Christopher Hitchens talks Iraq, Iran, and Mother Teresa

[boogiebuddy01]

he looks great with a beard wish he would keep it

[tedmon11]

Talking about hiding behind the cloth.

[qwertypoiu4321]

Hitchens is a fool.

9-11 happened because of the US State(which Hitchens worships) occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel. That is what Osama Bin Laden said in 2001-October, 1998, AND 1996! The attack on the African Embassy was on the ANNIVERSARY of the US State occupying the Arabian Peninsula!!!

And either way the US State has no legitimacy committing larceny to pay for any US massacre anyway.

[qwertypoiu4321]

Hitchens is a fool. While he is dying he should think about the ONE MILLION Iraqi's that died because of the US massacre he supported.

[blacbraun]

@qwertypoiu4321 No he's correct. Your type will appease fanatical murdering Muslims even when they force Sharia law on you...I won't, Hitch won't either.

[qwertypoiu4321]

@blacbraun

Then why did Hitchens support Saddam when he came to power? I oppose Saddam and sharia law for the same reason I am opposed to the US massacre(that has killed more people than Saddam did in 20 years), because they all violate voluntarism.

[lionleis]

@qwertypoiu4321 do you know how dumb you sound? appearantly not. you obviously don't have a clue about the history of iraq. i'm not an expert but i lived there for 2 years and have spoke to many of the natives of iraq. in the 20 plus years that saddam was in power, he killed much more than a million.....and they were his people!!! and, i wouldn't necessarily call the war a massacre, many iraqis have been helped/saved because of our presence in iraq. you are one sided and narrow minded.

[sonykroket]

@qwertypoiu4321

The iraqis are killing themselves because of all the stupid religious sects. The only reason it's gotten worse is because the US took out Saddam who kept the sects down with an iron fist.

That was their big mistake

[Swiftlygothedays]

Mother Teresa was basically a way to make the poor people in India even poorer. Simply awful

[xspettacolare]

interesting I guess what this tells us is that mother Teresa was just a human being struggling with the same issues everyone does.

so what's the surprise that she may or may not believed in church dogma? who cares after all no body is perfect,but what matters most is mother Teresa did try to make a difference in people's lives although i never fully agreed with everything she stood for doesnt take away from her works.

by the way didnt Teresa & princess Diane die around the same time fram

[tammas2000]

@xspettacolare I care about whether she believed in church dogma. I care that she caused aids to spread, diseases to flourish and women to suffer.

I also care that she enriched herself with hidden cash donations from the likes of Papa-Doc Duvalier.

I care that she pontificated to these desperate people that God loved them more because of their suffering and did nothing to help them, unless they succumbed to her views, whilst she lived very comfortably herself.

[xspettacolare]

@tammas2000

i thought about what u said & I agree faith & religion in the wrong hands can either help us or hurt us.

[sail1948]

Enigmatik691 has taken on the role of apologist and defender of the Catholic church, I asked her/him for her/his explanation for paedophilia within the church. Answer came there none. She/he was obviously uncomfortable with my request so much so that she/he blocked me!! I think thats answer enough.

[Enigmatik691]

Noone expect from the arrogant superficial Hitchens to understand mystical experiences that saints go through.

[thedr7777777]

@Enigmatik691 - "superficial Hitchens." Incredible - at least he makes clear, concise, intelligent points of interest and doesn't write incoherant blabbering like you have done here. Your sentence make no sense at all and shows just how stupid you in fact are.

[LtZerge]

Indeed, there are few men as intelligent and articulate as he when trying to make a point.

Love it.

[gypsygrl1]

Even though I don't agree with him, he is intelligent and articulate.

[zeldagoblin]

Cos no religious person ever did that, right?

[mouse743]

lol, your just mad that he told the truth about your national hero.

[automaticSOM]

As opposed to your meek and mild religious person who informs children of the wonder of hell

Dont be ridiculous

[husky720]

The bottom line is which countries are rational and which are probably not. If the Soviets and NATO never used nuclear weapons against each other, as bitter rivals, then that has proven their rationality. What has proven Tehran's rationality? Theocracy? Lying to the IAEA? Conducting more and more missile tests while lying the IAEA? Wanting the destruction of a neighboring state? We can't assume they are rational because of the potential consequences. If they get a bomb, what will critics say?

