RIP Christopher Hitchens

[andy7171]

vidav's new signature gif is fantastic!

[kalm]

vidav's new signature gif is fantastic!

One of God's finer creations.

[andy7171]

vidav's new signature gif is fantastic!

One of Odin's finer creations.

FIFY

[Grizalltheway]

[Vidav]

vidav's new signature gif is fantastic!

I aim to please.

[Ivytalk]

vidav's new signature gif is fantastic!

One of God's finer creations.

There were no Norsemen in the Palouse region, were there?

[kalm]

One of God's finer creations.

There were no Norsemen in the Palouse region, were there?

Except the ones who came across the Bering Strait during the last ice age and learned to ride Appaloosas. So in a sense yes, but they were from Northern Mongolia. Quit being so eurocentric FFS.

[Ivytalk]

There were no Norsemen in the Palouse region, were there?

Except the ones who came across the Bering Strait during the last ice age and learned to ride Appaloosas. So in a sense yes, but they were from Northern Mongolia. Quit being so eurocentric FFS.

Norsemen=Mongorians???

[kalm]

Except the ones who came across the Bering Strait during the last ice age and learned to ride Appaloosas. So in a sense yes, but they were from Northern Mongolia. Quit being so eurocentric FFS.

Norsemen=Mongorians???

OK, so it was a stretch. Then again so was dragging the Palouse into this conversation to begin with. Speaking of the Palouse, have you ever seen it in winter?

[Vidav]

Except the ones who came across the Bering Strait during the last ice age and learned to ride Appaloosas. So in a sense yes, but they were from Northern Mongolia. Quit being so eurocentric FFS.

Norsemen=Mongorians???

[Seahawks08]

best thread i've read since I got here.

[D1B]

best thread i've read since I got here.

Hey, Z, did you read this?

[JohnStOnge]

I never found him that compelling. I would love to have debated him; just as I would love to have debated any atheist. Their whole edifice is a paradox.

Now, if they start off by saying there is no right or wrong they'd be OK. But they don't do that. They want to be athetist and at the same time say there is a right and there is a wrong.

Hitchens was like that too. He'd argue against religion using morality when the fundamental basis of his world view, if true, meant there is no morality.

[Grizalltheway]

I never found him that compelling. I would love to have debated him; just as I would love to have debated any atheist. Their whole edifice is a paradox.

Now, if they start off by saying there is no right or wrong they'd be OK. But they don't do that. They want to be athetist and at the same time say there is a right and there is a wrong.

Hitchens was like that too. He'd argue against religion using morality when the fundamental basis of his world view, if true, meant there is no morality.

You've repeated this statement dozens of times on the boards, but it's no more accurate now than the first time.

[native]

I did not agreee with everything Christopher Hitchens said and stood for, but he was a good and worthy man.

RIP, Mr. Hitchens.

[JohnStOnge]

You've repeated this statement dozens of times on the boards, but it's no more accurate now than the first time.

If by "this staement" you mean that premise that if the atheist view is correct there is no intrinsic right or wrong; of course it's accurate. And I don't even know why atheists are so reluctant to admit it

Hitchens was one of the worst with respect to the "atheist preaching morality" paradox. Like this article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ocide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So he was an atheist. Fine. No way to prove him wrong and no way for him to have proven himself correct. But don't start off with the premise that there is "nothing else" then get on a moral high horse about western nations taking what they think it the pragmatic course with respect to calling genocide what it is. Don't act as though you have some legitimate basis in your concept of reality for saying it is "wrong" for them to do that.

[kalm]

You've repeated this statement dozens of times on the boards, but it's no more accurate now than the first time.

If by "this staement" you mean that premise that if the atheist view is correct there is no intrinsic right or wrong; of course it's accurate. And I don't even know why atheists are so reluctant to admit it

Hitchens was one of the worst with respect to the "atheist preaching morality" paradox. Like this article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ocide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So he was an atheist. Fine. No way to prove him wrong and no way for him to have proven himself correct. But don't start off with the premise that there is "nothing else" then get on a moral high horse about western nations taking what they think it the pragmatic course with respect to calling genocide what it is. Don't act as though you have some legitimate basis in your concept of reality for saying it is "wrong" for them to do that.

This post makes no sense whatsoever.

[JohnStOnge]

This post makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure it does. As Grizalltheway noted I've posted on the principle many times before but I'll do it again.

If the atheist view is correct there is nothing beyond ourselves that sets rules of right and wrong. And there is no intrinsic right or wrong. There just is. And one can take any act that everyone assumes is wrong and ask why it is wrong. Whatever the answer to the first why question is, there is always another "why" question.

If you wish, as an exercise, we can play a game. You pick an act that you think is wrong and explain why it is wrong under the premise that there is nothing outside of ourselves...no God or higher power...that establishes it as such. Then I'll ask a question in response. At some point you'll have to just say, "because that's just obviously wrong." But that won't work.

