Christoper Hitchins dies

[Traitorfish]

Why should he care about winning the audience? I think he recognised that trying to convince religious people that what they believe is ridiculous is impossible. Instead he just set out to humiliate them and make their position seem to be that of an ignorant fool, which he did very well.

In short, he won the logical half of the audience by default, and recognised that winning the illogical half was impossible. The best he could hope to achieve was to make the logical half more vitriolic and vocal in their criticism so that they became a more active force in stopping religious fanaticism invading politics. And he did that very well indeed.

In addition to Park and Random's points, I have to ask: you're aware that he didn't limit his debating topics to religion, let alone creationism, aren't you? Turning on the Oxbridge sneer moves from "lazy but permissible" to "intellectual cowardice" when as the topic moves from "Did a magical sky wizard pull the world out of his bottom?" to "Is it okay to kill thousands and thousands of brown people?"

 

[tycoonist]

And now we have the heart of the matter:
"He was a great debater, because he agreed with me."

No, he was a great debater AND he agreed with me.

That they happen to coincide is a lot down to him. He convinced me of a lot of his view points. I'd say that makes him a pretty good debater, wouldn't you?

I'd think getting the religious folk to think "Huh. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I'm starting to understand why he believes what he believes." would be a lot more beneficial than going out of his way to make them think "Christ, what a dickwad. Good golly, he was rather unpleasant."

Maybe it's possible to get some religious people to convert. But they aren't the problematic ones. The problem ones are the ones who are NEVER going to see reason: the ones who will always claim that God/Allah/Insert-made-up-deity-here is great and that we should all bow before him or else.

In addition to Park and Random's points, I have to ask: you're aware that he didn't limit his debating topics to religion, let alone creationism, aren't you?

Yes, I am aware of that. But it is his debating on religion that I will remember, as that was what impacted me personally in the greatest ways. I don't agree completely with him on other stuff (such as the Iraq War, for example).

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, he was a great debater

Who, by your own assessment, was incapable of presenting convincing views, winning debates, or informing his audience.
Seems the standard for becoming a great debater is remarkably low.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, I am aware of that. But it is his debating on religion that I will remember, as that was what impacted me personally in the greatest ways. I don't agree completely with him on other stuff (such as the Iraq War, for example).

I didn't realise that we were addressing the man only insofar as he left an impression upon you personally.

 

[_random_]

Maybe it's possible to get some religious people to convert. But they aren't the problematic ones. The problem ones are the ones who are NEVER going to see reason: the ones who will always claim that God/Allah/Insert-made-up-deity-here is great and that we should all bow before him or else.

I'm not talking about getting religious people to convert. I'm religious myself, but the likes of Perfection, contre, and El_Machinae have helped me understand some of the thought process behind atheistic naturalism and given me significantly more respect for it than I had when I started posting here. Making the other side look stupid with shoddy logic and a domineering personality can be fun, but I don't think it's what I'd like to be best-remembered for.

 

[MantaRevan]

I wouldn't use the words "shoddy logic" but I generally agree, while mostly defensive of him, that his demeanor was dominating and elitist at best.

 

[Quackers]

Define shoddy logic. Surely it's binary.

 

[tycoonist]

Who, by your own assessment, was incapable of presenting convincing views, winning debates, or informing his audience.
Seems the standard for becoming a great debater is remarkably low.

By my own assessment, was capable of presenting convincing views, won debates and informed his audience of what they should have already known.

I didn't realise that we were addressing the man only insofar as he left an impression upon you personally.

I don't see by what other impression I can assess him. By the impression he left on you? On others? Why would I care about that?

I'm not talking about getting religious people to convert. I'm religious myself, but the likes of Perfection, contre, and El_Machinae have helped me understand some of the thought process behind atheistic naturalism and given me significantly more respect for it than I had when I started posting here. Making the other side look stupid with shoddy logic and a domineering personality can be fun, but I don't think it's what I'd like to be best-remembered for.

