1. Comment #93612 by GSP on December 3, 2007 at 6:22 pm

I do have to say... great outgoing music!

Other Comments by GSP

2. Comment #93615 by Carl Champagne on December 3, 2007 at 6:23 pm

He seemed awfully afraid to let his kids see Hitch's book. How can you take someone seriously when they not only admit to denying their children access to knowledge, but are proud of it?

Other Comments by Carl Champagne

3. Comment #93616 by Fouad Boussetta on December 3, 2007 at 6:27 pm

That was an excellent interview. Hitchens gets his points across really fast and really efficiently.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

4. Comment #93624 by blasphemer on December 3, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Nice interview but couldn't really tell if the interviewers were being sincere or slightly condescending and disingenuous.

I've heard from a friend that the book is already available on audible.com (though I haven't verified this for myself yet.) If so, I'll have another heathen book to listen to on my way to work :-)

Other Comments by blasphemer

5. Comment #93625 by gyokusai on December 3, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Carl Champagne sez:
He seemed awfully afraid to let his kids see Hitch's book. How can you take someone seriously when they not only admit to denying their children access to knowledge, but are proud of it?

Do you really think he was serious? To me, he seemed rather deadpan.

^_^J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

6. Comment #93628 by Carl Champagne on December 3, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Perhaps you're right gyokusai, but something about their demeanor put me off. No matter, though, because HItchens kept plowing as usual and made his case clearly and concisely. It's always fun to see him in action.

Other Comments by Carl Champagne

7. Comment #93629 by eXcommunicate on December 3, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Sometimes I wonder if Hitchens and Dawkins get a little miffed by all the condescending (to me) comments about their accents. Are we really that childish here in America? Nevertheless, this is a very good interview. Hitchens is quite agreeable when not confronting an enemy talking head.


And despite being a Christian Conservative, Joe Scarborough is very agreeable as well. He's one of those "old school" conservatives that a liberal can at the very least reason with. Last observation/question: Do you think some of the chuckles and giggles from the female anchor indicated discomfort with the discussion topic?

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

8. Comment #93634 by plastictowel on December 3, 2007 at 7:21 pm

I thought the female interviewer was titillated by his voice!

Other Comments by plastictowel

9. Comment #93635 by FreeThink25 on December 3, 2007 at 7:21 pm

I was actually rather impressed....this is the first time I feel like an atheist author has been interviewed rather respectably. I would agree with eXcommunicate though....the giggles were not only annoying, but they were completely void of intelligence. Rather than pose a question or rebuttal, just laugh off-handedly....it's sure to help mock Hitchens, right?

I rather wish Hitchens had asked WHY he would be keeping the book away from his sons. Afraid of letting them make up their own minds, are you??? Have you ever seen the media end an interview and not paint the author in a tone of "there's those crazy atheists for you!" I wonder how far away we are from that...

Other Comments by FreeThink25

10. Comment #93637 by toomanytribbles on December 3, 2007 at 7:23 pm

the giggling was ridiculous. she's insulting herself.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

11. Comment #93638 by BeyondBelief on December 3, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Blasphemer: I think this is one of the most fair treatments Hitchens has received.
Scarborough is generally a yutz, but if you notice his tone changed over the interview, and he DEFINITELY set Christopher up with softballs AND gave him time to hit them out of the park.

The lady repeatedly responded (off camera) with "Hmmm... interesting point."

And the other fellow, again, just lobbed a softball. This was a pretty darn good showing. Or, as Larry David might say, "Pretty, Pretty, Prettty, Prettty, Pretty Good!!"

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

12. Comment #93644 by DAVE1618 on December 3, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Amazing Interview, once again. His argument on whether only the faithful can commit acts of kindness or not is brilliant.

Other Comments by DAVE1618

13. Comment #93656 by darlets on December 3, 2007 at 8:43 pm

As someone that doesn't live in the U.S, I'm always curious with interviews like this how popular/mainstream is the show the atheist author is appearing on.

How successful do people think we have been in raising the profile of atheism?

Other Comments by darlets

14. Comment #93657 by stevebremner on December 3, 2007 at 8:53 pm

I am surprised that Joe wasn't convinced by Christopher's singularly straightforward points.

Other Comments by stevebremner

15. Comment #93661 by AJ Rae on December 3, 2007 at 9:13 pm

It troubles me that they must treat common sense views as novel, shocking, or the most rude thing they've ever heard. Accept when it involves someone else's beliefs, then they readily agree, applaud even.

Other Comments by AJ Rae

16. Comment #93664 by hughlomas on December 3, 2007 at 9:23 pm

That was a surprisingly fair handed interview.

Other Comments by hughlomas

17. Comment #93676 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 3, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Hey, that was the very epitome of mainstream. Is Joe pandering to the atheist lobby? Trying to snag all the best interviews? Brilliant if he is:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

18. Comment #93683 by ADH on December 3, 2007 at 10:51 pm

I find myself agreeing with a great deal of what Hitchens says. This is a book that needed to be brought out. As a Christian I have no doubt whatever that some of the most enlightened and enlightening minds down through the centuries have been the minds of atheists and agnostics, just as an atheist can have no doubt that some of them have been Christian minds. Christians need to engage with writers like those that Hitchens has brought together in this anthology. In another of the talks accessible from this youtube interview he speaks out compellingly in favour of free speech. He says that the voice of the dissident, even if there is only one, must be heard, because hearing alternative views will make the "convinced" less complacent in their convictions. It will make them reexamine the foundations of their own belief (or non belief). Hear hear! This itself is an idea that Christians (and atheists) need to be able to engage with. Maybe they will realise that there may well be at least a grain of truth in the views that they so ardently oppose. I'm sure (from what I've heard) that Hitchens himself is humble enough to realise this, despite his apparent self assurance. I just hope that contributors to this forum are willing to take this view on board. Sometimes this forum seems like such a "hate-fest", with atheists racking their brains to out-do each other in parodying or lambasting faith and its various representatives, knowing that there is no one there (or virtually no one) who is going to spoil their party by speaking up in defense of their prey. All very entertaining I'm sure, but not all that challenging intellectually. It's no better than when Christians get together to tear the stuffing out of their atheistic straw-men. There needs to be the odd "nigger in the woodpile" (sorry about the political incorrectness!). Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here. I've learnt a lot from you guys. In the spirit of Hitchens' talk, I have found myself having to re-examine my beliefs, and my attitudes towards people who disagree with me. I hope some of you will eventually be able to say at least the same thing.

Other Comments by ADH

19. Comment #93687 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 3, 2007 at 11:06 pm

18. Comment #93683 by ADH on December 3, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here.

I'm not convinced this is uniformly the case. Certainly theists, get short shrift if they trot out the same tired carnards we've heard a million times, but many here are willing to listen to someone who is not duplicitous or disingenous, and engaging in a genuine spirit of intellectual exploration.

You strike me as someone we can talk to, and as an ex-theist I can certainly appreciate (and recognise) honest doubt. I must confess from time to time, the dishonest have infuriated me and I've gotten temporarily nasty and insulting. However, given my own decades long history of theism, and ministry I know that facile and cheap claims of "retardedness" do nothing to explain the religious experience.

Keep thinking, but be warned, it could be the undoing of your faith:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

20. Comment #93688 by Skip Church on December 3, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Anyone else notice the outro music? "Sympathy for the Devil." Just when I think morning shows can't get any cleverer...

Other Comments by Skip Church

21. Comment #93689 by ADH on December 3, 2007 at 11:15 pm

"Keep thinking, but be warned, it could be the undoing of your faith:-)"

I will. And I could address exactly the same words to you! :) :)

Other Comments by ADH

22. Comment #93690 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 11:31 pm

ADH:

Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here.

All I can say is 'welcome to the internet'!

However I really can't understand though why you say dissent is not welcome. There have been major issues of dissent here in recent times - intense debates about libertarianism, the role of activism (such as the RSS).

