1. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #202860 by UncleJJ on July 2, 2008 at 4:26 am

Another good video from Pat. I look forward to his insightful and well worded monologues, they say clearly what a lot of people (including me) are thinking but don't have the ability to express. Thanks to Pat for being our voice.

2. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #198159 by UncleJJ on June 23, 2008 at 9:39 am

Sad, that we've lost a fellow unbeliever. Let's be thankful he left us a great body of work and some wonderful memories. Few of us can hope to make such a good impression on the world as George did.

3. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

Comment #191080 by UncleJJ on June 10, 2008 at 7:30 am

Haven't we had this posted already elsewhere? Maybe I saw it in the forum...?

Yes, it was posted here on June 3rd entitled "A New Step In Evolution" although they are different articles the subject matter is the same.

However, it's a very interesting development and strong evidence of evolution, as though we didn't have enough already.

4. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190442 by UncleJJ on June 9, 2008 at 5:33 am

Silly old duffer.

Let's hope for everyone's sake that Obama gets elected. I can't face another four years of another rambling incoherent American president. Please America, spare us (the rest of the world) from these nin cum poops that can't string a sentence together.

5. Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible

Comment #185360 by UncleJJ on May 27, 2008 at 3:42 pm

I don't know why we waste our time discussing this load of bronze age fairy stories as though it had any relevance to anything today. What a pity we can't just consign it all to the dustbin and get on with tackling the real problems that real people have rather than this made up drivel. The real world is so much more interesting than this imaginary nonsense.

6. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #178752 by UncleJJ on May 12, 2008 at 2:10 am

A very interesting interview with a fresh set of questions. Probably the most enthralling of RDs interviews in the last few months. I particularly enjoyed Richard's speculation about the likelihood of Artifical Intelligence one day reaching human levels

7. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177808 by UncleJJ on May 9, 2008 at 6:22 pm

How does this silly old duffer know all these things? He's just making stuff up.

8. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175540 by UncleJJ on May 5, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Peacebeuponme: your posts here are irritating and have many discrepancies. Your judgement is severely flawed. I dislike the way you try to besmirch fellow atheists who you disagree with (e.g. your treatment of Rational G) and the way you try to belittle Pat Condell. The arrogant presumption that because you do not appreciate the sophisticated style of humour in Pat's videos Richard Dawkins should not endorse him is particularly telling. RD obviously considered the consequences of an association with Pat Condell before deciding to publish the DVD.

By all means disagree with RD and others but don't then go on to show us how poor your judgement is. Save yourself the embarrassment.

Let's examine just some of your contentions in detail.

Yet here we have Richard describing a fairly average youtube blogger as "unique", "suave", "articulate" and "intelligent"!

Can Pat really be described as "average"? No, absolutely not. He is exceptional in several ways that no other atheist posting videos on Youtube (to take just one website) can claim. Firstly his stats in various categories such as most viewed, most responded, most discussed and so on are exceptional and show the interest he's raised among friend and foe alike. Other bloggers don't begin to get those kind of stats. Many of his videos are without doubt the most popular (amongst atheist sympathisers) or most notorious (among theists sympathisers) and usually reach the top 10 in one category or another. Of all the serious atheist and religious videos posted Pat's are among the most viewed, responded etc. No one is more successful and hence he definitely is not just average. In fact he's "unique" which is the exact word RD uses.

This is even more interesting when you consider that many of Richard's own videos do not do nearly as well, often only gaining something like 10% of what Pat does in terms of views (see the richarddawkinsdotnet account). RD does have a few exceptional viewing figures on silly videos like the one where he was "stumped" by a question. But that was a hoax by creationists. Not that it is any sort of competition anyway but I give these examples just to put things into a context. Pat certainly deserves to be considered among the most prominent of the atheists on Youtube.

I just can't understand why some people voice these concerns about Pat not being worthy of RD's approval. Similar things were said about Christopher Hitchens about a year ago. A significant minority on these boards accused him of hurting our cause, being a loose cannon, being a warmonger and a drunkard and similar unpleasantness. Some of that was due to differences over his stance on the Iraq war. Now with a successful book and series of debates and having shown what an asset he is Hitchens is lauded as one of the most featured and followed on this site. I can only hope that Pat will also gain the approval by similar success although it should never be necessary as he like Christopher is already on our side.

Suave: This is just part of what RD says in his description. What he actually says is "Nobody can match his extraordinary blend of suavity and savagery"
This means Pat has a wide variety of approaches in his arsenal ranging from the suave and subtle gentle points he makes, generously conceding a few benefits religion can bring, to the most severe criticism and bitter sarcasm about its many failings. I agree that Pat is often suave although it's not a word I'd often use.

Articulate: Pat would certainly be called that by any fair-minded person. If anything RD has indulged in the delightful English practice of understatement. Pat is not merely articulate, he's eloquent and erudite, making his points very clearly in fresh and interesting ways. From the quality of his material he is obviously a very good writer as well as an arresting speaker. The plaudits from his many fans saying how well he's expressed their own views clearly shows his ability for communication.

Intelligent: He researches many of his topics diligently and often gives references to other sites that provide adequate background for those viewers who want to understand why he's saying the things he does. Anyone who doubts Pat's obvious intelligence really needs to get their eyes, ears and mind examined. I know prejudice can blind a person to another's attributes but any intelligent and rational person should be able to identify another person with those same attributes. I can clearly see Pat as intelligent and rational as can RD, PZ and many others. I have to wonder why his detractors here can't see that? In which department are they lacking themselves?

You say in post 114

I don't think he is in anyway as sophisticated (or funny; even Hitchens beats him there and he's not trying to be a comedian) as he needs to be and think his pretty simple smug routine would be vulnerable to any decent theist.

Pat gets innumerable comments and video responses. I have yet to see one response from a theist (decent or otherwise) that has had any serious impact on the points Pat makes. They really can't make any headway against his arguments. So instead of making fatuous comments about things you do not understand come up with some evidence for your above accusation. Look at any of Pat's 40 odd videos and the responses (some by theists) and thousands of comments and show where a theist made what Pat said "vulnerable" whatever that means. Given the amount of material you should be able to find something somewhere to back up this negative comment, if it were the least bit true. I would be most interested in what you find. But I doubt you'll find anything, although, hopefully, in your search you'll discover what many of us already know . . . that Pat Condell is a class act.

I'll conclude by reiterating RD's words;
Thank goodness he's on our side!

9. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174060 by UncleJJ on May 1, 2008 at 1:58 pm

It is a good move to publish these monologues by Pat Condell. It's interesting to read what RD and PZ have written about Pat and their opinions are ones I heartily agree with. I have been subscribed to Pat's Youtube channel for a year or so and eagerly await each of his regular releases which seem to come at about 2 weekly intervals. His criticisms of religion are some of the most potent I've seen online and far surpass a few comments by the likes of George Carlin in one stand up routine (excellent though that was)

I have been surprised in the past that so many people here have negative opinions of Pat's work. His videos have been featured several times and attract a significant split in opinion between those in favour of his approach and those opposed. Steve Zara never fails to remind us of his doubts and dislikes. Yet for many people Pat's work is some of the best written and presented of the video blogs in the atheist online community. Some people say they don't find his work funny and I agree it doesn't induce belly laughs but it is incredibly witty and that is a sort of intellectual humour that I like. I'm just sorry that so many people can't appreciate the high standard of his work.

10. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163223 by UncleJJ on April 18, 2008 at 4:35 am

Great satire, well done. This nonsense expounded in Expelled can only be answered by ridicule, trying to argue rationally is a waste of breath.

11. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130643 by UncleJJ on February 21, 2008 at 4:15 am

Fascinating discussion between two great men. Lots of interesting ideas.

If you want to see more of Craig Ventner find the recent 2007 Dimbleby lecture on Google video or Youtube.

12. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129756 by UncleJJ on February 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm

I am appalled. This is just evil. So called Christian parents treating their children this way and ruining their young lives is wickedness. I am surprised other moderate Christians do not condemn them. And what are social services doing about this exploitation of children by their parents?

13. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126793 by UncleJJ on February 14, 2008 at 8:31 am

Philip1978 post 162

Muslims have got to learn that getting all riled up like this will just continue to show that Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of hate and hypocrisy.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is so right when she asked where are all the Islamic moderates condemning this sort of behaviour? Why dont they push these idiots into a corner, convince them that this is not the will of Allah or something trite like that? Because its religion, you can't have blasphemy - Allah will be offended- why the heck doesn't Allah sort it out then?

I agree with you; but I guess the reason muslim moderates do not criticise extremists is primarily fear. It is not at all like a christian condemning other christians whose actions they disagree with. In the Muslim world moderates feel threatened and much of Al Queda's violence is against other muslims.

14. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #126765 by UncleJJ on February 14, 2008 at 7:37 am

mmurray post 113

It would be interesting if some big pharma company discovered a drug which if you took from birth gave you another 50 years of healthy living. Would we take it ?

Without sideffects and if it was affordable? Then yes, I would take it. As an athiest I have no urge to die soon.

15. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #126374 by UncleJJ on February 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

mmurray:

I was reacting to the comments above that Maher doesn't believe in the germ theory of disease. I think that is dismissing modern medicine.

No one has shown where Bill Maher has denied the theory of germs. He is merely sceptical of some of modern medical practices not dismissing it entirely. That is a vast exaggeration of his position.

I agree there are problems with Big Pharma and their desire to make everything a disease they can sell a drug for but there are also serious unanswered questions about what needs treating.

I think this is his basic position regarding modern medicine. Big Pharma, particularly in the US, is motivated too strongly by the profit motive and its pronouncements have to be viewed sceptically.

16. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125642 by UncleJJ on February 11, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Bill Maher is an amusing guy who is on our side in the religous debate and we should be glad to have someone as talented and influential as him helping us make our case. The fears expressed here about his attitude to medicines seem overblown to me.

From what I saw on the recent show, he has reservations about the over prescription of medicines and he also mentions drugs fed to animals and hence in the food chain, he is just very sceptical about what the drug companies and government agencies are telling us. He is aware of their motives in telling us it is safe to consume food laced with growth hormones and antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides ... basically it is all driven by a profit motive. The same applies to many prescrition drugs given for ailments that aren't serious. He is sceptical about that just as he is with regard to politicians. I have a similar outlook after BSE and other food scares in the UK.

It seems he believes in maintaining a healthy immune system and avoiding drugs except when absolutely necessary. What is wrong with that? I didn't hear him mention vacination at all so I don't know where his supposed opposition to that sprang from. He didn't deny germs theory. Some people seem to be hyper critical without good reason.

17. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124723 by UncleJJ on February 10, 2008 at 6:06 am

I watched the full length debate. Hitchens won by a mile and it followed the same course that these debates inevitably take. Hitchens opens with his wonderful oratory as to why there is no evidence for any gods and why we as humans would have invented them. This time he got it as close to perfection as I've seen (I've watched this argument about 10 times, I guess) Truely a wonderful 15 minutes of entertaining rational argument. Watch that first 20 mins even if you give the rest a miss.

Then came the Rabbi who had no evidence and no argument so he tried to pick holes in his opponent and in Hitchens book the God Delusion. He made several accusations that I can't entirely remember but Hitchens disposed of them. Later the Rabbi made and repeated a stupid claim that Steven J Gould did not believe in evolution. He was completely unconvincing and said nothing of interest. Hitchens even accuses him of "White Noise" at the end.

18. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122894 by UncleJJ on February 6, 2008 at 9:01 am

Good debate with a worthwhile opponent. The best debate I've seen with Hitchens and a Xtian. I have heard it all before of course but I can't get enough of it.

Here are a couple of other Hitchens interviews which I only recently became aware of. Thanks to PiroNiro

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M7O64Swypkw

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J4RFoBJRkOg
(1 of 3 totalling nearly 30 mins)

19. Sprinting down the evolutionary highway

Comment #121834 by UncleJJ on February 4, 2008 at 8:13 am

Steve Zara:
"Not necessarily. Mutation alone is not evolution. There as to be selection pressure."

Yes, I know that Steve. I never said it was.

The point I was trying to make was about the rate of mutation which is part of the evolution of humans. The article mentions 1800 genes or 7% of the genome, have changed in the last 5000 years and says this is 100 times faster than at any other period in human history. Since we now have many more humans alive today, and so many more children are being born, I would expect there to be a higher rate of generation of mutations (per year) assuming a constant rate of mutations per birth. Although I wonder if the rate is constant given the various chemicals we have released into the environment in recent years. Will any of those have a significant effect on the mutation rate per birth?

Of course those mutations will still take many generations to spread through the population, if they do at all, so the gene pool as a whole will not be much altered just diversified by the new mutations. In fact since humans (in the Western societies at least) are having less children per generation and are tending to have those children later in life we could expect the spread of mutations to be slower than in ancient times.

Note I've not said anything about natural selection and its impact on the evolution of humans, although that undoubtably occurs even if masked or altered by our society and medical advances.

So without going into a very complex subject like this in much detail, and I'm no expert, I would expect a greatly increased rate of mutation (roughly in proportion to global births per year) but a slower spread of those mutations. What those two effects do to human evolution is hard to tell.

20. Sprinting down the evolutionary highway

Comment #121755 by UncleJJ on February 4, 2008 at 4:42 am

But yanco; surely the rate of generation of mutations to the genome must be proportional to the human population, or more accurately to the number of children born per year Far more children are born today than in previous times and so the rate of evolution should increase (assuming some average rate of mutation per birth).

Modern societies and their welfare systems will keep many of these mutations alive and in the gene pool long enough to pass on to future generations. So in that sense the rate of evolution should increase.

21. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120587 by UncleJJ on February 2, 2008 at 4:37 am

A comprehensive victory for PZ, Simmons was trounced. A sound spanking for creationist nonsense.

22. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117952 by UncleJJ on January 30, 2008 at 3:59 am

This debate was so much better than the other one with Nicky Cambell in the chair. Many people made meaningful contributions and included Barry Sheerman (whom I have great respect for after this performance), the rabbi, the hindu and sihk gentlemen and the two RE teachers seated at the backrow. The ex-muslim lady was especially impressive.

RD was his inimitable self and made several powerful points, the abuse of children by labelling them with their parent's religion and the penalty for apostasy in Islam is death (eventually after a determined pursuit). Also religous principles and scripture are not a good basis for morals. Jonathan Dimbleby was a superb chairman, lightyears ahead of Nicky Cambell in the other "debate".

23. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117574 by UncleJJ on January 29, 2008 at 6:19 am

Post #102 by Cartomancer is the best explanation I've ever seen of the relationship between Stalin's atheism and his anti-clericism. An entirely convincing explanation of why certain atheists (Stalin, Mao etc.) and certain theists (Martin Luther, Henry VIII, Mohammed) were anti-clerical. It was simply a way to replace the existing power structures with their own. Thanks Cartomancer

24. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117545 by UncleJJ on January 29, 2008 at 4:55 am

Typical "Christian" response to criticism: prepared to tell any lies and misrepresent his opponents in the name of his god. What happened to the virtue of honesty?

25. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117172 by UncleJJ on January 28, 2008 at 11:22 am

Excellent article, I read it through twice and enjoyed it both times.

26. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #110141 by UncleJJ on January 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Steve Zara and Styrer: we have to agree to differ then. I think it is useless to engage most irrational people in rational debate, it only dignifies their position. After they've agreed to every one of our rational points they revert back to their faith position based on a holy book. Please remember they are not like you or I and everyone on this site, able to be persuaded by rational argument on this subject. They have faith.

Of course there is not just one tactic we should use, some (a minority) will be amenable to persuasion, facts and rational discussion and some (another minority) will be swayed by humour. Maybe it is a two stage process for some people, the humour sows doubt and the rational discussion seals the deal. I don't pretend to know for sure but I strongly suspect that humour will aid our cause more than rational argument.

27. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #110028 by UncleJJ on January 10, 2008 at 10:36 am

This went well I'd say, and on several levels. Firstly it shows RD in a very human light (suffering from a cold) and able to chuckle at M Brigstocke's whacky humour. RD got to make some good points to a sympathetic audience in a light hearted way while MB exposed the harder edge (like the Hitchen's quote against Falwell). Secondly RD got to promote the big red A t-shirts and the Xmas version of TGD.

On a deeper level I think this sort of thing is important. I strongly suspect we are going to win this battle of ideas by ridicule rather than rational arguement. It is going to be comdedians like Ricky Gervais, Pat Condell, Bill Maher, George Carlin and Marcus Brigstocke all ridiculing the absurdities of religion and not intelligent arguement from our 4 Horsemen that sway most people. You win battles against the irrational by making them feel stupid not by logic and reason that they can ignore.

The thing is religous people want to be taken seriously and they want their ideas treated with respect. That's why most US politicians profess to believe in that tosh, basically they have to to get elected. If comedians make good jokes about religions and religious people and expose the absurdities then most people will find it very hard to believe and embarassed to admit it even if they do. Politicians won't want to pretend to be religious anymore and have themselves look foolish.

So well done RD for exposing yourself to MB whacky humour and helping the cause. This site should promote the humourous side to aetheism, in a lighthearted way, which of course means jokes about religion.

For those who haven't seen it yet here is perhaps the best and most comprehensive anti religous comedic performance ever, by George Carlin in Religion is bullshit... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

a classic

28. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109151 by UncleJJ on January 8, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Classic Pat Condell :)

I like the bit where he exposes Pat Robertson's false prediction of a serious terrorist attack in late 2007. God talks to Pat Robertson and either God can't predict the future or tells him lies.

29. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104929 by UncleJJ on December 30, 2007 at 4:00 am

An interesting perspective by the Bishop. I have just one comment for now

[quote]
A Secular Age. How far are we living on moral capital?
[/quote]

He seems to assume that Christianity has somehow invented and given us something unique and irreplaceable in our morals. That is argueable; as most "christian morals" were borrowed from other religions and from the various Hellenistic philosophies that were prevalent in the Late Roman Empire when Christianity was invented. Even with the demise of Chritianity we have no reason to fear some moral collapse as the Bishop and D'Souza have suggested once the "moral capital" runs out. We are just as capable as the ancients were in modifying our morals to deal with social and technological changes and we will have the advantage of not being tied to a moral code in some Holy book which had been written for another age in human history and for a different society.

30. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102541 by UncleJJ on December 23, 2007 at 7:18 am

Another wonderful tour-de-force from Hitchens. He makes such a good read and advances a powerful theory about one of the causes for the rise of Christianity. Other causes concern the cynical politicing in the Roman Empire several centuries later spreading a religion no one (in the political class) believed in.

If only the Selucids had suppressed the Maccabean revolt then rational thought would have prevailed, none of this would ever have happened, and the world would be such a better place ...

31. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100683 by UncleJJ on December 19, 2007 at 5:33 am

These christian twits don't know how to handle this admission by RD. Despite their ad hominen attacks and attempts to ridicule RD most people will see through their weak arguments. I guess the sort of people who actually listen to a radio show like this are hard and fast Christians and will agree with the twits. But anyone with a smidgeon of doubt (hence we could possibly reach) will recognise RDs accusation that it is all a fiction and why shouldn't he enjoy the festivities along with everyone else. RD enjoys a good story as much as the next man. He is concerned for the Christian heritage and culture and vows to keep it intact. That will win many to our side. I really think these guys find it difficult to handle RDs revelation.

32. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100669 by UncleJJ on December 19, 2007 at 4:52 am

Jeremy Vine is a good interviewer and this was a very useful step forward with our agenda. He gave RD the opportunity to rebut the charges of his hypocrisy and make the very telling point that carols are a bit of harmless fun and the Christmas story is just a fiction. RD got to repeat his statement several times and in different ways that it is just a fiction and why shouldn't he enjoy it as any other fiction. They are telling body blows that I'm sure will make a great impression with many people in Britain who count themselves as "christians" but who certainly don't agree with all the dogma.

RD is playing a clever game here showing that he is not a fundementalist and not a kill joy. Calling himself a cultural christian is a very good move. Saying the underlying story a fiction is a powerful criticism that simultaneously disarms the Christian expectation to be treated with special reverence and allows him to appreciate the great works of art (music, poetry and architecture) Christianity has inspired. I liked the way Richard made the point that many people attending churches are probably "Cultural Christians" and so any head counts of church attendances (already very low in Britain) have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I think we'll look back on this interview as one of the most useful RD has made in his effort to promote our cause. In Britain and with the BBC at least. A pity it can't be spread wider although hopefully it will get picked up by other news media abroad - as an apparent hypocrisy on RD's part - and give him the opportunity to whack another soft pitch out of the stadium.

33. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81332 by UncleJJ on October 24, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I agree with Comment #81250 by Mr DArcy, Hitchens did well in this debate and nothing like as badly as the report in the other thread suggested. D'Sousa certainly didn't win anything here although he did perform well and put his case better than any other religious speaker versus Hitchens, it's just a hollow case that makes no sense.

D'Sousa is an eloquent debater, and had done his homework on his opponent with several well prepared jokes and surprises. Hitchens is much better natural speaker and has much more powerful arguments. Considering where this debate took place and who the audience mostly were, Hitchens did a good job and sowed doubt among previous believers.

34. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68661 by UncleJJ on September 8, 2007 at 3:19 am

It was far too short a time and the wrong fornmat for such a serious and detailed subject. Cornwall is a typical religious truth twister who willfully misunderstands and misrepresents other people to make his points. Who could trust what such a person says or believe any criticism he has of others. Richard did not have enough time to seriously wound his arguments or expose him.

I am not sure Richard does the right thing in engaging with this man in debate anyway. It only popularises his book (which I have no intention of reading) in the same way as engaging with creationists popularises their lies. It is probably better to be contemptuous and not give them the status of being something worthy of debating.

35. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57259 by UncleJJ on July 18, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Lots of fresh material in this. It was better than when he debates an "opponent". I liked his introduction and the questions (except one) were worthwhile. Probably his best talk so far

36. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51141 by UncleJJ on June 21, 2007 at 4:47 pm

They are well matched, what a pity they couldn't have debated much longer. The poor woman presenter was overwhelmed. Peter put up a better opposition than anyone else whose debated Christopher

37. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39195 by UncleJJ on May 10, 2007 at 6:46 am

Britain is a tolerant country but we can't tolerate people shouting hate and threatening death for anyone who disagrees with them. That is not civilised behaviour.

It has to stop: and here's an idea. We have CCTV cameras everywhere else in public places let's put them in religous buildings and record the proceedings for anyone to watch. Then prosecute anyone who makes these vile threats, deport them if they're foreign and imprison them if they're British.

38. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37046 by UncleJJ on May 3, 2007 at 8:55 am

Atticus of Amber: you think I can't recognise someone who's drunk. I say you don't know what the word drunk means.

I think you are confusing someone who has had a drink but can handle it and perform perfectly lucidly, as Hitchens does here and someone who is drunk. If you want to see a drunk on a TV show then you need to look at George Best in his Terry Wogan inteview... he was tanked and incoherent. Try this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjZcQnAIC2A

If you want to be precise you might say that in your opinion Hitchens would have performed better if he had had less to drink. That is not my opinion but might fairly express yours. But to call that performance a drunken one is plain ignorance of the meaning of the word.

39. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36701 by UncleJJ on May 2, 2007 at 3:29 am

I have watched the video clip twice more trying desperately to see any indication of slurring words or slow thinking and there is simply none. It seems people who dislike Hitchens, for whatever reasons, are imagining that he's drunk here and using that to slur him when there is no evidence. Please take it from someone who is neutrally inclined towards him (me that is) he is perfectly coherent and fully in control of his body, mind and voice at least on this occasion even if that has not always been so. I would certainly ride in a car driven by him based on the lucidity of this performance, he is not drunk in any meaningful sense of that word.

Can we just return to the substance of the interview which includes amongst other things the accusation that several Muslim heads of state drink alcohol despite that being against their dietary laws.

40. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36523 by UncleJJ on May 1, 2007 at 12:13 pm

He did a good job of replying to Jon Stewart's questions and got the message across in a humourous way. I can't see what people are on about, he didn't seem to be drunk at all.