Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2011, 07:54 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2011 07:59 AM by Ghost.)
RE: Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
Wow.

Hey, Gassy Kitten.

Quote:When do you think you'll give some of that peace, love and empathy to Christopher Hitchens?

Oh. Throwing my good nature in my face. So clever. It’s a very effective way of dismissing my entire argument by accusing me of being cold hearted. Very skilled argumentum ad hominem. Unfortunately, if you had taken the time to read what I wrote, you'd already have your answer. I have a friend with a brain tumour and another who just had a mastectomy and I had a lymphoma scare myself a couple of years ago. So yeah, I have a lot of empathy for Hitchens' plight. I think cancer sucks giant sweaty monkey balls. Which is why I recognised his humanity and said that I hope he beats the cancer. "Straight up". Meaning "No bullshit, I am telling you exactly what I mean." (SOURCE) There is a difference between having empathy for someone with a medical condition and giving them a pass for hate-filled rhetoric that they ignore at the first sign of personal benefit. Far from not having love for Hitchens, I have love for everyone; unfortunately, his hate is in direct conflict with the love I have for his targets. In order to love them I must stand in opposition to his hate; something I would do for anyone that is the target of hate. I also want peace, which means calling out hawkish war mongers wherever they might be, be they president, orator or religious leader. If you want to be blinded by his medical condition, have at it, but don't come after me and try and dismiss what I'm saying by trying to suggest that I'm heartless. It's weak sauce.

Hey, No J.

Quote:Hitchins is not trying to wipe out people, he is trying to wipe out belief systems.

I posted audio evidence with transcription to the contrary. He didn't say that ideas were his enemies, he said that people were. He didn't say he wanted to destroy ideas, he said he wanted to destroy people. If it's not what he means, then he needs to be a hell of a lot more selective about what he says. Constantly. Publically. With a wide audience. Because people are listening and willing to follow his advice. Not being able to differentiate between ideas and people either makes him incompetent or deliberately dangerous and quite frankly, he's too intelligent and skilled an orator for me to believe that he’s incompetent.

Hey, daemonowner.

Quote:How is it god's work? Isn't the work of scientists in their respective fields since and even before evidence based medicine began? And if it was god's work, didn't he also give hitchens cancer, among other attrocities that he let happen?

"HE" is a pronoun. It can be used to replace a noun. In my case, the "HE" referred to Dr. Collins. Specifically, I said that "HE is a deeply religious man" not "I" which would have referred to myself. HE is a deeply religious man so HE would likely believe it's God's work. But HE also USED TO RUN the Human Genome Project, so I sincerely doubt that HE believes that God used magic pixie dust in this situation, especially since one of the premises of HIS (variation of HE) book is that:
Quote:4.Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required.

Look, everyone. I get it. Hitchen's is an Atheist hero. He's also a human being who (quite nonchalantly) is facing terminal cancer of the throat. I have the advantage; however, of not viewing him as a hero. I view him as a man with a wide audience who has no problem telling them how to view a group of people. He uses his platform to say some rather hate-filled things. Things that I have always called him out on, even before the cancer. And now that he is getting help from one of the people he denounces, then he either has to say that he was wrong to denounce them and apologise, or admit that he is a hypocrite. That's my belief. It's a reasonable position and I have evidence to support it. So disagree with it all you want, show evidence to the contrary, but do not, DO NOT, come after me as a human being for having an opinion that you disagree with.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2011, 08:53 AM
 
RE: Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
(30-03-2011 07:54 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Wow.

Hey, Gassy Kitten.

Quote:When do you think you'll give some of that peace, love and empathy to Christopher Hitchens?

Oh. Throwing my good nature in my face. So clever. It’s a very effective way of dismissing my entire argument by accusing me of being cold hearted...
Wow.
You inferred a great deal of negativity to my asking you one simple question.
That says a lot.

And what exactly is it you're arguing, while failing to apply your signature line as something more than that, if you mean to imply those terms are reflective of your character?

Christopher Hitchens see's religion as his enemy.
He's entitled. Religion is intent on seeing anyone not religious as an enemy. In the case of Christianity it's hubris goes so far as to presume everyone on earth is damned at birth, until they're found and saved by the missionary or those who Proselytize and say quite forthrightly; you're damned until you believe like we do, by the god that created all people.
Ergo, the sinner is the enemy until they're converted. As bloody campaigns waged throughout history by zealot Christians demonstrate.


Hitchens see's sheep who hold faith, give their lives, take others lives, liberty and freedom of independent thought under the dictate they believe is implicit in their chosen fable, as worthy of hate, scorn, disrespect, rebellion and see's it also as the enemy of rational thought.

He's entitled. He didn't write the religious histories he criticizes, the religious acting in the name of something that doesn't exist save for in their own mind wherein they have hope and faith it does, did. A supreme being, higher power, said to be benevolent, peaceful, creator of everyone including those made victim to religious zealotry, infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, that the religious histories would indicate needs fallible, sinful mortals assistance in installing it's dominion over it's created earth and people.
The religious did. And what they couldn't come up with for themselves they stole from earlier faiths, and made it their own. Or they interpolated the writings of credible Jewish historians like Josephus, so as to carry forth the fable of the New Testament Jesus.

That's despicable.

He didn't wage bloody slaughter campaigns to suppress other religions in order to interject the faith of the, "god of love and the prince of peace", upon those enslaved to the conquest battle cry; convert or die.
The religious did!
And he's entitled to hate them for it. He's entitled to dismiss the claim one faith has every right to rule all minds of all people on earth, in the name of one invisible force that inspired all that evil in it's name, because that's the only true way to think about this life and pray till knee's are bloody one is entitled to receive the blessings awaiting in the next.
But only if the dead are saved.
Only if their name appears in the book of life.
Only if they're Christian.
While all others, all that are damned by omniscience, enter hell.

