Christopher Hitchens -- Behind the Scenes -- God: Big Questions...Bigger Questions

[lederereddy]

What fox holes do is give us perspective. That's where the rubber meets the road. It's the purest, truest test of our beliefs. It's a surgical removal of BS, lies and denial. No one has time for BS when their life is inches away from impending death. People are real at that threshold but the moment the threat's eased the BS like atheism begins to return. It's just an observed reality of human nature. Sin rules us by telling us everything's fine without God... Fox holes prove otherwise.

[MagikarpPower]

@lederereddy I know a few atheists that have been in foxholes. I suppose they weren't cowardly enough to succumb to the "cure" for the irrational fear of death. Religion's weak like that. It preys on the emotion of fear to get converts.

[lederereddy]

@MagikarpPower "Irrational fear of death"

Have you thought that one through much?If you were about to be shot through the head by some thug because your car broke down in the wrong neighborhood, would you be afraid? Would your fear be rational? No sir. I challenge your complacency about the reality of death. If you've trained yourself to ignore sin, God, judgement, etc. You have done so irrationally. Honesty requires repentance and repentance requires God's supernatural intervention But! cnt...

[MagikarpPower]

@lederereddy Yeah, I would. But that doesn't mean that I believe in an invisible being that can make my fear of death magically go away if I just swear allegiance to his magicness. That's irrational.

I don't assume the godly are weak. I'm convinced they're delusional and have to rely on a very screwed up book to give them some skewed sense of morals. I don't have to assume.

It's fairly easy to believe in something when we're defective, eh? When that religion has something to "offer".

Think.

[lederereddy]

@MagikarpPower Sin is compartmentalized as in- pride, lust, envy, sloth, greed, anger, gluttony, etc. If you're guilty of any of these then you're no different than a Christian. Except we recognized them and made amends and realized what a relief it is to be free from the grip they had on us. You're welcome to your opinion about what being one with The Lord God personally is, but I'm far from delusional. Any idiot with Christ's better off than a genius without Christ.

[MagikarpPower]

@lederereddy I dunno, when you can replace "God" with things such as "invisible fiery rabbit" or "flying spaghetti monster" it sounds very delusional to me. All of them exist equally i.e. not at all.

I understand your belief in sin. But sin is just a name you've given to things that aren't very nice. Yeah, I'm guilty of one or two of those things but that doesn't mean that there's an invisible sky daddy watching. I think it's better that I apologize to those whom I've wronged instead of...

[MagikarpPower]

@lederereddy talking to thin air and thinking like it's all gone. When we're all "sinners", then our wrongness is justified and it simply takes some guy being beaten and executed a long time ago to absolve it. There's no guilt. It's very dehumanizing.

In my opinion, the "Lord God" doesn't exist. And as ideas come, he's one of the most rotten.

[lederereddy]

@MagikarpPower But I agree that some religions prey on superstitious people. But facing the truth about ourself and wanting and getting Gods help with our defective behavior, subsequently improving the quality of our lives and the lives of others because we go to church instead of bars or read scripture and apply it to our lives. These things take discipline, character, integrity. But atheist's are so insecure about their position they have to assume the Godly are weak. But God is strength, magi

[sixtiksix]

How did you get through that tough time?

I didn't, I quit before it even got started....

and didn't even need godd or nuthin.....

[CavesProductions]

I think he got offended by the woman interviewer, saying the word "oh god"

Stupid bitch,

[digital0707neo]

“Love you enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for the ones who treat you with contempt” “If a man strikes you on your cheek, turn to him the other, do not answer evil with evil.”

[BlakeC94]

@digital0707neo LMAO such a disgusting belief. not only is it disgusting but its never followed, if so, rarely.

[5147848amp]

@BlakeC94

But if it WERE followed...

[BlakeC94]

@5147848amp it wouldnt be as violent but the outcome wouldnt be so good since people could not think for themselves

[Zeno1999]

@5147848amp, @digital0707neo < It has been followed. Even it's proposed Jesus was in North India learning this doctrine during his missing yrs. Look what happened to Tibet and Burma. Buddhists took this approach, got beaten, killed and considered enemy by the state.

Tibet gone and many of them are refugees in India for the last 55 yrs while China prospered. USA, UK, UNO ignored all the human rights abuses.

[5147848amp]

@Zeno1999

Are you suggesting people fight back - against forces infinitely vaster than themselves? That will simply breed retaliation from the stronger force. I see the use of violence as an endlessly self-enforcing pattern.

[Zeno1999]

@5147848amp < No, I'm suggesting everyone to become enlightened and not empower structures that abuse human mind-soul connection accessible through meditation which leads to true realization of God. Turning your other cheek to a savage person only gets another slap. Just walking away is better.

In case of Tibet, West empowered China even after seeing how they abused their neighbors and killed their own citizens. Noone questioned that and it continued till now.

[5147848amp]

@Zeno1999

Totally agree, totally agree.

[csv03]

I like how Hitchens almost always addresses the motive behind the question first

[TedDGPoulos]

Discovered in 2003: The underlying law of nature.

Discovered in 2008: The empirical process by which one may identify the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself.

This knowledge comes with no middleman wearing a fancy hat, cape, scarf, ring or necklace to obey and pay.

Think about it.

The underlying law of nature is the observable, constant, most fundamental way of all things -- all matter, energy, forms, forces, thoughts, behaviour, events and conditions.

Google it.

[theonemanparty7]

@TedDGPoulos wow! that's pretty interesting. . .

[TedDGPoulos]

@theonemanparty7 What do you find most interesting?

Regards

[Zeno1999]

@TedDGPoulos < Good points; observation relies on just five senses or instrumentation.

However, there are spiritual laws which are inter-dimensional. These are perceived by not the mundane self but enlightened or higher self. Miracles(instant remission of illnesses), creative insights, inspiration etc come from such realm. And empirical evidence would never prove this( point) as we just beginning to understand nature.

[Bultish]

@Zeno1999

the reason no miracles has been prooved is of the obvious reason they dont happen, miracle = the laws of nature is altered. I mean anyone who claims theyve been subjects of a miracle is just the most egotistical person youll ever find. "oh god changed nature just so i could live" .. then millions of people die of hunger everyday?! how is that explained? And btw where did you aquire this information "However, there are spiritual laws which are inter-dimensional" ..? thats a statement

[Zeno1999]

@Bultish < I've been humbled by experiences that could be called miracle. If I share it, it is my modesty. I'm not making any money by revealing such phenomenon.

People who do not experience good things but hunger or other negative experiences have a choice. In third world, they beg or get donations; in Africa, they are victims of bad policies and dictatorships. But many escape by emigration also.

We are what we are as a result of choices we make and positive use of our free will.

[Rawnesss]

@Zeno1999 If it is not possible by means of empirical evidence to prove this; then it's a unnecessary assumption... if it is not necessary, it is meaningless and approaching meaning zero. If you can offer me no proof; it's irrelevant, your own illusion one can say.

[gklr]

@Rawnesss,

" If it is not possible by means of empirical evidence to prove this; then it's a unnecessary assumption"

false. All tautologous truth, all of logic, is has no empirical evidence. All of language all of mathematics.

And beliefs come in 3 types, that which is not empirical truth and is not tautologous truth and is not subjective belief (opinion, taste) and that which is not myth, and that which proposes a state of affairs.... is an assumption.

[Rawnesss]

@gklr I am applying this to the mention of "miracles" and "god". Not to language nor mathematics. They were not in my consideration. You're alittle too turned on by philosophy and correcting other peoples "mistakes"´. I for one, do not care. Please do not reply again.

[gklr]

@Rawnesss,

Your comment discounted more than logic and mathematics. It discounted myths, opinions and all of logic.

You said unless shown via empiricism it was an assumption. Wrong.

"Please do not reply again."

I reply whenever and to whoever I want to reply to.

" You're alittle too turned on by philosophy"

I offered no philosophy. Philosophy is a verb, the act we take in doubting and questioning. I offered a worldview, not philosophy.

[Rawnesss]

@gklr Again, philosophical delusions are so common these days. Philosophy is not a verb; not an act. It's a construction of language. Other suggestions of what it is; philosophy or poetry.

You've read too much; understood nothing, and then you complain about it. I don't like your pretentious babblings because you're simply contorting them so that you can understand them through the lens of, misread and misunderstood philosophy. And then you argue semantics and boring shit that leads to nowhere

[gklr]

@Rawnesss,

If philosophy and worldview are the same, why the two different words.

I say philosophy is a verb, in agreement with and stemming from the comments by Bertrand Russell saying the same thing.

Scorates was the quintessential philosopher and ONLY asked questions. Answers are not philosophy, they are a worldview. No-one has "a philosophy" because it is not a noun.

[Rawnesss]

@gklr You're the one discounting logic and mathematics. I have never done so. You've done so for me. I have no wish to argue with you. You should understand if you have any real basis in philosophy that this discussion will lead us nowhere.

You're arguing on youtube. There's nothing here to discuss.

no more replies from you, as you'll probably try to manage some twatty reply with a basis in philosophy in rhetorics that you've simply misinterpreted.

[gklr]

@Rawnesss,

"You're the one discounting logic and mathematics. I have never done so."

Wrong. You said if something was not shown via empiricism that it was an assumption.

Assumption covers only inductive logic. There is still tautologous truths which are not empirical and give us logic, mathematics, language and more. There is also opinions and myths, neither of which fit your model.

[gklr]

@Rawnesss,

"no more replies from you"

And let what an arrogant jackass like you says, stand?

Your nonsense said that if there is no empirical proof of something that it is an assumption. Have you never heard of tautologous truth? Have you never heard of opinion? Have you never heard of myths?

There are 5 propositional types and your model allowed for 2. You should fucking thank me that I took the time to correct you. Say that shit again and your ignorance is wilfull.

[Rawnesss]

@gklr Whatever man. Rock 'N Roll.

[Zeno1999]

@Rawnesss < Do you think there is nothing beyond "concept and perception" that influence our mind. This is a robotic/AI approach to life.

When dealing with phenomenon I mentioned proof is there but requires skeptic seeking empirical evidence to stand in the observer's 'frame of reference.' This is rarely possible most of the time as event has occurred. And it's due to what in science was discovered as : 1) special theory of relativity 2) quantum mechanics esp. Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

[Rawnesss]

@Zeno1999 No. You're just making the issue alot more complicated than it needs to be. It's a William Lane Craig thing you've got going, so I am not going to argue against it. And you're suddenly "assuming" various things that I've not mentioned nor have implied. So go away. I don't feel like debating ANYTHING on youtube. It's a waste of time. We won't reach a valuable conclusion. Please do not comment on aynthing again. Your intellectualism is merely a pose.

[gklr]

@Zeno1999,

"Good points; observation relies on just five senses or instrumentation."

Correcta nd everything else that is true is shown via tautologous truth statements and not via empirical truth statements. One is science and one is logic and there are no other ways to say what is real.

"creative insights, inspiration etc come from such realm"

Nonsense. These are conceptual and not perceptual. All concepts are thoughts, logical items, abstract objects, including numbers and language

[Zeno1999]

@gklr < This is a robotic/AI approach to life {re: "concept and perception" are the only thing influencing our minds. This is your assumption.}

Most of the time people are so unconscious of their thoughts and actions. And science would call it programmed responses-not true :

Babies right after birth have been tested to respond to stimuli in a unique way showing researchers they have been wired before birth differently and this influence the way they perceive and approach any concept later on !

[gklr]

@Zeno1999,

"This is a robotic/AI approach to life {re: "concept and perception" are the only thing influencing our minds. This is your assumption.}"

Problem Houston. I never said any such thing. I did say that the only truths we can have are from science and logic, empirical truths and tautologous truths.

Our minds are influenced by inductive logic (assumptive belief) far more often, let alone our subjective beliefs and to a lessor degree myths.

[Zeno1999]

@gklr < This is the problem : "a lessor degree myths." Myths are very powerful; mythic images both in the dreams and creative expressions are right brain outputs, useful only if left brain and right are connected properly.

IQ(left brain) emphasis has empowered too many wrong individuals today(majority, perhaps 80%) who want "results" which led to the world we have today : imbalanced, unhealthy, greedy, "top of food chain" mentality, unfair competition vs. cooperation etc.

Makes any sense ?

[gklr]

@Zeno1999,

What you said makes sense sure, it simply has no relevence to my discussion.

Myths are simply the least used of the 5 propositional types in deciding what is real. Rarely do people base what they think is real on myths. Even thests don't do that very often. They use, as we all do, inductive logic (assumption) to agrue things like first cause. They use inductive logic poorly, but it is the same form of logic we all use to say the sun will rise tommorow.

[Zeno1999]

@gklr < I'm not disagreeing with you. But there is a bigger picture to all that we see but often we focus on small portion of it. We also get caught in the magic woven by all "make believe" ideas such as : job security, economy, advertisements, investments ...

It is quite possible all humans are on different evolutionary path. So their 'frame of reference' require more logic or less of it but more intuition and so on. Test this hypothesis and see if it may be of some value.

[nbachmann]

"When you're getting water-boarding or going through any hard time in your life, what gets you throught that?"

Did she actually say that?

[yoseph89]

Atheists, as he's just explained it, may have a better chance at coming to grips with inevitable death.

[ThePhantomBlacksmith]

Actually the question, in a sense does cut to the heart of the matter, after the debates have been won and reason begins to take hold. "..but what do you use as an emotional crutch when life is kicking your ass?" That's what every believer asks when a twinkling of reconsideration starts forming. And it does need to be addressed-extensively. The Populations want something to believe in and they're not going to let go of their irrationality unless they're given some hope without it.

[byron84]

The reason he'd call to Jesus or to Allah on his deathbed is because his inner core- though thoroughly hardened out by scotch and tobacco- still calls for the divine- as do all animals (including us simple primates!) As the master Carl Jung showed, Hitchens is merely rebelling against the archetype that Western man created- that angry and insufferble Judeo-Christian deity named Jehovah who, through who knows what, made a mess of all of it by declaring one of its offshoots God incarate.

[ByronC900]

@byron84 You're fucking nuts.

What in the fuck are you rambling about? "Calls out for the divine"

I'm embarassed we share a name.

[superjeff14]

Is the CT in CTFORUM for connecticut? What a great state.

[CTFORUM]

See the full Forum on The Forum Channel.

[TylerNull]

The gimmick used in Atheist proselytism is to establish the frame of discussion as belief vs. no belief. When, in reality, Atheists simply form a different CONCLUSION. The full wad of notions upon which theirs is based remains hidden by the Atheists' closed-loop idiocy of claiming such are nonexistent or irrelevant due to the label they hide it all behind. Thus, theirs remains concealed.

Atheism is the simply world's most unexamined, disorganized & intolerant of all religions. And it shows.

[gregvalcourt]

TylerNull: Your first paragraph is unclear (and full of bad english). Can you rephrase it?

Part of your second statement is true, but not the part about it being a religion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Of course it's disorganized. There are no central dogmas, rituals or stories holding it together. In fact, if there was no religion, there would probably not be atheism, as it is a response to theism (and a label for theists to give us).

[TylerNull]

greg: both your paragraphs were idiotic and full of piss poor English. (See, I can do it too.)

If Atheism didn't require its dullards to hold such a hostility toward intellectual inquiry, then you'd addres a point every now and then. You guys never quite do.

EVOLVE.

[gregvalcourt]

@TylerNull

I ask you to explain and elaborate on your first paragraph. As you have not done so, I'll interpret it for what it is.

Atheist don't just "simply form a different conclusion". They usually have reasons why they come to a different conclusion. This is the opposite of religion, where the argument must be manipulated to agree with an already given conclusion.

Speaking for myself, I am not hiding behind a label. I can provide reasons why I do not believe in a god.

