doesn't deserve your "respect"... but those that do (who are naturally easy to argue against), are the type that you "prefer".

I've disagreed with you about many things Hitchens - first and foremost your seemingly blind support of any policy that would result in dead Muslims - but I've never thought of you as a pathetic coward.

Many of us that have a deep faith find our support from within. To put in standard Christian terminology - we find reassurance, strength, and guidance from the holy spirit. This doesn't mean that we have to blindly believe that every line of text written in the bible is literally true, just as you don't have to ascribe to every single philosophical assertion of Pythagorous just because you use geometry.

The writers of the bible and early Christian theologists had their own beliefs and assertions and were doing their best to interpret the guidance they felt from within... but we aren't talking about a voice that clearly speaks loudly in plain English (well, unless you're Mormon... which I'm not). They had their interpretations of God, and their dreams and thoughts and desires: of which they individually tried to separate the personally inspired from the divinely inspired. Some things - especially those revolving around scientific understanding - they got horribly wrong.

Just because the vast majority of the people that hold a personal faith DO NOT blindly believe that every "jot and tiddle" was written by God's own hand, is hardly a reason to disrespect a person's personal relationship with a God that he or she believes in.

The fact you shy away from those who have a more complex understanding or belief and only "respect" unthinking followers that you can easily debate shows you to be a coward, or a bully, or both.

We disagree on many things Hitchens, but this is the first time I've had contempt for you. Please "man up" and try to debate free-thinking people of faith, rather than just bullying flat-earthers that failed science class.

Say what you want, but Hitchens is absolutely accurate about a significant number of American Christians, among whom the Bible is absolute to the last syllable.

The sheer number of people in this country who think evolution is a sham is testament enough to either their blind devotion to the Bible, or their awfully shallow grasp of what evolution is.

I find the flat-earthers a sad and embarrassing lot.

But they are not representative of the majority of Christians. People like Hitchens merely refuse to engage the vast majority of Christians, and reserve their "respect" for the flat-earthers... people they can easily defeat or humiliate in a debate.

It's the exact same tactic that the right uses when discussing the environmental movement... They single out the people highlighted on "planet green" who obsess about the vampire effect of cell-phone chargers and refuse to engage in discussion or debate with people like Al Gore because "he uses energy, therefore he's a hypocrite"... Basically force-defining the group by the most absurd membership within a group is a good bullying tactic, but it is not respectable... it's the action of someone who fears an honest debate, not the actions of someone looking for an honest debate.

But I can see how an atheist would think this way about religious people of any kind. Would you make fun of a grown man who happened to believe in Santa Claus?

I'm not an atheist (I'm not religious, either), but I can see why an atheist would take such a dismissive attitude toward those who are.

Many atheists are very polite people that are content to have their own beliefs and let others have their beliefs as well... just as is the case with some Christians. While others - both Christians and atheists - are evangelical traditions that feel they must convert everyone who is of a different religion and therefore is "wrong".

The parallel to Santa Clause is specifically an invalid comparison, due to the claims made by such a belief and the ease at which such claims could be verified... We can easily see there's no workshop at the North Pole, and we ourselves - as adults - perpetuate a great lie to children concerning Santa Clause that we know full well is not reflecting a literal truth.

However, if a full grown man had existed his entire life surrounded by people who all recieved gifts every year on Christmas - and not a single one of them knew of a person involved in a charade slipping said presents under the tree with forged gift tags... Then there would be no reason that this grown man would not believe in Santa.

While some TV frauds may claim that belief in God will make you wealthy and eliminate body oder and make sure that your children will have no health problems... most people don't have that same expectation from their faith... We expect comfort and support in times of crisis, and overall reassurance in life, and a reward at the end of life if we believe in God and love and try to help others as best we can...

Since we do receive the comfort, support, and reassurance; and no-one has any proof whatsoever about the afterlife... Those of us that choose to believe have done nothing that is worthy of being mocked or scorned.

If you ask Pascal, we are merely making the most fundamentally logical wager that we possibly could.

:)

Why do you assume the Pastor mentioned in the article was a lightweight? I bet he knows his stuff 1000 times better than you do. Why use the flat-earther straw man?

Tell yourself whatever you need to.

screwjack2008:

Why do you assume the Pastor mentioned in the article was a lightweight? I bet he knows his stuff 1000 times better than you do. Why use the flat-earther straw man?

Reading the column debate on the Huffington Post, I got the impression that the Pastor was a kook. He didn't seem to have any desire to defend his POV other than to attack atheists and for reasons that were quite suspect.

Hitchens has debated several people on this subject (both qualified and not-so) and all it would take is a casual YouTube search to find these debates.

"Wilson isn't one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just "metaphors." He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn't waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course he "allows" it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners. I much prefer this sincerity to the vague and Python-esque witterings of the interfaith and ecumenical groups who barely respect their own traditions and who look upon faith as just another word for community organizing."

Emphasis mine.

Hitchens casually disregards the Christians who are not blind fundamentalists... "Only this type of person is a person of REAL faith... and these people I can easily win arguments with... The rest have more COMPLEX faiths, which I will pooh-pooh and mock and ignore..."

I'm sure this Wilson character can quote more bible verses than I can. That, in no way, reflects that "he knows his stuff 1000 times better than I" (though if he knew 1000 times as many bible vs as I do he would have memorized several dozen times the total material within the bible).

At issue is not the fact that he knows the bible, but that he's a fundamentalist - which Hitchens is comfortable with because he can easily be bested.

Tund - You wrote: "[people] refuse to engage in discussion or debate with people like Al Gore because [he just bubbles out CO2].  Simple question: Are there more polar bears now then there were ten years ago?

I know the answer and probable reason why. Do you know either?

They're REALLY cute as cubs... and they swim around at zoos.

I would assume that they have seen their populations decrease, though that's not assured. Since they are protected animals, the decrease in hunting deaths could easily offset the increase in deaths due to the loss of natural habitat.

*shrug*

I know the melt rates of the land-bound ice across the globe, the emissions rates of greenhouse gasses, and the overall market potential for nearly every single alternative energy technology and its probable effects on greenhouse gas emissions. That's my concern. so that's what I study. (It also happens to be my job and my field of expertise... so I'm pretty well informed).

;)

"At issue is not the fact that he knows the bible, but that he's a fundamentalist - which Hitchens is comfortable with because he can easily be bested."

Well who would you suggest that Hitchens debates? An agnostic?

The fact is the strongest proponents of the creationist school happen to be of people with specific, not complex, faiths. The fact that CH finds it easy to debate them is by the design of the faiths of the creationists themselves. In order for the creationists to win the argument, they have to:

1) prove that some entity made a "conscious" decision to create the reality around us (the leap from atheism to theism).

AND

2) prove that this entity that created this reality is consistent with the teachings of a specific faith with a specific set of rules (from theism to religion).

Most of the people on the creationist side are not credible in proving #1 and even if they meet that hurdle, they have a difficult time explaining to a mixed faith audience why their specific faith is correct.

On the other hand, all CH has to do to win the argument is to argue against #1 which, with science on his side, isn't hard to do at all.

So you see, the debate itself makes the creationist position an uphill climb.

...in the best-studied populations of bears. This is a good place to find facts, as opposed to speculations: <link>

Nothing in the Gospels or Acts claim infalibility. Paul claims direct revelation, but has nothing to offer on the subject of Creationism. In addition, he apparently convinced The Church in Jerusalem that Gentiles need not heed the 'Law of Moses' such as circumcision and Kosher.He is rather adament in this position.

Further, Acts of The Appostles seems to be a commissioned research project. And there are TWO of them. The one in the New Testament is clearly a second draft sent to the benefactor. The first draft, however, was used in the Western Church for some time, and has been rediscovered. Among other things, it clarifies the entire hubbub with the Jerusalem church to total satisfaction.

I contend that almost NOTHING written after about the year 158CE has any sort of authority [the martyrdom of Polycarp].  This is the era when no one is left who even knew someone who knew Jesus. Accordingly, how is Augustine any less of a philosopher then the Agnostics?  

In fact, the entire body of modern  Christianity is one philosophical edifice of speculation piled on top of the rest. If you want to know the real and original Christianity read The Didache.  It is the oldest known instruction manual on how to be a Christian. Very pragmatically it says to welcome into your community those who claim to be proffets. However, if they stay more then three days, or ask for money, they are false proffets.

Paul is the best witness to early Christianity. For examply, talking in tonques was VERY big at the time, but Paul cautions the congregations to limit this activity so as not to frighten the neighbors.  He also admonishes those who arrive early to services and over indulge in food and  drink [the mass, as we know it today].

Essentially, the entirety of Modern Christianity is one big circle jerk of philosophical conjecture. Mortal v. Veneal Sins?  Predestination v. Predetermination. The Rapture. Prayer to release relatives from purgatory.  I double dog dare anyone to find references to any of these things in any Christian writing prior to 165 CE.

Those who manage the population in The Davis Straight tell us there are not just a few more Polar Bears, but 'A Hell of a lot more Polar Bears." True, this is the best documented of the 19 or 20 populations.

One reason is the increased availability of Harp Seals. We no longer club the little critters, and the Polar Bears really really like to crunch down on said seal. Also, there is less hunting.