RAPTURE RIGHT UPDATE!!! Hey Atheists! We just got a report from God, on the status of your beloved Christopher Hitchens! Hell? Heaven? We've got great news to report.Christopher has entered...HEAVEN!!! Oh praise God's mercy for taking pity on such an outspoken heathen. God made a special appointment with the soul of Mr. Hitchens,they spoke long into the night. God reports that he changed his mind about the Hitch, after Christopher showed support for the war in Iraq! More info coming soon!
No, it doesn't exist. And for all I know, your brain will taste better to the microbes in your grave than mine will to mine, because you didn't soak it in all that dry, sour grammatical stuff.
One of the biggest hitch fans ever...but really picking boss for Bush? Not to say he wasn't the president at the time but boss sounds very hierarchical, very 1984. Sometimes I think his desire to defend the Bush administrations decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan contradict some of his own views and I suggest this as a give away. That said the invasion of Iraq completely justifiable.
@PaytonFu He didn't pick "boss" for Bush. He picked "Mr. President" for Bush, a choice which shows a measured level of respect. "The Boss" is what he called Darwin.
> The invasion of Iraq was completely justifiable.
OK.
> Hitchens's desire to defend the Bush administrations decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan contradict his own views. I suggest this as a give away.
In what way does Hitchens' support for the removal of Saddam contradict his other views? and How does this "give that away"?
@StephenM02 Since my original point does not apply I have to say that my second point no longer applies either as it had direct correlation to my first.
@StephenM02 Just to clarify, Hitchens was leery of the real reasons why the Bush administration deposed Saddam, but considered the removal of that Ba'athist regime something that all Leftists should enthusiastically support. Virtually all Leftists at the time disagreed with that latter assertion.
Highly debatable about who was the greater emancipator. Not throwing cold water on Hitchens, but certainly that assertion is highly debatable. And that's okay.
@rleeermy please clarify it, search on google, what commonsenseatheism site said about the debate, i would like to know based on what you are stating that i am terribly confused? i watched the debate when it came out.
@luima23 You mean the guy who made Mr. Craig sound like the sophist that he is? Mr. Craig gave the same old song and dance...assertion without proof. And when asked to produce one moral act that an atheist couldn't perform as well as a believer...Mr. Craig dodged the question by bringing up the comment of some dumbass pastor who spoke of tithing. Mr. Craig then wittered on about the resurrection which only shows for all his education he's a credulous imbecile.
@solusdiver@solusdiver No i meant Dr. Craig,..did you took the time to chec that i quoted an atheist source??? search it yourself on google on the commonsenseatheism dot c o m . you are making the Ad hominem in your statement, you need more than that to prove someone is worng, besides evidence and proof is NOT the same thing, and Dr. Craig bases most of his arguments in evidences.can you please provide the proof of your statements??? i will wait for them.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
The good the mother did was similar to the good a muslim would do. Go around spreading the word of allah, finding poor desperate needy people and show them the light and truth of muhammed, open hospitals and places that provide aid and relief for people in depressing circumstance and place the quran in every room, help everyone understand that allah is here to save you and other people like the Xtians and jews are to trick you. I mean look allah gave you a hospital.
@wingsofmajesty no, I'm pretty sure she said "Brights", which is a new word that Dawkins invented to refer to atheists. Hitchens has expressed before that he finds this title stupid.
@JabberCT That's what I thought. That's what everyone thinks. Over to the side are links to the short film "Hell's Angel" which goes into detail about Mother Teresa and how she's no saint. It's extremely eye-opening
It's not that easy. She made shady business under the cover of charity. She wasn't good person, that for sure. But she was good at manipulating public opinion.
@JabberCT If you are convinced by your own opinion of Mother Teresa then I would urge you to read Hitchens' book on the Saintly woman herself. It's called "The Missionary Position" - you may just change your mind...
I wonder if Hitchens is annoyed with Dawkins (personally I think he's jealous) due to Dawkin's successful career, and I suppose the accoulade of having to be the number one most famous atheist on the planet.See, Hitchens, as eloquent as he is, has philosophy on his side, whereas Dawkins has philosophy and first hand knwoledge of science, which he practices almost every day when he's not on the road. I fucking LOVE both of these guys though.
Hitch is really only annoyed with Dawkins over the Brights campaign. Dawkins, who is certainly brilliant, doesn't actually know much philosophy, as you suggest.(Neither does Hitch really, he's just a superb polemicist.)
And I don't know if you live in the US but Hitch is certainly the more popular atheist writer here and doesn't need to be very jealous of Dawkins.
Having shared a few drinks with CH I can say he is as friendly and affable as this video makes him look.
Bloody awesome! You shared drinks with the man??? It would be one of my greatest days ever. Though I'd be dull and vapid as all hell. I really would bore the man hehe. I have a limited knowledge of politics, of ancient texts on religion, or conversations regarding poetry, art or science. I'd make an ass of myself. But To exchange a few words of gratification with the man would make my day!
Believe me, I had the same worries about how I'd come across. He couldn't have been more approachable, though. The first time I bumped into him was at the NY Public Library during his Hitch-22 tour. He invited me "backstage" that day and we've kept up some correspondence since.
Truly a top notch guy, to say nothing of his immense talent. To see him physically shriveled from the cancer is truly disheartening.
I completely agree. I dont know the guy, but every time I see him on youtube in his state, it kind of depresses me. I truely hope he will beat this. And it really angers me how the religious vultures are cirlcling over him, trying to sell him their religion in his desperation. 'Want this life vest? huh? huh? It's not too late. Just accept god. Want the life vest?' It's dispicable and cruel. But Im not surprised at these people, rather, Im dissapointed.
It is sickening to see their behavior. But little do they know, it is mostly futile. Even if they did somehow convince Hitch to relent on his stance, most of us would keep going. We can take the tremendous amount that we have learned from him, and continue leading lives based on reason, and skepticism. We are not like them, swaying towards whomever tickles their ears the most at any given moment. We do not need a charismatic "leader" to tell us who to be. That is what separates us!
i think this vid is great, but that aside, pray did anyone else happen to notice the rack on that girl? the first word to come to my mind is "sweetmilk"
Pretty sure Lincoln wasn't an atheist, not b/c he was a good guy, it's just the statements he makes are somewhat anti-atheist. Though he definitely wasn't very religious.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
..George Bush.. Mr President, haha he pretends to respect for him, what a absolutely discredited arse lick, we all know Bush went to Iraq not to save the world from theocracy but for Oil, AIPAC, and God told him, but Hitch needed the money (at the time) and used 9-11 to advance his career in a different direction. Other than that major let down I think Hichens is spot on.
Yes, that's Kelly O'Connor. According to her own blog at the Rational Response Squad page, she left RRS to concentrate on a career in prostitution (including working the Bunny Ranch) and pornography under the name Kasey Grant. Pretty pathetic.
@HailRasec That's Kelly O'Connor. If you think she's that hot and you got the cash then you can go set an appointment up with her if yer in the Vegas area. There she's going by the name "Kasey Grant."
If you believe in god, good for you. But please don't waste your time saying we have our own "dogma" and all that shit. It's just a rejection of the supernatural.
And fucking no;
The supernatural isn't defined as something we don't know yet, but something that goes against every physical law there is, and would be impossible to exist.
I don't believe some "being" made a giagantic universe just to make doopy people on some shitty little planet, just to "test" them for some reward/punishment.
Time, along with every other conceptual measurement, wasn't applicable to anything before the universe began, but that doesn't mean that when the concept was able to be applied that it "existed".
It doesn't help the creationist theory at all anyhow. I can't take so much esoteric bullshit. You have no point.
