Apology accepted.
Netanyahu: Iran a threat to the world.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Apology accepted.
Why can't people rely on their own opinions rather than incessantly showing hitchen videos...Hitchens isn't a god, he could be as wrong headed and irrational about religions as anyone. Half of what he says shows a fundamental misconception of religion to begin with and he might find it laughable or ridiculous...but that doesn't make ridicule the ONLY rational response. In fact ridicule, in my opinion is often the resort of the incompetent or lazy mind.
I wish people would give their own opinion, not regurgitate others as their own.
I wish people would give their own opinion, not regurgitate others as their own.
Last edited:
Because Hitchens was a master orator who never resorted to talking over his opponents. He never resorted to belittling them when a convincing argument would have done. He also never ever resorted to constant fallacy based arguments to substantiate his opinions. For example, his enthusiastic and zealous support of the now deemed to be "arguably" illegal war on Iraq was always structured with coherent argument and not once did he ever resort to arguments such as "I know best because I've been there" or any such appeal to experience.
He articulates points very well. Hence I sometimes use him to explain a position I'm trying to get across.
Using the knowledge of other people isn't a bad thing Castiel. This is what we do as humans. We go to school and are taught things by others about things figured out by yet others. We stand on the shoulders of all those who have come before us. Using their knowledge in our own arguments is perfectly valid and sound.
Parroting someone else's views and trying to pass them off as your own is a bad thing, but I never do that. I always give credit to a phrase or argument I present when I'm paraphrasing.
Of course Hitchens isn't a god, silly thing to say. This isn't the first time I've seen you get your knickers in a twist about people quoting Hitchens. Seems like you have a problem with him.
Frankly, I've read many of his books, seen many of his debates, seen many of his interviews, I don't always agree with him, but I can tell you this Castiel, I'll take his word over yours from now till eternity. You are simply not in his league my friend, not even close.
Didn't Hitchens identify such logic as an inherent flaw in religious thinking?
I honestly don't know. Post a link to show me.
I decide whose word to accept. That isn't a fallacy, it's a decision.
I honestly don't know. Post a link to show me.
I decide whose word to accept. That isn't a fallacy, it's a decision.
I am not going to post a link but you claim to have read Hitchens and claim to be well versed in his works so I am sure you would recognise he often stated that a fundamental problem of religion is its inability to adapt due to its dogmatic adherence to a set pattern of beliefs. I never said it was a fallacy on your behalf did I.
Unless of course you are saying he would never ever say that or think that ...
You don't even know me, to you and others on this forum with a few exceptions, I'm just a faceless commentator as you are...however perhaps you might take on board something Hitchens said a few years before he died:
"one must not insult or degrade or humiliate people"
And my problem isn't with Hitchens, as people like Elmarko and possibly Xordium will tell you, I have an abiding respect for the man...I have a problem with people substituting their opinion for his, especially as they don't seem to quite understand his position, as the quote above illustrates when we consider your position on contempt for Arabs and Muslims...Hitchens ironically had the same confessed contempt for those you are defending....if you read what he has said as much as you profess you'll also know that part of his raison d'être was contrarianism, he often took the opposite side, not through any strong belief, but because he knew the debate was necessary and he would have laughed at you taking his word over anyone's without consideration...that was one of the major tenets of his polemicism...never take anothers word just because of who said it.
Perhaps you can just speak your own mind, not substitute it for others. Occasionally it's acceptable to support your opinion with another source, but to keep repeating the same tired stuff, in the same threads even, is monotonous.
Last edited:
That is entirely understandable.
Thought as much.
I don't like your use of the word claim in this post. Clearly you doubt me. Here's the book I'm reading right now. I agree that religion is dogmatic, and therein lies it's failure. Relegion was our first attempt at Philosophy, just like Astrology was our first attempt at Astronomy and Alchemy was our first attempt at Chemistry. ( ~Thanks Hitch )
Fair enough.
Last edited:
Stop doing it then Castiel. You repeatedly take a contrary stance on these forums. It's not clever, just monotonous.
Thought as much.
Why should I go to the time to post a link when you've saved me the hassle:
Strangely enough Hitchens said the same as I expect you well know.
That was my point and you've just confirmed it ...
Why is that strange ?
Well it's strange because you seemingly needed a quote to confirm he thought that about 10 minutes ago ... I mean you have read him widely haven't you.
You've lost me.
Yes I've read a few of his books, Vanity Fair articles and such. But I'm guessing you don't believe me given how you used the word ' claim ' earlier in an insidious attempt to suggest I'm a liar.
Actually a contrary stance is precisely what Hitchens would have supported. The point being that a rational debate cannot be held if all the participants were arguing the same or similar positions with each other...that s not debate, that is agreement.
I find it difficult to see how simply having a different opinion to you is monotonous...unless you simply find it difficult, which would explain why you often block my contributions or resort to posting Hitchens and others opinions in responses to questions.
The rational thing to do, if you find such debates monotonous, is surely not to participate?
You've lost me.
Yes I've read a few of his books, Vanity Fair articles and such. But I'm guessing you don't believe me given how you used the word ' claim ' earlier in an insidious attempt to suggest I'm a liar.
I never used the word liar you're just backtracking. There are a parts to gaining knowledge from a book - reading it, understanding what is written, and finally applying that knowledge. I am not totally sure you've done that tbh. I frankly care not what you've read or haven't read I just find the whole thing deliciously ironic.
To summarise you stated you'd rather take the word of a dead bloke, who was not a specialist in the field, over the word of an academic in that field who is alive and able to refine their view using scientific principles forever.
And you have a problem with religion ... and throw around videos from someone who believed the very opposite like they are going out of fashion.
Last edited:
You've lost me.
Yes I've read a few of his books, Vanity Fair articles and such. But I'm guessing you don't believe me given how you used the word ' claim ' earlier in an insidious attempt to suggest I'm a liar.
I think he is saying that if you were a widely read as you say your are, then you would recognise the points being highlighted and the irony inherent in them.
How is not participating rational ? Discourse is essential, so to remove yourself from it is to remain in the dark. I don't find debates in general to be monotonous, but I do find peoples style of debate monotonous at times. Hence your were on my ignore list for a long time. I took you off recently because I decided that ignoring you was not progressive but regressive. I'm not exactly thrilled having to thrash out every last minutia of every post with you, explaining constantly every last phrase in exquisite detail etc. But I'll do it any way because ignoring you was a mistake on my behalf.