Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Friday | Main | Bill Maher - New Rules »

Lou Dobbs - Christopher Hitchens

Lou Dobbs interviews Christopher Hitchens author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything this is the interview Jon Stewart should have done, but couldn't and still try and be funny.




Quicktime Video 14.6 MB : 00:06:37
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

user-pic

:)

user-pic

Christopher Hitchens hey correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he in the 'Let's invade Iraq cheer squad!' way back in the beginning of that sorry debacle? What great judgment on that issue!

"Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends and astronomy begins." - Hitchens

Sums it up to me.

user-pic

A perfect counter example for those claiming atheism to be just another form of religion or dogma. I agree with almost everything he says about religion, yet I strongly disagree with just about everything else he says.

I have big problems with many of the political views expressed Hitchens, but I guess I'm a sap, because I was touched by his sentiment toward the American constitution and the tribute he paid to Paine and Jefferson. He seems genuinely proud to be an American citizen, and I think that's pretty cool.

"Christopher Hitchens hey correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he in the 'Let's invade Iraq cheer squad!' way back in the beginning of that sorry debacle? What great judgment on that issue!"

Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it fella. Let it go. 95% of america supported the war "at the very beginning", shit man. How 'bout we talk about the points he makes rather than bludgeoning that old horse into a pulp.

Chris, why is it it seems Americans can only view people as inherently good or inherently bad, instead of the truth is that everyone is a little bit of both. Yeah, Hitchens was wrong about the war, I agree with you, but he's right about this. You're never going to agree with anyone on everything. That doesn't mean you can't still respect them and agree with them on the things you have in common.

The most fascinating thing here for me was trying to read where Lou stood on this. He certainly wasnt spouting any religious rhetoric. He didnt strike me as particularly religious... I'd guess he's either agnostic or full on atheist.

I've been reading up on religion for some time, mostly as a result of the evolution/creation trial in Pennsylvania a few years ago. I've studied from Roman gods (though not Greek ones) to Mormonism, and a few things in between, and this book is the first time I recall discussion of the virgin births of so many deities. Did I miss something in The God Delusion, or Letter to a Christian Nation? Or is Hitchens just peddling this point more than others? Maybe Hitchens' "virgin births" point is like Dawkins "You don't believe in Zeus, etc" line he repeats all the time?

I was surprised when Hitchens' list had Romulus on there. Romulus was the founder of Rome; his father (the god of war Mars) raped the daughter of a long line of Mediterranean kings. I equated rape with sex, and thought, "That was no virgin birth!" But silly me for questioning Hitchens; gods don't actually have sex, so it was more immaculate like Jesus. Silly me.

Also, say what you want about Hitchens' politics, but I find him utterly fascinating. He doesn't seem to be an ideologue, which is a good thing. And he's both liberal and conservative, but doesn't seem to give particular preference to either one. I read his book Letter to a Young Contrarian a few weeks ago, just before his speech in Canada on Free Speech.. the guy won me over. Free speech is essential, and anyone on the left saying we can't upset racial sensitivities and anyone on the right saying we can't upset religious sensitivities... they both go to hell. Or as Hitchens said, "Take a number, get in line, and kiss my ass."

Yeah, the most entertaining piece of this was that Dobbs was so open to the whole thing.

I think Hitchens is a bit of an ass. His stance on the war was very wrong and saying that 95% of Americans supported the war does not excuse that. People that read and think were that other 5%. Hans Blix and Joe Wilson were calling Bulls*#t on the Administrations lies long before a shot was fired. There is no excuse for politicians or reporters or intellectuals to say that they were fooled or had no way of knowing. Further more, Saddam was a secular dictator and from a religious standpoint, a much safer ruler then and publicly supported Iraqi leader we will see in our lifetimes.

That said, Hitchens is brilliant on religion.

Lou Dobbs is a great man. Not afraid to tackle problems noone else in the mass media will.

I don't get why Hitchens' views on religion are "brilliant." Can someone explain this to me?

