1. Comment #53306 by blaine on June 30, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Note Chris Matthews' cowardly parting shot that the wall of separation was to prevent a government-favored religion, as opposed to preventing government involvement with religion.

Other Comments by blaine

2. Comment #53307 by carnitine on June 30, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Don't get me wrong here, but Hitchens needs some more practice.

Obviously Sharpton is a twit, and his arguments are easily rebutted, but he does have a point that Hitchens would rather give us one of his cute little stories or examples than to answer the question that was actually asked. Especially on American TV, when you know you're going to be interrupted, just answer the question! Don't fall back onto a trite anecdote with the hope that you might be able to actually make a point eventaully before you're interrupted.

He also just loves to talk about the bad things done in the name of religion, which I find to be an incredibly weak line of argument.

This debate is just a less organized, more superficial rerun of their earlier debate

Other Comments by carnitine

3. Comment #53308 by PrimeNumbers on June 30, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Sharpton doesn't come across well, does he? He doesn't appear to be too bright either. I guess that's what happens when you have to use half your brain's power up trying to deal with the compartmentalisation of the stupidity of religious belief from what's left of your intellect.

Sharpton's endless argument of "godditit" is tiresome. "God" is an explanation that can't contain itself. The universe looks, works and appears just as it would if there was no god.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

4. Comment #53310 by js5535 on June 30, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Hitchens is doing well, but he needs to brush up a little on astronomy and theoretical cosmology in order to give better answers on the origin of the universe itself. Another good argument would be to talk about how hostile, empty, cold, and obviously purposeless almost all of the universe is.

Other Comments by js5535

5. Comment #53311 by a tree with roots on June 30, 2007 at 6:12 pm

"...a pile of dust named CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS!"
that was funny.

Actually, for how lousy the actual substance and debate was between them, Hitchens and Sharpton make an amusing duo.

Other Comments by a tree with roots

6. Comment #53313 by Lauregon on June 30, 2007 at 6:28 pm

I could be wrong but I think if Hitchens had answered (or, perhaps, been allowed to answer) Sharpton's question about God, Hitchens would've had Sharpton on the defensive, trying to explain how he (Sharpton) can be so certain his "God" is the REAL one in a world of so many unreal ones.

All in all, what the interview proved is that tv is a great medium for creating noise and chaos instead of educated viewers.

Other Comments by Lauregon

7. Comment #53316 by jamesstephenbrown on June 30, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Can someone answer for me why Sharpton keeps accusing Hitchens of criticising Religion instead of God, and why Hitchens doesn't ever catch him out on it? Does Sharpton not realise that Hitchens doesn't believe in God? Hitchen's only line to "God" is through religion, so for Hitchens any criticism of religion IS a criticism of "God". Perhaps Hitchens is letting Sharpton dig his own grave by demonstrating his own ignorance and lack of appreciation for irony, but I'm pretty sure this is lost on anyone from the opposition...

Other Comments by jamesstephenbrown

8. Comment #53318 by Error Gorilla on June 30, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Hitchens' famed propensity for intellectual pugilism misfires during this encounter. Instead of forcing Sharpton against the ropes he misses the opportunity to tackle his opponent's intellectual cowardice. If he had employed Dawkins' observation that religion comprehends Theory A and finds several lacunas which lead by default to the assumption that Theory B is correct, he might have landed a direct hit.

Other Comments by Error Gorilla

9. Comment #53320 by TIKI AL on June 30, 2007 at 7:43 pm

I like Al, but I wish he would stop believing in the theory of D-minus Design.

I like Christopher, but I wish he would stop trying to defend the war in Iraq.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

10. Comment #53321 by alovrin on June 30, 2007 at 7:45 pm

Sharpton keeps accusing Hitchens of criticising Religion instead of God

Yes it happened in their last meeting too. I think it has to do with the whole, we are just sinners and have to find redemption thru god. So this neatly sidesteps the issue, because god is always considered perfect, and humans / the material world is deeply flawed and needs god to attain perfection. So god is beyond criticism(in the mind of believers) and always will be so, however this god is understood, and any failings on the part of followers of god is their human sinner failing.
Anyway it hard to criticise something you doubt the existence of, or you consider manmade.
I just think the incredibly cunning Rev sharpton has picked up on this and will use it as a tactic whenever he can, until some one calls him on it. So just got to wait, it will happen eventually.

Other Comments by alovrin

11. Comment #53325 by windfall on June 30, 2007 at 8:11 pm

I'm so tired of interviewers and moderators who ask questions and then shout over their interviewees.

Sharpton in both debates consistently paints himself out to be a deist - he seems to only believe in god in a very abstract sense and doesn't seem to identify with any conception of a personal god. If this was exposed to listeners, many believers in the audience might stop identifying with him.

Hitchens should ask him about specific tenets of various religions and ask if he accepts them. For example, ask him if he thinks god answers prayers to cure disease and then talk about the Harvard study on intercessory prayer -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16569567&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum

The whole Iraq war thing, and the Scooter Libby thing do not help him, but he should say these things if he feels strongly about them.

Other Comments by windfall

12. Comment #53329 by oxytocin on June 30, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Not only does the moderator bulldoze the interviewees, but he gave evidence of partisan views...shouldn't this be concealed for the sake of journalism? Do we really care what this chump thinks? Isn't his job simply to oil the main event machine?

Hitchens does indeed need to answer questions more directly without all the preamble. Context is important, but I think his answers are highly abstract and somewhat evasive...one needs to adapt to the audience. He let Sharpton get away with intellectual murder. Hitchens needs to step up to the plate with questions like "where does gravity come from"!! Am I the only one who was jumping out of his skin? Even if he has no idea what the answer might be, perhaps it would be better to refer Sharpton to the people who do know, rather than acting as if the question was never posed in the first place. I think that the strong and positive assertions of science are the most powerful arguments we have against irrational belief systems. The facts are our best tools.

Other Comments by oxytocin

13. Comment #53336 by Spinoza on June 30, 2007 at 9:22 pm

It's very simple, and very subtle, and it boils down to this:

Sharpton equivocates the word "God" in the title of Hitchens' book (which by the way, I just finished and I think is absolutely brilliant, indeed, better than The God Delusion for several reasons), with the word "God" as he wants to use it.

Hitchens did not mean "God" independently of "his" followers... he meant it with CLEAR intellectual prowess, irony, and de rigeur fashion, that the God people PROFESS to believe in isn't great. Not in the slightest.

He could have quickly dispatched with the first part of Sharpton's attack by saying this:

"Sir, you have equivocated the meaning of the term as I used it with the way you wish to use it, and that is devious and fallacious. As I intended the title, it was to be a clear statement about the god people profess to believe in (hence the uncapitalization). So if you think the book was about disproving the existence of "God" independently of its believers, you're wrong... it is simply about showing that the so-called "God" of believers is not great at all."

And it's that simple.

Other Comments by Spinoza

14. Comment #53337 by burn0gas on June 30, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Gravity is caused by mass in space/time. What is Sharpton talking about God makes gravity?

Hitchens needs to pick up the quick returns on the science questions and then fire back with the question on what the proof for God is and point out that scientists don't need "God" in their equations!

Other Comments by burn0gas

15. Comment #53339 by Kat on June 30, 2007 at 9:28 pm

What is truly amazing is that we all tend to say that those who are making extraordinary claims need to have extraordinary evidence, but then we expect the people who are not making the claims have thorough knowledge of biology, philosophy, biblical scholarship, and understanding of numerous religions while the religious get to just hide behind 'faith'. It's as if we say those who are making extraordinary claims need to have extraordinary evidence, but since we know you can't provide that we're somehow obligated to be more knowledeable of your very own subject and belief than you are.

Other Comments by Kat

16. Comment #53341 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Spinoza:

...showing that the so-called "God" of believers is not great at all."

Exactly. Until God visits us in person and speaks for Himself, what we've got are a lot of people presuming to speak for God.

Not so great.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

17. Comment #53344 by Cyboman on June 30, 2007 at 9:54 pm

I don't think it is that important for Hitchens to directly answer the questions he's asked in a "debate" against religion. This may sound nutty but let me explain. It's not really a debate when Sharpton argues positions he can't possible provide evidence for. It's just a charade. It's more important for Hitchens to highlight and emphasize key arguments, answer questions he would like to be asked and be entertaining. Either people get his arguments and are motivated by them or they can't be reached. Hitchens seems more interested in galvanizing the zeitgeist toward enlightenment ideals than responding directly to the silly arguments people continually make. Not that he is always evasive by any means it's just sometimes he would rather answer (and I would rather hear) a more interesting question than the one that was asked of him. If someone can be argued out of religion it will take more that 20 minutes.

Other Comments by Cyboman

18. Comment #53348 by oxytocin on June 30, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Cyboman, that's a most curious argument. Sadly, he may be perceived by others as not being able to rebut the ridiculous. And I think we might agree that challenging the very existence of the sky daddy might just be an important topic, no? Hitchens may not like to address the "silly" arguments that people make, but people make them, and make them often. They need to be seriously challenged in direct fashion and without evasion.

Other Comments by oxytocin

19. Comment #53350 by The_Stone on June 30, 2007 at 11:08 pm

in our wide, vast universe. Why is it so less than absolutely clear to every living thing that the exact same god is in way connected to any creation to even the smallest crystallization of matter. Why is this such a hidden matter in the face of supposed human free will.?

Other Comments by The_Stone

20. Comment #53351 by Lauregon on June 30, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Hmmm. I didn't think Hitchens was evading. I thought he was responding by initially laying groundwork for concluding declarations but wasn't allowed to get to them. His response style, however much I may appreciate it, isn't suited to tv.

Other Comments by Lauregon

21. Comment #53356 by z8000783 on July 1, 2007 at 1:36 am

Oh dear... where are Sam and Richard when you need them.

They would have made mincemeat of the Rev.

John

Other Comments by z8000783

22. Comment #53357 by Cyboman on July 1, 2007 at 2:01 am

oxytocin
You may be right and I may be nuts. But Hitchens claims not to be interested in ending religion the way Harris and Dawkins are. He's very interested in "taming" it. I think the people he is trying to persuade aren't religionists but rather secularists and fence-sitters that are unsure how seriously patent irrationality ought to be taken. He knows his arguments are well received by secularists so there's no need to win a debate which in reality was won centuries ago. No matter how air tight your case for atheism is the religionists will always make up the most elaborate and fanciful excuses for believing what they believe. Don't get me wrong though, I think the debate is one of the greatest things going on right now.

Other Comments by Cyboman

23. Comment #53358 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 2:48 am

Does Sharpton not know that the s comes before the k in asked.

Other Comments by the great teapot

24. Comment #53375 by chbg21808 on July 1, 2007 at 5:25 am

Moral Relativism begins with the proposition that there are no objectively definable absolutes and no absolute truths, within any moral premise. Thus, the assumption is that everything is potentially relative and can be regarded has having potential actuality, as an aspect of mankind's 'moral' character.

Moral Relativism assumes that any moral question can be judged based on socially excepted premises and even the whim of the moment, simply because it is impossible to define a universal moral framework that relates to mankind as a whole and the individual as a unit.

The main claim for Moral Relativism then, is that 'anything goes' because there is nothing to 'go at'. In other words, if Moral Relativism is a true proposition, then any action is potentially moral, because nothing is immoral relative to mankind. Indeed, if everything is considered as relative and there are no universals with regard to morality, then by definition everything becomes relative and nothing can be seen as immoral within that framework.

If it were really true that Moral Relativism was the common standard and one could not identify objective moral universals... then to stab a man with a knife or not stab a man with a knife are both relative positions, because there are no absolutes in the context of Moral Relativism.

For Moral Relativism to have even a grain of truth, one would have to start from the premise that mankind had no capable way of identifying its own individual nature - its physical, psychological and philosophical nature...

But the fact is that mankind can understand the 'atomic' nature of the individual. The individuals physical, psychological and philosophical nature can be understood and indeed is being understood as mankind's knowledge progresses. It is because we can understand our nature more and more and are able to frame that nature within a universal context of morality, that allows us to conclude the Moral Relativism is a false proposition.

If it were genuinely true that we could not identify moral universals, then it would also be true that we could not create moral standards that protect individuals from the initiation of force. It is only because individuals are beings of a certain kind and behave in a certain way; that allows us to define a moral framework based around that behavior.

Coming back to the point of 'whether to stab a man with a knife or not stab a man with a knife' - and why we can identify the moral action as apposed to the immoral one. The reason mankind as a whole can agree on such a moral standard as "the initiation of force against a fellow man is morally wrong" is exactly because of mans nature (of course there are exceptions that would not be seen as initiating force, one may stab another in self-defense for example... maybe in a war situation).

An example of just one aspect of an individuals nature, is the emotion called empathy. We know that serial killers and tyrants are able to kill and even torture because they lack empathy. Empathy is basically the internal feeling or emotion that "I would not like to do to others, that which I would not like done to myself". Thus, if we see a stabbed man or woman in the street we empathize with their predicament... We essentially vicariously put ourselves 'in their shoes' and we have a deep welling up of empathy. The very fact that we are able to identify universal moral standards is because those standards have real concrete definable attributes such as empathy (we would most likely feel sympathy in the 'stab victim' situation too).

The fact is that, the more civilized a society becomes... The closer that society is to understanding it's own nature and how to incorporate that nature within a moral framework. Indeed, some societies are more civilized than others. Thus, we know that genital mutilation and honor killings are not good strategies for human beings, but in many Muslim countries such actions are being carried out. The moral standard in such countries has not shifted to the same degree that it has in more civilized western societies.

Another real concrete definable attribute is happiness. We recognize happiness as a universally good character trait... A happy individual is a rounded individual. Indeed, above all else... The degree by which an individual is happy is the degree by which one can measure the universal standard of moral stability. The happiest societies are known to be the healthiest societies. Actions such a genital mutilation and honor killings do not lead to happiness and stability. Indeed, ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali a Somali women who escaped from her Muslim past, in which she suffered terrible beatings and genital mutilation. She escaped Somalia and a forced arranged marriage, to live in the West and has become a successful author and public speaker... Ask her if she is happier now, I have little doubt of her reply.

Once you realise that Moral Relativism is a non-concept and that morals can be universally defined, based around mankind's innate nature, then the need for a a first mover or God to fill the 'moral relativistic' void; shrinks to zero.

Other Comments by chbg21808

25. Comment #53377 by LB on July 1, 2007 at 5:38 am

Spinoza,

Why do you think 'God is not Great' is better than 'The God Delusion'?

Other Comments by LB

26. Comment #53386 by Insightful Ape on July 1, 2007 at 7:05 am

If I ever had access to Mr. Sharpton, there is a book that I would recommend he should read. It is "The Comprehensible Cosmos" by Victor Stenger, in which he explains that the laws of physics comes from...nowhere. They are all the mathematical consequences of a few basic assumptions, like symmetry in space and conservation of matter.

Other Comments by Insightful Ape

27. Comment #53388 by blaine on July 1, 2007 at 7:17 am

Hitchens is an excellent debater and is extremely quick on his feet. I think he'd be the first to admit that he just isn't a subject matter on the technical subjects. I have seen him (in videos) handle hostile audiences and hosts far better than any participant on this thread could. He is far better than Dawkins is "under pressure".

Keep in mind that Hitchens is a very successful writer and speaker-- I could be wrong, but I expect he has much more experience and skill as a speaker and debater than every reader of this post. With that in mind, consider the possibility that when you think, "I am so clever that I would have answered 'X'," it is very likely that Hitchens has rejected that alternative through his excellent ability to anticipate the effect on the audience. Do you have such a superior intellect that, sitting at your PC, you know the more effective debating tactic in every situation better than the proven, expert debater who you disparage?

Instead of comparing the debate at hand to a utopian debate where the theist cowers under each blow of mighty logic from the Atheist, rate it in perspective to other professional debates. Watch theism debates on Youtube, etc., and you'll see that Hitchens is as good a debater as the best of them. Technically, his vast literary knowledge and insight makes amends for his scientific limitations. (Since they didn't get into discussion of religious texts and such, his literary knowledge couldn't be used in this debate). Give Hitchens his due-- he presents an intelligent yet moral, no-BS facade to Atheism. Compare this to semi-expert debaters like Ron Barrier or Ellen Johnson, who screw up points like morality to the point where a neutral audience could conclude that Atheists are relativists.

Other Comments by blaine

28. Comment #53391 by keith on July 1, 2007 at 8:08 am

I think the reason Sharpton keeps accusing Hitchens of attacking religion rather than god is that Hitchens' book is Called God is not Great so he should give reasons for saying so. Yet since Hitchens doesn't believe in god, it is clear to anyone with a little wit that he is really criticising religion, not god. However, either because Sharpton is none too bright or because he really is quite shrewd, he insists that Hitchens does nothing to show that 'god is not great'. What is Hitchens supposed to say. That he doesn't believe in god and he's really attacking the belief in god? "Then your book is badly titled because how can god be either great or not great if you don't believe He exists in the first place" the reverend will ask. It's a pathetic form of argument and highlights the fact that all the religious side really ever do is duck and weave so as not to lose the argument in public.

Other Comments by keith

29. Comment #53409 by FoundLink on July 1, 2007 at 10:16 am

Once again Hitchens misstates that all evil things done in the name of god are done so exclusively because of god. This is simply not the case. There are many reasons horrible, reprehensible acts are committed by the religious and often god is merely a justification. The war in Iraq for example was motivated by greed and endorsed (according to the idiot in the Whitehouse) by god. Anyone who is able to follow the money being changed hands in this conflict can see this. Even the crusades were about power, land, and riches for the church, which Dawkins has pointed out on many occasions.

I think Mr. Hitchens best serves himself and those of like minds by sticking to what he does best; writing. Even on the softest pitches given him, he is unable to fully connect with the ball. Asked about innate morality, he can/does not speak to how advantageous an evolutionary trait like that could be to our species.

I realize he is not Richard Dawkins or in the matter of the cosmos, say Stephen Hawking, but he could be a lot more polished on imparting scientific knowledge in his arguments. Knowledge I have no doubt he is abreast of. Perhaps too many scotches (or what ever he drinks)the night before handicapped his performance. I certainly hope he has some good excuse for not giving Al Sharpton a one-sided intellectual smack down.

Other Comments by FoundLink

30. Comment #53411 by Lauregon on July 1, 2007 at 10:45 am

Oh dear... where are Sam and Richard when you need them. They would have made mincemeat of the Rev. - z8000783

Not to detract from Sam and Richard who are unquestionably rock-solid debaters, but maybe they wouldn't have fared much better under the idiotic circumstances present at "Hardball Plaza." The venue and format almost certainly was calculated to trivialize and derail any real discussion. Matthews' own theist-shackled perspective on the topic was made clear enough.

Other Comments by Lauregon

31. Comment #53412 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 10:48 am

chbg21808

That's your opinion.

I hope you don't mind, I have posted your comment on the inferior design thread. There is a god botherer on there who finds the idea of absolute morality very important. (for some reason I can't understand)

Other Comments by the great teapot

32. Comment #53413 by NormanDoering on July 1, 2007 at 10:52 am

keith wrote:

... reason Sharpton keeps accusing Hitchens of attacking religion rather than god is that Hitchens' book is Called God is not Great so he should give reasons for saying so. Yet since Hitchens doesn't believe in god, it is clear to anyone with a little wit that he is really criticising religion, not god.

Yes, Hitchens was really criticising religion, not god. He was anti-Bible (recall his take on the ten commandments) and Sharpton backed off into a deist position and did not defend the Bible. I wonder why Hitch didn't point that out and ask Sharpton, "are you a deist or a Christian?" If Sharpton isn't going to defend the Bible, then where does he get his vision of what God is?

I'm somewhat agnostic about some kind of "intelligence" underlying creation. But any assertion beyond "maybe there was an intelligence that designed the universe" requires evidence, and that's where all religions goes awry.

I would reject the "God is the force that created the universe," as a proper definition of God. It doesn't define God. It could be Einstein's God. That definition is too minimal to mean anything religious and can't be argued with, we can only argue against the mentally anthropic projections people put on the cause of the universe, those assumptions that some entity "desired," "planned," "wanted," "willed," and "designed" this universe.

Hitch should just say "yes, I'm arguing against religion not God. Are you or are you not religious? What is religion to you any way?"

Other Comments by NormanDoering

33. Comment #53414 by maton100 on July 1, 2007 at 10:57 am

Click here: http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com
to see what happened after the debate...

Other Comments by maton100

34. Comment #53422 by VJocys on July 1, 2007 at 11:53 am

Again... believers talk about Stalin as an Atheist... (Sorry for bad English and not very good translations from Russian for that reason).

Stalin WAS NOT an atheist but communist! He has RELIGIOUS education in Gori CHURCH School and Tbilisi Priest Seminary.

One of Stalin's early poems said:
(...) Like beam of the Sun,
lived great truth –
Divine dream. (...)

But people who forgot God,
with darkness in their hearts,
instead of wine served poison
to him in the cup (...).

Stalin's daughter Svetlana said (documentary "Kremlin kids") how Stalin told her that Christ existed and history of Christ, after she showed interest in one book from series "Christ" in Stalin's private library (it was right before 1932 – when Stalin's wife Nadezda shoot herself – it seams, that she was an atheist, because banned for nannies to talk about God with kids. And maybe it is symbolic, that her name means "Hope").

In 1933 at meeting of the Political Bureau Stalin give speech where he told to prevent churches: "Central Committee considers that it is impossible to designing buildings with destruction of temples and churches".

In 1939 Stalin removed Lenin's instruction from May, 1st, 1919 for N 13666-2 "About struggle against priests and religion" and he gave orders to NKVD (PCIA) to release from custody already arrested priests (Lenin banned religion because she supported monarchy).

Stalin started organizing meetings (1942-1943) with priests and reopened Churches and seminaries in 1943. In one such meeting: Stalin told: "Well, as you want, this your business and if you want theological class, begin with them, but the Government will not have objections and against opening seminaries and academies".

His personal guard (10 years) J.Solowjew (documentary "Inside The Kremlin") claimed that Stalin went to CHURCH. Stalin liked to quote Bible. He even left mark in book of Anatole France about God: "Don't know traces, don't see. There is no Him for them"... as Stalin knew traces and saw God himself.

One more fact how Stalin "hated" religion: English clergyman Hewlett Johnson received the Stalin Prize on 1951-06-27.

In Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia(Theravada Buddhist 95%, other 5%) statistically almost all (~100%) people at that time were BELIEVERS! For example in Lithuania in "1923 population census" 100% of population were believers. It is wrong to say, that these countries (like Russia in 1917) were destroyed by atheists. They were destroyed by communists (it is not about believing in GOD (atheism/theism), but about COLLECTIVE PROPERTY (commun = collective/shared).

Other Comments by VJocys

35. Comment #53428 by ImagineAZ on July 1, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Well, you all have valid points. On the one hand, we should trust Hitchens and his methods, but on the other hand, this was his least impressive performance in my eyes.

I think that a straight answer to a straight question asked out of ignorance is a very powerful tool, and I wish Hitchens had used that tool more often in this conversation. A question like "Where does gravy come from?" is something a 4-year-old child might ask, so I can understand that Hitchens felt no need to address it, but a simple answer like "I believe that Einstein has given us an adequate answer to that question" would have gone a long way.

But I agree with Lauregon that if he had been given a chance to finish his answers, they would have buried many of the questions.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

36. Comment #53431 by ImagineAZ on July 1, 2007 at 12:29 pm

VJocys,

Thank you for those posts. I may quote you if you don't mind.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

37. Comment #53436 by troyboy on July 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm

chbg21808, i like your comment on empathy. I never hear anything about compasion and empathy molding our morals. We are able to put ourselves in other peoples positions and feel for them. Another thing that never seems to come up is children. When we have children we tend to be very protective of them. We choose to live in areas that are safe and they grow up to want the same things generally. Its just really easy for me to see why we have morals without having to have a god.

Other Comments by troyboy

38. Comment #53443 by cmacblue42 on July 1, 2007 at 1:39 pm

i just watched the 1st one, and Hitchens does need some refining. Just answer the goddam question and lay sharpton to rest!!! Most people watching Tv do not have the capacity to understand what you are talking about.

I feel that every time we (atheists) get a chance on TV to show the facts and show the many points to which the theists have no rebuttal to, we always blow it (Nightline with the Rational response squad, Dawkins on the BBC pannel with like 20 other people, even though it was not his fault, and most recently Hitchens on hardball). The only times we do get it right are on channels like C-SPAN, which the majority of people dont even watch

Other Comments by cmacblue42

39. Comment #53457 by VJocys on July 1, 2007 at 2:07 pm

ImagineAZ, I don't mind :).

Keith, of course God is not great, because He killed millions, including children and woman, and did "this" with one family:



:). There is amazing book about Bible (and God's actions) written by Antuan Gabriel Pages - Leo Taxil "La Bible Amusante" ("The Amusing Bible") in 1897. I hope, it is not impossible to get it's English version in US.

Other Comments by VJocys

40. Comment #53471 by LeeLeeOne on July 1, 2007 at 3:18 pm

VJocys:

Thank you!

Any more insight, any more info, any more links would be greatly appreciated!

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

41. Comment #53474 by LeeLeeOne on July 1, 2007 at 3:29 pm

So back to this "debate".... yuck. As an anti-theist, can we please have someone actually debate on an intellectual level rather than throwing random barbs? Information AND education, (and NOT linguistically enhanced but still "school yard BS") is what is needed. Pointing fingers, interruptions, name-calling on ALL sides defeats the purpose of any truly educated and enlightening discussion. There was no moderator. This entire sequence of alleged debate was not a debate at all. It was nothing more than "world wrestling federation" (blech, puke, phooey) style of "hype." Where's the nitty gritty? Where's the information from BOTH sides any one could actually gain? This "great debate" is turning into a cheap, grandstanding hype, to do what?, excite the masses?

blech blech blech blah blah blurg blah blah blurb kick, pinch, spit, blah, blurb

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

42. Comment #53476 by chbg21808 on July 1, 2007 at 3:33 pm

" 39. Comment #53436 by troyboy on July 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm
chbg21808, i like your comment on empathy. I never hear anything about compasion and empathy molding our morals."

Thanks troyboy ...I think Richard Dawkins deserves the credit for this. I think I got this idea from his comment on "welling up of sympathy" from the 'Beyond Belief' lecture. If you haven't watched his discussion on the "shifting moral zeitgeist" ...Then I recommend you do.

Other Comments by chbg21808

43. Comment #53490 by mmurray on July 1, 2007 at 5:21 pm

"Where does gravy come from?"

Usually I put a tablespoon of gravy powder in a saucepan and heat with a cup of water. You have to stir a lot to avoid lumps.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

44. Comment #53504 by blaine on July 1, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Comment #53436 by troyboy on July 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm

The natural causes of the evolution of morals has been pretty well understood in general for the past 30 years (really difficult to not connect the dots after one reads Selfish Gene). The neurlogical and comparative (human vs. non-human animals) aspects have been studied rigorously in the past 10 years, including fascinating studies at Harvard and elsewhere. Here's a fairly recent audio article: http://secularcongregation.org/wvsc/resources/wvsc/radiolab042806_morality.mp3

Other Comments by blaine

45. Comment #53507 by LeeLeeOne on July 1, 2007 at 7:20 pm

To see yet another secular humanist, what happened to this woman demonstrated in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0

why is this no where else to be found?

This woman has sanity in an insane world.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

46. Comment #53515 by rabidchihauhau on July 1, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Sorry, but in my opinion, Hitchens lost this 'debate'.

American "news" programs are about entertainment. The entertainer (host) makes points by pandering to whatever he/she believes is their core audience. Matthews' core are "right thinking americans who believe in god".

Hitchens is erudite, forceful, comprehensive and witty - all of which came across as idiotic babbling. Sharpton skewered him with the 'how come you never answer my question directly' ploy and from that moment on, the vast majority of uneducated, unthinking, steeped in superstition audience saw a villinous atheist avoiding the question.

If this were a true debate, I have no doubt that Hitchens would have been the intellectual winner - and 90% of the audience would have turned it off five minutes in.

American TV viewers today do not watch to gain information or insite, they watch for the sole purpose of having their already closely held views confirmed by 'authorities'.

Other Comments by rabidchihauhau

47. Comment #53553 by Shuggy on July 2, 2007 at 3:19 am

the great teapot asked

Does Sharpton not know that the s comes before the k in asked.

Where he comes from, it doesn't. This is only a problem if it leads to misunderstanding, as in "What's the time, Lizzie Borden?" "I don't know, I'll just aks Poppa."

Other Comments by Shuggy

48. Comment #53556 by Tyler Durden on July 2, 2007 at 3:26 am

Not one of Hitch's best but then, the forum was quite unprofessional, and Sharpton and Matthews were not worthy of debating.

Having said that, Hitch's put down of the guy from the audience was hilarious.

On a side note: Hitchens is now a fully-fledged American citizen. One wonders what he did as a British citizen whenever his national anthem played...

What do British atheists do while "God save the Queen" plays at sporting events, civic gatherings etc.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

49. Comment #53579 by KRKBAB on July 2, 2007 at 5:25 am

Hitchens missed a great opportunity! He often does, but I still like him a lot . A question was, do you believe in absolute morality. No!- of course not. The ever changing moral zeitgeist! Religious people ACTUALLY think they're tripping up we atheists when they ask this question. Just slam the stupid issue back at them! Why were woman and minorities treated differently in the past? Because of the ever changing moral zeitgeist! Why didn't Hitchens present this to them? I really LOVE Hitchens' style, but often in his razor sharp concentration AND stubborness, he misses golden opportunies.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

50. Comment #53585 by Ian on July 2, 2007 at 6:03 am

Tyler Durden:

What do British atheists do while "God save the Queen" plays at sporting events, civic gatherings etc

Generally, we Brits treat the national anthem with proper disdain. It is rarely played at sporting events and never in theatres; not since my youth, when I remained properly seated.

Muslim extremists are welcome to burn the Union Jack, because it keeps people who make red and blue crayons in employment. It doesn't however, outrage us.

Finally, if I might, I'd like to introduce Braidwood's 1st law: Other people's patriotism is boring.

Other Comments by Ian