RIP Christopher Hitchens

[AZGrizFan]

What's wrong with coffee, hater?

nothing. You just keep bumping a thread that I"m trying to get to die. Like Hitchens.

[D1B]

The source of Joltin Joke, St. Wronge and Tbag's morality. No wonder they're so fucked up.

[AZGrizFan]

The source of Joltin Joke, St. Wronge and Tbag's morality. No wonder they're so fucked up.

The one on the right just isn't praying hard enough.

[D1B]

The source of Joltin Joke, St. Wronge and Tbag's morality. No wonder they're so fucked up.

The one on the right just isn't praying hard enough.

Yep, he has not accepted jesus into his life, so he's fucked.

[AZGrizFan]

The one on the right just isn't praying hard enough.

Yep, he has not accepted jesus into his life, so he's fucked.

He's probably Muslin. So yes, he's fucked.

[D1B]

The one on the right just isn't praying hard enough.

Yep, he has not accepted jesus into his life, so he's fucked.

You really think he's going to church? Tman worships a god that allows that to happen.

[AZGrizFan]

Yep, he has not accepted jesus into his life, so he's fucked.

You really think he's going to church? Tman worships a god that allows that to happen.

T-Man eats enough for both of them.

[D1B]

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.

*Do you you ever read what you post? Seriously. Anyhoo....

Here's your chance to debate him John:

[youtube][/youtube]

[JohnStOnge]

*Do you you ever read what you post? Seriously. Anyhoo....

Here's your chance to debate him John:

Good GRIEF, D. that would've been easy. I could've let him go through that entire diatribe then said: "OK. So now are you going to answer the question?"

Because he never answered the question. He went into this big long thing about how religion has been used to justify "evil" things but never answered the question of how anything can be defined as "evil" if there is no God (or something).

C'mon man. Thank you for such a wonderful illustration of what a twit that man was.

[JohnStOnge]

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.

Yes that is the self interest argument but that's not really about right or wrong. Besides, what's best for the collective is not always best for the individual. Take an example I've used before: Stalin. He killed tens of millions of people. Or he ordered the killing of tens of millions of people. From his standpoint, he did fine. His self interest was well served. He died, as far as we know, of natural causes.

So,what was "wrong" with anything he did if there is nothing "beyond?" If someone else has the opportunity to do what he did, why should they not do it if they think they can succeed?

[D1B]

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.

Yes that is the self interest argument but that's not really about right or wrong. Besides, what's best for the collective is not always best for the individual. Take an example I've used before: Stalin. He killed tens of millions of people. Or he ordered the killing of tens of millions of people. From his standpoint, he did fine. His self interest was well served. He died, as far as we know, of natural causes.

So,what was "wrong" with anything he did if there is nothing "beyond?" If someone else has the opportunity to do what he did, why should they not do it if they think they can succeed?

Uhhhh, here's Hitchens addressing your question. Pay attention to his comments regarding sociopaths and psychopaths, like Stalin.

[youtube][/youtube]

Next....

[D1B]

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.

Yes that is the self interest argument but that's not really about right or wrong. Besides, what's best for the collective is not always best for the individual. Take an example I've used before: Stalin. He killed tens of millions of people. Or he ordered the killing of tens of millions of people. From his standpoint, he did fine. His self interest was well served. He died, as far as we know, of natural causes.

So,what was "wrong" with anything he did if there is nothing "beyond?" If someone else has the opportunity to do what he did, why should they not do it if they think they can succeed?

John, you can't even see that Stalin would not have existed in a society based on humanist principles including morals based on ethicial inquiry. You ever wonder why America hasn't produced a Stalin or a Hitler? Separation of church and state. Done.

Stalin was able to do what he did, with little resistance, because the Russian sheeple obeyed him. They obeyed him, like Tman obeys Jesus, blindly, because they were conditioned to do so by centuries of christian dogma that taught them that their leaders are divine and always right.

[D1B]

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.

Yes that is the self interest argument but that's not really about right or wrong. Besides, what's best for the collective is not always best for the individual. Take an example I've used before: Stalin. He killed tens of millions of people. Or he ordered the killing of tens of millions of people. From his standpoint, he did fine. His self interest was well served. He died, as far as we know, of natural causes.

So,what was "wrong" with anything he did if there is nothing "beyond?" If someone else has the opportunity to do what he did, why should they not do it if they think they can succeed?

[youtube][/youtube]

In the Church of St. Olga, icon was placed. It is depicting Joseph Stalin and Blessed Matrona of Moscow. As legend has it, Stalin would visit her on a regular basis to ask her advice on whether Moscow should be defended against Fascists. Father Evstafy of St. Olga's believes Stalin to be one of the fathers of the country "no matter how bad he was."Could Josef Stalin be made a saint?
freedom of religion as an individual right of every person ?
The Communist party in St Petersburg has petitioned the Orthodox Church to canonise Josef Stalin

[CID1990]

Yes that is the self interest argument but that's not really about right or wrong. Besides, what's best for the collective is not always best for the individual. Take an example I've used before: Stalin. He killed tens of millions of people. Or he ordered the killing of tens of millions of people. From his standpoint, he did fine. His self interest was well served. He died, as far as we know, of natural causes.

So,what was "wrong" with anything he did if there is nothing "beyond?" If someone else has the opportunity to do what he did, why should they not do it if they think they can succeed?

John, you can't even see that Stalin would not have existed in a society based on humanist principles including morals based on ethicial inquiry. You ever wonder why America hasn't produced a Stalin or a Hitler? Separation of church and state. Done.

Stalin was able to do what he did, with little resistance, because the Russian sheeple obeyed him. They obeyed him, like Tman obeys Jesus, blindly, because they were conditioned to do so by centuries of christian dogma that taught them that their leaders are divine and always right.

Actually, they did not simply obey Stalin. They had no choice, because Lenin and Co. had created a system and a political infrastructure that allowed Stalin to 'disappear' people who disagreed with how Uncle Joe did bizness. Semantics, yes, but if I was going to use an example of blind sheep willingly following a bad leader without coercion I would choose Hirohito or David Koresh.

[AZGrizFan]

John, you can't even see that Stalin would not have existed in a society based on humanist principles including morals based on ethicial inquiry. You ever wonder why America hasn't produced a Stalin or a Hitler? Separation of church and state. Done.

Stalin was able to do what he did, with little resistance, because the Russian sheeple obeyed him. They obeyed him, like Tman obeys Jesus, blindly, because they were conditioned to do so by centuries of christian dogma that taught them that their leaders are divine and always right.

Actually, they did not simply obey Stalin. They had no choice, because Lenin and Co. had created a system and a political infrastructure that allowed Stalin to 'disappear' people who disagreed with how Uncle Joe did bizness. Semantics, yes, but if I was going to use an example of blind sheep willingly following a bad leader without coercion I would choose Hirohito or David Koresh.

Or Obama.

[kalm]

But why is it obvious?

Because god gave us a brain, two eyes, and a soul.

(Dammit! )

[D1B]

John, you can't even see that Stalin would not have existed in a society based on humanist principles including morals based on ethicial inquiry. You ever wonder why America hasn't produced a Stalin or a Hitler? Separation of church and state. Done.

Stalin was able to do what he did, with little resistance, because the Russian sheeple obeyed him. They obeyed him, like Tman obeys Jesus, blindly, because they were conditioned to do so by centuries of christian dogma that taught them that their leaders are divine and always right.

Actually, they did not simply obey Stalin. They had no choice, because Lenin and Co. had created a system and a political infrastructure that allowed Stalin to 'disappear' people who disagreed with how Uncle Joe did bizness. Semantics, yes, but if I was going to use an example of blind sheep willingly following a bad leader without coercion I would choose Hirohito or David Koresh.

They worshipped Stalin.

[JoltinJoe]

Yes that is the self interest argument but that's not really about right or wrong. Besides, what's best for the collective is not always best for the individual. Take an example I've used before: Stalin. He killed tens of millions of people. Or he ordered the killing of tens of millions of people. From his standpoint, he did fine. His self interest was well served. He died, as far as we know, of natural causes.

So,what was "wrong" with anything he did if there is nothing "beyond?" If someone else has the opportunity to do what he did, why should they not do it if they think they can succeed?

John, you can't even see that Stalin would not have existed in a society based on humanist principles including morals based on ethicial inquiry. You ever wonder why America hasn't produced a Stalin or a Hitler? Separation of church and state. Done.

Stalin was able to do what he did, with little resistance, because the Russian sheeple obeyed him. They obeyed him, like Tman obeys Jesus, blindly, because they were conditioned to do so by centuries of christian dogma that taught them that their leaders are divine and always right.

[CID1990]

Actually, they did not simply obey Stalin. They had no choice, because Lenin and Co. had created a system and a political infrastructure that allowed Stalin to 'disappear' people who disagreed with how Uncle Joe did bizness. Semantics, yes, but if I was going to use an example of blind sheep willingly following a bad leader without coercion I would choose Hirohito or David Koresh.

They worshipped Stalin.

No, largely they did not. Feigned adoration was mostly guaranteed by the threat of the gulag at best or disappearance at worst.

After he was gone he was quickly denounced by one of his biggest sycophants, Nikita Khruschev, who also appeared to worship Stalin while he was alive. The minute Uncle Joe was dead they shucked him like an ear of corn.

[andy7171]

Actually, they did not simply obey Stalin. They had no choice, because Lenin and Co. had created a system and a political infrastructure that allowed Stalin to 'disappear' people who disagreed with how Uncle Joe did bizness. Semantics, yes, but if I was going to use an example of blind sheep willingly following a bad leader without coercion I would choose Hirohito or David Koresh.

They worshipped Stalin.

...or were killed.

[D1B]

John, you can't even see that Stalin would not have existed in a society based on humanist principles including morals based on ethicial inquiry. You ever wonder why America hasn't produced a Stalin or a Hitler? Separation of church and state. Done.

Stalin was able to do what he did, with little resistance, because the Russian sheeple obeyed him. They obeyed him, like Tman obeys Jesus, blindly, because they were conditioned to do so by centuries of christian dogma that taught them that their leaders are divine and always right.

[D1B]

They worshipped Stalin.

...or were killed.

Absolutely, but they still worshipped him, many still revere him as a great war leader who save the soviet union from the Nazi's.

BTW, Andy, if you don't worship Jesus, you will rot in hell. It's almost the same thing.

Christians need their superfriend in the sky, but they also need their personal dictator to tell them what is right and wrong and punish or reward accordingly.

Russians also need their god.

Stalin created a cult of personality in the Soviet Union around both himself and Lenin. Many personality cults in history have been frequently measured and compared to his. Numerous towns, villages and cities were renamed after the Soviet leader (see List of places named after Stalin) and the Stalin Prize and Stalin Peace Prize were named in his honor. He accepted grandiloquent titles (e.g., "Coryphaeus of Science," "Father of Nations," "Brilliant Genius of Humanity," "Great Architect of Communism," "Gardener of Human Happiness," and others), and helped rewrite Soviet history to provide himself a more significant role in the revolution.

Trotsky criticized the cult of personality built around Stalin. It reached new levels during World War II, with Stalin's name included in the new Soviet national anthem. Stalin became the focus of literature, poetry, music, paintings and film, exhibiting fawning devotion, crediting Stalin with almost god-like qualities, and suggesting he single-handedly won the Second World War. It is debatable as to how much Stalin relished the cult surrounding him. The Finnish communist Arvo Tuominen records a sarcastic toast proposed by Stalin at a New Year Party in 1935 in which he said "Comrades! I want to propose a toast to our patriarch, life and sun, liberator of nations, architect of socialism [he rattled off all the appellations applied to him in those days] – Josef Vissarionovich Stalin, and I hope this is the first and last speech made to that genius this evening."[26]

In a 1956 speech, Nikita Khrushchev gave a denunciation of Stalin's actions: "It is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god."

Wikipedia

[D1B]

They worshipped Stalin.

No, largely they did not. Feigned adoration was mostly guaranteed by the threat of the gulag at best or disappearance at worst.

After he was gone he was quickly denounced by one of his biggest sycophants, Nikita Khruschev, who also appeared to worship Stalin while he was alive. The minute Uncle Joe was dead they shucked him like an ear of corn.

So what, Jesus was denounced too.

Many worshipped him. Many viewed him as a great protector of the Soviet Union in WWII.

Many still revere him...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 27654.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Results of a controversial poll taken in 2006 stated that over 35% of Russians would vote for Stalin if he were still alive.

He came in third in poll naming the greatest Russian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de ... -of-russia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[andy7171]

[youtube][/youtube]
Yeah and this guy was loved by his own too. They seem sincere in their mourning.

[D1B]

[youtube][/youtube]
Yeah and this guy was loved by his own too. They seem sincere in their mourning.

Love it!

Uncle Joe was a psychopath and of course people feared him, just like people feared the catholic church and its popes and monarchs who ravished Europe for 1900 years and created the fertile ground for the Hitlers and Mussolini's of the world to flourish.

Look at what's happening today. Fuck Stalin, look at the Middle East. There, right before your eyes, you can witness the danger of religion and the danger of putting your faith in rigid ethics and morality rooted in the paranormal.

Sheep.

Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Kim Jung Il, Saddam Hussein, Putin absolutely would not exist in a nation built on secular humanist principles. That's why the United States has never had a dictator. Our nation was founded by freethinkers who had the brilliant foresight to separate church and state.

Religion kills people dead.