Hitchens a second rate pundit, according to this article.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13408
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hitchens a second rate pundit, according to this article.

{quote]The recent death of Christopher Hitchens was announced in rock-star obituaries, because although a second-rate (at best) pundit, he was a top-tier atheist

That was the quote from this local Main paper.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/01/02/opinion/contributors/is-it-the-atheists-moment/

Second rate? How come even Christians know his name but outside this author's readers and family, no one knows this author's name?

I'll be the first to criticize Hitchens for his dog whistle language and 50 dollar words and name dropping as if everyone knows what he knew.  I also hated his support of the wars.

But second rate? Hardly. He has done more for humanity, including the freedom of believers of all religions, than most Imams and Rabbis and preachers. His call to be fearless in questioning is as Jeffersonian as anyone can get. He even wrote a book about Thomas Jefferson.

A personal story just yesterday. I had taken my mother to a doctors appointment and had that very same book with me re reading it. In the opening pages Hitchens recounted Jefferson's rejection of the attitude of class and status made him special. I cried knowing I had read it before. It was the very attitude of freeing oneself from scripts and status quo that both Jefferson and Hitchens valued.

One could argue his personal flaws, or his positions on politics. But if he had been one of the founders, Hitchens would have to be a person all people would have to thank. People like Hitchens are not special in the scope of the history of the universe or it's future, none of us are.  But Hitchens, like Jefferson, should be valued for their rightful position that everything should be questioned and that taboos should not exist.

Second rate? No if it were not for Hitchens I would not have the balls I have now, intellectually speaking. I cried because he helped me feel comfortable in my own skin. Jefferson would have wanted that too.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2368
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
It's spelled MAINE.

                                           Life can get weird sometimes. Try this for  a coincidence.  I delivered that newspaper 6 days a week for 5 years,[age 11 to 16] when I was growing up in Brewer Maine, that is just accross the river from Bangor,  the author is listed has living in Orrington, that's a small town just south of Brewer. Brewer is a small town but we use to joke about the hick farmers who lived down in Orrington.  The article was just a glorified letter to the editor. Paul Tormey is on the www has a Bank manager in the Bangor area.  It gets weirder, for me at least. He works for TD bank which I know is in Brewer, [home sweet home to me] TD is also my buisness bank ,  TD stands for Toronto Dominion, I wonder if the twit knows it's a Canadian bank he works for.                                Thanks for the holiday trip down memory lane Brian37, maybe I'll look up the twit the next time I'm in Brewer.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Hitchens a second rate pundit

Well.., what did you expect ? this CLOWN that wrote that article has to be a religious person (most likely), there is so...... much in his article that is wrong, that he should be a shamed of himself, calling himself a journalist, he couldn't hold up Hitchens jack strap, LMFAO !!!

Signature ? How ?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2368
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
No Ken G.

 

 

 

                   He is a banker who submits articles to the local newspaper.  He likely has an IN on the editorial staff. Bangor/Brewer area has a small population there is only one [1] High School in each "city" .   He's no journalist and that paper needs fillers now and then. Some fillers are just better then others.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I still think he's second

I still think he's second rate. Just because he's popular doesn't mean that he's good.

 

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I still

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I still think he's second rate. Just because he's popular doesn't mean that he's good.

I'd never heard of the guy, outside of here.

He's famous ... how?

I did read the Wikipedia page on him and I understand how I never heard of him -- he's a leftist darling, and I'm not interested in pseudo intellectuals who think that protesting everything is somehow ... intellectual.  That's all very 1960's, but it hasn't been the 1960's for a very long time.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'd never heard of the

Quote:

I'd never heard of the guy, outside of here.

He's famous ... how?

 

He's INFAMOUS, not famous.  Fame implies a status reserved for the elitist models of human beings that would rather pollute the world with glamour and materialism as opposed to possessing a presence of hard hitting, in-your-face details and facts about issues that have a direct impact on everyone.  What he did was make a impressionable layout on how outdated most of our thoughts are, why they are silly/dangerous and that being outspoken with an absolute truth as you can possibly muster is the only mode of communicating with people rather than relying on designated fallacies brought on by generations of brain washing.  Besides all that, I wouldn't expect someone that thinks in black and white as knowing much about this diverse individual.

 

 

Quote:
I did read the Wikipedia page on him and I understand how I never heard of him -- he's a leftist darling, and I'm not interested in pseudo intellectuals who think that protesting everything is somehow ... intellectual.  That's all very 1960's, but it hasn't been the 1960's for a very long time.

 

So, just because he doesn't mirror your views, that's your excuse for having no knowledge of any of his writings, his books, his many atheist/theist debates and many TV interviews/appearances?  In your case, I guess ignorance CAN be bliss...

 

On a side note, protesting has created policies, rulings and standards that have shaped this country; of course, not all of them good, mind you.  The point is that your statement reeks of defeatism and a shameful way of looking at people who speak their mind in a constructive way that make others question who they are, what they're doing and whether or not it's benefiting society as a whole. 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13408
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I still think he's second rate. Just because he's popular doesn't mean that he's good.

I'd never heard of the guy, outside of here.

He's famous ... how?

I did read the Wikipedia page on him and I understand how I never heard of him -- he's a leftist darling, and I'm not interested in pseudo intellectuals who think that protesting everything is somehow ... intellectual.  That's all very 1960's, but it hasn't been the 1960's for a very long time.

He wrote  the best selling book "God Is Not Great"(how religion poisons everything), Wrote for Vanity Fair Magazine. Wrote a book blasting Mother Teressa. And a book about Jefferson "Author Of America". That is a fraction of his books and writings.

Among his favorite books were Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984. My favorites too because of their warning of fascism and group think.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:So, just

Sage_Override wrote:

So, just because he doesn't mirror your views, that's your excuse for having no knowledge of any of his writings, his books, his many atheist/theist debates and many TV interviews/appearances?  In your case, I guess ignorance CAN be bliss...

It's not whether or not he mirrors my views.  I mean, I'm here.  The average person =here= doesn't mirror my religious views, and yet here I am.

Sage_Override wrote:
On a side note, protesting has created policies, rulings and standards that have shaped this country; of course, not all of them good, mind you.  The point is that your statement reeks of defeatism and a shameful way of looking at people who speak their mind in a constructive way that make others question who they are, what they're doing and whether or not it's benefiting society as a whole.

Protesting for the sake of =protesting= seldom does anything useful and my impression of Hitch, based on what little I do know (just heard of him, only read Wikipedia ...) is that he's someone who protested ... for the sake of protesting.

My impression is that he protested / preached to an echo chamber.  That his death seems to have been repeated within a remarkably small and closed community confirms that to me.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It's not whether or

Quote:
It's not whether or not he mirrors my views.

 

Everything you said previously contradicts that.  Need a refresher?

 

Quote:
I did read the Wikipedia page on him and I understand how I never heard of him -- he's a leftist darling, and I'm not interested in pseudo intellectuals who think that protesting everything is somehow ... intellectual.

 

Simply because he doesn't cater to your scope of understanding, you're writing him off as a pseudo intellectual, politically labeling him and marking him as a guy that just gripes about issues in a fashion that doesn't filter through your head.  Also, on these boards, you might as well be a guppy among sharks as you should well know by now.  You chose to sign up here and be among an intellectually hostile crowd of free thinkers that won't roll over and die when you present supernatural ideas or a mindset that's bereft of most logical undertakings. 

 

Quote:

Protesting for the sake of =protesting= seldom does anything useful

 

Once more, you're basically just saying he complains a lot and, again, this is from an ignorant standpoint.

 

Quote:
My impression of Hitch, based on what little I do know (just heard of him, only read Wikipedia ...) is that he's someone who protested ... for the sake of protesting.

 

Saying you learned about him on that site is like saying you learned how to make authentic Italian pizza at a high school cafeteria and the scary part is that Wikipedia is the first place you went to dig up anything about him.  Is that the "go to" for everything now?  Credibility, people.

 

Quote:
My impression is that he protested / preached to an echo chamber.  That his death seems to have been repeated within a remarkably small and closed community confirms that to me.

 

Your impression holds about as much water as a submarine with screen doors.  Find out more.  I know that's tough thing to do for you being a theist, but maybe you might give it a shot for the sake of curiosity.

 

 

 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10360
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Rofl. Go Canadian banks for

Rofl. Go Canadian banks for infiltrating the US. How many you got down there? Scotia? Royal? Montreal?
Good to know at least some Canadian businesses grow into the US.

Re: the OP, I never heard much about Hitchens, but I never heard anything at all about this jealous banker who somehow thinks his opinion matters. He's just upset people aren't paying attention to him.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2368
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh Canada!!!!

 

 

 

                       Canadian banks have been buying up faltering American banks for several years now,  but to keep it quit they only use their initials;  Vastet can you name these so-called "American" banks.   TD,  TD Ameritrade, BMO, BNS, RBC, HSBC, CIBC?    HSBC is headquartered in Vancouver all the rest are HQ'd in Toronto  and it seems like the yanks haven't caught on yet.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13408
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Holy shit. Anyone who values

Holy shit. Anyone who values Orwell or writes a book about Jefferson CANNOT be called a "leftist".

I fucking hate that shit. He WAS when he was younger he was "leftist". But as he got older, he saw life in the shades of gray that reality is, so he took every claim and every event  as a case by case issue.

He hated North Korea and Iran and supported BOTH the wars. He also hated political correctness.

Economically speaking he got rich off the free market by selling his books and becoming a famous author. So he DID value western open markets.

Where he was "leftest" would be on the rights of minorities such as non-Christians, gays, ect ect ect. But even his attitude would be, "Don't silence the bigots, fight back with your own voice".

So anyone leaving a comment here, please skip the stupid fucking stereotypes that just because someone picks on anyone's god, that somehow they want a fascist society like Stalin or Iran.

Hitchens would have been if alive during the founders time, would have been fighting along side Jefferson and Washington. And Jefferson most certainly would have valued his right to be an atheist.

Belief in ANY deity does not insure freedom. Iran is full of believers. The Dark ages was full of believers. And prior to the American Revolution, the states were very sectarian and dogmatic. It was because of Paine and Jefferson and the First Amendment and "no religious test" that everyone reading this right now can do so.

Freedom is not a monopoly owned by one label and the word "atheist" does not make one anti-western.

Hitchens was the cold water on the face of myth exposing it for what it was. Just like Jefferson equated the virgin birth claim to "Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter".

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10360
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Damn. I had no idea. lol.

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                       Canadian banks have been buying up faltering American banks for several years now,  but to keep it quit they only use their initials;  Vastet can you name these so-called "American" banks.   TD,  TD Ameritrade, BMO, BNS, RBC, HSBC, CIBC?    HSBC is headquartered in Vancouver all the rest are HQ'd in Toronto  and it seems like the yanks haven't caught on yet.

 

Damn. I had no idea. lol. Awesome.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10360
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've been called a leftist,

I've been called a leftist, and I found Orwells 1984 great. It's good when flaws to an idea are presented so as to allow modifying the idea. Orwell has probably had as much impact as Marx on showing me that socialism is a superior economic system.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2368
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Viva Yo!!!!

Vastet wrote:
I've been called a leftist, and I found Orwells 1984 great. It's good when flaws to an idea are presented so as to allow modifying the idea. Orwell has probably had as much impact as Marx on showing me that socialism is a superior economic system.

 

 

 

 

                         It's very  simple Vastet, they operate under Canadian banking laws,  NO sub-prime mortgages and a solid  mortgage system, when the American mortgage market collapsed the Canadian banks had real CASH to buy up the straglers one at a time.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13408
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Protesting for the

Quote:
Protesting for the sake of =protesting= seldom does anything useful and my impression of Hitch, based on what little I do know (just heard of him, only read Wikipedia ...) is that he's someone who protested ... for the sake of protesting.

Shows what you know about the current history of the atheist movement. If "protesting" did no good, like you want to claim, atheists would still be on the back burner like we were just 11 years ago.

I've been active for the past 11 years and can tell you the atheist movement has exploded and is now on the radar of the mainstream. Back then there were only a handful of atheist websites and almost no articles written about atheists in major media.

Now there are hundreds of major atheist websites. Authors like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Ayan Hersi Ali(former female Muslim) who became an atheist and woman's rights activist,

Infidel Guy was the first BLACK atheist who took an entire prime time hour on network tv in "Wife Swap". Brian Sapient was in a debate with moron Crapoduck Christian "Ray Comfort" on ABC Nightline.

Atheist and scientist Neil Degrees Tyson wrote the "Pluto Files" which traced the history of the planet and became a PBS documentary. He has also been on Steven Cobert and had a cameo on the sitcom Big Bang Theroy.

And I "protest" every single day, not just here, but anywhere I can in news media websites.

Why? Because a nurse in Chicago back in 01, who was an atheist, expressed concern about all the god speak when she rightfully pointed out that more than Christians died in those towers. Over 80 nationalities and all the world's major religions had dead represented.

So if you want to try to marginalize atheists by trying to make our "protest" out to be some emotional reaction to a fictional god, go ahead, we don't care and we wont stop you, that is your civil right. But you are dead wrong.

Our "protest" is no different than someone telling you that the Packers won the Super Bowl and not the Chargers. Our "protest" is no different that pointing out that the earth is not flat.

Skeptics and questioners always have to pull myth lovers kicking and screaming into the future.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry Brian, I don't see

Sorry Brian, I don't see Hitchen's stance of "bomb the living shit out of Muslims" to be anti-fascist.

 

 

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override

Sage_Override wrote:

Quote:
It's not whether or not he mirrors my views.

Everything you said previously contradicts that.  Need a refresher?

Sigh.

I read =plenty= of material that contradicts my views, from plenty of sources where my views are less likely to be found.  Remember me?  Jew hanging out on an Atheist board?

However, FINDING material from someone whose views are contrary to my own requires more WORK and I'm less likely to just run into their writings by accident.  The less mainstream their views, however contradictory to my own views, the more unlikely I am to run across them, no matter how much I read.  Which is a ton.

As for the rest, I offered my opinion as someone who had no exposure to the guy and offered my opinion as to why someone else might not have ever heard of him.  My response was offered as a rebuttal to the notion that surely EVERYONE had heard of him.  I hadn't, but I had heard of Richard Dawkins (remember him?) likely because Dawkins is more mainstream and less of (gasp!) a psuedo-intellectual who has a thing for protesting all the damned time.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Protesting for the sake of =protesting= seldom does anything useful and my impression of Hitch, based on what little I do know (just heard of him, only read Wikipedia ...) is that he's someone who protested ... for the sake of protesting.

Shows what you know about the current history of the atheist movement. If "protesting" did no good, like you want to claim, atheists would still be on the back burner like we were just 11 years ago.

G-d bless, there are a f*ck load of illiterate people here.

Protesting FOR THE SAKE OF PROTESTING is NOT NOT NOT protesting with a clear objective and clearly defined set of goals.  "CHRISTIANS ARE DUMB!  RARRRR!!!" is protesting for the sake of protesting.  Protesting to make people aware that it was more than just a couple thousand CHRISTIANS who were murdered on 9/11 is NOT the same as running off at the mouth with no clearly defined objectives or goals.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13408
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Sorry

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Sorry Brian, I don't see Hitchen's stance of "bomb the living shit out of Muslims" to be anti-fascist.

 

 

 

 

You give me one quote where he advocates the extermination of all Muslims. No, he is strictly talking about theocracies and rulers of those theocracies. He has never said or would ever say, "Go kill all Muslims".

He is talking about the CURRENT state of Islam and how GOVERNMENTS use Islamic law to run those states. That is a completely different issue than advocating the extermination of an entire group of people based on label.

I don't agree with bombing the shit out of any of those countries, not because their rulers don't deserve it, but because it would create a bigger mess. And it would piss off secular Arabs and possibly kill someone like Neda in Iran who did want to fight her own Muslim theocracy.

He would care less about Islam if it had it's own Jefferson and Paine and those states had neutral governments. He was talking about political rule, and the role of religion in their governments.

Ayan Hersi Ali, a former Muslim would probably not agree with bombing the shit out of the middle east, but having suffered the oppression of Islamic men, she WOULD understand Hitchens attitude towards ANY theocracy.

If those countries were Christian and not Muslim and it was the Dark Ages, he'd have the same attitude.

He'd wouldn't have minded bombing the shit out of North Korea either.

But he wouldn't here in the states, want the ban of a Mosque, or advocate killing Muslims who live here in the states. And I am quite sure he has had Muslim friends in his past having traveled all over that region as a reporter. I think he had lots of sympathy for oppressed people, but he had none for theocracies or fascist states. He MOST certainly had sympathy for Muslims in those countries who did not want to live under their rulers.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Protesting FOR THE

Quote:

Protesting FOR THE SAKE OF PROTESTING is NOT NOT NOT protesting with a clear objective and clearly defined set of goals.  "CHRISTIANS ARE DUMB!  RARRRR!!!" is protesting for the sake of protesting.  Protesting to make people aware that it was more than just a couple thousand CHRISTIANS who were murdered on 9/11 is NOT the same as running off at the mouth with no clearly defined objectives or goals.

 

By basically saying you don't know shit about Hitchens to begin with, except for friggin' Wikipedia, you can't make that assumption AT ALL and yes, I know it's a generalized statement about protesting, but I'm staying on point.  Once again, READ UP ON HIM.  I doubt you will, but damn, he doesn't just complain because it makes him feel warm and fuzzy; he does it because he knows that if he doesn't, then he's just one more person hiding in a corner saying absolutely nothing about our world and what is wrong with it.  A man like him was secure with knowing he lived his life being as honest as possible without invoking any god or being a dishonest scumbag that liked to feed others ideals that have no substance.  He lived as a true human being, not as a sheep.

 

Quote:
My response was offered as a rebuttal to the notion that surely EVERYONE had heard of him.  I hadn't, but I had heard of Richard Dawkins (remember him?) likely because Dawkins is more mainstream and less of (gasp!) a psuedo-intellectual who has a thing for protesting all the damned time.

 

There you go again; making that lame assumption that he was a pseudo-intellectual.  Speaking from a standpoint of COMPLETE ignorance.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13408
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Protesting for the sake of =protesting= seldom does anything useful and my impression of Hitch, based on what little I do know (just heard of him, only read Wikipedia ...) is that he's someone who protested ... for the sake of protesting.

Shows what you know about the current history of the atheist movement. If "protesting" did no good, like you want to claim, atheists would still be on the back burner like we were just 11 years ago.

G-d bless, there are a f*ck load of illiterate people here.

Protesting FOR THE SAKE OF PROTESTING is NOT NOT NOT protesting with a clear objective and clearly defined set of goals.  "CHRISTIANS ARE DUMB!  RARRRR!!!" is protesting for the sake of protesting.  Protesting to make people aware that it was more than just a couple thousand CHRISTIANS who were murdered on 9/11 is NOT the same as running off at the mouth with no clearly defined objectives or goals.

You really want to paint what I do here as "protesting", and for someone who claims I am illiterate you sure act like you cant read yourself.

