Video: Hitchens tries to convince atheists why they should be hawkish on Iraq and Iran
posted at 5:00 pm on October 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
With a surprising amount of success, judging from the applause. This comes from the same atheist gathering at which last week’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali video was taken; she’s obviously in the audience here per his affectionate comments at the very beginning of the first part. It’s an hour long and there’s some plenty of criticism of Christianity mixed in, of course, but he’s before them to talk about Islam and Islamism and he doesn’t disappoint. You’re watching for four segments: in the first clip, his remarks on the Mohammed cartoon fiasco at around -16:15, and in the second clip, his remarks on Iraq at -28:30, on the prospect of war with Iran at -11:30, and the can’t miss passage at -4:30 on why the west is to blame for the conflict. “It’s a matter of pride that they want to attack us,” he declares, while acknowledging at one point that there aren’t enough soldiers in the world to deal with the threat. What that means going forward is ominous, and unclear.
I’m surprised to see that he hasn’t given up on Iraq yet. He’s been moving in that direction.
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 »
Sorry AP he is a joke but noy a funny one.
mjkazee on October 20, 2007 at 5:09 PM
not
mjkazee on October 20, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Brilliant refutation of his argument. Thanks
Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Doesn’t someone usually have to convince himself of something before he trys to convince others of it?
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Mmmmm Hitchalicious.
liberrocky on October 20, 2007 at 5:33 PM
A case of beer to anyone who can make him laugh.
I like Hitch…but geez….I’m always looking for the paramedics lurking in the wings just in case he has a stroke. Laugh Hitch, go to the beach, make some atheist babies. We need your logic pertaining to Islam around a bit longer.
Limerick on October 20, 2007 at 5:39 PM
What the he11 is this? Hitch looks sober…Whats up with that?
doriangrey on October 20, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Say what you will but Hitch is the most effective hawk we have and he knows exactly what buttons to push with the left.
RobCon on October 20, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Heh. That was my first thought too.
Cuing up the second video…
baldilocks on October 20, 2007 at 5:57 PM
I am listing to the guy talking about evolution and I want to reach through the internet and slapping him silly.
liberrocky on October 20, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Does he belive what he is saying?
Wade on October 20, 2007 at 6:18 PM
I would say he believes as much as a scientific man can.
liberrocky on October 20, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Why is it that the religious’ first impulse is always toward violence. Don’t you realize that betrays a weak argument? Are you so threatened by the assertion that there is no Santa Claus?
ronsfi on October 20, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Case in point
ronsfi on October 20, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Sweet.
Allahpundit on October 20, 2007 at 6:35 PM
That was great how Hitchens sorted that guy out who asked why they didn’t invade Iran instead of Iraq, but he wasn’t even for either of them.
jayj on October 20, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Thanks for the link, AP. It’s always a pleasure to hear Hitchens’ views on this subject.
FloatingRock on October 20, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Just as long as there is still an Easter Bunny.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 6:38 PM
I asked myself the same question when he said that the Danbury Baptist feared being massacred by the Congregationalist. That piece of hyperbole, and others like it, make me believe he is not a serious person, but merely a fool basking in the limelight of celebrity status in a group that, although claiming to hold up the torch of reason, is trying desperately hard to make emotional appeals akin to the ones they decry as irrational.
bert169 on October 20, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I don’t think your comparison of Santa Claus to God is at all fair. When I was growing up there was an abundance of proof of Santa’s existence; he used to bring me presents every year.
FloatingRock on October 20, 2007 at 6:44 PM
He didn’t disappoint. That was Hitchens at his best.
flipflop on October 20, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Is Hitch so threatened by the assertion that that IS a Santa Claus? or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
CrimsonFisted on October 20, 2007 at 7:05 PM
I used to have a great deal of respect and sympathy for those who worship “Gods” but, in time, I came to believe that you can’t love “Truth” and “God” at the same time. Now “Truth” may be an elusive and fickle mistress, but “Gods” were conceived of by people who’s greatest technological achievement was the sharpened stick. There are no gods of the river or forest, sun ,earth,sea or my tennis shoes. No super being from another dimension is going save us. We must save ourselves. So, get busy or get out of the way.
ronsfi on October 20, 2007 at 7:10 PM
If you got a Corvette, I am sure that Santa meant that for me. Please return it.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Hitchens = atheist Taliban. I suspect he only favors the war on terror (as opposed to, say, Vietnam) because we’re killing religions nuts instead of atheist nuts.
Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 7:15 PM
You’ve lost the context CrimsonFisted on October 20, 2007 at 7:05 PM. Read the whole thread. If Hitch expressed the need to slap someone silly, I will concede your point.
ronsfi on October 20, 2007 at 7:15 PM
How do you figure? Name one person that Hitchens has harmed or oppressed? All I’ve ever seen him do is write and talk.
FloatingRock on October 20, 2007 at 7:22 PM
I’d agree to the extent that the Islamic fanatics are intolerant of democracy and have the religious fervor to bring their war to our shores. The Vietminh never posed that threat.
dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 7:23 PM
There is only one proof of God.
To become God.
Anything else falls short.
Meanwhile, killing about the question is lunacy.
Arguing about it is sometimes useful exercise.
Flabby brain cells are as unhealthy as flabby guts.
Which is why I wonder about out-of-shape atheists (or even believers).
Being a silent reflection of a soft interior.
Mens sana in corpore sano.
The tongue should not be the most toned organ is what Hitch needs to remember.
Hit the real gym, as well as doing the mental gymnastics.
We need good guys on our side, who can argue back against the intolerant theocratic blather, to hang on for the harder days to come.
profitsbeard on October 20, 2007 at 7:29 PM
http://www.radaronline.com/features/2007/04/christopher_hitchens_god_is_not_great_2.php
Hitchens wants an American Civil War so he can enjoy partaking in it (a roundabout way of saying he’d love to kill conservative Christians). Maybe I did misspeak however, because unlike the Taliban, Hitchens doesn’t have the power, intelligence or skill to actually do anything about his sick fantasies. Praise Darwin! (Favorable Genetic Traits be upon him)
Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Like the Romans? Or how about every civilization before the 20th century? Apparently only TV’s and computers count as technology. Not that I’d say atheism has anything to do with TV’s or computers, either.
viking999 on October 20, 2007 at 7:32 PM
The war in Vietnam wasn’t fought strictly against certain Vietnamese, it was fought against the entire Communist juggernaut behind it. Of course, since Hitchens is just a pro-war liberal who hates religions, praises Stalin’s actions against it and fantasizes about killing Conservative Christians it comes as no surprise that he’d be against the war in Vietnam. He’d be right at home in Stalinist Russia.
Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 7:35 PM
christians = al qaeda
jummy on October 20, 2007 at 7:35 PM
It’s too bad more people don’t listen to, or understand, the points he makes. With religious people, they can’t get past the fact that he’s an anti-theist so they get defensive and don’t listen to any of what he says. They’re no better than liberals in that respect.
Take what he said on the first video about the belief in a God. He articulated my own amazement at how any rational person can possibly believe in such a being as “God”. How can people believe in such a thing? I’ll never understand it, and I’ll never understand it because if it IS true it is a completely horrible notion. If God does exist, it is a monster of immense proportion. What it is about human nature that makes so many people want to believe in such a being, and allows them to believe that this being will somehow give them some kind of eternal life that’s preferable to the simple notion of death?
Hitchens is right at the end of the second video, too. Our mere existence is all it takes for Muslims to hate us. Nothing we ever say or do will ever matter. They don’t hate what we do. They hate what we are. And we can’t change what we are.
Until more people wake up and see that simple fact, and stop decrying what we are and start defending our right to be what we are, we have no hope of winning. We will have defeated ourselves.
Jaynie59 on October 20, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Whoops, did I blaspheme somebody’s god?
Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Darth Executor, in the passage you’ve quoted above Hitchens qualifies his civil war comment in the context of somebody imposing, “school prayer as mandatory”. In other words, imposing a theocracy, which could only occur if the theocrat(s) overturned the Constitution. If this occurs I like to think that not only atheists will be fighting alongside Hitchens, but a lot of Christians and Jews as well and people of other faiths as well.
FloatingRock on October 20, 2007 at 7:44 PM
That was the rationale that led us to pick up from the French after Dien Bien Phu, but the fall of Saigon in 1975 didn’t do much to advance Soviet interests and today they are transitioning to a market economy and are a trading partner of the U.S.
dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 7:50 PM
The concept of “Gods” predates history itself let alone the Romans. It could be argued that burial goods found in prehistoric grave sites show a belief in an afterlife. It’s a short hop to a belief of a “King” of the after life. Animism is the oldest form of god worship. Or course you as a Christian do not believe in “Prehistory”. So is archaeological evidence planted by God to fool us or Satan?
ronsfi on October 20, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Yeah, the founding fathers sure were a bunch of theocratic dictators.
You realise there has been prayer in school long after the 1st amendment and its removal is a fairly recent development, right?
Even if I were to assume your argument up until now was right, Hitchens separates the policies with “or”, which implies mandatory prayer in schools is not a reqirement for him to take pleasure in participating in a civil war, rendering your defense of him ineffecive.
Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Whether it did anything to advance Soviet interests really isn’t relevant, over a million innocent people was murdered by the communist regime because we left. Furthermore, Vietnam was and still is a huge black eye to the US. It put an X right on the US’s weakest point: liberals.
Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 7:57 PM
His arguments are intellectually dishonest on many counts.
First just because you can be moral and not believe in religion doesn’t mean there ‘is no God’.
And just because there are many instances where people are mean and hateful and immoral precisely because of religious texts does not mean there ‘is no God’.
Second he begins an argument saying there is no reason to ‘teach’ the Creation ideology by asking an evolutionist ’scientist’ how long humans have been on earth. The number varied from 250,000 to 100,000 years. He joked about it as though it was ‘precise science’ that requires no faith. Just because you say something is ’science’ doesn’t make it so. There is also ’science’ that says there are UFO’s and alien invaders because people say it is so. . . .
Third, just because Hitchins doesn’t believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ doesn’t mean that it did not happen. No matter how emphatically he states that ‘it did not happen’, he doesn’t prove anything either way.
Anyway, his accent and his demeanor make most people who don’t reason ideas believe what he is saying is something of significance. It sells books.
I have nothing against Hitchens (I rather like his way of thinking even as I disagree), but he makes a lot of hay based on poor arguments that are presented to people who aren’t so smart. He just can’t imagine the possibility of things happen that can not be explained by man. That is arrogant and it is impossible that man can know everything.
ThackerAgency on October 20, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Sure we can listen to what he says, as I do often. It’s just that he puts up so many straw men on the subject and that his anti-theist arguments betray a dearth of research on Christianity, it seems pointless to argue with him.
(His “debate” with the likes of “Reverend” Al Sharpton was silly, regardless of anything correct Sharpton may have said. That CH would target such low-hanging reputational fruit took my respect down a notch.)
I paid attention to CH long before I became a Republican or a (practicing)Christian. I like and respect the guy (he’s one of the least hypocritical of public pundits), so it’s easy to pray for him. But, from observing his personality traits, something drastic will have to happen before he changes his mind on any subject, not just religion.
baldilocks on October 20, 2007 at 8:16 PM
People need their gods, even if it’s atheists listening to Hitchens on the war.
I don’t need Hitchens to tell me why to be hawkish on Iraq & Iraq.
I’m watching a special on the History Channel:
ABU SAYYAF in the Philippines.
Connie on October 20, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Iraq & Iraq = Iraq & Iran
Connie on October 20, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Science can address the what, or how it works, of evolution, but has just a little trouble with why. Big Bang? What was just before it, and why was it. Who or what lit the fuze?
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 20, 2007 at 8:29 PM
No they weren’t, and that’s the point.
There was also slavery long after the founding of our country but I still believe it’s by far the best country on Earth.
That’s a better point, except that it still leads back to the context of the original quote. After the “or” qualifiers Hitchens goes on to say:
In other words, it would be as a result of the policies of the theocratic regime, which he proposes would lead to failure, that would cause a civil war, not Hitchens himself that would lead to civil war. Hitchens short list of “or” qualifiers is not intended to be complete but are meant only as examples of policies that would lead to failure. So although he uses the word “or” to denote separate items in the list, taken in context with the rest of that paragraph it is clear that he is not trying to suggest that, for example, outlawing abortion alone will lead to civil war.
FloatingRock on October 20, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Right on Thacker.