And trying to poke silly "holes" in evolution theory wouldn't prove the existance of god anyhow, bwcause evolution theory doesn't even deny god's existance in the first place.
movement of matter is movement of matter. It isn't time.
i really wish you were here in my face as opposed to hiding behind a keyboard so i could kick the ever-loving shit out of your carcass. Why don't you knock of the insults, pick up a dictionary, and look up time, and tell me if you see anything about matter movement>Something could be stationary and exist in time; defeating your entire premise.
can you please tell me what this has to do with the existance of god.
"Something could be stationary and time still exist."
Thank you for another perfect example of how you argue with no reason. I say "If there were no movement in the universe" and you say 'something' could be stationary and time still exist. DO YOU NOT SEE YOUR FLAWED LOGIC!
You've gotten so used to arguing as an atheist, that you don't even feel the need to support you claims anymore. We are both making assertions and thus, the "Burden of Proof" falls on both of us. Just so you know!
Yet another atheist stooge wishes to argue by inanely misrepresenting my comment, speaking for the scientific community without a shred of understanding on the topic, and then insinuating that I'm the one without reason. Well done!
How could you even extract from that quote that "I believe time is something which exists in a physical form?"
Time is a "dimension" of reality in that it's used to measure and organize space and the movement of matter.
can you show me this "physical dimension" please???
you can't??
you know why??
because time, numbers, wieght and length are all forms of CONCEPTUAL MEASUREMENT.
there is no physical "time dimension"
there was no "zero time", time never "began", it's just a form of human measurement. There is no universal clock. In fact, it's a different time at my buddy's place in cali; what does that tell you? Time is not physical-it's conceptual.
It's almost as if you didn't read a thing I said and decided to write the same shit over again.
You hold yourself and your intellect in such high regard, yet you seem to be the only one doing so.
How many times do I have to say until you get it? Time is a DIMENSION. I don't know what you think a dimension means, but you're not even close to being correct.
A dimension is a way to describe points in space. Thus, time IS a dimension which describes the movement of matter.
absolute rubbish. Time is a conceptual measurement of distance between EVENTS not points in space. You CAN use time to discribe distance in objects; such as light years, but that's not what time is. I suggest you look it up mate.
Movement doesn't make the concept of time exist. Just knock it off. Space had to have existed at one point before the universe, and again existed at another point before the universe, so time=conception.
Again, how does this prove the existance of a magic fairy?
"There is no universal clock. In fact, it's a different time at my buddy's place in cali; what does that tell you? Time is not physical-it's conceptual."
This is, without a doubt, the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You're seriously going to argue about time zones being proof of anything. Seriously, I don't think you'll be able to top that one. You need to get an education you mentally sterile cretin.
LOOK UP WHAT A DIMENSION IS SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO WASTE MY TIME EXPLAINING IT TO YOU!
You don't think I've made a point because you've had nothing to attack, successfully at least.
I'll sum up what you've said:
"time is a concept"
"man invented that concept"
And now "TIME DIDN'T START," without feeling the need to provide support. When you're not denying arguments for God you DO NEED something besides a claim. You want me to mention God so that you can say, "SEE PEOPLE... HE SAID GOD!" Then you can use all of those flawed arguments against God you've been reading up on.
I HAVE NO POINT!?!?-i'm just rebuting YOUR lack of a point. All you said was that time had a begining. I said no, and i supported that statement by explaining that time is indeed conceptual, therefore it needed no start.period. Now you're avoiding answering the god questions because you're a big ,fat, stupid pussy.
Time is a way to measure and understand the movement of matter. And believe it or not, dimensions have the ability to "not exist" when they don't represent a phenomena in the universe!
Time doesn't transcend space, but rather it is dependent on movement within space in order "to exist." And matter has been moving long before humans were able to conceptualize and label it "Time."
Thus, without the movement matter, time wouldn't "exist."
If you were able to look at the universe as a closed system and viewed it from outside of the system, then without movement of matter from within the system there would be no way to distinguish one moment from the next.
Also, did you know that MOVEMENT of matter is WHAT ALL "EVENTS" ARE YOU FUCKING RETARD!
Since you say that I haven't made one point, let me see if I have you're argument down. You say that TIME IS A CONCEPT! That is your answer for everything. Yet, it explains NOTHING! You don't even feel the need to explain your assertion that "Time never began" past TIME IS JUST A CONCEPT. You don't say what the concept represents or influence for it's creation. Then, you say that "MAN INVENTED THE CONCEPT OF TIME" as if that means SOMETHING! I already answered half the shit you're reposting.
"TIME IS A CONCEPT" is not my fucking arguement, it's a counter-point for yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You want my point?-I gave it to you already, i want to see if you make a bloody attempt at it. I don't need to explain any further about time not needing a begining. Because it's an imaginary form of measurement. Imaginary things don't need a physical begining.If you can't get past that simple idea, then good day........
"Man invented the concept of time"... I can't get enough.
Of course Man did you idiot, unless you find conscious alien life-forms that have existed longer than us. Man invented ALL concepts because we are the only known conscious beings capable of abstract thought.
What does a vacuous truth like that have anything to do with time existing. Time is not just an idea. There would be the movement of matter in the universe whether Man realized it or not.
"What does a vacuous truth like that have anything to do with time existing. Time is not just an idea. There would be the movement of matter in the universe whether Man realized it or not. "
OK, so you do get it, now please fucking explain to me how time "started" or "began".
How the fuck does "matter moving"
incarnate to time???
How in the world does any of this prove the existance of a god???
FUCK!!!!!
time is the measurement of distance between one event and another.
So not only is time not "just a concept," but the statement, "Man invented the concept of time" is obvious, empty, and "makes no attempt at the point!"
You're just another doltish and unoriginal fool who "attempts" to parrot the pseudo-intellectual and fallacious BS you hear from the idolized atheists of the world in the hope of appearing enlightened and superior to people you don't even know. I pity your dilusion.
So in this game of chess we just played, who would you say was the pigeon?
"You're just another doltish and unoriginal fool who "attempts" to parrot the pseudo-intellectual and fallacious BS you hear from the idolized atheists "
You do realize you've not made ONE FUCKING ATTEMPT at proving the existance of god right?Aren't you just "claiming victory to your flock" a little bit early?
In fact, you've stated nothing but bull, proved nothing, and are now basking in your own undeserved glory.
@Mrgyn: so someone spending their entire life helping the poor, but simply because they might be off on their outlook on life, that justifies call them a scumbag? Wow. And atheists want to say that religious people are intolerant? Comon.
@Mrgyn: Exactly. It's all hypocritical. Hitchens probably doesn't think that Kelly (in the video above) is a douche-bag, but now she's apparently doing porn and spreading her legs to the highest bidder, and I highly doubt that she's forking over that cash to the poor. It's far better to go through life with the right actions and the wrong theory than it is to go through life with the right theory and the wrong actions. What a bunch of yuppies who never knew a day of poverty - "upper crust", lol
@Mrgyn: My point is that Hitchens calls Mother Terresa a douchebag, but for what? I'm not catholic, but someone, ANYONE who decides to dedicate their life to helping the poor, regardless of whether their motivation is based on anything true or illusory, is not wrong. It's quite noble. So even if Kelly has a truer perspective on reality, does that give her immunity from being insulted. It's better to be a dumb yet good person than it is to be a smart yet bad person.
Learn what that fuckup Angel of Death aka Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu did to those poor people FIRST. She tortured people to death, made them sick, robbed them. If you still believe in the cartoonish version that tabloids created I guess you also believe in Santa Clause.
She believed suffering was a "gift from god". She specifically said as much. She took money from loan scammers and haitan dictators and used it to train nuns and build homes for the dying. The homes for the dying were awful, squalored places, with one toilet between everyone there. The people in those homes, didn't even NEED TO BE DYING if she had spent the money on healthcare.
She was a sadomasochistic troll and it's a shame there's no hell for her to go to.
Yes, she was the opposite of what any decent person could call a "saint", but Hitchens' sentiment (which you've borrowed) suits no purpose other than fulfilling revenge fantasy. The damage is done, the perpetrator is gone and we all have an important lesson to learn. Fantasizing about posthumous punishment won't get us anywhere.
