|
Author
|
Topic: Hitch is dead
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Afterlife Surprises
"Do not be decieved God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth he shall also reap, he that soeth good to life everlasting and he that soeth evil to everlasting destruction" He was a mocker and a blasphemer. I dont curse him for being an atheist, belief is hard for some, but as mocker and vehement blasphemer. He led the little ones astray and offend them. As it is said it would have better for him to have a millstone cast around his neck and thrown into the sea He was a filthy piece of garbage and a piece of dung. Recieve that which you have reaped Mr Hitchens That's nothing to what Allah thinks of you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-16-2011 11:37 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Afterlife Surprises
Oh Im sorry, I must be mistaken, as much time as Christopher spent blasphemeing The God of the Old and New testament, Im surpised he was even aware of Allah One does have to wonder why a man like Christopher would spend so much energy and time, belittling, berating and demeaning an entity for which he didnt even believed existed My guess is that he always really knew he did, but was afraid to admit it You know the ole, "Me thinks he protest to much" principle Your not a belated closet atheist are DA? For Christopher its to late, but you still have choice to do the right thing Dawn Bertot If you had grasped my point, you might have replied to it with less of a jumble of nonsense and self-serving fantasy ... but I wouldn't bet on it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2011 12:43 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Afterlife Surprises
Is this one of the fellows that has in the past dodged our grcious invitation to person public debate Perhaps he was unaware of the "grcious" offer made by you and the mouse in your pocket. He has, however, debated people who aren't complete non-entities.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2011 1:37 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Afterlife Surprises
Yes DA, I understood immediately your point that you dont think the God the Bible exist to matter one way or another But I thought this thread was designed to honor or poke fun at a man so simplistic as Christopher H This is a roast, right. Oh sorry i guess that is not the best term to employ Dawn Bertot That didn't make much sense either.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2011 1:29 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 92 of 560 (644441)
12-17-2011 11:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by Portillo
12-17-2011 9:52 PM
|
|
He backed up everything he said? Atheistic regimes have killed over 100 million people. Thats 10,000 times more than all religious atrocities put together since the beginning of time. In which case religious atrocities have accounted for the deaths of ... er ... ten thousand people? Over the entire course of human history? I think you may be out by a few orders of magnitude.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by Portillo, posted 12-17-2011 9:52 PM | | Portillo has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 108 of 560 (644698)
12-20-2011 6:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by Portillo
12-20-2011 4:49 AM
|
|
Darwinism rewards those that leave offspring ... No.
So like a cockroach, rat, bacteria or pondscum, Hitch did his job. There are those who claim that God had a son. Would you say that that makes him comparable to a cockroach, rat, bacterium or pondscum? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Portillo, posted 12-20-2011 4:49 AM | | Portillo has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
I mean C'mon, MOTHER TERESA!?!. Yeah, shocking. We know, of course, that all criticisms of her are invalid 'cos she was so wonderful. And we know she was so wonderful 'cos there are no valid criticisms of her.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-20-2011 2:20 PM | | Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Afterlife Surprises
Well thats easy. Since the unbeliever has no absolute standard of what moral is or is not and involves himself in a logical contradiction by claiming anything as immoral, as he follows a survival of the fittest standard, the believer can perform not only one thing the unbeliver cannot, but the only thing that matters, objectivity in a moral standard without fear of blatant contradiction This is, of course, nonsense --- in the most literal sense, i.e. it consists of words combined in such a way that the resulting phrases have no meaning.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Afterlife Surprises
lets see if DA has an explanation as to why a person that adopts and believes the law of the fittest and outright atheism, can explain why God is evil. It is for people who think God exists to explain why he's evil. Asking me that is like asking me to explain why Santa is fat.
Where did you get your standard of morality, that your buddy Hitchens claims you have? I guess I was well brought up.
You see Agent you jumped ship to quickly. If you are looking for answers from these fellas you wont find any Perhaps you should address your remarks to people actually participating on this thread. Of course, that would involve you doing something that isn't totally stupid. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Afterlife Surprises
Ok great, so we dont have to worry about God being evil. So the next time somone like Hitchens makes that allegation that God is evil or he is not good, it doesnt matter, because the allegationis irrelevant. Great What Hitchens actually wrote was "God is not great". This would seem to follow from his nonexistence, since it is hard to attain greatness without actually existing. As this is both true and reasonable I can see why you'd have ignored it.
What I meant is, can we be assured of its objectivity enough to know that claims concerning anyone elses behavior can be judged by it, your moral standard that is. If so why? I presume you intended that paragraph to make some sort of sense. If so, your ambition has exceeded your abilities. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Afterlife Surprises
Hitchens intimations about the possible existence or non-existence of God, have nothing or very little to do with Hitchens inability to formulate a platform for morality, seeing he has no way to establish a standard of morality, believing everything is just matter in motion Gods existence or non-existence have nothing to do with Hitchens inabiltiy to form a logical proposition concerning morality Therefore Hitchens making any comment about Gods, nature or stature is equally non-sensical and irrelevant Ill repeat the question. Is the best attempt at an argument he could put forward, to explain why religious people were insane or should be killed If you see your above statement as true and reasonable, I can see why you use jokes a nd sarcams instead of actually formulating an argument You appear to have gone mad.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 183 by subbie, posted 12-30-2011 1:04 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 302 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: objectivity
Actually I dont have to do this. Because if my observation that something is not logical or valid, is not actually valid, due to it simply being matter in motion, then it just furthers the idea that not only am I being inconsistent, but he is as well. And that is ofcourse, if consistency can actually be verified and actually matters in a matter in motion only world Of course it doesnt, which would include any pointless conclusions Mr Hitchens formulated, which are only actually atoms and molecules functioning, correct My positions or beliefshave nothing to with the fact that his moral deductions are just matter in motion therefore irrelevant, except to him Fell free to correct me if you think I am off track You can probably get pills for whatever makes you write like that.
|
™ Version 4.2