The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave Christianity behind. This area contains articles sent in between January 2001 and February 2010. To view recent posts, click on the "Home" link.
Sharpton is a moron.....
The classic battle of wits with an unarmed man....
I am not a fan of Sharpton, but he did have a point, that the debate was not about religious sects, but the question of God, and I don't think Hitchens stuck with what the debate was over. I was routing for Hitchens.
I agree with Jamie that Sharpton had a point about the question of god, but all Hitchens had to say was something like, "The god mentioned in title of my book is the god as portrayed by religion. When people talk about god, they do so with a holy book to back them up. It is that 'God' that I am talking about and attacking." He did seem to say this in so many words but probable could have clarified it a bit more. But then again, Hitchens' does seem to want to go beyond that and attack even a deist god, which seems more than necessary. The evil done in the name of god all seems to be done because of the holy books. I don't know of any historical wars or violence done in the name of some unknown force of the universe. I think Hitchens should clarify his position as being against the gods of organized religions, since that is where the evil comes from and that is what is easy to attack.I did not find Sharpton to be a moron. He was smart enough to not take on a direct attack on the crap in that is found in the bible. However, I think he let Hitchens win by default since he did not even seem to try to defend the standard christian position.I agree with Joe that Sharpton was unarmed. I was surprised that Sharpton seemed to acknowledge the fact he was unarmed and could not come up with anything better than having a feeling that god exists in his life.One telling point that Hitchens did not seem to pick up on was when Sharpton said "The people that really believe in God will defeat him." when referring to the Mormon running for president. Hitchens could have asked what Sharpton meant by "really believe in God." How did Sharpton know who these people were and how did he know who God was. If pressed Sharpton would have had to admit that he gets his idea of god from the bible and that would have made Sharpton squirm.So from that statement, I can see that Sharpton does think of god as the bible god; no duh! But he was smart enough to know that that position is not defensible. So Sharpton thus seems to be another charlatan that does not even believe the crap he preaches. I know, what a shock.
I gave up at about 10 minutes, I could stand listening to that Sharperton guy.
Sharpton is no idiot, actually he appears to have a sense of humor. He is very evasive and knows which fight to pick. He does not want to discuss the scriptures probably knowing full well that it is a losing battle. I think he is trying to make Hitchen's prove why a non-existent god is not great without being able to use the only tangible proof (the scriptures). It is a very entertaining debate though.Farris
Lance wrote:"...However, I think he let Hitchens win by default since he did not even seem to try to defend the standard christian position..."Indeed he didn't. In fact, I can easily picture a lot of his fellow pastors' chagrin at the way he said, about 10 - 15 minutes from the end, that it isn't necessary to be a Xtian in order to know god. That's not going to be a hit with a lot of them, believing as they do that there's only one way to go.
I did notice something about Sharpton I find to be hypocritical in this debate. He basically made the argument here and there that people find their way to ''God'' from various means (even by other religions), especially by personal credulity (he didn't word it like that, he made a more positive spin on it), but yet he made the smart-ass remark about God's real people winning against the Mormon (Romney) who is running for President. Did anyone else catch this?
Post a Comment