I have not read his book but it seems like he ripped off a lot of women's studies scholars who have worked diligently for centuries to subvert and understand patriarchal religious doctrine. If the athiests that frequent OGM really want to read some amazing work that lays out the problems of faith and "man," check out feminist religious critiques from the likes of Simone De Beauvoir, Paula Gunn Allen, Mary Daly, Elizabeth Caddy Stanton, and Rosemary Radford Ruether. They say a lot of the same things that Hitchens and Dawkins do, only without the distinguished British accents and neatly pressed suits. Plus, I think feminist scholars offer a more nuanced understanding of how religion has divided us against ourselves.

Also, I'm laughing at his "original" idea about the "birth canal." That silly chart tells me that he's putting the idea out there without understanding WHY or HOW religious doctrine has suppressed women more than men. Fascinating! Look at all the virgin births! Hmmmm I wonder why that is??

I keep reading that 95% of Americans supported the war and that the majority of Democrats in Congress supported the war.

This is just not true. The majority of House Democrats were against the war and voted against it, and only a slim majority of Senate Democrats supported the war.

It's just that anti-war voices were ignored, that's all.

And, yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by Lou Dobb's interview. I would have never expected it taking into consideration the level of debate on television here in the U.S. these days.

I originally logged in to say it's a bit unfair to say Stewart should have conducted a different interview. After all he is a comedian, and it's not really his fault that the regular press falls down on the job so often and it's not his responsibility to correct it. It's his responsibility to be funny.

After reading the comments I want to chime in that I personally have mostly liked Hitchens over the years. Even so I'm somewhat baffled by his support of the war with Iraq. In general he seems to join the Bush apologists in saying that Hussein was a nasty dictator and Bush Sr. Should have finished the job in '91.

My own feeling is that Bush Sr. recognized that Iraq acted as a buffer between religious extremists as the only basically secular country in the region. Now we have a situation where essentially all the countries south of Turkey, north of the Arabian Sea and west of India, with the exception of Israel, are ruled by Muslim extremists. I fail to see how this is preferable.

Good point Willey. Some just can't get past "I told you so!"

Coughs a bit too loud and gestures at Reed

And, yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by Lou Dobb's interview. I would have never expected it taking into consideration the level of debate on television here in the U.S. these days.

I've emailed in to CNN expressing the same sentiment.

It's not that I think that Hitchens is excused from his approval of the Iraq war, but do we have to bring it up ON EVERY THREAD that involves hitchens? It's like if I went into every Dawkins thread and said "he went to catholic school, how can he be logical!!11rofl!"

to say that hitchen's was 'wrong' about iraq isn't to say ow his present argument in 'god is not great' is false. has anyone cracked a critical thinking text? red herring is the word. or one could argue for a 'genetic' fallacy. fuck.

Just so everyone knows, the only magazine that published the Danish muslim cartoons was not the skeptic magazine, but it was called Free Inquiry -- hitchens just made a slip up I guess.

user-pic

"to say that hitchen's was 'wrong' about iraq isn't to say ow his present argument in 'god is not great' is false."

except that, once again, no one has argued this. have you cracked a critical thinking text? strawman is the word. fuck.

I suspect Lou will got a lot of flak. Why not send him a note of support?

Here's mine: Mr. Dobbs, THANK YOU for the wonderful interview you gave with Mr. Hitchens. In addition to performing an excellent interview, you presented an excellent case for reasonable discussion about religion and rising theocratic tendencies, without excusing it from the same sort of evidential needs that are required in all our other discourse.

As the world becomes ever more complex and unsure, humans inevitably reach out for the solace of superstition. Unfortunately, only by eschewing it do we have any hope of solving the issues that the world currently faces. There is little truth to the aphorism of "fighting fire with fire".

My hat is off to you for what is heroism, whether you know it or not.

user-pic

Here's the problem with Hitchens, and why it is very important to bring up his war-mongering everytime he appears.

If you are in a movement to change things, it is not dependent on a single issue, nor simply on your capcity to make logcal argument. (Hitchens the Trotskyist understands this).

It is about mobilising people. And you don't mobilise people on one issue, because the problems we face are interconnected. You want to talk about religious idiocy...well read Marx...opiate of the masses....BUT read the whole quote:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

So to defeat religious manipulation and religious oppression, you have to fight all other oppression, and somehow being a cheerleader for Bush, his plutocracy and the Iraq war means you contrdict all that.

That wasn't an interview; that was a fawning blowjob.

When a guy like Hitchens, who actively supported a botched war for reasons I greatly disagree with- a bloody war that is STILL GOING ON as he now turns his opinions on religion- now tries to assume some mantle of athiest activist to tell us what's wrong with the world, I can't take him seriously.

Some people here would be happy to forget this, as if making clear concise and reasonable arguments against something so easy to refute as faith would excuses any assosiation - and resulting lack of credibility- with someting so horrible as the deadly tradgedy lived out by actual human beings in Iraq as we speak.

There are many things wrong with this world, but when you get someting so wrong like the mess that is now Iraq, perhaps it's best if you address the reasons why what you got wrong occured, rather than writing a book arguing what other people believe in is wrong because it ironically leads to things like war which he didn't seem to have a problem with not so long ago.

Religious dogma and fundamentalism has often found a breeding ground where there is lack of education, lack of affluence and oppression. Perhaps large swathes of the middle east wouldn't be bitter uneducated cess-pools of resulting religious dogma, if over the years the superpowers - of which one is the 'great' country Hitchens is now a proud citizen- hadn't used the area's dictators and peoples as pawns in there struggle for power and resources. Many of these ME countries, along with examples like Indonesia and Nigeria, are exmples of countries that are resource rich yet have been mostly run by west friendly despots, and we now have the poor uneducated masses sympathetic with all kinds of religious fundamentalism.

One can repeat all they like, the great core values the US was founded on and become a citizen, but actions are by far greater than words and the current and historic actions of the US tell a differnet story. A noble constitution and good intentions can't absolve any of that. So yes, religion is a great source of wrong, irrationality and suffering, and yes Iraq is suffering now becasue of petty religious differences, but religion didn't start this bloody cycle of events in Iraq, the US did. Did Hitchens remember this as he had the lappel pinned on him?

I believe and know everything Hitchens says about religion, but refuse to hear it from him.

Great post anu anu, Was shocked when the big blow up at the Nation occured w/ Hitchens support of the war. He may give a clue in this interviw, though, when he says something like, 'imagine radical Muslims who have an end time story with nuclear capability".
Sheesh, is he on the bomb Iran bandwagon, too?

What about radical Christians with an end of time story having the bomb. (Not that I think its a great idea for Iran either, but India and Pakistan both have nuclear capability, so?)

Maybe address the nuclear issue as a world problem. Because enough of those weapons going off in any given time frame will affect the whole planet. People are starting to like isolationists, but think some problems need to be addressed by International groups in cooperation.

What is puzzling is his blindness to how secular Iraq was before the war. And his ignoring every Middle Eastern expert about how occupying Iraq would only make a huge breeding ground for radical Muslim terrorists. He could be blinded by his anti-religion stance.

It is a type of symbiosis, saying that freedom of speech allows us to publish what we want about them, but we can also tell 'those' people how to run their home countries.

"Many of these ME countries, along with examples like Indonesia and Nigeria, are examples of countries that are resource rich yet have been mostly run by west friendly despots, and we now have the poor uneducated masses sympathetic with all kinds of religious fundamentalism."

There must be a reason we continually back the wrong guys, hahah.

This cannot benefit the West in the long run. It is really just the short sightedness of our corporate system. And now that our own country is starting to suffer, could this be changed...

This was good. I thought Dobbs was gonna get angry or something.

Hey anyone else getting Firefox crashed by the 7.1.6 Quicktime update?

I am using IE7 right now, ugh.

Although I agree religion is terrible for mankind, but seems like Hitchens got his research wrong. Both Buddha and Krishna did not have virgin based births.

Buddha was a Shakya prince, son of Suddhodana and Krishna eighth son of Vasudeva

Lou Dobbs and Christopher Hitchens - 2 of the greatest voices of reason in the U.S. today.

Great interview.

Hitchens equated male circumcision with female genital mutilation, which i think is a bit off. Circumcision is a form of genital mutilation, but is relatively harmless if done by a professional.

When the world is free from the much more brutal female genital mutilation, then we can start worrying about foreskins.

Possibly the religion of corporatism should be evaluated in the same terms.

user-pic

Andyo: Try Opera. Much better than Firefox, and very much better than MSIE.

user-pic

I think Hitchens was quite justified in equating (male) circumcision with female genital mutilation. I won't dispute that a typical "FGM" is "more more brutal" than a typical male circumcision, but it's not inherently so -- it's just our cultural preconceptions that associate circumcision with a sterile, professional surgery room (or bris) and FGM with mud huts, rusty knives & screaming victims. But in much of the world, circumcisions are carried out the same way. And "FGM," which I'm sure you know encompasses a wide range of different procedures, can be as safe or safer than circumcision, if performed in the same conditions and depending on what exactly is being done. obviously I'm not arguing that circumcision is anywhere near as bad as the more extreme forms of FGM (EG: clitorectomy), nor supporting FGM in any way.

user-pic

First of all, Opera rocks. I highly recommend it, although I usually stick with Firefox on my Ubuntu boxes.

When the world is free from the much more brutal female genital mutilation, then we can start worrying about foreskins.

Apparently the foreskin actually contains a lot of nerve endings, and I recall seeing articles about people who attribute their sexual problems to their circumcisions. I also recall seeing medical studies that find circumcision is either detrimental to health, or has no benefit.

Also, any form of mutilation or unnecessary surgery inflicts a good deal of trauma on the body, and trauma is very unhealthy regardless of how or where (or when) the cutting is done.

Nonetheless, I do agree that female genital mutilation is probably more a more serious problem, but mutilation is mutilation.

ryan_speaker, it is good to refer to Hitchens's talk in Canada about free speech.

Today many progressive bloggers are supporting the ill-conceived "hate crimes" law that Bush says he will veto.

They should all see Hitchens's talk before getting on this bandwagon.

Hitchens also exposed Mother Teresa as a fraud many years ago in his book, "Missionary Position".

http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/185984054X

I remember one time many years ago before I had read Hitchens, I was nearly kicked out of a dinner party because I had criticized hypocrite Teresa in much the same terms.

user-pic

Yep like I thought can’t correct me on the fact that Hitchens is a war monger! But to reply first to

‘Riley’ I was never one of the “95% of Americans” (actually I’m not American) you I guess were, so 20/20 hindsight is irrelevant. Taking the time and putting in the effort to know about the world, human history and current affairs and not being lead like a frightened sheep into a nightmare is and was relevant, what about you? As for that hoary old shibboleth ‘if the majority approves then it must be right or at least excusable’ then I guess we have to cut the NAZIS some slack to hmm after all they had at least 99.99% support among Germans didn’t they? Replying to his points! I have no respect for the bigot, yes that’s right bigot and my patience for bigots has reached level zero so when ever I see retard Christopher I just switch off yes that’s right I’m guilty of ignoring him. Hitchens cracked a hard on over the war because of his pathological hatred for Muslims in general and God in particular (no I’m not a Muslim) if you happen to agree with him or can’t see what’s wrong with that well what can I say other than I try not to bash my head against brick walls any more! That’s it “fella”.

