OT (saw it on LGF):

You know, as lost as Hitchens is (when it comes to the soul), he is so spot on about Islam in this piece in VanityFair about his old neighborhood in London:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchens200706?printable=true&currentPage=all

Sorry to keep going OT here, but the Q&A piece Hitchens does about his article in VF is a muct-read as well. I obviously don't agree with some things this man believes, but, my goodness, he "gets it"... he sees the threat.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchensqanda200706?currentPage=1

Sorry, those URLs got cut off, hopefully these work:

Article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchens200706

Q&A:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchensqanda200706

As if Christianity, a replacement for the actual person, needs to substantiate its worth to a fallen world. I'm not sure which is worse, an unbeliever arguing that Christianity is not good for the world or the same unbeliever arguing that it is.

In the end you have a person with sight and a person born blind debating over the color red. No common reference point with which to compare.

Non-believers like Hitchens are really good at building straw-man arguments and then baiting believers into endless and pointless debates that can't be won because they are based from the start on false suppositions.

I would really like to carefully study this subject and article better, before making some helpful (I hope) comments. I am in the middle of a house purchase, so everything is in boxes right now.