Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Print | Comments |

The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Future Forum, Christopher Hitchens

Click here for the WMP video file. Download the free Windows Media Player Here.

:

Thanks to Arthur Pensky for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.lbjfutureforum.org/events/events_details.cfm?ID=110

A Debate on Religion and Politics May 14, 2007, 7:00 p.m.

On Monday, May 14, the Future Forum will host a debate on religion and politics between Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky. Evan Smith, Editor of Texas Monthly, will moderate the discussion. A reception will follow. During the reception, both speakers will be available to sign copies of books purchased at the LBJ Museum Store. Please join us for what promises to be a thought-provoking - perhaps even controversial - evening!

Hitchens writes for Slate and The Daily Mirror and is a contributing editor to The Atlantic Monthly and to Vanity Fair. Additionally, he contributes to such publications as The London Review of Books, Harper's, The Los Angeles Times Book Review, New Left Review, Newsweek International, The New York Observer, The New York Times Book Review, The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Weekly Standard. Hitchens has been a visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Pittsburgh, and the New School of Social Research. Copies of Hitchens latest book,God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, will be sold at the event.

Before joining The University of Texas faculty as a professor of journalism in 1983, Olasky worked as a reporter for the Bend, Oregon, Bulletin and for the Boston Globe, and as an executive speech writer and public affairs coordinator at the DuPont Co. He is also editor-in-chief of World magazine, the fourth most-read newsweekly in the United States, and a syndicated columnist. He is a senior fellow of the Wilberforce Forum and of the Action Institute, an elder in the Presbyterian Church of America, a board member of City School, and faculty adviser for Reformed University Fellowship. Olasky is the author of 14 books, including The Religions Next Door, Compassionate Conservatism, The American Leadership Tradition, and Central Ideas in the Development of American Journalism, along with 14 other monographs or co-authored books. He has published more than 800 articles on journalism, history, the fight against poverty, religion, sports and other matters. Copies of his books Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon and The Politics of Disaster: Katrina, Big Government, and New Strategies for Future Crises will be sold at the event.

Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 97 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #49853 by banzaib on June 13, 2007 at 11:45 pm

I wonder how long religious moderates will keep lining up to be embarrassed in these debates. Whether it's Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris debating with the faithful�the faithful never fair well. In a way, I'd like the faithful to do better just so it could be more interesting. If they haven't been able to perform by now I don't think it's going to happen.
This shows so clearly how little it takes to let the air out of a balloon that is already basically empty. It also seems to support the notion that these faiths have only been able to exist through protective shields. Violence and threats of it in this world and the next have been effective but have lost their viability in the moderate world. Silence and "respect" have been the replacements. What a breath of fresh air to see these begin to be eroded in our public discourse. I hope it lasts.

Other Comments by banzaib

2. Comment #49854 by Michael P. on June 14, 2007 at 12:01 am

I'm watching this right now (Olasky is yapping, so I can divert my attention away) Olasky was definitely right on one point: Hitch wipes the floor with him. Banzalb, you mentioned letting "the air out of a balloon"; I think Olasky gave him the pin.

It's almost not fair, and I'd love to see Hitch going up a stronger opponent. I'd pay hard cash to see him debate a nut like Bob Enyart.

Other Comments by Michael P.

3. Comment #49856 by jwoodcould on June 14, 2007 at 12:07 am

The fundie was completely out of his league. He even went so far as to justify the jewish led genocide of various tribes in the middle east on basis that the already present tribes were "the terrorists" of their times. I half expected Hitchens to say, "At this point you are talking completely out of your ass." He was too kind to the segmented being beside him.

Hitchen's rebuttal of Pascal's wager never gets old either.

Other Comments by jwoodcould

4. Comment #49857 by flashbaby on June 14, 2007 at 12:11 am

I'm watching this too and the argument against Hitchens boils down to: God does not poison everything. The god botherer points to one or two examples of good religious people and that's it. So lame and misses the point, a poisoned well may not kill everyone who drinks from it but it is still a poisoned well.

Other Comments by flashbaby

5. Comment #49861 by torgosPizza on June 14, 2007 at 12:26 am

I just finished watching it (although I had to skip past the god-believer's comments several times as they became unbearably redundant).. Agreed that this guy was way over his head, and the senator's invocation of Pascal made my jaw drop. Maybe I'm getting too used to hearing these things debunked in quick fashion!

A fantastic video, though, thanks for the submitter for sharing. It was also a nice touch to learn the moderator was also an "unbeliever."

Other Comments by torgosPizza

6. Comment #49872 by Shuggy on June 14, 2007 at 1:42 am

Olasky's argument boils down to "Religious people do good things, therefore religion is good." Sometimes the atheist argument looks like the mirror image of that so we have a stalemate. In fact, we need to argue more clearly that good people would do good anyway, just as bad people do bad anyway, whether religious or not. (And as Stephen Weinberg [sp?] said "but for good people to do bad, that takes religion")

CH did not say "Religion annihilates everything" but "poisons" i.e. taints, a much milder claim.

CH is not a gracious person: he could at least have acknowledged the applause for taking US citizenship.

I like "The ad hominemer the better!"

Other Comments by Shuggy

7. Comment #49875 by GodlessHeathen on June 14, 2007 at 2:00 am

Olasky is mind-numbingly redundant. I give him credit for all those straw men he beat up at the end there, though.

I don't understand why CH didn't nip Olasky's primary misunderstanding. It seems it would have been easier to say "Where so much if not all of the good religions brings can be had with secular morality, why tolerate the profound evil religious dogma brings?"

meh

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

8. Comment #49883 by Liveliest Crib on June 14, 2007 at 2:34 am

The fundie was completely out of his league. He even went so far as to justify the jewish led genocide of various tribes in the middle east on basis that the already present tribes were "the terrorists" of their times. I half expected Hitchens to say, "At this point you are talking completely out of your ass."

Heh, I actually thought that that argument, despite its absurdity, could mark Olasky's one moment of rhetorical skill -- simply because it could have trapped Hitchens into defending his unapologetic stances vis-a-vis those religious people with whom he wants war. Olasky could have gotten Hitchens to contradict himself if he played it right. It still would have been rather difficult to trap Hitchens that way, but he could have used that angle.

But this Olasky guy was just loopy. So little of what he said made any sense. Rarely do I listen to one of these programs and actally blurt out loud, "What?!?!?!" multiple times when I'm alone.

I love how he argues that the Bible isn't about what it so plainly says it is, but insists that merely the title of Hitchens' book must be taken as strictly and literally as possible. I half expected Olasky to say, "Religion poisons everything? Really, Hitch? Everything? Does it poison the soap in my bathroom? Does is poison the corn flakes I eat in the morning? These things seem unaffected by religion."

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

9. Comment #49886 by gcdavis on June 14, 2007 at 2:47 am

That was on of the best performances on any subject that I have ever seen... and Hitch was good as well. No seriously without notes, Hitch is an orator second to none. I am glad he has become a US citizen as it might give him a bit more street cred "over there".

It is always frustrating that the religious apologists never confront or even debate the arguments presented, Olasky was an exceptionally poor opponent. 10 : 0 to Hitch.

Other Comments by gcdavis

10. Comment #49887 by GodlessHeathen on June 14, 2007 at 2:50 am

I love how he argues that the Bible isn't about what it so plainly says it is, but insists that merely the title of Hitchens' book must be taken as strictly and literally as possible. I half expected Olasky to say, "Religion poisons everything? Really, Hitch? Everything? Does it poison the soap in my bathroom? Does is poison the corn flakes I eat in the morning? These things seem unaffected by religion."

Didn't he? He mentioned some troubled children being brought food by some Christian charity and they ate it and failed to drop dead, didn't he?

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

11. Comment #49892 by The Wee Flea on June 14, 2007 at 3:14 am

Whenever a debate is put on this site can I suggest that the standard responses are just posted up. It would save people time.

I actually thought it was a resonable debate and that Olasky spoke well. Hitchins is of course an excellent debater and orator. But I found his arguments very unimpressive.

A couple of other points -

flashbaby - a poisoned well does poison everyone. It does not pick and choose who to poison.

And whilst it is suggested that Olasky spends a great deal of time pointing out the good that religious people do, I think it is only fair to point out that Hitchens book (which I am half way through) although entitled 'God is not Great' is actually not about God at all, but about all the evil that some religious people do. Olasky is only responding in kind.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

12. Comment #49896 by rnewson on June 14, 2007 at 3:29 am

For those using Linux, you can save the whole stream to a file using mplayer:

mplayer http://128.83.78.9/media/futureforum/Hitchins-Olasky.wmv -cache 16384 -dumpstream -dumpfile Hitchins-Olasky.asf

Other Comments by rnewson

13. Comment #49897 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 3:30 am

I'm glad I got in before someone mentions "drunk" or "slurring" or "rehab."

Who'd be up for some variation of Godwin's Law (it is Godwin, right)? The first person to mention Hitchen's drinking (if it does not fit the context, and if he's not actually slurring, something he gets accused of but never does) if someone mentions booze out of context then... Well, I don't know. Maybe they have to write "I will not bring up Hitchen's drinking out of context" 100 times on the board?

Ideas?

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

14. Comment #49900 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 3:33 am

"He is also editor-in-chief of World magazine, the fourth most-read newsweekly in the United States."

What the hell is that?

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

15. Comment #49902 by doodinthemood on June 14, 2007 at 3:37 am

That's the first American I've ever heard say "Y'all"...

Other Comments by doodinthemood

16. Comment #49904 by Logicel on June 14, 2007 at 3:50 am

Excellent debate. While Olasky was stating the positive actions of Christians of which he personally knows, I was wondering how Hitchens could respond without appearing to be a lout. And Hitchens did not disappoint by emphasizing that religion is superfluous to good deeds.

Some phrases of Hitchens which I particularly appreciated were:

Wonderful faith-based nightmare (regarding the situation in Uganda/Sudan.)

necromancy (describing the North Korean government)

Mr. Jefferson, build that wall. (referring to the separation of state and religion)

I also really appreciate the way Hitchens handles how religion unjustly and unfairly regards women, especially their sexuality. His voice usually booms magnificently when describing the religious delegating of females to semi/non-human status.

Olasky is undoubtedly one of the good Christians, one who can use the religion to his advantage, or thinks he is using the religion that way. However, it always is a disappointment when such a good person starts stating his non-evidential beliefs concerning original sin and salvation via crucifixion. He then appears quite unreasonable at that moment.

Liveliest Crib, nice post and great point about how Olasky could have trapped Hitchens.

Other Comments by Logicel

17. Comment #49905 by Logicel on June 14, 2007 at 3:58 am

Regarding Hitchens not verbally responding to the applause of his becoming an American citizen, he was born and raised in Britain, after all, and can be a bit reserved in the regard of accepting compliments, or maybe I am just talking out of my hat. However, his facial expression showed clear pleasure at the applause.

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #49906 by Logicel on June 14, 2007 at 4:01 am

13. Comment #49897 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 3:30 am
I'm glad I got in before someone mentions "drunk" or "slurring" or "rehab."
_______

So true. But the other jab that can be relied upon to be unfailingly hurled at Hitchens, is his support for the Iraq War. And he was called upon that during the question-and-answer period. His response was right on the mark--that for him, the Iraq War is a war against religion, and therefore, it is more ironic for the religious supporters of the war to be grouped with him instead of the other way around.

Other Comments by Logicel

19. Comment #49907 by CJ22 on June 14, 2007 at 4:10 am

Maybe he's finally cottoned on that while HE thinks it's great to have become a citizen, some of his British audience might feel a slight sense of implied criticism if he makes too big a deal out of it. But Hitchens knows the primary rule of being a foreigner in the US - you don't make any enemies telling Americans how great America is.

Other Comments by CJ22

20. Comment #49908 by Titus on June 14, 2007 at 4:10 am

Another excellent and highly articulate performance from Christopher Hitchens. This site has become, over the last few weeks, a place I visit every day.
This is the first time I've ever joined a forum of any kind and I look forward to future discussions with you guys and girls, whose comments I have come to enjoy hugely. It's gratifying to find a space where rationality and intellect are prized above dogma and blind faith.

Other Comments by Titus

21. Comment #49909 by CJ on June 14, 2007 at 4:18 am

It was such a pleasure to watch a debate where each person got to have their say without being continually shouted down by the other person or a biased interviewer in love with their own voice.

But Olasky is right Religion doesn't poison everything. That would be a statistical impossibility given the number of religions and the number of people practicing them 24/7. Some good will have happened somewhere. This is why Olasky based his argument on that element of the book. He only has to prove one example that runs contra to the strap line and it shoots CH's arguments down. It's a classic example of using arguments about language and its interpretation to rubbish your opponent. I think on balance Olasky failed because CH didn't sink to that level of argument but stuck to his own major point about the damage religious thinking does.

In the UK the strap line for Christopher's book is "The case against Religion", which would appear to be more appropriate.

It was unfortunate that Olasky did get on hit in without CH giving and adequate rebuttal. It was the comment about the origin of life and the construction of proteins. It was a sham RD wasn't there to field that one; it would have been another floor mopping job.

Other Comments by CJ

22. Comment #49910 by BMMcArdle on June 14, 2007 at 4:20 am

Hitchens is wearing the American flag on the lapel of his jacket.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

23. Comment #49913 by Titus on June 14, 2007 at 4:33 am

On the contrary, I'm inclined to agree with CH that religion does poison everything. There is no doubt that those who are religiously motivated can do 'good things', but it's the religious motivation that taints their actions. To paraphrase RD, to do something good only because you fear the consequences of not doing it, is a pretty shabby kind of morality.
Olasky was quick to point out in defence of religion all the cases he could muster of members of the christian church doing good works, but at what price to the beneficiaries of those charitable actions?
I would be prepared to bet a substantial sum that every one of those people is evangelising to those they are purporting to help.

Other Comments by Titus

24. Comment #49914 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 4:34 am

Logicel said: So true. But the other jab that can be relied upon to be unfailingly hurled at Hitchens, is his support for the Iraq War.

Yeah, I think that's a jab that's worth hurling, though. But the first posts here about Hitchens were almost entirely about his Iraq position (zzzz) and sounded like "How dare Warmonger Hitchens get a post on this site?"

But have you noticed that as people watch and listen to his interviews/debates (and presumably read his book) they realize there's a lot more to him than what he thought or thinks about Iraq. One guy, can't remember who, said in an early post something like "I used to detest him because of Iraq, but after listening to him, I like him, and even get some of his points on Iraq now." I thought that was pretty big of that poster to say. (I'm not prepared to go that far, although the modified tune he's singing these days makes more sense to me. Maybe I just went that far.)

TITUS: Right on.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

25. Comment #49915 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 4:37 am

Hitchens is wearing the American flag on the lapel of his jacket.

Good for him. He alternates it with a Kurdish one. I'd bet he's worn a Palestinian one too.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

26. Comment #49918 by banzaib on June 14, 2007 at 5:04 am

Olasky resembled Al Sharpton in this debate since neither one of them spent much time off just the cover of Hitchen's book. Olasky tries to make the point that since religious people at times do altruistic things, religion therefore does not "poison everything."
The problem is that the discussion then moves to altruism and there is a strong case that our altruistic tendencies do not have a religious origin. If that is indeed the case, falsely attributing them to religion is a form of poisoning.
The notion that we are inherently bad and need to be rescued by religion needs the same treatment as putting faith on a pedestal.
We have entertained enough false shame and guilt to last an eternity...no more of this nonsense.

Other Comments by banzaib

27. Comment #49921 by Skeptic Jim on June 14, 2007 at 5:25 am

I've seen better and quicker debunkings of Pascal's Wager. I can't believe people still consider that ridiculous argument. That guy claims to never have heard a good answer to pascal's wager??? He obviously has never typed those words into a search engine.

Pascal's wager is a false dilemma. It assumes the choices are only the hole in the ground or the christian afterlife. What about all the religions that claim christians are going to have an unpleasant afterlife? For that matter, what about all the subsections of christianity who believe that all of the other christian sub-sections are going to hell?

Pascal's wager assumes one can lie to an omniscient being and pretend to believe or that they can make a conscious decision to change and all of a sudden believe the opposite to what they currently believe.

It's a ridiculous argument and there is no excuse for anyone to fall for it in this day and age.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

28. Comment #49922 by jaytee_555 on June 14, 2007 at 5:36 am

"Olasky.....could have trapped Hitchens into defending his unapologetic stances vis-a-vis those religious people with whom he wants war. Olasky could have gotten Hitchens to contradict himself if he played it right."

All Hitchens would have needed to do would have been to point out that Moses was the agressor and the 'Bin Laden' figure in that situation. In any case, Olasky could not have denied that God instructed Moses to kill everything, except of course, the virgins. A god who instructs anyone to do that is either a god one should avoid like the plague, or a man-made excuse to rape.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

29. Comment #49924 by konquererz on June 14, 2007 at 5:51 am

This was an unfair debate. Really, Hitch is so much stronger in debates than this clown. He really outclassed his opponent. He was right of course, but it was like watching an adult wipe a child in basketball, it held no interest.

Other Comments by konquererz

30. Comment #49929 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 6:22 am

25 mins in Olasky challenges hitchens assumption that the 9/11 hijackers werent the the most devout people on the planes. Aside from the possibility that hitchens was wrong (and maybe he was, but how do you measure devoutness anyway?) im not sure why olasky even made this comment, yes, one of those moments where you say 'EHHHH???' maybe he was suggesting that there were more devout poeple on that plane who werent trying to fly it into a building. What hitchens suggests is that if you do fly yourself into a building then you are very devout, not that all devout people fly into buildings by choice.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

31. Comment #49931 by donny on June 14, 2007 at 6:27 am

Having read Christopher Hitchens book and just finished watching the debate it seems to me that Olasky has missed the entire point. By continuously sprouting the "Religion poisons everything" line he is dodging the main argument. (At one point he even misquotes by saying "Christianity" poisons everything). He could reel off a telephone book full of people who do good deeds for others and claim to have done so because they are religious, this still would not validate his argument. Do they require religious belief in order to carry out these good deeds - I think not - shame on them if they do.

Other Comments by donny

32. Comment #49933 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 6:31 am

so the good samaritans who olasky mentions wouldnt have done their good deeds without religion????? so they are only doing the good deeds for a ticket to paradise???? heck and the guy whos to set up an orphanage in africa had to pray to make that decision, admittedly i am not doing that good deed but if i wanted to i certainly wouldnt need to pray to make a decision over it. Perhaps the misconception here by olasky is that maybe just maybe the good deeds done by christians in his examples may not have done them without beliefs, well maybe they would!! He seems to have less faith in people than I do. its as nonsensical as saying when i do volunteer work i do it because I DONT believe.

edit: whoops donny you beat me to it, and i amost said shame on them too!!!!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

33. Comment #49936 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 6:56 am

olasky describes the origin of free journalism and then suggests that in the past the truth was supressed and that if the (real) truth were revealed it might make the king look bad and youd end up in jail. he also says that people were more likey to believe things that were true. hmmmmmm...............

Other Comments by phasmagigas

34. Comment #49937 by Rtambree on June 14, 2007 at 7:16 am

Hitchens in London - June 19th at Garrick Theatre (part of Hay Festival).

If any Londoners on this site are going to see the God is not Great book launch and Hitchens conversation with Ian McEwan next week, and want to meet up first, send me a PM. It commences at 6pm.

Other Comments by Rtambree

35. Comment #49938 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 7:24 am

he (olasky) quotes the possibility of a 20 amino acid protein spontaneously forming to be an impossibility, now unless im mistaken thats exactly what evolutionary theory also would predict. Im guessing that this quote is taken totally out of context???? olasky starts to sound like a frothing nutcase into his second stint, miracles are easy (but rare and unproven), actually i would suggest that a 20 amino acid protein forming spontaneously is infinitely more likey than a whole dead body spontaneously reconfiguring its pre death atomic configuration and becoming functional again, these two events are incomparable by massive orders of magnitude.

olasky also suggests the faith/charity go hand in hand, well if 95% of the US population are faithful it would be quite a suprise if it didnt, maybe its people/charity go hand in hand.

On his failed marriage as an atheist, talk about a massive non sequiter (which he does see himself)(edit, whoops, a poor correlation, not a non sequiter), for starters a guy in his early 20's is quite a different mammal than when he is older. As others have suggested it would be great to have somebody who could really add some welly to the graet debate, the more olasky talks the more I can see him fit for a show like oprah talking grace, sin, and love. hmm and as for atheism poisoning things, im not sure about that, how many wicked things are done because one doesnt believe in a god, its like saying how many wicked things are done because you dont believe in dryads.

the most drippy icing on olaskys cake must be his remark regarding innoculation at the end. It is ridiculous to compare motives or reasoning of pro/opponents of innoculation so widely separated in time. In 2007 only the most maladaptive mind could consider innoculation to not be a useful thing.

Hitchens certainly gets in the last word, anybody who brings up pascals wager (in support of belief as i suppose this guy did) needs to be held down by 4 people and have is tie very firmly 'peanuted' as is done in UK schools.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

36. Comment #49945 by Linda on June 14, 2007 at 8:01 am

Medecins Sans Frontieres is an excellent example of a organization predicated on helping those in need everywhere without proselytizing.
http://www.msf.org/

Check out Hitchens witty and insightful essay on the woman with the catchy stage name Mother Teresa in which he illustrates how she bilked millions of dollars that never reached the intended victims of poverty. Call me a conspiracy theorist buy my gut tells me that she was most likely Opus Dei (all that sado-masochism seems typical of the cult). Did the money collected as charitable donations go to fund more temples to kinkiness?

http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featpostel_56.htm

Atheists give blood or donate to charities because helping others makes sense from a survival point of view. Canadians & Europeans support the notion of universal health care for the same reasons.

Marvin Olasky and others cite comments from ancient texts as if the proof of god is in the olde thyme tomes where apparently the supernatural talked to illiterate peasants. Come on now fella is that the best you can do? Does he and others who romanticize Bronze Age science fiction ever wonder why the gods don't talk to modern literate people? Why do aliens only abducts hillbillies?
Surely the wicked pope should have god's cell phone number yet again no sign of goodness for goodness sake emanating from the evil Vatican.

On sharing selflessly: In North America United Way Charities support social organizations that run women's shelters etc. They are predicated on the values of communities supporting those in need. Contributing to any of those agencies is simply common sense for the common good.

It really is tiresome to hear the desperately deluded attacking Atheists for pointing out the obvious then suggesting through ignorance that we do not love or are not loved.
Handing out bibles with bread is IMO dishonest.

I was in NYC recently and quite surprised to find along with the Gideon a Mormon bible in the hotel room. It meant extra work for me as I'd forgotten a glue stick to attach the 'Imagine no Religion' notice but the handy sewing kit provided the tools to stitch the flyer into both books.

Other Comments by Linda

37. Comment #49948 by k1mgy on June 14, 2007 at 8:11 am

I am sorry for the pitiful example of intellectual achievement that Boston has turned out in Dr. Olasky. Fortunately I did not have to suffer through his lectures. Evidence his whining, and the repetitive and pitifully weak arguments. I would have failed his class but made quite a splash.

It's a good thing he didn't pull that self-righteous marriage shit on me (his remark about how, since "converting", his marriage has been divine. I'm surprised Hitchens stayed in his chair over that one.

It's a wonder Olasky heads up a publication or stands with any credibility whatsoever. He likely left the hall feeling a sting of deserved abuse which only amplifies the belief system for martyrdom is a foundation of the creed. The more they are whipped, the more right they become. Suffer, suffer, suffer all those who approach life irrationally, for theirs is the "kingdom" of god.

If these weaklings seek out the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and others, maybe they're just needing a little more abuse and "persecution" to further embed their belief system?

Well, enjoy it.

But I wonder if Hitchens and others have considered that these debates, although certainly putting the atheist message out there, serve to add fuel to the Haggardist's flame.

Other Comments by k1mgy

38. Comment #49951 by captain underpants on June 14, 2007 at 8:30 am

Olasky asserts that "faith and charity go hand in hand". Examples of charity without faith abound. There is also, alas, a great abundance of examples of faith without charity.

Other Comments by captain underpants

39. Comment #49953 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 14, 2007 at 8:33 am

I wish I could praise Hitchens without typing a disclaimer for the Iraq question but anyone who has read chapter three of Hitchens' "Letters to a Young Contrarian" knows that they should not let this tendency bother them in the slightest.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

40. Comment #49955 by tieInterceptor on June 14, 2007 at 8:45 am

12. Comment #49896 by rnewson on June 14, 2007 at 3:29 am
For those using Linux, you can save the whole stream to a file using mplayer:

mplayer http://128.83.78.9/media/futureforum/Hitchins-Olasky.wmv -cache 16384 -dumpstream -dumpfile Hitchins-Olasky.asf

Thanks for that, I was looking for a way of dumping a streaming file for while,
I had to cache the entire clip to see it and be able to rewind... downside is once close you got to cache it again. So thanks for that command line.

I wish Hitchens would had been more aggressive in answering some of the silly remarks he had to hear, the boring list of good deeds that some people do as a christian..... stuff that has been answered so many times, it's tiresome.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

41. Comment #49957 by severalspeciesof on June 14, 2007 at 9:09 am

I haven't checked yet, (so maybe I shouldn't be posting) but the study of charitable giving that Olasky cites about those of religiuos faith vs, secular, sounds like a rather dubious study. Anyone know more about this? Just wondering.

"What God Wants, God Gets, God Help Us All" R. Waters

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

42. Comment #49958 by wendelin on June 14, 2007 at 9:11 am

34 minutes into the program:
Eh. Why is Olasky under the impression that TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS are the reason why Hitchens is unaware of all the good that Christians do? He keeps giving directions to all the places where good Christians can be found.. I keep waiting for Hitchens to say, sorry, can you communicate that to my GPS?

Other Comments by wendelin

43. Comment #49959 by Yorker on June 14, 2007 at 9:16 am

Somewhat disappointing. Hitch didn't wipe the floor with Olasky but could have and perhaps should have. He let his opponent off the hook a few times but most noticeably on the evolutionary point, perhaps a few lessons from RD would be beneficial to him. I'm beginning to think Hitch is not quite as smart as I thought he was, but he sure knows how to to curry favour by pandering to American patriotism with his customary white jacket and USA flag lapel pin. I also see symptoms in him that I had, he'd better stop smoking soon.

Finally, nice to see a hassle-free non-Apple, non-Real, high quality WMV file on this site. I don't come here that often now, there may have been more but that was the first I've seen.

Other Comments by Yorker

44. Comment #49961 by wendelin on June 14, 2007 at 9:27 am

54 minutes in:
Now we're hearing... the contents of the Bible? The man has 10 minutes to rebut Hitchens, and he isn't just quoting scripture, he's throwing the whole Book at him!

Other Comments by wendelin

45. Comment #49963 by the great teapot on June 14, 2007 at 9:40 am

Religion doesn't poison everything.
Ok
So it must be true.

Other Comments by the great teapot

46. Comment #49965 by the great teapot on June 14, 2007 at 9:42 am

Holy shit.
The most accurate 2 words I have ever heard.

Other Comments by the great teapot

47. Comment #49967 by Ragnar0kk on June 14, 2007 at 10:03 am

there is an MP3 link on the Future Forum page

http://www.lbjfutureforum.org/events/events_details.cfm?ID=110

(I didnt direct link out of respect, but click on the link then dl the podcast version [188MB])

Hitchens is always welcome! He helps me get through the week :)

Other Comments by Ragnar0kk

48. Comment #49970 by PrimeNumbers on June 14, 2007 at 10:06 am

Rellgion, to me is two things - 1) obeying your elder / leader / pope, and 2) turning off your brain.

If you put those two together, to me, it's pure poison.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

49. Comment #49975 by JesusH on June 14, 2007 at 10:32 am

Olasky's comments about Hitchens anger were completely on the mark.

Lets face it, most atheists, myself included are quite intolerant and hateful against religion in a way that we are not towards types of irrationality.

The only thing that annoys me at all like this is belief in Astrology.

Belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, Elvis sightings etc don't elicit any response at all.

Why do we hate the God concept so much ? And why is it that we don't hate Hindu gods like we hate the Christian and Muslim one ?

If I lived in India would I hate Ganesh above all others and not loath Allah ?

Other Comments by JesusH

50. Comment #49979 by gsgalbreath on June 14, 2007 at 10:46 am

Well, this is my first time on the site, therefore my first post. What an exciting place to have intellectual and stimulating dialogue! Did you notice that Hitchens clapped after Olasky spoke, but Olasky did not clap one time for Hitchens. I think that is interesting.

PrimeNumbers: Right on! Religion is all about being a servant and turning your brain off!

All I can say to Olasky's reponses: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Other Comments by gsgalbreath

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last