Been a while, any Hitchens fans?

[Necrosis]

Brutalizing religion

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuI4Nzc07Io/youtube]

[Man of Steel]

fixed

Brutalizing religion

[SF1900]

Smart man. He is missed.

Too bad he drank and smoked himself to death. His father had the same exact type of throat cancer he had. Mix genetics with smoking/drinking, its a cause for disaster. 

[Necrosis]

fixed

 

[Man of Steel]

Smart man. He is missed.

Too bad he drank and smoked himself to death. His father had the same exact type of throat cancer he had. Mix genetics with smoking/drinking, its a cause for disaster.  

I know.  You'd think a man as enlightened, evolved and educated as Hitchens would've simply learned from the mistakes of his father and applied what he had learned to his own life.  

For decades this man stood before throngs of adoring audiences and elegantly articulated the need for humanity to embrace education and modern science for the betterment and advancement of humankind.  He railed against the folly of adhering to archaic knowledge and practices of rudimentary peoples yet when faced with all the facts and evidence from modern, medical science concerning the ills of smoking and excessive drinking he stood in defiance and cut his life almost in half.

When you think about it, it's almost hypocritical?

[Man of Steel]

MOS, what is your opinion on what he was saying in the video?

It's hard to judge when he targets "religion" and compares god to North Korea....the unchanging, tyrant.  Which god?  Which "religion"?  He makes reference to elements of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but never calls them out specifically.  

I think he weaves together and articulates a lot of generalizations and states very little by way of substance.  It's much like Richard Dawkins' "KO statements"....."science flew man to the moon, religion flew man into buildings"....and the audience goes wild!   I've watched Hitchens speak and debate many times and he understands theology about as well as the average layperson....and that ain't saying much.  

Still, when you speak with a British accent people tend to believe that what you're saying is much more substantial than it really is.

[Man of Steel]

It's not hypocritical in the slightest. He unapologetically drank and smoked as a personal choice which he enjoyed. He claimed it helped him to write better, which was his passion in life. He knew full well the risks of doing it, and made an informed decision to carry on for his own personal reasons.
He died aged 62...hardly cutting his life in half. The man was a passionate supporter of secularism and  human rights for people to be free to do as they please, without the fear of persecution from religious fanatics seeking to control every aspect of an individuals personal life.
In a way, it was a brilliant, final "fuck you" to the type of people he fought against his whole life.

Hypocritical would be a far more accurate term to describe pretty much every single religious leader in history. As well as the fanatics who follow them and cast judgement on everyone else.

Trust me, I wasn't for a moment expecting anyone to agree with me LOL.

"In a way, it was a brilliant, final "fuck you" to the type of people he fought against his whole life."

Well, that is one way to look at it.  

He slowly and knowingly took his own life so it's harder for me to recognize the brilliance there, but I'm just a theist so what do I know? 

[Necrosis]

Trust me, I wasn't for a moment expecting anyone to agree with me LOL.

"In a way, it was a brilliant, final "fuck you" to the type of people he fought against his whole life."

Well, that is one way to look at it.  

He slowly and knowingly took his own life so it's harder for me to recognize the brilliance there, but I'm just a theist so what do I know?

What he is suggesting or suggested was that the truth matters. That is, what is the truth about drinking a lot of alcohol? he knew it, what is the age of the earth? not 6000 years, science says alcohol is bad for you, he agrees, and the earth is 4.5 billions years old, he agrees, show me the hypocrisy? you are making a false analogy, there is absolutely no hypocrisy, it's not an opinion, he was consistent.  You are also not comparing apples to apples, one action is  a life choice and nuanced, that is, some alcohol could be helpful, some can drink a shit ton and not get sick etc. The other basic facts of reality, the earth revolves around the sun, evolution is correct, it's an absurd dichotomy. One is a binary answer, yes or no, the other rife with possible outcomes based on a myriad of factors like diet and lifestyle.

so if reality can be trusted  (it seems it can based on modern life (science)), humans have been around for a while, the chinese have records older then the bible, the earth is not 6000 years old, this is a basic fact of life. If we then use the evidence we have (the stuff that can be repeated, predict things, like dropping  a ball) heaven waited idly for thousands of years only to decide to choose the worst possible place to reveal himself, in the worst possible way in a terrible time.



