1. Comment #51127 by Winckle on June 21, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I read a Hitchens vs Hitchens "article" in the Dail Mail, although it was penned by Peter Hitchens, who is a man that does not believe that Dyslexia exists, yet is quite happy to belive in God.

He ended with the rather annoying phrase "If one does not devote oneself to God, then one becomes a devotee of power or money", or words to that effect.

Other Comments by Winckle

2. Comment #51129 by _J_ on June 21, 2007 at 3:34 pm

1. Comment #51127 by Winckle

Shame. Given his beliefs, it would have been more apt if he'd ended with the words:

"If one does not devote oneself to God, then one becomes a devotee of power or munnee"

Other Comments by _J_

3. Comment #51131 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm

It is hilarious because they are both appearing on Question Time on the beeb at the moment. Peter is Chris Hitchens brother. They definitely do not see eye to eye on anything.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

4. Comment #51133 by Linda on June 21, 2007 at 3:43 pm

This is a pretty good Radio 3 interview with Hitchens. Its only available for a week.

Philip Dodd talks to controversial writer Christopher Hitchens about his latest book, God is Not Great: The Case Against Religion. As he explains, he not only professes to be an atheist, but also believes religion is immoral. Philip also takes a look at the newly opened Welcome Collection, a pantheon of scientific and medical galleries and exhibitions dedicated to human health and identity.

Christopher Hitchens
Philip Dodd talks to Christopher Hitchens about his new book God is not Great in which he follows in the tradition of Betrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian to argue against religion and for a more secular life - in which hell is replaced by the Hubble Telescope's view of the universe.

God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion by Christopher Hitchens is published by Atlantic Books."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/nightwaves/pip/bncg6/

Other Comments by Linda

5. Comment #51135 by dancingthemantaray on June 21, 2007 at 4:03 pm

This sounds amusingly like Christopher Hitchens having some kind of schizophrenic argument with himself!

Other Comments by dancingthemantaray

6. Comment #51136 by PaulJ on June 21, 2007 at 4:15 pm

This link will only be in effect for 7 days, can someone make an mp3 for the site and send it to design@richarddawkins.net? Thanks, Josh

Actually the Today Programme seems to be archived for substantially longer than 7 days, see here. Not only that, but the individual clips seem to be better organised once they're archived.

Other Comments by PaulJ

7. Comment #51137 by IanRobinson on June 21, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Josh, I've just emailed you an MP3 of the H vs. H segment.

Other Comments by IanRobinson

8. Comment #51138 by TIKI AL on June 21, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Does anyone know if Peter also thinks the Iraq war was a stroke of chimpanic brilliance as Christopher does?

Could God formulate a foreign policy so stupid that even He couldn't find a way out?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

9. Comment #51140 by IanRobinson on June 21, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Does anyone know of there are any estimates or published figures on the number of natural miscarriages per year in the UK (or anywhere else)? I've heard and read that it is more than the number of abortions that are performed. I'd like to know how people like Peter Hitchens (who used the abortion argument during this exchange with his brother) would rationalise a deity that allowed such natural wastage.

Other Comments by IanRobinson

10. Comment #51141 by UncleJJ on June 21, 2007 at 4:47 pm

They are well matched, what a pity they couldn't have debated much longer. The poor woman presenter was overwhelmed. Peter put up a better opposition than anyone else whose debated Christopher

Other Comments by UncleJJ

11. Comment #51144 by Insightful Ape on June 21, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Having listened to this, I have to wonder whether Peter Hitchens is in favor of stoning punishment for homosexuality.
By the way if he thinks no one has ever taken up his challenge I think there is a book that he should read. It is called the God Delusion.

Other Comments by Insightful Ape

12. Comment #51145 by jakelovatto on June 21, 2007 at 5:51 pm

After listening and watching many atheist/theist debates the seeming trump card of absolute morality is always played.
This idea stands and falls on the assumption that there is a god at all and that you know this god's mind. Only then can you claim absolute morality. As this can't be shown i dont know why this point is consistently raised.

