Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Christopher Hitchens Interview...

Who is this guy before I go clicking on some mysterious link? For all I know you're into gay porn.
 
Nathan said:
Who is this guy before I go clicking on some mysterious link? For all I know you're into gay porn.
He's an author...HR never heard of him but I had since I'm an atheist.... :)

BTW, nudity is forbidden on youtube.....
 
Hey, that's my middle name! Got it from my paternal great grandmother. Maybe I'm related to him?
 
I have to say that I am intrigued by this man and will look forward to reading his book. Ironically enough, I have heard nothing from this man thus far that would have me question my faith. I suppose that is easy as I do not ascribe to any organized religion. In my estimation (simple being that I am) I believe that all religion is flawed as it comes from man but that faith is divine as it come from God. Not sure what that God's name is but I do not assign a gender. God, to me, is my motherfather.

Call me simple, but works for me.

And no, I do not choose to believe because I am afraid of the consequences to my soul after death. I already addressed that issue. I am more concerned with what impact my LIFE leaves on the living both while I am here and once I am no longer amongst the living.
 
BM, this is his list of work....
As sole author
2007 God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve/Hachette Book Group USA/Warner Books, ISBN 0446579807
2006 Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man": A Biography. Books That Shook the World/Atlantic Books, ISBN 1-84354-513-6
2005 Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. Eminent Lives/Atlas Books/HarperCollins Publishers, ISBN 0-06-059896-4
2004 Love, Poverty, and War: Journeys and Essays. Thunder's Mouth, Nation Books, ISBN 1-56025-580-3
2003 A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq. Plume Books
2002 Why Orwell Matters, Basic Books (US)/UK edition as Orwell's Victory, Allen Lane/The Penguin Press.
2001 The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Verso.
2001 Letters to a Young Contrarian. Basic Books.
2000 Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere. Verso.
1999 No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton. Verso. Reissued as No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family in 2000.
1995 The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. Verso.
1993 For the Sake of Argument: Essays and Minority Reports. Verso.
1990 Blood, Class, and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Reissued 2004, with a new introduction, as Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, Nation Books, ISBN 1-56025-592-7)
1990 The Monarchy: A Critique of Britain's Favorite Fetish. Chatto & Windus, 1990.
1988 Prepared for the Worst: Selected Essays and Minority Reports. Hill and Wang (US)/Chatto and Windus (UK).
1987 Imperial Spoils: The Curious Case of the Elgin Marbles. Chatto and Windus (UK)/Hill and Wang (US, 1988) / 1997 UK Verso edition as The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece? (with essays by Robert Browning and Graham Binns).
1984 Cyprus. Quartet. Revised editions as Hostage to History: Cyprus from the Ottomans to Kissinger, 1989 (Farrar, Straus & Giroux) and 1997 (Verso).

[edit] As co-author or co-editor
2002 Left Hooks, Right Crosses: A Decade of Political Writing (co-editor, with Christopher Caldwell).
1994 International Territory: The United Nations, 1945-1995 (with Adam Bartos). Verso.
1994 When Borders Bleed: The Struggle of the Kurds (with Ed Kashi). Pantheon Books.
1988 Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question (contributor; co-editor with Edward Said). Verso, ISBN 0-86091-887-4. Reissued, 2001.
1976 Callaghan, The Road to Number Ten (with Peter Kellner). Cassell, ISBN 0-304-29768-2

[edit] As a contributor
2005 A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq, Thomas Cushman (editor). University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-24555-5
2000 Vanity Fair's Hollywood, Graydon Carter and David Friend (editors). Viking Studio.
 
At the risk of sounding simple, I feel that Hitchenns is incorrect in his assertion that the human species has evolved past the "need for belief" in that which is illogical or which have no proof. I enjoyed the debate thoroughly and though Hitchenns was definitely better spoken and far more entertaining than his opponent, I thought that Sharpton (who I have no love for) held his own. Hitchenns failed to prove that God does not exist. As a matter of fact his use of the ideas of wickedness and immorality actually seem to imply, at the very least, that there IS a God. You can not have evil without good, darkness without light, negative without positive.

I believe that Hitchenns' examples of all the failings of RELIGION do not disprove a supreme being = God. His points of view are fresh and I believe overdue, perhaps. But I still do not see how my faith in God hurts anyone as Sharpton also asserts throughout the debate.

What I think the problem is that there are not enough people intelligent enough to think for themselves, whether they believe in God or not - period.

Just my very humble .02
 
I don't have any problem with atheists. As a matter of fact, I complain WAY MORE about bible thumpers. I think JG has gotten the idea that I am a very religious person. Actually, I hold very weird views that don't really fit any organized religion. However, it is the disrespect of others that I find so annoying. Why do some atheists feel the need to insult and deride other faiths? Let people be. What business is it of yours if they want to believe in a God? I think for some, they sort of want to talk themselves into their own belief by arguing it over and over. If you are secure in what you believe, hold it in your heart and go with it. Maybe some secretly fear that they are wrong. :whatever:

Being militant one way or the other is annoying and not very effective means of argument.

I didn't watch the clips. I don't feel like watching a militant atheist say outrageous things just to get press this morning. Maybe I will just go run my nails down a chalkboard instead.
 
heatherrae said:
I don't have any problem with atheists. As a matter of fact, I complain WAY MORE about bible thumpers. I think JG has gotten the idea that I am a very religious person. Actually, I hold very weird views that don't really fit any organized religion. However, it is the disrespect of others that I find so annoying. Why do some atheists feel the need to insult and deride other faiths? Let people be. What business is it of yours if they want to believe in a God? I think for some, they sort of want to talk themselves into their own belief by arguing it over and over. If you are secure in what you believe, hold it in your heart and go with it. Maybe some secretly fear that they are wrong. :whatever:

Being militant one way or the other is annoying and not very effective means of argument.

I didn't watch the clips. I don't feel like watching a militant atheist say outrageous things just to get press this morning. Maybe I will just go run my nails down a chalkboard instead.

I hear you loud and clear but trust me when I tell you that this clip of the debate between Hitchenns and Sharpton was hardly that. I actually found it to be mentally stimulating (I get almost zero anymore :( ) and it actually REaffirmed my faith though I am finding growing respect for Mr Hitchenns views. I actually agree with most of what he says, just not the part about their being no God.
 
heatherrae said:
I don't have any problem with atheists. As a matter of fact, I complain WAY MORE about bible thumpers. I think JG has gotten the idea that I am a very religious person. Actually, I hold very weird views that don't really fit any organized religion. However, it is the disrespect of others that I find so annoying. Why do some atheists feel the need to insult and deride other faiths? Let people be. What business is it of yours if they want to believe in a God? I think for some, they sort of want to talk themselves into their own belief by arguing it over and over. If you are secure in what you believe, hold it in your heart and go with it. Maybe some secretly fear that they are wrong. :whatever:

Being militant one way or the other is annoying and not very effective means of argument.

I didn't watch the clips. I don't feel like watching a militant atheist say outrageous things just to get press this morning. Maybe I will just go run my nails down a chalkboard instead.
Why should I care about what other people believe? Because their beliefs have an impact on my life. If people didn't believe in Allah there wouldn't be a "war on terror." Should we not care about other irrational beliefs, like someone being inherently inferior based on the melanin content of their skin or their cultural heritage? It seems that religion is the only thing that is above reproach and I don't see it that way.
 
javaguru said:
Why should I care about what other people believe? Because their beliefs have an impact on my life. If people didn't believe in Allah there wouldn't be a "war on terror." Should we not care about other irrational beliefs, like someone being inherently inferior based on the melanin content of their skin or their cultural heritage? It seems that religion is the only thing that is above reproach and I don't see it that way.
:rolleyes:

Really? What impact does anyone on ef's beliefs have on your life? None. Yet you constantly shove your beliefs down our throats. Let it go.
 
heatherrae said:
:rolleyes:

Really? What impact does anyone on ef's beliefs have on your life? None. Yet you constantly shove your beliefs down our throats. Let it go.
So, when does having a differing view constitute "shoving it down someone's throat?" Does someone "shove Republicanism down your throat" by posting a pro Bush thread? Why do religious people become so defensive when someone makes a valid point? Are you constantly trying to convince yourselves?


BTW, militant atheist is an oxymoron, nobody has ever blown themselves up or flown a plane into building due to their disbelief in a God. :)

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "
Steven Weinberg(Nobel Prize in Physics), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
 
javaguru said:
So, when does having a differing view constitute "shoving it down someone's throat?" Does someone "shove Republicanism down your throat" by posting a pro Bush thread? Why do religious people become so defensive when someone makes a valid point? Are you constantly trying to convince yourselves?


BTW, militant atheist is an oxymoron, nobody has ever blown themselves up or flown a plane into building due to their disbelief in a God. :)

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "
Steven Weinberg(Nobel Prize in Physics), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
If I or anyone else came on here everyday and lambasted atheists and said how stupid, moronic, etc they are the way you do to anyone besides atheists, you would go ballistic. You don't see it, but you are more dogmatic than the people you ironically label as such.

Leave people alone.
 
heatherrae said:
If I or anyone else came on here everyday and lambasted atheists and said how stupid, moronic, etc they are the way you do to anyone besides atheists, you would go ballistic. You don't see it, but you are more dogmatic than the people you ironically label as such.

Leave people alone.
So you're invoking the Clinton doctrine? Ignore religion and it will go away? Feel free to challenge Atheism everyday HR.....

I'm not dogmatic because if there were scientific evidence of a God then I would believe. My beliefs are constantly open to challenge....science cannot be dogmatic by definition.

HR, Dogma is a religious tenet....

dog·ma (dôg'mə, dŏg'-) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-mə-tə)
1.A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2.An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
 
javaguru said:
HR, I like being an iconoclast.....people need to question everything...


here's a question, where'd the man ass go? just as I was gettin used to it too.........hehe...... :) :rainbow:



hehe, anyway........I do like hitchens although I don't beleive that the universe just came to be, some form of higher power created it or ordered it or whatever.........I've just come to an end with mans definition of god, because it's so god damn self serving and so few see it for what it is. I think "it" is out there and we're supposed to come closer to it throughout our lives.........but it's our own personal fucking journey and not for anyone to "set us on the path" or dictate to us DICK@!@! Those video's of little kids getting brainwashed in evangelical camps makes me want to kill like the son of the sam...........I know people get disgusted over this, but even they I feel don't quite grasp the evil that's being put on those kids.......the usurption of your life's spiritual journey by feckless miscreants at such a young age...........worthy of slaughter, worthy of pain and suffering that would be legendary even in hell!....
 
javaguru said:
So you're invoking the Clinton doctrine? Ignore religion and it will go away? Feel free to challenge Atheism everyday HR.....

I'm not dogmatic because if there were scientific evidence of a God then I would believe. My beliefs are constantly open to challenge....science cannot be dogmatic by definition.

HR, Dogma is a religious tenet....

dog·ma (dôg'mə, dŏg'-) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-mə-tə)
1.A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2.An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
See definition number 2. It isnt a religious tenent.

Clinton? Ignore religion and it will go away? First of all, I don't think it needs to go away. I think intolerance, such as yours, should go away.

No one can scientifically prove God exists? No one can scientifically prove he doesn't either, can they?

Seriously, quit being so intolerant towards religion. It is sort of nutty. It makes you appear batty.
 
I don't find JG to be militant at all. If one does not agree with his point of view then they are free to do so.

I find the information that he has furnished here (that I have bothered to click on) to be interesting and fresh, very helpfull to my personal beliefs including how I feel about faith and organized religion.

It's sorta like my threads about the topic that I feel passionate about: my kids', family court, the judicial system, etc. If anyone feels that I talk about these topics too much (and I do talk about it admittedly a great deal of the time) then they are free not to read those posts.

And I do agree about the separation of church and state 100%, however, that is NOT always the case. One might say that if God were allowed to permeate government then you know damned well that none of what is happening to my family WOULD BE... but it is nonetheless. Or I suppose one could say that *GOD* already did, in the form of Judge Fred Keiser as he sees me and my family *as THE DEVIL* and is doing his level best to "save my children from me TOTALLY ignoring the law at every turn.*

Let's all think on that for one moment.... shall we?
 
Top Bottom