Christopher Hitchens Vs. Tim Rutten 2007

[yellowkitchen1]

Hitchens' intellect is so far above "religion" in how it's presented in this world that he can't speak it's language and doesn't understand it. It's alien and revolting to him. But at 31:24 he reveals a compelling insight into his beliefs.

[jonzadamonza]

Boom. Headshot.

[timchilli]

It is, sadly, an all-too-human trait to see the numinous in natural phenomena and the ordinary. People WANT to believe. That's entirely different from ACTUAL belief.

[donufro]

Would've been nice if Rutten hadn't repeatedly grunted during Hitchen's responses. Mm! Hm hmm! Ya! Hmm!

[schmuck924]

Really, really engaging conversation!

[jemdub]

You will be sorley missed Hitch. It greatly saddens me that we will never hear or read anything new from this great and illuminating mind.

[J2P7P]

why can't people just ask a question instead of offering up their life story?

[nosensetoitatall]

Absolutely delightful. As a side note, to my best knowledge Harris has most certainly come down on the materialist spectrum of consciousness. I remember a debate with two Jewish gentlemen (and I think Hitchens too) where he mocked the idea of consciousness after death on the basis of neuroscience.

[ChristopherHitchslap]

@Wakeymedia3 I will let only one bat shit crazy comment per video and this is it.

[Wakeymedia3]

@ChristopherHitchslap - I notice you have not one single word, not a solitary syllable, to say about the evidence presented in the film I mentioned, "Improbable Collapse".

Of course, you probably haven't seen it but you still indulge in lazy epithets and abuse. You have not earned the right to do so. You have said nothing about anything. And you know it.

Have at least some standards.

[Bleumange]

@ChristopherHitchslap I love it when they give you movie links.

[lifeschild1]

@ChristopherHitchslap Right Sir!

[elrjames777]

@Wakeymedia3 Yes: of course its convincing, but then again so is "one third of the holocaust": that doesn't make either of these slick presentations any less tendentious or politically motivated than they are :-)

[Wakeymedia3]

@elrjames777 - You have nothing to say about what was actually presented in the film, Improbable Collapse, and until you do please do not expect your lazy and intelligence-insulting epithets to be taken seriously.

Welcome to reality and have a nice day.

[elrjames777]

@Wakeymedia3 Yes: I may be lazy, but do you really expect your intellect to be praised for its failure to use its favourite word "epithet" in the proper sense :-) An epithet is not simply a defamatory phrase, and not necessarily a pejorative one; in proper linguistic use it must be a metaphor. I said that the presentations were slick (that is to say ingeneous or cleverly devised) because they were: an epithet along similar lines would be something like "smart ass", for instance :-)

[Wakeymedia3]

@elrjames777 - You. Have. Nothing. To. Say. About. The. Evidence. Presented. In. The. Film. Improbable. Collapse.

Until. You. Do. Your. Pathetic. Bleating. Will. Remain. Just. That.

Have a nice day ;-)

[elrjames777]

@Wakeymedia3 Yes: but a presentation is only as credible as its promoters, and your rudeness and simplicity, coupled with an inadequate grasp of the English language, is hardly the best recommendation to consider the so called "truther" viewpoint seriously :-)

[Wakeymedia3]

@elrjames777 - Still nothing to say. Amazing. What are you scared of?

[elrjames777]

@Wakeymedia3 You are missing the point my dear :-) If sensible people engage with the material it merely propagates the propaganda :-) Why should anyone have anything to say about nothing (which is your "truther" nonsense) merely because you wish it :-)

[Wakeymedia3]

@elrjames777 - There is clear and conclusive evidence presented in the film Improbable Collapse that the official account of 9/11 is simply a lie.

You have not seen the film, you have nothing to say about the evidence presented in it and yet you seem to expect to be taken seriously while trashing it.

You're funny.

[elrjames777]

@Wakeymedia3 Glad to note you have dropped the "epithet" ascription :-) All that remains for you now really is the "nothing to say" refrain you may find yourself repeating time and time again because, on this thread, no one ever will :-)

[Wakeymedia3]

@elrjames777 - It seems you dare not look at the evidence. You have written a few paragraphs on it so far and haven't even seen it - this is so basic, you are yelling "yah-boo sucks!" in place of any actual comment on the evidence and it's there for all to see.

Why you have done that to yourself is anyone's guess.

[elrjames777]

@Wakeymedia3 Yes: I am content to have done what you describe, although not to myself but to yourself :-) By the same token "anyone" should be able to very easily guess why I have done so: your so called "evidence" is inadmissible to me :-)

[Wakeymedia3]

@elrjames777 - You haven't done anything to me. What? I merely pointed out a film exposing the glaring evidence on 9/11 and you have written lots so far but about a film you haven't seen and evidence you therefore cannot, or dare not, comment on. Sticking your head in the sand and yelling yah-boo sucks is just very odd behaviour.

Carry on if you like but even I'm starting to feel sorry for you now.

[elrjames777]

@Wakeymedia3 Nope: I havn't written anything about the film, nor do I intend to. If that means to you that I am "yelling yah-boo-sucks" I have no quarrel with that. However, if I was "yelling yah-bo-sucks", please be clear that I was addressing you, I have not "done that [yelling] to myself" :-)

[Wakeymedia3]

@elrjames777 - There it is folks. "I havn't written anything about the film, nor do I intend to".

The debunking of the evidence by sticking his head in the sand and refusing to look at it.

Priceless.

Goodbye ;-)

[elrjames777]

@Wakeymedia3 So long :-)

[Wakeymedia3]

@elrjames777 - Toodle pip.

[elrjames777]

@Wakeymedia3 :P

[Wakeymedia3]

@elrjames777 - Have a nice life.

[lifeschild1]

@Wakeymedia3 I have degrees in Architecture and Civil/ Structural Engineering and yes it's very probable to have buildings collapse under the force and pressure of the explosions which were promulgated against the WTC by the impinging attacks. The imposed explosions and penetrated force exerted by both the speed, weight and velocity of the air-crafts in conjunction with thousands of gallons of flammable fluid will most assuredly decimate steel structures notwithstanding the temperatures given.

[Wakeymedia3]

@lifeschild1 - If you are a highly educated person, as you claim, then all you have just done there is to parrot the now discredited official account of 9/11 which anyone could do - it is simply parroting after all.

As I have stated - see the documentary film entitled "Improbable Collapse". And, as an additional piece of info here - you will see, in the film, Frank A DeMartini a designer of the Twin Towers state quite clearly that the "collapses" were impossible. See the film.

[lifeschild1]

@Wakeymedia3 This matter is untiringly an uncomplicated one. This is my forthright professional opinion and honest conclusion subsequently presented. As a student of engineering, I had met with the designers of the WTC during, before and after the buildings were constructed. I viewed the blueprint plans directly first hand. I could see that even a structure such as this had had evident flaws in it, as everything man produces has. Evidence can not be parroted, it's an undeniable truth.

[Algernon79]

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters."

[TaylorThaHick]

As an atheist, I will admit that Xianity provides false but effective prohibitions to cruelty (you'll go to hell if you do). One can be an atheist and a monster (like Stalin) just like one can be a Xian and a monster. What we need are more rational reasons to be good. Objectivism and Humanism come to mind.

[jamichelash]

"Buddhism the resort everyone goes to when they've exhausted Monotheism" - thats great!

[TaylorThaHick]

@jamichelash - I agree, great quote. I have studied some Taoism, which I find in every way superior because it does not advocate a withdrawal from reality and desire.

[Meskiagkasher]

Merry HITCHmas!

[Stipoon]

There are no texts nor any authority foundational to atheism in which Stalin can draw support from in his murderous campains. Stalin could not, by definition, access any substance in atheism that promotes some kind of hideous philosophy. I think it is as simple as that to exclude atheism as a force in Stalinism or Pol Potism.

There is no need to try and implicate eastern religions and christianity as a conditioner for this, it's unnecessarily strenuous.

[elrjames777]

@Stipoon Yes: but Stalin and the Bolsheviks had a powerful political reason for refusing to believe in God: they needed to ruthlessly and physically extirpate the religious institutions and pious people that would oppose their rule :-)

[Stipoon]

@elrjames777 Yes, but it could also be the case that one religion tried to remove the power and influence of another religion by force (or opposing factions within the same religion), as there are many examples of in our histoy. I still don't see how it is tied to atheism.

There is nothing in atheism that states hostility against religion, just unbelief. And I can't say the same about religion if we were to turn that around.

The responsibilty falls on Stalin and his supporters.

[elrjames777]

@Stipoon Actually Stipoon, Atheism is disbelief (a refusal to believe) not unbelief (skepticism). As I indicated, the Atheism of Stalin and the Bolsheviks was not primarily motivated by theological or moral considerations; the matter was not a question of conscience merely ruthless political expediency. Atheism become a sort of 'state religion' under communism (and there was undoubted persecution of church and other pious people) as a mechanism of repression and removal of opponents :-)

[Stipoon]

@elrjames777 Atheism can not be made into a religion (you wrote 'state religion'), no matter how hard you try. If you somehow manage it, it will leave atheism and turn into some other 'ism' that most atheists do not subscribe to, like Buddism (or Stalinism?).

I'm not sure about what we disagree on. Is it your position that there is something in atheism that motivated these dictators?

[elrjames777]

@Stipoon I am not trying to do anything other than point out the pertinent historical facts; what I actually wrote was "Atheism became a sort of state religion under communism", so please don't quote me out of context. There is no doubt that the Communist rejection of God was a cynical political excuse for political repression. Anything can be made into a religion, including Atheism, and whatever else it is science it is not :-)

[ConcernedCitizen158]

@elrjames777 You seem to imply that atheism is a refusal to believe in god in spite of all the evidence. That is not the case. Atheism is the refusal to believe in something that is completely unfounded, something for which there is absolutely no evidence. Not one bit. In fact, the odds seem to be massively against it. It would be ridiculous not to be skeptical of such a claim.

[elrjames777]

@ConcernedCitizen158 It would be ridiculous not to be skeptical, but that is unbelief not disbelief (refusal to believe). The dictionary definition of Atheism is a theory or belief that God does not exists: it is disbelief; it is not simply skepticism. The existence of God has been both philosophically and logically proved and disproved without difficulty (Avarroes, Aquinas, Descartes,Epicurus et al). The scientific method neither proves nor disproves; Atheism is not science

[ConcernedCitizen158]

@elrjames777 I didn't claim that atheism was science. I didn't refute the definition of atheism either. Indeed, I agreed that atheism was a refusal to believe, and then I dispelled your insinuation that the refusal to believe implies that there is evidence to suggest you ought to. I'm sorry you don't follow.  Atheists "refuse to believe" because there is no positive evidence for any type of god. The universe does not require one to function as it does.

[elrjames777]

@ConcernedCitizen158 If I hear a rumour that my wife is unfaithful to me I may refuse to believe it; that would not be scientific, merely an expression of my faith in her faithfulness :-) The scientific thing would be to take an agnostic stance and simply withhold belief until I was presented with the material facts. Similarly, the Atheist withholds belief because he has faith that God does not exist; the scientific thing would be simply withhold belief pending verification.

[ConcernedCitizen158]

@elrjames777 Hmmm. Interresting. I'm an atheist and I don't "have faith that god does not exist." It's like saying "I have faith that santa claus doesn't exist." No one could phrase such a statement in public and be taken seriously. We don't have "faith" that things don't exist. We suggest that they don't exist because they seem like fairy tales. You don't find people saying "well, I have faith that santa claus don't exist." We know who put the presents under the tree, in other words.

[elrjames777]

@ConcernedCitizen158 Yes: Santa seems to have retained an existence, if only as a straw man :-) Spiritual, scientific and philosophical arguments about God or no God are already well worn by greater men and women than ourselves down through the centuries. Atheists are more than simply skeptical for lack of evidence, and are not content with simply refuting absurd of pernicious mythology; they actively campaign against God simply because they believe they are in the right :-)

[ConcernedCitizen158]

@elrjames777 There, I got you to say it. You are claiming something you cannot know based on your "strict definition only" rule. Don't tell me I'm "campaigning against god." What we won't put up with is YOU telling us how the universe works, not any god. I don't believe in god.I have no reason to. I find many of the stories in the bible ridiculous and cruel. I don't believe a damn thing about muhammed either--because it's ridiculous too. And I don't believe in mermaids either. Or goblins.

[elrjames777]

@ConcernedCitizen158 There, I got you to say it :-) the vehemency of true belief :-) Excuse me "what you won't put up with" ? you are beginning to sound as intolerant as the worst of those religious people you vilify so much. I cannot tell you, nor have I told you "how the universe works"; I am not an expert and neither are you. I am merely saying, and you have amply demonstrated in the hostile language of your posts, that atheism can be as dogmatic and stubborn as religion.

[elrjames777]

@ConcernedCitizen158 Stories about mermaids are harmless, as I remember; my daughters loved them; plenty of wicked goblins posting on u tube though :-( I also find much of biblical mythology "ridiculous and cruel" and its axiomatic that no one religion can have a monopoly on spiritual truth, let alone a literal one. It is partly for that reason, if you want my personal inclination, that I am skeptical about the existence of God, but that does not mean he doesn't exist :-)

[BenjaminGoose]

@elrjames777 Atheism is simply the rejection of the belief in god, it's not the belief that no god exists. There is a difference.

[elrjames777]

@BenjaminGoose OK: that may be a comfortable explanation for members of the atheist movement, and a nice distinction, but that is not what the word means in the English language. Atheism is the theory or belief that God does not exist: period :-) anything else is just politics :-)

[BenjaminGoose]

@elrjames777 It is indeed what the word means in the English language, and it's the most common understanding of the word. Check the Oxford dictionary.

[ConcernedCitizen158]

@elrjames777 Yours is a distinction without difference, in other words..

[elrjames777]

@ConcernedCitizen158 Nope: its not my distinction: words mean what they say in technical English, not what political pressure groups would wish them to be for their own advancement. Atheism and Agnostic are different. Atheism is a theory or belief that God does not exist, it is disbelief which is a refusal to believe. Agnostic nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of God, it is unbelief which is skepticism O.E.R.D and Collins dictionaries :-)

[marmitetruth]

There's some good moments in this, was worth watching.

[TheDarciDigression]

Does anyone know if the film of which they speak at 14:00 is available to watch anywhere?