Nebraska Student reporter touched by Hitchens. Look at the responses.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Nebraska Student reporter touched by Hitchens. Look at the responses.

A college reporter recalls her feelings of Hitchens passing. But look at the slew of ignorance and stupidity that follows.

http://dailynebraskan.com/cm/2.3308/opinion/root-fellow-atheist-journalist-lived-by-example-1.2684451

The responders were quick to call him a bigot which he was far from. Quick to equate atheists to the stereotype of Stalin and Po Pot.

People wonder why I pull my fangs out here.

Hitchens was in your face because no religion deserves a pedestal. He was in your face because he hated science being attacked and religion infecting education and dividing humanity globally.

HE HATED FASCISM  and valued Thomas Jefferson.

After reading the false attacks on merely what amounts to a modern Galileo shouting " THE SUN DOES NOT ROTATE AROUND THE EARTH" I get tired of people dare suggest I apologize for my tactics.

He wasn't nor would call for the arrest of the religious . He wouldn't have called for the genocide of the religious. He was merely calling for a new Age of Enlightenment.

 

"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


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1707
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 the drivel in the comment

 the drivel in the comment section is pissing me off "atheism is a religion...bear with me...Obviously, it is a religion" blah, blah, blah.

Whats the deal with Stalin and Po Pot. They were ==not== "TRUE" atheist.  A true atheist would not do such things. Evolution has taught us to care for our species.

 

Would a valid reply be a super long list of religion leaders who were responsible for genocide

God

Moses

Joshua

Mohammed

Pope xxxx the 1st thru the 99th.

The Kings of Europe

Just about every U.S. President when we warred against the Indians.

You get what I mean.

Bin Laden

George W.

Leaders in African countries where witches are burned (Ghana, Nigeria, etc)

 

How come they can only come up with ONLY 2 or 3 and that somehow proves atheism is evil? MEANWHILE they ignore their own list dismissing it with a brush of true Xian BS. Why argue about the 2 or 3 and simply brush them off as not TRUE atheist?

Grrrr.....

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: the

ex-minister wrote:

 the drivel in the comment section is pissing me off "atheism is a religion...bear with me...Obviously, it is a religion" blah, blah, blah.

Whats the deal with Stalin and Po Pot. They were ==not== "TRUE" atheist.  A true atheist would not do such things. Evolution has taught us to care for our species.

 

Would a valid reply be a super long list of religion leaders who were responsible for genocide

God

Moses

Joshua

Mohammed

Pope xxxx the 1st thru the 99th.

The Kings of Europe

Just about every U.S. President when we warred against the Indians.

You get what I mean.

Bin Laden

George W.

Leaders in African countries where witches are burned (Ghana, Nigeria, etc)

 

How come they can only come up with ONLY 2 or 3 and that somehow proves atheism is evil? MEANWHILE they ignore their own list dismissing it with a brush of true Xian BS. Why argue about the 2 or 3 and simply brush them off as not TRUE atheist?

Grrrr.....

 

I really hate it when I have to take on a fellow atheist.

There is no such thing as a "true" this or "true" that. There is only one species. Atheists are just as capable of the same range of human emotions and actions both good and bad, our labels don't automatically make us moral or immoral.  Because of evolution. Evolution's goal does not care HOW you get to the point of reproduction, it's only goal is getting there.

Taking care of each other IS part of our evolution, but so are the dark things humans have always done to each other.

I have met atheists who don't have any deep knowledge of their position other than to say "it doesn't make sense to me". That is just an atheist version of weekend worshiper.

And Beyond Saving, for example, takes an economic position that is hardly compassionate. His attitude is "if you are poor, screw you". So his atheism and my atheism are the only thing we have in common. Our morals are completely different on economic issues.

Whereas economically speaking, I have more in common as far as views with many believers.

LABELS do not make individuals automatically good or bad. Because we are and have always been part of the same species and part of the same evolution.

 

"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


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1707
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 Hey, no problem. That is

 Hey, no problem. That is how we learn and also see how we come across.

I don't for a minute actually believe the TRUE atheist thing. I fully agree with you about we are all just human beings. But I meant it tongue in cheek. The religious are constantly slapping their view of the world on us. Atheism is a religion. You have to worship something. Fools say there is no god. Bunches of other such things. You know you have heard it all as well.

But I just meant to throw it out as "I am so freaking tired of this, I will turn it back on them". It is just as defensible as the true christian argument, i.e. it is not defensible. Instead of arguing that Stalin went to seminary & Hitler talked of a Creator and wore a nifty Tebow belt, just hit them right back with their own BS.

I meant it as a brush off statement as they do to us. They never seem to let that one go. Coni, the catholic, is a prime example. So two can play at this game. If I brush off their statement as they have brushed off mine perhaps THE point would be we are all just humans...period...end of statement. But I think you could admit, monotheism has one bloody history. How is it they can easily ignore that?

 

My prior post was just out of frustration, which is not a good way to start my day.  Smiling

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: Hey, no

ex-minister wrote:

 Hey, no problem. That is how we learn and also see how we come across.

I don't for a minute actually believe the TRUE atheist thing. I fully agree with you about we are all just human beings. But I meant it tongue in cheek. The religious are constantly slapping their view of the world on us. Atheism is a religion. You have to worship something. Fools say there is no god. Bunches of other such things. You know you have heard it all as well.

But I just meant to throw it out as "I am so freaking tired of this, I will turn it back on them". It is just as defensible as the true christian argument, i.e. it is not defensible. Instead of arguing that Stalin went to seminary & Hitler talked of a Creator and wore a nifty Tebow belt, just hit them right back with their own BS.

I meant it as a brush off statement as they do to us. They never seem to let that one go. Coni, the catholic, is a prime example. So two can play at this game. If I brush off their statement as they have brushed off mine perhaps THE point would be we are all just humans...period...end of statement. But I think you could admit, monotheism has one bloody history. How is it they can easily ignore that?

 

My prior post was just out of frustration, which is not a good way to start my day.  Smiling

 

I hear you. I scream, if only in my head whenever someone pulls that fallacy.

The only difference between a street gang and nationalism, or theocracy, is that one is local and the other is global. Western societies have at best only been able to put a leash on the same gang mentality a street gang has by insisting on common law.

Our common humanity and common human condition needs to be the priority. The labels are going to exist and our differences are going to exist, even within the same label. We cannot as a species think we, by proxy of label, can set up our own utopia, no label will ever be able to do that. But we can seek what we have in common. The more our species does that, the more we can exist without fear of each other.

 

"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
Brian37 wrote:He wouldn't

Brian37 wrote:
He wouldn't have called for the genocide of the religious. He was merely calling for a new Age of Enlightenment.

 

 

Actually, he was very pro war.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/04/1031115884039.html

Quote:

It is also impossible to compromise with the stone-faced propagandists for Bronze Age morality: morons and philistines who hate Darwin and Einstein and who managed, during their brief rule in Afghanistan, to ban and to erase music and art while cultivating the skills of germ warfare. If they would do that to Afghans, what might they not have in mind for us? In confronting such people, the crucial thing is to be willing and able, if not in fact eager, to kill them without pity before they can get started.

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Brian37

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
He wouldn't have called for the genocide of the religious. He was merely calling for a new Age of Enlightenment.

 

 

Actually, he was very pro war.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/04/1031115884039.html

Quote:

It is also impossible to compromise with the stone-faced propagandists for Bronze Age morality: morons and philistines who hate Darwin and Einstein and who managed, during their brief rule in Afghanistan, to ban and to erase music and art while cultivating the skills of germ warfare. If they would do that to Afghans, what might they not have in mind for us? In confronting such people, the crucial thing is to be willing and able, if not in fact eager, to kill them without pity before they can get started.

 

 

 

 

Pineapple, once again you are cherry picking taking that out of context.

Pro war yes, pro genocide no. He was against the leaders of those fascist states and any individual that would support those states. he was not against individual freedom. He would have NO problem living in peace with anyone of any religion that was non violent and supported a western secular government. You assume that he thought no Muslim out of the billions were capable of valuing that freedom. He spent many years of travel in the middle east reporting one the region and it's conflicts. You don't do that by making nothing but enemies.

He is talking about the political climate of that region's leaders basing their politics on an ancient myth. Fascism is what he thought deserved no pity.

Anyone who would ban music deserves scorn and if they are willing to do that to music, it would stand to reason their oppression of music would and does extend to humans who don't tow the religious political line. FASCISM deserves no pity.

How you get "kill all Muslims" out of that quote is absurd. Now, my only problem with his pro war stance on fascist states was that he didn't want to consider that the world has changed and it isn't always as simply as bombing someone into submission. And the wars we conducted had no plan and now out strategy. But I am glad Sadam is gone. I want to see Iran collapse or be crushed. I want to see Saudi Arabia and Syria go down. THEIR POWER STRUCTURES AND GOVERNMENTS. He would want for the middle east what the founders wanted for us. An open society that protects dissent and the rights of all individuals. Most of the governments in the middle east do not.

How you can say Hitchens wanted to commit genocide on Muslims is patently absurd. He valued Thomas Jefferson AND WROTE A BOOK about him. Jefferson hated fascism too. Jefferson supported some wars 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


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Just a side note, but

Just a side note, but Hitchens was a good friend of Salmon Rushdie even mentioning his dealings with Hezbollah assassination attempts and his time in Tehran.  Rushdie also still has a death sentence issued to him by the Revolutionary Guards in Iran and Hitchens mentioned all this in atheist debates as well as certain "Q&A" sessions.  Rushdie advocates a reform for Islam and spent more time in the Middle East than most authors in an effort to better ease political and religious turmoil there, but with not as much success as he hoped.

 

Hitchens was always willing to listen to people if they were smart and compelling while not being self-righteous and manipulative which Rushdie wasn't, but still shared the same views as Hitchens with regard to the US removing the Taliban, the War in Iraq, various radicals bombing places of interest in Yugoslavia and other various acts; some politically driven and others religiously driven.  While not sharing the same secular views, both had strong opinions on war and occupation so, I guess friendship through violence and politics.

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