…and this is a 
There is a site called Christopher Hitchens Watch which, I believe, began with a good cause: it's been around for about 5 years, and initially focused on Hitchens' support of the war in Iraq. That was a good idea: I disagree with him on that colossal waste of lives and money, and his views are fair game. But these kinds of sites that focus on single individuals can fall victim to obsession, too, and demonize everything about their target, and that's unfortunate. It undermines the legitimate complaints when they fuss over the petty, and even worse, when even a little generosity gets characterized as a crime.
The watch site doesn't like this comment from a Hitchens interview, but I think he's actually responding in an entirely appropriate way. He's got cancer; people are wasting their time praying for him. What does Hitchens think of that?
I think that prayer and holy water, and things like that are all fine. They don't do any good, but they don't necessarily do any harm. It's touching to be thought of in that way. It makes up for those who tell me that I've got my just desserts ... I wish it was more consoling. But I have to say there's some extremely nice people, including people known to you, have said that I'm in their prayers, and I can only say that I'm touched by the thought.
Prayer does absolutely nothing, but most of the people doing it mean well and are seriously hoping for the best for him. Strangers who have no part in his treatment aren't doing less because they're on their knees babbling to the sky (although they are promoting such useless nonsense as acceptable), so it neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg for someone else to believe. It's when belief infiltrates professional practice or public policy that it becomes an evil to be uncompromisingly opposed.
It's a tough line to draw. One doesn't want to be an enabler of stupid expressions of faith, but at the same time, one shouldn't discourage kind intent. Hitchens is in a situation where he's going to have to walk that line a lot.
Comments
Posted by: sgiffy
|
July 26, 2010 10:48 AM
I usually try to look at people's intent when it comes to things like this. I mean most people don't pray for you in order to be a dick, some do, but most genuinely think it will help.
Its like getting a shitty present. Yeah you are not going to use it and will probably toss it or give it to somebody else, but you still thank the person and appreciate that they thought of you. Even if perhaps they did not do a very good job.
Posted by: Jimmy-boy
|
July 26, 2010 10:50 AM
I always wonder what it means when people are described as 'meaning well'.
I suspect every genocidal dictator the world over has "meant well"...
Surely what counts is actions - and sometimes words. Apparent intentions are really pretty irrelevant.
Posted by: Tualha
|
July 26, 2010 10:53 AM
Jeez PZ, why do you new atheists always have to be so shrill and strident???
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 26, 2010 10:56 AM
@Jimmy-Boy
There's a difference between a murderer and a good Samaritan who accidentally kills a car crash victim through improper CPR.
Posted by: longhorn10
|
July 26, 2010 10:58 AM
I don't see anything wrong with accepting well wishes from people. It's not like his doctors are praying rather than treating him. I definitely hope that Hitch can overcome this cancer. Whether I choose to pray about it (or not) won't affect what happens.
An alternative: challenge those who offer prayers to instead volunteer at a hospital or soup kitchen. But that's getting perilously close to the "dick line."
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
July 26, 2010 11:02 AM
I think Hitch is taking the right tack. Look at it this way: even the most hard-assed materialist will still wish seriously ill people "Good luck", or "keep him in their thoughts", even though we know that it does no more good than prayer (which is to say: no good at all except the emotional comfort of knowing you are still connected to the social world). Prayer just adds the superfluous decoration of beseeching an imaginary being to perform magic on the situation.
Posted by: sakura10
|
July 26, 2010 11:09 AM
That about sums it up for me Longhorn.
If you aren't in a position to help me, then pray away.
Posted by: Logic H. Science!
|
July 26, 2010 11:14 AM
I think it's a great reply. Most of my high school/college friends are extremely religious and occasionally ask for prayers for sick family members, etc. No, it doesn't help heal the person, but it does absolutely no harm and the support is comforting. Hell, I've even rsvp'd to Facebook events for everyone to pray at the same time. No need to add to their pain by seemingly turning your back on them. And if my friends were praying for me, I wouldn't tell them to stop.
Posted by: H.H.
|
July 26, 2010 11:15 AM
The harm doesn't come from well-wishers saying they'll pray for a sick person. It comes when they want credit for helping to heal the person with their prayers.
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
July 26, 2010 11:16 AM
I trust it was a blogger who misspelled "just desserts." I don't think Hitch has ever misspelled anything.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
July 26, 2010 11:17 AM
Hitchens is in a situation where he's going to have to walk that line a lot.
Which is his true divine punishment.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
July 26, 2010 11:18 AM
Hey people who pray and people who don't all wish Hitchens beats the odds.
Social support does actually count, and frankly Hitchens has to focus on himself right now anyway.
Doesn't a person have the right to set the boundaries they want respected with regard to their personal selves?
To be honest I think I really hate the "helping/not helping the cause" arguments everywhere I find them.
I don't mind if people pray for me either so long as they actually mean it in a nice way.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 26, 2010 11:18 AM
When Hitchens has a typo, the spelling changes to accommodate him
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
July 26, 2010 11:22 AM
I bet there must be some people putting a bit of smug emphasis on "pray", but yeah, this is the right response.
Posted by: Blondin
|
July 26, 2010 11:23 AM
Well, I have no intention of praying for Hitch. I'm gonna sacrifice a couple of chickens for him!
In fact, I think we should all show up on his door step with chickens and we'll see who cares the most about him by how many chickens they each bring.
It probably won't help but it might illustrate the folly of counting your chickens before the Hitch.
Posted by: Moggie
|
July 26, 2010 11:23 AM
Hmm. If I were suffering from cancer, and a Christian announced publicly that they would pray for me, I suppose my reaction would depend on what I thought of their motives. If I believed that they genuinely wished me well, I'd thank them. But if it seemed that, rather, they were doing this to demonstrate their pious superiority to the nasty atheist, an act of smug, self-serving grandstanding - in short, if they were being a dick - I wouldn't feel I had to respond politely.
Of course, if Hitchens snarked strongly about it, many people wouldn't get the context, and would just see the mean old atheist kicking well-wishers. I guess he's judged it about right.
Posted by: YetAnotherAtheist
|
July 26, 2010 11:37 AM
Sometimes with prayer, we just had to say, "It's the thought that counts," shrug it off, and move on.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 26, 2010 11:39 AM
Oooh! Are we Chuck-Norrising Hitchens now?Here's mine: Christopher Hitchens expected the Spanish Inquisition.
Posted by: YetAnotherAtheist
|
July 26, 2010 11:44 AM
We just have* to
Posted by: melissa.a.basileo
|
July 26, 2010 11:45 AM
It is always left to the atheist to be understanding when it comes to religious intent/context... never the other way around. Sure, praying for such a publically declared atheist as Hitchens is technically disrespectful to the man's philosophy, but since religious folk lack the candor to relize that, we are left to say "I know what you mean."
I'm sure its a bit annoying to have the majority of Christians not praying for your health, but for your salvation. Kudos to Hitchens though... the man has a lot of class.
Posted by: Andy Groves
|
July 26, 2010 11:46 AM
Eamon (#6) hits the nail on the head - praying for someone in this context is a particular cultural variation on expressing hope for the best. It's an act of kindness, an expression of sympathy, and Hitchens is being gracious in accepting the good wishes.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 26, 2010 11:50 AM
@18
Christopher Hitchens is not an alchoholic. He just appears drunk in every debate to give the other guy a fair chance.
Posted by: jradxit
|
July 26, 2010 11:51 AM
To be a devil's advocate, (smirk), I would suggest that there could be a REAL benefit conferred by those praying well wishers. I mean this in as much as the receiver of the well wishing prayers has an improvement in mental well-being. There is some empirical evidence that positive changes in mental state can have a beneficial effect on therapeutic outcomes, albeit small. So if the receiver of prayers is aware of the prayers and this affects his mental state in a positive way, a real benefit could be realized. So I agree with Hitch's reply for more than its lack of stridency, but also because if all those people wishing him well make him feel better, he just might have a slightly better chance at recovery.
Posted by: Newfie
|
July 26, 2010 11:54 AM
The True Christians are praying for his death.
Posted by: SmilingSkeptic
|
July 26, 2010 11:54 AM
Sometimes "I'll pray for you" really means something more like "I wish you well", and that I think is what Hitchens is referring to. I don't think he believes they're actually praying for him. In some cases, "I'll pray for you" really means "fuck you". The tricky part sometimes is knowing the difference.
Posted by: P_Smith
|
July 26, 2010 12:01 PM
"Prayer does absolutely nothing, but most of the people doing it mean well and are seriously hoping for the best for him."
No offense to our kind blogger, but from what I've seen, most of those "praying for him" are wishing Hitchens dead so he can "meet god and then suffer".
The religious who are wishing Hitchens well seem few and far between.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 26, 2010 12:01 PM
Chuck Norris is on a mission to save the free world with uzis. Christopher Hitchens is on a mission to free the saved world. With a hangover.
Christopher Hitchens touched M.C Hammer. And then they deconverted.
When Cristopher Hitchens is rude, it's because he's too fucking awesome for courtesy.
The Bermuda Triangle is just the location where Cristopher Hitchens beat God in a debate. Sore loser, that dude.
