Hitchens like Wagner makes prejudice look classy. He was on the same side of the Christian Right/Neo-Cons when it came to the Iraq war. Buddhists are atheists too but they do not belong to Christopher's cult so he demonizes them too.
@kixmet I disagree. Saying Hitchens is on the side of any religious group is just asinine. Hitchens would argue that Buddhism tends to be culturally derived institutions of Buddhism which have fallen prey to a totalitarian state or a feudal system.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
There is no middleground on this subject. Give an inch of free speach to religion and religion will take not only the arm, but all of you. See the enemy for what he is.
@TheAwokenMind If Tharoor is unwilling or unable to hold his end of the debate because he is scared of having his opinion shot down then he has no place in a debate at all. I don't consider Hitchens tactics as bullying, it's aggressive and blunt yes but it is completely valid as a simple way of getting to the heart of an issue.
I hate the debates that go '10 minutes X then 10 minutes Y', it's a terrible way of investigating an issue. Tharoor needs to speak and not expect a 'turn'
@TheAwokenMind I haven't seen that debate but I know that Galloway is an arse. He came to my college and, for some reason, seem to take offence at a probing question that one of my friends asked (about his opinion of Saddam Hussein) and he was a total bastard to her.
Hitchens is a dick, albeit one who I think is worth listening to on many topics, but Galloway is a totally different league of dickishness.
@TheOmegajuice I've heard many times that Hitchens is a 'dick" (or some such organ) but no one seems to be able to substantiate it... similarly, "Dawkins is an arrogant asshole" - I've never seen it! I just don't get it.
When I describe Hitchens as a dick, I mean it as at least a partial compliment. He never shys away from criticising a person for having a bad idea, even if he agrees with everything else that person says. He is a vicious orator but he is also well-justified in his opinions and he never hesitates to show people that.
If you want to go the "bad cop" route then Hitchens is a perfect role-model... an effective "bad cop" needs to be dick to fulfil the role.
@TheAwokenMind Tharoor did not say anything even when he was speaking. I've watched this debate and am still not very sure what his position is. Should we make legal restrictions to free speech, should we simply self- censor. I really cannot tell from what he said.
Hitchens often interrupts however it is rare for him to do so unreasonably i.e. he interjects when someone is saying nothing new or making a point that illustrates an important disconnect.
Tharoor is unquestionably brilliant and I really enjoy most of his points. I must say that this is probably the only issue upon which I can comfortably completely disagree with someone so brilliant and eloquent. I don't think capitulation and surrender through forced respect or fear of "blasphemy" can ever be tolerated, the world in which we live is very flawed and aggressive change for the better could only be as painful as letting these bigoted, ignorant bullies employ violence against us.
Come on guys, the moderator did a good job - she kept the discussion going and didn't attempt to hijack the conversation. A good moderator is one you don't notice.
Tharoor is right on the diplomacy and living with the world as it is. Perhaps that is the safest immediate root. but it is certainly not the correct way, this concession to extortion and emotional blackmail will lead to enormous consequences in the future.
Mr. Tharoor just does not get it. He is completely ignorant to what Chris is saying. Hitch has hit the nail on the head and this guy totally clueless.
Bakewell is overcooked. But moderators are usually the fifth wheel on a wagon in these settings anyway unless they are of equivalent intellect as the principals. Rarely, if ever, the case when Hitch is one of them.
To Mr. Thoroor - Should we have co-existed with the belief that Jews we're subhuman...that Blacks had no ights that whites were bound to respect..that women have no rights but those granted by their husbands and fathers? - He skirts the entire question of rights to the individual... there ARE very liberal wings of all these groupings...it's the thugs within a grouping you are asking us to respect? Not 'the culture'....
No-one in their right mind would argue that only religions are intolerant. But does that excuse the instutionalized intolerance religion demands of it's adherents?
You speak of "religion" as if it were a sect or denomination with its own commandments as to what can be tolerated. What "institutionalized intolerance" are you referring to? And no, the fact that we already live in an intolerant society does not excuse religious intolerance but the fact that we are already in an intolerant situation should make those fearful of theocracies less alarmist, less panicky, more humble, and maybe they could
redirect their fears of intolerance toward the intolerance we NOW have, rather than a potential intolerance. If you've watched Hitchens more than once you know that HIS attitude is they intolerant, sardonic and scornful one (between him and whatever opponent). It's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, and he should be called on it.
Your argument only stands up if you exclusively watch videos of hitchens debating religion. If you watch him debate accademics on other topics he is much more contrite and respecting. I would recomend his debate with A C Grayling about Allied bombing during the 2nd world war. When he is debating accademic people who know what hes talking about, then he could not be considered intolerant, sadonic or scornful.
My argument only NEED stand up where Hitchens' attitude respects religious debate---we're talking about intolerance, specifically intolerance of other people's beliefs. If Hitchens is tolerant of academia---what of that? That doesn't prove he is tolerant of ALL other beliefs, or that he is not intolerant.
As Adlai Stevenson points out, tolerance is not perfect, it is the least of many evils. To preserve itself, tolerance it must be intolerant of intolerance, which religion all to often is. I do not share the postmodernist view that all views are equal and should be respected equally. I'm sure you would agree that we should not be equally tolerant and respecting of the views of a rapist? I'm not equating religion to rape (despite regular overlap) but you must agree that not all views are equal?
1. I don't, I conceed that is a little missleading but the character limit of youtube comments meant that I had to limit that comment and not explain fully my position on it. The reasons for why tolerance is not perfect and should be intolerant are very long, far to long to discuss on a youtube comments page, but suffice to say, calling it the lesser of many evils, I felt, got across the idea that tolerance should be seen as preferable, but not perfect.
2. There are fundamental aspects which are true of all religions, that make them religions, they may differ in details, but all religions essentially occupy the same social functions, and certain attributes are true of all of them, for example, the idea that there is a higher purpose and conciousness governing existance. (And before you bring up budhism or other eastern spiritual views, these are more philosophies than they are religions, going by the accepted sociological definition of religion
6. Because I know that not to be the case. But I also know it to be the case that the catholic church suffers a systemic problem of child rape, one which the Irish Government, it has recently transpired, was involved in covering up. A sly joke it my be, but a relivant one.
As far as throwing away words go, again I must ask you to clarify your point, I'm afraid I'm clearly not as smart as you, you'll have to exaplain your position to me here.
Don't you see what you do? You throw the baby out with the bathwater; you ascribe guilt by association. If you follow your thinking to its logical end you would have nothing to do with government because some politicians have broken the law. In your mind you're thinking "Catholicism," but when you speak it's "religion". The problem is not even with Catholicism, for the majority of Catholics ( I hope you will agree) not only aren't rapists, but are benevolent moral agents.
Religions having a higher purpose and believing in a higher consciousness are one thing, but to equate religious believers in rape is a ludicrous leap. Name one orthodox Christian denomination that believes it's OK to rape; one that believes they OUGHT to rape. Don't you see? Why do you seem to think that only religious people COULD believe that rape is ok?
An atheist might just as well believe rape was ok. If someone has a belief that doesn't harm you, then you should mind your own business if you don't like it. The people you're arguing with are not rapists, most of them (religious people) have less selfish lives than most non-believers, IMHO.
You view that religiuos people lead more selfless lives than atheists is unfounded and incorrect I'm afraid, most of the great philanthropists in recent history were atheists, athesist also have lower crime rates and lower divorce rates. Infact in every measurable way, broadly atheist societies are more functional and more prosperous. Scandinavian countries are good examples of this.
I would like to make the observation that you keep switching between discussing religion and religious believers, I am only talking about religions as an institution, not necceserily the people who follow them. I do not, and have not claimed that all religious people are rapists, but the institution is often morally corrupt. I think you unfairly switch between the 2 to try and frame me as a biggot. I do not hold all people who voted republican for the actions of the Bush Govt...
...Likewise, I do not hold all religious people accountable for the actions of religious institutions. And because of that, I do not accept your premise that I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater, your twisting my words.
I do not know of any Orthodox Christian groups who condone rape, I'm puzzled as to why you ask specificly for an orthodox chritian example, but its beside the point. I don't think any religion explicitly endorses rape, but certainly many do implicitly.
It's not about explicitly believing it's okay to rape, obviously, it's about the Catholic church still saying in the year 2009 that its priests must be celibate for their entire lives.
That is why priests raped and continue to rape those under their charge.
Sexual repression like that is not only evil, it is almost 100% guaranteed to result in deviant behavior.
So yes, the Catholic church deserves to be criticized for fomenting a culture of repression and rape within their clergy.
I disagree---surprise! You're saying that self-control leads to sexual perversion while indulgence leads to self-control, ahhh, not exactly what life experience tells us is it? The more you indulge the sexual impulse the stronger the impulse gets---anyone who's ever been laid can tell you that. Ever gone a year without sex? After you year you hardly ever think of it and your body nearly shuts down in that department.
But it's not "self-control" is it? By definition. If you are being more or less coerced into being celibate under pain of the judgment of God, then you are being just that....coerced.
Judgments made under coercive conditions are usually not genuine, but forced and under an arbitrary feeling of compliance.
Dude, you have strange ideas of religious people! No one is forcing anyone to become a priest---they do it because they love God and want to serve him. Why is that so difficult to understand. Talk about cynical. If you don't want to be priest you don't have to be, there are many other ways to serve God without being a priest, ways that allow you to be married.
Somehow you think no one actually believes in and loves God. You also act like every priest is a rapist. Do you have any idea what a small percentage of priests ever do these horrid acts? How many MILLIONS of priests are perfectly and contentedly celibate. I know it's hard to believe if you've never once denied the sexual impulse, but trust me, it's entirely possible. You're doing behavioral studies with a tiny group and calling it the norm.
Excuse me, I'm an ex-Christian, and was heavily involved in my church when I was. My whole family is religious and I'm probably the only atheist. So, nice try.
You aren't getting my point. I never said priests couldn't be priests, or that they shouldn't, I merely pointed out that Catholicism preaches sexual repression implicitly, and thats why it leads to rape.
By the way, you have some extremely naive views on the clergy. *Extremely.* Take it from someone who knows.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I did get your point, and dispelled it, thoroughly, on my first post! Yours is the idiotic contention that going without sex leads to wanting to rape someone.
You never said priests could not be priests??? Yeah, I know, you act like priests HAVE to be priests---get the difference??? Hello! Snap out of it. You are incoherent.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sexual repression leads to rape---that's your point. I got it. It sounds like someone who read the first two pages of Freud. It also sounds like something written on a bathroom stall in Sodom. Carry on with your brilliant career. Obviously you were raped by a priest and are the last person who should tell us what ALL priests are.
i have not read any studies on the issue, but I am willing to bet the relationship is corollary not causal. if i am wrong please tell me.
i guess what i am saying is that is that i think your use of the words "leading them to" is not correct. "increasing the likelyhood they will" instead maybe?
""leading them to" is not correct. "increasing the likelyhood they will" instead maybe?"
What's the difference? We would have to know the motive of whatever Pope invented the idea of permanent celibacy, which isn't in the Bible, to even be able to ask that question.
Lifelong celibacy is not in the Bible in any form.
Well done Hitchins, for telling the Truth again. Monotheism is the root of this, and Islam is the worst cultish form of this. No way out of it, they need to thrown out to protect the western freedoms. Sod PC appologists like Tharoor.
I quite agree with the lady in the crowd about what one thinks is ok, but the actions based on the blief are questionable. But the problem is this: there are many psychos out there who take their faith to the next level IE strapping bombs to their children or worse. She's seeing the world how it should be but disregarding the world how it is.
His problem is that he hasnt a real position to defend. he is really wobbling through the debate. When he is confronted with the ugly consequences of his appeasement he is allways conceding to Hitchens, but some sentences later he keeps going down that road again. Ultimately he is propagating the rule of the mob and is scared of that in the same time.
Synagogues in Suadi Arabia is like opening a StarBucks in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Arab Jews left the Arabic world after Israel was created (re-created). the Saudis are not like Mr. Hitchens described. just like Americans are not represented by MSN news, or fox news channels. other than that, he is correct.
I think that goes without saying; Hitchens, I believe, was merely pointing out Saudi double standards. He's quite aware that new synagogues would not receive a warm welcome in Saudi Arabia.
If only this debate had been done more recently so as to include the new UN anti-blasphemy declaration on Islam. Sadly, this fascist declaration would most likely be supported by the Tharoor types who say we should practice moderation in criticizing faith because of its consequences. The next step in that type of "logic" is to ban such speech and make it illegal to utter these offenses. Hitchens is right that I will never cede my mind to this tyranny nor should anyone be subject to it.
hey you might have seen this since you wrote that post but hitchens does do commentate on that declaration. If you just youtube chris hitchens it shoudn't be too hard to find, it takes place on one of the major news networks and might be on hardball.
this RELIGOUS DEFAMATION RESOLUTION will backlash against Islam! FREE SPEECH! Let's make more anti - religious videos! FREE SPEECH! Let's Criticise more!
i find it ridiculous to base laws off a group of ppl being offended.
The whole point of Tharoor was basically that BECAUSE there is a small group of ppl that DO get so offended(even if by choice)... we should make laws that encompass them. Limiting freedom of expression towards a group ppl, specially if its to ridicule or inflame leads to the inevitable conclusion of this group being able to ridicule and inflame but not TO BE inflamed or ridiculed.
How did Muhammed, "rasul sallahu alayhi wasalam" per Matthew 10:28, figure out the correct 6 yr old to marry & thigh with his dick so he could consumate with her at 9 yrs old because she by miracle was blood-letting?
The miracle is in question because Aisha was barren, which is the medical response of early sexual violation.
Respect men who nothing over other men splashing acid on minor for refusing rape.
Tharoor is a very reasonable commentator. I may take Hitchens' side in the debate and on practically every point he makes in it, but Tharoor is a clearly intelligent and genuine individual.
Even if Tharoor is intelligent and genuine, he's arguing for setting civilization back. SO he either deliberately wants to set us back or he doesn't realize that's what he's doing.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
Orwell's is only position worth defending. Tharoor is either disingenuous and manipulative, or delusional and so unqualified, except to illustrate the "intelligent design" side of this argument.
Tharoor is NOT arguing for a theocracy. All he is saying is that we should try to make a point in the least offensive way we can because otherwise it will cause unnecessary problems and at the end of the day nothing is achieved. In other words, freedom of speech must be used in a right and non-offensive manner. He is not saying to not make a point. If he said that, then that is theocracy. He was talking about the manner in which we make a point.
Instead of drawing offensive cartoons to make the point that Muhammad and his ideology is the main cause for terrorism and bloodshed in this world...why cant they just 'write' about it in a scholarly and decent way with evidence from the Quran and the Hadith supporting that point!
It might cause some problems but as much as the cartoons did because it was ridiculing than making a point.
satire is much more complex than simple "ridiculing" -- a satire makes an important political point and is a vital part of a free society -- a society that allows no satire is a sick, tyrannical society indeed... it's not simply about the west vs. the east -- it's about FREEDOM of speech which is man's UNIVERSAL right (even if it's not legal in some countries)
i was responding to ETworldjone -- i don't think i was disagreeing with you? :-\ but i do want to add that irony and satire is a universal concept and not just a western one (ie. not one which only western people can understand)
you must agree however that works like Candide, and Tartouffe, Gargantua and Pantagruel, even The Prince are works that are unrivaled in the world as biting acerbic works that are uniquely unpleasant to those who are targeted by them. Can you find equivalents elsewhere?
shit - did i hit reply to you? i hate it when i do that!! what a retard :( !
my point about satire is that though as an art form it may have had its golden age in the west, it's still a concept which can be universally appreciated. :) even the religious nuts would be laughing at/appreciating satire if it was directed at western values/leaders rather than at their own religion~!!
No. You are clearly not from the West. In the West we have this thing called satire. We also have an affinity for this thing called irony.
In 1729 Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal. I suggest you read it. You may find it neither funny nor "productive", but it illustrates the west's values of free expression, your sensitive feelings be damned.
You are free to not understand. And I am free to speak without having to make the effort to make that sure you understand.
It is up to the speaker to control what he says only in so far as he being as accurate AND precise as possible. That is the first priority. If the resulting accurate and precise statement offends you, that is truly the listener's problem. He is however free to respond by being even more accurate and precise in his rebuttal.
Its not about freedom of speech being policed...but it being used in a productive and peaceful way. As long as you say what you want to say....it is not policing. The only important thing to think about is....THE WAY WE SAY IT!
5:05 How do you know that Mr.Hitchens, that is 'your' own personal belief. Just because evidence of something does not shine forth does not mean that it is not plausible. In science they know that dark matter exists but they have no proof of it and are attempting ways to view it..
its interesting how they talk about the crimes of religion, and totally dodge to crimes of atheism!!! haha
Another point, what if Christianity is the only way??? think about Washington DC, is DC the only capital of the US?? .... is it the capital of Mexico? is it the capital of France?? obviously not. so there is only one capital of the US. so there is always the possibility of something being the one and only capital/religion/whatever.
its not impossible to prove a negative, example, if someone said that bananas do not exist, i can simply show you a banana. ex. 2 if someone said that the wind does not exist, i can say that you feel it and you see its works. exc you get my point.
a very interesting comment you said you are making a "conclusion" based on reason; giving points as evidence to lead me to the conclusion, thats how reason works. u say "its imposable to prove a negative" soooo contt..
you seem to need me to admit that I need faith for my non position. Do you need faith to not believe that the spaghetti monster is the divine entity that created you? NO because you think the idea is ridiculous and needs no effort ergo no faith to not believe. Nor I to believe that a god killed himself to save us from himself.
Also god any god is not apparent. Our being naughty seems too simplistic to account for that. There is always a possibility that their is a god but it is for that higher being to communicate to us. Not us guessing or making things up. And please the worlds obviously contrived storybooks fall short of any criteria of proof. Your desire to be immortal is blinding your judgment.
lol you still continue to fail in providing evidence that a creator does not exist, weather its god, spaghetti monster, whatever. remember, i am not arguing who god is, that is a totally different argument i need evidence for no creator. if you fail to do so, it is rational to say that you have a faith position that there is no creator/god
now i do have scientific evidence in the last 30 years pointing to a creator/ the supernatural.
If you want this evidence, then i will post the sources.
The possibility of a Deity is an open question that is unprovable. However, claiming to speak for a Deity is something all together different. That is testable. And religion has failed all the tests.
modern science in the past 30 years has discovered: the universe had a beginning, something does not come from nothing, so the universe had a cause, 2nd, the universe is irreducibly complex, the probability of having a "livable habitat" is so radical, its mind blowing. the leading atheist Anthony Flew turned to theism because of this evidence. third, there are libraries of information in each cell, in one scoop of DNA, the information can fill the library of congress and then some. cont..
on the basis of the new scientific discoveries, where does the science point? ask the Top atheist in the world Anthony Flew, he would say design. it makes logical sense, there has to be a designer for the design. and we dont have to know anything about the designer to figure out that this universe is a design, in fact it is never probable to investigate the designer in order to tell if it is design or not. matter is no longer the best example for explanation, this leaves design standing.
Hitchens wants change. Tharoor wants to preserve the current (horrible) conditions. I am Indian, but I do think Tharoor is an idiot.
rustomkanishka 1 month ago
The UN's measure of success is having a bunch of Nobel Prizes on the wall.
Says it all.
Iamtopcoach 1 month ago
This dialogue highlights the abject failure of the UN, toleration of abuse in not viable.
Iamtopcoach 1 month ago
Such an important line @ 2:11- "Don't want intellectuals in my country make excuses for this. That would be a start"
abcd10566 1 month ago
a christopher hitchens should be born in every age and era.
Nusrat5791 2 months ago
I LOVE IT! HITCHENS LIGHTS A CIGGIE!
CyprusHot 3 months ago 2
intelligence in a stupid society...❤PΞДCΞ & Ŀ☼√Ξ ☆☆☆☆☆❤
AntonyThorburn 3 months ago in playlist More videos from IReupload
Hitchens like Wagner makes prejudice look classy. He was on the same side of the Christian Right/Neo-Cons when it came to the Iraq war. Buddhists are atheists too but they do not belong to Christopher's cult so he demonizes them too.
kixmet 3 months ago
@kixmet I disagree. Saying Hitchens is on the side of any religious group is just asinine. Hitchens would argue that Buddhism tends to be culturally derived institutions of Buddhism which have fallen prey to a totalitarian state or a feudal system.
Sconezeta 1 month ago
Tharoor is intellectually bankrupt and a fraud because he provides cover for small minded demogogues. He just got hitchslapped.
Rationalreason777 5 months ago
the woman at 8:00 sounds kinda drunk no?
iowntwocats 5 months ago
oh wow she agress blasphemy should be abolished, wow what a progressive
iowntwocats 5 months ago
All you donkeys saying one or other won/was better don't seem to understand that these guys love each other for the argument.
MrInteresting 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
sorry @lordlacolith .
that comment was for DinnerConversation .
hit the wrong link.
zencat999 7 months ago
aaaaaand SMACKDOWN!
AxeHomeless 7 months ago
There is no middleground on this subject. Give an inch of free speach to religion and religion will take not only the arm, but all of you. See the enemy for what he is.
neuromatiker 7 months ago 2
freedom of speech is the most crucial, the most crucial... erm... thing... to be can, moochewally, co-operatively, kindlily living together...
i believe that basically, it has to be, that... ... Pffffff... *shrugs*
and i'm clearer on her position than i am on tharor's. seriously, tho'- what's she gonna say next? i've a feeling she's gonna cry.
MrTonyInchpractice 9 months ago
Getting drunk and pissed. Love it!
TheOverworker 11 months ago
@TheAwokenMind If Tharoor is unwilling or unable to hold his end of the debate because he is scared of having his opinion shot down then he has no place in a debate at all. I don't consider Hitchens tactics as bullying, it's aggressive and blunt yes but it is completely valid as a simple way of getting to the heart of an issue.
I hate the debates that go '10 minutes X then 10 minutes Y', it's a terrible way of investigating an issue. Tharoor needs to speak and not expect a 'turn'
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
@TheAwokenMind I haven't seen that debate but I know that Galloway is an arse. He came to my college and, for some reason, seem to take offence at a probing question that one of my friends asked (about his opinion of Saddam Hussein) and he was a total bastard to her.
Hitchens is a dick, albeit one who I think is worth listening to on many topics, but Galloway is a totally different league of dickishness.
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
@TheOmegajuice I've heard many times that Hitchens is a 'dick" (or some such organ) but no one seems to be able to substantiate it... similarly, "Dawkins is an arrogant asshole" - I've never seen it! I just don't get it.
2001Horatio 6 months ago
@2001Horatio
When I describe Hitchens as a dick, I mean it as at least a partial compliment. He never shys away from criticising a person for having a bad idea, even if he agrees with everything else that person says. He is a vicious orator but he is also well-justified in his opinions and he never hesitates to show people that.
If you want to go the "bad cop" route then Hitchens is a perfect role-model... an effective "bad cop" needs to be dick to fulfil the role.
TheOmegajuice 6 months ago
@TheOmegajuice I understand the nuanced use of "dick" and I agree with you. Wish I could debate like him though
2001Horatio 6 months ago
I would rather be dead than live under a theocrisy.
foamulator 1 year ago
@TheAwokenMind Tharoor did not say anything even when he was speaking. I've watched this debate and am still not very sure what his position is. Should we make legal restrictions to free speech, should we simply self- censor. I really cannot tell from what he said.
Hitchens often interrupts however it is rare for him to do so unreasonably i.e. he interjects when someone is saying nothing new or making a point that illustrates an important disconnect.
He's an egomaniac but he's entertaining.
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
@TheAwokenMind is your name meant to be quite so ironic?
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago
That woman at the end better have a point...
Useless2112 1 year ago
Tharoor is unquestionably brilliant and I really enjoy most of his points. I must say that this is probably the only issue upon which I can comfortably completely disagree with someone so brilliant and eloquent. I don't think capitulation and surrender through forced respect or fear of "blasphemy" can ever be tolerated, the world in which we live is very flawed and aggressive change for the better could only be as painful as letting these bigoted, ignorant bullies employ violence against us.
Rhuckus 1 year ago 4
WoW man!!
Hitchens is exposive!!
sokolel 1 year ago
freedom of religion cannot exist without the freedom of speech
RzzRBladez 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
WICHOPY 1 year ago
@WICHOPY learn to read
RzzRBladez 1 year ago
Come on guys, the moderator did a good job - she kept the discussion going and didn't attempt to hijack the conversation. A good moderator is one you don't notice.
SFT24 1 year ago 3
Tharoor is right on the diplomacy and living with the world as it is. Perhaps that is the safest immediate root. but it is certainly not the correct way, this concession to extortion and emotional blackmail will lead to enormous consequences in the future.
soham087 1 year ago 2
Mr. Tharoor just does not get it. He is completely ignorant to what Chris is saying. Hitch has hit the nail on the head and this guy totally clueless.
jrwilson98 1 year ago
that woman is hitting on him!!!
Gala2006 1 year ago
4:08 On the point!!!
moLeOnPoT 1 year ago
As long as they dont impose their irrational beliefs and backward culture on the rest of us, we have no problems.
ashy6793 1 year ago
Hitchens Rules!
AntiTheist2010 1 year ago 2
hitchens is like a smart Rab C Nesbitt
GBJ83 1 year ago
When I grow up, I want to be a Christopher Hitchens.
damaxman 1 year ago 35
This has been flagged as spam show
@damaxman We should all be.
AntiTheist2010 1 year ago
@damaxman me too.
Nusrat5791 2 months ago
Tharoor's only admiral contributions are his notions of pragmatism, but that's to be expected from a Hindu. I applaud him, a man after my own heart.
I like Hitchens although he's a little belligerent at times (probably full of scotch) and tends to skim over current geo-political realities.
Joan Bakewell is either a sycophant or a sop with limited intelligence and zero input.
Whats missing?
A muslim scholar would definitly have put a bit of life into this dead-duck of a debate.
Kralhonj 2 years ago
Bakewell is overcooked. But moderators are usually the fifth wheel on a wagon in these settings anyway unless they are of equivalent intellect as the principals. Rarely, if ever, the case when Hitch is one of them.
fctchk 2 years ago
To Mr. Thoroor - Should we have co-existed with the belief that Jews we're subhuman...that Blacks had no ights that whites were bound to respect..that women have no rights but those granted by their husbands and fathers? - He skirts the entire question of rights to the individual... there ARE very liberal wings of all these groupings...it's the thugs within a grouping you are asking us to respect? Not 'the culture'....
CityzenJane 2 years ago 3
Hear, hear to Mr. Hitchens @ 4:25.
johnclavis 2 years ago 50
As much as I think Tharoor is probably a nice guy, his logic here is so circular its dizzying.
Religious extremists = Don't offend
Secularists who obey the law = Not worthy of protecting
It's just a really stupid argument, and thank God we have a Constitution that actually works in this regard.
F33bs 2 years ago 5
gd job he stopped smoking..chain smoking as he was.
Mr100bills 2 years ago
You don't think we live in and have always lived in a theocracy? Only religions have beliefs? Only religions are intolerant?
Believerification 2 years ago
No-one in their right mind would argue that only religions are intolerant. But does that excuse the instutionalized intolerance religion demands of it's adherents?
moiphx2 2 years ago
You speak of "religion" as if it were a sect or denomination with its own commandments as to what can be tolerated. What "institutionalized intolerance" are you referring to? And no, the fact that we already live in an intolerant society does not excuse religious intolerance but the fact that we are already in an intolerant situation should make those fearful of theocracies less alarmist, less panicky, more humble, and maybe they could
Believerification 2 years ago
redirect their fears of intolerance toward the intolerance we NOW have, rather than a potential intolerance. If you've watched Hitchens more than once you know that HIS attitude is they intolerant, sardonic and scornful one (between him and whatever opponent). It's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, and he should be called on it.
Believerification 2 years ago
Your argument only stands up if you exclusively watch videos of hitchens debating religion. If you watch him debate accademics on other topics he is much more contrite and respecting. I would recomend his debate with A C Grayling about Allied bombing during the 2nd world war. When he is debating accademic people who know what hes talking about, then he could not be considered intolerant, sadonic or scornful.
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
My argument only NEED stand up where Hitchens' attitude respects religious debate---we're talking about intolerance, specifically intolerance of other people's beliefs. If Hitchens is tolerant of academia---what of that? That doesn't prove he is tolerant of ALL other beliefs, or that he is not intolerant.
Believerification 2 years ago
As Adlai Stevenson points out, tolerance is not perfect, it is the least of many evils. To preserve itself, tolerance it must be intolerant of intolerance, which religion all to often is. I do not share the postmodernist view that all views are equal and should be respected equally. I'm sure you would agree that we should not be equally tolerant and respecting of the views of a rapist? I'm not equating religion to rape (despite regular overlap) but you must agree that not all views are equal?
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
1. I don't look at tolerance as an evil, that seems fascist to me.
2. Generalizations about "religion" (which one of the thousands!) are usually a waste of pixels.
3. All views ARE equal as far as minding your own business is concerned.
4. A 'rapist' is someone either in prison or running from the law, either way, I'm not called upon to hear his views or make judgments about them.
Believerification 2 years ago
5. Who is this "we" you're speaking for?
6. Why not come out and say bluntly you think religious people are rapists rather than making a sly joke?
If words are only trash for you to throw away, why not be still and throw them all away.
Believerification 2 years ago
1. I don't, I conceed that is a little missleading but the character limit of youtube comments meant that I had to limit that comment and not explain fully my position on it. The reasons for why tolerance is not perfect and should be intolerant are very long, far to long to discuss on a youtube comments page, but suffice to say, calling it the lesser of many evils, I felt, got across the idea that tolerance should be seen as preferable, but not perfect.
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
2. There are fundamental aspects which are true of all religions, that make them religions, they may differ in details, but all religions essentially occupy the same social functions, and certain attributes are true of all of them, for example, the idea that there is a higher purpose and conciousness governing existance. (And before you bring up budhism or other eastern spiritual views, these are more philosophies than they are religions, going by the accepted sociological definition of religion
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
3. I'm afraid I don't follow you meaning here, could you elaborate? That seems a complete non-sequiter to me.
4. Thats exactly my point, but if they claimed divine inspiration for raping people, would you suddenly be required to respect their views?
5. You and I.
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
6. Because I know that not to be the case. But I also know it to be the case that the catholic church suffers a systemic problem of child rape, one which the Irish Government, it has recently transpired, was involved in covering up. A sly joke it my be, but a relivant one.
As far as throwing away words go, again I must ask you to clarify your point, I'm afraid I'm clearly not as smart as you, you'll have to exaplain your position to me here.
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
Don't you see what you do? You throw the baby out with the bathwater; you ascribe guilt by association. If you follow your thinking to its logical end you would have nothing to do with government because some politicians have broken the law. In your mind you're thinking "Catholicism," but when you speak it's "religion". The problem is not even with Catholicism, for the majority of Catholics ( I hope you will agree) not only aren't rapists, but are benevolent moral agents.
Believerification 2 years ago
Religions having a higher purpose and believing in a higher consciousness are one thing, but to equate religious believers in rape is a ludicrous leap. Name one orthodox Christian denomination that believes it's OK to rape; one that believes they OUGHT to rape. Don't you see? Why do you seem to think that only religious people COULD believe that rape is ok?
Believerification 2 years ago
An atheist might just as well believe rape was ok. If someone has a belief that doesn't harm you, then you should mind your own business if you don't like it. The people you're arguing with are not rapists, most of them (religious people) have less selfish lives than most non-believers, IMHO.
Believerification 2 years ago
You view that religiuos people lead more selfless lives than atheists is unfounded and incorrect I'm afraid, most of the great philanthropists in recent history were atheists, athesist also have lower crime rates and lower divorce rates. Infact in every measurable way, broadly atheist societies are more functional and more prosperous. Scandinavian countries are good examples of this.
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
I would like to make the observation that you keep switching between discussing religion and religious believers, I am only talking about religions as an institution, not necceserily the people who follow them. I do not, and have not claimed that all religious people are rapists, but the institution is often morally corrupt. I think you unfairly switch between the 2 to try and frame me as a biggot. I do not hold all people who voted republican for the actions of the Bush Govt...
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
...Likewise, I do not hold all religious people accountable for the actions of religious institutions. And because of that, I do not accept your premise that I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater, your twisting my words.
I do not know of any Orthodox Christian groups who condone rape, I'm puzzled as to why you ask specificly for an orthodox chritian example, but its beside the point. I don't think any religion explicitly endorses rape, but certainly many do implicitly.
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
It's not about explicitly believing it's okay to rape, obviously, it's about the Catholic church still saying in the year 2009 that its priests must be celibate for their entire lives.
That is why priests raped and continue to rape those under their charge.
Sexual repression like that is not only evil, it is almost 100% guaranteed to result in deviant behavior.
So yes, the Catholic church deserves to be criticized for fomenting a culture of repression and rape within their clergy.
F33bs 2 years ago
I disagree---surprise! You're saying that self-control leads to sexual perversion while indulgence leads to self-control, ahhh, not exactly what life experience tells us is it? The more you indulge the sexual impulse the stronger the impulse gets---anyone who's ever been laid can tell you that. Ever gone a year without sex? After you year you hardly ever think of it and your body nearly shuts down in that department.
Believerification 2 years ago
But it's not "self-control" is it? By definition. If you are being more or less coerced into being celibate under pain of the judgment of God, then you are being just that....coerced.
Judgments made under coercive conditions are usually not genuine, but forced and under an arbitrary feeling of compliance.
If you don't see the difference, then you should.
F33bs 2 years ago
Dude, you have strange ideas of religious people! No one is forcing anyone to become a priest---they do it because they love God and want to serve him. Why is that so difficult to understand. Talk about cynical. If you don't want to be priest you don't have to be, there are many other ways to serve God without being a priest, ways that allow you to be married.
Believerification 2 years ago
Somehow you think no one actually believes in and loves God. You also act like every priest is a rapist. Do you have any idea what a small percentage of priests ever do these horrid acts? How many MILLIONS of priests are perfectly and contentedly celibate. I know it's hard to believe if you've never once denied the sexual impulse, but trust me, it's entirely possible. You're doing behavioral studies with a tiny group and calling it the norm.
Believerification 2 years ago
Excuse me, I'm an ex-Christian, and was heavily involved in my church when I was. My whole family is religious and I'm probably the only atheist. So, nice try.
You aren't getting my point. I never said priests couldn't be priests, or that they shouldn't, I merely pointed out that Catholicism preaches sexual repression implicitly, and thats why it leads to rape.
By the way, you have some extremely naive views on the clergy. *Extremely.* Take it from someone who knows.
F33bs 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I did get your point, and dispelled it, thoroughly, on my first post! Yours is the idiotic contention that going without sex leads to wanting to rape someone.
You never said priests could not be priests??? Yeah, I know, you act like priests HAVE to be priests---get the difference??? Hello! Snap out of it. You are incoherent.
Believerification 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sexual repression leads to rape---that's your point. I got it. It sounds like someone who read the first two pages of Freud. It also sounds like something written on a bathroom stall in Sodom. Carry on with your brilliant career. Obviously you were raped by a priest and are the last person who should tell us what ALL priests are.
Believerification 2 years ago
*Sigh* Not another one who thinks writing any string of words means debunking someones point. You are going to have to try harder than that, boychick.
Repression of any emotion is well documented in psychology to cause outbursts and other deviant behavior.
So, once again, I reassert my point, the Catholic church actively represses its clergy, leading them to fuck children.
QED
F33bs 2 years ago 5
Sorry, I gotta go repress an emotion !
Believerification 2 years ago
@F33bs:
i have not read any studies on the issue, but I am willing to bet the relationship is corollary not causal. if i am wrong please tell me.
i guess what i am saying is that is that i think your use of the words "leading them to" is not correct. "increasing the likelyhood they will" instead maybe?
83zeus 2 years ago
""leading them to" is not correct. "increasing the likelyhood they will" instead maybe?"
What's the difference? We would have to know the motive of whatever Pope invented the idea of permanent celibacy, which isn't in the Bible, to even be able to ask that question.
Lifelong celibacy is not in the Bible in any form.
F33bs 2 years ago
the difference is "leading" implies a causal relationship (in my mind) as opposed to a corollary.
there must be a miscommuncation on my part here because of the origin of the doctrin of celibacy is irrelevant to my point.
83zeus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You got it wrong, sexiness is what leads to rape
/mmm ... rape
aseglkj 2 years ago
Comment removed
ReverandCiderMan 2 years ago
Theocracies are not going to help any civilised society. Friends, do not allow them to come to power. I implore you.
reinforcedpenisstem 2 years ago
You are already live in a Satanic theocracy, Chicken Little! The sky is already down around your ankles.
Believerification 2 years ago
Thanks for clearing that up, turtle-dove.
reinforcedpenisstem 2 years ago
this dude smokes like a train!!!
devchelle2 2 years ago
That's because his water is yellow.
Believerification 2 years ago
Well done Hitchins, for telling the Truth again. Monotheism is the root of this, and Islam is the worst cultish form of this. No way out of it, they need to thrown out to protect the western freedoms. Sod PC appologists like Tharoor.
markwessex 2 years ago
Hitchens is the man!!
ABHINAVNR 2 years ago 2
I quite agree with the lady in the crowd about what one thinks is ok, but the actions based on the blief are questionable. But the problem is this: there are many psychos out there who take their faith to the next level IE strapping bombs to their children or worse. She's seeing the world how it should be but disregarding the world how it is.
Domzdream 2 years ago 3
At 5:00)
Beautifully said by Hitchens. It should be a quote used by many in years to come.
Domzdream 2 years ago 3
I pity Tharoor in this debate. He's taking the harder to defend position against Hitchens. It's like charging a horse uphill against a tank.
BarronTD 2 years ago 6
I`d say Tharoor`s position is indefensible.
theillestgreek 2 years ago 5
His problem is that he hasnt a real position to defend. he is really wobbling through the debate. When he is confronted with the ugly consequences of his appeasement he is allways conceding to Hitchens, but some sentences later he keeps going down that road again. Ultimately he is propagating the rule of the mob and is scared of that in the same time.
Brantinger 2 years ago 5
Well said.
theillestgreek 2 years ago
He's taking an indefensible position to defend, that's why Tharoor is struggling.
PR0GRAMMING 2 years ago
Yes, a gray and subtle point is not for the masses. Hitchens is the Mexican torque-wrench of foreign policy: everything can be fixed with a hammer.
Believerification 2 years ago
Hitchens is so absolutely amazing in this debate.
Darwin42ME 2 years ago 4
That was a magnificent oratory from Hitchens on atheists and our reactions to offense. A+
lordlacolith 2 years ago 61
@lordlacolith sooooooo......
free speech is like genital mutilation......hhhhmmmmm..
i think i get your meanibg, could have been a better metaphor.
I think its like sex....your either in all the way or your not.
no such thing as a little bit pregnent.
in for a penny , in for a pound.
how many of these can we come up with.
zencat999 7 months ago
Synagogues in Suadi Arabia is like opening a StarBucks in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Arab Jews left the Arabic world after Israel was created (re-created). the Saudis are not like Mr. Hitchens described. just like Americans are not represented by MSN news, or fox news channels. other than that, he is correct.
peace
IronAssassin9 2 years ago
Fine then.
Perhaps the question should be: Would Saudi Arabia allow Jewish immigrants into the country?
We both know the answer.
CHF2 2 years ago
I think that goes without saying; Hitchens, I believe, was merely pointing out Saudi double standards. He's quite aware that new synagogues would not receive a warm welcome in Saudi Arabia.
mwtillotson 2 years ago
I wish I were gay so I could marry C. Hitchens!
coll1976 2 years ago
Why not wish to become a woman instead?
Azantul 2 years ago 4
I (heart) Hitchens. Such an eloquent and courageous man.
Judel100 2 years ago 4
Was this after Theo Van Gogh was murdered?
jhohcable 2 years ago
hitchens is great, he should be a diplomat he has more balls than any MP or member of congress
Greig1424 2 years ago
If only this debate had been done more recently so as to include the new UN anti-blasphemy declaration on Islam. Sadly, this fascist declaration would most likely be supported by the Tharoor types who say we should practice moderation in criticizing faith because of its consequences. The next step in that type of "logic" is to ban such speech and make it illegal to utter these offenses. Hitchens is right that I will never cede my mind to this tyranny nor should anyone be subject to it.
DerTeufelHund 2 years ago 2
hey you might have seen this since you wrote that post but hitchens does do commentate on that declaration. If you just youtube chris hitchens it shoudn't be too hard to find, it takes place on one of the major news networks and might be on hardball.
Camus286 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this RELIGOUS DEFAMATION RESOLUTION will backlash against Islam! FREE SPEECH! Let's make more anti - religious videos! FREE SPEECH! Let's Criticise more!
kalinturo 2 years ago
i find it ridiculous to base laws off a group of ppl being offended.
The whole point of Tharoor was basically that BECAUSE there is a small group of ppl that DO get so offended(even if by choice)... we should make laws that encompass them. Limiting freedom of expression towards a group ppl, specially if its to ridicule or inflame leads to the inevitable conclusion of this group being able to ridicule and inflame but not TO BE inflamed or ridiculed.
Ppl need to start thinking like the UN.
leojboby 2 years ago
Things really turn to shit when the floor is opened to the public.
ignorantpom 2 years ago
No kidding. Everybody starts making statements declaring their faith, instead of asking questions
DrivenMind 2 years ago 3
I started declaring my faith in GOD after I asked questions, mate. Sincere questions.
ETworldjone 2 years ago
Hitchens is really great here
aweiss 2 years ago
6:00 USA USA USA!!!!!!!!!!!!
aweiss 2 years ago
2:35.... BAH absolute garbage. The first amendment fulfilled that, not capitulation.
aweiss 2 years ago
Best Hitch yet...pulled not a punch
Mahoivlich 2 years ago
Blasphemy law was abolished last year!
richardcadbury 2 years ago 3
I wish Tharoor had been allowed to complete a thought!
happyinnanaimo 2 years ago
i believe he did.
leojboby 2 years ago
7:08: "It's so difficult to argue with Christopher because I enjoy him so much".
I wouldn't be in his shoes for anything...
belzondium 2 years ago
Hitchens is my hero!
NaytronNeanderer 2 years ago 4
I quite like tharoor, although he is wrong in this case.
theREALshafan 2 years ago
Appallling. Tharoor is the quintessentially effete, ineffectual intellectual.
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
How did Muhammed, "rasul sallahu alayhi wasalam" per Matthew 10:28, figure out the correct 6 yr old to marry & thigh with his dick so he could consumate with her at 9 yrs old because she by miracle was blood-letting?
The miracle is in question because Aisha was barren, which is the medical response of early sexual violation.
Respect men who nothing over other men splashing acid on minor for refusing rape.
I think not.
GO CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS ! ! !
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Tharoor is thick.
Or a liar.
CRAPCANNONS 3 years ago
Tharoor is a very reasonable commentator. I may take Hitchens' side in the debate and on practically every point he makes in it, but Tharoor is a clearly intelligent and genuine individual.
locutusufdf 3 years ago
Even if Tharoor is intelligent and genuine, he's arguing for setting civilization back. SO he either deliberately wants to set us back or he doesn't realize that's what he's doing.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
Orwell's is only position worth defending. Tharoor is either disingenuous and manipulative, or delusional and so unqualified, except to illustrate the "intelligent design" side of this argument.
CRAPCANNONS 3 years ago
Tharoor is NOT arguing for a theocracy. All he is saying is that we should try to make a point in the least offensive way we can because otherwise it will cause unnecessary problems and at the end of the day nothing is achieved. In other words, freedom of speech must be used in a right and non-offensive manner. He is not saying to not make a point. If he said that, then that is theocracy. He was talking about the manner in which we make a point.
ETworldjone 2 years ago
"make a point in the least offensive way we can because otherwise it will cause unnecessary problems and at the end of the day nothing is achieved..."
Can you give examples? This is all very vague here.
"He was talking about the manner in which we make a point."
Oh I understand perfectly what he's saying. But who arbitrates? The offended? That's for those who enjoy existing in a masochistic PC cage.
You enjoy have your speech policed. So go enjoy it. Just leave the rest of us out of it.
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
ok heres an example:
Instead of drawing offensive cartoons to make the point that Muhammad and his ideology is the main cause for terrorism and bloodshed in this world...why cant they just 'write' about it in a scholarly and decent way with evidence from the Quran and the Hadith supporting that point!
It might cause some problems but as much as the cartoons did because it was ridiculing than making a point.
ETworldjone 2 years ago
CORRECTION:
It might cause some problems but NOT as much as the cartoons did because it was ridiculing than making a point.
(sorry!)
ETworldjone 2 years ago
satire is much more complex than simple "ridiculing" -- a satire makes an important political point and is a vital part of a free society -- a society that allows no satire is a sick, tyrannical society indeed... it's not simply about the west vs. the east -- it's about FREEDOM of speech which is man's UNIVERSAL right (even if it's not legal in some countries)
Rainyfield 2 years ago
Rainyfield -
why i mentioned Swift's work.
please start at the beginning of the conversation. you'll understand how we got to satire.
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
i was responding to ETworldjone -- i don't think i was disagreeing with you? :-\ but i do want to add that irony and satire is a universal concept and not just a western one (ie. not one which only western people can understand)
Rainyfield 2 years ago
Rainyfield -
i only responded because you hit reply to me.
glad you agree with me! (mostly)
you must agree however that works like Candide, and Tartouffe, Gargantua and Pantagruel, even The Prince are works that are unrivaled in the world as biting acerbic works that are uniquely unpleasant to those who are targeted by them. Can you find equivalents elsewhere?
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
shit - did i hit reply to you? i hate it when i do that!! what a retard :( !
my point about satire is that though as an art form it may have had its golden age in the west, it's still a concept which can be universally appreciated. :) even the religious nuts would be laughing at/appreciating satire if it was directed at western values/leaders rather than at their own religion~!!
Rainyfield 2 years ago
ETworldjone-
Under any and all objective assessment, you and your side have clearly lost this debate.
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
No. You are clearly not from the West. In the West we have this thing called satire. We also have an affinity for this thing called irony.
In 1729 Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal. I suggest you read it. You may find it neither funny nor "productive", but it illustrates the west's values of free expression, your sensitive feelings be damned.
You are free to not understand. And I am free to speak without having to make the effort to make that sure you understand.
Period.
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
For example: Two words can have the same meaning but it has different effects.
ETworldjone 2 years ago
Example?
Such as?
Islamofascist Terrorists vs. Freedom-fighters?
It is up to the speaker to control what he says only in so far as he being as accurate AND precise as possible. That is the first priority. If the resulting accurate and precise statement offends you, that is truly the listener's problem. He is however free to respond by being even more accurate and precise in his rebuttal.
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
Its not about freedom of speech being policed...but it being used in a productive and peaceful way. As long as you say what you want to say....it is not policing. The only important thing to think about is....THE WAY WE SAY IT!
ETworldjone 2 years ago
"productive"
to produce what?
Don't tell me how I have to say things.
I will never submit.
Never.
I will die before i change the content AND form of my expression.
Deal with it.
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
wow that was easy.
you folded like a deck chair.
CRAPCANNONS 2 years ago
arguing with religious people is like arguing with a blade of grass no offense to the blade of grass.
NewtonsStudent 3 years ago
Hitchens OWNS!!!
new8745fan 3 years ago
Tharoor knows not how to let go of that which he can't argue for.
snowtrot 3 years ago
7:40
Her comment was the most vacuous thing ever presented. Everyone was like, "ok, moving right along...." lol
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
5:05 How do you know that Mr.Hitchens, that is 'your' own personal belief. Just because evidence of something does not shine forth does not mean that it is not plausible. In science they know that dark matter exists but they have no proof of it and are attempting ways to view it..
YogiToad 3 years ago
I physically applauded Christopher when he acknowledged atheist humanists and the insult that religion cause us. Well done Christopher.
DrawingYou 3 years ago 12
Hey me too. I was moved by that, even having seen countless clips of Hitchens gunning down dogma.
PinataMan 3 years ago
its interesting how they talk about the crimes of religion, and totally dodge to crimes of atheism!!! haha
Another point, what if Christianity is the only way??? think about Washington DC, is DC the only capital of the US?? .... is it the capital of Mexico? is it the capital of France?? obviously not. so there is only one capital of the US. so there is always the possibility of something being the one and only capital/religion/whatever.
cont...
jtmseals12 3 years ago
im having a hard time understanding atheism, im a rational guy, what evidence can you give me to lead me to the conclusion that God does not exist???
jtmseals12 3 years ago
Its imposable to prove a negative. Its a conclusion you have to decide on observation and reason.
DrawingYou 3 years ago
its not impossible to prove a negative, example, if someone said that bananas do not exist, i can simply show you a banana. ex. 2 if someone said that the wind does not exist, i can say that you feel it and you see its works. exc you get my point.
a very interesting comment you said you are making a "conclusion" based on reason; giving points as evidence to lead me to the conclusion, thats how reason works. u say "its imposable to prove a negative" soooo contt..
jtmseals12 3 years ago
Then please produce god, as you would a banana. I'm waiting...
franklindelanobluth0 2 years ago
sooo since you fail to provide evidence, i can conclude that you have a faith position that God does not exist.
jtmseals12 3 years ago
jtmseals12
you seem to need me to admit that I need faith for my non position. Do you need faith to not believe that the spaghetti monster is the divine entity that created you? NO because you think the idea is ridiculous and needs no effort ergo no faith to not believe. Nor I to believe that a god killed himself to save us from himself.
DrawingYou 3 years ago
Also god any god is not apparent. Our being naughty seems too simplistic to account for that. There is always a possibility that their is a god but it is for that higher being to communicate to us. Not us guessing or making things up. And please the worlds obviously contrived storybooks fall short of any criteria of proof. Your desire to be immortal is blinding your judgment.
DrawingYou 3 years ago
lol you still continue to fail in providing evidence that a creator does not exist, weather its god, spaghetti monster, whatever. remember, i am not arguing who god is, that is a totally different argument i need evidence for no creator. if you fail to do so, it is rational to say that you have a faith position that there is no creator/god
now i do have scientific evidence in the last 30 years pointing to a creator/ the supernatural.
If you want this evidence, then i will post the sources.
jtmseals12 3 years ago
The possibility of a Deity is an open question that is unprovable. However, claiming to speak for a Deity is something all together different. That is testable. And religion has failed all the tests.
DrawingYou 3 years ago 2
modern science in the past 30 years has discovered: the universe had a beginning, something does not come from nothing, so the universe had a cause, 2nd, the universe is irreducibly complex, the probability of having a "livable habitat" is so radical, its mind blowing. the leading atheist Anthony Flew turned to theism because of this evidence. third, there are libraries of information in each cell, in one scoop of DNA, the information can fill the library of congress and then some. cont..
jtmseals12 3 years ago
on the basis of the new scientific discoveries, where does the science point? ask the Top atheist in the world Anthony Flew, he would say design. it makes logical sense, there has to be a designer for the design. and we dont have to know anything about the designer to figure out that this universe is a design, in fact it is never probable to investigate the designer in order to tell if it is design or not. matter is no longer the best example for explanation, this leaves design standing.