Vivace since I'd rather not turn this thread in a debate thread, I'll merely point out where I disagree.
I'm glad this quote came out because it pretty much defines the reason why I'm not a fan. Not a single person should nor can doubt his literary talent and his ability to debate, but unfortunately he failed on many many levels to conduct his debates and books in an academic way.
I sincerely don't think you've read any of his books. I don't think with honest this can be said of Hitchens.
But for a person who believes that an argument and disputation is to be done for its own sake, and not to further knowledge and that all things must be suspect doesn't allow a lot of room to be academic, only critical.
Argument and disputation often brings about furthering ones knowledge. I for one do seek both these. If both parties are serious about debate, you will bring logic and what you hold as true to the table. Sometimes you agree or disagree but it is almost always a good conversation. If you agree with the person there is no debate and no argument. I for one love it. There was a girl I used to work with, I used to debate her all the time. Many times taking a position I did not hold just for the sake of it. It sharpens your mind.
His views on religion and religious people were borderline accusatory and most of time said without basis of fact and done purely out of some kind of hidden malice.
Accusatory, yes, of course. Malice, perhaps and why not? Malice for something like religion is nothing but justified in my opinion.
I'm not quite too sure why we was an atheist since his book God is Not Great doesn't provide an academic reason, only a personal opinion.
73109 already pointed out the nature of the book. As for being an atheist, merely not believing in a god doesn't require academic reasons. God is not a default.
But this is pretty much the condition of neo-atheism today, that is their inability to produce an argument on any academic level.
You are ignorant of the opposing opinion to say this. It also seems to me you've never set foot in P/R although I have seen you there and have debated with you. I don't think you actually mean this statement.
Almost every single argument can be refuted by simply pointing to an apologist and reading the book. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, to dismiss these authors is completely inexcusable. In my opinion I think he just liked to argue, as he stated, for the sake of arguing.
I think he did like to argue and maybe he was right a lot and maybe he wasn't. What he was not was uninformed and nonacademic. I don't know what authors you are referring.
Topic: RIP Christopher Hitchens (Read 4553 times)