Christopher hitchens supported saddam hussein then calls him a tyrant?

This is how you know someone got schooled. No response stox to the facts that I pointed out? For an atheist you sure seem to go on very little facts and alot on blind faith. Its not about liking the guy or not. I brought out 3 facts on him that were all true and youve gone silent. Just say you were wrong stox. That he isnt much of a leader or role model for atheism , and actually doesnt tell the truth. This is one of the 4 horsemen of atheism, and an ignoramous like me tore him down on 3 facts. That doesnt bode well for the neo atheist movement. Hitchens is basically a tool of the media and flip flops because he wants to cause attention and in his line of work attention is money, but its a shame he doesnt actually care for anyone but himself and uses words as tools to make a good profit for himself.

His group of followers are a bunch of cheerlleaders who cant stand up to facts in a true debate. Thraxed, today I must check out hitchens debate with galloway. If I schooled hitchens I cant imagine what galloway would do to him. I think hitchens should stop trying to redicule theists and take a good long look in the mirror and see how hes actually become just as extreme as the right wing theists that are out there today. He blongs with them. Long on hate and short on facts.

 

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question i asked you in my first post and in every subsequent post. Do you really think this is how grownups converse pong? By ignoring questions put directly to them and furiously ranting about anything that comes in to their heads? What am i talking about, of course you do, you are religious.

What you type reminds me more of what id hear from someone standing on a street corner selling pencils from a cup rather than someone who has the mental capacity to at least turn on a computer and remember a user name and password. I assume you do manage that by yourself.

i mean look at yourself pong, you have entirely given up even trying to appear reasonable, rational and honest. This from a 40 year old man, it's fucking tragic, it really is.

 

Stox the problem with you buddy is that I have answered all of your questions. You just want me to repeat myself again and again, but you on the other hand have deviated away from hitchens (a sign that you are doubting your belief in your beloved leader, one of the so called 4 horsemen of atheism) and are embarressed that a so called leader of reason(hitchens) got totally obliterated by an average joe moderate theist like me. Now your posts have no facts, no reason, no inkling of something worth debating. Wasnt it better if you kept hitchens name out of any normal debate among people with just a few ounces of reason?
In my whole life I have never seen someone like hitchens who redicules people so much have so many faults with himself. The guys a baby. No wonder why he wont debate with moderates and only picks extremists to debate with.
People like galloway probably got him laughed off the debate stage.

Stox you used to have an answer for anything a theist says. How does it feel to be reduced to not having any answers at all lol.

I dont need to see this, we can let all posters , theists and atheists alike JUDGE (something hitchens does very well) for themselves. I mean I dont even see your buddy Gworld posting his usual multiple posts of nonsense to try to crowd the thread . At least he knows when to bow out gracefully. Liek I said if your intention in posting on this thread is to convert people in the middle to theism your doing a great job. If its for conversion to atheism, you really need help.

 

Galloway seems like a left wing looney toon. He's the left wing european version of our right wing tards who think obama wants to institute a plan as part of the secret jihad to have the government kill old and young christians alike via government supplied/administered euthanasia and abortion, respectively.

 

What fact is that?

Atheist are not like religious people and they don't need any prophet or pope. It seems this is a hard fact for you to understand because it is against your way of thinking. Hitchens supports Saddam or doesn't? Who cares, it is nothing to do with not believing in God. He drinks, who cares, at least he is not je*king off and is not a 40 years old virgin but his drinking got nothing to do with not believing in God. I didn't even know his name before you keep ranting about him and his drinking.
I used to be a "moderate" Atheist and think if people like to believe in God, that is their business and who cares but after reading your posts about how it has made you to a person who is afraid of sexual relation with a woman and destroyed your life by taking away one of the most pleasurable human experiences from you, I have started to wonder how many other lives has been destroyed by religion and now I think people should actively fight the religious BS in order to make a healthy society rather than just accepting it.

 

I havent seen the debates yet flux. Im just wondering why stox has lost all semblance of reason and posting facts when it comes to hitchens, yet when he came out with a book about mother teresa he posted what he said in his book like its some kind of gospel truth. I have caught hictens in at least 2 lies and im barely even trying to research the guy. Why would anyone follow a moron like hitchens who is dishonest, thinks lowly of women and is a war mongerer. The guy doesnt even believe in citations, sidenotes or footnotes. I thought atheists are supposed to believe in reason, logic and what they can prove with their own eyes.

Hitchens is writing a book with no facts that he can prove and we are supposed to believe everything he says? Logic in your unbiased opinion have i totally and unequivocally debunked hitchens or not? Have I caught him in lies or not? Have I caught him supporting saddam when saddam was commiting atrocities or not. What stox cannot take is being schooled by an average joe theist on the facts.

The point I think That i have made 1000000% is that extremists of all kinds do not operate on facts. They operate on hate, emotions and useless redicule.

Watch this: Stox can you please tell us why hitchens supports tyrants? Can you tell us why he would write a book with such electrifying accusations and forget to put citations, footnotes or sidenotes? Can you tell us why he thinks women arent funny and can you tell us why he chooses to be a commi one day, a socialist the next day thena neocon conservative war monger the next.

I always thought that atheists never shy away from facts? Moderate atheists do not shy away from facts ( I have many moderate atheist friends and they would never go silent in a debate or switch the subject) yet stox has gone completely silent and actually has started flip flopping away from the facts of our discussion.

Logicflux, I have yet to see or hear Galloway so I will reserve judgment on the guy. If I just formed an opinion and just started cheerleading for the man, that would be like me bringing up anything about the drunken extremist leader hitchens and expect no one to do their home work on the man. That would be ignorant wouldnt it?

Gworld I didnt say his drinking had anything to do with it 100% . I said it had to have been a big reason for it. The guy had to be drunk when writing his book. I hate to believe that he was actually sober when writing that garbage with no citations, sidenotes or footnotes oh my.

Gworld I never put down anyone because of my choice to stay a virgin till marriage. This is because I am secure in this choice and I dont push or redicule others on their choices. Stox on the other hand redicules theists every chance he gets and so do you. Dont even pretend to be a moderate about anything.
The facts I have brought up in catching hitchens in his flat out lies and support for tyrants, and war mongering cant be dismissed. This is why the subject is being changed so much.

God bles you gworld - the longer this thread goes the more converts theism is making. My only sorrow is that hitchens himself wouldnt make a post here as theism would jump worldwide if he did post (preferrably in the one hour during the day that he is sober) lol.

Pingpong 123 Signing off - Debunking extremists of any kind

 

I don't know much about him either, but I watched a good amount of that debate. He seems pretty much like the guy Hitchens used to be(according to Galloway), someone who thinks war is never justified, that it can't actually cost more lives and suffering to sit and do nothing under the guise of being peaceful and understanding, and that the weaker guy is somehow always right.

As far as Hitchens goes, he may have flipped for several reasons. It may have been a career move, or it may just be that his views have changed over the years. I think most people who start out on the left move towards the center or to the right as they get older. I don't know if his views have actually gotten more conservative, because I'm not sure that supporting a war is either a conservative or liberal position, but I wouldn't fault him for it if that's the case. He may have just become for of a realist and less of an idealists as he's aged.

 

In my view, not actively fighting religion is the only kind of "sin" that an atheist can do.
All people who do not believe (and those who "moderately believe" after they look themselves in mirror) should make themselves a habit: they should mock and actively debate religious people in their face every chance they get and tell them the truth about their scriptures, gods, prophets and angels.
This way, having a "belief" instead of thinking for yourself will not be a thing to take pride in anymore. Senators will not "brag" that they are "people of faith". Parents will not educate their children that they "must have faith".
I try to do it everyday here in Israel, with the understanding that It will help religion disappear faster, because if it will not disappear soon enough, mankind would.

 

Logic he supported him even when he knew the guy was a war monger. Seems like we cant be unbiased here. You can make as many excuses for the guy as you want but he he supported saddam then and now wants us to be a worlds policeman? Even hitchens knows the meddling into the affairs of other nations on flimsy evidence is wrong. Pure and simple. The guy just lieks creating controversy. If he really had all the facts about mother teresa wouldnt he have included citations etc etc etc? Its because he didnt have any rock hard evidence that he printed this garbage, and because it sells, and your defending this guy? I would say that hitchens perverses everything that is honerable about the journalistic profession and turns it into a game to try to sway the facts into what he believs in at that moment. He claims that he supported the iraq invasion because his evidence for weapons of mass destruction even now is totally credible. Where is his evidence????????????????? The guys a joke

Even the moderate atheists in this room wont confront him on this issue because they believe that doing so would harm the credibility of all atheists. We I got something to say. If thsi guy is considered one of the 4 horsemen of atheism then the atheist movement is on life support and this guy should be thrown out of the movement for someone that actually isnt drunk most of the time and makes sense when he writes books or prints articles. Hawkins is a great mind and im surprised he hasnt laughed hitchens off a stage or 2. I suspect he really feels that hitchens is a moron but he wont say it publicly.

Chaos this is where I humbly disagree with you. Debating and rediculing are 2 different things. Debating froma moderate view is different then debating on an extremist view. I have brought things up that support that god does injdeed leave footprints. If an atheist cannot look at it from alogical viewpoint when he or she answers and instead redicules it without facts then they are being the ones who believe in faith themselves. Nothing wrong with the pursuit of truth but I have yet to see an atheist that has proven what they believe in is the truth. So how do argue with a brilliantly logical phycisist like Kaku that does believe in a creator of some kind?, and there have been parts of the new testament that have been proven by archeologists, so you cannot start out by thinking that it is wrong or you will be starting from a point of biasm yourself. I have always respected your posts as it has less to dow ith childish rantings like stox does and more on facts . I could also say that as a moderate theist that believs in an all powerful creator it s my job to debate all atheists worldwide to stop this disinformation of knowledge that alot of them spread, but life is too short for that stuff. My job is to show people what I believe in, not through some posts on a message board but how I live my life and how I treat others. This is how I represent my religion. These posts were to show atheists that their belief system is also a religion of some sort because most of the time they are going on faith and emotion.

I think I have proved my point by debunking stox as an emotional and biased atheist. Hes probably very intelligent but for some reason judging others and rediculing them is never a great way to make your logical points. IN this world its about the brotherhood of man and respect for all people and their beliefs.

Today Im gonna take a walk in the park with my dad who I love because he took care of me when I was almost dead. That experience brought my nerve endings to match with his and my chemical bonding with my dad is so strong. Does this mean I love him????? loooooooooool
The soul is such a beautiful thing isnt it Chaos

 

Actually, I'll have to disagree, Chaos. While I will vigorously oppose things I believe bring concrete harm to living things now (witness, my disgust and opposition in the child marriage thread), I'm personally not much of a preacher.

In my experience, preaching tends to make folks dig their heels in more - whether religious preaching (e.g., the poor, little, obnoxious and ultimately, pitiable girl Rachel in Jesus Camp), or atheistic proselytization. I'd prefer to borrow a dictum from the apparent historical christ - simply live a worthy, atheistic life, and allow that to be an example ("let your light shine.")

I honestly believe religion will "die out" more by a common understanding among peoples, than anything else - the inevitable recognition that we're all we've got, and this one life is it; so that all of us, together, have to make this globe the best of this unthinking, unfeeling universe that we can.

Perhaps its a buddhist thing - the only "salvation" comes from self-work, and no preaching can do what one must do for oneself. I don't know, but at least for me, that's my creed.

Ping, all, I actually know nothing about Hitchens except the title of his book, as I earlier said, so I cannot comment one way or the other on the man or his work.

 

Northpoint, yes this is what I have been talking about all along. The preaching and judging that extremists on both sides do. less talk and more action towards your fellow man

As far as religion dying out, to each their own. See this is called a civil debate without barbs being thrown from all sides.

 

When was the last time you had atheists ring your doorbell and try to share the "salvation" of atheism with you?

Oh and I'm not making exuses for anyone. I'm trying to reason through personal experience. When I was a kid, say 20, I was a flaming lib. I was against the war at the beginning and I blamed the US like a lot of liberals and foreigners. After spending years thinking about it, I've changed my mind.

I also find myself coming more towards the middle on the political spectrum over time overall.

 

Logic, yes there are religious people that do that but the majority of religious people have better things to do with their time. Actually extremist atheists are starting act like that now as they have their open air meetings and started rediculing theists in front of theists themselves.

I have always believe "to each their own" . I dont like rediculing anyone for their beliefs. As far as political beliefs Logic, I was the opposite of you. I was very idiolistic and believed that my country was good and wanted only to spread freedom and liberty to all nations. As I grew up and started understanding how my own country could destabilize third world countries and actually destroy democracy in them (like iran 1953) my thinking started to change, and thanks to a few good people (guerilla, grim etc) I was introduced to Ron Paul. I guess we all have different roads that lead us to where we are now. Its the beauty of diversity

Also my brush with my illness and death has increased my curiosity towards the search for truth.

 

My brush with thoughtfulness and wisdom has lead me to believe that our country has indeed always championed freedom even in cases when it may not seem to be the case. When I was younger, more liberal, more reactionary and less equipped with wisdom, I may have thought we were evil for being involved in the Iranian coupe.

But now that I'm older, and more deliberate in my thought, I completely understand why it was done. Although I have to put myself in the shoes of Eisenhower to understand it.

The British had been trying to get Truman to go along with the coupe but he refused. Was Truman more freedom-loving than Eisenhower? Was Eisenhower an evil imperialist, a dullard who didn't understand the consequences of his actions, or was he just plain evil? Neither of those things.

Eisenhower saw over the allied forces just a few years earlier,where he saw millions of people killed, many whom he was ultimately responsible for, and he saw and directed those forces to liberate much of western and central Europe, often fighting with the Soviets along the way to try to have democracy brought to or restored to those countries that lost their liberty after Hitler's transgressions.

He had a perspective on the realities and horrors of war that not many others in history have had.

Just a few years earlier he had been responsible for the lives of millions in history's most bloodiest war. Now he was responsible for one of the two most powerful nations in the world. And he also knew that the remaining European superpower -- the Soviet Union -- could have just as easily been the tyrannical scourge of Europe and of the world that Hitler's Germany was.

So why do you think Eisenhower authorized the cooperation with Britain's plan? Was he an evil, freedom-hating imperialist, even though he had lead one of history's greatest forces just a few years earlier in one of the greatest campaigns of liberty in history? Or did he decide that in order to keep from fighting the big wars, in an age where the use of a single weapon can wipe out hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, that it was more moral to fight the smaller battles -- even if they were political and covert in nature -- to keep the potential new scourge from gathering more strength?

I think it's the latter. I know nothing of Eisenhower that makes me think he was not a decent and thoughtful man. I'm sure he felt bad for treating Iran as a pawn in the cold war, but I also believe he thought he was doing the moral thing if it would help prevent another full-scale war with another European, authoritarian regime with expansionist ambitions.

 

Being dishonest again, how predictable from a religious person.

If you really believe in God, why do you grasp on straws by misquoting Kaku? Why don't you mention that he in the same time talks about bible being just a bunch of BS? Why not be honest about what he talks about as a force in universe is not at all the same God that you think has told you to je*k off instead of having natural sex?

 

God creates man and beast, nature, the universe, good and wrong, light and dark.
Then, he does not openly speak with humanity (show up in the sky, break into a TV show, raise the dead, make it rain U.S. dollars). Instead, he leaves tiny "footprints" that can be seen only by those who would have believed in him also in the absence of these "footprints".
Doesn't make too much sense to me.

Pingpong123 I wonder if you saw religulous and what you think about the movie?

 

Logicflux, you cant be talking about mossadegh? Everyone on this earth knows it was common knowledge that iran had booted the russians as well as the brits. The cover story by our government that he was turning communist is 100000000% false> just go back to my debate with gtech on that subject. It was a slam dunk that he didnt want anyone in iran. Having blind faith in someone despite the facts staring us right in face is illogical. Mossadegh never ever turned communist. Even hitchens knew this as he talked about this crime we perpertrated on the Iranian people.
Everyone on earth knew mossadegh wasnt turning commie red including our government. The people who authorized operation ajax knew exactly what they were doing.

Being a patriot means to be able to have the guts to see the truth and if it takes critisizing your own government then so be it. To Rah-Rah like a cheerleader doesnt make someone patriotic, just a slave.

Again Gworld, your not understanding me. I have stated with Kaku believes in many times and you know exactly what I mean. Ill state my belief on this subject again. If an all knowing, all intelligent force can make all of this happen then he can also choose to manifest himself to us in any form he sees fit. He doesnt operate on your whimes gworld.

Im just happy that stox finally understands fully what extremism is, and he probably wont bring up hitchens again. Its a shame when its so easy to debunk a hero of reason

Chaos no I didnt see it but im open to watching it. Now your entering into the subject of knowing what is in gods mind. Maybe this is the best way, maybe our minds cannot fully understand why he chooses to do it this way. Maybe god can see all possibilities, all choices, all odds. If he can then he has a major advantage over us doesnt he? I trust in him. That is my choice and you cannot really say that its an illogical choice as much as I can say your choice not to is illogical.

 

Simple questions, answer with yes or no.

Are you admiting that what kaku talks about, is not at all your God?
Are you agreeing with Kaku that Bible is BS?
If there is an all knowing, all intelligent force, don't you think this force would have known when he made the world and wouldn't make a mistake in Bible?

 

So why did Eisenhower approve the involvement in operation Ajax then? If you want to talk facts, educate us. Lay out some facts.

Was Eisenhower an evil imperialist? Did Eisenhower just want oil? Or perhaps Eisenhower's uniquely intimate perspectives on one of humankind's most horrible chapters did not influence his decision and help him to understand that fighting to keep a tyrant from gaining too much strength is better than waiting, appeasing and helping to usher in another one of human history's most horrific chapters.

Show me facts, pong. Why did Eisenhower agree to help the British? Give me facts, please.

No, remember, out of the two of us, I am the one that deplores believing in things because they are popular, or comforting. And I am the one that makes decisions and forms opinions based on facts and evidence rather than emotion or blind obedience.

It's a simple proposition. Educate us on what Eisenhower's real intentions were.

 

Why, because he destroyed Hitch the bitch in a debate? lmao.