A dying message from Hitchens an American Atheist

@failures art,

More puerile verticsl attempts at being clever. More snide remarks.

I did not make any special distinction for god as prime mover. My remarks about a distinciton in belief came before Bill's silliness, and had no reference to them, could not have had a reference to them. I'm not going to go back to quote myself again. I'm not going to explain again what i've already explained. And i'm not going to cooperate in your childish effort to pick a fight and keep it going. You're lousy at constructing a logical argument, and you've just proved it again. And you're attempting that idiotic tactic of suggsting that i'm angry (you're really not worth it), and that therefore, inferentially, i'm responding emotionally while you're the voice of sweet reason. Thanks for the comic relief.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

A post telling me what you're not going to do. I already know what you're not doing. Did I need a reminder of what you'll continue to not do?

This is old hat, Set. You stomp around the forums looking for fights. I don't go out of my way to pick fights with you (as you predictably find a way to defensively posture). I've seen you called out for this by other posters, and you've even earned your own word for this: Setantrum. You find yourself in these situations, and I suspect you are fond of this kind of conflict and rather enjoy it. I doubt I have anything to do with it, I get zero credit. You've been called out for your rude interactions on the threads multiple times.

Know thyself Set. You're the common denominator.

A
R
That or you're just a humble guy constantly surrounded by "jokers."

1 Reply

@failures art,

Yes, it's old hat that you stomp around looking for a fight, and then having picked one try to blame it on your interlocutor, rather than behaving like an adult and taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. I've see you attempt the same thing with Farmerman when the subject is diet choices. My response was to Bill. You dediced all on your own to try to make an issue of it, and all you have to offer is confused accounts of the sequence of posts and straw man fallacies. That's a typical performance on your part, as is your attempt to always assert moral superiority. So is attempting to allege that i'm ill-tempered. It's easier to do that than to face up to the failure of your arguments.

As always, thanks for the comic relief.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Let the record speak for itself, Set.

Art to Set: http://able2know.org/topic/171525-4#post-4596368
Art to Set: http://able2know.org/topic/171525-4#post-4596371
Set to Art: http://able2know.org/topic/171525-4#post-4596382
Art to Set: http://able2know.org/topic/171525-5#post-4596394

Pretty polite up to this point, but then you start getting testy.

Set to Art: http://able2know.org/topic/171525-5#post-4596398
"I don't care what you have to say on the matter."

Then you posted a helpful article.

Set: http://able2know.org/topic/171525-5#post-4596405

Then you outright attack me in a post entirely about me and not the topic.

Set: http://able2know.org/topic/171525-5#post-4596419
"FART is hilarious. He wants to be taken seriously himself, despite consistently either presenting flawed logic or being unable to express himself properly, and yet wants to condemn what we discuss as casual chit chat. I'll be glad when he gets over his obsessive need to prove that he's right and i'm wrong."

Which was extra harsh to read because at the same time I was typing a post thanking you for posting the link.

Art to Set: http://able2know.org/topic/171525-5#post-4596422

We were having a nice discussion, and then you got shitty. Grow up and drop this ****. You being an asshole doesn't enhance your posts, it detracts from them. I like reading your thoughts, but it's like walking on eggshells when talking to you, or *gasp* I dare disagree.

Know thyself Set. You pick fights.

A lot
R
T

0 Replies

No, Bubba, you pick fights. You attack with straw men and confused accounts of the order of posts, and then try to work it until you get a reaction which you can characterize as hostile. You use language such as characterizing me as "stomping around" in threads, and you constantly attempt to suggest that i am angry. It's all part and parcel of your playground tactics.

Once again, i responded to Bill's post. He has not so far responded to that rsponse. But you've been trying to pick a fight about it for pages and pages, while also attempting to suggest that i had picked a fight, and that i am angry.

If anyone need to know himself, it's you. You do this sort of thing all the time, and not just with me, and then come out with snotty and shop-worn tripe like "know thyself."

Invest in a mirror, and repeat your little mantras while staring into the mirror.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Whatever dude.

I literally posted the beginning of our conversation chronologically. I sure as hell don't gain anything from this. I'm going to give you your space so you can chill the **** out.

Peace.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

That's kind of my point, and why I reached to lightning as an example. Wind is another good one. Heck, even the earth itself has been deified by many cultures.

Yes, I recall that the earth, and the moon were deified.
Mostly, though, events which were not understood at the time, were attributed to gods. We still do that on occasion. And even so, we haven't disproven the possibility of a final cause. So Thor doesn't throw down lightning bolts, that
only disproves a particular definition of a god.
The only evidence I see in any of that, is that for a god to exist it must supersede definition by man.

Quote:

I don't follow your photographer analogy. My point is simple: The greater the claim, the greater the burden of evidence. Infinite power and knowledge is to assume an infinite burden which is unlikely to be met. Similarly, a being who is simply more advanced, while still unlikely to be seen let alone abducted by, is still more likely than one whose claim is finitely larger

The analogy represents my perspective. If a god exist, it must supersede definition by man, therefore I have no knowledge of this god, my knowledge is of the creation by this god. If I were to pretend to define the photographer by his work, being a part of that work, I would see the photographer as 2 dimensional. The creator is outside the frame of reference. Alien abduction is within the frame.

Quote:

You have no reason to assume that even if a being existed, that it has been a part of your life affairs or has any interest in you.

Correct, I have no reason to assume a gods benevolence.

Quote:

A child burning ants with a magnifying glass is malevolent to the ants. If you're an ant who thinks that the child is benevolent simply because you have been burned (or possibly just unnoticed), you are simply assuming. It's not a rational conclusion until you've actually interacted with the child and it choose to burn you or not. Even if you aren't burned (read: "You haven't been ill treated"), the fact that others have had ill treatment should factor in.

I have every reason to assume that my interaction is with this gods creation.
Again you are comparing a god to an element within said god's creation.
We have no reason to assume that a god resembles anything we have knowledge of.
The apparent poor experience of others on this planet is probably the single most powerful argument for the non existence of god, imo.
I won't attempt to explain it away, I just don't know. That said, I sure hope there is a god, because I want to hear the explanation.

2 Replies

@failures art,

You leave Setanta alone. You'd be ratty if you were looking at Liz's bacon strips

0 Replies

@failures art,

Oh yeah, you really do need to chill out, and stop trying to pick fights, and then whining about the response you get.

You badly need to grow up.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I have never killed anyone. I hold down a very stressful and busy job. I drive a vehicle. I take care of my animals. I love my husband. I have a decent IQ. I care about my friends. But, of course, since I believe in God, I am mentally ill.

Your completely irrational belief system open you up to the possibility of being talk into doing crazy things that a person that is more rational is not at risk of.

Similar to running a computer without a fire wall or an anti-virus program and therefore greatly increasing the risk of having the computer taken over.

Let's see, so I should be like you? That would mean I would defend pedophiles, rapists, swingers, etc., etc., etc. I will stick with God thank you very much.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Well, you're mixing oranges into your apple barrel again. I was just pointing out that actions of some religionists explain why atheists take so much interest in a non-entity. But you've just shifted gears from G (general) to P (personal). I haven't said your beliefs affect me (these days), i was just pointing out why it is reasonable that atheists should pay so much attention to the imaginary friends of others.

I didn't mean to do that. I was trying to be more general in a personal way, if that makes any sense. I do apologize for it. I can see your point.

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

Quote:

That would mean I would defend pedophiles, rapists, swingers, etc., etc., etc.

With you swingers get grouped with pedophiles and rapists? Shocked

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

There's nothing to apologize for . . . unless and until you step on my foot. Then there'll be trouble.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
That would mean I would defend pedophiles, rapists, swingers, etc., etc., etc.

With you swingers get grouped with pedophiles and rapists?

Hawkeye, you and I ended on a civil note before and I'd like to leave it that way.

Let me rephrase that, .........that would mean I would defend what is described as sin in scripture.

Now, you live your life the way you choose to okay? I have a right to disagree with it and not like it. I am not trying to track you down and throw your butt in hell because I disagree with what you do. Not that I could or would even want to. I am only exercising my rights to free speech. Bill can call me mentally ill if he wants to. Do you really think I care?

I am not going to fight with anyone. If you don't like my opinion then don't read what I say.

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

I was asking if you see a difference between willful indulgence in depravity and abuse of others...there are degrees of sin correct? I mean we can always get right with God on our last breath, but we can never undo the damage we do to another human, so abuse has to be worse than lascivious sexual immorality right?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I was asking if you see a difference between willful indulgence in depravity and abuse of others...there are degrees of sin correct? I mean we can always get right with God on our last breath, but we can never undo the damage we do to another human, so abuse has to be worse than lascivious sexual immorality right?

If that is what you were asking me then why didn't you put it that way? Degrees of sin? I am not Catholic. I think they believe in different degrees of sin but I can't say positively. Hawkeye, a lie is a lie no matter how big or small it is. Sin is still a sin no matter how big or small we may think it is.

I find nowhere in scripture that supports the "get right with God on your deathbed after you lived your whole life like hell" belief. "I can live like I want and will just ask God to forgive me" isn't supported by scripture.

0 Replies

@wayne,

Quote:

Yes, I recall that the earth, and the moon were deified.
Mostly, though, events which were not understood at the time, were attributed to gods. We still do that on occasion. And even so, we haven't disproven the possibility of a final cause. So Thor doesn't throw down lightning bolts, that
only disproves a particular definition of a god.
The only evidence I see in any of that, is that for a god to exist it must supersede definition by man.

So looking back we can clearly see the wrong and even silly and dead ends paths any belief in god or gods had cause the human race to date.

And yet you wish us to continue to go down such paths whenever possible and justify such by logic that you can never disprove a negative?

Oh by the way you had stated using human logic that there must be a first cause and when I pointed out to you that by human logic a first cause concept contain a large paradox you fall back on we can not use human logic after all.

Seem like you wish to have it both ways………..

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

If a god exist, it must supersede definition by man, therefore I have no knowledge of this god, my knowledge is of the creation by this god.

I thought god would be natural in your view? Now it must sepersede definition? My must it doe this? Apply this same logic to gravity. Because we do not fully understand it right now, does that mean that it's explanation is outside of our ability as humans to comprehend? I think that is projecting a bit much.

wayne wrote:

If I were to pretend to define the photographer by his work, being a part of that work, I would see the photographer as 2 dimensional. The creator is outside the frame of reference. Alien abduction is within the frame.

You aren't a photograph though. If you start from the position that you are a part of someone else's design so you can't comprehend the photo, you restrict your own ability to think outside of that frame.

If a person takes a photo of you, you can define them as a photographer. You can still make statements about what photographers do, and things about what equipment they need and what kind of process is involved in making a photo.

Having a photo taken of both you and another person who know more about photography doesn't change anything.

wayne wrote:

I have every reason to assume that my interaction is with this gods creation.

Such as? Why assume an invisible silent and singular (you keep using singular terms but how did you arrive at n=1?) being has any role in the universe you live in?

wayne wrote:

Again you are comparing a god to an element within said god's creation.

If you're going to do this in frame out of frame thing, then you can't really say god is natural. If gods are not subject to the rules of nature, they are supernatural. Defending such a realm of existence (read: outside of the frame) is without any foundation.

wayne wrote:

We have no reason to assume that a god resembles anything we have knowledge of.

We have no reason to assume anything here, and yet you make numerous assumptions in your arguments. Even assuming that a god must supersede human definition is attributing qualities and making assumptions. You assume a singular deity. You make many assumptions.

wayne wrote:

The apparent poor experience of others on this planet is probably the single most powerful argument for the non existence of god, imo.

I disagree. I think it's the most powerful argument against religion, but by itself it does nothing to refute the idea of an infinite amount of hypothetical malevolent gods. Is the idea that we should only believe in gods if we like them?

Ants don't get a choice whether or not to believe in boys with magnifying glasses. At least the boy is real.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

It made me sad to read. Doesn't sound as if he feels very peaceful. He sounds preacherly, pedantic and fearfully in need of proving he had (or has if he hasn't died yet) a point.

I would hope I wouldn't feel the need to keep preaching on my deathbed. I hope I would feel more at peace than he sounds.
I feel sad for him and for those he loves that he had to keep making some sort of point right up to the end.
Can you imagine having to live with a guy like that. He can't even shut his mouth about it and contemplate something else- like the beauty of the world around him- while he's dying?

Its hard to view the beauty of the world when there are people chainsawing it down around you. If you just shut up about it then it continues. You might be the type of person who shuts up when the job is far from done but hitchens isn't that type of person. I think his continued endeavor to reveal the falseness of religion even while he is dying is tantamount to his quest to make the world more beautiful and religion free.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I don't want to assume anything here so I will just ask you. Exactly what do you mean by "falseness of religion"?

0 Replies

A dying message from Hitchens an American Atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know