Posts Tagged ‘Christopher Hitchens’

Hitchens’ target was religion general, was it?

October 16, 2017

Thread:“Did Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens ….? “@
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 20: 

The Commenter    commented:
[Replying to paarsurrey1]
I think Hitchens’ target was religion general. He saw Islam as the problem of the moment. Whilst the title of the book was a brickbat aimed at Islam – the primary target was still a general rejection of religions. As he was brought up in and surrounded by the Christian tradition I think the tone of his work leans more towards arguing against Christianity. In that sense I think he is primarily rejecting that tradition. But really all religions are game. The bottom line Hitchens did not believe in God and thought there were overwhelmingly sound reasons not to believe in God and any system of belief that taught otherwise was therefore foolish.

It is rational to be critical of a religious system without being an adherent, and it is rational to be critical without having spent a lifetime studying a particular religion. The danger of limited knowledge is then making a facile analysis that misses the nuances and maybe getting things wrong. The problem would be lack of rigour rather than lack of rationality. A bit like writing a school essay and only get a C+ with the comment must try harder.

On the whole I think Hitchens lands his punches but I’m not sure which criticism in detail you feel Hitchens gets wrong or is the product of a facile analysis.

In the short youtube clip above Hitchens is guilty of sweeping rejection of Islam but then as he says he thinks the very idea that God speaks to someone is “BS”. From Hitchens’ perspective rejecting these kinds of religions claims is the foundation of reason.

I think Hitchens’ target was religion general. He saw Islam as the problem of the moment.

paarsurrey1 wrote:
I don’t mind criticism, in fact, I never found much attraction and appeal towards Atheism or the like, its subsets, or towards the No-God position/no-position.
At a very young age, I read a small treatise* and a book** by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi. He himself had a continuous experience of Converse with the One-True-God.
One of my friends on the internet whom I suggested to read some book of the Promised Messiah, she insisted and prevailed upon me to read “God is not Great” by Hitchens, so this way I happen to read it. Hitchens book might be a good book having a temporary popularity but if looked in-depth, it has no seeds to be relevant in the decades to come, as it fails to create a permanent imprint on the human self or psyche.


*”Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam”:
**Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Parts I & II | Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part III | Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part IV:

Atheists understand religion incorrectly

February 1, 2014

I have written a post at the “Fide Dubitandum” blog on the topic “Forget the Experts; What do the Most Ignorant People Think?”

February 1st, 2014 at 4:36 pm

@ Debilis
I agree with your worlds:

“This is why Dawkins, who has confessed to being ignorant of theology, is forced to interact with the lay-level view.”
This is also correct about Christopher Hitchens; with his shallow knowledge of Religion and especially about Islam/Quran/Muhammad; he only dealt with the ignorant or illiterate lay-level view and was applauded by the same level of atheists.

The One-True-God is not a physical or material being; He has created the Universe/s and everything in it; hence He is Omnipresent only by His attributes. He needs not to be present everywhere materially or physically. This has been very clearly mentioned in Quran:

[39:68] And they do not esteem Allah, with the esteem that is due to Him. And the whole earth will be but His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be rolled up in His right hand. Glory to Him and exalted is He above that which they associate with Him.

All material, physical and spiritual things and beings have been created by Him, therefore, to imagine or search for Him in these realms is not reasonable and is counterproductive.

I know that the literate Christians have the same concept; only the ignorant and lay-level Christians would disagree with it. Jesus was not a Christian-god or son-of-god literally as that would make (I take refuge in the One-True-God) Jesus the husband of Mary; and that no Christian believes.

In symbolic terms as explained in the Bible itself; yes Jesus was the loved one of God and one- with-God; in the sense that Jesus fulfilled the purpose for which he was sent by the One-True-God.

Atheists don’t understand this; may Allah open their hearts, mind and soul to understand it.

Even if they don’t understand, we can co-exist in this world peacefully.


The News:

One will, perhaps, love to read the following:

“Holy War”: Is it Armageddon? with its ” Peaceful Version”!

“Holy War”: Is it Armegiddon / Armageddon? – with its “Peaceful Version”! 1 | paarsurrey (

One will be taken aback to note that Armegiddon/Armageddon is nothing like as one would have imagined or known so far. It is not to be fought with any physical and destructive weaponry and or the lethal arsenal of the day. It is peaceful and in fact, I understand, had already been started and it is sown like a seed!

It was a debate between the Pauline-Christianity (represented by Mr. Abdullah Atham) and the Second Coming 1835-1908 , that took place in Urdu language and was published then by the name “Jang-e-Muqaddas” in 1893 ( 22 May 1893 to 5 June 1893) in the then British India and has been recently translated and published in English by the name “The Holy War”:

Click to access The-Holy-War.pdf


From: a peaceful Ahmadiyya Muslim

“A God’s Undertaker, by John Lennox: a very brief review” by Takis Konstantopoulos

January 22, 2014

One may like to read the review by accessing following link:

I have posted following comments on the above blog:

paarsurrey said

You have named two persons in your post, John Lennox and Christopher Hitchens. You have experienced a feeling about John Lennox; almost the same kind of feeling I had when I read a book by Christopher Hitchens, the book is said to be one time best seller in America; I had the same feeling about him and the book he wrote. An atheist friend had suggested me reading that book in a sort of deal.

The man wrote the book and impressed upon the people as if he was an authority on religion; while his study of religion was very shallow.

He might have read Bible to discuss about Judaism and Christianity but for the rest and especially about Islam/Quran/Muhammad he hardly had any in-depth knowledge to discuss the things.

“The wonderful late great Christopher Hitchens!”

January 17, 2014

Hitchens67 has written a post titled “The wonderful late great Christopher Hitchens!” on his blog that could be viewed at the following link: or

Following posts have been exchanged between paarsurrey and Hitchens67 for the interest of the viewers of my blog and for benefit of the general public:

paarsurrey says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:11 pm

What is so wonderful about him? Please

hitchens67 says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:34 am

Some like him some don’t, I happen to think that he was brilliant and it was his works that led me to atheism and to authors such as Harris, Dennett and Dawkins.

paarsurrey says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:27 pm

Please give one, just one good, original and truthful argument that he gave?

paarsurrey says:
January 17, 2014 at 9:00 pm
@ hitchens67
You might have so many good arguments given by Hitchens; but I would like you to mention just one out of them all; the best one, please. And please don’t make a list of the arguments; just one please.

Book Discussion: God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

August 5, 2013

Paarsurrey says:

Hitchens knowledge of religion is based on Bible; not on Quran, hence he hides behinds his own words “most notably the Christian” and then makes an unfounded and poor generalization in the second sentence given above.
Hitchens, as is evident, never read Quran intently, hence he did not quote from Quran, not even a single verse to substantiate his viewpoint.

Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance of all Muslims, whatever their denomination. Had Hitchens been an honest research scholar with some scientific method of research he must have based his criticism of Islam primarily on Quran but that is not the case; he relied on the traditional source called Hadith which never existed in the time of Muhammad. Hadith was collected 200/250 years after Muhammad.

Hence, whatever is written in Hadith; Muhammad/Quran/Islam are not responsible for it. Criticism of Hitchens of Islam/Quran/Muhammad is therefore irrelevant and is of shallow significance.

Those who collected Hadith they had a clear principle in mind that Hadith should accepted if it is not against Quran or in other words, it is not validated by Quran. Due to the time lag after Muhammad, Hadith is engrossed in denominational feuds; hence if at all it quoted it should be done with caution; else it should be rejected. Quran absolutely rules the teachings of Muhammad/Islam and there is no other contestant to it.

If one wants to cut a tree; one should cut it from root or just uproot it from the earth that holds it firmly; if one tears some leaves from a tree and then claims; “lo! I have uprooted the tree” and in evidence he shows the torn leaves, the claim is not worthy of attention.

The Atheists/skeptics who claim to follow reason should not follow a denominational line just because it suits their philosophy; this would be a biased approach on their part.

The Americans who are in search of God; they should reject this shallow research of Christopher Hitchens, in my opinion.


This book is quite the finishing touch on the great life of Hitchens. His argument throughout this book is that religion has poisoned history. He concludes the book with the argument that in order to solve this we will need a new enlightenment, however he specifies that it will not need to depend on the work of a few gifted men. Instead he posits that this kind of enlightenment is within the grasp of the average person. This is why I believe writing blogs and getting the word out will have some effect. The average person does not think of the issue of religion often, and as such follows the Church of whoever he/she was taught to. Apart from that, religious people are the overwhelming majority today, so it seems almost unnecessary to deviate from religion because how could all these people be wrong? Well, here we have the fallacy…

View original post 343 more words

Buddha is not an icon of atheism

June 19, 2013

Buddha is not an icon of atheism. He did not deny in the Creator God.

Christopher Hitchens in his book “God is not great” says in Chapter Fourteen:

“There Is No “Eastern Solution”, meaning thereby that there is no solution in Buddha’s religion; hence it is evident that atheists/agnostics/skeptics don’t believe that he was an agnostic/atheist or skeptic.

Buddha had a religion, rather he was a founder of a religion, while agnostics/atheists and skeptics pronounce they have no religion.

Am I right?

Yet the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics have no strong reason and or evidence that the Creator God does not exist.

This is their contradiction they demand from others that they themselves don’t have.

Then by their standards the atheists should not claim to be rational, scientific or reasonable even.


Buddha was not an Agnostic

May 15, 2013



Buddha was not an Agnostic, in my opinion; his ways have nothing common with the atheists. Just to gain some ground the Atheists, in my opinion, try to include him in their folds but ultimately they reject him one being with them.

I may, for instance, here refer to Christopher Hitchens, he had to write a chapter in one of his books “There is no ‘Eastern’ solution”, I think keeping that in his mind.

The truthful religion favors free enquiry and does not favor blind faith.

Buddha was not with the Agnostics; he spoke against Skepticism/Agnosticism:

Courtesy our friend Tathagata (#79)

“The Buddha was NOT an Agnostic. It is scripturally false to say he was an Agnostic. He was in fact vehemently opposed to Agnosticism and he called them “evasive eel-wrigglers.” See the Brahmajala Sutta and the Samannaphala Sutta.


“Ambiguous Evasion [edit]

The concept of ambiguous evasion or eel-wriggling (Pali: Amaravikkhepa) is introduced in the Brahmajala sutta. When hearing Buddhist teachings, the Buddha claims that people would react with four forms of ambiguous evasion:

  1. Evasion out of fear or hatred of making false claims.
  2. Evasion out of fear or hatred of attachment.
  3. Evasion out of fear or hatred of debate.
  4. Evasion out of fear or hatred of admitting ignorance.

In other words, when a person would hear the dharma, they would respond, “I don’t know. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not true. I can’t say it’s true because I don’t know and I can’t deny it’s true because I don’t know.”

The idea is that the person isn’t considering the arguments presented (see Kalama Sutta), but stubbornly adhering to irrational agnosticism out of feelings of fear or hatred.”

Atheists include Buddha in their folds; ultimately they reject him also

May 13, 2013



Please view my post on my favourite discussion forum on the thread “Is Islam a universal religion” <>:


Buddha was not an atheist, in my opinion; his ways have nothing common with the atheists. Just to gain some ground the Atheists, in my opinion, try to include him in their folds but ultimately they reject him one being with them.

I may here, for instance, refer to Christopher Hitchens, he had to write a chapter in one of his books “There is no ‘Eastern’ solution”, I think for that reason.

Buddha was not with the atheists; he spoke against Skepticism:

Chapter 46:
Avoiding the Ten Evils”Free your mind of ignorance and be anxious to
learn the truth, especially in the one thing that is needful,
lest you fall a prey either , to scepticism or to errors.
Scepticism will make you indifferent and errors will lead
you astray, so that you shall not find the noble path that
leads to life eternal.” Verse -13

The Gospel of Buddha…ul%20Carus.pdf

One could freely comment there on the discussion forum or here in my blog, my pleasure.

Did Jesus wager or bet or gamble? | Pascal’s Wager

April 11, 2013

Jesus did not wager or bet or gamble in my opinion. He neither did it nor did he promote such ventures. May be Paul did it; I am not sure, but perhaps his apologists followers like Blaise Pascal did play it; hence we get Pascal’s Wager.

Christopher Hitchens hints about this Pascal’s Wager and makes its critical assessment in following words:

“Eternal Punishment and Impossible Tasks

The Gospel story of the Garden of Gethsemane used to absorb
me very much as a child, because its “break” in the action and its
human whimper made me wonder if some of the fantastic scenario
might after all be true. Jesus asks, in effect, “Do I have to go through
with this?”

It is an impressive and unforgettable question, and I
long ago decided that I would cheerfully wager my own soul on the
belief that the only right answer to it is “no.” We cannot, like fear-ridden
peasants of antiquity, hope to load all our crimes onto a goat
and then drive the hapless animal into the desert.

Our everyday idiom
is quite sound in regarding “scapegoating” with contempt. And religion
is scapegoating writ large. I can pay your debt, my love, if you
have been imprudent, and if I were a hero like Sidney Carton in A
Tale of Two Cities I could even serve your term in prison or take your
place on the scaffold. Greater love hath no man. But I cannot absolve
you of your responsibilities. It would be immoral of me to offer, and
immoral of you to accept. And if the same offer is made from another
time and another world, through the mediation of middlemen and
accompanied by inducements, it loses all its grandeur and becomes
debased into wish-thinking or, worse, a combination of blackmailing
with bribery.

The ultimate degeneration of all this into a mere bargain was
made unpleasantly obvious by Blaise Pascal, whose theology is not
far short of sordid. His celebrated “wager” puts it in hucksterish form:
what have you got to lose? If you believe in god and there is a god,
you win. If you believe in him and you are wrong—so what?

I once
wrote a response to this cunning piece of bet-covering, which took
two forms. The first was a version of Bertrand Russell’s hypothetical
reply to the hypothetical question: what will you say if you die and are
confronted with your Maker? His response? “I should say, Oh God,
you did not give us enough evidence.” My own reply: Imponderable
Sir, I presume from some if not all of your many reputations that you
might prefer honest and convinced unbelief to the hypocritical and
self-interested affectation of faith or the smoking tributes of bloody
altars. But I would not count on it.” Unquote

Reference: “God is not Great” by Christopher Hitchens: Pages: 211-212, Chapter Fifteen, “Religion as an Original Sin”

How could Pascal defend with reason Paul’s made-up creed of the “Original Sin” mentioned above which even Jesus never believed in or supported? Like Paul invented the concept of “Original Sin” so did the Christian apologist Blaise Pascal invent “Pascal’s Wager”, of no use.

Christianity’s creeds: Jesus was a god, Jesus was son of god, Trinity, Jesus died a cursed death on Cross; Jesus got resurrected from dead, Jesus’ ascension to heavens, original sin, atonement; these beliefs are fabricated creeds of Paul and Church. Jesus never believed in such unreasonable, irrational and deceptive creeds; hence even a genius cannot defend them.

Why leave Jesus?

Faculty of reason: Faculty to receive Revelation

April 11, 2013

Man has been bestowed with the faculty of reasoning for guidance in ordinary matters though not equally to everybody; it differs from person to person. The same way man has been bestowed with the faculty to receive revelation from the one true creator God.

These two faculties make man specifically distinct from an animal. Adam got evolved and was better equipped with the tools of speaking, reasoning; he also got Revelation from the one true creator God and that was an epoch making event in human evolution and history.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah and the End-Time Reformer of all religions explains this phenomenon:


“As God has invested man with the faculty of reason for the understanding to some degree of elementary matters, in the same way God has vested in him a hidden faculty of receiving revelation.

When human reason arrives at the limit of its reach, at that stage God Almighty, for the purpose of leading His true and faithful servants to the perfection of understanding and certainty, guides them through revelation and visions.

Thus the stages which reason could not traverse are traversed by means of revelation and visions, and seekers after truth thereby arrive at full certainty.

This is the way of Allah, to guide to which Prophets have appeared in the world and without treading along which no one can arrive at true and perfect understanding; but an unfortunate dry philosopher is so much in a hurry that he desires that whatever has to be disclosed should be disclosed at the stage of reason.

He does not know that reason cannot carry a burden beyond its strength, nor can it step forward further than its capacity. He does not reflect that to carry a person to his desired excellence God Almighty has bestowed upon him not only the faculty of reason but also the faculty of receiving revelation.

It is the height of misfortune to make use of only the elementary means out of those that God has, out of His Perfect Wisdom, bestowed upon man for the purpose of recognizing God, and to remain ignorant of the rest. It is foolish to waste those faculties through lack of use and to derive no benefit from them.

A person who does not use the faculty of receiving revelation but denies its existence cannot be a true philosopher, whereas the existence of this faculty has been established by the testimony of thousands of the righteous and all men of true understanding have arrived at perfect understanding through this means”


(Surma Chashm Arya (Qadian, 1886), Now published in Ruhani Khazain, Volume 2 (London, 1984) Arya, pp. 39-42).

Jesus and Mary did not need to wager for religion like Pascal did; they got sure knowledge of the one true God. People like Paul did not have this faculty; so they ventured and invented weird concepts and creeds of a new religion “Christianity- a misnomer” which was deviant from the path that Jesus and Mary followed.

It is for this deviation that people like Blaise Pascal, Christian Aplolgists, had to wager on religion; and had to cut a sorry figure against the atheists like Christopher Hitchens.

%d bloggers like this: