Sematic wars - and it's Hartmann's fault because he's the one asking the questions. Again and again and again. And we shouldn't be surprised to find out that Hartmann doesn't know much about science and believes in pseudo-science like reiki and acupuncture. He looks through the Hubble telescope, sees how huge the universe is and concludes that since it's so huge a big invisible man must have made it. Fool.
@Airlightf....Don't believe in a religion my friend, true followers of a higher power don't! If you look futher than what religion teaches you you'll see there is a creator and life beyond what we can physically understand.
Hartmann comes across as a very intelligent guy,,but its not a good idea to play semantics with someone like Hitchens ! Atheiesm is definately NOT a religion-take a look in the dictionary for its definition. Evangelism' has nothing to do with atheism,its usually meant in a religious sense..in fact,I wouldn't be surprised if it comes from the word angel. Whats angels got to do with atheism ? So mr Hartmann,check out words in a dictionary first before doing the semantics bit !
Evangelism refers to the practice of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs to others who do not hold those beliefs. The term is often used in reference to Christianity.
@EastBayChannel Yes,that was my point. Atheism IS NOT a belief system, it is NOT having belief in a creator. There is an atheistic sect in England that calls itself a religion..how daft is that ? It shows how stupid some people have become. [religious' means to believe in a supernatural power]. Amen !
Shocking truth that some evil ones in the U.S. Government have been killing people in the U.S.A. for many years using the TV, cell phone frequencies & vaccinations giving people cancer (slow painful death). It is part of the high level Freemasonry / ILLUMINATI witchcraft sacrifice to their god Lucifer (Satan). The TV & cell phone frequencies trip the toxins in the vaccinations. Many of you have cancer because of this.... sad fact.
If you expand the definition of religion such that it encompasses (in your mind) the people arguing against it, you are unwittingly diluting your own stance. If you say "religious" describes every ethos or perspective it is logistically equivalent to saying "whatever is in the box is what I guess it is." In other words you aren't proposing anything.
Apparently, God revealed himself around 2000 years ago?
Why would such an intelligent being reveal himself when the human race lacked the knowledge and capability to understand his message. Surely, he would have known we would of progressed to this stage....so why not wait until now so that it could of been properly documented and understood.
Christopher Hitchens is absolutely right.....the world is full of wish thinkers who cannot accept their lives lack significance and will end.
I see this guys point. In order to be so sure about the non existance of something you would almost have to beleive it with blind faith just like a religion.
@ooosteve You are wrong. There is a difference between belief based on facts on one hand, and faith on the other hand. Faith is to believe something in the absence of facts, and specially against the facts. I don't need faith to say that Harry potter does not exist, as I don't need faith to say that jesus doesn't exists either.
To me this whole thing about whether it's evangelism or not is just a way to bring Hitchens and others down to the level of the religious. But I can assure you that their positions are NOT equally valid.
The sense of knowing something that is beyond knowable? That is clearly religious double speak. There can be no evidence for knowing what is beyond knowable it's a contradiction in terms. We should believe in a god and the supernatural because we don't yet know everything? Bullshit. It's not legitimate to say, given all our of our science and not a shred of evidence for anything spiritual that it's diminishingly probable? Isn't that a much more rational bet than a hidden spirit world? Please!
Thom Hartmann said that radio waves did not exist 200 years ago to Christopher Hitchens. Unfortunately Christopher did not pick up on the fact that they did. We have the technology now that is picking up radio waves from space. Had we the technology 200 years ago it would have picked them up then.
Christopher, you missed a splendid chance to slap this twat down on the question of Radio waves. They Did exist and we are still getting them from outer space.
@Mzungu64 You seem to have completely missed Hartman's point. Hitchens says "If there's no evidence for something, I'm willing to say it's not there." Hartman replies by saying "So, 200 years ago there were no radio waves?" As in: According to Hitchens' logic, 200 years ago, since there was no evidence for radio waves, he would have said radio waves were "not there." And, of course, he would have been entirely wrong. It shows that Hitchens' statement was a logical fallacy.
The series 'V' is a fictional TV show that explains (revelation of method) what is really going on with the evil UFO creatures (real spirit Lucifer & spirit demon gods) on this earth. The John Carpenter documentary movie called 'THEY LIVE' explained this fact about the UFO creatures 25 years ago, but most people care more about the foolish religion of sports than truth, freedom or saving their own lives! I have evidence.
Hartmann is like that really annoying guy from your college philosophy course who thought he knew everything and wouldn't ever stop bickering with the teacher about every single stupid thing that came along.
Evangelicals will make you think that your Faith in some floating-rice-monster will save you, and Hitchens is merely countering it. Christopher Hitchens is a Counter-Evangelical. It is almost like a missle use to destroy other missles before the other missles cause harm.
Since this jerk thinks that he was helped by acupuncture he knows that there is more to physics than physicists want to admit? WOW! what a leap of idiocy!
Evangelism refers to the practice of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs to others who do not hold those beliefs. [The term is often used in reference to Christianity.]
So AGAIN Hitchens is being a little disingenuous here Thom was clearly using the term appropriately.
@StunnedByStupidity I see your point, but I don't agree. Atheist don't have beliefs that they spread, the only thing that makes them atheist is a lack of one belief (a god). So their is no belief to share. Plus, we all know how the word evangelism is used today, and it is associated with religion, Thom could have used a much better word, such a campaign which hitchens did mention.
@rguier Look I'm VERY scientific and am mostly atheist - but not completely - catch me one day and I'll disagree from another. However Hitchens isn't just an atheist he is indeed EVANGELICAL about it - not in a clever amusing way like Dawkings but an arrogant kick you in a teeth sort of way. If you THINK he can explain the near death experience from an evolutionary perspective you are insane - there is something VERY weird going on there. And Hitchens is an arrogant middling intellect...
@StunnedByStupidity "If you THINK he can explain the near death experience from an evolutionary perspective you are insane" Not insane just dumb. It would be better explained in a biological sense.
@Clubbingshawn So go on then, lets hear it - cos there are many doctors that think they can't - but you seem to think you can. Lets hear how you use natural selection to build up such a stunningly complex experience that remains invisible in our daily lives... Look, I aint no ignorant buffoon I have studied science at bachelor degree level you can put away your smug superiority...
Watch from the 2:20 mark. BTW unlike 'experts' that deny science topics like ozone destruction, global warming deniers, evolution deniers etc, there is no accusation that the doctors that think there is something very strange going on in the NDE being disingenuous charlatans...
@StunnedByStupidity I'm not going to get into a back and forth arguement with you because it would never end. I never even said that I could explain it either. I was only implying that the wording of your statement was wrong.
"Every human culture has some form of both, a sense of the sacred, shamanism"
No, that's not really interesting at all. What faith is in it's essence is belief in things without evidence. Throughout Human history we have been astoundingly ignorant about the nature of the universe. It's not astounding at all that in every culture some asshat has stepped forward while we were so ignorant and said they have all the answers "listen to what I tell you". There is an advantage in that, hence shamans.
@gekritzl I thought he made some good points, one of them being that a man who goes around advocating atheism is no different than an evangelist. I wish Hitch would have had more time to address that point.
@ACRanger13 lol the person that just flagged ur comment as spam is clearly being evangelist in the non-religious sense. the english language is malleable. its not uncommon for ppl to coin phrases that basically mean something different entirely but because of its BASIC PRINCIPLE it can be COINED to refer to some form or action better than any other word in english and eventally that coined term becomes the norm. we have specific words because it saves us time. arguing semantics is gay, hitchens
@gekritzl I thought he made some good points, one of them being that a man who goes around advocating atheism is no different than an evangelist. I wish Hitch would have had more time to address that point.
Thom refuses to debate religion now as far as I know. Thom's pride is his greatest weakness. He knows he is wrong, this is why he refuses to publicly debate the issue now and into the foreseeable future.
I love Thom for his common sense economic stances, and generally his approach to dealing with the restrictions of civil liberties in our nation, but he's just plain wrong here. I've never figured out his opposition to atheism, considering how critically he analyzes almost every other issue he deals with. I guess undue credulity is an ever present foe, even in the minds of the wisest among us. Sigh, come on Thom - you're smarter than this!
Tom Hartmann either is lying or has never read the U.S. Constitution. Tom says America is a Democracy. America is not a Democracy! Article 4 section 4 of the U.S. Constitution says America is a Constitutional Republic! Democracies lead to dictatorships! Please research this fact. The evil ILLUMINATI / FREEMASON politicians in Washington D.C. (District of Criminals) want a world wide democracy dictatorship with their leader from Rome.
e·van·gel·i·cal (vn-jl-kl, vn-) also e·van·gel·ic (-jlk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament.2. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.3. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.
Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color, like stupidity is a philosophy, and like freezing is the consequence of a hot fire. But who can blame the religious mind for abandoning the terms god, religion, and faith. They are quite worthless as they describe nothing; therefore their ultimate uses have been transformed to those of a cudgel for bashing adversaries. Finally, the religious have made a rather practical and even 'reasonable use' of things previously thought worthless. Kudos!
I think the label does matter for legal reasons. Atheist are afforded legal protection as theist, atheist attend inter-faith meeting at the white house, etc.
These are all good things.
No doubt both Atheism and Anti-theism are "close" to a religion. However whether they are very close enough to a religion is a big question.
The trouble is not Religions have Gods or God. Buddhism is an atheistic religion, other religions worship nature, or aliens, or mass conscience. Some would argue that the singularity is a religion, even though it's based on science.
We need to use a much wider definition for religion to make sure we aren't excluding any.
Throughout history you will find cultures that have had belief in a supernatural being. Why did that being not protect them? Certainly it would have been revered.
You can't argue God exists as a subset of the "supernatural." If God is, then God is absolutely, to the exception of all other considerations. Evidence of the supernatural is, by definition, the opposite of the belief in God, since evidence defeats the need for belief. Making any argument for the existence of God is immediately self-defeating and, if you know your scripture, against the teachings of Jesus. Christians are not supposed to argue with "closed" minds, but seek open (gullible) minds.
...Hitchens has an unshakable faith in his own intellect . He seems to want to prove that he can think in the third and fourth dimensions, and explain all things unexplainable......and he perhaps would like to be worshipped, or at least to be held in awe.......Hartmann makes a good point that Hitchens exhibits an evangelistic fervor, and is therefore religious himself--a bitter pill for Hitchens and many others who scorn "religion".
Thom needs to read Hitchens reference from Marx regarding emancipation from one's shackles of religion. Hitchens makes the clear distinction in "god is not great" and in "the portable atheist" that the distinction between atheism and evangelicalism is faith is and should not be held as a virtue, whereas atheism along with science is held to evidence and empherical testing to increase the human experience.
the opposite of christianity is not lies its scientific truth so dont try to convince an atheist he is wrong by pointing to the marvels of the universe to prove your creation story when you yourself believe in a bible that says the earth is flat and has been made in 6 days and god had a rest on the 7th?!
christopher is far superior with his wonder at the quantum particle which moves according to how it is being perceived
how do the birds and fish all move at the same split second mid air?
Actually, I remember a news story about this. Researchers found that flocks of birds turned on a sort of "majority rule" process. In a flock of 100 birds, for example, a few would veer in a direction. Others might or might not imitate them, but as soon as enough birds headed that direction, all the others in the flock would turn the same way. But it happens so fast that it seems instantaneous to us.
science has proved we all pulsate to one uni verse
see the end of Esoteric Agenda - the last 20 mins
there is of course no god of the abrahamic religious character
however there is a nameless formless energy that is alive - thats all i can say to describe it as the description is not the described - we can call it nothingness or everythingness - its all ironic paradox
words will always fail
abrahamic cults have left us far behind - they are stupifiers which claim a flat planet
@JohananRaatz The modern era is a prodomentally seular and atheist society it has become known and the great time in human history and we are constantly improveing through science and reason. On the other hand the time when christians ruled europe was known as the dark ages. You decide what is a bigger hinderence on society
@blackcat4ever You aren't nuanced enough. The best society is something of a hybrid of the two. First of all science and reason are not necessarily incompatible with religious faith. Secondly yes they have made things better, though the relativism that accompanies the modern age isn't. Most people won't accept absolutes unless they are religious in nature. It would be ideal if people could agree to a transcendent rational morality (like Kant's) but this only seems to work in a religious culture.
thats funny never heard of a abigfootist i still want to believe its my curiosity that theres alot more that we dont know or lets just die now everyday u should learn thats why i love to live in america freedom of religion and freedom of no religion
Uhm, Thom Hartmann, you are a fucking idiot who does not understand the definitions of terminology apparently. Hitchens put it to you straightforward and you just ignored his reasoning.
Trying to spread logic and reason and free people's minds is evangelism? So intellectually dishonest. No, so just plain dishonest. Theists cannot have a debate without using fallacies, lies, and inaccurate terminology.
Thom hartman are you that dumb? He answered your damn question and like a christian you were not listening. I find christians to be fake, sham, artificial and in some fairy-tale land when they debate atheists.
The bible belongs on a shelf next to Greek Mythology. My fellow heathens will enjoy the short animation "Religious Fanatic tries to convert Atheist" on my channel. (Brace Yourself)
@17R3W : What is the doctrine of anti-theism? What is the holy book of anti-theism? Who are the priests of anti-theism? How does an anti-theist pray? Where can I find an anti-theist church? What is the metaphysical content of anti-theism?
Like atheism, anti-theism is just a stance relative to the position of theism. So it still cannot be a religion.
Not all religions have a Holy book (take early Christianity) . However I would argue that both the "God Delusion" and "God is not great" are recommended reading materiel for anti-theists .
Anti-Theism doesn't have priests, but in terms of the "heads" of Anti-theism, clearly Hitches is among them.
Anti-theists don't pray, but I don't believe that Prayer is requirement of religion.
@17R3W : So would you also consider the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah merely "recommended reading" for the respective religions?
My questions are not straw men. They are central characteristics to religion. You argue that some religions can skip *some* of those attributes. But anti-theism skips *ALL* of them.
As a matter of sheer definition, both atheism and anti-theism *CANNOT* be a religion.
@17R3W : There is no religion which skips all of them. All have central doctrines, nearly all have holy books, nearly all have priests or equivalents, most engage in some sort of praying, the dominant ones have churches or equivalents and all have metaphysical content.
I offer those as primary tests as to what is or is not a religion, and have followed up with an easily testable claim that atheism and anti-theism are definitionally non-religious. You offer nothing but failure and assertion.
@Tobsy1981 Ya I find he's playing a shell game in his assertion that Non belief is a religion in it's self. The statement that Hitchens is trying to sell a book is evangelizing. That like saying Ford, for trying to sell you a car is evangelizing. No there just trying to sell you a car. Religion want's your Mind your Heart your Family your hole being and your MONEY they really wont your MONEY. Atheist say OK then just show me some tangible evidence. Prove it!!!
@sparky7718 You crack me up, Sparky........I have spent a lifetime in the woods, all over the West, all hours of the day and night (logger), and the only Bigfoot signs I've ever encountered was when we were playing jokes on each other on the logging jobs.
Abigfootist---I like it . With that kind of wordsmithing talent, you could write speeches for politicians......carry on!!
@sparky7718 Hey, I happen to be a devout Bigfootist and I think you Abigfootists are what's wrong with America today. Every day my children recite our own version of the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "one nation, under Bigfoot" in the text. Pretty soon you folks will be saying it violates the Wall of Separation between Bigfoot and the Gov't and demanding they stop reciting the Pledge altogether. And what hope can you offer the world without Bigfoot? Do you want a Bigfootless world?
This guy is just plain asinine. His logic means we should believe in everythign, even without evidence. He totally misses that Hitchens will believe something once sufficient evidence for it is shown.
I love the arguments over atheism, if I don't believe in Santa Claus do I get a monicker or name for that. I don't consider myself an atheist. I am a man who doesn't believe in magic or great spirits in the sky. There are things that are beyond our knowledge, but we don't have to blame it on a magic being. Thor does not bang his hammer on his shield for thunder. God doesn't bring down the rain when you pray for it. What evidence is there for the supernatural. Do ghost haunt you.
@spiffythealien It was so nice to be able to spend the past 24 hours on my hobby of NOT collecting stamps. I was able to watch a few good movies, read some pages in a book, and catch up on sleep, all the while!
Agnosticism is the only non arrogant way of thinking. there's no way currently for anyone to know all the answers. To claim to know that there is or isn't a god or gods is unprovable therefore you are both incorrect at the moment.
@casualtySR Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive terms. This is a common misconception of terminology. Atheism speaks to what you believe, and Agnosticism speaks to what you know. I am an Agnostic Atheist. Most theists, if pressed, will admit that they are a agnostic theist. OK?
@josefvickers If you mean that nobody really knows to an absolute certainty either way then yes, everyone is an agnostic. It's important to make the distinction between what you know and what you believe. I don't know for sure, which means I'm agnostics, but I believe there is no god, which also makes me atheist. That doesn't mean I believe it without reason. I mean, you can't PROVE that pink unicorns exist, but I"m quite comfortable saying that they don't, due to the complete lack of evidence.
@b3nmitchell I absolutely agree. My point was really to highlight to uselessness or the term 'agnostic'. SOrry, I should have made that more specific.
You are under a false assertion on the definitions of both atheism and agnosticism. They are not , no matter how many people misunderstand it, represent non-overlapping-magiterium. There is no duality as you put it with agnosticism in between. Look it up, or shoot me a message and I'll find you a link.
@Harizl Is there not a difference between claiming to know something doesn't exist and claiming that you don't know what exists or doesn't exist without proof. If the definition of agnostic and atheist are the same then maybe I need to find out what word that properly describes not claiming to know anything for certain.
It's a far too common misconception, it just rolls off peoples mouth so easily that most people don't understand how silly they sound saying it in mixed company.
There are far more Agnostic Theists then you'd think, and far less Gnostic Atheists then that, lol.
@Harizl ok i get it now. ty. I would call myself an agnostic atheist then.. I simply believe in life. logic, reason, and compassion are my bible I don't need a God or Gods to tell me what is obvious for human survival and comfort.
Atheism is a religion? Can one person here tell me what I consider to be true by me being an atheist? Besides the that I don't believe in a higher power. Now if you're a Christian, I can in fact make a very accurate assumption of what you consider to be true. The old saying goes: if atheism is a religion then nonstamp collecting is a hobby.
What Hitchens is trying to say is that you should suspend belief until evidence is revealed. Why would I believe in something that I have no evidence for?
@TheNorthFuck "What Hitchens is trying to say is that you should suspend belief until evidence is revealed. Why would I believe in something that I have no evidence for?" THANK YOU
hitchens seems to be a well educated man, unfortunitly he sounds as though he is completly close-minded in the idea of intellegent design. Hartman's just a nut
@L00NGB00W my good man, perhaps i misworded my last statment, allow me to be clear. I am not a christian in the least, i believe the answer is much more deep than that weak answer based an superstitions from the iron age. but the more we look at our cells the more they begin to look mechanical.
@L00NGB00W (cont. from; the more they begin to look mechanical) .......Not like little bits of metal, but little jelly like cogs and such, almost so complex that they look created. Now that dosent mean that it was Krishna, God, Chronos or Odin, but there are some slightly less far- fetched ideas. Those are the ones I think we can have a rational, logical and reasonable conversation with them in mind.
I'll grant that, I believe that we AREe machines. Nature 'Appears' to have been designed because it works so well. But it still makes many mistakes.
Humans apply 'design' because it is the easiest explanation. After all, That is how WE build things. But evolution demonstrates that design isn't the only way to build complex machines.
Look at NASA's 'evolved antenna' or Boeing's 'Evolved wing'. Better than any 'Intelligent' design.
i became close minded when I ran crying under the kitchen table when I heard large BOOMS from the sky... asked my mother what that was... and she said... "it was god bowling"
Just the thought that any one of these bolts could slay me in an instant... That's awesome =). It's a humbling reminder of how insignificant we and our views are. How despite our religious or secular views, We could be vaporized at any instant.
Lightning is the least of our fears in a cosmological context.
HEY HARTMANN LETS PLAY SEMANTICS ABOUT WHAT IS EVANGELICAL, AND SPLIT HAIRS ON DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OF DEFINITION. Not advancing any purposeful point. Atheism is not a religion, so what if his promotion of atheism is evangelical according to a general definition. religion is therefore not necessarily related to evangelism.
Religion is more of a plague than it is a poison. For sake of arguement: god exists. If a culture who believes in god and says that the only way to avoid sufferning for eternity when you die is to believe in their diety and accept Jesus, to another culture, then all of a sudden now that culture HAS to believe. A person can't just all of a sudden believe something right off the bat. So now that culture CAN'T gain god's exception, and the non believers (as the bible says) burn in hell
I wonder what Hitchens' view on Stalin, the Jacobin Club, Mao Zedong and Hitler's advancement of Darwinian evolution through annihilation of a weaker race and/or people to advance a "dominate" race? Both theism and atheism alike have combined to kill billions, the common thread are humans. Religion or no religion we're all animals which will eventually destroy ourselves. We're all apointed to die, what's the point of the argument.
@Lrock79 When has there been a reign of terror in the name of no god?
You don't have to go far to find out what the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins or Sam Harris has to say about the claim that Hitler used Darwin to justify genocide.
@kingsdun just read neitzche's philosophy and u will see how easily his idea of the morality of the weak or the ubermensch can be(and was) coupled with social darwinism. these ideas certaintly influenced the nazi party to some extent.as with most wars,there are multiple factors that influence it's occurrence.
@mebe84 Neitzche was a dick, a bullie who came to horrible, and absured conclutions on morality and life in genral. I think the idea that you need an Omnipotent being to tell you not kill or rape is asinine. You dont need a god to know that they are immoral, nor do you need god to tell you not to impale another man for having diffrent beliefs than yours, but that aswell as the privious were done in the name "my god" for thousands of years and evan today.
@kingsdun I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying god or no god, the problem is man. There have been mass 'non religious' murders, in fact Stalin and Mao Zedong are the best examples of this. If we are mere byproducts of matter, time, chance and natural selection and nature is red tooth and claw then it makes no difference, kill or be killed. We are all born to die, no purpose, no intrinsic value, life has no ultimate meaning so none of this really matters anyway.
@Lrock79 hittler was a Christian who said in many speeches that Jesus saw the Jews for what they really were and ultimatly the reason that he gave himself on the cross, was to change the Jews to something pure. he also receved trementous support from the German Church and praised Hittler for his actions.
@kokabiel2one hitler's endorsement of christianity is 1 area of conflict with neitzsche's views, but it is undeniable that he was a big influence.hitler even had a bust of neitzsche. it is also undeniable that darwinism influenced nazi ideology,causing another split between them and nietzsche,their racist eugenic policies. it is undeniable that eugenics grew out of darwinism;it was even created by darwins cousin, sir francis galton. the u.s. eugenic laws were the precedent for germany's.
@kokabiel2one i am not disagreeing with your point about the church. while i do question whether hitler was a christian in private, it is true that he professed to be and that germany was a christian nation. the catholic church aided and abetted these tyrants as well, even helping some of the worst nazis escape after they had lost the war. still, it is hard to get to nazi ideology from from reading the gospels. it seems(to me anyway) that eugenics coupled with neitzsche influenced them most.
1: the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ
2: militant or crusading zeal
According to Merriam Webster, none of that even comes close to applying to Christopher Hitchens. Technically Hitchens' definitions isn't wrong. The only way evangelism would apply to atheism is if it were a religion, which it isn't.
"Evangelism" can refer to "ardent or missionary zeal for a cause," as well as "the preaching or promulgation of the gospel."
"Gospel" can mean "something regarded as true and implicitly believed," as well as "a doctrine regarded as of prime importance."
When Hitchens tries to shoehorn the definition 'includes metaphysical or eternal promises' into the word "evangelism," he flat-out loses the argument. He's just making shit up.
Generally I really like Hitchens, but he loses here IMO.
You're stretching your definitions to fit. According to that suggestion, any lecture on pretty much anything could be considered "gospel" which is silly.
@msteele79 If your goal is to enlist people to your opinion, you can be called an "evangelist." You can also cite one possible, extreme outcome of semantic organization, call it "silly," then use that as a reason why Hitchens isn't being evangelical, but that's pretty silly to me.
I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that a man who travels the world preaching his own gospel, writing books about it and having regular debates with the intention of changing minds, is being evangelical.
Oh my god I hate this guy.
McLarenF1God 2 weeks ago
Sematic wars - and it's Hartmann's fault because he's the one asking the questions. Again and again and again. And we shouldn't be surprised to find out that Hartmann doesn't know much about science and believes in pseudo-science like reiki and acupuncture. He looks through the Hubble telescope, sees how huge the universe is and concludes that since it's so huge a big invisible man must have made it. Fool.
huwrj 1 month ago
Thom Debates Christopher Hitchens On Religion.
methinks this otta be good
lopytube 2 months ago
RIP..
maozebong100 2 months ago
"god is not great." LOL Who was not great? "I honestly believe Christianity will die in my lifetime" LOl
Airlightf 2 months ago
@Airlightf....Don't believe in a religion my friend, true followers of a higher power don't! If you look futher than what religion teaches you you'll see there is a creator and life beyond what we can physically understand.
JayTrakx 2 months ago
Comment removed
Airlightf 2 months ago
Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell has the best explanation to the interviewees first question I have ever heard.
shawndimery 2 months ago
Hartmann comes across as a very intelligent guy,,but its not a good idea to play semantics with someone like Hitchens ! Atheiesm is definately NOT a religion-take a look in the dictionary for its definition. Evangelism' has nothing to do with atheism,its usually meant in a religious sense..in fact,I wouldn't be surprised if it comes from the word angel. Whats angels got to do with atheism ? So mr Hartmann,check out words in a dictionary first before doing the semantics bit !
brindow1 3 months ago 4
@brindow1
Evangelism refers to the practice of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs to others who do not hold those beliefs. The term is often used in reference to Christianity.
EastBayChannel 3 weeks ago
@EastBayChannel Yes,that was my point. Atheism IS NOT a belief system, it is NOT having belief in a creator. There is an atheistic sect in England that calls itself a religion..how daft is that ? It shows how stupid some people have become. [religious' means to believe in a supernatural power]. Amen !
brindow1 3 weeks ago
These two guys are in a semantics game.
n52nimbus 3 months ago
@n52nimbus
yeah semantic wars.
That should be a show that comes on TLC.lol
Did anyone catch that freudian slip at the end by Tom
lopytube 2 months ago
I'm glad I was skeptical of grown peoples brainpower when I was a kid. The interviewer has none.
reanimated6 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VACCINATIONS TOXIC SICKNESS & DEATH!
Shocking truth that some evil ones in the U.S. Government have been killing people in the U.S.A. for many years using the TV, cell phone frequencies & vaccinations giving people cancer (slow painful death). It is part of the high level Freemasonry / ILLUMINATI witchcraft sacrifice to their god Lucifer (Satan). The TV & cell phone frequencies trip the toxins in the vaccinations. Many of you have cancer because of this.... sad fact.
Private Investigator Sinne
TruthTeller878 4 months ago
Attention all theists:
If you expand the definition of religion such that it encompasses (in your mind) the people arguing against it, you are unwittingly diluting your own stance. If you say "religious" describes every ethos or perspective it is logistically equivalent to saying "whatever is in the box is what I guess it is." In other words you aren't proposing anything.
firstatheist 5 months ago 3
Apparently, God revealed himself around 2000 years ago?
Why would such an intelligent being reveal himself when the human race lacked the knowledge and capability to understand his message. Surely, he would have known we would of progressed to this stage....so why not wait until now so that it could of been properly documented and understood.
Christopher Hitchens is absolutely right.....the world is full of wish thinkers who cannot accept their lives lack significance and will end.
DIGITALSCREAMS 6 months ago 2
I understand you have to move along,,,, hahaha
I see this guys point. In order to be so sure about the non existance of something you would almost have to beleive it with blind faith just like a religion.
ooosteve 6 months ago
@ooosteve You are wrong. There is a difference between belief based on facts on one hand, and faith on the other hand. Faith is to believe something in the absence of facts, and specially against the facts. I don't need faith to say that Harry potter does not exist, as I don't need faith to say that jesus doesn't exists either.
camilocuesta 6 months ago
To me this whole thing about whether it's evangelism or not is just a way to bring Hitchens and others down to the level of the religious. But I can assure you that their positions are NOT equally valid.
PurpleHoneyBear 7 months ago
6.38 - This is exactly what is meant by 'placebo effect'...
toynoise 7 months ago
Science's first Law - Occam's Law : The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions (unnessessary additions) is most likely to be correct.
And vice verse, why do you think there are Casinos?
Occam's Law is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, it most likely produces favorable results regardless.
God's First Law
Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me.
God's First Law is considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and is mostly likely not correct. God is an assumption, Simple.
theBartone9119 7 months ago
Hey! Thom - that was a great interview!
Charismatic789 7 months ago
The sense of knowing something that is beyond knowable? That is clearly religious double speak. There can be no evidence for knowing what is beyond knowable it's a contradiction in terms. We should believe in a god and the supernatural because we don't yet know everything? Bullshit. It's not legitimate to say, given all our of our science and not a shred of evidence for anything spiritual that it's diminishingly probable? Isn't that a much more rational bet than a hidden spirit world? Please!
emaildoctor 7 months ago
Thom Hartmann said that radio waves did not exist 200 years ago to Christopher Hitchens. Unfortunately Christopher did not pick up on the fact that they did. We have the technology now that is picking up radio waves from space. Had we the technology 200 years ago it would have picked them up then.
Mzungu64 8 months ago
Christopher, you missed a splendid chance to slap this twat down on the question of Radio waves. They Did exist and we are still getting them from outer space.
Mzungu64 8 months ago
@Mzungu64 You seem to have completely missed Hartman's point. Hitchens says "If there's no evidence for something, I'm willing to say it's not there." Hartman replies by saying "So, 200 years ago there were no radio waves?" As in: According to Hitchens' logic, 200 years ago, since there was no evidence for radio waves, he would have said radio waves were "not there." And, of course, he would have been entirely wrong. It shows that Hitchens' statement was a logical fallacy.
BloatedSensations 7 months ago
@yakult244 Yes it was....
sparky7718 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REASON, EMOTION & TRUTH:
The series 'V' is a fictional TV show that explains (revelation of method) what is really going on with the evil UFO creatures (real spirit Lucifer & spirit demon gods) on this earth. The John Carpenter documentary movie called 'THEY LIVE' explained this fact about the UFO creatures 25 years ago, but most people care more about the foolish religion of sports than truth, freedom or saving their own lives! I have evidence.
Private Investigator Sinne
U.S.A. Washington
TruthTeller878 8 months ago
just keep piling on layers:
there's no supernatural dimension.
how do you know, you can't prove that.
Ok, there is, and there's also a supersupernatural dimension that exists beyond god.
That's nonsense, there is no supersupernatural dimension.
How do you know, you can't prove that.....
firstatheist 8 months ago
Hartmann is like that really annoying guy from your college philosophy course who thought he knew everything and wouldn't ever stop bickering with the teacher about every single stupid thing that came along.
123gwf 9 months ago
Evangelicals will make you think that your Faith in some floating-rice-monster will save you, and Hitchens is merely countering it. Christopher Hitchens is a Counter-Evangelical. It is almost like a missle use to destroy other missles before the other missles cause harm.
fatfatat444 9 months ago
@fatfatat444 the religious missile has caused harm for years and years
LoveNoteProjects 8 months ago
I love how a poltical show can discuss religion and/or Atheism.
Chris Hedges - American Facists
A good book.
fatfatat444 9 months ago
Since this jerk thinks that he was helped by acupuncture he knows that there is more to physics than physicists want to admit? WOW! what a leap of idiocy!
Fritzwm 9 months ago
Evangelism: the preaching of retarded, unsubstantiated bullshit that nobody in their right mind would believe.
Just wanted to get that straight in everyone's minds. Carry on.
Tessmage 9 months ago
From wiki
Evangelism refers to the practice of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs to others who do not hold those beliefs. [The term is often used in reference to Christianity.]
So AGAIN Hitchens is being a little disingenuous here Thom was clearly using the term appropriately.
StunnedByStupidity 10 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity I see your point, but I don't agree. Atheist don't have beliefs that they spread, the only thing that makes them atheist is a lack of one belief (a god). So their is no belief to share. Plus, we all know how the word evangelism is used today, and it is associated with religion, Thom could have used a much better word, such a campaign which hitchens did mention.
rguier 9 months ago
@rguier Look I'm VERY scientific and am mostly atheist - but not completely - catch me one day and I'll disagree from another. However Hitchens isn't just an atheist he is indeed EVANGELICAL about it - not in a clever amusing way like Dawkings but an arrogant kick you in a teeth sort of way. If you THINK he can explain the near death experience from an evolutionary perspective you are insane - there is something VERY weird going on there. And Hitchens is an arrogant middling intellect...
StunnedByStupidity 9 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity "If you THINK he can explain the near death experience from an evolutionary perspective you are insane" Not insane just dumb. It would be better explained in a biological sense.
Clubbingshawn 9 months ago
@Clubbingshawn So go on then, lets hear it - cos there are many doctors that think they can't - but you seem to think you can. Lets hear how you use natural selection to build up such a stunningly complex experience that remains invisible in our daily lives... Look, I aint no ignorant buffoon I have studied science at bachelor degree level you can put away your smug superiority...
StunnedByStupidity 9 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity You can start with this:
'The Day I Died - NDE Documentary Part 3 of 6 '
Watch from the 2:20 mark. BTW unlike 'experts' that deny science topics like ozone destruction, global warming deniers, evolution deniers etc, there is no accusation that the doctors that think there is something very strange going on in the NDE being disingenuous charlatans...
StunnedByStupidity 9 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity I'm not going to get into a back and forth arguement with you because it would never end. I never even said that I could explain it either. I was only implying that the wording of your statement was wrong.
Clubbingshawn 9 months ago
"Every human culture has some form of both, a sense of the sacred, shamanism"
No, that's not really interesting at all. What faith is in it's essence is belief in things without evidence. Throughout Human history we have been astoundingly ignorant about the nature of the universe. It's not astounding at all that in every culture some asshat has stepped forward while we were so ignorant and said they have all the answers "listen to what I tell you". There is an advantage in that, hence shamans.
MrDeadInMyPocket 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gekritzl I thought he made some good points, one of them being that a man who goes around advocating atheism is no different than an evangelist. I wish Hitch would have had more time to address that point.
ACRanger13 10 months ago
@ACRanger13 lol the person that just flagged ur comment as spam is clearly being evangelist in the non-religious sense. the english language is malleable. its not uncommon for ppl to coin phrases that basically mean something different entirely but because of its BASIC PRINCIPLE it can be COINED to refer to some form or action better than any other word in english and eventally that coined term becomes the norm. we have specific words because it saves us time. arguing semantics is gay, hitchens
LoveNoteProjects 8 months ago
@gekritzl I thought he made some good points, one of them being that a man who goes around advocating atheism is no different than an evangelist. I wish Hitch would have had more time to address that point.
ACRanger13 10 months ago
This was the first time I've seen someone get the better of the Hitch on this topic, wish they would have been able to continue.
ACRanger13 10 months ago
evangelism: The preaching or promulgation of the Gospel. (OED)
glen922 10 months ago
What Hitchens does is not evangelising, it's refuting fucking evangelists.
toelesshoe 10 months ago 32
I dont know who that other guy was but he came across as a bit of a cunt
shandcunt 10 months ago
Thom refuses to debate religion now as far as I know. Thom's pride is his greatest weakness. He knows he is wrong, this is why he refuses to publicly debate the issue now and into the foreseeable future.
bigredjeff007420 10 months ago 16
I love Thom for his common sense economic stances, and generally his approach to dealing with the restrictions of civil liberties in our nation, but he's just plain wrong here. I've never figured out his opposition to atheism, considering how critically he analyzes almost every other issue he deals with. I guess undue credulity is an ever present foe, even in the minds of the wisest among us. Sigh, come on Thom - you're smarter than this!
stovetop32 11 months ago 3
REASON, EMOTION & TRUTH!
Tom Hartmann either is lying or has never read the U.S. Constitution. Tom says America is a Democracy. America is not a Democracy! Article 4 section 4 of the U.S. Constitution says America is a Constitutional Republic! Democracies lead to dictatorships! Please research this fact. The evil ILLUMINATI / FREEMASON politicians in Washington D.C. (District of Criminals) want a world wide democracy dictatorship with their leader from Rome.
Private Investigator Sinne
U.S.A.
TruthTeller878 11 months ago
Thom is one manipulative s.o.b.
Calling hitchens an evangelist? Thats absurd. hitchens rightfully defends, he is doing the EXACT opposite.
natetheboywhocant 11 months ago 4
e·van·gel·i·cal (vn-jl-kl, vn-) also e·van·gel·ic (-jlk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament.2. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.3. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.
theshnaw1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you are debating in opposition to Hitchens, then you are just not smart enough to know you are already wrong.
sunshine9742 11 months ago
Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color, like stupidity is a philosophy, and like freezing is the consequence of a hot fire. But who can blame the religious mind for abandoning the terms god, religion, and faith. They are quite worthless as they describe nothing; therefore their ultimate uses have been transformed to those of a cudgel for bashing adversaries. Finally, the religious have made a rather practical and even 'reasonable use' of things previously thought worthless. Kudos!
therearenogodsatall 11 months ago
Let's keep the unknowable unknowable, Tom. It's religion that claims to explain the unknowable. An does shitty job at it too.
da0217 1 year ago 3
@da0217 it is unknown if actually anything is unknowable, lol.
xxRockst4r 11 months ago
@PipeManChuck
I think the label does matter for legal reasons. Atheist are afforded legal protection as theist, atheist attend inter-faith meeting at the white house, etc.
These are all good things.
No doubt both Atheism and Anti-theism are "close" to a religion. However whether they are very close enough to a religion is a big question.
17R3W 1 year ago
@PipeManChuck
The trouble is not Religions have Gods or God. Buddhism is an atheistic religion, other religions worship nature, or aliens, or mass conscience. Some would argue that the singularity is a religion, even though it's based on science.
We need to use a much wider definition for religion to make sure we aren't excluding any.
17R3W 1 year ago
Throughout history you will find cultures that have had belief in a supernatural being. Why did that being not protect them? Certainly it would have been revered.
Fredonia2k 1 year ago
@PipeManChuck
Let em ask you something. I get that Atheism is a lack of belief, but what of Anti-theism?
Could Anti-theism be a religion?
17R3W 1 year ago
Evangelism = Good News-ism (spreading the "good" news of...eternal life).
propatria0704 1 year ago
@propatria0704
Didn't Steve Jobs spread the good news of the iPad 2 yesterday?
17R3W 1 year ago
Pretty disappointing on Hartmann's part considering Hitchens's book tour "evangelism"....so a rare dislike...
andrewsaccount09 1 year ago
Knowing the unknowable? what fuck are you talking about you ass hat?
Does this fucker hear himself?
atheistkyo 1 year ago
Notice how he calls Hitchens "Christian" rather than "Christopher" and then quickly corrects himself (at the end). LAUGH!
bootjangler 1 year ago
Wow, Hitchens outclassed this fellow so easily. Another HITCHSLAP.
kidlomax 1 year ago
Hitchens clearly was outmatched by a more clever opponent--Hartmann never ceases to impress.
CincinnatusUSA 1 year ago
@CincinnatusUSA I guess we hear what we want to hear, I heard hartmann get hitchslapped
mompm 1 year ago
You can't argue God exists as a subset of the "supernatural." If God is, then God is absolutely, to the exception of all other considerations. Evidence of the supernatural is, by definition, the opposite of the belief in God, since evidence defeats the need for belief. Making any argument for the existence of God is immediately self-defeating and, if you know your scripture, against the teachings of Jesus. Christians are not supposed to argue with "closed" minds, but seek open (gullible) minds.
Alennx 1 year ago
Evidence defeats the necessity for belief. No belief, no god. Christians are so stupid.
Alennx 1 year ago
"considerable evidence for the supernatural", lmao name one piece of evidence.
A2thedouble 1 year ago
...Hitchens has an unshakable faith in his own intellect . He seems to want to prove that he can think in the third and fourth dimensions, and explain all things unexplainable......and he perhaps would like to be worshipped, or at least to be held in awe.......Hartmann makes a good point that Hitchens exhibits an evangelistic fervor, and is therefore religious himself--a bitter pill for Hitchens and many others who scorn "religion".
baldrad1 1 year ago
Thom Hartmann is a slave.
bilbosilbo 1 year ago
@bilbosilbo Ah, come on. Thom is a very dynamic intellectual, just as Hitchens. This was a very interesting debate. But respect the discourse.
wpfairbanks 1 year ago
SUFISM
cinlives 1 year ago
Someone ought to inform Hartmann that there is no "ism" after the word Sufi.
sam7748 1 year ago
Thom needs to read Hitchens reference from Marx regarding emancipation from one's shackles of religion. Hitchens makes the clear distinction in "god is not great" and in "the portable atheist" that the distinction between atheism and evangelicalism is faith is and should not be held as a virtue, whereas atheism along with science is held to evidence and empherical testing to increase the human experience.
sisque16 1 year ago
the opposite of christianity is not lies its scientific truth so dont try to convince an atheist he is wrong by pointing to the marvels of the universe to prove your creation story when you yourself believe in a bible that says the earth is flat and has been made in 6 days and god had a rest on the 7th?!
christopher is far superior with his wonder at the quantum particle which moves according to how it is being perceived
how do the birds and fish all move at the same split second mid air?
timewilltell7 1 year ago
@timewilltell7
Actually, I remember a news story about this. Researchers found that flocks of birds turned on a sort of "majority rule" process. In a flock of 100 birds, for example, a few would veer in a direction. Others might or might not imitate them, but as soon as enough birds headed that direction, all the others in the flock would turn the same way. But it happens so fast that it seems instantaneous to us.
professor2442 1 year ago
science has proved we all pulsate to one uni verse
see the end of Esoteric Agenda - the last 20 mins
there is of course no god of the abrahamic religious character
however there is a nameless formless energy that is alive - thats all i can say to describe it as the description is not the described - we can call it nothingness or everythingness - its all ironic paradox
words will always fail
abrahamic cults have left us far behind - they are stupifiers which claim a flat planet
timewilltell7 1 year ago
I like to agree with Thom on most things, but when Mr Hitchens comes into the equation I tend to agree with basically everything he says.
IHeartThisVidxD 1 year ago
If true, atheism is a dangerous truth, and should be shielded from society. The anti-theism of the "new atheists" is foolish: watch?v=HqZ0RVWh8Ig
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz The modern era is a prodomentally seular and atheist society it has become known and the great time in human history and we are constantly improveing through science and reason. On the other hand the time when christians ruled europe was known as the dark ages. You decide what is a bigger hinderence on society
blackcat4ever 1 year ago
@blackcat4ever You aren't nuanced enough. The best society is something of a hybrid of the two. First of all science and reason are not necessarily incompatible with religious faith. Secondly yes they have made things better, though the relativism that accompanies the modern age isn't. Most people won't accept absolutes unless they are religious in nature. It would be ideal if people could agree to a transcendent rational morality (like Kant's) but this only seems to work in a religious culture.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Pwnge.
Good job Thom.
The atheist canard of non stamp collection is irrational nonsense as well, an affront to logic.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
thats funny never heard of a abigfootist i still want to believe its my curiosity that theres alot more that we dont know or lets just die now everyday u should learn thats why i love to live in america freedom of religion and freedom of no religion
mop3moplop 1 year ago
Uhm, Thom Hartmann, you are a fucking idiot who does not understand the definitions of terminology apparently. Hitchens put it to you straightforward and you just ignored his reasoning.
MountHappy 1 year ago
Trying to spread logic and reason and free people's minds is evangelism? So intellectually dishonest. No, so just plain dishonest. Theists cannot have a debate without using fallacies, lies, and inaccurate terminology.
krunk1980 1 year ago
Thom hartman are you that dumb? He answered your damn question and like a christian you were not listening. I find christians to be fake, sham, artificial and in some fairy-tale land when they debate atheists.
Gayfreewill 1 year ago 2
ATHIESM = THE DOMAIN OF THE BRIGHTS, THE SCEINTIST, BISEXUALS
THIESM = THE DOMAIN IF THE DILUDED AND UNEDUCACTED
deweytruxx 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@deweytruxx Come on, at least spell correctly.
simonburbank 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The bible belongs on a shelf next to Greek Mythology. My fellow heathens will enjoy the short animation "Religious Fanatic tries to convert Atheist" on my channel. (Brace Yourself)
Sweence 1 year ago
I did a video on "Why Atheism is a Religion".
It's easier then trying to explain it in 500 characters or less.
/watch?v=L5Uo-x5AbGY
17R3W 1 year ago
@17R3W : Well that can't be explained in any number of characters. There is no doctrine in atheism.
websnarf 1 year ago
@websnarf
A good point. It may be that the religion is "Anti-Theism" instead of Atheism.
17R3W 1 year ago
@17R3W : What is the doctrine of anti-theism? What is the holy book of anti-theism? Who are the priests of anti-theism? How does an anti-theist pray? Where can I find an anti-theist church? What is the metaphysical content of anti-theism?
Like atheism, anti-theism is just a stance relative to the position of theism. So it still cannot be a religion.
websnarf 1 year ago
@websnarf
Oh the straw men.
Not all religions have a Holy book (take early Christianity) . However I would argue that both the "God Delusion" and "God is not great" are recommended reading materiel for anti-theists .
Anti-Theism doesn't have priests, but in terms of the "heads" of Anti-theism, clearly Hitches is among them.
Anti-theists don't pray, but I don't believe that Prayer is requirement of religion.
Not all religions have Churches either.
17R3W 1 year ago
@17R3W : So would you also consider the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah merely "recommended reading" for the respective religions?
My questions are not straw men. They are central characteristics to religion. You argue that some religions can skip *some* of those attributes. But anti-theism skips *ALL* of them.
As a matter of sheer definition, both atheism and anti-theism *CANNOT* be a religion.
websnarf 1 year ago
@websnarf
The very fact that these items can be skipped proves my point that THESE aren't the central tenants of religion.
Unless you can show me something that EVERY religion has without exception but Anti-theism doesn't, I will not back down from the claim.
What you are doing, (and it's very common) is saying that
a) Christianity is a religion
b) Atheism / Anti-theism is different from Christianity
and therefore Anti-theism/Atheism isn't a religion. It's a false equivalency.
17R3W 1 year ago
@17R3W : There is no religion which skips all of them. All have central doctrines, nearly all have holy books, nearly all have priests or equivalents, most engage in some sort of praying, the dominant ones have churches or equivalents and all have metaphysical content.
I offer those as primary tests as to what is or is not a religion, and have followed up with an easily testable claim that atheism and anti-theism are definitionally non-religious. You offer nothing but failure and assertion.
websnarf 1 year ago
Thom clearly hasn't thought this one out. He's usually pretty spot on but his questions here are pretty dumb
Tobsy1981 1 year ago
@Tobsy1981 Ya I find he's playing a shell game in his assertion that Non belief is a religion in it's self. The statement that Hitchens is trying to sell a book is evangelizing. That like saying Ford, for trying to sell you a car is evangelizing. No there just trying to sell you a car. Religion want's your Mind your Heart your Family your hole being and your MONEY they really wont your MONEY. Atheist say OK then just show me some tangible evidence. Prove it!!!
stephenpaquet 1 year ago
I'm proud to say that I spend my entire life, NOT believing in Bigfoot. I am officially an Abigfootist.
sparky7718 1 year ago 37
@sparky7718
But only because you're Evangelical in your non-belief. If you hadn't posted that comment, we may never know that you don't believe.
17R3W 1 year ago
@sparky7718 : Yes, but are are you an anti-bigfootist? ;)
websnarf 1 year ago
@websnarf Yes, I am. I'm also an anti-boogeymanist.
sparky7718 1 year ago
@sparky7718 You crack me up, Sparky........I have spent a lifetime in the woods, all over the West, all hours of the day and night (logger), and the only Bigfoot signs I've ever encountered was when we were playing jokes on each other on the logging jobs.
Abigfootist---I like it . With that kind of wordsmithing talent, you could write speeches for politicians......carry on!!
baldrad1 1 year ago
@baldrad1 Thank you for the kind words, if I made one person laugh today, I've done my job.. =0)
sparky7718 1 year ago
@sparky7718 Hey, I happen to be a devout Bigfootist and I think you Abigfootists are what's wrong with America today. Every day my children recite our own version of the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "one nation, under Bigfoot" in the text. Pretty soon you folks will be saying it violates the Wall of Separation between Bigfoot and the Gov't and demanding they stop reciting the Pledge altogether. And what hope can you offer the world without Bigfoot? Do you want a Bigfootless world?
JackKangaroo1 9 months ago
This guy is just plain asinine. His logic means we should believe in everythign, even without evidence. He totally misses that Hitchens will believe something once sufficient evidence for it is shown.
Harizl 1 year ago
I love the arguments over atheism, if I don't believe in Santa Claus do I get a monicker or name for that. I don't consider myself an atheist. I am a man who doesn't believe in magic or great spirits in the sky. There are things that are beyond our knowledge, but we don't have to blame it on a magic being. Thor does not bang his hammer on his shield for thunder. God doesn't bring down the rain when you pray for it. What evidence is there for the supernatural. Do ghost haunt you.
Trapar137 1 year ago
Hello, Its precisly the opposite!! Get it?
nickyact1 1 year ago
; All the socially acceptable religions are parasites.
Cheers!
12Zwolf 1 year ago
I guess when I tell people Santa Claus doesn't exist that I am "Evangelizing" .
How arrogant must I be to assert that the almighty Santa Claus doesn't exist!
III24601III 1 year ago
long life christopher.
chfaaz 1 year ago
Hitchens was in a kind of mood on the date of this interview. It is interesting to hear him argue in different tones.
AtheistdotEDU 1 year ago
Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Hitchens did a poor job explaining atheism :(
spiffythealien 1 year ago 27
@spiffythealien It was so nice to be able to spend the past 24 hours on my hobby of NOT collecting stamps. I was able to watch a few good movies, read some pages in a book, and catch up on sleep, all the while!
gmayer66 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gmayer66 You need a dictionary.
spiffythealien 1 year ago
@spiffythealien I think the explanation is perfect, the problem is that most people are too stupid to understand the niceties of Hitchens syntax.
Alennx 1 year ago
@spiffythealien
but he's never asked to explain it or claims to do so.
natetheboywhocant 11 months ago
Agnosticism is the only non arrogant way of thinking. there's no way currently for anyone to know all the answers. To claim to know that there is or isn't a god or gods is unprovable therefore you are both incorrect at the moment.
casualtySR 1 year ago
@casualtySR Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive terms. This is a common misconception of terminology. Atheism speaks to what you believe, and Agnosticism speaks to what you know. I am an Agnostic Atheist. Most theists, if pressed, will admit that they are a agnostic theist. OK?
b3nmitchell 1 year ago 7
@b3nmitchell We are all agnostics whether we admit it or not.
josefvickers 1 year ago
Comment removed
b3nmitchell 1 year ago
@josefvickers If you mean that nobody really knows to an absolute certainty either way then yes, everyone is an agnostic. It's important to make the distinction between what you know and what you believe. I don't know for sure, which means I'm agnostics, but I believe there is no god, which also makes me atheist. That doesn't mean I believe it without reason. I mean, you can't PROVE that pink unicorns exist, but I"m quite comfortable saying that they don't, due to the complete lack of evidence.
b3nmitchell 1 year ago
@b3nmitchell I absolutely agree. My point was really to highlight to uselessness or the term 'agnostic'. SOrry, I should have made that more specific.
josefvickers 1 year ago
@b3nmitchell In a universe this big, there won't be a single pink unicorn? Man, you ARE faithless......
Just trying to get a discussion going. As big as this universe is, Hitchens seems to think his intellect is bigger than all of it.
baldrad1 1 year ago
@casualtySR
You are under a false assertion on the definitions of both atheism and agnosticism. They are not , no matter how many people misunderstand it, represent non-overlapping-magiterium. There is no duality as you put it with agnosticism in between. Look it up, or shoot me a message and I'll find you a link.
Harizl 1 year ago
@Harizl Is there not a difference between claiming to know something doesn't exist and claiming that you don't know what exists or doesn't exist without proof. If the definition of agnostic and atheist are the same then maybe I need to find out what word that properly describes not claiming to know anything for certain.
casualtySR 1 year ago
@casualtySR
No YOU need to understand what the terms mean, and not what they have been slovenly passed onto you as.
Gnosticism goes to what you know, and Theism goes to what you believe.
If you believe* a god exist you are a theist, if you do not hold the belief one exists you are a-theist.
If you know* a god exists you are gnostic, if you do not know one exist you are agnostic.
Atheism is not the belief "a god does not exist" it is the lack* of belief in a god.
I can find you a link, no foul.
Harizl 1 year ago
@casualtySR
It's a far too common misconception, it just rolls off peoples mouth so easily that most people don't understand how silly they sound saying it in mixed company.
There are far more Agnostic Theists then you'd think, and far less Gnostic Atheists then that, lol.
Harizl 1 year ago
@Harizl ok i get it now. ty. I would call myself an agnostic atheist then.. I simply believe in life. logic, reason, and compassion are my bible I don't need a God or Gods to tell me what is obvious for human survival and comfort.
casualtySR 1 year ago
we need a USA that is at least 51% atheist.
TheGoodeProject 1 year ago
Atheism is a religion? Can one person here tell me what I consider to be true by me being an atheist? Besides the that I don't believe in a higher power. Now if you're a Christian, I can in fact make a very accurate assumption of what you consider to be true. The old saying goes: if atheism is a religion then nonstamp collecting is a hobby.
What Hitchens is trying to say is that you should suspend belief until evidence is revealed. Why would I believe in something that I have no evidence for?
TheNorthFuck 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheNorthFuck "What Hitchens is trying to say is that you should suspend belief until evidence is revealed. Why would I believe in something that I have no evidence for?" THANK YOU
SonicWolvelina99 1 year ago
hitchens seems to be a well educated man, unfortunitly he sounds as though he is completly close-minded in the idea of intellegent design. Hartman's just a nut
kokabiel2one 1 year ago
@kokabiel2one Intelligent Design is a ludicrous theory. It in and of itself is closed minded.
ID Simplified:
The universe is complex, so Goddidit!
Rather than try to actually think about, and solve a problem. ID proponents would prefer to give up, and shout Goddidit!
Q:"Wow, the universe is so complicated! How did it happen?"
IDA:"Goddidit!" (The answer is more complex than the solution.)
Q:"So... how did that happen?"
IDA:"My answer needs no explanation."
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
ID is an intellectual DeadEnd.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W my good man, perhaps i misworded my last statment, allow me to be clear. I am not a christian in the least, i believe the answer is much more deep than that weak answer based an superstitions from the iron age. but the more we look at our cells the more they begin to look mechanical.
kokabiel2one 1 year ago
@kokabiel2one
Just so I know where you're coming from, If you're willing...
I'm an Ex-Roman Catholic, Ex-Agnostic, Ex-Pantheist, Atheist Naturalist.
Where do your beliefs lie? ID proponent?
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W (cont. from; the more they begin to look mechanical) .......Not like little bits of metal, but little jelly like cogs and such, almost so complex that they look created. Now that dosent mean that it was Krishna, God, Chronos or Odin, but there are some slightly less far- fetched ideas. Those are the ones I think we can have a rational, logical and reasonable conversation with them in mind.
kokabiel2one 1 year ago
@kokabiel2one
"the more they begin to look mechanical."
I'll grant that, I believe that we AREe machines. Nature 'Appears' to have been designed because it works so well. But it still makes many mistakes.
Humans apply 'design' because it is the easiest explanation. After all, That is how WE build things. But evolution demonstrates that design isn't the only way to build complex machines.
Look at NASA's 'evolved antenna' or Boeing's 'Evolved wing'. Better than any 'Intelligent' design.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@kokabiel2one
i became close minded when I ran crying under the kitchen table when I heard large BOOMS from the sky... asked my mother what that was... and she said... "it was god bowling"
RomulanMastermind 1 year ago
@RomulanMastermind
I LOVE Lightning!
Just the thought that any one of these bolts could slay me in an instant... That's awesome =). It's a humbling reminder of how insignificant we and our views are. How despite our religious or secular views, We could be vaporized at any instant.
Lightning is the least of our fears in a cosmological context.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
HEY HARTMANN LETS PLAY SEMANTICS ABOUT WHAT IS EVANGELICAL, AND SPLIT HAIRS ON DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OF DEFINITION. Not advancing any purposeful point. Atheism is not a religion, so what if his promotion of atheism is evangelical according to a general definition. religion is therefore not necessarily related to evangelism.
This bored me a bunch.
CntrBrdr 1 year ago
Religion is more of a plague than it is a poison. For sake of arguement: god exists. If a culture who believes in god and says that the only way to avoid sufferning for eternity when you die is to believe in their diety and accept Jesus, to another culture, then all of a sudden now that culture HAS to believe. A person can't just all of a sudden believe something right off the bat. So now that culture CAN'T gain god's exception, and the non believers (as the bible says) burn in hell
berner 1 year ago
I wonder what Hitchens' view on Stalin, the Jacobin Club, Mao Zedong and Hitler's advancement of Darwinian evolution through annihilation of a weaker race and/or people to advance a "dominate" race? Both theism and atheism alike have combined to kill billions, the common thread are humans. Religion or no religion we're all animals which will eventually destroy ourselves. We're all apointed to die, what's the point of the argument.
Lrock79 1 year ago
@Lrock79 When has there been a reign of terror in the name of no god?
You don't have to go far to find out what the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins or Sam Harris has to say about the claim that Hitler used Darwin to justify genocide.
Just look up any of their vids here on youtube.
kingsdun 1 year ago
@kingsdun just read neitzche's philosophy and u will see how easily his idea of the morality of the weak or the ubermensch can be(and was) coupled with social darwinism. these ideas certaintly influenced the nazi party to some extent.as with most wars,there are multiple factors that influence it's occurrence.
mebe84 1 year ago
@mebe84 Neitzche was a dick, a bullie who came to horrible, and absured conclutions on morality and life in genral. I think the idea that you need an Omnipotent being to tell you not kill or rape is asinine. You dont need a god to know that they are immoral, nor do you need god to tell you not to impale another man for having diffrent beliefs than yours, but that aswell as the privious were done in the name "my god" for thousands of years and evan today.
kokabiel2one 1 year ago
@kingsdun I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying god or no god, the problem is man. There have been mass 'non religious' murders, in fact Stalin and Mao Zedong are the best examples of this. If we are mere byproducts of matter, time, chance and natural selection and nature is red tooth and claw then it makes no difference, kill or be killed. We are all born to die, no purpose, no intrinsic value, life has no ultimate meaning so none of this really matters anyway.
Lrock79 1 year ago
@Lrock79 hittler was a Christian who said in many speeches that Jesus saw the Jews for what they really were and ultimatly the reason that he gave himself on the cross, was to change the Jews to something pure. he also receved trementous support from the German Church and praised Hittler for his actions.
kokabiel2one 1 year ago
@kokabiel2one hitler's endorsement of christianity is 1 area of conflict with neitzsche's views, but it is undeniable that he was a big influence.hitler even had a bust of neitzsche. it is also undeniable that darwinism influenced nazi ideology,causing another split between them and nietzsche,their racist eugenic policies. it is undeniable that eugenics grew out of darwinism;it was even created by darwins cousin, sir francis galton. the u.s. eugenic laws were the precedent for germany's.
mebe84 1 year ago
@kokabiel2one i am not disagreeing with your point about the church. while i do question whether hitler was a christian in private, it is true that he professed to be and that germany was a christian nation. the catholic church aided and abetted these tyrants as well, even helping some of the worst nazis escape after they had lost the war. still, it is hard to get to nazi ideology from from reading the gospels. it seems(to me anyway) that eugenics coupled with neitzsche influenced them most.
mebe84 1 year ago
Reasure yourself & subdue your insecurities by convincing yourself of your own ignorance!
PREACH! ???
Why do the they want you to listen?
Day comes Night falls, You are perfectly able to work it all out for yourself.
And all the goals will plug the holes & make the boat float for, for ever!
CerebalDystrophy 1 year ago
Evangelize
1: to preach the gospel to
2: to convert to Christianity
3: to preach the gospel (intransitive)
Evangelism
1: the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ
2: militant or crusading zeal
According to Merriam Webster, none of that even comes close to applying to Christopher Hitchens. Technically Hitchens' definitions isn't wrong. The only way evangelism would apply to atheism is if it were a religion, which it isn't.
msteele79 1 year ago 2
@msteele79
"Evangelism" can refer to "ardent or missionary zeal for a cause," as well as "the preaching or promulgation of the gospel."
"Gospel" can mean "something regarded as true and implicitly believed," as well as "a doctrine regarded as of prime importance."
When Hitchens tries to shoehorn the definition 'includes metaphysical or eternal promises' into the word "evangelism," he flat-out loses the argument. He's just making shit up.
Generally I really like Hitchens, but he loses here IMO.
BarcSsarc 1 year ago
@BarcSsarc
You're stretching your definitions to fit. According to that suggestion, any lecture on pretty much anything could be considered "gospel" which is silly.
msteele79 1 year ago
@msteele79 If your goal is to enlist people to your opinion, you can be called an "evangelist." You can also cite one possible, extreme outcome of semantic organization, call it "silly," then use that as a reason why Hitchens isn't being evangelical, but that's pretty silly to me.
I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that a man who travels the world preaching his own gospel, writing books about it and having regular debates with the intention of changing minds, is being evangelical.
BarcSsarc 1 year ago