Deluded ex PM Tony Blair Totally Destroyed and Humiliated In Debate by Christopher Hitchens must wa

Of all the people christianity and religion have put on pedestals to present their dying case Tony Blair has to be the worst possible choice and is intellectually dwarfed by Hitchens.

Choosing a warmongering liar and deceiver to represent the warmongering lying and deceiving cults of the Abrahamic god just goes to show the depth which religions particularly xtianity will stoop in their throes of death.

Watching Tony Blair roll over and expose his belly and genitals as he got Hitchslapped around the stage was somewhat embarrassing to watch exposing Christianity for what it is, a control tool for the ignorant and deluded.

If ATS is to deny Ignorance then if there's one place that should rid itself of invisible men in the sky it should be
ATS.

Kind of strange watching an intellectual drowning the runt kittens

PART 1 Introductions so skip if you want to get to the blood and guts


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7

Part 8

reply to post by The Djin


OR perhaps Blair was doing exactly as he was told to do.

Ever thought of that?

Hitchin’s is the chuck Norris of intellect

I love watching him debate religious numbskull's, I’m surprised he’s never been arrested and charged with assaulting the mentally infirm

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by The Djin

 

OR perhaps Blair was doing exactly as he was told to do.

Ever thought of that?

edit on 8/1/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

Hm, I'll be honest I had not, so star for that however, if he is trying to make a case for a moderate one world delusion, well he failed miserably as soon as he gestured with his Thunderbird embrace and turd eating grin.

His wife a court judge , recently scored a home goal for the god delusion by refusing to imprison a guilty man on the grounds that he was religious !!!!!

The picture of the gleaming edge of a guillotine has to be shoved from my mind by the voice of reason when I think of these idiots running around spouting their nonsense.

Originally posted by racasan
Hitchin’s is the chuck Norris of intellect

I love watching him debate religious numbskull's, I’m surprised he’s never been arrested and charged with assaulting the mentally infirm

My liver just vacated it's normally comfy residence lol

A Historian and atheist vs. a Christian politician. I think if your intellect is geared toward your ability to lie to the people, you have no business debating with Hitchens.

Tony Blair can call himself a Christian but that means nothing. The debate was a farce and any who watched it believing they saw a true debate proves that the intent of the debate was accomplished.

reply to post by bozzchem


So then how do you define who a Christian is? I mean, Hitchens has demolished a number of individuals in the same manner, all of whom called themselves Christians. Do you think the statement you made of Blaire applies to them as well?

Originally posted by The Djin
... exposing Christianity for what it is, a control tool for the ignorant and deluded.

If ATS is to deny Ignorance then if there's one place that should rid itself of invisible men in the sky ...

1. We often rail hardest against things we are draw towards.

2. While there are many examples of religion being exactly what you suggest, it does not mean that God does not exist.

nonsensical addendum: When you are absolutely certain you know something you are most likely farthest from knowing anything. A sincere belief always leads one to realization that what you know today, being different from what you knew yesterday, will ultimately be different from what you know tomorrow. Ergo, dogmatic insistence on what you know today is extremely silly.

reply to post by bozzchem

Tony Blair can call himself a Christian but that means nothing.

Don't tell me, you are one of these "True Christians" which means something ?

The debate was a farce and any who watched it believing they saw a true debate proves that the intent of the debate was accomplished.

Would you have preferred Ray the banana man Comfort to sacrificed to the god of reason than Blair ?

reply to post by pianopraze

2. While there are many examples of religion being exactly what you suggest, it does not mean that God does not exist.

The existence of gods is not in question the alleged benefit to humanity of religion is. Of course if you have found that gods exist, please feel free to provide it in a thread dedicated to that.

I saw this on the TV one of the days before the new years. I liked the argument of life without religion a lot better, however i believe its going to be impossible to eradicate opinions.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by bozzchem

 

So then how do you define who a Christian is? I mean, Hitchens has demolished a number of individuals in the same manner, all of whom called themselves Christians. Do you think the statement you made of Blaire applies to them as well?

I haven't followed these debates so if you would be so kind as to provide the names of those "demolished" that would add some semblance of weight to your statement.

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by bozzchem

 

Tony Blair can call himself a Christian but that means nothing.

Don't tell me, you are one of these "True Christians" which means something ?

The debate was a farce and any who watched it believing they saw a true debate proves that the intent of the debate was accomplished.

Would you have preferred Ray the banana man Comfort to sacrificed to the god of reason than Blair ?

Your use of derogatory terms as well as your combative questioning indicates you have your mind made up before any debate begins.

By all means let's see Ray Comfort and Christopher Hitchens go at it. Why not? Are you afraid of the outcome? Obviously Richard Dawkins was...

Originally posted by racasan
Hitchin’s is the chuck Norris of intellect

I love watching him debate religious numbskull's, I’m surprised he’s never been arrested and charged with assaulting the mentally infirm

Why thank you, how nice..

The goalposts can easily be moved regarding the idea of God, and man's quest to know God and to know theyself as a creation of God within a family framework of God measured according to the Golden Rule.

God is also funnier than Hitchins, and if there was but one among us, other than Tony Blair who understood this and had access to that stage, then that man, channeling God's wisdom to the utmost, would generate almost unending laughter, and maybe also tears with regards to the sufferings of the world, by no means at the hands of religion alone.

I can certainly see how Hitchens is the Chuck Norris of Atheism, but Jesus, and the love of Jesus and the logic informing that love, created Chuck Norris in the first place.

I've decided to make another return, if there is such a thing as reincarnation.

In my next life, I will be born into a wealthy aristocratic family, so as to have the time to read all the classics for example and to obtain four degrees by the time I'm 30, while becoming a classical painist as a child protege (hey if there's reincarnation, then we might as well start putting in our order now, in the before lifetime, for things not yet completed), and I will be, if such a thing were possible and if it be God's will (something by far more mysterious than any of us realize btw) both a quantum physicist, a historian, an a theological mind the likes of which no one has seen since Thomas Aquinas or Augustine, and I will make it known, somehow, just what all these religions of the world mean, after which they will serve as nothing more than a touchstone, a contextual frame of reference, and as a fount of inspiration, inspiration of the kind which moves history in favour of the greatest possible good, which of course will require a very powerful integration of religions best principals, while clearly showing how some of its more dogmatic or fundamentalist tendencies, resident in the ignorance of man, violate those very tenets and core principals.

The atheist will get his wish in the end, but not wiithout a fully grokking of the subject at hand. There is no walking away from God in the fullness of time and history, only a walking into God, as our collective future condition, and expression, learning, understanding, knowing, and acting.

It is still the means by which the world will be moved, not as a conttrol mechanism, but as a fount of inspiration, altogether capable of building a bridge over troubled waters, between what is, and what ought to be; whereby. Love, the love of Christ, is the very keystone of it's royal arch and the cement which binds it together. Another anology which could be created, in its approprite historical context, would be that of an arrow of civilized progress, the underlying tenets of religion understood and integrated, appropriated, fully "grokked" to borrow a word from Heinlein.

God will not stop until that one lost sheep is retreived, which means that if there is such a thing as reincarnation, given the current state of the world, including the atheists insistence that we burn all the books and chuck that baby Jesus out the window with the bathwater, then I've got a lot of work to do in preparation. This life, even my involvement here at ATS then, is but my prepartion for that life.

People need to know, they need and ought to understand, because understanding, they would be set freely to free love as we are loved and God-realization would then be, not their belief, but their condition, in the love and peace and the joy of being in God with God in us, leavened all through you could say..

That's the Great Work, the "New Age".

Regards,

Rob

reply to post by NewAgeMan

God will not stop until that one lost sheep is retreived, which means that if there is such a thing as reincarnation, given the current state of the world, including the atheists insistence that we burn all the books and chuck that baby Jesus out the window with the bathwater, then I've got a lot of work to do in preparation.

And after all the calories you used up typing it comes down to the same old thing, like the man said "you won't be happy until we believe it too".

Dude did you miss the bit where we don't want to be bowing and scraping to your baby jeesus/yahweh god even if the story were true ?

What the hell is wrong with you people ? No one is demanding that you burn your books were just asking you don't insist our children are inflicted with them nor we be governed by them.

Have you beliefs they are yours, keep your beliefs love your beliefs but do not insist that I do or you will be vigorously challenged.

If yawhe/jehova/alla/jesus or whatever name he's going by today has somehow managed to lose something then let him bloody well find it himself , why the hell would an omniscient shepherd need a dog ?

reply to post by bozzchem


A quick search on YouTube would clear it up for you.

Here's a quick list:

Shmuley Boteach
Al Sharpton
Douglas Wilson
William Lane Craig
David Wolpe
Dennis Prager
John Lennox
Chris Hedges
Tariq Ramadan
Peter Hitchens (his brother, a devout theist)
Dinesh D'Souza

That's a short list of the debates that are just based on religion, as he also does debates on foreign policy. Now, don't be a weasel and say that I have to do this leg work for you just to "add some semblance of weight" to anything I claim next time. Try doing it yourself.

Edit: Source for these debates, watch them

reply to post by bozzchem

Originally posted by bozzchem
Your use of derogatory terms as well as your combative questioning indicates you have your mind made up before any debate begins.

The banana thing was stupid and Ray Comfort deserves to be shamed for it, especially since he never retracted it.

By all means let's see Ray Comfort and Christopher Hitchens go at it.

I'd love to see that. Considering that Comfort couldn't even overcome the Rational Response Squad, it would just be a bloodbath.

Why not? Are you afraid of the outcome? Obviously Richard Dawkins was...

Logical fallacy: blatant lie

Richard Dawkins has a policy of not debating any creationist. He does this not out of fear but out of the desire to not create the illusion that creationism is anywhere near the level of evolution. Were a creationist to actually debate Richard Dawkins, one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world, it would be quite entertaining.

But he maintains the policy for another reason: he gets a hell of a lot of challenges. He wouldn't be able to do anything but debate if he took them all up and it would be unfair to not take all of them from equally unqualified creationist quacks.

Re NewAgeMan

You wrote:

["People need to know, they need and ought to understand, because understanding, they would be set freely to free love as we are loved and God-realization would then be, not their belief, but their condition, in the love and peace and the joy of being in God with God in us, leavened all through you could say.. "]

That sounds wonderful. You have already supplied 'knowledge', 'needs', 'oughts', 'understanding', two-way divine 'love' in your prepackaged ultimate answer in sermon-form. All we have to do is to lean back and accept your preachings and everything will be honky-dory.

Personally I have one condition though. You'll have to qualify amongst the other 50.000+ competitors you have on the ultimate truth market, who are making the same claims as you.