Christopher Hitchens Intvw'd by Dennis Miller PART 2

[Tsnore]

What does Dennis Killer know about religion?

[beeroosterm]

"Londonistan is Calling" is the Vanity Fair article that first brought Hitchens to my attention. I was stunned at the quality of his writing (and of course the subject matter) and from then forward consumed Hitchens' output wherever I could find it. I became very angered at myself for being ignorant of him after finding out how much he had written and how long he was available in the general public. It's been a good 4 years or so and I miss him terribly. Who can replace him?

[liliodine]

I do have to poke some holes in something that Hitchens said about AIDS in Africa. We all know it's more complicated than just promoting condoms. Yes, I think religious fanatics cause more harm than good. However, the story is more complicated than just using condoms. Obviously, these people want to pro-create, and nobody is going to stop them, regardless of the spread of AIDS that exclusively wiped out certain villages. Promiscuity is one reason, oral sex is another reason, their culture, etc.

[iliveon]

@liliodine ah so condoms given to the people isn't going to help fix the majority of the human sexual urge that yields high HIV?

The thing is, we are humans and we want to have sex. We have a lot of sex, we do the coetus interruptus quite a lot when we are lacking condoms, and people want to have sex regardless of children; it is in our nature. I'm not going to act like an expert, but even I know that humans want to have sex, we find it fun, we find it beneficial for children, and for bliss

[YesYou123333]

@TheIntolerantAtheist Why don't we just exterminate all the Christians? Would that make you feel better?

[bodhidharma78]

@grands1am

i agree w you whole heartedly there!

[aqueiro]

it is absolutely impossible to find a comment to the video on the comment section. it's utterly filled with often pathetic youtube-comment-wars. Sigh

[bodhidharma78]

Atheists and Believers, both, are human, and as humans, there are snide people on both sides.

[grands1am]

@bodhidharma78

I'm right there with you but the believers are -- in the practical sense -- much more harmful in their wanton ignorance and the attempts to enforce their ^#!%ING ANCIENT BOOKS on everybody else. Atheists can be snide or abrasive, but that's about as bad as it can get. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins on Hitler, why would anyone commit an atrocity IN THE NAME of atheism? It just doesn't make any sense.

[towneslives]

enjoyable interview - hitchens is sharp as alway, though it's rather disappointing to hear him approve of a right-wing cretin like melanie phillips

[newfagscanttrif0rce]

Is there a part 1?

[AnthropicConstance]

The Comedy Jesus guy--Isn't that venomfangX in a beard and wig?

[mark224]

I don't care if people are anti-religious. But how can people say that God doesn't exist? It seems like Atheists point to evolution as a way of disproving the existence of God. I don't understand why believing in God and accepting evolution have to be mutually exclusive opinions. There are plenty of questions unanswered about the world and the universe to completely conclude without doubt that a higher power doesn't exist.

[ArtoftheState1]

@mark224 Plenty of people find conciliation in Christianity and evolution, the Archbishop of Canterbury for example. Many atheists have plenty of other reasons to disbelieve in God, a Christian one anyway, like the presence of other religions, the perceived immorality of religions and other scientific reasons like the age of the world and the relative age of religions. But those who purely look at science to disprove God, I agree, aren't fighting from both corners (is that a metaphor?!)

[DoktorZaius86]

@mark224 As long as you dig on science, feel free to believe in a natures god sorta thing. But don't promulgate, for example, the Christian God as The Answer, because we've known for a long time that religions (including Christianity) are founded on nonsense and hypocrisy. We can point to parts of every Holy Book as being completely full of shit, which should be enough for a scientific mind to dismiss each specific religion as nonsense.

[gd44]

@mark224 Having unanswered questions does not validate the existence of god(s). It's amazing how the invisible and the non-existent appears exactly alike, isn't it?

[TheSpankymonkey]

@mark224 "It seems like Atheists point to evolution as a way of disproving the existence of God" - Not at all. One side claims we were made by God, sometimes in a literal interpretation of a silly book. This is the actual claim, of which it is dispelled by what we actually know. You will then find a series of backpedelling apologetics that will then go further and further back until god might as well not even exist. To date, there has been no evidence of a god, of any kind.

[mark224]

@TheSpankymonkey I just don't understand the bitterness that Atheists have towards religion. Why does the Bible or any other religious book have to be referred to as a "silly" book? Are Atheists so threatened by religion that they're incapable of having a discussion about faith without making snide comments? I'm not religious but I refuse to accept atheism for two reasons. 1.) Nobody, scientist included, can be 100% sure that God doesn't exist. 2.) Atheists seem miserable all the time.

[TheSpankymonkey]

@mark224 "Are Atheists so threatened by religion that they're incapable of having a discussion about faith without making snide comments" - No, religious people are incapable of seeing just how sinister and downright evil their beliefs actually are. They are hideous, absolutely monstrous, yet you would have us believe that just because you personally may have cherrypicked your little doses, that the rest of it has nothing to do with you. Well it doesn't work that way at all.

[TheSpankymonkey]

@mark224 "1.) Nobody, scientist included, can be 100% sure that God doesn't exist." - Fucked up logic you have there. Nobody needs to, it hasn't been demonstrated that he does exist or even could. As it stands not a single thing that mankind has uncovered requires god as an answer, nothing. Nada and what's more, even if you posit a god in place of another answer, it typically is the worst answer you can find. 2: Reality does not need a popular happy club consensus.... Really....

[mark224]

@TheSpankymonkey Thank you for proving my point on the apparent misery of atheists

[TheSpankymonkey]

@mark224 - Sadly it is only apparent to you, but given your propensity to believe things that simply are not true. it hardly makes for anything remotely of consequence. In a nutshell, a random person who believes in an invisible skydaddy thinks people that don't believe are bags of misery. Instead of attacking people around you, why not concentrate on justifying your own beliefs without relying on your own ignorance to make stupid stories make sense.

[mark224]

@TheSpankymonkey Do you read my posts before you type?I never said I was religious I also didn't theres definitely a God. I said there's no proof either way, so it's impossible to be 100% sure there isn't a God. I don't know if God exists or not and you know what? Neither do you! You can sit there and pontificate all you like but at the end of the day YOU DON'T KNOW. And that obviously freaks you out. Why else would you be so insecure about the subject?You're a scared little boy and it amuses me

[iloveyoumrfrodo]

@mark224 "Aethists aren't quite as chipper as believers are" = bad to you, that's fine. Just be aware it's easier to be ignorant and joyful.

[omgopet]

@mark224 1) it's not proven that -a- god could not exist, true, because nobody really defines exactly what a god does. but if you refer to -the- biblical god, you are wrong. there is overwhelming scientific and philosohpical evidence that he does not exist.

2) i assure you i'm a quite happy guy. but i'm not tollerant of intollerance, i will not be kind to people who insult my gay friends, degrade my work as a scientist or want to threaten my future kids with eternal suffering.

[promossage]

Wait.... the only thing smarter than a "religious nutcase" is a person who hates God because the only thing in life he wants to do is fuck 13 year old girls and religious people are blocking the age of consent? SHIT I GUESS AMERICA IS FUCKED THEN!

[DesdinovaImaginos]

I enjoyed this as a fan of both Miller and Hitchens.

[submitted1]

hitch made up his mind before he saw any evidence for or against god based on a bad argument for god. we are all a mixed bag of correct and incorrect beliefs. it is foolish to think that having it right on one point means you are right in all points...the vibe I get from hitch. it is also foolish to think that because someone has it wrong in one point is wrong on all points. MY point is that I do believe in an intelligent designer but I do NOT believe Aquinas flew around the room.

[spinnersmetal]

@submitted1 That is just a big God of the Gaps argument. WE DON"T KNOW what happened before the big bang. Anyone, especially a non scientist, who claims to know is LYING. You want to plug up what we don't yet understand with God, which people have been doing since the beginning of time.

[submitted1]

@spinnersmetal I'm not sure that I made ANY argument. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Is your knowledge of the definition of God of the Gaps argument your hammer? Correcting people when they didn't even say anything that warrants correcting...LOL. I'm tapping out man...you win! I can't compete with you. How about you re-read my post, UNDERSTAND it, THEN reply.

[mindsmirror]

@submitted1 Perhaps it seems reasonable to you that one would assume every problem is a nail if all one has is a hammer, but I find that absurd. If all I have is a hammer and I need to feed my cat, I'm not going to assume the cat, or the cat's food, is a nail and beat it. Having only one tool means that you can only solve certain problems, but you wouldn't be blind to the fact that it wont work for everything simply because it's the only tool you have. That is the worst analogy EVER, son.

[submitted1]

@mindsmirror you seem confused. one moment you realize it's an analogy and the next you assume a literal hammer beating a cat. try to be consistent. also, I forget why i used it. could you message me with my original quote so i can help you understand it a little better.

[mindsmirror]

@submitted1 Yes, I realize it's an analogy. I don't need your assistance with "understanding it", I already understood where you were trying to go with it. I was simply pointing out (In 500 characters or less) that the analogy is poor and fails on a fundamental level (In my opinion, of course).

[submitted1]

@mindsmirror Obviously you do need assistance. I was accused of using the God of the Gaps argument when I said nothing of the sort. The hammer analogy was directed at that particular nonsequitur. Nothing I said would have caused the accusation, but the guy didn't like my post,couldn't actually rebut it, so he threw out G O Gaps accusation because that is the only tool he had. Do you get it now? Maybe you could look at my original post and give me something to think about.

[mindsmirror]

@submitted1 I SAID I DON'T NEED YOUR GOD DAMNED ASSISTANCE, YOU SENILE FOOL. I SAY GOOD DAY SIR!

[submitted1]

@mindsmirror about what I expected (Argument weak, yell like hell)

[controllerbrain]

@alexsmith8846 Sure, we can see the Earth now, but it's still limited, we can only see it in 3 dimensions.

[controllerbrain]

@controllerbrain I was basically saying that we were wrong about the shape of the Earth at one time, so why not be wrong again? Why are we right this time? Because we can circle the whole Earth? So what? Flat Earthers were just as convinced back then as we are now. History repeats itself. I will check out the link.Cheers.

[mujinnokoya]

Ron Paul for pope.

[rrtodd95]

I always find it refreshing when I read the comments posted on a debate over atheism.

The ones pro atheism tend to be very literate, well thought out and by people who are obviously well read and rational.

Then there's the pro religious ones.

[GoodAvatar]

@rrtodd95 Yea, isn't it great? Punctuation and grammar, proper spelling. Almost like the intelligent, articulate people are atheists and the non-intellectual types are.... wait a minute.

[cano21]

@rrtodd95 Rest assured, there are more than enough illiterate athiests out there perfectly ripe for your IQ jokes. Sounds more to me like you simply don't look for them with quite the same eagerness you do for those with religion. That says more about you than it says about them my friend.

You just been owned,

God

[rrtodd95]

@cano21 What bible thumping genius do you suppose is a scholar on youtube?

Kent Hovind a man who makes up half his information or distorts the rest.

[cano21]

@rrtodd95 Durrr yeah 'cause athiests gots very gooder brains!! LOL!! What a punk out of an insult. You can do better! Come on hater. We want better!

[elfbride]

@panicplan Will do. That's what I found so phony about so much of Christianity... I'm a lifelong student of history and the more I learned about the history of the church the less I believed about anything they said. Seems the only way they had to win converts was to literally hijack local cultures, beliefs, etc. Sounds pretty crappy to me.

[elfbride]

@panicplan I know. Check out "The Source' by Art Bell and....some other guy. Can't remember. It's about archeological discoveries that they literally don't know what to do with because they're so outside the conventional academic norms...it's a fascinating read.

[elfbride]

@panicplan Wanna know why the Medieval Church insisted the world was flat? Simple practicality: if the world was round, how could the whole population see the Second Coming at the same time? I swear, as I understand, that was their reasoning. (shakes head and walks away)

[controllerbrain]

Yeah that, and also the fact that the Earth's surface looks flat when you look out into the horizon.

[elfbride]

@controllerbrain That too. I mean, it's ONLY OBVIIOUS! When my nephew was 4 I blew his mind when I convinced him the Earth was round. It wasn't difficult for him to understand, but when it sank in, he was amazed.

[controllerbrain]

Well sometimes I get this weird idea that we may even be wrong about the Earth being round, that it might even be something else beyond both flat and round.

I mean put it this way, the Earth being flat back then made just as much sense as the Earth being round does now.

[ikvsabre]

"Well sometimes I get this weird idea that we may even be wrong about the Earth being round"

Except that it is. And we can prove it, even without leaving the atmosphere (which we've done)

The fact that we can pick any direction, go completely around the earth, and return to the original place tells us that it is a sphere.

Putting things in ORBIT clinches it.

[Flyborg]

@controllerbrain I know you made this comment 4 months ago, but if you haven't seen it already, there's an interesting video on this topic (whether we might be wrong about the shape of the Earth) called "The Relativity of Wrong" by YouTube user C0nc0rdance.

[controllerbrain]

@Flyborg I'll just rant on a bit more. I don't know how we could be wrong about the shape of the Earth, but flat Earthers didn't know how they could be wrong about the shape of the Earth back then. To them, it looked flat, therefore it must have been flat. To us, it looks round (from the outside), therefore it must be round. The same logic is being used, therefore the same logic is bound to be wrong. Anyway it's not a popular theory, but it's an idea. Cheers.

[Flyborg]

@controllerbrain Did you see the video between writing those 2 comments? If so, the point was that we weren't completely wrong - we were partially correct based on the data we had at hand, and with better observational methods, we became much more correct with each observation. We may make further adjustments to our knowledge, but it's no more likely for us to find out that the Earth is a triangle, than to find out that the ocean is 100% molten lava. We've gone past that stage already!

[elfbride]

@panicplan I've heard that! As Spock would say...fascinating. I sometimes think that mankind, or HUMANkind is actually much older than is accepted. Maybe at one point we literally DID bomb ourselves back to the stone age and had to start over? Interesting idea anyway.

[FoxifiedNutjob]

---------Yes..atheist are more rabid than present day Christians.----------

I wonder how many atheists have starved their own children, crammed their precious little bodies in suit cases, smash their kids to death with rocks "because god said he would bring them back to life", cut the arms off their kids and watch them bleed to death, drive their car into a lake with their kids inside, had witch hunts, had inquisitions, or started Crusades or Jihads. Probably around zero.

FVCK RELIGION!!

[rebelsuck]

Great book. You guys should check out a book called the LINK. Recently a big deal was made about a human ancestor of 4 millions years old found in Africa. The LINK is a book about possibly the first ancestor split from the primates ever found and a true link to our past. This fossil was found in Germany an is over 40 millions years old.

[elfbride]

Aida? Something like that. Anyway, she was found to be 4 MILLION years old and they think they recently found something even older. I'm not really an atheist, but religion sucks.

[rebelsuck]

Yes..atheist are more rabid than present day Christians. Bill Maher to Stalin is the range of intolerance. The most intolerant Christians I know are Jehovahs Witnesses. Hardly meets the Stalin extreme. I noticed the responses made by others were also a bit smug. My main point is that 'reason' is always lost when someone throws in a snotty remark. I would agree with most here that religions are a farse. But I will also keep in mind not to laugh in the face of others who I disagree with.

[Hungering]

If JW's are the most intolerant Christians you know, you don't know many CHristians, do you? Nor do you really understand this new surge of Atheism.

[rebelsuck]

OK......who are the most intolerant Christians you know? Atheism? That word means nothing to me. I am a doubter of the God of Humans. But do I have knowledge of everything that exist in the universe? Nope. True believers as well as atheist(%100 doubters) both puzzle me. The universe offer infinite possibilities. And yet we should never throw out rational thought and replace it with blind faith. I mean really.........72 virgins? That is such a bad trick to play on those poor bastards.

[racer42O]

did you know stalin? you are comparing ppl you know to a dictator who has been dead for almost 60 yrs? i can still work with this flawed comparison. stalin did not kill people in the name of atheism as was done in the crusades right up til today by the parties of god. he was also very religious until his later yrs (theories are many but most think he was fucked in ass by an orthodox priest)

an atheist will never say aids is bad but condoms are worse...or that unbaptized children go to limbo.

[SurelyYewJest]

rebelsuck, that's a strawman. Atheists more rabid than Christians? We're not the ones putting kids in Jesus Camp. We're not the ones applying godly exceptionalism to the US and the president. We're not the ones saying Christians should never be elected to office. We're not the ones with a president telling others that their existence is tantamount to treason. If you think Christianity has no animus for atheism, you appear to have learned how to be a good little minority keeping your place.

[rebelsuck]

It would be nice if people who were intolerant toward religons would not write about how intolerant religions are. I'm not religious but do understand that the universe is imense and so are the possibilities of lifeforms that evolved and are light years ahead of homo-sapiens. Maybe even a God or Gods. Lifeforms that have the power,science whatever to keep our sorry race alive and never age. My question is....if higher powers do exist,why would they want to help our kind out? Read these blogs.

[nad2k8]

Yes, everything our imagination is capable of is possible, including, the pink invisible unicorns. But it still doesn't justify the crime and immorality of Christianity.

I have a complimentary question: .... why would they want to inflict suffering on our kind?

[rebelsuck]

I saw a pink unicorn once. When the mushrooms wore off however...it was just my atheist friend in her pink panties laying next to me. Christians inflicting pain? Well that has not happened to me personally...except my ex-wife claimed to be Christian and phuck that was painful. But I do ackowledge many Christians have been turds. I fear Islam far more. I also have an even a worse fear of being stranded on a desert island with Garafolo...she's atheist btw.

[c6gunner]

That's sheer nonsense. It's like saying:

'It would be nice if people who are intolerant of racists would stop writing about how intolerant racism is.'

There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance. In fact, we should ALL refuse to tolerate ideologies which preach intolerance.

[rebelsuck]

I actually agree with your being intolerant to the bullies. But what I see is complete Christian bashing by non-believers. I see far less Christians bashing atheist...and is they do,they seem far less venomous and rabid. I also agree that ideologies can be bad. But just because of a few fanatics,we can't lump the entire group into the nut-case bin. Not all black preachers are like Sharpton or Wright. Not all libs are nuts like Boxer or Pelosi. Not all conservatives are dupes like hannity.

[c6gunner]

That's like saying you see frauds and scam artists getting attacked by rational people all the time, but you almost never see frauds and scam artists attacking rational people. What does it prove, other than the fact that people don't like being taken advantage of?

[jimmydoolittle22]

LOL I was just about to write exactly that! Well played sir.

[JonKevinCherry]

First, disbelief is not intolerance. Neither is mockery. Second any thing , aliens or not, that evolved from lower forms is not a god. The most advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. If higher powers exist, they are natural not supernatural. Third if they exist, where are they? Obviously they are oblivious or callous, your choice.

[rebelsuck]

Your great at assuming. Nothing wrong with disbelief. Mocking atheist as well as Hindus Christians for their beliefs is intolerant and rude. It is also divisive. When someone like Maher mocks believers in God....does it further the debate or just insure more intolerants? HIGHER POWERS? I believe that there must be more intelligent life than ours. The universe is too large to think that an over-breeding/polluting/killin­g race of homo-sapien fire ants such as us represents the highest power.

[Blit67]

Miller Rules.. If Hitchens thinks he can get one up on Miller..he's saddly mistaken.. Miller made one statement that is dead on.."Hitchens is a piece of work." Believers in a God cannot be limited to what Hitchens has boxed them as.. It's personal.

[DaveyH123]

If you align yourself with a particular faith, especially one which promotes 'holy texts' then it's not personal, its testable and proven to be fallable. Can't say anything about you deing a deist, but if you say you're a christian, muslim, buddhist, sikh etc etc, we can pretty much agree that your 'faith' is a fairytale and the institutional nature of it, makes it a cult. Give up your fear of the dark and genuinely challenge your irrational belief.

[Blit67]

Let's set aside the 'Holy text" comment... The point being made here is my belief is personal.. I do not rely on any text. I have my assumption of just what the bible was and is supposed to be. I don't have to expand on that. The idea of Christianity as a relationship always seems strange to those who chose not to explore it. You have that right and I support that right. But, your reply tells me you don't understand just what I mean by personal. Christianity is a relationship..that's all.

[kukulza]

your assumption that he "chose not to explore it" is a purely subjective statement. please refrain from speaking your ill-founded thoughts as they only promote conflict

christianity is a relationship... until it drags in other peoples' welfare. to oppose stem cell research is to senselessly oppose saving lives. to oppose same sex marriage is the same as racism and sexism. to support ID is to support counter-productive nonsense. it's no longer a relationship... it's an open conflict

[Blit67]

How do you know where I stand on stem cell research or same sex marriage.. You don't..you assume.. My point is you can't paint us all with the same brush. And it seems to me that you would be "promoting conflict" with your intolerance.. I thought this was a message forum to post thoughts. I'm sorry if you are conflicted in an ill fashion. It was not my intent to make you ill..

[kukulza]

i never assumed anything about you. when i stated the concepts of christianity not being a relationship between a person and God anymore, that it has become a conflict, i was making statements about general christian actions. not yours specifically. sorry, there is only so much i can do in 500characters.

the rest of your statement i feel is answered by my responses just a moment about my supposed "intolerance."

i don't care about personal christians. just political ones.

[Blit67]

To add: calling one's faith a fairytale is an insult used to provoke a response.. Your idea of my faith as a fairytale, to me, is obsured..but to you may seem rational. That's why we came to this country..to have our beliefs. I guess we endure insulting prodding. That's ok because there was a time when Christians were killed for sport or enslaved, but for some reason we are still here..we will always be here. I can take intellectual attacks..not sure I could have taken the jaws of a lion..

[kukulza]

religion is a fairytale. deal with it. whenever a theist says "you need faith" it becomes a fairytale. faith is the belief of something without evidence. textbook fairytale.

the Bible is not evidence anymore than any other religious text, fictional story book, or general made up idea. hence why the Bible is not an accredited history book nor is any other religious text.

[Blit67]

First off..you ask me to deal with my "faith is a fairytale" ..Well, that show's your intolerance to those of us who have faith.. I couldn't care less if you have a belief system.. I have complete tolerance for people who don't have faith in a deity. That's my point. You are proving my point with the shrill hostility to my faith. What do you care? You may feel that I have a limited intellect because I have faith..you would be wrong. I'm highly educated..

[kukulza]

deal with it means admit it. that is not showing my intolerance to those of faith. it is showing my intolerance of those of blind-faith. those who believe that, despite all the evidence, despite all the counter-religions, that their religion is somehow above all else... that's blind-faith.

saying you're educated doesn't change the fact we're on the internet :). i never questioned your intelligence. brilliant people can have horrible ideas of reality. i only questioned that, your idea.

[Blit67]

And to add: You have no idea what my view of the bible is..I didn't expand on that. It would surprise you how I view the bible. I don't take it as the end-all word of God. I don't believe that was the intent. I am fully aware that the bible is not a history book.. There is a hostility for people of faith coming from intolerant people..and you make my point every time you post.

[kukulza]

again you say i'm intolerant. yet i have not said one thing yet about the religious being inherently anything bad. you're taking what i say as negative (when it is, in fact, neutral) because you dislike it or distrust it based on some bias.

my mention of the bible as not being a history book was only to assert the fact that is what it is. a fairytale. comfort food for the psyche.

note on above post: at no point am i suggesting you believe the fairytale in any particular way or perhaps at all.

[Blit67]

Actually, I neither like it or dislike it.. You seem to want an argument.. I'm not going to give you one.. I think that's why we have this non-productive back and forth.. I'm done now.. I have much more important things to do than to have this non-argument argument. I simply don't care.. I replied to this string because I'm a fan of Dennis Miller, that is all.. And now I find myself mired in this nonsense.. I wish you well..

[kukulza]

the only reason it was non-productive is because you made constant assumptions about my intentions.

i only have 500characters to work with. don't expect me to spend them explaining myself. a better person would look at my comments, which they know are condensed, and attempt to ignore any potential bias and focus on facts. you were constantly focused on my subjective tendencies rather than objective.

i don't want to argue either. i want to debate. clearly you don't.

[DaveyH123]

Your 'faith' is a fairytale and tantamount to a cult, there is no rational reason to believe in that lie, there is not even any evidence to substantiate any of the claims made by your cult. BTW, christians were never thrown to lions, that's a myth. You can beleive what you want, but the side of reason and evidence is firmly with you, as hitchens says, 'a person of faith is a person who will believe anything', you have no logical or rational reason to believe it, but ur brainwashed so u do.

[Twicebakedtaters]

The interview is good. The video is sorely lacking childish and quite distracting.

[compsci91]

I had to minimize it and listen to it like i was actually listening to the radio.

[Yeldarb4]

Oh no, it's that white-robed hippie!

[sindrome123]

the fact is that Dennis Miller is a theist and he doesn't mention it to Hitchens because he knows that Hitchens would nail him.

[baresolid]

Dennis Miller plays the Verve?  Brilliant!

[silvercade]

All religions are nothing more than a compilation of the most popular stories of the time. If people didn't like a story than it would become nothing. Just because Jesus was a good story doesn't make it true. Even if the Jesus story was 100% original, although it's not, it's a story. Take it easy you religious fanatics.

[Rahab111222]

I like bacon.

[1n354a]

god doesn't like you to like bacon.

[bigcherry99]

then why did god make bacon then?

is he some kind of twisted sadist and tormentor?

perhaps he's a psychopath?

[1n354a]

When he made bacon he had never tasted it so he didn't realize how absolutely delicious it was. After he tasted it, realized how good he was, he was afraid that all the people on Earth would find out so he decreed it to be dirty.

Sorry I just realized that I didn't capitalize all the hes above and don't have the time to go back...I don't want my microwave bacon to burn.

[bigcherry99]

bacon, ham + pork are delicious, but god doesn't want you to eat it.

ok?

[1n354a]

I disagree - in fact I got an email from god last night indicating that he felt that pork products were off the "do not eat" list. I just got finished blending up a side of bacon into mush so that I could feed it to my 6 month old baby. I saved the bacon grease to put in her bottle. Since I got that message from god, I am a bacon-only man! God be praised!

[bigcherry99]

i got a text message from god about bacon consumption, but it seemed to have typo's.

as far as i can tell god wants me to eat bacon with every single meal.

obviously thats fine with me. its least i could do for the supreme creator.

i eat bacon because it makes god happy, makes him feel like he's being listened too.

[zeldagoblin]

Perhaps it was the same with sex. He made sex before he realized how good it was, then he got it on with Mary and it dawned on him that this was too much fun to be Good...so he re-soldered Mary's hymen, and decreed that sex was to be considered a sin. It was too late to prevent Mary's pregnancy, of course, which is where the whole virgin birth/miracle/messiah thing came in. Brilliant, nice save God, you rascal!

[regelemihai]

No where in the Christian doctrine is kosherness kept as a central tenant.

[1n354a]

I was reading a different translation of the Christian doctrine in which God gets treed by a herd of wild pigs and is eventually saved by a group of legally married lesbian couples...it brought a tear to my eye. You should read it. It will change your life.

[regelemihai]

Har har! Do another one!

[zmondot321]

deism is the most logical religious view if you feel the need to have to believe in a supreme being.

Agnostic myself since no one can provide proof of either arguement

[mfunke]

We are all agnostics, since we don't know either way. Gnosticism is about knowledge, theism is about belief. What do you believe in? Is there or isn't there a god?

Can you prove that unicorns don't exist? We are all agnostics related to that too, but I'm a aunicornist.

[zeldagoblin]

How can you say that? I read an old book that had stories about unicorns. It was OLD. That means there must be some truth in it! AND I prayed to the unicorn to help me pass my driving test. I passed. What more proof do you need? Open your mind! ;-)

[regelemihai]

Making these asinine analogies for the bible don't do you any good in academic cyrcles. maybe for average joes who like a good comic spin on serious business it works, not for credible scholars though.

Calling it "magical unicorns", leaving it at that, getting a few cheap laughs, and thinking you argued your point cogently, is an intellectual bankruptcy.

[regelemihai]

*circles

[zeldagoblin]

Well mate, I'm taking a good look around, and I don't appear to be in an academic circle of any kind, nor did I pretend to speak from an academic standpoint, unlike many armchair debaters on here. I'm on youtube, talking to raving lunatics most of the time. I am making a joke as a reply to like-minded people here, not attempting to argue my point. Get off your high horse...or unicorn, whatever.

[regelemihai]

Ok then, point well made. Then don't expect people to take you seriously if you're here for mud slingging and cheap laughs.

In your world it may cut it, however it doesn't make it a valid argument.

BTW, I never down-rate any comments here, maybe you should consider doing the same.

[zeldagoblin]

It wasn't me who gave you thumbs down, as it happens. I'm not asking to be taken seriously here. I made a joke, which is glaringly obvious by the tone of my post and the wink emote at the end. I debate this subject a lot, in a serious context, and sometimes I make lighthearted comments and have a bit of a laugh about it. This kind of forum is a free-for-all at the best of times. I gave up trying to make serious points on here a long time ago.

[regelemihai]

Ok then, like I said, I respect that.

Just for future reference, these jokes have blantant condescending and arrogant undertones. I'm sure you did that with that scope in mind, not with a peaceful friendly one, which is kinda' sad.

If you try to engage in civilized discourse, you'll find that people will open up to you.

Attack mode will only create devision.

Anyway, take care.

[zeldagoblin]

Well, I don't need lessons in social graces, I'm quite aware of how to encourage people to 'open up' to me. When I want civilized discourse, I happily take that approach. When I am joking around, I couldn't care less who takes it what way, and how. I've been on the receiving end of many a scathing comment, not to mention outright abuse, when engaging in 'civilized discourse'. I have never abused anyone, but occasionally act very silly. No harm done.

[regelemihai]

Indeed.

My best wishes.

Bye.

[nixonfanatic]

Except for the fact that there is just as much literary evidence for the flying spaghetti monster as there is for Jesus being resurrected.

Sorry, friend.. It IS a magical unicorn.

[regelemihai]

On what basis do you make such a claim? Plenty of literary evidence points out to Jesus's ressurection.

Making analogies to the same old childish "flying spaghetti monster" has passed the point of intellectual bankruptcy.

It's just an easy detour for people to escape rational discourse about th subject.

I respect your dissent, though.

[nixonfanatic]

Simple question then. A challenge for you, if you will.

Why does the bible, and it's associated exegesis, have any more weight than my Greek mythology text from childhood?

Or take what example you will. There is, in fact, equal if not greater evidence for Thor as for Jesus as the son of God. So on what -rational- basis can you claim the accuracy of your book, instead of a host of others?

I'd like a real answer here, not 'but everyone wrote thus'. That proves Thor too, you'll note.

[regelemihai]

Rediculous claim, there is no testimony for Thor's bodily existance, nor canonical evidence.

When you sai you're posing a challege for me I thought it's gonna be something endearing. Making the same old comaprison to greek gods is not something new.

Gary Habaermas and Michael Licona debunk it entirely, including Wright and many others. Just read their books.

And I'm not being condescending, I'm pointing it out to you.

[nixonfanatic]

You're telling me, once again, that folks writing about something make it true.

So..

Testimony for Thor's bodily existence? That doesn't make any sense. There are books that evidence it.

Do you have anything other than books evidencing Jesus? You do not. I have read Licona, and have at least noticed Habaermas. They make solid claims once you've assumed the bible to BE canonical.

I once again ask you.. Why is THIS book more valid than other, older, ones?

It's a matter of rationale.

[regelemihai]

"Folk writing about something" is your choice of pejorative meaning you phrased the sentence with. By the same token, ancient biographies of important historical figures woud also have to be dismissed outright because they were written by some "folks".

Why?because it's rooted in history.Attaching the source the big bad "Bible" label,doesn't discredit its credibilty.

I do agree that the old testament can be seriously challenged on some historical grounds, no doubt. Less so with the NT.

[nixonfanatic]

Good answer, I greatly appreciate your willingness to respond in a reasonable manner.

Still, even granting the historical nature of the NT over the OT, where does it gain credence as the work of an omniscient being, as opposed to any other verifiable documents of the time, or older?

We can make a case to prove - pick a name - lived at - pick a time - but that doesn't make them godly, or inspired in such a way, does it?

[regelemihai]

First,as as a sidenote: I also truely appreciate your civilized tone and openess to the subject :)

Here's where it differs. The canonical texts of the OT are estimated to have been compiled more than 1000 years after the occurences took place, and it has all been passed through the word of mouth over a millenium. Just as Dawkins rightfully says, anyone who has played "Telephon" knows how a message changes over a period of time.

The NT, in contrast, was written as early as 20-30 years after.

[KemaTheAtheist]

"The NT, in contrast, was written as early as 20-30 years after."

I realize I'm replying to this a month after you posted it, but I have to mention that 20-30 years is still far too long... there's a reason there's a statute of limitations on criminal offenses as short as 5 years. Eye witness testimony become highly suspect and this is evident even in the gospels...

cont...

[KemaTheAtheist]

cont...

They recall his robes as being different colors... scarlet and purple aren't even close to the same color. There are three different versions of what Jesus's last words were, something I should think would be remembered clearly. And one of the gospels mentions people rising from the grave and walking around the city for a few day... You would think that would be an important enough event to be written down by all three of them.

[regelemihai]

Your objections are well received, but notice they've been handled already.

His last words are said in different contexts. Matthew, although claiming that Jesus' last words were " why have you forsaken me", he later states at verse 50 that he spoke again before expiring. John claims to have heard his last *spken* words( " it is finished") while Luke testifies to his last *shouted* words.

It's not contradictory, my friend.

I do appreciate your comment, though.

Thank you.

[KemaTheAtheist]

"John claims to have heard his last *spken* words( " it is finished") while Luke testifies to his last *shouted* words."

After each of the last works whether "spoken" or "shouted" the next line is "gave up to the ghost" or "yeilded up the ghost." Spoken and shouted only refer to the volumn, not the fact that they were his last words.

[KemaTheAtheist]

"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

"Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."

Right there is your contradiction as to what he said before he died. Spoken, shouted, cried out, whatever... it's irrelevent how loudly he said his last words.

[regelemihai]

You're missing the point. When someone hears a spoken word up-close, it is an independent testimony that others could have not heard; especially since he addresses John and Mary in that line.

It's not about the volume at all.

[KemaTheAtheist]

"When someone hears a spoken word up-close, it is an independent testimony"

Yeah, but do you not see how that's a problem when he doesn't report about the times Jesus cried out and the other two did? That's a huge detail to just omit from the story.

[regelemihai]

Well, since John stood close to him and could actually hear it, as opposed to the shouted one that could be attested by the masses, I think the distinction is pretty clear.

[KemaTheAtheist]

How can you say that? The verses literally finish with "With that... he died."

John never even mentioned him crying out about anything. So did John go deaf for a minute and miss him shouting something, but then could hear what he spoke?

Mathew says he only cried out then died.

And Luke says he cried out and said something. If Matthew could hear him yell something, why wouldn't he include that.

cont...

[KemaTheAtheist]

So you have John who DIDN'T here him cry out ever despite being close enough to report an independent testimony Mathew and Luke didn't hear.

Mathew who heard him cry out and say something, but later cry out again and not say something then die.

Luke who heard him shout AND say something then say he dies and misses the second time he cries out but says nothing.

Do you not see the holes in what they were reporting?

[regelemihai]

Now, since there are other extrenal sources pointing out to jesus's miracle making, not to mention the Gospels themselves that record these events, I think there's a good reason to believe all of it. Now it may not be conclusive proof in it's perfect sense, but it's a good EVIDENCE that points us out to these happenings.

I know it's hard to believe, and I know you won't change your mind, but it's worth investigating nontheless.

Thanks for being so cool, though :)

[nixonfanatic]

Excellently articulated.

I'd offer that if most believers (deliberately vague, I don't want to stereotype you) showed as much aplomb as you, the world would be a better place.

I suppose I'd only offer this - which I believe to be the core of our disagreement: evidence of supernatural phenomena have been found and debunked many times, we both know that. If I were to accept such phenomena, I'd really want proof, since it seems to contradict the natural order.

Good man, keep usin tha noggin! =D

[regelemihai]

Thanks buddy :) I don't think I deserve these compliments, but thanks anyway.Keeping an open mind is the rtional thing to do, otherwise we tend to fall to extremes.

I can understand your opposition.Any alleged claim of supernatural occurence has to be taken with a grain of salt, no doubt.

In all honesty,I haven't read enough about this topic,so I can't give a satisfying answer.

Thank you for your patience! More people should learn from you.

[nixonfanatic]

Heh heh. It is kind of amusing how often people are too busy saying 'you are wrong' to actually hear what they're arguing against, ain't it?

[regelemihai]

Our ego is a smoke screen, no doubt.

To be considered a real intellectual, one has to be formless and avoid polarization. Every single viewpoint has a validity,and we shouldn't shut our minds off whenever a counter argument comes our way.

That's why, despite the fact that I'm not an atheist, I don't diss the atheistic worldview. What I don't stand for is aggressiveness and condescension(from both parties).

[tristramshandy3]

I agree with you, but could you find someone to explain the validity of voting republican OR democrat? I can't seem to explain how it happens.

[KemaTheAtheist]

"it's a good EVIDENCE that points us out to these happenings."

As I mentioned in my last posts, there's so many differences between all the gospels that you can't possibly say that. Even if they were written as early as 20-30 years after that's still far too long (I'm fairly sure most of it was written even later that 20-30 years after the fact.).

What I don't understand is why you need miracles and divinity to say the guy had a pretty good philosophy. That's the important part of it.

[regelemihai]

That's an interesting point. The whole core of Christian belief is thta through his philosophy we as jumans can achieve salvation. It requires further theological debate, but that is irrelevant as I'm sure you're not too interested about it, and to be honest- I'm not that informed :P

I disagree that 20 years is " far too long" of a time lapse. If we judge them according to ancient history standards, 20 years is like a newsflash.

Think about it...

[regelemihai]

* That

*Humans

* interested IN it

[KemaTheAtheist]

"20 years is like a newsflash."

Eye witness accounts don't become more reliable for a further period of time after the event just because you go back in time. The differences between all the gospels proves that... I don't really care about small things clothing color, but what Jesus's last words were?

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

"Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit"

"It is finished"

Those are all completely different in every respect.

[regelemihai]

I already explained why it has nothing to say on the reliabilty of the account.

Matthew doesn't make the claim that those were his last words; that is a misconception as I have already stated.

The "contradiction", therefore, lies between Luke and John, and as I've explained, both accounts drive their testimony from totally different situations.

I don't really think it's a valid objection.

[KemaTheAtheist]

"I don't really think it's a valid objection. "

I bet if news paper articles today had those kinds of discrepancies then you wouldn't put stock in any of it...

[regelemihai]

Not at all...

Personal testimonies, by definition, tend to differ slightly in context. It's not soething unusual...

[KemaTheAtheist]

"Personal testimonies, by definition, tend to differ slightly in context. It's not something unusual... "

For events as important as this one is supposed to be, missing huge points like him crying out whether it's once or twice is unusual. You're making a special exceptions that you wouldn't make otherwise. If it was in court, no one would accept John's testimony because he's missing key parts.

[pitbull103]

Hitch is God. No false idol there. Jefferson would be an atheist today, no question.

[bodeezy]

Hitchens is right.

Tell us about your boogeyman that gives you the choice between believing and eternal torment in hell.

Nice choice.

Certainly imposed.

Totally illogical.

[mrmres]

Wow, Dennis. That was some unbelieveable ass kissing! Eschew your abjectly submissive servility.

[Flyborg]

Dangit why don't any of these videos have a part 1. >:(

Awesome though.

[Flyborg]

Oh it's just named differently:

Dennis Miller Interviews Christopher Hitchens PART 1

[tieInterceptor]

I agree, if the trees and the grass where pink it would give me a headache when going on a picknick, There proof that god exists!

lol,

Hitchens rules, looking forward to the pakage from Amazon with God is not great. Must be about to get here.