The Empire finds Christopher Hitchens a serviceable dance man and so is happy to allow him as many public vomits as he wants; but does anyone take the man seriously?  Has anyone ever?  Giddier readers at the Nation once tried I suppose, even giddier anchormen might actually have succeeded, and doubtless more than one librarian has decided Hitch’s Biblical exegesis is as briskly no-nonsense as hers, but…
Oh wait. I forgot the New York Post’s Page Six, which yesterday featured Hitch’s fondness for having his pubes shaved regularly, and I guess you have to include the philosophers who read Vanity Fair, and well, of course, short of Andy Sullivan, the most enthusiastic admirers of all if, shall we say, least reflective, are surely the Podhoretz wing of the neocon world, the NeoPods as it were.
Doubtless they’ll love the piece Hitchens just wrote about some poor kid silly enough to take the prose so seriously he joined the Army because of it, and thus arguably got blown up and killed because of it too; but Hitch wants you to know he can’t but admire the guy for his admiration and thinks you should admire the dead kid for that too.  Hitch also hopes you’ll understand how moved he was helping the family scatter the boy’s ashes into that oblivion Hitch insists was his end, but at least an end that, because he read Christopher Hitchens, he went out and fought for.  [continued below]
Problem is, with apologies to dogs for the comparison, long has the world cautioned against lying with them if you expect to avoid fleas.  Surely it is no exaggeration to say that David Horowitz, like Hitchens, is a NeoPod par excellance, and that Richard Poe has long, publicly, been a Podhead; and Fr. Rutler a – not hidden – Catholic auxiliary.  Foul as all the belching was, there was nothing Hitchens did or said at that meeting that he hasn’t been known for doing and saying right along.  If Fr. Rutler had the means to block Hitchens after the invite, so did he before it, and thus the umbrage seems a tad unctuous, don’t you think? 
Meantime though one of a Podhead’s favorite things is to holler anti-semitism – Hitchens so labeled the inestimable J. Zmirak, who often writes for this site, due to the clearly Nazi proclivity in liking his Astoria neighborhood – but to accuse Hitchens of it because he pretends to protest ancient Israelite religious practices is almost as idiotic as Hitchens’s snarls at Zmirak.
The brawl itself can be read at the link to the Horowitz site, though its tone is little different than anything else on that site, which Fr. Rutler could also have noted if he was interested of the dignity of his club – and, by the bye, if Poe’s eyewitnesses are reliable, doesn’t Horowitz, as the sponsor of the vomit, also have the obligation to apologize to Fr. Rutler?  Instead, he continues to feature and lionize Hitch the NeoPod danceboy, but if Poe isn’t just posturing, it is to Horowitz he should begin his demands for an apology.
The criticisms of Fr. Rutler aside, it sounded indeed like a high charity that motivated his post-meeting admonitions to Hitchens.  Duty joined it, no doubt, when the Trade Center was obliterated, though Hitchens would scorn Fr. Rutler’s efforts there.
One looks accordingly forward to Horowitz organizing a meeting with Hitch where people scorn the boy who died because he was too stupid to see through Hitchens’s posery, to see if the danceboy considers it as tasteful an expression of raillery as his own delicacies so regularly are.

Far be it from me to dissuade anyone from drinking if he really enjoys it; like W.C. Fields, I owe a debt of gratitude to the woman who first drove me to drink.  But if Hitchens’ brain is so wet that he can rant about circumcision with a straight face, without seeing how inherently funny the topic is, then he really does need to dry out.

Good cartoon ("Mother Goose and Grimm”, safe for work) about a related topic, here:

http://www.grimmy.com/images/MGG_Archive/MGG_2007/MGG0116.gif

Hitchens unhinged?  Has he ever been hinged?

horowitz uses gestapo tactics to supress free speech on israel / palestine but stands idly by while ACTUAL anti semetism takes place.

I’ve seen Hitch getting drunk while losing a public debate with David Corn (of all people).  The best line came when Hitchens noted the very fact there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, proves they were there!  He compared it to a well cleaned crime scene or some such nonsense.  Everyone, even his debating partner, laughed at loud at that - which seem to shock him, as he apparently wasn’t being ironic. 

Anyway, if there’s anything remarkable about Hitchen’s long career, it’s how people still pay attention to him despite that fact that events have shown he’s almost always wrong about nearly everything..

The guy is a moron.

Now that Hitchens bites the hand that feeds hims - Horowitz, Poe, and the FrontPage - they go apeshit. Do you really think it’s because he tees up some neocon priest ? Or because he protests tribal indelicato ?

I saw Hitchens nearly pass out debating George Galloway. One the other hand who wouldn’t, Galloway packs a great punch.

In the Kulturkampf of the 1870s and 80s, Catholics had a three front war: Against Bismarck (a cross between a Hobbesian nationalist and a Protestant conservative) the Liberals (in the European sense of the word), and the Socialists.

So today’s Kulturkampf with Catholics fighting on 3 fronts:  against (1)Social Democrats and Cultural Marxists like Hitchens, against (2) the Lavender Mafia within the church herself (the sodomites), and against (3)emerging Clerical Fascism among certain laity, all of who proclaim their intense dislike of Leo XIII and Pius XI.

The 3rd will give the other two ammo.  The 2nd has been exposed and will be cleaned out, despite the lingering horrible damage they have done.  The 1st is in our face—literally.

Read up on Windthorst,the Zentrum, and Ketteler.  Newman had his own version of the Culture Kampf in England.  And these two Kampfen resemble more what we are undergoing today than the struggles in united Italy and the 3rd French Republic.

Interesting also how in both Struggles, ours and theirs, the church vs the state, the issue of confessional and private schools, and media access were among the issues.

There is no clearer sign of the degradation of “mainstream conservatism” than its continuing embrace of Hitchens.  National Review used to be a magazine with a Catholic sensibility, but those days are long over.  Hitchens’ work is regularly linked to and praised at NRO, with no serious criticism offered of the man who has said, of Mother Teresa, “I wish there was a hell for the bitch to go to.”

The indignation that Tom Piatak and others show about the drunken
blasphemies of Hitch is entirely justified,
but what they see is only a portent of what’s to come in the
“conservative movement.” Under the strengthened neocon dispensation,
pro-Zionist and pro-War leftist maniacs will be free to act out
like this every day in full public view, and they will be praised as
heroic free thinkers in the captive neocon press.

Oh shit that Galloway vs. Hitchens debate is a classic.  Hitchens choice of political position and subject matter seems to be based mainly on what will garner the most attention.  I don’t know how he’s still taken seriously.

Brits and ex-brits are a deplorable and destructive influence on american conservatism. John Derbyshire feels greater affinity for islam than christianity. Andrew sullivan attacks pro-life advocates. Enough has been said about hitchens vulgar behavior.

Mr. Cundiff, you have me scratching my head in bewilderment again.  Who are some examples of the “emerging Clerical Fascism among certain laity, all of who proclaim their intense dislike of Leo XIII and Pius XI.”?  I have no idea who you are referring to and that alone makes me suspect that it is probably an obscure marginal handful in no way comparable in power to the cultural Marxists or the sodomites.  On the other hand, you frequently use odd labels for people who are familiarly known by other names.  Which is it this time?

it is probably an obscure marginal handful in no way comparable in power to the cultural Marxists or the sodomites.

I pray you’re correct, Mr. Higdon.  For now, would prefer the argument to be centered on Christopher Hitchens.  When that’s done, I might have something more to day about Clerical Fascism tomorrow.

Conservatives know about traditions, including bad ones. Anti-Catholic feeling is nothing new among the English of almost all persuasions, as English Catholics can tell us.  Henry the Worst, Titus Oates, the Whigs of 1688, the Penal Laws, the Gordon Riots (which Burke, to is credit condemned), assorted other “no popery” riots, the hostile reception to the Oxford Movement and to Newman, etc. all call to mind that defamation of Catholics and the threat to do them physical harm are no stranger in England. Call Hitchens something of a traditionalist.

I think Chris needs an exorcism as he shows all the
signs of diabolical possesion by attacking a Catholic
priest and writing a blasphemous book.

Recently had to look up the word “Malaka” in the Greek dictionary and I saw Mr. Hitchens picture…

Go figure?

Over-educated jerks. Both of them. I think british men talk too well and too much.

And that athiest clap-trap is merely meant for the cash-rich, and mentally undeveloped youth. hint, dawkins teaches in a univ, hitchens talks only to people who have an overarching interest in politics, hence, youth, who have excess time on their hands.

Enough insults have been flung at the Brits, already. I am mostly of British descent, and yes, there aren’t too many admirable men across the pond these days, but the British character is intrinsically no worse than those of nationalities on the Continent.

I saw Mr. Hitchins in a debate with William Donohue at the officer’s
club in Manhattan back in the 90’s. I saw clearly that Our Lord had
His hand on him and loved him very much. I left there knowing that
Christopher Hitchins was going to be a Catholic, and a saint. I left
there knowing that I loved him too, and have prayed for him ever
since. I have never read anything by him, but I am so happy to see
the battle for his soul nearing the end. I have particularly
commended him to Our Lady, and am confident this good mother of
ours will win this son of hers for her Divine Son.

The salvation of Mr. Hitchens is to be wished for, but
until it happens one wonders why people self-described
conservatives prefer his company to that of conservative
opponents of the war, or devout people that are opponents
of the war.

I guess because their one and only priority is the war,
and all other conservative causes are quite negotiable with
them.

Hey, Hitchens debating the Rev. Al Sharpton can lead you
to cheer the Rev.....

After reading some of Hitchen’s cartoonish comments and behavior I wonder if
he isn’t a Catholic already and his whole act is staged.  It doesn’t seem possible
that he can be in earnest with his foolish comments about Mother Theresa, wmd’s, etc.
His idiotic behavior seems more a satire on atheistic neo-cons than a criticism of
religion.  It’s just a bit too over the top for me to take seriously.

Maybe these should be breakfast debates?

St. Augustine wrote, “Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it, and right is right, even if no one is doing it.” This bloated mass of humanity is fighting his demons. Much like a Dostoevsky drama.

I agree with M. Nucci.

If it looks like professional wrestling, it must be fake.

Christopher Hitchens is the “heel” in this made-for-TV drama, and only the gullible should get sucked into it.

Us “intellectuals” should appreciate his wonderful job of teaching a morality lesson to the “unwashed”.

@ Rich, “Over-educated jerks. Both of them. I think british men talk too well and too much.”

If anything, Hitchens is under-educated.  If you think British men talk too well, you haven’t met many; a typical conversational opener in an English pub isn’t “awful weather” but more like, “do y’ fookin’ woonna fight?” (In that regard they’re almost indistinguishable from their Irish cousins.) But that British journalists tend to write solipsistic circumlocutious twaddle that begins nowhere and ends nowhere, I’ll agree.

@ J, “Maybe these should be breakfast debates?”

Gin:  it’s not just for breakfast anymore.

Hitchens was right about Mother Theresa, is right for the most part about circumcision and may have been quite justified in his haranguing of George Rutler and what he represents.  For the most part Hitchens’ support for the Iraq war seems to stem mostly from his support for the Kurds although he’s quite wrong about that issue as a whole.  But he’s completely right about one thing: religion is stupid.

I have long said that we are a country of Enablers, Dependents, and
Hostages.  And the Press enabled Hitchens by not giving this story
any attention.  I will say that, as a member of AA, I hope
Hitchens gets help.  But also, after you stop drinking, then comes
what lies underneath;and that takes some doing to come to terms with.
Or, as Bill W once wrote, “by now you will have discovered that you
have more problems than alcohol.” But before you civilians start
congratulating yourselves on not being as messed up as us, just
remember that addiction is a condition of life and the worst
addiction by far is the addiction to words in the form of beliefs
ascerted to be ultimate truths. As a glance at the behavior surround
ing any sacred text (including the Communist Manifesto) makes
perfectly obvious. I can’t think of a single person not effected by
this.
In any event, Hitchens is a part of that club that includes people like,
Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, Bono and most of the MSM and Hollywood.
The Club of Professional Co-Dependents. These people might not have
a chemical or alcohol dependency, as Comrade Hitchens does, but they
all to a man suffer from the need to Mood-Alter through Self-
Righteousness.  All we need now is a 12 Step meeting for that. When
we do the entire apparatus of Politicl Correctness, from Immigration,
to Affirmative Action, from “We Are The World” styled African Aid,
to Anti-White Male bashing, will all vanish in no time flat. Who
knows, maybe even the War on Terror.  Ah, perchance to dream.

A great read: I hope this piece gets a lot of circulation.

The Kulterkampf was directed entirely by Freemasons of various persuations as is the current Neocon effort.

Yes, the brethren have gotten their hooks into the Church as well, in small numbers. This ‘theory’ incidently answers certain loose enders posited in the recent anonymous Economist rebuttal to the Mearsheimer & Walt thesis.

It’s not the Neocons, or the Empire boys who are behind it. It’s the Masons.

It was entertainment, sad to say, not debate or argument.  Or at least the entertainment that Mass Man and The Last Man want.

Hitchens is trying to be an “enfant terrible” but always ends up looking infantile.  His viciousness is understandable. I too would be angry had I got it so completely wrong about Iraq.

Hitchens is a common drunk. He is also a bully, one who in his past (when younger and less damaged by his addiction) used to mesmerize with his contrarian positions on sacred cows. Now he is just combative and obviously intellectually slovenly.
A club has to have rules. Banning the speaker for his behavior rather than for his views is perfectly in order, after such a display of threat and vulgarity. The fact that Hitchens did not present the objective case when he wrote in Vanity Fair must mean that there was some sober reflection (however brief) that to present the facts would put him in a bad light. He therefore opted for bias. It cannot have escaped him, either, that the war he championed has become a debacle. His own country of origin is pulling out its troops. There is in his rant at the club a note of regret that he became an American citizen, when he says that he thought it would bring him the freedom to run wild as he did in the clubs of America, as his right of free speech. He knows damn well that in England he’d have to go into rehab if he hoped to appear in public just about anywhere but Hyde Park corner standing on a box. But I wonder if they have rules there too for drunks who want to pick fights.

