Video: Gloves off — Hannity versus Hitchens on Falwell
posted at 11:38 pm on May 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I was going to save this for the a.m. but the word is out and commenters are asking for it. Here you go: Hitch proving that he can’t quite match Larry Flynt for basic decency and Hannity pretending that he’s shocked, shocked by Hitchens’s willingness to say the sorts of things that earned him a spot on the show in the first place.
I guess Hitch figures no one’s going to want to talk about Falwell in a week, so if he wants to get in his shots, now’s his chance. Is the body cold yet?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Point made AP! Well said..
Pam on May 16, 2007 at 11:43 PM
The Abramoff stuff with Reed was lame, Hannity-esque in its cheap non-sequiterness, but, man, calling Hannity’s question long and “unlettered” is worth the admission.
Alex K on May 16, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Hitchens to Hanity: “You’re tiring me out.”
Ain’t dat da truth! This guy looks half dead. Is that what happens when you don’t even have the slightest inkling of faith or believe that your very existence is pure happenstance? You don’t have to be religious to show just the slightest shred of human decency.
At the end of the day, good or bad, Falwell will be remembered. Hitchens won’t even get a footnote.
mojowire on May 16, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Reed is wrong. I’d never say anything good about the Clintons at their death. That being said, I wouldn’t say anything nasty, I’d just shut up.
I wonder what comments blogs on the right will leave when they pass? I bet it sure isn’t the nasty crap the left did for Falwell.
Tim Burton on May 17, 2007 at 12:00 AM
God hitchens is tiring. Why even live if you have this out look. Intellectual atheist have no reason to live. So go ahead and check out because there is nothing to live now and no thing after. So whats the use, go now.
mjkazee on May 17, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Okay, I’ll do it. Thanks.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 12:03 AM
I generally like Hitchens. I can even kind of get behind at least some of his criticisms of religion. But he really needs to work through some of these anger issues he has with the subject, or I fear his cardiovascular health might render the much-debated fate of his liver moot.
When Yoda was rambling on about where anger leads, he forgot to mention the bit about high blood pressure…
Blacklake on May 17, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Well, I thought I had a reason or two to live. Guess I was wrong. That sure will disappoint my daughters and my wife. Oh well.
Krydor on May 17, 2007 at 12:09 AM
nothing to live FOR now…
oops
mjkazee on May 17, 2007 at 12:14 AM
We’ll go together, dude. You, me, suicide pact. When and where?
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Actually, shouldn’t they be the ones most averse to dying?
Blacklake on May 17, 2007 at 12:15 AM
The key word is intellectual
Big difference – don’t mean to offend – but there is a diff.
mjkazee on May 17, 2007 at 12:16 AM
This thread promises to go the way of the one of this morning, ant many others, and fast. The believers are cemented in their beliefs. The atheists and agnosts are in theirs.
These discussions are futile demi-fights, which never lead to conversions. Why not agree to respect those who believe, and those who don’t, and argue from that premise, without attacking the others?
I don’t agree with the timing of C. Hitchens’ rants, as the body is hardly cold and not buried yet.
On the other hand S. Hannity calling him a “pseudo-intellectually-superior” when arguing that Hitchens shouldn’t call others names…was, well, so Hannity.
AP and Krydor, you stay right here – it would never be the same without you.
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 12:23 AM
A sad state of affairs, that.
baldilocks on May 17, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Correction “…and many others” – I have no idea what the ants have to do with this :(
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Uh, you’ve got a blog to run, bucko. BECAUSE OF THE AUDIENCE!
Pablo on May 17, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Hey ants are everywhere
mjkazee on May 17, 2007 at 12:28 AM
I’m easily replaced. Enrique, JayHaw, Jummy — who’s with me? Atheist suicide pact NOW!
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 12:31 AM
By what standard does an atheist like Hitchens judge anybody?
No God = no judge = no standard
Mojave Mark on May 17, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Though I’ve come round – politically – to agree with most of the agenda of the movement represented by Mr. Reed and Mr. Falwell, this little debate does highlight an exploitable weakness on the Right, namely, the selective use of rational thought and experiencial evidence as our means of making judgments.
When debating the Left on, say, economics, we devastate anything they say by using logic, the correct numbers, and by citing actual history. This kind of pragmatic “what works” way of looking at things is what drew me away from the Left in the first place. It’s what – or should – guide our military actions and our legal system. But while understanding that “faith” is a whole other ballpark, when it comes to religion the eagerness of so many on the Right to completely disavow the admirable empiricism they otherwise so convincingly employ has always been a bit troublesome to me.
