Hitch is dead

Buz, Artimes, Portillo,What shining examples of your faith you are.Would you expect any of us on the science side to mock a priest when he dies?You disgust me.Dawn Bertot -Is your god so fucking weak that he needs you to defend him? I demean your god because he deserves it. I say negative things about the bad guys in any book or movie I watch. Lets see what Hitch said about the entity who created us... You are offensive to those mourning a dead man because he debated against your god.Hitch fought for the common person without any hope for an eternal reward.I believe that makes him more altruistic than the average christian.He was a better man than me, he was a better man than you.The least you could do, the least any respectful, decent person would do, is maintain silence. You did not have to post anything.Posting derogitory remarks only makes me more comfortable in my position in direct opposition to you and those like you.If there is a god, and it is the one discussed in the bible, then Hitch is probably discussing with him how to deal with people like you.Because people like you are his enemy as much as Hitches.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Did you even read my post?I agreed that Hitch did debate against religion (you should refer to him as Christopher Hitchens or Mr Hitchens).My point was that he have negative things to say about religion but he backed up everything he said.You and the others like you are having a petty stab at a dead man.And not because of any specific thing he said, but because he said it at all.Would you like to select something he said to disagree with?Or would you like to continue to display the vast hypocrisy of your faith you petty, petty man.

Portillo, This is total bullshit.But I won't tell you why you are full of shit.Since you are directing this statement at Hitchens, I will let him reply - Cant get the second vid to link -click here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrj6qJ-GMicHe also devotes an entire chapter to this claim in his book God is Not Great : How Religion Poisons Everything.from wiki -

quote:

---

Chapter Seventeen: An Objection Anticipated

​

Chapter seventeen addresses the most common counter-argument that Hitchens says he hears, namely that the most immoral acts in human history were performed by atheists like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Hitchens begins by saying "it is interesting that people of faith now seek defensively to say they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists". He goes on to analyze those examples of immorality, and shows that although the individual leaders may have been atheist or agnostic, that religion played a key role in these events, and religious people and religious leaders fully participated in the wars and crimes.

---

Here is a link to a torrent supplying the audiobook for free -The Pirate Bay - The galaxy's most resilient bittorrent siteI am sure you would not want to give any money to his estate and I am sure he would be happy for you to have a copy for free because you may learn something.You doubted that Hitchens backed up his claims? I have supplied you two public debates and a book where he has done.I don't think that the claim that 'atheistic regimes' (whatever they are?) have killed 10, 000 times --- ABE *snip* --- to be taken seriously.The previous paragraphs statement was faulty on my part so i removed it. Dr A deals with it in the message below.I will start a thread with this claim in order for you to defend your claim.ABE - here it is Message 1Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : youtube vid???Edited by Butterflytyrant, : second vid wont link?Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Dawn Bertot,your comprehension is fucking terrible.From your reply you do not actually understand anything that I wrote.Have another go at reading my post.Then you can have a go at supplying a reply that indicates that you have read and understood it.I am not going to bother replying to rambling bullshit that is irrelevant to what I said.

I believe that is game, set and match gentlemen.

Hey Chuck,Can you provide any messages that show athiests making direct derogatory statements about Jesus?Most of us do not have any reason to believe that the man actually existed so it would be a waste of our time to call him names.You suggest that we mock Jesus all day long so it should not be hard to come up with statements that equal these - Dawn Bertot in Message 38Artemis Entreri in Message 103Artemis Entreri in Message 113Also, keep three things in mind with regards to any statements that you do find where athiests directly abuse towards Jesus or God.1. Jesus is likley a mythical figure who died over 2000 years ago. I would have thought that a 2000 year mourning period would be enough.2. Jesus was only dead for 72 hours so we are not mocking a dead man. We would be mocking a man who has sat in paridise for 2000 years and can expect to remain there for all eternity. I would think that a few course statements would not trouble him.3. God is a god. Do you not think that God would be thick skinned enough to take it? Or is your god so fucking weak that he needs you, and the other mere mortals to stand up for him?I really dont have a problem with anyone saying negative things about Hitch. I have no doubt that he would not have a problem with it with it either.What I do have issue with is people leaving derogatory posts about a man for the simple fact that he said bad things about their religion. You, AE, DB etc so far have not posted anything of substance as yet. You dont have any response to anything he actually said, you just dont like him because he said nything at all.I believe that your position is weak and deserves to be questioned.All of the posts have been argumentum ad hominem.Do any of you have something to say about his arguements or can you just attack the man?

DB, I have posted several of his videos here.Care to respond?

Hello Dawn Bertot,it is a bit difficult to give a readers digest version of his debates. Some transscripts run into tens of thousands of words.But here are some short quotes, take your pick...

quote:

---

The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.

​

By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restating the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs. What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate? What kind of designer or creator is so cruel and indifferent? Andmost of allwhat kind of designer or creator only chooses to reveal himself to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions?

​

The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.

​

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobodynot even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atomshad the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion.

​

Is it too modern to notice that there is nothing [in the ten commandments] about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape, nothing about slavery, and nothing about genocide? Or is it too exactingly in context to notice that some of these very offenses are about to be positively recommended?

​

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retardor try to turn backthe measurable advances that we have made.

​

Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two.

​

Meanwhile, confronted with undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe, and in proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be saved.

​

Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did.

​

My own view is that this planet is used as a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a superior civilisation, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either.

​

Name one moral statement made or moral action performed by a believer that could nopt be performed by an unbeliever, and name one immoral statement made or immoral action performed that could only be performed by a believer.

---