JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
And i think the point many have missed is the fact that not every person who has a religion is the same,
not every person without religion is the same.
I come from being a former atheist,yes i transitioned into Christianity but that was my own choice.Just like some believe it's good to be without religion,some believe they're better with religion.You can't prove there isnt a God,just like I can't physically prove to you there is.
@JediGina1 Not being able to prove god one way or the other is not an even-handed statement, since there is *no evidence* that such a super being has ever existed or that "miracles" are no more than parlor tricks. You have to claim that things happen for no reason, but you never provide convincing evidence for them. Non-believers can explain more all the time without resorting to "goddidit," so the burden of proof is on your side, not ours.
Doug Wilson ia a moron and only a matter of time before he gets "outed" also. I really wish Hitch would stop helping these dim bulbs make more money! They don't pay taxes anyway!
Religious people are of worst hypocrites, look at this scene at 3:30 and remember that for every ten seconds a child dies of starvation, millions each year, think of how many of them prays everyday for food and compare to this scene at the dinner table where this religious hypocrit Wilson who sings to God for the food and belives that God gives priority to he's already fat ass. What a hypocrit
I've always had a lot of respect for Hitchens but there is one thing I don't agree with him. In a round table discussion he was asked if he would get rid of religion if he could do it by just snapping his fingers and he said no. He likes the debate and he likes the challenge of going out there against religious zealots. I thought that was a bit odd and Richard Dawkins pretty much said the same thing. Hitchens is a great orator and he enjoys what he does so it makes sense but I just don't agree.
@andyrooney12 I think its a case of the devil you know (excuse the pun). As much as religion is an easy target and in spite of the obvious evil it has been directly and indirectly responsible for, there are pockets of deluded followers who do good because they think they are praising their god in doing so.
Imagine then, John Lennon's world .. I fear this utopia could not exist without the lesser angels of our nature taking hold in some form more sinister ..if that's possible
THE WORLD TECHNICAL—terminal Christopher Hitchens' veil has been lifted. His appeal, even to his core audience of unread community-college flunkies, is waning. He has come to the realization that his life's work, that's thoroughly steeped in obscuration and pessimism and borne of historical revisionism (and that's been buoyed by the government's library system) has incurred upon the world a deficit.
Here's Biblical moral advice: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her... If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife." Exodus 21:7-11
Wilson has written a horrible little book defending the Christian nature of Southern American slavery and argues that the result of the abolitionist movement -- or the cure -- was worse than the disease. I cannot see how any rational person who believes in freedom and equality can defend him or the awful passages in the Bible that support his views. To his credit, at least he's being consistent with the good book, which does sanction slavery.
Here's Biblical moral advice: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her... If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife." Exodus 21:7-11
i cant help but get a feeling of hucksterism from wilson...the way he keeps saying "alright?" when he is trying to make an argument....its like hes trying to sell u something lol
I'm missing something with these debates. There's no generic god that can be debated outside of the context of a particular religion. The Christian god is a particular type, which is different than the Jewish god, or the Shinto god, Greek pantheistic gods etc. These are meaningless debates, mostly carried on by Christian & orthodox Jews who try to elevate the topic by pretending god is a generic being. If that's the case let them first declare that all gods are real & then defend them all.
Because the defenders of the god myth are pre-occupied with preventing real scientific, medical, philosphical, social and political growth all over the world. If theists weren't flying planes into buildings or trying to rewrite history/biology textbooks, atheists wouldn't give it a second thought. I don't believe in leprechauns either but I don't preoccupy myself on the matter because leprechaunists aren't trying to teach my kids there literally is a pot of gold.
@planetdarwin Look up how many scientists are some of those defending the god myth and then you can take your time in pulling your foot out of your mouth.
@Sammo212 Brainwashing from birth is a powerful thing. For some persons, no matter how much education they receive they still can't shake off childhood myths. Even Einstein tucked into bed every morning his toy childhood bear while he went off to work!
I did like this debate ,despite overwhelming victory of one side... you can guess which =) . what i liked most about it is that even though they have very little common ground in this debate they still respect one another and got along well outside the debate
THE WORLD TECHNICAL—terminal Christopher Hitchens' veil has been lifted. His appeal, even to his core audience of unread community-college flunkies, is waning. He has come to the realization that his life's work, that's thoroughly steeped in obscuration and pessimism and borne of historical revisionism (and that's been buoyed by the government's library system) has incurred upon the world a deficit.
@SufferInJuly and whats the deficit that religious belief has incurred on the world? i would love to hear you debate with him, you would get destroyed haha
@SufferInJuly im not religious either dickhead, im an atheist, like why do you post on debates like this and then say you have no interest. you sound fuckedddddd
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, APOSTOLIC CHURCH PROVIDES ALL SACRAMENTS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE - OF THE LIVING GOD - THE BREAD OF LIFE IN THE EUCHARIST!
WITH 2,000 YEARS OF TRADITION AND SACRIFICES OF CHRISTIANS TODAY WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE AND SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IS.
MANY PROPHECIES AND VISIONARIES.
THE REAL MIRACLES, EFFECTIVE EXORCISMS, INCCORUPT BODIES OF SAINTS,
pervert v. 1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is viewed as good or true or morally right : CORRUPT /// pervert n. 1. one who has been perverted
"Historian" Christopher Hitchens meets the definition of pervert.
Instead of "god" they should praise the people who worked hard to create such food. Who work hard everyday so their buts are in comfort and warm. Gods do nothing. They are praising absolutely the wrong way.
And if we thank other people who work in sweat so we can drive a car and have full stomach - maybe we as people would get along much better.
this preview seems to only take snippets from hitchens and not use any of his critiques....looks fishy to me. I better check to see who had the editing rights.
One thing is for sure & there is no debate about it: They both made a nice sum of money off of this shtick. One made his scotch money in the name of atheism, & the other made his loaves & fish in the name of Jebus. Meanwhile, the dumb sheep on either side of the argument pay through the nose so that men who talk shit for a living can get richer.
@iiwatcher you realize its people like this that shift society right? The debaters are the ones who steer public opinion. Are you saying they deserve no financial compensation for their efforts? Seems rather shallow and short sighted especially.
Nope, I don't buy it. Hitchens expatriated to the US to have a cushy retirement bc it's easier for him to be controversial & make more money there. Wilson is just another religitard shyster seizing the opportunity to make money by debating this new wave of atheist militants. Nothing will change. Religious people won't change their minds bc they're not interested in evidence, reason, or logic. They're just making money preaching to the choir dude. Debaters "steer" pubic opinion eh?--scary shit.
What I'm talking about willis? LOL if you don't know what I'm talking about I can't put it simpler for you. Just re-read my comment, but first buy "Reading Comprehension for Dummies." Your last line of babble is hilarious. I bet you'll never get why. LOL Nice try at sounding intelligent, good effort.
I suspect you didnt understand my comment. "I'm a testament to your failure of understanding" was me pointing out to you that your previous post saying these people dont change anyones mind. I am an example of where they do. Therefore, I'm a testament, to prove you dont understand the power of debates. ie your failure IN understanding. (ps lol if your best criticism is a typo....I rest my case right there. :) The spellcheck/typing slip is the weakest defense only employed by the desperate.
Nice try but NO DICE! I know a typo when I see one. That wasn't a typo--it was simply poor syntax--a testament to your stupidity. All your example is, is a testament to how easily you're swayed by ppl who talk shit for a living. Personal anecdotes inanely used to try to prove a professed norm is the weakest counter only employed by the desperate. ; ) They're just making tons of money & they're buddies, partners in biz in case you haven't noticed my naive little fucktardian friend. Again you FAIL
@iiwatcher alright then, we agree, your best defense is to complain about someones syntax than to address their points. Awesome. I'll leave it there.
NO moron, we don't agree--I need not "defend" against ur points bc there's nothing to defend. YOU ignored MY points by engaging in ad-hoc bullshit so I pointed out what ur an idiot who can't even articulate. Nice try but NO DICE. You're swayed by a debate. I'm not so easily influenced. For me, it takes more than watching a debate to change my mind, i.e., further investigation, research, weighing the evidence, thinking about it, etc.
That watching a debate changes ur mind speaks to the difference btwn you & I, intellectually speaking. My point, which was not addressed by you except to engage in ad-hoc bullshit, still stands. They're making money, they're partners in business & ppl who talk shit for a living do not sway me as easily as they sway you.
So in a way what you so ineptly stated is true--yes, You are a testament to my failure of understanding--my failure to understand how anyone's opinion on such a weighty subject can be changed by a debate! A rather tawdry one at that. Go back to watching TV so it can keep changing your feeble mind. Have a nice day BOORens.
@iiwatcher lets break your comment down. You dont know how someones opinion could be altered after watching a debate....ok for starters, what is a debate? An exchange of arguments, rebuttals, and evidence.....Exactly how is that not a good enviroment for opinions to switch? You make zero sense.
Way to break my comment down. Like a RETARD bc that's not what i said. you're good at pulling shit from your ass & failing to have even the most basic comprehension. I'm really beginning to think you are actually retarded. To have my views changed by a debate is weak. I require more than that. To know what more, refer ot my previous list,(further investigation, research, weighing the evidence, thinking about it, etc.)then get back me about why such requirements are unreasonable.
"...How anyone's opinion on such a weighty subject can be changed by a debate"
My breakdown summary. "You dont konw how someones opinion could be altered by a debate?" (exchange of arguments from credible representatives)
Sounds like a fair breakdown to me. If you are too simple to see that, you are MUCH too simple to take your opinion seriously on much of anything. You may refrain from replying as I wont take you seriously anymore. You cant educate those who dont want to learn.
You keep contradicting yourself in a pathetic attempt to seem smart, but u just end up revealing yourself. Again you admit to being swayed by a debate, like the one in this video. Then you spew the bullshit below in a transparent, feeble, & inept attempt at correcting yourself bc you realized after the fact that you were only proving my point. The fact is, I am not simple enough(unlike you) to be swayed by such a thing as a mere debate. I require more. That seems to bother you. I wonder why? ; )
"Oh and ps" lmfao: "You may refrain from replying as I wont take you seriously anymore." Typical ad-hoc bullshit & more empty rhetoric followed by the same 'ol tactic of the owned, butthurt, & cowardly with no character: Run off, but make sure to claim it's bc the person who bested you "isn't worth it." LOL you're so transparent I think I'll call you cellophane boy from now on! Since you're done with me I'll say good-bye cellophane boy. Or will u reveal yourself yet again? I think you will. ; )
@iiwatcher I told you, I'm not bothering replying anymore. I've pointed out how you failed to justify your stance. You repeatedly rely on ad hominem instead of trying to reason. I can say it again if you like? This discussion is over. Let our comments stand if you feel confident anyone reading would side with you. This comment does not ask nor challenge you. You have no nead to reply, with the exception that you want to try again. I feel confident anyone reading will laugh you off.
Hahahaha!! Even calling it in your face & you still do exactly what i said you'd do! Good work cellophane boy! I knew that even that--even that was too high a calling for you! To be a man of your word & truly be "done" w/ me. "I told you, I'm not bothering replying anymore." Lmfao wtf do you think you just did you blithering MORON? LOLZ! How many times must u contradict yourself, reveal yourself & be called out bf you're smart enough to just give it up?
"This comment does not ask nor challenge you." Incomplete thought, awkward syntax. "Let our comments stand if you feel confident anyone reading would side with you." Stop pleading w/ me. "You have no nead to reply, with the exception that you want to try again." Conspicuous attempt to seem smart & dignified. Awkward as usual along w/ a misspelling a tard wouldn't make. "I feel confident anyone reading will laugh you off." How pathetic is it to imagine ppl are on ur side just to feel better? ; )
"I've pointed out how you failed to justify your stance." No, you haven't. You merely ignore my point-by-point refutation and evidence. Via quotation mind you, I did the following: I proved what a hypocrite you are using the very things you accuse me of using in an argument; you dodge. I point out what you actually said to show what your actual stance is; you ignore. You're a hypocrite & a fool.
"I can say it again if you like?" You may add repetition ad-nauseum to your list of logical fallacies if you like. You can then project it on to me in a pathetic attempt to try to shield yourself. It won't help. "This discussion is over." Again? Really? I never know w/ you since you have no integrity. Well, in case you actually mean it this time I bid you adieu butt-hurt cellophane boy! get lost; your out of your league with me. Go watch a debate so you can change your mind again! ; )
Amidst a myriad of ad hominems, you claimed these two were only in it for the money. I countered that debates like this fill a useful niche, helping to shift public perception on important issues by allowing people to actually see critiques of arguments. This countered your next claim that no one changes their minds over debates. Then you degenerated into nothing but insults for a few comments. Now you claim that I am resorting to ad hoc despite my clear explanation of WHY debates are useful
@boorens18 Count how many times you actually bring in evidence such as a damning quote, a point explanation or something of the like. There isnt a single one in the last 3 pages. Every quote has been a claim with zero support. For example, quote
"You merely ignore my point-by-point refut. and evid...."
You'll notice that not in that entire comment do you actually support anything. You just claim you did it. That also is a sign of weakness along with your dependency on ad hominem.
More pure bullshit as usual. You repeat the same false claims ad-nauseum bc that's all you got. I NEVER said ONLY for the $, & I never said that no one changes thier minds bc of debates. Once again YOU'RE the one guilty of your own accusations (ad-hominems). I already addressed this & U just keep ignoring, ducking, & spinning. HYPOCRITE! Finally, the usefulness of debates is not the issue here--nice try again @ changing & reshaping the subject. I believe that's called moving the goal post.
Add that cheap trick to your list of bullshit. The subject is whether or not debates make you change your mind about a subject such as the one in the video, which they do & whether or not they do the same for me, which they don't. Period. Other than that, I am pointing out what is only obvious, except to a naive moron such as yourself: that @ the end of the day, it's ultimately about money & they're making plenty of it, counting on ppl like you. Are you done w/ me yet or still butthurt?LOL ;)
@jimmywrangles Defending your butt-buddy one week after I destroy him does not only NOT help matters--it makes them worse for you. Or did it take you a week to make a new account & pathetically try to redeem yourself? Either way, let it go & move on with what shred of dignity you have left--trust me. You're better off.
@iiwatcher Oh and ps, I should mention that your ENTIRE argument is a strawman fallacy and thus your entire case is invalid and not worth the time you spent making it.. Not once did I say that "ONLY" debates contributed to my reasoning for my stance. I simply stated that they swayed me. Of course I researched the other side. Debates however are excellent opportunities to expose weak arguments. They provide a chance call out criticism. Anyone can appear convincing without anyone critiquing
@boorens18 Notice how the entire first half of your reply to me was pure ad hominem? (remember you also tried to shift the conversation to my syntax) Thats a sign of weakness. It shows that not only do you not have an response to my points, but that you are consciously aware of this fact. Thus in lieu of argument, you attempt to shift the conversation away from facts/logic. Pathetic, but then again it is human nature to struggle to the last before admitting an error.
Blah blah, empty rhetoric and more bullshit. Keep googling the dictionary and argumentation 101 it still won't work. Botttom line: you said the people i was referring to--the one's in this video--changed your mind. Point blank. Spin all you want. they don't sway me like they do you. Just deal with that fact kid instead of being all butt-hurt about it, which you clearly are. Hitch & his buddy make money off ppl like you. Not me. YOU should notice how guilty you are of your own accusations--
Using all the shit you say I'm using while all I'm doing is being a straight shooter. Projection much? LOL Typical of your ilk: pseudo-intellectual MORON. Let's not forget HYPOCRITE as well! ; )
"Its people like this that changed my mind." AND "me pointing out to you that your previous post saying these people dont change anyones mind. I am an example of where they do." LOL you dumb bastard. try to remeber wtf you say bf you try to bullshit me. And talk about strawman--when did I ever say these people don't change anyone's mind? HYPOCRITE! If you're going to condemn using a straw-man then don't use one yourself IDIOT! Stop being all butt-hurt just bc I called you out like I did here.
This Charlatan this pastor is a walking living hypocrite, his hypocrisy knows no bounds. The greatest atrocities during the 7 crusades were committed under the guise of religion in 12th century Tyre, crusaders were allowed to rape women vehemently without consequence because God had absolved their sins.
First off, Dawkins is an idiot. He argues typical Atheistic fallacies that any middle schooler can think of. Hitchens actually knows what he is talking about and has the right to be considered an intellectual.
Second, you can buy it on Amazon.
Third, no one wins. It's just a documentary on about 4 or 5 debates along the east coast at different universities and other places. Both sides give arguments that the other can't refute.
This is a tremendous film in its entirety. Unlike Dawkins, Hitchens is open minded and gives credit to Wilson when he has a good or innovative argument. Wilson gives an excellent accounting of his views and sometimes gets Hitchens off-guard. Fascinating documentary. These gentlemen do have some things in common and seem to genuinely enjoy each others company when not debating. I'm a Christian and came away with an appreciation for Hitchens as a person, although I obviously do not agree with him.
dawkins is th best.. this pastor is such an idiot to say rationality comes from faith.. that is ridiculous!!
btw where can i see this film? hitchens said in this film there will be one loser and the loser must admite moral defeat!! thats freakin amazing.. ive never seen a debate on religion where one of the speakers admited defeat!
Loved this movie, as a Christian it paved the path to many conversations with Atheist friends that otherwise thought the topic was not open for discussion.
What is the purpose of saying this? Clearly you have no idea if I do or not and there is no way I could prove it to you one way or the other. Is there any other motivation other than to spur hatred and create dissent?
a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
sounds more like you than me. I commented on a video, you are seeking an emotional response, and it seems you are having one as well. I feel sorry for you.
anyway, I am no longer wasting my time here, I hope life goes well for you, both of you. I hope someday you become more like the man you follow (Hitchens) and respect those who believe differently than you. peace!
Hitchens must be so delighted with himself, getting such awesome publicity by debating with imbeciles who can't possibly comprehend the notion that there really isn't an all-powerful magic man living in the sky. Once you accept that ridiculous premise, it's pretty tough to tell fact from spectacular horseshit, and it really shows every time Hitch's opponents open their mouths.
Funny, many theists would say the same to you, although with much less language, and it doesn't seem you contradicted my statement at all, just restated it. Ho hum, off to more important things.
what was the point of your post other than to make yourself known? You didn't add much to anything and if you were trying to offend, well, you failed.
@derSchlagzeuger13 you're all trying to save US from ourselves, while force-feeding your silly fairy tales to US, and have been doing it for time immemorial....and occasionally colonizing other nations, and forcing THEM to turn to christianity. we're just tired of being demonized for not believing in your desert ramblings. isn't it reasonable for us to eschew that which cannot be proven? thanks.
@DeathToAllReligions and religious people are fed up with atheist's arrogant refusal to allow answers to their stupid questions to enter their thick head.
Oh yes, it's atheists that are the arrogant ones. How arrogant for us to claim that the billion galaxy universe, with more wonder and knowledge in than we might ever obtain in a lifetime wasn't created and gifted to us.
How arrogant of us to claim that we're nothing special!
How arrogant of us to claim that we're not the centre of everything.
Excellent film. Refreshing that two people who stand so far apart on such a deep topic can still be so respectful of each other. Thrilled that there are variations of this theme with Hitchens vs. others, all really enjoyable to watch.
I don't want to get in the middle of this fascinating exchange. I just want to point out how bizarre I find it that someone would actually type out their laughter. Are you actually laughing as you type that out? With all that "bwa" stuff and everything?
The one frustration I had watching the movie was that Wilson, who was very good, kept asking Hitchens; if there isn't a God, where do you get your morality from? And Hitchens never really answered that point. And I've heard a good answer elsewhere which was: well where did God get his morality from?
I got my morality from getting spanked by my mom. I believe in my mom, she's real, and your invisible friend is not. If you were to tell me your invisible friend somehow controlled my mom to conduct the spanking, I think I might just have to poke your eyes out.
Jokes aside, with all the atrocities in the unholy books that was inflicted by that obnoxious pompous dictator, if I were to believe in any of it, I'd conclude that immorality, rather than morality is the only thing that came about.
Yes, I stand corrected. I was perhaps a bit confused by your answer, phrased as a question, as it seemed to me a bit too light for an answer. I should have perused it more carefully. Good thing my comment wasn't a complete waste for I believe it serves as an alternative answer to the original question you've highlighted.
I know, my question was rhetorical. I.E. if God can formulate his own morality, which according to Christians he has, then so can we. Thanks for pointing me to additional Hitch videos, though. I will watch them.
It's possible that I've missed some debates where he may have tackled that point head-on, but in the debates I've seen he's always seemed to let it go by. Lord knows, pardon the expression, I'm not criticizing him.
HItchens has said a million times that morality is innate in human beings. To say that you can only be moral if you believe in god is ridiculous and demeaning. Are there any actions that say a Christian can do, based on morality, that a non-believer cannot do also? No. To flip that, are there any actions taken in the name of religion that are immoral that an atheist would never attempt to do? Of course there are, all through history. I haven't seen many atheist suicide bombers, have you?
I don't buy the innate morality argument. I remember being a right little shit as a child until I was taught to be moral. I think morality is something we learned as a culture through thousands of years, and are still developing. Also, it simply switches the 'God gave us morality' argument on its head. If we're innately moral, where did immorality come from? Satan?
Dawkins talks about this a lot too, because it's one of the favorite "arguments" by Christians and other religious people to rationalize their faith. Dawkins believes, as many other scientists do, that morality evolved very simply from a time, many thousands of years ago, when we lived in small bands of people, and everyone knew everyone else. It was a simple response of reciprocation, if I share my meal with you, you may help me in the future. So atheist parents can't raise a moral child?
So Hitchins is wrong? Morality isn't innate? And if it's reciprocation, what if there was no possibility of any future reciprocation? Leave them to die? That's not morality, it's Machiavellian.
And furthermore, Darwinian thought dictates that altruism is actually counter-evolutionary, and scientists agree that living in world which was totally Darwinian based would be terrible. Selfless acts don't come from a basis in religion and to think they do is just, I am quite sorry, delusional. That's not to say religion doesn't teach moral things a person can be proud of, and try to adhere to in their own personal life, but to say that it would not be there, if not for religion is silly.
Well, either Darwin is right, and evolution is how we got to where we are, or he's not. We either live in a world that is described by his theory or we don't. It can't be half evolution and half intelligent design, so which is it? And which scientists are you referring to, those who agree a totally Darwinian world would be terrible?
Intelligent design is ridiculous. If it was truly survival of the fittest, we wouldn't do anything for anybody unless we knew there would be reciprocation. Dawkins talks about this all the time, and says that would be a truly terrible world. Look it up on youtube, it's there. I do think Dawkins and Hitchens differ somewhat on this morality issue. I think they do agree however, that it is possible that it is innate, and it is also possible it is learned culturally. From religion- laughable.
OK, so you don't believe in evolution, or intelligent design, so what DO you believe in? You cite Hitchens's belief in innate morality, then say morality developed culturally. Which is it? Never mind what Dawkins and Hitchens think, what do YOU think. You seem to be parroting them unthinkingly like a Christian quoting the Bible.
I love how you put words in my mouth, and I think you would argue with a tin can. I do believe in evolution because the evidence supports it. And I do believe it's possible morality can be innate, but also developed more significantly as generations and generations develop socially with those around them. I like how when I give specific examples of what hawkins and Hitchens believe, you turn the argument on me, as if I simply have to believe all the points of one and not the other.
So you didn't say above "if it was truly survival of the fittest..."? Survival of the fittest is evolution, dumbass. If you don't believe it, and "if it was (should be were by the way) truly.." kinda gives you away as a non believer, then you don't believe evolution, but are too dumb to know it. And something is either innate or not. If it is it doesn't need to be developed. You're a fucking moron. You're completely failing to engage the arguments,
.....mindlessly parotting what you've heard other people say even when they contradict each other. You're so dumb you apparently don't realize I'm an atheist giving a generally positive critique of Hitchens's film. I've tried to engage you for the sake of interesting argument, playing devil's advocate a little, you don't have a single original thought rattling around in that head of yours. It's no good trying to emulate Hitchens's confrontational style if you don't have the mind to back it up.
Actually, I busted your balls on every "point" you brought up, plus sent you a video where Hitchens talks only about morality, apparently because you couldn't find it for yourself. Nice try.
You did? Apparently those posts didn't make it onto the site. The only ones that got on were where you looked evasive and ignorant. You really are a moron. Seriously, no offense, I'm an atheist and so technically we're on the same side, but you're a fucking moron and need to learn the concepts involved and the skills to present them.
wow, you really need to get laid. I don't give a fuck if you are an atheist or a fucking Mormon. I told you what the two dudes believe on morality because that was your question, concerning hitchens. Now you can be a little fucking spoiled brat all you want to, and I'll just keep replying and making you look like the hick you are. I take much enjoyment in knowing your favorite activity of the day is obviously responding to me and trying to make yourself look smart. It's futile.
Ho hum. I never claimed that you cared whether I was an atheist, just that you are so monumentally stupid that you didn't comprehend it. You really think anyone with so much time on their hands that they bother to read this will think you bested me? How can you be so unaware? You're right though, I do need to get laid. Hang on...... Ahh. That's better. Just had sex. Hmm. No, you're still a putz. Oh, and your film on your home page is cringemakingly awful.
funny you say "my film" when I certainly have more than one. According to you, I am sure they all suck, and you know how much your opinion means to me? A whole bunch, let me tell you. Obviously the only reason you watched one was so you could berate my moviemaking skills as well, so kudos to you for that positive outlook on life. Glad you got laid...which porn site is your favorite? I thought fags only used the word putz. You must be Jewish.
That's right, fuckface. Each piece of drivel was more shit than the last. I'm surprised you think 'fags' have a vocabulary of one word, they're usually very erudite. Or did you mean to say 'only fags say putz'? If so, your sentence excludes Jews from usage of the word so your conclusion is illogical. It's appalling that you think 'jew' and 'fag' are pejoratives. Watch Hitchens and Fry debate on intelligence squared; a Jew and a fag. I take it you knew Hitchens is a Jew? Too bad you're a racist.
Yawn. Really making an argument about the word fag and putz, that's special. Like I said, you would argue with a tin can. One word for you; INSECURE. I'm sure you're familiar with it. When I say "only fags use the word putz", it is correct english, and is akin to saying only Jews use the word schmuck. It's always amusing to ramble with people who think they are smart. Wow, you used the word erudite! That proves you are a genius, congrats. Were you born in 1909? Freaking old man.
Yes, 'only fags use the word putz' is correct English. Unfortunately you said 'fags only use the word putz'. which means fags go around saying 'putz putz putz.' Then you said I must be a jew because I say putz. Which actually isn't illogical, I suppose, just a non sequitur.
OK. I admit I hadn't watched your film before. But I just watched '394 feet' thinking, 'if it's good I'll admit it.' It's shit. A guy ponces around a closed baseball ground, then films himself hitting a few balls "look at me, aren't I good? Keep the shot in where my shirt rises up and you see my torso", then goes home and watches TV. WTF? Pointless, pretentious twaddle. Can I have my 5 minutes back please? Fucking film students, all thick as shit.
Well funny I got an A on the film, and I'll be sure and include my new edit for your enjoyment. It's for a VIsual Design course there brainiac, so it's about the VISUALS, and no you can't have your 5 minutes back, glad you spent them on me. Have you taken any anger management classes? Whaddya know, godbotherer is an expert on FILM too, I never would have guessed.
Bwaaaaahahahah! I KNEW it! You ARE a fucking film student. Oh man! I was just throwing that out as an insult! Holy shit! A fucking film student! What an asshole. "Oh, actually I got an A.' Of course you did fuckwit, you're a fucking film student. Bwaahaha! Oh priceless. That's like 10 levels below art history major! No wonder you're so fucking dumb! Hey, your future called, it wants to know if you want fries with that! Bwaaahahaha! Bwaaaaaaaahahaahahahaahhhaha! Oh shit! Bwaaaahahahahaha! Bwaaha!
russian circles?
jworm111 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago in playlist Hitchens vs Wilson Movie trailer Collision
These two fellows had a high respect for one another. Why doesn't everyone else commenting on here have some respect towards each other.
209vaughn 1 month ago 4
what a bizzare mind wilson must have, fascinating man
benehan 2 months ago
I love these talks about religion, but what is the purpose of life?
Hotwatty 3 months ago
What would we be like if we weren't "fallen"? I think it'd be very boring. What do you guys think?
zeldaofarel 3 months ago in playlist More videos from hitchenschannel
BELIEVE in "Christ"..."Christ"-opher Hitchens that is!!!!!
I love the song for the food blessing with the kids"
"Did I sing good daddy?" "Will that keep me from burning in hell like you've been teaching me I'll do if I don't love jesus?"
MagnetoMasterOfEvil 10 months ago
@MagnetoMasterOfEvil Lol your right, but don't forget to meet dad in the garage for our "talks" that are kept secret.....
mriseedumbpeople 9 months ago
@mriseedumbpeople LOL! I am always scared to meet anyone in a dark room that calls themselves "father". i used to be an altar boy!
MagnetoMasterOfEvil 9 months ago 2
BELIEVE in "Christ"..."Christ"-opher Hitchens that is!!!!!
MagnetoMasterOfEvil 10 months ago
And i think the point many have missed is the fact that not every person who has a religion is the same,
not every person without religion is the same.
I come from being a former atheist,yes i transitioned into Christianity but that was my own choice.Just like some believe it's good to be without religion,some believe they're better with religion.You can't prove there isnt a God,just like I can't physically prove to you there is.
JediGina1 10 months ago
@JediGina1 Not being able to prove god one way or the other is not an even-handed statement, since there is *no evidence* that such a super being has ever existed or that "miracles" are no more than parlor tricks. You have to claim that things happen for no reason, but you never provide convincing evidence for them. Non-believers can explain more all the time without resorting to "goddidit," so the burden of proof is on your side, not ours.
hznfrst 10 months ago 4
This was like watching the intro to a heavy weight championship
TheGreatDeciever55 11 months ago
Doug Wilson ia a moron and only a matter of time before he gets "outed" also. I really wish Hitch would stop helping these dim bulbs make more money! They don't pay taxes anyway!
clintonplaza 1 year ago
is that the russian circles playing at the end?
fishyfish420 1 year ago
Religious people are of worst hypocrites, look at this scene at 3:30 and remember that for every ten seconds a child dies of starvation, millions each year, think of how many of them prays everyday for food and compare to this scene at the dinner table where this religious hypocrit Wilson who sings to God for the food and belives that God gives priority to he's already fat ass. What a hypocrit
matforsbon 1 year ago
I've always had a lot of respect for Hitchens but there is one thing I don't agree with him. In a round table discussion he was asked if he would get rid of religion if he could do it by just snapping his fingers and he said no. He likes the debate and he likes the challenge of going out there against religious zealots. I thought that was a bit odd and Richard Dawkins pretty much said the same thing. Hitchens is a great orator and he enjoys what he does so it makes sense but I just don't agree.
andyrooney12 1 year ago
@andyrooney12 I think its a case of the devil you know (excuse the pun). As much as religion is an easy target and in spite of the obvious evil it has been directly and indirectly responsible for, there are pockets of deluded followers who do good because they think they are praising their god in doing so.
Imagine then, John Lennon's world .. I fear this utopia could not exist without the lesser angels of our nature taking hold in some form more sinister ..if that's possible
morklind 1 year ago
Oh my god.... that depressing singing at the dinner table...
bersa888 1 year ago
Nice! Some Russian Circles playing in the background of this trailer.
clobrown 1 year ago
I'm surprised that Christopher Hitchens is impressed by Douglas Wilson. Because he's not always easy to impress. lol!
Transformers217 1 year ago
3:06am Monday (CST) - Time in M
ALLIGATORFARMJAMESPShiso2k
KEEPTBREFARMJAMESPGatorBe
ALLIGATORFARMJAMESPShiso2k
3:06am Monday (CST) - Time in M
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
I believe it because I believe it, therefore I believe it's objective because I believe it's objective. How awesome.
Shisho2k 1 year ago
alright? alright? I guess he's talking to believers. Most atheists don't need things explained that many times.
Belledode 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE WORLD TECHNICAL—terminal Christopher Hitchens' veil has been lifted. His appeal, even to his core audience of unread community-college flunkies, is waning. He has come to the realization that his life's work, that's thoroughly steeped in obscuration and pessimism and borne of historical revisionism (and that's been buoyed by the government's library system) has incurred upon the world a deficit.
SufferInJuly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's Biblical moral advice: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her... If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife." Exodus 21:7-11
blindlear 1 year ago
Wilson has written a horrible little book defending the Christian nature of Southern American slavery and argues that the result of the abolitionist movement -- or the cure -- was worse than the disease. I cannot see how any rational person who believes in freedom and equality can defend him or the awful passages in the Bible that support his views. To his credit, at least he's being consistent with the good book, which does sanction slavery.
blindlear 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's Biblical moral advice: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her... If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife." Exodus 21:7-11
blindlear 1 year ago
i cant help but get a feeling of hucksterism from wilson...the way he keeps saying "alright?" when he is trying to make an argument....its like hes trying to sell u something lol
boorens18 1 year ago
I'm missing something with these debates. There's no generic god that can be debated outside of the context of a particular religion. The Christian god is a particular type, which is different than the Jewish god, or the Shinto god, Greek pantheistic gods etc. These are meaningless debates, mostly carried on by Christian & orthodox Jews who try to elevate the topic by pretending god is a generic being. If that's the case let them first declare that all gods are real & then defend them all.
cupwithhandles 1 year ago
Why are atheists so pre-occupied with a god they don't believe in?
sphereofinfluence247 1 year ago
@sphereofinfluence247
Because the defenders of the god myth are pre-occupied with preventing real scientific, medical, philosphical, social and political growth all over the world. If theists weren't flying planes into buildings or trying to rewrite history/biology textbooks, atheists wouldn't give it a second thought. I don't believe in leprechauns either but I don't preoccupy myself on the matter because leprechaunists aren't trying to teach my kids there literally is a pot of gold.
planetdarwin 1 year ago 39
@planetdarwin, I absolutely love your response! Have a great day.
turningofthetide1 1 year ago
@planetdarwin Look up how many scientists are some of those defending the god myth and then you can take your time in pulling your foot out of your mouth.
Sammo212 1 year ago
@Sammo212 Brainwashing from birth is a powerful thing. For some persons, no matter how much education they receive they still can't shake off childhood myths. Even Einstein tucked into bed every morning his toy childhood bear while he went off to work!
masala505 11 months ago
I did like this debate ,despite overwhelming victory of one side... you can guess which =) . what i liked most about it is that even though they have very little common ground in this debate they still respect one another and got along well outside the debate
mpawlak10 1 year ago
THE WORLD TECHNICAL—terminal Christopher Hitchens' veil has been lifted. His appeal, even to his core audience of unread community-college flunkies, is waning. He has come to the realization that his life's work, that's thoroughly steeped in obscuration and pessimism and borne of historical revisionism (and that's been buoyed by the government's library system) has incurred upon the world a deficit.
SufferInJuly 1 year ago
@SufferInJuly and whats the deficit that religious belief has incurred on the world? i would love to hear you debate with him, you would get destroyed haha
lambofpaul 1 year ago
@lambofpaul : I'm not religious. I have no interest in the things that you love.
SufferInJuly 1 year ago
@SufferInJuly im not religious either dickhead, im an atheist, like why do you post on debates like this and then say you have no interest. you sound fuckedddddd
lambofpaul 1 year ago
@lambofpaul : I'm not interested in your prison experiences and your experiments with hormones.
SufferInJuly 1 year ago
@SufferInJuly fuck off and die, thumb up this comment if you like hitchens and hate idiots like the one im replying to
lambofpaul 1 year ago 62
@lambofpaul : Where's your gay-pride now?
SufferInJuly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, APOSTOLIC CHURCH PROVIDES ALL SACRAMENTS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE - OF THE LIVING GOD - THE BREAD OF LIFE IN THE EUCHARIST!
WITH 2,000 YEARS OF TRADITION AND SACRIFICES OF CHRISTIANS TODAY WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE AND SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IS.
MANY PROPHECIES AND VISIONARIES.
THE REAL MIRACLES, EFFECTIVE EXORCISMS, INCCORUPT BODIES OF SAINTS,
YOUTUBE. COM / WATCH? V = S1TCWKCUWWY
JOHN 6: 32-66
JezusSlave 1 year ago
What's with the shitty music at the end? Fuck, I hate popular culture.
LeLimeLine 1 year ago
Objectively beautiful? Does this man not know the axiom? The eye of the beholder is, by definition, the very opposite of objective.
LeLimeLine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pervert v. 1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is viewed as good or true or morally right : CORRUPT /// pervert n. 1. one who has been perverted
"Historian" Christopher Hitchens meets the definition of pervert.
SufferInJuly 1 year ago
does anyone know where to watch this online???
kainen789 1 year ago
The music at the end rocks! Anyone know what it is?
ANewHuman 1 year ago
Instead of "god" they should praise the people who worked hard to create such food. Who work hard everyday so their buts are in comfort and warm. Gods do nothing. They are praising absolutely the wrong way.
And if we thank other people who work in sweat so we can drive a car and have full stomach - maybe we as people would get along much better.
J0EH3AD 1 year ago 2
I totally disagree wiht Douglas Wilson's view, but I kind of like the guy. He's honest and clear, and polite.
stevekap8 1 year ago
the music at the end gets me so pumped to watch this!
aguteempasil 1 year ago
from 4:04 is this one soundtrack till the end and does someone know what that is
getting this video for weekly group to watch
MadazRx8 1 year ago
LOL praying before they eat.
Thank the cook not the lie.
jimmywrangles 1 year ago 2
guys this is on #OMG Go Movie World . com #FTW
asparanzaFaro 1 year ago
this preview seems to only take snippets from hitchens and not use any of his critiques....looks fishy to me. I better check to see who had the editing rights.
boorens18 1 year ago
One thing is for sure & there is no debate about it: They both made a nice sum of money off of this shtick. One made his scotch money in the name of atheism, & the other made his loaves & fish in the name of Jebus. Meanwhile, the dumb sheep on either side of the argument pay through the nose so that men who talk shit for a living can get richer.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
@iiwatcher you realize its people like this that shift society right? The debaters are the ones who steer public opinion. Are you saying they deserve no financial compensation for their efforts? Seems rather shallow and short sighted especially.
boorens18 1 year ago
Nope, I don't buy it. Hitchens expatriated to the US to have a cushy retirement bc it's easier for him to be controversial & make more money there. Wilson is just another religitard shyster seizing the opportunity to make money by debating this new wave of atheist militants. Nothing will change. Religious people won't change their minds bc they're not interested in evidence, reason, or logic. They're just making money preaching to the choir dude. Debaters "steer" pubic opinion eh?--scary shit.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
@iiwatcher what you talking about? Its people like this that changed my mind. I'm a testament to your failure of understanding.
boorens18 1 year ago
What I'm talking about willis? LOL if you don't know what I'm talking about I can't put it simpler for you. Just re-read my comment, but first buy "Reading Comprehension for Dummies." Your last line of babble is hilarious. I bet you'll never get why. LOL Nice try at sounding intelligent, good effort.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
I suspect you didnt understand my comment. "I'm a testament to your failure of understanding" was me pointing out to you that your previous post saying these people dont change anyones mind. I am an example of where they do. Therefore, I'm a testament, to prove you dont understand the power of debates. ie your failure IN understanding. (ps lol if your best criticism is a typo....I rest my case right there. :) The spellcheck/typing slip is the weakest defense only employed by the desperate.
boorens18 1 year ago
Nice try but NO DICE! I know a typo when I see one. That wasn't a typo--it was simply poor syntax--a testament to your stupidity. All your example is, is a testament to how easily you're swayed by ppl who talk shit for a living. Personal anecdotes inanely used to try to prove a professed norm is the weakest counter only employed by the desperate. ; ) They're just making tons of money & they're buddies, partners in biz in case you haven't noticed my naive little fucktardian friend. Again you FAIL
iiwatcher 1 year ago
@iiwatcher alright then, we agree, your best defense is to complain about someones syntax than to address their points. Awesome. I'll leave it there.
boorens18 1 year ago
NO moron, we don't agree--I need not "defend" against ur points bc there's nothing to defend. YOU ignored MY points by engaging in ad-hoc bullshit so I pointed out what ur an idiot who can't even articulate. Nice try but NO DICE. You're swayed by a debate. I'm not so easily influenced. For me, it takes more than watching a debate to change my mind, i.e., further investigation, research, weighing the evidence, thinking about it, etc.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
That watching a debate changes ur mind speaks to the difference btwn you & I, intellectually speaking. My point, which was not addressed by you except to engage in ad-hoc bullshit, still stands. They're making money, they're partners in business & ppl who talk shit for a living do not sway me as easily as they sway you.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
So in a way what you so ineptly stated is true--yes, You are a testament to my failure of understanding--my failure to understand how anyone's opinion on such a weighty subject can be changed by a debate! A rather tawdry one at that. Go back to watching TV so it can keep changing your feeble mind. Have a nice day BOORens.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
@iiwatcher lets break your comment down. You dont know how someones opinion could be altered after watching a debate....ok for starters, what is a debate? An exchange of arguments, rebuttals, and evidence.....Exactly how is that not a good enviroment for opinions to switch? You make zero sense.
boorens18 1 year ago
Way to break my comment down. Like a RETARD bc that's not what i said. you're good at pulling shit from your ass & failing to have even the most basic comprehension. I'm really beginning to think you are actually retarded. To have my views changed by a debate is weak. I require more than that. To know what more, refer ot my previous list,(further investigation, research, weighing the evidence, thinking about it, etc.)then get back me about why such requirements are unreasonable.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
IOW, you're simply more easily swayed than I am simply because you are more simple than I am.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
quote:
"...How anyone's opinion on such a weighty subject can be changed by a debate"
My breakdown summary. "You dont konw how someones opinion could be altered by a debate?" (exchange of arguments from credible representatives)
Sounds like a fair breakdown to me. If you are too simple to see that, you are MUCH too simple to take your opinion seriously on much of anything. You may refrain from replying as I wont take you seriously anymore. You cant educate those who dont want to learn.
boorens18 1 year ago
You keep contradicting yourself in a pathetic attempt to seem smart, but u just end up revealing yourself. Again you admit to being swayed by a debate, like the one in this video. Then you spew the bullshit below in a transparent, feeble, & inept attempt at correcting yourself bc you realized after the fact that you were only proving my point. The fact is, I am not simple enough(unlike you) to be swayed by such a thing as a mere debate. I require more. That seems to bother you. I wonder why? ; )
iiwatcher 1 year ago
"Oh and ps" lmfao: "You may refrain from replying as I wont take you seriously anymore." Typical ad-hoc bullshit & more empty rhetoric followed by the same 'ol tactic of the owned, butthurt, & cowardly with no character: Run off, but make sure to claim it's bc the person who bested you "isn't worth it." LOL you're so transparent I think I'll call you cellophane boy from now on! Since you're done with me I'll say good-bye cellophane boy. Or will u reveal yourself yet again? I think you will. ; )
iiwatcher 1 year ago
@iiwatcher I told you, I'm not bothering replying anymore. I've pointed out how you failed to justify your stance. You repeatedly rely on ad hominem instead of trying to reason. I can say it again if you like? This discussion is over. Let our comments stand if you feel confident anyone reading would side with you. This comment does not ask nor challenge you. You have no nead to reply, with the exception that you want to try again. I feel confident anyone reading will laugh you off.
boorens18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hahahaha!! Even calling it in your face & you still do exactly what i said you'd do! Good work cellophane boy! I knew that even that--even that was too high a calling for you! To be a man of your word & truly be "done" w/ me. "I told you, I'm not bothering replying anymore." Lmfao wtf do you think you just did you blithering MORON? LOLZ! How many times must u contradict yourself, reveal yourself & be called out bf you're smart enough to just give it up?
iiwatcher 1 year ago
"This comment does not ask nor challenge you." Incomplete thought, awkward syntax. "Let our comments stand if you feel confident anyone reading would side with you." Stop pleading w/ me. "You have no nead to reply, with the exception that you want to try again." Conspicuous attempt to seem smart & dignified. Awkward as usual along w/ a misspelling a tard wouldn't make. "I feel confident anyone reading will laugh you off." How pathetic is it to imagine ppl are on ur side just to feel better? ; )
iiwatcher 1 year ago
"I've pointed out how you failed to justify your stance." No, you haven't. You merely ignore my point-by-point refutation and evidence. Via quotation mind you, I did the following: I proved what a hypocrite you are using the very things you accuse me of using in an argument; you dodge. I point out what you actually said to show what your actual stance is; you ignore. You're a hypocrite & a fool.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
"I can say it again if you like?" You may add repetition ad-nauseum to your list of logical fallacies if you like. You can then project it on to me in a pathetic attempt to try to shield yourself. It won't help. "This discussion is over." Again? Really? I never know w/ you since you have no integrity. Well, in case you actually mean it this time I bid you adieu butt-hurt cellophane boy! get lost; your out of your league with me. Go watch a debate so you can change your mind again! ; )
iiwatcher 1 year ago
Amidst a myriad of ad hominems, you claimed these two were only in it for the money. I countered that debates like this fill a useful niche, helping to shift public perception on important issues by allowing people to actually see critiques of arguments. This countered your next claim that no one changes their minds over debates. Then you degenerated into nothing but insults for a few comments. Now you claim that I am resorting to ad hoc despite my clear explanation of WHY debates are useful
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Count how many times you actually bring in evidence such as a damning quote, a point explanation or something of the like. There isnt a single one in the last 3 pages. Every quote has been a claim with zero support. For example, quote
"You merely ignore my point-by-point refut. and evid...."
You'll notice that not in that entire comment do you actually support anything. You just claim you did it. That also is a sign of weakness along with your dependency on ad hominem.
boorens18 1 year ago
More pure bullshit as usual. You repeat the same false claims ad-nauseum bc that's all you got. I NEVER said ONLY for the $, & I never said that no one changes thier minds bc of debates. Once again YOU'RE the one guilty of your own accusations (ad-hominems). I already addressed this & U just keep ignoring, ducking, & spinning. HYPOCRITE! Finally, the usefulness of debates is not the issue here--nice try again @ changing & reshaping the subject. I believe that's called moving the goal post.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
Add that cheap trick to your list of bullshit. The subject is whether or not debates make you change your mind about a subject such as the one in the video, which they do & whether or not they do the same for me, which they don't. Period. Other than that, I am pointing out what is only obvious, except to a naive moron such as yourself: that @ the end of the day, it's ultimately about money & they're making plenty of it, counting on ppl like you. Are you done w/ me yet or still butthurt?LOL ;)
iiwatcher 1 year ago
@iiwatcher A 500 thousand word response and he still burned you.
LOL.
jimmywrangles 1 year ago
@jimmywrangles Defending your butt-buddy one week after I destroy him does not only NOT help matters--it makes them worse for you. Or did it take you a week to make a new account & pathetically try to redeem yourself? Either way, let it go & move on with what shred of dignity you have left--trust me. You're better off.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
@iiwatcher Oh and ps, I should mention that your ENTIRE argument is a strawman fallacy and thus your entire case is invalid and not worth the time you spent making it.. Not once did I say that "ONLY" debates contributed to my reasoning for my stance. I simply stated that they swayed me. Of course I researched the other side. Debates however are excellent opportunities to expose weak arguments. They provide a chance call out criticism. Anyone can appear convincing without anyone critiquing
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Notice how the entire first half of your reply to me was pure ad hominem? (remember you also tried to shift the conversation to my syntax) Thats a sign of weakness. It shows that not only do you not have an response to my points, but that you are consciously aware of this fact. Thus in lieu of argument, you attempt to shift the conversation away from facts/logic. Pathetic, but then again it is human nature to struggle to the last before admitting an error.
boorens18 1 year ago
Blah blah, empty rhetoric and more bullshit. Keep googling the dictionary and argumentation 101 it still won't work. Botttom line: you said the people i was referring to--the one's in this video--changed your mind. Point blank. Spin all you want. they don't sway me like they do you. Just deal with that fact kid instead of being all butt-hurt about it, which you clearly are. Hitch & his buddy make money off ppl like you. Not me. YOU should notice how guilty you are of your own accusations--
iiwatcher 1 year ago
Using all the shit you say I'm using while all I'm doing is being a straight shooter. Projection much? LOL Typical of your ilk: pseudo-intellectual MORON. Let's not forget HYPOCRITE as well! ; )
iiwatcher 1 year ago
"Its people like this that changed my mind." AND "me pointing out to you that your previous post saying these people dont change anyones mind. I am an example of where they do." LOL you dumb bastard. try to remeber wtf you say bf you try to bullshit me. And talk about strawman--when did I ever say these people don't change anyone's mind? HYPOCRITE! If you're going to condemn using a straw-man then don't use one yourself IDIOT! Stop being all butt-hurt just bc I called you out like I did here.
iiwatcher 1 year ago
Hitchens looks bad ass in that chopper!!!
matchu4444 1 year ago
this looks like an action flick...
funnyapples1 1 year ago
This Charlatan this pastor is a walking living hypocrite, his hypocrisy knows no bounds. The greatest atrocities during the 7 crusades were committed under the guise of religion in 12th century Tyre, crusaders were allowed to rape women vehemently without consequence because God had absolved their sins.
Romansteel13 1 year ago
@Romansteel13 How does that make Wilson a hypocrite?
Victoruto 1 year ago
@llHyRaXll
First off, Dawkins is an idiot. He argues typical Atheistic fallacies that any middle schooler can think of. Hitchens actually knows what he is talking about and has the right to be considered an intellectual.
Second, you can buy it on Amazon.
Third, no one wins. It's just a documentary on about 4 or 5 debates along the east coast at different universities and other places. Both sides give arguments that the other can't refute.
Also, this isn't even the trailer.
derSchlagzeuger13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An excellent one! super smash it movie, this is really cool, can't wait. you can also view more movies like this in HD at NewWATCHmovies{dot}com.
HelenaChavez8670 1 year ago
This is a tremendous film in its entirety. Unlike Dawkins, Hitchens is open minded and gives credit to Wilson when he has a good or innovative argument. Wilson gives an excellent accounting of his views and sometimes gets Hitchens off-guard. Fascinating documentary. These gentlemen do have some things in common and seem to genuinely enjoy each others company when not debating. I'm a Christian and came away with an appreciation for Hitchens as a person, although I obviously do not agree with him.
beckerman88 1 year ago
dawkins is th best.. this pastor is such an idiot to say rationality comes from faith.. that is ridiculous!!
btw where can i see this film? hitchens said in this film there will be one loser and the loser must admite moral defeat!! thats freakin amazing.. ive never seen a debate on religion where one of the speakers admited defeat!
llHyRaXll 1 year ago 2
11. commandment
Keep ought religion to oughtself.
zacky89 1 year ago
hey i think this needs more dramatic music.
lehks 1 year ago 2
Loved this movie, as a Christian it paved the path to many conversations with Atheist friends that otherwise thought the topic was not open for discussion.
coopoo18 1 year ago
I'll put money on you have no atheist friends at all.
DeathToAllReligions 1 year ago
What is the purpose of saying this? Clearly you have no idea if I do or not and there is no way I could prove it to you one way or the other. Is there any other motivation other than to spur hatred and create dissent?
coopoo18 1 year ago
@coopoo18
Troll.
DeathToAllReligions 1 year ago
@Death
sigh... Disappointed...
Wiki -
a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
sounds more like you than me. I commented on a video, you are seeking an emotional response, and it seems you are having one as well. I feel sorry for you.
coopoo18 1 year ago
Wow. The jesus freak can cut and paste. How amusing.
Troll.
Fucking retard troll.
Superstitious imbecilic retard troll.
Let me know when it sinks in.
DeathToAllReligions 1 year ago
Do not feed the superstitious troll.
JesusSucksHorseCock 1 year ago 2
Agreed.
DeathToAllReligions 1 year ago
haha! It never will, :-)
anyway, I am no longer wasting my time here, I hope life goes well for you, both of you. I hope someday you become more like the man you follow (Hitchens) and respect those who believe differently than you. peace!
coopoo18 1 year ago
woah... maps & atlases "witch" at the beginning there
redheadguy719 1 year ago
Hitchens must be so delighted with himself, getting such awesome publicity by debating with imbeciles who can't possibly comprehend the notion that there really isn't an all-powerful magic man living in the sky. Once you accept that ridiculous premise, it's pretty tough to tell fact from spectacular horseshit, and it really shows every time Hitch's opponents open their mouths.
DeathToAllReligions 1 year ago 2
actually nevermind, lol
peaceric 1 year ago
I find it amazing that everyone against any kind of theism is so angry and hateful towards those who are for one. Foreshadowing the atheist future?
coopoo18 1 year ago
@coopoo18
Not likely. More like atheists are fed up with idiots who believe fucking fairy tales.
DeathToAllReligions 1 year ago 51
Funny, many theists would say the same to you, although with much less language, and it doesn't seem you contradicted my statement at all, just restated it. Ho hum, off to more important things.
coopoo18 1 year ago
@coopoo18
Good riddance.
JesusSucksHorseCock 1 year ago
@Jesus
what was the point of your post other than to make yourself known? You didn't add much to anything and if you were trying to offend, well, you failed.
coopoo18 1 year ago
@coopoo18
Fuck off.
JesusSucksHorseCock 1 year ago
@DeathToAllReligions
Funny that they let it get to them. Sounds like Atheists are fed up with people who don't believe the same fairytales they do.
derSchlagzeuger13 1 year ago
@derSchlagzeuger13 you're all trying to save US from ourselves, while force-feeding your silly fairy tales to US, and have been doing it for time immemorial....and occasionally colonizing other nations, and forcing THEM to turn to christianity. we're just tired of being demonized for not believing in your desert ramblings. isn't it reasonable for us to eschew that which cannot be proven? thanks.
canadianroot 1 year ago
@DeathToAllReligions and religious people are fed up with atheist's arrogant refusal to allow answers to their stupid questions to enter their thick head.
ETworldjone 1 year ago
@ETworldjone
Oh yes, it's atheists that are the arrogant ones. How arrogant for us to claim that the billion galaxy universe, with more wonder and knowledge in than we might ever obtain in a lifetime wasn't created and gifted to us.
How arrogant of us to claim that we're nothing special!
How arrogant of us to claim that we're not the centre of everything.
You're right. The atheists are the arrogant ones.
SoretaYuki 1 year ago 2
@DeathToAllReligions That's right, the tide is turning..
MindfulFuture 1 year ago
@DeathToAllReligions So...athiests don't believe in their own fairy tales? Avatar anyone??
cano21 1 year ago
@cano21
what are these supposed 'fairy tales' of atheism?
The age of the Earth is a 'fairy tale' of Geology
The origin of the stars and planets is a 'fairy tale' of astronomy (and gravity)
The origin of life is an active area of 'fairy tale' research in biochemistry
The origin of species is a fairy tale of comparative anatomy and genetics
The Origin of language and culture are anthropological, archeological fairy tales
These are fairy tales of science, it's laws applied over time, not atheism
unassumption 1 year ago 2
@cano21 ...dude, nobody thinks Avatar is reality. People do, however, believe that snakes talk and virgins give birth.
LeLimeLine 1 year ago
@DeathToAllReligions
how about those idiots who think we came from dust?
derSchlagzeuger13 1 year ago
Those kids have to sing for their dinner?
mathproof 2 years ago 3
Excellent film. Refreshing that two people who stand so far apart on such a deep topic can still be so respectful of each other. Thrilled that there are variations of this theme with Hitchens vs. others, all really enjoyable to watch.
mattjameskendall 2 years ago
Their mutual respect is very likely based on the fact that both are life-long fans of the fiction of P.G. Wodehouse.
Wodehouse always brings out the best in people!
DeathToAllReligions 1 year ago
Hitchens ftw
LJonesy2 2 years ago 29
@LJonesy2 too bad hitchens got destroyed!
MrGifted92 1 year ago
Badass!
Hitchens for the win.
DarkOnyx 2 years ago 2
Douglas Wilson is an objective Subjectivist. :)
Intellisecular 2 years ago 2
That singing.. it's torture.
Viconiuz 2 years ago 3
the preacher is too fat and he drinks too much beer
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
I don't want to get in the middle of this fascinating exchange. I just want to point out how bizarre I find it that someone would actually type out their laughter. Are you actually laughing as you type that out? With all that "bwa" stuff and everything?
yesanded 2 years ago 3
The one frustration I had watching the movie was that Wilson, who was very good, kept asking Hitchens; if there isn't a God, where do you get your morality from? And Hitchens never really answered that point. And I've heard a good answer elsewhere which was: well where did God get his morality from?
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
Which God? lol
FunkyWhitePimp 2 years ago
I had the exact same problem. Hitchens has given wonderful responses though they didn't show it.
compsci91 2 years ago
I got my morality from getting spanked by my mom. I believe in my mom, she's real, and your invisible friend is not. If you were to tell me your invisible friend somehow controlled my mom to conduct the spanking, I think I might just have to poke your eyes out.
Jokes aside, with all the atrocities in the unholy books that was inflicted by that obnoxious pompous dictator, if I were to believe in any of it, I'd conclude that immorality, rather than morality is the only thing that came about.
TheSubSmith 2 years ago
It appears you didn't get the point of my original comment.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
Yes, I stand corrected. I was perhaps a bit confused by your answer, phrased as a question, as it seemed to me a bit too light for an answer. I should have perused it more carefully. Good thing my comment wasn't a complete waste for I believe it serves as an alternative answer to the original question you've highlighted.
TheSubSmith 2 years ago
Search "hitchens morality" here and there is a 7 part series where all he does is discuss morality without god.
GatorHighlights3 2 years ago
I know, my question was rhetorical. I.E. if God can formulate his own morality, which according to Christians he has, then so can we. Thanks for pointing me to additional Hitch videos, though. I will watch them.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
Just to clarify: my statement above is supportive of Hitchens's views, it does not support Christianity's views.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
Doesn't he always answer that point by saying it's absurd for a variety of reasons?
d00df00d 2 years ago
It's possible that I've missed some debates where he may have tackled that point head-on, but in the debates I've seen he's always seemed to let it go by. Lord knows, pardon the expression, I'm not criticizing him.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
HItchens has said a million times that morality is innate in human beings. To say that you can only be moral if you believe in god is ridiculous and demeaning. Are there any actions that say a Christian can do, based on morality, that a non-believer cannot do also? No. To flip that, are there any actions taken in the name of religion that are immoral that an atheist would never attempt to do? Of course there are, all through history. I haven't seen many atheist suicide bombers, have you?
salukialan 2 years ago
I don't buy the innate morality argument. I remember being a right little shit as a child until I was taught to be moral. I think morality is something we learned as a culture through thousands of years, and are still developing. Also, it simply switches the 'God gave us morality' argument on its head. If we're innately moral, where did immorality come from? Satan?
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
Dawkins talks about this a lot too, because it's one of the favorite "arguments" by Christians and other religious people to rationalize their faith. Dawkins believes, as many other scientists do, that morality evolved very simply from a time, many thousands of years ago, when we lived in small bands of people, and everyone knew everyone else. It was a simple response of reciprocation, if I share my meal with you, you may help me in the future. So atheist parents can't raise a moral child?
salukialan 2 years ago
So Hitchins is wrong? Morality isn't innate? And if it's reciprocation, what if there was no possibility of any future reciprocation? Leave them to die? That's not morality, it's Machiavellian.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
And furthermore, Darwinian thought dictates that altruism is actually counter-evolutionary, and scientists agree that living in world which was totally Darwinian based would be terrible. Selfless acts don't come from a basis in religion and to think they do is just, I am quite sorry, delusional. That's not to say religion doesn't teach moral things a person can be proud of, and try to adhere to in their own personal life, but to say that it would not be there, if not for religion is silly.
salukialan 2 years ago
Well, either Darwin is right, and evolution is how we got to where we are, or he's not. We either live in a world that is described by his theory or we don't. It can't be half evolution and half intelligent design, so which is it? And which scientists are you referring to, those who agree a totally Darwinian world would be terrible?
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
Intelligent design is ridiculous. If it was truly survival of the fittest, we wouldn't do anything for anybody unless we knew there would be reciprocation. Dawkins talks about this all the time, and says that would be a truly terrible world. Look it up on youtube, it's there. I do think Dawkins and Hitchens differ somewhat on this morality issue. I think they do agree however, that it is possible that it is innate, and it is also possible it is learned culturally. From religion- laughable.
salukialan 2 years ago
OK, so you don't believe in evolution, or intelligent design, so what DO you believe in? You cite Hitchens's belief in innate morality, then say morality developed culturally. Which is it? Never mind what Dawkins and Hitchens think, what do YOU think. You seem to be parroting them unthinkingly like a Christian quoting the Bible.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
I love how you put words in my mouth, and I think you would argue with a tin can. I do believe in evolution because the evidence supports it. And I do believe it's possible morality can be innate, but also developed more significantly as generations and generations develop socially with those around them. I like how when I give specific examples of what hawkins and Hitchens believe, you turn the argument on me, as if I simply have to believe all the points of one and not the other.
salukialan 2 years ago
So you didn't say above "if it was truly survival of the fittest..."? Survival of the fittest is evolution, dumbass. If you don't believe it, and "if it was (should be were by the way) truly.." kinda gives you away as a non believer, then you don't believe evolution, but are too dumb to know it. And something is either innate or not. If it is it doesn't need to be developed. You're a fucking moron. You're completely failing to engage the arguments,
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
.....mindlessly parotting what you've heard other people say even when they contradict each other. You're so dumb you apparently don't realize I'm an atheist giving a generally positive critique of Hitchens's film. I've tried to engage you for the sake of interesting argument, playing devil's advocate a little, you don't have a single original thought rattling around in that head of yours. It's no good trying to emulate Hitchens's confrontational style if you don't have the mind to back it up.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
and your comment about "being a little shit" as a child and being taught morality is just clueless. Sounds like a pastor preaching original sin.
salukialan 2 years ago
Do us all a favor and shut the hell up, you're making atheists look stupid.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
Actually, I busted your balls on every "point" you brought up, plus sent you a video where Hitchens talks only about morality, apparently because you couldn't find it for yourself. Nice try.
salukialan 2 years ago
You did? Apparently those posts didn't make it onto the site. The only ones that got on were where you looked evasive and ignorant. You really are a moron. Seriously, no offense, I'm an atheist and so technically we're on the same side, but you're a fucking moron and need to learn the concepts involved and the skills to present them.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
wow, you really need to get laid. I don't give a fuck if you are an atheist or a fucking Mormon. I told you what the two dudes believe on morality because that was your question, concerning hitchens. Now you can be a little fucking spoiled brat all you want to, and I'll just keep replying and making you look like the hick you are. I take much enjoyment in knowing your favorite activity of the day is obviously responding to me and trying to make yourself look smart. It's futile.
salukialan 2 years ago
Ho hum. I never claimed that you cared whether I was an atheist, just that you are so monumentally stupid that you didn't comprehend it. You really think anyone with so much time on their hands that they bother to read this will think you bested me? How can you be so unaware? You're right though, I do need to get laid. Hang on...... Ahh. That's better. Just had sex. Hmm. No, you're still a putz. Oh, and your film on your home page is cringemakingly awful.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
funny you say "my film" when I certainly have more than one. According to you, I am sure they all suck, and you know how much your opinion means to me? A whole bunch, let me tell you. Obviously the only reason you watched one was so you could berate my moviemaking skills as well, so kudos to you for that positive outlook on life. Glad you got laid...which porn site is your favorite? I thought fags only used the word putz. You must be Jewish.
salukialan 2 years ago
That's right, fuckface. Each piece of drivel was more shit than the last. I'm surprised you think 'fags' have a vocabulary of one word, they're usually very erudite. Or did you mean to say 'only fags say putz'? If so, your sentence excludes Jews from usage of the word so your conclusion is illogical. It's appalling that you think 'jew' and 'fag' are pejoratives. Watch Hitchens and Fry debate on intelligence squared; a Jew and a fag. I take it you knew Hitchens is a Jew? Too bad you're a racist.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
Yawn. Really making an argument about the word fag and putz, that's special. Like I said, you would argue with a tin can. One word for you; INSECURE. I'm sure you're familiar with it. When I say "only fags use the word putz", it is correct english, and is akin to saying only Jews use the word schmuck. It's always amusing to ramble with people who think they are smart. Wow, you used the word erudite! That proves you are a genius, congrats. Were you born in 1909? Freaking old man.
salukialan 2 years ago
Yes, 'only fags use the word putz' is correct English. Unfortunately you said 'fags only use the word putz'. which means fags go around saying 'putz putz putz.' Then you said I must be a jew because I say putz. Which actually isn't illogical, I suppose, just a non sequitur.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
OK. I admit I hadn't watched your film before. But I just watched '394 feet' thinking, 'if it's good I'll admit it.' It's shit. A guy ponces around a closed baseball ground, then films himself hitting a few balls "look at me, aren't I good? Keep the shot in where my shirt rises up and you see my torso", then goes home and watches TV. WTF? Pointless, pretentious twaddle. Can I have my 5 minutes back please? Fucking film students, all thick as shit.
godbotherer1909 2 years ago
Well funny I got an A on the film, and I'll be sure and include my new edit for your enjoyment. It's for a VIsual Design course there brainiac, so it's about the VISUALS, and no you can't have your 5 minutes back, glad you spent them on me. Have you taken any anger management classes? Whaddya know, godbotherer is an expert on FILM too, I never would have guessed.
salukialan 2 years ago
Bwaaaaahahahah! I KNEW it! You ARE a fucking film student. Oh man! I was just throwing that out as an insult! Holy shit! A fucking film student! What an asshole. "Oh, actually I got an A.' Of course you did fuckwit, you're a fucking film student. Bwaahaha! Oh priceless. That's like 10 levels below art history major! No wonder you're so fucking dumb! Hey, your future called, it wants to know if you want fries with that! Bwaaahahaha! Bwaaaaaaaahahaahahahaahhhaha! Oh shit! Bwaaaahahahahaha! Bwaaha!
godbotherer1909 2 years ago