I borrow only from the very best... In my opinion at least. I'm not sure what your point is though. When there's people claiming she did good and she was a saint, i'm going to argue against and explain why she wasn't.
He is obviously using his typical facetious and charming attitude to entertain the interviewer. If you can't see the degree of humor in his statement, you have no degree of humor in your senses.
but the whole point of word association is letting your subconcious do the work- you get a truer interpretation of the real person. He's conciously thinking about each answer. He's ruining the excercise because he's too vain.
i almost believe he's not on the bush hate wagon as a form of rebelion. like he's trying to be contrary to the polorization of smart AND dumb people who hate bush.
After Dawkins, he says "great teacher" twice, and during the second time, she gives the next prompt, to which he replies "silly" -- but I can't make out what she's saying over his voice. Does anyone know?
I was afraid I was the only one who thought that.
I got the distinct impression that the 'interviewer' was "selling himself", rather than selling his ideas (presumably, atheism/agnosticism). His body language reeked of "I'm talking to a great man, which makes me a great man".
yeah. i also found the body language of the *interviewer* totally annoying, but wondered if it was partly because i was jealous that he got to talk to hitchens directly :p:p
dawkins suggests we should call atheists brights, because it has a better connotation than "atheist"... I think that's stupid as as hell, so do does hitchens.
I agree, Atheist is a technical term which means a specific thing, anyone can be one, it is up to them. You don't have to agree with anything even with the scientific method and can believe in the tooth fairy if you like. Only qualification is that you don't believe in god. Is Bright a culture of smart disbelievers? - Nothing wrong with this but I haven't even applied for membership.
I am an atheist but if i am to be a bright too, then send me the rule book so i can rip it up. Hitchens rulez.
I agree. The name we call ourselves will be given any connotation the believers choose to give it. You don't run away from it, you embrace it. We should be proud to be "godless, science/fact-obsessed" if that's how they see us. :)
Brights just implies that atheists are "brighter" than theists. Which is often the case but it's crude and very ad hominem to generalize these things.
"says a lot about someones religious dogmatism when they insist on calling Atheism a faith, and rejecting the true definition"
Atheist,
The term is specific and compared to religions quite meaningless.
The large majority of atheists I have conversed with attach and attribute all sort of subjective nonsense to atheism despite it's clear definition. That is delusional.
Preaching there is no God is like preaching one knows the universe is infinite
I don't know anyone who preaches "no God". (Alright, maybe Dawkins, who's always pretty intense.) If they do, it's usually their first step into non-believe; cut them slack.
They all do. They are no better than nutjobs who insist everyone who does not practice their version of reality is going to hell.
They substitute hell which for delusional or irrational. It is a way to validate their view of reality while demeaning others views.
They are no better than fire and brimstone bible thumping preachers. It they want to attack those who behave as they do that makes sense. Most people do not care what others believe. Disagreements bring politics.
"oh, so until someone disagreed with religious people, they stayed totally away from politics in your opinion?"
Politics is simply the clash of ideologies and the process of resolving the differences one way or another. All humans have ideologies. Labeling some ideologies religious as if others are somehow more valid because they lack imagined labels is childish /does not follow reason.
The point u were completely missing is that the VERY reason atheists are getting more "involved"is because the religious groups are getting way too political all over the world. They are trying to drag the world along with their religious dogma demanding total respect along the way.
And that is why your original comment was so laughable. U were cautioning against something happening, that's ALREADY happening way before the atheists got involved.
Actually atheists have not been involved to this degree before.
How could we. For the longest time in human history, to profess non-belief was to risk being tortured or burned at the stake as a witch.
There is defintiely a new movement starting at the moment towards atheism. I myself have regarded myself simply as a non-practicsing christian, until 9/11 woke me up to all the horrors committed in the name of religion throughout the ages.
"Actually atheists have not been involved to this degree before."
Of course they have, They simply weren't amassing into the new cult . It's quite humorous. I am waiting for the first published book of atheist or the atheist creed. Just another passing fad like any other ideology accept that atheism stands for nothing but the non recognition of deities.
Well for books how about: The God Delusion -Richard Dawkins, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything -Christopher Hitchens, The End of Faith -Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation -Sam Harris. I would be quite surprised to see atheism fade away as "just another passing fad." Thankfully the opposite seems to be happening. Also it is "except" not "accept" unless you are commanding that i "accept that atheism stands for nothing but recognition of deities"
it's not a "philosophy" you idiot. it's simply a lack of a belief in god. and no, the god delusion opens the door to question that which has no evidence to support its existance, nothing more, nothing less. you're equating that to subjectivism for some bizarre, other-wordly reason. whatever dude...
"it's not a "philosophy" you idiot. it's simply a lack of a belief in god."
Right. Just like those who lack a belief that no deity or deities exits.
The theory of: omniscient intelligence, human rights, Law, morality, beauty, infinity or "nothing", free will or "mind" Or the theory they do not exist.
no, it's not "just like" those who lack a belief that no deity or deities exist; it IS a lack of belief in said deities. there MIGHT be philosphy interwined with the other concepts you bring up, but those things are all extraneous to pure atheism. anyway, i really don't understand what your point is in the first place.
To you. There are atheists who recognize their position as a definitive belief that deities do not exist. Which logically is exactly that, since logic alone brings one to no answer, agnosticism.
Therefore the atheist point of view is as subjective and factless as any other philosophical position.
i hear that one all the time (about myself), as in, "you have a belief that god does not exist." no, i wouldnt characterize that as a "belief". if so, then i have billions of other beliefs (that goblins, ghosts, trolls, fairies, unicorns etc do not exist). there are many reasons someone might be an atheist, some of which might be irrational (for example if you believe that no god exists, but instead we are controlled by a group of unicorns living on a remote planet -- THAT would be irrational).
What is rational is subjective when speaking beyond factual knowledge.
"i hear that one all the time (about myself), as in, "you have a belief that god does not exist." no, i wouldnt characterize that as a "belief"
Correct, YOU subjectively would not. There are no facts here. Only opinions of meaning. There are not only theists who would but also other atheists and agnostics who see it this way.
well, i suppose we could go down the rediculous path of defining everything as subjective, including the definitions of the very words we are using to do so (and isn't the dictionary definition just someone's subjective opinion as to a definition?). i choose not to go down that somewhat mastebatory path. everything can be subjective if you look at it a certain way. enjoy your masterbation and talk to you later :)
"well, i suppose we could go down the rediculous path of defining everything as subjective,"
Not everything. That which can be predictably and observably measurable/repeatable is fact.
"mastebatory path"
This is a dogmatic cop out. If we are to base reality on facts, meaning is not fact by any stretch. Meaning can not be objectively proven as fact. It can be identified as majority belief which can change in and of itself. We are the edge of evolution we have yet to comprehend.
If you're going to make the argument, as most atheists do, equating the "belief that a god does not exist" to the "belief that fairies, ghosts... do not exist," spare us the exposition of ignorance concerning the magnitude of the situtation. If instead you stated that "You do not believe that 'fairies' created the universe," then you wouldn't have left out the fact that the origin of the universe has yet to be solved; thus any idea on the subject, no matter how preposterous, has equal evidence.
"equal evidence," maybe, but not equal plausability. even if what you're saying is true, which i in no way conceede, it in no way should mean that we all get to "invent" our own explanations as to the origins of the universe and we have to entertain each & every explanation. that would be pointless. you seem to be saying, "well science does not yet have an answer, so that means god did it." rediculous...
What I'm saying is that you seem to write off the idea of there being a creator(s) by comparing it to that of ghosts, fairies...etc. The fact of the matter is that there either is or isn't a God and the testable scientific evidence for both cases is nill. Also, I have yet to find a convincing argument, and I've seen most all of them, contradicting the possibiliy of a god. I think to argue over the plausability of a god or not falls in the same boat...
no, actually that's not what i was saying. i was actually trying to write off the idea that i have a "belief that there is no god," not any point about the actual existence of such entities. i don't think my lack of belief in a god(s) constitutes a "belief" in and of itself and, if it does, than so should my lack of belief in many other supernatural entities such as pixies etc. if that is true, than i literally hold billions of beliefs. that was my point
I think the idea concerning the determination of whether atheism is 'a belief' or not is rather pointless. It is like arguing whether nothing is something. Theists try to show that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist.
WOW... such intellectually stimulating discourse.
The fact is, arguing over semantics is something to do when there is nothing to do. Neither position has a true foothold in the debate and I dare anyone to show me an argument that proves otherwise.
i agree that it's pointless, but it seems necessary as people seem to find it necessary to state that my lack of belief in a god actually constitutes a belief (which i disagree with obviously). i've heard the argument also about it taking as faith to be an atheist, which i strongly disagree with as well. the point about semantics is well taken. the term "atheist" itself is somewhat unnecessary and pointless. i think of myself as more of a "rationalist"...
But saying that the existence of a creator is an equal hypothesis to evolution is kind of like saying "Well I can't exactly explain why a sperm and an ovarian egg make a baby, so I'll just chock it all up to magic. Now I can't prove it's magic, but if you refuse to consider this option, you're insulting my scientific inquiry." But the very existence of God is predicated on being both un-provable and undisputable! That's not how science works! Therefore, it is not an equal hypothesis.
What movie??
MoeGreensRightEye 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In sodomite Christ' Hitchens' case: posthumous revocation of his naturalized citizenship is in order.
procommenter 1 month ago
RAPTURE RIGHT UPDATE!!! Hey Atheists! We just got a report from God, on the status of your beloved Christopher Hitchens! Hell? Heaven? We've got great news to report.Christopher has entered...HEAVEN!!! Oh praise God's mercy for taking pity on such an outspoken heathen. God made a special appointment with the soul of Mr. Hitchens,they spoke long into the night. God reports that he changed his mind about the Hitch, after Christopher showed support for the war in Iraq! More info coming soon!
theraptureright 1 month ago
@theraptureright If fictional entities are speaking to you, go and see a psychiatrist.
therunningtap 1 month ago
@theraptureright God told me your going to hell. Sorry dude.
666or999 3 weeks ago
@666or999 Yes. Well, here is an English teacher telling you you're using "your" incorrectly. Hell is too good for you.
manthasagittarius1 2 weeks ago
@manthasagittarius1 Does that mean I get to go to heaven anyway? If only it existed.
666or999 1 week ago
@666or999 You know irony when you see it?
No, it doesn't exist. And for all I know, your brain will taste better to the microbes in your grave than mine will to mine, because you didn't soak it in all that dry, sour grammatical stuff.
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
@manthasagittarius1 Yeh it was too full of the plump juicy important stuff. :)
666or999 1 week ago
One of the biggest hitch fans ever...but really picking boss for Bush? Not to say he wasn't the president at the time but boss sounds very hierarchical, very 1984. Sometimes I think his desire to defend the Bush administrations decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan contradict some of his own views and I suggest this as a give away. That said the invasion of Iraq completely justifiable.
PaytonFu 2 months ago
@PaytonFu He didn't pick "boss" for Bush. He picked "Mr. President" for Bush, a choice which shows a measured level of respect. "The Boss" is what he called Darwin.
StephenM02 2 months ago
@StephenM02 I apologize it was late I retract my statement
PaytonFu 2 months ago
> The invasion of Iraq was completely justifiable.
OK.
> Hitchens's desire to defend the Bush administrations decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan contradict his own views. I suggest this as a give away.
In what way does Hitchens' support for the removal of Saddam contradict his other views? and How does this "give that away"?
thanks!
StephenM02 2 months ago
@StephenM02 Since my original point does not apply I have to say that my second point no longer applies either as it had direct correlation to my first.
PaytonFu 2 months ago
@StephenM02 Just to clarify, Hitchens was leery of the real reasons why the Bush administration deposed Saddam, but considered the removal of that Ba'athist regime something that all Leftists should enthusiastically support. Virtually all Leftists at the time disagreed with that latter assertion.
DrCruel 2 months ago
Highly debatable about who was the greater emancipator. Not throwing cold water on Hitchens, but certainly that assertion is highly debatable. And that's okay.
squamish4244 2 months ago
wow, nice to see hitchens in better shape , this was not the guy that Dr.Craig spanked like a foolish child??
luima23 3 months ago
@luima23 I'm afraid you must be terribly confused.
rleeermy 3 months ago
@rleeermy please clarify it, search on google, what commonsenseatheism site said about the debate, i would like to know based on what you are stating that i am terribly confused? i watched the debate when it came out.
luima23 3 months ago
@luima23 You mean the guy who made Mr. Craig sound like the sophist that he is? Mr. Craig gave the same old song and dance...assertion without proof. And when asked to produce one moral act that an atheist couldn't perform as well as a believer...Mr. Craig dodged the question by bringing up the comment of some dumbass pastor who spoke of tithing. Mr. Craig then wittered on about the resurrection which only shows for all his education he's a credulous imbecile.
solusdiver 2 months ago
@solusdiver @solusdiver No i meant Dr. Craig,..did you took the time to chec that i quoted an atheist source??? search it yourself on google on the commonsenseatheism dot c o m . you are making the Ad hominem in your statement, you need more than that to prove someone is worng, besides evidence and proof is NOT the same thing, and Dr. Craig bases most of his arguments in evidences.can you please provide the proof of your statements??? i will wait for them.
luima23 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
holy shit those are out of control!
nicky2coats 4 months ago
@JabberCT
The good the mother did was similar to the good a muslim would do. Go around spreading the word of allah, finding poor desperate needy people and show them the light and truth of muhammed, open hospitals and places that provide aid and relief for people in depressing circumstance and place the quran in every room, help everyone understand that allah is here to save you and other people like the Xtians and jews are to trick you. I mean look allah gave you a hospital.
shandcunt 6 months ago
... did he call Richard Dawkins annoying?
GiveMeClarity 8 months ago
@GiveMeClarity No. The woman said, "rights" as the next word and he said, "silly" and then, "annoying".
wingsofmajesty 8 months ago
@wingsofmajesty no, I'm pretty sure she said "Brights", which is a new word that Dawkins invented to refer to atheists. Hitchens has expressed before that he finds this title stupid.
bossmonkeykj 5 months ago 2
@GiveMeClarity
No, he called him a great teacher.
BloggerMusicMan 6 months ago
Where the fuck is this movie?
caseybv74 8 months ago
when can we watch the full movie?
RaggedM88 9 months ago
Comment removed
Freethinker12341 10 months ago
the boss
churchjamespeter 10 months ago
Comment removed
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
I wonder if Hitchens prefers "Seduced by a Cougar 14" or "Mommy and Me & a Black Man makes 3"...why give theists the ammunition?
TheJameySuede 1 year ago 2
If I were hitch and the woman asked me about brights, my one word response would have been "tits".
fiandrhi 1 year ago
Im a Atheist but im not sure why he said Mother Teresa was a douchebag? She was just a little old lady who helped sick people. That cant be so bad.
The rest i agree with.
JabberCT 1 year ago
@JabberCT That's what I thought. That's what everyone thinks. Over to the side are links to the short film "Hell's Angel" which goes into detail about Mother Teresa and how she's no saint. It's extremely eye-opening
HeyThereKahl 1 year ago
@JabberCT
It's not that easy. She made shady business under the cover of charity. She wasn't good person, that for sure. But she was good at manipulating public opinion.
sialababamak537 9 months ago
@JabberCT If you are convinced by your own opinion of Mother Teresa then I would urge you to read Hitchens' book on the Saintly woman herself. It's called "The Missionary Position" - you may just change your mind...
MrBazBazBaz 9 months ago
@JabberCT That's what most people think until they start researching her so called "humanitarian aid".
coercingcoexistence 8 months ago
Charles Darwin: The boss!
TimCommerford 1 year ago
So...where can one see the "movie" they mention at the end?
magicpony9 1 year ago
I wonder if Hitchens is annoyed with Dawkins (personally I think he's jealous) due to Dawkin's successful career, and I suppose the accoulade of having to be the number one most famous atheist on the planet.See, Hitchens, as eloquent as he is, has philosophy on his side, whereas Dawkins has philosophy and first hand knwoledge of science, which he practices almost every day when he's not on the road. I fucking LOVE both of these guys though.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream
Hitch is really only annoyed with Dawkins over the Brights campaign. Dawkins, who is certainly brilliant, doesn't actually know much philosophy, as you suggest.(Neither does Hitch really, he's just a superb polemicist.)
And I don't know if you live in the US but Hitch is certainly the more popular atheist writer here and doesn't need to be very jealous of Dawkins.
Having shared a few drinks with CH I can say he is as friendly and affable as this video makes him look.
ultraviolet99 1 year ago
@ultraviolet99
Bloody awesome! You shared drinks with the man??? It would be one of my greatest days ever. Though I'd be dull and vapid as all hell. I really would bore the man hehe. I have a limited knowledge of politics, of ancient texts on religion, or conversations regarding poetry, art or science. I'd make an ass of myself. But To exchange a few words of gratification with the man would make my day!
Im not in the US, I live in London currently.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream
Believe me, I had the same worries about how I'd come across. He couldn't have been more approachable, though. The first time I bumped into him was at the NY Public Library during his Hitch-22 tour. He invited me "backstage" that day and we've kept up some correspondence since.
Truly a top notch guy, to say nothing of his immense talent. To see him physically shriveled from the cancer is truly disheartening.
ultraviolet99 1 year ago
@ultraviolet99
I completely agree. I dont know the guy, but every time I see him on youtube in his state, it kind of depresses me. I truely hope he will beat this. And it really angers me how the religious vultures are cirlcling over him, trying to sell him their religion in his desperation. 'Want this life vest? huh? huh? It's not too late. Just accept god. Want the life vest?' It's dispicable and cruel. But Im not surprised at these people, rather, Im dissapointed.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream
It is sickening to see their behavior. But little do they know, it is mostly futile. Even if they did somehow convince Hitch to relent on his stance, most of us would keep going. We can take the tremendous amount that we have learned from him, and continue leading lives based on reason, and skepticism. We are not like them, swaying towards whomever tickles their ears the most at any given moment. We do not need a charismatic "leader" to tell us who to be. That is what separates us!
Pernic10us 1 year ago
Comment removed
ejohnwright 1 year ago
i think this vid is great, but that aside, pray did anyone else happen to notice the rack on that girl? the first word to come to my mind is "sweetmilk"
nicky2coats 1 year ago
@nicky2coats Fake, she is a part time stripper and atheist. She also has a couple of kids.
cookieman38111 1 year ago
@cookieman38111 ugh that ruins it
nicky2coats 1 year ago
@nicky2coats : sorry, but it's true.
cookieman38111 1 year ago
@cookieman38111
Atheist and stripper. MAkes me like her even more than before. Bright, sexy, intelligent and busty. What more could a guy ask for?
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream google rational response team/ kelly or youtube her and there are some videos. She may be making movies now, I don't konw.
cookieman38111 1 year ago
Pretty sure Lincoln wasn't an atheist, not b/c he was a good guy, it's just the statements he makes are somewhat anti-atheist. Though he definitely wasn't very religious.
Golkarian 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
seekfears 1 year ago
she said a name, giggled, and hitch said "silly".
who was she referring to?
canadianroot 1 year ago
@canadianroot "Brights".
muzorewi 1 year ago
@muzorewi Thanks! I couldn't make it out....now that you've told me, it's rather easy to discern. Must be my age. Either that or my age.
canadianroot 1 year ago
@canadianroot She said "brights." This was a name put out by Richard Dawkins as an alternative to "atheist."
PopUpPenguin 1 year ago
WHICH VIDEO are they talking about? (ref end note)
amzg2 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WORD PLAY
dawkin = false prophet
darwin = silly monkey
atheism = fanatical
hitchens = closet gay, hypocrite
this channel = bland ,devoid
youtube = great
freedom of speech = O Eat me!
Fromanttodugong's = ?
shalomyahweh911 1 year ago
@shalomyahweh911
I like this game can I play?
Christianity = illogical
youtube = great
dumb comments on youtube = freedom of speech, illogical people
your cranium = bland, devoid
your fundamental beliefs = hypocritical
Sylosis333 1 year ago
I want to sit and have a drink with Hitchens too.
SecularZone 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
..George Bush.. Mr President, haha he pretends to respect for him, what a absolutely discredited arse lick, we all know Bush went to Iraq not to save the world from theocracy but for Oil, AIPAC, and God told him, but Hitch needed the money (at the time) and used 9-11 to advance his career in a different direction. Other than that major let down I think Hichens is spot on.
yearight1970 2 years ago
Who is that sexy female there. She looks like she doesn't belong. haha just kidding.
HailRasec 2 years ago
Kelly O'Connor
buddhasknowbest 2 years ago
Yes, that's Kelly O'Connor. According to her own blog at the Rational Response Squad page, she left RRS to concentrate on a career in prostitution (including working the Bunny Ranch) and pornography under the name Kasey Grant. Pretty pathetic.
ChristianMission 2 years ago
her name is Kelly O'connor. She also goes by her porn name Kasey Grant.
ghandi8749 2 years ago
@HailRasec That's Kelly O'Connor. If you think she's that hot and you got the cash then you can go set an appointment up with her if yer in the Vegas area. There she's going by the name "Kasey Grant."
SouthTexasHeadbanger 1 year ago
The Rational Response Squad really are a cringeworthy bunch.
shenanigan55 2 years ago
Indeed. I've seen their debates, and they've would have been better off reading excerps from The God Delusion.
They've would have looked stupid, but not as stupid as one would look when one claims that the universe had always existed.
Even his theist opponents understood what the Big Bang was; that RRS person was plain stupid.
lepolemicist 2 years ago
agree. I think horribly self-satisfied athiests are actually far more annoying than the religious
chonchonchon 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
shenanigan55 2 years ago
I love Christopher Hitchens.
ghostofxmaspast 2 years ago 12
Wow!!!! hanging out with Hitchens, drinking scotch and slandering religious scum, I cannot think anywhere else I would rather be
wowowowye3 2 years ago 65
man, im with you on that one for sure.
dsmrider 2 years ago
I agree.
I am very envious.
Domzdream 2 years ago
@wowowowye3 yea thats so so intelectually hip!
joe018687645 1 year ago
Man if only i was there.
I could have shouted... February 12th!!!!
felixlighta 2 years ago
Comment removed
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
If you believe in god, good for you. But please don't waste your time saying we have our own "dogma" and all that shit. It's just a rejection of the supernatural.
And fucking no;
The supernatural isn't defined as something we don't know yet, but something that goes against every physical law there is, and would be impossible to exist.
I don't believe some "being" made a giagantic universe just to make doopy people on some shitty little planet, just to "test" them for some reward/punishment.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Time, along with every other conceptual measurement, wasn't applicable to anything before the universe began, but that doesn't mean that when the concept was able to be applied that it "existed".
It doesn't help the creationist theory at all anyhow. I can't take so much esoteric bullshit. You have no point.
And trying to poke silly "holes" in evolution theory wouldn't prove the existance of god anyhow, bwcause evolution theory doesn't even deny god's existance in the first place.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
if you say "time" again, so help me.....
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
movement of matter is movement of matter. It isn't time.
i really wish you were here in my face as opposed to hiding behind a keyboard so i could kick the ever-loving shit out of your carcass. Why don't you knock of the insults, pick up a dictionary, and look up time, and tell me if you see anything about matter movement>Something could be stationary and exist in time; defeating your entire premise.
can you please tell me what this has to do with the existance of god.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
"Something could be stationary and time still exist."
Thank you for another perfect example of how you argue with no reason. I say "If there were no movement in the universe" and you say 'something' could be stationary and time still exist. DO YOU NOT SEE YOUR FLAWED LOGIC!
You've gotten so used to arguing as an atheist, that you don't even feel the need to support you claims anymore. We are both making assertions and thus, the "Burden of Proof" falls on both of us. Just so you know!
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
If i was able to go back before the begining, and observe space, and then later observe it again, i would have just demonstrated the concept of time.
Time is a fucking conceptual measurement.
All I'm saying is that it didn't have a "begining".
that's fucking all.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
poprocks smokes rocks.........
time dimensions? shwaa??
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
link to the movie????
horace7945 2 years ago
Time is a concept.
It does not exist as a physical force that everything is subject to.
I don't know why creationists rely on this whole "physical time" arguement; considering it makes no attempt at the point!!!
Man INVENTED THE CONCEPT OF TIME.
Whoever was the first to make a device that pours sand at the same speed was the first to measure this concept.
It does not exist as physical reality.
I don't know why you would think that "the scientific community" would say such nonsense.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Are you retarded or just stupid?
Yet another atheist stooge wishes to argue by inanely misrepresenting my comment, speaking for the scientific community without a shred of understanding on the topic, and then insinuating that I'm the one without reason. Well done!
How could you even extract from that quote that "I believe time is something which exists in a physical form?"
Time is a "dimension" of reality in that it's used to measure and organize space and the movement of matter.
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
haha!!! a dimension ehh???
can you show me this "physical dimension" please???
you can't??
you know why??
because time, numbers, wieght and length are all forms of CONCEPTUAL MEASUREMENT.
there is no physical "time dimension"
there was no "zero time", time never "began", it's just a form of human measurement. There is no universal clock. In fact, it's a different time at my buddy's place in cali; what does that tell you? Time is not physical-it's conceptual.
for the last bleeding time.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
It's almost as if you didn't read a thing I said and decided to write the same shit over again.
You hold yourself and your intellect in such high regard, yet you seem to be the only one doing so.
How many times do I have to say until you get it? Time is a DIMENSION. I don't know what you think a dimension means, but you're not even close to being correct.
A dimension is a way to describe points in space. Thus, time IS a dimension which describes the movement of matter.
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
absolute rubbish. Time is a conceptual measurement of distance between EVENTS not points in space. You CAN use time to discribe distance in objects; such as light years, but that's not what time is. I suggest you look it up mate.
Movement doesn't make the concept of time exist. Just knock it off. Space had to have existed at one point before the universe, and again existed at another point before the universe, so time=conception.
Again, how does this prove the existance of a magic fairy?
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Time didn't "begin"-that's all i'm saying here. There was no "zero time". and it wouldn't make a difference anyway.
Why don't you chill with the "you're so full of yourself, blah, blah, blah"; so far, you haven't made one point. Not one.
So save your gloating.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
"There is no universal clock. In fact, it's a different time at my buddy's place in cali; what does that tell you? Time is not physical-it's conceptual."
This is, without a doubt, the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You're seriously going to argue about time zones being proof of anything. Seriously, I don't think you'll be able to top that one. You need to get an education you mentally sterile cretin.
LOOK UP WHAT A DIMENSION IS SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO WASTE MY TIME EXPLAINING IT TO YOU!
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
OK ----dude time didn't "start"---figure it out. It doesn't help your case to begin with.
what i was saying is that time is realitive to location.
you can't seem to make a point.
You know, i left a question in your box, i suggest you stop running from it.
You're really not going anywhere with this.
You love to say i'm somehow less educated. Yet , you bring forth no point whatsoever.
you believe in a magic sky-daddy---that's all. Mythology.
and you're going on about time.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
You don't think I've made a point because you've had nothing to attack, successfully at least.
I'll sum up what you've said:
"time is a concept"
"man invented that concept"
And now "TIME DIDN'T START," without feeling the need to provide support. When you're not denying arguments for God you DO NEED something besides a claim. You want me to mention God so that you can say, "SEE PEOPLE... HE SAID GOD!" Then you can use all of those flawed arguments against God you've been reading up on.
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
I HAVE NO POINT!?!?-i'm just rebuting YOUR lack of a point. All you said was that time had a begining. I said no, and i supported that statement by explaining that time is indeed conceptual, therefore it needed no start.period. Now you're avoiding answering the god questions because you're a big ,fat, stupid pussy.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
"Man invented the concept of time?"
Time is a way to measure and understand the movement of matter. And believe it or not, dimensions have the ability to "not exist" when they don't represent a phenomena in the universe!
Time doesn't transcend space, but rather it is dependent on movement within space in order "to exist." And matter has been moving long before humans were able to conceptualize and label it "Time."
Thus, without the movement matter, time wouldn't "exist."
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
"Thus, without the movement matter, time wouldn't "exist." "
are you fucking serious mate????
what planet are you from????
The fact that "matter is moving" has nothing to do with the concept of time.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
give it up; it doesn't help you prove the existance of a super-being anyway.
And why don't you knock it off with the pointless bullshit anyway, how does this prove anything?
Dimensions are also conceptual.
It doesn't matter, time never "began".
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Here, I'll try and dumb this down a bit...
If you were able to look at the universe as a closed system and viewed it from outside of the system, then without movement of matter from within the system there would be no way to distinguish one moment from the next.
Also, did you know that MOVEMENT of matter is WHAT ALL "EVENTS" ARE YOU FUCKING RETARD!
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
Since you say that I haven't made one point, let me see if I have you're argument down. You say that TIME IS A CONCEPT! That is your answer for everything. Yet, it explains NOTHING! You don't even feel the need to explain your assertion that "Time never began" past TIME IS JUST A CONCEPT. You don't say what the concept represents or influence for it's creation. Then, you say that "MAN INVENTED THE CONCEPT OF TIME" as if that means SOMETHING! I already answered half the shit you're reposting.
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
"TIME IS A CONCEPT" is not my fucking arguement, it's a counter-point for yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You want my point?-I gave it to you already, i want to see if you make a bloody attempt at it. I don't need to explain any further about time not needing a begining. Because it's an imaginary form of measurement. Imaginary things don't need a physical begining.If you can't get past that simple idea, then good day........
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
"Man invented the concept of time"... I can't get enough.
Of course Man did you idiot, unless you find conscious alien life-forms that have existed longer than us. Man invented ALL concepts because we are the only known conscious beings capable of abstract thought.
What does a vacuous truth like that have anything to do with time existing. Time is not just an idea. There would be the movement of matter in the universe whether Man realized it or not.
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
"What does a vacuous truth like that have anything to do with time existing. Time is not just an idea. There would be the movement of matter in the universe whether Man realized it or not. "
OK, so you do get it, now please fucking explain to me how time "started" or "began".
How the fuck does "matter moving"
incarnate to time???
How in the world does any of this prove the existance of a god???
FUCK!!!!!
time is the measurement of distance between one event and another.
that's all.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
So not only is time not "just a concept," but the statement, "Man invented the concept of time" is obvious, empty, and "makes no attempt at the point!"
You're just another doltish and unoriginal fool who "attempts" to parrot the pseudo-intellectual and fallacious BS you hear from the idolized atheists of the world in the hope of appearing enlightened and superior to people you don't even know. I pity your dilusion.
So in this game of chess we just played, who would you say was the pigeon?
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
"You're just another doltish and unoriginal fool who "attempts" to parrot the pseudo-intellectual and fallacious BS you hear from the idolized atheists "
You do realize you've not made ONE FUCKING ATTEMPT at proving the existance of god right?Aren't you just "claiming victory to your flock" a little bit early?
In fact, you've stated nothing but bull, proved nothing, and are now basking in your own undeserved glory.
I think you proved my time honored quote correct.
You're the pidgeon man.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Mother Terressa : Douchebag.
Mrgyn 2 years ago 27
@Mrgyn: so someone spending their entire life helping the poor, but simply because they might be off on their outlook on life, that justifies call them a scumbag? Wow. And atheists want to say that religious people are intolerant? Comon.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness
Correct.
Mrgyn 1 year ago
@Mrgyn: Exactly. It's all hypocritical. Hitchens probably doesn't think that Kelly (in the video above) is a douche-bag, but now she's apparently doing porn and spreading her legs to the highest bidder, and I highly doubt that she's forking over that cash to the poor. It's far better to go through life with the right actions and the wrong theory than it is to go through life with the right theory and the wrong actions. What a bunch of yuppies who never knew a day of poverty - "upper crust", lol
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness
I fail to see your point. Is there anything wrong with acting in pornography?
Mrgyn 1 year ago
@Mrgyn: My point is that Hitchens calls Mother Terresa a douchebag, but for what? I'm not catholic, but someone, ANYONE who decides to dedicate their life to helping the poor, regardless of whether their motivation is based on anything true or illusory, is not wrong. It's quite noble. So even if Kelly has a truer perspective on reality, does that give her immunity from being insulted. It's better to be a dumb yet good person than it is to be a smart yet bad person.
yistackness 1 year ago
@yistackness
Perhaps you should watch Christopher Hitchens documentary on Mother Terresa, it will change your mind on how innocent she is.
This documentary is available on Youtube, it is called:
"Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher Hitchens (1 of 3)"
Mrgyn 1 year ago
@yistackness
Learn what that fuckup Angel of Death aka Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu did to those poor people FIRST. She tortured people to death, made them sick, robbed them. If you still believe in the cartoonish version that tabloids created I guess you also believe in Santa Clause.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@yistackness
She didn't help.
She believed suffering was a "gift from god". She specifically said as much. She took money from loan scammers and haitan dictators and used it to train nuns and build homes for the dying. The homes for the dying were awful, squalored places, with one toilet between everyone there. The people in those homes, didn't even NEED TO BE DYING if she had spent the money on healthcare.
She was a sadomasochistic troll and it's a shame there's no hell for her to go to.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100
Yes, she was the opposite of what any decent person could call a "saint", but Hitchens' sentiment (which you've borrowed) suits no purpose other than fulfilling revenge fantasy. The damage is done, the perpetrator is gone and we all have an important lesson to learn. Fantasizing about posthumous punishment won't get us anywhere.
Skepdisc 1 year ago
@Skepdisc
I borrow only from the very best... In my opinion at least. I'm not sure what your point is though. When there's people claiming she did good and she was a saint, i'm going to argue against and explain why she wasn't.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
word association doesn't work on Hitchens because he's taking too long to respond.
If you get time to think about, it's not going to work. He sucks.
And these two impressionable dupes, encouraging him, laughing it up, swallowing his dribble, are annoying and pathetic.
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
He is obviously using his typical facetious and charming attitude to entertain the interviewer. If you can't see the degree of humor in his statement, you have no degree of humor in your senses.
nickrd182 2 years ago
but the whole point of word association is letting your subconcious do the work- you get a truer interpretation of the real person. He's conciously thinking about each answer. He's ruining the excercise because he's too vain.
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
i almost believe he's not on the bush hate wagon as a form of rebelion. like he's trying to be contrary to the polorization of smart AND dumb people who hate bush.
fcabido 2 years ago
"Mother Teresa...Douche Bag"? What an uncouth individual.
NoJeanNoMoney1 2 years ago
After Dawkins, he says "great teacher" twice, and during the second time, she gives the next prompt, to which he replies "silly" -- but I can't make out what she's saying over his voice. Does anyone know?
ChoirBoyOC 3 years ago
@ MarcusTheReverent
I was afraid I was the only one who thought that.
I got the distinct impression that the 'interviewer' was "selling himself", rather than selling his ideas (presumably, atheism/agnosticism). His body language reeked of "I'm talking to a great man, which makes me a great man".
Violetcrime 3 years ago
yeah. i also found the body language of the *interviewer* totally annoying, but wondered if it was partly because i was jealous that he got to talk to hitchens directly :p:p
earthypig 3 years ago
Hitch is right: Darwin and Lincoln both born Feb 12, 1809.
Lincoln an atheist. Lovely!
AlanCom1 3 years ago
The rational response squad right!
...so word association.
HitchensFavorite 3 years ago
ok so we have Christopher Hitchens in the room with us and this is what they do.
Bullshit.
ianhoppe 3 years ago 2
why is hitchens giving these self righteous pillocks the time of day?
MarcusTheReverent 3 years ago 3
Oh shit I am deaf, I missed that when he said it the first time around. Goofed... ;(
totlolrofl 3 years ago
Hitchens doesn't like the idea of Brights at all, by the way. Just fyi.
totlolrofl 3 years ago 2
What is a Bright?
ultramagellan 3 years ago
dawkins suggests we should call atheists brights, because it has a better connotation than "atheist"... I think that's stupid as as hell, so do does hitchens.
intrexed 3 years ago
I agree, Atheist is a technical term which means a specific thing, anyone can be one, it is up to them. You don't have to agree with anything even with the scientific method and can believe in the tooth fairy if you like. Only qualification is that you don't believe in god. Is Bright a culture of smart disbelievers? - Nothing wrong with this but I haven't even applied for membership.
I am an atheist but if i am to be a bright too, then send me the rule book so i can rip it up. Hitchens rulez.
marsCubed 3 years ago
I agree. The name we call ourselves will be given any connotation the believers choose to give it. You don't run away from it, you embrace it. We should be proud to be "godless, science/fact-obsessed" if that's how they see us. :)
eljagg01 3 years ago 2
Brights just implies that atheists are "brighter" than theists. Which is often the case but it's crude and very ad hominem to generalize these things.
Henw 3 years ago
I would prefer Illuminatus :D
wackid89 3 years ago
says a lot about someones religious dogmatism when they insist on calling Atheism a faith, and rejecting the true definition
is DeistReality really a deist or an Evangelical?
i say the latter, since i have yet to see a selfdeluded and stubborn-headed Deist
Djsouthpaw1987 3 years ago 2
"says a lot about someones religious dogmatism when they insist on calling Atheism a faith, and rejecting the true definition"
Atheist,
The term is specific and compared to religions quite meaningless.
The large majority of atheists I have conversed with attach and attribute all sort of subjective nonsense to atheism despite it's clear definition. That is delusional.
Preaching there is no God is like preaching one knows the universe is infinite
Who could possibly know?
All humans do dogma
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
I don't know anyone who preaches "no God". (Alright, maybe Dawkins, who's always pretty intense.) If they do, it's usually their first step into non-believe; cut them slack.
jamianm 3 years ago
"cut them slack."
They all do. They are no better than nutjobs who insist everyone who does not practice their version of reality is going to hell.
They substitute hell which for delusional or irrational. It is a way to validate their view of reality while demeaning others views.
They are no better than fire and brimstone bible thumping preachers. It they want to attack those who behave as they do that makes sense. Most people do not care what others believe. Disagreements bring politics.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
"most people do not care what others believe. disagreements bring politics"
oh, so until someone disagreed with religious people, they stayed totally away from politics in your opinion?
i must say that it is one of the dumbest things i heard in a long time.
earthypig 3 years ago
"oh, so until someone disagreed with religious people, they stayed totally away from politics in your opinion?"
Politics is simply the clash of ideologies and the process of resolving the differences one way or another. All humans have ideologies. Labeling some ideologies religious as if others are somehow more valid because they lack imagined labels is childish /does not follow reason.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
The point u were completely missing is that the VERY reason atheists are getting more "involved"is because the religious groups are getting way too political all over the world. They are trying to drag the world along with their religious dogma demanding total respect along the way.
And that is why your original comment was so laughable. U were cautioning against something happening, that's ALREADY happening way before the atheists got involved.
earthypig 3 years ago
"that's ALREADY happening way before the atheists got involved."
Atheists have never been uninvolved.
I haven't cautioned against anything. I am pointing out that ideologies clashing in politics is what it's all about. Nothing new is happening.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
You are quite wrong about that.
Actually atheists have not been involved to this degree before.
How could we. For the longest time in human history, to profess non-belief was to risk being tortured or burned at the stake as a witch.
There is defintiely a new movement starting at the moment towards atheism. I myself have regarded myself simply as a non-practicsing christian, until 9/11 woke me up to all the horrors committed in the name of religion throughout the ages.
earthypig 3 years ago
"Actually atheists have not been involved to this degree before."
Of course they have, They simply weren't amassing into the new cult . It's quite humorous. I am waiting for the first published book of atheist or the atheist creed. Just another passing fad like any other ideology accept that atheism stands for nothing but the non recognition of deities.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
Well for books how about: The God Delusion -Richard Dawkins, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything -Christopher Hitchens, The End of Faith -Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation -Sam Harris. I would be quite surprised to see atheism fade away as "just another passing fad." Thankfully the opposite seems to be happening. Also it is "except" not "accept" unless you are commanding that i "accept that atheism stands for nothing but recognition of deities"
jedediahd24 3 years ago
" I would be quite surprised to see atheism fade away as "just another passing fad."
Don't be surprised. Philosophies rise and fall in popularity. Nothing new. I just laugh. Philosophy is what it is.
The God delusion opens the door to see everything that is subjective as a delusion including the view itself. It's quite humorous.
Hitchens dogmatism is religious in it's own right.
All four of these hypocrites babble about spiritualism, human rights, morals, all subjective fairy tales.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
You're telling me that morals are relative? JESUS CHRIST MAN
sleeepingpills 3 years ago
"You're telling me that morals are relative?"
Of course. Completely reliant upon belief.
moggotson 2 years ago
Wooooooooooooooooooooooosh
sleeepingpills 2 years ago
Don't argue for religion, you won't win
wackid89 2 years ago 2
it's not a "philosophy" you idiot. it's simply a lack of a belief in god. and no, the god delusion opens the door to question that which has no evidence to support its existance, nothing more, nothing less. you're equating that to subjectivism for some bizarre, other-wordly reason. whatever dude...
isaachaze1 2 years ago
"it's not a "philosophy" you idiot. it's simply a lack of a belief in god."
Right. Just like those who lack a belief that no deity or deities exits.
The theory of: omniscient intelligence, human rights, Law, morality, beauty, infinity or "nothing", free will or "mind" Or the theory they do not exist.
Not philosophical at all. Just theories. :)
Twicebakedtaters 2 years ago
no, it's not "just like" those who lack a belief that no deity or deities exist; it IS a lack of belief in said deities. there MIGHT be philosphy interwined with the other concepts you bring up, but those things are all extraneous to pure atheism. anyway, i really don't understand what your point is in the first place.
isaachaze1 2 years ago
"no, it's not"
To you. There are atheists who recognize their position as a definitive belief that deities do not exist. Which logically is exactly that, since logic alone brings one to no answer, agnosticism.
Therefore the atheist point of view is as subjective and factless as any other philosophical position.
Twicebakedtaters 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i hear that one all the time (about myself), as in, "you have a belief that god does not exist." no, i wouldnt characterize that as a "belief". if so, then i have billions of other beliefs (that goblins, ghosts, trolls, fairies, unicorns etc do not exist). there are many reasons someone might be an atheist, some of which might be irrational (for example if you believe that no god exists, but instead we are controlled by a group of unicorns living on a remote planet -- THAT would be irrational).
isaachaze1 2 years ago
"THAT would be irrational)."
What is rational is subjective when speaking beyond factual knowledge.
"i hear that one all the time (about myself), as in, "you have a belief that god does not exist." no, i wouldnt characterize that as a "belief"
Correct, YOU subjectively would not. There are no facts here. Only opinions of meaning. There are not only theists who would but also other atheists and agnostics who see it this way.
Twicebakedtaters 2 years ago
well, i suppose we could go down the rediculous path of defining everything as subjective, including the definitions of the very words we are using to do so (and isn't the dictionary definition just someone's subjective opinion as to a definition?). i choose not to go down that somewhat mastebatory path. everything can be subjective if you look at it a certain way. enjoy your masterbation and talk to you later :)
isaachaze1 2 years ago
"well, i suppose we could go down the rediculous path of defining everything as subjective,"
Not everything. That which can be predictably and observably measurable/repeatable is fact.
"mastebatory path"
This is a dogmatic cop out. If we are to base reality on facts, meaning is not fact by any stretch. Meaning can not be objectively proven as fact. It can be identified as majority belief which can change in and of itself. We are the edge of evolution we have yet to comprehend.
Twicebakedtaters 2 years ago
If you're going to make the argument, as most atheists do, equating the "belief that a god does not exist" to the "belief that fairies, ghosts... do not exist," spare us the exposition of ignorance concerning the magnitude of the situtation. If instead you stated that "You do not believe that 'fairies' created the universe," then you wouldn't have left out the fact that the origin of the universe has yet to be solved; thus any idea on the subject, no matter how preposterous, has equal evidence.
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
"equal evidence," maybe, but not equal plausability. even if what you're saying is true, which i in no way conceede, it in no way should mean that we all get to "invent" our own explanations as to the origins of the universe and we have to entertain each & every explanation. that would be pointless. you seem to be saying, "well science does not yet have an answer, so that means god did it." rediculous...
isaachaze1 2 years ago
What I'm saying is that you seem to write off the idea of there being a creator(s) by comparing it to that of ghosts, fairies...etc. The fact of the matter is that there either is or isn't a God and the testable scientific evidence for both cases is nill. Also, I have yet to find a convincing argument, and I've seen most all of them, contradicting the possibiliy of a god. I think to argue over the plausability of a god or not falls in the same boat...
But I am willing to flip a coin on it!
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
no, actually that's not what i was saying. i was actually trying to write off the idea that i have a "belief that there is no god," not any point about the actual existence of such entities. i don't think my lack of belief in a god(s) constitutes a "belief" in and of itself and, if it does, than so should my lack of belief in many other supernatural entities such as pixies etc. if that is true, than i literally hold billions of beliefs. that was my point
isaachaze1 2 years ago
I think the idea concerning the determination of whether atheism is 'a belief' or not is rather pointless. It is like arguing whether nothing is something. Theists try to show that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist.
WOW... such intellectually stimulating discourse.
The fact is, arguing over semantics is something to do when there is nothing to do. Neither position has a true foothold in the debate and I dare anyone to show me an argument that proves otherwise.
poprockssuck87 2 years ago
i agree that it's pointless, but it seems necessary as people seem to find it necessary to state that my lack of belief in a god actually constitutes a belief (which i disagree with obviously). i've heard the argument also about it taking as faith to be an atheist, which i strongly disagree with as well. the point about semantics is well taken. the term "atheist" itself is somewhat unnecessary and pointless. i think of myself as more of a "rationalist"...
isaachaze1 2 years ago
But saying that the existence of a creator is an equal hypothesis to evolution is kind of like saying "Well I can't exactly explain why a sperm and an ovarian egg make a baby, so I'll just chock it all up to magic. Now I can't prove it's magic, but if you refuse to consider this option, you're insulting my scientific inquiry." But the very existence of God is predicated on being both un-provable and undisputable! That's not how science works! Therefore, it is not an equal hypothesis.
boopiie 2 years ago