Christopher has said that he welcomes ad-hominem attacks when debating. They signal to him that 1) the debate is over and 2) he has won. I tend to agree with this; Christopher is a renowned rhetorician and is admired for this skill in debate by even opposing parties. It would follow that when one starts with such an attack, one has lost the argument before it has begun. I encourage all parties to come out to see Mr. Hitchens tonight, especially those with an axe to grind.

Jason:

You miss the point. The study of evolution is scientific, as is the study of medicine, but Christians feel like the teaching of the science of evolution is somehow an attack on their faith, while the study of the workings of the human body is not. Some Christians now believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and that humans existed alongside dinosaurs because they feel the need to justify their faith with really bad science. Isn't faith enough? Perhaps the realization that the old myths do not stand up to fact or reason has required new facts and reasons to be invented to support the myths...

The biggest problem with believing in supernatural beings is that discerning what He or She wants is impossible. 10 people will hear 10 different things. Even the 4 Gospels differ radically due to bias of the writer/translator.

We would do well as a society to reject in toto ideologies based on invisible beings that only talk to certain people.

Oh Lindsay. How bitter, and tragically misinformed. Why do Christians go to medical doctors and not faith healers? Am I to believe that atheists have laid claim to all doctors, and that there is no such thing as a doctor who believes in medicine and, shock, Christianity? By the way, I have doctors who go to my church, and unlike your friends, I tend to find that the friends of mine that are Christian are kinder, more loyal, and more faithful than the ones who aren't. But maybe, your kind friends who you claim are atheist are probably just lying to you because they are afraid of your hateful intolerance towards anyone who believes in a higher being.

Dave Freed:

You have many misconceptions about atheism. It is not a religion. It has no dogma.There is no holy book of Atheism. It has no belief system built around an unprovable tenet. You state Christianity has no platform? You are deluded, sir! Nearly every politician pushes "faith-based initiatives". What faith? You know the answer all too well. There are dozens of Christian churches within a mile of where I sit. They pay no taxes, either. The reason you will never see an "Atheist" church is that atheists don't spend all their time trying to scare people into attending and coughing up their hard-earned cash in trade for a warm, fuzzy "I'm saved and you're not" feeling. You suggest that atheists believe there are no consequences for their actions. You couldn't be more wrong. Atheists, at least all the ones I know, to a person, believe in personal accountability. Quite interestingly, they seem to do a much better job of abiding by the so-called "Golden Rule" than my Bible toting acquaintances. Perhaps it's because they know there's no storybook afterlife that they realize their actions-in this moment-count. They aren't willing to throw up their hands and believe if someone's poor, or injured, or abused that it's because God wants them that way. In other words, they are moral people.

Lastly, what makes you so sure the myth you were taught as a child is the right one? Surely you aren't so gullible as to believe that had you been brought up in an Islamic home that you'd be anything other than a Muslim? Or brought up in a Jewish home, a Jew?

As for evolution, would you be OK if your doctor started practicing Voodoo? Shamanism? Or any other medical doctrine not founded on observable, repeatable science? Why is it so many Christians decry the teaching of scientifically observable, provable evolution, yet when they have a tumor, seek the best care medical science has to offer? Why not just go to a faith healer? Or isn't your faith deep enough?

Religion: noun, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Listen, atheism is a religion. It is the belief that the universe was 'caused' by a big bang (followed by primorial ooze and microbes and walking fish with lungs, etc) and it includes a moral code which can be summed up as "survival of the fittest". So Hitchens is really just claiming that his religion (atheism) is the right one and all of the others are wrong -- which is the same claim made by Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Mormonism, and all other religions. So as a Christian I would sure like to get up on a stage and tell everyone that my religion is true and all others are false, but that's not a stage that's offered to me, so why is this feller allowed to get up and expound the same about his religion? He will claim that Christian faith is forced on Americans (The Pledge of Allegiance, The Declaration of Independence, The Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, Postings of the Ten Commandments, etc) but I would argue the opposite, Christianity is 'offered' to Americans, but Hitchens' religion (Atheism whose major tenet is evolution) is forced on Americans through school science classes. Atheism has a leg up on Christianity because they mask their beliefs as 'science' (evolution) and get it into every classroom in America five days a week, whereas Christianity gets sidelined to Sunday mornings.

No doubt it's easier for Hitchens to live his life believing that God does not exist and therefore there are no consequences for his actions. But like the bumper sticker says "If you live like there's no God, you'd better hope you're right!" =)

I'll just say I'd much rather be around stoned people than drunk people. In my 40+ years of life on this planet I have NEVER seen someone get stoned, and then want to beat people up. But I have seen guys have a few drinks and want to kick everyone's arse in the room. When you look at how much crime is alcohol related how can we continue to justify celebrations of drunkenness like Green Beer Day? They should have Green Pot Day. At least I wouldn't have to worry about being continually harassed on the streets by drunk guys which is what happens now.

Hmmm.....I have to agree that religion, especially the type of divisive anti-any-other-religion-but-Christianity that is going on in this country right now is not good.

Jefferson was smart. He also wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

He knew that when a people starts listening to those who claim to be privy to what the invisible man in sky says, regardless of what their own sense tells them is right, we are on the road to a society based on fear of the "other".

I wish the quote stated "this is an open attack on people of faith who should pull their heads from their hindparts and realize there is no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny and no invisible man in the sky controlling everything. Furthermore, these "believers" should lay down their ideas that the world's destiny is already written and start building a better world today...because that's the only way it's going to get done.

Where my son attends school they're in dorms throughout because there is no off campus housing. It seems quite natural to them. The biggest difference is that all the dorms are suites housing anywhere from 2 to 8 students. The rules are also that, if you have someone livnig in the suite who is 21 or older, he or she can have alcoholic beverages. If someone under age is caught drinking / drunk, they will be expelled. It's really rather simple.

Separation of church and state is NOT explicitly stated in the Constitution, contrary to the writer's assertion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" refers to the practice of establishing a national religion (such as the Church of England), and assures religious freedom, but it does not have the same meaning as separation of church of state, something which comes from a single letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1805. Ironically, the day after Jefferson wrote that letter he attended religious services being held in the US Capitol Building. I also enjoy the quote saying that the event isn't to attack religious people, yet every single quote from Hitchens either attacks religious leaders or calls religious people stupid. Ms. Newman either is lying, or has never bothered to listen to Hitchens speak before.

Brunner would NOT be the first woman nominated for a Senate seat. In 1998, Mary Boyle was nominated by the Democrats against Voinovich. Research can be very useful.