Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

An eloquent exposition of the appalling crimes and stupidity of the catholic church. What an embarrassment.


[youtube][/youtube]

Looks like somebody stumbled on the Time Life Collection of Christopher Hitchens.

89Hen wrote:Looks like somebody stumbled on the Time Life Collection of Christopher Hitchens.

Hen, aren't you embarrassed to be part of that church? Seriously, are you just fucking stupid or something? What person in their right mind would get involved in that? And, bring their children!

Utterly fucking shameful.

D1B wrote:

89Hen wrote:Looks like somebody stumbled on the Time Life Collection of Christopher Hitchens.

Hen, aren't you embarrassed to be part of that church? Seriously, are you just **** stupid or something? What person in their right mind would get involved in that? And, bring their children!

Utterly **** shameful.

D, you are invited to my grandson's Baptism this weekend...

Who cares what Christopher Hitchens has to say?

I pray for him. He's dying.

JoltinJoe wrote:Who cares what Christopher Hitchens has to say?

I pray for him. He's dying.

Joe, I don't know if you noticed, but many of his videos have over 100,000 views. Not too shabby.

He's also kicking theologian ass. Check out some of his debates.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Who cares what Christopher Hitchens has to say?

I pray for him. He's dying.

Joe, I don't know if you noticed, but many of his videos have over 100,000 views. Not too shabby.

He's also kicking theologian ass. Check out some of his debates.

Haven't read the thread and this is completely off topic but...HOW ABOUT RETURNING MY CALL FROM A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO MOTHER FUCKER!!

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Who cares what Christopher Hitchens has to say?

I pray for him. He's dying.

Joe, I don't know if you noticed, but many of his videos have over 100,000 views. Not too shabby.

He's also kicking theologian ass. Check out some of his debates.

Wow, a world population of 6 billion (1 billion of which are Catholics) -- and 100,000 have watched his videos.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:
Joe, I don't know if you noticed, but many of his videos have over 100,000 views. Not too shabby.

He's also kicking theologian ass. Check out some of his debates.

Wow, a world population of 6 billion (1 billion of which are Catholics) -- and 100,000 have watched his videos.

It's a start. Like the jews, muslims, gays and other groups your church has marginalized throughout the ages, we're playing catch up, and gaining much ground, as you know.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:
Joe, I don't know if you noticed, but many of his videos have over 100,000 views. Not too shabby.

He's also kicking theologian ass. Check out some of his debates.

Wow, a world population of 6 billion (1 billion of which are Catholics) -- and 100,000 have watched his videos.

[youtube][/youtube]

Here's your hero, Hans Kung talking bout your church welcoming back a holocause denier back into the flock. And of course the church's role in fomenting world-wide anti-semitism and the holocaust.

You fuckers must be proud. *only 6,000 views

Here you go D.

grizzaholic wrote:Here you go D.

Bitch, I told you to go get your dosage adjusted, pronto.

(btw, there was a great documentary on PBS this weekend about the expanding wolf re-introduction program, focusing on the heroic work of some of the wildlife biologists and university researchers who are in the forefront of reintroducing the wolf nationwide, Hawaii excepted, of course.)

houndawg wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:Here you go D.

Bitch, I told you to go get your dosage adjusted, pronto.

(btw, there was a great documentary on PBS this weekend about the expanding wolf re-introduction program, focusing on the heroic work of some of the wildlife biologists and university researchers who are in the forefront of reintroducing the wolf nationwide, Hawaii excepted, of course.)

JoltinJoe wrote:Who cares what Christopher Hitchens has to say?

I pray for him. He's dying.

Christopher Hitchens is an atheist. That said, he's hard to pigeonhole, especially in foreign affairs issues. I'm reading his memoir, Hitch 22, now. It's a terrific read by an essayist with a command of the English language.

Ivytalk wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Who cares what Christopher Hitchens has to say?

I pray for him. He's dying.

Christopher Hitchens is an atheist. That said, he's hard to pigeonhole, especially in foreign affairs issues. I'm reading his memoir, Hitch 22, now. It's a terrific read by an essayist with a command of the English language.

I actually like Hitchens and read a lot of the things he writes. You're right. He is a skilled speaker and writer and is gifted with the tools of persuasion and entertainment.

He's also lazy researcher and analyst who skates on his natural ability.

He has written in the fields of philosophy and theology -- but has added nothing memorable to those fields.

He has written on foreign affairs and policy -- but has never developed any over-arching outlook by which he will be remembered.

He has written on politics -- but his efforts are nothing more significant than entertaining political commentary "of the day" devoid of serious analysis or long-term impact.

He has become notable for attacking people or things, exposing (at least in his estimation) their shortcomings without making any effort to find or understand the other side of his subject. But that sells copy.

He has written to make money without any other greater objective -- but you cannot take the money with you and sadly, in the end, that's all he's really leaving behind.

grizzaholic wrote:Here you go D.

"Oh, my son, what a pretty mouth you have."

JoltinJoe wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Christopher Hitchens is an atheist. That said, he's hard to pigeonhole, especially in foreign affairs issues. I'm reading his memoir, Hitch 22, now. It's a terrific read by an essayist with a command of the English language.

I actually like Hitchens and read a lot of the things he writes. You're right. He is a skilled speaker and writer and is gifted with the tools of persuasion and entertainment.

He's also lazy researcher and analyst who skates on his natural ability.

He has written in the fields of philosophy and theology -- but has added nothing memorable to those fields.

He has written on foreign affairs and policy -- but has never developed any over-arching outlook by which he will be remembered.

He has written on politics -- but his efforts are nothing more significant than entertaining political commentary "of the day" devoid of serious analysis or long-term impact.

He has become notable for attacking people or things, exposing (at least in his estimation) their shortcomings without making any effort to find or understand the other side of his subject. But that sells copy.

He has written to make money without any other greater objective -- but you cannot take the money with you and sadly, in the end, that's all he's really leaving behind.

Your opinion, filtered through your cultist world outlook. He's highly respected, even among the theologians with whom he regularly debates. The only people who hate him are (whackjob) catholics and fundamentalists.

Joe, you're jealous and or threatened by Hitchens' talent and especially his success. Monetary gain is a tremendous indicator of success and quality of and it's shameful you use it to condemn him. Vanity Fair doesn't hire hacks.

He has no objective? Very few people work harder to promote secular humanism and warn against the dangers of dogma than him.

God forbid someone challenges the almighty catholic church.

Shameful Joe.


What churches were they?

D1B wrote:Your opinion, filtered through your cultist world outlook.

Look in the mirror douche.

89Hen wrote:

D1B wrote:Your opinion, filtered through your cultist world outlook.

Look in the mirror douche.

No cult here Kimosabe. You're the geniuses who eat the flesh and drink the blood of your god every Sunday.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:Here you go D.

"Oh, my son, what a pretty mouth you have."

The problem Hitchens has is that he is an atheist so nothing he says with respect to some kind of morality...things as right or wrong in absolute terms...has any credibility. He gives this long list of things the Church did that are apparently "wrong" in his eyes. He asserts things like, "The rape and torture of children is not something that can be relativeized."

Really? On what basis do you say that, Christopher?

We've been through this before. Try as you might, you can't come up with an objective basis for intrinsic right and wrong through an atheists world view. You can try. You can delude yourself into thinking it can be done. But it can't.

JohnStOnge wrote:The problem Hitchens has is that he is an atheist so nothing he says with respect to some kind of morality...things as right or wrong in absolute terms...has any credibility. He gives this long list of things the Church did that are apparently "wrong" in his eyes. He asserts things like, "The rape and torture of children is not something that can be relativeized."

Really? On what basis do you say that, Christopher?

We've been through this before. Try as you might, you can't come up with an objective basis for intrinsic right and wrong through an atheists world view. You can try. You can delude yourself into thinking it can be done. But it can't.

Your "morality" is no better than his or anyone elses.

JohnStOnge wrote:The problem Hitchens has is that he is an atheist so nothing he says with respect to some kind of morality...things as right or wrong in absolute terms...has any credibility. He gives this long list of things the Church did that are apparently "wrong" in his eyes. He asserts things like, "The rape and torture of children is not something that can be relativeized."

Really? On what basis do you say that, Christopher?

We've been through this before. Try as you might, you can't come up with an objective basis for intrinsic right and wrong through an atheists world view. You can try. You can delude yourself into thinking it can be done. But it can't.

Wow....usually you have some logic behind your thoughts...but you remain stuck in space on this one.

It is not that hard to define right and wrong...hell, you do it all the time when saying that 10 year old girls who have reached puberty are fair game. In that case, you use nature's timetable to give your consent. In the meantime, other folks would bring in some artificial "morality" to say that having sex with a 10 year old is not OK.

You want an objective definition of what's right and wrong? It's easy. Live and let live. If you threaten me, then there will be retribution. If you pose no threat, then live and let live. Sure, there can be sub sets...as there are in religious morales, but that is about it.

Cluck U wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:The problem Hitchens has is that he is an atheist so nothing he says with respect to some kind of morality...things as right or wrong in absolute terms...has any credibility. He gives this long list of things the Church did that are apparently "wrong" in his eyes. He asserts things like, "The rape and torture of children is not something that can be relativeized."

Really? On what basis do you say that, Christopher?

We've been through this before. Try as you might, you can't come up with an objective basis for intrinsic right and wrong through an atheists world view. You can try. You can delude yourself into thinking it can be done. But it can't.

Wow....usually you have some logic behind your thoughts...but you remain stuck in space on this one.

It is not that hard to define right and wrong...hell, you do it all the time when saying that 10 year old girls who have reached puberty are fair game. In that case, you use nature's timetable to give your consent. In the meantime, other folks would bring in some artificial "morality" to say that having sex with a 10 year old is not OK.

You want an objective definition of what's right and wrong? It's easy. Live and let live. If you threaten me, then there will be retribution. If you pose no threat, then live and let live. Sure, there can be sub sets...as there are in religious morales, but that is about it.

Outstanding Clucker!

D1B wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Wow....usually you have some logic behind your thoughts...but you remain stuck in space on this one.

It is not that hard to define right and wrong...hell, you do it all the time when saying that 10 year old girls who have reached puberty are fair game. In that case, you use nature's timetable to give your consent. In the meantime, other folks would bring in some artificial "morality" to say that having sex with a 10 year old is not OK.

You want an objective definition of what's right and wrong? It's easy. Live and let live. If you threaten me, then there will be retribution. If you pose no threat, then live and let live. Sure, there can be sub sets...as there are in religious morales, but that is about it.

Outstanding Clucker!

+2