That Hitchens is a rather vulgar fellow has been known for years, that there is such a wide audience for him and his books is indicative more of the public that receives him, than one man who simply expresses his hate and discontent to anyone who will listen. rr

Whatever his utterances, Hitchens is not an anti-Semite.
Since he ‘discovered’ his mother was Jewish, he has supported every war which was in Israel’s or Jewish interest.
He was with the Clinton’s gang for bombing Serbs and with the NeoCons for bombing Iraq.
Give him little time and he’ll fall in love with the idea of bombing Iran.

Almost every comment here makes some mention of Hitchens’ drink habits, with virtually no attempt to tackle any of his various arguments (no matter how badly you may feel he makes them).

Your beloved Taki - the man you simpering pikestaffs flock here for - publicly boasts of his fornications and is a convicted cocaine smuggler and abuser, and that’s ok.

Ridiculous.

Why are the comments boxes so arranged that you cannot type long sentences without one end of them being obscured? It’s very silly and annoying. People have been complaining for months and nothing has been done. Is Mr Theo-wotsit too grand?

Christopher Hitchens is the very epitome of the term “degenerate.” I feel soiled by the fact I once enjoyed some of his columns for The Nation.

Maud,

This website published my review of Hitchens’ atheist manifesto several months ago, which did indeed tackle his arguments.

Since you apparently didn’t read it, here is is again:  http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_hubris/

Why does anyone take this pathetic character seriously?  Oh, yes,
I forgot, its about money.  I suggest everyone ignore him;
whereupon, he will wither away and free the earth of a fetid stain.

Tom,

I did actually read your review when it was first put up, and, even though I didn’t agree with you at all and found it pretty unremarkable, at least it wasn’t a heap of ad hominen.

My beef is with anybody who tries to employ a person’s ‘vices’ against them, but mysteriously manages to miss similar and worse vices in people who just happen to be saying something they want to hear.

I find a lot of what Taki has to say deeply silly and incredibly pompous. The fact that he once enjoyed (and, who knows, perhaps still does) vacuuming a highly illegal and dangerous substance up his nostrils has absolutely nothing to do with his arguments, does it?

Maud,

Hitchens’ drinking is relevant to the discussion here, as he was apparently at least somewhat inebriated when he verbally assaulted Fr. Rutler, if Richard Poe’s sources are correct.

Well, if Mr. Hitchens book is a success, he’ll be getting Some fat checks some fat royalty checks. I think this is a real good time for him to have large amounts of cash. He could be bigger than Hemmingway and Fitzgerald combined!

Absolutely, if Poe’s sources are correct, because then the debate becomes ‘is Hitchens a menace when he drinks in public?’ not ‘Hitchens is clearly rubbish, mad and wrong about everything because he drinks’.

Personally I can’t quite imagine Hitchens acting in that way, but then what the hell do I know? All I do know is that Poe’s is merely a subjective account of an event that just happens to expose more ‘evidence’ of Hitchens’ apparent ineptness due to alcohol.

If Hitchens is wrong about religion, Mother Teresa, Henry Kissinger etc then let us hear why he actually is. Next thing you know people will be saying he must be a malakas because he might be a closet homosexual. Oh hang on, didn’t Taki imply that a couple of months ago? That man has such substance.

Maud,

I don’t quite see what you want, other than a moratorium on comments critical of Hitchens.  As I pointed out to you, the substance of Hitchens’ arguments, such as they are, have already been addressed at this website.  Hitchens isn’t making a reasoned argument calling for a reasoned response when he tells Fr. Rutler he is a child molester and a layabout.

Indeed, it seems to me that Hitchens’ partisans are in no position to complain about rude comments about their hero.  The man sure can dish it out, but his partisans can’t seem to take it.

Hitchens has made a habit of saying offensive things in offensive ways.  One generally doesn’t criticize the deceased during the funeral, yet Hitchens did exactly that during ABC’s televised coverage of Mother Teresa’s funeral.  Hitchens also writes scathing obituaries of people he hates, including John Paul II, Mother Teresa, Ronald Reagan, and even Bob Hope, tossing “de mortuis nil nisi bonum” aside.  Hitchens gave the finger to Bill Maher’s TV audience, and has often used its verbal equivalent in interviews.

“Your beloved Taki - the man you simpering pikestaffs flock here
for” (Maud)
I’m not here for any one person. I’m here to read some well written
articles about things I can’t read or hear about in the MSM. But
nevermind that, why are YOU here? Presumably to swoop down from on
high like an Old Testament God or a Shaming Parent long enough to
mouth an insult and just as quickly disappear.
But you do raise a point about takling his arguments. For me
Hitchens will go down as the World’s Most Famous Pseudo-Intellectual.
He is to the Intellect what Bono is to the Spirit or Michael Moore is
to Social Consciousness or Bill Clinton or George Bush is to Statesmanship.
But, as far as the God thing goes.  Well, his protracted rant against the
whole idea of “God”, as well as the careers of the names listed above,
is proof that when Religious Institutions decline,the Religious impulse gets STRONGER, not weaker.  He might prohibit himself from using the word
“God” in anything other than a pejorative sense; but the pattern is
identical.  Whatever word he uses to replace the word “God” it serves
the exact same function, ie; to terminate an explanation. This is
what is meant by the famous quote “God is Dead”, a proposition uttered
by Hegel long before Nietzsche. It means that, though we can not live
without Explanation, there is no one word that can explain EVERYTHING.
From this pov Marx didn’t turn Hegel on his head, he merely poured his
misunderstanding of Hegel into an already existing Christian mold.
That Hitchens can not see this is why I refered to him as a Pseudo-
Intellectual. God is Dead = Philosphy Transcends Religion. Or, the
Love of Wisdom is more important, more valuable a thing to Mankind,
than Blind Obedience to Authority, ANY authority. Hitchens and his
well-intended, but misled, followers fail to see this completely.  To
the point where it’s even embarrassing. Either way it explains the
wonderful irony when he attacks Believers in an Authoritarian tone of voice.
Not only does God exist Mr. Hitchens, but he’s a Divine Comic, and
your hubris is the brunt of his cosmic joke.

I’m ‘here’ because I like reading lots of different things written by lots of different people.

As for God, why the need to obscure something so basic with ‘Hegel said that’ and ‘Marx once remarked’ etc? The ONLY relevant question is: Can you prove God exists? No, just as no one else can prove it doesn’t. But the burden of proof lies with those who are making the initial claim. If the police say I did something illegal it is for them to prove I did, not for me to prove I didn’t. I could, quite clearly, make up any ridiculous story I liked and then try to hawk it about (see Russell’s teapot), and so could anybody else. And you are blatantly smart enough to know that. You’re also smart enough to understand how the human brain lies to itself and will do wacky things to cover over the gaping abyss that surrounds it.