 

[Necrosis]

Trust me, I wasn't for a moment expecting anyone to agree with me LOL.

"In a way, it was a brilliant, final "fuck you" to the type of people he fought against his whole life."

Well, that is one way to look at it.  

He slowly and knowingly took his own life so it's harder for me to recognize the brilliance there, but I'm just a theist so what do I know? 

LOL, so are you though? you appear to be gigantic, you are quickly taking years off your life. You appear to be a glutton (Me too).

Again, your argument fails on so many levels, you are then creating a straw man in that, brilliance isn't defined by life choices, some of those things are not choices, like addiction, mental health etc. There are many brilliant alcoholics and addicts, therefore... no.

You are being a little passive aggressive , just a little theist...... I know that was suppose to make you appear smart after your clever argument, however, the problem is it's non-sense.

[Man of Steel]

What he is suggesting or suggested was that the truth matters. That is, what is the truth about drinking a lot of alcohol? he knew it, what is the age of the earth? not 6000 years, science says alcohol is bad for you, he agrees, and the earth is 4.5 billions years old, he agrees, show me the hypocrisy? you are making a false analogy, there is absolutely no hypocrisy, it's not an opinion, he was consistent.  You are also not comparing apples to apples, one action is  a life choice and nuanced, that is, some alcohol could be helpful, some can drink a shit ton and not get sick etc. The other basic facts of reality, the earth revolves around the sun, evolution is correct, it's an absurd dichotomy. One is a binary answer, yes or no, the other rife with possible outcomes based on a myriad of factors like diet and lifestyle.

so if reality can be trusted  (it seems it can based on modern life (science)), humans have been around for a while, the chinese have records older then the bible, the earth is not 6000 years old, this is a basic fact of life. If we then use the evidence we have (the stuff that can be repeated, predict things, like dropping  a ball) heaven waited idly for thousands of years only to decide to choose the worst possible place to reveal himself, in the worst possible way in a terrible time.

LOL, so are you though? you appear to be gigantic, you are quickly taking years off your life. You appear to be a glutton (Me too).

Again, your argument fails on so many levels, you are then creating a straw man in that, brilliance isn't defined by life choices, some of those things are not choices, like addiction, mental health etc. There are many brilliant alcoholics and addicts, therefore... no.

You are being a little passive aggressive , just a little theist...... I know that was suppose to make you appear smart after your clever argument, however, the problem is it's non-sense.

Make sure and justify all that negative behavior LOL!!    

I didn't say he wasn't a smart man.  I said I didn't see the brilliance that captain freedom did in the suggested "FU" statement in Hitchens death.  

Who's doing the "straw manning" here?    I just suggested an inconsistency.  

Ok, let me be even more specific.  I had absolutely no expectation that necrosis, captain freedom, true adonis, sf1900, uberman, croatch, avxo, syntaxmachine, agnostic007, etc....will agree with me LOL.   Of course what I posed would be justified away by this group....that's ALWAYS the expectation regardless of what is presented.    Rarely am I disappointed in my expectations.  Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Tabash, Carrier, Ehrman, Dillahunty, Kagin, O'Hair, Barker, Rand, etc....are all wildy respected by this group and a mass audience outside of this group.....these folks are the "beloved" among atheists.  And now that Hitchens has passed his "legacy" is that much more beloved and cherished.

On a sidenote, I always love how 6,000 years is thrown at me randomly.  What people continue to miss is I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old LOL.  I know that other believers do and that's fine....takes nothing from Christ or his salvific work.  I see interpretations of the Hebrew scripture that lead me to belief differently than they do, but I still love them and respect them.

Now, not that it's any of your business LOL, but the various levels in my blood and my blood pressure and general health are tip top....this is as of a few months back.  Am I too heavy?  Yes.  Am I working to correct it?  Yes.  Do I use illegal drugs or drink alcohol?  No.  Do I get good rest? Yes.   Do I eat a clean diet? Yes.  Do I cheat once in awhile?  Yes.   I just need to lose more weight and stay on track.  I have lost weight and continue to do so.   Going for more cardio and some lifting in an hour!  

I knew that word "hypocritical" would incense some of y'all.... "how dare you insult the late Hitchens".  Not my intention to insult anyone, but I don't respect Hitchens....I pity him.

