“Thanks to the foolishness of the “intelligent design” faction, which has tried with ignominious un-success to smuggle the teaching of creationism into our schools under a name that is plainly stupid rather than intelligent”

The atheist almost always resorts to calling those that don’t agree with their cherished beliefs and paradigms stupid. This common occurrence proves my point that everyone has a god of sorts the atheist god is their intellect.

Of course the religious just condemn those that don’t believe as they believe to an eternal hell of fire and brimstone. I guess I would prefer stupid to their hell of fire.

I agree with Hitchens that the religious will try and use the term intelligent design to preach to their young their religious cherished beliefs but calling others stupid reveals his own lack of self-esteem.

Hitchens being a former catholic suggests to me that there may be more to his life’s story as a catholic then he wants to reveal to the public. He appears to have a deep hatred for the Catholic Church for whatever reasons.

No institution does a better job of making atheists than the Catholic Church.

If Darwinism can be taught as fact than at the very least schools should be able to teach that for some the universe has an underlying reality of intelligence rather than just chance occurrence.

I don’t know which contains more ignorance the religious making a god in their human image or the atheists believing they exist due to some chance occurrence. Both are based in the purest of ignorance and unawareness not stupidity. Stupidity and ignorance are two different modes of being in the world. One must stand between religion, atheism, scientism, and materialism to see these phenomena play out on a daily basis.

But then without our unawareness we would not be unique.

“And don’t tell me that warfare increases faith and that there are no unbelievers in foxholes: Only recently I was invited to a very spirited meeting of the freethinkers’ group at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., where there has been a revolt against on-campus proselytizing by biblical-literalist instructors.”

Campus life is not a foxhole Hitchens. That was not a stupid comparison but it was ignorant.

posted on October 27, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi Researcher,

  Hope you are well,

  You seem to be using opinion as a way of setting a relativistic standard for the appraisal of values, such as stupidity or validity of belief, rather than using more standard methods such as those used in various disciplines.

  I would like to try and suggest to you that this is not a good idea. Here is the reason why: Using relative cultural value judgement’s, in this case your own relative value judgement, is an argument that does not step outside the value judgement, i.e. its only power rests in making the type of cultural assertions that it starts with.

  As you say ‘stepping outside of religion, atheism and materialism’ will give you a vantage on them all. It this point though you must make a decision as to what types of thoughts and conclusions you will make, and how you will make them.

  You have so far shown little willingness to address them as anything other than cultural values in an antagonistic state.

  If i propose to you that a water is an important liquid and in the right quantities and purity levels is non poisonous and someone else tells you that in any quantity it will kill you then we have stepped outside of a purely cultural or individual discussion like ‘i like water’ and ‘i don’t like water’. You are missing the distinction.

  Arguing using cultural relativism, or a form of, which is what you are doing, is purely a way of not tackling the various evidences for and against any idea.

  You are making the mistake of arguing that belief coincides with culture rather than that belief ‘can’ coincide with quality of evidence and in that mistaking others attempts to use evidence maturely and properly for your own cultural decision to only make cultural value judgments.

  If your reply is that his is purely my own paradigm then you massively underestimate the role of evidenced belief in contrast to cultural.

  If you want to argue with me say why and where i am wrong specifically - not just a version of ‘You are Wrong’.

posted on October 28, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

”...impressed by the willingness of the other side to take me… up on the offer (for debate”

Impressed? Theists are always eager to discuss their view. Christians and Muslims in particular are trained to spread the word of God.

Where Hitchens sees “willingness to debate” I see an obvious agenda.

posted on October 28, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I get wave-particle wobbles from “smack downs” of science vs. religion. The energy quarks dim under the Planck constant. I was interested in this article because CH addressed his interest in listening to the agenda of others. Neither religion nor science holds me for long. Scientists are too busy tossing stained hush puppies at religion while religion flings back dirty sandals. Agendas and opinions go, like Doris Day’s song said, about love and marriage, together.
I have been complimentary to an agenda deftly expressed. Later my compliment wanes uncertain, into the realm of darker energy. Neither agenda, by itself knows the Tao, or if it exists. Listening to the big bang radiation in my head, I think I know. Just when I have the energy for believing, I am strong enough to believe in nothing.

posted on November 1, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.