have done it" is a "reasonable" argument, then you need to keep thinking. Because it's not. History is replete with examples of those sort of claims being shown false by evidence, which should be a clear example of why that construct is worthless.

By the way, pointing out that an argument is fallacious/worthless doesn't mean the *opposite* of the argument or claim is "true" -- just that the argument on offer is worthless. It's "reasonable" to reserve conclusions until facts and evidence can let us reach a supportable conclusion. In the case of all claims about "god" things, there are no facts or evidence to lead to the conclusion that such a thing exists. If someone managed to present evidence one did, I'd have no trouble accepting that one exists. But that's not the case now.

I changed my mind about Hitchens.

I use to be blinded by his rhetorical abilities and his appreciation for literature and "the good letters". Not anymore.

Hitch was a genocidal drunk who was always too happy to send other people's children into wars he liked to discuss over cocktails. In other words, Hitch was a chicken-hawk sonofabitch.

Human

I tend to agree with that.

I started it but put it away after a few chapters. Too much ranting.

I do enjoy the Hitch in action, though. Thanks to the Google God who had the prescience to buy YouTube, I can admire his perspicacity and rethorical prowess even after his death.