Other Comments by jakelovatto

13. Comment #51146 by godisanidiot on June 21, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Lol, how can that idiot be his brother?
My blood boiled over listening to him.

Other Comments by godisanidiot

14. Comment #51148 by cathjm on June 21, 2007 at 6:39 pm

What is it about you all guys, adoring this Bush/Blair/Rove/Gonzales CH zealot? Are all the enemies of your enemies, your friends? This CH guy is a (brilliant) polemist, not a scientist; beware.

Other Comments by cathjm

15. Comment #51150 by Bonzai on June 21, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Peter Hitchens brought up abortion as an example of how men persue evil without the guidance of a higher moral authority. Like all evangelicals he called abortion "baby killing".

Interestingly, abortion = baby killing is a modern formulation. The bible explicitly says otherwise.

The OT mentions the following scenarios to elaborate on the laws of Moses. Two men are fighting in the presence of a pragnant woman and injure her in the process. If the women dies from the injury, then both men have to be put to death according to the law. However, if the injury only causes a miscarriage then the men get off by paying a fine. No jail, no physical punishment.

It is evident that Peter Hitchens' God doesn't equate abortion with murder. It is also evident that Peter hasn't read his bible,--or he has serious reading comprehension problems. Since he either hasn't read his bible or reading it without understanding where does he get his morality from? If he is right that we can't know right and wrong without holy books then he must be quite an immoral chap.

It is absolutely preposterous to say that any sense of absolute morality has to come from God. If morality is just the arbitrary fiat of an arbitrary supreme being it is still arbitrary and cannot be "absolute" in an intrinsic way. If it is not arbitrary, this means there are rules independent of God and hence God cannot be the source of morality. Socrates already addressed that brilliantly long before Jesus.

P.S. I am never a big fan of Christopher but his brother is absolutely infuriating. He sounds exactly like some god bother I was debating on another site. The only good thing I have to say about him is that at least he hasn't cited paragraphs after paragraphs from the bible to make a simple point like that retard. But then he probably hasn't read it in the first place.

Other Comments by Bonzai

16. Comment #51161 by Yorker on June 21, 2007 at 7:50 pm

I wonder if CH holds the same pro-death penalty views his brother does? I heard PH rattle on about the correctness of the DP on BBC radio recently.

Incidentally, I watched them both on Question Time tonight; CH looked as bad as I've ever seen him, bloodshot eyes, blotchy complexion in angry shades of red but he was still lucid and looked but didn't talk, very drunk. PH on the other hand, looked much healthier but wasn't so entertaining. CH was in top form early on as he delivered a swift arse-kicking to Shirley Williams over the Salman Rushdie knighthood, it didn't fare well with the audience though and he resorted to brow-beating them into applauding him! Hilarious. I'll say no more since a video clip may appear.

Other Comments by Yorker

17. Comment #51166 by Enlightenme.. on June 21, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Don't know much about Peter, is he a 'dyed in the wool' ?

Or does he play God's advocate, either from principled a-humanism from 'objective morality' reasoning - somewhat like Dianelos Georgoudis ?

Or, even - this may sound a bit mad! - from some kind of sibling rivalry gone bonkers ? (Cain & Abel?)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

18. Comment #51170 by Enlightenme.. on June 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm

14. Comment #51148 by cathjm on June 21, 2007

"What is it about you all guys, adoring this Bush/Blair/Rove/Gonzales CH zealot? Are all the enemies of your enemies, your friends? This CH guy is a (brilliant) polemist, not a scientist; beware."

You find out your sister is into s&m/is a serial divorcee/supports Arsenal/drinks too much/...

Do you;
A: Disown her, and everything she stands for.

B: Attempt to respect her differences in opinion in some things, maybe even attempt to raise her consciousness to the fact that Arsenal stink?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

19. Comment #51173 by cathjm on June 21, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Ok A5; if it had been the other way around, and PH had the red eyes, what would you have written?

Other Comments by cathjm

20. Comment #51181 by PrimeNumbers on June 21, 2007 at 9:26 pm

There is no objective morality, but quite frankly Atheist morality than the evil that is the God that has a hell, that invents "sin", and who's spokespeople bugger little boys.

Peter just isn't half his brother.....

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

21. Comment #51182 by Morro on June 21, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Man, one of these days it's going to come out that Hitchens has some crazy sort of cancer, or something, and we're all going to feel really bad for making fun of how he looks. =P

I personally think Hitchens is the best of the four atheists currently out there. As far as supporting his views in real-time debate, and in making the most convincing argument in his book, Hitchens leads the pack. Above and beyond his atheism, he's still just an amazing writer. Read his Letters to a Young Contrarian to be impressed.

I really think that atheism does not need more scientists. It already has more than enough of those. Atheism needs people who don't have a discreet separation from society, people who have real-world experience with religion around the world, people who don't seem to have emerged from some logical think-tank, but who seem like actual human beings.

That's my biggest problem with Sam Harris. He's a great thinker, but he is SO logical, so unemotional, that he comes off like a robot.

Other Comments by Morro

22. Comment #51183 by rufustfirefly on June 21, 2007 at 9:33 pm

Bonzai; do you have book/chapter/verse of the OT that mentions the penalty for causing a miscarriage? A god point and I'd like to use with a "believing" friend of mine.

Other Comments by rufustfirefly

23. Comment #51185 by Zaphod on June 21, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Wow Christopher's brother is a complete tool. He really believes that nonsense about morality. It is so obvious that we first evolved a primative morality that over time was changed and honed. This morality increased with our development of language which allowed greater social structures spanning more than just a few villages. As Christopher says we would have got where we are today if we didn't kind of notice that certain stuff wasn't ok.

If an absolute morality came from god then why do morals constantly change. If god exists and is absolute why aren't our morals the exact same as 50 years ago or 100 or 1000 years ago.

Other Comments by Zaphod

24. Comment #51188 by Bonzai on June 21, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Comment #51183 by rufustfirefly

Bonzai; do you have book/chapter/verse of the OT that mentions the penalty for causing a miscarriage?

Yes sir. Here is a link I find

http://bible.gen.nz/amos/bible/ex21.htm

22 Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. 23 But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.

If I remember correctly, this is not the only place in the bible where this law is mentioned. You can probably find similar verses in other chapters as well.

Biblical morality is really quite repugnant. I wonder what would believers who claim that we derive our morality from the bible say about the previous verses on beating slaves to death.

20 Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves. 21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property.

So the master got off scot free if the slave didn't die on the spot.

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #51189 by Zaphod on June 21, 2007 at 10:23 pm

Linda thanks for this http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/nightwaves/pip/bncg6/ link. Philip Dodd is one of these pseudo intellectual non-Christian Christians. What he believes is so far from the consensus of what most Christians believe. Hitchens is right when he says you can't grasp with it, you can't argue with it. Spiritual dribble indeed Mr Hitchens. Insubstantial nonsense.

Other Comments by Zaphod

26. Comment #51195 by rufustfirefly on June 21, 2007 at 10:53 pm

Thanks, Bonzai. I find they usually ignore those parts of the bible, or they give you the that's the old testament. The new testament is different. It's about love line. Maybe, but it doesn't do those Midianite children or the folks from Jericho much good.

Other Comments by rufustfirefly

27. Comment #51197 by Bonzai on June 21, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Comment #51195 by rufustfirefly

I find they usually ignore those parts of the bible, or they give you the that's the old testament. The new testament is different. It's about love line.

Yes, I know. My usual answer is that if the OT needed to be upadated by Jesus that just defeats their own claim that God is the source of absolute morality. If they insist that God exists and Jesus was the true son of God, then God must have changed his mind somehow. Would they trust a deity that changed his mind so drastically to be the source of anything absolute?

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, not to change it. So I don't know what is the biblical basis for Christians to reject the OT. Indeed I never heard a satisfactory explanation.

But they don't reject everything in the OT. For example the ten commandments are still considered the greatest revelation to mankind by Christians even as they contemptiously dismiss other laws of Moses' like prohibitions against working on Shabbath and pork eating as quiant anachronism. Yet the sausage eating, sunday shopping evangelicals see no contradiction in quoting Leviticus with great gusto in order to condemn homosexuality.

In other words they cherry pick whatever suits them. Some basis of absolute morality.

Other Comments by Bonzai

28. Comment #51200 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Peter Hitchens is a bit of a chinless wonder! Pompous and arrogant (it runs in the family obviously), his views are diametrically opposed to his brothers. He is also the editor of the Mail on Sunday which probably says it all.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

29. Comment #51201 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007 at 11:43 pm

Enlightme..
'Arsenal stinks...'

Don't sit on the fence man, tell us what you really think.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

30. Comment #51202 by Tumara Baap on June 21, 2007 at 11:46 pm

I have spoken to seemingly sensible people who'd vote for Bush all over again because he is stands for a "moral compass". This notion of "absolute" morality is like a virus. Morality ought to be based on the merit of reason and natural justice. Morality tied to a mythical superbeing is as vulgar as it gets. It's bound to be abused by the privileged interpreter of God's intent, changes all the time with religious vogue (vegetarianism amongst modern hindus and concealing of arms and legs amongst muslims), is fickle and often wrongheaded in scope, and furthermore implies poor intelligence by opting for revelation in lieu of reason. In the U.S. for example, abstinence only AIDS measures have demonstrably contributed to more death and disease. I don't know why educated people continue to link God to morality. Morality is innate. Chimpanzees clearly display altruism, empathy and even culture. This is the wellspring of morality. In us it's entwined with history and narrative. Studies in stroke patients show we are hardwired for morality; it's an evolutionary consequence of our social species. Or is silly Peter now going to postulate a Chimpanzee God? Absolute morality my f****** foot!

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

31. Comment #51213 by Enlightenme.. on June 22, 2007 at 1:19 am

30. Comment #51201 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007

"Enlightme..
'Arsenal stinks...'

Don't sit on the fence man, tell us what you really think."

You found me out Pewkatchoo, I'm a Spurs fan, but I normally keep that under my hat, because I know how much that colours peoples judgement of my views on religion..!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

32. Comment #51240 by Yorker on June 22, 2007 at 3:29 am

19. Comment #51173 by cathjm

Well Hexy, I would have said that on this occasion, the eyes of PH were bloodshot. I don't know why you asked this question but presumably you think I dislike CH, not so, his views are more in line with mine and I much prefer him to PH. I mentioned CH's physical condition because I see and hear symptoms in him that I once had so I fear for his health. I was never the boozer he is but I smoked heavily, eventually I saw the light and eradicated tobacco from my life, I hope CH can do the same. All through the show I could hear him coughing and clearing his lungs, it brought back bad memories.

Other Comments by Yorker

33. Comment #51243 by tieInterceptor on June 22, 2007 at 3:37 am

does anyone have a direct link to the .ram file for this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/nightwaves/pip/bncg6/


So I can use the standalone realplayer,

in Linux I can't access because the menu is too fancy to work... so frustrating.



And the brother of Hitchens argues like a twat, ... 'he has the same knowledge that I do about religion I could write the book too' or something on those lines he ends saying...

like that changes in the slight the fact that God is not great is a compilation of the obvious man made beginnings of religion and the fact that he keeps talking about absolute morals coming from the bible just puts the cherry on top of the 'tired and absurd arguments' cake.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

34. Comment #51244 by Yorker on June 22, 2007 at 3:37 am

17. Comment #51166 by Enlightenme..

"Don't know much about Peter, is he a 'dyed in the wool' ?"

No, he's not a thickoid, he's actually thought about it! Both Hitch's were asked last night how two brothers had such opposing views, PH replied that they'd been brought up to be independently-minded.

Other Comments by Yorker

35. Comment #51246 by GodlessHeathen on June 22, 2007 at 3:57 am

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at the Hitchens household when these two sat down for dinner. =^.^=

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

36. Comment #51249 by doodinthemood on June 22, 2007 at 4:26 am

For the record, Peter Hitchens did a documentary on David Cameron in which he interviewed Cristopher who agreed that they both dislike him, so they don't disagree on everything, quite :)

Other Comments by doodinthemood

37. Comment #51251 by ft77 on June 22, 2007 at 4:28 am

tieInterceptor the link to the ram file is rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk:554/radio3/nightwaves/nightwaves_wed.ra?start=140

Other Comments by ft77

38. Comment #51254 by tieInterceptor on June 22, 2007 at 4:56 am

thanks ft77 that worked! :)

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

39. Comment #51259 by Linda on June 22, 2007 at 6:10 am

Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEVA4EAP_S0

Comments by the GU blogger:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/06/boris_steals_question_times_hi.html

I wonder if the Observer will have a full page section on Hitchens this Sunday.

Other Comments by Linda

40. Comment #51264 by tieInterceptor on June 22, 2007 at 7:14 am

thanks for that link Linda,

amazing Hitchens again, that lady is contemptible,

will they ever understand that it is impossible to negotiate with fundies? every concession is taken by them not as respect, just as a sign of weakness on our part and a justification to keep doing the same 'I'm offended so I will kill you' rhetoric.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

41. Comment #51274 by konquererz on June 22, 2007 at 7:30 am

Christopher Hitchens does do a wonderful job of pointing out all the evil parts of religion. Thats why I like him. However, I don't agree with him on many of his political points. I completely disagree with his insane view of the war on Iraq, and most of his other pseudo-conservative views. He is a unique bird, and having conservative views never hurt anyone. I myself think that its hard to be an atheist and hold conservative views since they have essentially been hijacked by the Christian right.

Other Comments by konquererz

42. Comment #51282 by Apemanblues on June 22, 2007 at 7:47 am

When nature was handing out the brains in that family it appears it gave them all to the shambling drunk.

By the way, do I have to preface every comment I make about Hitchens with "I don't agree with his position on the Iraq war but..", or can we now all just take it as red that most people are here to comment on the mans atheistic arguments rather than his political affiliations?

It is after all the theme of this site.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

43. Comment #51283 by konquererz on June 22, 2007 at 7:48 am

Just a side note about Exodus 21:22

IT DOES NOT SAY IF A WOMAN HAS A MISCARRIAGE!

In every translation that I can find outside of this one website, it says "if she gives birth prematurely" not "if she has a miscarriage". Its referring to whether or not the baby she has is killed or not by the ordeal. Here, read for yourselves, change the versions, whatever. The above quoted scripture is not quoted accurately.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:22;&version=31;

I have been studying the bible for years, am a dedicated Atheist and love to see the bible dissected in to pieces, but this is not truthful.

Other Comments by konquererz

44. Comment #51285 by MartinSGill on June 22, 2007 at 7:51 am

I like Hitchens (C) mostly because he just refuses to pull his punches.

I don't actually disagree too with him on the War in Iraq either.

I opposed the war because all the reasons given were wrong. We went to Iraq because of a personal grudge of Bush, not because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and needed to be removed.

The religious civil war that's raging in Iraq now is a direct result of our intervention and I think far too few people take responsibilities for their actions nowadays, preferring to blame someone else.

Well, we (as a country) made this mistake, and we are all responsible for fixing it, and running away sends entirely the wrong message. Unfortunately the thing Iraq needs is the one thing that the current crop of politicians will never give it, a true secular state with full freedoms even at the expense of local religious "imperatives".

Other Comments by MartinSGill

45. Comment #51295 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2007 at 8:18 am

*dryly* Again, the same old cobblers - atheists have no absolute basis of morality.

Not wishing to point out the obvious but The Nicomachean Ethics has been around for twenty-five hundred years, and, more importantly, Atlas Shrugged has been in print since 1957.

No absolute morality my ass.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

46. Comment #51305 by USA_Limey on June 22, 2007 at 8:51 am

Comment #51148 by cathjm wrote:

"This CH guy is a (brilliant) polemist, not a scientist; beware."

...What are you trying to say here? I am not a scientist; sorry I didn't know that was a pre-requisite for being an atheist or posting on this site.

There are plenty of us non-scientists who nevertheless like to take the time to stay informed on matters of science. Which, by the way, is really all a scientist specializing in one discipline can really hope to do of another. As a "non" scientist I bet I could give you a run for your money on my knowledge of a number of sciences except whatever one you work in.

Bottom line: don't be a science elitist snob please.

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

47. Comment #51312 by Bonzai on June 22, 2007 at 9:57 am

Atlas Shrugged has been in print since 1957.

Ayn Rant was a hack and Atlas Shrugged is garbage.Secular morality is not the same as the celebration of selfishness. As Dawkins says, genes may be selfish, but people shouldn't be.

Other Comments by Bonzai

48. Comment #51316 by Bonzai on June 22, 2007 at 10:26 am

Comment #51283 by konquererz

In every translation that I can find outside of this one website, it says "if she gives birth prematurely" not "if she has a miscarriage". Its referring to whether or not the baby she has is killed or not by the ordeal. Here, read for yourselves, change the versions, whatever. The above quoted scripture is not quoted accurately.

In the very source you cited there is a note following "if she gives birth prematurely" which says "or a miscarriage". Apparently even the translators themselves weren't sure.

But if the verse in question is indeed referring to premature birth, it is rather odd that miscarriage is not mentioned at all in the several verses that follow. After all, an injury induced abortion is a real possibility in the scenario described. The rest of the verses are all concerned with punishment deemed appropriate for hurting or killing the mother. There is no mention of aborted fetus! The absence of any reference to abortion (if you discount the first verse as a mistranslation)in a context that it would naturally arise is an interesting enough point to ponder for those who claim the bible prohibits abortion.

Incidentally, I first heard about this verse not from any atheist source, but from an Anglican minister. I checked the bible and there it was. I assumed he knew what he was talking about.

Since I am not a biblical scholar I admit my ignorance in Hebrew. However I was told by a conservative Jew that in Jewish tradition even a new born baby is not considered to have a soul. If he is right it seems exceedingly unlikely that the bible would accord full person hood to a fetus. I can be wrong on this. I would like to hear from someone familiar with Jewish tradition to either confirm or deny it.

As far as debating with believers go, I think all it requires is to point out the bible is very ambiguous on this key point. If God did intend to equate abortion with murder why didn't he clearly spell it out, like saying life begins in conception? (this is a Catholic doctrine which appears nowhere in the bible) Why did he use words that could be easily misconstrued? In his allegedly infinite wisdom he should have anticipated the fact that most Christians would be illiterate in Hebrew. Atheists don't need to prove what the bible really says, we only have to point out very often even believers themselves cannot figure out the meanings of these psychobables. We have an easy job.

Other Comments by Bonzai

49. Comment #51319 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2007 at 10:43 am

Bonzai, out of pure interest, have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? And if so, can you provide a rational refutation it?

Of course, you won't be able to. I spent a year trying to find a refutation. Other people have spent lifetimes trying. And I suspect that your hysterical dismissal of Ayn Rand as a 'hack' is the same in essence as the hysterical dismissal of many religious people when confronted with the lunacy of their beliefs.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

50. Comment #51342 by Bonzai on June 22, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Comment #51319 by Fanusi Khiyal

Atlas Shrugged is complete garbage. Anyone who lives in the real world would know instantly. Rand ranted about a "mind strike" by the brains who would bring civilization to a halt. Without wasting my time to critique her crackpot theory of intelligence I only need to remind her fans that a general strike by lowly physical workers like construction workers, food growers, bus drivers and garbage collectors etc would instantly cripple any country.

If anyone spends a lifetime trying to debunk Atlas Shrugged but "cannot find a single flaw" all I can say is that she or he is not so bright and deserves to extinct according to Rand's philosophy.

I suppose Rand considered herself a "brain worker". Well I wish she has gone on permanent strike so at least we don't have to suffer her bad prose. Aside from her fascistic ethics and sloppy thinking the woman couldn't even write! Nietzsche might be a raving nut but at least he was a great stylist,--and he did have flashes of insight.

Rand suffered from the myopia typical of self important pseudo intellectuals, namely she thought that it was people like her,--in her opinion only, of course,-- that made the world go around. Marx would be a good antidote to her snobbish crap.

BTW, "Objectivism" is a cult.

Other Comments by Bonzai