the Book god is not great is a worthless rant full of distortions and part truths. Hitchens is an idiot. He does not serve the atheist view well.
Much like The God Delusion and its author.
You guys are just pissed that they expose religious types for the idiots they are.
Dry your tears. It's ok. There, there.
Who's more dogmatic? The Apologists or the Critics? I honestly can't tell the difference.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:Answering questions will encourage more questions. He may satisfy a few but does the rest of the nation want a President that is barraged with tons of religious questions and takes the time to answer them.
Kennedy had to deal with the same type of questions during his campaign. I remember how worried my parents were, that a Catholic was running for President.
I suspect Mitt's handlers fear that anything Mitt might say about his Church would negatively impact his vote getting ability. They would probably advise him that this is a subject to keep mum about.
The Nehor wrote: Who's more dogmatic? The Apologists or the Critics? I honestly can't tell the difference.
Obviously, the apologists are. They have this bogus framework they have to work within. Critics can change their minds at will given new information.
OK, I should say that I don't think all religious types are idiots. They're just idiotic when it comes to religion.
See? I'm flexible.
Yes, but you're dogmatic about how bogus the framework is.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote: Who's more dogmatic? The Apologists or the Critics? I honestly can't tell the difference.
Obviously, the apologists are. They have this bogus framework they have to work within. Critics can change their minds at will given new information.
OK, I should say that I don't think all religious types are idiots. They're just idiotic when it comes to religion.
See? I'm flexible.
Yes, but you're dogmatic about how bogus the framework is.
Actually, I'm insistent on how there's no supporting evidence for the "framework." However, I'm completely open to concrete evidence of absolutely anything supernatural. It's just that there is none, so what other conclusion would a reasonable person draw other than the fact that it's all bogus? It's the only rational position to take.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
the Book god is not great is a worthless rant full of distortions and part truths. Hitchens is an idiot. He does not serve the atheist view well.
Much like The God Delusion and its author.
You guys are just pissed that they expose religious types for the idiots they are.
Dry your tears. It's ok. There, there.
No Schmo. There are reasonable and rational ways to argue and present a view. Hitchins is not good at it. He is arrogant and condescending and makes major generalizations and views religion and those who adhere as deficient, Hawkins I have not read so I cannot opine.
You do the same as Hitchins in your comments above.
The Nehor wrote: Who's more dogmatic? The Apologists or the Critics? I honestly can't tell the difference.
Obviously, the apologists are. They have this bogus framework they have to work within. Critics can change their minds at will given new information.
OK, I should say that I don't think all religious types are idiots. They're just idiotic when it comes to religion.
See? I'm flexible.
Yes, but you're dogmatic about how bogus the framework is.
Actually, I'm insistent on how there's no supporting evidence for the "framework." However, I'm completely open to concrete evidence of absolutely anything supernatural. It's just that there is none, so what other conclusion would a reasonable person draw other than the fact that it's all bogus? It's the only rational position to take.
But then you can understand that someone who does have evidence would act differently.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Jason Bourne wrote: No Schmo. There are reasonable and rational ways to argue and present a view. Hitchins is not good at it. He is arrogant and condescending and makes major generalizations and views religion and those who adhere as deficient
You make the mistake of thinking Hitchens is trying to appeal to religious types. Clearly, they're already lost. Why would he bother?
Jason Bourne wrote:You do the same as Hitchins in your comments above.
Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think I'm that good.
The Nehor wrote:But then you can understand that someone who does have evidence would act differently.
I would understand that if someone had empirical evidence, but nobody does. What's your point?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:I would understand that if someone had empirical evidence, but nobody does. What's your point?
I agree with Harold Bloom (no enemy to religion) that if one wants to be a rock solid empiricist, then one has to reject the supernatural. Some Schmo is being perfectly consistent in taking that position. LDS apologists are obviously not Bloom's empiricists--they accept supernatural evidence.
I prefer, particularly in the practice of history, to stick with a naturalist world view.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”