The problem with atheists is that they think they are more enlightened because they don’t believe in something that can not be proven. Just as if nobody else thought of that. Hitchens thinks he’s a genius for pointing out the obvious. However, it doesn’t take an enlightened mind to reject all that is not provable, it takes a mind that simply refuses what it does not want to accept. Which is fine for him, but then he asks that everyone else also refuse what he refuses to accept – using his standards, not your own – as if his moral compass was truer. He has the same moral certitude, the very same plague, he rails against.
The fact that God, or a god, is a question of faith can in no way be argued as the delusion of the idiot. Scientists themselves, ironically, have a saying that even he should be able to accept: Absence of proof is not proof of absence. For a man that prides himself on logic, he fails to see that this plank of the atheist polemic fails that logical axiom.
But where he really shows his contempt for his wider audience, is when he goes from trying to discredit belief on a logical basis and then tries to discredit belief on a moral basis, simply by citing examples of bad people that did bad things under the auspices of their creed. Just as if that has any bearing on the virtues, good or bad, of the religion itself, or whether or not a god even exists which should be the salient point of any atheist treatise.
What is annoying about a guy like him, is that he is on a mission, a crusade, a struggle as he calls it, to change everybody over to his way of thinking. He is out out to save the world from itself as all self-deluded and self-assured visionaries are apt to do. Aside from the supercilious and bourgeois contempt for the church-going Joe Sixpack, is the hypocrisy of his contempt. For a reformed Marxist preacher who holds not just the beliefs of others in derision, but the believer himself, he then proselytizes his belief system and his values at every turn, advocates them as the only true path to salvation, just as the evangelist he so loathes, and condemns as crazy, evil, and ignorant the Christian belief system of the founding fathers and their ilk who created the very nation of which he says he is so proud to be a member.
The guy is a parody, a caricature of the smug pseudo-intellectual.
jihadwatcher on October 20, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Well then since we don’t have ALL the answers then we must accept the most preposterous of all explanations. Namely, that a superbeing from another dimension willed the universe into existence and since there is no evidence of this we are required to accept it by “Faith” or burn in an endless lake of fire…for eternity…hmm. Even if you could disprove the SCIENTIFIC theory of the universe, that does not prove that your theory is true. After all science is in a state of constant progression and revision whereas, religion is sitting in the corner covering it’s ears, shaking it’s head and chanting, no,no,no,no,nononononononono.
ronsfi on October 20, 2007 at 8:59 PM
The cold war was important and a few wrong moves could have resulted in the annihilation of entire cities. Since the cold war led to our involvement in Vietnam, it is worth evaluating whether our withdrawal led to a strengthening of the Soviets.
Ho Chi Minh took control of Vietnam after the Japanese surrendered in 1945. If we had backed him at the Potsdam Conference instead of turning the country over to the British who then gave it back to the French there wouldn’t have been the murdered millions. Well hindsight is 20/20 and FDR/Truman/Eisenhower rightly had bigger concerns at the than Vietnam.
dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Except for his horribly murky proposition that morality is innate, that we are emotionally equipped from the time we’re born to act morally towards others — except for that bit, his presentation and his response to various questions were positively riveting. Hitchens always comes with a fistful of intellectual ammunition and emotional fuel to use against Western apologists, moonbat “peace” activists, and sundry cowards that hide behind banner of multiculturalism. Makes me what to fire up the old IRC client and venture into the political chat-rooms which are really just the internet version of the slum.
FierceGuppy on October 20, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Jaynie59 on October 20, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Hitchens Question: Name a moral action or statement made by a believer that couldn’t be performed by a non believer?
The Answer: The worship of the Almighty God!
I’m sure many will say this has a lot to do with your definition of ‘morality.’ This very speech is something I consider immoral, just by Hitchens bigotry against anyone of Faith. I would hope there would be many non believes in God that are not as aggressively assaulting as Hitchens always seems to be against anyone of Faith. As kind, respectful and down right loving he is to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other agnostics of his like, he is 10 fold as rude, crude and hateful in his attacks on Faith and anyone of Faith. If he was morel and caring for others, you would think he would feel some compassion or at least some pity for someone who was so misled by a false teaching. That is unless he sees us Christians and Jews as his enemy, even if we are not beheading him? Myself as a Christian feel empathy for those who do not know God, and I DO NOT mean that to belittle anyone. Do I want you to become a Christian? Of course I do but it is my feeling, for you to know God is more a benefit to you, than to myself. Do I feel the need to attack you for your disbelief in God? No, It is your prerogative to believe what you wish but at the same time , I do not want to be attacked for MY belief in the Almighty.
I seldom comment any more on religious posts, because I see more quarrel than progress. Neither side changing the others minds. Although they do usually rack up a big comment count.
It’s a shame that every intelligent point Hitchens makes is over shadowed by his nastiness and just pure hatred for someone he claims not to believe in.
as Forest Gump would say “That’s all I have to say about that.”
and as Matthew said
Mat 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 20, 2007 at 10:15 PM
The Vietnam war was fought mainly because of the domino theory of advancing united communism, which never panned out. Thailand never fell to communists and Vietnam after being taken over by the North actually had a war with China.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Hitchens must have an evangelical Sunday school idea of God, which wouldn’t surprise me considering how simplistic and sophomoric his thinking is. How that demeans other religions in his eyes, I don’t understand. His whole argument is a shrine to the Strawman. He creates a god in his head that he doesn’t much care for, rejects it because he doesn’t like it, then wants everyone else to acknowledge this god he has created, then reject it in turn. His shtick is tiring.
jihadwatcher on October 20, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
- Robert A. Heinlein
I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:22 PM
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
*
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
- James Madison
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Religion can address the what, or how it works, of creationism, but has just a little trouble with why. God? What was just before it, and why was it. Who or what “lit the fuze” ?
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Right after willing himself into existence, of course! Or maybe right before?
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Which is why the actual “existence” of Santa is irrelevant. Clearly the role of Santa was performed far better than an actual real Santa could do.
And that’s the real reason why the “there is no Santa” poopyheads were always such pathetic downers.
boris on October 20, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:36 PM
There is no way to ever know for sure, but you are very likely right. Ho Chi Minh was much more of a nationalist than a communist.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:42 PM
That is in no way a moral action as it is as irrelevant to morality as having blue eyes or having brown eyes is.
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Faith is another way of saying If Hat. -Frank Zappa.
profitsbeard on October 20, 2007 at 10:52 PM
All you have to do is look at the stuff Hollywood puts out to see what kind of morality a godless society has.
Rose on October 20, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Before God we are all equally wise – and equally foolish.
- Albert Einstein
abinitioadinfinitum on October 20, 2007 at 10:55 PM
But the United States is not a godless society.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:57 PM
But Hollywood is its own society and it is godless.
Rose on October 20, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Translation: You silly little Jews, Christians, Hindus and whoever else worships the invisible sky wizards ignore us atheists, just go kill off the jihadis and keep your mouths shut while we say whatever the f*ck we want to undermine you and ready ourselves to slit your throats when you get back.
Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Do you believe in immortality?
No. And one life is enough for me.
- Albert Einstein
Einstein, on the other hand, believed–as did Spinoza–that a person’s actions were just as determined as that of a billiard ball, planet or star. “Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions,” Einstein declared in a statement to a Spinoza Society in 1932.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Crucify Santa Claus!
Yeah. That’ll fix everything.
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Hollywood worships the box office receipts of movie goers, the majority of whom are Christian.
dedalus on October 20, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Just who do you think pays to watch their movies?
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Rose-
Mammon is a god, too.
And “Hollywood” produces dreck and diamonds.
“A Little Princess” and “Saw IV”.
“The Mighty” and “Hostel II”.
Depends on the people involved in the project.
In the older era:
“The Agony and The Ecstacy” or “Dementia 13″.
And, more recently
“Finding Neverland” or “Sicko”.
No monolith involved.
Not even “The Monolith Monsters”
(Dumbest concept for a sci-fi movie ever invented: rocks that grow tall… and fall over.)
profitsbeard on October 20, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Because when you hear militant Atheists argue their perspective, Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists almost invariably become the rest of the Axis to the Jihadists Nazi Germany.
We do listen, we’re just aren’t buying what you militant atheist douchebags are selling.
Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Blessed are the militant atheist douchebags, for they shall challenge the ability to love of the believers.
profitsbeard on October 20, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I do not want to be rude but the LSU game is on and I really don’t think anything I say will change your belief or lack of. Perhaps another time?
abinitioadinfinitum on October 20, 2007 at 11:17 PM
The sad part for you atheists is that all the answers are there for you but you won’t look for them. You’re so smug in your position that you end up missing out on a life here and a life in the hereafter.
C.S. Lewis was brilliant and an atheist. Did you ever stop to think why he became a Christian? Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Descarte, and so many others were brilliant beyond imagination and yet they were devout Christians. Before you have your little self congratulations party you should be asking why so many of the elite inelligentsia are/were Christians.
The truth is out there.
Mojave Mark on October 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Sorry, but I still say that Hollywood is godless. Look at the lifestyles of these people. There is nothing moral about them. A few exceptions, yes, but as a whole they are debase. You may say that they are more concerned about box office receipts but they keep producing vile movies that aren’t making a whole lot of money. Yes, there are exceptions but that is what they are, exceptions. Even movies that are fairly decent always seem to have that one inappropriate scene as if these producers feel that they have failed if there isn’t some nudity or at least one sex scene.
Rose on October 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I’m not that religious, so get bent, and I’m totally comfortable telling you to get bent.
Bad Candy on October 20, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Ho Chi Minh was much more of a nationalist than a communist.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 10:42 PM
RushBaby on October 20, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Let’s try this again!
I was just getting ready to congratulate you, MB4, on your elegant quote formatting, and I was so overwhelmed that I fat-fingered my own comment!
So then, here is my question to you. Please share your opinion on nationalism.
RushBaby on October 20, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Not to worry.
MB4 has an inexhaustible supply of these “applicable quotes.”
–
Xxxx Xxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxx xxx!
———————-Confucius
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Perfectly understandable. You are hereby granted full dispensation.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 11:26 PM
I don’t like to commit myself about heaven and hell – you see, I have friends in both places.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 11:29 PM
;:- )…….plus LSU is down 17 to 10 against Auburn
abinitioadinfinitum on October 20, 2007 at 11:29 PM
I was being sarcastic. My point was that prayer in school wasn’t an issue with them. It hasn’t been an issue until this century. The fact that some of them weren’t even Christian makes it even more damning. They’d have laughed their ass off at the idea that prayer in school makes a nation a theocracy.
Irrelevant. My point was that your claim that this “theocratic” government would have to do away with the Constitution to institute prayer in school is false.
You don’t get it.
I never said Hitchens himself will start a civil war. He’s saying it will lead to failure, AND HITCHENS HOPES IT WILL LEAD TO A CIVIL WAR IN WHICH HE WOULD GREATLY TAKE PLEASURE IN. This isn’t a matter of Hitchens saying “Well, I think it would start a civil war”. He says he HOPES it will start a civil war, and that is the difference between a sane opponent and a psychopath.
True. However, it also does not mean that compulsory prayer in school has to be a part of that list, which leads back to my original point: that Hitchens is a bloodthirsty psycho.
Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Let me do it this way as it is almost MicroBrew time.
Tancredo would be one.
Dobbs would be one.
Reagan was one.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 11:32 PM
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2007 at 11:34 PM
“The ability to quote is a servicable substitute for wit.”
- W. Somerset Maugham
Darth Executor on October 20, 2007 at 11:35 PM
58 yard gain– don’t give up just yet.
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Another time then. I hope your MicroBrew is more satisfactory than the run-of-the-mill American lager.
RushBaby on October 20, 2007 at 11:36 PM
People have more fun than anybody.
———–hillbillyjim
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Here’s a quote. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
Rose on October 20, 2007 at 11:40 PM
I, although confronted with these theses, must still posit:
People have more fun than anybody.
hillbillyjim on October 20, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Always use the proper tool for the proper job.
- Mr. Hand E. Man
If all else fails, hit it with a big hammer.
- Murphy
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 11:43 PM
The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
- John Adams
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I take it you have never seen the joy that chimpanzees at the zoo have in just throwing things around. Although that would be about the same thing, I suppose.
MB4 on October 20, 2007 at 11:49 PM
I kind of curious what atheists believe about the nature of our rights and where they come from. If not from our Creator (as is in our DoI) from where do our rights come?
JasonG on October 20, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Over the centuries atheist have often suffered discrimination and persecution. There’s no doubt that early scientists were particular suspect in their beliefs. If I had been a scientist in an era when being a person of faith was essential not only to my prosperity but perhaps my very survival, I would be sure to frequently and vociferously express my undying faith in God even were I an unbeliever.
Even in Modern America it’s safest to keep your atheism out of the workplace for fear of consequences that you may never become aware of.
FloatingRock on October 20, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »