I'm going to miss Christopher Hitchens but I'm thankful for the large amount of public appearances he did so that I could hear his charm and intellect that is so very rare in a world that enjoys being told bad bedtime stories.
@TenWhoWereTaken Hmmm...the bell it rang in my memory is, "I'm saying it because it's true. Inside of us, we both know God is not great. You're not part of His work, He's not the thing that keeps you going. If you don't put aside this childish delusion, you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life." X^D
CHRISTIANITY AND THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE IS NOT GONE AND WILL NEVER BE AS THIS IS WORD OF GOD THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING AND NOBODY CREATED AS PERFECT BOOK AS THE BIBLE EVER!!! A FACT THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH AND UNIVERSAL ANSWERS MAKES YOU MORE THAN ONLY SOME ANIMAL OR EFFECT OF COINCIDENT AND EVOLUTION. ONLY CHRISTIANITY PROTECT THE LIFE!
FAITH IS A GIFT SO ASK GOD- HOLY SPIRIT FOR IT IF YOU WANT AND GET READY FOR BIG EVENT-GREAT WARNING SOON
aaahhhhh, sipping my first cup of coffee on a saturday morning in manhattan whilst listening to fry and hitchens....life doesn't get any better for this former muslim.
ps - the missus was kind enough to bring me some crisp bacon as i write this....to think that i missed out on swine for the first 22 years of my 36 years on this planet because of some medieval arab nomadic injunction.... talk about blasphemy!!!
it's certainly rational to argue that pigs have an interest in life similar to human interests in life. we are on a darwinian spectrum, after all. in fact, i'm tempted to go so far and say it's not rational to argue otherwise!
and roughly 99% of all bacon in the states is factory farmed, so as a practical matter in reducing suffering avoiding bacon is assuredly ethically prudent.
@itchynights The impulses of all living organisms ensure their survival, that is true. But the pig is not able to formulate those impulses into an "interest", does that not make sense?
human interests in life are not rational formulations—we have a genetic drive to stay alive. there's nothing rational about wanting to live, it's just a fact about us.
likewise for our close family members. pigs can get great pleasure from their lives when left alone, as we can. if we think we deserve the opportunity to life in peace because we enjoy our lives, i see no good reason to bar that experience to other conscious beings like pigs, sharks, or chickens.
@itchynights Well I would respectfully disagree to your first statement, I think it is very rational to follow a drive to stay alive, the difference is that we can largely choose ourselves, while I don't know of many other species that are programmed that way. Dolphins, primates and a few other intelligent species maybe. And we don't really go around killing animals willy-nilly, we do it the way we do it because we're lazy as fuck, so I wont defend that at all, I think it's disgusting.
our "choice" to stay alive is dictated to us by our genes interacting with our environment. this is out of our control. most of us simply want to live, end of story—we don't reason to ourselves to stay alive. that we want it is enough to respect it, same with our non-human family members.
i admire your appreciation for our moral laziness, though i would add that buying a piece of meat from any number of fast food places is killing "willy-nilly". it is utterly whimsical.
@itchynights yes but the drive can be rationalised - it follows logic. I'm confused by your second point, buying meat isn't murder in any form, killing the animals before selling the meat is, and it is also a planned out and calculated action. What bothers me is the way it is planned and calculated, because the math is wrong, and immoral ... it's too careless.
I love the Hitch and Fry and I love Tea a-lot, but I don't like any religious dogma, I have nothing against the religious believer just the bullshit they believe in.
Could we ask for anybody more suited to speak on Atheists' behalf other than Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry? If it weren't for religion, we wouldn't need to be Atheists anyhow. :)
umm no,there are 3 arguably 4 being arab and everyone is one or a mix of those. you do not get to call yourself another race because your selectively breed bring to dominates certain traits. to be a different race takes 10's of thousands of generations which written history is at most 300 generations. and archeologists think that settlements are at most 500-700 generations old.
@Mad1093 Then you also have: "I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better....Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable. What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima."
@Ematched If scientific truth is used for killing, is that sciences fault? No, science is neutral. It is us humans who choose to use our knowledge of atomic energy for destruction.
That being said, it would be fair to say that science didn't fly us to the moon, we did. We just used scientific knowledge for our purpose, whether moral or immoral. I guess my prior quote is also just as incorrect, so this is me retracting it. Science is a tool, what we use it for is a whole different story.
@Mad1093@frackcha Then you also have: "I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better....Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable. What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima."
"whether in fact it would be a "better" World if religion did not exist. "
It's actually very easy. The suicide bombing community is almost 100% religious. The only secular (Though not atheist) group I know of to suicide bomb was the Tamil Tigers. The genital mutilation community is 100% religious. There is no good that comes from religion that is exclusive to it and yet there is evil that is exclusive to it.
I imagine there's more poverty in Slovakia than anti-semitism. But maybe I'm too innocent. I know a lot of Slovak people and Jews are the last ethnic group they'd have a problem with.
I think Fry had bad luck when he went there making that show, he spoke of a man saying it was very "curious" how no one left before the holocaust as if they had chosen to die. But it really is a lovely part of the world and I refuse to believe it's filled with anti-Semites!
I love Hitchens and Frys words on religeon, but I think that there is slightly too much emphasis placed on its danger. It is after all just one of many toxic categories of ideology. Suicide bombing comes from the secular Tamil Tigers, and mass murder has come about without the help of religeon. I think by making the distinction between religeous zealotry and other kinds, we are giving it way too much importance. Khmer rouge was just as dark and vile as any religeous group. All of it makes me ill
People don't blow up buildings because of atheism or because of their secular views. Stalin for example, was an athiest, but he didn't do the things he did because of it.
@Averagegamer100 of course, and I agree with that logic, but we cant convince the idiots to give up religeon by debating it, but we certainly wont solve the world's problems even if we manage to do so. All ideologies are pretty much the same, and putting them into categories just confuses the issue. Marx deals with it best as superstructure, which is designed to drive the economic base. All ideologies are false, but most are also necessary, and we all believe something, even us atheists.
@Averagegamer100 People don't blow up buildings "because of religion" either. It's how people choose to interpret their religion that causes them to act violenty, not religion itself. Politics has been responsible for more violence & suffering than religion, yet it is necessary. We have never known a World without religion of some kind. It is therefore impossible to conceive a World without it & whether in fact it would be a "better" World if religion did not exist.
@Averagegamer100 As the saying goes, good people do good things, bad people do bad things but to get a good person to commit evil, that takes religion.
When you think an all powerful, almighty being with ultimate power is on your side, all things are permissible.
To me imposing your own morals on other people is an act of violence. It demonstrates the same kind of arrogance and will do dominate others that was the cause for so many horrible monstrocities humans have commited over the centuries. Religious people cannot imagine that humans can live lifes of integrity unless you threaten them with eternal damnation. That is a very sad view of our world since all that's really needed is to give our child a loving environment to grow up in. No morals needed.
'Religious people cannot imagine that humans can live lifes of integrity unless you threaten them with eternal damnation.' Would that be all religious people?
@BeerJBeerJ Yes, I think so. Why else would they feel the need to believe such a cruel and inhumane concepts such as the devil or original sin. To me what people call evil is really just part of our nature. And all that's needed is to enlighten these "evil" feelings, not to turn to imaginary friends or superstitions. That's a highly neurotic response. Religion is a neurotic and cowardly response to the challenge of facing our true condition and shedding some light on it.
@93parklife Precisely, i find labour acceptable on principle but this current cabinet is vile. Still, i'd rather have some form of Labour than Tory party in power easily.
the lesser of two evils. With a good leader labour could do great things, with a good leader the tories will ruin the half of the country that isn't their own.
Lot of people using the graverobber in favor of religiously defined morality here, which is if anything a pointless argument.
We can tell from hard historical facts that respect for the dead and ritual burial was performed by cavemen. It's a practice that predates the artistic revolution of mankind, let alone any religion.
So Atheists have been burying and respecting the dead a lot longer then any theists, just certain religions developed slightly different ways of doing it.
I agree we should bury people,that wasn't my point.His grandfathers grave was robbed,surely if you are a Humanist the needs of the living outweighs the needs of mere decomposing flesh,even if it is a relation.Wouldn't it be inhumane to let poverty continue when gold was buried ,even if it is on a corpse.
If morality is subjective,by what authority do we have to lock anyone away?Are laws just a collective of the majority feelings?As for respectful,Stephen recently said:There are two words that I find creepy one is respect the other is offence.
Surely from a Humanist/atheist point there is nothing wrong with grave robbing.If there is no afterlife then there is nothing sacred,in fact,would it not be a crime to bury these things when there is such poverty?
Morality is subjective, which is why there are people who are locked away in prisons or mental institutions, and people conspiring against one another because they happen to disagree on something they both revere.
What do we do with our dead then, if not bury/burn them? Drag them out to the curb and let the garbage men take it? I like to think people have a little more respect than that, part of the idea of burying/burning someone is that it is honorable and respectful and moral to do so.
Galloways arguments were ad hominem in their approach. He avoided the actual debate points and used pathetic attempts at persuading the audience, such as using emotional language. Hitchens won the debate, however the audience was so rude and vulgar that they would not even allow themselves to be swayed by shouting over hitchens as he spoke
Yes im well aware of what Ad Hominem means. And my use of the word was accurate. Galloway did 'attack' hitchens personally, instead of focusing on the topic. He may not have delivered it as sophomorically as 'you are a sinner, faggot', but he did seek to attack the person and not the argument.
@waldoistwisted Oh, Yes I understand what you mean now. Sorry, I just couldn't deduce that from your previous comment :). He attacked Hitchens (personally), so in a almost perverse sense he could play on the emotions of his audience.
I'd have to disagree. I think hitchens is more articulate, stirring, eloquent and entertaining. But it depends what you consider to be a better speaker. Dawkins is a better advocate but I think Hitchens is better to watch.
@marcN19 Pity they're never on opposite sides really. There's a great Intelligence Squared debate where the two of them are matched against Anne Widdecombe and some bishop. And they do a good cop/bad cop routine on the Catholic Church. Hitchens starts off by blasting them with angry denunciation. Then, while they're still recovering from that, Fry follows up and slaughters them with sweet, patient, loving kindness. Powerful double act.
i think its insane anyone could think a god would care about you worshipping them, if your that powerful and can just do anything anyway, then surely you have better things to do, and i mean, its hardly hard to make so many people worship you when you have such power eh? absolute insanity and weakness, accept it, we all live, we all die, who knows what happens, but putting names to the concept of power and believing fantasy stories are the signs of fear and sickness
couldnt agree more. i sometimes wonder, that if god made the whole world in just 6 days, put his feet up on the 7th, then what does he do with the rest of his time?
Well even if I was in a giant computer simulation like The Matrix, I'd still bow down to the motherfucker that wrote the thing :p. I'd pray for everyday orgies and a nice bj every day till I die :D
Then I require scientific knowledge that is currently, fully and completely unknown to man. As this knowledge, maybe something in physics or biology would be nice, would serve as evidence that we were "created". A book titled "Everything Regarding Physics" written by God himself would prove that he created the universe and the very laws of physics.
What people fail to realize when they say that "my (holy book name here) is the word of god" is that a book written by a God has to be PERFECT
Well, to believe in which one of the gods? The hindu gods? The greek gods? The roman gods? The judeo-christian god? The islamic god? The egyptian gods? Which one?
If you say the judeo-christian one, then I'd require Jesus to appear in front of me, take me to the beginning of the Earth and show me how life started, then take me to the beginning of the universe and show me how it happened. Then show me what heaven and hell actually look and feel like.
"The atheist forgets that what he is affirming is, precisely, a negation." Disproving a naive definition of God isn't disproving God. Indicating the negative things in life does not disprove the possibility of a Divine Intelligence which we may access at a certain point in our evolution. There is a Divine Presence. Look around you and make a conscious effort to imagine, and thereby experience, this atmosphere. This Practice, persevered in with faith and devotion, turns a beast into a saint.
"Indicating the negative things in life does not disprove the possibility of a Divine Intelligence which we may access at a certain point in our evolution."
Nor should we believe it just because it could be. That's like gambling away your life savings because you believe you'll win the lottery next week.
I agree. But the brand of "faith" I am suggesting is, more precisely, a willingness to investigate. And, when you are ready for this, it will mean sacrificing something which has no meaning for something which IS meaning. But I am not talking about organized religion.
What "proof" would you have? There is the testimony of thousands of mystics who have utilized scientific methods to access higher states of consciousness. This is a proven fact. But are you too cynical to consider the evidence? The transformed lives. Or practice meditation, yoga, or mystic contemplation, and see the results yourself. You'll experience your connection to something larger. Call it diety or presence, it is a source of power, healing, and love.
You haven't given any evidence. Give some evidence of scientific method used by mystics to access higher states of consiousness. To access an higher state of consiousness does not prove the existance of God as the personal experience of "something larger" is not proof.
Proof of what? What do you need proof of? You want to interpret "God" as something unproveable, and then you want to demand proof. It's pointless. There is proof of laws and energies, and people have made consistent use of them and attained consistent results. That's science. Three for you: "The Kybalion" by Three Initiates, "The Science of Mind" by Ernest Holmes, and "The Science of Religion" by Paramahansa Yogananda
"You want to interpret "God" as something unproveable, and then you want to demand proof."
Atheists will generally let you define your God however you want, but if you claim he messes with the physical world, then there must be a way to measure that.
So, define your God and propose a way we can measure that he actually affects this world now.
"There is the testimony of thousands of mystics who have utilized scientific methods to access higher states of consciousness. This is a proven fact."
Anecdotes are useless and subjective. I have done the same things via meditation and self-hypnosis I used to believe I could perform astral projections.
Can you prove I did or didn't have these astral projections?
Your brain and DNA are the sources of that. What you think and what science has proven is nothing but a trick of the mind.
I was a spring board diver in college and I used to imagine myself as a dragon to give myself courage to throw particularly hard dives, and in fact I now have a large dragon tattoo on my back... does that mean my dragon is real in some existance and that's what gave me strength and courage?
I am not promoting violence or superstition. I am offering higher science. The science of the spirit. It's only gibberish if you choose to see it through that lens. Culture has created a market for cynicism. Archetypal language is not flowery gibberish. It is a means of indicating subtle processes which are unconscious and multi-layered. People have "listened" with more than their ears, and heard the strains of an eternal, nourishing rhythm. They've been purified of hostility and angst.
All gibberish again and that's what it is. Nothing measurable or objective. You want to know what gave it away for me that I wasn't really projecting and it was just a trick of my mind... I was tired every morning. I used to take that as a sign I was "traveling" while I was sleeping. You know what the real problem is... I wasn't sleeping because I have sleep apnea...
It went for nearly a decade before I sought out help because I thought the objective thing was being caused by something subjective.
It was only when my girlfriend said I snored like a chainsaw, twitched a lot, and gasped for breath sometimes that I went to a doctor... someone objective to what I was doing.
The mind sees what it wants to see, Valerian. And, for every anecdote, there's one to the opposite like I just told you about. That's why anecdotes aren't evidence.
by your own logic, your argument is inadmissable, since it is heresay. but, to me, it is a simple example of an assumption you made to explain some phenomena. there are numerous possible reasons for your projection experiences, or whatever they were. What is objective is not your opinion, or some doctor's opinion, but the results. Read The Science of Religion by Paramahansa Yogananda, if you sincerely wish to know more.
"by your own logic, your argument is inadmissable, since it is heresay"
Exactly my point. For every story of one thing, there is story for another, the difference is that my story isn't making fantastic claims that break natural laws of physics and is based with evidence to back it up.
That's the difference, and that's what you don't seem to be getting right now.
So what? If people want to go around with a certainty that there is no god then thats just as uninteresting to me as people who go around certain there is one.
In my life I only operate on what has been shown to be true to me. I make probabilistic decisions on everything else.
Since no one, ever, has shown my any evidence, at all, for a god, I proceed without that assumption. So your "its not disproved" argument is useless to me.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan
You can't disprove God, Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter.
However, if Jesus appeared right now and showed me his magical powers, then I'd convert instantly. Same I'd do for Apollo, Krishna or any other god that presented evidence. But, since none of the gods that have ever been worshipped have ever presented any evidence, then I remain in disbelief to all of them.
Thank you for the "arrogant" bit, I'll take it as a compliment :p
So you mean to tell me that if I jump out my apartment window I can't be 99.99% sure that I'm jumping to my death?
How are murderers convicted then? The jury wasn't present when the murder took place. But yet they manage to reconstruct, with a great deal of certainty, exactly what happened. Only through analyzing evidence can this be achieved. Same principles are used for science, why is this so hard to understand?
your stunning ignorance of scientific scrutiny and the mechanisms behind epistemological problems of knowledge that science deals with every day is incredible. 99.99% sure? such certainty is arrogance. no real scientist will ever tell you that he is absolutely sure about anything. he will tell you that he is positively convinced about things, but that has nothing to do with such high degrees of certainty.
the same principles are used in science? are you mad?
The 99.99% was just a way of explaining what science means when it says "most likely" or "best accurate explanation". Means there's room for it being disproved, but it will be damn hard and the odds will be against you.
Of course the same principles are used in science. If you weren't there to watch something happen, like evolution, you have to take a look at the evidence and come up with the best possible explanation. That's exactly what Darwin did.
lawyers present cases. scientists propose solutions and explanations. there is a difference. lawyers are completely free to manipulate audiences, while scientists can't allow themselves that luxury.
furthermore, the claim that something is 99.99% sure has nothing to do with any competent scientific investigation. it is pure arrogance.
i don't care about your personal choices or preferences. science is not frivolous and "certainty" is a term too vague for engagement in academic discourse.
I'm going to miss Christopher Hitchens but I'm thankful for the large amount of public appearances he did so that I could hear his charm and intellect that is so very rare in a world that enjoys being told bad bedtime stories.
FlyingBandicoot 2 months ago
Ha, Hitchens in an Albert Camus costume?
TenWhoWereTaken 4 months ago
@TenWhoWereTaken Damn well-spotted
wesmatron 3 months ago
@TenWhoWereTaken Hmmm...the bell it rang in my memory is, "I'm saying it because it's true. Inside of us, we both know God is not great. You're not part of His work, He's not the thing that keeps you going. If you don't put aside this childish delusion, you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life." X^D
TomVodkaCollins 2 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry - The Blasphemy Debate
@TenWhoWereTaken haha, exactly what i thought!
carlo88moe 1 month ago
2 of the coolest guys ever!
joestudio901 5 months ago
That photo of Hitchens is brills.
Bexahontas 6 months ago
I miss a video as well. (Not only but especially at the end of part 7, when Cristopher Hitchens calls Stephen Fry "Sweetie".)
Anyway, thank you for sharing! :)
044orange044 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHRISTIANITY AND THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE IS NOT GONE AND WILL NEVER BE AS THIS IS WORD OF GOD THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING AND NOBODY CREATED AS PERFECT BOOK AS THE BIBLE EVER!!! A FACT THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH AND UNIVERSAL ANSWERS MAKES YOU MORE THAN ONLY SOME ANIMAL OR EFFECT OF COINCIDENT AND EVOLUTION. ONLY CHRISTIANITY PROTECT THE LIFE!
FAITH IS A GIFT SO ASK GOD- HOLY SPIRIT FOR IT IF YOU WANT AND GET READY FOR BIG EVENT-GREAT WARNING SOON
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 7 months ago
Thank you SO much for this!
brownitus 9 months ago
Nooooooooooo... Hitch don't have that smoke!
killerbandit 11 months ago
If you like this you have to watch Fry and Hitchens at the Intelligence squared debate
Neall07 11 months ago
Stephen said he emmersed himself in Sherlock Holmes novels, with that being said I think he will make a Mycroft that Sir Doyle will be proud of.
josephsimeon 11 months ago
aaahhhhh, sipping my first cup of coffee on a saturday morning in manhattan whilst listening to fry and hitchens....life doesn't get any better for this former muslim.
ps - the missus was kind enough to bring me some crisp bacon as i write this....to think that i missed out on swine for the first 22 years of my 36 years on this planet because of some medieval arab nomadic injunction.... talk about blasphemy!!!
Nusrat5791 1 year ago
@Nusrat5791
there are plenty of secular, evidence-based reasons for giving up that bacon, too!
how about the unrelenting suffering of factory farmed pigs?
itchynights 1 year ago
@itchynights That, sir, is only an argument against factory farming. There is no rational argument for giving up bacon. :D
ketsan 1 year ago
@ketsan
it's certainly rational to argue that pigs have an interest in life similar to human interests in life. we are on a darwinian spectrum, after all. in fact, i'm tempted to go so far and say it's not rational to argue otherwise!
and roughly 99% of all bacon in the states is factory farmed, so as a practical matter in reducing suffering avoiding bacon is assuredly ethically prudent.
itchynights 1 year ago
@itchynights The impulses of all living organisms ensure their survival, that is true. But the pig is not able to formulate those impulses into an "interest", does that not make sense?
M3t4lManiac 8 months ago
@M3t4lManiac
human interests in life are not rational formulations—we have a genetic drive to stay alive. there's nothing rational about wanting to live, it's just a fact about us.
likewise for our close family members. pigs can get great pleasure from their lives when left alone, as we can. if we think we deserve the opportunity to life in peace because we enjoy our lives, i see no good reason to bar that experience to other conscious beings like pigs, sharks, or chickens.
itchynights 8 months ago
@itchynights Well I would respectfully disagree to your first statement, I think it is very rational to follow a drive to stay alive, the difference is that we can largely choose ourselves, while I don't know of many other species that are programmed that way. Dolphins, primates and a few other intelligent species maybe. And we don't really go around killing animals willy-nilly, we do it the way we do it because we're lazy as fuck, so I wont defend that at all, I think it's disgusting.
M3t4lManiac 8 months ago
@M3t4lManiac
our "choice" to stay alive is dictated to us by our genes interacting with our environment. this is out of our control. most of us simply want to live, end of story—we don't reason to ourselves to stay alive. that we want it is enough to respect it, same with our non-human family members.
i admire your appreciation for our moral laziness, though i would add that buying a piece of meat from any number of fast food places is killing "willy-nilly". it is utterly whimsical.
itchynights 8 months ago
@itchynights yes but the drive can be rationalised - it follows logic. I'm confused by your second point, buying meat isn't murder in any form, killing the animals before selling the meat is, and it is also a planned out and calculated action. What bothers me is the way it is planned and calculated, because the math is wrong, and immoral ... it's too careless.
M3t4lManiac 8 months ago
I love the Hitch and Fry and I love Tea a-lot, but I don't like any religious dogma, I have nothing against the religious believer just the bullshit they believe in.
Thanks for posting this, much appreciated.
Munnchbunnch 1 year ago
My two favourite gentleman right here..
Cheers for the upload!
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
Could we ask for anybody more suited to speak on Atheists' behalf other than Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry? If it weren't for religion, we wouldn't need to be Atheists anyhow. :)
MrStigmatis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
umm no,there are 3 arguably 4 being arab and everyone is one or a mix of those. you do not get to call yourself another race because your selectively breed bring to dominates certain traits. to be a different race takes 10's of thousands of generations which written history is at most 300 generations. and archeologists think that settlements are at most 500-700 generations old.
majikninja07 1 year ago
Comment removed
majikninja07 1 year ago
Science gave us planes and skyscrapers and religion flew planes into skyscrapers
MrSchnuffs 1 year ago
@MrSchnuffs A better version is 'Science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into buildings'.
Mad1093 1 year ago
@Mad1093 or: 'science flies us from the quantum world out to the edge of the universe, religion maims those it doesn't kill'
frackcha 1 year ago
@Mad1093 Then you also have: "I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better....Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable. What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima."
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., 1970.
Ematched 1 year ago
@Ematched If scientific truth is used for killing, is that sciences fault? No, science is neutral. It is us humans who choose to use our knowledge of atomic energy for destruction.
That being said, it would be fair to say that science didn't fly us to the moon, we did. We just used scientific knowledge for our purpose, whether moral or immoral. I guess my prior quote is also just as incorrect, so this is me retracting it. Science is a tool, what we use it for is a whole different story.
Mad1093 1 year ago
@Mad1093 Exactly Vonnegut's point.
(South Park also had an episode to this effect, only they used badgers and the Nintendo Wii. lol)
Ematched 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mad1093 @frackcha Then you also have: "I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better....Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable. What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima."
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., 1970.
Ematched 1 year ago
@MrSchnuffs hahahaha
flumberg 1 year ago
"whether in fact it would be a "better" World if religion did not exist. "
It's actually very easy. The suicide bombing community is almost 100% religious. The only secular (Though not atheist) group I know of to suicide bomb was the Tamil Tigers. The genital mutilation community is 100% religious. There is no good that comes from religion that is exclusive to it and yet there is evil that is exclusive to it.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God does exist !!!
1. Living God-bread of life like Jesus promised in Bible
Eucharistic miracles of Naju !
2. Manopello veil of Veronica and Jesus face,
3.Fatima 1917, Zeitoun 1968-70, etc
4.Eucharistic Miracle Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.
5. Uncorrupted bodies of catholic’s saints
6.Calanda, Spain in 1640, a young farmer’s leg was restored to him after having been amputated two and a half years earlier
7. Hiroshima 1945, untouched house,even grass outside, where rosary was prayed!
JezusSlave 1 year ago
Hitchens looks like Ian Curtis here.
dead0piggy 1 year ago
@dead0piggy more like Camus.
adamdebaiser 1 year ago
HE IS A JEW!!!!!!!
just kidding, I don't really care :P
Tharrel 1 year ago
@Tharrel They both are.
csno1 1 year ago
thx for great upload!
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
only 3 people didn't like this, you know there's something wrong with them.
featheredmusic 1 year ago
I am jewish, that makes me a different race Oh in your fucking face bitches. wait wut?
majikninja07 1 year ago
@majikninja07 there is both a jewish race and religion. you can be one without the other.
capitalcontested 1 year ago
Stephen Fry's father is a physicist? Awesome.
Golkarian 1 year ago
@Golkarian And he promotes tea. What a guy!
TomMSTie 1 year ago
I imagine there's more poverty in Slovakia than anti-semitism. But maybe I'm too innocent. I know a lot of Slovak people and Jews are the last ethnic group they'd have a problem with.
I think Fry had bad luck when he went there making that show, he spoke of a man saying it was very "curious" how no one left before the holocaust as if they had chosen to die. But it really is a lovely part of the world and I refuse to believe it's filled with anti-Semites!
rabbitwho 1 year ago
@rabbitwho
I don't think he was suggesting that the graveyard was descended upon by an entire country of antisemitic Slovakians.
It only takes a handful of idiots to go smash up a graveyard, The rest of the country could be perfectly normal people.
I haven't seen the show though, I'm only referring to what he says here, so I might be wrong about what he thinks.
BubbleGumNipples 1 year ago
I love Hitchens and Frys words on religeon, but I think that there is slightly too much emphasis placed on its danger. It is after all just one of many toxic categories of ideology. Suicide bombing comes from the secular Tamil Tigers, and mass murder has come about without the help of religeon. I think by making the distinction between religeous zealotry and other kinds, we are giving it way too much importance. Khmer rouge was just as dark and vile as any religeous group. All of it makes me ill
oystersdontbleed 1 year ago
@oystersdontbleed
People don't blow up buildings because of atheism or because of their secular views. Stalin for example, was an athiest, but he didn't do the things he did because of it.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 of course, and I agree with that logic, but we cant convince the idiots to give up religeon by debating it, but we certainly wont solve the world's problems even if we manage to do so. All ideologies are pretty much the same, and putting them into categories just confuses the issue. Marx deals with it best as superstructure, which is designed to drive the economic base. All ideologies are false, but most are also necessary, and we all believe something, even us atheists.
oystersdontbleed 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 People don't blow up buildings "because of religion" either. It's how people choose to interpret their religion that causes them to act violenty, not religion itself. Politics has been responsible for more violence & suffering than religion, yet it is necessary. We have never known a World without religion of some kind. It is therefore impossible to conceive a World without it & whether in fact it would be a "better" World if religion did not exist.
tupperwararty 1 year ago
@tupperwararty "It's how people choose to interpret their religion that causes them to act violenty, not religion itself."
You really haven't argued against the idea that people act violently because of thier religion here.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
@Averagegamer100 As the saying goes, good people do good things, bad people do bad things but to get a good person to commit evil, that takes religion.
When you think an all powerful, almighty being with ultimate power is on your side, all things are permissible.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
they'd soon get depressed again having to listen to your music.
tincoffin 1 year ago
@tincoffin
Why can't you argue against what he says instead of the way he dresses?
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
So the great & the good are against God ! i loathe the way Hitchens thinks he is James Deane in the photo. Its pathetic
tincoffin 1 year ago
@tincoffin So fuck! How is that pathetic..
Chriswantsyoutoknow 1 year ago
@Chriswantsyoutoknow Because a well paid hack of his age shouldn't pretend to be a rebel of 25 .
tincoffin 1 year ago
@tincoffin Shoudln't gives the impression that it's his duty or some moral position to not pretend to be a rebel of 25.
So why shoudln't he be able to wear whatever he wants and whatever age he wants.
Chriswantsyoutoknow 1 year ago
@Chriswantsyoutoknow How would you feel if your parents pretended to be 18 ?
tincoffin 1 year ago
@tincoffin Firstly, It would be non of my business. Secondly, I would be glad, they can stop being depressed and start being happy again. :)
Chriswantsyoutoknow 1 year ago
who is the mistress of ceremonies?
Filidhe 1 year ago
@Filidhe That's Joan Bakewell.
F33bs 1 year ago
There should be FryHitch TV. I would watch it 24/7
mpawlak10 1 year ago
@mpawlak10 Me too.
mcquestion 1 year ago
To me imposing your own morals on other people is an act of violence. It demonstrates the same kind of arrogance and will do dominate others that was the cause for so many horrible monstrocities humans have commited over the centuries. Religious people cannot imagine that humans can live lifes of integrity unless you threaten them with eternal damnation. That is a very sad view of our world since all that's really needed is to give our child a loving environment to grow up in. No morals needed.
jst1998 1 year ago
'Religious people cannot imagine that humans can live lifes of integrity unless you threaten them with eternal damnation.' Would that be all religious people?
BeerJBeerJ 1 year ago
@BeerJBeerJ Yes, I think so. Why else would they feel the need to believe such a cruel and inhumane concepts such as the devil or original sin. To me what people call evil is really just part of our nature. And all that's needed is to enlighten these "evil" feelings, not to turn to imaginary friends or superstitions. That's a highly neurotic response. Religion is a neurotic and cowardly response to the challenge of facing our true condition and shedding some light on it.
jst1998 1 year ago
Stephen Fy should start his own church.
georgepope 2 years ago
@georgepope He certainly has enough worshipers.
jerryhello100 1 year ago
How come there's no video of this?
These guys are quite enjoyable to watch.
I appreciate the upload still. Thank you!
nemirn 2 years ago
@nemirn no problem
PointlessCamel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PointlessCamel you didn't answer the question
HippieGuitarBoy 1 year ago
The first sentence uttered: a razor sharp snark. That's the Hitchens tradition!
SpellboundSolution 2 years ago
I am yet to find, regardless of whether i agree with him or not on any subject matter, a more enjoyable person to listen to.
aituk 2 years ago
Is that Joan Bakewell chairing this?
PeteAmachree 2 years ago
cant beleive that law got passed. fuking labour.
vote 'em out.
id rather have the toffs running things.
loveupskirts 2 years ago
know what you mean but the toffs are pure evil, at least labour are just incompetent.
93parklife 2 years ago
@93parklife Precisely, i find labour acceptable on principle but this current cabinet is vile. Still, i'd rather have some form of Labour than Tory party in power easily.
PhysicalKashmir 2 years ago
the lesser of two evils. With a good leader labour could do great things, with a good leader the tories will ruin the half of the country that isn't their own.
aituk 2 years ago
thanks for posting.
loveupskirts 2 years ago
the hitchens photo is so badass. there should be a speech bubble saying "dont fuck with me ill make you look like the idiot you are"
ThePresident001 2 years ago
haha yeah, and fry looks like he has a dildo up his ass
controllerbrain 2 years ago
yeah theyre both legends alright
ThePresident001 2 years ago
this is actually useful for my sociology, how good! :) their voices make me want to fall asleep though (in a good way)
henrycrumm 2 years ago
Lot of people using the graverobber in favor of religiously defined morality here, which is if anything a pointless argument.
We can tell from hard historical facts that respect for the dead and ritual burial was performed by cavemen. It's a practice that predates the artistic revolution of mankind, let alone any religion.
So Atheists have been burying and respecting the dead a lot longer then any theists, just certain religions developed slightly different ways of doing it.
MoralResolve 2 years ago
This is one of my favorite "debates" or discussions on youtube. Thanks for posting. This is my fourth time listening to it.
QuinnnniuQ 2 years ago
I agree we should bury people,that wasn't my point.His grandfathers grave was robbed,surely if you are a Humanist the needs of the living outweighs the needs of mere decomposing flesh,even if it is a relation.Wouldn't it be inhumane to let poverty continue when gold was buried ,even if it is on a corpse.
Breedoe 2 years ago
I think we can respect the dead without having to believe that they are still alive in some metaphysical way.
sakkamarra 2 years ago
If morality is subjective,by what authority do we have to lock anyone away?Are laws just a collective of the majority feelings?As for respectful,Stephen recently said:There are two words that I find creepy one is respect the other is offence.
Breedoe 2 years ago
How exactly can objective morality exist?
HardforJesus 2 years ago
Surely from a Humanist/atheist point there is nothing wrong with grave robbing.If there is no afterlife then there is nothing sacred,in fact,would it not be a crime to bury these things when there is such poverty?
Breedoe 2 years ago
Excavating someone's remains is sickening whether you're an Atheist or not. Morality is not derived from religion.
OCBslimonmydesk 2 years ago
Why?Surely what is left behind is nothing more than rubbish and if morality is subjective then I don't agree with you.
Breedoe 2 years ago
Morality is subjective, which is why there are people who are locked away in prisons or mental institutions, and people conspiring against one another because they happen to disagree on something they both revere.
What do we do with our dead then, if not bury/burn them? Drag them out to the curb and let the garbage men take it? I like to think people have a little more respect than that, part of the idea of burying/burning someone is that it is honorable and respectful and moral to do so.
OCBslimonmydesk 2 years ago
I prefer John Lennox.Dawkins and Hitchens have become friends with him even though he is toxic.
Breedoe 2 years ago
Both Fry & Hitchens are great speakers - it's a pleasure to listen to this discussion.
Fry is brilliant on many levels and I love Hitchens' eloquence and combative style when he's up against creationists.
whitejmw 2 years ago
fry and hitchens in the same room debating. i just had an intellectual orgasm just imagining it.
dantheman2711 2 years ago
a bit of fry and hitchens.
2 brilliant souls.
Lion117 2 years ago
"This file can only be downloaded by becoming a Premium member"
PointlessCamel..could you perhaps upload to sendspace as well?
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Galloway owned Hitchens.
CountOrlok1 2 years ago
lol
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
Galloways arguments were ad hominem in their approach. He avoided the actual debate points and used pathetic attempts at persuading the audience, such as using emotional language. Hitchens won the debate, however the audience was so rude and vulgar that they would not even allow themselves to be swayed by shouting over hitchens as he spoke
waldoistwisted 2 years ago
I'm a huge Hitchens fan, but Galloway chewed him up and spit him out.
plimbuff 2 years ago
That's not an Ad Hominium, but a logical fallacy of the application of the argument from emotion.
An Ad Hominium is a personal attack for example: "You are a sinner faggot".
shanefairhead 2 years ago
Yes im well aware of what Ad Hominem means. And my use of the word was accurate. Galloway did 'attack' hitchens personally, instead of focusing on the topic. He may not have delivered it as sophomorically as 'you are a sinner, faggot', but he did seek to attack the person and not the argument.
waldoistwisted 2 years ago
@waldoistwisted Oh, Yes I understand what you mean now. Sorry, I just couldn't deduce that from your previous comment :). He attacked Hitchens (personally), so in a almost perverse sense he could play on the emotions of his audience.
shanefairhead 2 years ago
Nope, sorry friend... apparently you don't understand the meaning of the term "ad hominem," or for that matter, "owned."
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago
I was making seperate two points.
1. His style of arguing was to attack the person, (ad hominem)
2. He used 'cheap' emotional language tricks, which politicians employ, rather than rational logic to win the debate
waldoistwisted 2 years ago
PointlessCamel, props to you for uploading.
Muchly obliged.
Zarathustra06 2 years ago
i love both of these guys!
