I stopped reading Jack Hudson’s shitty blog some time ago for the most part. He’s just a bag of dishonest rubbish that churns out annoying pieces of repetitive rhetoric over and over. Really, it’s just the same thing every time: “Christians are great, atheists suck, lol. Christians invented everything good and science is premised on the Bible. lol. Also, I start every single one of my responses with ‘Well’ because I think that’s good writing. lol.”
Yet despite my aversion to bad logic (and probably more so, his horrible writing), I hopped over to his site to see what filth he had to say about Christopher Hitchens. It was about what I expected – Christianity leads to great things, atheism doesn’t, lol, well, lol, etc. Here I tear apart (for the nth time) the shitball logic of Fatty Hudson:
Upon learning that he was sick and in all likelihood dying, many skeptics expected the caustic atheist would be reviled by Christians, when in fact the opposite happened.
I have to give chubs credit here. He actually managed to hold off on the lying until his second paragraph. Rather unusual, indeed. But a lie is a lie; nobody expected Christians would shit all over Hitchens in death. We expected they would concoct phony stories of a deathbed conversion like they always do. Fortunately, Hitchens put forth a great effort to ensure that there could be no reasonable doubt that he remained an atheist and anti-theist until the very end. When Richard Dawkins’ time comes, he will do just the same for the exact same reason.
In part this might be explained by the fact that Christians are commanded to ‘love their enemies’…
Nope. False. Hitchens was a respectable man who had something special about him. His intelligence was never approached in debate (especially by Christians and Muslims), and he was the exact opposite of an intellectual coward – something I can’t say for Chunky Hudson.
Besides, let’s just apply a bit of logic here: Atheists routinely show respect when Christians of note die, provided those Christians did something worthwhile while living. And we do it for good reasons, not because we were commanded by a Sky Daddy to do it. (Indeed, how genuine can a show of respect be if it is forced from up high?)
He wasn’t petty like Dawkins, or prissy like Sam Harris…
This line, along with a second post to which I will get, is what motivated me to write. What happened to that command to ‘love thy enemy’, Jack? I guess I’m not surprised a Christian would apply parts of the Bible selectively, but I thought the normal course of action was to pick and choose several different pieces to apply selectively – not pick one piece and apply it in exactly opposing ways. (See this post on Jack Kevorkian for an example of Hudson ‘loving his enemy’.)
The affection many believers had for Hitchens undermines the New Atheist caricature of Christians.
Don’t worry, the disdain you’ve shown for two atheist friends of Hitchens has already reinforced the view.
In the modern atheist mythos, Christians are invariably dumb, deluded and dangerous.
I think I know who’s creating the caricature here.
And yet Hitchens, who himself often spoke this way about believers was often warmly received on by them.
Huh. Jack is able to write (poorly) so he must be able to read. Strange then that he apparently has never read what believers had to say of Hitchens.
Unlike atheists, Christians merely see their opponents as wrong, not fundamentally stupid or insane.
If I say I see that as a wrong, stupid, and insane generalization, does that mean all atheists see it that way?
We understand that despite his best efforts, Hitchens was no more a sinner than anyone else and no less deserving of the grace than any believer.
What condescending assholery.
If Hitchens was right about the universe, then he has passed into nothingness and will be soon forgotten – atheists have little love for history except where it serves their purposes…
Says the guy who thinks Christianity has always been the driving force behind science.
If a face and voice isn’t ever-present on the screen it soon fades from public memory. So the increasingly secular world quickly forgets its ownchampions (sic); everyone is equally unimportant and inevitably lost in a dying universe.
I like the quick change between “atheists” and “the secular world”. Clever. But no matter, it’s all premised on the continued lies of Chunk-face Hudson. Some of the greatest figures remembered now are the ones which, atheists or not, contributed to the views of many of today’s atheists: scientists. (Fatty Jack, having zero interest or educational background in science beyond a Bio 101 course 30 years ago, is unlikely to be aware of most of this.)
The ultimate irony of his life is that believers, who saw in him the Godly virtues of courage and honesty and perseverance, may have valued his life more than he did himself.
I don’t see how people who place value on magical, evidence-free thinking – thinking which culminates in the belief that there is a realm that somehow matters more than now, more than today – can even begin to understand how to value life. Their entire belief structure is premised on the devaluing of actual life in favor of pretend future life. Just take Jack. My jabs about his struggle with all the excessive weight he carries do point to something more than just my own desire to insult an obvious feature of an obvious idiot: If he really valued life, he would do something to live it. As it stands, he is more willing to stuff his face than exercise; he is willing to risk sacrificing years of life for petty pleasures. The likely result? He will die, joining Hitchens in nothingness, never having seen his children reach important milestones like graduations, marriages, or having their own children. And even if he is fortunate enough to see these important marks, he will still miss years and years of time with family and friends, not to mention the simple joys of life otherwise had. This certainly is not a problem exclusive to the religious, but it is extremely convivial to religious valuing of a pretend afterlife over real life.
This post has become longer than I intended, so I will make this last bit quick. Jack has a history of stealing material from me. He has stolen it from both here as well as the FTSOS Facebook page. Here he does it again:
Though [New Atheists] purport to derive their atheism as a result of scientific knowledge which they consider to be the ‘best way of knowing’, in practice…
The fact that their main use of what they consider the “best way of knowing” is to…
Emphasis mine.
Take a look at my About tab. “Best way of knowing” is a phrase I have used time and time again. I have used it in posts, on Facebook (where available to Jack), and even on Jack’s own blog. He has been called out on his plagiarism in the past, including his theft of this exact phrase. I would link to where that has happened, but it was on his blog and he, of course, deleted the post. In fact, the post demonstrated more than a stray phrase. At the time, I matched no fewer than 5 posts I made here with posts he made the following day or so. He used my phrasing, my ideas, and/or my arguments as premises each time. And I had only looked back at six weeks worth of material. He is a wildly dishonest thief and I would expect an apology from a better man.
Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: Christopher Hitchens, Jack Hudson |
For the Sake of Science 
I read it just now, and was directed here in the comments. It was, as usual, an astounding display of incredulity unbecoming of anyone with a modicum knowledge of secular philosophy and culture, positively littered with straw men and phony caricatures of those perceived as intellectual antagonists.
While pondering the false equivalency of atheism and nihilism, I was reminded of a recent interview I read with Ricky Gervais. He remarked, “I don’t need a reason to exist; only a reason to live.” The believer’s mind seems utterly petrified at the idea that the Universe is indifferent to our existence. How sad, it seems to me, to feel that one’s life has no value unless it is remembered by the gods.
Why bother with the pond scum known as Jack Hudson. He admitted he would kill for his religion. That makes him unfit for existence. I guess someone needs to pick up after a dog takes a dump.
While using your posts and arguments as reference and a jumping-off point for a post does deserve a link, I don’t think that using a phrase like “best way of knowing” without attribution comes up to the level of plagiarism. It seems that he has found a phrase which, for him, crystallizes what is bad in some aspect of atheism. I think you should look at as an accomplishment, being permanently in his head. Judging from a brief glance at some of his writings it is a very hum-drum head and probably could use a few phrases from you to spice it up. Needless to say, but I will, lengthier plagiarism should be pointed out and protested at every post (if he allows it). Let people see that the moral principles he supposedly holds dear only apply when convenient.
It would be one thing if it was a phrase common to atheism, but it isn’t. The sentiment certainly is, but the phrase is mine. What’s more, this isn’t the first time he has used it in one of his posts. The only difference here is that he had the good sense not to do it immediately after I used it.
Besides, even if it isn’t plagiarism, he has stolen my original ideas many times with attribution.
Maybe I’m missing some history here myself, but it seems like you’re being a little hard on the guy. Attack a man’s beliefs, writing and logic all you want, but why the extended rant on his weight and what you imagine it reveals about him? It’s low and adds no support to your argument about levels of respect between generalized groups off Christians and atheists. It also demonstrates a total lack of respect for, empathy with, or understanding of the experience of overweight people.
Add for plagiarism, this particular example doesn’t present a compelling case, though of it’s part of a pattern, that’s certainly distasteful.
Off course Jack Hudson’s post was offensive and incoherent, but you’re better than that, Michael.
than that,
Please excuse the few little textualworks and misspellings in my original comment. I’m on a touchscreen this morning and it’s not well suited to careful typing of more than a sentence or two.
There are a few reasons why I’ve sprinkled comments about his weight:
First, I’m not the sort of person who is about to go around giving respect to those who don’t make a good faith effort to be fit. It isn’t wrong to be fat, but it is wrong to not try to be healthy. Having seen a number of pictures of Hudson through the years on Facebook, it is clear he does not put forth a bit of effort.
Second, I don’t merely have a lack of respect for him as a person; I actually actively disrespect him. He is a bad person who constantly lies. He once got hold of my cousin’s phone number and sent him a number of texts.
Third, unlike Hudson, I plan out my writing. Putting in the jabs on his weight allowed me to easily lead into what I knew would be my most significant paragraph in the post.
As for the plagiarism, it certainly is part of a pattern. I would estimate he has done this anywhere from a dozen to fifteen times. He’ll never admit it because being wrong to him is basically the end of the world, but it’s what he does.
I vaguely recall from the conversation where he was sending all those text messages that the number was somewhere in the St. Paul area – to which Hudson, in his denial, replied that he doesn’t live anywhere near St. Paul.
Funny thing though, wouldn’t ya know, the church he goes to is in Minneapolis. Which, who’dathunk, is about 10 minutes from St Paul. What an amazing coincidence.
Oh, and I just have to point out that this is a cocksucker who has told me that I “insulate myself from criticism”. He deleted the link to this post from his blog. What a ween.
I actually de-blacklisted him a while back after he posted a blog I just couldn’t resist commenting on (I thought it was the fair thing to do), but he’s content to cower in his cave, lying for Jesus.