Now, real life is seeing Christopher Hitchens fighting cancer. And someone has a way to help him fight it and possibly beat it.
Hitchens didn't write the article in the OP. Someone who thought adding the little side note that the Physician is a Christian, as if that matters at all, did.

And your argument is?

When this way of saving his life is an elective he may choose for himself, simply because he has no respect for religion or the religious, which clearly isn't an issue to the Physician making the offer of help. So why's it an issue with you?

This Physician didn't say, well I'll help Mr. Hitchens if he agrees first to receive Christ as his personal savior and be baptized in the name of Christ so that he see's heaven as a born again.
He's a Physician. And his offer demonstrates peace, love and empathy for Christopher. So what is there to argue?


Peace, Love, Empathy.
There's no argument.
You're either consistent or your not.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GassyKitten's post
30-03-2011, 09:15 AM
RE: Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
GassyKitten.

I do not feel that the level you are attempting to engage me on is a level that I have time for.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2011, 09:25 AM
 
RE: Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
(30-03-2011 09:15 AM)Ghost Wrote:  GassyKitten.

I do not feel that the level you are attempting to engage me on is a level that I have time for.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

You set your level.
I'm just taking note of it.
Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 07:59 AM
RE: Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
Quote:not only talked smack about Dr. Collins' people but has threatened them.
ghost, please provide evidence for this.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-12-2011, 09:41 AM
RE: Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
So, Dr. Collins is evidence that humans are capable of believing two or more mutually contradictory things at the same time, while Chris Hitchens is evidence that they don't all choose to.
The one is doing his scientific work during the week and living his spiritual life on Sundays; the other is trying to preserve the only life he has. I don't think cancer patients are given a choice of treatments, classified according to the weekend habits of their inventors. And yet, and yet, nobody points out when a Christian or Jewish - however outspoken, even militant - patient is saved by the invention of an atheist. How odd!

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peterkin's post
03-12-2011, 10:03 AM
RE: Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
(30-03-2011 07:54 AM)Ghost Wrote:  And now that he is getting help from one of the people he denounces, then he either has to say that he was wrong to denounce them and apologise, or admit that he is a hypocrite. That's my belief. It's a reasonable position and I have evidence to support it.

Sorry, that is a false dichotomy. He is not wrong in denouncing religious belief, and it is in no way hypocritical to be treated by a doctor who holds religious beliefs as well as his scientific ones.
That dichotomy may be your belief, but there's no evidence that it is true.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
03-12-2011, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2011 03:42 PM by kim.)
RE: Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
Dr Collins seems to be one of those people who is able to reconcile his personal beliefs with scientific discovery... in fact, he has clearly differed on many issues with religious groups because of his scientific convictions. He adamantly and firmly rejects intelligent design. Though he has personal "pro-life" views, he acknowledges there are numerous medical factors and the ultimate decision can only be made by the person seeking that procedure. His greatest contributions to science have been combing and mapping DNA of many diseases and he was a pioneer in genetic research in cloning. Cloning, no less!
He was an atheist throughout college, the majority of his research years, and throughout many of the years he contributed his greatest work to the field of genetics and the study of the human genome. Only somewhat recently (2004-06), after distinct soul searching in the wake of personal events, has he enmeshed his personal, spiritual beliefs into his newer, more public medical status. He seems to keep an open mind but does state emphatically, "what we don't know… that is God".
To that, I say, "whatever floats his boat." I see little conflict with his need to attribute to God, answers to his personal questions such as "why are we here?". He seems to think it's important to him and that's ok with me, as long as he doesn't think it's important to decide that for anyone else. Of course, I do not know how he conducts himself on the job… but if his decisions are at all influenced by the limitations of faith, it would be a very obvious injustice to science, and he would have to answer to such a crime. I would be the first to ridicule him for such shenanigans… as I am sure Christopher Hitchens would.

I like Christopher Hitchens -he's a fighter- that's his job. He's firmly atheist - NO GOD WHATSOEVER - he's made up his mind, end of story. I love and appreciate him for that. He takes up my slack, as it were, for I am very dubiously unable to acknowledge an end of story.
My scientific nature keeps the door in my mind open to any possibilities, however doubtful. I am the question mark. I can only truthfully state: I do not know… and I can very truthfully state: I do not care. The latter, possibly my only saving grace.

I see both Dr Collins and Mr Hitchens as quite impassioned, fellow human beings, just trying to get through life while trying to make sense of everything for themselves and human kind… each in his own personal, passionate way.
******
In 1968, Robert Kennedy expressed his strong willingness to support a bill then under consideration for the abolition of the death penalty. Because of Kennedy's support of this bill, which helped to rule capital punishment to be a violation of of California's constitutional prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment, the death penalty was abolished in the state of California. Today, Sirhan Sirhan remains in prison for life, for the murder of Robert Kennedy.

Sirhan was and still is, a Jew-hating Christian. So hmm... I do feel compelled to agree that religion poisons everything.
******
Irony can be a passionate lover, no?
Heart
______

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
03-12-2011, 06:50 PM
RE: Atheist Christopher Hitchens could be 'saved' by evangelical Christian
Well, see, if the headline were actually true - that is, if Hitchens could be saved by any old evangelical christian off the street or out of a revivalist tent - that would be ironic. For a sick person to be saved (maybe) by medicine is kind of... um... routine.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peterkin's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: