If Sharpton had studied Hegel, he'd know that he was trying to separate the thing (religion) from the thing-in-itself (God). Of course, no one ever actually experiences the thing-in-itself and that we only ever get the thing (the representation). Later philosophers went on to argue, for that reason, the thing-in-itself is only a presumption, and, as far as anyone knows, doesn't really exist.
Sharpton's argument that morality must come from a higher power essentially asserts that no one can think for themselves and discover that murder is wrong.
I don't get this. I have watched all the way up to this 4th one, and Hitchens keeps bringing up Religion, and Sharpton is just talking about the existence of God.
this man, al sharpton is super ignorant AND cant debate for shit, im doubting if he can think at all.
it's very fine that he dont believe in the bible (if he doesnt, it sounded like it) neither do i, but he can't expect to make arguements based on FAITH alone, leave that to the bible.
some of these theism debaters are quite intelligent, william craig fx, but this guy is dumber than shit
SIgh* sharpton isn't too bad on MSNBC but listen to him try to wiggle out of moral issues is painful, he obviously can not live by the golden rule unless hes going to get an eternal reward.
SIgh* sharpton isn't too bad on MSNBC but listen to him try to wiggle out of moral issues is painful, he obviously can not live by the golden rule unless hes going to get an eternal reward.
Sharpton just repeats the wrong premise over and over without making a point. Then he uses ad hominem arguments that just make him look even more foolish but the ignorant followers chuckle in unworthy glory.
a typical 'debate' between a white and a black. white guy flows, black talks in circles, and white gets frustrated that his 'opponent' is not at his level.
@DonMezzo It soen't matter if you are or not every man for himself. I just want to know if you don't belive in any god why the hell does it matter what people belive. let them be and get on with your life if you athiest are so convinced there is no God. we epak of a God because we belive there is one therore we have reason to share, but if ther is non according to athiests then let it be, why debate somthing that doesn't exist?
@DonMezzo Now we live in a few dimention and as humans we can only communicate in a few, Physical, time, and two others. everything in the physical is fixed, but can be changed and interact with through the second dimention of creativity, but once we bring things into reality it is fixed with time. We experince this through 3D. 3D is a form of dimentional experince, and becaue humans are not able to reach the highest they claim there is no God. God is in the heavens of heavens.
@DonMezzo We Christians knew about dimentions long before science discovered and we know how to opperate in it. But because you don;t believe in God you willnot be able to see. One thing you need to understand the Bible is a dimentional book given to us from a higer being from another dimention in a form we can understand, but the ability to under stand comes from our ability to communicate with him. Now for those who belive He gave them this gift. see my next post
@DonMezzo Here is a message concerning the heavly dimention in code which is speaking of a higher dimention than teh one we already discovered. 3D 3 dimention movies, three diment world. 2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
@Alaric1213 Third heavens speaks of another dimention above the one we know of. One earth, the sky, space, and the heavens above space are all dimentions. Free thought is teh effect of changing things through the second dimention so causing an effect on earth. the wind in working in another dimention than earth being a physical property, but is can change shape form and cause an effect on earth, where the earth would break up if if try teh same thing. the earth is one dimentional.
al doesn't understand that we have decided what is moral every now and again. The US was founded on a need for moral reconstruction.
Even Constantine believed he was doing the right thing making Christianity state law in Rome. Then the goths that sacked Rome thought it was their moral imperative to destroy it for retribution.
@DonMezzo Hitchens is a dump foll who has no understanding og teh scripture. No knowledge at all. I am happy he now knows the truth being dead. Proverbs 13:17 A wicked messenger falleth into mischief: but a faithful ambassador is health.
Did he say AmalkeMites? This? A reverend? How embarrassing. :( Christopher Hitchens died yesterday. The species and entire universe is diminished. He was one of humanity's best thinkers, teachers, orators, and advocates for reason and justice.
Sharpton isnt an idiot. His mind is just corrupted by religion. He is so smart about politics and civil matter he would be such a well rounded intellectual if he just dropped the religion BS
Hitchens: 'Look at all the bad things in the bible, look at all the bad things religious people do, look at all the harm people do b/c of God'. Sharpton: 'That's not God'. All Sharpton is doing here is saying, 'That's not God, God is something else'. If pressed on it, God then becomes a mysterious, general, non-specific 'thing'. Pretty underhanded way to argue, if you ask me.
Oh dear...Sharpton really brought out the "personal experience" 'argument'? Can he really be that idiotic? And, "morality must come from god", 'argument', is just as silly...honestly, if this guy just used his reason for once, instead of relaying on his feelings, he'd realize, that any supernatural being, whatsoever, is necessary for morality. It's very easy, to arrive at this...if only people would use their mind.
wtf is sharpton's argument? First of all hitchens' book is very much about the fact that a simple belief in god is a bad thing - he obviously did not read the book and is basing everything on the title. And how can he keep arguing that hitchens can't keep using examples from the bible when he has to believe that the bible is the word of god?
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Sharpton has the edge here. Hitchens is very slick with the Bible-talk, but it's based upon his views on religion, not God. Man created religion in the name of God. Hitchens would be right in attacking interpretation because it's subjective. I think Sharpton wants to bypass religion and focus on God him/herself...which Chris seems to carefully evade.
@TyphoidBryan If Sharpton wants to talk about about God without using "religious terms", like he blamed Hitchens of doing, he shouldn't talk about his faith or how his own personal beliefs were confirmed through one event or another. Faith isn't something you bring up to support your claims of an almighty creator, and it's something Sharpton should have left at the children's table.
@TyphoidBryan He admitted that neither can prove god's existence or none existence so to assert that there is a god is infinitely arrogant. It would be like building your world view around a hypothesis only.
You can't live on a "might be", we know that from well, all civilized post enlightenment countries. What is the point in asserting something if it's pointless and useless? The next step is usually religion. ...cont...
@riggermortisify ... cont... We don't see people shaping their lives around Deism. Sharpton is beng dishonest in my opinion and is reshaping his position as the argument goes on. Hitchens pointed this out not long ago. Most people he debated with openly hold a WILDLY different view when they're around fellow believers.
Sharpton should be trying to prove deism which I'm guessing he won't go near for the rest of this.
@riggermortisify ...cont... He should justify why asserting the unknowable is useful and give his reason. He won't because it's obvious that these men latch onto deism when someone points out how vile the bible is.
Apologies for the rambling length of my comments, which'll probably end up on every segment of this debate. -_- ...can't.... ...stay... ...away... ...from... ...comm... ...ents...
Youtube should open an "education" part of the site with a vote based discussion section or something.
Hitchens had to set the premise that he can confirm nor deny god. This is clearly his out.....With statement wht is the point of this debate. What are we trying to prove or dis prove? The bible itself was hand picked& put 2gethr by man. So hitchens is attackn sumthn thats flawed. Sharpn conceded debatn this is moot. But thats his only angle... I expect better with all of hitchens rhetoric.
@yeska68 He states that from the beginning because he already knows what is coming at him. The problem is he assumes the audience as is intelligent as he is and realizes that the onus is on the person making the assertion, not the person challenging it. You cannot prove a negative. In that vein you cannot disprove any other religion and that would certainly then render the observers religion false.
@yeska68 it is not possible to disprove a negative, so Hitchens can not say, nor can anybody say, that God does not exist. The bible of course was written by men, there is no reason to believe in any god or supreme being. What's your point here?
What gets to me is that Hitchens is avoiding discussing the ridiculous idea of creation. I've seen him debate before, and I know he has a lot of material on the subject, which I whole heartedly support. I wish he'd use it utterly rape this guy. Perhaps he's saving it for later.
First Sharpton says that if there is no God then there is no morality but then he says you can't use the Bible to disprove God... which is fine, however how do we know God's "morality" if not for the Bible?
I thought we were going to debate God existance, but not the God that everybody believes in. I want to debate a generic idea of God, even though we both previously stated that their is no way of providing evidence for either claim.
I never understood the argument that morality is based on god. How can you base your morality on something you can't even know it's there. How can you know it's will if it is not revealing himself or his will?
All you got is scripture and Sharpton claims so vividly, that scripture is detatched from his believe in god and does not accept Hitchens arguments based on the bible. So the question is where does he base his morals on, if not on scripture? Does god tell him his morals personally?
@RottenRroses Your comment is 3 months old, so I apologize if this point has been raised before. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'd like to play devil's advocate.
Sharpton might say that God created him and everyone else with their morals. Or rather, that's what someone might say. Sharpton's arguments actually sort of rule that out.
@RottenRroses Well said. Sharpton loses in so many ways. Not only is he asking Hitchen's to ignore scriptural differences so that God can be accepted and believed in all his/her glory, but the very fact that he questions the idea of questioning morality based on the might of an individual in power, yet feels no reason to question the moral right and whims of an unprovable God who happens (in his eyes) to be in power and without any scriptural credence or citation. Totally ridiculous.
@RottenRroses Morality is based on God, he made us with it for it is apart of who he is, for this reason we are without excuse in the end, for we know what is right, and a quest has been placed in us to know God but some of us have surpress the truth within. End result hell.
@Alaric1213 there is little proof that the Zoroaster good vs. evil that christianity picked up shows that hell exists.
In tribes before the agricultural revolution, humans (just like other group mammals) had to work together to live. We were 'bred' by natural selection to be group players, and to work well together with others. You couldn't be a societal deviant before cities or you would be exiled, and die. God is a product of population growth from agriculture.
Sharpton is medically insane if he claims his perception of "God" is only based off of personal experiences. We call that a hallucination, and we have large complexes to house victims of this condition.
"If I were sitting up here arguing with you over scripture, then you would have points that I'd say were valid to this discussion, but I'm not here to defend scriptures. I didn't write those scriptures. I lived my life, and in my life, the existence of god has been confirmed to me in my own personal dealings and my own faith being vindicated and validated that had absolutely nothing to do with scriptures." So what the fuck are you basing it on, asshole? Believe in god and he's real? Nope, sorry.
I'm not ignoring the premise of your question. You've failed to answer mine. Have you or have you not observed ANY being more intelligent than ourselves or have you heard of someone winning the lottery? "But not 300 times in a row" well when anyone observes your technologically superior being(s) ONE TIME, then you'll have a point. We have examples of things happening when the odds are against it. I'm disappointed you've clumped me in the "Atheists say this" group.
@samuraivagrant Ok let me make myself clear. I have seen people create things. I havnt seen someone create life. I have seen someone win the lottery. I havnt seen somenone win 300 times in a row. Now please pick. Cell Theory or Cells forming from non living material by chance.
the problem, reverend, is that for many people, God is IN THE BOOK, literally. if he doesn't get that, how the hell does he manage to string two sentences together?!
Sharpton and Hitchens both needed to have this conversation, yes, conversation, this is more of a conversation than a debate. I am glad to see Sharpton conceded so much! He even said "it's all up to us". On that they agreed! Sharpon leaves the bible behind! Huge strides, massive. Listen up all idiotically minded bible thumpers! The debate is OVER at this point. The bible is NOT the word of GOD. A wisdom teaching, a book of stories, yes, but THE WORD OF GOD ~ no way! Neither is the Koran.
Sharpton says in one breathe that God gives us morality and in the next says that Hitchens shouldn't debate the bible. If you don't have the bible, then what morality are you talking about? A deistic creator god with no scriptures and no dogma does not give morality. You can't debate morality unless you debate the morality of a specific belief system because the morality of every religion is a little different. He's setting up an embarrassingly unreasonable and silly standard.
Here's my question to 'believers.' Why is it that you allow God to come from nothing/just be there, but not the universe? Isn't that a completely irrational, biased & unfair restriction... You don't get to place that kind of stipulation on the side you don't wanna believe & not on the side that you do. It always comes back to "Where did anything come from?" & unlike religion, science doesn't claim to have an exact answer yet. It has a theory but there are still questions within that theory.
@ScholarVisual I agree with you on that, but I would point out that the vast majority of people follow religious texts that say God is the direct inspiration for the writings. Therefore everything inside the texts is attached to God in that sense. Hitchens is attacking the God from the texts. That's the context that Hitchens is coming from where as Sharpton is coming from just the believe in a creator. I think it's a lack of communication and misunderstanding in context between the two men.
@allfitch84 Ok I can actually agree with you on that. They are talking about 2 different things. You see I believe in the bible but I understand its totally irrational to believe in such a thing. Thats why Hitchens would win a debate against the bible every single time. But its very hard for an atheist to debate that their is no existence of any type of creator or creators that made the universe. Because theories like Biogenesis and Cell theory contradict the way the texts books say life began.
this is hilarious, al sharpton knowing he is facing an intellectual superior is resorting to questioning the ten commandments itself, in order to try to bring hitchens up on a wider subject than interpretation of god's word by religions. he wants hitchen's to somehow come up with a perfect piece of evidence that disproves God and if he can't, loses the debate.. what an incredibly desperate strategy!
Im actually surprised how well Sharpton did in this debate. Hitchens points were not valid when it comes to the existence of God. His whole argument was about how corrupt religion is. And that was not what this debate was about. It was about the existence of a Supreme being not how he should be worshiped or even worshiped at all.
@ScholarVisual Sharpton didn't make any sense. Using Sharpton's own points, he is saying that the existence of a god and moral values are connected. THATS WHAT RELIGION IS. Anyone who attributes ethics and morality to a "supreme being" they cannot prove, they have NO choice but to attach their own values to it out of assumption. He constantly merges the two. He said he was here to debate god who gives us moral value. What is religion if not people interpreting their version of these values?
@samuraivagrant Ill admit i didnt agree with the point when sharpton talked about who determines moral value. But his main argument was just because some of these religions may be corrupt dose not mean that some type of creator dose not exist. All hitchens talked about is how evil these religions are but that has nothing to do with a existence of a being or beings that created this universe. Hitchens did not once give scientific data on why there is no god. This debate was not about religion.
@ScholarVisual I don't know if you've read Hitchen's book (I haven't) but I don't think I've ever seen Hitchens ever say in any debates or interviews that he completely rejects the idea of a creator but more or less, the concept of god. Hitchens has stated before that believing that there is a creator is one thing, but when you call that creator god and believe it interferes with your life is different. Sharpton really has no point. He's trying to debate Hitchen's on a point that he's never made
@samuraivagrant This debate itself is about the existence of a creator. Its not about the god of the bible, Koran, or other religious dogmas. So Al Sharpton did great by not defending the bible because thats not what this debate was about. Im reading these other comments on here about this debate and everybody is angry that sharpton didnt defend the bible. If he did that, Sharpton would be going off task on what this debate was about.
@ScholarVisual The word god itself means either a ruler, or a supreme being requiring worship. Sharpton kept referring to the title of Hitchen's book to be the subject of the debate which is God Is Not Great. Sharpton has no clue what he's talking about. The name is "God" Is not great, not A Creator Can't Exist. So it's actually Sharpton going off-topic. It's like if you wrote a book called Ham Tastes Great and we're debating and everytime you mention ham I say "This debate is about turkey."
@samuraivagrant Well If you take it from that point of view I would have to agree with you. But still Hitchens did not go into detail on why God can not exist. All he talked about is how evil God is. Sharpton stayed on task because the bulk of his argument was on the existence of God. Not on how on how cruel and corrupt he is. If this debate was about how corrupt religion is Hitchens would have won hands down. But this debate was about the existence of God.
@ScholarVisual Honestly I think neither of these men have a clear understanding of what the other wants to debate. Hitchen's uses the word god in the religious sense and when Sharpton says it, he refers to a creator. I think when Sharpton signed on for this debate, he wanted to debate the existence of a creator and Hitchen's signed on to debate the existence of the god of religion. The debate centered around a book Hitchen's wrote presumabley about the religious god(s).
@samuraivagrant Ok even if Hitchens signed on to debate about why the God of the Bible dosent exist. Once again all he talked about was all the bad things this "God" made people do. That dose not disprove his existence. So once again he is off task. Never once dose Hitchens talk about existence. All he talked about was corruption. And that is not the debate either way. The guys from the Atheist Experience would have done a better job then Hitchens. This was a poor performance from Hitchens.
@ScholarVisual Maybe if Sharpton kept referencing the debate based on a book entitled "God Just Plain Doesn't Exist in Any Form," you'd be right. However, since the title is "God is Not Great," I'd say your argument makes no sense. Why would you say "I'm here to debate your book, Turkey Tastes Bad so lets start by debating Turkey Doesn't Exist At All?" Well Mr. Sharpton, that isn't what the book is called so what the hell are you talking about?
@samuraivagrant So your saying this debate was about how evil God really is? Not about his existence? Because what i find strange about that is when you say God is evil your acknowledging his existence. How can something that doesn't exist be evil, or ungreat?
@ScholarVisual If you told me that the gnomes in the dryer steal your socks and many people believe you, I can tell you that the gnomes you believe in are thieving assholes without me believing any of it. You hear "god is awesome, god is all loving, god is great and god is good" all the time. Hitchen's stance is "In the book you get all this from, it actually looks like your god is an egomaniacal asshole."
@samuraivagrant See this is what Im talking about. I know that Captain Hook is an evil person.But Im not gonna write a book about how evil he is.BECAUSE HE DOESN'T EXIST! Its pointless.If believing in God was such a ridiculous idea to Hitchens why would he bother writing this book.A true Atheist puts God and gnomes in the same category.But Hitchens would never right a book called "Gnomes are not Great".Really it sounds crazy to me that somebody would be so outraged with a figure that dosnt exist
@ScholarVisual A true atheist does not put god and gnomes in the same category. People who believe in gnomes haven't been torturing and killing atheist for centuries (which is why most people think atheism is new) and don't kill homosexuals because the "good book" said so, or tries to make America a "gnome" nation, or try to change the constitution based on it, or try to put their books alongside science. And you think it's crazy that he wrote a book?
@samuraivagrant All of the terrible acts you described, were things done by humans. Not a mythical god. If somebody killed someone because they said the boogie man told him to do it, you would not talk about how evil the boogie man is. Why? BECAUSE HE DOSE NOT EXIST! And you would not write a book called "The Boogie Man is Not Great". Humans are the ones that are evil, and not great. Not some make believe creator. Hitchens has a personal beef against a mythical being. Thats crazy
@samuraivagrant Your absolutely right. It dose not support god. But it dose support something creating life. Because according the scientific theory of Biogenesis. Life can only come from life.
@ScholarVisual They have been toying around with abiogenesis, but I haven't read much on it. Either way, I'm all for people believing what they want to believe. Doesn't bother me. However, the fact that creationists want new books in schools means they're agenda isn't scientific at all. Even the supreme court has said that creationism can't be distinguished from religion. If these people had their way they'd teach kids that the earth is like 6,000 years old..... they can't say that's science.
@samuraivagrant Well it dosent bother me that someone is an Athiest. And there is no way to test aboigenesis because as soon as someone puts on a lab coat and mixes this elements up to form amino acids theres automatically a designer. The guy in the lab coat. The only way to truely test abiogenesis is to sit by a puddle and see if life forms without any intelligent interference. My whole point is, the lack of belief of a creator or creators is just as irrational as a talking snake.
@ScholarVisual Not even close. Simply because you have to look at it from a human angle. I wouldn't say that I believe everything came from nothing, but by our logic and limitations it would make more sense than a creator.
@samuraivagrant You speak of logic. But people arent logical when it come to how the life formed. Abiogenesis basically says if you have the right components mixed up in the right way at the right time, under the right conditions, life can form over a gradual period of time. But i could have eggs, milk, dough, and strawberries all in the same area, with a stove, but i promise you, that even in a 100 trillion years a strawberry short cake will not form without intelligent interference.
@ScholarVisual So you're comparing things beyond our understanding to......a strawberry short cake? I'm sorry but that's part of what I mean. Your logic is basically saying "I know almost absolutely nothing about the universe so it's obvious everything works the way I do." And also, a strawberry short cake will not form but some "pretty nasty" life will grow lol
@samuraivagrant This is the whole point. It is that simple as a strawberry short cake forming by itself. Actually a strawberry short cake forming by itself has a better chance of happening then an advanced organism. Sir Fred Hoyle was a scientist that calculated that the most simplest form of life forming randomly has an odd of 1 in 10(40,000). That is equivalent of somebody rolling double 6s on dice 50,000 times in a row. You believe someone can row 12 on dice 50,000 times in a row?
Just wow. 1) Life does not "form by itself", it depends on EVERYTHING that comes before. 2) The numbers you bring up are low, when considering the abundant amount of galxies, with biliions of billions of stars, with sooo many planets. (not to even try and factor in time) 3) Rolling dice? Okey, let's stick to that. When life is concerned, say a planet is rolling dice. To roll 12 dice 50,000 times in a row is absolutely possible, and to say it's not, is horribly moronic.
@ScholarVisual Did you know that the annual risk of dying in a plane crash for the average American is about 1 in several million? You believe that no "average" American has ever died in a plane crash? I believe another statistic is that you're about 50 times more likey to be struck by lighting than die in a hijacked airline. 9/11 didn't happen? Lots of random things occur on this planet alone. The important thing to remember is when you use "1 in...." that that one happens.
@samuraivagrant Yes those are some incredible odds. But they are no where in comparison to an odd of 1 and 10(40,000) power. The odds of winning the lottery is 120million to 1. But life forming by itself is like someone winning the lottery 300 times in a row. Theres no comparison. Ill ask you this too. Do you believe someone can win the lottery 300 times in a row? Because cuz if you say life formed by chance your saying someone can win the lotto 300 times in a row.
@ScholarVisual Ah, so something can create existence as we know it along with the universe and everything with it, but the odds of 1 and 10(40,000) is "just too high" for you? That's like saying the odds of the world ending this very second is "x" and that's way less likely to happen than a cup turning into a house. That's like saying the odds of finding a specific grain of sand in the sahara desert is almost impossible, but it's somehow more likely to create the universe.
@samuraivagrant Yes. those odds are way to high for me. This is where the pride of some Atheists get in the way of their logical thinking. They ignore how irrational it is to say something with such incredible odds can happen. Now to the Atheists defense i can understand their frustrations with religious institutions saying that their going to hell. But none the less, they should not let that get in the way of logical thinking. So honestly, can somebody really win the lottery 300 times in a row?
@ScholarVisual It's not pride. Your logic is just flawed. Can you honestly say that someone winning the lottery 300 times in a row is just far less likely than something creating the universe just for the lolz? Let me get this straight.....according to you, winning the lottery 300 times in a row is just not possible.....but what IS possible is to create existence because you feel like it? That's logic to you?
@samuraivagrant Well if something created the universe I doubt it just did it just for lolz. Evidently whatever created the universe did it for some purpose unknown to us. The problem is we as humans have become very arrogant. Because we dont have the technology to create life, nothing else in the cosmos can. Thats a very naive way of thinking. This has nothing to do with God. Im thinking in terms of technology. Not the supernatural.
@ScholarVisual It's arrogant to compare the lottery, winning it and people (all of which exist) to something you have no clue about. It's arrogant to assert it's totally logical that something we have no example of whatsoever is way more likely than something that people actually win. If you want to talk logic, how many people have won the lottery once? Ever see anything create life? A universe? I've never heard anyone say "because we can't do it, it can't happen," where'd that come from?
@samuraivagrant You keep ignoring the premise of my question, sure people win the lottery, but not 300 times in a row. Just like the bible the science world has contradictions. According to Cell thoery, Cells can only form from other cells. But Atheists say the first cell formed from inanimate objects. Now you have to make a decision. Is it Cell Theory? Or Cells forming from non cells. If you pick the latter your going against a scientific theory that is accepted equally to evolution.
@ScholarVisual I think you're right, saying these men's contexts aren't aligned, but Hitch clearly does say he cant prove there's no God, and Sharpton can't prove there IS. To say that one DOES exist because odds are not in favor us having come about naturally is still irrational. Science makes no such absolute statement, but seeks for an answer. To say there may be a creator untied to these corrupt religions is equally irrational, with no further basis to it than known gods.
@ffgew22 Its very rational to say life came from life according to the theory of Biogenesis. Some life form may be technologically advanced enough to make a universe or life. This is totally secular. The problem with us is, because we cant make life or a universe, we say its improbable for anything else in the cosmos to make one. Thats very naive especially since we only know .00000000006% about the universe. We give god like powers to random processes. I feel thats irrational.
@ScholarVisual well said. I would submit that indeed I am naive when it comes to some things. Would it not also be naive to attribute it to a divine being though?
@ffgew22 Yes it would be naive to attribute it to be a divine being. But why dose the creator of the universe have to be divine. We as humans make incredible things. Sky scrapper buildings, cell phones, computers etc. But just because we make these things dose not make us divine. We refer to this being as divine because it can make things that we dont know how to make. That dose not make it divine. And once again our ego gets in the way. Since we dont know how to do it. That makes it impossible.
Al Sharpton desperately wants an big brother... or father, which is understandable seeing as how his own father left his family when Al was 9 to be pursue a relationship his step-daughter.
if you claim for something to be real then it is upon you to prove it... Their many books that profess of being inspired by God like the Quran. I don't think God gave us a manual for living. We instinctively now good from evil its called a consciousness, and we all have it. Believing in a God because we don know how we became unto living its a poor excuse to defend your point with out proof.
