Comments on: Flashback: Alan Colmes says he's "agnostic" about 9/11 conspiracy theories

By: John Davidson

John Davidson — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:11:21 +0000

Separate personal ideolgy or beliefs from the argument.

The Jew;the Hindu; the Muslim; the Aetheist; etc.Who’s right? Who knows?

Well, when it’s over, we’ll know, but until then…

By: David Swindle

David Swindle — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:59:17 +0000

What do you mean, John?

By: John Davidson

John Davidson — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:54:36 +0000

It is very difficult to find oneself amist the chaos, but we must respect each other’s right to think without interference.

By: David Swindle

David Swindle — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:41:38 +0000

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35212

I was an intensely radical evangelical Christian for five years. Sorry, been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. (Many t-shirts actually that are sitting in a box somewhere now.) I know all the arguments backwards and forwards because I used to use them myself.

http://relinquishingjunk.com/theological_discussion.htm

That said I’ll still respect your faith even if I no longer share it. One must first pass through the second stage of spiritual growth (thinking of God as a noun) before entering the third stage of rejecting God altogether, before finally getting to the fourth stage where you understand God as a Verb.

http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/stages.html

As confusing as this might sound I tend to be supportive of both stage 2 religious convictions and stage 3 atheism/science worship. Both are necessary steps in the path to a more mystical understanding of the universe. And both are far better than the stage 1 (chaotic/antisocial) types.

By: John Davidson

John Davidson — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:39:32 +0000

Possibly a failed attempt by the producers to emulate Abbott & Costello that didn’t go over to well. These pundit have more credibility presenting their arguments calmly rather than shrilly.

That works best in domestic disputes,

Politicians ought to be reminded of that premise, also.

By: Winefred

Winefred — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:44:21 +0000

There are only two possibilities to explain Alan Colmes in his “sidecar” role: either he was committed to taking the contrarian view to anything espoused by Hannity or a right-leaning guest, completely without scruple no matter how a base a sentiment, whether he actually believed it or not; or he really believed all the contrarian leftist BS he uttered every night of the week. I’m not sure I ever heard him claim agnosticism about 9/11, but long before he left the show I had taken to hitting the mute button every time he opened his mouth — I find Hannity’s shrill, machine-gun delivery hard enough to take even when he’s making sense. Colmes was just insufferable. Sometimes his counterpoint positions were so desperately perverse I couldn’t imagine he really believed any of it, but in the end he has proved himself a genuine fool. Listening to his portion of the “debate” was like hearing echoes of the 10th-grade junior Marxists I remember from high school, slavering at their petty semantic triumphs. Good, good, good riddance.

By: Revnant Dream

Revnant Dream — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:10:07 +0000

David Swindle;
â€œAll I know is that I know nothing.â€ â€” Socrates

Great advice until God actually shows up & destroys your private Universe you have carefully constructed. Trust me you will know it when it happens. It was a total shock to me being the son of the son of heathens.
After that you are ignorant no more.
To Christians: “Good works do not make you rightious.”
Salvation is free remember, you earned nothing.
God did it all including taking your, with the Worlds deserved punishment on himself.

Hannity is coming into his own prime. I like him a lot better without the nut.
as you said Kathy if you really believed your Government killed its own civilians than why is the US not in a civil war. Because that would be an unforgivable breach of the social contract, that we allow them to govern. Indeed they become outlaw.

Hey Kathy your readers may help you out with hits, but its the product that brings us back. Yours is grade A honest.
JMO

By: Jay Currie

Jay Currie — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:05:59 +0000

Well he has a point. After all it makes perfect sense that the US government would blow up 3000 people in NYC and no one would leak.

To use an Vanism: “Asshole”

By: Swemson

Swemson — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:33:33 +0000

David;

Before you continue to think of yourself as an agnostic, may I suggest that you watch the following presentation on TED:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

By: Jim R

Jim R — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:02:27 +0000

Don’t you like Hannity’s Fox program more now that funny face is gone?

Never mind Colme’s irritating idealogy, it was his irritating mannerisms that gave me the willies. I was never agnostic about him.

By: David Swindle

David Swindle — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:08:52 +0000

David Horowitz and myself both consider ourselves agnostics, at least when it comes to the subject of God.

And sometimes the smartest thing one can understand and admit is that we are ignorant. “All I know is that I know nothing.” — Socrates

By: Gregg Hanke

Gregg Hanke — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:43:32 +0000

The Latin word for agnostic is ignoramus.