Because they are way too smart to get into such ridiculous exchanges.

Christianity is vulnerable to liberal reasoning (so called). It is the nature of the religion, the built in defect. Islam is different. Nietzche hated Christianity (especially the New Testament) because he rightly saw that it was the basis of liberalism, which he also rightly foresaw would destroy the west. He saw that Christianity would eventually destroy the underpinnings of the civilization by creating demands that could never be satisfied and setting up expectations that could never be realized.

He respected Islam and also the Old Testament, a fierce demanding God, loyalty, honor, obedience, faith. That he could respect. The "love your neighbor" left him cold. He saw that it would to a situation where Christians could not defend themselves, so they could not preserve themselves and the west.

Hitch remarks on the "niceness" of Christians. It is because they are Christians. He should try sitting with a group of Muslims and insulting their religion. But you see, libs, Muslims are not liberal and they never will be. There is no reason for them to be, particularly when they see that the west is destroying itself. Why should they take that route and also be turn to suicide?

Like all libs, Hitch thinks libbism is the preordained path of humanity. In reality, it is the chosen path of a minority of the world's population, all of them members of the westen european tribes. And when their day is over, no one is going to adopt liberalism.

sometimes libs talk about how oppressed Muslim women are. It never occurs to them that perhaps a life of piety and faith and purity is fulfilling and that perhaps promiscuity and abortion and divorce are not all that attractive to other peoples. Christianity used to provide a place for piety and purity, which all cultures need. Now thanks to libs, the whole culture is a cesspool.

Libs may succeed in getting rid of Christianity. People will just convert to Islam. Islam cannot be ridiculed out of existence. Religion is permanent.

Given all the regressive laws passed in this country over the last few years, it's hard to look at the various well-funded Christian denominations in this country and feel"christian" towards them. If all that purity creates the fundamentalists we see in ALL denominations around the world, it doesn't constitute good advertising. In fact, the fumes from that kind of "piety" makes the cesspool more attractive. Religion may be permanent, but dogma isn't. Maybe if religion delivered on any of its earthly promises, the whole endeavor wouldn't look quite so demented and unattractive.

When did fundamentalism become a dirty word? In the case of the Judeo/Christian belief system the Ten Commandments would be it's foundation. Can anyone speak to how they create a corrupt base so that anything built on it would crumble and fall?

I can think of only one Commandment that people find offensive, and that would be the first one. Even those who do not believe that the world was created by God finds all the other commandments a good foundation for the rule of law. Our own Bill of Rights, in giving a nod to a Creator, acknowledges that it is wise to take away a man's value from other men, where we see that often your neighbor doesn't think much of you, or would have no problem putting his own value above yours.

What the Judeo Christian Religion does inconveniently is insist that without the First, to Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and put nothing above, the other laws can't stand. Atheists and Agnostics, in my opinion, think that the First Commandment poisons everything, and I disagree. They are claiming that the Nature of God is evil, so it would be better to think of Life without a Creator or to think of Life as if their is no Creator.

In any case that would leave the Rule of Man and the Rule of Nature. Regarding the Rule of Man, even without God it would be poisonous because if we created so many imperfect gods it is a guarantee that we ourselves are imperfect and corrupted (poison). If we follow the Rule of Nature which in my mind is impersonal because of its lack of "mind", it is imperfect and corrupted (poison).

I just don't think that it is that easy to explain the corruption in the world on God, or God's Nature, or Nature's God or lack of those. Religion is reaching with our minds to as far as our minds can go, and it seems to be infinity, or at least the possibility of an infinite being. I think that Christopher HItchens should have gotten mad when he was taught that Zero plus Zero equals Zero, otherwise Nothing is reasonable and Everything is unreasonable. A void or lack of mind and the beginning of life do not seem reasonable to me.

Real Atheists (and Agnostics too) do not put that much energy into thinking about your god.

Forget Hitchens. He does not represent anyone but Hitchens. That is something perhaps you do not understand about Atheists. They really don't cult up like religious people do.

Who the hell is Nietzche and why does he predicate your religious beliefs?

As far as the rest of your rant goes, it just sounds like more blah blah blab libs blah blah libs blah blah blah libs libs libs libs libs libs libs libs libs......

Boring.

Hitchens doesn't represent Atheism, you do. So you say. Here is a news flash. Cults don't need a Deity.

If that's too much for you feel free to zero out.

Comparing your analysis to the original poster's, I hate to say that yours is far, far more booooring.

I don't agree with the first guy, but it is enormously well thought out and doesn't pull any punches. It pertains to all of us, religious or not.

I don't see any wisdom in the top post at all. It is childish and foolish to blame libs for the actions of people. People are exposed to information and they make choices. What the top poster hates is freedom. Religion keep people 'in line' because religion combined with power denied freedom.

Now with freedom some people are going to act like asshole and be reckless, but to imply that the majority of society is immoral because many now have little religious faith is BS. Agnostic people and secular societies have moral values. In fact free societies have more values than religious ones like Islamic nations. The top poster wishes to trade freedom for a life like the Taliban. I see no wisdom there.

Well, he is talking about liberalism in a classic sense, not a modern partisan one. I don't agree with him, but I think it's thought provoking. And I just find that for the other guy to write him off as boring is just boring itself.

I'm going to assume the top poser is a male is the reasons for his rant is because western women will have nothing to do with him. This is why there are so many angry men. The only way they could have women in their lifes was with traditional values. Religion was designed my men \ for men, with the primary mission to control women.

Freedom for women means men like this top poster are alone. This is the main reason we see so many Muslim men willing to die for their traditions.

"Nietzche hated Christianity (especially the New Testament) because he rightly saw that it was the basis of liberalism, which he also rightly foresaw would destroy the west."

You say that Christianity created Liberalism, and that Liberalism will destroy the west. Can't we just cut the crap and say that Christiantity will cause the destruction of the West?

"Hitch remarks on the "niceness" of Christians. It is because they are Christians. He should try sitting with a group of Muslims and insulting their religion."

You are honestly arguing that because the hypothetical Muslims will be less tolerant, your position is somehow elevated? Such as a Nazi saying "at least we just kill you with gas, a canibal would eat you." You feel that makes your point somehow?

"sometimes libs talk about how oppressed Muslim women are. It never occurs to them that perhaps a life of piety and faith and purity is fulfilling and that perhaps promiscuity and abortion and divorce are not all that attractive to other peoples."

One key point is the freedom to choose. If a Muslim woman chooses to accept the restrictions of the religion, they are free to do so. Religions people like to evoke the Soviet Union, decrying the force of belief. But if the belief involves God, not so much. Once a person is free to do what they want to do, if they choose to do evil so be it. Isn't this the entire justification for Christianity? If God the omnipotent forces you to believe, then you don't have free choice, therefore he doesn't manifest himself removing all doubt. This type of "both sides of the arguement" justification is what I find particularly annoying about Christian apologists. They say God requires free will, then object when free will is presented.

"Libs may succeed in getting rid of Christianity. People will just convert to Islam."

You obviously don't know the Christians I know, they are the most vehemently opposed to the Islamic religion. Aetheists just look at it as another wrong answer.

flrdalyn:

What the Judeo Christian Religion does inconveniently is insist that without the First, to Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and put nothing above, the other laws can't stand.

Most of your post--in particular, your bait-and-switch attempt to reclaim the word "fundamentalism"--is just nonsense, and as the other poster noted, most atheists don't spend a lot of time obsessing about "no God" anyway, contrary to your peculiar reasoning.

However, I must take issue with the sentence quoted here. The First Commandment in fact does NOT command us to love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. It's a blustering insistence by the Hebrew God that you had better damn well worship him properly. He doesn't give a crap whether you like or love Him, as long as He gets the adoration and respect that He evidently craves. In this He isn't a whole lot different from the various other deities that people made up since time immemorial to explain the scary world, and to whom they prayed for relief or mercy from the miserable conditions of their lives.

I am a Catholic.

Libs may succeed in getting rid of Christianity. People will just convert to Islam. Islam cannot be ridiculed out of existence. Religion is permanent.

How exactly to you explain that statement as enormously well thought out? How does that statement compare to Libs blah blah Libs blah Libs blah blah blah blah Libs Libs Libs Libs?

And frame your argument around the fact that the majority of Atheists are right wing conservatives, not Libs.

....all of which sound like frightening endorsements of fascism and theocracy. Thanks for confirming my hatred of both monotheistic religion and right-wing, reactionary politics.