[briancolejennifer]

Hitchen's Rules!

Love C.H. Hi is so intellectual. So correct. So excellent, that you, you hypocrites can't see him for the forest for the trees.

[destroyreligion]

dignity in death? How bout some damned medicine instead? :D

[angryafro]

Wow, do you always open your mouth in complete ignorance like this?

[superlubes]

I wish I could spout off like Hitchens. Ok we all know religion is a farce but is having no faith in god the same as having no love in god . What the hell does he care about mother theresa when he's the first to exploit her humane feelings , change of heart and her goodness by exposing them in a book which i'm sure belittles the hard work of helping those in need

[goodguyjames]

but I'm guessing in your world vision, everyone just hands over their nbukes and then we all hold hands and no one ever talks about bombs again and we all get along? get a fucking clue. its not about how logical it is, its about reality, which apparently you're not in touch with

[bootymanager]

First of all , I think religion is bullshit - all of it. Secondly, you totally miss my point. I know Americans aren't going to get rid of their nukes. It's just that they have not right at all to tell other people to get rid of theirs. Other countries are quite right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

[husky720]

No. Most major countries have signed the non-proliferation treaty, so they DON'T have the right to go and get them for themselves. It's a treaty and it's binding. And the UN and all Western powers are on the same side as the US government. The nuclear powers are all rational (Pakistan could go to the shitter, but not at the moment). Iran probably is rational, but the fact that they are a theocracy combined with their rhetoric, you can't trust them. Why do you think the UN is on board?

[goodguyjames]

Don't be a child. Here's how it lays out. lets pretend we take all nukes from everyone, dissassemble them, whatever, all nukes are gone, idiots like you throw a party as though that solved the problem. Then this funadamentalist mesianic society just BUILDS another one (cause you knw, there's now a 'how to' on youtube), and america is now the ass end of a joke because they have no way to defend. because US' ability to counter is the nly thing keeping a fair amount of states in check.

[destroyreligion]

right on!

[bootymanager]

Look, I would disagree with Hitch. I mean for fuck's sake, why should USA have nukes and no other countries should have them? Don't make no sense.

[goodguyjames]

are you four? when twin brothers both ask for the keys to the car, and while one has a good driving record, the other has recently hit four people and totalled it twice, do you say "well you both deserve the car equally, despite what ALL faculties of reason tell us will happen to the car when we give it to the delinquint brother"? if you're dumb, don't post. for your own sake.

[bootymanager]

America, I repeat, are hypocrites. How about you apply something called logic in your arguments? Give it a try. Logically, if there's an ideal of nuclear disarmament, then everyone participates and gets rid of their nukes. It's that simple. Otherwise, those who hang on to nukes, while everyone else gets rid of theirs are hypocrites and surely can't be taken seriously. It's pretty simple, I would have thought. I'd like to see a logical argument to counter that.

[goodguyjames]

America or americans? I'm neither in america nor american. It's funny that you wish to debate reason over an issue as though as soon as we put down our guns, the islamic fundamentalists are going to just stop their weapons development programs and stop aiming towards building (or rather building more in the case of pakistan) nukes. let me guess, you're probably a prissy religious apologist who believes these religions should be treated equally instead of guarded against?

[bootymanager]

No, you miss the point. Either your for disarmarment, or you're not. Disarmament means everyone gets rid of their weapons. No exceptions. Everyone.

[automaticSOM]

Thats all well and good, but how can one be sure that the opposing countries have disarmed when the scientific capability of creating these weapons remain.

In other words, if the U.S disarms who is to say that their opposing countries who have presumably disarmed will not simply make more weapons.

It is just not a feasible plan of action given that the only countries who plan one using atomic weaponry are Islamic ones. I doubt The U.S would ever be so stupid

[RPFS2008]

It is worth considering who has the record of actually using nukes.

[Damien558]

That's the stupidest fucking analogy ever. Who is the only country to have used the atom bomb? How many countries have America invaded and how many have Iran invaded in the last century?

Good record? Shove it up your arse.

[infokemp]

I agree with Hitchens on Iran, a mesianic state should not have nukes. I also think the US and Israel should not nukes for the same reason.

The US and Israel are run by Zionist who believe in the rebuilding of the temple in end times.