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
I'm still partial to Richard Dawkins as the better speaker, but perhaps I haven't given Hitchens the attention he deservs?
ianmorgan70 2 years ago
I'd have to disagree. I think hitchens is more articulate, stirring, eloquent and entertaining. But it depends what you consider to be a better speaker. Dawkins is a better advocate but I think Hitchens is better to watch.
waldoistwisted 2 years ago
I agree, Hitchens is the quicker on his feet and has a cheeky sense of humor that appeals to me more than that of Dawkins'.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
Comment removed
ancalites 2 years ago
Thanks so much for this, PointlessCamel.
xTRUExHATEx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stephen Fry, legend
manan0nim0us4 2 years ago
Interesting Mr Fry growing up listening to Wagner, with Jewish heritage.
scottehftm 2 years ago
Have you seen that Curb Your Enthusiasm episode?
allaboutdmagic 2 years ago
Fry is the only real match for Hitchens
marcN19 2 years ago
@marcN19 Pity they're never on opposite sides really. There's a great Intelligence Squared debate where the two of them are matched against Anne Widdecombe and some bishop. And they do a good cop/bad cop routine on the Catholic Church. Hitchens starts off by blasting them with angry denunciation. Then, while they're still recovering from that, Fry follows up and slaughters them with sweet, patient, loving kindness. Powerful double act.
zedro1000 1 year ago
Stephen Fry- the only man who can match Hitchens as a talker
BRIGSTOCK 2 years ago
Wow, I have struck gold. Two of my favorite guys. I can't wait to listen to the whole thing.
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago
wow that is a pimp picture of hitchens
cdphatty 2 years ago
i think its insane anyone could think a god would care about you worshipping them, if your that powerful and can just do anything anyway, then surely you have better things to do, and i mean, its hardly hard to make so many people worship you when you have such power eh? absolute insanity and weakness, accept it, we all live, we all die, who knows what happens, but putting names to the concept of power and believing fantasy stories are the signs of fear and sickness
SleepyMuse24 2 years ago
couldnt agree more. i sometimes wonder, that if god made the whole world in just 6 days, put his feet up on the 7th, then what does he do with the rest of his time?
applesandpearsboyban 2 years ago
The rest of eternity perving his creations.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
APPLESANDPEARSBOYBAN
> if god made the world in 6 days, put his feet up on the 7th,
> then what does he do with the rest of his time?
ANSWER: Judging from all the injustice, pain, suffering and evil one sees around, He has been away on holiday since then.
gagothesith 2 years ago
Does anyone know the name of the woman speaking first?
gagothesith 2 years ago
Sounds a little like Joan Bakewell.
MrKippers22 2 years ago
Thank you, MrKippers22.
gagothesith 2 years ago
they look alike- 2 large, British, brown haired guys
sil3ntxOblivion 2 years ago
I agree completely.
javixm 2 years ago
Well even if I was in a giant computer simulation like The Matrix, I'd still bow down to the motherfucker that wrote the thing :p. I'd pray for everyday orgies and a nice bj every day till I die :D
javixm 2 years ago
Then I require scientific knowledge that is currently, fully and completely unknown to man. As this knowledge, maybe something in physics or biology would be nice, would serve as evidence that we were "created". A book titled "Everything Regarding Physics" written by God himself would prove that he created the universe and the very laws of physics.
What people fail to realize when they say that "my (holy book name here) is the word of god" is that a book written by a God has to be PERFECT
javixm 2 years ago
Well, to believe in which one of the gods? The hindu gods? The greek gods? The roman gods? The judeo-christian god? The islamic god? The egyptian gods? Which one?
If you say the judeo-christian one, then I'd require Jesus to appear in front of me, take me to the beginning of the Earth and show me how life started, then take me to the beginning of the universe and show me how it happened. Then show me what heaven and hell actually look and feel like.
javixm 2 years ago
"The atheist forgets that what he is affirming is, precisely, a negation." Disproving a naive definition of God isn't disproving God. Indicating the negative things in life does not disprove the possibility of a Divine Intelligence which we may access at a certain point in our evolution. There is a Divine Presence. Look around you and make a conscious effort to imagine, and thereby experience, this atmosphere. This Practice, persevered in with faith and devotion, turns a beast into a saint.
Valerian1 2 years ago
"Indicating the negative things in life does not disprove the possibility of a Divine Intelligence which we may access at a certain point in our evolution."
Nor should we believe it just because it could be. That's like gambling away your life savings because you believe you'll win the lottery next week.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
I agree. But the brand of "faith" I am suggesting is, more precisely, a willingness to investigate. And, when you are ready for this, it will mean sacrificing something which has no meaning for something which IS meaning. But I am not talking about organized religion.
Valerian1 2 years ago
"There is a Divine Presence."
Assertion without proof.
"Look around you and make a conscious effort to imagine, and thereby experience, this atmosphere."
What? Do you mean for this to prove the existance of a deity? It's gibberish.
"This Practice, persevered in with faith and devotion, turns a beast into a saint."
Or into a suicide bomber.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
What "proof" would you have? There is the testimony of thousands of mystics who have utilized scientific methods to access higher states of consciousness. This is a proven fact. But are you too cynical to consider the evidence? The transformed lives. Or practice meditation, yoga, or mystic contemplation, and see the results yourself. You'll experience your connection to something larger. Call it diety or presence, it is a source of power, healing, and love.
Valerian1 2 years ago
You haven't given any evidence. Give some evidence of scientific method used by mystics to access higher states of consiousness. To access an higher state of consiousness does not prove the existance of God as the personal experience of "something larger" is not proof.
rgman268 2 years ago
Proof of what? What do you need proof of? You want to interpret "God" as something unproveable, and then you want to demand proof. It's pointless. There is proof of laws and energies, and people have made consistent use of them and attained consistent results. That's science. Three for you: "The Kybalion" by Three Initiates, "The Science of Mind" by Ernest Holmes, and "The Science of Religion" by Paramahansa Yogananda
Valerian1 2 years ago
"You want to interpret "God" as something unproveable, and then you want to demand proof."
Atheists will generally let you define your God however you want, but if you claim he messes with the physical world, then there must be a way to measure that.
So, define your God and propose a way we can measure that he actually affects this world now.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
"There is the testimony of thousands of mystics who have utilized scientific methods to access higher states of consciousness. This is a proven fact."
Anecdotes are useless and subjective. I have done the same things via meditation and self-hypnosis I used to believe I could perform astral projections.
Can you prove I did or didn't have these astral projections?
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
"are you too cynical to consider the evidence?"
It has nothing to do with being cynical, and everything to do with what consititutes proper evidence. Anecdotes are not proper evidence.
"You'll experience your connection to something larger."
That doesn't mean it's real.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
"it is a source of power, healing, and love."
Your brain and DNA are the sources of that. What you think and what science has proven is nothing but a trick of the mind.
I was a spring board diver in college and I used to imagine myself as a dragon to give myself courage to throw particularly hard dives, and in fact I now have a large dragon tattoo on my back... does that mean my dragon is real in some existance and that's what gave me strength and courage?
I'll answer for you... NO!
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
I am not promoting violence or superstition. I am offering higher science. The science of the spirit. It's only gibberish if you choose to see it through that lens. Culture has created a market for cynicism. Archetypal language is not flowery gibberish. It is a means of indicating subtle processes which are unconscious and multi-layered. People have "listened" with more than their ears, and heard the strains of an eternal, nourishing rhythm. They've been purified of hostility and angst.
Valerian1 2 years ago
"I am offering higher science. The science of the spirit."
Those are contradictory concepts unless you have a way to naturally measure the supernatural idea of "spirit."
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
"Archetypal language..."
All gibberish again and that's what it is. Nothing measurable or objective. You want to know what gave it away for me that I wasn't really projecting and it was just a trick of my mind... I was tired every morning. I used to take that as a sign I was "traveling" while I was sleeping. You know what the real problem is... I wasn't sleeping because I have sleep apnea...
cont...
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
cont...
It went for nearly a decade before I sought out help because I thought the objective thing was being caused by something subjective.
It was only when my girlfriend said I snored like a chainsaw, twitched a lot, and gasped for breath sometimes that I went to a doctor... someone objective to what I was doing.
The mind sees what it wants to see, Valerian. And, for every anecdote, there's one to the opposite like I just told you about. That's why anecdotes aren't evidence.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
by your own logic, your argument is inadmissable, since it is heresay. but, to me, it is a simple example of an assumption you made to explain some phenomena. there are numerous possible reasons for your projection experiences, or whatever they were. What is objective is not your opinion, or some doctor's opinion, but the results. Read The Science of Religion by Paramahansa Yogananda, if you sincerely wish to know more.
Valerian1 2 years ago
"by your own logic, your argument is inadmissable, since it is heresay"
Exactly my point. For every story of one thing, there is story for another, the difference is that my story isn't making fantastic claims that break natural laws of physics and is based with evidence to back it up.
That's the difference, and that's what you don't seem to be getting right now.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago
So what? If people want to go around with a certainty that there is no god then thats just as uninteresting to me as people who go around certain there is one.
In my life I only operate on what has been shown to be true to me. I make probabilistic decisions on everything else.
Since no one, ever, has shown my any evidence, at all, for a god, I proceed without that assumption. So your "its not disproved" argument is useless to me.
irishmauddib 2 years ago
Precisely!!!
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan
You can't disprove God, Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter.
However, if Jesus appeared right now and showed me his magical powers, then I'd convert instantly. Same I'd do for Apollo, Krishna or any other god that presented evidence. But, since none of the gods that have ever been worshipped have ever presented any evidence, then I remain in disbelief to all of them.
javixm 2 years ago
Bravo
jsullivan80 2 years ago
the problem with the carl sagan line is that it's usually taken out of context.
the following statement reads:
"but what person would hold onto this absence? what person would want that crutch?"
franzpolak 2 years ago
I'd rather hold on to it and wait for evidence instead of conforming myself with an answer that I know to be made up.
I'd rather not know the truth instead of satisfying my curiosity with an explanation that I know with 99.99% certainty to be made up.
javixm 2 years ago
99.99% certainty? you pathetic arrogant prick. there isn't 99.99% certainty about anything.
secondly, i wasn't refering to disbelief as a crutch, but to belief as a crutch.
franzpolak 2 years ago
Thank you for the "arrogant" bit, I'll take it as a compliment :p
So you mean to tell me that if I jump out my apartment window I can't be 99.99% sure that I'm jumping to my death?
How are murderers convicted then? The jury wasn't present when the murder took place. But yet they manage to reconstruct, with a great deal of certainty, exactly what happened. Only through analyzing evidence can this be achieved. Same principles are used for science, why is this so hard to understand?
javixm 2 years ago
please do jump and let me know.
your stunning ignorance of scientific scrutiny and the mechanisms behind epistemological problems of knowledge that science deals with every day is incredible. 99.99% sure? such certainty is arrogance. no real scientist will ever tell you that he is absolutely sure about anything. he will tell you that he is positively convinced about things, but that has nothing to do with such high degrees of certainty.
the same principles are used in science? are you mad?
franzpolak 2 years ago
I think you're arguing based on a couple assumptions about me. Let's clear those up:
I don't believe in any gods.
I think the rule of law should be above and separate from any/all religion
I think Richard Dawkins is a genius
I think Hitchens is incredibly eloquent
I was indoctrinated Catholic and questioned it all from about 12 or 13 years of age.
I told my family I was an atheist when I was 15, they weren't surprised.
The bible is made up, because the evidence supports such conclusion.
javixm 2 years ago
The 99.99% was just a way of explaining what science means when it says "most likely" or "best accurate explanation". Means there's room for it being disproved, but it will be damn hard and the odds will be against you.
javixm 2 years ago
Of course the same principles are used in science. If you weren't there to watch something happen, like evolution, you have to take a look at the evidence and come up with the best possible explanation. That's exactly what Darwin did.
javixm 2 years ago
no.
lawyers present cases. scientists propose solutions and explanations. there is a difference. lawyers are completely free to manipulate audiences, while scientists can't allow themselves that luxury.
furthermore, the claim that something is 99.99% sure has nothing to do with any competent scientific investigation. it is pure arrogance.
i don't care about your personal choices or preferences. science is not frivolous and "certainty" is a term too vague for engagement in academic discourse.
franzpolak 2 years ago
I agree.
javixm 2 years ago