When I hear the view of the religious people such as Tony Blair, they seem to dig their own hole - Hitch and his comrades simply put the nails in the coffin.
Come on, what Hitler wanted was to rule the World. His goal wasn't to destroy religion. Moreover, giving such example, it's stupid to say that we shouldn't judge religion by it's misuses.
At 6:30, Blair says that the religious people are not "doing what they are doing because of Heaven and Hell, they're doing it for the love of their fellow human beings..." EXACTLY!! Then Tony, why should we credit religion at all? It is basic humanitarian concern--not the bribery of eternal paradise, and not because of the threat of eternal torture. We are better than that--we no longer need this. Morality is what you do when NO ONE IS WATCHING.
well there you have it ladies and gentlemen...the man in charge of the United Kingdom for 10 years. Hitch should've been the prime minister not THIS buffoon!
Atheism is a Religion, because you believe, you have faith there is no God without proof. When you die, it is only then you see the truth.
Go back to the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something without proof. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Therefore Atheism is a religion.
@Mummificationify Atheism is the lack of belief in a diety. Is a lack of belief still a belief?
I define my atheism as a position based upon fact. There is no objective evidence, no peer-reviewed study, which goes even part of the way towards demonstrating that a god of any kind exists. My atheism - my lack of belief - is based entirely upon this fact. Simply put, a standpoint based upon fact cannot by definition be a matter of faith or belief.
Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true or even healthy. How many people used to believe the earth was the centre of the universe? How many people were put to death when they contradicted this religious doctrine?
The further science advances and the more we uncover the truth about the universe the more religions across the globe unravel as the superstitious fairytales they are.
@blue1085 Science and religion are two different things,religion has no place in science and science has no place in religion.Try reading about George Lemaitre the man who first proposed the Big Bang and was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century,and a catholic priest.
@trant711 And the framework relies heavily upon the works of an atheist - that of Einstein. The "religiousness" of people who propose these things is beside the point. The point is simply that the more we learn about the nature of our universe the more untenable the deities of most religions become. Gods from human mythology are utterly superfluous to need in understanding the universe, and even in understanding one's self.
@blue1085 The point I am making is you can be a great scientist AND religious.Science can only describe the physical not the spiritual.Einstein was agnostic not athiest,but his science is irrelevant to his beliefs.I too am agnostic,tell me why does the Universe(s) exist?
@trant711 I never stated that you couldn't be both a scientist and religious. What I said, if you read my posts, is that the more science uncovers the more untenable a deity becomes. That aside, Einstein was no Agnostic. You do stumble across the point I was making in my previous post, though.
Why does the universe exist? That's a loaded question. Why implies that a will created it. The important question is how. Why becomes relevant only if a conscious purpose is legitimately established.
@blue1085 Both of you must understand, quite clearly, that one being an agnostic doesn't mean they are not also an atheist. In fact quite the opposite. If Einstien was an agnostic, that means he was also EITHER a theist or an atheist. This definition of agnosticism as being mutually exclusive to atheism is something that's spread far too much.
Does anybody know of a debate I can watch online between Hitchens and somebody intelligent and eloquent enough to hold their own against him?
ecureuil85 2 months ago 3
I dont think he will ever defend bronze age myths against such an intelectual and witty mammal as brother Hitchens.
Gyurza 3 months ago
Blair is so bad that this is cringingly embarrasing
simstom 3 months ago
LOL i love how tony blair isn't really a believer, he must be thinking "jeez that's a hard one, how do i defend religion again ??"
ThinkerResearcher 5 months ago in playlist Hitchens/Blair Munk Debate
Kinda inconclusive arguement... "religion is good... sometimes...?"
JohnThurcaston 5 months ago
When I hear the view of the religious people such as Tony Blair, they seem to dig their own hole - Hitch and his comrades simply put the nails in the coffin.
a120068020 5 months ago in playlist Hitchens Blair Debate
Thank you for posting this, thehumanfactorconz.
writersblock26 6 months ago
Blair - fooling Parliament and the country is one thing, but trying get one past Christopher Hitchens is another.
