Atheism

The actions of the few don't always represent the goals of the many.

Setanta is simply scared of reading my posts and the above drivel is a pathetic attempt to hide that simple and obvious fact.

Nothing could be more juvenile that his previous post in which he encapsulated a few years 0f dramatic and vastly complex history in a couple of throwaway sentences. He's the "bill-poster's brush" historian of A2K. And his fear of my posts matches that for being juvenile. And it's contrary to good manners and the very basic tenet of intellectual debate for which Setanta has no stomach for.

As does Alan Bullock in his famous biography Hitler: A Study inTyranny.



Page 356 of the Odhams Press 1952 edition which I have here and which I have read. I doubt any 2-year-old either owns or has read this book. I doubt Setanta has read it.

From the same page--



In the index of Bullock's book there are are 4 references on Hitlers attitude to Christianity, 4 on his attitude to churches, 8 to his attitude, or the Party's, to the Roman Catholic Church and 3 his attitude to the Vatican which include his plans to capture it.

So the Pope has Mr Bullock to cite if he wishes to, which he doesn't, having much more information at his disposal that Hitler's biographer had.

Stick that down the back of Setanta's nappy for him to read when he gets old enough to have given over taking the piss out of you all with his sweet and easy superficialities.

You could be right. But the actions of the many could represent the goals of the few.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Stricken with cancer and fragile from chemotherapy, author and outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens sits in an armchair before an audience and waits for the only question that can come first at such a time.

"How's your health?" asks Larry Taunton, a friend who heads an Alabama-based group dedicated to defending Christianity.

"Well, I'm dying, since you asked, but so are you. I'm only doing it more rapidly," replies Hitchens, his grin faint and his voice weak and raspy. Only wisps of his dark hair remain; clothes hang on his frame.

The writer best known to believers for his 2007 book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" has esophageal cancer, the same disease that killed his father. He is fighting it, but the 62-year-old Hitchens is realistic: At the very best, he says, his life will be shortened.

For some of his critics, it might be satisfying to see a man who has made a career of skewering organized religion switch sides near the end of his life and pray silently for help fighting a ravaging disease.

He has an opportunity: Monday has been informally proclaimed "Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day."

Christopher Hitchens won't be bowing his head, even on a day set aside just for him.

"I shall not be participating," he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Hitchens was diagnosed with cancer in June, forcing him to cancel a tour to promote his new book, "Hitch-22: A Memoir." He took time off from work as chemo treatments began but recently published the first of what is intended to be a series of essays in Vanity Fair magazine about his diagnosis.

On Sept. 7, he visited Birmingham for his first public appearance since the diagnosis, a debate against David Berlinski, author of "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions." They argued over the implications of a purely secular society before a crowd of about 1,200 in an event sponsored by Fixed Point Foundation, the Christian apologetics group headed by Taunton.

Taunton is devoutly Christian yet has developed a fast friendship with Hitchens, who appeared at a similar debate sponsored by the organization last year. Taunton is among those praying for Hitchens, and Hitchens takes no offense.

The way the English-born Hitchens sees it, the people praying for him break down into three basic groups: those who seem genuinely glad he's suffering and dying from cancer; those who want him to become a believer in their religious faith; and those who are asking God to heal him.

Hitchens has no use for that first group. "'To hell with you' is the response to the ones who pray for me to go to hell," Hitchens told AP.

He's ruling out the idea of a deathbed change of heart: "'Thanks but no thanks' is the reply to those who want me to convert and recognize a divinity or deity."

It's that third group — people who are asking God for Hitchens' healing — that causes Hitchens to choose his words even more carefully than normal. Are those prayers OK? Are they helpful?

"I say it's fine by me, I think of it as a nice gesture. And it may well make them feel better, which is a good thing in itself," says Hitchens.

But prayers for his healing don't make him feel better.

"Well, not any more than very large numbers of very kind, thoughtful letters from nonbelievers, some of whom know me, some of whom don't, asking me to know that they are on my side," Hitchens said. "That cheers me up, yes."

Hitchens doesn't know exactly how "Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day" began, other than that it's one of those things that appears on the Internet and goes viral. He declined an invitation to appear at a rabbi's prayer service in Washington that day, and he doesn't see any point in the exercise.

Mr Hitchens has talked himself into a corner it seems to me and when he goes down dyin' I hope somebody puts a blanket on his bed.

If you've read his book 'god is not Great," I think his final chapter on the book really showcases how deeply sentimental he is. He'll be remembered as the unapologetic didactic with a dagger tongue. I think in that chapter, however, more than anything, expresses his real hope that people live together more harmoniously.

I'll very much miss the man. He will be worth remembering.

A
R
T

I have to admit I didn't like Hitchens at first; but he has grown on me. This reply perfectly illustrates why.

But the real question is that concerning the possibility that his position has contributed to his condition.

Just read your statement objectively, and then ask yourself: Is that not the dumbest comment one could conceive?

Well edgar. I don't know about you but I'm getting my affairs in order and taking this opportunity to say goodbye to you dear friend. We don't have much time according to spendi, as the lord punishes the non-believers by cutting them down with various cancers.
Goodbye to little k, thomas et al. You know who you are.

I foresee a day when only the nattering nabob of negativity will be chattering away in this thread, oblivious to the lonely echo of his shrill voice.

I am continually astounded at the simplistic nature of spendi's posts, even when he tries to decorate them up to look like Mardi Gras.

I wrote it objectively. I only said "possibly". I didn't say his condition was caused by his atheism. I didn't say anything actually. I posed a question.

He might not have been happy with his atheism after a certain point in life but had to keep it up because he had put his whole life on the line for it after finding as a young man that atheism was his field of play. And that he was good at it.

There's plenty of science about inner conflict causing the cells to get all out of order. It's a big field. Some knowledge of that field is implied by the question he was asked. And by the brave response. Gallows humour really.

We have also to face the fact that atheism is a bit depressing. A that's not good for the cells either.

Anyway--there's a massive industry out there exploiting that science.

I only offered a question for debate. Are you ruling out psychosomatic effects on health. Have you ever tried making romantic love in the back of a meat-transporter when half the load has been delivered. No velvet curtains, smoky-sticks or Elton John on the stereo.

Mr Hitchens had a Christian upbringing. Balliol and all that. And he was a homosexual it seems and the Church was against that. And he criticised recreational drugs because they are "hedonistic". How out of date is that? A permanent stone cold sober homosexual ascetic whose mother was set upon seeing her son promoted.

He must have read all the wrong books. All that weary stuff from Orwell, through Darkness at Noon to Crime and Bloody Punishment and back again and ignoring Mickey Spillaine and Hank Janson (Broads Don't Scare Easy and Skirts Bring Me Sorrow). Thus missing the entire ******* point from wanting to know too much too quick.

And it's rewarding. He rises to fame. And after a Christian childhood.

But are you ruling out psychosomatic effects on performance of the body's functioning parts, most of which are internal and unknown just as it is unknown what they respond best to.

It is a part of modern folklore that some ladies watch the television for the colour and the movement.

Atheism may be depressing to some. Christianity may be depressing to some (Look at the conflicts among Catholics as one example of Christian sources). But, you made no mention of psychosomatic causes. You pinpointed atheism as the cause. After the initial dig, to get a rise out of someone, you came back to amend it. Just another example of why few take you seriously any more.

I have some extensive experience with psychosomatic persons, including myself, sometimes, but that is for another discussion.

Any of you listen to Hitchen's new video on A Meaningful Life, interview by Sally Quinn? I tried, but have trouble hearing him clearly. That is, his voice is loud enough, but I have trouble detecting his words. I'll play it again after I have some more coffee..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/24/VI2010092402597.html?hpid=talkbox1

I did not pin point atheism as the cause ed. I drew attention to the possibility that inner conflict with one's upbringing might be the cause. And that if the conflict is strong enough it could possibly affect the immune system.

And that the conflict could become strong as one aged and became wiser to the ways of the world and met people who are a cut above those the eager teeth were cut on.

If you can't read my posts perhaps it's better you don't respond to them.

Once you admit psychosomatic effects your whole position vanishes like a puff of smoke. Or so it seems to me. Scientifically. An atheist in a negative state of mind only thinking of scoffing cannot imagine what a devout person gets out of religious rituals.

The whole matter was put on Ignore on the evolution threads a good few times despite the principle of psychosomatic effects operating on animals and even plants. Only people like me have wild plants in their garden. I bet Setanta can be got to open a can if his dog looks at him in a certain way and moves its tail from side to side slowly and pitifully.

You post in a way calculated to get a rise out of someone and then amend it to pull your ass out of the boiling lard. I don't think there is a person here that does not know about the effects of depression and psychosomatic causes. Which of course you have yet to link to Hitchens, except by way of supposition, after the initial bone headed attempt to implicate his "cause."

spendi is right ed. It very well could have been his Christian upbringing in his youth that caused the cancer as well. We should investigate all possibilities.

A
R
T

<snort>
All the stress, you know..
Actually, there was a lot of stress in that upbringing for me, but I'm not a big buyer of stress as a cause of cancer.

Once again I am being misunderstood. Possibly wilfully. I am referring to the conflict. Not what the conflict is between. An atheist bred as an atheist would experience no conflict. Neither would a Christian bred as one. The two forces are in day to day conflicts in the courts, in education board meetings, in media and in the community. A culture has a youth too. It's been called the Gothic springtime.

But it is a valid point to argue that Christianity should be eradicated in schools so that the conflict never arises when the logical, postive, empirically tested reason of our maturer age develops. The conflict is avoided by choosing one or the other of the opposing ideas from the get-go.

And I certainly did not rule out other causes. I only posed a question for you to debate. And then only to come to psychosomatic effects generally.

Obviously posters here have no wish to debate the matter. So sarcastic and ignorant abuse is called forth.