" realpolitic (See profile | I'm a fan of realpolitic)
If it were that easy to deny the existence of God based on an argument of scientific proof, almost all humanity woud be atheist or agnostic."
--

You make the false assumption that people would go for the scientific proof rather than the emotionally satisfying falsehood. It is not necessary to deny the existence of god when the existence of god hasn't been proven in the first place.

You miss the fact that almost all (probably all) of humanity is atheistic towards all the gods they don't believe in, such as Zeus, Baal or the Great Turtle. I think I can safely say that you are an atheist--unless you believe in the existence of all possible gods.

You mistake the proposition to be your idea of god vs. no god. That isn't the case. It is any or all gods vs. no god(s). If you are going to assume one god on no evidence then you must assume them all. Where as the atheist takes the logical route: Believe in what can be proved. You on the other hand must believe in all things, no matter how ridiculous, so long as they can't be disproved. Invisible Pink Unicorns? Check. Leprechauns? Check. Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yup. And so on ad infinitum...

--
"Religion can not be debased by what people have done in the name of religion, either. This idea would be like debasing water because it occasionally floods people's homes..."
--

So you merely define religion as critic-proof and declare it to be so on your assertion? We can use the argument by assertion on any action. Let's try it: "Fascism can't be debased by what people have done in the name of Fascism .This idea would be like debasing water because it occasionally floods people's homes or carries mosquito larvae." Wow, that was easy. Too easy.

Your argument is nonsense. It is an argument by assertion that applies equally to all things resulting in ridiculous outcomes--thus it is refuted by contradiction.

Faith is faith and fact is fact, and never the twain shall meet.
Actually, after having read parts of the bible, I'm seriously thinking about signing up as a born-for-the-first-timer. I especially like Leviticus and the commands to, for instance, stone adulterers on the steps of their father's house. And then there's the admonition against gay sex.
Tell you what, is there anyone out there who would like to join me tonight in stoning an adulterer? There's one living in obvious sin down the street from me. On the way, we can stop at the local gay bar and do some bashing . . .
If this all sounds ridiculous, just read Leviticus and Deuteronomy and try to keep a straight face!
The only thing I've got against Hitchens is his relative lack of a sense of humor. There's nothing (besides facts) that disarms an opponent better than making them look as ridiculous as they seem (see anyone of George Carlin's routines about religion--you'll pee your pants!).
Lastly, I heard Hitchens on an NPR interview where he voluntarily offered the following comment during the course of a conversation about his latest book: "You know what really disturbs me about religion? It makes articulate, intelligent people say and do stupid things".

Hitchens is eminently reasonable. If only he was have as reasonable when he supported the war in Iraq. (In fact, he did not support the 1991 war against Saddam waged to kick him out of Kuwait, which was very supportable.)

Hitchens bought into Bush's unthinking, swaggering masochism, as did many other so-called intellectuals, like David Brooks. Hitchens made many arguments in support of the war. He told us Saddam was a menace. All of arguments were wrong and not supported by the facts.

As an extension of his stupidity, Hitchens even ended up defending Bush regarding his non-response to Hurricane Katrina. It was then Hitchens lost any claims to credibility and became just another sorry Bush shill, in this case with a rather distinguished accent. After that, I can never again look at Hitchens with a straight face again.

True, one can not proof the existence of God. If this standard is what Hitchen's argues the other side must overcome to win a debate with him perhaps only Christ's return can satisfy him. Therefore, his argument is highly facile. If it were that easy to deny the existence of God based on an argument of scientific proof, almost all humanity woud be atheist or agnostic.

Religion can not be debased by what people have done in the name of religion, either. This idea would be like debasing water because it occasionally floods people's homes or carries mosquito larvae. And why would God be concernced about the circumcism of male children and slaughter rituals of animal? I have no idea. Perhaps these legalisms may be a measure of how one can show faith in God.

True, many of the myths or stories in the bible may have been taken from an earlier people's, the Sumerians. For example, the biblical account of the creation of man, as well as Noah's flood, resemble the Sumerian tales closely. But many of the archaelogical digs confirm at least many of the events that are described in the bible, if not God's hand in the events.

So religion, I would argu,e can not be disproved by man's or even God's occasional acts of pettiness. Why would God say he is a "jealous" God? That characteristic is a very human quality. There may be no ready answer. The proof of the existence of God may be beyond us, as well. It will likely be always a matter of faith. Although, there is a biblical record of events that archaeological digs will seek to further prove or disprove where they can.

Religion and the belief in God is something universal to mankind, an assumption of a universal set of ethics and faith (and perhaps good will toward others) we aspire to. The belief that there is something greater than ourselves in a universal quest for meaning of our petty and fleeting existence. Even Hitchens can not disprove that.

If you believe in a creator watching over 'You'
and believe everything written in the bible is true, go to Google Sky then zoom in on a few of those billions of galaxies floating around out there.

Paraphrasing the Life of Brian. For gods sake, think for yourselves.

I just love these nogoders.Hope he has some knee pads when he croaks and he will croak.Tony

Christopher's signature on Rachel's book looks a little ratty. I can't wuite make out how that translates to "Christopher Hitchens".

Thanks for the article Rachel. Kosher sex? Means acceptable sex. Hate to break it to the rabbi but sex is a normal biological function of the creatures in our ecosystem. Kosher animals have to have a split hoof and regurgitate what they eat so they can chew it some more as part of the digestion process. What a bunch of nonsense. You mean someone snuck all of those fish into our oceans and didn't give any of them cloven hooves? All creatures on the planet are all equal residents of the same ecosystem. Why would anyone not want to eat something if you were hungry? You would rather starve? I suppose that the next thing we will be looking for are eggs with cloven hooves. Predator birds are not but seed eaters are kosher. This is like saying that sailing one ocean is kosher and another is not. Religious people try to dictate the sides of the argument. Sorry to burst your illusion but there are two sides. Sane and insane. In case you are in denial, religious persons are the insane ones. Religion is a story for those of us who have a hard time growing up. The greatest story ever told? I prefer the three bears. If we spend so much time killing each other over religion, it must really piss religious people off to think that there could be millions of other intelligent races in the universe and they (if they are not mature) have their own religions that are completely different then our mental illnesses. So any one of our religions is on a par with the religious beliefs of some bushman from the woods. Hey american religious people don't you just love finding out how puny and ridiculous your own brand of propaganda is?

They are both pitiful creatures.

If someday, I can find something or someone greater than they, can I call it god?

Atheism is just as ridiculous as religion; both ask you to ignore the facts and believe...in either a doctrine of "faith" or...nothing in particular. It's just as ridiculous as the evolution vs intelligent design arguments, divisive, but otherwise completely unmeriting of discussion. Obviously evolution by itself is totally practically impossible, and the idea of some Deity just putting things in place, creating them, is not a factual account, but only a simplification meant to make understanding How Things Came To Be understandable or at least something a person can live with without worrying too much about the details.
But when you're born seeing auras and angels, Atheism loses all merit; similarly, when you're born clairvoyant, religion also fails to convey reality, making guesses and basing "facts" upon old documents that reveal nothing of the textured landscape of perception or the underlying (evident) 'truths' being percieved. And subjective proof is all a person needs...and since the universe supports any belief you state as having...whatever you believe will be true to you even if you believe in...nothing in particular. That is, the belief in God automatically creates an interface for interacting with that personified divinity, while the belief that there is no god will also produce evidence that there is no god--in accordance with what YOU believe. Christopher is very intelligent, but not very clairvoyant. But the Rabbi is neither.

Atheism is an "ism," hence an arrogant position: adopting a position which by definition automatically rejects another one, willy-nilly, whatever that may be. Long live the (hard core) agnostic position: you certainly can't explain it, but then neither can I.

I usually cannot stand Hitchens. He is way too smug for my taste. Although I normally disagree with him on most issues, I do agree with his stance on religion - but then again, religion is so illogical, so impossible to prove, that I guess a monkey could have won that debate.

There was a great debate between Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway a few years ago on the topic of Iraq. Hitchens was pro-war and Galloway anti-war. Hitchens, who is normally a good debater, was destroyed...

I think you can Youtube or Google it.

Is this clown another mouthpiece for the jackasses of the Israel Lobby?

We atheists continually mop the floor with religionists in debates, but it does no good, because religion is based on emotion, not logic. Religionists don't care if their views are illogical or even insane, because they must cling to those views to ease their existential anxiety -- the fear that comes from knowing we live in a universe in which anything can happen to us, most of it extremely unpleasant.

Religious belief is an irrational attempt to cope with that hostile universe and find a way to avoid the finality of death. In short, it's a mental disorder and should be openly discussed as such. Instead, the inmates are firmly in control of the asylum, and religion controls the lives of billions of people. That might well lead to the extinction of the human species within this century.

In Hebrew the commandment is actually "thou shalt not murder." It was never thou shalt not kill. Seems to me there is quite a major difference between kill and murder. In fact at one point the Hebrews are ordered to go and kill some tribe so it is doubly silly to keep mistranslating the commandment.