This is not really a problem, except to the extent it is, as I mentioned, exploitable by the Left. To admit that certain big things are acceptable on “faith” is to lend legitimacy to the Left’s need to promote socialism “on faith”, for example, since one has granted that logic, hard evidence and real-world experience aren’t the only standards of judgment.
Perhaps this can of worms is best left unopened.
Halley on May 17, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Mojave Mark, are you saying that C. Hitchens, AP and others have no right to judge some of the strange things that Mr. Falwell, or others have stated, again, for him not now, but ever?
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Isn’t Hitchens’s entire rant about Falwell an implicit violation of Godwin’s law?
spmat on May 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM
The question is, what shoes will you all be wearing?
I hope someone gets that…
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Hot.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Anyone who gets a chance to debate Christopher Hitchens should ask him:
Would you please change your first name? Having an athiest named ‘Bearer of Christ’ makes my head hurt.
The Monster on May 17, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Damn, watching the debate on the rerun, guy looks like he woke up from a nasty hangover.
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 12:43 AM
I don’t see anything wrong with at least one person questioning the ‘common knowledge’ we wake up with. Laura saw through the “Go Rudy Go” of this morning, and Hitch is there to pick up the pieces, in their own court, that not everybody will grieve for everybody.
I remember a bit of an outburst of joy when Saddam took a short fall off a long trapdoor. Gotta admit Falwell is at least SOMEWHERE in between him and the most annointed saint ever. It would be a bit hypocritical of Hitch to take a week off of hating on Jerry just because he passed on.
Also, I have plenty to live for. Moreso, knowing this is my only shot at it.
askheaves on May 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Does your mother love you?
Prove it. Empirically, please.
spmat on May 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM
I’m just agnostic, but do I get to join the suicide pack too?
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Halley, I dunno. I came to my political beliefs from politics and reasoning, not religion. I kinda agree that we should use logic reason and pragmatism to debate in the public square, but that can’t become an excuse to entirely marginalize or weaken religion, which far too many people are far eager to do, people like Hitch, and would attempt to do. So I guess I don’t really know what the answer is…
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Well, my mother (a) exists, (b) says that she loves me, (c) acts like she loves me. Pretty good evidence.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 12:51 AM
And I’m Catholic for the record, not a great one, but there it is.
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
I think you actually have to use a Nazi analogy to violate that law. I don’t remember Hitch actually saying it (although I’m going to watch again to make sure). It was interesting that Hannity brought up Mao and Stalin, though.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 12:53 AM
The question is, perhaps you’d like to take a crack at it, by what standard does an atheist judge anybody?
Mojave Mark on May 17, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Hey, 1.5 billion Muslims can’t be wrong! This is like the sequel to the Koran. WE NEED YOU ON THAT WALL!
Pablo on May 17, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Also, Hannity is a hack.
askheaves on May 17, 2007 at 12:54 AM
As long as y’all lay off the Campari, it’s all good.
Pablo on May 17, 2007 at 12:55 AM
I laughed my ass off. Hitchens rules. He smacked Hannity with a sledgehammer and he didn’t even know what hit him. It’s true: Falwell was a for-profit ignorant foolish bigot. The conservative movement will do much better without the likes of him. It’s because of people like Falwell that left loons have a point when they cry wolf about “far-right religious extremists”.
Baphomet on May 17, 2007 at 12:56 AM
I’m not going to tell an atheist that they should off themselves, but I have to say that if I was an atheist I would live pretty recklessly and “do what feels good”, and live only for myself because I answer to no one and owe no one anything. I’d just be another animal, no different than a bacteria, who answers to no one and just wanting to satisfy any immediate desire I had.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 12:56 AM
No one dug my Heaven’s Gate joke? Heart-ache.
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Was Hitchens a bit drunk? Sounded like it toward the end.
Free Constitution on May 17, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I have never understood this idea of not bad mouthing the dead, because they are dead. After disparaging someone for a week, a month, a year, or a decade, and then they die, why should I suddenly quit? If he was an ass… then he was an ass. Just because he died does not make him any less of an ass. And if I think that someone is evil, their death is not going to change my opinion of them. If you do not want my disparaging opinion of the evil dead, do not ask me.
Franklin Hill on May 17, 2007 at 1:00 AM
That’s kind of an ignorant question.
