1. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52263 by CanRow on June 26, 2007 at 3:34 pm

The point would be another attempt at re-framing of the kind of thing religion is in the minds of those who believe in it. I don't think this was written for the benefit of atheists, but rather, furthers goal of the new atheist movement - to change how the religious perceive religion (i.e. as a phenomenon no different from any other) in hopes that they might find reason to reject it - not to simply be right about something (speaking of childish).

I applaud Sam Harris for his untiring efforts in 'changing the angle of attack', thereby increasing his chances of gaining access to a wider variety of minds. I believe he and Dennett are best at this.

2. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36482 by CanRow on May 1, 2007 at 10:04 am

Hitch hits the mark once more. He has the uncanny ability to summarize exactly the unsound portions of the opposition's argument by revealing the implications of their argument within a true context: Is god the author of the universe or is he not? Who really does oppose free speech when the chips are down? Who was seen flying around a cathedral? lol

And, as others have asked, what was the deal with the fascist crackpot?

Perhaps Hitchens had seen this man before (as his reaction was instantaneous and direct); the man certainly looked like he was attempting to deliver a protest-style message, not simply a question (despite his declared intentions).

And is it just me? Seems like every time Hitchens speaks in public, somebody starts shouting at him or protesting and gets thrown out. Sometimes things have even gotten a little rough. I always love how Hitchens wastes no time in dealing out his own volley of colourful language when faced with the same lol. The guy never backs down, and doesn't pretend to be 'above' this kind of discourse (although admittedly he might save some energy if he simply ignored such transgressions and moved on).