An Evangelical Remembers His Friend, Hitchens

That is it, prefaced with this statement. " How do you know he didn't spend plenty of time in the Middle East? How do you know that he didn't rail, even more fiercely, against Islam? "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, self explanatory. First the question, the same I ask you, how do you know if he spent time in the middle east or not? How do you come to make your statement that he didn't. Then he ask how you know he never railed against islam, and then posts an exchange from a debate showing where he did indeed "rail against islam". Now how you can get from that exchange that AR meant to imply he was in the middle east is beyond me. He was giving you an example of hitchens "speaking out" when ask a question by an audience member.  

http://hitchensdebates.blogspo...center-for-arts.html

===================================================

extra, are you sure we are talking about the same hitchens who admittedly it seems is best's hero?

i'm shocked anyone sees hitch as a role model for their children. Since the athiest worship him i see no reason they wouldn't write children's books allowing that as they grow older being ****faced is a life they should strive for. well i never

==

Very good work Best. You've somehow managed to unlock the impenetrable secrets of my writing! LOL. Hitchens' joke was also completely confounding to Extra before it had to be spelled out to him too. *sigh*

Extra,
- You've claimed that Hitchens didn't go to the Middle East.
- I've stated that you know very little about what you're asserting about Hitchens and that your statements have presumed a lot.
- You've replied unequivocally that you "don't presume anything" and that you "know".
- You've further asserted that it is instead I who have no clue.

Since the original claims and assertions and personal attacks are all yours, the burden of proof is yours as well. Your credibility is at stake. Continuing to run away is certainly not helping your cause. You've had days to look up proof to back you up and make me look bad in front of the others. So kindly enlighten us with your Hitchens knowledge. I will respectfully apologize to you and the forum if proven wrong. Either that or finally admit that you don't know what you're talking about and that your prime source of knowledge is your backside.

extra, are you sure we are talking about the same hitchens who admittedly it seems is best's hero?

i'm shocked anyone sees hitch as a role model for their children. Since the athiest worship him i see no reason they wouldn't write children's books allowing that as they grow older being ****faced is a life they should strive for. well i never

------------------------------------------

How is he my "hero", and how is he worshipped? And I can believe "you never".

stick with being a cougar best

I'd like to again note the typical Christian responses to a straight forward exchange with an atheist: Insult, name call. Make absurd claims, step in it. Get called on it. Run, hide. Hope no one notices.
Extra is just the latest, but it seems to always end the same way, regardless of the quality of Christian (or other theist).

==
I've called you stupid, delusional, weak and otherwise insulted you personally?? Are you sure? It sounds like another excuse. Incidentally, one that would allow you to... run and hide.

==
Nope not at all.
Don't think I didn't notice that you didn't answer my question. You said I've called you stupid and such. Is that a lie?

Look it up. I don't have the time or inclination because it doesn't really matter to me WHAT you say. But you can't deny that you have insulted the intelligence, inner strength, and mental stability of Christians. It's sad that you can't make your points without resorting to insults, but when the only point you HAVE is your own arrogance, I guess you can't do otherwise.

==
I very clearly does matter to you what I say or you wouldn't be doing hit and run comments to post that do not include you. Just like Extra (and many others here) you make bold claims and even accuse me of things, none of which you can back up. When called on it, you run away rather than be an honest person. It's sadly typical.

And what you accused me of before is a lie and now that you're caught again, you'll run away or change the subject (Just like BG). Now you change the goal posts and accuse me of, "insult[ing] the intelligence, inner strength, and mental stability of Christians" LOL. wow. I had no idea I was so powerful. No wonder you can't help yourself!

The reason I point out how you guys keep running away from chats with me, is that I don't think you have a bad/insulting attitude on my part as an excuse not to continue the talk. I give information and opinions & answer and ask questions. That you claim that I can't make a point without "resorting to insults" is just laughable. It's an just excuse to run away. Never mind that it's not true, right? No one will notice...

There is not a Christian on this forum who wouldn't agree with me, and your weak attempt at deflecting my point by accusing me of "running away" is so lame I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed to use it.

You see, even THIS post of yours is insulting. You have just accused me of being a dishonest person. You couch your insults in baseless accusations, then try to use semantics to weasel out of it. I think you're beginning to feel a bit lonely here now that some of your "cohorts" seem to have disappeared. Are you afraid no one is paying enough attention to you?

