PZ Meyers response to the Hitchens Watch post 'Hitchens Collaborating In Religious Indoctrination?'
"There is a site called Christopher Hitchens Watch which, I believe, began with a good cause: it's been around for about 5 years, and initially focused on Hitchens' support of the war in Iraq."
Read the post here.
The post at Hitchens Watch: Hitchens Collaborating In Religious Indoctrination?
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Join the discussion
Popular Posts
-
Mr Steve Wasserman, Christopher Hitchens' literary agent, kindly replied to my query about a possible memorial. Posted with permission. ...
-
May 12, 2010. The Veritas Forum. Christopher Hitchens debates John Haldane on 'We Don't Do God'? Secularism and Faith in the Pub...
-
By Christopher Hitchens Ever since Tom Lehrer recorded his imperishable anti-Christmas ditty all those years ago, the small but growing... -
Why Evolution Is True has a great post on Hitchens encounter with 8 year old Mason, who wanted to know what books she should read. Read... -
Jeremy Paxman interviews Christopher Hitchens in Washington D.C. Full interview on BBC2, Nov 29, 7.30pm.
-
June 1, 2010. Christopher Hitchens interviewed on BBC on his memoir Hitch-22.
-
Questioning the moral heroism of India’s most revered figure. By Christopher Hitchens "JOSEPH LELYVELD SUBTLY tips his hand in his... -
In The Year of Magical Thinking, the 2005 best-seller, Joan Didion dissected the trauma of losing her husband, John Gregory Dunne. With Blue...
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Paine
Baruch Spinoza
George Orwell
Bertrand Russell
Leon Trotsky
Rosa Luxemburg
Socrates
51 comments:
What people do in their own privacy is their business. Rakhmetov has perhaps a point with "They're (prayers) an absolutely essential performance in maintaining an indoctrinated and enslaved mind within the Christian ideological system".
There's also a matter of being civil. I agree with PZ: "One shouldn't discourage kind intent". On his blog someone posted a comment that it's like getting a shitty present. "You still thank the person and appreciate that they thought of you".
When Dan Dennett suffered greatly because of his heart, he also was offered prayers etc. He made a funny remark in response to one of those: "and did you also sacrifice a goat :)?"
Religion is bullshit and every one of us knows it. But what's wrong in appreciating someone sparing Christopher some of their (wasted, but still) time.
Tom,
You might do well to let the Hitchenswatch hacks fend for themselves. Unless you're playing a deep game of preventive appeasement (lest they target the Daily Hitchens with their blunt and boring bullshit), giving them even a scrap of attention demeans your project.
These people who are praying for Mr. Hitchens know he is an atheist and know he does not believe in prayer. Their praying for him is their way, useless or not, of doing what they think they can do to help. They're not harming anyone. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in prayer. If I knew Mr. Hitchens or if I met him on the street I would say to him 'my heart goes out to you, and I hope you have a full and speedy recovery'. Those words are every bit as effective as prayer in bringing about the desired result (in other words, not effective at all), but their purpose is not that - their purpose is to let Mr. Hitchens know that others care for him, and that is worth something. Mr. Hitchens is in the thoughts of his atheist friends and in the prayers of his religious ones. Should he be grateful only for the goodwill expressed by the former?
publius,
This is about PZ Meyers response to HW on a current debate, to pray or not to pray for CH. Because he is a renowned scientist, biologist, blogger, I thought his post was worth mentioning. In this case a link is required to the post itself and a link to the source (HW) so readers can find out what PZ responded to. I don't see how this demeans my blog.
Both DH and HW are about Hitchens so mentioning the 'enemy' is sometimes necessary.
If you think that my comment on Rakhmetovs point on prayers demeans my blog, alright, your opinion but if I think someone points out something worth consideration it deserves attention and I don't care who it is. It might as well be the Pope.
There's no preventive appeasement going on here and I don't see how that would be even possible or necessary. Anyone can post bullshit. There's always the comment moderation option available if things get out of hand.
Blogging can be serious business but it shouldn't be too serious.
"But what's wrong in appreciating someone sparing Christopher some of their (wasted, but still) time."
Well, if there is a god and they pray to the wrong one, they might be making things worse.
Fair enough, Tom. Your call. As you seem to know Hitchenswatch is many things, but serious is not one of them.
What we object to is Hich's acceptance of those prayers. If he were principled and consistent, he should've told his prayer-wishes to piss off. Since, from his 2007 opinion reproduced in Rakhmetov's post, Hitchens believes those people are essentially wishing evil on him. Praying is "immoral" and "disgraceful" and an "insult" according to Hitch '07. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
Mark G-
Maybe, in his illness, Hitchens is turning into a bit of a masochist. Maybe he likes being hurt and insulted by all those prayers. If he really starts enjoying pain, he might even read your "work".
What we object to is Hich's acceptance of those prayers. If he were principled and consistent, he should've told his prayer-wishes to piss off.
Maybe he would think that is needlessly obnoxious. It's not a duty to be obnoxious even if some people (ahemmmmm!) make a vocation out of it.
Since, from his 2007 opinion reproduced in Rakhmetov's post, Hitchens believes those people are essentially wishing evil on him. Praying is "immoral" and "disgraceful" and an "insult" according to Hitch '07. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
Hitchens is talking about children being prayed to. Those praying for children are saying that if those children are "worthy" then God will cure them, but those that don't get better are therefore somehow "unworthy". Hitchens finds this a horrible thing for children to have to grow up believing. Do you think Hitchens is being "raised" by these Christians praying for him? No, don't be an idiot. He knows it is a gesture being extended to him. An ineffectual gesture, of course, but an expression of care. There is a glaring difference.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
Hitchens thinks prayers are "immoral" and "disgraceful" and an "insult", fine. He also says that what people do in their privacy, in their homes, is OK as long as they keep it a private matter and don't knock on his door and bother him or his children.
This means that even if praying is bullshit, people have the right to do it. It's their right to be immoral, disgraceful, and insulting (within the law). They have the right to maintain their indoctrinated and enslaved minds. He can't change that. He can only say what he thinks and believes in and hope people are persuaded by his views.
How many atheists would actually tell a believer to piss off or fuck off straight to their face when told that they're being prayed for? Wouldn't a more normal reaction be to ignore the person or laugh it off. 'You do that but I don't care'. My favorite reply is 'Alright, you pray for me and I'll think rationally for you'.
Wiat! Look, why don't you actually listen to the quote in context. Hitchens is responding to a pasteur who says his daughter WAS cured of cancer by prayer. That's why he starts with:
Well, it's flat-out unbelievable testimony.
Hitchens is obviously saying that cases of prayer supposedly being successful at curing illness is the problem. He says that many people have got better from terrible disease and it has nothing to do with prayer. He is against people claiming that prayer heals and has healed on such and such occasion. Hitchens accepts prayer as an expression of someone caring about him but he explicitly says it doesn't cure.
Do you not see the difference?
Anway, this pathetic gotcha attempt looks like a Mark G FAIL! The only consolation for Mark G is that he will still think he's right because he doesn't understand the obvious difference.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAA!
http://constitutionallyspeakingsa.blogspot.com/2007_05_13_archive.html
Hitchens is responding to a pasteur [sic] who says his daughter WAS cured of cancer by prayer.
Well played.
No, he was railing against praying in general (calling 'immoral' among other things) and not simply the notion that prayer has the ability to cure.
Hey blow me: don't you think you've overplayed the whole BWAH thing by now?
One more time for "Mark G":
The priest guy basically said, "I prayed for my daughter and she got better. This proves prayer works and I tell my parishoners this."
Hitchens bascially says, "I know children who have been prayed over and died. It is disgusting of you to say that the prayers for them were inferior and that is the root of charlatanism as practiced in your church."
Have you listened to the interview? No, don't think so.
Mark, (and others who are interested) listen to the radio show from here 22:28
I invite anyone with any objectivity to listen and see if Mark is right or if he’s grabbing at straws. AGAIN!
The Reverand said, “I wanna give you a testimony of my eleven year old daughter who, I thought she had the flu... and come to find out she had Hodgkin Disease… I believe the God I believe in can heal… all the best doctors have done their duty…I asked God, “Would you heal my baby?” Mysteriously, supernaturally, whatever you want to call it, she lives today, doctors are amazed. You’ve come too late to me to tell me that wasn’t an act by a real God.”
The radio guy says, “Are you going to call him a charlatan? A fool? With that testimony?”
Hitchens says, “Well, it’s flat-out unbelievable testimony. And it’s been the basis of religious charlatanry all along to say that…”
Radio guy, “You doubt the story though?”
Hitchens, “Well, I do know, I’m very sorry if I sound callous, but I do know other children who have died horribly despite having been prayed over with extreme fervency and I think it’s disgusting to suppose that those prayers were inferior to other peoples. And I further think it’s irrational to say that if something has no apparent natural explanation then it must have a supernatural one. There are such things as unexpected recoveries though it does seem to me she had a long course of treatment, in fact it was the first thing the reverend mentioned. But the claim that YOU have a personal line to God and that he’ll intervene for your convenience is a disgraceful thing to say in my view. And an insult to those whose children continue to suffer despite agonies of prayer on their behalf. No, this is a conscious attempt to defraud people and it’s the basis of a great deal of religious hucksterism and as well as being immoral its highly unattractive.”
http://www.onpointradio.org/media-player?url=http://www.onpointradio.org/2007/05/christopher-hitchens-on-religion&title=Christopher+Hitchens+on+Religion&pubdate=2007-05-11&segment=2
So kind of Heywood Jeblome to completely humiliate himself by providing the very evidence to prove he was wrong. Thanks for clip, it's even more hypocritical than I thought. Hitch is really indignant and self-righteous in his opposition to praying for people sick with cancer.
Thanks to the full context we have here, it's now crystal clear that Hitch starts denouncing this case and Pastor in particular then generalizes about all prayer for the ill, saying things like "to claim that you have a personal line to God and that he'll intervene for your convenience is a disgracefeul thing to say, mind you" which anyone with a grey cell functioning can plainly see is a general statement about any case of praying for the sick, i.e. the "mind you." Hitchens is quite right, to ask for prayers to heal the sick is incredibly solipsistic, arrogant, and disgraceful. And even if this particular line wasn't a generalized statement of principle, and merely about this one specific case, it changes nothing, as it would still be Chris denouncing someone praying for a person sick with cancer.
Christ, we've got Hitch on tape denouncing in principle the act of praying for the ill, even the same bloody disease CH has, so of course every dim-witted Hitchophile on the internet is furrowing his brow in utter confusion.
My apologies, Chris says "in my view," not "mind you." The transcript was wrong.
You are soooooo wrong! What a thicky you are. Its like dweedledum and dweedlereallydum, reading you and Mark G!
"anyone with a grey cell functioning can plainly see..."
Well, that disqualifies you.
Look, maybe you understand analogies, right?
If there's an earthquake and 1000 people die but one baby lives and the mother says that God protected her baby and that porves there is a God then Hitch would say, "That's disgusting and disgraceful, immoral and wicked to say given that there are many children and others who did die, what makes you so special?"
This is EXACTLY like Hitch and the reverend. The reverend says his baby lived because the reverend prayed while Hitch says what about all those other children, thousands, who get sick and then die even though their parents prayed for them? Hitch isn't saying that the parents who pray for their children are wicked, is he? No, he's saying that those whose run around saying God saved their baby because of prayer are making a horrible and disgusting implication that the other children died because the prayers weren't good enough.
I don't believe you can be so stupid, so maybe you are just kidding. But if not do you wnat me to lend you a brain cell to help yo understand?
My apologies, Christopher says "in my view," not "mind you." The transcript was wrong.
I didn't write that!
But I think it shows you just got your quote randomly and proves you didn't know what he was talking about!
HJ 1-0 Rakmetov
Well, that disqualifies you.
Wow, what wit you possess.
This is EXACTLY like Hitch and the reverend. The reverend says his baby lived because the reverend prayed while Hitch says what about all those other children, thousands, who get sick and then die even though their parents prayed for them? Hitch isn't saying that the parents who pray for their children are wicked, is he? No, he's saying that those whose run around saying God saved their baby because of prayer are making a horrible and disgusting implication that the other children died because the prayers weren't good enough.
But I'm not talking about the part where Hitchens denounced the Pastor for claiming the prayer worked. I suppose it's a waste of time trying to point out something so elementary to someone so congenitally stupid, which you've gone out of your way to demonstrate to everyone, but the quote which you're desperately avoiding and spinning, namely: "to claim that you have a personal line to God and that he'll intervene for your convenience is a disgraceful thing to say, in my view" is of course a general statement. Note the tense, he will intervene. Hitch is not denouncing the claim about the prayer working here, but the fact that the Pastor did it in the first place, obviously.
I guess in Hitchens' view this Pastor is the only person in the entire universe for whom it is disgraceful to offer prayers for the sick. If anyone else claims in prayer that they have a personal line to God and that the Lord will intervene at their convenience is totally fine with Hitchens in HJ's brainless opinion. Risible.
I didn't write that!
But I think it shows you just got your quote randomly and proves you didn't know what he was talking about!
Where did I claim you wrote that? And funny how you didn't notice or mention this minor, irrelevant typo until I brought it up, PROVING YOU JUST GOT YOUR QUOTE RANDOMLY AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT!!!11!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH LOL LOL
Sorry "Heywood Jeblome" (shocking how someone with such a clever name could prove to be so congenitally stupid) but you've just been refuted.
Here's some advice: if you shoot at the King, you best not miss.
Here's some advice: if you shoot at the King, you best not miss.
The only thing your king of palster, is Jack and shit and Jack just left town. And if I was shooting at you maybe I was aiming at your brain in which case its perfectly understandable tht I missed. Ha ha, ROFLMAO!!LOL!
I guess in Hitchens' view this Pastor is the only person in the entire universe for whom it is disgraceful to offer prayers for the sick. If anyone else claims in prayer that they have a personal line to God and that the Lord will intervene at their convenience is totally fine with Hitchens in HJ's brainless opinion. Risible.
This moronic misrepresenting of my point is typical of people who've turned up unarmed to a battle fo wits!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHA!
You just don't get it do you?
Hitchens is saying, how can you, YOU, YOU who I'm talking to say God will intervene whenever you pray and use evidence that one time your baby was sick and you prayed and she got better so that proves he will do it for you and probably will again in the future and how can you, YOU, YOU teach your flock of sheep this nonsense when the OBVIOUS impliation is that those who have prayed for children who died were not blessed by the lord or said their prayers wrong or just don't matter? How can the reverend be so cruel as to disregard all the other evidence of God NOT intervening and coming to the aid of heartfelt but ultimately futile prayers? This is OBVIOUSLY what HITCH is saying and says that THAT is imoral - teh pastors smug certaintly that GOD looks out for HIM and who cares not a fig for the millions of children who die around the world of cancer, AIDS, dysentry, cholera, malaria etc... etc... and I can't believe I can't believe you don't understand!
You must be joking. Just say you are joking and that you don' mean it but you have instead cruelly led poor Mark G astray with your fabrications.
HJ 2-0 Rakmetov
LOLster!
Come on guys! Who's backing me up here?
When HH is asking CH how he's responding to people who are praying for him, it doesn't sound like he really cares about them. Why would he? These prayers are just nonsense to him. He says they're fine, they don't do good, but necessarily no harm either. He doesn't mind and he's touched by the thought. It makes up for those who like to see him burn in hell. Harmless nonsense. They're more like 'wish you well'.
I don't see why he should tell them to piss off.
What's the big deal? Everybody knows how he feels about the personal line to God anyway.
No Tom, that's not good enough. I showed that Hitchens wasn't being hypocritical. He was only criticizing those who try to show "Prayer works" with their own examples. He has no problem with people who say futile prayers though.
Isn't it clear? Rakmetov and Marc G are wrong!
Right, so Hitchens says praying is fine. It's nonsense but fine and should be a private matter.
He says 'to claim that you have a personal line to God and that he'll intervene for your convenience is a disgraceful thing to say, in my view'. That is exactly that. His view, his opinion. Praying is still fine but he finds it disgraceful.
He says “Well, it’s flat-out unbelievable testimony", " I think it’s disgusting to suppose that those prayers were inferior to other peoples".
Still his opinion on the priests statement that God healed his child as a result of prayer and is criticizing him for it, but he sees a difference between the 'I wish you well' prayers and the 'I KNOW God healed my child as a result of prayer' statement. He's indifferent to prayers for him (like most atheists are) but challenging this knowledge that this priest claims to have that God heard him and acted. To Hewitt he says that the people who are praying for him don't know if their prayers will work. To put it in another way: Pray if you like but where is the evidence that a supernatural being healed your child? Of course, being a believer, the priest thinks faith is evidence enough (= immoral, disgusting statement).
So, praying is fine and a private matter BUT IT'S ALSO "a conscious attempt to defraud people and it’s the basis of a great deal of religious hucksterism and as well as being immoral its highly unattractive.”
What he is basically saying is 'pray if you must but I think it's bullshit'.
He doesn't put it this strongly to Hewitt. He said prayers don't do any good and he generaly sounds indifferent to the whole praying issue. So he doesn't mind (private) prayers but he thinks they're immoral and disgusting. Disgraceful? Yes, but people are doing it anyway and by doing so they're disgusting (lack of evidence) and only wasting their time.
So he doesn't mind (private) prayers but he thinks they're immoral and disgusting. Disgraceful? Yes, but people are doing it anyway and by doing so they're disgusting (lack of evidence) and only wasting their time.
Wrong Tom, Wrong again!
You're calling Hitchens a hypocrite?
Your reading comprehension skills are way off Tom!
To be clear, with Disgraceful? I'm referring to prayers, not his view.
I'm just speculating in the question of accepting that people pray but at the same time finding this behavior to be immoral. Even if one doesn't say it out loud, the word immoral, like CH didn't do in the HH interview, one can still hold this view.
So Hitchens is saying that prayers are fine but don't expect and don't claim that they actually work?
But why accept them in the first place? No harm in false consolation perhaps?
As I said, Hitchens attacks the Pastor for even praying in the first place before there was a recovery, i.e. to claim God will intervene at your convenience is disgraceful. The "will" obviously means before a recovery.
And it's funny how prayers can be "fine" and "disgraceful" at the same time. But you really need an intellect as polished as Heywood Jeblome's to reconcile something so contradictory. I guess he's going to have to write "BWAHAHAHAHA," "LOL" and then spell everything (including his own name) continuously wrong to get out of this one, like the pathetic, puerile, sub-literate loser he is (incidentally typical of those who make up Hitchens' remaining fan base).
If someone says 'I'll pray', one could reply 'To claim God will intervene at your convenience is disgraceful'. To me this sounds like criticism on the prayer itself.
If someone says 'I prayed and it worked', one could reply 'To claim God intervened at your convenience is disgraceful'. This would be more consistent with the view 'pray but don't claim it works or worked'.
Perhaps a bad choice of word here by Hitchens but he clearly means the recovery although he says 'will'. If he would've said 'intervened' instead, things would be more clear, (pray but don't say it worked)
I still don't see this as a big deal and I don't think CH is a hypocrite even if there's a contradiction here.
And it's funny how prayers can be "fine" and "disgraceful" at the same time.
Yes but If I'm asked 'what do you think of prayers'? Why can't I say 'they're fine by me (everyone has the right to do it, keep it private) but I find them disgraceful (I wish people wouldn't do it).
As I said, Hitchens attacks the Pastor for even praying in the first place before there was a recovery, i.e. to claim God will intervene at your convenience is disgraceful. The "will" obviously means before a recovery.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! Wrong again! Wrong again!
The reverend tells the story and says "this is my testimony".
Hitchens says, "It's unbelievable testimony!" This starts your quote that you cut up into little pieces to make it look like something diferent.
Here's "dusgusting":
I do know other children who have died horribly despite having been prayed over with extreme fervency and I think it’s disgusting to suppose that those prayers were inferior to other peoples.
Hitchens is saying the reverand's claim that his daughter was cured by prayers to God is "disgusting" because Hitchens knows other children who died and weren't saved.
Mr Hitchen's point is: "How can you claim that if you ask God for help he will help you and how can you tell people that praying to God is the way when that same Good old God has allowed other children to die?" What makes it disgusting is the claim that God plays favorites. Think how horrible that is for other parents of children who have prayed and seen their children die. Is this so not clear to you?
(And Tom?)
And it's funny how prayers can be "fine" and "disgraceful" at the same time.
I don't say that and neither does Hitchesn. He says praying is fine (irrational but fine) but the claim that you have a hotline to Jesus is disgraceful if you brag about how God helped you and it is imoral to tell the sheep in the pews.
If I say, "If there is a God strike Rakmetov with lightning now, please!" you don't think that is immoral, do you? You think it is stupid and funny and will point and laugh.
But if lightning does strike you suddenly it will be imoral for me to create a church based on some "miracle" that God intervened to help me from having to conduct this ridiculous conversation. And it would be immoral if I be given tax-exemption status for my church which gets massive donations from grateful sinners. Right?
Rakhmetov = Breitbart.
"Oh no, I'm not wrong! If you listen to the whole thing I'm even more right than I first thought. Ha. Ha. What you got to say now?"
Moron.
Let's say Hitchens sees someone praying.
- Oh, I see you're praying
- Yes, I have a personal line to God and he will intervene for my convenience.
Would Hitchens still say 'to claim...is disgraceful'? Not if he wants to stay consistent with his view that prayers are fine(no miracle claims yet). But it can be used as a reply to the believer and that would make it a statement on prayers in general. (Unless Hitchens has a list of what is OK and what's not to pray for).
What I mean is that I think the 'to claim..' statement could be interpreted as a personal attack and on prayers in general and that Hitchens criticizes the recovery claim although he says 'will'.
HJ, you probably don't think it matters but I still think that if he would've said 'intervened' instead of 'will intervene', there would be less room for interpretations.
Wow. This is amazing. (First a reminder: Don't feed the trolls. Unless you are baiting them - then carry on.) I knew immediately that there would be trolls because the post calls them out directly. So maybe one was looking for a fight (they are fun sometimes, after all).
That being said, as I read through these comments I see one or two things happening here. First being - these individuals don't like Christopher, have an 'image' in their minds of what/who he is, and only see what fits into that. If it doesn't fit, it gets 'twisted' just enough to make it fit (kind of what religious people do with reality). The fact that there are people who DO like Christopher ruffles their feathers to the point that they feel the need to go and "set the idiots straight". Or, let's go poke and prod those that like him so their feathers are ruffled too. And we're off ...
You do realize (those from here) that if they do see what you're saying - they don't care and know they have you hooked into proving how right you are - or if they don't - you will never convince them? Maybe this is what was wanted and I'm just wasting my time ; ) going on about it. I find wasting my time on arguments like this - well - a waste of my time. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person and I refuse to fight pointless battles.
But something did hook me into posting and it was the comment regarding someone being incensed about Christopher being 'inconsistent'. Their claim: he said something recently that didn't jive with something he said three years ago. Really? Wow. A human being was inconsistent incensed you? You have nothing better to do with your time? And it turns out that the said inconsistency is in question. Sigh ...
Okay - so I've been hooked into a pointless argument (in my opinion), because I'm floored by how far someone will go to try and tear another person apart. For what? Really. Do any of you who are arguing that Christopher should never, ever, ever say anything that remotely contradicts anything he ever said live up to this? From what I see in this short conversation are a few individuals attacking Christopher's integrity, who have no actual concept of what integrity is, much less have any of their own. The fact that they make such ridiculous claims speaks volumes to that. That's all ..
*Stepping off of my soapbox. Picking it up and walking away.*
If someone says 'I'll pray', one could reply 'To claim God will intervene at your convenience is disgraceful'. To me this sounds like criticism on the prayer itself.
Careful Tom, you're going to get in trouble if you keep sticking to facts and elementary logic like this.
Rakhmetov = Breitbart.
"Oh no, I'm not wrong! If you listen to the whole thing I'm even more right than I first thought. Ha. Ha. What you got to say now?"
Moron.
Just for that I'm going to have to release that video clip showing what an anti-white racist you truly are. Sorry you ACORNista, but hearing the emotion and self-righteous piety in Hitchens' principled opposition to praying for the sick in this clip does make it look even more hypocritical and inconsistent than just the dry text.
Their claim: he said something recently that didn't jive with something he said three years ago.
Nice try. The issue really is how Hitchens has long been opposed in principle to prayers, including for the sick, and this case I cited is particularly salient because it's prayers for someone sick with cancer. Just take a look at GING, he constantly mocks and denounces praying in there, including specifically for the ill. For example how he made a big stink about Dennis Prager saying he should be relieved if he were in a dark alley at night and some youths approached him whom came from a prayer meeting. Praying didn't seem "fine" to him on that occasion.
Hitchens' flunkies have quite a task in pretending that praying has been kosher to super-Atheist Chris all these years.
Okay, in the manner of our dear lord Jesus, let me give a parable.
I am standing on the street arguing with Tom, Xenophrenia, Rakmetov and Hitchens about which is better Jonnie Walkers or Jack Daniels when suddently we see this man walk along the road with a horrible flesh eating diseaese on his face.
His whole cheek is hanging off and his eyeball is hanging out of his socket still dangling by the optic nerve but resting on his cheekbone and his lips have fallen off and you can see his teeth in a skeletal grin.
Now, I say, I hope that never happens to me. But Rakmetov says, "There but for the grace of God go I!"
What pious nonsense and disgusting words! I can't believe what Rakmetov has just said and I think he should be ashamed of himself. Do your cheeks not blush with shame Rakmetov? If not, why not?
What do you think Hitchens will say?
Of course he'll say, "That's immoral, disgraceful, disgusting to assume that God looks out for YOU and that he'll not intervene to help the poor man with the disease!"
I point out, "Yes Mr Hitchens but even further that imoral nonsense of Rakmetov's implies that God has "grace" in allowing Rakmetov not to get the horrible disease but forgets that God - in his grace! - gave that man the disease in the first place! What a bastard that God is! How can anyone preach that God is lovely and graceful and all that when he shows such apparent contempt for people to give them such horrible diseases IN THE FIRST PLACE?"
Hitchens replies, "Excellent points and spoken even better than I could!"
"Thanks!" I say, "And if I were to pray for no disease that wouldn't be so bad but it would be a disgrace, disgusting and immoral to claim that you have a hotline to God and that he does your bidding and yet won't help poor old Chuck who has his eyeball hanging out."
"Exactly right!" Says Hitchens.
So, Rametov what have you to say about that?
And look at this?
Just for that I'm going to have to release that video clip showing what an anti-white racist you truly are. Sorry you ACORNista, but hearing the emotion and self-righteous piety in Hitchens' principled opposition to praying for the sick in this clip does make it look even more hypocritical and inconsistent than just the dry text.
This is Rakmetov's reply to "Anonymous" and it shows just how unserious Rakmetov is.
What do you say, Tom, Xeno, Anonymous?
Oh and hello, I have to answer the next part of Rakmetov's "point".
For example how he made a big stink about Dennis Prager saying he should be relieved if he were in a dark alley at night and some youths approached him whom came from a prayer meeting. Praying didn't seem "fine" to him on that occasion.
Let's see what the good book says shall we? Please turn to page 18:
A week before the events of September 11 2001 I was on a panel with Denis Prager, who is one fo America&s better-known religious broadcasters. He challenged me in public to answer what he called a 'straight yes/no question.' and I happily agreed. Very well, he said,.I was to imagine myself in a strange city as the evening was coming on. Toward me I was to imagine that I saw a large group of men approaching. Now - would I feel safer, or less safe, if I was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting? As the reader will see, this is not a question to which a yes/no answer can be given.
The bolded bit completely blows Rakmetov's assertion out of the water as he seems to think Hitchens is saying that the men are already deeply imoral for "praying". There is nothing inherent about the praying that Hitchens objects to as can be seen by looking at what Hitchens further says:
But I was able to answer as if it were not hypothetical. "Just to stay within the letter 'B', I have actually had the experience in Belfast, Beiruit, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlemhem, and Baghdad. In each case I can say absolutely, and can give reasons why, I would feel immediately threatened if I thought the men appraoching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance.
So we see, nothing about "prayer" per se in this answer and we can therefore conclude that the "prayer" part is irrelevent. Rakmetov may respond that Hitchens is being a bit evasive in his answer but that of course would only be for the benefit of attempting a little dig at Hitchens jsut to score a point (which reminds me HJ 3-0 Rakmetov BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA! LOL!). I'd agree that the answer is a bit evasive but that only demolishes Rakmetov's point that Hitchens is against prayer itself when that is not what he is saying in the example Rakmetov used to argue his point. LOL!
Now, I can understand why a simpleton who thought Hitchens had said one thing on one day and then said another thing a few years later might believe Hitchens has contradcited himself just because they didn't understand what Hitchens was saying. But I don't think Rakmetov is a simpleton so I am inclined to believe he is either too proud to admit he's wrong or he's just trolling for a bit of fun.
Now admit thy errors!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
p. 168:
Every week, at special ceremonies in Mormon temples, the congregations meet and are given a certain quota of names of the departed to "pray in" to their church. This retrospective baptism of the dead seems harmless enough to me,
Hallelujah! LOL!
Just take a look at GING, he constantly mocks and denounces praying in there, including specifically for the ill.
I don't remember what he says about prayers in GING (have to look it up) but if he's clearly against private prayers in there, as in 'I don't think private prayers are fine'. Then there is a contradiction. Remember, they can't be public or government supported prayers. Only private, in your own home, that he objects to.
I checked through GING. It's quickly done in the PDF format. Type in pray in the search box and you get all variations and then just enter, enter..
I found these
The three great monotheisms teach people to think abjectly of themselves, as miserable and guilty sinners prostrate before an angry and jealous god who, according to discrepant accounts, fashioned them either out of dust and clay or a clot of blood. The positions for prayer are usually emulations of the supplicant serf before an ill-tempered monarch.
Religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be "saved".
These are the closest critiques to prayers I found. Not really serious attacks on prayers, more like on religion. Of course there could be more without the key words 'pray' 'prayer(s)' 'praying' mentioned but that would require a re-read of the entire book.
It seems to me that in Hitchens view prayers are fine but don't tell him that they worked, especially if other people also prayed but without getting the results you got.
But if he's fine with private, harmless prayers (consolation, peace, strength or whatever) where do you draw the line. So, no prayers for personal gain. Even if it's private? 'Alright, but don't say it worked'. But if it didn't work?
This is somehow going around in circles.
Thankyou wReckedMotive, politeness is apparently dead in your new world of internet obsessed dweebs. Hitchens makes perfectly clear in the GING book and in many interviews/debates that prayer is useless. That doesn't make it any less civil a thing to do to acknowledge someone who wastes their precious time for you...
HJ - ; )
To start with - since I have been brought into this narrative by way of having an argument regarding types of whiskey, I would like to set something straight: I am a Tequila drinker (no salt/lemon) - don't like whiskey. To be honest - never been much of a drinker, and I can't remember the last time I actually had any.
Okay, that being said, I will reiterate - I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person and I refuse to fight pointless battles. With a statement like: "Just for that I'm going to have to release that video clip showing what an anti-white racist you truly are. Sorry you ACORNista", tells me this is a mind in a steel jaw trap. Not like - in. People like this are trapped in their ideology and demonize anything outside of it, limited as they are by length of the chain. This means they are both not armed for a battle of wits and cannot possibly make an argument worth fighting. They just keep running around the same circles over and over and over. What they will do however, when reality hands them something they can't deny outright (which they will do for awhile), is to twist it so that it becomes part of the ideology. A good example of this is how many Christians are now saying man walked with dinosaurs. They go as far as claim Noah brought dinosaur eggs on the ark. To people like this, reality is nothing more then a concept - something that can be changed at will to fit what you want it to be. The idea that "I'm right, the world is wrong" and hence must be made right. There is no such thing as winning an argument with someone like this.
My reason for not engaging with these individuals is a personal one - it's not worth the stress of my mind constantly having to override my body's desire to do bodily harm. I still get pulled into these discussions now and then but it usually doesn't take me long to determine if it's actually worth it. I saw what looked to me a pissing contest going on here and felt the need to point it out in case it was just a feeding frenzy. Sometimes making a statement regarding the pointlessness of an argument wakes people up. But, I was also aware that it may just be a mental exercise for some. It seems to be the later.
So HJ, what do I say? If you were thinking that you will convince Rakmetov of the error of his ways, you will likely be disappointed. Me? I already hold the opinions you spelled out in your little scenario, so it's kind of preaching to the choir here. I would like to note the bit of hubris you show in having Christopher shower you with praise ... pride does go before a fall. Mind your motivations as it can be a vicious circle proving you are right. Choose your battles carefully. And never forget that no matter how infuriating they are - there's a person on the other side and sometimes proving you are right doesn't justify the wounds inflicted by either side.
; )
I can't help but think, personally, that Christopher finds all of this discussion and hand wringing and arguing about praying for him amusing. I hope so - he could use a good laugh or two at the moment I would think.
I can't help but think, personally, that Christopher finds all of this discussion and hand wringing and arguing about praying for him amusing.
I very much doubt he's reading it, love.
So HJ, what do I say? If you were thinking that you will convince Rakmetov of the error of his ways, you will likely be disappointed. Me? I already hold the opinions you spelled out in your little scenario, so it's kind of preaching to the choir here.
Thanks, that's what I needed to know.
I would like to note the bit of hubris you show in having Christopher shower you with praise ... pride does go before a fall.
Just a bit of a joke.
Mind your motivations as it can be a vicious circle proving you are right. Choose your battles carefully. And never forget that no matter how infuriating they are - there's a person on the other side and sometimes proving you are right doesn't justify the wounds inflicted by either side.
I know, but I feel that someone who starts those arguemnts can accpet them back. At least, I hope so. But it is very good of you to care for Rakmatov's feelings.
I like the wya you compared him to a Creationsit though!
Hj 4-0 Rakmetov
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAHAHHAHHA!
LOL!
;)
I very much doubt he's reading it, love.
Pssst - HJ (I didn't mean this discussion) ....
; )
'This' discussion meaning the one here - was referring to the ongoing discussion of this subject going on all over the internets .... so to rephrase:
Psst HJ -(I didn't mean 'our' discussion)
; )
Oh! I see...
;)
Thanks, I think it is always more fun when discussion is encouraged though.
Maybe someone should email Mr. Hitchens with this one so he can clarify. That would be great!
;D
Post a Comment