The problem with religion is that it is not used to being debated. So what can seem like normal conversation on another topic can appear like fierce criticism when applied to religion. This is why people like Dawkins are sometimes labelled as 'militant' in terms of religion, when the equivalent level of discussion in another area would be considered mild.

Religion needs to grow up and accept that it has to deal with the same level of robust discussion as any other aspect of life.

Other Comments by steve99

23. Comment #93693 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 3, 2007 at 11:35 pm

21. Comment #93689 by ADH on December 3, 2007 at 11:15 pm
"Keep thinking, but be warned, it could be the undoing of your faith:-)"

I will. And I could address exactly the same words to you! :) :)

You could, I suppose:-) My experience (so far at least) has been that the traffic tends to be one way. The specifics of ones faith fade away as they contradict life, experience, and reality. One makes constant efforts to crowbar the new wine of reality into the constricted old wineskins of faith, but eventually they burst.

One twists and turns trying to get religious detail to dovetail with the exponential flood of information being uncovered every day, and eventually the modestly intelligent is left with a choice, faith or reason. I chose to abandon the rationalisation, the apologetics and opt for reason.

Thinking deeply about the specific tenets of my faith was the fatal foot in the door, I can personally atest to Luthers injunction to "put out the eyes of reason". Alas, too late:-) Short of Jesus appearing directly to me (and perhaps not even then), it seems unlikely that I will ever pick up those threads again. However never say never, it just seems improbable:-)

This does a better job of explaining it :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7FXicdqnSA

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

24. Comment #93699 by monkey74 on December 4, 2007 at 12:05 am

To ADH:
I take your point well. I enjoy talking to theists on matters of world issues and religion and believe that examining why we think the way we do is very important. We have to truly question ourselves and answer honestly. This either reinforces or weakens your point. You have to understand that although most religious people are almost completely ignorant when it comes to the serious points of atheism and what atheism really is. Most atheist were once theistic and know much about christianity or other religions. I as well as others have read the bible and done observations on it. It is after we observe both sides of the god issue that many arrive at atheism. But most religious people have a completely unrealistic and bigoted view of atheism. We atheists are hated in all religions; we are common bad guy in all of them. We are constantly reminded of burning in hell, told many hurtful things, and have verse after bible verse thrown at us and that truly becomes very tiresome. That's why many lash out and sometimes respond angrily. I think that we all have to be as honest as possible and also be respectful. If a theist posts a difficult question that could be difficult to answer, I don't push it away. I engage that question and do research on it and the subject that it relates to such as biology, psychology, history, etc. and then try to answer it. You'll find that most of us here are open to honest questions as long as it is done in a constructive manner.

Other Comments by monkey74

25. Comment #93700 by Johan on December 4, 2007 at 12:22 am

Listening to Hitch always makes me jealous, not of his blue eyes, but of his beautiful baritone voice and his mastery of the English language. That I agree on what he says goes without saying.

Other Comments by Johan

26. Comment #93702 by Paine on December 4, 2007 at 12:32 am

Hahahahahaha.......fading out with 'Sympathy for the Devil'. Fantastic!

Scarborough makes me smile.

Other Comments by Paine

27. Comment #93708 by passutoba on December 4, 2007 at 1:16 am

My beady eye picked up a misspelling of 'atheist' on the screen showing the quote from the book! Subterfuge or slackness??!

Other Comments by passutoba

28. Comment #93716 by Tyler Durden on December 4, 2007 at 1:48 am

Reading "The Portable Atheist" at the moment. Amazing crop of articles, essays and commentary from the likes of Darwin, Steven Weinberg, George Eliot, Twain, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Dennett, Sagan, Victor Stenger and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with Hitch's own comments before each chapter.

And a very short but concise piece from Penn Jillette. Worth a read.

As for the "portable" bit, it's bloody huge, nearly 500 pages ;-)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

29. Comment #93717 by Corylus on December 4, 2007 at 1:52 am

ADH

It is great that you are willing to think and question. Yes, I can understand your following comment:

Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here.

I would make a couple of points about that. I would concede that we have a couple of people on here who can be rude. However,

1) We fight each other too :) I have disagreed with several people on here, but I really don't hold a grudge against any of them*, (and I hope they would say the same of me) because discussion helps you to learn. The trick is to disagree civily.

2) You might want to compare this site to a few others. I know this does not excuse bad manners, but, this is a remarkably polite site compared to the competition. It is also self-moderating. If someone says something completely out of line, they will get told off.

Can I make a suggestion?

On the top right hand side of the home page is a 'search' box for the site. Because new stuff gets added so often, it is easy to miss some amazing material. There are a huge amount of videos, interviews and articles to look at. Search via your interests. (Brian has done several good videos the You-Tube star that he is :)

Also, if you find a poster on here that you like, why not have a look at their other comments? There is a function at the bottom of their posts for doing this.

While there are many people on here that I enjoy reading (too many to name!) I would particularly recommend _J_ for general reading and poetic use of language, Dr Benway for humour, Steve99 and Epeeist for learning about science , Russell Blackford for philosophy and Philip1978 for sheer cheerfulness.

C.

*Actually, there is one that I continue to dislike. Not because of his faith, but because of his lack of humanity, but that's another tale :(

Other Comments by Corylus

30. Comment #93721 by BMMcArdle on December 4, 2007 at 2:19 am

I have a suggestion for ADH:
Stop distancing yourself from the rest of humanity by labelling yourself as a (insert religion here).

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

31. Comment #93722 by Quetzalcoatl on December 4, 2007 at 2:31 am

ADH-

Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here

I disagree to a certain extent. Our collective respnse to theists contributing is dependent on the sort of things they post. For example there are those such as Mark Taunton, Brother John, Dianelos, and more who produce articulate posts, will actually address points others make, and who genuinely seem interested in dialogue.

Then there are those such as Bizarro, Ruht, Chamber, Devolved and the infamous Wee Flea, whose posts are all variations on a theme, do not answer questions, are peppered with biblical verses, and demonstrate fundamental and willful misunderstanding of key concepts.

While there are those on the atheist side who can be, well, idiots, this is not as prevalent as you might think. I would encourage you to stick around, it'll be worth it.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

32. Comment #93726 by SurfDude on December 4, 2007 at 3:25 am

Aside from giggling girlishly at CH's witticisms, right at the end of the piece, the female interviewer is heard to say, "wow, what a voice". A significant crush, methinks.

Incidentally, my girlfriend and I watched the clip on YouTube last night and she made precisely the same observation, so please - no accusations of sexism!

My point? Sex sells. Or, more to the point, a mesmerizing, eloquent voice sells. Atheism can be sexy!

It always helps to have a compliant interviewer teeing you up for a slam dunk. Kudos to Joe Scarborough for this one.

Other Comments by SurfDude

33. Comment #93735 by Enlightenme.. on December 4, 2007 at 3:51 am

I especially like Chris's little dig at the neo-idolatry of Muhammadanism, "a pet can't disgrace the name of Mohammad, but a human can, what if he's called Atta for example?"
..classic.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

34. Comment #93738 by Enlightenme.. on December 4, 2007 at 4:19 am

Thought I'd check for spelling of Muhammadanism;

www.muhammadanism.org/bush/default.htm

^ it's a hoot !

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

35. Comment #93741 by Philip1978 on December 4, 2007 at 4:35 am

ADH

I for one would be considerably less cheerful if you left the site daunted and hacked off, stand your ground you big sissy! :)

Corylus, big hug and great Tea to you my dear, you are very kind, thank you! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

36. Comment #93742 by notsobad on December 4, 2007 at 4:40 am

"I will keep this book away from my sons."

That sums these hypocrites always acting like they have the moral and rational ground up.

Other Comments by notsobad

37. Comment #93743 by Clapton_is_God on December 4, 2007 at 4:59 am

eXcommunicate said: Sometimes I wonder if Hitchens and Dawkins get a little miffed by all the condescending (to me) comments about their accents.

As an occasional resident and frequent visitor to the US I found I took the comments about my accent in good heart and it was a convenient ice-breaker. I used to get pissed off about the "Have I had tea with the Queen" and "Do you know Paul McCartney" questions, though, and continual conversations about the political geography of the British Isles, and that the country did not entirely consist of "England"

Other Comments by Clapton_is_God

38. Comment #93745 by Acleron on December 4, 2007 at 5:25 am

Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here.

ADH: reasoned and rational debate is always welcome but it can be cutting. Religious figures tend to take offence too easily, hopefully you are made of sterner stuff. There is obviously disagreement between religion and atheism. But you don't find atheists screaming for blood if their views are contradicted, the reverse is often not true. Look at the case of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan.

Other Comments by Acleron

39. Comment #93748 by k1mgy on December 4, 2007 at 5:34 am

Upon hearing truth, a giggle reveals its resonance. It feels good for just a moment. Following this, after a brief silence where one realizes their fake world is coming apart, come the excuses.

The giggling was painful to hear, but Hitchens steady demeanor cut through like a sharp blade.

Other Comments by k1mgy

40. Comment #93749 by John Frum on December 4, 2007 at 5:39 am

Thanks for the link - a good interview.

The Portable Atheist is a great read. You can pick it up and start anywhere. I like Richard's Gerin Oil bit


HITCHENS FOR PRESIDENT!

Other Comments by John Frum

41. Comment #93752 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 5:49 am

seems strange to me that its atheists who arent 'supposed' to be rude and intolerant, I always thought thats what we/they were supposed to be!!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

42. Comment #93756 by 35bluejacket on December 4, 2007 at 6:10 am

Perhaps you noticed the comment made on Mohammed's teaching of idolatry, that was trying to forbid it. Mohammed had seen the damaging effects of Christianity's Trinity and graven images, religious artifacts becoming things of worship, and tried to prevent it in his own religion. But as we can see, anything in the hands of men overtime suffers corruption, even to the point that man's interpretations end up being completly opposite of what was intended.

In conclusion I submit that it is "not" the messengers of these religions that should suffer our rath. Those messengers, of which very little of what they actualy said, was recorded. It is very possible they held the same enlightened motivation as the epicureans and Lucretius. It is the clergy and extreme of dogma leaders then and today that deserve our attitude of damnation and excomunication.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

43. Comment #93757 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 6:17 am

hitch did well on that interview, im glad he used every second to get his points across. the interviewer let the comments stand and he didnt end with something like 'dont worry folks, god does exist' as the screen cut (im not sure who said that in a recent interview with dawkins? on fox?). Its intervention from the interviewer that can influence an usophisticated viewer and its all to common on US TV.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

44. Comment #93839 by gr8hands on December 4, 2007 at 9:40 am

ADH -- we welcome all people here in this forum who do so in a respectful way. However, if a theist tries to preach at us, or attempt a lambast of sin or hellfire, or suggest we try prayer or any other such tactic . . . well, we're not likely to respond very well.

Much like you wouldn't expect a Jew to respond favorably if you said "Just try the pork, you'll like it." Or telling a Catholic priest "Just ignore your beliefs, go ahead and get married." Or telling a Muslim "Just go ahead and draw that satire on Mohammed, and submit it for publication -- Muslims have great senses of humor about their Prophet!"

But it shouldn't take reading very many posts on any thread to see that there is no unanimity in this community about much, aside from no belief in god(s). We have no 'faith' to lose by thinking about it. Our beliefs require absolutely no action on our parts. We have no holy books, no sacred festivals, no prophets, no spokespeople (although we do have a lobbyist).

So of course we're going to have disagreements due to the variety of human perspectives choosing to participate in this forum. But. . . if you choose to play, you also choose to become a target, and have every comment scrutinized.

Not everyone can take that kind of heat. It isn't for the weak, or unprepared.

You'll do yourself a service (and help the discourse) if you provide links to anything you reference. If you make a claim, back it up with a named reference (book title, author, magazine, study, etc.) and a link. It's extremely easy to find them. If you can't provide proof, don't expect anyone here to take your word for anything.

Most importantly, don't parade any credentials you may have -- saying I know blah blah blah because I have a doctorate in blah from Blah Blah University means "because I said so" and nothing more. It will only get you ridiculed. You'd be surprised how many people posting here have a long string of letters after their names, and perhaps a Nobel prize on their shelves. We're not impressed with credentials, only facts (although I am always impressed by a good turn of phrase, and genuine comedy).

If you (and other theists) will join in accepting that we are not 'lost souls' seeking to be saved by your next post, eager to shed our logic for your theology, then we can probably have polite dialogue.

I'll admit that I can get snarky when someone ignores these simple concepts -- theist or not. My suggestion is always to check your references before posting them, or risk having your error pointed out across the Internet.

It isn't about one-upmanship, it's about being accurate. In this forum we care more about truth than walking on eggshells around a person's feelings, although we do try to be civil until provoked. But feelings aren't the most important thing in this forum. I stress that, because individually we are very caring people -- not for eternal rewards or because we're being watched 24/7 and will have to give an accounting before a divine presence. We care about people because we're caring people.

But in this forum, we're about ideas, facts, science, knowledge, understanding, and the actions/reactions to them. Most of the time, because there are some threads which are more geared towards feelings, and are clearly identified as such.

I don't mean to ramble, but part of science is to be complete and have everyone understanding what is going on. There is no special brotherhood, secret societies, or inner circle -- everything is out in the open and available for everyone to learn and know, test and evaluate, and repeat.

So, ADH, we wish you well, and hope that your journey allows you to interact with us and have everyone benefit from the experience.

Other Comments by gr8hands

45. Comment #93840 by happyatheist on December 4, 2007 at 9:43 am

ADH...people are people...whether atheist or theist/other...and anyone can be be rude OR civil...esp. on the 'net. I suspect most people who come to this website do so out of a sense of community...where like-minded people tend to gather (and even like-minded people don't agree on everything set in front of them). :) You may find some comments (or posters) rude...but so what? Most people don't come here for a lesson on manners. LOL! I'm sure the same thing happens when an atheist visits a religious website to comment. Bruised feelings are a minor risk one takes for the sake of open communication. Not many words or comments will be sugar-coated to spare the sensitive hurt feelings. Some things are said a certain way for emphasis and not solely to take jabs at religion. But then again...some things ARE said mainly to take jabs at religion. LOL! But so what? Like others here have said...stand your ground. Just be prepared for whatever comes your way....whether rude OR civil. If the heat gets to be too much for you, you can always get outta the kitchen. :)

Other Comments by happyatheist

46. Comment #93864 by walk on December 4, 2007 at 10:54 am

Most of the above posts are treating ADH as a newcomer. ADH has participated in a number threads here (just click on "other comments by ADH" for three pages of them), so he's well aware that theists are treated with respect here unless they demonstrate some of the above mentioned behaviors. As I remember ADH's posts are usually well spoken, polite and intelligent.

Other Comments by walk

47. Comment #93867 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 11:00 am

what's the matter, ADH?
Lacking enough negative attention in the real world these days?

I am sorry, but I consider this trolling, and I have marked it so.

Other Comments by steve99

48. Comment #93882 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 11:42 am

LOL!
ADH is a christian, I'm calling him on motive (again, based on the interaction I've had with him previously and his zoo cages comment), and I'm the troll? That's rich!
ADH must be SO amused!

http://www.studiodog.com/web-jargon.html

Troll: A troll is a user of a newsgroup, forum or message board that posts messages with the intent of inciting an argument or flame-war.

Other Comments by steve99

49. Comment #93883 by bluebird on December 4, 2007 at 11:42 am

'Morning Joe' Scarborough is not my cup of tea; however, it was nice to hear what C.H. had to say.

The female co-host's chortling aside, I agree with her musings of "what a voice!; 'Portable Atheist' will make a good holiday gift and stocking stuffer!".

Incidentally, 'Sympathy for the Devil' was also the title for Time Magazine's article about 'The Golden Compass'/Phil Pullman.

Other Comments by bluebird

50. Comment #93896 by tieInterceptor on December 4, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Nice interview, very nice indeed, they should all be like this. Polite but definitely clear.

Hitchens owns as usual.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor