Let me quote the same verses from a more modern yet literal translation, the NWT:
Ah yes, the perpetual "Your interpretation is incorrect. Mine is the right way" religious argument. This is what makes it such a successful meme. Pick the one you like or if it doesn't exist make it up. Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
One might ask what kind of divine moron would have chosen such a fallible medium for the transference of information.
But are vaccines made from red and white blood cells? I thought they were made from weakened viruses.
Where do you think those weaken or dead viruses were cultivated/harvested? Some were done with blood products like the polio vaccine.
One might even argue that all viruses are ultimately Satan's fault,
Really? Ultimately I thought "God" was responsible for creating Satan and knowing in advance what he'd do.
Do we get to curse $DEITY when that deity says no vaccinations? Or does the $DEITY only get credits, not debits?
Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; (Deuteronomy 14:21)
and hut flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:4)
What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. (I Corinthians 6:19,20)
It isn't the hippies, it's the religious that are the problem. There may be a few "hippies" who carry such belief, but it would most likely be motivated by their religious/spiritual beliefs. I'm sure you'll take care to note diseases like polio may have already been eradicated like smallpox was except for fatwas by Islam and even more bizarrely devolved Christians.
Can you provide reference to these emails which brought to light the "deliberate dishonesty"? I hope for your integrity's sake, you aren't referring to the so-called Climategate emails. If you are, you have proven your bias and are simply unqualified to make a comment on the issue that can be taken seriously. Every single one of the political witch hunts on this topics flamed out in spectacularly wasteful fashion. This is what happens when a group of people want others to believe something other than the facts.
It's a matter of relying too heavily on theoretical models
Gravity is a theory as well as Heliocentrism. By relying on those models, we were able to land people on the Moon. But yeah, scientific models can't be practically used right?
with no real ability to perform controlled experiments. It's not a readily falsifiable deal.
Not according to scientists who work in the field. However, don't let that stand in the way of your sophist reasoning. I'm granting you an honorary diploma in Armchair Climate Science. Please print and display proudly at your workplace.
If you can't see the difference it's because you refuse to.
I can see why you'd like to paint those in disagreement with you as irrational, yet we are not the one making an extraordinary claims about how 98% of scientists in the field simply aren't good enough to do their job. And what evidence to do you bring to this claim? Talking points from climate change deniers and bizarre assertions about causation. I'll go out on a limb say you're not a statistician nor even taken an entry level course on it.
If you want to find out what happens to another planet suffering from global warming, you need look no farther than the closest planet to Earth.
Yes, because you're the same type of person who would follow an MD's advice on heart surgery after what? maybe two concurring opinions. Yet when it comes to accepting science that conflicts with your political views, you say "Well hold on Buster. 98% of the people qualified to make an assessment isn't good enough. And I'm a victim too!. You big meanies!".
I'm sorry, but our baseline for polar bear population is just not long enough to reach very good conclusions as to population trends
Right, we should believe you over the scientists who study it.
In addition, even if we could do so, there is still quite a bit of studying necessary to reach a conclusion as to causes.
For some reason, I suspect for you it would never be enough.
According to the link you gave, we have only been doing significant population tracking since the mid-1980s
No, that's not what it says. Perhaps you mean one single significant study started in the 80's.
In addition, when one follows the links in the footnotes about polar bear population changes, one discovers that the most significant factor in the population decreases among those populations known to be declining is over hunting
Hm, not actually not. One would discover hunting is a rising additional threat to PB's since they are now forced to spend more time on land. This is seeming like a campaign of misinformation.
This means that there is currently no data supporting the idea that global warming will cause a reduction in the population of polar bears (none contradicting it either), except possibly by making them more readily accessible to hunters.
Yes, in fact there is. The data clearly shows a rather marked decline in several of the major polar bear subspecies(generally population areas) since the 70's. Several other studies have have noted an increase in birth defects and abnormality rates in cubs. So the ones that are being born aren't as healthy as
Well when looks for information on polar bear and seal populations one finds a lot of information that says that those populations will decline as a result of global warming, but very little information that those populations have declined.
Well when one introduces bias into their search methods, one tends to get back the information they want to see.
As far as your assertion goes, there is definitely sufficient evidence to claim PB population is declining. There are several linked sources in the Wikipedia page, and Google Scholar has plenty more.
Biologists have determined that Polar Bears probably evolved in an area somewhere around Ireland, believe it or not. So a bit of warming will probably not hurt them a hell of a lot.
First a correction:
A team of 18 biologists whose findings and methodologies are questioned by other experts in the field have determined that Polar Bears probably evolved in an area somewhere around Ireland, believe it or not. So a bit of warming will probably not hurt them a hell of a lot.
Interesting supposition. What is it exactly which makes you think the Ireland of 110,000 years ago resembled the Ireland of today in climate? Another fascinating part of this is the fact that experts in the field think this might harm the species, yet a seemingly layperson who appears to have read a headline on the topic thinks everything is A-OK.
Yes, I've often heard as much but this assertion has never come with any evidence. For anyone who forms their beliefs based off evidence, here is some as it pertains to the topic:
That definition doesn't meet any current standard or definition yet he whips it out, whirls it around, and thinks he won a point on the topic. An appalling lack of intellectual integrity and something WLC would be proud to claim as his own I think.
Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.” John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple
case you still dont get it: just because I say "Joe was at the store" doesnt mean that Bob wasnt there as well.
Perhaps if you're generous and want this to work out, you could overlook this conflict. However once you do read the accounts in detail and notice all the other problems with it like in some versions they entered tomb, in some they didn't, they all see and do different things, arrive at different times, tomb descriptions wildly different, who greeted the women or woman, was the tomb guarded, how long was the body there, etc ad nauseum, then you have to move from a position of apologist to denialist in terms of an evidential approach.
Yea, see, this is why this discussion is going nowhere. There is no reason to add a subjective qualifier (like "with integrity") to the description "conservative biblical scholars" unless you mean to disqualify any counter examples I would bring to the table. Doing so (saying "any scholar WITH INTEGRITY wouldnt say that") is a classic example of a No True Scotsman.
For this to be taken anything like truth, you must assume all biblical scholars are in fact just, fair, and go where the evidence leads. Of course this isn't true, and it's plainly obvious why such a qualifier is necessary. Even the most ignorant among the religious know there are charlatans in the game. It does indeed say something about you that you assume the purity of result though.
some women went down with spices to preserve the body.
How many women was that? And what exactly happened during event? Oh yeah, 4 different versions almost entirely incompatible with one another. And that's just the very tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg of inconsistencies, convolutions, and impossibilities present in the book. I see you've somehow resolved all these conflicts, but it certainly wasn't through logic. Do yourself the favor of calling it faith and leave the thinking to grown-ups who can be honest even when the answers disagree with desires.
Really? Hilarious. Perhaps you should look up the fallacy and return with something remotely resembling logic instead of a blatant non sequitur.
Association fallacy [wikipedia.org] and appeal to ridicule [wikipedia.org] were the two I saw immediately given the short portion of the video I watched. Can you really be so ignorant of fallacies not to recognize appeals to ridicule in someone's comparison between God and Kim Jong Il?
His logic was a point of Reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps you might want to visit parallels between the including all the "miracles" and duality between father and son. All this without eyewitness.
It's ironic isn't it that we are witnessing an awful attempt at logic defining by someone who defended their initial statement with ad hominem.
Your pathetic attempt at equating this with Godwin's Law is nothing more than attempt at diversion and censorship as
Im not clear what you mean by plagarizing, either-- you seem to be implying that if Matthew tells of a scenario in John, it is plagarizing, and if it does not, then it is in conflict, and in no case can they be in agreement. Am I hearing that correctly?
No. Blatant out outright copying. And it's highly unlikely John would resemble much of the other 3 when dealing with the same events. Jesus was a super hero with powers rivaling Batman in John.
I've already given you a source, there are plenty of biblical scholars who do have integrity. If you don't like my source find one you like. Really to satisfy the integrity issue, all you have to do is find someone who follows where the evidence leads, not where their beliefs guide them. Given the audience, I'll define evidence as the term is used in the sciences and judicial system.
To try and make still as simple for you as possible, take any major event in the gospels. Say the anointing of the body after the crucifixion. What happened at that event? They can't all be right so which one is?
Clearly you've never read the bible and in particular the gospels. Even the most conservative of biblical scholars with integrity have to admit they agree on very little of the detail. The only place they are agreement is when they directly plagiarize from one another. Once you let Luke go off freelancing, or John which has virtually nothing in common with rest to can just begin to see the enormous amount of divergence in the text. They don't agree on the details of anything except where they have been plagiarized. Exactly what you'd expect from a man-made myth. John 14:28 clearly demolished your definition of the trinity. Either they are equal or they are not. Which is it? Did you even read the bible quote you offered? It makes no sense, it's complete gibberish and utter white noise.
By making the statement you did, you convict yourself of either one of two things. You are conscious liar, fraud, and charlatan of the lowest intellectual integrity, or you are a simple minded fool regurgitating what you have been fed. As in the wise words of Abraham Lincoln:
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
Let me get this straight. Youre defending Hitchens' use of fallacy, and then accusing me of logical gymnastics?
Um yes. You have not established what fallacy he employs. Godwin's Law, although often appropriate, isn't a fallacy which makes your claim extremely questionable.
So you understand the trinity huh? And it's a logical thing? Wow, now I'm prepared for revelation. I'm read the bible multiple times and found no mention of the trinity anywhere, ever. Not even the slightest allusion to it. Although I have found gospel and scripture verses which contradict the standard version of it. But then again, there are so many versions to pick from which the truest mark of a logical fallacy.
a hilarious parallel to Kim Jong Il's dead father being the head of the government. Thats about as far as I got before I realized that life is too short to spend watching athiests make accusations that are neither civil nor grounded in reason
So exposing the parallels between actions isn't a valid premise for logic and reason? And because it might offend someone it shouldn't be said? Fascinating how the religious mind works. They truly want the censorship and totalitarianism of their chosen dictator.
BTW it was a debate, not a speech so it was limited in time, scope and detail. It was between Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter. The full version is also available on youtube so you could explore the full scope of arguments. I suspect you'd more the like the debate between him and Dinesh D'Souza, a full blown apologist and a bit more adept at the logical gymnastics which come with it.
If you knew the man's good works which include an enormous amount helping the victimized people of the world, I wonder if you would be so quick to disparage him. I suspect the answer would still be yes with the cherry picked version of Christianity you present.
As for the rest of your statement and noting it's lack of specifics, an ungenerous person might assume that is your standard response to views you disagree with. I don't feel particularly generous reading your comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me quote the same verses from a more modern yet literal translation, the NWT:
Ah yes, the perpetual "Your interpretation is incorrect. Mine is the right way" religious argument. This is what makes it such a successful meme. Pick the one you like or if it doesn't exist make it up. Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
One might ask what kind of divine moron would have chosen such a fallible medium for the transference of information.
But are vaccines made from red and white blood cells? I thought they were made from weakened viruses.
Where do you think those weaken or dead viruses were cultivated/harvested? Some were done with blood products like the polio vaccine.
One might even argue that all viruses are ultimately Satan's fault,
Really? Ultimately I thought "God" was responsible for creating Satan and knowing in advance what he'd do.
Do we get to curse $DEITY when that deity says no vaccinations? Or does the $DEITY only get credits, not debits?
Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; (Deuteronomy 14:21)
and hut flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:4)
What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. (I Corinthians 6:19,20)
If he's still alive...
Sure, this is a liberal problem isn't it?
http://blogs.plos.org/thepanicvirus/2011/05/10/and-the-winner-is-fox-news/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1206813,00.html
Or perhaps you missed many conservatives like Michele Bachmann rail on and on against HPV and other vaccines.
No, this a religious problem. Every motivation for the vac-fraks stems from it, and it's desire to abolish science.
It isn't the hippies, it's the religious that are the problem. There may be a few "hippies" who carry such belief, but it would most likely be motivated by their religious/spiritual beliefs. I'm sure you'll take care to note diseases like polio may have already been eradicated like smallpox was except for fatwas by Islam and even more bizarrely devolved Christians.
You should have said "Goodbye, cruel world".
Can you provide reference to these emails which brought to light the "deliberate dishonesty"? I hope for your integrity's sake, you aren't referring to the so-called Climategate emails. If you are, you have proven your bias and are simply unqualified to make a comment on the issue that can be taken seriously. Every single one of the political witch hunts on this topics flamed out in spectacularly wasteful fashion. This is what happens when a group of people want others to believe something other than the facts.
It's a matter of relying too heavily on theoretical models
Gravity is a theory as well as Heliocentrism. By relying on those models, we were able to land people on the Moon. But yeah, scientific models can't be practically used right?
with no real ability to perform controlled experiments. It's not a readily falsifiable deal.
Not according to scientists who work in the field. However, don't let that stand in the way of your sophist reasoning. I'm granting you an honorary diploma in Armchair Climate Science. Please print and display proudly at your workplace.
If you can't see the difference it's because you refuse to.
I can see why you'd like to paint those in disagreement with you as irrational, yet we are not the one making an extraordinary claims about how 98% of scientists in the field simply aren't good enough to do their job. And what evidence to do you bring to this claim? Talking points from climate change deniers and bizarre assertions about causation. I'll go out on a limb say you're not a statistician nor even taken an entry level course on it.
If you want to find out what happens to another planet suffering from global warming, you need look no farther than the closest planet to Earth.
Yes, because you're the same type of person who would follow an MD's advice on heart surgery after what? maybe two concurring opinions. Yet when it comes to accepting science that conflicts with your political views, you say "Well hold on Buster. 98% of the people qualified to make an assessment isn't good enough. And I'm a victim too!. You big meanies!".
I'm sorry, but our baseline for polar bear population is just not long enough to reach very good conclusions as to population trends
Right, we should believe you over the scientists who study it.
In addition, even if we could do so, there is still quite a bit of studying necessary to reach a conclusion as to causes.
For some reason, I suspect for you it would never be enough.
According to the link you gave, we have only been doing significant population tracking since the mid-1980s
No, that's not what it says. Perhaps you mean one single significant study started in the 80's.
In addition, when one follows the links in the footnotes about polar bear population changes, one discovers that the most significant factor in the population decreases among those populations known to be declining is over hunting
Hm, not actually not. One would discover hunting is a rising additional threat to PB's since they are now forced to spend more time on land. This is seeming like a campaign of misinformation.
This means that there is currently no data supporting the idea that global warming will cause a reduction in the population of polar bears (none contradicting it either), except possibly by making them more readily accessible to hunters.
Yes, in fact there is. The data clearly shows a rather marked decline in several of the major polar bear subspecies(generally population areas) since the 70's. Several other studies have have noted an increase in birth defects and abnormality rates in cubs. So the ones that are being born aren't as healthy as
Well when looks for information on polar bear and seal populations one finds a lot of information that says that those populations will decline as a result of global warming, but very little information that those populations have declined.
Well when one introduces bias into their search methods, one tends to get back the information they want to see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_search_for_information
As far as your assertion goes, there is definitely sufficient evidence to claim PB population is declining. There are several linked sources in the Wikipedia page, and Google Scholar has plenty more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Population_and_distribution
Biologists have determined that Polar Bears probably evolved in an area somewhere around Ireland, believe it or not. So a bit of warming will probably not hurt them a hell of a lot.
First a correction:
A team of 18 biologists whose findings and methodologies are questioned by other experts in the field have determined that Polar Bears probably evolved in an area somewhere around Ireland, believe it or not. So a bit of warming will probably not hurt them a hell of a lot.
Interesting supposition. What is it exactly which makes you think the Ireland of 110,000 years ago resembled the Ireland of today in climate? Another fascinating part of this is the fact that experts in the field think this might harm the species, yet a seemingly layperson who appears to have read a headline on the topic thinks everything is A-OK.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/polar-bears-rooted-in-ireland.html
Christopher Hitchens title for his polemic piece on religion hardly have been phrased even better, although I'll give it a shot here.
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(Including Facebook).
Yes, I've often heard as much but this assertion has never come with any evidence. For anyone who forms their beliefs based off evidence, here is some as it pertains to the topic:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-advocacy/2008-August/003674.html
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/x11-wm.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/desktop-browsers.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/virtualization-host.html
Am I the only one wanting to scream 'Fermi Paradox!' at the top of my lungs whenever the probability of extraterrestrial life is discussed?
Seems like a good guess.
WLC comes up with doozy after doozy, but he's not the only apologist gifted with extreme logical gymnastic abilities.
Take Dinesh D'Souza and his definition of torture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Isg6Kx-3xdI#t=3087s
That definition doesn't meet any current standard or definition yet he whips it out, whirls it around, and thinks he won a point on the topic. An appalling lack of intellectual integrity and something WLC would be proud to claim as his own I think.
http://www.quora.com/Brian-Dodson-1/Electronics/answers
For your viewing pleasure:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/content/sessions/lecture13.html
Even this series is too kind IMO, but it still meets my offering of integrity.
Mary the mother of Jesus
Wrong.
Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple
case you still dont get it: just because I say "Joe was at the store" doesnt mean that Bob wasnt there as well.
Perhaps if you're generous and want this to work out, you could overlook this conflict. However once you do read the accounts in detail and notice all the other problems with it like in some versions they entered tomb, in some they didn't, they all see and do different things, arrive at different times, tomb descriptions wildly different, who greeted the women or woman, was the tomb guarded, how long was the body there, etc ad nauseum, then you have to move from a position of apologist to denialist in terms of an evidential approach.
Yea, see, this is why this discussion is going nowhere. There is no reason to add a subjective qualifier (like "with integrity") to the description "conservative biblical scholars" unless you mean to disqualify any counter examples I would bring to the table. Doing so (saying "any scholar WITH INTEGRITY wouldnt say that") is a classic example of a No True Scotsman.
For this to be taken anything like truth, you must assume all biblical scholars are in fact just, fair, and go where the evidence leads. Of course this isn't true, and it's plainly obvious why such a qualifier is necessary. Even the most ignorant among the religious know there are charlatans in the game. It does indeed say something about you that you assume the purity of result though.
some women went down with spices to preserve the body.
How many women was that? And what exactly happened during event? Oh yeah, 4 different versions almost entirely incompatible with one another. And that's just the very tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg of inconsistencies, convolutions, and impossibilities present in the book. I see you've somehow resolved all these conflicts, but it certainly wasn't through logic. Do yourself the favor of calling it faith and leave the thinking to grown-ups who can be honest even when the answers disagree with desires.
No True Scotsman
Really? Hilarious. Perhaps you should look up the fallacy and return with something remotely resembling logic instead of a blatant non sequitur.
Association fallacy [wikipedia.org] and appeal to ridicule [wikipedia.org] were the two I saw immediately given the short portion of the video I watched. Can you really be so ignorant of fallacies not to recognize appeals to ridicule in someone's comparison between God and Kim Jong Il?
His logic was a point of Reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps you might want to visit parallels between the including all the "miracles" and duality between father and son. All this without eyewitness.
It's ironic isn't it that we are witnessing an awful attempt at logic defining by someone who defended their initial statement with ad hominem.
Your pathetic attempt at equating this with Godwin's Law is nothing more than attempt at diversion and censorship as
http://reason.com/archives/2005/07/14/hands-off-hitler
Im not clear what you mean by plagarizing, either-- you seem to be implying that if Matthew tells of a scenario in John, it is plagarizing, and if it does not, then it is in conflict, and in no case can they be in agreement. Am I hearing that correctly?
No. Blatant out outright copying. And it's highly unlikely John would resemble much of the other 3 when dealing with the same events. Jesus was a super hero with powers rivaling Batman in John.
I've already given you a source, there are plenty of biblical scholars who do have integrity. If you don't like my source find one you like. Really to satisfy the integrity issue, all you have to do is find someone who follows where the evidence leads, not where their beliefs guide them. Given the audience, I'll define evidence as the term is used in the sciences and judicial system.
To try and make still as simple for you as possible, take any major event in the gospels. Say the anointing of the body after the crucifixion. What happened at that event? They can't all be right so which one is?
though the most common ones are 99% in agreement.
Clearly you've never read the bible and in particular the gospels. Even the most conservative of biblical scholars with integrity have to admit they agree on very little of the detail. The only place they are agreement is when they directly plagiarize from one another. Once you let Luke go off freelancing, or John which has virtually nothing in common with rest to can just begin to see the enormous amount of divergence in the text. They don't agree on the details of anything except where they have been plagiarized. Exactly what you'd expect from a man-made myth. John 14:28 clearly demolished your definition of the trinity. Either they are equal or they are not. Which is it? Did you even read the bible quote you offered? It makes no sense, it's complete gibberish and utter white noise.
By making the statement you did, you convict yourself of either one of two things. You are conscious liar, fraud, and charlatan of the lowest intellectual integrity, or you are a simple minded fool regurgitating what you have been fed. As in the wise words of Abraham Lincoln:
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
So in either case you are a liar. For reference, see http://www.bartdehrman.com/flv_biblemisquotejesus/doesbiblemisquote.htm
Let me get this straight. Youre defending Hitchens' use of fallacy, and then accusing me of logical gymnastics?
Um yes. You have not established what fallacy he employs. Godwin's Law, although often appropriate, isn't a fallacy which makes your claim extremely questionable.
.
So you understand the trinity huh? And it's a logical thing? Wow, now I'm prepared for revelation. I'm read the bible multiple times and found no mention of the trinity anywhere, ever. Not even the slightest allusion to it. Although I have found gospel and scripture verses which contradict the standard version of it. But then again, there are so many versions to pick from which the truest mark of a logical fallacy.
a hilarious parallel to Kim Jong Il's dead father being the head of the government. Thats about as far as I got before I realized that life is too short to spend watching athiests make accusations that are neither civil nor grounded in reason
So exposing the parallels between actions isn't a valid premise for logic and reason? And because it might offend someone it shouldn't be said? Fascinating how the religious mind works. They truly want the censorship and totalitarianism of their chosen dictator.
BTW it was a debate, not a speech so it was limited in time, scope and detail. It was between Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter. The full version is also available on youtube so you could explore the full scope of arguments. I suspect you'd more the like the debate between him and Dinesh D'Souza, a full blown apologist and a bit more adept at the logical gymnastics which come with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-NduvegITQ&feature=BFa&list=PL8399092B6C337E55&lf=results_main
what a thoughtful and pleasant man
If you knew the man's good works which include an enormous amount helping the victimized people of the world, I wonder if you would be so quick to disparage him. I suspect the answer would still be yes with the cherry picked version of Christianity you present.
As for the rest of your statement and noting it's lack of specifics, an ungenerous person might assume that is your standard response to views you disagree with. I don't feel particularly generous reading your comment.