[TylerNull]

Everyone has "reasons". That was my point.

You clearly understood the point, as much as you pretended you didn't. Regardless, your latest attempt to address it is worse than your first. (You should have stuck with topic-avoidance. It's all your ilk are good at.)

[maddtappin]

TylerNull everyone...really good at the Strawman argument.

[maddtappin]

greg this tyler null guy just repeats the same bullshit over and over again....ive seen him on different sites....just looking for a fight.....he's king at setting up strawmen, and attacking and insulting people...so closed minded...don't waste your time.

[gregvalcourt]

@TylerNull

Go meet some Athiests. You might find their not so hostile if you don't approach them with hostility. The problem is that some loud mouth religious set themselves up for hostility by imposing. For example: intelligent design, gay marriage, judging ....

And yes we do address points. There are many books and web pages full of them.

[TylerNull]

"Go meet some Atheists"

You are yet another I've met, and you demonstrate my observations of Atheists rather well. As even that latest quote of your drivel demonstrates.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@TylerNull If you understand the central point of atheism as "I don't believe in god because there is no evidence to suggest that he exists" then you have no argument. Its totally supported by the laws of reason.

However if you create a straw man of the atheist position and claim it means "there is no god as a definite fact" then yes I suppose that would be an illogical assertion.

To add I find your use of all capital letters in the word conclusion to be childish and unnecessary.

[TylerNull]

@Gaiusisusoiusousosuu

Your "central point" is a baseless assertion. It, therefore, evidences my original point, even as it ignores it.

Separately, such Atheist dogma as that which you just posted is argued by devotees amongst the countless sects of Atheism.

To add, I find your complaint(s) over capitalization just plain SILLY.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

Its not baseless its a common mischaracterization of the mainstream atheist point of view.

To add I find your misuse of capitalization just plain silly.

[5147848amp]

@TylerNull

I'm with you on the "atheism as intolerant religion" thing, even if the others aren't..

!

[4Dmetricology]

I shall make all clear to you commentors.

Dawkins himself says that he is actually an agnostic! And that all theists and atheists are also agnostic. (Of course Dawkins normally refers to himself as atheistic.)

In other words, no one knows for sure, although some are more possessed of their arrogance/ignorance than others.

As for the "show me one (fact based?)...evidence for god" argument; why has no atheist shown one bit of evidence proving the non-existence of god?

See...your agnostic.

[sevieht]

anti-thiests like myself or athiests THINK that there is no god, and that the idea is harmful. god is impossible to prove or disprove.

I believe god is such a mixed up, impossible idea that it cannot be true. If any religon is right i would refuse to call god omnipotent, or omniprescent or even superior, since a human with the qualities that that god puts on show, such as anger, stupidity, arrogance, denial, narcicism and many others, are not qualities that i would like to see in other humans.

[natmanprime]

sentience is a complex form of perception.  If a being is absolute there can be nothing to percieve therefore cannot be sentient.

Hence no God.

What a relief.

[LovingKimiKatkar]

Your dog is dead, deader than Paul Newman. Let me console you with humorous dog-related stories involving the antics of a desiccated Paul Newman clinging to life & a bottle of salad dressing.

[miket1m]

Oh, its the "in thing" not to believe in God. "Hey everybody look at me, I don't believe that God exist. I am such an intellectual, Oooh." This position is a universal negative and it is 100% impossible to prove. There is no evidence whatsoever that makes atheism viable.

[whereitsat309]

I'm afraid there is a 100% absence of proof that the Christian God exists.And a pious Christian would agree with such a statement because to ask God for proof of his existence is the sin of self pride, belief in God is an act of faith.The absence of faith or belief leads an atheist to the empirical conclusion that no higher being exists because there is plainly no evidence whatsoever to support the concept.But the lack of belief usually comes first,I am 41 and have never believed in any god.

[miket1m]

Atheism is impossible if held positively. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It has to disprove theistic proofs. It can't prove itself true. Its a very weak place to be intellectually.