I think he'd quite like to be remembered for it. And really, religious peeps aren't really ones to point fingers and call shoddy logic His logic, whilst not always mathematically complete, was at least largely correct in most cases (and far outweighed that of his opponents - not that it was very hard to).

 

[_random_]

And really, religious peeps aren't really ones to point fingers and call shoddy logic

If I'm interpreting this correctly, it seems to exemplify the sort of "shoddy logic" I'm talking about. Certainly, some religious people are general illogical, but I don't see why that ought to apply to all religious people.

 

[tycoonist]

If I'm interpreting this correctly, it seems to exemplify the sort of "shoddy logic" I'm talking about. Certainly, some religious people are general illogical, but I don't see why that ought to apply to all religious people.

Organised religion is a fundamentally illogical position.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Organized religion is perfectly logical if you're in the business of controlling how other people think and act.

 

[Camikaze]

Organised religion is a fundamentally illogical position.

Whether or not this is true seems rather besides the point. If you're looking at Hitchens as an academic, then 'winning' debates through being bombastic and condescending does not to further your own position or general discourse, so is not really 'winning' at all. If you're looking at Hitchens as an entertainer, on the other hand, then sure, ridiculing others rather than arguing points might mean that such a style achieves something; entertainment value. But that certainly does a disservice to what I think Hitchens was trying to achieve.

As a disclaimer, I'm not familiar enough with Hitchens to say definitively what his style did achieve, but from how you've described it, apparently not much, or at least not much more than a dry religious/political satirist possibly can achieve.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Organised religion is a fundamentally illogical position.

As opposed to disorganized religion. I always wondered why atheists tend to find more logic in believing in whatever wandering mystic wanders into town, as compared to a systemic philosophy.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

For the record, I believe that all superstition is irrational.

EDIT: a thought occurs. I actually have to agree that Hitchens wasn't that good of a debater. I think his writing is much more persuasive, though.

 

[MantaRevan]

As opposed to disorganized religion. I always wondered why atheists tend to find more logic in believing in whatever wandering mystic wanders into town, as compared to a systemic philosophy.

I don't see this at all.....atheists never believe anything mystical- or else they would just succumb to the organized religion. Atheism is a clearly natural position.

 

[tycoonist]

As opposed to disorganized religion. I always wondered why atheists tend to find more logic in believing in whatever wandering mystic wanders into town, as compared to a systemic philosophy.

I don't find more logic in the wandering mystic, if it helps. I think both the mystic and the pope are illogical in the same way.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't see this at all.....atheists never believe anything mystical- or else they would just succumb to the organized religion.

See you keep saying that. Organized religion. Can you please explain why druidic revivalism is much more logical then an organized religion?
Or is this just one of those "I'm going to throw adjectives in front of words to make things sound nicer" things?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't find more logic in the wandering mystic, if it helps. I think both the mystic and the pope are illogical in the same way.

But not as illogical as using non-words.

 

[tycoonist]

Whether or not this is true seems rather besides the point. If you're looking at Hitchens as an academic, then 'winning' debates through being bombastic and condescending does not to further your own position or general discourse, so is not really 'winning' at all. If you're looking at Hitchens as an entertainer, on the other hand, then sure, ridiculing others rather than arguing points might mean that such a style achieves something; entertainment value. But that certainly does a disservice to what I think Hitchens was trying to achieve.

As a disclaimer, I'm not familiar enough with Hitchens to say definitively what his style did achieve, but from how you've described it, apparently not much, or at least not much more than a dry religious/political satirist possibly can achieve.

That we are 9 pages into a thread discussing his life's work should indicate that he did far more than a satirist could possibly achieve.

But not as illogical as using non-words.

Not entirely sure what you are referring to.

 

[Camikaze]

That we are 9 pages into a thread discussing his life's work should indicate that he did far more than a satirist could possibly achieve.

Indeed, but then he did far more than ridicule opponents. What we're discussing is whether that particular style that he apparently on occasion employed was at all helpful. You have said that that's what you liked him for; others have said that it did him no favours. You have yet to explain how such a style made him anything more than an entertainer.