With all this in mind, the thing that annoys those of us who feel no compulsion to believe is this need for religion to inflict its absurdity onto us. Keep it private. It’s sinister and embarrassing.

Though I don’t agree with most of them, there are a lot of quite intelligent comments posted on this site. Trying to marry the fact that a lot of these same intelligent people also hold the conviction that a mysterious Sky Lord oversees all our affairs is extremely difficult. I if believed in God I should think the first thing I would do is to stop bothering to argue and think about materialist facts (terrorism, left/right, dogs etc) and just sit and await my heavenly reward, sated with the knowledge that all my earthly enemies are to burn in eternity. Or something like that.

However, you are absolutely spot on about Bono and Michael Bore, two would-be Gods and professional cretins. In fact, so good at being cretins that perhaps only a celestial intelligence could have manufactured them.

Hitchens and Father Rutler deserve each other. One is driven to rip into anyone who challenges his default belief in the innate power of dead chemicals to evolve word-processing life. The other is a medium for a pagan parody of Christianity whose god is now said to have initiated the evolution that produced a Hitchens.

They are both wrong about “Mother” Theresa. As a worshipper of the blasphemic, transubstantiated wafer, she experienced a never-ending spiritual darkness which wilfully spurned the teachings of Jesus Christ. He said we would have tribulation in this world, but He also assured us, “be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (John 16:33).”

The obsessive, cheerlessness brooding over Mother Theresa’s desperate ‘good works’ belongs in the same class of feverish unbelief with Hitchen’s drunken, embittered logorrhea, and with Dawkins’ blind trust in the magical powers of time to assemble an undesigned conciousness. They all feed from the same poisoned trough of ignorance—they all reject the Word of God.

Hitchens is a deranged clown.  Agree with Gottfried this is becoming the norm.  Who is behind it?  The Neo-Cons....Evil.  For those that laugh at religion they will have Mr. Horowitz, Poderitz, Bush, Cheney and Hitchens to rule over them.  They believe in a god...they are ruled by a god....and you better have a lot more than sarcasm and a little human wit to deal with them.  The Fool says in his heart that there is no God.

I love anti-semitism.  Such fun - all based on a simple ambiguity of language conflating genetic characteristics with philosophical peculiarities so that as soon as someone points out the obvious barbarity of carving away at the genitals of infants, he can be self-rightiously condemned as a racist.  Such fun.  Is anything more fun than rhetorical confusion?

Maud,

See Google under proof of the existence of God.  You will find 2,130,000 items.
Of course since you so readily acuse us I’m sure you have read them already
and now it is up to Taki’s Top Drawer to provide further proof. 

The only religion that I know of that is state mandated in this country is
atheism.  The complete intolerance of other’s beliefs.  It is this that is
imposed on children in our public schools even though believers of all faiths
provide the funding by law to these institutions.  Please give examples of how
religion is being forced on atheists in the schools.  I know of no such situation.

It may interest you to know that as a Catholic it is not my belief that heaven
is in any way guaranteed me or any others and that it is not our belief that
we sit back and let others burn in hell without at least trying to prevent
that end.

@Harmon Gotlieb,

I can assure that I cheerfully celebrate Mother Theresa’s good works not
cheerlessly as you suggest.  Most often I have seen her with a smile on her
face even though she had her doubts about God.  What lepper colonies are you
cheerfully ministering to?

To All,

Help me out here.  Has Bono done something recently to be attacked here?
I have always enjoyed his music.  Perhaps I missed something?

Hitchens gives us atheists a bad name in more ways than one.

Poor Chris the dear chap - I want to mother him
nurture him is that what it’s called? I can’t wait
for the sequel wherein he ‘sees’ the light and
the Lord works in mysterious ways. Chris it IS
biological… we’re conceptual creatures… and
the rest is unknowable. Don’t beat yourself up
so. You heard it here first.

Harry,

I agree wholeheartedly.  Hitchens is a victory for religion and a defeat
for atheism. That is why I actually wonder if he isn’t really on our side.
He has done much for religion by turning off the average person to atheism
with excessively infantile rants.  He garners sympathy for the people whom
he routinely slanders.  He can’t be ignorant of the good work that he is doing. 
Perhaps all of our prayers have been answered and he has made
a secret conversion and this behaviour is all an act.

I can’t believe that he has said that the absence of wmd’s is the proof of
their existence.  For an atheist he has a lot of faith in the unseen.
I think this is the tipoff that he has converted.

Nice reply Maud. I particularly liked the refrence to a “Skylord”.

I’m not quite sure how I obscured anything by mentioning Hegel or
Marx; but maybe you could elaborate.

In any event, as far as “God” is concerned, I see no reason
why “Believers” and Athiests should have sole possession of such a
useful word.  They too often sound like a couple of adolescents in a
school playground arguing over whose team is better; while in the
background is a whole world waiting to be explored that these two
completely ignore.  They are at the heart of the Polarization one
hears so much of these days.
And I do think that no matter how fond one is of God they are better
off exemplifying it in their lives rather than in explaining
to anyone what God REALLY is.
Really though, I have never had trouble silencing such people.  I simply
tell them that I have no problem with conversations about God; but I
do have a problem with LECTURES about God. But then, that would include the atheists.
But for me, growing up in the 70’s, as an young adult in the 80’s in college,
and from then on; the problem has always been the condescending, and
controlling members of what is now known as Political Correctness.
This is what I meant when I said that as Religious institutions crumble,
the Religious impulse gets stronger, not weaker.  And, like the names
I mentioned in the last post; these people have a well-practiced,
deeply internalized shamelessness when it comes to NOT walking the
talk. Squint your eyes and everything from Spectator Sports to Rock
Concerts to the Academy Awards, look just like Religious services filled
with people who simply do not practice what they preach.
It’s almost as if the more annoyed the public gets with them on this the more
uppity they become. Jung once said that Religion is a defense against a
Religious experience.  But since these secular gods are representatives
of the new religion (Pop Culture) the same holds. If pain is the touchstone
of spiritual growth than that explains why these people are so shallow and
phoney; so bubble-headed and insular; since their entire existence is
deliberately designed to never feel ANY pain.
For me, The One True Church of Political Correctness is where you’ll
find the real pikestaffs and Body Snatchers today.
For me, the word God is useful, so I use it; but as something personal;
I have no interest imposing my views on anyone; but I also think that
silencing anyone who does want to talk about it is just as bad as someone who can’t shut up about it.

‘I have no interest imposing my views on anyone; but I also think that
silencing anyone who does want to talk about it is just as bad as someone who can’t shut up about it.’

Perfect. I couldn’t agree more. I wouldn’t dream of trying to silence the religious, not even the fundamentalists - it’s very important to know what people really think. I may think churches are silly things, but I wouldn’t dream of damaging them or having them shut down and demolished.

If I may elaborate on my Hegel and Marx comments. Though, of course, the great minds have all been part of this debate, have all contributed eloquently and brilliantly to it, I feel constant reference to them obfuscates a really very simple quandary:

Here is the chair; there is the window. My death lies in the future. I am scared of dying and living. I dislike pain and enjoy pleasure. Life is unusual. Life is difficult. This is a very basic breakdown of my quotidian existence. Out of that morass it doesn’t cross my mind for a second that I have a supernatural supervisor and that the Bible or the Koran contain the correct rules for living my life. I really barely understand how anyone could arrive at that conclusion. Truly.

You are a believer. Fair enough. But you would probably join me in viewing with severe doubt the claims made by the ufologists, the scientologists, mediums and all the rest who make bold claims without offering anything like evidence. What is the real difference between someone who says that Jesus is our saviour and someone who says aliens are constantly buzzing through our skies and that the government is in collusion with them?

Belief in God may very well remove some of the confusion and horror from life. But doesn’t it also remove the spice? Isn’t there something wonderful about the uncertainty and the randomness? I think there is, no matter how vile this existence can sometimes be.

Christopher Hitchens is wrong. Look at Stalin and you will understand why.

The demographic winter is here.

Aging workforce in the US.
geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash

Website with good information on the subject.
Welcome.

Have a nice day.

Sincerely,
Solange Miller

Someone mentioned that Christopher Hitchens became a US citizen.

This American does not recognize Chrostopher Hitchens as an American.Nor do I recognize John Derbyshire, transvestite Alexander Cockburn,John Clesse, Eric Idle and the other fifty thousand legal immigrant Englishmen who live in California as Americans. They should go back to that cesspool in the making England. Leave US alone.

And since Christopher Hitchens is so eager to murder White American Christian teenagers from the heartland of America, I think it it is time to ask in an unrelenting way the following question"Christopher why aren’t your “American” born children seving in Iraq”

The atheistic British are very fond of passing judgement on real Americans. Well I pass judgement on the Brits. You nation is disgusting monstrosity. You created that disgusting montrosity. You shouldn’t be given an opportunity to escape your creation by comming to America. If you don’t like the disgusting montrosity you created, go back and fix it(if that’s even possible at this point in time)

I would also like to send sing songwriter and convert to Islam Richard Thompson back to England to so he can live among his muslim brethren. Maybe Americ should have sided with Germany during the Frist World War.

The problem is bigger than Hitchens. I have really grown to hate the English.

Mr Wheeler:

Please be more specific about why the UK is a disgusting monstrosity.

I have feeling it is related to some infantile rage on your part toward Muslims (or immigrants in general), which you obviously percieve as hurting you in some way. Please elaborate.

Maud,

You say, “The ONLY relevant question is: Can you prove God exists?”, yet you never bother to spell out in clear terms what it would take, on your view, to count something x as “proof” for something else y. This is carelessness. What precisely do you mean by the locution “prove God exists”? Atheists like you constantly use words like “proof”, “evidence”, “rational”, and “science” (among a host of others) in philosophically irresponsible ways. It’s not enough to throw the phrase “prove it!” around—you don’t even tell us what kind of proof you think is required (epistemological? mathematical? abductive? or what?) I’ll be glad to answer your question when you make it clear what exactly it is you’re asking for.

“[Religion is] sinister and embarrassing.”

Why should anybody believe this? It’d be interesting to see you actually give a supporting argument for this claim. Of course, it doesn’t follow from

(i)there are many sinister and embarrassing religious fanatics out there,

that

(ii) therefore, religion is “sinister and embarrassing”.

Most sane and intelligent people would admit that (i) is true; the error of nontheists like you is to go a step further and use (i) (or something like it) in a fallacious attempt to bash religion per se. In any case, I welcome you to argue for your claim rather than expecting people to believe things on your say-so. You can begin by letting us know what you mean by “religion”.

“Trying to marry the fact that a lot of these same intelligent people also hold the conviction that a mysterious Sky Lord oversees all our affairs is extremely difficult.”

Mysterious sky lord? Maud, if you can’t make the relevant conceptual distinctions between God and a “mysterious sky lord” (whatever exactly you mean by that), then one is left to question whether you’ve enough intellectual fortitude to actually understand the position of your opponents. Perhaps you’re using “mysterious sky lord” as a cheap rhetorical spin; all the more reason to believe that you’re not adequately prepared to debate these matters in an philosophically responsible way.

maud quote >>The ONLY relevant question is: Can you prove God exists? No, just as no one else can prove it doesn’t. But the burden of proof lies with those who are making the initial claim.<< too bad you failed to mention hitchens didn’t apply that same logic to his belief wmds existed in iraq… that is reason enough not to support the bimbo..

W H,

so many points made. I hope I don’t miss any. Firstly, the proof issue:

‘Atheists like you constantly use words like “proof”, “evidence”, “rational”, and “science” (among a host of others) in philosophically irresponsible ways.’

Yes we do, and you use those words if almost every other single mode of your being. WMDs in Iraq? Prove it. You’ve suddenly discovered that mustard makes you impotent? Prove it. Etc. When God enters the fray, all of sudden these words become ‘philosophically irresponsible’, and I’m sorry but I really don’t understand you at all on that one.

‘It’s not enough to throw the phrase “prove it!” around—you don’t even tell us what kind of proof you think is required (epistemological? mathematical? abductive? or what?)’

Just something; anything; the merest shred. It is not enough to claim that the Universe is such an incredible thing that there must be a creator. For all we know all of this is actually quite unremarkable, as we ourselves may be. I want something like the same proof that you require when your government makes an outlandish claim.
“[Religion is] sinister and embarrassing.”
‘Why should anybody believe this? It’d be interesting to see you actually give a supporting argument for this claim.’
It’s embarrassing because you are effectively telling the world that life scares you so much that you need the reassurance of a fairytale to see you through it. It’s sinister because it’s a fairytale that sometimes gives itself the authority to do the most ludicrously horrendous things, as you well know.
‘Sky Lord’ is meant to be funny, and I think it has quite a nice ring to it. Furthermore, don’t all of our church spires point up into the azure, suggesting that is where His lair lies? If He’s all around and what have you, why don’t some steeples point sideways, or downwards, or inwards? And don’t we go ‘up’ to heaven? I know this is silliness - it’s not the Christian version of events that you are using in your argument, though I strongly suspect you are one of one denomination or another (apologies if you are not). You sound a bit agnostic.
Lastly, though it doesn’t bother me to be called one, I don’t really think myself an atheist. I think myself a nothing. The only reason I apparently am one is because some other people do believe, therefore I apparently need a contrasting title. I don’t believe in ghosts either, but I’m not known as an antighostist or an aphantomist. The innuits didn’t have any word for atheist, but then they didn’t need one: they didn’t have any gods either.

@Brian Wheeler

As per your derogatory comments about Mr. Idle and Mr.
Cleese, all I have to say it that you ought to be
tortured in the comfy chair.

“NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!”

Maud,

If you go back and read my post carefully, you’ll notice that I never once said that the words ‘proof’, ‘evidence’, ‘science’, and so on, are themselves “philosophically irresponsible.” That wouldn’t make sense. What I said, rather, is that nontheists USE these words in philosophically irresponsible ways. An example is when you, as a nontheist, come here and say “prove God exists” without clarifying what kind of proof you’re looking for.

In this regard, you’ll recall that I explicitly asked you to specify the kind of proof you demand. Empirical? Epistemological? Mathematical? Abductive argumentation? Inductive? Or what? The closest you come to answering this question in your last post is by saying, vaguely and unspecifically, “just something; anything; the merest shred.” Intelligent readers are sure to notice that this is not an answer to my question. I trust you’ll actually answer it in your next post if you plan to continue this exchange wihout appearing ignorant.

The question of God’s existence is, you’d agree, perhaps one of the most important questions to ever occur to a human mind. A lot hangs on the answer, so we must think as carefully as we can if we want to get at the truth of the matter. (Certainly, we must think more carefully about it than we do about, say, the question of whether WMD’s exist in Iraq.) One step towards thinking carefully about God’s existence is to stop conflating organized religion and theism. It’d be illogical to let the horrors of organized religion distort the conclusions we come to about God’s existence. Here’s another step: if we demand “proof” for God’s existence, we had better get clear on what we mean by “proof”. What is it for something x to count as “proof” as something y? We need to ask ourselves questions like the following: assuming a God really does exist, am I making it too hard on myself to believe it? What, precisely, are my standards of proof? Do I use these standards across the board, or do I relax them when it comes to believing what I want to be true? Do I treat all of the propositions I believe with the same strict degree of skepticism that I treat the proposition that a God exists? 

You suggest that the existence of our 4-dimensional spacetime universe is unremarkable “for all we know”. Well, Maud, “for all we know” there are invisible pink unicorns dancing on the Moon. Epistemic possibility doesn’t get us far here. We need to be concerned about what is actually the case! And *actually* the existence of our universe is quite remarkable—indeed, given atheism, it is surprising. Too surprising. Why should I believe that all of this sprang into existence without a cause, from a mindless, purposeless, nonrational, nonpersonal, spume of NOTHINGNESS? That seems prima facie incoherent. And why should I believe that due to dumb luck things like objective moral truths, consciousness, reason, libertarian free will, also sprang into existence despite the early chaotic conditions of spacetime? Further, why should I believe that all of these features of the world came together just in time to be discovered by sentient beings, beings who are capable of being morally responsible agents, but whose existence, you would like us to believe, is also due to dumb luck? This is too hard to believe. It’s superficial of nontheists like you to dismiss these things as “unremarkable”. Independent thinkers, who are open to the possibility that there is more to reality than what meets the eye, will not fall for such superficiality.

I asked you to argue for your claim that religion is “sinister and embarrassing”. Yet, instead of arguing you merely re-asserted yourself by claiming that it’s a fairytale. OK, Maud, we get it. We understand that you think it’s a fairytale, that it’s sinister, embarrassing, and all the rest. The question is: WHY should anybody else believe that your assessment is correct? Where’s your argument? Nowhere to be found, of course. Why are atheists like you so fond of assert n’ runs? Try supporting your views for once.

Who cares if sky lord sounds funny? Logical rigor, avoidance of ambiguity, and intellectual precision matter much more in this context than “being funny”.  Have you ever heard the maxim: understand before you critique? Were you to seriously let this guide you, it would prevent you from attacking mere caricatures of religion, and perhaps you would develop a more challenging and substantive critique of theism. As it stands, you seem to prefer rhetorical fluff, sound bites, “being funny”, and ambiguity over sound argumentation. And yet you expect theists here to believe that *they’re* the irrational ones? Nonsense.

Best,
W.H.

Adriana,

About John Cleese, you forgot to mention his most appropriate line for some of your detractors here:

“Don’t mention the war!” (From the Fawlty Towers episode, “The Germans.”

Here’s the video clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qiIl8z8dnVQ

W H,

‘It’s superficial of nontheists like you to dismiss these things as “unremarkable”’

I never said that I personally think things are unremarkable. On the contrary, I am in an almost constant state of awe. Everything from my body’s complex physiology to the Milky Way leaves me in a state of wonderment. However, clearly these things are perhaps only awe-inspiring to the human mind, and then only to some human minds. An oil pipeline carving it’s way through the Alaskan tundra may be ugly to us, but it seems unlikely a bird or a fox finds it aesthetically disagreeable. We are stuck with our human minds; this is the eternal dilemma.

Now the fact you personally have come to the conclusion that things are so that there must be something that approximates to a God-like consciousness is not one that I really have a problem with. You’re not claiming to know God’s mind, and, if you were, even you wouldn’t be in agreement with God if He suddenly appeared and told the world unequivocally that paedophilia is ok. I’m quite healthy and hopefully I have many years of thinking ahead of me, as I hope you have. It just so happens that up to this point in my existence my thoughts have haven’t lead me, in any way, to conclude that there has to be anything as preternaturally huge as a ‘God’. I know that I don’t know for sure one for or another, but it seems logical, from my narrow human perspective, to conclude that the more audacious claim is the more unlikely.

You haven’t made any comments regarding my remarks about people who believe in ufos, ghosts and other silly things. Perhaps you consider these points intellectually weak and not worth tackling (I concede, and this is no sickly appeal to flatter you, that you are more intelligent and more erudite than me), but if you type ‘ufos’ into Google you will find thousands of pages of ‘evidence’. These people have videos and pictures to ‘verify’ their claims too. After a lot of thought I toss this nonsense into the bin too, as, I strongly suspect, you do also. Now you would surely ask of the person that asserts that a huge alien empire controls the galaxy that they provide physical evidence. These people have never come up with the goods. It’s the same with theists. Please explain to me the real difference between these two sets of ideas.

Human beings are scared of dying. This is where theism springs from. It is a natural defense mechanism against the terror of existence. It comforts people. You know this. But humans take this to ridiculous lengths. The Jews believe God doesn’t want them to eat pork. Why would He be so picky? Christians believe God doesn’t want us to have sex outside of marriage. Why, of all things, would God concern Himself with our absurd sexual activities? And so it goes on.

Your assertion that God, or something like, exists because your perception of the Universe leads you to conclude that there must be a prime mover is a trillion light years away from asserting that the Bible is the word of God. In Scientology we are privy to the birth of another fantastic idea, its ideas formulated by a totally unremarkable mind in Mr Hubbard. We know this empirically because it has occurred within the reaches of our immediate experience. I see nothing but parallels between this latest fad and the Holy books of old. They are all packed with strange claims and recondite rituals.

‘As it stands, you seem to prefer rhetorical fluff, sound bites, “being funny”, and ambiguity over sound argumentation. And yet you expect theists here to believe that *they’re* the irrational ones?’

I don’t expect you to believe that you are the irrational ones. I just hope you will concede that yours is the more extraordinary claim, as it clearly is. As for the ‘sound bites’ and ‘being funny’ (well, at least trying), I apologize if you feel I have lowered the tone. That is not my intention.

Regards
Maud

@ Ms Kipley,

Alright, now I’ll jump in, in the spirit of what the proverbial Irishman said, “Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?” :-)

You wrote:

“clearly these things are perhaps only awe-inspiring to the human mind”

1.  As far as we know, there are no other kinds of minds, anywhere in the universe, let alone any life anywhere else in the universe.  (Even a non-theist, or perhaps ESPECIALLY a non-theist, ought to take that fact as all the more reason to treat this fragile Earth with special care.)
1.a.  “Mind” is not necessarily the same thing as consciousness (but that’s semantically debatable.) Mushrooms have a kind of consciousness; arguably so does a stone; but at least you have agreed that there is something extraordinary about Human consciousness.

“An oil pipeline carving it’s way through the Alaskan tundra may be ugly to us, but it seems unlikely a bird or a fox finds it aesthetically disagreeable.”

Correct, because there’s little or no evidence that birds care about any aesthetics at all.

“We are stuck with our human minds; this is the eternal dilemma.”

It’s true that we’re “stuck” with our human minds, but what makes it a dilemma?
We’re “stuck with” gravity too, but that’s not a dilemma; it’s just how things are.  If anything, it’s the opposite of a dilemma, because a dilemma presupposes alternatives.  Assuming the reality of the Holy Trinity (as I do), it’s not a “dilemma” for the Three Persons of God to be what they are - not a dilemma for THEM, anyway.  No dilemma at all; it is what it is, and there is no alternative (although we Christians believe Satan would like there to be an alternative - and that’s very anti-scientific of Satan...HA!  :-)

“It just so happens that up to this point in my existence my thoughts have haven’t lead me, in any way, to conclude that there has to be anything as preternaturally huge as a ‘God’.”

Objections:

1.  The Christian God isn’t “preternatural”, but supernatural;
2.  Dimensional adjectives like “huge” are inapplicable to the supernatural;
3.  Isn’t an absolute faith in the exclusive reality of the “natural” (excluding the supernatural) a kind of willful idolatry in its own way?  Furthermore, as the supernatural (if it exists as Christians believe) ENCOMPASSES and subsumes and superordinates the natural - and as the supernatural is qualitative, a “what kind” instead of a “how much” - then even a reverence for, and wonderment about, “Nature” will logically tend TOWARD a contemplation of the supernatural instead of a categorical rejection of it (as Hitchens illogically does.) In other words, if “Nature” REALLY inspires you toward “wonder” and awe - as it should - then it’s more logical to at least SUSPECT the existence of “supernatural” qualities than to deny them categorically. 
3.a.  Alright, one could object that “my human mind contemplates the possibility of the supernatural, and is awed by Nature, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE of my Human mind.” Fine, so far so good and logical.  But then if the nature of Man’s mind tends toward contemplation of supernatural qualities, isn’t that evidence that the Human Mind has capacities which are NOT TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH NATURE?  (Hey, Zmirak and other better logicians/theologians than me, out there, help me out here!)

“I know that I don’t know for sure one for or another, but it seems logical, from my narrow human perspective, to conclude that the more audacious claim is the more unlikely.”

Objections:

1.  Is your “human perspective” “narrow” because it’s Human?  Or because it’s yours personally?  WHAT OTHER PERSPECTIVES ARE THERE, OTHER THAN HUMAN?
None, as far as we know.  So, tell me, what is “scientific” about assuming the existence of ANY non-human perspectives?
Nothing.  All the empirical evidence we have, is that there are no perspectives other than Human ones.  Anywhere in the universe.  As far as we know, this Planet Earth - and Man - is the CONSCIOUS centre of the universe - and it’s anti-scientific to assume otherwise.
(Well, we could ask some non-human creatures for their perspectives.  I’ve just asked my Cockapoo puppy, Sam Gamgee,
for his “perspective” on God, and his response was to sniff my beer bottle - typical Australian male, he is.... :-)

“You haven’t made any comments regarding my remarks about people who believe in ufos, ghosts and other silly things.”

Personally I don’t believe in UFOs or in life on other planets, but I might be wrong.  But what’s so silly about ghosts?  I lived in a haunted house when I was a boy (it was built in 1770, and among its “ghosts” was some residue of a man who committed suicide there around year 1900, hanging himself from a barn rafter), and experienced some phenomena there which were, well, “ghosts.” Were they disembodied spirits?  I don’t know.
But isn’t it possible that some kinds of “memories” become “recorded” into a place’s atmosphere, in a way we don’t yet understand?  250 years ago it would have sounded “magical” and “unscientific” if someone suggested that voices could be recorded on material discs, or that we could look into a box and watch men walking on the moon.  Maybe “ghosts” are a kind of DVD memorised in a place’s atmosphere in a way we don’t yet understand?  And if things like DVDs and TV scenes of men walking on the moon seemed contrary to “science” in year 1750, then what other, greater mysteries have we not yet even begun to discover - about “consciousness” and its relation to materiality?
In 16th century Europe, anyone who described communications like we’re having now - over the internet - would have been burned at the stake for witchcraft.  So, today, who are the REALLY anti-scientific people?  Those who keep open minds - humbly - about the essential mysteriousness and weirdness of life, or those who, like Hitchens, preach like Muhammed did on one of his bad days (Muhammed had good AND bad days, and said bad AND good things), that “the canon is now closed, and now we know all we can ever know about the nature of consciousness, or of “God.”

“Human beings are scared of dying. This is where theism springs from.”

No.  If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll admit that you’re more scared of your own limitations than of dying.  Atheist Communists don’t want to die, but they pretended to become like “gods” in their own lifetimes.  Man isn’t so much afraid of death, as he is of acknowledging his limitations.  The ancient Greeks didn’t believe in life after death (other than as mere shadows), but they DID believe (and so did the ancient Germans) that eternal fame was a kind of eternal life.  Hitchens is one of their pagan kindred spirits - and, once again, a very anti-scientific one.

“Why, of all things, would God concern Himself with our absurd sexual activities?”

Because God is, well, a very Sexy being, and He doesn’t like any of his Gifts to be wasted or under-appreciated.  On this blog I’ve often admitted that I don’t believe in or practice 100 percent of Catholic doctrine or morals - but ya gotta admit, that the more sex is tossed around without any acknowledgement of its sanctity, the less pleasurable - and less Human - it becomes.

One more thing:  As Australia is my newly adopted country and I’m fast becoming a serious Australian patriot, I gotta say, the platypus convinces me of the “existence” of God.  As the Scottish comedian Robin Williams said:

“Imagine God smoking some weed (toke, puff), and he says, ‘I’m gonna take a beaver and attach a duck’s bill to it.
Hey, I’m God, what are you gonna do?’”

:-) And I’m serious about that.  God is the ultimate, Divine Comedian, and no one who has a shred of a sense of humour can ever categorically deny God.  :-)

John Ball,

I really hope you don’t see this as a cop out, but I don’t think I can take anymore typing for at least a week, so I can’t muster the energy to tackle all of your eloquent points. The only one thing I do have the energy for is this:

‘Because God is, well, a very Sexy being, and He doesn’t like any of his Gifts to be wasted or under-appreciated.  On this blog I’ve often admitted that I don’t believe in or practice 100 percent of Catholic doctrine or morals - but ya gotta admit, that the more sex is tossed around without any acknowledgement of its sanctity, the less pleasurable - and less Human - it becomes.’

I agree utterly with the assertion that debasing sex ruins it. Treated like that it eventually becomes joyless and meaningless. But sex as a gift? I wouldn’t call it a gift. It often easily creates insecurity, paranoia, humilation, doubt and a sense of failure, even, or especially, in people who are sexually ‘well-behaved’. If I could remove the desire for sex, that makes me sometimes do ludicrous and irksome things in pursuit of it, I sometimes think I would. I don’t see it as a ‘gift’ at all. It’s more a hindrance. A very pleasant one may be, but mostly more hastle than it’s worth.

You don’t practice a 100% of Catholic doctrines? Well, in all seriousness, why practice any % if you pick out the bits that don’t suit you? Furthermore, why Catholicism over, say, Islam?

Oh and by the way, it’s ‘Mr’ not ‘Ms’: ‘Maud’ is unisex.

Regards
Maud

As a practicing Catholic, I must amend my previous comment about
Christopher Hitchens.  What I should have said about this
pathetic character is that we must pray for him instead of wishing
him to wither away.  I beg forgiveness for my uncharitableness.

@ Maud

“If I could remove the desire for sex, that makes me sometimes do ludicrous and irksome things in pursuit of it, I sometimes think I would.”

That wouldn’t solve the problem.  As long as you’re alive you’ll do ludicrous and irksome things.  I’m gonna have my dog neutered soon, but that won’t stop him from barking at imagined intruders or
stealing my socks.

“You don’t practice a 100% of Catholic doctrines? Well, in all seriousness, why practice any % if you pick out the bits that don’t suit you?”

That’s my acknowledgment of my condition of Original Sin.  There is no such thing as a Perfect Catholic; Catholic doctrine itself teaches that no one except for Christ has ever followed Christ’s way perfectly, not even the Saints, and no one ever really believes in “100 percent” of Catholic doctrine because, among other things, no one ever REALLY, TOTALLY understands it perfectly.  Christianity isn’t about total unquestioning acceptance of doctrine or dogma; Jesus taught in parables because he wanted us to think for ourselves.  So why do I still not convert from Catholicism to something else like Protestantism?  I’ve often come close to doing so, but then I keep realising/remembering that a paradoxical tension between faith and existential doubt (and struggle against despair) is in fact the heart of Catholicism, just as it was an essential part of Christ’s passion. 

Hitchens and Dawkins, on the other hand, abase themselves before the nineteenth-century idols of Darwinist materialism just as mindlessly and spinelessly as any Muslim Fundamentalist idolises the Koran.  Idolatry begins where wonder ends.

It’s very sad and quite disturbing that so many of the responses on this page seem to be from people who believe in and even worship a god that sends people to eternal infinite torment for the faux pas of not believing in him. 

What sort of emotionally disturbed being must this be?  And why would a god be a victim of such a condition.  Such a god as you people supplicate before is disgusting and vile and by any result of the simplest amount of common sense a complete fiction.

Louis Cyphre, I and many others here do not believe “atheism” is necessarily a mortal sin.  Hitchens won’t necessarily go to Hell because he’s an atheist.  But on the other hand, he sure as hell doesn’t deserve to be rewarded for it, or for otherwise being a publicity hound and a literary vulture who makes his fortune scavenging upon the reputations of the dead and the bigotries of the living.

Does “Louis Cyphre"=Lucifer a la Bob Deniro in the dreadful “Angel Heart”

christopher hitchens is gorgeous! there, i just had to say that. i hate seeing a crowd attack one person.

Louis, I don’t believe that it is as simple as all that.  I am far from the most adept biblical scholar here, but I believe the heaven argument on both sides of this thing is better left to God to deal with.  I am not sure what the position of the church is on guaranteeing heaven but I think it involves more than believing in God.  My understanding is that belief in him must always include actioions that show that this belief is truly felt.  For this most Catholics will do some time in what is known as purgatory before getting to heaven. I also understand that there are some fundamentalists who are trying to bring about heaven on earth through some sort of armageddon, and they are making good progress toward that end.

My favorite quote regarding atheism.  A tour guide in Northern Ireland when asked in regard to the violence ‘don’t you have any atheists?’ replied, ‘yes we do, both Protestant and Catholic.’

Hitchens is just one in a long line of those who can be considered antichrist (lower case intentional). He’s not the first nor will he be the last. He already lost the debate before he opened his mouth the first time in opposition to God.

I just read the complete transcript of the event in question and it left a very different impression than the carefully chosen excerpt. My only comment: if that was Hitchens drunk, I’d still choose him for a dinner companion over the most sober (and pious) among you.

The Brits are drunkards.  Every day, I am reading the headlines from one of the many British Newspaper with a story on how alcoholic, the British are

Here is a transcript from that event which probes this “Hitchens jumped down and threatened the priest” propagnda is, like all religiously propagated propagnda, BULLSHIT:

Unidentified Audience Member: --Two things.  I have met saints.  You cannot explain the existence of saints without God.  I was nine years chaplain with Mother Teresa [inaudible].  You have called her a whore, a demagogue.  She’s in heaven that you don’t believe in, but she’s praying for you. If you do not believe in heaven, that’s why you drink.

Christopher Hitchens: Excuse me?

Unidentified Audience Member: That’s why you drink--- God has offered us happiness, all of us.  And you will either die a Catholic or a madman, and I’ll tell you the difference.

And secondly, I’m an officer with this club.  And this conversation has been beneath the dignity of this club.

Unidentified Audience Member: No, it hasn’t been --

Christopher Hitchens: Well, it is now.

David Horowitz: Okay.  I --

Christopher Hitchens: It is now.

Unidentified Audience Member: And I’d just say that --

Christopher Hitchens: Fine host you turn out to be.

Unidentified Audience Member:—this club, we’ve had very open discussion. But we’ve never heard such vulgarity and bigotry.

Christopher Hitchens: Till now.

Unidentified Audience Member: And I am—I don’t want to see this in this club again.  And I think I represent the officers of this noble –

David Horowitz: All right.

Christopher Hitchens: Your claim to know what [a saint is] or what heaven is is as absurd as your [inaudible] arrogance, your unkindness and your lack of hospitality.

David Horowitz: See?  Everybody –

Christopher Hitchens: You should be ashamed.

Unidentified Audience Member: [inaudible]

Christopher Hitchens: And you are supposed to represent a church of charity and kindness?