Next to

‘Wiley’ Thank you for keeping your discourse civil, out of respect for that I extended you the courtesy of going back and taking a look at the interview. I’ll give him this he can sound reasonable and his espousal of the moral and ethical superiority of a society governed (or tries) by the principals of secular liberal democracy that respects human rights and freedoms and the rule of law I certainly can’t fault. But it’s not what I object to in Christopher in essence his fault is the same as the man he professes to admire so much, Jefferson. Humanity owes a debt of gratitude to Jefferson for his master work there have been few words written or spoken by any one that so eloquently speak of peoples rights, his personal failure was his inability to see those same rights should be extended to all and not just to those of his own kind, Jefferson was a slave owner remember and his position on American Indians was no different than that of his contemporaries. That some one can claim to be a champion of ‘essential liberties democracy and freedom’ then egg a nation on to an illegal, unjustifiable and unnecessary invasion (as Christopher has done) is a perversion of everything he claims to respect and admire, I have nothing but contempt for him. I did also note he couldn’t resist wedeling in ‘nuclear bomb’ and ‘fundamentalist Iran’ in to his interview here we go again, so Iraq wasn’t enough for him seems like Hitchens wont be satisfied until the blood flows across the middle east in an even greater deluge. After that will come the Vatican I suppose after all if you want to eradicate religion what better way than to shoot every one that follows one, yea a world wide Stalinist pogrom on faith, way to go! If you want to promote Christopher Hithchens as a poster boy for the progressive movement because he’s an atheist then when do we resurrect Pol Pots reputation? Look don’t get me wrong Hitchens is nothing more than a bit part boy aspiring to a level way beyond his abilities and his role in making the war in Iraq happen is inconsequential. It’s Bush and his cronies that need to be brought down (hint), Hitchens is just an irritating little toe rag … actually come to think of it that’s how Hitler started off! Personally I liked the Colbert video below it much more, not surprising, not only was it a great laugh but it also threw a succinct spotlight on to this absurd little war that has arisen between HARD LINE religionists and atheists both of whom I find to be brain dead. I’ll stop there.

And last as a general reply

If Hitchens was for the war on Iraq because Saddam was a dictator then how come I’ve never heard him push for an Invasion of Burma or Zimbabwe or the dozens of other dictatorships around the world maybe because it doesn’t suit his war on religion.

Freddy Rogers of Mr. Roger's Neighborhood was a Christian -- in fact, he was a minister. I think he was wrong, in believing in that stuff, just like I think all religion is wrong, crazy illogical, and generally just about the worst scourge on humanity.

Still, I have absolutely no qualms about saying that old Freddy was a wonderful human being, who did a lot of wonderful things.

What kinda moron would reject Mr. Roger's Neighborhood because Mr. Roger was a Christian? Answer: the same kinda moron that would reject Hitchen's excellent arguments in support of atheism because he also supported the Iraq war.

user-pic

Rationalsts are fond of saying that we don't accept argument by authority. Meaning the idea put forth is not necessarily right or wrong based merely upon the rep or authority of the speaker.

Here in is a perfect example of that idea, in motion.

If the Pope says god is great and we must fight the Iranians, both ideas are correct to a Catholic believer, simply because the Pope said it and the Pope, after all, is infalable.

Rationalist do not, or certainly should not, accept an idea simply because of who said it. We question the idea, ask questions questions regarding related info, and make judgements based on the real world facts, as we know them. That's the theory.

Ergo the tendency to mention one's disagreement with Hitchens' other ideas and his political ideas.

This mixed reaction to the man is a good thing. It is in fact a demonstration of a commitment to logic rather than a tendency to play "follow the athiest leader".

Will someone please argue against Hitchens' support for The War? Instead of just throwing mud? I wonder how many of you even comprehend his thoughts on this matter.

  • Hitchens seems to believe that there are dangers great enough that we must rally war against them. As an example, he mentions Iran and its bomb. I wouldn't want Pat Robertson to have his own bomb, so maybe Hitchens has a point here.

  • How do we as "Civilization" prevent various actors from developing these coercive abilities? Hitchens seems to believe that a robust aggressive power is necessary. Isn't it obvious that we cannot wait for passivists like Tibet to defend us? Maybe Hitchens has a point here.

  • How do we maintain the needed preventative readiness? It seems all to clear to me and Bill Maher that coddled Americans would rather turn off the news and switch over to the Xbox. It may well be that lying to then is the only motivation we have. It may well be necessary to give the U.S. a bloody nose once in a while to rally the aggression necessary to stave off complacency. Hitchens may have a point.

