1. Comment #40878 by Rtambree on May 15, 2007 at 6:40 am

That white suit must be getting smelly by now.

Why doesn't Hitchens retort with the "Where did God come from?" argument when asked where did the Universe come from? That's a no-brainer. Then there are two more steps. The theist then predictably says "God is eternal" and then the atheist comes back with "Why not have the multiverse eternal?" and save an unnecessary step.

A thousand years ago, philosophers devoted their whole lives to writing weighty tomes on these issues, and Fox covers it in 5 minutes. It's progress, of a sort.

I expected worse - it could've just descended into an Islam-bashing session where they're both on the same side, having agreed to ignore the other two Abrahamic religions.



Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #40879 by lt_zippy2 on May 15, 2007 at 6:44 am

*yawn* the atheist position is based on faith.

Not again, I'm getting a little tired of this contuniual misrepresentation.

Hannity stated that he had read off the argumnents debunking this assertion as Hitchens pointed out. If he has then he certainly hasn't understood them.

Other Comments by lt_zippy2

3. Comment #40880 by maton100 on May 15, 2007 at 6:47 am

Hannity's ignorance is as astounding as the discovery of quarks.

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #40891 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 7:00 am

"Hannity stated that he had read off the argumnents ... he certainly hasn't understood them."

I believe that deep down every believer knows that there deceiving themselves but can't or won't admit it, even to themselves. It would require admitting that they were wrong and, in their mind, take a great amount of work to adjust. Simply put, I think that they're just lazy.

It's been said that the most common application of reason is to affirm what we already believe. Nowhere is that statement more true than when applied to religion.

Other Comments by Pi Guy

5. Comment #40911 by eirik on May 15, 2007 at 7:42 am

every single time dawkins, harris, hitchens or the like try to argue rationally against the existence of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent god, their counterparts immediately revert to the god of the gaps, namely that something must have set the thing in motion. the god of the gaps is not the god that the overwhelming majority of religious people (including hannity) read about and worship. yuck. hearing pro-god arguments like hannity's make me sick.

Other Comments by eirik

6. Comment #40925 by Yorker on May 15, 2007 at 8:04 am

Ignorance and arrogance, a combination which is the proud domain of the immovably deluded religite.

Is this Hannity dolt truly unable to understand that his childish "there is a god" last statement, is the pinnacle of arrogance?

Other Comments by Yorker

7. Comment #40932 by Aaron on May 15, 2007 at 8:11 am

Did anyone catch how he snuck in saying "There is a God" at the end when they cut back to live broadcast? There's no better way to think you've won an argument than by making a claim without letting your opponent address it.

What a fucktard.

Other Comments by Aaron

8. Comment #40936 by cybercoma on May 15, 2007 at 8:15 am

"I believe that deep down every believer knows that there deceiving themselves but can't or won't admit it, even to themselves. It would require admitting that they were wrong and, in their mind, take a great amount of work to adjust. Simply put, I think that they're just lazy."

Pi Guy, I think you're almost spot on with this statement. I don't think it's EVERY believer; however, when someone comes back with "it takes great faith to be an atheist," I believe those people are the ones who are reluctant to admit to themselves that they're wrong.

It obviously doesn't take faith to be an atheist, anymore than it takes faith not to believe in the tooth fairy, it's just too bad they don't see it this way. They don't understand that since their infancy, faith has been driven into them and instead of having faith in atheism, they simply need to stop having faith in superstition.

Other Comments by cybercoma

9. Comment #40938 by Dower on May 15, 2007 at 8:26 am

As a onetime fundamentalist lay preacher, I can attest to the fact that many believers find their faith, however unwarranted, a virtue. In fact, they regard it as evidence of God, for their sacred book teaches them that:

... "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

As long as believers base their faith on the sacred texts, the only way to expose the fallacy of their belief system is to point out the fallacies in their sacred book.

Bart D. Ehrman, a former fundamentalist Christian himself, does an excellent job of exposing these fallacies in his book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."

Other Comments by Dower

10. Comment #40940 by BicycleRepairMan on May 15, 2007 at 8:26 am

It seems Hithcens wont even bother rebutting the usual arguments for Gods existence..