Every point hitchens attempts to make in regard to the Bible is futile by the simple fact that God is testing whether we can follow the path He laid out for us or not. How can we argue with the supreme being? You can try but in the end you will realize the worthless path you`ve led throughout your ungodly life.
@shadowtiger18 Worthless? God tests you, yet you cannot test god, lest you be stricken with hell-itis? I'm sorry but, to test god, you're not simply doing it just to be a "satanist" or just a 1 dimensional badguy, you do it to improve your own life. You ask yourself why this why that, and if it doesn't agree with how you think then you get rid of it. Its like having a friend around who only makes trouble for you, you simply don't hang out with him anymore. but this is a society.
Shit, this is the worst defense of creationism I've ever heard -but of course there is no great defense of lunacy. Sharpton is an absolute moron. His argument seems to be: "If I'm crazy, then you can't say I'm not crazy, right?"
He uses poor analogies. Ridiculous metaphors. He's inarticulate and spouts absolute drivel... But, I guess it doesn't take much of an argument to convince an irrational person to believe in nonsense, does it?
Congratulation Sharpton! You made a Republican joke that wasn't funny. At least you did a first that nobody else has done before. Stick to rallying sheep. Rather, burn in the hell you claim exists.
I think it is incredibly "offending" to the human mind and intellect that Al Sharpton think that we would be unable to distinguish between right and wrong if it were not for a book written my MAN 2000 years ago that preaches violence,rape,dicrimination,slavery etc.
And FFS, Hitchens needs to read some moral philosophy so he can shut down Sharpton's stupid points about the basis of morality necessitating a supreme being. Idiot.
So frustrating when Sharpton says 'this does not show god is not great'. Hitchens is clearly saying the Jewish GOD, the Christian GOD and ALLAH are not great because the religious texts, which are apparently their will, prescribe the evils Hitchens goes on to detail. Is that so complicated?
sharpton is hypocrite, he says god is different from scripture and religion but hes a christian so how in the hell did he learn about christ and the teachings from genesis to revalations if not from scripture and the teachings of religious intstiutions, hell he's a reverend he's part of a religious institution?
So the rev wants to debate the existence of god without using the sources of which god is brought up? Fucking douchebag is trying to play a game and you can see why he got no applause for that idiotic defence. What does it matter if your god exists if you're not applying characteristics that religion does? You're basically describing a universe and slapping your god on it. That is irrelevant to any debate of god.
@M3t4lManiac According to him, god does though this god is not of religion so he's basically claiming a god without any characteristics (something religion actually does which is why Hitchens uses it.) is the creator and that that's proof. He didn't come to debate, he came to play a game and try to convince gullible people to avoid reason and just slap god on anything as if that gets you anywhere.
Sharpton is no fool but to denounce the bible or to discount the way he does definitely makes him looks foolish. Even according to the Church's own logic, God has only written one book. If he has issued an updated in the last two thousand years then I have not seen it in the shops.
Notice that no one ever claps for what Big Al has to say... it sounds like the same old rehashed garbage that has been shoveled onto people for 1000's of years... Seriously, he thinks we need to believe in a magic man on a cloud to know what's moral? I think all it takes is an IQ above a faith-based belief in god! How sad it is to think that these god fearing dumb bums have been keeping humanity back for so long? "You dare say the earth revolves around the sun? To the stake, you witch!!"
Ah yes, personal revelation...the most useless form of argument ever since the beginning of religion! Frodo and Samwise made it to Mordor as well...I got goosebumps listening to the opening music of Lord of the Rings, so there's all the proof I need!
"who decides what is moral, whoever's in charge? whoever has power?"
i wonder what the fuck does power have to do with anything!?!?!?!?
THE PEOPLE WISE ENOUGH MUST DECIDE WHAT IS MORAL. simple as that. and people should always check their beliefs and their moral system. it's called evolution! and i'm not talking about physical evolution of our bodies, i'm talking about evolving ideas, the needed constant change in civilization.
@din80s Wise men can decide what is moral sure, but it takes power to practice and enforce it.
Socrates was forced to drink poison due to his teachings against theology, if he existed of course.
Also, who decides who is wise enough, the masses, or more appropriate the herd? Do the men who consider themselves wise decide who is wise? There is a major flaw in that thought.
There is what is, fight for what you believe in, destroy what you what is a threat. Just like what has always been done
It takes knowledge to judge. power enforces ideas, it does nothing more! and when a model of civilised society no longer applies today, why should it remain unchanged?
Socrates drank poison because he believed in the penal system of his time (imperfect to say the least) considering he would be making a point for future r
Sharpton, change the record and make a point
poodlechews 2 days ago
If Sharpton had studied Hegel, he'd know that he was trying to separate the thing (religion) from the thing-in-itself (God). Of course, no one ever actually experiences the thing-in-itself and that we only ever get the thing (the representation). Later philosophers went on to argue, for that reason, the thing-in-itself is only a presumption, and, as far as anyone knows, doesn't really exist.
ZeusYourUncle 6 days ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Sharpton starts backpedaling hard in this.
jhohcable 1 week ago
Sharpton's argument that morality must come from a higher power essentially asserts that no one can think for themselves and discover that murder is wrong.
mtboger41 1 week ago
Has anybody noticed that most of these theists Hitchens debates have extremely,consistently weak arguments?
KingCondorIII 2 weeks ago
I don't get this. I have watched all the way up to this 4th one, and Hitchens keeps bringing up Religion, and Sharpton is just talking about the existence of God.
lilwill32995 3 weeks ago
Hitchens is an idiot. He stumbling
boxing101foo 1 month ago
fuck.
this man, al sharpton is super ignorant AND cant debate for shit, im doubting if he can think at all.
it's very fine that he dont believe in the bible (if he doesnt, it sounded like it) neither do i, but he can't expect to make arguements based on FAITH alone, leave that to the bible.
some of these theism debaters are quite intelligent, william craig fx, but this guy is dumber than shit
BenBenz16 1 month ago
sharpton, "imalkuhmites"
LobsterPotsticker 1 month ago
so is sharpton admitting that if he found out tomorrow there is no god he would just murder everyone.geez what a dick.
DrBandrew 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SIgh* sharpton isn't too bad on MSNBC but listen to him try to wiggle out of moral issues is painful, he obviously can not live by the golden rule unless hes going to get an eternal reward.
gihaification 2 months ago
SIgh* sharpton isn't too bad on MSNBC but listen to him try to wiggle out of moral issues is painful, he obviously can not live by the golden rule unless hes going to get an eternal reward.
gihaification 2 months ago
Sharpton just repeats the wrong premise over and over without making a point. Then he uses ad hominem arguments that just make him look even more foolish but the ignorant followers chuckle in unworthy glory.
VirtuosicElevator 2 months ago
Sharpton opens his mouth and nothing but noise comes out!
jagara1 2 months ago
Sharpton is one stupid fuck
mogem 2 months ago
I try not to fast forward through Sharpton's part, just to follow the debate, but damn it, I can't help it.
He just keeps puking out bull-shit.
inewell90 2 months ago 4
a typical 'debate' between a white and a black. white guy flows, black talks in circles, and white gets frustrated that his 'opponent' is not at his level.
boozygrogy 2 months ago 2
@Alaric1213
>dump foll
>teh scripture
>quoting a bible verse without explaining why I should care
GTFO
DonMezzo 2 months ago
@DonMezzo It soen't matter if you are or not every man for himself. I just want to know if you don't belive in any god why the hell does it matter what people belive. let them be and get on with your life if you athiest are so convinced there is no God. we epak of a God because we belive there is one therore we have reason to share, but if ther is non according to athiests then let it be, why debate somthing that doesn't exist?
Alaric1213 2 months ago
@DonMezzo Now we live in a few dimention and as humans we can only communicate in a few, Physical, time, and two others. everything in the physical is fixed, but can be changed and interact with through the second dimention of creativity, but once we bring things into reality it is fixed with time. We experince this through 3D. 3D is a form of dimentional experince, and becaue humans are not able to reach the highest they claim there is no God. God is in the heavens of heavens.
Alaric1213 2 months ago
@DonMezzo We Christians knew about dimentions long before science discovered and we know how to opperate in it. But because you don;t believe in God you willnot be able to see. One thing you need to understand the Bible is a dimentional book given to us from a higer being from another dimention in a form we can understand, but the ability to under stand comes from our ability to communicate with him. Now for those who belive He gave them this gift. see my next post
Alaric1213 2 months ago
@DonMezzo Here is a message concerning the heavly dimention in code which is speaking of a higher dimention than teh one we already discovered. 3D 3 dimention movies, three diment world. 2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
Alaric1213 2 months ago
@Alaric1213 Third heavens speaks of another dimention above the one we know of. One earth, the sky, space, and the heavens above space are all dimentions. Free thought is teh effect of changing things through the second dimention so causing an effect on earth. the wind in working in another dimention than earth being a physical property, but is can change shape form and cause an effect on earth, where the earth would break up if if try teh same thing. the earth is one dimentional.
Alaric1213 2 months ago
al doesn't understand that we have decided what is moral every now and again. The US was founded on a need for moral reconstruction.
Even Constantine believed he was doing the right thing making Christianity state law in Rome. Then the goths that sacked Rome thought it was their moral imperative to destroy it for retribution.
kelbykross1 2 months ago
Al's argument is fucking stupid. Which god do we follow? How do we figure out what that god wants us to do? How can we be sure if god is moral?
DonMezzo 2 months ago
@DonMezzo Hitchens is a dump foll who has no understanding og teh scripture. No knowledge at all. I am happy he now knows the truth being dead. Proverbs 13:17 A wicked messenger falleth into mischief: but a faithful ambassador is health.
Alaric1213 2 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
This has been flagged as spam show
Did he say AmalkeMites? This? A reverend? How embarrassing. :( Christopher Hitchens died yesterday. The species and entire universe is diminished. He was one of humanity's best thinkers, teachers, orators, and advocates for reason and justice.
mouthyweasel 2 months ago
Hitchens is totally owned by Sharpton. Hitchens does not give any plausible reason for the atheist world view.
amstellori 2 months ago
disproving the bible disproves the God Al Sharpton believes in, and disproves his notion of God giving man morality. Why can't he see that?
490310001 2 months ago
Haha! The A-malcom-ites! Nice one, Sharpton!
ottam 2 months ago
Sharpton isnt an idiot. His mind is just corrupted by religion. He is so smart about politics and civil matter he would be such a well rounded intellectual if he just dropped the religion BS
iamajibber 2 months ago
Hitchens: 'Look at all the bad things in the bible, look at all the bad things religious people do, look at all the harm people do b/c of God'. Sharpton: 'That's not God'. All Sharpton is doing here is saying, 'That's not God, God is something else'. If pressed on it, God then becomes a mysterious, general, non-specific 'thing'. Pretty underhanded way to argue, if you ask me.
professorgentzel 3 months ago 3
Oh dear...Sharpton really brought out the "personal experience" 'argument'? Can he really be that idiotic? And, "morality must come from god", 'argument', is just as silly...honestly, if this guy just used his reason for once, instead of relaying on his feelings, he'd realize, that any supernatural being, whatsoever, is necessary for morality. It's very easy, to arrive at this...if only people would use their mind.
ilovewiki 3 months ago
Comment removed
timewilltell7 3 months ago
this is so scary - what the fuck are we going to do thats what i wanna know
these ppl have weapons and believe this stuff
so can someone tell me - what the fuck are we going to do?
osho said abrahamic cults if not stopped are going to kill us all
im so depressed now
timewilltell7 3 months ago
If I were a christian, I'd no longer be after listening to Al Sharpton....
23NaLi 4 months ago
Wow, he is denying Jesus ?? a Rev dismiss Jesus as just a man!? I'm confuse!
Blackjuicez 4 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
wtf is sharpton's argument? First of all hitchens' book is very much about the fact that a simple belief in god is a bad thing - he obviously did not read the book and is basing everything on the title. And how can he keep arguing that hitchens can't keep using examples from the bible when he has to believe that the bible is the word of god?
chrismike7ish 5 months ago
"The AMALKAMITES?" Oh dear. Not a mistake you expect a Reverend to make.
topstep 5 months ago
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Sharpton has the edge here. Hitchens is very slick with the Bible-talk, but it's based upon his views on religion, not God. Man created religion in the name of God. Hitchens would be right in attacking interpretation because it's subjective. I think Sharpton wants to bypass religion and focus on God him/herself...which Chris seems to carefully evade.
TyphoidBryan 5 months ago
@TyphoidBryan If Sharpton wants to talk about about God without using "religious terms", like he blamed Hitchens of doing, he shouldn't talk about his faith or how his own personal beliefs were confirmed through one event or another. Faith isn't something you bring up to support your claims of an almighty creator, and it's something Sharpton should have left at the children's table.
CupboardNinja 5 months ago 3
@TyphoidBryan He admitted that neither can prove god's existence or none existence so to assert that there is a god is infinitely arrogant. It would be like building your world view around a hypothesis only.
You can't live on a "might be", we know that from well, all civilized post enlightenment countries. What is the point in asserting something if it's pointless and useless? The next step is usually religion. ...cont...
riggermortisify 5 months ago
@riggermortisify ... cont... We don't see people shaping their lives around Deism. Sharpton is beng dishonest in my opinion and is reshaping his position as the argument goes on. Hitchens pointed this out not long ago. Most people he debated with openly hold a WILDLY different view when they're around fellow believers.
Sharpton should be trying to prove deism which I'm guessing he won't go near for the rest of this.
riggermortisify 5 months ago
@riggermortisify ...cont... He should justify why asserting the unknowable is useful and give his reason. He won't because it's obvious that these men latch onto deism when someone points out how vile the bible is.
Apologies for the rambling length of my comments, which'll probably end up on every segment of this debate. -_- ...can't.... ...stay... ...away... ...from... ...comm... ...ents...
Youtube should open an "education" part of the site with a vote based discussion section or something.
riggermortisify 5 months ago
sharpton would be better suited to selling second hand cars to middle aged first time buyers.
kookoopops1 5 months ago
Hitchens had to set the premise that he can confirm nor deny god. This is clearly his out.....With statement wht is the point of this debate. What are we trying to prove or dis prove? The bible itself was hand picked& put 2gethr by man. So hitchens is attackn sumthn thats flawed. Sharpn conceded debatn this is moot. But thats his only angle... I expect better with all of hitchens rhetoric.
yeska68 6 months ago
@yeska68 He states that from the beginning because he already knows what is coming at him. The problem is he assumes the audience as is intelligent as he is and realizes that the onus is on the person making the assertion, not the person challenging it. You cannot prove a negative. In that vein you cannot disprove any other religion and that would certainly then render the observers religion false.
losghost 5 months ago
@yeska68 it is not possible to disprove a negative, so Hitchens can not say, nor can anybody say, that God does not exist. The bible of course was written by men, there is no reason to believe in any god or supreme being. What's your point here?
Garduno2000 5 months ago
Comment removed
bostonsucks88 6 months ago
Comment removed
bostonsucks88 6 months ago
Sharpton isnt even listening hes just asking the same questions over and over.
freefall434 6 months ago
al sharpton: "almelchemites"..... rofl
tsuba14 6 months ago
Sharpton is an embarrassment to the human race.
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
What gets to me is that Hitchens is avoiding discussing the ridiculous idea of creation. I've seen him debate before, and I know he has a lot of material on the subject, which I whole heartedly support. I wish he'd use it utterly rape this guy. Perhaps he's saving it for later.
TheMessiersAndromeda 6 months ago
First Sharpton says that if there is no God then there is no morality but then he says you can't use the Bible to disprove God... which is fine, however how do we know God's "morality" if not for the Bible?
miashalala 6 months ago
if you believe in the christian god then why r u saying the bible doesnt matter you ignorant douche.
zacdbostick 6 months ago
Hitchens pulled his punches. Damn shame.
cogitheum 6 months ago
I thought we were going to debate God existance, but not the God that everybody believes in. I want to debate a generic idea of God, even though we both previously stated that their is no way of providing evidence for either claim.
CatFacedKillers 6 months ago
@CatFacedKillers That is smartest comment I've read on this video. Thanks for posting.
shinigami285 6 months ago
Eventually there will be asylums for people who are still religous; just like for all other mental illnesses.
ZachRose88 7 months ago
@ZachRose88 If you hear voices you are considered mentally ill but if you attribute these voices to god you are just religious.
RottenRroses 7 months ago
I never understood the argument that morality is based on god. How can you base your morality on something you can't even know it's there. How can you know it's will if it is not revealing himself or his will?
All you got is scripture and Sharpton claims so vividly, that scripture is detatched from his believe in god and does not accept Hitchens arguments based on the bible. So the question is where does he base his morals on, if not on scripture? Does god tell him his morals personally?
RottenRroses 7 months ago 27
@RottenRroses Your comment is 3 months old, so I apologize if this point has been raised before. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I'd like to play devil's advocate.
Sharpton might say that God created him and everyone else with their morals. Or rather, that's what someone might say. Sharpton's arguments actually sort of rule that out.
Svoig 4 months ago
@RottenRroses Well said. Sharpton loses in so many ways. Not only is he asking Hitchen's to ignore scriptural differences so that God can be accepted and believed in all his/her glory, but the very fact that he questions the idea of questioning morality based on the might of an individual in power, yet feels no reason to question the moral right and whims of an unprovable God who happens (in his eyes) to be in power and without any scriptural credence or citation. Totally ridiculous.
Deanboy2007 3 months ago
@RottenRroses Morality is based on God, he made us with it for it is apart of who he is, for this reason we are without excuse in the end, for we know what is right, and a quest has been placed in us to know God but some of us have surpress the truth within. End result hell.
Alaric1213 2 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
@Alaric1213 there is little proof that the Zoroaster good vs. evil that christianity picked up shows that hell exists.
In tribes before the agricultural revolution, humans (just like other group mammals) had to work together to live. We were 'bred' by natural selection to be group players, and to work well together with others. You couldn't be a societal deviant before cities or you would be exiled, and die. God is a product of population growth from agriculture.
kelbykross1 2 months ago
"It's real to me, in my experience."
Subjective anecdotes, forever the most difficult and slippery arguments to address.
vidopteryx 7 months ago
"NUTbahg settlers".
<3 Hitchy-kins.
vidopteryx 7 months ago
Sharpton is medically insane if he claims his perception of "God" is only based off of personal experiences. We call that a hallucination, and we have large complexes to house victims of this condition.
EdgePitSwing 7 months ago
religion is an contagious disease that passes from parent to child, from generation from generation, like a mass epidemic.
LadyScorpio39 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, HerrEloff.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Sharpton is an idiot.
Erichleep 8 months ago 53
@Erichleep Not true. This is why people hate atheists.
lilwill32995 3 weeks ago
indeed it is " The Bable"
KongKit 8 months ago
"If I were sitting up here arguing with you over scripture, then you would have points that I'd say were valid to this discussion, but I'm not here to defend scriptures. I didn't write those scriptures. I lived my life, and in my life, the existence of god has been confirmed to me in my own personal dealings and my own faith being vindicated and validated that had absolutely nothing to do with scriptures." So what the fuck are you basing it on, asshole? Believe in god and he's real? Nope, sorry.
downjl 8 months ago
Wow. Sharpton supports and contradicts himself in the same breath. Me so embarrassed.
Damone46 8 months ago
"and i think to think that.. " what? lols
lpslostagain 8 months ago
I'm not ignoring the premise of your question. You've failed to answer mine. Have you or have you not observed ANY being more intelligent than ourselves or have you heard of someone winning the lottery? "But not 300 times in a row" well when anyone observes your technologically superior being(s) ONE TIME, then you'll have a point. We have examples of things happening when the odds are against it. I'm disappointed you've clumped me in the "Atheists say this" group.
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant Ok let me make myself clear. I have seen people create things. I havnt seen someone create life. I have seen someone win the lottery. I havnt seen somenone win 300 times in a row. Now please pick. Cell Theory or Cells forming from non living material by chance.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
Comment removed
OriginalScuffler 9 months ago
you talkin about koran, bibles, and books n shit with words! that you gotta read! fuck that!
SlickSmooth22 9 months ago
the problem, reverend, is that for many people, God is IN THE BOOK, literally. if he doesn't get that, how the hell does he manage to string two sentences together?!
Pemphetru 9 months ago
@flightoftheunknown You obviously can't read jack arse.
Charlotte333 9 months ago
In all these videos you can see Hitchens becoming annoyed at the psycho babble spewing from sharpton.
flightoftheunknown 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religious people are brainwashed idiots. Nuff said.
flightoftheunknown 9 months ago
Sharpton and Hitchens both needed to have this conversation, yes, conversation, this is more of a conversation than a debate. I am glad to see Sharpton conceded so much! He even said "it's all up to us". On that they agreed! Sharpon leaves the bible behind! Huge strides, massive. Listen up all idiotically minded bible thumpers! The debate is OVER at this point. The bible is NOT the word of GOD. A wisdom teaching, a book of stories, yes, but THE WORD OF GOD ~ no way! Neither is the Koran.
Charlotte333 9 months ago
@Charlotte333 There is no such thing as "the word of god", because there is no god. religion is all bullshit.
flightoftheunknown 9 months ago
Sharpton "You're not debating, as I am, about the existence of god. You're debating people's misinterpretations of the texts." Followed by...
"In MY life, existence of god has been confirmed to ME."
A belief in god YOURSELF isn't debating the existence of god either, or mean one exists universally.
contradiction IMO
ffgew22 9 months ago
Sharpton says in one breathe that God gives us morality and in the next says that Hitchens shouldn't debate the bible. If you don't have the bible, then what morality are you talking about? A deistic creator god with no scriptures and no dogma does not give morality. You can't debate morality unless you debate the morality of a specific belief system because the morality of every religion is a little different. He's setting up an embarrassingly unreasonable and silly standard.
maikeru01 9 months ago
I completely disagree with Rev. Sharpton; however, I think he executed a good debate.
swderek 9 months ago
Here's my question to 'believers.' Why is it that you allow God to come from nothing/just be there, but not the universe? Isn't that a completely irrational, biased & unfair restriction... You don't get to place that kind of stipulation on the side you don't wanna believe & not on the side that you do. It always comes back to "Where did anything come from?" & unlike religion, science doesn't claim to have an exact answer yet. It has a theory but there are still questions within that theory.
allfitch84 9 months ago
personal relationship with god sounds like a relationship with a imaginary friend to me:(
Iopipimps 10 months ago
Comment removed
ScholarVisual 10 months ago
@ScholarVisual I agree with you on that, but I would point out that the vast majority of people follow religious texts that say God is the direct inspiration for the writings. Therefore everything inside the texts is attached to God in that sense. Hitchens is attacking the God from the texts. That's the context that Hitchens is coming from where as Sharpton is coming from just the believe in a creator. I think it's a lack of communication and misunderstanding in context between the two men.
allfitch84 10 months ago
@allfitch84 Ok I can actually agree with you on that. They are talking about 2 different things. You see I believe in the bible but I understand its totally irrational to believe in such a thing. Thats why Hitchens would win a debate against the bible every single time. But its very hard for an atheist to debate that their is no existence of any type of creator or creators that made the universe. Because theories like Biogenesis and Cell theory contradict the way the texts books say life began.
ScholarVisual 10 months ago
1 + 2 does = 7, asshole.
Yedaddy1234 10 months ago 3
this is hilarious, al sharpton knowing he is facing an intellectual superior is resorting to questioning the ten commandments itself, in order to try to bring hitchens up on a wider subject than interpretation of god's word by religions. he wants hitchen's to somehow come up with a perfect piece of evidence that disproves God and if he can't, loses the debate.. what an incredibly desperate strategy!
milbytrillion 10 months ago
Im actually surprised how well Sharpton did in this debate. Hitchens points were not valid when it comes to the existence of God. His whole argument was about how corrupt religion is. And that was not what this debate was about. It was about the existence of a Supreme being not how he should be worshiped or even worshiped at all.
ScholarVisual 10 months ago
@ScholarVisual Sharpton didn't make any sense. Using Sharpton's own points, he is saying that the existence of a god and moral values are connected. THATS WHAT RELIGION IS. Anyone who attributes ethics and morality to a "supreme being" they cannot prove, they have NO choice but to attach their own values to it out of assumption. He constantly merges the two. He said he was here to debate god who gives us moral value. What is religion if not people interpreting their version of these values?
samuraivagrant 10 months ago
@samuraivagrant Ill admit i didnt agree with the point when sharpton talked about who determines moral value. But his main argument was just because some of these religions may be corrupt dose not mean that some type of creator dose not exist. All hitchens talked about is how evil these religions are but that has nothing to do with a existence of a being or beings that created this universe. Hitchens did not once give scientific data on why there is no god. This debate was not about religion.
ScholarVisual 10 months ago
@ScholarVisual I don't know if you've read Hitchen's book (I haven't) but I don't think I've ever seen Hitchens ever say in any debates or interviews that he completely rejects the idea of a creator but more or less, the concept of god. Hitchens has stated before that believing that there is a creator is one thing, but when you call that creator god and believe it interferes with your life is different. Sharpton really has no point. He's trying to debate Hitchen's on a point that he's never made
samuraivagrant 10 months ago
@samuraivagrant This debate itself is about the existence of a creator. Its not about the god of the bible, Koran, or other religious dogmas. So Al Sharpton did great by not defending the bible because thats not what this debate was about. Im reading these other comments on here about this debate and everybody is angry that sharpton didnt defend the bible. If he did that, Sharpton would be going off task on what this debate was about.
ScholarVisual 10 months ago
@ScholarVisual The word god itself means either a ruler, or a supreme being requiring worship. Sharpton kept referring to the title of Hitchen's book to be the subject of the debate which is God Is Not Great. Sharpton has no clue what he's talking about. The name is "God" Is not great, not A Creator Can't Exist. So it's actually Sharpton going off-topic. It's like if you wrote a book called Ham Tastes Great and we're debating and everytime you mention ham I say "This debate is about turkey."
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant Well If you take it from that point of view I would have to agree with you. But still Hitchens did not go into detail on why God can not exist. All he talked about is how evil God is. Sharpton stayed on task because the bulk of his argument was on the existence of God. Not on how on how cruel and corrupt he is. If this debate was about how corrupt religion is Hitchens would have won hands down. But this debate was about the existence of God.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual Honestly I think neither of these men have a clear understanding of what the other wants to debate. Hitchen's uses the word god in the religious sense and when Sharpton says it, he refers to a creator. I think when Sharpton signed on for this debate, he wanted to debate the existence of a creator and Hitchen's signed on to debate the existence of the god of religion. The debate centered around a book Hitchen's wrote presumabley about the religious god(s).
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant Ok even if Hitchens signed on to debate about why the God of the Bible dosent exist. Once again all he talked about was all the bad things this "God" made people do. That dose not disprove his existence. So once again he is off task. Never once dose Hitchens talk about existence. All he talked about was corruption. And that is not the debate either way. The guys from the Atheist Experience would have done a better job then Hitchens. This was a poor performance from Hitchens.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual Maybe if Sharpton kept referencing the debate based on a book entitled "God Just Plain Doesn't Exist in Any Form," you'd be right. However, since the title is "God is Not Great," I'd say your argument makes no sense. Why would you say "I'm here to debate your book, Turkey Tastes Bad so lets start by debating Turkey Doesn't Exist At All?" Well Mr. Sharpton, that isn't what the book is called so what the hell are you talking about?
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant So your saying this debate was about how evil God really is? Not about his existence? Because what i find strange about that is when you say God is evil your acknowledging his existence. How can something that doesn't exist be evil, or ungreat?
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual If you told me that the gnomes in the dryer steal your socks and many people believe you, I can tell you that the gnomes you believe in are thieving assholes without me believing any of it. You hear "god is awesome, god is all loving, god is great and god is good" all the time. Hitchen's stance is "In the book you get all this from, it actually looks like your god is an egomaniacal asshole."
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant See this is what Im talking about. I know that Captain Hook is an evil person.But Im not gonna write a book about how evil he is.BECAUSE HE DOESN'T EXIST! Its pointless.If believing in God was such a ridiculous idea to Hitchens why would he bother writing this book.A true Atheist puts God and gnomes in the same category.But Hitchens would never right a book called "Gnomes are not Great".Really it sounds crazy to me that somebody would be so outraged with a figure that dosnt exist
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual A true atheist does not put god and gnomes in the same category. People who believe in gnomes haven't been torturing and killing atheist for centuries (which is why most people think atheism is new) and don't kill homosexuals because the "good book" said so, or tries to make America a "gnome" nation, or try to change the constitution based on it, or try to put their books alongside science. And you think it's crazy that he wrote a book?
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant All of the terrible acts you described, were things done by humans. Not a mythical god. If somebody killed someone because they said the boogie man told him to do it, you would not talk about how evil the boogie man is. Why? BECAUSE HE DOSE NOT EXIST! And you would not write a book called "The Boogie Man is Not Great". Humans are the ones that are evil, and not great. Not some make believe creator. Hitchens has a personal beef against a mythical being. Thats crazy
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant And by the way, Science dose not support a random made universe by any means.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual It definitely does not support god. Which is why creationism is getting tossed out.
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant Your absolutely right. It dose not support god. But it dose support something creating life. Because according the scientific theory of Biogenesis. Life can only come from life.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual They have been toying around with abiogenesis, but I haven't read much on it. Either way, I'm all for people believing what they want to believe. Doesn't bother me. However, the fact that creationists want new books in schools means they're agenda isn't scientific at all. Even the supreme court has said that creationism can't be distinguished from religion. If these people had their way they'd teach kids that the earth is like 6,000 years old..... they can't say that's science.
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant Well it dosent bother me that someone is an Athiest. And there is no way to test aboigenesis because as soon as someone puts on a lab coat and mixes this elements up to form amino acids theres automatically a designer. The guy in the lab coat. The only way to truely test abiogenesis is to sit by a puddle and see if life forms without any intelligent interference. My whole point is, the lack of belief of a creator or creators is just as irrational as a talking snake.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual Not even close. Simply because you have to look at it from a human angle. I wouldn't say that I believe everything came from nothing, but by our logic and limitations it would make more sense than a creator.
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant You speak of logic. But people arent logical when it come to how the life formed. Abiogenesis basically says if you have the right components mixed up in the right way at the right time, under the right conditions, life can form over a gradual period of time. But i could have eggs, milk, dough, and strawberries all in the same area, with a stove, but i promise you, that even in a 100 trillion years a strawberry short cake will not form without intelligent interference.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual So you're comparing things beyond our understanding to......a strawberry short cake? I'm sorry but that's part of what I mean. Your logic is basically saying "I know almost absolutely nothing about the universe so it's obvious everything works the way I do." And also, a strawberry short cake will not form but some "pretty nasty" life will grow lol
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant This is the whole point. It is that simple as a strawberry short cake forming by itself. Actually a strawberry short cake forming by itself has a better chance of happening then an advanced organism. Sir Fred Hoyle was a scientist that calculated that the most simplest form of life forming randomly has an odd of 1 in 10(40,000). That is equivalent of somebody rolling double 6s on dice 50,000 times in a row. You believe someone can row 12 on dice 50,000 times in a row?
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
Comment removed
OriginalScuffler 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just wow. 1) Life does not "form by itself", it depends on EVERYTHING that comes before. 2) The numbers you bring up are low, when considering the abundant amount of galxies, with biliions of billions of stars, with sooo many planets. (not to even try and factor in time) 3) Rolling dice? Okey, let's stick to that. When life is concerned, say a planet is rolling dice. To roll 12 dice 50,000 times in a row is absolutely possible, and to say it's not, is horribly moronic.
OriginalScuffler 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual Did you know that the annual risk of dying in a plane crash for the average American is about 1 in several million? You believe that no "average" American has ever died in a plane crash? I believe another statistic is that you're about 50 times more likey to be struck by lighting than die in a hijacked airline. 9/11 didn't happen? Lots of random things occur on this planet alone. The important thing to remember is when you use "1 in...." that that one happens.
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant Yes those are some incredible odds. But they are no where in comparison to an odd of 1 and 10(40,000) power. The odds of winning the lottery is 120million to 1. But life forming by itself is like someone winning the lottery 300 times in a row. Theres no comparison. Ill ask you this too. Do you believe someone can win the lottery 300 times in a row? Because cuz if you say life formed by chance your saying someone can win the lotto 300 times in a row.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual Ah, so something can create existence as we know it along with the universe and everything with it, but the odds of 1 and 10(40,000) is "just too high" for you? That's like saying the odds of the world ending this very second is "x" and that's way less likely to happen than a cup turning into a house. That's like saying the odds of finding a specific grain of sand in the sahara desert is almost impossible, but it's somehow more likely to create the universe.
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant Yes. those odds are way to high for me. This is where the pride of some Atheists get in the way of their logical thinking. They ignore how irrational it is to say something with such incredible odds can happen. Now to the Atheists defense i can understand their frustrations with religious institutions saying that their going to hell. But none the less, they should not let that get in the way of logical thinking. So honestly, can somebody really win the lottery 300 times in a row?
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual It's not pride. Your logic is just flawed. Can you honestly say that someone winning the lottery 300 times in a row is just far less likely than something creating the universe just for the lolz? Let me get this straight.....according to you, winning the lottery 300 times in a row is just not possible.....but what IS possible is to create existence because you feel like it? That's logic to you?
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant Well if something created the universe I doubt it just did it just for lolz. Evidently whatever created the universe did it for some purpose unknown to us. The problem is we as humans have become very arrogant. Because we dont have the technology to create life, nothing else in the cosmos can. Thats a very naive way of thinking. This has nothing to do with God. Im thinking in terms of technology. Not the supernatural.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual It's arrogant to compare the lottery, winning it and people (all of which exist) to something you have no clue about. It's arrogant to assert it's totally logical that something we have no example of whatsoever is way more likely than something that people actually win. If you want to talk logic, how many people have won the lottery once? Ever see anything create life? A universe? I've never heard anyone say "because we can't do it, it can't happen," where'd that come from?
samuraivagrant 9 months ago
@samuraivagrant You keep ignoring the premise of my question, sure people win the lottery, but not 300 times in a row. Just like the bible the science world has contradictions. According to Cell thoery, Cells can only form from other cells. But Atheists say the first cell formed from inanimate objects. Now you have to make a decision. Is it Cell Theory? Or Cells forming from non cells. If you pick the latter your going against a scientific theory that is accepted equally to evolution.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual I think you're right, saying these men's contexts aren't aligned, but Hitch clearly does say he cant prove there's no God, and Sharpton can't prove there IS. To say that one DOES exist because odds are not in favor us having come about naturally is still irrational. Science makes no such absolute statement, but seeks for an answer. To say there may be a creator untied to these corrupt religions is equally irrational, with no further basis to it than known gods.
ffgew22 9 months ago
Comment removed
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ffgew22 Its very rational to say life came from life according to the theory of Biogenesis. Some life form may be technologically advanced enough to make a universe or life. This is totally secular. The problem with us is, because we cant make life or a universe, we say its improbable for anything else in the cosmos to make one. Thats very naive especially since we only know .00000000006% about the universe. We give god like powers to random processes. I feel thats irrational.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
@ScholarVisual well said. I would submit that indeed I am naive when it comes to some things. Would it not also be naive to attribute it to a divine being though?
ffgew22 9 months ago
@ffgew22 Yes it would be naive to attribute it to be a divine being. But why dose the creator of the universe have to be divine. We as humans make incredible things. Sky scrapper buildings, cell phones, computers etc. But just because we make these things dose not make us divine. We refer to this being as divine because it can make things that we dont know how to make. That dose not make it divine. And once again our ego gets in the way. Since we dont know how to do it. That makes it impossible.
ScholarVisual 9 months ago
Al Sharpton desperately wants an big brother... or father, which is understandable seeing as how his own father left his family when Al was 9 to be pursue a relationship his step-daughter.
TubeFreakification 10 months ago
Breaking News: Al Sharpton declares himself an atheist after conceding that the Bible doesn't matter.
rm06c 10 months ago
@rm06c ...thus revoking his right to call himself a Christian. Damn religio-philes
TubeFreakification 10 months ago
if you claim for something to be real then it is upon you to prove it... Their many books that profess of being inspired by God like the Quran. I don't think God gave us a manual for living. We instinctively now good from evil its called a consciousness, and we all have it. Believing in a God because we don know how we became unto living its a poor excuse to defend your point with out proof.
elsol98 10 months ago
oh my darwin, that is one stupid black man
jakepinoywolrd85 11 months ago
2:39 - . . . what the fuck is an E-Malcolm-ite?
VassagoX66 11 months ago
Every point hitchens attempts to make in regard to the Bible is futile by the simple fact that God is testing whether we can follow the path He laid out for us or not. How can we argue with the supreme being? You can try but in the end you will realize the worthless path you`ve led throughout your ungodly life.
shadowtiger18 11 months ago
@shadowtiger18 Worthless? God tests you, yet you cannot test god, lest you be stricken with hell-itis? I'm sorry but, to test god, you're not simply doing it just to be a "satanist" or just a 1 dimensional badguy, you do it to improve your own life. You ask yourself why this why that, and if it doesn't agree with how you think then you get rid of it. Its like having a friend around who only makes trouble for you, you simply don't hang out with him anymore. but this is a society.
InterRage 10 months ago
Shit, this is the worst defense of creationism I've ever heard -but of course there is no great defense of lunacy. Sharpton is an absolute moron. His argument seems to be: "If I'm crazy, then you can't say I'm not crazy, right?"
He uses poor analogies. Ridiculous metaphors. He's inarticulate and spouts absolute drivel... But, I guess it doesn't take much of an argument to convince an irrational person to believe in nonsense, does it?
keithhickson 11 months ago
Is it just me or does it seem like it is only the atheists who actually read the bible? lol
LambdaQuarks 1 year ago 40
@LambdaQuarks thats why they'er atheists ahha.
ARobotShinobi 9 months ago
Congratulation Sharpton! You made a Republican joke that wasn't funny. At least you did a first that nobody else has done before. Stick to rallying sheep. Rather, burn in the hell you claim exists.
schnepat 1 year ago
I think it is incredibly "offending" to the human mind and intellect that Al Sharpton think that we would be unable to distinguish between right and wrong if it were not for a book written my MAN 2000 years ago that preaches violence,rape,dicrimination,slavery etc.
LukeiAmYourFather12 1 year ago
I almost feel bad for Sharpton...
Almost.
aimonaali 1 year ago
this debate proves that hitchens can make you look like a fool in the most gentlemanly way possible.
ktrigg2 1 year ago 2
And FFS, Hitchens needs to read some moral philosophy so he can shut down Sharpton's stupid points about the basis of morality necessitating a supreme being. Idiot.
baker514 1 year ago
So frustrating when Sharpton says 'this does not show god is not great'. Hitchens is clearly saying the Jewish GOD, the Christian GOD and ALLAH are not great because the religious texts, which are apparently their will, prescribe the evils Hitchens goes on to detail. Is that so complicated?
baker514 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sharpton is hypocrite, he says god is different from scripture and religion but hes a christian so how in the hell did he learn about christ and the teachings from genesis to revalations if not from scripture and the teachings of religious intstiutions, hell he's a reverend he's part of a religious institution?
HBCjunke 1 year ago
So the rev wants to debate the existence of god without using the sources of which god is brought up? Fucking douchebag is trying to play a game and you can see why he got no applause for that idiotic defence. What does it matter if your god exists if you're not applying characteristics that religion does? You're basically describing a universe and slapping your god on it. That is irrelevant to any debate of god.
clipsryan 1 year ago 46
Who decides what is ethical? WE DO YOU FUCKING DUPE
M3t4lManiac 1 year ago 2
@M3t4lManiac According to him, god does though this god is not of religion so he's basically claiming a god without any characteristics (something religion actually does which is why Hitchens uses it.) is the creator and that that's proof. He didn't come to debate, he came to play a game and try to convince gullible people to avoid reason and just slap god on anything as if that gets you anywhere.
clipsryan 1 year ago
Sharpton is no fool but to denounce the bible or to discount the way he does definitely makes him looks foolish. Even according to the Church's own logic, God has only written one book. If he has issued an updated in the last two thousand years then I have not seen it in the shops.
zapkvr 1 year ago
Notice that no one ever claps for what Big Al has to say... it sounds like the same old rehashed garbage that has been shoveled onto people for 1000's of years... Seriously, he thinks we need to believe in a magic man on a cloud to know what's moral? I think all it takes is an IQ above a faith-based belief in god! How sad it is to think that these god fearing dumb bums have been keeping humanity back for so long? "You dare say the earth revolves around the sun? To the stake, you witch!!"
V45Rider 1 year ago
Ah yes, personal revelation...the most useless form of argument ever since the beginning of religion! Frodo and Samwise made it to Mordor as well...I got goosebumps listening to the opening music of Lord of the Rings, so there's all the proof I need!
echalko 1 year ago
"who decides what is moral, whoever's in charge? whoever has power?"
i wonder what the fuck does power have to do with anything!?!?!?!?
THE PEOPLE WISE ENOUGH MUST DECIDE WHAT IS MORAL. simple as that. and people should always check their beliefs and their moral system. it's called evolution! and i'm not talking about physical evolution of our bodies, i'm talking about evolving ideas, the needed constant change in civilization.
din80s 1 year ago
@din80s Wise men can decide what is moral sure, but it takes power to practice and enforce it.
Socrates was forced to drink poison due to his teachings against theology, if he existed of course.
Also, who decides who is wise enough, the masses, or more appropriate the herd? Do the men who consider themselves wise decide who is wise? There is a major flaw in that thought.
There is what is, fight for what you believe in, destroy what you what is a threat. Just like what has always been done
Martial024 1 year ago
Comment removed
din80s 1 year ago
@Martial024
It takes knowledge to judge. power enforces ideas, it does nothing more! and when a model of civilised society no longer applies today, why should it remain unchanged?
Socrates drank poison because he believed in the penal system of his time (imperfect to say the least) considering he would be making a point for future r