Cristopher Hitchens can see Russia from his house. And he doesn't live in Alaska.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 26, 2010 12:03 PM
The line here might be the one between personal and public, involving what I've called Dinner Table Diplomacy. When we're gathered together as people intent on achieving common goals, or finding common ground, we often make the choice to forgo an honest discussion on points of disagreement. We avoid controversy, and focus on the positive things we share, or agree on. If Uncle Marty brings up the war, we pass him a biscuit and change the subject. If our colleague on the conservation board tells people that Jesus was pro-environment, we bypass the opportunity to mention eschatology. If someone says they'll be praying for you, and means it kindly, we take it kindly, and refrain from getting into the emptiness of supernatural causation. That's diplomacy, and it's important.
But you can't take this kind of small-scale diplomacy into the public forum and use it to squash large-scale honest debate. A lot of the critics of atheism seem to have trouble with this distinction, and blur it all together, as if it's one set of rules for every situation. Or as if atheists must think every situation is the same.
Dinner Table Diplomacy is a lot like what PZ calls The Grandmother Gambit. If you wouldn't tell your dying grandmother there is no God -- then you shouldn't write that in a book. Or, perhaps, if you write a book about how there is no God, then you must be the kind of person who would tell your dying grandmother no, she's not going to see grandpa in heaven with Jesus, so boo hoo. They're trying to get atheists to shut up, by always bringing the issue down to a small, personal situation where it's kinder, and more reasonable, to bite your tongue and go along to get along.
I see no hypocrisy with Christopher Hitchens arguing for the emptiness of religious expressions, and yet, on the personal level, judging each case separately. Most moral dilemmas have to do with competing values. Honesty doesn't always trump diplomacy, and truth doesn't always trump good intentions. I think Truth and Honesty (or truth and honesty) are the higher values in the long run -- the Big Picture -- but we often live and make choices in the little pictures of the short term.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 26, 2010 12:06 PM
Christopher Hitchens once impregnated a gun
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
July 26, 2010 12:06 PM
So according to the linked blogger, Hitchens is an asshole for tolerating prayers? At least, that's the impression I got from reading it. Good grief. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Posted by: secularshawshank
|
July 26, 2010 12:07 PM
It's like Bill Maher said: Prayer is almost exactly the same as wishing it were so. It has the same net effect.
@25
I agree completely. "I'll pray for you" is the Evangelical version of "Fuck you, heathen." They only mean it in a nice way when they're talking about other Christians. When a church "prays for" someone, the tacit implication is that they're praying for that person to become a Christian. Ditto the Muslims. "Peace be upon" only those who believe Allah is God an Muhammad is his prophet. Otherwise, they're "praying for you" to become a Muslim.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
July 26, 2010 12:09 PM
Jimmy-boy (@2):
Actually, intentions matter quite a lot. I would never claim that good intentions are sufficient to validate harmful actions (see my back-and-forth with Paul on the breast ironing thread), but we have traditionally taken intent into account, both in law and custom. The difference between negligent homicide, manslaughter, and murder hinges entirely on the intent of the person causing death.
In the case of private expressions of well (or ill) wishes to someone who's sick, intent is (IMHO) the only thing that matters. If people are being intentionally nice to Hitch, and doing so in the emotional currency that makes sense to them (even if it doesn't make sense to Hitch), who are any of us to demand that he reject their good will?
OTOH, people who say "I'll pray for you" because they expect that to annoy Hitch can just go straight to (nonexistent) Hell. To the extent one can sort out folks' intentions, they matter.
H.H. (@9):
As for people praying ostensibly "for Hitch," but in fact for the sake of promoting the efficacy of prayer and denigrating the efficacy of evidence-based medicine, I'm quite sure Hitch's gracious acceptance doesn't extend to them. As you note, they're doing actual harm, unlike those who promise to pray for him with the sole intent (however misguided) of making him feel better.
Ol'Greg (@12):
QFT! The man is battling cancer, which is quite enough stress, thank you very much; he's under no obligation to also shoulder the weight of the atheist/skeptical/humanist movement on top of that (it's the religionists who so love martyrs, after all). Let's all just hope (albeit not pray!) that he recovers, and then he can get on with the business of skewering fools.
Posted by: jupiter9
|
July 26, 2010 12:11 PM
"I trust it was a blogger who misspelled "just desserts." I don't think Hitch has ever misspelled anything."
It was a transcript of an interview of Hitch by Hugh Hewitt. So, no, Hitchens didn't write "just desserts," he didn't write anything in the article.
I think he got it right, because he said they don't *necessarily* do harm.
Then he spoke of *nice* people praying for him. Here, it's all in the restrictive clause, because he's not including the "god is punishing you" asshats, since they're not nice.
I can't imagine doing much of anything but sitting in terror with a diagnosis like he's got. If they're not doing surgery, that's a bad sign, because chemo only is considered palliative. I'm hoping this is a lead-in to surgery and not the only treatment he's getting. Check the wikipedia article on esophageal cancer.
I've gone to see him speak in person numerous times, and never failed to be mesmerized. Not that he's my hero -- all the fucked up things he's said, about the war, about women, rankle. But I still hope he beats this.
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
July 26, 2010 12:13 PM
God works in mysterious ways. For instance, he gives people cancer and only cures it if enough people pray for it. It's kinda like when a bully would grab your ball and hold it above your head so you have to keep jumping for it.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
July 26, 2010 12:14 PM
Actually there may be a harm, if the receiver of the prayer knows they are being prayed for. The big cardiac surgery prayer study the Templeton Foundation funded found not significant effects, but the closest effect to statistical significance was that those patients who knew they were being prayed for had worse outcomes than those who didn't. Perhaps you can get too relaxed about some things and that is not helpful.
Posted by: Jimmy-boy
|
July 26, 2010 12:16 PM
Hi Ing @ 4: I think that's sort of what I mean.
For eg: I note that the world credits my mum with 'meaning well' while she is in fact the most manipulative person I've ever met. That "meaning well" covers a multitude of crimes. It's the actions that count. These folks can pray for Hitchens. But - what are they actually doing day to day? I like the 'volunteer in a hospital' suggestion for making that point.
A personal view: I had a little lad who was proper sick. 40%-chance-sick (he came through thanks to some proper medicine). The many theists who were engaged to pray for him around the world all now credit his recovery to their flavour of god. And many of the family are irate that I don't join in with their view: how can I be so unbelievably ungrateful?
Well - fuck them and their self satisfied, anti-science, self congratulatory, judgemental, condemning BS. Now we know what they were really praying for: they were praying for themselves, in fact. 'Dear God please heal Fynn' translates to 'Dear God please be real or I've wasted my life'.
It was that experience, among others, that helped me liberate myself from Catholicism and wake up to my supressed atheism.
Posted by: Volant Proboscidian
|
July 26, 2010 12:16 PM
It does seem like a tough line to walk for outspoken atheists like Hitchens. The main issue with prayer, I think, is that it lets people delude themselves into thinking they're actually doing something useful when they're not; and needless to say, when people turn to prayer as a substitute for medical treatment, it becomes extremely dangerous.
I suppose Hitchens handled the subject pretty decently, and it's good that he was civil about it. The only thing I think he should have added is an emphasis that, if and when he recovers, his gratitude shall be owed to his doctors and to medical science, and not to some imaginary deity.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 26, 2010 12:24 PM
You need a "(sic)" there.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 26, 2010 12:27 PM
It's weird to call Hitchens out for that comment. I perhaps somewhat disagree with him -- well, I can't even state it that strongly, I can only just say, I would not feel that way about someone praying for me, regardless of how sick I was. But really, criticizing him for that? Come on. His view is mostly valid there. I happen to think "I'm praying for you" is a bit offensive in this context, but if he wants to take it with an extra helping of grace, that's fine with me.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
July 26, 2010 12:33 PM
Christopher Hitchens is my hero. Many years ago I was flipping through TV channels and caught a few seconds of an interview in which Hitchens said that the Adam and Eve story was the most pernicious myth ever perpetrated. He went on to elaborate on the damage that myth has done to women and to society in general. And every few minutes I was thinking, "Holy fuck! Who is this guy, and why isn't everyone listening to him?"
Posted by: scribe999
|
July 26, 2010 12:33 PM
I liked Daniel Dennett's response to people praying for him when he was ill.
Posted by: stonedone
|
July 26, 2010 12:33 PM
I generally say, "I'll be keeping you in my thoughts, and I wish you the best of luck." Most of my family would say, "We'll keep you in our prayers." To me they're equivalent statements. They say (1) I care about you; and (2) I hope luck/God/fate or whatever imaginary being will favor you. I know (2) is a fantasy, but figure the last thing people in dire straits need is a lecture, however correct I am.
If they're close enough to me (my sister, for example, would ask what I really believed) then I'll tell them. Otherwise I think it's like saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes. No, I don't actually think their soul is escaping through their nose. But I do wish them well, though wishes are as impractical as prayers.
Posted by: Pandora
|
July 26, 2010 12:36 PM
Its just ridiculous. If he were to criticize the praying, he would be accused of rudeness. If he is polite, he is accused of being a hypocrite. He is being thankful for friends who care and accepting their well meaning gifts. People just want something to whinge about. The man is fighting for his life, assholes should just be polite in return and cut him some fucking slack.
Posted by: Screechy_Monkey
|
July 26, 2010 12:43 PM
Sastra @28: well said.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
July 26, 2010 12:44 PM
seularshawshank (@31):
No! First, you're misrepresenting SmilingSkeptic's comment @25, which was:
IMHO, we make a huge error (both tactical and factual) when we imagine that our Evangelical or Fundamentalist counterparts are invariably hateful and ill-intentioned. I think the religious Right, as a movement, is hateful and ill-intentioned, but it does not follow that the majority of the rank-and-file are anything other than well-meaning dupes, trapped (whether by persuasion or as a result of family/cultural legacy) in a false mindset.
For one thing, my experience with Christian religious people ranging from fundamentalists (Church of the Nazarene) to liberal Episcopalians suggests that a large majority interact with their churches primarily as social institutions, without any significant emotional or philosophical commitment to theology or doctrine. In addition, some of the most loving, generous-spirited people I've ever known have been among those who are personally committed to conservative Christian theology. I know that seems self-contradictory... but what part of cognitive dissonance or self-delusion strikes you as a surprising characteristic to find in h. sapiens?
Some Evangelicals and Fundamentalists really mean "fuck you, heathen" when they say "I'll pray for you," but many, many others are simply well-meaning people who think they're being sweet. Sad, I know, but true.
Posted by: cag
|
July 26, 2010 12:47 PM
Newfie #24.
Fortunately, there are no True Christians, only pretenders, wannabees, and couldhavebeens.
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
July 26, 2010 12:55 PM
I know we all wish Hitchens the best, but if he beats the odds and fully recovers, the True Christians will attribute it to the forgiveness of god.
If he doesn't survive, it will be god's vengeance.
You can't fucking win with those people.
Posted by: jefflub
|
July 26, 2010 1:04 PM
Having been on the receiving end of these sort of prayers, I accepted them as the well-meaning positive thoughts that they were intended to be. The downside (as I think has been pointed out by others above) is that when I got better all of those folks thought, and some stated, that their prayers were what saved me.
A couple of years ago I had some bumps on my skin, and after a few doc visits, blood tests, biopsies, and scans was diagnosed with Stage IV T-cell lymphoma. My wife is a cultural Catholic and participates in church activities, so there were plenty of people in her life who started praying for me. At the time, I simply was glad to hear that people cared, as I was mostly mentally prepping myself for chemo and a bone marrow transplant. Fortunately, my hematologist noticed some interesting changes and decided to wait a week before diving into chemo, and "miraculously" my symptoms began to abate on their own. Turns out, I have an indolent, non-life-threatening form of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (pathologically similar to mycosis fungoides, but presenting in a way that nobody we can find has ever seen) that was initially over-diagnosed due to its unusual presentation. No chemo, I got better, and oral meds keep the bumps away.
Now, when I meet some of those folks who prayed, and they hear how I "got better", they give me a meaningful look and say things about how all those prayers must have helped, and I just have to smile and say thanks. Their belief is bolstered, and I'd come across as an ass if I questioned them. My odd bit of medical randomness gave a couple of dozen people new evidence for their beliefs. I'm not sure how I could have prevented this, but I definitely have a lower opinion of this sort of prayer than I had two years ago...
Posted by: heatherly
|
July 26, 2010 1:06 PM
That's one of my favorite TJ quotes--I had the full version on my wallpaper at the job I just left.
I think Hitchens addressed that very well. I also think there are religious individuals who could disagree with him vehemently and sincerely pray for his health with no hesitation. If I said to my (UCC minister) father: "Dad, there's this author and speaker that I admire named Christopher Hitchens; he writes about atheism and he's just been diagnosed with cancer."
His response would be: "I'm so sorry to hear that; I'll keep him in my thoughts. Would you like me to add his name to the prayer list on Sunday?"
There are unkind people on both sides of the fence--but kind people too. :)
Posted by: secularshawshank
|
July 26, 2010 1:11 PM
@45
When you quoted me, you left out the very next sentence, which was
As a former fundie, I stand by that statement (the whole statement).
In the Evangelical community, when you "pray for" someone who isn't "saved," you're praying that "Christ comes into their life." If it were up to a fundie Christian, it would be FAR better for Hitchens to "come to Christ" than it would be for his illness to go into remission. In other words, to their minds, his "earthly" health is superseded by his "soul's health." They would rather he be a Christian than be healthy and pain-free. (Don't believe me?---ask one of them sometime: Which is better, "earthly health" or salvation?) Excuse me, but I think that belief system is perverse, cruel, and de-humanizing. And it's a mainstream Evangelical belief.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
July 26, 2010 1:11 PM
Volant Proboscidian (@37):
Speaking as someone whose family has been through cancer treatment, I'll note that emotional support is the only useful thing friends and family can contribute. And believe me, emotional support is often the most vital sort of help a cancer patient can receive, outside of actual medical treatment. If people need to couch their emotional support in theistic terms, that's a small price to pay.
In addition, my experience has been that those people who are praying for you are also the ones most likely to bring games and videos to the hospital, and to help you with rides and babysitting and such, and provide all the other quotidian bits of ancillary assistance that make an ongoing medical crisis bearable. Regardless of any doctrinal teaching that "salvation is by faith and not by works," your average churchgoing friend or neighbor is all about good works. Thank dog!
Of course, but in this case we're not talking about a theist patient who's liable to be persuaded to forego real medicine in favor of faith healing; we're talking about a skeptical humanist whose friends are wishing him well in the best way they know how. Are you really concerned that Hitch will switch off the chemo and call in the priests?
Posted by: GMpilot
|
July 26, 2010 1:17 PM
If my dying grandmother asked me if she'd see grandpa in heaven, the most I could say is "maybe".
Christians always assume the dying person is going to join loved ones 'up there', so obviously it's other people going to hell.
Actually, I'd likely say, "No, you won't see grandpa in heaven, 'cause grandpa was a dick. He went to church every week, but he also beat you, he beat the kids, he shortchanged the workers, and he was nasty to everyone he dealt with. So don't look for him."
For the sake of a loved one, I might hope there's a heaven for them, but honesty compels me to admit otherwise.
Posted by: madeirapark
|
July 26, 2010 1:19 PM
Ten years ago I was in Africa and got very sick. As we parted at the end of one day, our driver/guide said "I hope you feel better. I will pray for you."
It felt like a simple and sincere wish for my good health and like Hitchens I found it very touching. And I thanked him for his thought.
(I did get better but I attribute that to antibiotics.)
Posted by: jupiter9
|
July 26, 2010 1:28 PM
secularshawshank:
Absolutely. And this is Mother Teresa's philosophy on it, too, as Hitch so ably noted. Her mission was to bring souls to Jesus, not heal bodies, and that suffering was good for the soul.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 26, 2010 1:35 PM
Prayer used as a social statement of support or human solidarity from private people I can take, although I might point out to them that it is futile.
Prayer used as a purported tool for divine intervention, as political pandering, or as a backhanded statement of superiority rubs me the wrong way, though.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
July 26, 2010 1:50 PM
Hmmm... editing FAIL @51:
I didn't mean to imply that emotional support is the only useful thing friends and family can ever contribute; I should've said that emotional support is often the only useful thing....
secularshawshank (@50):
I quoted the portion that seemed to be to be a defective paraphrase of the point from #25 that you were ostensibly agreeing with. The remainder...
...doesn't really affect my point in any material way. Both the first and the second sentence there are absolute, unconditional declarations about what Evangelicals believe, and it's precisely that absoluteness that I'm responding to.
As a former fundie, you can testify to what you saw and heard, but you cannot testify, anymore than I can, to what all "fundies" believe.
I don't know that I can precisely call myself a "former fundie," because in retrospect I don't think I ever fully bought into the fundamentalist worldview, but in my days as a spiritual seeker, I was for several years a member of an evangelical church, and I have had many friends who have been evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christians of one stripe or another... and I can testify that not all "fundies" believe as you describe.
I'm not sure this is even accurate as a universal statement of evangelical/fundamentalist doctrine, given that fundagelical churches come in so many flavors, but I know for sure, from personal experience, that this is not an accurate universal description of individuals who self-identify as fundamentalist of evangelical.
In my experience (which, BTW, I do not claim as universal, but which does stand as a counterexample to your universal claims), the vast majority of Christians who say they're praying for someone's health and wellbeing are, first and foremost, praying for that person's health and wellbeing. Aside from the small majority True Believers™, most people are people first, and doctrinal adherents only after that fact.
This, BTW, is very good news for us secular humanists: There aren't enough of us to defeat theism by sheer intellectual force; at some point we're going to have to appeal to the better natures of persuadable theists. Lucky for us so many of them actually possess better natures, eh?
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 26, 2010 1:51 PM
Like other people here, I think it all depends on the intention.
The night before Part One of my bar exam, after I got into bed, my wife (then a devout Catholic, now a devout Baha'i) brought our six-year old daughter into the room, and both of them prayed over me.
I thought this was rather strange; but I was deeply touched--as I am whenever I remember it.
Years ago, when I was in graduate school, another grad student in my department, who'd been long afflicted by brain cancer, went to the hospital for the last time. One of the other grad students, who'd studied under John Mackie at Oxford and never expressed a kind word for religion in all the time I knew him, said: "I guess Charlie's in all our prayers now."
I think the intent may have been: When there's nothing left to do, this is how we customarily express our sympathy; or it may have been: nothing else has worked; I don't think prayer will either, but I'll try it all the same; or maybe it was a combination of the two. At any event, it's not something I could ever conceive of holding against him.