By extension/extrapolation, you’re saying anybody not enlightened by Christianity, perhaps just your flavor of it, are the only ones annointed by God to pass judgement. Almost like it’s the duty of those who choose that particular word to pity, instruct and punish all others.
Are you saying those who believe in this God are able to channel His judgement? Or is it by way of living a righteous life that they are able to cast stones? Of those who do believe, but don’t practice every instruction of His, are they qualified to judge?
We’re running into a very select few who have an authority, not recognized by the majority of humanity, to enforce norms in which most don’t believe. If only for pragmatic reasons, we need to widen the criteria just a bit.
askheaves on May 17, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Interesting question. I suppose their answer will be something about how we’ve evolved in to animals that live in a society, and society dictates what is good and bad behavior. Obviously I don’t buy that, but it’s along the lines of an answer I’ve gotten to a similar question before. What’s interesting is that morals disappear the further we get away from traditional/Judeo Christian judgements and head further in to the “anything goes” society, where anyone can come up with any type of behavior and claim “I was born that way” or “it makes me feel good so leave me alone”, and with this society continues to break down and our country/world would be shocking and disgusting to people who grew up just a few generations ago.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Hitchens has the same look on his face that John Hurt had in “Alien” just before the alien burst out of his chest.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Question: When is he ever sober?
Just asking.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM
And this is different from an ex-girlfriend how? When she stops acting like she loves you, like when she’s angry, how can you know that she still loves you? You certainly can’t prove it empirically.
Did you know that she loved you when you were a child, before you could rationally deduce her love? How do you know if your wife loves you, at all times.
Prove that you love your mother. Empirically.
spmat on May 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM
OK, but you go first.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 17, 2007 at 1:04 AM
I wasn’t a fan of Falwell by any means, but its a matter of class. Look, criticism is fine, but show some taste, and let things mellow just a bit before you unload. My issue isn’t critique of the guy and his views, its the excess and outright glee in the guys demise. Hitch showed no class.
That said, Hannity is a hack. Dumber’n a box of rocks.
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Bleh. Forget it. I’m tired of this crap.
spmat on May 17, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Life itself is the proper standard of man’s value, and morality is the principles defining the actions necessary to maintain life as a man. (see Objectivism)
Franklin Hill on May 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM
I am actually mixed on this. On the one hand, I think there is a certain respect in not speaking ill of the dead an the other hand, there is a certin hypocrisy in shielding your true feelings from discussion due to recent death.
I think Larry Flynt, of all people, showed the most class, but aside from the proximity to Falwell’s time of death, Hitch’s message resonated more with me.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM
I’m not sure what the point of these questions are. No abstract feeling can be conclusively “proved,” but we can make judgments based on evidence. You seem to be suggesting that the fact that I can’t “prove” that I love my mother means God’s love is just as real as mine, which is to say, you’re trying to undermine the notion of empiricism entirely. To which I say two things: (a) once again, a believer fails to understand that it’s his responsibility to prove that God exists, not my responsibility to prove that he doesn’t, and (b) if you want me to play your game, fine. Does Santa love you? How about the Easter Bunny? Don’t bother me with empirical nonsense about their existence or lack thereof. Their love is as real as mine is for my mom’s, after all.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM
You know what’s troublesome to me? That I keep reading these religion themed threads even though I know they’re migraine inducing. Laid back smug atheists versus Churchy McDogooders flinging bible verses everywhere like ninja throwing stars. I have zero desire to discuss my faith tradition with anyone outside of my religion provider…damn..almost typed that with a straight face. Why is everyone so eager to throw down and lord their beliefs over everyone else over something so personal? Did I miss the Romney thread about Wallace’s sex question? Did the comments turn into a contest over who had the most or fewest partners? Maybe it’s just me. I don’t mind rhetorical head butting and eye gouging over politics but religion…nah. Just doesn’t seem right. Oh well, I’ll leave you to your tub thumping.
austinnelly on May 17, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Guilty!
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
He always sounds that way.
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
He always sounds that way.
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Then it should be no problem for you O wise one to answer a simpleton like myself.
Question: By what standard does an aethist judge anybody?
Mojave Mark on May 17, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Another sign of drunkness: double-posting.
(Just kidding, fellow double-clickers, I know it happens sober, too…)
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 1:15 AM
A lot of rules are atheistic: rules of grammar, rules of etiquette, rules of sports… Just because an atheist’s ethics are earthbound doesn’t mean they’re not a sysetm of judgment… What you probably mean is by what authority…
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 1:16 AM
I have read and been involved in most of the religion threads around here austinnelly, and rarely are bible verses “flung”, and even when they are (though I can’t think of a case), they’re extremely rare and often in specific reference to a debate among two different Christians. How often have you jumped in these threads and seen them filled with Christians “flinging” bible verses? Any logical thinker knows that you aren’t going to win over a non-Christian by presenting him with Christian texts that he doesn’t believe in in the first place, so generally speaking we don’t engage in such idiotic behavior.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM
When an atheist questions a believer’s faith it is up to the atheist to prove that that belief is in vain. No atheist has been able to do that.
Rose on May 17, 2007 at 1:18 AM
You think you’re on to something clever here, but you’re not.
Humans have a set of standards that by deduction, indicate love. Selflessness, sacrifice, kindness. Of course this deduction can often be wrong, the indicators false – but there is still a framework for analysis.
A lack of 100% certainty in the face of reproducible indicators does not equal “lack of empiricism.”
BillINDC on May 17, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Allah,
Please, we need to disabuse the believers of this notion that they can “prove” the existence of God. They wind up looking like Kirk Cameron and that other schmuck with the bananna when they try, and wind up doing the cause of religion, and more specifically, FAITH, a disservice.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Natural Law? Logic? Common sense?
I dunno, but I think its unfair to assume that atheism equals amorality. There are plenty of Christians who are dumb as hell and believe in socialism and other stupid crap.
My only gripe is with people who have to act like obnoxious dicks with their beliefs, whether its an obnoxious religious person sneering at you for being with the wrong denomination or ‘not (faith X) enough’, or a dick like Hitch or Dawkins and their little online zealots who feel the need to sneer at people of faith and start in with the fairytale and Floating Spaghetti Monster sh*t.
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Are you saying atheists cant be do-gooders?
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Hey, did you guys here the one about the atheist who passed the Buddha on the road and said, “Hi, howya doin’?”
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Only in the case that the godbag (haha) is trying to convince the godless (haha again). When the godless claim there is no God, it is incumbant on him to prove his assertion. This is fair as it puts the aggressor in the position to prove his point. Live and let live, ya know.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 1:22 AM
A lot of Atheists are smug, but I wouldn’t say laid back. Lot of them are angry mofos.
Hmm…Looks like my last comment got filterpwned!
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 1:22 AM
No, is there more? Cause I dont get it.
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 1:23 AM
I never question a believers faith. Faith is all they have. I question the accuracy and provability of what they believe in.
*Ducks to avoid a piece of scripture flung like a ninja throwing star by a Churchy McDogooder*
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 17, 2007 at 1:23 AM
I don’t think it’s purely determined by society, but yeah, that plays a big role. Germany is a traditionally Christian country but it didn’t take long for their Christian morals to be re-engineered when the ruling powers wanted it to be. (Hitchens of course would say that their Christian morals are what made them susceptible in the first place.)
C.S. Lewis talks about the innate sense of fairness and empathy we all have in “Mere Christianity.” His conclusion is that conscience must necessarily come from God because we all have it and it’s pretty similar in everyone, so where else could it come from? I don’t follow the logic on that at all. Yeah, it could have evolved; or it could have been mostly socially engineered. The point is, I wouldn’t hurt a child or some defenseless creature even if I thought God would be okay with it. (Abraham, of course, would.)
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Gee Whiz didn’t mean to create a cult here. Lighten up Francis
mjkazee on May 17, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Does God exist?
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 1:24 AM
I hope you’re joking and mocking austinnelly’s assertion that this is what the Christian side does in these debates… otherwise that’s pretty prickish straw man building.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Or the one about the failed Buddhist who converted to Salafism?
He passed the Buddha on the road and beheaded him.
Okay. Too tame.
Ladies and getlemen, Lisa Lampanelli.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Arrrrrgh! My Eye!
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 1:25 AM
Come on, that’s not strictly true. You supported bombing Iraq, didn’t you? A moral system that reconfigures a sin/wrongdoing into the best available option isn’t limited to people who think they’re follwoing God’s will.
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 1:27 AM
I don’t know.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 1:28 AM
I’d like to see the answer to that question too, but so far it seems as if the concept is out of their grasp.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Then the debate is over isn’t it?
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 1:29 AM
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Oh, BS! C’mon, you totally would do it knowing the Big Guy probably had his finger hovering over the “SMITE” button! This is Old Testament, you went against God you got Pwn3d! in the most brutal way imaginable, you’d absolutely cave. Heh.
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 1:31 AM
AP,
Argument by outrage is a good debate tactic, but it doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t use any logic.
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 1:31 AM
There never was any debate.
If you have faith, I congratulate you, since I’ve never been able to make the leap.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Jayhaw, silly response on your part.
Rose on May 17, 2007 at 1:37 AM
Yes, I have a sense of humor. That’s why I accepted this description earlier:
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 17, 2007 at 1:37 AM
This was not your attempt at a debate?
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 1:37 AM
mjkazee on May 17, 2007 at 1:37 AM
block quote BIG sp wrong
just sleepy
mjkazee on May 17, 2007 at 1:39 AM
My bed calls and I must obey.
The point I’m getting at with my “by what standard question” is that atheists are quick to judge Christian hypocrites (me included on a bad day). The problem is that the atheists use a Christian standard of behavior by which to judge. If they’re authentic atheists then they should use an atheist standard to judge. The problem is that there is simply no standard of behavior for the atheist apart from an artificial one that provides the least amount of cognitive dissonance for them. Say what you will about us Christians but we are the ones who provide you with the very standards by which you judge us and call us hypocrites.
Mojave Mark on May 17, 2007 at 1:41 AM
No. It was advice to Allah, even though he is all-wise and all-powerful and will probably turn me to salt for attempting to give him advice.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Alright, I got a laugh out of someone, good enough for me.
Bad Candy on May 17, 2007 at 1:42 AM
To the degree that he or she has freed the intellect from the snare of the senses.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 1:44 AM
I, and many others, would say that the biggest leap of faith is taken by those that think the clearly designed world is lucky coincidence.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Allahpundit goes poof.
Later, dude.
Vinnie on May 17, 2007 at 1:48 AM
austinnelly, you wrote for me tonight and you made me laugh too. In addition, I’m not entirely comfortable discussing these things either. I respect others’ beliefs and ask no more of them, so long as they don’t harm anyone else.
Mojave Mark, to attempt to comment on your challenge – I don’t agree with your premise, in the quote.
No God for some – yes
No judge for some – yes
No standards – this is where I disagree vehemently.
C. Hitchens, at the risk of his own and his family’s life, hid Salman Rushdie in his DC apartment, until that blabbermouth of Maureen Dowd couldn’t keep her trap shut, and they had to move him elsewhere. By what standard was that?
Mr. Falwell was for segregation. By what standard?
Examples abound, good and bad, for both, and others, but it’s time to sleep now.
People, religious, or not, are good, bad, or in between.
As much as I like Randy-RightWinged, I disagree with his statement that atheists have no standards/morals or whatever. I know quite a few atheists and agnosts who live moral, normal, tempered, productive, happy lives. Just like I know many religious ones who do the same. Then I know both kinds who don’t.
We’ll never solve it. Like austinnelly I always read the comments. Nothing ever changes on this topic.
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 1:48 AM
This makes no sense. How is a ‘freed intellect’ from the ’snare of the senses’ an objective standard by which to judge anyone?
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Usually, advice is given to someone using the phrase “you need to” and not “we need to”.
But if you say you were really only suggesting that AP should do something, I give you a pass on that comment, even though the fact that you even considered the course of action means you are taking a side in this debate.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 1:50 AM
*resisting* *resisting* *resisting*
This is just a modified “atheists have no morals” argument. If you believed atheists did have morals then you wouldn’t question their ability to judge others.
There is a difference between atheism and hedonism. And people, regardless of whether or not they believe they will be rewarded if they act a certain way in death, can feel a commitment to act a certain way (commitment to bettering society in what way they see fit).
Is your argument that if you you don’t think you will be rewarded or punished after death you would feel no commitment to society?
Isn’t it a little obvious that someone who believes in Judeo-Christian teachings would say this? Morality to you is different than morality to another person. There isn’t anything you can do to back up your claim that morals disappear aside from stating your morals are correct because God tells you they’re correct.
Fancy solipsism?
What JayHaw said. The burden of proof isn’t on the atheist, it is on the religious to prove that their religion is true. The truth is none of them can do it, if they could there wouldn’t be a thing called faith (or as I like to call it “a blind, hopeful assumption”).
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »