CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Falwell is dead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Falwell is dead - Page 2

post #51 of 135
5/15/07 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
Wasn't Falwell a more moderate version of Pat Robertson? Maybe you guys shouldn't be celebrating.
He wasn't as hateful as the other guy. Tone it down, fellas.
Reply
post #52 of 135
5/15/07 at 7:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeGuy
It's good to know that he'll spend eternity in Hell being gang-raped by dozens of Teletubbies.

So long and farewell you fat, hypocritical and hate-filled bastard. You will not be missed.
Good thing he was fat, he needed a reason for everyone to hate him. Oh well, now that he's dead, we still have Michael Moore, right?

FACT: Everyone on the internet has perfect washboard abs.
Reply
post #53 of 135
5/15/07 at 7:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade
FACT: Everyone on the internet has perfect washboard abs.

They do?! Hot damn! Now I don't need the gym membership anymore.
Reply
post #54 of 135
5/15/07 at 10:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minsky
I'm pretty sure the guy had resources coming out of his asshole.
Not the resources to wage war like the US government does.

I take the horrible things he said very seriously, and I don't believe for one second that he'd hesitate to invade, say, Iraq had he the means. I can imagine what the US government would do to non-Christian prisoners if it was the Christian theocracy Falwell would have it be.

I hope they put gutters on his headstone. I'd hate to see it worn down to nothing from all the spit.

The only downside to this is that you still have people in the White House who would give Falwell and his ilk the time of day.
Reply
post #55 of 135
5/15/07 at 10:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smilin' Jack Ruby
There's a very good story/interview with Falwell in the Dec. '05 Vanity Fair entitled "American Rapture" by Craig Unger that really goes into Falwell's influence over the current president (particularly in anti-Islamic, Crusade terms), how he and Rove talked every day, why even McCain had to come and eat crow as Falwell was too powerful to step on politically after talking shit about him in 2000 (McCain described Falwell as an "agent of intolerance").

Worth reading in light of all the tumultuous writing that will follow in the next couple of newscycles.
Here's that article you speak of:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f.../rapture200512
Reply
post #56 of 135
5/16/07 at 1:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigolo Joe
While I wouldn't piss on his grave, I won't mourn his passing either.

Here's hoping that the media doesn't put much emphasis on his death. Much more important news to report, than the death of a hate-filled person.
I'm not glad he's dead but I would piss on his grave. If only to improve the quality of the soil.
Reply
post #57 of 135
5/16/07 at 3:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zollicoffer
Wow. That's like the coolest Faithmouse ever.
Reply
post #58 of 135
5/16/07 at 4:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny
"Wait a minute, Falwell. Your handicap is what? Me fucking me, you're a lying prick."
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Alan "Nordling" Cerny again."
Reply
post #59 of 135
5/16/07 at 7:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minsky
If hating Jews makes you Hitler, then most of Alabama is Hitler.
Now that's just not fair. Alabamians don't hate on the Jews any more than the rest of the world does. And besides, everyone knows a racist fuck from the south is traditionally partial to a different ethnic group to focus their hate on, and these idiots aren't good at multitasking. Hence their motto - "One race at a time, sweet Jesus."
Reply
post #60 of 135
5/16/07 at 10:58am
Courtesy of TMZ...
LL
Reply
post #61 of 135
5/16/07 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
The only downside to this is that you still have people in the White House who would give Falwell and his ilk the time of day.
James Dobson just met with Bush last week, discussing Iran.

Dobson. Iran.

Jesus wept.
Reply
post #62 of 135
5/16/07 at 1:29pm
Eh, I get all my corpulent dead fundies all confused with one another.
Reply
post #63 of 135
5/16/07 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
James Dobson just met with Bush last week, discussing Iran.

Dobson. Iran.

Jesus wept.
Why is Bush discussing Iran?

Why is Bush discussing Iran with these people?
Reply
post #64 of 135
5/16/07 at 2:17pm
Because God put all the oil (intended for the chosen people) under the bad guys. He works in mysterious ways.
Reply
post #65 of 135
5/16/07 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Why is Bush discussing Iran?

Why is Bush discussing Iran with these people?
I'm guessing because his popularity, even with the rabid fundamentalist sect, is dwindling.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_m...ight_0514.html

From the link:

Quote:
“I was invited to go to Washington DC to meet with President Bush in the White House along with 12 or 13 other leaders of the pro-family movement," Dobson disclosed on his radio program Monday. “And the topic of the discussion that day was Iraq, Iran and international terrorism. And we were together for 90 minutes and it was very enlightening and in some ways disturbing too."

Details of the meeting were disclosed by Dobson during Monday's edition of his Focus on the Family radio program.

Dobson described Bush as “upbeat and determined and convinced, adding, “I wish the American people could have sat in on that meeting we had.”

Dobson went on to enumerate a series of meetings convened by Christian right leaders in Washington to discuss the supposedly existential threat to the United States from a nuclear Iran.

“I heard about this danger [from Iran] not only at the White House but from other pro-family leaders that I met during that week in Washington," he said. “Many people in a position to know are talking about the possibility of losing a city to nuclear or biological or chemical attack. And if we can lose one we can lose ten.

"If we can lose ten we can lose a hundred," he added, “especially if North Korea and Russia and China pile on.”
Dobson goes on to compare Ahmedinejad to Hitler.
Reply
post #66 of 135
5/16/07 at 2:39pm
Quote:
“I wish the American people could have sat in on that meeting we had.”
I wish that too, actually.

Quote:
“I heard about this danger [from Iran] not only at the White House but from other pro-family leaders that I met during that week in Washington,"
Well, they'd know, being religious nuts with an axe to grind. Why, I'm consulting with Richard Simmons and the American Idol judge's panel on a paper on space-based interferometry myself. Look to the experts, I always say.

Quote:
“I heard about this danger [from Iran] not only at the White House but from other pro-family leaders that I met during that week in Washington," he said. “Many people in a position to know are talking about the possibility of losing a city to nuclear or biological or chemical attack. And if we can lose one we can lose ten.

"If we can lose ten we can lose a hundred," he added, “especially if North Korea and Russia and China pile on.”
Having no real threat to discuss, they made one up. I can see the appeal scum like Romney and his kind has for scum like these people.
Reply
post #67 of 135
5/16/07 at 2:44pm
Also possibly of note, Bush met with Pat Robertson roughly 3 weeks before the Iraq invasion.
Reply
post #68 of 135
5/16/07 at 2:56pm
Forgive me if this has already been posted but: Hitchens is hilarious.
Reply
post #69 of 135
5/16/07 at 5:58pm
Geh. Hitchens. Can we get someone non-insane to comment on this?

Edited to add: Hitch seems awfully forgiving of the President's religiousity in this clip, from back when he thought invading Iran was a splendid idea. He's a really crappy ambassador for the concept of atheism.
Reply
post #70 of 135
5/16/07 at 7:02pm
If even Larry Flynt is now singing his praises, I'd say probably not. Hitchens may be a nutter, but his excoriation of Falwell and his ilk is masterful.
Reply
post #71 of 135
5/16/07 at 7:15pm
Part of the reason why Hitchens' recent bout of activist atheism is so entertaining is that he's throwing grenades into the circular firing squad that is the Republican party. I've vehemently disagreed with him in the past, but not on this.
Reply
post #72 of 135
5/16/07 at 7:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
Geh. Hitchens. Can we get someone non-insane to comment on this?

Edited to add: Hitch seems awfully forgiving of the President's religiousity in this clip, from back when he thought invading Iran was a splendid idea. He's a really crappy ambassador for the concept of atheism.
Hitchens is usually right, which is more than you can say about almost everyone else on TV.
Reply
post #73 of 135
5/16/07 at 7:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
Part of the reason why Hitchens' recent bout of activist atheism is so entertaining is that he's throwing grenades into the circular firing squad that is the Republican party. I've vehemently disagreed with him in the past, but not on this.
Hitchens is to Michael Moore as Richard Dawkins is to Chomsky. One appeals to gut emotion and spectacle, while the other approaches their respective subject matter with the utmost rationality.

Hitchens like Moore, is fun to watch when they squabble with the Goliaths of the world. They rarely do their cause any real good in the end though. That being said ... I loved that youtube clip. It's good to see that not everybody is going to gloss over Falwells legacy and crown him a saint. The guy was a douchebag when he was alive and should be remembered as such.
Reply
post #74 of 135
5/16/07 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anjin
Hitchens is to Michael Moore as Richard Dawkins is to Chomsky. One appeals to gut emotion and spectacle, while the other approaches their respective subject matter with the utmost rationality.
I don't think that's what you meant to say. Both Dawkins and Chomsky are extremely rational. All their arguments follow each other.
Reply
post #75 of 135
5/16/07 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graynadian
I don't think that's what you meant to say. Both Dawkins and Chomsky are extremely rational. All their arguments follow each other.
Yes, I was comparing Dawkins and Chomsky favourably, and Moore and Hitchens not so much so. Excuse the awkward wording on my part.
Reply
post #76 of 135
5/17/07 at 2:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graynadian
Hitchens is usually right [ . . . ]
Not to flame anyone, but do you actually read a lot of what Hitchens writes? Genuine question. The dude's a warmonger. Look it up.
Reply
post #77 of 135
5/17/07 at 3:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Not to flame anyone, but do you actually read a lot of what Hitchens writes? Genuine question. The dude's a warmonger. Look it up.
He also wrote a book about how Mother Theresa was a CIA operative.

The guy should not be taken seriously, never mind that you happen to agree with him this week. He just stirs the pot--he doesn't believe half of what he says. And as I already mentioned, his disdain for religious messianism in the American Right didn't seem to affect his judgment when they were busily remaking the middle east.
Reply
post #78 of 135
5/17/07 at 10:43am
He's also an asshole.
Reply
post #79 of 135
5/17/07 at 11:39am
I think it's funny that people are debating the genuineness of Hitchens, stemming from his criticism of Jerry Falwell.
Reply
post #80 of 135
5/17/07 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anjin
Yes, I was comparing Dawkins and Chomsky favourably, and Moore and Hitchens not so much so. Excuse the awkward wording on my part.
Then you should have said Hitchens is to Dawkins as Moore is to Chomsky. Anyway, going with the forum's recent pattern of bizarre tangents, I've found most of Hitchens' musings on religion to be quite rational. The difference though is that Dawkins is much more knowledgable in general, particularly on the biology front. But either way, they both have funny accents and mannerisms that make them sound like pompous assholes. What atheism needs is a real "Michael Moore" populist proponent. Then everyone and their mother will stop believing in god.
Reply
post #81 of 135
5/17/07 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarant
Then everyone and their mother will stop believing in god.
Why do you need people to believe as you do? This is the fundamental(ist) flaw in many religious and anti-religious movements. It's this exact sort of thinking that makes Falwell such a repellant figure.

Also, plenty have argued that Dawkins IS essentially the Michael Moore of atheist proponents. He may be a scientist, but he's similarly tactless and divisive, and he proselytizes in such a way that only people who believe what he says would want to listen.
Reply
post #82 of 135
5/17/07 at 1:57pm
I think you misunderstood me. I couldn't care less what people think as long as they don't harm each other. Hell, I'd even call myself more of an agnostic than an atheist. I was just making the point that, whether rational or not, both Hitchens and Dawkins come off as snooty.
Reply
post #83 of 135
5/17/07 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarant
I think you misunderstood me. I couldn't care less what people think as long as they don't harm each other. Hell, I'd even call myself more of an agnostic than an atheist. I was just making the point that, whether rational or not, both Hitchens and Dawkins come off as snooty.
It's because the perspective is snooty. It falsely assumes intellectual superiority over religious people. You can't make it un-snooty.
Reply
post #84 of 135
5/17/07 at 2:20pm
I don't really get the appeal of Dawkins. What atheist or agnostic actually learns anything from him?
Reply
post #85 of 135
5/17/07 at 2:54pm
He's not necessarily setting out to preach to the converted, as it were. Why are church pews full of people who already believe what they're being told?

He's a clear thinker. He's expresses the arguments patiently and well. Someone must learn something from him or authors like him (Sagan comes to mind) because people do shake off their childhood indoctrination from time to time. I managed to figure out on my own that belief in gods is no more reasonable than belief in leprechauns or ghosts, but others don't get it. Their intuition gets in the way of their reason and their understanding.

Seen this?
Reply
post #86 of 135
5/17/07 at 2:56pm
And he's not bitter, like Hitchens is. The image of Falwell standing on a street corner selling pencils from a cup is a good one, though.
Reply
post #87 of 135
5/17/07 at 3:03pm
Thread Starter 
Found this on Drudge, just when you thought some people were already beyond batshit insane. The ante just got raised:

Quote:
Anti-Gay Kansas Church Members Plan to Attend Falwell Funeral

The controversial anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., plans to "preach" at the funeral of Rev. Jerry Falwell, according to its Web site.

"WBC will preach at the memorial service of the corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell, who spent his entire life prophesying lies and false doctrines like 'God loves everyone,'" reads a posting on Godhatesamerica.com.

The church cites a break with the Calvinist Baptist church as one reason they will attend the funeral in protest.

"Falwell warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White, and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, etc.," the site reads.

Last month, the group released a music video entitled "God Hates the World." Sung to the tune of "We Are the World," the song changes the chorus to: "God hates the world and all her people, you, every one, face a fiery day for your proud sinning. It’s too late to change His mind, you lived out your vain lives, storing up God’s wrath for all eternity."

The 70-member church, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, has protested the military funerals of U.S. troops, believing that their deaths are God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.
Reply
post #88 of 135
5/17/07 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Someone must learn something from him or authors like him (Sagan comes to mind) because people do shake off their childhood indoctrination from time to time.
Equating Dawkins with Sagan seems disingenuous somehow. From an interview with Sagan:

Quote:
SAGAN: In essence your question is: Should the skeptical movement devote some of its attention to religion?

SAME QUESTIONER: Well said.

SAGAN: This is a really good question, and I know that Richard Dawkins talked about this a year or so ago, and drew the conclusion that many religious beliefs were not noticeably different from any of the parasciences or pseudosciences beliefs, and why one of them is the object of our attention and the other is off-limits, and he urged that we be, if I may use the expression, more ecumenical in our hostility. I will answer in the following way: first, that there is no human culture without religion. That being the case, that immediately says that religion provides some essential meat, and if that’s the case shouldn’t we be a little careful about condemning something that it desperately needed? For example, if I am with someone who has just lost a loved one, I do not think it is appropriate for me to say, “You know, there’s no scientific evidence for life after death.” If that person is gaining some degree of support, stability, from the thought that the loved one has gone to heaven and that they will be joined after the person I’m talking to, himself or herself, dies. That would be uncompassionate and foolish. Science provides a great deal, but there are some things that it doesn’t provide. Religion is an attempt to provide, whether truly or falsely, some solutions to those problems. Human mortality is one of those where there isn’t a smidgeon of help from science. Yes, it’s a grand and glorious universe, yes it’s amazing to be part of it, yes we weren’t alive before we were born (not much before we were born) so we hope we’re alive after we’re dead. We won’t know about it. It’s a big deal. But that’s not too reassuring, at least to many people.

Take the issue of the Bible. The Bible is in my view a magnificent work of poetry, has some good history in it, has some good ethical and moral scriptures—but by no means everywhere, the book of Joshua is a horror, for example— and on those grounds is well worth our respect. But on the other hand, the Book of Genesis was written in the sixth century B.C. during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. The Babylonians were the chief scientists of the time. The Jews picked up the best science available and put it in the book of Genesis, but we have learned something in the intervening two and a half millennia, and to believe in the literal truth of the attempted science in the Bible, is to believe too much. I know there are Biblical literalists who believe that every jot and tittle in the Bible is the direct word of God, given to a scrupulous and flawless stenographer, and with no attempt to use the understanding of the time, or metaphor or allegory, but just straight-out truth. I know there are people who think that. That seems to me highly unlikely. I think the way to approach the Bible is with some critical wits about us, but not dismissing it out of hand. There’s a lot of good stuff in the Bible. Case-by-case basis is what I’m saying. Where religion does not pretend to do science, I think we should be open within the boundaries of good sense. I think that you cannot extract an “ought” from an “is,”and therefore science per se does not tell us how we should behave, although it can certainly shed considerable light on the consequences of alternative kinds of behavior. From that we can decide how to arrange our legal codes and what to do. So the idea of an all-out attack on religion I think on many grounds would be foolish, but the idea of treating Biblical literalism, for example, with some skeptical scrutiny is an excellent idea. But it is being done, has been done for the last century by Biblical scholars themselves. I don’t think there’s any particular expertise in this movement for a critical examination of the Bible. There are other people who are doing it just fine.

I hope that sort of middle ground is not too different from what you were asking about, but I certainly don’t think that religion should be off-limits. I don’t think anything should be off limits. We should feel free to discuss and debate everything. That’s what the Bill of Rights is about. And in that sense, and many other senses, the constitution of the United States, particularly the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, and the scientific method are very mutually supportive approaches to knowledge. Both of them recognize the extreme dangers of having to pay attention to and do whatever the authority says.
It's in this answer that I think you can see the difference between frank, reasonable skepticism and having an obvious, emotion-driven agenda.
Reply
post #89 of 135
5/17/07 at 4:10pm
I didn't equate them, I said Sagan comes to mind. Maybe it's because I started rereading Demon Haunted World last night.

Quote:
It's in this answer that I think you can see the difference between frank, reasonable skepticism and having an obvious, emotion-driven agenda.
Which one's which?

Quote:
I think the way to approach the Bible is with some critical wits about us, but not dismissing it out of hand.
Dawkins doesn't dismiss it out of hand. It's just as subject to scrutiny as anything else, but it doesn't bear up to that scrutiny. That's not dismissing anything out of hand, and I'm sure Dr. Dawkins has put a great deal of thought and effort into his opinions.
Reply
post #90 of 135
5/17/07 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Which one's which?
Seems pretty obvious to me.

Quote:
Dawkins doesn't dismiss it out of hand. It's just as subject to scrutiny as anything else, but it doesn't bear up to that scrutiny. That's not dismissing anything out of hand, and I'm sure Dr. Dawkins has put a great deal of thought and effort into his opinions.
Yeah, but by his own admission, he's no expert on theology, since he considers it a bunch of nonsense. Isn't taking him seriously on the topic just as silly as taking the Pope seriously when it comes to quantum physics? Shouldn't someone who writes books about something (even if in opposition to it) be something of an authority on it?

I'm sure thousands of religious theologians have put a great deal of thought and effort into their opinions, as well. As have atheists like Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould who recognized that religion, while not for them, isn't the great threat to civilization that Dawkins seems to think it is and, in fact, has contributed and will continue to contribute to society in meaningful, positive ways.

Now what could possibly lead Dawkins, a man of science just like Sagan and Gould, to quite different conclusions about the relative benefits of religion? I suggest that perhaps he has an irrational emotional investment in wanting people to think like he does, as do many of the atheists on this board.
Reply
post #91 of 135
5/17/07 at 4:51pm
I've never detected it in anything of his I've heard or read. At worst, he doesn't consider it an excuse for certain behaviours. I've heard him acknowledge more than once that religion has been the vehicle for advances in art and architecture and social progress as well as the cause of a lot of suffering.

Quote:
Isn't taking him seriously on the topic just as silly as taking the Pope seriously when it comes to quantum physics?
Since he doesn't claim to be a theologist, yes. One doesn't need to be to discuss these things.
Reply
post #92 of 135
5/17/07 at 4:55pm
And maybe Sagan had an irrational emotional investment in honoring the beliefs of his parents or something.
Reply
post #93 of 135
5/17/07 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
I've never detected it in anything of his I've heard or read. At worst, he doesn't consider it an excuse for certain behaviours. I've heard him acknowledge more than once that religion has been the vehicle for advances in art and architecture and social progress as well as the cause of a lot of suffering.
In the interviews and essays I've read, the good is an afterthought at very best.

Quote:
Since he doesn't claim to be a theologist, yes. One doesn't need to be to discuss these things.
To discuss anything at length, it always helps to know what you're talking about. I can't see dedicating years of my life to something and not at least attempting to understand it inside and out.
Reply
post #94 of 135
5/17/07 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
And maybe Sagan had an irrational emotional investment in honoring the beliefs of his parents or something.
Maybe he did, but he's not the one who has a vendetta against something that he hasn't fully investigated.

Plus, when it comes to all-inclusive (or near-all-inclusive) statements about something so broad in scope as religion, I suppose I just have to go with the moderate view. Sagan's "I don't buy it personally, but religion has a long history of both good and bad things" seems a lot more well-reasoned than Dawkins' "God does not adhere to scientific laws, thus he doesn't exist, thus religion is bunk, thus it's very harmful."
Reply
post #95 of 135
5/17/07 at 5:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
It's because the perspective is snooty. It falsely assumes intellectual superiority over religious people. You can't make it un-snooty.
Oh come on, that's like saying science is snooty because it actually requires some critical thinking. Dawkins, Hitchens and, hell, even most of the atheists I've met are up their own asses but that doesn't make the idea of atheism inherently elitist. They just haven't found a way to appeal to the entire population yet, but if Bill Nye the Science Guy can do it, so could atheists.

EDITED for grammar.
Reply
post #96 of 135
5/17/07 at 5:42pm
Atheism isn't snooty. It's the disdain for people of faith that some atheists have that's snooty. I'm not sure if I'm an atheist or not - honestly, I don't really care one way or the other about God - but I would never mock anyone else's belief. Of course, when I'm asked what I believe and I tell people that I'm probably an atheist, most people act surprised but not disdainful. If they did, then it would be open season and I would rip into their dogma with relish. It's kind of like the Golden Rule that way.
Reply
post #97 of 135
5/17/07 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny
Atheism isn't snooty. It's the disdain for people of faith that some atheists have that's snooty. I'm not sure if I'm an atheist or not - honestly, I don't really care one way or the other about God - but I would never mock anyone else's belief. Of course, when I'm asked what I believe and I tell people that I'm probably an atheist, most people act surprised but not disdainful. If they did, then it would be open season and I would rip into their dogma with relish. It's kind of like the Golden Rule that way.
Exactly! I'm an atheist, too, but I've gotten over myself. It's not like it was some major intellectual breakthrough for me not to believe in God - there are plenty of people who do believe in God who are no dumber than I am, certainly many much smarter.

If your beliefs happen to manifest in acts that I consider to be beneficial to mankind, I don't see why I should want to change them. If they don't, then perhaps we should take on those specific beliefs instead of the broad heading of "religion." I don't see why we have to throw out the beliefs of the Ghandis and Kings to spite the Falwells and Bin Ladens.
Reply
post #98 of 135
5/17/07 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
To discuss anything at length, it always helps to know what you're talking about. I can't see dedicating years of my life to something and not at least attempting to understand it inside and out.
He's not in the business of interpreting scripture. I don't understand why you're criticizing him for not claiming to be something he isn't.
Reply
post #99 of 135
5/17/07 at 6:36pm
I think the snootiness comes from the fact that religion can become a crutch as bad as any drug. That doesn't give Atheists the right to be snooty, and they shouldn't be, but if you equate religious belief to an addiction, which in the sense of "hole in my life being filled by x" there is an argument to be made there. But then again, isn't Hitchens a drunk?

The arrogance of anyone who thinks they have all the answers is always the most shameful.
Reply
post #100 of 135
5/17/07 at 6:40pm
Yeah, don't be too hasty in making Hitchens out to be some sort of wise scholarly guy. He pretty much swallows the Bush dogma on most things hook line and sinker.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Falwell is dead