A final example: in a Humanities course I taught some years ago, a young woman, who almost never showed up for class, somehow appeared during a discussion of the Bible. In a very hostile tone of voice, she wanted to know WHY we were devoting so much attention to the Bible. It emerged pretty clearly that it was the treatment of the Bible as a human production that was especially annoying her. She capped everything off by asking me whether I actually belived in the Bible--to which I said No. "I'm sorry for you then," she responded; "I'll pray for you." I'm not sure the intent was quite equivalent to "fuck you"; it was more a case of breathtakingly condescending pity. The grade I gave her, however, may have had a touch of "fuck you" in it.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
July 26, 2010 1:56 PM
D'oh!
@56, this...
...should've been this:
<Grinds_Teeth>
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
July 26, 2010 2:07 PM
@34
"It's kinda like when a bully would grab your ball..."
I read this wrong and the misconception stuck for the duration of the sentence. I was very briefly baffled.
Posted by: VAiora
|
July 26, 2010 2:08 PM
I find it hard to focus on the good things, when they had told him cancer was punishment for his sins.
Posted by: SQB (fuck death)
|
July 26, 2010 2:09 PM
No matter what the subject, knowing the difference is always the tricky part.Posted by: a.human.ape
|
July 26, 2010 2:10 PM
In my opinion, when a Christian tells an atheist "I'm praying for you" the Christian is intentionally insulting the atheist, and the Christian knows it's an insult.
Of course, the Christian is also proving he's an idiot, but everyone already knows that.
-- Human Ape
Posted by: THEHARMONIKZ
|
July 26, 2010 2:14 PM
There has been a great many You Tuber responses toward Hitch,most of which are heartfelt and respectful,however some have been quite grotesque in their readiness to promote their own beliefs.I must say listening to Fr.Barrons cretinous take on the subject is quite tasteless in his bloted egotistical,self delusional way.
Get well soon Hitch.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
July 26, 2010 2:23 PM
I think Hitchens misspoke when he said that "prayer and holy water, and things like that are all fine." Well, no, they're not all fine. They’re silly superstitious things that perpetuate false ideas.
Sure, he goes on to explain that he doesn’t believe they’re effectual, and I heartily agree that you have to take good intentioned well-wishing in context and not throw it back in people’s faces out of consideration for their feelings, but still, it could have been a teaching moment for someone who has devoted his life to fighting the good fight against religious indoctrination. Of course, he is preoccupied with cancer, and he’s probably not looking to storm any castles at the moment.
Oh, and the guys at the Hitchens Watch website come across as real dicks.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
July 26, 2010 2:44 PM
Sigh....
No! The behavior/intention described here is at best mean, and in the context of sneering at the (potentially terminally) ill, evil. And I have no doubt that there are some Christians (including a disproportionate percentage of the "movement" leaders within the religious Right) are just that evil... but it's a mistake — as I said before, both a factual and a tactical error — to attribute to evil that which adequately be accounted for by foolishness or ignorance.
Crazy as it seems to us, many of these people honestly believe (albeit admittedly without much of a nod to intellectual rigor) that there is a loving God who answers prayers, and they believe their prayers will bring nothing but benefit to those for whom they pray, even if the intended beneficiaries don't themselves believe.
I have no doubt that some people are publicly declaring their intention to pray for Hitchens for the purpose of insulting him, and through him, atheism generally. But the people who have personally told him they're praying for him — the ones he himself identifies as nice — are unlikely to have any such invidious intentions. Call them fools, if you will, but in most cases you'll be wrong to call them assholes or deliberate antagonists.
Also, please note that this is not a call for accommodationism: I don't counsel any quarter be given to evil people. But from a purely pragmatic POV, how we react to evil people is/should be fundamentally different than how we react to foolish and deluded people. The former must killed with fire (metaphorically, of course); the latter must be won over through education and persuasion. We harm our own cause if we assume evil intentions where none exist.
Posted by: ZSM Wisdom
|
July 26, 2010 2:45 PM
Tualha said: "Jeez PZ, why do you new atheists always have to be so shrill and strident???"
Tualha, I think you've got it wrong. Atheists tend to be calm and logical. In contrast, it is the religious who scream and rant and condemn all those who don't believe as they do to Hellfire and Damnation. If Atheists come across as "shrill and strident" is it ONLY in defense because they are sick to death of being forced to subsidize and respect religious belief. They are tired of being threatened and bullied. They are fed up with the social double standard which is thrust upon them. Frankly, calling atheists "shrill and strident" is a bit like calling mice "large and cumbersome". It just ain't so.
In truth, it is the religious who are shrill and strident as well as obnoxious, loud, annoying, ridiculous, vicious and blatantly unfair and discriminatory.
Posted by: lomifeh
|
July 26, 2010 2:47 PM
Lots of good comments, I agree with PZ here. Nothing wring with accepting well intentioned actions if they don't really affect you. He'll my mother prays for me even though I think it means nothing. I don't begrudge her though.
One thing I have learned, nothing I say will make a person who strongly believes in a deity stop. If they are unsure and question then my responses might make a difference. Understanding that if they think their prayer helped me somehow, well then, fine. As long as they don't parade it around as an example for everyone. There is a line here, I don't think its about accepting well intentioned thoughts though. I think the line comes to allowing others to use said actions for personal gain.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 26, 2010 3:14 PM
I thought it had been demonstrated that praying was actually bad for you. But I guess that requires you to believe in prayer in the first place, so I guess the guy's safe even if his not discouraging the practice.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 26, 2010 3:43 PM
If I had cancer and two people came up to me:
#1: I will pray that you die a slow painful death and rot in hell.
#2: I will pray that you get better.
Even thought the effect of their prayers are identical, that second person would make me feel a little better.
Posted by: speedyvespa
|
July 26, 2010 3:53 PM
I agree that it's touching - if someone belonging to a religious organization want to express their best wishes to CH via silent thoughts of any variety, it's a nice thing and shouldn't be mocked.
What IS irking me are articles and yootube blogs by Christians publicly announcing "why christians should pray for CH" - it does come across as gloating, and an attempt at moral grandstanding of a low kind.
If you want to think a few kind best wishes for Christopher, they really shouldn't become a topic for discussion. It undermines the point and the implicit goodwill.
Posted by: thomas.paul
|
July 26, 2010 3:57 PM
The Templeton Study was flawed in that the people who were doing the praying actually had no idea who they were praying for. Also, there was no way to determine if other people, family members for example, were praying for the people having the surgery. The patient outcomes also were based on what a doctor considered a good outcome. A patient who had an easy death, for example, was considered a negative outcome in the study where this might be considered a positive outcome through prayer for the sick.
Among the patients who knew they were being prayed for there was a slight negative outcome in that they had a higher rate of post-operative arrhythmias (59% vs. 52%). However, there was no significant difference in the death rate.
Posted by: Stever
|
July 26, 2010 4:02 PM
One day on the links my father, a lifelong devout catholic, lined his putt on the green and looked up to me and two of his friends to entreat, "Let's all pray that I make this putt."
One of his friends replies, "Henry, what makes you think God gives a shit about your golf game?"
My father replies, incredulously, "Are you kidding? My putting is one of God's most serious problems!"
He missed.
I hope, for goodness sake, that Hitch wins out.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
July 26, 2010 4:33 PM
@ 66,
I might be wrong but I took her statement as sarcasm for agreeing with Hitch's position, seen as antithetical to the "New Atheist" position by some( whatever that really means).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 26, 2010 4:41 PM
That isn't a flaw. Only a religious mind would think that. That is scientific rigor for double-blind testing. Still doesn't effect the outcome. Prayer = nothing.Posted by: Volant Proboscidian
|
July 26, 2010 4:49 PM
Bill Dauphin @ 51:
I wasn't referring to the present situation; I meant it in regards to the more general question of whether prayer should be perceived more as a benign or pernicious element of religion, and whether Hitchens is right to tacitly condone it.
Posted by: nastasiewoerjan
|
July 26, 2010 5:06 PM
@66
Tualha was being sarcastic about the standard accusation of 'shrill and strident' aimed at 'New Atheists'.
Maybe a little OT, not sure:
Two days before my grandmother died, she related a dream she'd had about my grandfather (who'd died when he was 32). In her dream, they were at a party, and he asked her to dance, and they danced the night away.
When she died, an aunt said at the memorial service that my grandmother had lived a long life, had never become bitter despite the tragedies of losing a loving husband at such a young age, raising her children alone, losing a child and then raising two grandchildren, etc. She was an amazing person, someone who really knew how to love (absolutely true). Then my aunt related the dream, and added, "She had a dance to go to."
After that, my cousins and aunts had the habit of saying she was 'up there' dancing with my grandfather. They are all only nominally Catholic, very liberal people, but they do like to poke me sometimes. Despite that, I think it would have been dickish of me to say, "That's a very nice image, and very poetic, but there's no 'up there'". So I just smiled and said something along the lines of "isn't it comforting to know that she died peacefully and with such a nice thought in her mind?" I basically just changed the subject a bit. I think it's a good compromise.
-Nastasie
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
July 26, 2010 6:50 PM
VP (@75):
Well, as to the latter question, I guess part of my point was that I don't think it is a "general" question; instead, I think it's context sensitive, depending entirely on the intentions of those offering prayers and the situation of the person to whom they're being offered. That is, it makes a difference whether the offer comes from sincere good will (however misguided the mechanism) and it also makes a difference whether the recipient is likely to be harmed. IOW, if Hitchens were, in fact, the sort of suggestible fellow likely to be influenced by promises of prayer to forego real medical treatment, I'd have a different opinion about this than I do.
As to the former question, I'm afraid I don't understand how prayer could be a "pernicious element of religion." It seems to me that if you buy religion's premise that there exists a God who knows and cares about the events of the mortal world, and who bothers to intervene, then petitioning said God through prayer is a no-brainer. If you don't buy the premise, you'll likely find prayer "pernicious" to exactly the same degree you think religion itself is. It's hard for me to see prayer per se as any more pernicious than all the other crazy stuff religion promotes.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
July 26, 2010 7:07 PM
Dauphin @ 77
Wouldn't it be nice if they all prayed all the time, and left law and governance to the rest of us?
Posted by: Buster
|
July 26, 2010 7:15 PM
Hey why do you guys not support the liberation of Iraq don't you think Iraqis can be free too?
Hey your just as bad as those guys at Hitchnes Watch who think Iraq was better with Saddam in charge.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 8:16 PM
[meta]
Buster, not only are you derailing the topic, but confused as to what liberation means.
I hope you shan't be 'liberated' some day in the way that the Iraquis have been, because I am not a cruel person.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 26, 2010 8:44 PM
Derailing...? Me? Look at the other comments about all other stuff in this thread.
Okay look:
"One doesn't want to be an enabler of stupid expressions of faith, but at the same time, one shouldn't discourage kind intent. Hitchens is in a situation where he's going to have to walk that line a lot."
So Mr Pharyngula thinks praying is stupid and Hitchens shouldn't encourage it. But he says that other website is nasty to Hitchens for saying the same thing. Hello?
Anyway, wehn I looked at Hitchens watch I got the idea that they were just joking anyway. It's called irony. Do you know what irony is? Hmmmm?
Why are all you po-faced atheists just all so literal. So literal minded, that's why you don't understand the Bible because you think it's literally what it says. Meanwhile you all think Iraq should be enslaved. Yeah, great morals people.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 26, 2010 8:46 PM
Busted @ 79,
I'm sure the million dead Iraqi civilians feel extremely liberated right now.
Posted by: DLC
|
July 26, 2010 8:52 PM
Buster@ 79 : it's not that people don't support the removal of Saddam Hussein, it's that they don't support the removal of Saddam by force of arms.
Re: Hitchens and prayer or other imprecations to the imaginary : I Wish you well, Hitch.
Magical thinking it may be, but I say it anyway.
Perhaps the combined forces of random chance, medical science and heredity will combine to help you to get better.
Posted by: echidna
|
July 26, 2010 8:53 PM
*Snort* Oh, that's funny.
No, the problem with the bible is that there is no possible interpretation that is not inconsistent. It is a cobbled-together mess of ancient writings, generally used to control populations that are told it is true and binding.
People like Ken Ham believe the bible is to be taken literally. Atheists believe the bible is a pack of myths, horror stories, lies and wishful thinking.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 9:10 PM
Buster:
Praying is wishcraft.
It may be comforting to the individual, much like meditation; but when one thinks it achieves anything per se, then it becomes irrational.
It's when its irrationality is denied that it enters the realms of stupidity.
--
"pray: to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy" (Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary)
Posted by: Buster
|
July 26, 2010 9:12 PM
"Buster@ 79 : it's not that people don't support the removal of Saddam Hussein, it's that they don't support the removal of Saddam by force of arms."
And how did they think he could be removed? Wishful thinking? Praying? Ha, I don't think so.
"People like Ken Ham believe the bible is to be taken literally. Atheists believe the bible is a pack of myths, horror stories, lies and wishful thinking."
I don't know who Ken Ham is! That's like me saying that Pol Pot was an atheist therefore all atheists are bad. Not eveyone thinks the Bible is really true you know. Some people just think it has some excellent stories with a good moral to it. You know. The parables?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 9:14 PM
Buster:
"Never let your prejudice get in the way of the facts", eh? ;)
I refer you to Sunday Sacrilege: Metaphorical Acid
Posted by: Buster
|
July 26, 2010 9:34 PM
"I refer you to Sunday Sacrilege: Metaphorical Acid"
tl,dr.
;-P
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 26, 2010 11:49 PM
I think Buster just failed a Turing test.
Posted by: echidna
|
July 27, 2010 12:05 AM
Buster:
Ah, understanding of the bible based on ignorance. You can only think that if you haven't read all of it.
ing@88:
Wins the thread.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
July 27, 2010 12:17 AM
Dear Brother Buster,
I know you are just having a naughty little public tug on your fleshy bits when you say that "po-faced atheists ... don't understand the Bible because [they] think it's literally what it says", but I don't think Yahweh would be pleased with your arrant silliness. Of course the Bible is literally true--it is the Divinely inspired and infallible word of God. There isn't a period out of place; you name it, God meant it: talking snakes, global floods, flaming chariots, parting seas... the whole nine yards!!
You should pay a bit more attention, Busty, and keep your hands of your privates when you are trying to think. The problem we Christians have is that the fucking atheists DON'T think God's infallible book is literally true. They think The Bible is literally stupid, and, really, from their perspective you can hardly blame them for that. The lucky pricks really don't believe in the lake of fire, the mark of the beast, the seven seals and the rapture. And if I wasn't so terrified of being sodomized for eternity by a demon with a forked penis the size of a baseball bat, I'd find everything in the Bible pretty fuckin' stupid as well. I mean...have you read the shit in there? Do you know how many apparently sane people run their lives by its silly strictures? Why, I myself have followed the Bible by giving up eating all shellfish, and I've already killed two of my children for disobedience, and I'm still worried I may miss out on Heaven.
My advice, Brother Buttster, is to take your faith a little more seriously, and stop undermining God's infallible word. Either that, or look up 'literal' in your dictionary and understand its definition.
Yours in fear of fire, brimstone and the binky fairy,
Smoggy Batzrubble
ex-Missionary to the Atheists
Posted by: VAiora
|
July 27, 2010 12:33 AM
@91
You sir, have won the award, I don't know which and what its made of, but I can tell you, it's big.
In order to have faith, I think you have to step it up a notch. Mass genocide! These modern day humans don't know anything about worshipping. We have to forcefully shove down their throats the love and wisdom that is god. Why can't these atheist liberals open their eyes! GOD IS ALMIGHTY!
The sad thing is, almost everyone wants to act like this. They can say one thing, but in reality, this is what they really wanna do. Faith is scary.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 12:55 AM
Smoggy!
Your being silly now with your stereotype of the religious.
Josef Stalin would be proud of you!
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 12:59 AM
"I think Buster just failed a Turing test."
Yo mama failed a Turing Test! LOL! High Fiiiiiive!
"Ah, understanding of the bible based on ignorance. You can only think that if you haven't read all of it."
Atheists morals actually come from Jesus. So when atheists throw out the bathwater they throw out baby Jesus too.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 27, 2010 1:05 AM
The poe bores me...someone get the swatter
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 1:13 AM
Ing, Buster ain't a Poe.
Just a run-of-the-mill troll.
--
I quote:
Troll responds: tl;dr.
Heh.
My acid test had a pH of 6.9; that more than sufficed.
Perhaps one day I shall need the aqua regia.
Perhaps, but I doubt it.
Competence isn't one of their attributes.
Posted by: mylf
|
July 27, 2010 2:56 AM
I couldn't disagree with you about this site more. I'll grant you I'm not with Hitchens over the war, but this group's real problem with him is his atheism. And the reaction when it was disclosed he had cancer was fucking vile. The whole pretending to sympathise while *obviously* gloating and insinuating he got what was coming to him, thank the lord.
I concede, that was the first time I came across the group; maybe it started over the war, but I doubt their sincerity, since they haven't set up a Bushwatch. Because he's a christian.
Posted by: mylf
|
July 27, 2010 3:05 AM
oops. Seem to have confused this with another Hitchens watch site. Apologies.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 27, 2010 3:07 AM
Busted,
[Citation needed]
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 3:32 AM
"Busted," BustER! BustER!
Anyway I don't get all this atheist made-up language. If it was good language it would be okkay but its mono-syllabic grunts like "Poe" and "Woo". What are you talking about?
"And the reaction when it was disclosed he had cancer was fucking vile. The whole pretending to sympathise while *obviously* gloating and insinuating he got what was coming to him, thank the lord."
I think your right but I don't think they are Christians. Christians don't praise the Lord when people die only when bad people go to Hell. Look at this, but not before you have your lunch or breakfast:
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk9VGimkGaFEOcmWKpC80dKLlP7s0i8Beg
|
July 27, 2010 3:35 AM
I got my "just desserts" yesterday. It was a layered mixture of Greek yogurt and blueberries, topped with crushed meringues.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 3:38 AM
"Atheists morals actually come from Jesus."
[Citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian#Basis_of_a_common_concept_of_the_two_religions
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 3:44 AM
Buster, a citation is supposed to support your contention, not be irrelevant to it.
Hint: Judaism is not the same as atheism.
The former is a religion. A touch less stupid than Christianity, but nonetheless a religion.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 27, 2010 3:49 AM
Busted,
look mate, you've obviously got a roo lose in the top paddock, and I will let you entertain me with your inanity for a while since I'm bored, but if you want to be *gasp* taken seriously, you might want to do better than linking to wiki articles about xtianity and judaism when you spout nonsense about atheist morals.
You could start with, who is this Jesus you mention, how do you know that person existed, how do you know he, should he have existed, taught any moral values, and how is it that today's atheists should have gotten their "morals" from this fictitious person ?
Hint : The collection of second to tenth century writeups of myths from 2000-3000 years ago that goes for the "Bible" these days does not count.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 3:55 AM
What are you talking about? Jesus was from the Jewish religion obviously and he improved it and it became Christianity, hence Judeo-Christian. All Western civilization has come from Judeo-Christianity and atheism (liberal atheism, anyway) as you cannot find any liberal atheist-friendly societies that didn't come from adaptation fo Judeo-Chrsitian values. Find me one society that isn't from there. So, the values, free will, respect for the individual, right and wrong and other things that liberal atheists prize all came from Judeo-Christian values. This is as clear as day.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 4:04 AM
Okay I realize what I wrote wasn't clear. I mean that the values that liberal atheists have all come from societies that were judeo-Christian and that these values started as Judeo-Christian ones. The proof is that only Judeo-Christian societies produced liberal atheists. Prove me wrong!
(By the way, you have to explain what your values are now. I just assumed they would be the usual ones that are said by atheists but maybe you believe in eugenics and similar perversions.)
Posted by: OurSally
|
July 27, 2010 4:09 AM
Umm. Buster. Read some Plato. Read Cicero. Try Marcus Aurelius. It is possible to strive for goodness for other reasons than the selfish wish for one's own salvation.
Though I would say the decalogue is pretty good shorthand for teaching children how be good humans, this is only a thin substitute for teaching them to think for themselves. Living an exemplary moral life oneself is more effective than any scripture.
If Christians would only stick to their much-touted values the world would be a happier place. But they don't, do they? And they haven't been for 2000 years. You could usefully read Gibbon too, at this point. Perusal of Eusebius might teach you some Christian humility.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 4:10 AM
Buster, Jesus is a mythical figure the only evidence for whom comes from the so-called New Testament. Nor did he 'improve' Judaism, he was a Jew.
Do you even read your own propaganda?
cf. Matthew 5:17-18.
As for Christian morality, that would be misogyny, authoritarianism, slavery, anti-semitism and the teaching that people are worthless scum born with original sin.
Hardly atheist values.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 4:11 AM
Buster, do you know what post hoc, ergo propter hoc means?
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 4:26 AM
Yes, but the Greeks and Romans also did plenty of bad things that wouldn't be acceptable to most liberal atheists. They had slaves etc...
"Jesus is a mythical figure the only evidence for whom comes from the so-called New Testament. Nor did he 'improve' Judaism, he was a Jew."
Erm...can anyone see the logical error here?
"Buster, do you know what post hoc, ergo propter hoc means?"
Yes, do you know what ex nihilo nihil fit means?
Posted by: Marco
|
July 27, 2010 4:28 AM
Let's think about this for a second, in context, and not just in abstract principle, as many here seem to be doing (excuse the frankness, but please try to hear me out).
Who are these multitudes who all of a sudden are "praying" for Hitchens? How likely is it that he has so many caring friends among the believers? Do you really buy that?
And what respectful believers (if such a species exists) who know enough about him to have "noticed" his atheism, would tell him with a straight face that they are praying for him? How respectful of his beliefs would that be? Why, instead, and far more sensibly, not just say something like: "I sincerely wish you well, in spite of our past differences, and with no hard feelings"? That would actually be noble and commendable.
In this particular situation it's not difficult to see how open announcements of "prayer" could be viewed as insensitive, inappropriate, and even offensive. (I almost feel like saying "duh!" here...)
As in: "You believers want to 'pray for me'? Fine, it's your right to do so, if you so choose. But I neither must nor want to be told about it. Instead, just tell me you care. That will do, and I will be greatly heartened by your prayer-free expressions of concern."
Which is my way to ask, rhetorically perhaps: why do only the feelings of believers deserve special respect and protection, and not those of us non-believers? Why do we think that we must cave in to these stupid conventions so easily? Just because they are part of the majority's "tradition"? So is religion part of that "tradition"!
I can't prove it, but, again, I have a strong sense that the overwhelming majority of these pray-monkeys are condescending to his "lost soul" (the "condescending pity" mentioned at the end of post #57), so that the lawd shines his light upon him and gets him to see the true path to "salvation".
Such "prayer", besides being part of religion's magic thinking, would also express something in the line of: "Fuck you, heathen, cancer suits you fine; you're finally going to meet the maker you don't believe in -- ha ha; but, unlike you, we are good christians and we'll pray for you to be 'saved' anyway, even though you don't deserve it -- there! who's the asshole now?".
As far as we know, I see it as very possible that the "'god is punishing you' asshats" mentioned in post #33 are the main ones behind this surge of "prayers for Hitchens". In which case, a raised middle finger would be the appropriate response.
After all, I can't find fault with the observation in post #62 that "when a Christian tells an atheist 'I'm praying for you' [well aware that the latter is an atheist -- my emphasis] the Christian is intentionally insulting the atheist, and the Christian knows it's an insult". Or at least should know.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 4:28 AM
Yet they came from a rejection of Judeo-Christian tradition. Just look at the enlightenment, the period came when the Church's authority was challenged. It was the rejection of a top-down authority and the creation of a bottom-up one.It's as clear as day that people are so desperate to tie modern secular beliefs to some religious base because it is those modern secular beliefs that we consider moral. Let's face it, religion isn't relevant to morality these days so the best people can do is try to make a historical argument... no matter how misleading (and irrelevant) that line of argument is.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 4:33 AM
Buster wrote:
Really? I, an atheist, believe in universal suffrage and democracy. Can you point me to the chapter of the bible where Jesus endorses this? Does he favour the preferential voting system or first-past-the-post?
You obviously don't, because if you did you'd be asking yourself the obvious: whence comes God?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 4:38 AM
poe?Posted by: Marco
|
July 27, 2010 4:40 AM
Why do you guys keep biting at this fuckhead Buster's bait? Why are you so gullible?
Stop it, already, and ignore the shithead.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 4:40 AM
And what respectful believers (if such a species exists) who know enough about him to have "noticed" his atheism, would tell him with a straight face that they are praying for him? How respectful of his beliefs would that be? Why, instead, and far more sensibly, not just say something like: "I sincerely wish you well, in spite of our past differences, and with no hard feelings"? That would actually be noble and commendable.
Marco, and would you pray for a Christian who gets sick? No, of course not. But you might do an atheist wish which is no different but you think maybe your magical thoughts change nature as long as it doesn't go to God.
Why is it offensive for a Christian to pray for an atheist? Why can an atheist offend a Christian by refusing, on religious grounds, not to pray for an atheist? Ha ha! I see it is one-way tolerance you want! You want your religious beliefs respected but refuse REFUSE to respect Christian beliefs! I see now! I see...
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 4:43 AM
You obviously don't, because if you did you'd be asking yourself the obvious: whence comes God?
If you'd studied any Thomas Aquinas you'd know the answer to that. God is a necessary first cause hence not contingent unlike Earthly contingent things.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 4:43 AM
Marco wrote:
SIWOTI?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 27, 2010 4:48 AM
Japan. Only about 20% of Japanese believe in God and 70% claim no religious membership [Source]. The country was shaped mostly be Shintoism and Buddhism.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 4:50 AM
http://xkcd.com/386/Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 4:51 AM
Buster wrote:
Thanks, courtier - but if I want hilarious sci-fi, I'll grab some Douglas Adams.
But let's go with that, just for fun - did Aquinas have any evidence to support this claim or did he resort to the same special pleading fallacy that you're depending on?
Because, you know, saying don't make it so.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 4:52 AM
Japan. Only about 20% of Japanese believe in God and 70% claim no religious membership
Okay, very good. I'll accept that one.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 4:55 AM
But let's go with that, just for fun - did Aquinas have any evidence to support this claim or did he resort to the same special pleading fallacy that you're depending on?
He just used logic.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 5:00 AM
Yep, you can get from "first cause" to "Jesus died on the cross for your sins" by pure logic...
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 5:03 AM
Sorry, was out shopping.
Buster:
It's what I'm pointing out to you, you doofus.
--
Without a sound argument, anything can be validly proven.
His premises were spurious.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 5:03 AM
Just remember "If 2+2=4, then God exists. 2+2=4. Therefore God exists" is perfectly valid logic. Now what does that tell us about reality? Absolutely nothing, following a premise to a conclusion just means that given a particular premise that something can logically follow. It doesn't mean it has any validity in reality. David Hume sounded out this warning about a priori reasoning over 250 years ago now...
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
July 27, 2010 5:07 AM
Buster, Something comes out of nothing all the time. It's called quantum fluctuations, and we can see the manifestation of this continual creation and destruction in a phenomenon called the Casimir force.
Aquinas did not know about quantum mechanics. Should we commit the same fallacy despite the fact that we (at least some of us) do?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 27, 2010 5:08 AM
It's' really quite astonishing the way Christians try to claim credit for the progress of the last 500 years. For the most part, they did their best to hinder it. Heliocentrism. They fought it. The Enlightenment. They fought it. Vaccines. They fought it. Evolution. They fought it. Women's rights. They fought it.
And let's all forget the 1000 years before of Europe under Christian rule.
Arghhhh....
How come these Judeo-Christian values accomplishes so little for it's fist fuckin' millennium in Europe?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 5:09 AM
Buster, you obviously missed this part of my post #121; here it is again: Because, you know, saying don't make it so.
Try again.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 5:11 AM
Vietnam, though they were polluted by the French
invasioncolonisation.Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 27, 2010 5:13 AM
Damn, not fucking Aquinas again!
How many times have we been shown his "arguments"? We really need a reference article to point to any Godbot who bring up his name.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 5:23 AM
It's bizarre, isn't it? That one of them suddenly goes, 'I know - I'll throw Aquinas at them! They've never have seen that before. It's not like philosophers have had a few hundred years to spot the holes or anything.' And then, after having their ass handed to them, it's like, '...but but but it's Aquinas! It's logic!'
Here's the thing - assuming your conclusions? Fallacious reasoning, whether it's you or Aquinas or Fred down the road.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 5:24 AM
His premises were spurious.
Which ones?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 5:32 AM
Buster wrote:
How about the ones that involved him assuming any of God's qualities without having any way of knowing whether or not they were true?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 5:36 AM
Buster:
All of them.
Take the first-cause argument (I paraphrase):
1. All perceptible things are caused by something other than themselves.
2. The causal chain cannot be infinite.
3. Therefore there must be a first cause.
4. This first cause is what we call God.
[1] and [2] are the premises, but both are suppositions; certainly, they're not analytic truths. They sound plausible, at first glance (especially if one lived before Quantum Mechanics was developed — cf. ARIDS @127), but plausibility doesn't entail truth.
[3] is the conclusion, which does validly follow from the premises.
Unfortunately, for [3] to be true, it's necessary for the first cause (by [1]) to be non-perceptible. He doesn't follow-through on this corollary. ;)
Also, this argument only "proves" there's a first cause that cannot be apprehended, and all [4] does is label it God.
Note also his "proof" amounts to Deism. This is not a personal God-construct.
It's just sophistry.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 5:36 AM
Not enough evidentially.Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
July 27, 2010 6:00 AM
Dear Brother Buster,
I prayed to Jesus about your counter-productive witnessing and he counseled me to be at peace, saying:
"Let not your heart be troubled Smoggy, for verily I say unto you that Buttster is a false witness and a very naughty boy. He is possessed by the demon of verbal flatulence, the demon of anonymous attention seeking, the demon of irrelevant attributions, the demon of logical incompetence, and the demon of self-patterned skivvys. But be not downcast, for I, the Messiah, will stand upon Heaven's highest wall, part my loincloth, and rain down upon Bluster a shower of Holy Water which will cleanse him of all pretense, and as an added bonus wash that nasty coloring out of his prematurely grey hair."
So there you have it Buthter, turn from your infantile ways, turn your face up to heaven, and prepare to receive the Lord's gift.
And all you hell-bound Atheists, follow suit! Come! Let's all sing a hymn together.
A one ... a two ... a one, two, three...
Have you been to Jesus for a golden shower?
Are you washed in the flood of the Lamb?
Follow Brother Buster for some liquid power ,
And be washed in the flood of the Lamb.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 27, 2010 6:07 AM
*giggles*
Posted by: Dania
|
July 27, 2010 6:13 AM
It's so good to have Smoggy around in these moments. :)
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 6:16 AM
Anyway that's only one argument by Aquinas. He has a few more in reserve. His arguments have been adapted over the centuries to take into account things the rest of us were not aware of at the time. Very forward thinking, Aquinas, and not usually understood by atheists. By design I expect.
Anyway, back to prayer, if a sick Christian asked you to pray for her would you do it?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 6:18 AM
All a priori reasoning can show is that something is consistent in itself. Is that what you're after? A supposed omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity and the best you can do is show the idea has internal consistency?Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 6:24 AM
Buster asked:
Nope. If a sick voodoo aficionado asked you to do a dance while naked and sacrificing a goat for her would you do it?
Posted by: Dania
|
July 27, 2010 6:27 AM
What's your point?
It would depend on the circumstances. Prayer is ineffective and pointless, letting someone know you care is not.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 6:30 AM
Busted:
Actually, you have it backwards.
He basically plagiarised Aristotle.
No¹.
I would instead ask if there was anything I could do to, you know, help that person.
Encouraging their delusional thinking by practicing wishcraft would be unethical.
--
¹ Hypotheticals of such a general nature are tricky.
Perhaps if they were in extremis — then I (possibly) might pretend to pray, to ease their last moments.
I am not a cruel person, and of course (being an atheist) I don't have dogmatic constraints on my empathy.
Hasn't come up yet, though.
Posted by: Dania
|
July 27, 2010 6:31 AM
And why would a Christian ask an atheist to pray, anyway?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 6:35 AM
Nope. Though I would get them a cup of tea.If a sick Muslim asked you to pray for him would you do it?
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 6:35 AM
If a sick voodoo aficionado asked you to do a dance while naked and sacrificing a goat for her would you do it?
No, I wouldn't want to kill the goat. I might dance naked for her though. ;)
Prayer is ineffective and pointless, letting someone know you care is not.
If someone said, "I hope you get better!" I could say, "Why? Hope is meaningless. Hope is ineffective and pointless. Hope is false consolation."
Are you going to "wish me well"? I could say, "Why? Do you have a magic lamp?"
Why is it okay to refuse to pray but acting like a **** if I refuse to hope or wish?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 6:37 AM
Are you saying that expressing empathy and asking for an omnipotent omniscient being to intervene in their life are equivalent?Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 6:40 AM
Are you saying that expressing empathy and asking for an omnipotent omniscient being to intervene in their life are equivalent?
They're equally effective. Or ineffective from an atheist's point of view. So, yes.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 27, 2010 6:40 AM
Analogy fail. People who pray actually think their prayers might make a difference. If I say "I hope you get better!" that's a statement of my feelings towards the person. I don't think hoping for something in itself will make anyone better.
_ _ _
I wish we had a webcam on Godbots reading Smoggy's comments.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 6:42 AM
Busted:
Wow, religion has really scrambled your brain, hasn't it?
I'm pretty sure that were I to find myself in the position of wishing the Hitch well (I wish I could, in person), he'd not spurn me with maudlin fatalistic nihilism.
--
You know, I'd much rather have a sick body with a healthy mind than be like you.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 27, 2010 6:43 AM
So you think prayer is ineffective?
Anyway, it should be obvious that the intentions are different. Are you just trolling?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 6:44 AM
I'd disagree. Social bonding has shown to have positive effects, prayer doesn't work.But that they are equally effective, why not give them a placebo instead? Equally effective as prayer. I can hand them some homoeopathic pills to swallow. It's just the same, right?
Maybe that how effective it is isn't the issue. Doing a futile exercise doesn't become less futile because there are other futile exercises out there.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 6:47 AM
All the tropes are coming out thick and fast.
Busted, based on what you've written so far, what you know about the atheist POV could be written in large letters on a pinhead with room to spare.
Posted by: Dania
|
July 27, 2010 6:47 AM
What? Saying "I hope you get better" is not meaningless. It's a way of letting a loved one know you care and love her. It's a way of showing empathy and it can ease someone's pain.
If I'm an atheist, refusing to pray would be being honest. I could eventually lie and pretend to pray if that would somehow ease a loved one's suffering, but as an atheist I can't honestly pray to God because I don't believe in God. But I can honestly wish someone well.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 6:50 AM
I'm coming round to this point of view. I'm not even sure what Buster's asking. "Can you feed my delusion if you know I'm weak and frail"???Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 6:56 AM
"Social bonding has shown to have positive effects, prayer doesn't work."
Then religion is a good social bonder. Group prayer might bring people together even if God doesn't grant everyone's wish.
This is a sad bit of scientific evidence:
http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html
Posted by: Dania
|
July 27, 2010 6:59 AM
I can sense a variation of the "Granny on her deathbed" gambit coming our way.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 6:59 AM
Again, what's your point?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 7:00 AM
Buster wrote:
What's an 'a ****'? How does one know if one's acting like one?
Posted by: Dania
|
July 27, 2010 7:01 AM
So what? Still no magic man in the sky to hear your prayers. I thought that was the whole point.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 27, 2010 7:01 AM
Now the atheism leads to suicide trope!
That's it, I'm done.
Posted by: Buster
|
July 27, 2010 7:08 AM
"Again, what's your point?"
Well, my point is that maybe too many people here take things literally. They battle away against people doing prayers and offering prayers when maybe its just a way of showing they care. Many people then say, "Who cares? It doesn't WORK!" as if that is the whole point. And like, I am told I don't understand the mind of an atheist and yet everything I see here is just constantly trying to fathom the worst possible motive for a Christian who might not be laughing at an atheists problem. Then we have a reductionist argument against prayer but a reductionist argument might work for prayer and religion and belief in God even if many people don't actually believe in God.
Anyway, I think I may have worn out my welcome so I will say ciao for now! Thanks for the chat everybody.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
July 27, 2010 7:09 AM
"Anyway, back to prayer, if a sick Christian asked you to pray for her would you do it?"
Hell no! As far as I'm concerned, any fellow Christian suffering from illness deserves everything they get. Clearly if they had a proper faith in Jesus they'd be healed by their own efforts (and have time to move a few mountains before dinner).
Of course, atheists prefer to rely on orthodox medicine when it comes to healing, and as a result they live longer, healthier more productive lives and have more and better sex. But, I ask myself, what's a good lay when eternity is at stake? I'd rather be praying than (ulp) indulging in rampant rumpy pumpy. Are the atheists laying up treasure in heaven, I ask (in my still small voice of envy)?
Despite a complete lack of testable evidence I believe that God's got a great plan for us, Buster, and it is only our own lack of faith that makes it seem like the true religious life is akin to swimming in a great steaming liquid turd of Divine obfuscation.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 7:12 AM
Sure. So is the KKK, to its members.
No less accurately, you should note that religion is also good social bondage. If you're into that sort of thing...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 27, 2010 7:16 AM
Buster wrote:
Think about how you feel about, say, Scientology. Write that down on a piece of paper, be as honest as you can. Now, cross out 'Scientology' and write in 'Christianity' - and there you'll have your answer.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 7:16 AM
You can show you care in other ways, there's no reason to pretend that you believe in their religion. That sounds insulting tbh.What I don't get is why believers are treated as weak and frail people who bruise at the slightest contact. Why does it matter how I would personally handle that situation? It doesn't, nor answering hypothetical questions now has any relevance for specific situations.
Posted by: Dania
|
July 27, 2010 7:16 AM
Ah, silly us. And here we were all thinking that Christians really believed in a personal God who listens to their prayers. Clearly, such persons don't exist. How silly of us not to see that.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 27, 2010 7:18 AM
A reductionist argument? No, those responses had nothing to do with reductionism.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 27, 2010 7:28 AM
Buster doesn't get it. He has no deity other than as a delusion between his ears. His babble is a book of mythology/fiction. He has no idea of what is really sanctioned in the babble. Slavery, sexual slavery, rape and pillage, genocide, incest, and other forms of depravity are all described as good and approved behavior. All in the name of an imaginary deity. Who sounds like a capricious amoral warlord with delusions of paranoia and adequacy.
All atheists do is look for real, solid physical evidence for a deity, and find none. Ergo, that deity doesn't exist by parsimony. Therefore, morals and ethics must be grounded in human behavior, and starting with the golden rule (which religious folks don't know how to apply), come up with moral values common in most advanced countries.
Posted by: Hirnlego
|
July 27, 2010 3:11 PM
He uses the word maybe..for Hitch to find faith, when the opposite should happen. No decent parent would ever allow this to happen to any of his or her children. But the religious stand by gods side, even when it comes to hell.
The problem in the world isn't perhaps that many people are doing evil deeds, but those who stand by, even justify some of most vicious kinds of cruelty in the world.
Carlin is right, this is not good work, and if God was a politician he would have very very low opinion polls considering all the power and the often very poor results. Jesus healed some people... I'm sorry but when your father is the boss of everything then this leaves a lot to desired.
Posted by: Marco
|
July 27, 2010 5:49 PM
Amazing. A troll slinks in, repeatedly throws his stink bombs, and the whole discussion veers off-topic, like a bunch of easily-distracted, ADD-afflicted teens.
I thought we were savvy adults here. Pretty disheartening.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 8:28 PM
Marco, I'm amazed that you're amazed.
Your concern is noted.
We are who we are.
You don't like troll-stomping, fine.
Feel free to go somewhere where trolls are dreaded, rather than chew-toys.
This. Is. Pharyngula!
Posted by: Not Guilty
|
July 27, 2010 9:00 PM
Ya my stepmother prays I'll find god. Sure. Whatever. Waste your time on that cus I sure ain't. Hitchens can go with that. He doesn't have the right to tell people what to do so if they want to pray, no skin off his nose.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
July 27, 2010 9:03 PM
Buster isn't a troll, Mr Polo.
Buster is a born-again Bible-believing Christian.
Trolls, by comparison, are pleasant company and rather endearing.
I believe you owe all trolls a deep and sincere apology.
Yours surgically
Smoggy Batzrubble
Founder of S.H.I.T!
"Save the Hapless Internet Troll!"
Posted by: Noddin
|
July 27, 2010 9:34 PM
Hello. When I find more time I will put further thoughts on this. But now, here is what I will say.
There is something special about Doctor Hitchens that is hard to discuss. He is a man with a strong and wet mind. I have known this for the times. I have watched him. OK.
He recognizes that the theists are vile gelatins in most periods. What he does not see is the deep Love they share when they are not vile. We see that they are violent fools. But. When they are good, they have giant red hearts. Look at it.
What have you given to your neighbor? If it is nothing, I am going to sit and think about this. I hope you will do the same. I am ignorant of my neighbor on some days.
Please load the page until you see my next comment. I will post more later. Thank you.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
July 27, 2010 10:02 PM
Dear Dog,
Are you God incognito?
Posted by: Marco
|
July 28, 2010 2:48 AM
In post #173, John Morales wrote:
I'm on your side, jackass.
You sound quite conceited and full of yourself, John.
Amd exactly who elected you spokesperson for the site?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 28, 2010 3:03 AM
Marco:
Perhaps I am, perhaps not.
Of what relevance is that?
I'm not wearing a spokesperson's hat, but that of a veteran reader of the site.
(It's got tentacles!)
Seriously, go through the archives if you don't believe me (particularly before mandatory registration was implemented) and have a look through some of the longer threads.
I encourage you to show me wrong.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 28, 2010 3:17 AM
Dear Brother Smoggy,
Though I am a hell-bound amoral atheist arsehole, I cannot but admire your perdurant quest for theophany.
Yours in Obligatory Derision,
Johannes Maximus Vulgaris.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
July 28, 2010 4:10 AM
Dear Brother Johnthomas Minimus Vulgarbits,
Your acclamation has warmed me and inspires me to take greater steps to win an atheist soul for Jesus.
Yours in gratuitous conversion,
Smoggles
PS My good friend, Floyd Rubber, asked me to pass onto you his profound admiration for your hell-bound amoral atheist arsehole. He says he likes a bit of rough and wonders whether you would like a little Christian mano-a-mano?
Posted by: Dania
|
July 28, 2010 4:45 AM
Oh dear, you must be new here. Otherwise it wouldn't have amazed you to see that troll being stomped into oblivion, nor would you think that "being on our side" would exempt you from criticism and ridicule.
Posted by: Marco
|
July 28, 2010 8:27 PM
In post #179, the endearingly superior John Morales wrote:
Oh, perhaps that, if you realize that you're acting like a dick, you may want to rethink that.
But I see that there no danger that you'll do that.
You wrong? Never! That's just impossible!
Clearly you're too cool for that.
In post #180 he then wrote:
The "arsehole" part I agree with wholeheartedly.
Posted by: Marco
|
July 28, 2010 8:40 PM
In post #182, Dania wrote:
Gosh, you don't read very carefully, do you?
I am not "amazed you to see that troll being stomped into oblivion". Quite to the contrary, I am baffled at the amount of energy that such a little dipshit can draw out of you. By the way, I view this kind of ganging-up on an isolated individual as an instance of bullying behavior, as much as I hold the object of the bullying behavior in contempt. You may want to stop and think about that distinction.
Also, you really think that you "stomped" him "into oblivion"? You may be even more deluded than he is.
To which I would normally reply with a "fuck you too" — if you weren't exempted from my criticism and ridicule by virtue of "being on my side"...
Posted by: Dania
|
July 29, 2010 5:42 AM
Yeah, it was such a great amount of energy I wasted in making six short comments in about a hour while uploading photos from my camera. Feels like I wasted my day right there...
Please. "Ganging-up"? We're all different individuals who even gave different answers to his nonsensical question. All you can blame us for is trying to make sense out of a troll, but that's what we do here. We feed the troll until it goes away. And if it turns out not to be troll, then that's awesome. We're happy to engage anyone in discourse as long as they're willing to.
If you don't like the way we treat trolls around here, that's fine. There are plenty of other places where trolls are starved to death instead.
Oh, perhaps you'd rather call it "feeding the troll till it chokes"?
*eyeroll*
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 29, 2010 6:03 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't take into account your view of things. Will learn for the future.What I'm curious about is how this could be viewed as bullying, it's more a stacked argument than anything really. One person going up against many, it's really not that personal or aggressive (though the arguments are - which is the point of having htem in the first place, why do it unless you feel passionate about it?)
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
July 29, 2010 6:10 AM
Marco, you've made six comments in this thread. One was relevant to the OP, the other five were whinges about tone and the troll derailing the thread.
Perspective, lad. Perspective.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 29, 2010 6:24 AM
Marco, I waste no less time on you than on Buster, because you're no less amusing.
Your non-sequitur is an evasion.
Again, of what relevance is whether or not I'm conceited to whatever points I make?
You're wrong; I am at times wrong.
Just not this time.
And I note you have again evaded the issue; am I or am I not wrong in my judgement? :)
--
PS If you're keen for a flame-war, why not take it to the Endless Thread, where it's not OT?
You can flame me to your heart's content, and I shall be entertained thereby — this without derailing this thread further.
I shan't respond to you further on this thread.
Posted by: Marco
|
July 29, 2010 4:12 PM
Evasions, flaming...
What a despicable character that I am.
Never mind that the points I made rationally and articulately before I was openly disrespected (with intimations of derision) were themselves evaded. But now I am the one accused of evasion. Projection anyone?
After that I used sarcasm instead. Sue me.
And if my points are "OT", maybe we need a bit of that. Unless we are all perfect -- in which case I humbly declare that I'm not!.
Again, sue me.
Posted by: polymathisthegoal
|
July 31, 2010 2:15 PM
Mr. Hitchens is a dick, but that's why we love him for it.