I DO HAVE goals. To challenge people to think for themselves. Because I DO hold the position that god claims are nothing but superstition. You don't like that goal because it conflicts with your position. Too bad.

What you wanted me to give you was something like, "I want to force religion out of existence through government force", that way you can make me out to be a monster and justify your superstition.

I am sorry if you think my goal is simplistic. But that is all it amounts to. A debate, if it does nothing, it serves as a reminder that no claim on any issue, much less religion, deserves a pedestal.

Now, you are starting to do what I see every believer of every religion do when they post here. Instead of sticking to making a case to their own position, they complain about the actions of others.

If I bother you that much, don't respond to my posts. I am sure we can talk about other issues. But if you respond to me, I can and will respond the way I see fit.

If you want to falsely accuse me of "protesting", fine, wrong, but fine. Then stop responding to me. There are other posters here you can engage.

I do not owe your claims any value just because you make a post. I value what you can prove, not what you claim.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:FurryCatHerder

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Protesting for the sake of =protesting= seldom does anything useful and my impression of Hitch, based on what little I do know (just heard of him, only read Wikipedia ...) is that he's someone who protested ... for the sake of protesting.

Shows what you know about the current history of the atheist movement. If "protesting" did no good, like you want to claim, atheists would still be on the back burner like we were just 11 years ago.

G-d bless, there are a f*ck load of illiterate people here.

Protesting FOR THE SAKE OF PROTESTING is NOT NOT NOT protesting with a clear objective and clearly defined set of goals.  "CHRISTIANS ARE DUMB!  RARRRR!!!" is protesting for the sake of protesting.  Protesting to make people aware that it was more than just a couple thousand CHRISTIANS who were murdered on 9/11 is NOT the same as running off at the mouth with no clearly defined objectives or goals.

You really want to paint what I do here as "protesting", and for someone who claims I am illiterate you sure act like you cant read yourself.

Fortunately for the amount of energy I'm going to need to expend on a response, I wasn't talking about YOU YOU YOU.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:There

Sage_Override wrote:
There you go again; making that lame assumption that he was a pseudo-intellectual.  Speaking from a standpoint of COMPLETE ignorance.

Hey, at least I have the chops to admit it when I'm speaking from a position of RELATIVE ignorance.

That said, I've seen nothing that would indicate he's actually an "intellectual" in the sense that's not merely used to heap praises on journalists.

What I have read of Hitch tells me that he'd change his mind on a topic just to change his mind or follow some fad.  For example, he went from being a Socialist to being a Capitalist right about the time it became completely obvious that Socialism was an utterly failed ideology.  Which is to say, the boat had already sailed and he was hoping to catch a ride before anyone noticed he was frantically swimming after it.

On the other hand, as a Leftist, the standards for being an "intellectual" are already so low that perhaps even a pseudo-intellectual count as an intellectual.  I don't know -- I find most leftists are more often engaged in wishful thinking and entirely too seldom engaged in anything moderately resembling rational thought.

I'm sure I'll now be told to go read about him a lot more, but since my opinion of him is trending in the general direction of "self-important liberal darling", I can't guarantee it will change for the better.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Hey, at least I have

Quote:
Hey, at least I have the chops to admit it when I'm speaking from a position of RELATIVE ignorance.

 

No, you don't admit it.  What you've done is talk like you've done all this hard-hitting research on the guy when you don't know jack squat about him and then spew forth this whole "Wikipedia told me he's a leftist, he flip-flops, his views aren't even from a properly educated standpoint" and all this ridiculous nonsense.  You've done nothing to solidify your stance on why you believe him to be this way other than base it on Wikipedia and you STILL talk like you know anything about him.  Hell, I'll link all kinds of stuff about him if you'll read them, but I suspect you'll probably shake your head, laugh and go about your business not learning anything.

 

Quote:
I'm sure I'll now be told to go read about him a lot more, but since my opinion of him is trending in the general direction of "self-important liberal darling", I can't guarantee it will change for the better.

 

Won't know until you try, but then again, as a believer, I'm sure most mental dilemmas in your life are hard to move past because that involves a little leg work and thinking outside of your "god box."

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13408
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Protesting for the sake of =protesting= seldom does anything useful and my impression of Hitch, based on what little I do know (just heard of him, only read Wikipedia ...) is that he's someone who protested ... for the sake of protesting.

Shows what you know about the current history of the atheist movement. If "protesting" did no good, like you want to claim, atheists would still be on the back burner like we were just 11 years ago.

G-d bless, there are a f*ck load of illiterate people here.

Protesting FOR THE SAKE OF PROTESTING is NOT NOT NOT protesting with a clear objective and clearly defined set of goals.  "CHRISTIANS ARE DUMB!  RARRRR!!!" is protesting for the sake of protesting.  Protesting to make people aware that it was more than just a couple thousand CHRISTIANS who were murdered on 9/11 is NOT the same as running off at the mouth with no clearly defined objectives or goals.

You really want to paint what I do here as "protesting", and for someone who claims I am illiterate you sure act like you cant read yourself.

Fortunately for the amount of energy I'm going to need to expend on a response, I wasn't talking about YOU YOU YOU.

You have used the word "protesting" in regards to what you thought I was doing in other posts. So if you were not talking about me it would have been wise to clarify specific names as to whom you were talking about.

Maybe you use that term as a general criticism of people whom you think waste their time on subjects you don't think they need to "protest".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13408
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Sage_Override wrote:
There you go again; making that lame assumption that he was a pseudo-intellectual.  Speaking from a standpoint of COMPLETE ignorance.

Hey, at least I have the chops to admit it when I'm speaking from a position of RELATIVE ignorance.

That said, I've seen nothing that would indicate he's actually an "intellectual" in the sense that's not merely used to heap praises on journalists.

What I have read of Hitch tells me that he'd change his mind on a topic just to change his mind or follow some fad.  For example, he went from being a Socialist to being a Capitalist right about the time it became completely obvious that Socialism was an utterly failed ideology.  Which is to say, the boat had already sailed and he was hoping to catch a ride before anyone noticed he was frantically swimming after it.

On the other hand, as a Leftist, the standards for being an "intellectual" are already so low that perhaps even a pseudo-intellectual count as an intellectual.  I don't know -- I find most leftists are more often engaged in wishful thinking and entirely too seldom engaged in anything moderately resembling rational thought.

I'm sure I'll now be told to go read about him a lot more, but since my opinion of him is trending in the general direction of "self-important liberal darling", I can't guarantee it will change for the better.

Hitchens changed his position just like all people do, and to claim people should not change their position is STUPID. When you move through life your attitudes and positions change. I do not believe all the things I did when I was a kid. My attitudes and positions changed when I became a teen. And when I went to college was exposed to more of life, so I changed with my changing environment. I am not the same person because I grew and learned. It's called not getting stuck in the past.

Hitchens WAS a socialist when he was younger, but when ANYONE is young dumb and full of cum, they are more idealistic and less pragmatic, that did not make him stupid, it just means like most humans, they can let their passions rule them until reality slaps them in the face. He grew up, but unlike you, he grew to see the shades of gray which helped shaped a more mature attitude to facing the complexities in life.

And no one who values Thomas Jefferson can be close to be called a "leftist" Jefferson valued protection of blasphemy and was the most politically incorrect of the founders of his time. If you think Hitchens is so anti-intellectual read his book "Jefferson Author of America".

I think trying to demonize him by calling him a fake intellectual is what you would call anyone who doesn't give you a free pass on your claims.

Quote:
I find most leftists are more often engaged in wishful thinking

I'd say believing in an invisible friend you cant prove exists is the mother of all wishful thinking.

What do you think a theocracy is? It is political correctness on steroids. It is an entire society stuck in "wishful thinking" because it sets that society to live in a box and ignore the differences around the rest of the world. Any attitude that you can set up a utopia is leftest. So are you admitting to being a leftist?

You are also  falsely trying make "liberal" into a slur by attempting to replace it with "leftist'. And again, there is a difference between social issues such as gay marriage, abortion rights, which are liberal attitudes, and economic views of absolute government control with no private property rights, like North Korea, which Hitchens was never for.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override

Sage_Override wrote:

Quote:
Hey, at least I have the chops to admit it when I'm speaking from a position of RELATIVE ignorance.

No, you don't admit it.  What you've done is talk like you've done all this hard-hitting research on the guy when you don't know jack squat about him and then spew forth this whole "Wikipedia told me he's a leftist, he flip-flops, his views aren't even from a properly educated standpoint" and all this ridiculous nonsense.  You've done nothing to solidify your stance on why you believe him to be this way other than base it on Wikipedia and you STILL talk like you know anything about him.  Hell, I'll link all kinds of stuff about him if you'll read them, but I suspect you'll probably shake your head, laugh and go about your business not learning anything.

Let's see -- pathological lying, mind-reading, projection and fortune telling.

You've got quite the racket going there.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13408
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Sage_Override wrote:

Quote:
Hey, at least I have the chops to admit it when I'm speaking from a position of RELATIVE ignorance.

No, you don't admit it.  What you've done is talk like you've done all this hard-hitting research on the guy when you don't know jack squat about him and then spew forth this whole "Wikipedia told me he's a leftist, he flip-flops, his views aren't even from a properly educated standpoint" and all this ridiculous nonsense.  You've done nothing to solidify your stance on why you believe him to be this way other than base it on Wikipedia and you STILL talk like you know anything about him.  Hell, I'll link all kinds of stuff about him if you'll read them, but I suspect you'll probably shake your head, laugh and go about your business not learning anything.

Let's see -- pathological lying, mind-reading, projection and fortune telling.

You've got quite the racket going there.

Furry, why don't you pick up one of his books and read it instead of accusing people who have read his books of lying.

Hitchens VALUED freedom. HITCHENS valued the open market. Hitchens hated fascism and he didn't give one fuck what form that came in. His favorite books were Animal Farm and 1984. He hated North Korea and Iran. No human, believer or not, who thought like that, or valued Jefferson, BELIEVER OR NOT, could be a fascist.

You simply cannot stand that an atheist can value individual freedom. Your monochromatic thinking causes you to think just like far too many Christians do in America. Non Christians in America, including JEWS, are accepted as pets as long as they dont rock the boat and know their place and take their seat at the back of the bus.  You want that same attitude to dominate Israel. Non Jews are welcome like pets. They can do everything a Jew can do but compete for Israels highest offices. I despise that no matter who has that attitude or what country they live in.

Hitchens only wanted religion to get knocked of it's pedestal. He would not have advocated the force of the end of religion or suggest genocide as a solution merely because he saw religion as a weapon, which it is. The worst he ever did, or I do now, is ridicule it and criticize it.

He lived in the real world where and accepted that the world would not conform to him, nor was it centered around him. He would have fought along side any Jew or Muslim or black or atheist or any Christian on D-day. He would have shot Hitler himself and cut the nuts off the monsters who gassed the Jews in Germany.

He hated religion, not because he hated all religious people. He hated it because those who subscribe to ANY religion far to often use it as a weapon. He hated pecking orders, just like depicted in Animal Farm. "Two legs bad, four legs good".

But he did not hate humans as individuals. He, like me had a secular attitude and Jeffersonian attitude. Love the claimant, not the claim. He had plenty of religious friends in his life, just like I love my co-workers, even if their religious claims drive me nuts.

Until religion stops acting like the poison it is and stops causing human division, which it does, all of humanity has a duty to keep it at bay. It will never go away as far as I can see. But it does not deserve a pecking order or absolute power, anymore than you or I would want to live under Stalin or Hitler under a state that has a political pecking order.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37