Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Republican Lawmakers on Strike
Paul Ryan’s New Clothes




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

‘Dying’ Hitchens Talks Mortality, Religion

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 10, 2010
Hitchens
theatlantic.com

In this frank discussion with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and with Martin Amis, an ailing Christopher Hitchens stares down his own mortality and makes it clear that if he appears to embrace religion at any point during his bout with cancer, “the entity making such a remark might be a raving, terrified person whose cancer has spread to the brain.”  —KA

The Atlantic:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By nemesis2010, August 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

TO ONE & ALL:

The great god, the most high god, it holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster has sent me to offer you a choice to change the course of history. It will grant the choice of one option from two available to any mortal with the courage to chose.

The options are:

1.) The great FSM will return Iraq and its people to the exact conditions it enjoyed prior to Bush War II. That’s a return to the rule of Saddam Hussein and his two loving and adorable sons, Uday and Qusay, the Baath party and all of its henchmen, including the official government rapists, the torture chambers, the dungeons, the prisons, the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War… everything… exactly as it was prior to the American invasion and occupation.

2.) Allow current conditions in Iraq to run its course.

Trivia: Iraq is part of Mesopotamia, the fertile crescent, the cradle of civilization. It is the birth place of writing and where the wheel was invented. The 3 monotheistic religions believe it to be the location of the fabled Garden of Eden. It was the homeland of the Babylonian Empire.

With such a long and rich history there is a little-realized bit of trivia associated with the election of Jalai Talibani as Iraq’s president. And that is that for the first time in a history that goes back to at least when Adam was in the Garden looking for a suitable mate among the animals… inhabitants of the area have a freely elected leader and government. (“The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End” by Peter W. Galbraith)

Which option shall it be; 1 or 2?

Ciao!

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 17, 2010 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

I.

By truedigger3, August 17 at 5:20 am

”My REAL issue with you, is what you so call “Islamo Fascism”.

So according to this your issue with me is a compound word, a term, a label; a controversial label that I purposely used because I knew that it would pique certain bleeding-hearts. Looking at the word we can quickly determine two essential points. That whatever the term ultimately means there is an element of it that has something to do with Islam and another element of it that has something to do with fascism. Thus: Islamo-fascism. 
We also know from the remainder of your commentary that your issue with me is quite a bit more that just a term.

By truedigger3, August 17 at 5:20 am

”You already know that in order for Fascism to flourish it requires a people with common conditions and goals who are working in unision, but Moslems are not monolithic people who are working in unison. ”.

I don’t agree.

I never made any comment that could even be remotely understood as a claim that Muslims are a monolithic people. That was erroneous inference on your part. It’s a straw man. You came to a logical conclusion derived from an assumption. You’re programmed. Islamo-fascism is a MSM trigger word.

There are many different ways and levels to work in unison. And fascism—or any other “ism” for that matter—can flourish with very small numbers of activists and a fearful and/or lethargic population. Many years ago I had a book titled “A Thousand Nights” by a Frenchmen who had been a resistance fighter during WWII. It was a remarkable book (currently out of print) and taught me much—although I didn’t realize it at the time—about Homo sapiens and politics.

While the French resistance was fighting a common enemy in the Nazis, they were simultaneously fighting each other. Most of the groups were political; socialists, communists, conservatives, nationalists, etc. They would even—especially toward the end of the war when it was clear that the Nazis were going to be defeated—set each other up. They would agree to hit a target in “unison” and either inform the Nazis where the other group would be and at what time or engage and then pull out letting the Nazis overpower, kill, and capture the other group.

That’s what you see happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and was one of the major reasons I was against our invasion and occupation. Homo sapiens are treacherous little bastards and you’ve much to learn my young friend.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 17, 2010 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

II.

By truedigger3, August 17 at 5:20 am

” Islam, like Christianity is A RELIGION and is not an ethnicity or a nationality. It is like Christianity is composed of people of different nationalities, races and ethinicities that range from blondes with blue eyes to 0 black and all the colors and shades in between.
Islam, like Christianity is compoesed of different sects who had and have a long history of bloody wars and compotition fighting among themselves.
Moslems number about 1.3 billion people who are living and scattered in completely different areas and locales in Asia, Africa and Europe. Each area has different problems, conditions, interests and levels of culture and modernity.
Among Moslems are the good, bad, rich, poor, progressive, reactionary etc etc etc.”

That’s a given and can be said of all religions.

By truedigger3, August 17 at 5:20 am

”So, the idea that ALL Moslems think and act in unison is pure fiction and propoganda.”

Correct. And since you’re the one that made the erroneous inference you’re the one that has to learn from the mistake.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 17, 2010 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

III.

By truedigger3, August 17 at 5:20 am

”What is called “Islamo-fascism” and they really mean the “Islamic Menace” is a product of imagination and propoganda to cover and divert attention or justify certain policies and actions and out of 1.3 billion Moslems there are no more than few hundreds who are, REALLY, hard core terrorists accompanied by few thousands sympathisers and the rest want to live in peace and be left alone, but unfortunately that is not possible because many of them live in areas that have a lot of OIL, if you get my drift!!!!!!”

Balderdash! MSM twaddle! Bleeding-heart piffle! Nonsense!

Is that you Dick? Shouldn’t you still be in bed recovering from surgery? Haven’t you learned anything from your asinine comment about a “few hundred malcontents in the last throes of their existence.”?

Islamism, Islamic fundamentalism, Jihadism, Islamo-fascism, whatever label you prefer, is a menace to everything decent in humanity. It is an insult to reason. It is the bane of multimillions of human beings the world over. There is nothing imaginary about it. The deaths, the carnage, the brutality, the costs are all too real! Anyone thinking that it’s imaginary has his/her head up his/her ass and should never be considered to have an iota of credibility.

Would you be so kind as to explain to us how to identify the individual on the firing end of an AK-47 or RPG as a sympathizer or hard core terrorist. Please tell me the difference between innocent people in a market-place being turned into ground meat by an IED constructed by a sympathizer and one constructed by a “hard core” terrorist. I can assure you that a Marine was just as dead when shot by a pajama clad Viet Cong or a uniformed ARVN.

I don’t know how to classify such a stupid statement. Is the person making such a statement insane, a mental retard, a child repeating something his retarded parent said? I don’t know. All I know is that to believe that, one has to have his head so far up his ass that a team of surgeons would have to work many hours in order to remove it. Denial of reality on a scale such as this is beyond comprehension for sane Homo sapiens.

I agree that most Muslims want to live in peace. So do most Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, pagans, witches, communists, socialists, conservatives, teabaggers, football players, etc. What has that got to do with the price of bread? And peace is not equally defined my friend.

What policies is the term Islamo-fascism covering up; the oil policy that you have just mentioned and that almost the entire world knows about? Some cover up! You and those of your ilk are as closed-minded and ignorant of the facts as any tea bagger on the reasons for the Boston Tea Party. The media use KISS to perfection and you and your ilk make it all too obvious just how effective a tactic KISS is.

There are innumerable variables and considerations that such an asinine position fails to take into account. I’m sorry truedigger3 but life simply isn’t that black and white. It’s unfortunate that it isn’t but…

Two years ago we lost what was arguably one of the greatest voices of reason in the world with the death of George Carlin. Now, unfortunately, it appears that we may soon be losing another. Fate has a way of sticking it to the human race. When we need those voices most…

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 17, 2010 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

By garth, August 17 at 3:20 pm

”I suspect you are just a paid-for diversion.”

I’m not going waste much time and energy on this latest screed from what is obviously an ill-educated buffoon who more than likely has not followed his doctor’s instructions as written on the label and/or lacks sufficient layers of foil on his pyramid hat.

Your insinuations that I’m Islamophobic are particularly amusing and bring a chuckle when I consider that ITW—a well-known pro-Israeli here at Truthdig—has accused me of being an anti-Semite and a bigot due to my referring to the state of Israel as the “rogue” state of Israel and having called for U.N. sanctions against that rogue state for its actions against the Palestinian people.

Don’t feel too bad about looking like a total ass for blowing this one so badly. On one article here at Truthdig I was accused—within 3 comments of each other—of being a neo-con and a no good, liberal democrat. So the Stupid is well spread out amongst the American population.

I also believe that AIPAC and any politician who has had any contact with that organization should be investigated as I believe it to be an Israeli foreign agent. That would make neo-cons and republicans even dumber than I already believe them to be if there was even an iota of truth to my being a paid-for diversion.

I could only wish that someone would want to pay me for my commentary if only in bottles of Johnny Walker Black Label. (If Truthdig staff members are reading… that’s a hint!)

What has really irked you and is easily inferred from your comments is my ability to construct and communicate an argument. You have attempted, as many do today, to denigrate my communication skills and grasp of world events. I shall never be ashamed of what I have worked so hard to achieve. The Stupid is not something to be proud of. The Stupid does not mean that you possess more common sense than one better educated than you. It simply means that you are—to a much greater degree—less able to comprehend how much you do not know.

Your ignorance of the facts, close-mindedness, and lack of skills is not my doing. Living in the U.S. you have so much more access—and much of it free of costs to you—to all that one needs to better oneself. If nothing else you can go to one of the more than abundant bookstores, sit in air-conditioned comfort, and read books for no more than the price of a coffee or a soda. Another option is the multitude of public libraries –all with air-conditioning, computers and Internet access. Try finding that opportunity in the 3rd world Mr. garth.


Think about that Mr. garth: A vagabond in the U.S. has more access to knowledge than the vast majority of the 6.8 billion human beings on this planet and there you sit turning your nose up at it and taking pride in your ignorance.

As for suspecting that I wasn’t in the Marine Corp… who cares what you suspect? With what you suspect and about two bucks I can buy an espresso.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 17, 2010 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

PatrickHenry, August 16 at 9:51 pm

” Like I said before, they needed an enemy so they created one.”

This was your second opportunity to make a case and you’ve once again resorted to incomprehensible innuendo. You were asked for the motive(s) and the goals that the perpetrators hoped to achieve. You reply: “they needed an enemy.” Are you sure they didn’t need an enema?

When you are going to make a case and start with a pronoun—especially the pronoun “they” —all of my warning flags pop up. A pronoun is used in place of a noun, it is a substitute. There is no noun in any of your statements for me to connect the “they” to. Therefore, from the listeners’ or readers’ viewpoint, you’re babbling incoherency. This is a common trait of the tin foil hat crowd.

I’ve neither the time nor the patience to continue with this ridiculous conspiracy witch hunt and this isn’t the appropriate article on which to do it anyway. As for your links: I’ve seen them all! (Hint: Alex Jones and World Nut Daily are not your friends.)

Try thinking about what you and others of the tin foil hat brigade are claiming. Then consider deeply the fact that this government could not keep Wikileaks from obtaining and publishing sensitive information on Afghanistan.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, August 17, 2010 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

After reading Nemesis profound enlighements,  I find the social and historical commentary most humbling to behold.  My time here on Truthdig has been substantiated, (Leefeller slip) ......thank you Nemesis!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, August 17, 2010 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

After reading Nemesis profound enlighements,  I find the social and historical commentary most humbling to behold.  My time here on Truthdig has been subsisted, ......thank you Nemesis!

Report this

By garth, August 17, 2010 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

nemesis2010, and might I add that you are not the nemesis predicted by Chalmers Johnson.  I suspect you are just a paid-for diversion. 

A few years ago Truthdig did not even get mention on the C-SPAN show on political blogs.  It has come quite a way.  You might be part of the surge in popularity.  But, I should remind you, it’s popularity, not substance.  Gather yourself.

I suspect that you are not 66 years old and that you are not a Marine veteran.  I suspect you are just a ‘Fisker’.  A neocon, typist.

(Fisking is the neo-con’s attack on Robert Fisk, an English Journalist based in Lebanon who told the story of the 2006 Israeli invasion into Lebanon.  He said that this time the Lebanese and Hezbollah were not afraid of the dreaded IDF.  They killed 50 IDF invaders before Israel withdrew.)

(One anecdote.  My best friend in high school had a an average IQ according to the testing.  However, when he joined the Marines in 1963, their IQ tests said he had 130 IQ, far above the average.  He was very proud of that.)


Neme, before you get too comfortable killing people, you ought to heed John Lennon’s lyrics,

“Once there was a way to get back home.”

As far as your comments go, I am reminded of Truman Capote’s remarks about Jaques Kerourac’s writing, Capote said Kerouac ‘was just a typist.’

Martin Amis rates Capote as a middleweight in the American world of letters.  I rate you as a typist of the first order.

Your mindlessnees stands alone.

Report this

By truedigger3, August 17, 2010 at 1:20 am Link to this comment

nemesis2010 wrote:
“Your definition of what fascism is was close but incorrect, so my use of the word “wrong” was appropriate “
_____________________________________________________

Your definition of Fascism is very close almost identical to my definition and whether the government, under fascism, is subservient to the business interests due to: 1)Revolving door or 2) “Friendly persuation” or 3) Ideologues in positions of power is a minor detail. So, I am baffled that you called my definition, wrong!!
And I agree with you that fascism modifies itself according to the environment and locale in which it functions and, of course, possible US fascism will be fifferent from Nazi Germany Fascism which was different from Mousolini’s Fascism
My REAL issue with you, is what you so call “Islamo Fascism”.
You already know that in order for Fascism to flourish it requires a people with common conditions and goals who are working in unision, but Moslems are not monolithic people who are working in unison.
Islam, like Christianity is A RELIGION and is not an ethnicity or a nationality. It is like Christianity is composed of people of different nationalities, races and ethinicities that range from blondes with blue eyes to 0 black and all the colors and shades in between.
Islam, like Christianity is compoesed of different sects who had and have a long history of bloody wars and compotition fighting among themselves.
Moslems number about 1.3 billion people who are living and scattered in completely different areas and locales in Asia, Africa and Europe. Each area has different problems, conditions, interests and levels of culture and modernity.
Among Moslems are the good, bad, rich, poor, progressive, reactionary etc etc etc.
So, the idea that ALL Moslems think and act in unison is pure fiction and propoganda.
What is called “Islamo-fascism” and they really mean the “Islamic Menace” is a product of imagination and propoganda to cover and divert attention or justify certain policies and actions and out of 1.3 billion Moslems there are no more than few hundreds who are, REALLY, hard core terrorists accompanied by few thousands sympathisers and the rest want to live in peace and be left alone, but unfortunately that is not possible because many of them live in areas that have a lot of OIL, if you get my drift!!!!!!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 16, 2010 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

nemesis2010

“What is the reason or what are the reasons—in your opinion—for the attack of 9/11?”

Like I said before, they needed an enemy so they created one. 

Just one of the over 3 billion ‘hits’ on 9/11.

http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

I wonder what ever happened to those dancing Israelis?

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 16, 2010 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

By garth, August 16 at 3:47 pm

”I should think a dying man would have more on his mind than just some intellectual maze.”