Its the atheists who claim there is no God who have to prove their point. You have a position. Unless its based completely on blind faith, there must be some reason you hold to it. That would be your evidence. Its your position I am asking you to establish. So tell me. What kind of an atheist are you? Strong? Weak?

[whereitsat309]

You can't be a strong or weak Atheist, it's an absolutist position, you can be an agnostic of course, and Hitchens describes himself as an Anti-theist because he actively opposes religions in all forms as backward and wrong, and I don't agree with that.

And you have your logic twisted, religion is faith, because there is NO PROOF nor should there be easy or obvious proof. There is zero theistic proof based on fact, only on faith, If there is an absence of fact, there is an absence of proof.

[miket1m]

A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort. So are you a strong atheist or a weak one?

You say there is no proof. How do you know that? You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You can't claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.

[whereitsat309]

As I said, to be an Atheist is an absolutist position despite your attempts to define me in your terms. My position is that there are no gods of any sort or stripe, because there is clearly no fact based evidence. You cannot provide me with one fact based example of evidence, you can only prove your own personal faith to me, which. by the way, is how it should be.

[miket1m]

How do you know there is no evidence? To state that means you would have to have looked at all the evidence in the world. Thats not possible.

What kind of evidence would except, within reason, as evidence for God? If you don't have anything to offer, then you haven't thought your position through, and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?

[whereitsat309]

"You cannot provide me with one fact based example of evidence, you can only prove your own personal faith to me, which. by the way, is how it should be."

Amaze me....?

[Skepnostic]

Atheism is a belief (Or lack of) not based in direct evidence, agnositicism represents your claims to knowledge. You can be and atheist and agnostic at the same time.

Weak atheism = Agnostic Atheism

Strong atheism = Gnostic Atheism.

[whereitsat309]

Atheism — ORIGIN from Greek a- without + theos god.

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

Atheism (for me) is a statement on the fact that there is NO evidence based on fact that there is a God or gods, or to (un)quote Kiri-kin-tha's first law of metaphysics, "Nothing unreal exists."

I'm afraid that I reject your definitions, they are not challenges to understanding, they are just semantics.

[LovingKimiKatkar]

Why are you afraid? Let us explore your fears.

[whereitsat309]

Ha-ha!

..maybe not.

[LovingKimiKatkar]

You're afraid?

[whereitsat309]

*Yawn*

....of what?

[miket1m]

There are no atheist in fox hole. That saying came from Alcholics Anonymous where you belong you obnoxious limey drunken prick. I hate this moron.

[HateHasNotWorked]

Chris is the best maybe in history

[miket1m]

Why? He says there is no God? How does he know that? Does he have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience)? Hiw whole position is based on nothing but simple abstract possibility. Completely illogical position. So, please tell me why is he the best? He an miserable and obnoxious chain smoking drunk. He writes a book about some stupid illogical position and morons like you buy it and he laughs all the way to the bank. Keep drinking the coolaid moron.

[will8ace]

lol

godisabastard[dot]blogspot[dot­]com - enjoy!

[LovingKimiKatkar]

Much of the physical world is imperceptible to Man, as he's physically unequipped to perceive it. A philosophy is not ambulatory and is therefor unable to move about to commit crimes. People commit crimes because they have the desire to do so.

[mikelheron20]

You really can't just drop random words on the page and hope they will make sense. "Philosophy is not ambulatory..." What on earth are you talking about?

[smokey566]

I cant hear shit. Tell that dumb drunk bimbo in the back to STFU!!!!

[mojorhythm]

Theist: "Oh GOD!"

Atheist: "Oh SHIT!"

[DevJL]

Masochist: "Oh GOD this is good SHIT"

[DarkMessiah123456]

LULZ

[2Draco39]

Masochrist:"Oh god, nail me"

Sadist:"Bloodtype O-; Anybody have Bloodtype O-; Really... noone? Shit."

meant to be a joke... forget it...

[smokey566]

Swingers: "Oh GOD!... YES"

[DemokritosAbdera]

Lol

[Lararevelute]

@mojorhythm lol that was funny.

[euroman32589]

@mojorhythm .....lmao

[MrJohnnyrace]

@mojorhythm Shit exists.

[lovecraftfan311]

im a atheist and a veteran(army)

one of the major reasons for my not reenlisting is the persecution of non-christians in the armed forces. a very dangerous atmosphere, when you have a 1sgt,captian,etc.. that is a evangelical extremist, as your religious beliefs are known to your commanders, if i wasn't as good at my job in the military as i was im sure i would have been persecuted as my less productive non-christian friends were often.

[GBart]

I have a couple buddies from high school who joined the military (both atheists, and oddly enough the only two people I know from my high school class who joined the armed forces) and they've both told me the persecution and favoritism is appalling.

[sam51092]

So the religionist's 'no atheists in foxholes' belief is a lie, with no evidence for it, plenty of evidence against it, but which they try to make true via persecution... geez that's not like them!

Oh hang on...

[sleepcity]

James Carroll's book/film "Constantine's Sword" addresses this. I can't imagine how frustrating it was for you rational guys to have to be in that toxic environment where faith is being shoved down your throats. Something needs to be done to secularize our military.

[PoopyPaul]

I have had a couple of near death experiences and I can say praying to God had never once crossed my mind. I am the only one that is in control or in my case had no control of my situation but I am here and I did see the next day. I used to pray to God when I was a child but when i actually seen the disturbing parts of life, prayers to an invisible only repsonsible for the good things God seemed ridiculous to me. Former Roman Catholic now a proud life appreciating atheist.

[MetricSU]

Indeed. And we know it can't help. How many people in New Orleans were praying during Katrina? How many in the twin towers? How many children recently horribly burned to death in Mexico? Probably a lot. And it didn't help a bit.

[marsCubed]

In fact, research by a Christian group, who actually run a proper blind trial, discovered that prayer was harmful. To their credit they published their results. patients were prayed for, or not, they either were told this it or not. Those who were told that they were being prayed for did significantly worse. The findings suggest that prayer 'makes people morbid', to quote the researchers, this has negative impact on health.

Best to keep positive, prayer iz fail.

[MetricSU]

Yes, I remember. I believe the Templeton Foundation funded the research. Like you said, at least they published the results.

Remarkably, the findings seem to have shaken very few people's faith. But that is the nature of faith, I guess. They can always rationalize any finding with "we cannot know the will of God."

[splendorfulguris]

very interesting remark he makes in the beginning about people only needing god if their life sucks :)

[jamesstephenbrown]

How would you deal with it?

You just deal with it, yourself. Not all of us have to pretend everything is okay when it isn't.

[jamesrobertdobbs]

Can we see the whole discussion/debate?

[debaser71]

I've heard many times from real atheists in foxholes how when the shit was hitting the fan, instead of fighting some religious minded folk were praying. If I ever find myself in a foxhole I hope there are atheist next to me. It reminds me of Ingersoll's comments that hands that help are far better than lips that pray...or how two hands working are better than a thousand clasped in prayer

[jabecara]

It was a fine question and, if you were lucky enough to attend the show in Hartford, you got to witness a classic forum - Hitchens, Rev. Gomes, Rabbi Kushner! Hopefully we'll be able to see more of that online soon.

[Melvin6566842]

What a question:

Torture feels bad just like a "difficult time in your personal life" and don't we therefore need god to make us feel good again?

This kind of moral frivolity and moral confusion is a good example for what religion does to people.

[adknerr]

Even through I agree with your sentiment that the question wasn't very good (especially if that was the ONE question one was to muster if only having time for one), I think you have a terrible interpretation of the question.

I think for a lot of people, when in a dire circumstance, do have to turn to something for their strength. As a non-religious person myself, I can see how it could be difficult for a believer to understand that I rely on my own will, not something mythical.

-Drew

[hexag1]

hitchens manages to give an intelligent answer to a stupid question

[josephdrew87]

Indeed! Just what I was thinking... being a smart impromptu guy here.

[DevilsAdv0kate]

He's a Muslim! I knew it!