Just strikes me how the religious mind copes with criticism, Its like when Dawkins is on its "Ok, so I read your book, there is no god, where does our morals come from? explain in a soundbite please"

And when its against Hitchens, its: "Ok, I sort-of agree its morally appalling to believe in god, but I still think God exists, now prove me wrong in a soundbite"

*sigh*

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

11. Comment #40947 by Bayle on May 15, 2007 at 8:35 am

Look at Hitchens's face in that first shot. Haha, he looks so tired and annoyed. And well he should--debating the religiose is one of the most draining exercises in futility imaginable. Every time my (fundamentalist) parents make some insane statement, a surge of frustration fills me because I know that whatever I say won't be heard or considered.

A while back I was telling a friend of mine about TGD, about all the great arguments in it, and he said "I love reading books like that, but you know, no matter what the argument is I'm not going to change my views." Such is the power of faith. It's repulsive.

Other Comments by Bayle

12. Comment #40950 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 8:38 am

Hi Dower, when did you bail yourself out of the celestial prison? A fellow "minister" of the gospel here, albeit from quite some time ago. There do seem to be a few of us knocking around these days:-)

When I was a christian, I had moments of fervour when I beleived more than ever, and moments when I totally doubted the whole thing. Everyone seems to experience that, and the only way to overcome it is to grit your teeth and ignore it, until the facts go away.

That is what faith is. Gritting your teeth and ignoring contradictory evidence.

Could anything be more barren and dishonest?

Is it any wonder then, that Fox news journalists, arguably the most dishonest, disingenous and manipulative creatures ever to besmirch journalism, embrace some variation of this death cult and everything it represents? Hardly.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

13. Comment #40960 by blueollie on May 15, 2007 at 8:51 am

For those who aren't familiar with the United States: Hannity (of Hannity and Colmes) doesn't draw from the most intellectual audience. Basically, he uses "arguments" that his fans would approve of.

Think of this more as "entertainment" for "the believers" (e. g., those who still think that Bush is a good president) than anything else.

Other Comments by blueollie

14. Comment #40966 by Dower on May 15, 2007 at 9:07 am

Hi Dower, when did you bail yourself out of the celestial prison? A fellow "minister" of the gospel here, albeit from quite some time ago. There do seem to be a few of us knocking around these days:-)

Hi, Brian.

I bailed out years ago when I became an elder in my church and was called upon to preach whenever the pastor was gone. I took my position seriously and did extensive research when preparing my sermons. The inconsistencies I found in the biblical text were mind-boggling and the attempts by Christian apologists to explain them away fell short.

Erhman, Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris have done the world a favor by exposing the different belief systems for what they are: man-made institutions.

My son remains a hard-core fundamentalist (thanks to my indoctrination of him as a child), but my daughter is a skeptic. She will not brainwash her own daughter the way I brainwashed my children.

Other Comments by Dower

15. Comment #40973 by CDG on May 15, 2007 at 9:16 am

Hitchens let Hannity off easy. Its one thing to have the position that the universe had to be started by something, but another to then say that creator then manfiested himself to us through the Bible. Whenever a believer gives me the universe thing they know their holy book position is weak to begin with I and always lead them back there.

If they want to stop at the argument that something started the universe- fine, but they almost always carry it forward to a specific religion. Then I got them.

Other Comments by CDG

16. Comment #40989 by stptrck75 on May 15, 2007 at 9:43 am

Pi Guy...
I think you are right. It's an intellectual laziness along with a fear of being struck by lightning. How else could otherwise intelligent people be so stupid?

Other Comments by stptrck75

17. Comment #40992 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 9:47 am

My son remains a hard-core fundamentalist (thanks to my indoctrination of him as a child), but my daughter is a skeptic. She will not brainwash her own daughter the way I brainwashed my children.

Wow, tough break. Well good to see more of us around the place, hope your son recovers soon.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

18. Comment #41006 by mnlandon on May 15, 2007 at 10:26 am

I just have to say as a past regular watcher of Hannity that his attack style usually left the person he was challenging unable to make a coherent argument which I think lend credence to Hannity in the eyes of his followers. Because of that I didnt think the soft spoken Hitchens stood a chance. I was happily surprised to see that Hitchens shot down Hannity much more convincingly than most I have ever seen on that show.