Hitchens was diagnosed with cancer a few weeks ago. The debate over his position with respect to Bush War II has been going on for years. The material referenced spans several years.

What you’re feeling at the moment is known as a DUH! experience.

I don’t mean to rain on the anti-Hitchens parade but there is a very slim chance that he will survive several years more. I for one hope so.

By garth, August 16 at 3:47 pm

”Ah, the conspiracy theory. What is 19 Saudis? They were identified less that 2 hours after the attack on the WTC?  Here’s where you reveal yourself as just an escibidor hired to take up space.  Your text lack even the high school definition of Mass, your arguments have no weight.  Just air.”

I believe the correct conjugation for 3rd person plural “to be” is “are.”  “What are 19 Saudis?” I haven’t a clue what the hell you’re rambling on about since there were 15 Saudis, 2 Emiratis, 1 Egyptian, and 1 Lebanese.

Yes, they were identified rapidly. It was due to information found in Atta’s checked luggage which, fortunately, didn’t make the connecting flight, and contained the names of all the perps.

I hope that you’re not going to come here and to tell me that it’s impossible to lose a piece of luggage with the airlines because I’ve flown multimillions of miles and I can tell you that there is no relief when one is traveling that compares to the relief that one feels when one sees his bag on the carrousel. Your luggage’s position on the airlines’ priority list is right below the item that reads: “Do we even care?”

By garth, August 16 at 3:47 pm

”Talk about Aluminum Foil hats.  Pretty droll.”

Yawn.

By garth, August 16 at 3:47 pm

”As a goddamned, loud-mouth-sissy faced marine, you should know better.  Grow up, act your age.  Put on some long pants.”

I used to date a girl that was crazy about those garth cartoons. She had the garth t-shirts, a garth coffee cup and a garth cap. She never let anyone touch the Sunday paper before she had a chance to remove the comics section to read her garth cartoons. She was friggin crazy about that dumb cat garth.

No… wait… that wasn’t garth… that was Garfield! I’m sorry… wrong pussy!

By garth, August 16 at 3:47 pm

”I say to you and other people like you: Why not have another investigation?”

And I have but one word for you and the whole tin foil hat brigade garth…. EVIDENCE!

This should interest you:

http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac341/OU1911/paranoia.gif

By garth, August 16 at 3:47 pm

” You continue. (Very high school.)”

As Nemesis slowly raises his opened left hand he simultaneously lowers his forehand into it thinking… “Jeebus on my Ritz cracker! This calls for a drink!”

Report this

By garth, August 16, 2010 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

nemesis2010,

I agreem with part of what you are saying about religion.  It was something about Pascal and the fear of death.

I used to fear death, from my introduction into the Catholic faith, I learned (maybe I was taught) that death was a release from all our sins. 

I thought (unaided) that if I made a confession and then stepped in front of the Friday 4:00 pm Eastern Mass bus I’d go straight to heaven.

Confession senternced me to say so many Acts of Contrition.  Here’s where you are right, absolutely right. 

I wasn’t contrite or sorry, I was afraid, and I was using their words.

But in the following, you say,

“Also if one takes the time to read or listen to interviews of people who know Hitchens and are close to him one will find that they also do not believe the claims that you and others have made here.”
——
I should think a dying man would have more on his mind than just some intellectual maze. 

examples:
I knew a very strict Catholic couple who when told of the husbands death in the Doctor’s office began to weep.  By contrast, my sister, who died at 34, wanted to select her Funeral Home and drive by it.  She told me to pray for myself.  Grief strikes each each person differently, from my experience.

Conspiracy of 9/11
“The only jury still out is the conspiracy theory wing-nut jury and they’re still out because they’re investigating the reported shortage of aluminum foil… ya know… for their hats.”

Ah, the conspiracy theory. What is 19 Saudis? They were identified less that 2 hours after the attack on the WTC?  Here’s where you reveal yourself as just an escibidor hired to take up space.  Your text lack even the high school definition of Mass, your arguments have no weight.  Just air.

The identification of the 19, who weren’t on the flight lists, miraculaously came about by 10 am after Atta’s passport survived the crash and the inferno that resulted from the crash into the WTC.  The passport was found on the sidewalk 1000 feet below.  Thanks for collapsing into its own footprint. 

Talk about Aluminum Foil hats.  Pretty droll.
————————————————————
As a goddamned, loud-mouth-sissy faced marine, you should know better.  Grow up, act your age.  Put on some long pants. ———————————————————

I say to you and other people like you: Why not have another investigation?


——————————————————————-

So we have Edmund Hillary of prominent press deciding to hone in on Mother Teresa.  Howzabout the millions dislocated in Iraq?  Your are a schmuck!

You continue.

”I do know that you don’t know and Hitchen will soon find out is that there is an irony of life to which no scientific formula applies.”


‘Do you see what you’ve done here?’ 

(No, but I have a feeling you are going to tell us.)

You’ve stated unequivocally that I don’t know and in the very next breath you make an unsubstantiated, unverifiable, claim to know something that you simply cannot possibly know as if it were the truth and a fact.  (Very high school.)

Regarding Hitchens, the first I had ever seen or
Nemesis2010 says

Your last statement I use here will stand by itself.

“Have you any idea how it will pain me to find out in later years that perhaps the Shrub had it right? The line against Islamism and all religious violence has to be drawn. The longer we delay the worse it will be. Watch the turmoil that will be brewing over that dumb Muslim mosque or center in N.Y. this week. You’ll be seeing and hearing the faithful of the world’s 3 monotheistic religions going head to head. And what we’ll see and hear will be nothing in comparison to other parts of the world where the adherents to those three death cults and others are in confrontation.”

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 16, 2010 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, August 15 at 6:07 pm

”I have been following your monologue nemesis2010 with great
interest.  Strung together the separate posts would make an
impressive treatise.”

Well… ummm… ugh… hummmm…. uhhhh…. shucks Shenonymous… this is rather embarrassing. 66 years old and I’m blushing like a nerdy teenager whose best friend just blurted out to the class that he was in love with the head cheerleader.

I sincerely thank you for your eloquently written words. Coming from someone as highly thought of and respected as you makes them all the more valuable.

Sincerely…

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 16, 2010 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

By PatrickHenry, August 15 at 6:51 pm

”I think denyist is a better term for you than Atheist.  You mock what you don’t know.
The 9/11 investigation spent 15 million, a third of the Monicas dress show.  Then there’s the case of our special relationship with Israel and our out of control military spending.  They needed an enemy so they created one.
I hope alot of that aluminum foil gets recycled into siding for you trailer types who believe the ‘scientists’ of the MSM.

Perhaps, but you leave me no other option.

You claimed to know “the reasons” for the 9/11 attacks. So based on that claim I asked you to provide us with the details of what you claim are the “real reasons” for the attacks of 9/11. Instead of providing details of what you believe to be the true account of the 9/11 attacks you come here and make incoherent innuendo.

What has the cost of the 9/11 investigation have to do with the reason(s) for the attacks? You want me to take you serious yet you present a post that a stoner teenager excited about tomorrow’s skate boarding competition would make.

What is the reason or what are the reasons—in your opinion—for the attack of 9/11? I want to know what the motivation(s) was/were. What were the goals that the perpetrators or the conspirators hoped to achieve? You don’t murder almost 3,000 civilians by crashing planes into buildings for nothing.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 16, 2010 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

By truedigger3, August 15 at 6:59 pm

When someone ask you specific questions you answer with specific answers and NOt by “sure do”, “wrong”, “yes really” and “sure can” etc etc ....Okay, another try:

That depends. Those answers were appropriate and succinct responses to the questions posed. The word “can” in the sense in which you used it is used to indicate mental and/or physical ability and possibility or probability. Your definition of what fascism is was close but incorrect, so my use of the word “wrong” was appropriate also. Plus I was messing with you! Bwaaaa! All work and no play makes Nemesis a dull boy!

By truedigger3, August 15 at 6:59 pm

”1) Can you give examples of what you are calling : “infiltration and active offensive taking place in Western social democracies.” by Islamists.”

Yes I can… tap, tap, tap, tap, tap… do you mean to ask “would” I give you examples of the aforementioned? Yes! Gladly! Why didn’t you say so?

I’m going to give you a single example because you’re going to go ballistic on me and…

On 9/11/2001 the U.S. suffered what was arguably the worse attack on the homeland in its brief 200+ year history. The attack was perpetrated by 19 jihadists from 4 Islamic countries—all members of the internationally recognized terrorist organization al Qaeda.

To attack us these men had to obtain visas allowing them to enter the country. Once in country these men assimilated into our society and took advantage of our system of laws and, to add insult to injury, had some of our own citizens train them to fly the airliners that they were planning to hijack and crash into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the Capital building. There’s your infiltration and usurpation of the system to attack it from within in an attempt to bring it down.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 16, 2010 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

II.

Democracies are soft targets for determined enemies. The laxness in our immigration enforcement has been well known around the world for many decades. These people knew our system intimately and manipulated it to their advantage.

In a democracy such as ours visitors are free to move around at will and take advantage of every wonderful thing that this society has to offer… virtually… no questions asked. That’s not a bad thing. It’s great. It’s taken us hundreds of years to reach such a wonderful level of societal complexity. But it also leaves you vulnerable to attack by those of a differing ideology who wish to do harm to you and your fellow citizens.


That plan was one of short term infiltration, assimilation and attack. What about other plans for long term infiltration, assimilation, and attack of a different order? What I mean is immigration, slow methodical assimilation into the society, learning all of the ends and outs of the political system, working one’s way through the political process in order to bring it down from within over a long period of time? By one I don’t mean a single individual but an ethnic group, a religious group, a political group, etc.

There is, of course, the very real possibility that some or many or even most of those sent will assimilate and say: “Screw that! I like it here.” But not all of them! And there’s always lots of fresh blood back in the homeland that can be sent to the target nation and whose learning curve will be only a slight percentage of those that preceded them. 


Before you start… what did the U.S. and Russia do just a few weeks ago? Did we not exchange spies? Spies who have operated within our system, totally assimilated, post 9/11... for years!


How do you think any minority immigrant group that came to this country was able to overcome the persecution and prejudice that almost all of them had to face and become a viable part of American society? They came in, assimilated, learned the system and began to work within the system for their rightful place at the table. And that’s great! That’s what a social democracy is all about. But those are examples of how to properly work the system for benevolent purposes that in the long run work for the benefit of the society. The down side of this is that the same system that can be manipulated for good can also be gamed for malevolent reasons. Big Corp and the 14th amendment?

Consider what has happened to our democracy since 9/11. Do we have more or less freedoms? There are situations where an air traveler has to spend more time traversing the security in an airport than his/her flight. I can remember when we could just walk up a few minutes before the flight and board simply by presenting a ticket. Not today! In the U.S. of A.—the supposed land of the free—we cannot stand in a line waiting to pass TSA inspection and gripe about having to wait so long without facing arrest, strip-search, and felony charges.

There’s more…the Patriot Act, Internet surveillance, enhanced security, wire tapping, DHS, Bush War II, etc… because of one single act (perhaps two if one considers the first attack on the twin towers) of violence perpetrated from within. And I haven’t the years of life left for me to begin trying to calculate the financial costs.

I’m 66, and if I had fallen asleep in 1968 and only been awakened today I would not recognize the U.S.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 16, 2010 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

III.

By truedigger3, August 15 at 6:59 pm

”2) What is your definition of fascism?”

My definition is exactly what the definition is.

Basically fascism is a political ideology that’s heavy on nationalism. It’s totalitarian, militaristic, has a centralized socioeconomic system, racist, oppressive and brutal, especially against opposition factions, etc.

Where you err in your definition is with respect to business. The corporations do not—normally—control the government. It’s more of a blending of government and business. A modern example could be the revolving door between the higher levels of the U.S. Treasury and Wall Street. It’s almost impossible to tell where the government ends and Wall Street begins or vice versa. That said, I don’t think the U.S. is anything near a fascist regime like that of 1930s Italy and Germany. It’s absurd to believe that.

What you have to be careful about is not realizing that an American fascist system is not going to be exactly the same as those from the 1930s Europe. We’re different people, with different values, etc. (F.A. Hayek covers that topic in “Road To Serfdom.”) That said an Islamic fascist system—for the same reasons—won’t be exactly like an American or European fascist system either.

I’m not particularly fond of all those “ism” labels. I think they’re all stupid to be honest. In my years of observing Homo sapien politics it appears that regardless of the letters preceding the “ism” suffix, all “isms” move from states of abundant or adequate freedom toward states of lesser freedom and more stringent control. They’re all the same.

Look at it as a giant flat top pyramid that from the bottom up exist different levels of “Haves” and “Have-Nots.” It goes without saying that the lower rows are comprised of those with the least while the smaller (in width) upper rows are comprised by those that have most. The difference in the “isms” is reflected by the number of rows or different levels from top to bottom.

The more democratic and egalitarian the society the larger number of rows the pyramid will have due to a more egalitarian distribution (not to be confused with redistribution) of the nation’s wealth. The more totalitarian a system the fewer number of rows from top to bottom (and greater difference with respect to the width of the base and the width of the upper most level) because almost all the nation’s wealth flows directly to the upper rows occupied by the ruling elite. I like to refer to it as the “flood up” system; which can also be said to be a “trickle down” system? smile

How did I do?

Report this

By garth, August 16, 2010 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

May I interject as an onlooker.  I recently read that only 5 % of the readers of blogs such as Truthdig contribute. I am enjoying this very much. 

To actually read and think about what is being written rather than jumping in with the connection between the mind and the mouth severed, I have found a new source of education—self control.

Shenoymous might describe herself as a teacher, but Shenonymous is really an educator.

nemesis2010, I had to go back and re-read all of your posts to appreciate that you are not one for blah, blah, blah.  I’ve heard, lately, a word for what you are doing: Fisking—taking each paragraph and breaking it down in analysis.

The jumping between comments is a little tiresome, especially for one who sometimes can’t remember why he went into a room, but the arguments are worthwhile.

I enjoy the back-and-forth and I thank Patrick Henry, Truedigger3, elisalouse and the ones I just mentioned.

I don’t want damn the process with drooling praise.  I am just telling all that I appreciate it.

Report this

By elisalouisa, August 16, 2010 at 5:33 am Link to this comment

Added Note:
As I said in my previous post Nemesis spiritual matters are personal. Chris Hedges speaks my language. C. Hitchens does not. This exchange is going no where. However, there is sincerity in your writing and therefore I add the following to my past posts accepting the fact that we are far apart on such matters and will continue to remain so.
It is my belief that somewhere along the way there is a meeting of the minds concerning the New Atheists and the neocons. C. Hitchens’ praise of Wolfowitz in his column titled Bleeding Heart Wolfowitz gives indication of this.  Sam Harris, in discussing terrorism, wholly dismisses such
contributing factors as the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships and the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world. The problem Harris states is religion, period. This is a quote from The Anti-God Squad column by Robin Wright that appeared in Foreign Policy December 2009. Quoting again from that article. And there’s a subtle but potent sense in which New Atheism can steer foreign policy to the right.

Tolerance seems to be a thing of the past. The New Atheists are proof of this.

The link below also provides evidence between the New Atheists and neocons.
http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-new-atheists-are-reactionary.html

Further comment:Some eastern religions believe that the world is all mind. Carrying it a step further there may be a common ground where thoughts interchange. This can be on a personal level or a crowd level. Great orators can tap into this energy and movements come into being, for the common good or otherwise. There is no proof of this for that realm is such that reason cannot go there.  Prayer and meditation is getting in touch with that part that is not physical.

Report this

By elisalouisa, August 15, 2010 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment

            This exchange is going no where.

I repeat, spiritual matters are personal. Chris Hedges speaks my language. C. Hitchens does not. This exchange is going no where.

Report this

By truedigger3, August 15, 2010 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

Re: By nemesis2010, August 15 at 4:43 pm

All your answers to my two posts addressed to you were nothing but hot air devoid of any substance.
When someone ask you specific questions you answer with specific answers and NOt by “sure do”, “wrong”, “yes really” and “sure can” etc etc ....
Okay, another try:

1) Can you give examples of what you are calling : “infiltration and active offensive taking place in Western social democracies.” by Islamists.
2) What is your definition of fascism?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 15, 2010 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment

nemesis2010, August 15 at 4:40 pm

I think denyist is a better term for you than Atheist.  You mock what you don’t know.

The 9/11 investigation spent 15 million, a third of the Monicas dress show.  Then there’s the case of our special relationship with Israel and our out of control military spending.  They needed an enemy so they created one.

I hope alot of that aluminum foil gets recycled into siding for you trailer types who believe the ‘scientists’ of the MSM.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

I have been following your monologue nemesis2010 with great
interest.  Strung together the separate posts would make an
impressive treatise.  Even though it appears to be a dialogue
between you and a few others, you have taken it to a different
level of oration for surely you know those to whom you have
more or less directed your comments are not able to integrate
beyond a mere degree what you are saying.  Those who do understand
vastly gain the benefit of your insights.  While wildly passionate, you
are at the same time rational and have extraordinary power to express
in the clearest unadorned terms life’s currents as it truly seems to be. 
Your assessments are delivered with precision and are more honest
than anyone has ever voiced on Truthdig far as has been my
experience.  It is encouraging to find there exists a realist of your
caliber.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

0.

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

”Although I am 1000% an atheist, blaming religion as a source for the ills of any society is a big error.”

No it isn’t. We’re free today because men with much bigger balls than yours made the necessary sacrifices and stood up against Religion.

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

”Religion is one the symptoms of the flaws and defeciencies in the human nature as homosapiens evolve, hopefully but there is no guarantee, to better and saner creatures.”

Religion is not the symptom; it’s the disease. It’s the disease that gets inside of you and rots you out, not the symptom. What you see on the outside is the symptom.

When you see people dancing around like crazed loons and babbling like idiots those are symptoms of the disease known as Olde Tyme Religion.

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

” Chris Hitchens, dying or not dying, doesn’t deserve any honoring. He deserves compassion and understanding but not honoring.”

Really? And where is that written in stone? We honor other human beings all the time.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

I.

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

”He got seduced and co-opted by power and money and became a mouth-piece for war mongering and displayed cruelty, bigotry, callousness and utter disregard for human suffering.”

So you know that for a fact, do you? I ask because if one listens to Hitchens’ explanations for why he backed the war in Iraq one can see that there are other motivations than those you’ve just stipulated here. Also if one takes the time to read or listen to interviews of people who know Hitchens and are close to him one will find that they also do not believe the claims that you and others have made here.

I find your comments about disregard for human suffering of particular interest. Hitchens was one of the few in the entire world who had the courage to take a stand against massive world opinion to the contrary on Mother Teresa and exposed the suffering that some of the world’s most destitute women were enduring in those so-called clinics.

Here’s Hitchens’ reply when asked who his favorite heroines were in real life.

”The women of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran who risk their lives and their beauty to defy the foulness of theocracy. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi as their ideal feminine model.”

I think I’ll stick with the opinions of those close to Hitchens and who know the man. And I take that stand as one who has always been against Bush War II.

Life isn’t black and white. Hardly ever are the choices we’re forced to make clearly a choice between good and evil; the choices almost always involve different degrees of good and evil and are always full of more than enough ugly.

Several decades ago the world’s TV screens were plastered with starving men, women, and children living under the iron yoke of a communist regime. The free world sent multimillions in aid trying to relieve the suffering and grief only to find out later that all that aid, financial and material, only aided in keeping the repressive regime in power; prolonging the suffering of those people.

Not long after there was yet another country whose people were facing similar conditions as the aforementioned and the Free world did little or nothing to help. It’s estimated that half the population of that nation was wiped out.

Those two countries were Ethiopia and Cambodia respectively.

In his most recent book, Hitch-22, Hitchens mentions a comment made to him, in Lisbon, by one Colin MacCabe:

“sometimes it was also the right people who took the wrong line.”

Only time will tell whose position on Iraq was the correct one.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

II.

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

” Really??!!”

¡¡YES REALLY!!

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

”Can you elaborate and explain what do you mean by the so called Islamo-fascism??!!”

¡¡Sure can!!

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

”Do you know and understand what fascism is??”

¡¡Sure do!!

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

”It is the corporate control of the government and society and masking that by zingoism and call to arms against real or fictitious enemies coupled by blaming the ills of the society on helpless weak minorities. Is that ring a bell??!!

Uggh!!!!!!!!!! Wrong!!!!!!!

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

”Can you give examples of what you are calling : “infiltration and active offensive taking place in Western social democracies.”

Yes I can.!!!!!!!

By truedigger3, August 15 at 7:17 am

”The biggest threat against Western Democracies is the home grown fascism which made gigantic steps and aschieved notable sucesses to control these societies and deprive it from true democracy.”

Slurp, munch, munch, munch, slobber, slobber, hmmmm…

Glug, glug, glug, glug… hmmmmmmm

Does not compute…

Nope! I can’t agree with that and I think that the evidence in comparison to Islamism proves that statement erroneous. That is not to say that I don’t agree that home grown fascism is a threat to social democracy… it is.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

By PatrickHenry, August 14 at 11:47 pm

” The jury is still out on alot of these incidents and I see how fast you are able to parrot the Islamo-fascist misnomer, religion may have played a role in these attacks but it wasn’t the reason they occured.”

The only jury still out is the conspiracy theory wing-nut jury and they’re still out because they’re investigating the reported shortage of aluminum foil… ya know… for their hats.

I regret using the word Islamo-fascist although it does fit with the amplified definition of the word fascist. I prefer Islamism. So just replace Islamism where you see Islamo-fascism and continue with your baseless argument and denials.

Religion played a part in it? Are you daft? Okay… tell us the reason for the attacks of 9/11. I’m really dying to hear it. Then tell us the reason for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. That should be enough for a while.

By PatrickHenry, August 14 at 11:47 pm

”I do know that you don’t know and Hitchen will soon find out is that there is an irony of life to which no scientific formula applies.”

Do you see what you’ve done here? You’ve stated unequivocally that I don’t know and in the very next breath you make an unsubstantiated, unverifiable, claim to know something that you simply cannot possibly know as if it were the truth and a fact.

Show us your evidence of that so-called irony of life. You can’t because you are making shit up from whole cloth and that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed as pure unadulterated bullshit without evidence also! So there… take that!

By PatrickHenry, August 14 at 11:47 pm

”Regarding Hitchens, the first I had ever seen or heard (pay attention) of him was on Real Time and I thought him a snob then. I could care less of his viewpoints and opinions as they are not necessarily my own.”

Well Patrick all I can say is that I can state with a very high degree of certainty that given Hitchens current circumstances—facing his imminent demise—that your opinion of him probably won’t be very high on his list of things to be concerned with. Do you feel better for having said that Patrick?

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

I.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”The power elite want global control Nemesis and you know that, they really don’t care about the American people. Subduing the Muslim world is important to them.”

Do you see what you’re doing yet again? You came out and made unfounded accusations denigrating atheists and now you’re flip-flopping to the power elite. When you say the “power-elite” do you realize included in that are those pulpit pimps that fly around in multimillion dollar private jets, live in multimillion dollar mansions, drive 100,000 dollar cars all of which are financed by fleecing the flocks? Do you realize that the biggest of those offenders is the Catholic Church?

Ted Haggard supposedly spoke with George Bush at least once a week. Would you have me believe that Dawkins who has often called Bush stupid was on the phone encouraging the little munchkin to attack Iraq and Afghanistan for New Atheism? Would you and Hedges have us believe that Hitchens or Dawkins had more influence than the pro-Israeli John Hagee who controls one of the largest flocks of deluded in the country and is heavily courted and backed by AIPAC? You’ve come here trying to make the claim that the “four horsemen”, all of them atheists, could influence what was the most Christian evangelical administration in U.S. history.

An atheist cannot even seek office in many states in this country… what the hell do you think would happen to any politician thought to be influenced by atheists? Have you ever bothered to consider the disproportionate number of Jews in the federal government in comparison to their percentage of the population? Check it out and then come here and give us the stats of atheists involved in government compared to their percentage of the population. 

In the republican debates how many of the candidates admitted to being a believer in evolution? Stop dodging the truth and go check it out and return and post the numbers. 

As a power elitist you don’t want to “subdue” a people. What you want is stability. You need a stable society in order to safely exploit the resources. Unstable societies mean higher risk for investments. That’s why they support totalitarian regimes… the regime’s leaders suppress their own people and provide the stability needed.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

II.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”War in the mideast; Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran does not benefit the American people. They foot the bill and get nothing in return.”

It’s questionable if war ever benefits anyone besides the war profiteers. I don’t know if you are aware of this but we are not presently at war with Iran.

This still has nothing to do with the New Atheism movement’s desire to see an end to all religious violence and the eventual end of religion through education.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

” We cannot afford social programs, education, rebuilding our cities and states but we can afford these wars?????? I say NO.”

I’m sure that the solution to this is to simply vote a Democrat majority in both Houses and give them the Executive…  oh wait! smile

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”The Muslims are not a threat to me. Their plate is already full. Why then should our sons and daughters fight in those God
forsaken wars?”

Yes they are! But more important is that Western civilization is bigger than you and Islamism is a threat to Western civilization. It’s not about you. It’s about our civilization and society and just because you’ve not the courage to admit it, that does not alter the fact that Western social democratic societies offer mankind a lot better future than anything totalitarian and/or theocratic societies have. There’s a reason those places are such shitholes!

You of the loony left haven’t a clue what the hell is taking place in this world. What do you not understand about the significance of Theo Van Gogh’s murder? What do you not understand about Kaddafi Duck’s comment about the Muslim Birth Bomb? What do you not understand about the free world’s chicken-shit press being too afraid to pick up the gauntlet and make a mockery of Mohamed?

What do you not understand about a Dutch political refugee needing a protective body guard to walk the streets in our nation’s capital? What do you not understand about evangelicals blowing up clinics and murdering doctors in our streets? Have you a clue to the danger of having presidential candidates denying evolution in the 21st century or a vice presidential candidate that actually had an exorcism performed on her by an African witch doctor hunter?

It’s all there before your eyes…

Have you any idea how it will pain me to find out in later years that perhaps the Shrub had it right? The line against Islamism and all religious violence has to be drawn. The longer we delay the worse it will be. Watch the turmoil that will be brewing over that dumb Muslim mosque or center in N.Y. this week. You’ll be seeing and hearing the faithful of the world’s 3 monotheistic religions going head to head. And what we’ll see and hear will be nothing in comparison to other parts of the world where the adherents to those three death cults and others are in confrontation.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

III.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”Why then should our sons and daughters fight in those God
forsaken wars?”

Life’s a bitch and then we die! Sometimes life simply hands you a bucket of poop and all you can make is a shit sandwich. I’ve often thought about the poor sons-a-bitches that were born at the start of or during the Great Depression and then fought and died in WWII. What kind of a hand were those poor sons-a-bitches dealt? What about indigenous Americans during the 1600s and 1700s or white Europeans during God’s holy inquisition? How would you like having been born in Africa anytime? How ‘bout a female in Saudi Arabia and not a member of the royal family or one of it’s connected or India in the lowest caste?

Why don’t you pray for an end to all the wars? We know it won’t do any good because there is no god or the son-a-bitch is deaf or simply doesn’t care. How many Homo sapiens do you suppose have prayed for an end to the misery for the whole of our miserable 175-200 thousand year existence? Has anything changed? No.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”You don’t really care about women, you care about their vaginas. I never saw a man who referred to vaginas in such a casual manner.”

You’re so full of it that it’s pouring out your ears elisa! My dad died of cancer when I was 10. My mom raised my brother and I alone. She never remarried and the S.S. benefits didn’t even pay the rent. One of the minor reasons for joining the Marine Corps was that it provided the only way out and it meant that my mom would not have to provide food and clothing for me and I could send her money if she needed it. I didn’t realize that as a private I would only clear about $80 or so dollars a month.

This is a perfect example to demonstrate just how out of whack the loony left in this country is. My merely mentioning a part of the female anatomy has you practically in tears—albeit I’m using the proper medical term for that body organ—yet an animal can chop off the nose and ear lobes of some poor defenseless woman trying to escape her brutalizing husband and you (<- 3rd person) can’t bring yourself to mutter nary a word for fear of offending the bastards! Have you a clue how perverse that is? Why don’t you go out and buy the current issue of Time… no… buy two and send one to Chris Hedges.

What is it with religious abhorrence of the vagina, the menstrual cycle, and pig meat?

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

IV.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”Your “women’s lib” pretext as to the Muslim women is a way of getting women behind the continual wars. Never, never, never will I be for our loved ones fighting and dying in those wars. Never will women accept that excuse.  Neocons such as Jeff Goldberg are for these wars, Goldber fought in the Israeli army and is now pushing for war with Iran.

I don’t have any “women’s lib” pretext. I simply believe that women are Homo sapiens too and not goats or sheep or cattle.

You and Hedges maligned Hitchens saying that he was amoral. In one of the interviews he stated that the thought of leaving his children made him tear up. Does that sound like an amoral man elisa? Compare that to the Muslim father who ran down and killed his teenage daughter in an Arizona parking lot a while back. Who’s the amoral one elisa? 

Here’s reality for ya hon… there are many more females out there that are behind the wars and even preparing to defend themselves than there are women like you. You and Hedges can fear-monger all you want about the New Atheists but most women know who it is that they should fear and it isn’t the likes of the New Atheist movement.

Women understand that when Hitchens and others say that for mankind to be truly free we need women to be liberated there isn’t a hell of a lot to fear. All you have to do is review the abundance of evidence to come to the proper conclusion.

You and your ilk should thank your non-existent god that there exist ruffians like the many putting their life on the line everyday protecting you from those that would slice your throat while kissing you and joke about at the rape party.

I don’t know this Goldberg fellow and really don’t care. Just connect the dots. A Jew wanting to attack Iran… DUH! Right back to the 3 monotheistic religions again aren’t we elisa? But you’re looking for New Atheists under your bed! That’ll work! Sweet holy jeebus on a cracker!

I’m very liberal and progressive in my politics elisa but people like you and many others here at Truthdig make me embarrassed to label myself a liberal.

You’re (3rd person) mirror images of teabaggers.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

V.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”I stand in sisterhood with all the women you have berated, including the disabled on motorized carts, the overweight and the ditzy(your word) blonde receptionists who are working to support their small children and who must put up with the likes of you. Where is your bleeding heart women’s lib stand concerning these women. I also stand in sisterhood with the women who wear burkas. Let’s face it, your only real interest in women is what’s between their legs, namely, their vagina.”

Bwaaaa! Sistahood! Yeah! The woman on the cart was not disabled elisa. She was grossly overweight. She walked out of the store to her car! She was overweight because she eats too goddamn much. The republicans didn’t make her obese and Fox News didn’t make her fat. Stuffing too much of the wrong kind of food into her mouth—like those Oreo cookies—did it.

Women’s lib and the burka? Are you shitting me? That’s like military intelligence! That’s like Republican fiscal responsibility! That’s like anti-war Democrats!

The ditzy blond receptionist was a movie character. She does not, nor did she ever exist! And the pièce de résistance is that a woman… a sista… wrote the script! Bwaaaaa!

I do like vagina but it isn’t, nor was it ever, the only thing that I ever liked about women. The vagina does not exist as an entity apart from the woman. It’s a package deal. There are many things that I love about Homo sapien females elisa.

Unfortunately at 66 one finds oneself liking it much more than enjoying it.  smile

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

” You also continually attack religion, organized or otherwise.”

Yes, I do. And you (3rd person) attack us. The difference is that I don’t cry like a little baby.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 15, 2010 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment

VI.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

” Why must we answer to you as to our beliefs?”

You don’t. The problem is that it’s the religious shoving their beliefs down everyone else’s throat and wanting to nail their soles to our feet.

It’s the cristers that want the 10 commandments—as opposed to the beatitudes—hung up in court rooms. It’s Muslims that want sharía law instituted wherever they go. It’s the orthodox Jews that want women sitting at the back of the bus. It’s the creationists that insist on teaching pseudo-science in science classrooms while not accepting that evolution be taught in Sunday school or their religious schools.

If you religious would just go to your temples and pray to your non-existent deities, leaving the rest of the world alone, there would be no problem. But you don’t. You knock on the doors on Saturday with your Sunday-go-to-meetings on. You dare to blame weather phenomena on homosexuals or abortions or atheism or eating ham or walking around without a veil or not having mutilated genitalia or drinking beer or smoking or voting democrat or voting republican or girls in bikinis or…

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”We don’t owe you any explanation as to our beliefs. Period.”

When you’re trying to shove that crap down our throats you sure as hell do. When you’re trying to legislate the tenets of your mythology as law of the land you better damn well believe that you’ve got a lot of explaining to do.

Separation of Church and State is keeping the church out of our government. If you don’t like that move to a theocracy… there’s a hell of a lot of them but this is the only secular constitutional government on the planet.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”It is clear you are not rational on this subject.”

Wrong again elisa! It’s belief in mythology that isn’t rational. It’s delusion. That’s why it is based on faith and not reason.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”How can I or anyone discuss anything with you.”

Rationally.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”For discussion there must be an open mind.”

That’s right and that’s why religion says to accept everything by faith… you have to close your mind to reason. Do you really believe that little wafer of bread is converted into human flesh? Do you really believe that you are drinking human blood? If you are you’re a cannibal. Show me the rationality in that. Do you really believe a rock has a conscience? Do you really believe that child genital mutilation isn’t child abuse? To believe that bullshit you have to shut your mind down to the truth.

By elisalouisa, August 14 at 9:43

”Your mind is filled with prejudice.”

Every Homo sapien on the planet has prejudices elisa. I have a predilection for 12 year old, single malt whiskey over beer. I hate beer, you hate men, what can I say.

Report this

By truedigger3, August 15, 2010 at 3:17 am Link to this comment

nemesis2010 wrote:
“The American and European left’s refusal to recognize the real dangers that Islamo-fascism poses to our society and civilization is going to bite them in the ass. And what is Islamo-fascism? It is Islamic religious fundamentalism! Those with knowledge about how they work can easily see the infiltration and active offensive taking place in Western social democracies.”
____________________________________________________

Really??!! Can you elaborate and explain what do you mean by the so called Islamo-fascism??!!
Do you know and understand what fascism is??
It is the corporate control of the government and society and masking that by zingoism and call to arms against real or fictitious enemies coupled by blaming the ills of the society on helpless weak minorities. Is that ring a bell??!!
Can you give examples of what you are calling : “infiltration and active offensive taking place in Western social democracies.”
The biggest threat against Western Democracies is the home grown fascism which made gigantic steps and aschieved notable sucesses to control these societies and deprive it from true democracy.

Report this

By truedigger3, August 15, 2010 at 2:06 am Link to this comment

nemesis2010 wrote:
“Is there a better way to honor Hitchens’ fight against the bane of society—religion— ..”
___________________________________________________

Although I am 1000% an atheist, blaming religion as a source for the ills of any society is a big error.
Religion is one the symptoms of the flaws and defeciencies in the human nature as homosapiens evolve, hopefully but there is no guarantee, to better and saner creatures.
In short, religion is a symptom of a disease and NOT the disease.
Chris Hitchens, dying or not dying, doesn’t deserve any honoring. He deserves compassion and understanding but not honoring.
He got seduced and co-opted by power and money and became a mouth-piece for war mongering and displayed cruelty, bigotry, callousness and utter disregard for human suffering.
That is his prerogative but he doesn’t deserve any honoring for that.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment

Re: nemesis2010, August 14 at 8:18 pm

III.

“One has to wonder why religious types purposely distort, ill-inform, twist, deceive and simply lie about what the real motives of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—besides the obvious like two attacks on the Twin Towers, the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, the USS Cole, war having been declared on us by Islamo-fascists, etc. The answer is clear. Who is left with more egg on their face when all the facts are put together? RELIGION and the adherents of religion!”.

The jury is still out on alot of these incidents and I see how fast you are able to parrot the Islamo-fascist misnomer, religion may have played a role in these attacks but it wasn’t the reason they occured.

I do know that you don’t know and Hitchen will soon find out is that there is an irony of life to which no scientific formula applies. 

Regarding Hitchens, the first I had ever seen or heard (pay attention) of him was on Real Time and I thought him a snob then. I could care less of his viewpoints and opinions as they are not necessarily my own.

Report this

By elisalouisa, August 14, 2010 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

The power elite want global control Nemesis and you know that, they really don’t care about the American people. Subduing the Muslim world is important to them. War in the mideast; Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran does not benefit the American people. They foot the bill and get nothing in return. We cannot
afford social programs, education, rebuilding our cities and states but we can afford these wars?????? I say NO.  The Muslims are not a threat to me. Their plate is already full. Why then should our sons and daughters fight in those God
forsaken wars?nYou don’t really care about women, you care about their vaginas. I never saw a man who referred to vaginas in such a casual manner. Your “women’s lib” pretext as to the Muslim women is a way of getting women behind the continual wars. Never, never, never will I be for our loved ones fighting and
dying in those wars. Never will women accept that excuse.  Neocons such as Jeff Goldberg are for these wars, Goldber fought in the Israeli army and is now pushing for war with Iran.

I stand in sisterhood with all the women you have berated, including the disabled on motorized carts, the overweight and the ditzy(your word) blonde receptionists who are working to support their small children and who must put up with the likes of you. Where is your bleeding heart women’s lib stand concerning these women. I also stand in sisterhood with the women who wear burkas. Let’s face it, your only real interest in women is what’s between their legs, namely, their vagina.
You also continually attack religion, organized or otherwise. Why must we answer to you as to our beliefs? We don’t owe you any explanation as to our beliefs. Period.  It is clear you are not rational on this subject. How can I or anyone discuss anything with you. For discussion there must be an open mind.
Your mind is filled with prejudice.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 14, 2010 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

I.

By elisalouisa, August 13 at 9:41 pm

”Part I: Blah blah blah Hitchens is a heaten,
blah blah…blah…blah blah… blah.”

By elisalouisa, August 13 at 9:41 pm

”Part II: Blah blah blah Hitchens is a heaten,
blah blah…blah…blah blah… blah.”

There’s a scene in the movie “As Good As It Gets” where the receptionist (Julie Benz) can hardly contain herself in anticipation of being able to finally ask Melvin (Jack Nicholson) a few questions about his uncanny ability to accurately portray women in his novels. IMO, Julie Benz should have received an Academy Award for that few seconds’ long performance because she nailed it perfectly! And the final retort to the receptionist by Nicholson’s character, Melvin, is up there with the all-time movie great retorts like Bacall to Bogey in “To Have and Have Not”:

“You know how to whistle, don’t you, Steve? You just put your lips together and blow.”

In what should have been an Academy Award winning scene the receptionist spots her opportunity to approach Melvin due to his having to wait for the elevator and seizes the moment by blurting out:

“You have no idea what your work means to me.”

Which causes Melvin to face her and ask:

“What does it mean to you?”

(And here is the performance of a lifetime…)

The receptionist then stands and while raising one hand to her forehead and the other to her breast she replies with the most liberal-bleeding-heart, ditzy, clueless-blond facial expression in human history saying:

“That somebody out there knows what it’s like to be in here.”

I’ll never forget the first time I saw that scene because I had just taken a swig of whiskey and it all came spraying out as I fell into a fit of hilarity.

To which Melvin mutters:

”Oh god… this is like a nightmare.”

The receptionist then proceeds towards Melvin who is still waiting for the elevator and while walking toward him says:

”Oh c’mon, just a couple of questions. How hard is that?” How do you write women so well?

To which Melvin replies… (this is one of the all time great retorts in all of cinema history because there isn’t a man in the world—whether he’ll admit it or not—who doesn’t fully understand the wisdom and knowledge in those 12 words.)

”I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability!”

After which Melvin abruptly turns and enters the elevator leaving the ditz standing there like a putz with her mouth open in bewilderment.

Whenever I read comments from MarthaA and you… I think of that scene. I can’t help it. I’m not trying to be facetious I’m simply stating what happens on this end. I thank you both because you have both brought tears to my eyes with laughter on many occasions.

I mean think about some of the claims that you two have made: That dead seeds can germinate. That all matter—inorganic and organic—has a conscience. That Republicans and corporations cause obesity. That watching Fox news makes you fat… It would not surprise me to find out that you even blame republicans for constipation, the heart break of psoriasis, and hemorrhoidal pain and itch.

Who can take anything you two say seriously?

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 14, 2010 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

II.

You’ve pasted all this absolutely incoherent tripe and boilerplate which does not provide an iota of evidence that Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and especially Hitchens, are the influence that caused the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan (purposely omitting much) and sit there like that ditzy receptionist thinking… well… the truth is… who the hell can know wtf you’re thinking because you’re all over the place with your convoluted revisionist history and story telling.

What exactly is it that you’re trying to prove? That Hitchens backed the war in Iraq? Isn’t that a no-brainer? Why all the opinion posts? Could you not find a single video from among the hundreds of Hitchens videos on YouTube where Hitchens not only declares but defends his position on Iraq? You can go directly to Dawkins site and read a transcript of his (Dawkins) interview where he speaks of his position on Bush War II. You don’t have to make shit up.

Do you even know that Hitchens has always and unabashedly been pro-war when it is war against fascism? When England’s liberal class were against the war in the Falklands (Malvinas) what was Hitchens’ position on the war? Why? Who was in charge of Argentina at that time? The fascist military junta!

Could it be that the dumbass American bleeding-heart and clueless left dimwits were left with their derrières exposed because they assumed that they could paint every liberal or progressive into their cosmic world view? Could it be that the dumbass American bleeding-heart and clueless left dimwit class is embarrassed because of their erroneous assumptions?

Where’s the evidence of paranoia? The New Atheists aren’t paranoid. Quite the contrary, it’s the religious right, middle and left that are paranoid! And rightfully so! Information, science, freedom, liberty, reason, truth, etc. are all enemies of Religion. Not only are you fools paranoid you’re scared shitless! If you weren’t you wouldn’t be trying to distort facts with such determination and vehemence.

Here’s an example of typical distortion of truth by religious loons:

”ignoring the history of atheist totalitarian governments that also bashed tolerance and freedom of conscience.” –elisalouisa

This is a very common ploy that atheists encounter from ill-educated and clueless religious types the world over. There have never been any “atheists totalitarian governments.” Those to which you refer were and are “communist, fascist, or military totalitarian governments” which are atheist only in the sense of not accepting a mythological divine. In those regimes the State and the Leader(s) are gods.

The structure of those aforementioned regimes is almost identical to theocracies! As a matter of fact there is a perfect example today that demonstrates the theocratic nature of those types of governments –North Korea. In North Korea the deceased former leader is the real leader of the nation and his son, Lil’ Dong, is the earthly bound divine representing the father divine. As Hitchens has astutely pointed out, North Korea is just one shy of a trinity! That communist trinity will become reality upon the death of Lil’ Dong and the crowning of his son Really Lil’ Dong jr.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 14, 2010 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

III.

One has to wonder why religious types purposely distort, ill-inform, twist, deceive and simply lie about what the real motives of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—besides the obvious like two attacks on the Twin Towers, the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, the USS Cole, war having been declared on us by Islamo-fascists, etc. The answer is clear. Who is left with more egg on their face when all the facts are put together? RELIGION and the adherents of religion!

During Bush War I the then president of the U.S., Bush 41, and the allied coalition snatched defeat from the mouth of victory by not following through and putting an end to the Hussein regime. Daddy Bush and the majority of the American populace that backed Bush War I are Christians. Have we so soon forgotten all the doomsday rhetoric from the christers about the Babylon, Mesopotamia, Armageddon, and the second coming of baby jeebus on a horse instead of a cheese sandwich?  Have you forgotten all the Christers running around with erections thinking of blood flowing for hundreds of miles and up to the horses’ bridles? Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, Duplantis, Parsons, Hinn, Lindsey, Farah, Copeland, Whisenant, Taylor, Hagin, La Haye, Jenkins and a host of other evangelical christers were having an unholy circle jerk of prognostications and wet dreams by the millions in anticipation of indescribable human slaughter, suffering and misery!

Who was in charge of the Pentagon during Daddy Bush’s reign? None other than the third member of the Republican Jeebus unholy trinity… the unholy ghost The Dick Cheney! And what significant accomplishment did The Dick accomplish while head of the pentagon? No bid, cost plus contracts! No sooner did The Dick exit the Pentagon, he became head of one of only two corporations in the world able to fill the bill of privatization of the U.S. military… Halliburton! Enter the jeebus believing, born-again, Shrub and now the nation has two of the 3 members of Republican Jeebus’ unholy trinity sitting pat in the White House and asleep at the wheel when the nation suffers its worse attack on the homeland during its very short 200+ year history—by the despised Islamo-fascist no less!

Let’s see… Islamic religious fanatics attacked the Great Satan while a born-again crister was asleep at the wheel! Not a single New Atheist was involved in either the attack on the twin towers or a member of the White House staff, cabinet, etc. Just a bunch of born-again cristers and a bunch of neo-conservative Jews!

What were the stats of the American people backing Bush War II? The percentages were so high that the so-called “anti-war” movement was a laughing stock… a joke! It was as if someone had placed one drop of cyanide into a multimillion gallon tank of water… totally unnoticeable! The so-called American anti-war movement was about as effective as a 97 year old impotent man at a Caligula orgy! Sans Viagra! The significance of that proves that a very large percentage of the American left and progressives were on the bandwagon for war! And proof positive is that which you, elisa, constantly refuse to address in your loony tune comments… the Congressional Democrats were truly conjoined twins in approval for and financing for Bush War II.

Even today… with a Democrat majority in both Houses and control of the Executive the liberal left funding of the war has continued and they have escalated the Afghan campaign! Not New Atheists… Democrats!

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 14, 2010 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

IV.

As big a fan as I am of Christopher Hitchens I was firmly against Bush War I and II from the very beginning. It’s not that I didn’t realize the threat that Islamo-fascism poses to Western civilization but that as a former Marine during Vietnam I know how fickle the American people are. I knew that our leadership didn’t have the balls to do what was necessary to achieve any of the stated goals and I also knew there were many different and far superior methods of accomplishing those cosmic visions of democracy in the Islamic world. I also knew—from experience—that those in our military were eventually going to have to deal with all the mixed emotions that we did after Vietnam; the sense of betrayal, the sense of having sacrificed so much for nothing, while simultaneously feeling much relief that it’s over. 

The American and European left’s refusal to recognize the real dangers that Islamo-fascism poses to our society and civilization is going to bite them in the ass. And what is Islamo-fascism? It is Islamic religious fundamentalism! Those with knowledge about how they work can easily see the infiltration and active offensive taking place in Western social democracies.

Have you all forgotten the demands and supposed reasons for the war against the West by the fundamentalists of al Qaeda and all the other groups from the Muslim world? What do you suggest we do elisa with the al Qaeda complaint about Anda Lucia? Should Spain be required to return all of the land that bin Ladin feels is Muslim land over to al Qaeda? What do you suggest the West do about the complaint that Jews and homosexuals exist? Yes, elisa, Islamic Jihadists want to purify the world by ridding it of all homosexuals and Jews! Should the West accommodate the Jihadists in their complaint? Who will set American foreign policy if all the Jews are dead?

Islamic fundamentalists also have a grievance about women walking around unveiled? Would you have all women in the world be made to wear veils and if demanded those big black tents too? Are you willing to allow men to mutilate the faces of women, refuse to educate them and classify them with the goats? I personally don’t have a problem with the prohibition against women drivers. Think of how much lower auto insurance rates will be without women drivers. It’ll be the end of massive traffic jams. I also like the idea of you having to sit at the back of the bus and not being allowed to walk around without being accompanied by a male member of your family. I mean… let’s be real… who the hell wants another man’s goats, cows, and/or women walking around without a shepherd? You might shit on the street and we can’t any of that. Some man beating and mutilating his wife might step into a pile of it.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 14, 2010 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

V.

How many New Atheists were involved in the murdering of all those school children in Chechnya? Can you tell us how many New Atheists are in U.S. prisons for having bombed churches or murdered believing doctors? Now tell us how many born-again evangelicals are in prison for having bombed clinics and murdered abortion doctors.

Are the New Atheists decrying Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians? Yes they are! So just how does a New Atheists become a neo-con when they decry all the violence being perpetrated on innocent people around the world? How can Hitchens be a neo-con and recommend Peter Galbraith’s “The End of Iraq”? How can he be anti-Muslim and name among his closest friends the likes of Salmon Rushdie and Ayaan Hirshi Ali? Are you aware that Ayaan is probably the first European politician that has had to seek refuge in the Great Satan since WWII? She was left a note by those Islamists who want desperately to murder her penned to the chest of Theo Van Gogh with a large kitchen knife. I’m wondering elisa, in your opinion should we allow any fucking religious loon who feels wronged the right to murder anyone he sees fit?

Instead of misrepresenting (lying about) Hitchens’ position on killing Muslims you could have gone straight to the source. There are several videos on YouTube where he clearly says that he’s more than willing to accommodate those who wish to be martyred. He’s not talking about Muslims in general… he’s talking about jihadists. Not only do I agree with that position, but next to me, Hitchens is a kindergartner. I say, and have stated on more than one occasion, that we should designate a place—the valley of Megiddo would be perfect—where all the religious idiots in the world could meet to kill each other to their hearts’ content.

I personally wouldn’t loose a wink of sleep over their demise. My only stipulation is that they be allowed only one weapon and that would be a small pen knife. I want to accommodate them to the Nth degree. Let it be up close and nasty. I want them all to get a belly full of blood and guts! It’s the only thing that will ever make all you believers in myth happy. And once enough of you perish, when enough mothers have seen that they are losing their children for a god that doesn’t exists, then the hate and the murder and the strife will stop. But even then it’ll be a short-lived peace.

All religious fundamentalisms are totalitarian movements much like that of communism. At the moment Islamism is by far the worse but that can change in a flash. You on the loony left fail to realize the inherent danger of what biologist Richard Alexander calls “within group amity” and without group amity”; you maintain contempt for evidence, wrongly indentify the enemy, while willingly and easily compromising the pillars of our civilization in this battle between social democracy and theocratic totalitarianism to the those that are feverishly working to undermine every positive achievement by humankind for the past few hundred years.

You, and those of your ilk, are that ditzy blond receptionist.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 14, 2010 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

I.

By PatrickHenry, August 13 at 9:35 pm

” Creationism and YHWA are concepts developed by man for man, evolution can be proven if you sift the dirt long enough.
The problem as I see it are people judging on things they don’t fully understand and think they do.  Its worse when the legal system and governments get in on it.
Science can’t explain what it is that makes up our personalities, our ability to communicate ideas and points of view.
To think its all a biological process demonstates a closed mind and failure of a belief that there is something else. ”

All concepts are concepts made by man for man. No one is debating evolution… it’s a fact and that has long been established.

The State and the Church have always worked hand in hand to oppress the masses while constantly fighting each other for a larger share of power.

Not only can science explain those things but science has explained those things and continues researching and making new discovers that add to the abundance of information on human and other life forms’ physiology, biology, psychology, etc.

You’re the one with the closed mind Patrick. How can it not “all be a biological process”? What is biology?

There are several matters of concern taking place here simultaneously.

First, you and those of your ilk are ashamed of what you believe. That’s a given. That’s why you all try to conceal what it is specifically that you believe because you know that once we find out your belief system we’ll be able to hone in on specifics about that belief system and point out the fallacies with a much higher precision.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 14, 2010 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

II.

Second, you’re all playing what I call a ”hedged-bet Pascal’s wager.” Let me explain. All of you belong in some fashion to some type of larger religious institution or system. I know most of you deny it and that is what will prove out my argument. You’re afraid of death. That’s why religion is such poison and like weeds, it’s impossible to rid the garden of it forever.

Deep within you, you all know that it’s bullshit. It’s made up from whole cloth. I know because I’ve been there. None of you believe those so-called holy scriptures and the tenets derived from them. What you do is pick out the parts that suit you. You’re hedging on your Pascal’s wager because you fear death and the possibility of punishment by a psychopathic divine.

Let’s demonstrate this. Take any Christian, (which I strongly suspect you are albeit you’re ashamed of your Christ and if memory serves that disqualifies you from any reward.), and one can easily prove that that Christian doesn’t really believe what is written in that compilation of 66 + made up, reedited, redacted, and forged and extremely contradictory texts within a few minutes.

A perfect example—especially with American Christians—is to ask if they have insurance, savings and/or retirement plans. If any of them have the finances needed you can bet your ass they have a savings or retirement plan and insurance policies. Yet the Christ of the four Gospels says that a true believer should take no heed for tomorrow. This is a clear violation of that doctrine of total dependency on god to provide your needs on a daily basis. No one really believes that shit and with good reason too! Only an idiot cannot see that there is no god providing one’s daily needs because if that were so there would not be any homeless, unemployed and/or starving humans in the world. There would be no believer lacking medical attention because god would be healing all of the sick 24/7. We can all clearly see that that simply isn’t the case.

What they do is invent elaborate ways of circumventing those tenets which they know are pure bullshit and do not fit what they are willing to accept. An example of that would be divorce. The so-called Christ of the N.T. clearly states that divorce is allowable only in the case of adultery and once divorced neither party is allowed to remarry. Divorce among the Christian community is on a par or slightly higher—depending on whose poll you accept—with the national average. They remarry anyway, do they not? Are all Christian divorces due to adultery? No! So what’s going on? They have a circumvention… it’s Christianity’s get out of jail free card! Just pray for the baby jeebus to forgive you and… voilà… bring on the new bride! In many cases the new bride is Brother Todd’s wife, Tammy, who has been playing hide the salami with Brother Duane or Pastor Ted after the weekly prayer and bible study get together. 

How many Christians—especially in the wealthy U.S. of A. —do you see giving all their wealth to the poor and picking up their cross and following Jeebus? No one believes all that shit. They’re simply hedging their Pascal’s wager. It’s all a mental masturbation to ameliorate the pain of the fear of death.

That which can be proved without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The internet is where religion comes to die Patrick.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 14, 2010 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment

By gerard, August 12 at 6:30 pm

”Intellectualizing about beliefs seems more important here than addressing the suffering of a (controversial) human being.  What might that indicate, maybe?”

What better homage to one of the few in the entire world who had the courage to expose that craggy, shriveled-up old hag and hypocritical fundamentalist nut Mother Teresa? Is there a better way to honor Hitchens’ fight against the bane of society—religion—than to pick up the sword and shield and continue the fight for reason?

Report this

By Malcontent, August 14, 2010 at 9:25 am Link to this comment

“There will come a time when science will require a quantum leap (of faith) to understand complexities which I’m sure will undermine what we accept as factual science today.”

Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic. But, alas, understanding it will only require a willingness to listen and learn. No ‘faith’ will be required. The beauty of science is it’s willingness/ability to revise what we take as “factual science today”.

“Science has always been one step backward, two steps forward.”

Cool. Wanna dance?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 14, 2010 at 6:10 am Link to this comment

Malcontent

I am sure that given enough time, science (with enough charts and graphs) will be able to explain everything.  Pseudo-science and superstition only fill in the voids for now.

There will come a time when science will require a quantum leap (of faith) to understand complexities which I’m sure will undermine what we accept as factual science today.

Science has always been one step backward, two steps forward.

Report this

By Malcontent, August 13, 2010 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment

By PatrickHenry, August 13 at 9:35 pm

“Science can’t explain what it is that makes up our personalities, our ability to communicate ideas and points of view.”

Yet. But then, neither can pseudo-science or superstition. How will faith in a concept, that by definition is a product of your lack of actual knowledge at present, explain anything? If it is based on no discernible evidence, how can it not be self limited by yours or anyone else’s imagination?

“To think its all a biological process demonstates a closed mind and failure of a belief that there is something else.”

My mind is not closed. Where is your evidence that I exist beyond the chemical/structural/electrical state of my brain? A lack of said evidence promotes a “failure of a belief that there is something else.” in me.

Report this

By elisalouisa, August 13, 2010 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

II.Excepts from Why Jeff Goldberg is Losing it by M.J. Rosenberg

Jeff Goldberg has a problem. As an American who chose to serve in the Israeli army (he was a guard at a Palestinian prison camp), he fears that Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer — who accused the Likud lobby of promoting war with Iraq in their groundbreaking bestseller — will point out that Goldberg is just
about the least credible advocate for war with Iran. I mean, think about it. How many Americans are so dedicated to Israel that they join its army and take its citizenship? I’ll tell you. A couple of thousand since 1948. So it is fair to say that Jeff Goldberg is extraordinarily loyal to Israel. Unlike the other neocons, he is no chickenhawk. He served in the military — just not ours.
And Goldberg needs to prevent commentators and pundits from citing that fact when his Iran call-to-arms comes out. If he can label Walt (and others) anti-Semites, he thinks they will not be able to remind readers that Goldberg who helped lie us into Iraq out of dubious motives and loyalties is simply trying to
do it again.

Excerpts from New Atheist Hitchens Appears to Back Anti-Islamic Genocide Thursday October 18, 2007

I’m not surprised that Christopher Hitchens, the village atheist, is now advocating genocide. His recent speech to a conference of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in Madison, Wisc. dramatizes the completion of his evolution from a trendy leftist of the Trotskyist variety into a full-fledged, foaming-at-the-mouth neocon, whose homicidal tendencies have crystallized into a program, as he says in his talk, to “demolish” not only Iran but all religion everywhere.

Because, you see, it’s not okay to be religious; it makes you, in Hitchens’ book, a “positively wicked” person, and this necessarily involves “coercion” – so it’s a war to the death.

  Excerpt from C. Hitchens column entitled That Bleeding Heart Wolfowitz Slate Tuesday, March 22, 2005. Reading it left me nauseous. Hand me a Ritz cracker please, just plain.

Hitchens:The truth is, he’s a bit bleeding heart for my taste(Wolfowitz), even though I know some very tough Kurdish and Iraqi and Iranian and Lebanese antifascist militants who would welcome him as a blood-brother. 
  Another Ritz cracker please hold the sweet Jeebus. grin

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 13, 2010 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

nemesis2010

“No, what you believe in is creationism. In the Dover trial of 2005 the judge ruled that ID was just an attempt to “relabel” creationism”.

Creationism and YHWA are concepts developed by man for man, evolution can be proven if you sift the dirt long enough. 

The problem as I see it are people judging on things they don’t fully understand and think they do.  Its worse when the legal system and governments get in on it.

Science can’t explain what it is that makes up our personalities, our ability to communicate ideas and points of view.

To think its all a biological process demonstates a closed mind and failure of a belief that there is something else.

Report this

By elisalouisa, August 13, 2010 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

I. The paranoia of the New Atheists and the neocons has indeed led to our recent wars and will soon lead to another. That is true as my excepts below indicate. I ask Nemesis that you not refer to my femininity which although responsible for my correct deductions should not be a topic of discussion. In return, your overbearing nature which hinders logic shall not be mentioned.

Excepts from:Faithful Progressive on Tuesday May 12, 2009
The New Atheism is clearly a reactionary movement and part of the overall exaggerated response to 9/ll that included the unnecessary Iraq war (supported by all the leading new atheist brights except Dawkins, Abu Ghraib and torture(both supported or minimized by HItchens.)Sam Harris screams loudly against religious tolerance and freedom of choice—ignoring the history of atheist totalitarian governments that also bashed
tolerance and freedom of conscience. Myers has written about Hitchens’ openly racist call to kill Muslims at the Freedom From Religion Foundation meeting. . . .Hitchens describes himself as on the same side as the neo-conservatives and allies himself with pure neo-conservatives,
especially Paul Wolfowitz.

Jeff Goldberg also interviewed C. Hitchens and has known him for many years. You cannot deny that Birds of a feather flock together. Thus the excerpts below.

Excepts from Consortiumnews.com A Neocon Preps US for War with Iran by Ray McGovern August 12,2010

I guess I was naïve in thinking that The Atlantic and its American-Israeli writer Jeffrey Goldberg might shy away from arguing for yet another war — this one with Iran — while the cauldrons are still boiling in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Goldberg had just produced a new magnum opus for another prestige journal, The Atlantic, entitled “The Point of No Return,” explaining Israel’s case for bombing Iran and the reasons why the United States should join in.This time, Goldberg and the Israelis want us to buy into a syllogism without a valid major premise. Their argument presupposes that Iran has made the decision to develop nuclear weapons and is hard at work on such a program, which is what they want Americans to believe whether there’s evidence or not.The Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) and the neocons who brought us the war on Iraq, and occasionally the President himself, speak as though Iran has restarted work on the nuclear weapons part of their nuclear energy program.
This internal government debate (and the external propaganda) is a replay of three years ago, when the FCM succeeded in convincing most Americans that Iran either had nuclear weapons or was on the verge of getting them.

Report this

By Malcontent, August 13, 2010 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

By Amon Drool, August 13 at 6:19 pm

“...i’d get solicitations from religious groups who were sending down people to bear witness to what was going on.  those people were putting their asses on the line…i was merely a check-book activist.  i don’t have a superior attitude to religious believers anymore.”

That is the one thing religious believers have, which is better than secular folks. They are already members of a big club, thus able to really accomplish stuff. Unfortunately, it is not always good stuff. (Electing nutjobs like bush, for example.)

Imagine if atheists really were a religious group. Or if religionists only went activist on rational tangents. That could be something.

But, they don’t and it isn’t always…so it’s a wash. Hence my continuing superior attitude. C’est la vie.

Report this

By Amon Drool, August 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

i was gonna keep quiet about the probable passing away of chris hitchens, but i’m finding it just impossible to do.

when hitchens was on his game, i gotta admit he exhibited one of the more subtle and and supple inteligences around.  but he seemed like one of those guys who always needed an enemy to rail against.  in his youth, the enemy was capitalism.  but reforming political economy and finding a way for what’s good about capitalism (initiative and innovation) to be become part of a life-sustaining economy is hard and probably lifetime work.  the willful contrarian hitch was not up to this task.  khomeni’s fatwa on rushdie gave him an opening to find a new absolute enemy…religious belief. he took the example of one intolerant religious leader and went mencken on all believers of religion.  this eventually lead him to pimp for and support the invasion of iraq…something for which he deserves our everlasting disdain.

i’m an atheist.  i used to have a mocking and superior attitude toward religious believers.  in the eighties, i was appalled when the reagan bunch turned central america into a slaughter house.  i’d get solicitations from religious groups who were sending down people to bear witness to what was going on.  those people were putting their asses on the line…i was merely a check-book activist.  i don’t have a superior attitude to religious believers anymore.

if hitchens passes away, i won’t be shedding any tears.  and i won’t be feeling any pleasure.

Report this

By gerard, August 13, 2010 at 11:57 am Link to this comment

Intellectualizing about beliefs seems more important here than addressing the suffering of a (controversial) human being.  What might that indicate, maybe?

Report this

By berniem, August 13, 2010 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

Two terms that for me explain it all, except for the never ending minutia and ever finer details which will keep objective inquirers inquiring into perpetuity, are “infinity” and “eternity”. Everything that we know and ever hope to know as well as everything that has existed or in future will, never began nor will ever cease. Form will change; matter will, as always, be finite, reverting to primal energy to be again reconfigured randomly everywhere at once in an infinite variety of contexts. There are no Alphas or Omegas; no tops or bottoms other than those arbitrarily contrived by the human mind; no temporal start or finish. What is has always been and always will. There is no mystery; just as yet unlearned but unending facts!

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 13, 2010 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

By elisalouisa, August 13 at 10:20 am

” Wrong.  Their paranoia has led the likes of Guantanamo bay and countless lives being lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and if they have their way also in Iran. ”

Oh sweet jeebus on my Ritz cracker and the holy virgin in the tree trunk! Even Mother Teresa is having a forehead to palm moment with this utterly ridiculous and sanctimonious pomposity.

If it weren’t for having many sweet and highly intelligent female friends this latest screed would have me wondering if the Islamists aren’t right to classy all humans with vaginas with the goddamned goats. This screed is a perfect example why Saul of Tarsus’ declared that women should never be placed in positions over men and I’m now beginning to understand why those fundamentalist Jews want women seated at the back of the buss. Geez!

To believe—without an ounce of evidence—that the opinions and the unsubstantiated claims of paranoia of the 4 aforementioned individuals are responsible for Bush War II and the sequestering of suspected enemy combatants in Guantánamo is beyond the pale. It’s beyond ignorance, it’s beyond nescience.

I’m really sorry elisa because I know this offends you but then almost anything I have to say offends you. But there is absolutely no other way to deal with such absurdities. This is the result of close-minded religious thinking. This is a perfect example of why religion poisons everything because it robs individuals of their mind. It robs them of their reasoning power. It makes people so credulous that they are a peril to themselves.

You want to know who is responsible and guilty for Bush War II? You are! Yes… you and all those other hypocrites who support the Democrats. All that blood is on your hands… take a good look at your palms elisa because you are responsible for Guantánamo and all those little babies lying dead in the streets and blown to pieces! You and your democrats are every bit as responsible for Bush War II as any neo-con or republican or evangelical or Islamofascist or member of AIPAC.

Where were your precious Democrats when it came time to take a stand against the imperial presidency and demand that the imperial presidency of Bush/Cheney follow constitutional procedure for war declaration? Hugging their conjoined twins the Republicans!

Due to the massive and undeniable failure that was the Bush/Cheny administration the American people gave the Democrats a majority in both the Senate and the House and control of the imperial presidency. Has Guantánamo been shut down? No! Has funding for the war ended? No! Has Wall Street and Big Corp and Big Pharma and Big Media and Big Oil suffered with Democrat control of the federal government? No! It’s been business as usual and record profit taking. You support the Democrats… you live with all that blood on your hands.

I’ll have to take a break before I continue to dismantle all that sanctimonious pomposity that you have posted. Today… you’ve struck a nerve and I’ve finally reached the limit of my ability to deal with the stupid. If I continue in my present state of mind I’ll surely forget that I’m a gentleman and insult you and hurt your feelings… and I try to avoid that as much as is humanly possible without losing my sanity because I’ve grown rather fond of you… in a grandfatherly way.

I’ll be back…

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 13, 2010 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

I.

By PatrickHenry, August 12 at 6:15 pm

”I believe in intelligent design.  It is selfish to believe that ‘man’ has the lock on god and nothing else rates.
While you can claim there is no evidence to support a god, there is also no evidence to deny one.  Human science at one time dictated the earth was flat as there wasn’t recognized evidence at the time to dispell that ‘fact’.
Mankind can fill books on what mans science doesn’t know or can prove and alot of what was known has long since been forgotten.”

No, what you believe in is creationism. In the Dover trial of 2005 the judge ruled that ID was just an attempt to “relabel” creationism.

The claim that there is no evidence that supports the existence of an intelligent designer or in your case that the god YHWH doesn’t exist is supported by the lack of evidence. On the other hand your claim that an Intelligent Designer—in your case YHWH—does exist is not supported by any evidence at all. Why do we need evidence to prove what doesn’t exists doesn’t exists?

What is human science? There’s science and pseudo-science. Modern science and the scientific method have only been around a few hundred years. Religion—not science—was man’s first attempt to explain our world and existence and it was a complete and utter failure. It was religion (pseudo science) that said the earth was flat and the center of the universe. It is modern science—fighting the Church every step of the way—that proved religion wrong with the heliocentric model. And please… I’m aware of the single verse in the book of Isaiah, so don’t even think about pointing to it as proof that religion thought the earth spherically shaped; we’ve more than enough historical evidence to prove religion’s millennias long flat earth stance.

There is much that science doesn’t know about our world, our existence, our universe, etc. but that doesn’t mean that you get to fill in the “gaps” with your imaginary god or intelligent designer. If science knew everything it could just quit and go home Patrick. By the way, that’s known as the god of the gaps argument and is a logic fallacy.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 13, 2010 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

II.

By PatrickHenry, August 12 at 6:15 pm

”I think you confuse physical reality with spiritual reality.
You love Baxter?  prove it.  You also dreamed up spagetti monsters and blue unicorns, they exist in your mind but not in reality and you proved that, the empirical data proving you dreamed them up cannot be duplicated by others.
The problem I have with atheists is their definite belief that god does not exist, sort of a glass half empty view.  I believe that there are many unexplained things that can’t be explained by science as we presently know science.”

Where’s your evidence for two different realities, Patrick?

How does one gather empirical data from the imaginary?

Atheism is not a belief system Patrick. Not all words that carry the suffix “ism” are equal. Have you ever heard of a stigmatism? Atheism is simply non-belief. If you have evidence—an hypothesis, a theory, and a mathematical model, that can be independently tested, duplicated, and verified—that supports the existence of a god, gods, or an intelligent designer then atheists can and would change their position based on the evidence.

What will you do should science claim that this universe and everything in it is nothing more than the result of 5 crazy scientists from another universe within a multiverse whose experiment went south and whom haven’t a clue that their failed experiment created a universe (ours), complete with life-forms, because they are unable to see our universe due to the different dimensions and physical laws of the two universes and the multiverse? If I were to tell you right now that that is how our universe came into existence are you able to provide evidence that that isn’t so?

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 13, 2010 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

By gerard, August 12 at 6:30 pm

”Nemesis:  You can lead a horse to water ...”

…but the blue unicorn gets to drink first because it is divine.

Isn’t it interesting how one can refuse to answer and still provide more information than had he actually done so?

Obviously—and contrary to your critique—I “get” metaphors and I most definitely “got” your prose-poem. Some might say that I nailed it! smile

Report this

By balkas, August 13, 2010 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

We cannot ever know god; we have zero knowledge about it. We only derive knowledge from seeing, hearing, tasting, seeing, and smelling.
Then we describe what we experiences.[see…]

It is a ruse, set deliberately, and in order to involve us in talking about it, since no knowledge accrues from it.
But if all people knew how to talk about this [non]existing entity, it wouldn’t be bad. What is bad is people attacking other people because their views on this event differs from theirs.

Yet sanity demands we grant every human being right to his-her knowledge, regardless how that person has acquired it.

Everybody is right by own definition [explanation]; includes, palin, luther, bush, jesus, hagge, lieberman, netanyahu, obama included.

People do not know that meanings are not to be found in words used, but only in their nervous systems; i.e., in their body-minds.
Thus, one never knows what any person means nor are meanings static; they change continuously and [im]perceptibly. 
By calling such people names; casting on them aspersions, we cannot talk [i am using the word “talk” in its full symbolic value; which cannot be further explained]to these people in order to impart facts of which they are not aware of or cannot evaluate properly because of conditioning to become semanticly [evaluatively]  blind.

It is also useless to talk or even to think about FIRST CAUSE FOR AND PURPOSE OF ALL BIOTA.
In short, we will never ever find the designer nor the design for universe or bioata, plants, flowers.

When we know more and become civilized, we can talk.

Report this

By balkas, August 13, 2010 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

diman,
You either wish i’d be troubled or you condemn me for being troubled or just wish i’d be troubled.

And still getting personal. A bad habit is difficult or evm impossible to cure.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 13, 2010 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

Taking a reductionist point of view, and reducing everything to a
god is the position that a complex system is said to be the sum of
its parts, viz., god. Further that description of it can be simplified
to the extent applicable to details of individual ingredients. This
can be said of all manner of objects, phenomena, explanations,
theories, and meanings.

That being said, intelligent design has several flaws as a basis for
belief, but I am not saying one should or should not put their faith
into it.  It is entirely an individual’s prerogative, whether public or
private (as in some religions one does not dare express in public
what one believes on the penance of death.) 

One flaw as I see it, and I welcome any cogent argument, focus on the
word cogent please, is metaphorically illustrated by a story I recently
read that made a whole lot of sense:

Imagine, and it won’t take much imagination so it is affordable,
someone who is amazed to discover that an inordinate number of rivers
were made to flow along state borders, in the US as well as defining the
borders of other countries.  How did they do that?  It can only be
explained by a massive, expensive tour de force of engineering to
divert all that water.  Moreover, many rivers are made to flow
conveniently to major cities, right to the heart of large populations. 
There is no other explanation other than intelligent design.  But…would
that not be more “hindsight” design—a mind that imposes a pattern
after intuiting a fact?  Are there not completely logical reasons why a
river would be used as a state border, even though most rivers are not
used thusly? 

Analogously, there is no inevitability that human life, or life of any
kind, would have appeared on the earth.  There was no inevitability that
the earth itself appeared in the universe, except by reason of accident,
where subatomic particles accidentally bump into one another and if
covalently are bondable, do and particularly the rule of Occam is The
Guiding Principle!  Now if someone wants to attribute the accidental to a
god, then my gawd, please take that opportunity to assuage your
insecurities.  For me Occam (or whomever was really responsible for the
Razor) was the prescient one.

garth, so nice to see you again. It seems to me your synapses are more
evolved than most.  I did finally finish entering that Hawton text Why
Be Moral
that is out of print but I have not printed it yet.  Let me
know via TD’s email at the member page if you are interested.

Report this

By Night-Gaunt, August 13, 2010 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There are also henotheists and monotheists* and pantheists among others—-not so simple nor simplistic is it? Selective Atheists* and Pan-Atheists too.

I am against the idea of stirring up antagonisms with the bulk of the human race. It is both suicidal, counter productive and wrong to do so. It is an irrational act, rather like tilting a not just one windmill but billions! Stupid and would only promote the evils of war and pogrom.

Live and Let Live should be the motto to be followed by all.

Report this

By diman, August 13, 2010 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

Balkas, I deeply regret starting this “conversation” with you, what a waste of time, on this note I bid you farewell my civilized but apparently troubled friend.

Report this

By Nigh-Gaunt, August 13, 2010 at 8:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By PatrickHenry, August 12 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment


nemesis2010,

I believe in intelligent design.  It is selfish to believe that ‘man’ has the lock on god and nothing else rates.

Only the believers tend to claim their “lock” on such a thing. A higher power doesn’t have to have intelligence. Any star qualifies. Any planet.

Who designed your designer? Intelligence is the flaw of such orthogensis ideas. Next comes directed evolution. Also doesn’t fit reality.


In any dictatorship the owners think themselves eiither gods or running things for their god. So the Communists of Russia and China thought the state was god and they were the state. Atheists? Sort of. But they had no morals in relation of others rights to live.

Report this

By Malcontent, August 13, 2010 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

By elisalouisa, August 13 at 10:20 am

There are theists and non-theists. There are hawks and doves. There should be no surprise that there are combinations of all. So that seems irrelevant to anything. (For the record I don’t share Hitchen’s political views.)
But I am curious why you would quote the following;

” Despite their insistence that they have cornered the market on rationality, they appeal to neither our reason nor our intellect.”

Religion is rational and/or intellectual?!? And atheism (not atheists, per se, as they are human and by definition not totally rational.) less rational than religion? Are you serious?

“They bolster our self-satisfaction, anti-intellectualism and provincialism”

Uh…anti-intellectualism and provincialism are the hallmarks of religious thought.

I am not a theist. What if I were racist? (I’m not) Or sexist? (Maybe a bit) Does that have any bearing on the validity of theism? (No, in case you couldn’t tell)

“They tell us we will be saved by science and rationality.”

Absolutely not. They tell us we will NOT be saved by believing some invisible source will come save us from ourselves, no matter how little care we take. IF we are to be saved, we will have to do it ourselves, by not being so self-destructive. (I.E. environmentalism and freedom vs. rapture and mental slavery.)

Good to know somebody takes Hedges seriously. I’m sure it would make him feel good to know.

Report this

By Malcontent, August 13, 2010 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

By PatrickHenry, August 12 at 9:02 pm

“You miss the point, science can’t prove love, it is intangible as are dreams.”

Perhaps, but most folks have trouble even defining love, depending on their cultural point of view. This is what neuroscience is learning about. (albeit just barely, at this point and much to the consternation of those raised to be afraid of reality, if it is predictable.). Baxter says love is a full belly.

I too, can’t help thinking of everything as having a beginning and end. But that isn’t necessarily so. Perhaps, physics, as we know it, breaks down on the other side of a singularity. Maybe we will know one day. Maybe it is unknowable, from our perspective in the universe. Either way, we will never know if we extinct ourselves or waste all our energy fighting each other over rival interpretations of mythology.

Of course you can call the unknown god, if you want. It is easier to type, but it is misleading, in that most people mean something completely different when they say god.

Report this

By garth, August 13, 2010 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

By truedigger3, August 12 at 7:33 pm

garth wrote:
“As far as Mr. Hitchens’s support of the war in Iraq goes, Martin Amis hinted towards a possible pre-existing prejudice.”

“In the 1970s, England enjoyed low ‘petrol’ prices and the young gifted and bright could live relatively on-the-cuff. OPEC changed that gas pries shot up.  No more being a free, devil-may-care bon vivant on a shoe string.  Things tightened up and strangled the life out of that life style.”
_____________________________________________________

garth,

This is a very weak explanation. The sudden rise of oil prices was engineered and urgred by the financiers elites in both USA and UK and a big chunk of the so called petro dollars found its final home in British Banks. So, he is blaming the wrong parties.


A better explanation is that he was seduced and co-opted by power and “joined in”, OR that he is being a product of the upper British class, he displayed that class inherent snotiness and snobishness and its inherent prejudice and bigotry against the people of the former colonies of the Empire.
———————————————————
“This is a very weak explanation.”

Yes, it is, but I was trying to show what might be whimsical nature of Hitchens’s support for such a drastic mistake.

Martin Amis wrote of that situation in one of his reviews where the educated elite of England were blind-sided by OPEC in the early 70s.

For years England enjoyed low gas prices due to their control of Iran.

I remember the gas lines of the 70s.  Riots broke out here.

And I remember Hitchens appearing on Chris Matthews show in 2004, drunk out of his mind.

And when he ambushed MP Gallahue after Gallahue’s appearance before the Senate committee headed by Sen Levin of MI who happened to have a scary looking hombre seated behind him, he was again loaded.

At any rate, Hitchens who just returned from a tete-a-tete with the right wing powers that be at the Hoover Institute at Stanford was loaded for bear. The only problem was that he was so drunk he could muster a credible attack.

My conjecture was aimed at a possible answer to the question: Why would such an intelligent man with access to a microphone show such visceral and adolescent verve in support for such a criminal war?

He bragged about how the British Army is so vicious that the Iraqis had better watch their step.

From a man who probably never served in the military, it sounded hollow and more like unnecessary bravado.

But I think you are right about about the big picture and I thank you for putting it in that perspective.

Report this

By elisalouisa, August 13, 2010 at 6:20 am Link to this comment

      religion is not just mistaken, but evil—that it poisons
everything,

        as Hitchens has put it with characteristic nuance.
                                    Robin Wright


Nem:Aug 12 3:52 pm
To be a bit more precise elisa, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett are known as the “Four Horsemen.” New Atheism is a movement and not atheism. New Atheism is simply a movement by some—as in not all—atheists who believe that it is time to take a firm stance against religion, superstition, and especially against fundamentalist fanaticism. Not only is this long overdue but it is a positive action for society and nothing to fear –unless of course you’re a believer in fantasy and fear the truth.
elisa: Wrong.  Their paranoia has led the likes of Guantanamo bay and countless lives being lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and if they have their way also in Iran.  See below:

Tina Beattie 20 December 2007
The conflict between science and religion promoted by secular intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens is a smokescreen. Behind it, a far more important argument about global power and
justice in a post-postmodern age.

Excerpts from: Why the “New Atheists” are Right-Wing on Foreign Policyby Robert Wright

It must strike progressive atheists as a stroke of bad luck that Christopher Hitchens, leading atheist spokesperson, happens to have hawkish views on foreign policy. After all, with atheists an overwhelmingly left-wing group, what were the chances that the loudest infidel in the western world would happen to
be on the right?Actually, the chances were pretty good. When it comes to foreign policy, a right-wing bias afflicts not just Hitchens’s world view, but the whole ideology of “new atheism,” especially as seen in the work of Hitchens allies Sam Harris
and Richard Dawkins.Atheism has little intrinsic ideological bent. (Karl Marx. Ayn Rand. I rest my case.) But things change when you add the key ingredient of the new atheism:
the idea that religion is not just mistaken, but evil—that it “poisons everything,” as Hitchens has put it with characteristic nuance.

Excepts from The “New Atheist” Crusade and Me by Frank Schaeffer
The problem I have with the more radical aspects of the New Atheists’ answer to religion—which is to get rid of religion—is that we are spiritual beings, self-contemplating animals, with or without the New Atheists’ permission, and despite the fact that there are so many national village idiots saying and doing
things “in the name of God.”

When Atheism Becomes Religion Chris Hedges
The new atheists are products of the morally stunted world of entertainment. Despite their insistence that they have cornered the market on rationality, they appeal to neither our reason nor our intellect….The simple slogans these atheists repeat about religion do not communicate ideas. They amuse us. They bolster our self-satisfaction, anti-intellectualism and provincialism….They indulge us in our delusional dream of human perfectibility. They tell us we will be saved by science and rationality. They tell us that humanity is moving inexorably forward. None of this is true. It defies human nature and human
history. But it is what we want to believe, (178-179, 184).

Report this

By bogi666, August 13, 2010 at 5:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The religionists, especially the pretend christians never offer a definition of their god. Theirs are the congregations of fools whom their preachers call foul names, the beg for money and the fools give them money. They use the centuries old superstitions which define their god by what their superstitions declare. God is a vibration, a frequency, a string a phenomena which exists in each sub atomic particle of all dimensions. WE exist in the dimension of vibratory creation.The existence of other dimension is in the bible.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 13, 2010 at 3:15 am Link to this comment

Malcontent

You miss the point, science can’t prove love, it is intangible as are dreams.

Thor and Rah are man dieities based on myths, maybe they were real at one time maybe not, nothing to ‘prove’ it.

“Where does your preferred religious text encourage you to learn about life’s origins etc., instead of giving you pat (but silly) answers?”

I don’t belive in any religious text except from a historical fiction point of view.

In all things there is a beginning and an end, something had to create it and that to me is ‘god’.

Report this

By yours truly, August 12, 2010 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Will Hitchens ask forgiveness for whatever role his advocacy of war on Iraq had in the murder of a million Iraqis and more than 4000 U.S. soldiers?  As for his brilliant mind, neither his fine metaphors nor his brilliant analyses can make up for his having promoted that damn war.

Report this

By Malcontent, August 12, 2010 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

By PatrickHenry, August 12 at 9:02 pm

BTW, which god do you believe in? Thor or Rah?

Report this

By Malcontent, August 12, 2010 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

By PatrickHenry, August 12 at 9:02 pm

“I think you confuse physical reality with spiritual reality.”

You’re right. I am confused. WTF is “spiritual reality”?

“You love Baxter?  prove it.”

Not necessary, he knows I do. (And he really exists.)

“You also dreamed up spagetti monsters and blue unicorns, they exist in your mind but not in reality and you proved that, the empirical data proving you dreamed them up cannot be duplicated by others.”

I actually did NOT dream up the FSM or unicorns. Is your god more believable because someone else made him up for you? Not sure what you mean by,“the empirical data proving you dreamed them up cannot be duplicated by others.”
I have as much evidence for their existence (none) as you have for god. Unless you simply label all that we don’t understand as god. In which case, you have no more certainty than I, only a bizarre fantasy.

“The problem I have with atheists is their definite belief that god does not exist, sort of a glass half empty view.”

Atheists don’t “believe” anything. We observe and learn. There is no evidence of a god, (certainly not the gods of the worlds religions, anyway), so we start from the assumption that god, like most things that appear not to exist, doesn’t exist either. It is actually theists, who are certain of that which none of us can e certain of, not atheists.

” I believe that there are many unexplained things that can’t be explained by science as we presently know science.”

Me too. But, I can be reasonably certain that neither god, unicorns, the FSM or any other crap I just make up, whether off the top of my head or from some bronze age screed, explains any of the unknown either.
How does faith in the irrational help us to learn the things we don’t know? And how does believing ancient stories help to educate people to the things that we DO know? Where does your preferred religious text encourage you to learn about life’s origins etc., instead of giving you pat (but silly) answers?

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, August 12, 2010 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Some interesting statistics from a book entitled SCIENCE vs RELIGION WHAT SCIENTISTS REALLY THINK:
30% of scientists are atheists; 34% are agnostic; 14% are believers with some doubts; 9% are believers with no doubts.  The remaining 13% stated various opinions such as belief in a higher power who is not God (I couldn’t figure that one out.  A democratic sky scientist?)  I believe this survey was conducted only in the US. 

Only 30% feel that there is definitely not a God.  This is not what people like Dawkins and Hitchens would have us believe.  Listening to Dawkins especially, one comes away with the belief that 100% of scientists are atheists and that only stupid people believe in God which is also what Hitchens trys to convey.  Since many people cannot think for themselves but simply follow what they believe is fashionable, Dawkins and Hitchens have done a real disservice with their false propaganda.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 12, 2010 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment

Malcontent

I think you confuse physical reality with spiritual reality.

You love Baxter?  prove it.  You also dreamed up spagetti monsters and blue unicorns, they exist in your mind but not in reality and you proved that, the empirical data proving you dreamed them up cannot be duplicated by others.

The problem I have with atheists is their definite belief that god does not exist, sort of a glass half empty view.  I believe that there are many unexplained things that can’t be explained by science as we presently know science.

Report this

By Malcontent, August 12, 2010 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

By PatrickHenry, August 12 at 6:15 pm

“While you can claim there is no evidence to support a god, there is also no evidence to deny one.”
  Nor is there evidence of a flying spaghetti monster, blue unicorns, Zeus, Thor or that my dog is not divine. So there must probably be a FSM, blue unicorns (I believe they’re purple). Do you worship Zeus or Thor? Or perhaps Baxter (my dog)?

“Human science at one time dictated the earth was flat as there wasn’t recognized evidence at the time to dispel that ‘fact’.”

Please explain how anecdotal evidence, supported by popular mythology, becomes “human science”.
Do you even know what science is?
“there wasn’t recognized evidence” suggests that you do.

The difference between science and myth is if a god is actually discovered, science will account for it. If there continues not to be evidence of a god, mythology will cover their ears and scream ‘I read it. I believe it. That settles it!’, like a small child throwing a tantrum.

Report this

By truedigger3, August 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

garth wrote:
“As far as Mr. Hitchens’s support of the war in Iraq goes, Martin Amis hinted towards a possible pre-existing prejudice.

In the 1970s, England enjoyed low ‘petrol’ prices and the young gifted and bright could live relatively on-the-cuff. OPEC changed that gas pries shot up.  No more being a free, devil-may-care bon vivant on a shoe string.  Things tightened up and strangeld the life out of that life style.
_____________________________________________________

garth,

This is a very weak explanation. The sudden rise of oil prices was engineered and urgred by the financiers elites in both USA and UK and a big chunk of the so called petro dollars found its final home in British Banks. So, he is blaming the wrong parties.
A better explanation is that he was seduced and co-opted by power and “joined in”, OR that he is being a product of the upper British class, he displayed that class inherent snotiness and snobishness and its inherent prejudice and bigotry against the people of the former colonies of the Empire.
I wish him a speedy recovery and hope this be a turning point in his thinking and attitudes and I am not talking about religion because I am an atheist.

Report this

By balkas, August 12, 2010 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

What we do know is that nature is infinitely valued.
And the question arises, is there more to it? I evaluate the question as an irritant.

We are part of that nature; we know so much about it and we find protection—because we know so much about it—from floods, earthquakes, cancer, obesity, heart ailments, etc., but not from wars waged by and on behalf of small minority of people in any land and not just US.

On the other hand, our knowldege of god, even if existing, is zero. So, we cannot obtain any protection from any god!
So, i suggest we study solely the nature and us which are part of that nature; thus, we are also being infinitely valued.


Forget about god. Talking about god produces nothing of value—only hatred, fear. And who needs it?
So, if we don’t want warfare, exploitation, other abuses, we should take protection from it like we do from floods!
But,who is stopping us from preempting wars but allows us to protect ourselves from hot sun or floods.
Warfare and floods are natural events. Why are we allowed and even commanded to build dikes but nothing to stop warlords from waging wars, poverty, ignorance, fears, hatred, etc. tnx

Report this

By gerard, August 12, 2010 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:  You can lead a horse to water ...

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 12, 2010 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

nemesis2010,

I believe in intelligent design.  It is selfish to believe that ‘man’ has the lock on god and nothing else rates.

While you can claim there is no evidence to support a god, there is also no evidence to deny one.  Human science at one time dictated the earth was flat as there wasn’t recognized evidence at the time to dispell that ‘fact’.

Mankind can fill books on what mans science doesn’t know or can prove and alot of what was known has long since been forgotten.

Report this

By balkas, August 12, 2010 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

Diman,
By being rude, commanding me to read, labeling me fool, you have proven that you do not want to behave in a civilized way.

All you are saying by this is how you feel: very angry, diktatorial, hateful [most likely a ‘jew’ or chosen one]

The fact is that you objected to my use of ‘event’ to limn god. Thus, you are imposing on me your explanation that god is not an event.
Was my use of the word “event” a crime or is your criticism of my word “event” a crime by you.

So, any time i or someone else uses a symbol you do not approve of, that person or me would make a fool of himself?

It’s no wonder that so many yougsters are afraid to write on these sites with so many people being so mad, hateful, meritocratic, namecalling, misreading, misquoting, etc.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 12, 2010 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

By gerard, August 11 at 8:59 pm

”I’m sorry for you that you don’t “get” metaphors.”

Not as sorry as I am at the moment. Imagine how stupid I feel having mistaken your prose-poem for—to borrow a phrase from Dan Dennett—willful obscurity and use of deepities.

Perhaps you can enlighten me and define what reality does soul substitute in this prose-poem metaphor. I’m also curious to know if in the following verse I correctly detect a hint that after death “the soul” will receive all the answers for which it sought and was asked to temporarily cope without? 

The soul is a lonely traveler through unknown territory, only temporarily asked to cope without answers and offered the possibilities that questions raise.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 12, 2010 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

By PatrickHenry, August 11 at 5:50 pm

”I don’t know about the higher powers supposed attributes you speak of, I guess its all in the viewers belief system.”

Aren’t “higher powers” usually given such attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.? And since these “higher powers” are created in the minds of men does that not also mean that the “powers” that are attributed to these “higher powers” are as made up as the “higher power(s)” himself/herself/itself/themselves?

I see that you used the singular “a higher power.” Does that mean that you believe in a certain higher power? If so, I can’t help but wonder who or what would that be and on what evidence do you base the existence of that “higher power” since you’re “always surprised” by those of us who don’t believe in the existence of a “higher power.”

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 12, 2010 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

I.

By elisalouisa, August 11 at 6:04 pm

”In the interview Hedges spoke to Salon by phone about the New Atheists, as they have been called, include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and bestselling author and journalist Christopher Hitchens—outspoken secularists who depict religious structures and the belief in God as backward and anti-democratic. He accuses Hitchens and the others of preaching a fundamentalism as dangerous as the religious fundamentalist belief systems they attack. Strange bedfellows indeed—according to Hedges, the New Atheists and the Christian right pose the greatest threat facing American democratic society
today.”

To be a bit more precise elisa, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett are known as the “Four Horsemen.” New Atheism is a movement and not atheism. New Atheism is simply a movement by some—as in not all—atheists who believe that it is time to take a firm stance against religion, superstition, and especially against fundamentalist fanaticism. Not only is this long overdue but it is a positive action for society and nothing to fear –unless of course you’re a believer in fantasy and fear the truth.

Those comments by Mr. Hedges are—IMO—baseless, peevish, arbitrary, and reek of ludicrous apocalyptic fear mongering bordering on delusion.

Religion is anti-democratic as it is authoritarian and totalitarian –especially the three monotheistic brands whose faithful are wreaking havoc and mayhem the world over.

As for atheist fundamentalism… jeebus on a cheese sandwich! How many planes have crazed atheist scientists and journalists flown into buildings? How many IED deaths are being attributed to their terrorist activity in the lab and classrooms of universities? Have these crazed atheist fundamentalist scientists and journalist cordoned off the West Bank and Gaza and instituted policies that are causing indescribable suffering that many in the world are comparing to the policies of Nazi Germany? Perhaps you can link us to a video or report about unjustly accused women having been physically mutilated and/or stoned to death by these New Atheist madmen?

The absurdity…

By elisalouisa, August 11 at 6:04 pm

” Interviewer:Do you think Hitchens really believes what he writes?
Hedges: I think he’s completely amoral. I think he doesn’t have a moral core. I think he doesn’t believe anything. What’s good for Christopher Hitchens is about as moral as he gets.”

I don’t believe one can be amoral and moral. So which is it? Is Hitchens amoral or possessed of a Hitchens’ self-defined morality which does not meet with Mr. Hedges’ idea of worthwhile morality? He can’t be both.

Listening to Hitchens in the video that you have so kindly linked, it is clear that Hitchens is not only moral but adheres to a higher moral standard than that of most religious folk. And his morality is not motivated by the fear of a retributive divine should he fail to follow the instructions expressed in said divine’s instruction manual.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 12, 2010 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

II.

By elisalouisa, August 11 at 6:04 pm

”On other threads Nemesis you berate women for the very same attribute you praise Hitchens for: not having good health habits.”

No I didn’t! When you have to resort to convoluting, misrepresenting, and presenting completely out of context what your opponent has said in order to give the impression that you have an argument based on reason and facts you should see that as one of your primary warning signs that the opposite is true; not that a little thing like truth has ever stopped the anointed in their quest for cosmic justice.

The comments to which you refer were pointing out bad life-style choices and it applied equally to both men and women. The one example that I gave as evidence was my having witnessed an extremely obese woman doing her shopping riding on a motorized cart—rather than walking—and eating an entire package of Oreo cookies while doing so.

Would you please point out where I have “praised” Hitchens for his lifestyle choices? 

By elisalouisa, August 11 at 6:04 pm

”Hitchens admits that indulging in scotch whiskey and cigarettes has much to do with his illness. Yet, you seem to admire it. Again, double standard.”

Yes he did and therein lies the difference between Hitchens’ position and that of you and Martha. You see Hitchens admitting to having made choices that he feels—unquestionably—had a part in his developing cancer. What we don’t see here is Hitchens blaming corporations and the Republicans for his life-style choices as we see with you and Martha with respect to America’s obesity problem. What you should be thinking here is “accountability for one’s choices.”
It is his life and he can live it as he pleases.

There is no guarantee that had he not drank and smoked so heavily that he still would not have developed this cancer elisa. Are you aware that his father died of the same thing?

By elisalouisa, August 11 at 6:04 pm

”So much for blaming Mother Teresa for the condition women in India are in. See link below, courtesy of Nemesis, especially after 2:17 minutes.”

The problem with this statement is that I never “blamed” Mother Teresa for the condition of women in India. I didn’t “blame” her for anything. Once again in your haste for cosmic justice you forgot to do that which you always seem to forget to do… you forgot to put on your Romper Room thinking cap! Do bee a thinker… don’t bee a feeler.

Report this

By nemesis2010, August 12, 2010 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

III.

By elisalouisa, August 11 at 6:04 pm

”The drama of it all, Hitchens in your imaginary hell Nemesis, even you admit it. So where are his friends the neocons in this Dante scene? Oh, I know, they are not there to greet Hitchens because they are with lucifer encouraging preemptive war.”

First, there’s no drama; there’s irony. Second, what do I admit? That Hitchens is going to hell? Are you daft woman? Because of your beliefs in fantasy the word “imaginary” does not compute.

Reading the remainder of this tripe one cannot help but wonder if you’ve stopped taking your meds or have increased the doses of your own volition.

Dante? Neo-Cons? Lucifer and preemptive war? What the hey is the matter with you woman? Where was any of that mentioned?

Allow me to detail it for you. Notice that Hitch stands at the entryway and is not actually in hell. It’s Mother Teresa and all those saintly Popes that are in hell. The Neo-Cons—with their Democrat conjoined twins—are out of view behind all those not so saintly saints. Hitch was sent down to smirk at them because god knew that Hitch had more integrity in his little finger than all of those lying, self-promoting hypocrites had all bunched up together. Hitchens’ presence, standing there with a whiskey and cigarette in hand, was the lawd’s way of adding to their suffering. And since you made it a Dantean hell you can pick out any level that suits your cosmic sense of justice, okay?

Ohhhhh… as for the whiskey and cigarettes… they are heavenly made products from Jeebus Corp and are healthy and enhance eternal life.

Reading Mr. Hedges comments and considering the level of notoriety that Christopher Hitchens has achieved in a relatively short time here in the U.S. some may wonder if all that righteous indignation and fear-mongering about the New Atheist movement, and in particular Christopher Hitchens, is nothing more than a façade concealing professional envy… watta ya think?

Report this

By diman, August 12, 2010 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

By Balkas:
“You are trying to define god in your way and then impose your definition on me”

Balkas do me a favor please, at least have the courtesy of reading other people’s postings before replying, so you won’t make a complete fool out of yourself. Where did you find in whatever I had said before that sounded as me trying to define god? And if I did, how exactly am I trying to impose it on you.

Report this

By Sylvia Barksdale, August 12, 2010 at 9:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

garth:

Would you mind sharing what it was about my name that gave you the grossly mistaken impression that I only pretended to care about Christopher Hitchens’ writing?

I feel devastated that the world may lose this great mind and deeply resent the implications of your remarks!

Report this

By garth, August 12, 2010 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

Shenonymous, August 12 at 5:01

No sound ever comes from the Gates of Eden…
And there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden

Dylan is profound.  But so is Hitchens. 

Hitchens always the realist and forthright in his self-observation.  An unusually rational man.  Worth viewing several times.

——————————————————————-

I am glad to see you have returned and I enjoy your comments.

From your previous comments on other threads and, I might add, some nasty back-and-forth, (I have to say, there’s nothing like a Shenonymous on a tear:  first defintion of the urban dictionary intended.)

I have come to realize that I might be more like my grandfather than I care to admit.  In short, the walnut has not fallen far from the tree.

At 87 and dying, he was asked if he wanted to see a Priest.  He said that he didn’t want to clutter his mind.

I did some self-searching after yours and Tom Edgar’s entries to the blog about Religion, and I have concluded that maybe I never had the gray cells nor synapses to ponder such issues.

I am a happier man.  Thanks.

Report this

By garth, August 12, 2010 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

Hitchens wrote an article recently that describbed his experience of water-boarding.  The title was something like:  ‘Belive Me, It’s Torture’

I’d like to se some of wags in our Government subject themselves to the same treatment then report on it.

As far as Mr. Hitchens’s support of the war in Iraq goes, Martin Amis hinted towards a possible pre-existing prejudice.

In the 1970s, England enjoyed low ‘petrol’ prices and the young gifted and bright could live relatively on-the-cuff. OPEC changed that gas pries shot up.  No more being a free, devil-may-care bon vivant on a shoe string.  Things tightened up and strangeld the life out of that life style.

What we need is another British Invasion.  This time of intellects who think for themselves and maybe change the way we think.

Report this

By balkas, August 12, 2010 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

diman,
I did not say that you you believed or did not believe in god.

What may be wrong with thinking of god as an event?
I said god [and as an event] is not in my nervous system.
The word event appears undefinable. And every human being has an inalienable right to use this symbol in own way-time-place and not just priests, ‘educators’, politicians.

You are trying to define god in your way and then impose your definition on me.
I am not playing that game.
I explicitly present the symbol [and others] as undefinable because i know that defining this term and can be carried on forever and only leads to eternal discord.

This is what politicians and priests do onto their serfs. The serfs never espy the ruse!
Hey, we are still talking about democracy; i.e., explaining, defining it; and don’t priests and politicians love it; i.e., the artifice!tnx

Report this

By diman, August 12, 2010 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

To Balkas

I deny any god, limited, unlimited, custom built whatever. So now god is an event? Yesterday he was in your nervous system, what a true omnipotence he possesses.

Report this

By balkas, August 12, 2010 at 6:51 am Link to this comment

diman,
No, you did not compare god with a priest.

Priests propagate a limited god and not the possibilty of the existence of almighty god.

God, thought of as undefinable event, needs not relayers-messengers of what god wants from us.

If it does, it is a limited god. In fact, then, one cannot be called an “atheist” because such a person is only denying a priestly or fake god!

Report this

By elisalouisa, August 12, 2010 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

Life is full of surprises Night-Gaunt. Your comment that not everyone converts on their death bed is true. My father refused to have a priest at his bedside when dying, so it can go both ways. Christians, like Atheists, are not neatly packaged and cannot be compartmentalized. Wasn’t it about a year ago that you mentioned your mother in a post? Caring for a parent in the last stages of life is very difficult, for many reasons. You are correct in saying that old ingrained habits can resurface after years of being locked away.It would not be Hitchens’ style to renounce all the wars he has supported, even if he felt that in his heart, but then the unexpected can always happen.
A close member of my family also has terminal cancer. Trust me when I tell you I would not wish this on anyone. My condolences do go out to Christopher Hitchens and his family.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, August 12, 2010 at 1:01 am Link to this comment

No sound ever comes from the Gates of Eden…
And there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden

Dylan is profound.  But so is Hitchens. 

Hitchens always the realist and forthright in his self-observation.  An
unusually rational man.  Worth viewing several times.

Report this

By diman, August 11, 2010 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

“Let’s not, please, compare as real as a rock entirely different entities: a god and a priest.tnx”

You didn’t read my comment attentively enough, I didn’t compare anything, I simply said that atheists can BE under certain sircumstances i.e. the majority of my generation raised as atheists. They may have discovered god later in life with perestroika and religious revival in Russia, but we were raised as atheists. By the way there is electricity in your nervous system, it runs on it, god has nothing to do with this, the consept of god is far to primitive as far as physiological and biochemical processes are conserned.

Report this

By balkas, August 11, 2010 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

Yes, we need police after all of us have been rendered unsane and insane by clerico-noble-plutocratic class of life.

But recall that haidas, crees, mohawks, apaches, zunis, kiowa had no priestly-noble rule nor laws, police, govts, taxes, armies, jails, ruling class [ruling for money and not for honor of doing it, religion, churches.
And survived until priests come along! Yes, priests visited us also and we survived, but look at us: afraid to say hello, smile; afraid of losing job, being cheated by salespeople; being on drugs, liqor; fighting in traffic, at work, home, etc.
And we haven’t hit the bottom yet. we can still get more unsane, angrier, fearsome, jittery, more envious-desperate, etcetc.
What a life! Even dogs would flee it! tnx

Report this

By gerard, August 11, 2010 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

For Nemesis 2010:  I’m sorry for you that you don’t “get” metaphors.  My statement was not meant to be taken literally.  It is a kind of prose-poem in honor of question-asking, doubt and the courage required to live with uncertainty.
  I’m sure Chris Hitchins understands it, and it was meant for him primarily.

Report this

Page 5 of 6 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.