Any Rationalist would want a nuclear deterant MAD but not a nuke in the hands of Tel Aviv and or Tehran.

[JimmyeDallas]

Israel is a secular state. Unlike Iran.

[ChrisF116]

Then how come anyone who is against Zionism is called an anti-semite?

[Nilguiri]

chris,

"anti-semite" used to mean somebody who hates jews. Now it means somebody who jews hate.

[ChrisF116]

Haha. Good one. Thats true.

[hfxjerk]

im glad he mentioned that canadian journalist that was killed by the police in iran. they tried to pay her son off as is the costom there when you murder the "property" of a man in that tent-dwelling, cataract having shit hole

[SAYYOURROSARY]

More proof that Vatican II anti popes are

fake popes making fake "saints" like

"saint False-tina" V-2 really pushes her

also. "mother Teresa" did not CONVERT or preach Catholicism...Saint? No way.

[danger0usknowledge]

It's Hugh Hewett, the canonized saint of the Nixon Library. What better curator than Hugh to make sure that history turns out right. I think that was why he was defrocked. Then there is the 35 million we pay to Iraqi's alive & dead every month so we could accommodate John McCain & the reelection of the Bush administration while calling it "the surge" and stability in the region. We're about to turn it over to the Iraqi's as to who gets paid. Can you imagine what that will be like?

[saintkamus14]

Are you on drugs?

[AndJusticeForMe]

He looks like Yoda.

[Tris10]

Wtf Hitchens...Iran was a moderate reformist state until 2005. Wether nuclear ambitions are abandoned is a matter of contention but according to the IAEA and the CIA they stopped pursusing those goals. All countries with nuclear power have the capiciity to make nukes. The only question in Iran is what exactlly do they power? Thanks to bush doctrine it has acceleated Iran to what it is today. No one likes Iran for what it is but why no action on Burma, Sudan or coutnless other regions...hypocrisy

[Thill029]

Actually you are wrong. Ever since the Iran's Islamic revolution in the late 1970's, they have been actively sponsoring many terrorist groups. Today they are the single biggest threat not only to America, but the entire free world. You can't compare that to the poor, weak dictatorships of Africa.

[Tris10]

Actually your wrong. Take your phelbism elesewhere. Iran is not a threat to the "free world". Its not a threat to my country and im part of the free world. So again take your paranoid delusions elsewhere. If Iran undertakes any serious action they will be anhiilated. Completely.

Just because they sponsor terrorism/funds/communities throughout the middleeast does not constitue a global threat. It is a regoinal problem/American. Not mine.

And those terrorism statistics sill stand.

[Thill029]

I'm sorry to say this, but you are totally blind to what is going on in the world. The biggest threat right now is radical Islam. Iran is the root of this entire idology. The ideology of Jihad. September 11th (and the numerous attacks before that) was a result of America (and Europe) not taking action against these regimes, but rather treating them like friends, afraid to offend their precious beliefs. How can you just write off all the terrorism produced by Iran?

[Thill029]

Also, it this idea that "because they don't have nukes, they shouldn't be bothered with" is the biggest load of BS and the most illogical argument in this entire debate. Since when does a nation have to have nuclear weapons in order to be a danger? If there was a gand in your neighborhood weilding pistols and clubs, would you say: "it's okay, they don't have sub-machine guns yet so we shouldn't worry about them."?

[Tris10]

Setptember 11 was to do with Iran you fucking moron. It was not even about a state/nation. It was about Osama bin Laden aka - "Al-Qaeda". These attacks were a last ditched effort to reignite Islamism and Jihad, which had been falling all throughout the 90's. Al-qaeda is the greatest failed terror group because they have achived none of their objectives, besides drawing American into Afghanistan. Go read a book.

[Thill029]

I'm sorry but you are completely misguided in this issue, and you have failed to discredit or disprove anything. You are just an example of a typical person who wants to keep his freedom but does not value it. First of all, Iran had very much to do with 9/11. They facilitated the attack. Most of the highjackers were regularely travelling in and out of Iran for training and whatnot in 2000/2001. That's because Iran is a hotbead for trerrorist training and funding.

[Thill029]

As for Iran being "too weak" to pose a threa to the US. That is also a widely believed load of BS. First, we must establish where the root of the radical Islam ideology AND major source of Islamic terrorist funding comes from. The answer to both questions is Iran. It was their Islamic revolution in the late 1970's that had the most influence on Islamist ideolgy, and was the trigger for the widespread goal of "Jihad" amongst the middle eastern countries. To this day Iran still has this status.

[Thill029]

Capturing Bin Laden will satisfy America's need for immediate justice, but if you think that capturing Bin Laden should be the single and most important task for the US, you are incredibly mistaken. Bin Laden is one terrorist, but the ROOT of this terrorism must be destroyed. There is little use in America spending all it's energy on intermediaries like Afghanistan, which mainly are just a fleeing spot for terrorists on the run. They must attack the ROOT of the problem, which is Iran.

[Tris10]

Yes nukes and ICBMs would be the only theat from Iran. Ahmadinejad is widely unpopular because he failed to delive on his economic/social reforms which have left high unemployment and infaltion. Their army is incapble was waging an aggressive war they can only supply logistial support/money to groups. Which will never ever pose a serious threat to "Western" survial. Many some deaths and damage. Thats it. Anything else for me to discredit and disprove for you?

[Tris10]

Again IRAN is a REOGINAL problem.

The biggest threat the world is radical Islam? Lol...please when you acutally study terrorism and counter terrorism you can talk and make some sense behind the paranoid hubris. Islamic terrorism (the height of it in 2006) accounted for less than 1/4 of world wide terrorism. It has dropped since.

Iran is not the root of the idealogy...Iran did not start Islamism. Islamism started in the early 70' (72-73 to be exact)

[Tris10]

Again you fucking moron...the attacks WERE SUNNI Iran IS SHITTE...they do not support each other...at least until after septemeber 11th and the iraq invasion

Even so the DECOMORTATICLLY ELECTED president of Iran was in power so there was not offical support IF ANY of pan sect support for Sunni groups...GO THE FUCK AWAY TO THE LIBRARY and read a book you stupud cunt...enough of your shit

[Thill029]

Calling me a fucking moron will not make your argument obtain any substance. Firstly, don't throw around the term "democratically elected" around like its some sort of untouchable shield against all wrong doing. It doesn't matter if he was democratically elected, that means jack shit. So the brainwashed public elected an authoritarian, theocratic regime. Good for them. Should we care? And Iran does in fact support Sunni terrorists. So you are completely wrong. Nice try.

[Tris10]

Iran does not support Al'Qudea dumbass, that is what I was talking about.

Iran gives support to Hizbullah and other regional groups, not Al'Qudea...AL'QUDEA (sunni) KILLS SHITTES you fucking imbecile.

And i was talking about the previous reformist government before Ahmadinejad. Iran was considered the most moderate government before the Axis of evil speech, which helped radicalise certain sections of the local populace and get Ahmadinejad into office...thanks America

[Thill029]

You're an idiot. First of all, many Al Qeada operate in Iran. Iran does not "officially" support them, and they may even claim to hate them, but they do harbor them. Even when they claimed to have Al Qaeda members in custody, their idea of "custody" was simply keeping them in the country, allowing them to freely communicate and operate. And more than half of the 9/11 highjackers were actively travelling in and out of Iran in 2000/2001.

[Thill029]

And guess what, that "moderate" government was responsible for the establishment of Hizballah, the attack on the US embasy in Iran, holding over 50 Americans hostage, the killing of a bunch of Americans in Saudi Arabia, and countless attacks and bombings and kidnappings. Not to mention all the support of Palestinian terrorism.

So don't try feeding me or anyone else this BS that Iran was a "moderate" state and that it was America's fault for pointing it out that caused them to become extreme.

[nima90]

"the killing of a bunch of Americans in Saudi Arabia" what does that have to with Iran? Where is your evidence that Iran supports Al Qeada? Where did you read that the "half of the 9/11 highjackers" travelled in and around Iran

[Garnet826]

"poor woman"

"exploited by the church"

what is he talking about?

[Sandbag209]

Did you even listen to the fucking interview?

[minnesotaviking22302]

Nuke Iran!

[Paxmax]

Now I do not comprehend you... none of me that is (to you).

[TomPiltoff]

This contest is not decided by who posts the most. You still, for all your talk, have not touched upon any of the facts I stated.

[TomPiltoff]

Historical allusions and quoting court cases mean nothing if there's no point behind them. Yes, the AMA lost a suit in the 1980's which claimed it had attempted to monopolize the healthcare industry. You still need to explain how that has any bearing on the negligence of Mother Teresa.

[TomPiltoff]

You continue to refuse to acknowledge the FACTS I'm spouting and rely solely on the assumption that Mother Teresa was a great woman. It is a FACT that people in her care were denied proper medical attention. It is a FACT that her nurses did not even sterilize their equipment. With all the money she made she could have opened proper hospitals but instead offered only the comfort of a faith she herself did not believe in. Again, facts, not opinion.

[TomPiltoff]

Well first of all that isn't what an ultimatum is. Second, when did I suggest that you should be denied medical care? I suggested that when you become ill you will most certainly go to a hospital, despite whatever vague point you're trying to make about the health care industry.

[TomPiltoff]

Um, also, what ultimatum did I make?

[TomPiltoff]

I have made my point clearly and concisely. I gave you facts as to why Mother Teresa was a fraud. I logically debunked your attempt at trying to tie Mao and the others to the atheist movement. Through it all you're still bumbling around trying to make your point. We haven't cured cancer! The AMA lost a suit in the 80's! What is YOUR point?

[TomPiltoff]

Thank you for letting us all know that we still haven't found a cure for cancer. Do you think that somehow makes the medical industry illegitimate? Medical science has made leaps and bounds and when illness strikes you we'll see who you put your faith in.

[TomPiltoff]

Yes and we continue to improve the conditions of our hospitals. We don't say "cancer? well that's gods will, so here's some aspirin"

[TomPiltoff]

Completely on the contrary. It is religion that tells us we're special. Atheists generally recognize that the human species are evolved from primates and are the product of nature.

[TomPiltoff]

Mother Teresa kept the sick sick. Standards were terrible, her staff didn't even sterilize needles. Who knows how many died of things that would have been easily treatable in a proper hospital, but were instead forced to suffer and die due to her adherence to a faith she didn't have?

[TomPiltoff]

Oh and it's apparent you never actually did any research. For one, Mother Teresa's weight is irrelevant to her morality. Two, she did indeed help to maintain the status quo of poverty around the world, this is fact.

[TomPiltoff]

No they wouldn't. Yet again you miss the point. Atheists can indeed be fascists and murderers, nobody is suggesting that simply being an atheist automatically makes you moral. But when one of us commits an immoral action it is simply out of immorality. Otherwise good people are brought to do evil things BECAUSE OF religion.

[regelemihai]

"Religion" is a pretty broad term, and it leaves no room for dissent from other religions, that are lumped into this overly broad category, to defend themselves.

"Because of religion" in cases on Islam, I hear ya'. What about Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism, etc.?

[TomPiltoff]

The idea that religion is a pure idea that only becomes unhealthy when corrupted by mankind is null. Religion is a twisted institution to begin with and we're better off without it.

[Paxmax]

huh..? do my posts appear to be concocted by a schizophrenic mind?

Well, I should know better than to ask you for an explanation, but... oh well I'll let you have a go. Give me you amateur pschyco analysis of my mind.

(since mix'n'match up marx and capitalism this ought to be atleast intresting or entertaining)

[TomPiltoff]

Nobody is suggesting that simply being an atheist automatically confers morality. An atheist can be a murderer, thief, megalomaniac, etc.

But our lack of belief in a higher power doesn't CAUSE genocide. No atheist would ever fly planes into buildings or hold a witch trial because we don't believe in god, whereas a Christian or Muslim certainly would do those things directly because of their faith.

[Paxmax]

Geez richardtripp, what have you been feeding your brain with?

In rare instances a person carries all those 'labels' at the same time, but it doesn't make sense for the average atheist/agnostic.

You mix and jumble labels and words not knowing what they mean. I suggest you collect your thoughts a bit.

[UcanbeGOD]

So, I must ask where you stand on such things as religion. You APPEAR to put down atheism and yet you arent religious. I have a friend who thinks this way but he basically refuses to believe anything. I think out of fear but thats not always the case i suppose.

[dduppie]

As I said, Objectivists are atheist-capitalist-individuali­st. The philosophy denounces environmentalism.

[dduppie]

Objecivists are atheist-capitalist-individuali­st

[nyomythus]

I accept correctance ... it was for levity.

[nyomythus]

Speedy conversion, nice!!

[nyomythus]

"...false religion of 'atheism'" is correct -- atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religion. However, if you equate atheism with religion then you cheapen the thing you argue for, religion. In effect you argue against yourself and demonstrates your solipsism; free thinkers, and the fair and open minded see right through you statement, it advances the atheist resolve that the theist will do and say anything.

[Paxmax]

1."Atheists" are forever demeaning capitalists

2."When "atheists" aren't hugging

trees, they're spouting Marx"

You have no clue about anything, have you even finished 6:th grade?

"Atheists" shop at health food stores"

WHAT? I'd say the opposite, superstitious people shop there.

[dduppie]

There are atheists who demean capitalism (Marx), there are atheists who defend capitalism (Rand).

[Paxmax]

"Atheists worship the creation, not the Creator"

Yes, it's called having "a life"(I know what you mean, but dont agree with your wording)

Wouldn't it be wasteful to spend time worshipping Van Gogh instead of just enjoy all his beautiful work?

"Atheists" are always getting behind egalitarian causes"

No no no

[Paxmax]

wtf? that was a hefty generalization which is totally unfounded.

Just because I lack a belif in any god doesn't at all influence my socio-/economic-/political views! (except when the specific topic arises within each branch)

How did you come about this conclusion?

[sillychrist]

No, he would just laugh at you for talking to invisible people in the 4th Dimension.

[jrewert]

Wrong my friend. This nontheist is a pure capitalist. Capitalism is actually a better reflection of natural selection.

[beautifulspam]

I weep for your mother.

[Godsmasher22]

I hope he takes on that racist.

[jhiken]

If it weren't for nutty Jesus screwballs, the slobbering, retarded, dauphin Bush wouldn't have been in a position to roll out the red carpet for the atrocities you mentioned.

[persianprincess77]

and so if ireland was invaded, you england wouldnt go to to help them out with any means possible? DuhThe lebanese people felt the same way after the isrealist cause mass murder..now go figure and stop spreding propaganda!

[phydan]

what you say bout Ireland? I don't get what you are saying

[persianprincess77]

oh yea mr hitchens? its that simply? i rather my own people tackle the regime than some outside profit seeking blood thirsty military force. you think i would trust you with that afterall you brought the mullahs to my country. look back at history..and al queda was not in iraq before the war. you only escalated the miseries, not improving it.

[stupidgirl816]

I have seen many a reference right here on youtube made by atheists about blowing up all of the religious people. I wouldn't necessarily say that is what no faith leads to, I would say that is what a sick mind (religious or not) leads to. Ending religion will not end violence, war or immorality. People have to look inside themselves for that. And that is too difficult for most.

[jhiken]

It's amazing you religious people can't grasp this concept. Atheists have no dogma or rules. We don't have a book that hints at homophobia or the killing off of other tribes. The Bible downright commands it. Atheists just say they need more proof.

[regelemihai]

And yet, atheists have the most lucious track record of crimes against humanity. OH, the hilarity!

The Christian dogma hints nothing about homophobia, or killings, it goes against it. I dunno why you spew BS before trying to do some reading about the doctrine you oppose.

The fact that the followers abuse it, and go gainst it in a revolting human travesty says nothing about the religion, but rather more about human nature.

[suvps]

The people who "abuse" it, follow their respective barbaric texts to the letter it's not abuse it's unrelenting belief.

[regelemihai]

"Follow their respective barbaric..." what???

Did you even try to understand my exceedingly plain and simple comment after reading it?

[ksandra6000]

Paraphrasing Dawkins - I think people with moustaches have the most terrible track record in genocide ( and as we all know a goatee takes it up another notch ) Beware!

[regelemihai]

Dawkin's analogy is puerile. But feel free to appeal to it whenever.

By the same token "people with limbs" also have a predilection for using religion as a mantra.

[dwolfcoach]

Religion by its very nature is devisive dogma which allows our egotistical need to be right the justification to act against other faiths or ethnicities. It says everything about religion. The fradulent claims of certainty are exactly what appeals to the human ego. A personal God, get real!!!

[regelemihai]

What you preach is alos dogma. It's the same old rehashed argument that I hear for years now.

Religion becomes devisive when you allow your humans nature to poison it. That is true with every worlview we currently have.

[dwolfcoach]

I hold no books to be sacred, I perform no rituals and I certainly have no idea about what happens when I die? Where is my set of beliefs? Where is the authoratative doctrine?I know, you know for sure! And I'm sure you've got a comfy little cloud all reserved for your place in the eternity parade. The only experts that you could invoke here are dead! These are your beliefs, keep them to yourself. When you accumulate evidence let me know.

[regelemihai]

Erm, first of all take a deep breath and relax your jammies.

Second, what does your comment has anything to do with my rebuttal to your last post? I'm confused...

[dwolfcoach]

That's what a dogma is! I hold none of these and think any faith that thinks they can bully people with their religion is divisive. Sorry, I assume dogmatism knows its stripes. Personal Gods seem to demand them.

[regelemihai]

How does the Christian dogma promote divisivness, hatered, and "bullying"?

Dogmatism doesn't necessarily has to be religious. Your brand of "belief" (or lack of) fits the characteristic of dogma better than mine.

[dwolfcoach]

Don't you belive that you'll will go to heaven and I to hell? Don't you think in the "end days" the rest of us will die in some firey pit as you witness this with great satisfaction. Many Christians, albeit not good ones, bully school teachers and scientists for daring to uncover evidence for conflicting ideas. What about homosexuals? How many people have been murdered because of sectarian divisiveness? I don't think any faith has a more barbaric past than Christianity.

[regelemihai]

*Sigh*, again my friend, your making the same logical error in thinking. The fact that crimes have been committed in the name of the doctrine, doesn't suggest anything about its nature.

"Don't you belive that you'll will go to heaven and I to hell?"-

Simply put; No! I don't. I am in no position, nor is any other human being for that matter, to determine who is going to Heaven and who to Hell. Those who do are idiots, and that includes priests.

[dwolfcoach]

Pardon me for not holding these tenets of your faith with the same reverence as you do. Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only true defense. (Mark Twain) There are enough real fears without you constructing irrational fears based on bronze age mythology. My "dogma" if I have any, is based on evidence!!

[regelemihai]

So now you turn around and say that it's the validity of the doctrine that suggests when divisivness is justifiable and when it's not? Do you hear yourself?

"Fear" has become a Christian tenent when the Catholic church institutionalized worship, and I resent it completly. It is not the core of faith itself, though.

[dwolfcoach]

No, you knucklhead, the doctrine is completely invalid and never justified, that's the whole point. If you selectively choose the verses with which you agree and disagree then how would you argue its validity? Do you mean you get to decide? On your own? I'm at least glad we can agree that no man decides the eternal fate of another. Then again I think it is just pretend!!

[regelemihai]

The persecution committed by the Catholic church wasn't a misinterpretation of the doctrine. No where in the NT is indiscriminant murder, genocide, infantecide, and the sort are justified.

And I'll appreciate if you take it easy with the name calling. You're not 5 years old I'm assuming, right?

Thank you.

[dwolfcoach]

Hey, knucklehead, you can't follow your own point. If this isn't a misrepresentation, how do you support it? Genocide, infanticide, to have and hold slaves (as long as you don't damage their teeth or their eyes?), you can sell you daughter into sexual slavery, are you saying the new testament doesn't agree? You need to reread it! You're still using bronze age myths to make 21st century assertions.

[dwolfcoach]

And if your holy book is inspired by God it should make sure the sequel doesn't have so many errors in scholarship. Was Jesus born of a virgin or not? Luke and Matthew say he was, John and Mark don't mention it and Paul claims he was "born of the seed of David according to the flesh". Perfect word of the creator of the universe, omniscient God? I'm not trying to convert you, the points made here are for the readers of this forum.

[regelemihai]

variations are not "errors in scholarship". You're embarassing yourself. Paul's claims are not relegated to the divine nature of Jesus, but to the genealogie of Jesus, which is a whole 'nother topic.

Mark and John don't withhold ANY form of birth narrative, that doesn't mean they omitted it while they were recording the event. They don't even talk about it.

It is not a substntial objection, sorry.

We can go on and on, but as you can see, it's binging us nowhere.

[dwolfcoach]

It's about the reader! They OMITTED it? You're kidding! Any journalist for the omniscient God would NOT omit such a relevant event. Geneaology? Wow, Joseph a descendant of David? Jesus was born of a virgin, why would any care about Joseph's lineage? Hey, you may be one of those nice Christians, but you logic is sophomoric. Let's let the reader decide if "variations" in the sacred, inerrant, holy book is the correct word! I'll call them errors in scholarship just to be tactful.

[regelemihai]

It may not sound logical to you, but the fact remains that Matthew and Luke trace His genealogy. Matthew from Joseph's side, and luke from Mary's, if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks for calling me a "nice Christian", though, I appreciate it :)

I think you are a nice person too, it's just that these YT debates get the better of us. It's pointless...

[dwolfcoach]

I have a lot of Christian friends, like you, and most are wonderful people. So where is my take on this? Your contempt for evidence-willful or otherwise-and your indifference to years of human discovery that show the overwhelming and unambiguous case for scientific theories. Yet my school and many others feel like they have to tip-toe over the bronze-age myths that any thinking 3rd grader could see through. Empirical evidence should not be marginalized because of one's belief/religion.

[dwolfcoach]

I certainly don't think these arguments are pointless. And for the record, my mom would take your side in a second. She is a wonderful Christian lady, but totally unqualified to engage in a public discourse on the merits, or lack thereof, of science.

Peace be with you, my friend!

[regelemihai]

Peace be with you too.

Aruments aren't pointless. But they have to be engaged with an open mind, otherwise neither side of the spectrum will be able to inject his viewpoint.

Take care, and my best wishes ;)

[regelemihai]

I don't undermine science. I'm going into research in biomedical studies in the future.

Discrediting this doctrine by means of scientific methodology is, simply put, intellectual bankrupcy. I'm sure that those 3rd graders you mentioned would be able to see this.

I'm not a fundie, and I think you got that 3 posts down the line, but you keep talking to me as if I am.

[dwolfcoach]

Sorry..., but you still offer a tent to shelter those zealots/fundies. And your arguments trespass overtly on scientific claims. (With no evidence!! They won't allow that in your research!)

All the Best!

[lord69z]

Actually none of your evasive nature and grand over complication of scripture seems logical.

The funny thing is - if the text were just forgeries you'd then be spending all your time trying to prove a myth with the most laughable proof.

The bible is self-refuting.

[regelemihai]

Sorry, but I kinda' lost track of the discussion that took place on this message board. Tell me what you were refering to so I can understand.

Thanks in advance.

[regelemihai]

In know those passages you're refering to, so you don't need to tell me to re-read anything.

In Jesus's case it was a parable, therefore not an instruction of any sort.

Genoice and infanticide? You have to be barking mad to believe that the NT invokes such a thing.

[rekka360]

It doesn't matter that the NT doesn't invoke such things...Jesus and God the Father are supposed to be the same person in the Trinity, correct? Therefore if God invoked it in the OT, then Jesus is party to that.

[jamesrobertdobbs]

Religion is the greatest and longest lived horror to ever face our species. Our survival is threatened by religion in a time of nuclear weapons. If people who believe in gods, spirits and ghosts would only blow themselves up they would be doing us and themselves a big favor.

[stupidgirl816]

Wow, it is sure good to see that your lack of religion has so positively affected your morality. I guess we can see what to expect after all that bad religion is blown up.

[SpaceCarnivora]

Religious people fucking obscurantists. I can't wait for the day the world rids of this religious virus.

[jemakinc]

I believe his analysis of Mother Teresa's dillemna is correct. Mother Teresa's faith was crumbling like so many Catholics nowadays especially after learning that the Roman Catholic Church was paying off millions to settle cases of child abuse by priests who are guilty of pediophillia, instead of putting those criminal priests in jail!

[myroseaccount]

total bollocks from start to finish. Hitchens is a war-mongering liberal shit!

[allthethingsur]

very nice check out hitchen's new site buildupthatwall (dot com)

[Canaximander]

Another great post by Flirmy! I wish I could get a channel like this on TV! 5*

[jason666king]

Get a better Hitch photo next time. He looks ready to pop a cranial artery. And a bit Sam Neil-like.

[Flirmy]

I thought you'd enjoy the blue eyes and sexual charisma of that picture.

[nyomythus]

thanks for posting!!

[sun2515]

Thanks for posting