lol This debate is too easy for Hitch. Arguing with Al Sharpton is like arguing with a sort of smart 7 year old... and even that may be giving him too much credit.
What I love is how the age of "enlightenment" never became the success it was anticipated to become, because humans will allways assert their right to believe what they want, in spite of all the condescending know-it-alls telling them that they are dilluted.
@paulod27 Atheism is not an assertion. It is a rejection of an idea that by nature is evasive. When 90% of the world is to some degree theist, they are the aggressors.
@paulod27 In agreement with Paulod27, religion believers should keep their beliefs to themselves and not force their beliefs onto others, and to say "Keep your atheism to yourself" sounds alot like "Keep your logic and reasoning to yourself"
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@1tabligh You are confusing the likelihood of something existing with its provability. We cannot disprove Thor yet it would be a delusion to think he was speaking to you. The same goes for your beliefs if you are a theist
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@lololololol47 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh We don't have "creators" and yes scientists do come to this conclusion because we do know where the elements that contitute our bodies came from. You seem to be of the position that because our universe is too complicated and unlikely to come about on its own it must have come from a creator.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
@1tabligh Way to babble then stick in allah at the end there. What you know of the universe has nothing to do with your nonexistent diety. it has all to do with humanities hard earned knowledge. What is funny is that when Europe stewed in the dark ages it was the muslim people who were furthering science and human knowledge. Then their imams intervened and told them that this was against allahs will. We are still seeing the effects of this in the muslim world.
@lololololol47 Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@lololololol47 Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
@1tabligh 1. They have no proof. A deist might have a case but a theist has no proof what so ever that the creator of the universe cares what you eat or who you have sex with. 2. i never said it was possible to conclude that there are no gods or any such fantastical claims. However that gives no credence to their existence nor does it give reason to base your life around their unlikely existence and more importantly try to push it upon others.
@lololololol47 Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
@1tabligh Ok I see I am getting no where. How about this, you make high claims that whatever it is you are trying to assert is backed by science please where is your scientific evidence that prove your claims.
@lololololol47 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I seriously hope you are not suggesting because we cannot disprove the existence of god, or any other fantastical claim we should assume they exist.
@lololololol47 We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
@lololololol47 When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their
backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@1tabligh One again I ask you to give evidence of this creator. It should be easy for you seeing as how a "considerable" number of scientists have come to a logical conclusion in a god.
@lololololol47 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@lololololol47 Once again, no dodging the question and quibbling in vain!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
However if you throw away your biases and join in truth with scientific discovery you may yet find out. something tells me however no matter what anyone ever says you will believe unwaveringly in the goddidit hypothesis.
@lololololol47 The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
@lololololol47 That which can be asserted without evidence ...
___
In order to believe in something, you do not necessarily have to see it. You believe in electricity, yet you cannot see it. You believe in it only because you see its products such as light, heat, etc. If this is sufficient to make you a believer in the existence of electricity, the great universe should be sufficient to every human being to believe in the existence of its Creator.
@lololololol47 Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings. You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed.
To make it more clear: You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on.
@lololololol47 You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve. If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children. By eliminating the first generation, you eliminate the second and what is beyond it. Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself. But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there.
@1tabligh Wow you know nothing. I do love that darwinian monkey tricks however. That is kinda funny. No wonder you don't understand evolution "chimps blah blah blah?" Is that what you think evolution is? Even if I explain evolution to you from the looks of your comments I would have to explain essentially all of natural history but I think I might try.
Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
@1tabligh "For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?"
This in anyway supports your disregard for evolution how? You haven't as of yet produced anything that has provided any challenge to the theory of evolution and I'm beginning to think that you will not?
@lololololol47 The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
@1tabligh Evolution is not about two being. It is about a species that eventually evolves into another. Seperate parts of that species may evolve into something else or go extinct. We evolved from common ancestors with the other great apes. We did not evolve from the apes (chimps,gorillas etc.) we evolved from common ancestors with them then eventually from our own ancestors along with different species of humans (neaderthals etc.).
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and
philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Rev. talked about how without God the one with the most power will determine what's moral and not. But in his religion the most powerful (God) is the one who decides what's moral or not.
Then he mentioned changing what's moral every 4 years.
I personally think that it's good to revise the laws, see what's wrong with them and change them.
EXCELLENT DEBATE , USUALLY THE MAN WHO TALKS THE MOST IS THE ONE WITH LITTLE TO SAY. BUT THE REAL SHINE WAS REVEREND SHARPTONS WELL PLACED WORDS, HE EASILY BALANCES BETWEEN BELIEFS AND HOPES. HITCHENS IS RIGHT THOUGH ,IF THE CHILD IS TO BE BORN TRULY FREE , IT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE RITE TO CHOOSE, NOT INFECTED WITH THOUGHTS THAT IT CAN'T RELATE TO UNTIL LATER YEARS. FOR ANY RACISTS , THAT INTRO BY THE REV. PRETTY GOOD HUH?AND HIS WORDS WERE FINAL.
Smerdyakov never said "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." In fact, the statement should be attributed to Ivan Karamazov, who hinted at (though never explicitly stated) that view during a particularly hostile conversation with Alyosha, Dmitri, Fyodor and Father Zossima. Smerdyakov wasn't even in the room.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
I think the better question is whether morality can exist with God. Because if you are devoutly religious then obeying the rules (often called morals) of your religion is a matter of great self-interest - it is done for reward and to avoid punishment in the afterlife. Whereas the idea of morality is as a counter to self-interest.
@MrWasapenis If you see a person you don't like, it doesn't mean the person is bad, but you might think bad of that person. It is a much higher probability that you make a such mistake, than to actually meet a bad person. Real persons doesn't turn magically into irrational, emotional people, they are probably not your enemy, and if you learn more about them you might find out that some has logical arguments after all.
Upon learning of HItchen's death, I imagine Sharpton being struck with the memory of this debate. I imagine a faraway look in his eyes for a few seconds during a sermon, while invoking the name of Jesus, wondering softly to himself, just what the fuck that Hitchens fella was rambling about.
Does Sharpton even understand a quarter of what a legendary and accomplished scholar and journalist like Hitchens is saying here? Man, I feel sorry for black Americans who have to be represented by fools like Sharpton...
@kaloncar You consider him wise for believing in God? Well good sir, while you seem intelligent enough.. It's statements such as that, that will have you getting flamed on by people like Hitchens.
Hitchens finishes by attempting to place blame on the victims of a mad man and claiming that they (the victims) were not enlightened enough to see that Stalin was not a God. My guess is that most would not have even entertained the idea had Stalin not put into place things like Gulags. Since there is a God, and I'm even more convinced after this video, people seek him and evil (fallen angels and power hungry man) want what is God's -- our total surrender and our praise.
Hitchens becomes an apologist for group-think, manipulation, and propaganda as a viable means, in fact the only sane means of dealing with a people who trust and believe in you. Huh? So is he saying that Stalin was absolutely right to kill millions in the pretense that he was only serving people who may or may not have thought Stalin was divine? Also, do not think for a minute that Stalin did not want to be Pharoah with the "divine" ability to take lives or save them.
For Hitchens to admit that he was a believing Marxist proves that he was wrong-headed in his belief-system decision making process. I will give him a pass on this however, because I feel he made a better decision to denounce Marxism.
Speaking of miracles, wouldn't it be a "miracle" for random elements to form together to make even the most simple of object let alone the wonder of man? Please do not lecture us on miracles. The Pope does not have to "certify" miracles today other than to the extent of checking for outright fraudulent claims that hurt the churches reputation in our world today (worth doing on that front).
Hitchen's and/or Hume cannot know the truth of the virgin birth. Only if we suspend all possibility of power beyond our own (yeah right) can we determine that God is too weak to perform the miracle that is a virgin birth. Additionally, to tarnish Mary's image with abolutely no prove is vulgar indeed. But let's just say, that Mary did lie, nobody would have died as martyrs for their faith in young girl's lie.
Hitchens' discussion of the Pope is irrelevant to me because I also do not believe the Pope is any greater than a well studied theologian and priest. However, if we all lived according to Biblical principles condoms would never have been invented because we would not be immoral sexually. Sadly, we are all sinful and immoral in one way or another, enslaved by sin in fact, and that is how we can know that a Savior of mankind was/is needed.
Hitchen's family will all one day have opportunities to ponder God. Right now, Hitchens needs to be 100% certain that he is leading them correctly and I honor that decision. If Hell is real, and I believe it is, than I would not be so adamant in my rejection of those attempting to rescue them.
Then Hitchen's goes on to try and say "modestly" as he can that people of faith are not happy until he believes in God too. Well, he is quite self-centered here, because anyone who would debate him (and his stubborn/rebellious beliefs) would only do that to better inform the audience, and not him, of his disasterous and irrational thinking. It is the audience that's souls may be open for God and that is worth debating for. Hitchens' soul is worth fighting for, but he alone must choose.
Ethics is a man-centered attempt to understand themselves, God, and their world. The Bible is a God-centered revelation of Himself to man. We can either follow the principles and/or precepts found in His revelation or we can choose not to because He fashioned us with free wlll; but it still stands 2000+ yrs as man's only true way to "perfection" not in ourselves but in God's relationship to us.
Perhaps God would give his people, the Israelites, the idea to circumcise their children to sanctify (or set them apart) from those who would corrupt them spiritually and intellectually. Also, since the fall of man has corrupted the flesh of man it is commonly understood believed that man is not perfect in flesh (this is also why we believe doctors can do operations). Do atheists believe human flesh is "perfect"? This attack is bordering on anti-semitism.
He mixes Palestinian "friends" with suicide bombers. Why woundn't the audience gasp at the notion, because he is polite and well spoken albeit shifty. As for the notion that he doesn't believe his friends think blowing up innocents is moral he would have to ask them. I believe radical muslims do find as twisted sense of morality in what they are doing because they believe they are the standard of "good" and that anyone not believing that they are the standard of "good" should be silenced.
Hitchens' faulty reasoning is that all belivers in God are open to this type distorted and dangerous thinking or that religious people (people of faith) are more inclined that non-religious (atheist) people [rubbish].
Atheist people are "religious" in their faith (undetermined science) too. Science discovers and also reinterprets what it believes it has discovered as it uncovers what is revealed by God.
Seemingly "good" people do very "bad" things. Of course that is to believe people are "good (see point above). The clear answer to Hitchens is that people are not good in and of themselves. Secondly, that people can have a distorted perception of God's will does not negate God's presence (at least not if God grants everyone with free will).
By who's measurement do we can someone "good?" Good only has value as a frame of reference to that of a perfect and objective standard. Without God who is the perfect standard of goodness all the time (Gahdi, Mother Teresa, Mr. Hitchens)?. Goodness itself becomes irrelevent to the conversation without a perfect good. Without a perfect good we are left with moral relativism for you may think Gahdi was good, but anyone who knew him would tell you he wasn't "perfectly good."
i believe we were all created with free will. Free will is either a blessing or cursing to mankind depending on how "we' use it. Free will makes the discussion a little more complex. With free will we are able to choose to fully obey God, partially obey God, or reject God. When we fully obey God we are blessed. When we partially obey God we are cursed. And when we reject God we are cursed. Man curses himself when he views God from the perspective of man vice the revelation from God.
I believe all men are indeed wolves. I believe there is wickedness inside the heart of man and that without God's help (Prevenient Grace) we would be utterly intoxicated with ourselves to the point that others would be our mortal enemies.
I agree that solidarity is in our communal and personal interest, but Hitchen fails to answer the initial question of morality's origin. He cleverly dodges the question and goes on the attack. In the question God is the origin of morality and so we are challenged to find a more reasonable and rational alternative. To not seriously attempt an answer is either cowardly or disingenuous.
If a religious person is motivated to do good or moral acts because they believe it will be looked upon favorably by god, then they do the acts for the wrong reason. Also if religious person keeps from committing immoral acts because they fear god, then their motive would also be for the wrong reason. People should use rationality and empathy aside from religion to understand and practice morality. Yes, there is morality without religion, also there is immorality with religion.
@1SmartMofo You do not understand. God is perfectly good. Therefore God would favor moral acts and disfavor immoral acts. Meaning: The religious person whose motivations you criticized were sound. As to rationality and empathy--these are perfect in God. You finish your post with a dismissal of religion; mostly because you are too materialistic. But tell me--what of materialism do you find so uplifting?
@GreaterPerson Well this is where your wrong. I don't dismiss religion, not all religious people are immoral. I simply stated, "If a religious person made decisions base solely on their religious beliefs then they would be immoral" If is the key word. You apparently are a religious person who holds strong beliefs in God. Well your god is not everyones god, because we all don't practice your religion. However, it is hard to dismiss all the war and murder caused by religious beliefs.
@1SmartMofo If there is one God why would my God be different from your own? As to war caused by religion--which? And so what? Isn't it moral to suppress the one rabid axe-man--then why not a nation?
I suppose that I was incorrect in calling you 'materialistic' though. But you can allow that it's a commonality in Western society. :)
@GreaterPerson Your god could in fact be different then mine and many others could be different to ours. Several religions consider the god named Yahweh to be the only god. This is true in Judaism, Christianity and Catholicism and Allah for Muslims. Pretty much all the same God though right? What about Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto and countless other religions. Basically, would you believe in your same god if you were born in India? Religion is a product of ones cultural upbringing.
@1SmartMofo You would need to look at the history of religion. Just as man came from one continent, so too did religion: if you research you will find that Buddha of India, Xaha of Japan and Quetzalcoatl of Mexico and even Zeus of Greece were each the same person derived from the same people. If anyone could speak Meroe they could probably tell you God's original name. Besides God is a rational 'first cause' and 'perfect good.' This then is the God of all of us.
@GreaterPerson I hope your not one of those people who believe that the earth was created only 6,000 years ago. Pangaea or the super continent occurred 250 million years ago. Recorded history only spans around 5,000 years to the earliest religions and society. In other words by the time religion was created people were spread far and wide from one another. Hinduism holds a belief of many gods not just one and Buddhism rejects a creator. So no there is not one god for everyone never was.
@1SmartMofo I am certain that you recognize that there's a deep relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism. So it's not beyond you to accept that 'physical distance' isn't the same as 'intellectual distance.' However, you should know that the Egyptians, for instance, were master ship builders and it's well documented, in the rock paintings, that they traveled as far as Australia and even America. That said, the religions are all related: look at the story of Horus, Buddha and Jesus.
@GreaterPerson it's beyond me to accept your religious beliefs. First off this is the problem with religious people. They believe in something so much that it's beyond them to grasp facts presented by modern science. Look you believe in what you want but don't try to teach me false religious fact. How can I put this...... your crazy and gullible and you nor anyone else like you is going to change the world for the better. In fact you will have children who will further damage truth.
@GreaterPerson Ok, Im no history expert, I did however study cultures. Religion especially Christianity is one of the most obscure religions to date. Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Jehovah's Witness, Protestants, Lutheran, Methodist etc.According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches Each believes in slightly different things. Why do you think this happens? I'll tell you in my next post.
@GreaterPerson People began religion by telling stories to one another before the written word. Someone would tell the story and the next generation would repeat it and so on. Have you ever hear of the game called the Telephone Game? Even with writing there were different interpretations, points of view as well as translations. Religion is like that game. Google the (telephone game), and imagine thousands of years of it.
@GreaterPerson Made what up? what I found in the World Christian Encyclopedia? Or the telephone game? sorry but this is true there are over 30,000 christian denomination that each believe in slightly different things. Remember this is world wide, Haitian Voodoo is a mixture of African and Catholic beliefs for example. Did you ever play the telephone game AKA Chinese Whispers? As for the cave carvings you can't base every truth you hold based on one piece of unproven history.
@GreaterPerson It doesnt matter if there is one one source The World Christian Encyclopedia is a credible source. The Telephone game is just a game we all played as children as an example of how messages get confused over time from one person to the next. I give up there is nothing to further discuss.
@GreaterPerson LoL, I did find one site not a good one, but it does say that the carvings translate to a group of Egyptians who got stranded with a broken ship and died of snake bites. These people could have made it to Australia but they had no influence and just left there mark before they died. Aww so sad.
@GreaterPerson Also I didn't criticize anyone. Where do you get that I'm materialistic from from my post? If anything your criticizing me without merit. I myself believe in a God as spiritual person, not as a religious one. I just ask that that you don't push your religion on others. Your point of view isn't the one and only truth it may be your truth but it doesn't have to be others. I say this because I noticed how many replies you have sent to different people.
Poor Hitchens was cringing at having to debate the intellectual equivalent of a 10 year old and showed great patience I think. At some point arrogance must have failed Sharpton and the realization that he was so out of his league in this debate that I keep half expecting him to just get up and run off of the stage with his funny hair bouncing off of his empty head.
@mrd2u2u2sucks Very funny that you believe arguing the wrong side of a debate is a display of intelligence. Hitchens left out the fact that White people were generally violent regardless of religious influences and he also leaves out the fact that it was the religious Africans whom "civilized" them. The Greeks lifted the "Ethiopians" as "Blameless" particularly because of their religiosity. For Hitchens to say "White people enslaved Black people" therefore "God . . ." is illogical & stupid.
Sharpton keeps appealing to Hitchens as a ratoinal person that won't admit to any sort of immorality. I have to ask, what if it were Sharpton and a cynical atheist, what if people are terrible murderous apes with guns and disease? What if we are all shitty animals anyway? Even religious people are shitty humans these days, where is god in that? Where is human decency in that? I don't think it is.
"That is two words"? It is one thing to disagree and quite another to try and correct me with bad grammar. I don't mind being a douche. Kind of like where they go. For some reason I feel like chanting, as we did as children the sticks and stones rhyme. Finally, Hitler is a legend also. Say something intelligent or maybe you prefer calling me some other negative word.
@hoseaj He was pointing out that you're calling Hitchen's an idiot and then making quite an idiotic mistake. Not a minor typo but a blatant moment of retardation. On top of this fact if you intend to be throwing ad hominem arguments out then why on earth are you so insulted when someone is rude to you? After all, to take part of your own words, it's one thing to disagree and another to call someone a name.
@hoseaj That is two words plus a normal person would have said " I have found a new name for babbling idiot, Christopher Hitchens". Probably the most important thing is that you're a douche, Hitchens is a legend!
Haha. I like it how the BLACK GUY is so confident but then gets destroyed.
Morality CAN Exist without God. It's obvious. I'm atheist. I know that murder is wrong. There are people all over the world who had never heard of religion. They knew that murder was wrong. The people living deep in the amazon. Shut off from civilisation living in groups and small villages. Doing what they can to survive. Never heard of God never murdered. If anything They are better off without religion.
@Incredability I like how you are so confident but don't even approach the truth. What does you being an atheist have to do with the existence of God? Fix your logic and grammar then maybe you can speak of who or what gets destroyed.
By the way, that "BLACK GUY" is Al Sharpton. If you have not heard of him you're clearly a guilty of murdering yourself.
You say you're an atheist who knows that murder is wrong. How do you know? Did the conviction come from God in the womb or was it merely environmental from chance? With a personal and knowable God there is an origin to our behaviors. Without God we can always ask what then is the origin. With God we are accountable for right behavior. Without God we are only accountable to society's whims and moral relativity.
Hitchens concedes that morality is "innate in us." What we don't here is how he believes morality was supposed to have gotten in there. Does he believe that an alien life form (ALF) inserted it in our sludge? Who then, put it in his ALF? He cannot, as a thinking man, honestly believe that morality has come to us from out of thin air (nothingness). Where then does this brilliant "sounding" man say that morality has sprung from?
@kaloncar If it came from God in the womb there would be no need for the commandment. I believe that Evolution has developed human instincts to work together in groups instead of killing eachother.Then a few settlements were formed, laws put in place and modern day society has developed from that.
The Fall of Man is written about in Genesis. Man broke our original relationship with God through willfull disobedience and as a consequence lost our legal standing in the court of righteousness to He who is the origin of purity/holiness. The punishment for willfully disobeying God is rightly death (what good are we to our Creator if we reject Him); but Jesus' (God Himself) pure obedient sacrifice gives man a second chance for redemption no man could offer.
@kaloncar Sorry to drift off topic. But, wasn't lifegiven to humans as a gift from God? A Gift is defined as being the recievers property now. So God cannot take our life as it does not belong to God? This is more of a question than a statement. Moving back on topic, were the babies and animals in these cities destroyed by God guilty of willful disobedience?
@kaloncar Are you really serious when you say you believe there is a creator ? HOW can you or me or anyone else be RESPONSIBLE for what someone else did in a garden 6000 yrs ago ? What sort of a God do you believe in that would punish YOU for a crime committed by another person ? Have you thought about this at all or have you given in to indoctrination? Or try looking up Jeremiah if you think the God of the bible is "Love".
You say that, as far as being able to know right and wrong, "we don't". How do you make any moral conclusions--or conclusions about anything, for that matter--if you have no rock of truth upon which you can base it? How do you go around all day following your own judgment that you *know* is entirely baseless? I am asking for objective, absolute truths, not relative truths (oxymoron) unique to "society context" or derived from one's own "personal experiences".
@Mirewood You contradict yourself. You first answer my question by saying that we do not know what governs morality: "I think the whole point is, we don't" [know]. Your next sentence implies that you believe we do know: "We've learned from trial and error."
Which is it? If it is the latter, then my question is, what governs the moral deductions made from trial and error? What if you and I go through the same trial, but "learn" contradictory things from those trials? How do we know who is right?
He educates his audience. Also he has the right to b arrogant, he's extremely intelligent yet he is forced to answer the same questions over and over becuz the other party can't develop new arguments, so u can't blame him for being bored nd arrogant, he already knows their arguments and how to answer them. Btw religious ppl r extremely arrogant
@hiphopfan22 Hitchens destroyed him, the "ahs" and "ums" r just how he talks, like how teenagers use the word "like" wer it dosent belong. Hitchens dosent acknowledge him for 2 reasons. 1; he knows no matter wat he says he wont change this guys mind so why bother directing it at him. 2; those same points have been brought up to hitchens a thousand times, in nearly all of his debates he talks about morality in absence of god, he's sick of answering the same question to different people so instead
I had to stop it before the end of the very first minute.
Sharpton says "If there is no supervisory being, what do we base morality on? Is it based on who has the might at any given time?" The basis of whatever spills out of his mouth next is flawed from the beginning. If he objects to the "one with the might" dictating morality, then he must also object to his "supervisory being" dictating morality, for logically, they are one and the same.
I had to stop it before the end of the very first minute.
Sharpton says "If there is no supervisory being, what do we base morality on? Is it based on who has the might at any given time?" The basis of whatever spills out of his mouth next is flawed from the beginning. If he objects to the "one with the might" dictating morality, then he must also object to his "supervisory being" dictating morality, for logically, they are one and the same.
My apologies if I missed it, but what exactly is it that Hitchens believes to govern morality? Does he believe it to be innate? If so, what process/hermeneutic is employed to reach conclusions about morality? How does he know right from wrong, and by what authority (divine or not) does he make objective truth claims? Feel free to message me personally if you wish, as 500 characters are hardly sufficient to answer these questions.
@AChildsEnigma I cannot speak for Hitchens. However, there are many who argue along the lines that, in the absence of supernaturally dictated morality, our own human sense of right & wrong is something that developed culturally over many thousands of years. Essentially, our intellect allows for empathy & the ability to learn from the hardships of others. Also: to benefit society benefits yourself, thus harmful acts should be avoided, beneficial acts encouraged. It's not complicated.
@rmcdaniel423 You don't quite answer my questions directly. What governs morality? Who/what determines what is right or wrong, and why/how do they have that authority? If it is innate in man and we develop morality "culturally over thousands of years", then whose version of culturally-developed morality is right? There are so many moral narratives going around.. which is right? And how do we know?
@rmcdaniel423 Also, you seem to be implying at the end of your post that that which is beneficial to society = moral. If this is your view, why is that which is beneficial to society = to that which is moral (and who/what decided this)?
Sharpton kicked his rear end, all of the Um's and Ah's and mumbling from Hitchens compare to the confident and straightforward Sharpton. Hitchens is also incredibly arrogant, to not even look at your debate opponent is extremely arrogant or it could be because he was intimidated by a superb debater like Sharpton.
Hitchens is such a master of debate. He rarely looks at Sharpton or even acknowledges him, while Sharpton is staring intently. Hitchens just plain doesn't give a shit about him. He is talking to us...not Sharpton. He knows he won't win him over, so he doesn't care. Sharpton wants to beat Hitchens yet Hitchens wants to educate us. Thank you Christopher. While I believe we won't see each other after we are dead, I am glad today to have seen this.
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
Hitchens didnt really answer the question about immorality in non believers
jukejuk 3 hours ago
Trying to have a serious, intelligent conversaation with someone the like of Sharpton.
ISHYGDDT
14ByTheSword 1 week ago
lol This debate is too easy for Hitch. Arguing with Al Sharpton is like arguing with a sort of smart 7 year old... and even that may be giving him too much credit.
chaseren11 1 week ago
What I love is how the age of "enlightenment" never became the success it was anticipated to become, because humans will allways assert their right to believe what they want, in spite of all the condescending know-it-alls telling them that they are dilluted.
This is a wonderfull trait of human nature.
DXfanization 2 weeks ago
This video should be re-titled Hitchens pwns Sharpton.
dedknedy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's called faith because it's not knowledge.
harvardlaw14 2 weeks ago
If you think that people should keep religion to themselves then you should keep your atheism to yourself aswell Hitchens you know it all FUCK!
paulod27 3 weeks ago
@paulod27 Atheism is not an assertion. It is a rejection of an idea that by nature is evasive. When 90% of the world is to some degree theist, they are the aggressors.
TheLegendOZelda360 2 weeks ago
@paulod27 In agreement with Paulod27, religion believers should keep their beliefs to themselves and not force their beliefs onto others, and to say "Keep your atheism to yourself" sounds alot like "Keep your logic and reasoning to yourself"
handsup48 2 weeks ago
@handsup48 The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 day ago
@1tabligh You are confusing the likelihood of something existing with its provability. We cannot disprove Thor yet it would be a delusion to think he was speaking to you. The same goes for your beliefs if you are a theist
lololololol47 17 hours ago
@lololololol47 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 15 hours ago
@lololololol47 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 15 hours ago
@1tabligh We don't have "creators" and yes scientists do come to this conclusion because we do know where the elements that contitute our bodies came from. You seem to be of the position that because our universe is too complicated and unlikely to come about on its own it must have come from a creator.
lololololol47 12 hours ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
1tabligh 9 hours ago
@1tabligh Way to babble then stick in allah at the end there. What you know of the universe has nothing to do with your nonexistent diety. it has all to do with humanities hard earned knowledge. What is funny is that when Europe stewed in the dark ages it was the muslim people who were furthering science and human knowledge. Then their imams intervened and told them that this was against allahs will. We are still seeing the effects of this in the muslim world.
lololololol47 9 hours ago
@lololololol47 Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 9 hours ago
@1tabligh There is no reason to believe there is anything but a material universe.
lololololol47 9 hours ago
@lololololol47 Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
1tabligh 9 hours ago
@1tabligh 1. They have no proof. A deist might have a case but a theist has no proof what so ever that the creator of the universe cares what you eat or who you have sex with. 2. i never said it was possible to conclude that there are no gods or any such fantastical claims. However that gives no credence to their existence nor does it give reason to base your life around their unlikely existence and more importantly try to push it upon others.
lololololol47 8 hours ago
@lololololol47 Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 8 hours ago
@1tabligh Ok I see I am getting no where. How about this, you make high claims that whatever it is you are trying to assert is backed by science please where is your scientific evidence that prove your claims.
lololololol47 8 hours ago
@lololololol47 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 8 hours ago
@1tabligh That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I seriously hope you are not suggesting because we cannot disprove the existence of god, or any other fantastical claim we should assume they exist.
lololololol47 8 hours ago
@lololololol47 We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 8 hours ago
@1tabligh Such as god?
lololololol47 8 hours ago
@lololololol47 When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their
1tabligh 5 hours ago
backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 4 hours ago
@1tabligh One again I ask you to give evidence of this creator. It should be easy for you seeing as how a "considerable" number of scientists have come to a logical conclusion in a god.
lololololol47 4 hours ago
@lololololol47 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 3 hours ago
@1tabligh No reason to believe in a god or gods.
lololololol47 3 hours ago
@lololololol47 God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 3 hours ago
@1tabligh So if I hallucinate I can base my views of god?
lololololol47 3 hours ago
@lololololol47 Once again, no dodging the question and quibbling in vain!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
1tabligh 3 hours ago
@1tabligh If I am dodging questions in your mind, then I no longer doubt your belief in a god.
I know not what is the prime cause of existence, if indeed there is a cause, and science does not know and neither do you.
lololololol47 3 hours ago
@lololololol47
However if you throw away your biases and join in truth with scientific discovery you may yet find out. something tells me however no matter what anyone ever says you will believe unwaveringly in the goddidit hypothesis.
lololololol47 3 hours ago
@lololololol47 The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@lololololol47 That which can be asserted without evidence ...
___
In order to believe in something, you do not necessarily have to see it. You believe in electricity, yet you cannot see it. You believe in it only because you see its products such as light, heat, etc. If this is sufficient to make you a believer in the existence of electricity, the great universe should be sufficient to every human being to believe in the existence of its Creator.
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@lololololol47 Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings. You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed.
To make it more clear: You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on.
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@lololololol47 You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve. If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children. By eliminating the first generation, you eliminate the second and what is beyond it. Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself. But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there.
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@1tabligh Wow you know nothing. I do love that darwinian monkey tricks however. That is kinda funny. No wonder you don't understand evolution "chimps blah blah blah?" Is that what you think evolution is? Even if I explain evolution to you from the looks of your comments I would have to explain essentially all of natural history but I think I might try.
lololololol47 2 hours ago
@lololololol47 Answer the question!
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@lololololol47 READ MY COMMENTS WITH YOUR INTELLECT AND ABSOLUTELY NOT WITH YOUR WANNABE MONKEY EMOTIONS!
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@1tabligh It seems you are trying to reason with your emotions.
lololololol47 2 hours ago
@lololololol47 Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@lololololol47 No wonder you don't understand evolution
___
Poor fella!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
1tabligh 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?"
This in anyway supports your disregard for evolution how? You haven't as of yet produced anything that has provided any challenge to the theory of evolution and I'm beginning to think that you will not?
lololololol47 2 hours ago
@lololololol47 The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
So much evolution for YOU!
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@lololololol47 So if I hallucinate I can base my views of god?
___
Nope!
Common sense!
Now you may bring YOUR darwinian monkey tricks of evolution and say: But there was no Adam and Eve, we come fom monkeys, chimps blah blah blah!
Granted!
*Even* then if you deny the existence of the first beings, you would be eliminating the whole evolution!
No hallucinate!
What you think, you got the brain for? Eating bananas and thinking about your so called monkey ancestors?
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@1tabligh Evolution is not about two being. It is about a species that eventually evolves into another. Seperate parts of that species may evolve into something else or go extinct. We evolved from common ancestors with the other great apes. We did not evolve from the apes (chimps,gorillas etc.) we evolved from common ancestors with them then eventually from our own ancestors along with different species of humans (neaderthals etc.).
lololololol47 2 hours ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@1tabligh Atheists don't say their isn't a God. We say their is no proof of a God. And way to twist the whole "Unproven theories" on yourself =)
handsup48 2 hours ago
@handsup48 We say their is no proof of a God.
___
Nope!
It's right there in front of your nose!
But you refuse to acknowledged!
If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 2 hours ago
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and
1tabligh 2 hours ago
philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 2 hours ago
@1tabligh You haven't even listened to what I have said have you...oh well can't say I didn't try.
lololololol47 2 hours ago
@1tabligh Pseudo Science proves God? Word >_>...
handsup48 1 hour ago
If i understood correctly
Rev. talked about how without God the one with the most power will determine what's moral and not. But in his religion the most powerful (God) is the one who decides what's moral or not.
Then he mentioned changing what's moral every 4 years.
I personally think that it's good to revise the laws, see what's wrong with them and change them.
LegionIscariot 3 weeks ago
EXCELLENT DEBATE , USUALLY THE MAN WHO TALKS THE MOST IS THE ONE WITH LITTLE TO SAY. BUT THE REAL SHINE WAS REVEREND SHARPTONS WELL PLACED WORDS, HE EASILY BALANCES BETWEEN BELIEFS AND HOPES. HITCHENS IS RIGHT THOUGH ,IF THE CHILD IS TO BE BORN TRULY FREE , IT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE RITE TO CHOOSE, NOT INFECTED WITH THOUGHTS THAT IT CAN'T RELATE TO UNTIL LATER YEARS. FOR ANY RACISTS , THAT INTRO BY THE REV. PRETTY GOOD HUH?AND HIS WORDS WERE FINAL.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI.JAN.9/12
9493760 3 weeks ago
I need to pee really bad but don't wanna pause this
ihavebeentagged 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Smerdyakov never said "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." In fact, the statement should be attributed to Ivan Karamazov, who hinted at (though never explicitly stated) that view during a particularly hostile conversation with Alyosha, Dmitri, Fyodor and Father Zossima. Smerdyakov wasn't even in the room.
NikohKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago in playlist Does God Exist?
I think the better question is whether morality can exist with God. Because if you are devoutly religious then obeying the rules (often called morals) of your religion is a matter of great self-interest - it is done for reward and to avoid punishment in the afterlife. Whereas the idea of morality is as a counter to self-interest.
StrangerQuark 1 month ago 2
@StrangerQuark Very good point, though you obviously dont need any validation from me!
NeoLeaver 1 month ago
Hitchens doesn't have any logical arguments...only emotional
MrWasapenis 1 month ago
@MrWasapenis If you see a person you don't like, it doesn't mean the person is bad, but you might think bad of that person. It is a much higher probability that you make a such mistake, than to actually meet a bad person. Real persons doesn't turn magically into irrational, emotional people, they are probably not your enemy, and if you learn more about them you might find out that some has logical arguments after all.
bvssvni 1 month ago
Upon learning of HItchen's death, I imagine Sharpton being struck with the memory of this debate. I imagine a faraway look in his eyes for a few seconds during a sermon, while invoking the name of Jesus, wondering softly to himself, just what the fuck that Hitchens fella was rambling about.
jessebah 1 month ago
Hitchens uses a classic strawman argument
GodLiberty 1 month ago
Sharpton isn't in Hitchens level of intelligence. This debate was unfair.
GenTsoChicken1 1 month ago
A SILENT MOMENT PLEASE
--------
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS has died today in Houston hospital.
Let's all remember for what he has done for us.
--------
sooperfukker 1 month ago 2
@sooperfukker Hamlet :"I die Horatio. The rest is silence" Horatio:"Goodnight sweet prince;may flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest.
Poor Hamlet.Hope Christopher's best friend won't now come up with same line.
p
Lionshed 1 month ago
Sharpton blaming the Republicans again, just like everyone else
moose656 1 month ago
As a black person, I am ashamed that Sharpton has such a following in the black community.
depauw2004 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sharpton is funny,he doesn't understand anything but still he argues
MrFaisoly 1 month ago
LOL Hitchens looks so incredibly bored while Sharpton rambles
joerock7415 1 month ago
Al Sharpton: Blah, blah, blah, blah-blah.... Blah... Blah and blah.
Hitchens: Blah, blah, blah. Blah-di-blah-blah.... Blah.
VoteABC2011 2 months ago
@VoteABC2011 VoteABC2011 Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah-blah... Blah and blah.
iz2sicc 2 months ago in playlist Atheism debates 6
Sharpton the worst example of a businessman end of all wrongs in religion... America sure knows how to turn something into a joke.
bongoloid77 2 months ago
Does Sharpton even understand a quarter of what a legendary and accomplished scholar and journalist like Hitchens is saying here? Man, I feel sorry for black Americans who have to be represented by fools like Sharpton...
theatlantisrise 2 months ago
Oh yeah, a national clown and media whore is definitely the best person to debate Hitchens !
(why the hell did he agree to this ?)
PrincepsNemesis 2 months ago
@WitnessoftheTruth
Well, well, well...It has been over a year since we chatted...
May 21, 2011 has come and gone and yet here we are!
Oct 21, 2011 has come and gone yet here we are!
Has there been an amendment to your previous predictions & ``God's Infallible Law Book``
Was there a typo I missed.
Do I need to continue to pray for mercy because in your words, ``I am already dead``
Please tell me you are no longer living in fear and have gotten on with your life.
Have a nice Day!
Tombstone1959 3 months ago
I will never stop being suprised by just what thiests believe.....Idiotic at best.
dilwich123 3 months ago
it's 4:30 in the morning. GOD DAMMIT HITCH
jiffygay 3 months ago 12
Finally I know the answer to this question! Yes. Yes, morality can exist without religion. How do I know this? God told me.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
Funny...weird.
kaloncar 3 months ago
As for Al Sharpton, I don't always agree with him either but at least he is wise enough to acknowledge the obvious and that is that God is real.
kaloncar 3 months ago
@kaloncar You consider him wise for believing in God? Well good sir, while you seem intelligent enough.. It's statements such as that, that will have you getting flamed on by people like Hitchens.
Erictheredd2 3 months ago
I'm not scared. ;-)
kaloncar 3 months ago
Hitchens finishes by attempting to place blame on the victims of a mad man and claiming that they (the victims) were not enlightened enough to see that Stalin was not a God. My guess is that most would not have even entertained the idea had Stalin not put into place things like Gulags. Since there is a God, and I'm even more convinced after this video, people seek him and evil (fallen angels and power hungry man) want what is God's -- our total surrender and our praise.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Hitchens becomes an apologist for group-think, manipulation, and propaganda as a viable means, in fact the only sane means of dealing with a people who trust and believe in you. Huh? So is he saying that Stalin was absolutely right to kill millions in the pretense that he was only serving people who may or may not have thought Stalin was divine? Also, do not think for a minute that Stalin did not want to be Pharoah with the "divine" ability to take lives or save them.
kaloncar 3 months ago
For Hitchens to admit that he was a believing Marxist proves that he was wrong-headed in his belief-system decision making process. I will give him a pass on this however, because I feel he made a better decision to denounce Marxism.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Speaking of miracles, wouldn't it be a "miracle" for random elements to form together to make even the most simple of object let alone the wonder of man? Please do not lecture us on miracles. The Pope does not have to "certify" miracles today other than to the extent of checking for outright fraudulent claims that hurt the churches reputation in our world today (worth doing on that front).
kaloncar 3 months ago
Hitchen's and/or Hume cannot know the truth of the virgin birth. Only if we suspend all possibility of power beyond our own (yeah right) can we determine that God is too weak to perform the miracle that is a virgin birth. Additionally, to tarnish Mary's image with abolutely no prove is vulgar indeed. But let's just say, that Mary did lie, nobody would have died as martyrs for their faith in young girl's lie.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Hitchens' discussion of the Pope is irrelevant to me because I also do not believe the Pope is any greater than a well studied theologian and priest. However, if we all lived according to Biblical principles condoms would never have been invented because we would not be immoral sexually. Sadly, we are all sinful and immoral in one way or another, enslaved by sin in fact, and that is how we can know that a Savior of mankind was/is needed.
kaloncar 3 months ago
"Keep" your illusion private.
Hitchen's family will all one day have opportunities to ponder God. Right now, Hitchens needs to be 100% certain that he is leading them correctly and I honor that decision. If Hell is real, and I believe it is, than I would not be so adamant in my rejection of those attempting to rescue them.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Then Hitchen's goes on to try and say "modestly" as he can that people of faith are not happy until he believes in God too. Well, he is quite self-centered here, because anyone who would debate him (and his stubborn/rebellious beliefs) would only do that to better inform the audience, and not him, of his disasterous and irrational thinking. It is the audience that's souls may be open for God and that is worth debating for. Hitchens' soul is worth fighting for, but he alone must choose.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Ethics is a man-centered attempt to understand themselves, God, and their world. The Bible is a God-centered revelation of Himself to man. We can either follow the principles and/or precepts found in His revelation or we can choose not to because He fashioned us with free wlll; but it still stands 2000+ yrs as man's only true way to "perfection" not in ourselves but in God's relationship to us.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Perhaps God would give his people, the Israelites, the idea to circumcise their children to sanctify (or set them apart) from those who would corrupt them spiritually and intellectually. Also, since the fall of man has corrupted the flesh of man it is commonly understood believed that man is not perfect in flesh (this is also why we believe doctors can do operations). Do atheists believe human flesh is "perfect"? This attack is bordering on anti-semitism.
kaloncar 3 months ago
"If you want a 'good' person to do a wicked thing that takes religion." That is a good sound byte for the debate, but is only his opinion.
kaloncar 3 months ago
He mixes Palestinian "friends" with suicide bombers. Why woundn't the audience gasp at the notion, because he is polite and well spoken albeit shifty. As for the notion that he doesn't believe his friends think blowing up innocents is moral he would have to ask them. I believe radical muslims do find as twisted sense of morality in what they are doing because they believe they are the standard of "good" and that anyone not believing that they are the standard of "good" should be silenced.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Hitchens' faulty reasoning is that all belivers in God are open to this type distorted and dangerous thinking or that religious people (people of faith) are more inclined that non-religious (atheist) people [rubbish].
Atheist people are "religious" in their faith (undetermined science) too. Science discovers and also reinterprets what it believes it has discovered as it uncovers what is revealed by God.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Seemingly "good" people do very "bad" things. Of course that is to believe people are "good (see point above). The clear answer to Hitchens is that people are not good in and of themselves. Secondly, that people can have a distorted perception of God's will does not negate God's presence (at least not if God grants everyone with free will).
kaloncar 3 months ago
By who's measurement do we can someone "good?" Good only has value as a frame of reference to that of a perfect and objective standard. Without God who is the perfect standard of goodness all the time (Gahdi, Mother Teresa, Mr. Hitchens)?. Goodness itself becomes irrelevent to the conversation without a perfect good. Without a perfect good we are left with moral relativism for you may think Gahdi was good, but anyone who knew him would tell you he wasn't "perfectly good."
kaloncar 3 months ago
i believe we were all created with free will. Free will is either a blessing or cursing to mankind depending on how "we' use it. Free will makes the discussion a little more complex. With free will we are able to choose to fully obey God, partially obey God, or reject God. When we fully obey God we are blessed. When we partially obey God we are cursed. And when we reject God we are cursed. Man curses himself when he views God from the perspective of man vice the revelation from God.
kaloncar 3 months ago
I believe all men are indeed wolves. I believe there is wickedness inside the heart of man and that without God's help (Prevenient Grace) we would be utterly intoxicated with ourselves to the point that others would be our mortal enemies.
kaloncar 3 months ago
I agree that solidarity is in our communal and personal interest, but Hitchen fails to answer the initial question of morality's origin. He cleverly dodges the question and goes on the attack. In the question God is the origin of morality and so we are challenged to find a more reasonable and rational alternative. To not seriously attempt an answer is either cowardly or disingenuous.
.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Beyond Prevenient Grace is another discussion altogether.
kaloncar 3 months ago
If a religious person is motivated to do good or moral acts because they believe it will be looked upon favorably by god, then they do the acts for the wrong reason. Also if religious person keeps from committing immoral acts because they fear god, then their motive would also be for the wrong reason. People should use rationality and empathy aside from religion to understand and practice morality. Yes, there is morality without religion, also there is immorality with religion.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@1SmartMofo You do not understand. God is perfectly good. Therefore God would favor moral acts and disfavor immoral acts. Meaning: The religious person whose motivations you criticized were sound. As to rationality and empathy--these are perfect in God. You finish your post with a dismissal of religion; mostly because you are too materialistic. But tell me--what of materialism do you find so uplifting?
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson Well this is where your wrong. I don't dismiss religion, not all religious people are immoral. I simply stated, "If a religious person made decisions base solely on their religious beliefs then they would be immoral" If is the key word. You apparently are a religious person who holds strong beliefs in God. Well your god is not everyones god, because we all don't practice your religion. However, it is hard to dismiss all the war and murder caused by religious beliefs.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@1SmartMofo If there is one God why would my God be different from your own? As to war caused by religion--which? And so what? Isn't it moral to suppress the one rabid axe-man--then why not a nation?
I suppose that I was incorrect in calling you 'materialistic' though. But you can allow that it's a commonality in Western society. :)
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson Your god could in fact be different then mine and many others could be different to ours. Several religions consider the god named Yahweh to be the only god. This is true in Judaism, Christianity and Catholicism and Allah for Muslims. Pretty much all the same God though right? What about Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto and countless other religions. Basically, would you believe in your same god if you were born in India? Religion is a product of ones cultural upbringing.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@1SmartMofo You would need to look at the history of religion. Just as man came from one continent, so too did religion: if you research you will find that Buddha of India, Xaha of Japan and Quetzalcoatl of Mexico and even Zeus of Greece were each the same person derived from the same people. If anyone could speak Meroe they could probably tell you God's original name. Besides God is a rational 'first cause' and 'perfect good.' This then is the God of all of us.
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson I hope your not one of those people who believe that the earth was created only 6,000 years ago. Pangaea or the super continent occurred 250 million years ago. Recorded history only spans around 5,000 years to the earliest religions and society. In other words by the time religion was created people were spread far and wide from one another. Hinduism holds a belief of many gods not just one and Buddhism rejects a creator. So no there is not one god for everyone never was.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@1SmartMofo I am certain that you recognize that there's a deep relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism. So it's not beyond you to accept that 'physical distance' isn't the same as 'intellectual distance.' However, you should know that the Egyptians, for instance, were master ship builders and it's well documented, in the rock paintings, that they traveled as far as Australia and even America. That said, the religions are all related: look at the story of Horus, Buddha and Jesus.
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson it's beyond me to accept your religious beliefs. First off this is the problem with religious people. They believe in something so much that it's beyond them to grasp facts presented by modern science. Look you believe in what you want but don't try to teach me false religious fact. How can I put this...... your crazy and gullible and you nor anyone else like you is going to change the world for the better. In fact you will have children who will further damage truth.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@1SmartMofo You're not saying anything. What's not a fact? You do not think that Buddha is based off of a more ancient deity?
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson Ok, Im no history expert, I did however study cultures. Religion especially Christianity is one of the most obscure religions to date. Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Jehovah's Witness, Protestants, Lutheran, Methodist etc.According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches Each believes in slightly different things. Why do you think this happens? I'll tell you in my next post.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson People began religion by telling stories to one another before the written word. Someone would tell the story and the next generation would repeat it and so on. Have you ever hear of the game called the Telephone Game? Even with writing there were different interpretations, points of view as well as translations. Religion is like that game. Google the (telephone game), and imagine thousands of years of it.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@1SmartMofo With all due respect you only just made that up. How do you explain rock carvings in Australia that have Egyptian deities?
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson Made what up? what I found in the World Christian Encyclopedia? Or the telephone game? sorry but this is true there are over 30,000 christian denomination that each believe in slightly different things. Remember this is world wide, Haitian Voodoo is a mixture of African and Catholic beliefs for example. Did you ever play the telephone game AKA Chinese Whispers? As for the cave carvings you can't base every truth you hold based on one piece of unproven history.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@1SmartMofo But how does 30,000 Christian denominations dispute one source theory? Even "Telephone" has "One source."
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson It doesnt matter if there is one one source The World Christian Encyclopedia is a credible source. The Telephone game is just a game we all played as children as an example of how messages get confused over time from one person to the next. I give up there is nothing to further discuss.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson LoL, I did find one site not a good one, but it does say that the carvings translate to a group of Egyptians who got stranded with a broken ship and died of snake bites. These people could have made it to Australia but they had no influence and just left there mark before they died. Aww so sad.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson Also I didn't criticize anyone. Where do you get that I'm materialistic from from my post? If anything your criticizing me without merit. I myself believe in a God as spiritual person, not as a religious one. I just ask that that you don't push your religion on others. Your point of view isn't the one and only truth it may be your truth but it doesn't have to be others. I say this because I noticed how many replies you have sent to different people.
1SmartMofo 3 months ago
Poor Hitchens was cringing at having to debate the intellectual equivalent of a 10 year old and showed great patience I think. At some point arrogance must have failed Sharpton and the realization that he was so out of his league in this debate that I keep half expecting him to just get up and run off of the stage with his funny hair bouncing off of his empty head.
mrd2u2u2sucks 3 months ago 2
@mrd2u2u2sucks lmfao.good one
naybobdenod 3 months ago
@mrd2u2u2sucks Very funny that you believe arguing the wrong side of a debate is a display of intelligence. Hitchens left out the fact that White people were generally violent regardless of religious influences and he also leaves out the fact that it was the religious Africans whom "civilized" them. The Greeks lifted the "Ethiopians" as "Blameless" particularly because of their religiosity. For Hitchens to say "White people enslaved Black people" therefore "God . . ." is illogical & stupid.
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
Sharpton keeps appealing to Hitchens as a ratoinal person that won't admit to any sort of immorality. I have to ask, what if it were Sharpton and a cynical atheist, what if people are terrible murderous apes with guns and disease? What if we are all shitty animals anyway? Even religious people are shitty humans these days, where is god in that? Where is human decency in that? I don't think it is.
demondays7 3 months ago
@demondays7 You being a shitty person does not attack at the existence of God. Try to connect dots. You're a shitty person--so what?
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
@GreaterPerson i'm a shitty person and god is supposed to be able to stop me, he doesn't, apparently he doesn't stop you either
demondays7 3 months ago
Hitchens wins BY DEFAULT
FutureScience2012 4 months ago
"That is two words"? It is one thing to disagree and quite another to try and correct me with bad grammar. I don't mind being a douche. Kind of like where they go. For some reason I feel like chanting, as we did as children the sticks and stones rhyme. Finally, Hitler is a legend also. Say something intelligent or maybe you prefer calling me some other negative word.
hoseaj 4 months ago
@hoseaj He was pointing out that you're calling Hitchen's an idiot and then making quite an idiotic mistake. Not a minor typo but a blatant moment of retardation. On top of this fact if you intend to be throwing ad hominem arguments out then why on earth are you so insulted when someone is rude to you? After all, to take part of your own words, it's one thing to disagree and another to call someone a name.
DarkBunnyLord 4 months ago
I have found a new word for babbling idiot, Christopher Hitchens.
hoseaj 4 months ago in playlist Debates
@hoseaj That is two words plus a normal person would have said " I have found a new name for babbling idiot, Christopher Hitchens". Probably the most important thing is that you're a douche, Hitchens is a legend!
whiteholedy88 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hoseaj I have found a new word for NIGGER, hoseaj
FutureScience2012 4 months ago
Haha. I like it how the BLACK GUY is so confident but then gets destroyed.
Morality CAN Exist without God. It's obvious. I'm atheist. I know that murder is wrong. There are people all over the world who had never heard of religion. They knew that murder was wrong. The people living deep in the amazon. Shut off from civilisation living in groups and small villages. Doing what they can to survive. Never heard of God never murdered. If anything They are better off without religion.
Incredability 4 months ago 6
@Incredability I like how you are so confident but don't even approach the truth. What does you being an atheist have to do with the existence of God? Fix your logic and grammar then maybe you can speak of who or what gets destroyed.
By the way, that "BLACK GUY" is Al Sharpton. If you have not heard of him you're clearly a guilty of murdering yourself.
GreaterPerson 3 months ago
@Incredability
would you call the drive not to kill your own 'morality' or an evolutionary drive developed because it aids the whole?
DoubIeKiIl 3 months ago
You say you're an atheist who knows that murder is wrong. How do you know? Did the conviction come from God in the womb or was it merely environmental from chance? With a personal and knowable God there is an origin to our behaviors. Without God we can always ask what then is the origin. With God we are accountable for right behavior. Without God we are only accountable to society's whims and moral relativity.
kaloncar 3 months ago
Hitchens concedes that morality is "innate in us." What we don't here is how he believes morality was supposed to have gotten in there. Does he believe that an alien life form (ALF) inserted it in our sludge? Who then, put it in his ALF? He cannot, as a thinking man, honestly believe that morality has come to us from out of thin air (nothingness). Where then does this brilliant "sounding" man say that morality has sprung from?
kaloncar 3 months ago
@kaloncar If it came from God in the womb there would be no need for the commandment. I believe that Evolution has developed human instincts to work together in groups instead of killing eachother.Then a few settlements were formed, laws put in place and modern day society has developed from that.
Incredability 3 months ago
The Fall of Man is written about in Genesis. Man broke our original relationship with God through willfull disobedience and as a consequence lost our legal standing in the court of righteousness to He who is the origin of purity/holiness. The punishment for willfully disobeying God is rightly death (what good are we to our Creator if we reject Him); but Jesus' (God Himself) pure obedient sacrifice gives man a second chance for redemption no man could offer.
kaloncar 3 months ago
@kaloncar Sorry to drift off topic. But, wasn't lifegiven to humans as a gift from God? A Gift is defined as being the recievers property now. So God cannot take our life as it does not belong to God? This is more of a question than a statement. Moving back on topic, were the babies and animals in these cities destroyed by God guilty of willful disobedience?
Incredability 3 months ago
@kaloncar Are you really serious when you say you believe there is a creator ? HOW can you or me or anyone else be RESPONSIBLE for what someone else did in a garden 6000 yrs ago ? What sort of a God do you believe in that would punish YOU for a crime committed by another person ? Have you thought about this at all or have you given in to indoctrination? Or try looking up Jeremiah if you think the God of the bible is "Love".
brindow1 3 months ago
@Mirewood I appreciate your answer.
You say that, as far as being able to know right and wrong, "we don't". How do you make any moral conclusions--or conclusions about anything, for that matter--if you have no rock of truth upon which you can base it? How do you go around all day following your own judgment that you *know* is entirely baseless? I am asking for objective, absolute truths, not relative truths (oxymoron) unique to "society context" or derived from one's own "personal experiences".
AChildsEnigma 4 months ago
@Mirewood You contradict yourself. You first answer my question by saying that we do not know what governs morality: "I think the whole point is, we don't" [know]. Your next sentence implies that you believe we do know: "We've learned from trial and error."
Which is it? If it is the latter, then my question is, what governs the moral deductions made from trial and error? What if you and I go through the same trial, but "learn" contradictory things from those trials? How do we know who is right?
AChildsEnigma 4 months ago
An emotional chimp vs an intellectual giant
JinxOz 4 months ago
He educates his audience. Also he has the right to b arrogant, he's extremely intelligent yet he is forced to answer the same questions over and over becuz the other party can't develop new arguments, so u can't blame him for being bored nd arrogant, he already knows their arguments and how to answer them. Btw religious ppl r extremely arrogant
krizzzzzzzzzzzzqrfhd 4 months ago
@hiphopfan22 Hitchens destroyed him, the "ahs" and "ums" r just how he talks, like how teenagers use the word "like" wer it dosent belong. Hitchens dosent acknowledge him for 2 reasons. 1; he knows no matter wat he says he wont change this guys mind so why bother directing it at him. 2; those same points have been brought up to hitchens a thousand times, in nearly all of his debates he talks about morality in absence of god, he's sick of answering the same question to different people so instead
krizzzzzzzzzzzzqrfhd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I had to stop it before the end of the very first minute.
Sharpton says "If there is no supervisory being, what do we base morality on? Is it based on who has the might at any given time?" The basis of whatever spills out of his mouth next is flawed from the beginning. If he objects to the "one with the might" dictating morality, then he must also object to his "supervisory being" dictating morality, for logically, they are one and the same.
Fail.
rmcdaniel423 4 months ago
I had to stop it before the end of the very first minute.
Sharpton says "If there is no supervisory being, what do we base morality on? Is it based on who has the might at any given time?" The basis of whatever spills out of his mouth next is flawed from the beginning. If he objects to the "one with the might" dictating morality, then he must also object to his "supervisory being" dictating morality, for logically, they are one and the same.
Fail.
rmcdaniel423 4 months ago
My apologies if I missed it, but what exactly is it that Hitchens believes to govern morality? Does he believe it to be innate? If so, what process/hermeneutic is employed to reach conclusions about morality? How does he know right from wrong, and by what authority (divine or not) does he make objective truth claims? Feel free to message me personally if you wish, as 500 characters are hardly sufficient to answer these questions.
AChildsEnigma 4 months ago
@AChildsEnigma I cannot speak for Hitchens. However, there are many who argue along the lines that, in the absence of supernaturally dictated morality, our own human sense of right & wrong is something that developed culturally over many thousands of years. Essentially, our intellect allows for empathy & the ability to learn from the hardships of others. Also: to benefit society benefits yourself, thus harmful acts should be avoided, beneficial acts encouraged. It's not complicated.
rmcdaniel423 4 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 You don't quite answer my questions directly. What governs morality? Who/what determines what is right or wrong, and why/how do they have that authority? If it is innate in man and we develop morality "culturally over thousands of years", then whose version of culturally-developed morality is right? There are so many moral narratives going around.. which is right? And how do we know?
AChildsEnigma 4 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 Also, you seem to be implying at the end of your post that that which is beneficial to society = moral. If this is your view, why is that which is beneficial to society = to that which is moral (and who/what decided this)?
AChildsEnigma 4 months ago
Sharpton kicked his rear end, all of the Um's and Ah's and mumbling from Hitchens compare to the confident and straightforward Sharpton. Hitchens is also incredibly arrogant, to not even look at your debate opponent is extremely arrogant or it could be because he was intimidated by a superb debater like Sharpton.
Hitchens got his ass kicked.
hiphopfan22 5 months ago
Hitchens is such a master of debate. He rarely looks at Sharpton or even acknowledges him, while Sharpton is staring intently. Hitchens just plain doesn't give a shit about him. He is talking to us...not Sharpton. He knows he won't win him over, so he doesn't care. Sharpton wants to beat Hitchens yet Hitchens wants to educate us. Thank you Christopher. While I believe we won't see each other after we are dead, I am glad today to have seen this.
Kruezoraxe 5 months ago 2
@Kruezoraxe Awesome and beautiful!
Deanboy2007 2 months ago
Al is an idiot
tim9909scoutmolliwop 5 months ago 2
its not my place to judge anybody but this al sharpton guy seems arrogant in many ways when you watch him its not hard to see....oopz my bad
tawkischeap1 5 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 5 months ago
Oh! he forgot the bit about 'no atheist has ever done wrong in the name of atheism' bit
alsdaftable 5 months ago
@alsdaftable He didn't listen from 7:45 onwards he says it sometime around then.
ejp93 5 months ago
I knew Hitchens destroyed in this just based on the title.
cockyjeremy 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens is not an intellectual but an entertainer
Elantario 5 months ago
Hitchens is not an inttelectual but an entertainer
Elantario 5 months ago