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

reply to post by bozzchem

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...

The debate was begun centuries ago my friend, hostile negotiations were the order of the day questions were not allowed on pain of death let alone combative.

In relation to Richard Dawkins debating the banana man may I suggest you ask him yourself by email rather than continue the bible thumpers' childlike lies.

Nevertheless here's what Richard Dawkins has to say about the matter if you are interested in truth -

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

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

Her's the other half of the"Idiot twins" in action, words fail me -

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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

edit on 9/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Added source

Quite frankly, I don't have a dog in this fight so have no intentions of spending my time researching this. You're the one making demonstrative statements so I asked you to quantify your claims. Like the OP, your use of a derogatory term shows you have a closed mind and aren't worth conversing with. Am I a weasel and/or lazy? I guess so to someone chomping at the bit to start a fight where one isn't warranted.

Originally posted by bogomil
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.

Why were you not able to stop at "that sounds wonderful"? What's with all the rebellion against such a thing? That's what I don't get.

reply to post by bozzchem


I made an offhand statement that Hitchens had actually debated other people, how is that a demonstrative statement. You made a rude statement asking me to 'add a semblance of weight' to my statements. You could have politely asked for some sources.

Like the OP, your use of a derogatory term shows you have a closed mind and aren't worth conversing with.

Yes, because using a perfectly warranted term is improper. You were being a weasel, I called you one. If you want, I can call you worse. But that doesn't make my arguments less valid. You see, it's your sort of mentality that prevents actually discourse. If someone hurts your feelings or sense of decorum, you don't discuss. You need to build up either a thicker skin or something else to prevent this sort of stupidity from taking over.

Now, if I of all people am closed minded, then I'd like to see an actual demonstration of this. Not simply using the derogatory term of 'closed minded' against me because I used other derogatory terms.

Another derogatory term for you would be: hypocrite, something I've just demonstrated you to be.

Now, you also said that Richard Dawkins was 'afraid' to debate Ray Comfort, yet you didn't demonstrate this claim. Since I demonstrate a far easier to prove claim, that Christopher Hitchens has debated and demolished many Christians (it's called the Hitchslap), can you please show me how Richard Dawkins was afraid to debate the banana man?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by bogomil
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.

Why were you not able to stop at "that sounds wonderful"? What's with all the rebellion against such a thing? That's what I don't get.

Because the competing 'faiths' academically hinders real knowledge and socially leads to rivers of blood.

Deleted