Hitchens accepts a naturalistic view of evolution, but seems to still think that we have can have "responsibility" for abolishing slavery. A true materialist could not believe they have responsibility for their actions, nor do the ideas of "guilt" or "shame" make any sense if we are merely products of genetics and environment, as we certianly are.
@ClamCrunchy Mankind was NOT born yesterday, and neither was his culture. Guilt, Shame, and everything else are from our interactions w/ each other....or are you saying that all things good and evil are from god exclusively? Jesus! God can't be an originator ofr ALL things, or we won't have any room for ourselves.
@bryanttillman Nope, said nothing about any God. What I'm saying is that we aren't responsible for our actions, because our behavior is totally determined by genetics and environment. It would only make sense for us to have such things as "guilt" or "shame" if had the ability to make a free choice, beyond merely what genetics and environment dictate.
@ClamCrunchy do you mean responsibility in some cosmic sense then? why would there be a need for that? Im not sure what youre claiming but that is an outrageously simplistic argument.
@frilansspion Here's what I mean. If we accept a totally naturalistic view of evolution, then the behavior of humans must ultimately be reducible to a very complex interplay of genetics and environment. Thus it is always valid to blame one's behavior on genetics and environment, rather than to take personal responsibility, is it not?
@ClamCrunchy no I wouldnt say that is "valid" as you put it. we exist in a massively abstracted plane (physics-wise) and we have rules that comes with being conscious and having sympathy and empathy with others. any power or knowledge comes with responsibility. besides that, "blaming" physical laws or atoms is obviously pointless. blame or guilt are not concepts in natural science. (I dont mean to say it like if you wouldnt know it, I know you do. but still)
its the equivelant of lets say a mobster blackmailing a police officer into ending an investigation lest he or his family wollow in misery (in the mobsters case he inflicts death and torture---in religions case....well they do the same but with the extension of ETERNITY)
@TheGreatDeciever55 on your claims about blackmail, you are absolutely wrong in stating that blackmail give the blackmailer a power over free inquiry or the action of the person. The blackmail only has power if the person being blackmailed fears the consequences of the information being threatened to be revealed. It is the person being blackmailed who is suppressing their own actions, or allowing themselves to be coerced into action, not the act of blackmail.
@TheGreatDeciever55 in neither the Muslim nor the Christian example you gave is free inquiry being suppressed. Just because a Muslim is not permitted by Islam to convert does not mean they not allowed to study Christianity, Buddhism, or any other form of Religion, and in several cases are quite encouraged to study these religions at a bare minimum for the purposes of apologetics, to say nothing of the study of other religions for its educational value.
also "There is not a belief in theism that says free inquiry must be suppressed" ----tell that to me again with a striaght face after reading the comments of islam on non-believers----or that of the OLD TESTAMENT and Moses adventures of genocide against all who do not believe in the admittedly jelous Yahweh (hebrew God/ YOUR GOD---since the new testament was merely a continuation of the old one...merely a slap stick way of making its prophecies come true
@TheGreatDeciever55 I can with a straight face tell you that just because a particular form of theism suppresses free inquiry does not mean that such suppression is a requirement for belief in theism. You do not give any examples of suppression of free inquiry, you merely give examples of prejudice on the part of Islamic commentators (which does not appear to me to have the power to stop the inquiry of others) and examples of genocide. None of these are examples of free inquiry suppression.
besides---even if you take the suppressive actions of the people who have believed in this theology out of the equation---your still left with the fact your theology still claims to have the indisputable explanation for the nature of the universe---which is directly violating the human pursuit for knowledge of its ACTUAL nature---so even if theology itself doesnt look to eliminate others free inquiry---it looks to eliminate YOURS
@TheGreatDeciever55 second, you are incorrectly assuming and asserting that theology is wrong before you even begin to examine its claim. Theology does claim that God is the origin of the universe, but you cannot claim that this is "violating the human pursuit for knowledge of its ACTUAL nature" without committing petitio principii (the logical fallacy of "begging the question"). you assume your conclusion before making your argument.
@theantihero420 thats the irony of this argument---i cant help but assume the claim is wrong because its UNFALSAFIABLE---any claim made with no evidence can be DISMISSED without evidence....period---but tell me what is the penalty for a muslim who wishes to leave the islamic faith? what is the punishement of christians in the same sense? blackmail is a suppressor....blackmail gives the blackmailer power over the free inquiry and action of the person being blackmailed...
@TheGreatDeciever55 All you have to do is show that it is impossible for a necessary being to exist and you effectively disprove the existence of God. Also, you cannot dismiss a claim that has no evidence to back it up in every case. Let us assume that we know a murder took place, & that only Steve or Jane are capable of having perpetrated the murder. If you lack evidence that proves Steve did it, you lack evidence that Jane did it, you are NOT therefore justified in assuming neither did it.
@TheGreatDeciever55 it is the same with the existence of the universe. We know that it is not an eternal universe, and therefore must have a first necessary cause. If we simplify the claims to either be "God created the universe," or "God does not exist, and therefore did not create the universe" you are left with the same situation. You have two possible outcomes, and you lack evidence to prove either outcome. Are we justified in disbelieving both claims?!? That would be absurd!
--->you cant say anything Hitchens said was irrefutable anyway---- because most of what he was saying here was in regards to the fact that theist deem their theism as irrefutable---while athiests believe nothing is irrefutable---hence they possess free inquiry....while "free inquiry" based on thiesm is inquiry that inevitable leads to ONE book or ONE scripture blah blah dooming itself to rhetorical tautology
@TheGreatDeciever55 Also, you state that the Bible is "ONE book," but it is actually a collection of 66 books written over a period of 1400 - 1800 years. It is not a book written by one man, like the Koran by Muhammad , or the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. It is a collection of writings over a very long period of time, that all point to and paint an intricate picture of YHWH. It is not the work of one man, it is the work of one God, who spoke through men over a very long period of time.
->Also you claimed i stated the Bible was ONE book when CLEARLY I said it " theistic free inquiry inevitably leads to ONE book or ONE scripture"---which not only doesnt mention the bible---but you actually responded that the bible is factually 66 books---so when quoting from the bible you inevitably have to quote from ONE of the 66 books...--also a specualtive claim that you think you and thiests are fond of free inquiry is nothing compared to more than 2000 years of documented suppression of it
@TheGreatDeciever55 you are correct in saying that you did not single out the Bible. I was merely pointing out the difference between the Bible & every other Holy book of every other religion. You are also factually correct in saying that if one is quoting the Bible, they are quoting from on particular book in the Bible. Again, just because many theists over the years have suppressed free inquiry does not mean that Theism itself imposes this suppression. Christian Theism makes no such imposition
Does it not? I thought hell was a central doctrine of christian theology? And the fact that rejecting or questioning the groundless assumption that an unidentifiable man was an incarnation of a divine entity (that not only hasnt been proved but CANT be proved to exist) will get you sent to a pit of fire and misery for all eternity isnt suppression of free inquiry? Since your religion cant pinpoint an original source--its only as good as its past practice---that of heretic burning..etc----cont-->
@TheGreatDeciever55 no, hell is not a central doctrine, and there are some who do not believe in its existence. Regardless, you are historically and factually incorrect in your assertions of the following: that Jesus of Nazareth is an unidentifiable man, that questioning his existence will get you sent straight to hell, that a belief in hell is suppression of free inquiry, that Christianity does not have a definitive original source. Pretty much your entire first comment here is false.
@gibsonr100 perfectly constructed arguement?? have you watched it from the begining? hitchens cannot in neway refute wilsons arguement so he makes his own. its absurd that atheists thnk this way.. go look up FORMAL DEBATE RULES,&who takes the positive & who takes the negative in the arguement. then watch again.. or just look up bahnsen stein debate.. atheists getn demolished in debate hitchens nvr deals with the argu presented therefore looses no matter what else he says or if he soundsgood
@sids500so much ignorance packed in just a few words... its so bad i have to assume ur joking..or u give atheists a very bad name..hope its the former
6:00 to 6:12 this atheist whack job wants me to believe there is no God but instead in the ramblings of a crippled, former drug user like steven hawking? Amo go with NO!!!! May God have mercy on your soul and I hope you find him before you die and its too late for you.
@crackawise Typical judgmental Christian. Calling someone a 'cripple' when the teachings of your god are strictly in contrast to your hatred. May god have mercy on you my dear friend...I hope you haven't spent a lifetime searching for 'him.'
@crackawise So you think it's OK to call someone a "cripple" simply because he disagrees with you? Nice religion you follow. I am atheist and have better morals than that. But then that's hardly surprising considering the morals of your scripture, rape, racism, sexism, violence etc.
I think the audience was just struck dumb by the perfect construction of hitchen's arguement - as if any previous doubt as to the insanity of religoius belief just drained away in a few sconds.
Are you 12? Did your preacher or resident holy man convince you that these are sufficient arguments for adult discourse? Never state that you have successfully refuted an argument especially one that ends like a bad punchline. If you would have used this argument in debate circles you would have been laughed at like Rabbi Boteach when he went up against Hitch. Calm down. Form your arguments. Get your head out of the Book and into another one.
@4cellar2door0 "He" answers prayer ?? I have prayed, quite passionately for my sister to be healed of cerebral palsy or at the very least, that she not be in screaming pain, unable to communicate what was causing her agony. Had this so called god answered that prayer then i might be open to "his" existance.
@4cellar2door0 I'm saying that the god of the bible is a myth. I used to be a christian. So, yes i prayed to the "god" of the bible. But which version are you talking about ? The catholic jesus, the mormon jesus, the methodist jesus, the baptist jesus, the white aryan jesus, or the non-demoninational jesus ?? It is so unclear as to which god the christians acutally believe in. The jesus that you imagine is so different from the jesus of thousands of other people. Also your dad is not "god ".
@MrBeautifulba1 give it up man. If he actually cared about learning whether his beliefs were true or not he would be researching it like you and I did. I am a former believer as well.
It's black and white. I essentially had to be taught how to think all over again. It wasn't that I didn't know how...just that I didn't know how to apply it to religion (since we are scared of the punishment from it).
Anything that says they know for sure but can't prove/test it needs to be ignored right away!
After listening to the full debate and watching the movie Collision, I actually quite liked Pastor Wilson, He is a decent, humorous guy. He got pwned in all the aforementioned though!
@shawndimery me too. it was an interesting film; i liked that hitchens and wilson showed apparently genuine respect for each other though no punches were pulled in the debates. the pretend hip hop sound track was a bit of a shame though.
A black hole may be truly impressive but the idea of posessed pigs jumping into the sea because a Rabbi told them is just hilarious. It's like something out of Harold and Kumar.
@amphitrike Right on! "Myth" and" Fairy Tales" are more "real" to me than life itself! This scientific,deductive,materialist view of everything is the "prison" we live in. We are about to liberate our beautiful "genius" out of the "genie bottle" we,ve been condemned to live in for far too long!
@SlayingMinion Absolutely. It's no different than admiring the beauty of the Pantheon or the Great Pyramid. Religion aside, they were still constructed by humans beings.
Guys could someone pls explain what hitchens was saying when he mentions theists dont believe in the need for inquiry? So many scholars were involved in discoveries within astronomy, physics, maths etc obviously, so i must've missed what he meant
@sheikhterry he means that if we humans had just believed the creationist story from the get go that god gave us all we see around us (genesis,etc), there would be no need for inquiry(the need/want to find out more about the world/universe) because the creationist story "explains" it all.
Hitches is amazing I cannot add any more to what he has magnificently said.
I still don't understand how bigots and fanatics turn from the real revelations that science has provided us with in the last 4 centuries until this very day and still fall for infantile stories of the religions.
I think hitchen's response was beautifully orated. Just shows you even atheist talk can send a tingle down your spine and make you feel just a bit more optimistic about the world.
I think I'm missing something with these debates. There is no generic god that can be debated outside of the context of a particular religion. That is, the Christian god is a particular type of god, which is different than the Jewish god, or the Shinto god, Greek pantheistic gods., etc. These are idiotic debates, and mostly carried on by Christian. They try to elevate the topic by pretending god is a generic being. If that's the case, let them first declare that all gods are real.
Incorrect. The monotheistic religions, while claiming different revelations and paths to God, they do all agree in the public sphere that they all believe in the same creator single "god."
But you are correct about the Greek and Shinto etc, just monotheism is a relatively specific idea and by definition must be the same god if there is one. (big if though. and i'm not trying to argue with you, i agree with you but just wanted to explain that)
@Assaultpredator Well, if you say so, but I think you can only maintain that as an apologist for one of those "Monotheistic" religions (sorry if I'm wrong in your case). Gods are gods. They are what their believers agree they are.
@cupwithhandles I hear what you're saying but some people do believe in a single god. This is usually a view of religious apologists or agnostics. Personally I believe in zero gods.
Some people have spiritual beliefs outside of the major religions, and indeed some people make up their own spiritual beliefs.
I can't deny that they are idiotic debates though ;)
@vindicato15 This kind of language that's so typical of you people of one book may sound very persuasive among yourselves, but think of what you just said... it has absolutely no substance. Jus what the hell are you saying??? "A man who it is evident upon listening to him loves to hear himself speak." What you people do is try to pass off the lack of clarity for wisdom. You're only convinced among yourselves, trust me.
@indeficit2 LOL oh please the man was talking in circles. We dont need God to see beauty. That is the best he can come up with? Further we people of one book. Oh my how silly of you not to realize that some of the greatest thinkers in history where believers in God. Further they where adherents of faith. For you to even hint that atheists have cornered the market on intellectual pursuit is further proof of your own fallacious arguments.
@indeficit2 Thank you. and let us say God bless Corpernicus, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and many of the other blessed men of God who helped our world advance in knowledge and understanding of the universe we live in today.
@vindicato15 It is a shame that Francis Bacon emerged from the end of centuries of cultural darkness in Europe. He may have been a believer, but by any standard today, his views of the supernatural are not compatible with the empirism of which he was a pioneer. Let us not get into the relation of the Church and Copernicus and Galileo, except to mention that heliocentrism was an idea that was suppressed by Christianity the brainchild of Ptolemy who lived over a thousand years before Copernicus.
@vindicato15 (continue) It was Christianity that forced Europe into a deep slumber until the Renaissance when people picked up from what little scraps of work had survived the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Now Newton's genius was evidently 10 times that of Laplace. What stopped him short of working out the math behind the stability of the solar system? You see? Call it the work of God and all inquiry comes to a complete stop. Is this what you mean when you say God bless these men?
@indeficit2 Ah yes the old Christianity caused the dark ages. Uh no it did not cause the dark ages. It was the fall of the roman empire and it's subsequent collapse. The barbarian hordes raging across most of europe raping robbing and pillaging and cutting up old roman territories into fiefdoms. Hmmmmmmm could be idiot.
@vindicato15 Well.. there you go again. What can I say but God bless you.. and add that God has never, and will never, be a blessing to anyone who knows how to operate his/her critical faculty. If you don't understand that, then you don't even understand your theology.
@indeficit2 I dont give a wit about theology. Theology is the same garbage that people like you peddle about. It is about faith. You need to choose is Christ messiah or madman. Choose and then once you have chosen live with your choice. It is you who doesn't understand anything. faith liberates it doesn't stifle. Dogma and religion doesn't equate faith. If you dont understand that then you never will.
@vindicato15 I actuall think theology is garbage too. I am glad we can at least agree on that. But regrettably you choose to close your mind off to reason and inquiry and call that "faith". I, on the other hand, choose science and philosophy. This is all the difference between you and me.
I really wish you a happy life, but at the same time I can't help but feel sorry for you the same way I feel sorry for the blind. The world is SO beautiful as exposed by science.
@vindicato15 You just conceded to me the grounds on which your "faith" rests, by admitting your own ignorance of the theology, and by admitting that it's all about believing without the need for logical coherence or evidence. Then on what basis can you claim to know and use history in your argument? You really should just say that you have faith that my account of history is inaccurate.
@indeficit2 No indeficit I haven't admitted any ignorance of theology. I have stated that it is faith that is the question. What do you believe? Messiah or Madman choose and then live with the choice. I made my choice you make yours and then either respect my choice or admit your a bigot.
@indeficit2 Yes if you cannot respect my right to believe in a Creator and a savior. Then yes you are a bigot. You have the same right to not believe.
@vindicato15 You're demanding respect from me? And if I don't have respect for your delusions, then that makes me a bigot? You're right that I have the right to not believe, just as you have the right to believe, but I also have the right to reserve my respect for those whom I deem deserving of it. I have no respect for people who choose faith over reason.
@vindicato15 I hope you see that to call yourself a person of faith (to the point where you would dismiss what is to me the futile rationalizing of theology), then what you're saying is really "Hey, I don't need logical coherence, and I am incapable of arguing logically, nor do I see the need for it. I have faith and I'm content." Then why do you even attempt to win an argument with me? You cannot start without appealing to reason, you know... When you realize, it's not about faith anymore.
@indeficit2 Just in case that escapes your grasp I'll break down simply. Big empire rotten to the core with corruption finally collapses from the inside out. Power vacuum ensues hundreds of would be emperors running around hacking up anyone that doesn't agree with them. If that isn't enough for you there where multiple factors in play that ultimately lead to what is referred to as the dark ages. Throw in power hunger and greed voila dark ages.
@indeficit2: Well that is a brilliant response. Although at least it is consistent so I shouldn't jump on you to much. Evolutionary survival of the fittest ehh? There is more of us though. :-) In the end it is all pointless since we will all be destroyed by some cataclysmic event with all knowledge wiped out as if it never even existed. Isn't that true? So why bother trying to destroy theocracies? You are just wasting your only existence.
@theocratickingdom30 So many of my friends, not unlike yourself, have asked me to love a man with a beard more than myself, more than my family, my brothers, my sister, my parents, my baby nephews and niece.. But I have never even met this man with a beard.. You go love this man with a beard. Leave me the fuck alone.
@indeficit2: Leave you alone? You didn't have to respond. I didn't make you. I'm not following you around everywhere you go yelling theology in your ears. You chose to respond. If you want to be left alone then don't respond.
@theocratickingdom30 It's strange to me that people are so insistent that I love this man with a beard. It doesn't seem to be enough when I tell them "no thanks i'll find my own man with a beard." They're just not happy unless it's the same man with a beard. No, you go love your own fucking man with a beard. I'll find my own man with a beard to love.
@indeficit2: You missed the fundamental core of the Christian message. I'm not the one doing the insisting. :-) His world. His creation. His air you breathe. His ground you walk on. His food you eat. His water you drink. If He stops being God tomorrow you cease to exist. Another fundamental core of Christianity? Man is so radically depraved he will never believe God exists unless God has mercy on him and opens his eyes. Neutrality is a myth. That is historic Christianity.
@indeficit2: The Christian is arguing that no matter the amount of evidence I throw at you you will never believe. If Christ appeared to you you would attempt to kill Him. That is the message of Christianity. You claim give me evidence. The Christian says, "We can go over the evidence but you won't accept it unless God opens your eyes. Man it to corrupted." Our world around us testifies to this. Neutrality is a myth.
@indeficit2 Just curious do you also agree with his politics? You are aware he hates Clinton, Michale Moore, believes Capitalist are the true revolutionaries.. Agreed with Bush's interventionism. Labels himself a conservative Marxist aka a capitalist interventionist atheist. And not did he support the Iraq War, but believes it's our obligation to destroy our enemy. And of course he believes that Jew's and Christians as well as all faiths are also enemies to civilization? Just how great is he?
@indeficit2 Yes there is because NE1 can argue against this very easily! This speech provides no evidence of any his claims. It may be a "good" speech in the same way a political speech is (that is eloquent but saying very little) but it is simply trite dribble. He "paints" this beautiful picture of things that inspire awe, & then in effect says that God didn't do it, it just is. This speech provides no basis for any of the claims or statements he makes. This monologue doesn't belong in a debate
@theantihero420 It's interesting that you mention evidence. You know what doesn't belong in a debate? God. Nevermind evidence, I don't even know what the fuck God means! Just what the fuck is it? What does it mean? and there's evidence?--for this funny sounding word that is the reverse of dog?
@indeficit2 so according to you, things like the origin of the universe, something which we don't fully understand, and for which there is no definitive evidence, should not be discussed and debated?
If you don't understand who God is, then I would suggest you learn what is meant by the word "God" before you start watching a debate centered around the concept, let alone making comments on such a debate.
@indeficit2 lol, your ignorant, bigoted point of view is very sad. Your hatred of religion (or maybe it is simply a hatred of God?) is on par with that of a racist. Unless this last comment was intended as a joke, your narrow view of what is and is not philosophy is pathetic and disheartening. Philosophy is about looking at the world and asking tough questions, not ignoring the points of view of people who don't think the way you do, or who completely oppose your views.
@theantihero420 in every accredited university across the nation, you will find that the philosophy department wants nothing to do with theology. You find my opinion, or any difference in opinion for that matter, to be offensive and on par with racism, precisely because of this religious mentality of yours that demands you to be intolerant of other beliefs and what's most ridiculous of all, unearned respect, unconditionally. But no, we do not have respect for stupidity.
@indeficit2 This is an inherently false statement. There are plenty of accredited universities where the philosophy department is amicable towards the theology department. I find your hatred towards people based on the fact that they believe in a religion on par with racism because you hate someone because of what they believe, not because it differs from my own view. lol, you sit there and say religion makes me intolerant of other peoples views, and yet you are being intolerant of my view!
@theantihero420 I didn't see this comment until now. So why do you think theology isn't a part of the philosophy department? It's simply because theology is not philosophy. I don't hate anyone. I just think certain people are stupid, and you are one of them. Religious people are stupid. That's my opinion. If you disagree... well, go cry or something... I am not intolerant. I have to tolerate this shit every day. I am just annoyed and I believe in giving voice to my opinions.
@indeficit2 First, I never said philosophy = theology. LOL! you say you are tolerant, & yet you think all religious people are stupid! This is on par with someone saying, "I don't hate black people, I just think all black people are lazy." THAT IS PURE RACISM! When you generalize any group of people and say "everyone who is X is Y" you are making a prejudice statement. You may not "hate" religious people, but you are FAR from tolerant.
@theantihero420 No. That I think all religious people are stupid is my opinion. And you are being intolerant of this opinion of mine, to which I am entitled. Get this straight.
And I said it's a shame that you're a philosophy student, because until you have made proper use of your critical faculty you will not be doing philosophy, no matter how much you may believe you are.
@indeficit2 One, the statement All religious people are stupid is a prejudiced statement. Period. You can't fight that. Two, the intelligence of a person is not a matter of opinion. There is empirical evidence by which we determine the intelligence of a person, and your "opinion" has nothing to do with it. three, you assume that I don't use critical faculty. You don't know me or my education, and therefore have no basis upon which to know my use of reason, rationality, or critical faculty.
@theantihero420 I know this much: You believe Jesus is the son of God and will come back again. Hence, you are not using your critical faculty. Need I know more than that? You are stupid and that is objectively true, but stupidity is a relative term, so in my opinion you are stupid, but you may be smart to others of your kind. Clear now?
@indeficit2 you can say you are not intolerant or prejudice all you want, but it does not make or mean that it is a true statement. A prejudice is unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a sexual, racial, religious, or national group. You say "all religious people are stupid." This is a broad, sweeping, & unfounded opinion about the intelligence of an entire group of people (religious). That is prejudice, plain and simple. There is no wiggle room
@theantihero420 If I'm intolerant, it would be the intolerance of intolerance, especially the kind that is stipulated by authority of holy books. I have no respect for stupidity and irrationality, and if you can't tell the difference between that and the kind of racial, sexual, national differences you include in you definition, then you are one of those I have no respect for. Call it what you want. Your approval means nothing to me.
@indeficit2 you are prejudice against religious people. period. I don't care if you think so or not, it is glaringly apparent in your conversation with me. It is also glaringly apparent that our conversation has turned into a finger pointing match, so let us take a new turn.
What exactly in this rant of Hitchens' do you find irrefutable? what do you think are his strong arguments against Theism?
@theantihero420 I never tried to hide it. Yeh I don't like religious people, especially the Christians because you guys just won't leave us atheists alone. Your question is stupid. Theism = bullshit. What's strong about bullshit in a logical argument?
@indeficit2 What is not strong is your ability to engage in a logcial and/or civil conversation with a non-atheist... you say my question is stupid, but I respectfully disagree with your assertion, your position, and your attitude towards those who are different than you. I can see having a logical conversation with you is not going to happen...oh well, at least there are still Atheists who are willing to engage in discussion and debate without engaging in foolish and unnecessary hostility.
@theantihero420 I have long given up trying to be logical with you people. You are simply incapable of a logical conversation. It's a language you will never learn to understand. Good luck with studying philosophy. I sincerely hope that you will one day see how silly this whole faith thing is to us atheists. That's what it is... silly. How can you expect us to take you seriously? I simply can't... hence, the flippancy in my remarks. Grow up first. Then we talk.
@theantihero420 I know im not part of your conversations----but i think the good arguments against Theism Mr. Hitchen detailed would be---first---that the act of thiesm rejects that of free inquiry---because by its very nature it claims to have any necessary answer for the nature of the universe and our purpose/instigation for existence---thats why he mentions Hawkins a man who couldnt have dedicated his life to science if the religious authorities had still been in power----BTW-->
@TheGreatDeciever55 First question. What do you mean by "the act of theism?" Theism is a belief or set of beliefs. Second, I think that I and many other theists are quite fond of free inquiry, that is the idea that one is free to think and question things, in order to better understand them. I disagree that "Free inquiry based on theism leads to a rhetorical tautology. I believe you mean a logical tautology, as a rhetorical tautology is something like, "unsolved mystery" or "cheapest price."
Sorry--it had been awhile but i agree the "act of thiesm" makes no sense---my wording has once again screwed me---to word it better: "The (many) act(s) of theism reject that of free inquiry"---thats why i mentioned Hawkins who ironically asked to see the trail of Galileo at his visit to the Vatican---a trial that convicted a man with crimes against absolutism...a strong athiestic argument against thiesm Hitchens brought up is its clearly evident destructive history against free inquiry---cont-->
@TheGreatDeciever55 well, I still disagree with your reworded statement, as well as its intended implications. Theism is not a person that it can do anything. Theism therefore, cannot reject free inquiry, and there is not a belief in Theism that says free inquiry must be banned or suppressed. Theists, however, can and at times do accomplish or implement such things. Just because Theists in the past have done so doesn't mean that theism overall rejects such things.
@theantihero420 I hope you understand, and maybe have some respect for the fact, that to some of us the word god means NOTHING... and hearing you people say how much you love Jesus is not only something we can't sympathize with, but it really, i mean REALLY sounds ridiculously childish and stupid, and then for you retards to claim the moral high ground and to try and shove this crap down our throats, you wouldn't think that's enough, but NO! you also want RESPECT! Give us a break.
@indeficit2 I don't claim to have moral high ground on you, nor have I ever tried to shove my morality on you or others. I would never expect a non-Christian to follow Christian morality. That WOULD be silly of me to expect. This is exactly why I claim your hatred of religion & religious people on par with racism. You find that I believe in God & you assume you know certain things about me based on my beliefs, but you don't know me or what it is I believe. Your hate & assumptions are unfounded.
@theantihero420 Of course I know what you believe in, You are a Christian. That is to say your imaginary friend is Jesus, and you're on a mission to prosyletize, to spread his word. That is by definition what a Christian is. I have not made any assumption outside of this inclusive definition of what it means to be a Christian.
@indeficit2 Spreading the word/proselytizing may be something that a Christian does, but it is a far cry from the definition of what a Christian is.
You assume I am a Christian. How do you know that I am not a Muslim? How do you know that I am not a deist? how do you know that I am not a Mormon, or a Jehovah's Witness? You don't know, nor do you bother to find out.
Belief in God does not equal being a Christian
Why do you think everyone who believes in God is stupid?
@theantihero420 And I haven't made any assumption outside of this definition, have I? Why do you assume that I didn't bother finding out? I did go on your profile, and you're a Jesus loving freak. The faithful are by definition lacking in rational inquiry, even if by choice.
@indeficit2 you are right. I was wrong for assuming that you didn't go to my page and find out.
"The faithful are by definition lacking in rational inquiry" THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION!
you say you are making no assumptions, and yet in the same comment you are! Why do you assume that just because a person is religious they lack rational inquiry? That is such a fallacious and presumptuous statement! A person's spirituality has nothing to do with their ability to inquire of of something rationally
Hitchens accepts a naturalistic view of evolution, but seems to still think that we have can have "responsibility" for abolishing slavery. A true materialist could not believe they have responsibility for their actions, nor do the ideas of "guilt" or "shame" make any sense if we are merely products of genetics and environment, as we certianly are.
ClamCrunchy 1 month ago
@ClamCrunchy You're assertions are arbitrary. Fail.
bryanttillman 1 month ago
@bryanttillman In what way specifically?
ClamCrunchy 1 month ago
@ClamCrunchy Mankind was NOT born yesterday, and neither was his culture. Guilt, Shame, and everything else are from our interactions w/ each other....or are you saying that all things good and evil are from god exclusively? Jesus! God can't be an originator ofr ALL things, or we won't have any room for ourselves.
bryanttillman 1 month ago
@bryanttillman Nope, said nothing about any God. What I'm saying is that we aren't responsible for our actions, because our behavior is totally determined by genetics and environment. It would only make sense for us to have such things as "guilt" or "shame" if had the ability to make a free choice, beyond merely what genetics and environment dictate.
ClamCrunchy 1 month ago
@ClamCrunchy do you mean responsibility in some cosmic sense then? why would there be a need for that? Im not sure what youre claiming but that is an outrageously simplistic argument.
frilansspion 1 month ago
@frilansspion Here's what I mean. If we accept a totally naturalistic view of evolution, then the behavior of humans must ultimately be reducible to a very complex interplay of genetics and environment. Thus it is always valid to blame one's behavior on genetics and environment, rather than to take personal responsibility, is it not?
ClamCrunchy 1 month ago
@ClamCrunchy no I wouldnt say that is "valid" as you put it. we exist in a massively abstracted plane (physics-wise) and we have rules that comes with being conscious and having sympathy and empathy with others. any power or knowledge comes with responsibility. besides that, "blaming" physical laws or atoms is obviously pointless. blame or guilt are not concepts in natural science. (I dont mean to say it like if you wouldnt know it, I know you do. but still)
frilansspion 1 month ago
The problem with Verdi's Requiem is that it is not a work of religious art. It ends in despair, a kind of despairing hope.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
Love Hitchens, and I'm an atheist, but still find it kinda funny the first 6 letters of his name are 'Christ' tee hee!
weefeatures 2 months ago
@weefeatures "Christ" is an alteration of a greek common noun, "Chrestos", meaning "KIng". It isn't even Jesus' name.
bryanttillman 1 month ago
@bryanttillman right and no one ever associates it with Jesus ever.
weefeatures 1 month ago
The Hitch is brilliant
rdickinsondickinson 2 months ago
Did I just hear that? No applause?!?
nynevergoingback 2 months ago
its the equivelant of lets say a mobster blackmailing a police officer into ending an investigation lest he or his family wollow in misery (in the mobsters case he inflicts death and torture---in religions case....well they do the same but with the extension of ETERNITY)
TheGreatDeciever55 4 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 on your claims about blackmail, you are absolutely wrong in stating that blackmail give the blackmailer a power over free inquiry or the action of the person. The blackmail only has power if the person being blackmailed fears the consequences of the information being threatened to be revealed. It is the person being blackmailed who is suppressing their own actions, or allowing themselves to be coerced into action, not the act of blackmail.
theantihero420 4 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 in neither the Muslim nor the Christian example you gave is free inquiry being suppressed. Just because a Muslim is not permitted by Islam to convert does not mean they not allowed to study Christianity, Buddhism, or any other form of Religion, and in several cases are quite encouraged to study these religions at a bare minimum for the purposes of apologetics, to say nothing of the study of other religions for its educational value.
theantihero420 4 months ago
I became in actuality spellbound by Hitchens here.
Jornev 4 months ago
theantihero420 wrote a book in comment form.
mytourdeforce 5 months ago 2
Christopher Hitchens is one of the few speakers I can think of that could match the eloquence of Carl Sagan
AWilberforce 5 months ago
I simply love Hitchens. I hope his health will get better!!
markus310773 5 months ago
@markus310773 Me, too, but I fear he will not.
writersblock26 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
also "There is not a belief in theism that says free inquiry must be suppressed" ----tell that to me again with a striaght face after reading the comments of islam on non-believers----or that of the OLD TESTAMENT and Moses adventures of genocide against all who do not believe in the admittedly jelous Yahweh (hebrew God/ YOUR GOD---since the new testament was merely a continuation of the old one...merely a slap stick way of making its prophecies come true
TheGreatDeciever55 6 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 I can with a straight face tell you that just because a particular form of theism suppresses free inquiry does not mean that such suppression is a requirement for belief in theism. You do not give any examples of suppression of free inquiry, you merely give examples of prejudice on the part of Islamic commentators (which does not appear to me to have the power to stop the inquiry of others) and examples of genocide. None of these are examples of free inquiry suppression.
theantihero420 6 months ago
besides---even if you take the suppressive actions of the people who have believed in this theology out of the equation---your still left with the fact your theology still claims to have the indisputable explanation for the nature of the universe---which is directly violating the human pursuit for knowledge of its ACTUAL nature---so even if theology itself doesnt look to eliminate others free inquiry---it looks to eliminate YOURS
TheGreatDeciever55 6 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 second, you are incorrectly assuming and asserting that theology is wrong before you even begin to examine its claim. Theology does claim that God is the origin of the universe, but you cannot claim that this is "violating the human pursuit for knowledge of its ACTUAL nature" without committing petitio principii (the logical fallacy of "begging the question"). you assume your conclusion before making your argument.
theantihero420 6 months ago
@theantihero420 thats the irony of this argument---i cant help but assume the claim is wrong because its UNFALSAFIABLE---any claim made with no evidence can be DISMISSED without evidence....period---but tell me what is the penalty for a muslim who wishes to leave the islamic faith? what is the punishement of christians in the same sense? blackmail is a suppressor....blackmail gives the blackmailer power over the free inquiry and action of the person being blackmailed...
TheGreatDeciever55 4 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 All you have to do is show that it is impossible for a necessary being to exist and you effectively disprove the existence of God. Also, you cannot dismiss a claim that has no evidence to back it up in every case. Let us assume that we know a murder took place, & that only Steve or Jane are capable of having perpetrated the murder. If you lack evidence that proves Steve did it, you lack evidence that Jane did it, you are NOT therefore justified in assuming neither did it.
theantihero420 4 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 it is the same with the existence of the universe. We know that it is not an eternal universe, and therefore must have a first necessary cause. If we simplify the claims to either be "God created the universe," or "God does not exist, and therefore did not create the universe" you are left with the same situation. You have two possible outcomes, and you lack evidence to prove either outcome. Are we justified in disbelieving both claims?!? That would be absurd!
theantihero420 4 months ago
wilson has no shame. that is the root of evil.
iworkforme 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, WestminsterOnline.
writersblock26 7 months ago 9
@writersblock26 Our pleasure!
WestminsterOnline 7 months ago 4
4 people can't think for themselves lol.
Sanosukeafo 7 months ago
--->you cant say anything Hitchens said was irrefutable anyway---- because most of what he was saying here was in regards to the fact that theist deem their theism as irrefutable---while athiests believe nothing is irrefutable---hence they possess free inquiry....while "free inquiry" based on thiesm is inquiry that inevitable leads to ONE book or ONE scripture blah blah dooming itself to rhetorical tautology
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 Also, you state that the Bible is "ONE book," but it is actually a collection of 66 books written over a period of 1400 - 1800 years. It is not a book written by one man, like the Koran by Muhammad , or the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. It is a collection of writings over a very long period of time, that all point to and paint an intricate picture of YHWH. It is not the work of one man, it is the work of one God, who spoke through men over a very long period of time.
theantihero420 7 months ago
->Also you claimed i stated the Bible was ONE book when CLEARLY I said it " theistic free inquiry inevitably leads to ONE book or ONE scripture"---which not only doesnt mention the bible---but you actually responded that the bible is factually 66 books---so when quoting from the bible you inevitably have to quote from ONE of the 66 books...--also a specualtive claim that you think you and thiests are fond of free inquiry is nothing compared to more than 2000 years of documented suppression of it
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 you are correct in saying that you did not single out the Bible. I was merely pointing out the difference between the Bible & every other Holy book of every other religion. You are also factually correct in saying that if one is quoting the Bible, they are quoting from on particular book in the Bible. Again, just because many theists over the years have suppressed free inquiry does not mean that Theism itself imposes this suppression. Christian Theism makes no such imposition
theantihero420 7 months ago
Does it not? I thought hell was a central doctrine of christian theology? And the fact that rejecting or questioning the groundless assumption that an unidentifiable man was an incarnation of a divine entity (that not only hasnt been proved but CANT be proved to exist) will get you sent to a pit of fire and misery for all eternity isnt suppression of free inquiry? Since your religion cant pinpoint an original source--its only as good as its past practice---that of heretic burning..etc----cont-->
TheGreatDeciever55 6 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 no, hell is not a central doctrine, and there are some who do not believe in its existence. Regardless, you are historically and factually incorrect in your assertions of the following: that Jesus of Nazareth is an unidentifiable man, that questioning his existence will get you sent straight to hell, that a belief in hell is suppression of free inquiry, that Christianity does not have a definitive original source. Pretty much your entire first comment here is false.
theantihero420 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
as if you'd argue against Hitchens....he's amazing!
Davidellulthorn 8 months ago
athena is not real? but... saint seiya was...
ComputerScience54 8 months ago
perhaps the most outstanding speech I've ever heard from Christopher Hitchens.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@gibsonr100 perfectly constructed arguement?? have you watched it from the begining? hitchens cannot in neway refute wilsons arguement so he makes his own. its absurd that atheists thnk this way.. go look up FORMAL DEBATE RULES,&who takes the positive & who takes the negative in the arguement. then watch again.. or just look up bahnsen stein debate.. atheists getn demolished in debate hitchens nvr deals with the argu presented therefore looses no matter what else he says or if he soundsgood
plato7770 9 months ago
@sids500so much ignorance packed in just a few words... its so bad i have to assume ur joking..or u give atheists a very bad name..hope its the former
plato7770 9 months ago
6:00 to 6:12 this atheist whack job wants me to believe there is no God but instead in the ramblings of a crippled, former drug user like steven hawking? Amo go with NO!!!! May God have mercy on your soul and I hope you find him before you die and its too late for you.
crackawise 9 months ago
@crackawise Typical judgmental Christian. Calling someone a 'cripple' when the teachings of your god are strictly in contrast to your hatred. May god have mercy on you my dear friend...I hope you haven't spent a lifetime searching for 'him.'
mfdoc12 9 months ago
@crackawise So you think it's OK to call someone a "cripple" simply because he disagrees with you? Nice religion you follow. I am atheist and have better morals than that. But then that's hardly surprising considering the morals of your scripture, rape, racism, sexism, violence etc.
sids500 9 months ago
I think the audience was just struck dumb by the perfect construction of hitchen's arguement - as if any previous doubt as to the insanity of religoius belief just drained away in a few sconds.
gibsondr100 9 months ago
Athena.... a fictitious GOD....... Who knew????? hahahaha
GWARREN2 9 months ago
No applause after that speech? Wrong house?
TheGreatIndoors1979 9 months ago
@TheGreatIndoors1979 yes, I noticed that. after watching MANY of such videos, never seen a ZERO applause situation!
nathanmarto 9 months ago
uh oh, the christian is up next to combat Christopher... i'm scared
Clifton100 9 months ago
Hitchens begs the question & does not deal with wilsons argument. Let's c if he does later in the debate
plato7770 10 months ago
@plato7770 Wilson has no argument. He's religious!
sids500 9 months ago
@sids500 hahaha so true
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
Hitchens fart at 3:24?
hairyDingos 10 months ago
Hitchens believes that in crossing over the event horizon of a black hole, you can see the past and the future.
But then who am I to question his beliefs.
waysworth 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0
Are you 12? Did your preacher or resident holy man convince you that these are sufficient arguments for adult discourse? Never state that you have successfully refuted an argument especially one that ends like a bad punchline. If you would have used this argument in debate circles you would have been laughed at like Rabbi Boteach when he went up against Hitch. Calm down. Form your arguments. Get your head out of the Book and into another one.
imwideawake07 10 months ago
How can Mr. Wilson still be a believer after hearing this ??
MrBeautifulba1 11 months ago
@MrBeautifulba1 Oh, maybe because there were more holes in Hitchens' logic than a 5lb. block of Swiss cheese.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 Maybe if Douglas Wlison's god would answer more prayers we wouldn't have to have these silly debates.
MrBeautifulba1 10 months ago
@MrBeautifulba1
I am quite confused as to why you would say such a thing...
You contradict yourself deeply. Here's how;
First you say "if...[G]od would answer more prayers.."
Of course as an atheist, you don't think he does.
As an educated, I presume, atheist, you should know that nearly all
theists believe He DOES answer prayer.
Same as the evolution/creation debate. 1 set of evidence, 2 conclusions.
YOU have just opened the door to "silly little debates" under the guise of not doing so.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 "He" answers prayer ?? I have prayed, quite passionately for my sister to be healed of cerebral palsy or at the very least, that she not be in screaming pain, unable to communicate what was causing her agony. Had this so called god answered that prayer then i might be open to "his" existance.
MrBeautifulba1 10 months ago
@MrBeautifulba1
Are you suggesting that God should answer -Every- prayer?
Are you saying God shouldn't allow pain?
Are you saying that if your sister had suddenly healed, you would have
attributed it to an answered prayer, or would you attribute it to luck/science?
Did you pray to the God of the Bible, was Jesus who you had in mind?
So you're saying, because God didn't do what you asked, he doesn't exist?
My dad didnt always do what I asked. He exists. Argument refuted.
4cellar2door0 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 I'm saying that the god of the bible is a myth. I used to be a christian. So, yes i prayed to the "god" of the bible. But which version are you talking about ? The catholic jesus, the mormon jesus, the methodist jesus, the baptist jesus, the white aryan jesus, or the non-demoninational jesus ?? It is so unclear as to which god the christians acutally believe in. The jesus that you imagine is so different from the jesus of thousands of other people. Also your dad is not "god ".
MrBeautifulba1 10 months ago
@MrBeautifulba1 give it up man. If he actually cared about learning whether his beliefs were true or not he would be researching it like you and I did. I am a former believer as well.
It's black and white. I essentially had to be taught how to think all over again. It wasn't that I didn't know how...just that I didn't know how to apply it to religion (since we are scared of the punishment from it).
Anything that says they know for sure but can't prove/test it needs to be ignored right away!
gary031183 10 months ago
@gary031183 Thank you sir. May the power of Shazam continue to awaken within you.
MrBeautifulba1 10 months ago
@4cellar2door0 That's funny.. because religious individuals do not even possess logic! So how would you even identify the quality of another's?
UNSUNGBAND 10 months ago
Pure poetry, Hitchens is brilliant!
Flipstick96 11 months ago 19
After listening to the full debate and watching the movie Collision, I actually quite liked Pastor Wilson, He is a decent, humorous guy. He got pwned in all the aforementioned though!
shawndimery 11 months ago
@shawndimery me too. it was an interesting film; i liked that hitchens and wilson showed apparently genuine respect for each other though no punches were pulled in the debates. the pretend hip hop sound track was a bit of a shame though.
PlanetBongoSan 11 months ago
Can I accept that man as my personal savior too? ;-) Beautiful speech.
TheSponkomat 11 months ago
@theocratickkingdom
I think it is better said that believing in a corrupt god has therefore corrupted man.
mrjholland1 1 year ago
A black hole may be truly impressive but the idea of posessed pigs jumping into the sea because a Rabbi told them is just hilarious. It's like something out of Harold and Kumar.
georgekostaras 1 year ago
How dare Hitchens say that Athena is a ficticious godess! I'm offended!
amphitrike 1 year ago 38
@amphitrike That bastard! BLASPHER!!!
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
@amphitrike Right on! "Myth" and" Fairy Tales" are more "real" to me than life itself! This scientific,deductive,materialist view of everything is the "prison" we live in. We are about to liberate our beautiful "genius" out of the "genie bottle" we,ve been condemned to live in for far too long!
squid4104 11 months ago
@amphitrike u should burn down the embassy, otherwise no one cares about you being offended :P lol
MGsven 7 months ago
The way that no one clapped for Hitchens reminds of a presentation on evolution I did a year ago.
cuevasdecamuy 1 year ago
the beauty of "faith", is, that it negates~ reality, truth, science, instinct, logic, reason and nature....drop the "faith" and the scam falls flat~
DNRvideos 1 year ago
Hitchens comments at about the 8:30 mark are rather odd. :?
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
The core reason for Hitchens beliefs are revealed at about the 2:30 mark and it has nothing to do with evidence.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
Dr. Pepper lulz:D
brianwurst1234 1 year ago
"think about blackholes instead"
Where has this man been all my life?
RPM11111 1 year ago
Hitchens is dying of a terminal illness, wonder if he'd now wish to go that way.
AresRoar 1 year ago
This is a very respectful debate i like it.
wachnathan 1 year ago
I'm an atheist and i find something beautiful in angelic artwork. We can still draw such things w/o believing in them can't we?
SlayingMinion 1 year ago
@SlayingMinion Absolutely. It's no different than admiring the beauty of the Pantheon or the Great Pyramid. Religion aside, they were still constructed by humans beings.
atomiicx 8 months ago
Guys could someone pls explain what hitchens was saying when he mentions theists dont believe in the need for inquiry? So many scholars were involved in discoveries within astronomy, physics, maths etc obviously, so i must've missed what he meant
sheikhterry 1 year ago
@sheikhterry he means that if we humans had just believed the creationist story from the get go that god gave us all we see around us (genesis,etc), there would be no need for inquiry(the need/want to find out more about the world/universe) because the creationist story "explains" it all.
SlayingMinion 1 year ago
I bet these guys read books in secrecy from each other, and sabotaged each others book purchases when they were making "Collision".
Kan2209 1 year ago
Hitches is amazing I cannot add any more to what he has magnificently said.
I still don't understand how bigots and fanatics turn from the real revelations that science has provided us with in the last 4 centuries until this very day and still fall for infantile stories of the religions.
Hitchens it is beautiful and I'm with you.
Democrit1to9Freud 1 year ago
I think hitchen's response was beautifully orated. Just shows you even atheist talk can send a tingle down your spine and make you feel just a bit more optimistic about the world.
way2funky4u2 1 year ago
I think I'm missing something with these debates. There is no generic god that can be debated outside of the context of a particular religion. That is, the Christian god is a particular type of god, which is different than the Jewish god, or the Shinto god, Greek pantheistic gods., etc. These are idiotic debates, and mostly carried on by Christian. They try to elevate the topic by pretending god is a generic being. If that's the case, let them first declare that all gods are real.
cupwithhandles 1 year ago
@cupwithhandles
Incorrect. The monotheistic religions, while claiming different revelations and paths to God, they do all agree in the public sphere that they all believe in the same creator single "god."
But you are correct about the Greek and Shinto etc, just monotheism is a relatively specific idea and by definition must be the same god if there is one. (big if though. and i'm not trying to argue with you, i agree with you but just wanted to explain that)
Assaultpredator 1 year ago
@Assaultpredator Well, if you say so, but I think you can only maintain that as an apologist for one of those "Monotheistic" religions (sorry if I'm wrong in your case). Gods are gods. They are what their believers agree they are.
cupwithhandles 1 year ago
@cupwithhandles I hear what you're saying but some people do believe in a single god. This is usually a view of religious apologists or agnostics. Personally I believe in zero gods.
Some people have spiritual beliefs outside of the major religions, and indeed some people make up their own spiritual beliefs.
I can't deny that they are idiotic debates though ;)
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
Is there even a need to listen to the rest of the debate after this brilliant speech Hitchens delivered? How could ANYONE argue against THIS???
indeficit2 1 year ago 31
@indeficit2 I can because it is the vain ramblings of a man. A man who it is evident upon listening to him loves to hear himself speak.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 This kind of language that's so typical of you people of one book may sound very persuasive among yourselves, but think of what you just said... it has absolutely no substance. Jus what the hell are you saying??? "A man who it is evident upon listening to him loves to hear himself speak." What you people do is try to pass off the lack of clarity for wisdom. You're only convinced among yourselves, trust me.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2 LOL oh please the man was talking in circles. We dont need God to see beauty. That is the best he can come up with? Further we people of one book. Oh my how silly of you not to realize that some of the greatest thinkers in history where believers in God. Further they where adherents of faith. For you to even hint that atheists have cornered the market on intellectual pursuit is further proof of your own fallacious arguments.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 God bless you.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2 Thank you. and let us say God bless Corpernicus, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and many of the other blessed men of God who helped our world advance in knowledge and understanding of the universe we live in today.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 It is a shame that Francis Bacon emerged from the end of centuries of cultural darkness in Europe. He may have been a believer, but by any standard today, his views of the supernatural are not compatible with the empirism of which he was a pioneer. Let us not get into the relation of the Church and Copernicus and Galileo, except to mention that heliocentrism was an idea that was suppressed by Christianity the brainchild of Ptolemy who lived over a thousand years before Copernicus.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@vindicato15 (continue) It was Christianity that forced Europe into a deep slumber until the Renaissance when people picked up from what little scraps of work had survived the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Now Newton's genius was evidently 10 times that of Laplace. What stopped him short of working out the math behind the stability of the solar system? You see? Call it the work of God and all inquiry comes to a complete stop. Is this what you mean when you say God bless these men?
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2 Ah yes the old Christianity caused the dark ages. Uh no it did not cause the dark ages. It was the fall of the roman empire and it's subsequent collapse. The barbarian hordes raging across most of europe raping robbing and pillaging and cutting up old roman territories into fiefdoms. Hmmmmmmm could be idiot.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 Well.. there you go again. What can I say but God bless you.. and add that God has never, and will never, be a blessing to anyone who knows how to operate his/her critical faculty. If you don't understand that, then you don't even understand your theology.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2 I dont give a wit about theology. Theology is the same garbage that people like you peddle about. It is about faith. You need to choose is Christ messiah or madman. Choose and then once you have chosen live with your choice. It is you who doesn't understand anything. faith liberates it doesn't stifle. Dogma and religion doesn't equate faith. If you dont understand that then you never will.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 I actuall think theology is garbage too. I am glad we can at least agree on that. But regrettably you choose to close your mind off to reason and inquiry and call that "faith". I, on the other hand, choose science and philosophy. This is all the difference between you and me.
I really wish you a happy life, but at the same time I can't help but feel sorry for you the same way I feel sorry for the blind. The world is SO beautiful as exposed by science.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@vindicato15 You just conceded to me the grounds on which your "faith" rests, by admitting your own ignorance of the theology, and by admitting that it's all about believing without the need for logical coherence or evidence. Then on what basis can you claim to know and use history in your argument? You really should just say that you have faith that my account of history is inaccurate.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2 No indeficit I haven't admitted any ignorance of theology. I have stated that it is faith that is the question. What do you believe? Messiah or Madman choose and then live with the choice. I made my choice you make yours and then either respect my choice or admit your a bigot.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 Haha..! Either respect your choice or I'm a bigot, huh? Good night, kid.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2 Yes if you cannot respect my right to believe in a Creator and a savior. Then yes you are a bigot. You have the same right to not believe.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 You're demanding respect from me? And if I don't have respect for your delusions, then that makes me a bigot? You're right that I have the right to not believe, just as you have the right to believe, but I also have the right to reserve my respect for those whom I deem deserving of it. I have no respect for people who choose faith over reason.
indeficit2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@indeficit2 Then you will be all understanding when you are treated as you treat others.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@vindicato15 And I especially have no respect for people who DEMAND respect from others.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@vindicato15 I hope you see that to call yourself a person of faith (to the point where you would dismiss what is to me the futile rationalizing of theology), then what you're saying is really "Hey, I don't need logical coherence, and I am incapable of arguing logically, nor do I see the need for it. I have faith and I'm content." Then why do you even attempt to win an argument with me? You cannot start without appealing to reason, you know... When you realize, it's not about faith anymore.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2 Just in case that escapes your grasp I'll break down simply. Big empire rotten to the core with corruption finally collapses from the inside out. Power vacuum ensues hundreds of would be emperors running around hacking up anyone that doesn't agree with them. If that isn't enough for you there where multiple factors in play that ultimately lead to what is referred to as the dark ages. Throw in power hunger and greed voila dark ages.
vindicato15 1 year ago
@indeficit2: Argue against it? He's contradictied himself on so many turns. Open your eyes.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
@theocratickingdom30 All theocracies must be destroyed.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2: Well that is a brilliant response. Although at least it is consistent so I shouldn't jump on you to much. Evolutionary survival of the fittest ehh? There is more of us though. :-) In the end it is all pointless since we will all be destroyed by some cataclysmic event with all knowledge wiped out as if it never even existed. Isn't that true? So why bother trying to destroy theocracies? You are just wasting your only existence.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
@theocratickingdom30 God bless you.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@theocratickingdom30 So many of my friends, not unlike yourself, have asked me to love a man with a beard more than myself, more than my family, my brothers, my sister, my parents, my baby nephews and niece.. But I have never even met this man with a beard.. You go love this man with a beard. Leave me the fuck alone.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2: Leave you alone? You didn't have to respond. I didn't make you. I'm not following you around everywhere you go yelling theology in your ears. You chose to respond. If you want to be left alone then don't respond.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
@theocratickingdom30 It's strange to me that people are so insistent that I love this man with a beard. It doesn't seem to be enough when I tell them "no thanks i'll find my own man with a beard." They're just not happy unless it's the same man with a beard. No, you go love your own fucking man with a beard. I'll find my own man with a beard to love.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2: You missed the fundamental core of the Christian message. I'm not the one doing the insisting. :-) His world. His creation. His air you breathe. His ground you walk on. His food you eat. His water you drink. If He stops being God tomorrow you cease to exist. Another fundamental core of Christianity? Man is so radically depraved he will never believe God exists unless God has mercy on him and opens his eyes. Neutrality is a myth. That is historic Christianity.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
@theocratickingdom30 "If He stops being God tomorrow you cease to exist."
If man stopped existing tomorrow, there would be no more God.
Because the animals sure aren’t going to worship him.
Ishkur23 11 months ago
@indeficit2: The Christian is arguing that no matter the amount of evidence I throw at you you will never believe. If Christ appeared to you you would attempt to kill Him. That is the message of Christianity. You claim give me evidence. The Christian says, "We can go over the evidence but you won't accept it unless God opens your eyes. Man it to corrupted." Our world around us testifies to this. Neutrality is a myth.
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
I'm sorry.
indeficit2 1 year ago
@indeficit2 SO TRUE.
organman52 1 year ago
@indeficit2 Just curious do you also agree with his politics? You are aware he hates Clinton, Michale Moore, believes Capitalist are the true revolutionaries.. Agreed with Bush's interventionism. Labels himself a conservative Marxist aka a capitalist interventionist atheist. And not did he support the Iraq War, but believes it's our obligation to destroy our enemy. And of course he believes that Jew's and Christians as well as all faiths are also enemies to civilization? Just how great is he?
Krydan2167 11 months ago
@indeficit2 Yes there is because NE1 can argue against this very easily! This speech provides no evidence of any his claims. It may be a "good" speech in the same way a political speech is (that is eloquent but saying very little) but it is simply trite dribble. He "paints" this beautiful picture of things that inspire awe, & then in effect says that God didn't do it, it just is. This speech provides no basis for any of the claims or statements he makes. This monologue doesn't belong in a debate
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 It's interesting that you mention evidence. You know what doesn't belong in a debate? God. Nevermind evidence, I don't even know what the fuck God means! Just what the fuck is it? What does it mean? and there's evidence?--for this funny sounding word that is the reverse of dog?
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 so according to you, things like the origin of the universe, something which we don't fully understand, and for which there is no definitive evidence, should not be discussed and debated?
If you don't understand who God is, then I would suggest you learn what is meant by the word "God" before you start watching a debate centered around the concept, let alone making comments on such a debate.
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 Apparently, you have never heard of science, or philosophy.
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 lol, and what makes you say that?
yes, I have heard of and appreciate both science and philosophy. I am actually working towards a Bachelors degree in Philosophy right now.
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 That's a shame, because philosophy only starts with the end of religion.
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 lol, your ignorant, bigoted point of view is very sad. Your hatred of religion (or maybe it is simply a hatred of God?) is on par with that of a racist. Unless this last comment was intended as a joke, your narrow view of what is and is not philosophy is pathetic and disheartening. Philosophy is about looking at the world and asking tough questions, not ignoring the points of view of people who don't think the way you do, or who completely oppose your views.
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 in every accredited university across the nation, you will find that the philosophy department wants nothing to do with theology. You find my opinion, or any difference in opinion for that matter, to be offensive and on par with racism, precisely because of this religious mentality of yours that demands you to be intolerant of other beliefs and what's most ridiculous of all, unearned respect, unconditionally. But no, we do not have respect for stupidity.
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 This is an inherently false statement. There are plenty of accredited universities where the philosophy department is amicable towards the theology department. I find your hatred towards people based on the fact that they believe in a religion on par with racism because you hate someone because of what they believe, not because it differs from my own view. lol, you sit there and say religion makes me intolerant of other peoples views, and yet you are being intolerant of my view!
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 I didn't see this comment until now. So why do you think theology isn't a part of the philosophy department? It's simply because theology is not philosophy. I don't hate anyone. I just think certain people are stupid, and you are one of them. Religious people are stupid. That's my opinion. If you disagree... well, go cry or something... I am not intolerant. I have to tolerate this shit every day. I am just annoyed and I believe in giving voice to my opinions.
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 First, I never said philosophy = theology. LOL! you say you are tolerant, & yet you think all religious people are stupid! This is on par with someone saying, "I don't hate black people, I just think all black people are lazy." THAT IS PURE RACISM! When you generalize any group of people and say "everyone who is X is Y" you are making a prejudice statement. You may not "hate" religious people, but you are FAR from tolerant.
putting up with people who annoy you ≠ tolerance.
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 No. That I think all religious people are stupid is my opinion. And you are being intolerant of this opinion of mine, to which I am entitled. Get this straight.
And I said it's a shame that you're a philosophy student, because until you have made proper use of your critical faculty you will not be doing philosophy, no matter how much you may believe you are.
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 One, the statement All religious people are stupid is a prejudiced statement. Period. You can't fight that. Two, the intelligence of a person is not a matter of opinion. There is empirical evidence by which we determine the intelligence of a person, and your "opinion" has nothing to do with it. three, you assume that I don't use critical faculty. You don't know me or my education, and therefore have no basis upon which to know my use of reason, rationality, or critical faculty.
theantihero420 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theantihero420 I know this much: You believe Jesus is the son of God and will come back again. Hence, you are not using your critical faculty. Need I know more than that? You are stupid and that is objectively true, but stupidity is a relative term, so in my opinion you are stupid, but you may be smart to others of your kind. Clear now?
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 you can say you are not intolerant or prejudice all you want, but it does not make or mean that it is a true statement. A prejudice is unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a sexual, racial, religious, or national group. You say "all religious people are stupid." This is a broad, sweeping, & unfounded opinion about the intelligence of an entire group of people (religious). That is prejudice, plain and simple. There is no wiggle room
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 If I'm intolerant, it would be the intolerance of intolerance, especially the kind that is stipulated by authority of holy books. I have no respect for stupidity and irrationality, and if you can't tell the difference between that and the kind of racial, sexual, national differences you include in you definition, then you are one of those I have no respect for. Call it what you want. Your approval means nothing to me.
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 you are prejudice against religious people. period. I don't care if you think so or not, it is glaringly apparent in your conversation with me. It is also glaringly apparent that our conversation has turned into a finger pointing match, so let us take a new turn.
What exactly in this rant of Hitchens' do you find irrefutable? what do you think are his strong arguments against Theism?
theantihero420 7 months ago
@theantihero420 I never tried to hide it. Yeh I don't like religious people, especially the Christians because you guys just won't leave us atheists alone. Your question is stupid. Theism = bullshit. What's strong about bullshit in a logical argument?
indeficit2 7 months ago
@indeficit2 What is not strong is your ability to engage in a logcial and/or civil conversation with a non-atheist... you say my question is stupid, but I respectfully disagree with your assertion, your position, and your attitude towards those who are different than you. I can see having a logical conversation with you is not going to happen...oh well, at least there are still Atheists who are willing to engage in discussion and debate without engaging in foolish and unnecessary hostility.
theantihero420 7 months ago
@theantihero420 I have long given up trying to be logical with you people. You are simply incapable of a logical conversation. It's a language you will never learn to understand. Good luck with studying philosophy. I sincerely hope that you will one day see how silly this whole faith thing is to us atheists. That's what it is... silly. How can you expect us to take you seriously? I simply can't... hence, the flippancy in my remarks. Grow up first. Then we talk.
indeficit2 7 months ago
@theantihero420 I know im not part of your conversations----but i think the good arguments against Theism Mr. Hitchen detailed would be---first---that the act of thiesm rejects that of free inquiry---because by its very nature it claims to have any necessary answer for the nature of the universe and our purpose/instigation for existence---thats why he mentions Hawkins a man who couldnt have dedicated his life to science if the religious authorities had still been in power----BTW-->
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 First question. What do you mean by "the act of theism?" Theism is a belief or set of beliefs. Second, I think that I and many other theists are quite fond of free inquiry, that is the idea that one is free to think and question things, in order to better understand them. I disagree that "Free inquiry based on theism leads to a rhetorical tautology. I believe you mean a logical tautology, as a rhetorical tautology is something like, "unsolved mystery" or "cheapest price."
theantihero420 7 months ago
Sorry--it had been awhile but i agree the "act of thiesm" makes no sense---my wording has once again screwed me---to word it better: "The (many) act(s) of theism reject that of free inquiry"---thats why i mentioned Hawkins who ironically asked to see the trail of Galileo at his visit to the Vatican---a trial that convicted a man with crimes against absolutism...a strong athiestic argument against thiesm Hitchens brought up is its clearly evident destructive history against free inquiry---cont-->
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 well, I still disagree with your reworded statement, as well as its intended implications. Theism is not a person that it can do anything. Theism therefore, cannot reject free inquiry, and there is not a belief in Theism that says free inquiry must be banned or suppressed. Theists, however, can and at times do accomplish or implement such things. Just because Theists in the past have done so doesn't mean that theism overall rejects such things.
theantihero420 7 months ago
@theantihero420 I hope you understand, and maybe have some respect for the fact, that to some of us the word god means NOTHING... and hearing you people say how much you love Jesus is not only something we can't sympathize with, but it really, i mean REALLY sounds ridiculously childish and stupid, and then for you retards to claim the moral high ground and to try and shove this crap down our throats, you wouldn't think that's enough, but NO! you also want RESPECT! Give us a break.
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 I don't claim to have moral high ground on you, nor have I ever tried to shove my morality on you or others. I would never expect a non-Christian to follow Christian morality. That WOULD be silly of me to expect. This is exactly why I claim your hatred of religion & religious people on par with racism. You find that I believe in God & you assume you know certain things about me based on my beliefs, but you don't know me or what it is I believe. Your hate & assumptions are unfounded.
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 Of course I know what you believe in, You are a Christian. That is to say your imaginary friend is Jesus, and you're on a mission to prosyletize, to spread his word. That is by definition what a Christian is. I have not made any assumption outside of this inclusive definition of what it means to be a Christian.
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 Spreading the word/proselytizing may be something that a Christian does, but it is a far cry from the definition of what a Christian is.
You assume I am a Christian. How do you know that I am not a Muslim? How do you know that I am not a deist? how do you know that I am not a Mormon, or a Jehovah's Witness? You don't know, nor do you bother to find out.
Belief in God does not equal being a Christian
Why do you think everyone who believes in God is stupid?
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 And I haven't made any assumption outside of this definition, have I? Why do you assume that I didn't bother finding out? I did go on your profile, and you're a Jesus loving freak. The faithful are by definition lacking in rational inquiry, even if by choice.
indeficit2 8 months ago
@indeficit2 you are right. I was wrong for assuming that you didn't go to my page and find out.
"The faithful are by definition lacking in rational inquiry" THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION!
you say you are making no assumptions, and yet in the same comment you are! Why do you assume that just because a person is religious they lack rational inquiry? That is such a fallacious and presumptuous statement! A person's spirituality has nothing to do with their ability to inquire of of something rationally
theantihero420 8 months ago
@theantihero420 Apparently you don't know what "by definition" means. And spirituality is not the same as religion.
indeficit2 8 months ago
Wow! It looks like it's hard to clap for someone who's just made you aware, your belief system is built on sand.
komododr 1 year ago 22
Why is not one of those apes clapping for hitchens! He was brilliant!
OhMyGoddlessGamer 1 year ago
The last couple minutes of Hitchens' time here is awe inspiring in itself. Which certainly helps his case.
windfall 1 year ago
Can one get this on DVD?
steflondon88 1 year ago
@steflondon88 No, but search wtsbooks and get the film this was filmed for, "Collision."
WestminsterOnline 1 year ago
@WestminsterOnline, thank you
steflondon88 1 year ago