That too but dawkins has been proven to be a liar and twisting things to suit his argument when it comes to religion and I actually have witnessed a debate involving Hitchens and a muslim guy, Hitchens got slaughtered even his own supporters started to wonder what he was on about. No substance whatsoever
I'm currently reading God is not Great, by the aforementioned Christopher Hitchens. Cracking book, i didn't realise fundamental islamists tried blocking the polio vaccine, as they thought it was a western conspiracy against islam. Fan is saying his arguments lack substance. Surely to lack substance, they would require him to not quote examples of religious idiocy?
Because she is defender of the faith and annointed by the archbishop and is there for the 'grace of God'. Why cant you grasp that this is her first oath/role etc everything else stems from that now do you know what an ambassador is? and is the queen one?
We're both being lazy here, but you're being more lazy than me. You have made a vague reference to a vague situation where Hitchens got pwned by a Muslim, so much so that his own supporters started to doubt him. As much as I do quite like Hitchen's style of writing, I'm not a massive fanboy - but there are plenty of massive fanboys and I highly doubt they would switch allegiance instantly due to this mysteriously powerful, yet still undefined, pro-Muslim argument.
Surely if it were her first role, she would have to spread the word of "the lord", rather than act as an advert for Britain? If she only has her role because of "god" then surely "god" can take away that role?
you mean hitchens 2005 claim about nigeria? hardly the Islamic world is it? dont get your second point
Well for an argument to have substance, a good example must typically be quoted, which Hitchens does well, he quotes relevant acts of idiocy in his arguments.
Not at all. I am saying I have personally witnessed what Hitchens is like. He rants for want of a better word. Using impressive words. And I didnt say his supporters began to doubt him, I certainly saw they didnt know hat he was on about at times And dont get me wrong, despite getting pwned and having a glazed look in their eyes, his fan club still cheered him at the end. I know a few who changed allegiance bt the majority carried on certainly in the immediate aftermath anyway
TBH i disagree. I have seen him on question time a few times and even on there he gets pwned. Was way too full of self importance and thought he could say whatever But as I have said before, his (and dawkins and the likes of the historian Starkey) use things in their arguments that simply dont exist. In reading material they get away with it due to the readers 'ignorance'. 1 2 1 with someone who can challnege them they become flustered and try to 'bully' with their vast vocabulary.
He was obviously going to lose in argument with a religious fanatic. One thing i've learnt from having to deal with you is that when it comes to religious arguments, facts become irrelevant, the religious type hates facts, it makes them look weak and incorrect. The typical religious spokesman will be a master of spin, someone who, for lack of a better word, ****s your mind up, and makes you feel as if you're banging your head against a brick wall repeatedly.
Just to piss on your bollocks, once and for all...lifted directly from The Monarch Today: "The British Sovereign can be seen as having two roles: Head of State, and 'Head of the Nation'. As Head of State, The Queen undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. There are inward duties, with The Queen playing a part in State functions in Britain. Parliament must be opened, Orders in Council have to be approved, Acts of Parliament must be signed, and meetings with the Prime Minister must be held. There are also outward duties of State, when The Queen represents Britain to the rest of the world. For example, The Queen receives foreign ambassadors and high commissioners, entertains visiting Heads of State, and makes State visits overseas to other countries, in support of diplomatic and economic relations." You see, dullard. She has many, many roles, and it is for her immaculate performance in carrying out these roles, that many of us, non-atheists and atheists, will be celebrating her 60 years as the Queen. Us free-thinkers (with some modicum of intelligence) are able to see that she can be lauded for her service to the country without even mentioning religion. They are, you see, not intrinsically linked. It has, as ever, been my pleasure schooling you
Is the concept of atheists celebrating the Queen's Jubilee any more hypocritical than an anti-western, anti-English, anti-semitic man supporting a capitalist English football club owned by American Jews?
