• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hitchens/Blair debate tonight

Noaidi

Noaidi

slow walker
For those in the UK (or who can get internet radio), Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair are debating the role of religion tonight on BBC Radio 4 at 8pm.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Noaidi said:
It's the Toronto debate.

Edit: just noticed you're from that area. Were you at the debate?
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't, but coincidentally, it's on TV here right now!

Canadians: tune to CPAC right now if you want to see this! 10:00 - 12:00 am EST!
 
jmvizanko

jmvizanko

Uber Tool
I hate that Hitchens is considered an arch atheist commentator. I think he is rather incoherent and he just doesn't seem to find all the great arguments and responses out there. He seems to come of as more of a propagandist than a philosopher. I feel like I could do at least 3x better than him.

For instance, his points about the Catholic influence in Africa. Here's what I'd say: What good does it do for Catholics to help children with AIDS, when they are going to die in 3 years anyway, and the reason they have AIDS in a good number of instances, is directly because of the Catholicism they have brought to the region? These children would be better off without AIDS because of Catholicism, than with AIDS and having help because of Catholicism. This is just another instance where the good of religion, which can be had without it, is more than canceled out by the bad it does.
 
Last edited:
Jeremiah

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
jmvizanko said:
I hate that Hitchens is considered an arch atheist commentator. I think he is rather incoherent and he just doesn't seem to find all the great arguments and responses out there. He seems to come of as more of a propagandist than a philosopher. I feel like I could do at least 3x better than him.

For instance, his points about the Catholic influence in Africa. Here's what I'd say: What good does it do for Catholics to help children with AIDS, when they are going to die in 3 years anyway, and the reason they have AIDS in a good number of instances, is directly because of the Catholicism they have brought to the region? These children would be better off without AIDS because of Catholicism, than with AIDS and having help because of Catholicism. This is just another instance where the good of religion, which can be had without it, is more than canceled out by the bad it does.
Click to expand...

"What good does it do for Catholics to help children with AIDS, when they are going to die in 3 years anyway"

So your conclusion is that since they are going to die anyways it pointless to try to help them?

"These children would be better off without AIDS because of Catholicism, than with AIDS and having help because of Catholicism."

You keep saying "children" but if they are children then it seem less likely that they got AIDS from sex. If the are children then they were probably born with it.
 
waitasec

waitasec

Veteran Member
jmvizanko said:
I hate that Hitchens is considered an arch atheist commentator. I think he is rather incoherent and he just doesn't seem to find all the great arguments and responses out there. He seems to come of as more of a propagandist than a philosopher. I feel like I could do at least 3x better than him.

For instance, his points about the Catholic influence in Africa. Here's what I'd say: What good does it do for Catholics to help children with AIDS, when they are going to die in 3 years anyway, and the reason they have AIDS in a good number of instances, is directly because of the Catholicism they have brought to the region? These children would be better off without AIDS because of Catholicism, than with AIDS and having help because of Catholicism. This is just another instance where the good of religion, which can be had without it, is more than canceled out by the bad it does.
Click to expand...

think about it. how would you go about introducing a new idea to someone?

hitchens went to the source of the matter, moral superiority through faith.
for instance, mother teresa perpetuated the misery by condemning the use of condoms as if it were a form of abortion...
it's bad to have aids but it's worse to use condoms
 
jmvizanko

jmvizanko

Uber Tool
Jeremiah said:
So your conclusion is that since they are going to die anyways it pointless to try to help them?
Click to expand...

No, we should help them. But it is ironic that a lot of the people helping them contribute to why they have AIDS in the first place. Its better for a child to not have AIDS to begin with, then have help once they have AIDS. How does that obvious point, with its implications on the backwardness of the Catholic mindest, equate to not wanting to help the ones that do have it?

Jeremiah said:
You keep saying "children" but if they are children then it seem less likely that they got AIDS from sex. If the are children then they were probably born with it.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? If they were born with it then that means they got it from their mother. And guess how they got it? Most likely sex without the use of a condom. Do you have even a basic idea of how HIV works?
 
Last edited:
jmvizanko

jmvizanko

Uber Tool
waitasec said:
think about it. how would you go about introducing a new idea to someone?

hitchens went to the source of the matter, moral superiority through faith.
for instance, mother teresa perpetuated the misery by condemning the use of condoms as if it were a form of abortion...
it's bad to have aids but it's worse to use condoms
Click to expand...

Your second paragraph is sarcastic, right?
 
Jeremiah

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
jmvizanko said:
No, we should help them. But it is ironic that a lot of the people helping them contribute to why they have AIDS in the first place. Its better for a child to not have AIDS to begin with, then have help once they have AIDS. How does that obvious point, with its implications on the backwardness of the Catholic mindest, equate to not wanting to help the ones that do have it?



Are you serious? If they were born with it then that means they got it from their mother. And guess how they got it? Most likely sex without the use of a condom. Do you have even a basic idea of how HIV works?
Click to expand...

"Do you have even a basic idea of how HIV works?"

You're the one who thinks HIV is transmitted by religious preaching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top