[SF1900]

Why didn't you expect anyone else to agree with you? because you're operating on a higher intellectual level than the rest of us? or because you've grown used to having your inconsistent posts and incorrect assertions challenged by certain individuals?

As for Hitchens understanding "theology about as well as the average layperson", what a ridiculous and arrogant comment. The man graduated with one of the hardest degrees in the world (politics, philosophy and economics), from one of the most prestigious universities in the world, spent his life studying religion and politics whilst travelling and reporting on it first hand. He knew more about the subject than you could ever hope to.

You've clearly never actually studied Hitchens and Dawkins as you claim, otherwise you'd never have wrote "he targets "religion" and compares god to North Korea....the unchanging, tyrant.  Which god?  Which "religion"?  He makes reference to elements of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but never calls them out specifically."

He's called them all out specifically countless times (as has Dawkins), picked them apart and demonstrated why these religions are ridiculous. The common theme with all of the Abrahamic religions is the notion of this capricious and tyrannical god. Feel free to refute any of their actual points which criticize religion though, rather than making crazy statements related to their accents.

As for my post regarding his death, i'm not for a second suggesting that he chose to die in order to make a statement. What i am saying though is that he was consistent with everything he said. He didn't spend his life telling others how to live whilst failing to meet up to his own standards that he set (like most theists do). If he wanted to drink and smoke because he enjoyed it, then so what? that's a personal choice and has nothing to do with the measure of someone's brilliance. Churchill and many other highly respected historical figures all had the same traits. It doesn't denigrate the truth of their words in any way.

Why didn't you expect anyone else to agree with you? because you're operating on a higher intellectual level than the rest of us? or because you've grown used to having your inconsistent posts and incorrect assertions challenged by certain individuals?

MOS, like most theists, tend to throw "temper tantrums" when you don't agree with them.

This is the way it goes:

If you disagree and challenge them, youre intolerant and an arrogant atheist.

OR

They think they are smarter than you, and we are just missing all the answers because we don't believe in God.

In other words, you just have to agree with everything they say, in order to keep a smile on their face.

The more religion is "attacked" and challenged, the more theists cry out, "We are being judged" or "Our religion is being taken away from us."

Theists would love if we lived under a theocracy, and all were burnt or hung for speaking out against the church. Those days are long gone. Good riddance!

[Man of Steel]

Why didn't you expect anyone else to agree with you? because you're operating on a higher intellectual level than the rest of us? or because you've grown used to having your inconsistent posts and incorrect assertions challenged by certain individuals?

MOS, like most theists, tend to throw "temper tantrums" when you don't agree with them.

This is the way it goes:

If you disagree and challenge them, youre intolerant and an arrogant atheist.

OR

They think they are smarter than you, and we are just missing all the answers because we don't believe in God.

In other words, you just have to agree with everything they say, in order to keep a smile on their face.

The more religion is "attacked" and challenged, the more theists cry out, "We are being judged" or "Our religion is being taken away from us."

Theists would love if we lived under a theocracy, and all were burnt or hung for speaking out against the church. Those days are long gone. Good riddance!

The atheists of this board rarely agree with me LOL!!!  It's a way of life....not a temper tantrum.  

Necrosis went to the ole straw man and red herring well so I responded.

I'm a theist and whatever I say must always be countered by the atheists....that simple really.

Any deviation from that is extremely rare.

[Man of Steel]

Why didn't you expect anyone else to agree with you? because you're operating on a higher intellectual level than the rest of us? or because you've grown used to having your inconsistent posts and incorrect assertions challenged by certain individuals?

As for Hitchens understanding "theology about as well as the average layperson", what a ridiculous and arrogant comment. The man graduated with one of the hardest degrees in the world (politics, philosophy and economics), from one of the most prestigious universities in the world, spent his life studying religion and politics whilst travelling and reporting on it first hand. He knew more about the subject than you could ever hope to.

You've clearly never actually studied Hitchens and Dawkins as you claim, otherwise you'd never have wrote "he targets "religion" and compares god to North Korea....the unchanging, tyrant.  Which god?  Which "religion"?  He makes reference to elements of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but never calls them out specifically."

He's called them all out specifically countless times (as has Dawkins), picked them apart and demonstrated why these religions are ridiculous. The common theme with all of the Abrahamic religions is the notion of this capricious and tyrannical god. Feel free to refute any of their actual points which criticize religion though, rather than making crazy statements related to their accents.

As for my post regarding his death, i'm not for a second suggesting that he chose to die in order to make a statement. What i am saying though is that he was consistent with everything he said. He didn't spend his life telling others how to live whilst failing to meet up to his own standards that he set (like most theists do). If he wanted to drink and smoke because he enjoyed it, then so what? that's a personal choice and has nothing to do with the measure of someone's brilliance. Churchill and many other highly respected historical figures all had the same traits. It doesn't denigrate the truth of their words in any way.

Operating on a higher intellectual level?  Huh?  No LOL.  No need to straw man me either.

I have no expectation that an atheist will ever agree with me.  This is based on experience.  If an atheist actually agrees with me it's extremely rare.  

Our beliefs and worldviews are typically diametrically opposed.

I think you just missed what I wrote….that’s fine.  In that 10-minute clip it was just generalizations about "religion".....little for me to respond to and I'm not gonna just conflate and straw man a bunch of generalizations.

As I noted, I've listened to a bunch of Hitchens' lectures and debates...hours and hours of it actually.  I've done the same with Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Carrier, Dillahunty, Kagin, AronRa, Ehrman, Krauss, Tabash, etc....  I've done the same with Muslim apologists, Christian apologists, Catholic apologists and Mormom apologists.  I've also watched hours of "youtube atheists" as well.  I read atheist online materials and articles, but I don't purchase their materials...not going to fund that enterprise.  I look online for free pdfs or "give away" material and "cliff's notes" type versions of stuff.   Further, Dawkins will always debate a random Catholic priest or a random muslim apologist, but a seasoned Christian apologist…..LOL…..not a chance.  Hides behind the “I won’t debate someone who supports genocide”, etc…..just straw man nonsense…..it’s intellectual cowardice.  Now, have I mastered all this material?  LOL, no!  Although I certainly grasp the gist of their arguments and tactics.

And yes, despite the fact that Hitchens elegantly articulated his various biblical objections in a suave, british accent it's still clear he didn’t understand Christian theology....surface level at best.  It’s not because he was incapable of understanding it….he didn’t care to understand it…..the surface gave him what he needed.  Those surface level objections are enough to elicit an audience uproar every time.   I've explained away  many objections over the years and most time my explanations aren't read....they're glossed.   SF1900 is proof of that LOL!!  I can write 2 detailed paragraphs on "2+2=4" and he'd respond with, "have you ever studied 2 + 2?"   Or when called on it I’ll get the ole “I don’t have time to read all that stuff.”  What that actually means is “I’ve already concluded before you respond that you’re completely wrong.”   My rationale isn’t capricious either….it’s based on experience that has vetted it out as correct.

Does everyone do this?  No, but the majority?  Yes LOL.  Why?  Most aren't interested in the answers to the objections....they just like the objections and putting forth the objections.  It’s that simple for the vast majority.  Why?  What I find is that when pressed the majority putting forth the objections have no substance beyond the objection itself.  Some will say, “Just because your offer up an explanation doesn’t mean with have to accept it.”  Well yeah, obviously LOL.   The fact that I’m always deemed “wrong” is part of the presupposition of the vast majority of atheists….the explanations are meaningless because the whole of the material is deemed meaningless.  My theistic worldview does not comport with the atheistic worldview, but I’m not any smarter than other atheist or theist….I’m just willing to dig in where others are not.  

So this begs the question:  Why bother if you already know this?  

Others read these boards.  Others haven't made a choice about God.  I refuse to let the atheist and agnostic voice be the only voice.  I also refuse to let atheists and agnostics be the only ones asking questions or putting forth objections.  Am I the best representative for theists?  LOL, no.  Although, I'm one of the few around these parts, but I'm slowly seeing others come out and I thank God for that.  Believe it or not I actually care about the folks on these boards....both believer and nonbeliever.  I regularly pray for everyone and ask for blessings to be showered upon each of you.  I pray that the Lord's will be done in each of your lives.  

[SF1900]

It wasn't a strawman. I wasn't saying that's what you were doing, i was just genuinely asking if that was the case, as i can't see how you could come to that conclusion.

It really is quite shockingly arrogant though, to say that someone like Hitchens had a "surface level knowledge of theology"...the man quite clearly understood it far better than you and I, wrote best selling books on the topic and achieved world wide fame and respect for his arguments against religion. You may not like what he had to say, but to say he didn't know what he was talking about is crazy. You should read "god is not great" and then explain why it is that he doesn't understand theology.

As for Dawkins avoiding debates with "seasoned Christian" apologetics, this is also false, but what is interesting is why you would view them as an example of someone with a higher knowledge and understanding  than a Muslim, Catholic or Mormon that would warrant Dawkins not wanting to take them on in a debate? Is there some sort of superior truth to that religion in particular, over the others?

Most so-called religious people don't even understand their own books of fairy tales lol

Theists will do anything to discredit Hitchens lol. Some even say he was not smart haha lol. Oh brotha. Say what you want about the man, he was clearly intelligent. Any theist who says otherwise is a moron.

But its funny, because Matt Dillahunty (from the Atheist Experience in Austin, Texas) also has stated that seasoned apologetics have avoided debating with him. I guess that is because he knows their book (bible) just as good, if not, better than them.

[Man of Steel]

It wasn't a strawman. I wasn't saying that's what you were doing, i was just genuinely asking if that was the case, as i can't see how you could come to that conclusion.

It really is quite shockingly arrogant though, to say that someone like Hitchens had a "surface level knowledge of theology"...the man quite clearly understood it far better than you and I, wrote best selling books on the topic and achieved world wide fame and respect for his arguments against religion. You may not like what he had to say, but to say he didn't know what he was talking about is crazy. You should read "god is not great" and then explain why it is that he doesn't understand theology.

As for Dawkins avoiding debates with "seasoned Christian" apologetics, this is also false, but what is interesting is why you would view them as an example of someone with a higher knowledge and understanding  than a Muslim, Catholic or Mormon that would warrant Dawkins not wanting to take them on in a debate? Is there some sort of superior truth to that religion in particular, over the others?

Here's what I often experience today.  I know it's super easy to take my faith, theology, apologetic explanations, etc...and just capriciously attach "inconsistent" or "delusional" often with an related comment about "Noah's Ark" tacked on.  Get a couple other atheists to randomly agree and "your work is done".  Doesn't worry me at all....I expect it before it happens today.  It says nothing though.  

There are a few folks that put forth a reasonable discussion and they start nice, but typically 2/3 of the way into the dialogue the insults (ad hominems) start....gradual at first but build to a crescendo LOL!  It's this Dawkinsian culture of "mock them, ridicule them....with contempt," that fuels today's atheist youth.  They eat that stuff up, but it sources from an unredeemed soul and unsanctified mind.  I feel compassion for it more than anything, but I certainly don't have to stand for it.

I'm not concerned about anyone that challenges me...I welcome the discussion. Sometimes I have solid answers and sometimes I don't.  Sometimes I have to seek out guidance.  Sometimes I give out guidance.  I've learned a lot of atheistic approaches, but I'm not in a fight with anyone.  You and I, we're just talking here.  If I fly off the handle just reel me back in LOL!!  See, I have been challenged for years and I used to be much softer in my replies.  "Well, I see what you're suggesting and I respect it.  My good sir would you consider this alternative?"   I'll still approach folks with kindness and respect, but I'm much more direct today.

Yes, Dawkins has avoided debates with seasoned Christian apologists for years now.  William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, Dinesh D'Souza have all actively sought to debate Dawkins and he’s refused.  Instead he debates a random Catholic priest or Jewish rabbi.  Dawkin’s close friend and noted cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has publically affirmed Dawkins refusal to face Dr. Craig and any Christian, creationist apologist in several of his own debates and lectures.  He stated this in a debate he had with Dr. Craig.  Dawkins talks a big, big game and then hides behind explosive rhetoric and intellectual cowardice when challenged.

From the horse’s mouth.....he's too busy.  

Lawrence Krauss affirms this again in the following lecture during the Q&A:

My opinion of Hitchens understanding of theology is not alone.  You can simply google or youtube a bunch of Christian apologists and theologians and find they affirm the very same thing.  Noted Christian apologist, theologian and author Dr. Paul Copan has noted this exact thing in his book “Is God a Moral Monster?” within a chapter devoted to the “new atheists” (Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris).  He notes Hitchens lackluster grasp of Christian theology and this is simply one of many Christian theologians that affirm the same.  Further this book was published years prior to Hitchens’ passing.

I have a pdf of “God is Not Great” that I have not yet completed.  I will though.

Have you read it?

[SF1900]

The atheists of this board rarely agree with me LOL!!!  It's a way of life....not a temper tantrum.  

Necrosis went to the ole straw man and red herring well so I responded.

I'm a theist and whatever I say must always be countered by the atheists....that simple really.

Any deviation from that is extremely rare.

And whatever atheists say, must always be countered by theists.

Whats your point?

[SF1900]

Operating on a higher intellectual level?  Huh?  No LOL.  No need to straw man me either.

I have no expectation that an atheist will ever agree with me.  This is based on experience.  If an atheist actually agrees with me it's extremely rare.  

Our beliefs and worldviews are typically diametrically opposed.

I think you just missed what I wrote….that’s fine.  In that 10-minute clip it was just generalizations about "religion".....little for me to respond to and I'm not gonna just conflate and straw man a bunch of generalizations.

As I noted, I've listened to a bunch of Hitchens' lectures and debates...hours and hours of it actually.  I've done the same with Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Carrier, Dillahunty, Kagin, AronRa, Ehrman, Krauss, Tabash, etc....  I've done the same with Muslim apologists, Christian apologists, Catholic apologists and Mormom apologists.  I've also watched hours of "youtube atheists" as well.  I read atheist online materials and articles, but I don't purchase their materials...not going to fund that enterprise.  I look online for free pdfs or "give away" material and "cliff's notes" type versions of stuff.   Further, Dawkins will always debate a random Catholic priest or a random muslim apologist, but a seasoned Christian apologist…..LOL…..not a chance.  Hides behind the “I won’t debate someone who supports genocide”, etc…..just straw man nonsense…..it’s intellectual cowardice.  Now, have I mastered all this material?  LOL, no!  Although I certainly grasp the gist of their arguments and tactics.

And yes, despite the fact that Hitchens elegantly articulated his various biblical objections in a suave, british accent it's still clear he didn’t understand Christian theology....surface level at best.  It’s not because he was incapable of understanding it….he didn’t care to understand it…..the surface gave him what he needed.  Those surface level objections are enough to elicit an audience uproar every time.   I've explained away  many objections over the years and most time my explanations aren't read....they're glossed.   SF1900 is proof of that LOL!!  I can write 2 detailed paragraphs on "2+2=4" and he'd respond with, "have you ever studied 2 + 2?"   Or when called on it I’ll get the ole “I don’t have time to read all that stuff.”  What that actually means is “I’ve already concluded before you respond that you’re completely wrong.”   My rationale isn’t capricious either….it’s based on experience that has vetted it out as correct.

Does everyone do this?  No, but the majority?  Yes LOL.  Why?  Most aren't interested in the answers to the objections....they just like the objections and putting forth the objections.  It’s that simple for the vast majority.  Why?  What I find is that when pressed the majority putting forth the objections have no substance beyond the objection itself.  Some will say, “Just because your offer up an explanation doesn’t mean with have to accept it.”  Well yeah, obviously LOL.   The fact that I’m always deemed “wrong” is part of the presupposition of the vast majority of atheists….the explanations are meaningless because the whole of the material is deemed meaningless.  My theistic worldview does not comport with the atheistic worldview, but I’m not any smarter than other atheist or theist….I’m just willing to dig in where others are not.  

So this begs the question:  Why bother if you already know this?  

Others read these boards.  Others haven't made a choice about God.  I refuse to let the atheist and agnostic voice be the only voice.  I also refuse to let atheists and agnostics be the only ones asking questions or putting forth objections.  Am I the best representative for theists?  LOL, no.  Although, I'm one of the few around these parts, but I'm slowly seeing others come out and I thank God for that.  Believe it or not I actually care about the folks on these boards....both believer and nonbeliever.  I regularly pray for everyone and ask for blessings to be showered upon each of you.  I pray that the Lord's will be done in each of your lives.  

I read your posts. I just think they are demonstrably false.

[SF1900]

Operating on a higher intellectual level?  Huh?  No LOL.  No need to straw man me either.