Other Comments by mnlandon

19. Comment #41020 by Thor on May 15, 2007 at 10:55 am

mnlandon,

"...the soft spoken Hitchens..." ?? You have never seen or heard him debate, have you? :-)

Ok, I admit that in this particular interview he didn't seem very energized - but if I look at the press junket he has done over the last couple of days where he alwys has to repeat the same arguments over and over again it's now wonder that he might be a little exhausted.

Basically he is one of the most ferocious and able debaters I have ever seen - with the downside that he sometimes stoops too low or becomes too personal in his attacks. Another "weakness" of his is that he often uses analogies and literarary anecdotes and references that fewer and fewer people get.

For example: one of the lines he often uses about he British monarchy is to make some negative comments about Prince Charles - "weak-chinned, slobbering dauphin" - and then proceed from there to saying: "well, that's what you get when you build a monarchy on the family values of Henry VIII!"
He said it again in the Bill Maher interview - it is linked here somewhere - and apparently nobody had any idea what he was talking about, which didn't really surprise me.

When he uses this line at public debates at universities or literary festivals there is always a rather large number of people who understand it - you have to know your audience.

Well, what can I say, we are only human, nobody is perfect...

Other Comments by Thor

20. Comment #41038 by GoatBoy36 on May 15, 2007 at 11:35 am

Yes, as someone has indicated, is it not the case that the argument that there was a "creator" that got the whole show on the road, has a huge logical gap?

Such a "creator" is just assumed to be the Yahwheh deity, which Christians now refer to as "God".

But such a "creator" could in fact have been a whole bunch of creator deities. When we built a house we have a designer (an architect) a builder, and a whole bunch of tradesmen and labourers. Why not a whole bunch of celestial construction workers? A separate designer, builder etc.?

I mean, if you want to make an argument by analogy ...

And who's to say that creation firm is still in business? They could no longer exist.

If they are still alive, then they could easily be massively uninterested in whatever's going on down here on this particular planet. (Just try getting a builder or a tradesman back to your house to do some more work after the original job's done, and he's been paid!)

These creators could have sent down a series of prophets to tell everyone what the score is, right up to and including Mohammad, who was the last one. As it is said in the Koran, "Unbelievers are those that say: "God is the Messiah, the son of Mary."" (Sura 5: 72) And: "The Messiah, the son of Mary, was no more than an apostle: other apostles passed away before him. His mother was a saintly woman. They both ate earthly food." (Sura 5: 75) Christians could have it all wrong, in a number of different ways.

This argument that there was a "creator", therefore Christianity is correct, is simply not a good one. Any Christian wanting to use it needs to prove the truth of several more premises (there was only one creator, that creator still exists, that creator interacts with this earth and the people on it, Islam is all wrong, etc.), before their own argument will work. (And good luck with that!)

GB. (edited for typo)

Other Comments by GoatBoy36

21. Comment #41043 by steve99 on May 15, 2007 at 11:50 am

I don't think that people with faith are necessarily fooling themselves or ignorant. I think a lot of it is that they simply have not come across any other way of thinking. To say that they know they are fooling themselves is to hugely underestimate the problem that atheists face in trying to spread the message.

Many people discover critical thinking for themselves; many don't. Also, many people don't start from the same 'axioms' as scientists. I think the last point is why so many go on about Dawkins' lack of discussion of theology. They start from the 'god exists' axiom, and everything builds from there, so from their point of view, theological discussions are both critical and rational, and Dawkins is not being rational...

It can be a big step, and a big shock, for some people, no matter how educated and intelligent to make the leap to scientific axioms and rationality.

Other Comments by steve99

22. Comment #41051 by blueollie on May 15, 2007 at 12:29 pm

steve99, you aren't a mathematician, are you? :-)

I think that you are right; this is one of the reasons is that belief in a personal god is more prevelant among elite mathematicians than it is among scientists. We are used to doing things like "if we accept the continuum hypothesis and axiom * it then follows that..."

The trick is to attack the belief that it is rational to accept the "god axiom".

(e. g., why not accept the flying spaghetti monster axiom?)

Other Comments by blueollie

23. Comment #41062 by CDG on May 15, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Thought: Hannity's position that a supernatural force with intelligence created the universe could be correct (technically)

Dawkins says that anything that created this universe had to evolve from a long process and be vastly more intelligent than the being it is creating. The Ultimate 747.

Lets say that there was/is an intelligence in a parallel or pocket universe that evolved some 16 Billion years ago and became smart enough to understand the workings of the universe. Say, twice as smart as us. And lets say the Multiverse theory is correct and they found a way of making universes in an attempt to create life. Even though they would never possibly be able to go there or have any sort of domain over it etc...

Then in fact, if this were true then we would have been created by an actual intelligent lifeform from a distant universe who new how to create paralle universes.

I think that there are some scientist right here on earth currently trying to create seperate universes as we speak. If they succeded and their new universe was dialed (anthropic principle) in correctly, and life formed, they would then be God like too...

Any thoughts?

Other Comments by CDG

24. Comment #41064 by jayalenik on May 15, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I think the best Hitchen moment (Hitchenism ?) is at about 30 secs to go, hannity had just used the old standard attack of intellectual snobbery and after a moment to reflect Hitchens aggrees. Classic

Other Comments by jayalenik

25. Comment #41067 by jayalenik on May 15, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Thought: Hannity's position that a supernatural force with intelligence created the universe could be correct (technically)

Dawkins says that anything that created this universe had to evolve from a long process and be vastly more intelligent than the being it is creating. The Ultimate 747.

Lets say that there was/is an intelligence in a parallel or pocket universe that evolved some 16 Billion years ago and became smart enough to understand the workings of the universe. Say, twice as smart as us. And lets say the Multiverse theory is correct and they found a way of making universes in an attempt to create life. Even though they would never possibly be able to go there etc...

Then in fact, if this were true then we would have been created by an actual intelligent lifeform from a distant universe who new how to create paralle universes.

I think that there are some scientist right here on earth currently trying to create seperate universes as we speak. If they succeded and their new universe was dialed (anthropic principle) in correctly, and life formed, they would then be God like too...

Any thoughts?

Just one ....... pass the dube

Other Comments by jayalenik

26. Comment #41070 by steve99 on May 15, 2007 at 1:05 pm

blueollie:

As for being a mathematician - well, partly! I have had a long scientific career, involving computer science, biochemistry, some physics, and theoretical thermodynamics - the last one involved frightening amounts of maths, most of which I have forgotten!

You are right about having to change the 'axiom'. The problem, and it is a very big one, is the emotional attachment to religious 'axioms'. Many people associate the 'faith and God exists axioms' with home, family, community, friends, and a deep feeling of comfort. I know this because I was brought up Catholic, and I can remember the deep warm feeling that belief gave me. (I remember thinking what a nasty and misleading song John Lennon's 'Imagine there's no Heaven' was). I gave up finally in my late teens because of the inconsistencies, although even a child I found the idea of the Christian eternal Heaven rather frightening and unpleasant (in much the same was as Hitchens describes). But I can still remember the very strong attraction of the faith.

Other Comments by steve99

27. Comment #41074 by steve99 on May 15, 2007 at 1:15 pm

"I think that there are some scientist right here on earth currently trying to create seperate universes as we speak."

There are some extremely interesting new particle physics experiments due soon, but I think you are mistaken about this - the energies required are way, way beyond anything we can achieve. You can find more here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246

"If they succeded and their new universe was dialed (anthropic principle) in correctly, and life formed, they would then be God like too...

Any thoughts?"

If I remember right, I have heard Dawkins discuss this, and he made a very good point. This 'creator' would not be a God. He/She/It would be as much of an evolved intelligence as we are. The God atheists argue against is a supernatural being - the supposed 'First Cause' of Aquinas, and an intervening miracle-worker and prayer-answerer.

Good point though...

Other Comments by steve99

28. Comment #41076 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 1:23 pm

@ CDG:

I think that there are some scientist right here on earth currently trying to create seperate universes as we speak. ... they would then be God like too...

Sure come on by sometime. I've got a few proto-universes going in the garage and a pre-pubescent one in the back yard. It's too big to keep in the garage now but the primordial black holes are starting to shape up nicely!

BTW: I'm not god-like but I've got a few old gods that I picked up at yard sales over the years. Free to a good home.

Like jayalenik said - don't bogart!


Any thoughts?

Yes. Just one ....... pass the dube

Other Comments by Pi Guy

29. Comment #41077 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 1:24 pm

ugh - phrase sequence problem. Better keep the fatty for yourself...

Other Comments by Pi Guy

30. Comment #41083 by 3legcat on May 15, 2007 at 1:26 pm

(e. g., why not accept the flying spaghetti monster axiom?)

because Sanity truly is found in numbers. (as sam harris put it)

Other Comments by 3legcat

31. Comment #41087 by jayalenik on May 15, 2007 at 1:30 pm

hey there goes a proto universe now
stick out your thumb

Other Comments by jayalenik

32. Comment #41091 by jayalenik on May 15, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Hey pi guy I am still laughing from your comment
You are one funny dude

Other Comments by jayalenik

33. Comment #41143 by CDG on May 15, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Steve99: I know of the atom smashers you are referring to in switzerland, but I believe there are a few well known scientists who hypothesize that they will be able to create additional universes- not in the garage as some think, but actually in the basement of their lab.

With that said, maybe this shits wearing off and it is time to take another hit...Hold on, there it goes...ahhh

Ya mon, like a huh, I mean totally- parallel universes...Good to be back.

Other Comments by CDG

34. Comment #41148 by mintcheerios on May 15, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I think Dawkins is better at the soundbite game than Hitchens.

Other Comments by mintcheerios

35. Comment #41154 by Dr Benway on May 15, 2007 at 2:54 pm

steve99 wrote:

I know this because I was brought up Catholic, and I can remember the deep warm feeling that belief gave me. (I remember thinking what a nasty and misleading song John Lennon's 'Imagine there's no Heaven' was).

Bingo.

On a molecular level, our bodies sort out proteins that are "self" and "not-self," and so we're able to fight infections. On a psychological level, we likewise divide the world into "people like me" and "people not like me." The bias against members of the out-group is profound and will over-ride rational argument. Think of eating something revolting. That's what it feels like for many Born Agains to listen to Richard Dawkins.

Confidence in our own perceptions and thoughts is in large part a function of communal reinforcement. We're social mammals. We don't have a choice about this. We need feedback from a community, or we can't even think.

Groups form around shared values and interests. They don't form around a rejection of certain values. Thus the lack of solid group identity for atheists.

However, there is a positive value shared by the atheists here that might make a great basis for group identity: intellectual honesty. Who wouldn't want to be a member of a group that values honesty?

Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens have done a great job pointing out the problems with religion. The next wave of books ought to expand upon the positives. Someone needs to illustrate the life and times of the tribe among us made up of people who yearn for truth and who prize honesty above other things. Show how this tribe is present, real, and heroic. Show how easy it is to join. No secret handshakes or membership fees needed. Simply learn the rules we use to establish certain propositions as more or less factually true.

A second, related value: people ought to be given time and tools to reason things out for themselves. No fair using bribes of heaven or threats of hell - or any other form of coercion - to force premature conclusion or opinion.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

36. Comment #41209 by Frostbit on May 15, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Is there anyone from the Fox Network with a brain????

Other Comments by Frostbit

37. Comment #41217 by Bremas on May 15, 2007 at 4:24 pm

I have my new response for when asked why I don't believe in god.

"I wouldn't want to live in a world with a god."

Not an exact quote of Hitchens, that I know of, but I give him credit for it.

Other Comments by Bremas

38. Comment #41220 by phasmagigas on May 15, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Why is it that in the US the tv interviewers seem to debate from the believer viewpoint as seen her rather than ask the interviewee questions from a neutral standing point?? I'm not sure that EVER happens in the UK. And just how many fallicies did the interviewer bring up in five minutes including attacking the man.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

39. Comment #41222 by Bremas on May 15, 2007 at 4:35 pm

re phasmagigas
"Why is it that in the US the tv interviewers seem to debate from the believer viewpoint as seen her rather than ask the interviewee questions from a neutral standing point??"

Americans would rather debate than question. It's not just television interviewers.

Other Comments by Bremas

40. Comment #41223 by autterson on May 15, 2007 at 4:38 pm

These short debates are nice … but until a significant national audience actually sees AND listens to a much more detailed argument on the subject … the only real winners are the show (or shows like it) and the people that agree with Hannity's point of view … namely the religious.

I think Mr. Hitchens is doing a superb job defending reason and condemning religious dogma. His book thus far is excellent and I hope he keeps up the pace … along with professor Dawkins and others … we've been waiting a long time for people of high intellect and worldly experience to make the case against god and religion. Thank you

Other Comments by autterson

41. Comment #41224 by phasmagigas on May 15, 2007 at 4:40 pm

was i hearing things or did the interviewer at the end squeeze in 'god does exist'. That is so alien to me, if that happened on the BBC the interviewer would be reprimanded. then again i remember seeing Fox interviewers telling shirley phelps she was an abomination, some interview, some debate!!

If hitchens had to get the last word in he would (probably) at least say 'i believe god doesnt exist' and not look in in the camera and say 'god doesnt exist'.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

42. Comment #41251 by USA_Limey on May 15, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Not Hitch's best performance, he looked like he'd just rolled out of bed after two hours sleep and an all night bender.

Still love him though.

:-)

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

43. Comment #41262 by Jack Rawlinson on May 15, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Ah hell, Hitchens, you were drunk again! I respect that, but you could have wasted Hannity so much better if you'd laid off the sauce for 24 hours!

I would very much like to go out on the lash with Chris Hitchens.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

44. Comment #41286 by thompjs on May 15, 2007 at 7:28 pm

I loved when Sean leaned back as he realized he was in the same league with the 9/11 hijackers, the pope etc. And Hitchens pounded him on his religious bullying.

Hitchens is lucky he didn't get muted and then
Sean would go on some tirade that he could not
respond to.

Other Comments by thompjs

45. Comment #41291 by Mr. Grape on May 15, 2007 at 7:43 pm

To add to what blueollie said - not only do the particular programs on fox news network appeal to the lowest Joe in the USA, but they have direct ties to right wing lobbies and the bush administration. I'm very surprised a lot of people in the United States can take them for a respectable news organization, but the power of the "fair and balanced" meme goes far and wide for the public.

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

46. Comment #41303 by scooternyc on May 15, 2007 at 8:39 pm

If you do social work BECAUSE of religion, then you're more of a fraud because you don't do it based on the generosity of spirit from within that moves one to do generous deeds.

Hannity reveals his ineptness at debating someone as intellectual as Hitchens.

After all, Sean calls Jerry Falwell a good friend, that should say a lot about who he is.

Other Comments by scooternyc

47. Comment #41357 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 1:52 am

"Someone needs to illustrate the life and times of the tribe among us made up of people who yearn for truth and who prize honesty above other things. Show how this tribe is present, real, and heroic. Show how easy it is to join. No secret handshakes or membership fees needed. Simply learn the rules we use to establish certain propositions as more or less factually true."

This is a point I repeatedly try and make in this type of discussion here and elsewhere on the web. People already have written about such groups of people. There is a well-known group of people that numbers in the millions. They don't rely on faith. They accept doubt. They don't believe in a God or Creator. They life lives as full of comfort and happiness as Christians (perhaps more in many cases).

They are called Buddhists.

I find it astonishing when so many Christians say "if you don't believe in God and Heaven and Hell you can't be immoral". Even supposedly well-educated figures. There are hundreds of millions of Buddhists who have no such beliefs and they aren't living selfish immoral lives!

Other Comments by steve99

48. Comment #41361 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 16, 2007 at 2:18 am

Hitchens is *always* drunk. It's just a matter of degree. I suspect he'd suck if he were sober. It's a fine balance and I agree Hitch had had a little too much in this interview.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

49. Comment #41588 by hopeful on May 16, 2007 at 11:16 am

Hannity demonstrates a characteristic that I think appears consistantly with religious believers. His sweeping statements regarding the origin of energy and complexity in the universe indicate a basic failure to comprehend that is, itself, difficult to define. Is it lack of intelligence? or lack or education? under-developed or flawed reasoning skills? or simply the result of indoctrination?

When someone works this out we might know what critical statement(s), arguments, or teaching methods would cure or innoculate a person against irrational belief systems.

Perhaps it is as simple as a quality education (from teachers and parents) uncorrupted by irrational belief systems, but there seems like such a distinct difference in thinking between religious believers and thoughtful atheists that I wonder whether there isn't some particular essential ingredient.

Other Comments by hopeful

50. Comment #41615 by weavehole on May 16, 2007 at 11:56 am

Comment #40932 by Aaron

Excellent use of my new favourite word, a fucktard indeed.

Other Comments by weavehole