« Reflections on Hollywood | Main | Exit Signs »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dave, one can only hope none of your iffy Mormon readers happen upon Christopher Hitchens God Is Not Great. His take on Mormonism would be just a tad different from yours. Fawn Brodie will seem like an angel in comparison to the Hitch.

I would agree with Duff on this one.

Funny. I actually linked to Hitchens Slate article on us from my sidebar. Hitchens is always doing pure polemics. I don't think too many take him seriously. Even a lot of atheists are embarrassed by him. Plus he showed up on the Daily Show drunk lambasting us and came off pretty badly.

Clark, its pretty easy to dismiss Hitchens as a mere polemicist, but not so easy to refute the many stinging critiques he has made against all religion. In fact, I don't hear anyone actually refuting any of his various essays against Mormonism, Judaism, Islam or any of the many permutations of Christianity. All anyone says is, "he's a drunk", or "he's an angry person." So what? Being a drunk, or even angry, is not the same thing as being wrong. Ad hominems are not the same thing as proofs, or even a respectful contra-argument.

Hitchens came off pretty badly on the Daily show, but he murdered that poor idiot Hanity on his show and was devastatingly effective lambasting ... Falwell on Anderson Cooper. Dismiss him as not "serious" at your peril.


"In fact, I don't hear anyone actually refuting any of his various essays against Mormonism, Judaism, Islam or any of the many permutations of Christianity."


Jon in Houston, if you think that piece is a refutation of Hitchens premise, it only shows you haven't read the book, or refuse to accept that religion has a lot to answer for.
Saying Hitchens "has an angry spirit" and doesn't understand the good religions have done for humanity is not a refutation of what Hitchens is saying.
I suppose you would also answer his description of Joseph Smiths younger years and the founding of his "ridiculous cult" by retorting that Hitchens can't be right because he couldn't even get the name of Lehi (Lephi) correct. But, then, I don't want to speak for you.


I suspect Hitchens is just type of bombastic atheist that the theists approve of. In my opinion (and I have admittedly only read a few of his articles online), he comes off as such an over-the-top buffoon that he becomes the embarrassing poster child for atheists.

See a recent post on him and this subject over at FPR.

No, I haven't read the book, but what new athestic arguments does Hitchens make that haven't been discussed ad nauseum? He seems to lump all religious people into a single group, declares they are all ignorant, misogynistic, racist bigots who by teaching religious principles to children perpetuate their evil ways. And this is new and groundbreaking? Atheists have been whining about these same issues for ages, Hitchens just get more air time for being dynamic and inebriated.

Let me guess, you didn't read Fawn Brodie either, did you. All those atheists, all saying the same thing. No wonder the church discourages you guys from reading this stuff put out be the "enemies" of the church.
But. You should know better that to criticize something you haven't read. Its not nice.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Now Reading

General Books 09-12

General Books 06-08

General Books 04-05

About This Site

Mormon Books 2015-16

Mormon Books 2013-14

Science Books

Bible Books

Mormon Books 2012

Mormon Books 2009-11

Mormon Books 2008

Mormon Books 2007

Mormon Books 2006

Mormon Books 2005

Religion Books 09-12

Religion Books 2008

Religion Books 2004-07

DMI on Facebook

Blog powered by Typepad