Abide by and obey your survival instinct because: dead is dead, death = permanence, lifespans are finite and the eternal, dog-eared commandment of Earth's dog-eat-doggers is kill or be killed...As O.J. Simpson can attest to: it's not illegal to kill everybody.
I'm afraid Hitchens' protestations about the secularity of the USA work better in theory than in practice.
Given he is often loath to admit the good done under the name of religion, he is at pains to emphasise the good done under the banner of the United States.
In fact, the USA and institutions of religion have a lot in common: both have plenty of ticks in both 'pro' and 'con' columns. The disparity in his commentary to this end has always been a point of contention for me.
@mymentor Well, but imagine the state of this country if it had started out with a theocratic perspective on paper, and the politicians had license to do things without the fear of a supreme court ruling against them. Indeed, if Iran's revolution had at least pretended to be secular at first, they'd not have the problems they do today.
@mymentor Well, politicians don't call themselves infallible nor does he think the country was divinely inspired. It does not have to meet such a high standard as the churches and mosques do. Even if he's harder on religions than he is on countries, he's sort of entitled to that, given the different nature of each beast.
Thank you for thinking for yourself, for diligent analysis, for being so God damned well read, for routinely taking positions that ruffle the feathers of those closest to you, if only to make the point that they may not be thinking for themselves, for exposing a body of great depth of thought to more of us than you will ever know, for being so belligerently correct, for your wit, for your humor, and most of all, for challenging me to think. Your thoughts are immortal.
@kikosemmek I was impressed by Medved's insight that American churches are so powerful because they have a free market in religion. Compare that to the UK which has the church of England... a state institution. I'm an Atheist, but I don't think Medved is a stupid guy, even though he is ultimately wrong. I also don't think he's malicious, but ignoring his good questions by calling him so is just an ad hominem attack.
What is Micheal Medved on about? America is probably one of the most religious countries in the west???.He obviously hasn't been to the Vatican,Italy,Spain,Ireland...That just epitomizes American's ignorance and naivety...They are not religious but if anything they are ''thick'',that is of course going by George Bush's statement when invading Iraq ''and may God help us''.................They are not the most religious of the west ,yet the thickest of the west.
Now you're changing the topic. I can't stand arrogance from the religious (neither can you, I'm sure), but nor can I stand arrogance from atheists. And it's become increasingly clear that angry YouTube atheists tend to appeal to emotions more than to reason when confronted with the opposing point of view. For some reason they feel that anyone who disagrees with them on religion MUST have a low IQ. Your comment is a perfect example of that emotional (thereby illogical) reaction.
Settle down. I couldn't care less what you think about atheists, but I have not been emotional at all; I think any neutral party reading this little skirmish would agree.
"But suppose Medved is being dishonest; suppose he's twisting history to his advantage; does that mean he's not intelligent?"
You seem to care a lot more about the reputation of Medved's intelligence than his morality. Why?
For one thing, you cannot say "Suppose he's being dishonest; suppose he has bad scholarship," because those two statements are directly conflicting. What you're doing (knowingly or not) is slyly creating both sides of the argument, so that whatever the response, you can claim victory. You must be oblivious to the irony of your argument, otherwise you are being cunningly deceptive (which is much WORSE).
No. I am perfectly entitled to argue the way I did. Here's the claim that I was refuting:
"He's not intelligent because he does not show that he knows the first thing about Christian history."
I simply made the case that the above argument doesn't follow. I was not "slyly creating both sides of the argument" because I wasn't arguing whether Medved is dishonest or sloppy with his scholoarship. I was merely responding to the claim that Medved is not smart.
@kikosemmek I think Islam is only the most violent of the three because science has so completely fallen down on the job in the parts of the world where fundamentalist Islam is the order of the day.
I have to say that Medved is a bit of a dick. He makes a point of a saying that Jefferson performed Christian ceremonies, and then when Hitchens tries to reply Medved basically says "well let's not get into that".
"I hear that you beat your wife, but I don't think we should waste time talking about it..."
@bfoaliali Hitchens became a U.S. citizen in 2007. They are discussing it as though it were recent so I would presume that it dates from around that time.
@ObjectiveBob I'm being very kind, by the way. My patience is normally very low when I see public figures put this kind of tripe out for others.
Of course, later on, Medved draws comparisons between Hitchens' harrangue of Falwell and Christians' tolerance of Hitchens. To start, Hitchens never said 9-11 was divine punishment for harboring homosexuals on live television. Comparing a great journalist to a professional hatemonger is insulting to our intelligence, in the least, and indefensible.
Medved: "God bless you."
Hitch: "That's ok, I say 'thank god' all the time"... lol
jq747 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
plain and simple. HITCHENS IS AN IDIOT! +++
hevy99 3 months ago
Abide by and obey your survival instinct because: dead is dead, death = permanence, lifespans are finite and the eternal, dog-eared commandment of Earth's dog-eat-doggers is kill or be killed...As O.J. Simpson can attest to: it's not illegal to kill everybody.
EasingDifficulties 3 months ago
I like how the picture of Hitchens is he with an angry look. Gee how did that get picked, random?
Shad3251 3 months ago
@Shad3251
I think it's the picture Hitchens would've chosen himself.
ObjectiveBob 3 months ago 7
I'm afraid Hitchens' protestations about the secularity of the USA work better in theory than in practice.
Given he is often loath to admit the good done under the name of religion, he is at pains to emphasise the good done under the banner of the United States.
In fact, the USA and institutions of religion have a lot in common: both have plenty of ticks in both 'pro' and 'con' columns. The disparity in his commentary to this end has always been a point of contention for me.
mymentor 3 months ago
@mymentor Well, but imagine the state of this country if it had started out with a theocratic perspective on paper, and the politicians had license to do things without the fear of a supreme court ruling against them. Indeed, if Iran's revolution had at least pretended to be secular at first, they'd not have the problems they do today.
Enginmaster 3 months ago
@Enginmaster
I agree with you.
It's more Hitchens' intellectual inconsistency I was referring to.
mymentor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mymentor Well, politicians don't call themselves infallible nor does he think the country was divinely inspired. It does not have to meet such a high standard as the churches and mosques do. Even if he's harder on religions than he is on countries, he's sort of entitled to that, given the different nature of each beast.
Enginmaster 3 months ago
@Enginmaster i think iran's revolution was secular at first... then again most of my information comes from that movie Persepolis...
PlanetBongoSan 1 month ago
"Another great day in this greatest nation on earth."
Start with infantile jingoism and move right in with the superstition and ignorance.
Medved is a sub-moron.
sejembalm 3 months ago
Than you Christopher.
Thank you for thinking for yourself, for diligent analysis, for being so God damned well read, for routinely taking positions that ruffle the feathers of those closest to you, if only to make the point that they may not be thinking for themselves, for exposing a body of great depth of thought to more of us than you will ever know, for being so belligerently correct, for your wit, for your humor, and most of all, for challenging me to think. Your thoughts are immortal.
AdUtrumquePeratus76 4 months ago 2
Medved is a piece of crap.
KenMacMillan 6 months ago
If Hitchen's body dies out, for the love of god at least implant his brain in a cyborg machine that can simulate his voice.
EnthalpyH 6 months ago 21
@EnthalpyH The love of who now?
rchertkow 4 months ago
Medved is not great, but a retard.
RudiCast 6 months ago 2
I always wondered what that fucking Medved looked like......an asshole.
spareaxe 7 months ago
@kikosemmek I was impressed by Medved's insight that American churches are so powerful because they have a free market in religion. Compare that to the UK which has the church of England... a state institution. I'm an Atheist, but I don't think Medved is a stupid guy, even though he is ultimately wrong. I also don't think he's malicious, but ignoring his good questions by calling him so is just an ad hominem attack.
dmg46664 7 months ago
all this talk about god and religion is starting to give me a headache
sohappyIcouldshit 10 months ago
@sohappyIcouldshit I have two suggestions -
1) paracetomol
2) Stop clicking on videos about religion
:-)
yunged 9 months ago
No-one remembers the Belgian Revolution.
pixxispad 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:43-2:45 No, it's all right- I say 'Thank God' myself all the time."
So did Ayn Rand, another prominent public intellectual (and atheist).
writersblock26 11 months ago
2:43-2:45 No, it's all right- I say 'Thank God' myself all the time."
So did Ayn Raynd, another prominent public intellectual (and atheist).
writersblock26 11 months ago
What is Micheal Medved on about? America is probably one of the most religious countries in the west???.He obviously hasn't been to the Vatican,Italy,Spain,Ireland...That just epitomizes American's ignorance and naivety...They are not religious but if anything they are ''thick'',that is of course going by George Bush's statement when invading Iraq ''and may God help us''.................They are not the most religious of the west ,yet the thickest of the west.
shanemcglashan 1 year ago
@jakethewoz
Now you're changing the topic. I can't stand arrogance from the religious (neither can you, I'm sure), but nor can I stand arrogance from atheists. And it's become increasingly clear that angry YouTube atheists tend to appeal to emotions more than to reason when confronted with the opposing point of view. For some reason they feel that anyone who disagrees with them on religion MUST have a low IQ. Your comment is a perfect example of that emotional (thereby illogical) reaction.
objectivebob2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@objectivebob2
Settle down. I couldn't care less what you think about atheists, but I have not been emotional at all; I think any neutral party reading this little skirmish would agree.
"But suppose Medved is being dishonest; suppose he's twisting history to his advantage; does that mean he's not intelligent?"
You seem to care a lot more about the reputation of Medved's intelligence than his morality. Why?
jakethewoz 1 year ago
@ObjectiveBob
For one thing, you cannot say "Suppose he's being dishonest; suppose he has bad scholarship," because those two statements are directly conflicting. What you're doing (knowingly or not) is slyly creating both sides of the argument, so that whatever the response, you can claim victory. You must be oblivious to the irony of your argument, otherwise you are being cunningly deceptive (which is much WORSE).
Do you not see that?
jakethewoz 1 year ago
@jakethewoz
No. I am perfectly entitled to argue the way I did. Here's the claim that I was refuting:
"He's not intelligent because he does not show that he knows the first thing about Christian history."
I simply made the case that the above argument doesn't follow. I was not "slyly creating both sides of the argument" because I wasn't arguing whether Medved is dishonest or sloppy with his scholoarship. I was merely responding to the claim that Medved is not smart.
objectivebob2 1 year ago
Medved has made a living touting movies that appeal to religious people and downing those that don't.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@kikosemmek I think Islam is only the most violent of the three because science has so completely fallen down on the job in the parts of the world where fundamentalist Islam is the order of the day.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
I have to say that Medved is a bit of a dick. He makes a point of a saying that Jefferson performed Christian ceremonies, and then when Hitchens tries to reply Medved basically says "well let's not get into that".
"I hear that you beat your wife, but I don't think we should waste time talking about it..."
dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj 1 year ago
When did this air? Hitchens sounds healthy. This was uploaded a few days ago, but did the discussion take place prior to the cancer diagnosis?
bfoaliali 1 year ago
@bfoaliali Hitchens became a U.S. citizen in 2007. They are discussing it as though it were recent so I would presume that it dates from around that time.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@ObjectiveBob I'm being very kind, by the way. My patience is normally very low when I see public figures put this kind of tripe out for others.
Of course, later on, Medved draws comparisons between Hitchens' harrangue of Falwell and Christians' tolerance of Hitchens. To start, Hitchens never said 9-11 was divine punishment for harboring homosexuals on live television. Comparing a great journalist to a professional hatemonger is insulting to our intelligence, in the least, and indefensible.
kikosemmek 1 year ago
Hitchens is one of the smartest primates on planet earth.
kidlomax 1 year ago