TheWanderingAngel 9 months ago 10
I feel like Tony Blair is trying to give a "that's the true meaning of Christmas, Charlie Brown" speech. Definitely playing on the heartstrings...
spokmage 9 months ago 3
blair is all style.. very little substance
matchbox555 10 months ago
Come on, what Hitler wanted was to rule the World. His goal wasn't to destroy religion. Moreover, giving such example, it's stupid to say that we shouldn't judge religion by it's misuses.
kubakozub 10 months ago
At 6:30, Blair says that the religious people are not "doing what they are doing because of Heaven and Hell, they're doing it for the love of their fellow human beings..." EXACTLY!! Then Tony, why should we credit religion at all? It is basic humanitarian concern--not the bribery of eternal paradise, and not because of the threat of eternal torture. We are better than that--we no longer need this. Morality is what you do when NO ONE IS WATCHING.
DandAinTac 10 months ago 3
Tony blair was only ever an excellent speaker and sadly nothing more
StumpyHead 10 months ago
@StumpyHead And now he's not even that.
Valelacerte 9 months ago
well there you have it ladies and gentlemen...the man in charge of the United Kingdom for 10 years. Hitch should've been the prime minister not THIS buffoon!
Freethinker12341 11 months ago 6
Blair just keeps saying the same shit over and over
achmedlolol 11 months ago
live your days as a free person, you'll feel much better, all that nonsense they
taught you, you still have a chance to give it up and experience the life of a free
thinking autonomous person. Don't live in fear, don't believe in mythology
esiosan 11 months ago
Atheism is a Religion, because you believe, you have faith there is no God without proof. When you die, it is only then you see the truth.
Go back to the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something without proof. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Therefore Atheism is a religion.
.
Allen West 2012
Mummificationify 1 year ago
@Mummificationify Atheism is the lack of belief in a diety. Is a lack of belief still a belief?
I define my atheism as a position based upon fact. There is no objective evidence, no peer-reviewed study, which goes even part of the way towards demonstrating that a god of any kind exists. My atheism - my lack of belief - is based entirely upon this fact. Simply put, a standpoint based upon fact cannot by definition be a matter of faith or belief.
blue1085 1 year ago
@Mummificationify I really think you need to buy a dictionary.
freeeeeeedy 11 months ago
Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true or even healthy. How many people used to believe the earth was the centre of the universe? How many people were put to death when they contradicted this religious doctrine?
The further science advances and the more we uncover the truth about the universe the more religions across the globe unravel as the superstitious fairytales they are.
blue1085 1 year ago
@blue1085 Science and religion are two different things,religion has no place in science and science has no place in religion.Try reading about George Lemaitre the man who first proposed the Big Bang and was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century,and a catholic priest.
trant711 1 year ago
@trant711 And the framework relies heavily upon the works of an atheist - that of Einstein. The "religiousness" of people who propose these things is beside the point. The point is simply that the more we learn about the nature of our universe the more untenable the deities of most religions become. Gods from human mythology are utterly superfluous to need in understanding the universe, and even in understanding one's self.
blue1085 1 year ago
@blue1085 The point I am making is you can be a great scientist AND religious.Science can only describe the physical not the spiritual.Einstein was agnostic not athiest,but his science is irrelevant to his beliefs.I too am agnostic,tell me why does the Universe(s) exist?
trant711 1 year ago
@trant711 I never stated that you couldn't be both a scientist and religious. What I said, if you read my posts, is that the more science uncovers the more untenable a deity becomes. That aside, Einstein was no Agnostic. You do stumble across the point I was making in my previous post, though.
Why does the universe exist? That's a loaded question. Why implies that a will created it. The important question is how. Why becomes relevant only if a conscious purpose is legitimately established.
blue1085 1 year ago 4
@blue1085 Both of you must understand, quite clearly, that one being an agnostic doesn't mean they are not also an atheist. In fact quite the opposite. If Einstien was an agnostic, that means he was also EITHER a theist or an atheist. This definition of agnosticism as being mutually exclusive to atheism is something that's spread far too much.
BigLundi 11 months ago
@blue1085 Good point.
writersblock26 6 months ago
It is only me or does Blair indeed repeat himself over and over again here?
SimpleSceptic 1 year ago 21
Yes. He's a good speaker.
amrjapan 1 year ago
Was Blair attempting the old 'cracked voice' gambit? Makes you sick.
nakedmambo 1 year ago
Tony's loves working the pauses.
mrnickless 1 year ago 15