Pathetic. Maybe you ought to try getting a life so that your obsession with religion doesn't swallow you whole.

==

Wonderful. Just wonderful. lol
I'll remind you that you wrote specifically to me (not the other way around), and accused me of calling you stupid and such (which is untrue). Then you accuse me of not being able to communicate without resorting to insults (which is untrue). And all along I'm asking for proof on what you're basing your accusations on - Then you say my questioning the truth of your accusations about me is Insulting to you... wow. I guess you're right about my magical powers to weaken your Christian "inner strength" and "mental stability". You are better than this, O. Take a look around you. I'm not deflecting any points. You came to me and made accusations about my personal conduct here (& called me sad and pathetic to boot lol). I'm just asking you to back them up, as a decent person should. That's somehow insulting?

Looks like you've got the three stooges on you this time don't it?

Oh No is right about you, your self delusional.

 You asserted that Hitchens went to the middle east and stared down the muslim hordes and called their religion bull hockey. To back up your erroneous claim you  gave the exchange between a muslim and Hitchens in an effort to pull a switcheroo and decieve those on this forum. I called you on it, and your response was to pull another switcheroo. You were exposed as a fraud, what else do i need to say, the evidence stands on it's own.

Extra gets brave and crawls back in to repeat his lie. And you dare to try and run down AR. Extra, the only thing you exposed was your ignorance-once more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Once again Best, you force me to demonstrate the fact that atheism destroys brain cells, redering one incapable of rational thought or comprehension.

 The two posts in question. The first part is my accusation that Hitchens was cowardly and was only interested in assaulting Christians from a position of safety. The second is robust's response claiming my assertion was not true and tried to mislead the topic.

 Enjoy.

Yes indeed. it's too bad he didn't ever do as he promised and go to Iran and the middle east to free them from their religious wickedness. I guess it was just that they didn't have enough Johnny Walker whiskey, fine food, or just that it is safer picking on Christians in America. Maybe all three.

The end of my assertions and now Robust"s attempted dishonest reply:

Stop the ignorance. You know very little and presume a lot. How do you know he didn't spend plenty of time in the Middle East? How do you know that he didn't rail, even more fiercely, against Islam? Why do you ignorantly assume that he and other atheists only pick on Christians? Get over your pity party and do some research before you type.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 6: Mr. Hitchens, you are likely the world’s most charming, roguish, and enlightened atheist and I love you for that but as a Sufi Muslim I’m very ruffled by the title of your book. Of all the titles you likely had at your disposal did you have to settle for the literal negation of “Allah akbar”?
HITCHENS: Yes.
MODERATOR: Thank you for that question. Thank you. It’s a very good question and I’m glad. I wanted to go back to it. Why?
HITCHENS: As I said, I think that all religions are wrong in the same way in that they privilege faith over reason but they’re not all equally bad in the same way all the time. I mean if I had been writing in the 1930s I would certainly have said that the Roman Catholic Church was the most dangerous religion in the world because of its open alliance with fascism and anti-Semitism, which—the damage from that our culture has never recovered from and never will but at the moment it’s very clear to me that most toxic form that religion takes is the Islamic form, the horrible idea of wanting to end up with Sharia, with a religion-governed state (a state of religious law) and that the best means of getting there is jihad (holy war) and that Muslims have a special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand this, I think is absolute obscene wickedness and I think their religion is nonsense and…
MODERATOR: But the entirety? In its entirety?
HITCHENS: In its entirety. The idea that God speaks to some illiterate merchant warlord in Arabia and he’s able to write this down perfectly and it contains the answers to all human—don’t waste my time, it’s bull****.

Hitchens, drunk, could disembowel any religious person in a discussion based on reason and fact.  I rather imagine that facing those of scant mental acumen and/or convinced superstition while sober would have been both too easy and slightly intolerable.

DF

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now he would swap all the accolades and praise you could heap on him for one drop of water.

Deep dear, one of these days you are going to wake up. Hitchens did not have the facts.

When the fool peered out into the cosmos that was all he got. Anything other than what he saw or could touch will forever fade when approached by mans inferiority to God. It’s all made up deep. Propped up by the cunning.

   Hitchens died not knowing anything for sure about the cosmos. Only God knows the answers. Hitchens is dead and left the world with nothing of value.

================

He's dead. He has no use for water or anything else.

Once again extra all you do is post the very thing that proves you're lying. See if you can find a five year old to explain it in language you might understand. You don't seem to be able to keep up with the adults.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Hitchens never went to the middle east and stared down the muslim hordes and told them their religion was bull hockey. Hitchens was a man who loved his life too much to take that chance. He loved his whiskey, fine life style and the right to rattle his nonsense from a position of safety.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Yes he's dead. But that don't mean what you think it does.

I guess we have a two for the price of one. Two Jesus lovers who've made very provable claims about specific people and their actions, but who continue to avoid supporting their personal accusations (with facts) like it's the bloody plague. Why is that? The rest is a silly smoke screen. Yawn.

Insulting your intelligence isn't an insult if it is true.

----------------------

So, tell us how you know he never went. No one said he did, we want to know how you know he didn't.  I don't see you going there. Hitchens was a famous man, he spoke out in public. Where have you spoken out besides the safety of your computer?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, it's a brain cell issue. It was Hitchens who said he wanted to go to the middle east and free them from their "ultimate wickedness." He specifically mentioned Iran and Isreal as well as a few others.  He had the opportunity, and never went. He was a pompous, drunken, cowardly blowhard.

Much like you eh?

The problem with the religious is that they accept things to be true on faith alone. The rub is that they demand the rest of us to do the same. That's what we're being asked to do here, again. To have faith that the twofers know what they're talking about, sight unseen. Why? Because the say so, that's why. They want us to stop asking questions. They want us to stop asking for proof.

O,

All I've asked is for you to prove your multiple negative statements about my conduct here, or else naturally and decently retract your accusations and admit your fault. Its a very simple and very doable request. You would ask the same of me if I made accusations about you that weren't true. So far you've avoided the burden of proof and continue to expect us to accept your characterizations on faith alone. (That's what I was referencing, btw)

You can start by showing me where I've called all Christians "stupid and delusional", etc. "over and over". Show me where I've insulted "the intelligence, inner strength, and mental stability" of all Christians. Show me where I've stated a belief that all Christians are "weak" and 'unable to grasp logic'. These are things you've said in this very thread. These are the reasons you give for why Christians run away. These are things you started when I stated that Extra running away was typical of my experience.

I have told you before, because the "search" feature on this forum is so lame, I don't have the time to look up all of your old posts. But if you want to discuss "fault", all we have to do is look back through the last few posts of this thread to see that you have, A) called me a dishonest person. B) claimed that Christians DEMAND that everyone believe as they do. C) claimed that Christians want you to stop asking questions. D) called me a liar. 

So I guess I don't have to look anything up. It's right here. And it is ALL something that you MADE UP, because no one has ever demanded anything of you here, and I am NOT a liar, nor dishonest in any way.

Like I have said before, if you are so insecure in your non-belief that you have to come here and twist people's words and make stuff up, just to bolster your opinions and make yourself feel smart, maybe you need to take a look inside and see what's missing.

Your continuing psychoanalysis of me is precious. It shows how easily you resort to irrelevant personal attacks in order to avoid the pertinent issues and admitting that you've lied repeatedly. You make Jesus proud with your humility and love. And even though you keep slinging mud, I've not responded in-kind and have stayed focused on your original and subsequent accusations, each of which are completely unsupported.

You say you don't have the time to look up my old posts (although according to you, examples should be abundant) even though your re****tion is in question. Yet find plenty of time to post repeatedly over a three day period, in order to skirt the issues and try to save face. A keyword search should be easy and quick to prove your specific allegations, but I'm sure you've really tried and come up empty, which is why you engage in this silly dance.

I'll get the the point. I think you erroneously lumped me with generalizations of others in an attempt to try to make me guilty by association. But you've failed to even prove that I said any of the things that you claim repeatedly rolls off my keyboard. Next time, watch what you say before you hit Submit. It'll save you continued embarrassment. Happy new year O!

OK, pal. You think you can keep calling me a liar. You are doing that because you know from reading my posts here that I don't like liars, and I strongly object to being called one. You are trying to bait me. If your opinion mattered to me, it just might tick me off, but when I consider the source, I just find it laughable.

YOU are now on the "hotseat". Show me where any Christian, much less I myself, have ever DEMANDED that you believe as they do. Can't do it? Well, you must be a liar then. Show me where any Christian on this forum has ever demanded that you stop asking questions. Oops, must be another of your lies.

As for your insults to Christians, here are a few from the past:

A. Robustus

Post Master

March 11, 2011 9:59 PM

 

---

quote:

Originally posted by Southern_Guy:
...weak is having a "me" mentality and the control that it implies. It takes strength to put your faith in someone other than yourself.

LOL. Weak is thinking that you're born owing a sin debt and that you can't manage to deal with the everyday facts of your life without the mystical support of the sky daddy who knowingly created you weak and in need of His help to get by.

 

 

 

 

 

Weak though, is the belief that we're beholden and accountable to a purportedly all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-perfect creator that is somehow also jealous, angry, a mass murderer and offended by what his creations do with each other while naked. A creator who would incarnate a son on earth to be a tortured human sacrifice to help resolve the inherited sin debt passed on to us from two distant ancestors. All of which the creator knew would happen just as it did and could have easily prevented from happening anywhere along the way or could have fixed out of compassion for needless and pointless suffering.

It's weak to put your faith in something that would create and allow all these things and more to happen and then shamelessly places the blame entirely on it's creation for following his programming and design.

 

 

 

 

True that there are things that science cannot explain, yet. However, there is nothing that the Bible explains at all.
It's all bad stories from people with inferior knowledge to a below average grade schooler. The fact that so many people have faith in such bad "explanations" is the opposite of comforting.

Don't get confused. When scientists such as Einstein or Hawking mention a god in their writings, they're referring to Nature. It doesn't occur to them that simple people can't understand this. The claim that Einstein was religious is ridiculous and embarrassing. It shows how desperate some theists are.

Oh, the lengths a religious mind will publicly stretch to without shame, in silly attempts at defending the indefensible. Got to love it!

 

 

b50m

Old Faithful

 

October 24, 2011 8:53 PM

 

---

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

Originally Posted by b50m:

...Science has us believe that order formed out of chaos of an exploding universe that had no cause and that this order produced a planet of the proper size and distance form a star to cause the formation of amino acids in a pond of scum that over millions of years 'evolved' into millions of species of different plants, animals and in-betweens. Add to that, the explosion is still ongoing and the speed is INCREASING from the epicenter contrary to all laws of physics.

 

Makes about as much sense either way.

===

What makes sense to the ignorant is of no value. What ignorant minds interpret as "chaos" or "order", aren't necessarily chaotic or orderly in the common usage of those words. Your example is poorly selected. Also, do you really think that science posits that there was no cause to the Big Bang? As to your last sentence, I urge you to 1) look up dark energy & dark matter, 2) understand that cosmic acceleration is relatively recent and was preceded by a deceleration, 3) relax, no laws of physics are being broken and 4) be careful what you assert, especially if you don't know what you're talking about.

LOL, ignorant minds? Must be an atheist thing. Everyone else is ignorant.

Science says nothing arose and then it exploded.  If a grenade explodes, you get fragments every where. They don't coalesce into nice little pieces of matter that then suspend themselves in space. That explosion also follows a a predictable path and can be traced with accuracy and  it's radius slows down as it losses energy.

 

 Where is your proof of dark matter?  Where is your proof of dark energy? They are theories, guesses, 'fill in the gap' things. That darn 'GAP' theory that DF loves so much and uses it on the religious.

 

Since I am too ignorant for you, maybe your genius intellect would be much happier at a physics forum.

 

But since this is a friendly discussion, I'm sure that you would want to enlighten me on all your vast factual knowledge of of the theories of dark energy and dark matter.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Let's see, we have "weak", "simple", "silly", and "ignorant". I didn't find "deluded", but I don't have all day to waste looking. I HAVE made my point however, and although I never have or never will demand that you believe as I do, I DO demand an apology.

Finally.

In reference to you two not backing up your claims with proof, I said:
"The problem with the religious is that they accept things to be true on faith alone. The rub is that they demand the rest of us to do the same. That's what we're being asked to do here, again. To have faith that the twofers know what they're talking about, sight unseen. Why? Because the say so, that's why. They want us to stop asking questions. They want us to stop asking for proof."

So I'd like to comment on the above using your very own words to me from earlier:
"Now, do you see any reference to me PERSONALLY, or are your reading comprehension skills advanced enough to understand the sentence the way it was written? Do you see the word "US" rather than "ME"?"
LOL

Then you say:
"YOU are now on the "hotseat". Show me where any Christian, much less I myself, have ever DEMANDED that you believe as they do. Can't do it? Well, you must be a liar then. Show me where any Christian on this forum has ever demanded that you stop asking questions. Oops, must be another of your lies."

You deride my reading comprehension but you clearly don't get my analogy or what I was referencing. I'm saying that as a natural skeptic, I don't accept things without evidence. By you and Extra refusing to answer the call for evidence, day after day, the message you send is that your claims are true, only because you say they are. In other words, we are expected to have faith and stop asking for any source information.

As for "weak", "simple", "ignorant", and "silly":
In context, my use of the word "weak" is in reference to bad arguments and unexamined beliefs. I'm also riffing on the use of the word "weak" by the previous poster "Southern_Guy", who's riffing on the use of the word "weak" by "Opie Cunningham".
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/d...9#208733512872391099

In context, I'm saying that "simple" people (relative to Einstein or Hawking) misunderstand their particular use of the word God.
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/d...9#245468007993276259

In context, I'm saying that in a conversation about facts in cosmology, the mere opinion of those "ignorant" on cosmology doesn't really matter.
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/d...9#246171710686280489

In or out of context, I'm still saying "...Oh, the lengths a religious mind will publicly stretch to without shame, in silly attempts at defending the indefensible"
LOL
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/d...0#246030973176971000

I don't know what is in question in these quotes.
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/d...8#208733512872351038

I'm very comfortable with everything you've quoted and more. That certain people inevitable take offense when an atheist says anything about their favorite religion says far more about them than it does about me.

Apart from your psychoanalysis and name calling of me in this thread, these were the main accusations I've been taking you to task on:
"after being told over and over by you and other atheists that we are stupid, delusional, weak, and all of the other insults you love to fling at us"
I'll remind you that I haven't called Xtians stupid, delusional or weak. I'll remind you that I don't fling insults at Xtians. I question ideologies, dogma and weak arguments.

"But you can't deny that you have insulted the intelligence, inner strength, and mental stability of Christians."
You must admit that this statement is just plain ridiculous.

"can you actually deny that you HAVE stated before, your belief that Christians are weak, delusional, and that you have ALSO stated in the past that Christians are not able to grasp the logic that you so love?"
I deny that I've stated that Xtians are weak, delusional and that Xtians are unable to grasp logic. Otherwise, I wouldn't be wasting my time here trying to describe, clarify and explain things that are misunderstood.

It's funny that you want me to apologize to you after all this. I don't know what point you think you've proven unless it's my own. It's clear that you typed your original and subsequent comments before you checked the facts and that you didn't expect to have to provide any evidence to support yourself. Be careful when making unequivocal claims in front of, or about atheists. Our standards of truth are very high. We've been asked to prove ourselves all along and are constantly doing so. We're used to it and we demand the same of others. Nothing else will do when trying, in earnest, to arrive at the truth.

The fact remains that while YOU don't consider these quotes to be insults, Christians find them insulting. I included B's response to one of these posts about "ignorant" people to show you that I am not the only one who objects to being called ignorant. Therefore, I still contend that you have no room to complain about Christians insulting YOU, because you were made aware months ago if not longer, that some of your remarks have been taken as insulting.

Now, you may say that it is the fault of us Christians if we take them as insults. In the same way, we could say it is YOUR fault if you take what WE say as insults.

But one thing I DO know for sure is that calling someone a liar because they disagree with you is more than an insult. You don't really need to apologize. I never really expected that a person like you would, because that would mean you would have to admit you were wrong, and I don't really believe you are capable of that. I could be wrong though. The ball is in your court.

Dear spokesperson for all Christians,
That some people find knowledge and truth offensive or that some will use any excuse to wriggle out of a discussion based on facts instead of childish personal attacks is unfortunate but it is what it is. I never claim personal offense. That's a cheap tactic. I just ask that decent people be ready to back up what they say before they say something regrettable and get shown up for it. It'd be a better world if more people held themselves accountable for their actions. Maybe if people were better equipped with facts and less threatened by dissenting information, they wouldn't have to resort lying and character assassination and could actually hold a discussion based on the merits of the arguments alone.

But everyone is welcome to take the easy way out if they want though. It's a free country