I have no expectation that an atheist will ever agree with me.  This is based on experience.  If an atheist actually agrees with me it's extremely rare.  

Our beliefs and worldviews are typically diametrically opposed.

I think you just missed what I wrote….that’s fine.  In that 10-minute clip it was just generalizations about "religion".....little for me to respond to and I'm not gonna just conflate and straw man a bunch of generalizations.

As I noted, I've listened to a bunch of Hitchens' lectures and debates...hours and hours of it actually.  I've done the same with Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Carrier, Dillahunty, Kagin, AronRa, Ehrman, Krauss, Tabash, etc....  I've done the same with Muslim apologists, Christian apologists, Catholic apologists and Mormom apologists.  I've also watched hours of "youtube atheists" as well.  I read atheist online materials and articles, but I don't purchase their materials...not going to fund that enterprise.  I look online for free pdfs or "give away" material and "cliff's notes" type versions of stuff.   Further, Dawkins will always debate a random Catholic priest or a random muslim apologist, but a seasoned Christian apologist…..LOL…..not a chance.  Hides behind the “I won’t debate someone who supports genocide”, etc…..just straw man nonsense…..it’s intellectual cowardice.  Now, have I mastered all this material?  LOL, no!  Although I certainly grasp the gist of their arguments and tactics.

And yes, despite the fact that Hitchens elegantly articulated his various biblical objections in a suave, british accent it's still clear he didn’t understand Christian theology....surface level at best.  It’s not because he was incapable of understanding it….he didn’t care to understand it…..the surface gave him what he needed.  Those surface level objections are enough to elicit an audience uproar every time.   I've explained away  many objections over the years and most time my explanations aren't read....they're glossed.   SF1900 is proof of that LOL!!  I can write 2 detailed paragraphs on "2+2=4" and he'd respond with, "have you ever studied 2 + 2?"   Or when called on it I’ll get the ole “I don’t have time to read all that stuff.”  What that actually means is “I’ve already concluded before you respond that you’re completely wrong.”   My rationale isn’t capricious either….it’s based on experience that has vetted it out as correct.

Does everyone do this?  No, but the majority?  Yes LOL.  Why?  Most aren't interested in the answers to the objections....they just like the objections and putting forth the objections.  It’s that simple for the vast majority.  Why?  What I find is that when pressed the majority putting forth the objections have no substance beyond the objection itself.  Some will say, “Just because your offer up an explanation doesn’t mean with have to accept it.”  Well yeah, obviously LOL.   The fact that I’m always deemed “wrong” is part of the presupposition of the vast majority of atheists….the explanations are meaningless because the whole of the material is deemed meaningless.  My theistic worldview does not comport with the atheistic worldview, but I’m not any smarter than other atheist or theist….I’m just willing to dig in where others are not.  

So this begs the question:  Why bother if you already know this?  

Others read these boards.  Others haven't made a choice about God.  I refuse to let the atheist and agnostic voice be the only voice.  I also refuse to let atheists and agnostics be the only ones asking questions or putting forth objections.  Am I the best representative for theists?  LOL, no.  Although, I'm one of the few around these parts, but I'm slowly seeing others come out and I thank God for that.  Believe it or not I actually care about the folks on these boards....both believer and nonbeliever.  I regularly pray for everyone and ask for blessings to be showered upon each of you.  I pray that the Lord's will be done in each of your lives.  

Yes, dingus, why do you think atheists speak out so much now? For far too long, nonbelievers had to keep quiet in fear of discrimination. 500 years ago, we were called witches and burned or hung. Even now, atheists are still discriminated against. Even now, when someone asks what I am and I say I am an atheist, I get a shocked look. That look doesnt happen if you tell them you are Catholic, Christian or Jewish. So spare me the, "I refuse to let atheists be the only voice." Oh brotha. Theists have been the major voice, and continue to be the major voice of the world. So, stop the pity party. Laughable.

[Man of Steel]

Yes, dingus, why do you think atheists speak out so much now? For far too long, nonbelievers had to keep quiet in fear of discrimination. 500 years ago, we were called witches and burned or hung. Even now, atheists are still discriminated against. Even now, when someone asks what I am and I say I am an atheist, I get a shocked look. That look doesnt happen if you tell them you are Catholic, Christian or Jewish. So spare me the, "I refuse to let atheists be the only voice." Oh brotha. Theists have been the major voice, and continue to be the major voice of the world. So, stop the pity party. Laughable.

I know, I repeatedly here today's atheists speaking about the oppression of atheists much like I hear young black kids speaking about slavery in the antebellum south and how much injustice they've suffered because of it.  Ok.

Now, I do agree that atheists are certainly a minority and when someone says "I'm an atheist" it does cause most folks to recoil a bit.  It's only because it's still somewhat foreign for a person to be an atheist, but numbers are growing and will continue to grow.....I have no doubts on this. 

I don't see a huge church revival on the horizon.....I see growing numbers of atheists.  Atheists and agnostics may still be a small percent of the population, but they have the loudest voices and with today's instant communication and ability to communicate effectively and openly (or anonymously) the youth of today have all this instant information, discussion, debate, etc....at their fingertips that our we didn't, our parents didn't, etc.....

Are theists the overwhelming majority?  Absolutely, but the VAST majority of theists are not prepared whatsoever for the challenge of the much smaller minority of atheists (hence the steadily swelling population of atheists winning over folks).  In the past the only exposure to atheism was Madalyn Murray O'Hair on Phil Donahue's 80s talk show.  Today the atheist voice is everywhere and I will defend against it as a believer and representative of Christ.....wish more believers could do the same.  Unfortunately, it's intimidating for most because one or two tough atheist questions cause most people to shy away and immediately question their faith.  Doesn't need to be that way......the questions and objections have answers and explanations.

[Man of Steel]

And whatever atheists say, must always be countered by theists.

Whats your point?

That's actually not true because most theists don't know how to respond or are scared to respond.

[Man of Steel]

Yes i've read it, although admittedly i have not read Dr,Paul Copans work. You still haven't said though, as to WHY Dawkins or any others would avoid a debate with a "seasoned Christian apologist" when they are happy to debate with catholic priests, mormons, etc. What is the difference between the religions that you see here?

The way i see it with regards to debating someone like William Lane Craig, is honestly, what's the point? And i'm only speaking for myself here. They aren't putting forth any thing logical, or fact based. It's really nothing but waffle and comments like "when i say this, i mean subjectively" or " that's not REALLY the meaning, if you look at it this way..."

It's just twisting and interpreting a bunch of nonsense, in my opinion. There are no truths to what they claim. They offer no logical explanations or evidence for the stories the bible contains. These people genuinely believe in the stories of adam and eve, that Jesus cast out demons and sent them into pigs...I don't see how it's possible or worthwhile to speak with these people, they are deluded to the point where you cannot reason with them or put forth ANYTHING to sway their opinion. As i said, this is just my personal view when i listen to these people. I really don't follow too much from either side of the arguments, Atheist and theist,  put forward these days. My opinion will change when something...anything, is presented to give weight to the existence of god.

As for Dawkins and his refusal to debate him, all i have found so far, with a quick search, is this explanation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

And a video which explains things quite well

Copan's book is not well known, but I enjoyed it. 

Well, I did answer your questions about why Dawkins won't debate seasoned Christian apologists and I provided the videos that give his reasons.

Cutting to chase his reasons are:

1)  Doesn't have time.
2)  Won't debate with Christian apologists that support mass genocide.  (because apparently Christian apologists do that).

Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and many others will/did happily debate Christian apologists.

[SF1900]

That's actually not true because most theists don't know how to respond or are scared to respond.

LMAO!!! Scared to respond? haha lol. Oh brotha. What are they scared of? Gimme a break.  Stop the pity party.

If anything, its the atheists who should be scared to respond, especially in most parts of the South.

[Man of Steel]

LMAO!!! Scared to respond? haha lol. Oh brotha. What are they scared of? Gimme a break.  Stop the pity party.

If anything, its the atheists who should be scared to respond, especially in most parts of the South.

It's a sad state, but many, many theists are completely unprepared and have a knowledge of scripture that is far inferior to that of many atheists.   

It's an intimidating situation when defending your faith and an atheist hits an unprepared theist with "what about the quirinius census?", "explain the two creation accounts in Genesis", "explain's Paul contradictory accounts of encountering Jesus", "Where did Cain get his wife?", etc.....ad nauseum.