I love when he says:
People kill a sheep in praise of Abraham’s willingness to indulge in human sacrifice of his son — they think that’s the most wonderful story they can think of. Now here’s where I part company. I don’t think someone’s willingness to slaughter his son because he is hearing voices in his head is a great example of moral suasion. Maybe there’s something I’m missing here.
(via)
Not exactly new arguments, but it’s nice to have them phrased eloquently.
Did seem that they focused negatively on Islam. It’s not like Christianity isn’t an amalgam of post-Judaism, sun gods and Roman belief systems. (Though given that many religions have been passing along concepts like virgin birth, resurrection and ties to the sun, it’s hard to tell exactly where Christianity plagiarised certain ideas from).
(I think you missed a ‘morally’ in the first sentence of the quote.)
Hitchens is a bit too militant to my mind. Dawkins tends to be the calmer, more reasoned debater.
We have a diverse “four horsemen”. Good.
Ah! I love it.
“We need to have an innoculation of plague… Not the spread of a more gentle version of it.”
Good point Tina.
Harris = Painfully good logic
Dawkins = Science/Logic
Hitchens = The “bad” cop (of a good cop/bad cop scenario)
Dennett = Philosophy/Logic… oh and “Darwinian fundamentalism”
Pingback: Steve’s No Direction Home Page » Blog Archive » Hitchens defends rational thought on C-SPAN