And that's why Hitchens had no credibility. He was constantly engaged in moral preaching while his fundamental view of reality precluded any intrinsic morality.

[BlueHen86]

I did not agreee with everything Christopher Hitchens said and stood for, but he was a good and worthy man.

RIP, Mr. Hitchens.

Agreed.

RIP

[BlueHen86]

This post makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure it does. As Grizalltheway noted I've posted on the principle many times before but I'll do it again.

If the atheist view is correct there is nothing beyond ourselves that sets rules of right and wrong. And there is no intrinsic right or wrong. There just is. And one can take any act that everyone assumes is wrong and ask why it is wrong. Whatever the answer to the first why question is, there is always another "why" question.

If you wish, as an exercise, we can play a game. You pick an act that you think is wrong and explain why it is wrong under the premise that there is nothing outside of ourselves...no God or higher power...that establishes it as such. Then I'll ask a question in response. At some point you'll have to just say, "because that's just obviously wrong." But that won't work.

And that's why Hitchens had no credibility. He was constantly engaged in moral preaching while his fundamental view of reality precluded any intrinsic morality.

Man defines what is right and what is wrong. Saying that God defines what is right and what is wrong is just an excuse.

As far as your game is concerned, I think "because that's just obviously wrong" is a better answer than "because God said so".

[Vidav]

This post makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure it does. As Grizalltheway noted I've posted on the principle many times before but I'll do it again.

If the atheist view is correct there is nothing beyond ourselves that sets rules of right and wrong. And there is no intrinsic right or wrong. There just is. And one can take any act that everyone assumes is wrong and ask why it is wrong. Whatever the answer to the first why question is, there is always another "why" question.

If you wish, as an exercise, we can play a game. You pick an act that you think is wrong and explain why it is wrong under the premise that there is nothing outside of ourselves...no God or higher power...that establishes it as such. Then I'll ask a question in response. At some point you'll have to just say, "because that's just obviously wrong." But that won't work.

And that's why Hitchens had no credibility. He was constantly engaged in moral preaching while his fundamental view of reality precluded any intrinsic morality.

You don't do things like murder, steal, rape etc because it helps the individual to help the tribe. A lone person has less survival chance than a group of people so it pays to have stability within the group to keep that lone person safe. It is all about protecting #1.

[Vidav]

Sure it does. As Grizalltheway noted I've posted on the principle many times before but I'll do it again.

If the atheist view is correct there is nothing beyond ourselves that sets rules of right and wrong. And there is no intrinsic right or wrong. There just is. And one can take any act that everyone assumes is wrong and ask why it is wrong. Whatever the answer to the first why question is, there is always another "why" question.

If you wish, as an exercise, we can play a game. You pick an act that you think is wrong and explain why it is wrong under the premise that there is nothing outside of ourselves...no God or higher power...that establishes it as such. Then I'll ask a question in response. At some point you'll have to just say, "because that's just obviously wrong." But that won't work.

And that's why Hitchens had no credibility. He was constantly engaged in moral preaching while his fundamental view of reality precluded any intrinsic morality.

Man defines what is right and what is wrong. Saying that God defines what is right and what is wrong is just an excuse.

As far as your game is concerned, I think "because that's just obviously wrong" is a better answer than "because God said so".

[JoltinJoe]

Sure it does. As Grizalltheway noted I've posted on the principle many times before but I'll do it again.

If the atheist view is correct there is nothing beyond ourselves that sets rules of right and wrong. And there is no intrinsic right or wrong. There just is. And one can take any act that everyone assumes is wrong and ask why it is wrong. Whatever the answer to the first why question is, there is always another "why" question.

If you wish, as an exercise, we can play a game. You pick an act that you think is wrong and explain why it is wrong under the premise that there is nothing outside of ourselves...no God or higher power...that establishes it as such. Then I'll ask a question in response. At some point you'll have to just say, "because that's just obviously wrong." But that won't work.

And that's why Hitchens had no credibility. He was constantly engaged in moral preaching while his fundamental view of reality precluded any intrinsic morality.

Man defines what is right and what is wrong. Saying that God defines what is right and what is wrong is just an excuse.

As far as your game is concerned, I think "because that's just obviously wrong" is a better answer than "because God said so".

Fine. But why it is obviously wrong?

[kalm]

Man defines what is right and what is wrong. Saying that God defines what is right and what is wrong is just an excuse.

As far as your game is concerned, I think "because that's just obviously wrong" is a better answer than "because God said so".

Fine. But why it is obviously wrong?

Because it's unfair.

[BlueHen86]

Man defines what is right and what is wrong. Saying that God defines what is right and what is wrong is just an excuse.

As far as your game is concerned, I think "because that's just obviously wrong" is a better answer than "because God said so".

Fine. But why it is obviously wrong?

You are like the three year old who asks "why?". He gets his answer and then asks "why?" again. Of course the three year old asks "why" because he's curious, you do it because you are a great debater.