I am not sure what I think. And I would welcome an intelligent discussion. Ad hominem attacks on Hitchens doesn't move the argument forward.

user-pic

"the same kinda moron that would reject Hitchen's excellent arguments in support of atheism because he also supported the Iraq war."

Once again, no one here has taken this position. For you to keep dragging out this strawman indicates that you are either so intellectually dishonest that you'll keep repeating the same crap even though you know it's untrue or simply too stupid to recognize the difference between rejecting Snitchens himself and rejecting his overall position on religion. At this point, my money's on the latter.

user-pic

"Ad hominem attacks on Hitchens"

Except that pointing out what Hitchens has actually said and discussing the relevance of those statements is not an ad hominem attack. Stop embarrassing yourself. Really.

Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it fella. Let it go. 95% of america supported the war "at the very beginning", shit man. How 'bout we talk about the points he makes rather than bludgeoning that old horse into a pulp.

Posted by: Willey | May 4, 2007 11:30 AM

95% - that is so fucking off, it's unbelievable. NEVER - NEVER! was I for invading Iraq or "this war" as you term it, and I know numerous folks who weren't. I found blogs such as The Agonist because of it. Succinctly, you're full of shit.

As for Hitchens, outside of his misappropriated support of the invasion of Iraq, I don't have much against Hitchens.

user-pic

"As for Hitchens, outside of his misappropriated support of the invasion of Iraq, I don't have much against Hitchens."

Fair enough, but it should be pointed out that Hitchens didn't just go along with the Iraq slaughter-- he was an extremely arrogant and aggressive proponent of it who strongly implied, if not directly stated, that people who opposed it were essentially traitorous terrorist sympathizers. I don't know about you, but I don't take kindly to being characterized as an enemy of the state by this obnoxious pig. Now he wants to sell me a book explaining to me that religion should be rejected, something I figured out well before I finished grade school? Fuck him.

user-pic

thanks

"Ad hominem attacks on Hitchens" Except that pointing out what Hitchens has actually said and discussing the relevance of those statements is not an ad hominem attack. Stop embarrassing yourself. Really. kali yuga | May 5, 2007 11:44 AM
I don't take kindly to being characterized as an enemy of the state by this obnoxious pig. kali yuga | May 5, 2007 12:33 PM

I am much more enlightened. You have made us all safer and wiser.

Am I to assume no one has the interest to address my questions?

user-pic

"Am I to assume no one has the interest to address my questions?"

Well, if you need someone to explain to you what's wrong with fabricated evidence, pre-emptive war and mass murder, you'll have to find someone with more patience than I to waste their time doing it.

Hey mickleby,

We have seen that war is hell, haven't we? So, they make all kinds of international treaties, like the Geneva conventions, and the International Criminal Court, rules of engagement, so to speak. I was in both Germany and France around the time when 15 million people marched in protest of America starting a war in the ME w/ Iraq.

Europe has a bigger stake in this than America for one big reason: any fallout of modern day weaponry will affect them. They are neighbors, so to speak.

This is why some think America is acting like a rogue state by starting a pre-emptive war. It sets a terrible precedent. This is what Hitchens is cheer leading on about. Most of Europe, and some Americans (like me) dissagree.

Why is the US so against any kind of International body? Because we dont like anyone telling us what to do? Ridiculous.

And if we say we are in a long war against terrorism, what are the best ways to combat this threat? Hitchens seems to think with military power. Many think there are other, better tactics. Like developing intelligence networks, social development, international dialogue, and easing poverty that are the root causes.

This is a preventative readiness that may have an effect on this "war" where military solutions have only inflamed the problem.

We need to see ourselves as one nation among many, instead of as a sole superpower. Hitchens, along with our current administration, seem to think that might makes us right.

Sorry to be posting OT here, but...

Andyo: Try Opera. Much better than Firefox, and very much better than MSIE.

Posted by: Kristian Z. | May 5, 2007 12:40 AM
First of all, Opera rocks. I highly recommend it, although I usually stick with Firefox on my Ubuntu boxes.

Posted by: Frenetic | May 5, 2007 2:18 AM

What is better in Opera? I have already too much time invested in Firefox to just throw it out the window. The problem is with the latest Quicktime update (7.1.6). A long time ago, I tried Opera as an alternative to IE, but I got so pissed at it because it showed ads. I guess it would be really stupid if they still did that, but I did left it with a negative feeling towards Opera.

The Iraq war is not the topic of this post. Stay on topic or else.

Hey Norm,

Hitchens does, in this clip, discuss Iran getting the bomb. So is this a topic of discussion? Geo/politcal military solutions seem to be somewhat connected to his beliefs about religious extremism, imho.

Let me clarify. I don't like Hitchens views on Iraq so I'm not going to listen to his views on religion is not an argument. If someone wants to relate his views on Iraq or Iran to the topic fine, but simply the statement. I'm not going to listen to him because I don't like his view is fine, don't listen to him, but that is not part of this discussion. Clean it up or I'm simply going to close comments on this post.

Hitchens has an interview in Radar on-line where he says he would vote for a religious, pro-war candidate before he would vote for an anti-war athiest.

wtf

user-pic

Kudos, Mr Hitchens for your clear-cut and candid views expressed during interview with Mr.Lou Dobbs

user-pic

Ok Norm since I started this whole thing with my original post I’ve got one more post on Christopher Hitchens and his arguments for atheism infact atheism period. Atheists can repeat their mantra about God doesn’t exist and their right because they are guided by science and the light of reason fine show me the scientific evidence peer reviewed, independently verified that proves their position. And before we start on the usual predictable response I’m not selling the existence of God atheists say they know God doesn’t exist then sell me the idea prove it! Attacking the inconsistencies in moron believers and the flaws in the bible or the stupidity of religion doesn’t quite answer the question it proves the venal stupidity of humans and nothing more. The fact that the same could be said of believers excuses atheists how exactly? The only group who can rightfully claim to have their position based on reason and the current state of scientific knowledge are agnostics everyone else is blowing out of their arse. Personally I couldn’t care less whether you did believe in a God or not but to attack people wholesale question their integrity and intelligence on their position on that question is the hight of stupidity and arrogance and that’s exactly what Hitchens has done. The same offcourse could be said for that other wunderkind of the atheist movement Dawkins but I’ll give credit where it’s due at least Dawkins has never frothed at the mouth exhorting people to go kill like Hitchens has and he doesn’t even have the guts to go over there and put his own arse on the line fighting these ‘mad muslims’ a total creep. If there is a hell I hope he rots in it. That’s it!

I love anyone who has the Chumbas to say something like "Prove God Does Not Exist!"

Okay, you do realise the burden of proof is not on your side of the arguement, right?

I believe in elements of the Supernatural, but I dont believe in God, per se' the Judo/Christian/Muslim all mighty "knell before me or die and burn in Hell" schitzo that is depicted in the Bible and the Koran.

Now scientificly, there has been reserch into supernatural that proves that there are added layers to reality, but no one ever found Angels, Demons, Heaven, Hell, The Ark of the Covenent, ect. ...since it was a clever mish mash of basic elements from various cultures so they would find it appealing. It's just pretty odd that people who buy into "God" have to rely on the bible depictions to prove their points instead of going about it the smart, easy way and simply point out the existance of the Supernatural, which has had 100+ years of valid scientific study.

Atheists can repeat their mantra about God doesn’t exist and their right because they are guided by science and the light of reason fine show me the scientific evidence peer reviewed, independently verified that proves their position.

Nobody is claiming they can prove God does not exist, but what they can do and have done is demonstrate scientifically that it is highly unlikely. We have covered the arguments here dozens of times and I'm not going to recount them all now. If you are interested read Stegner's book for a good start on the form the arguments take.

God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives