1. Comment #54772 by Rick777 on July 8, 2007 at 11:59 pm

What is the point of conducting an interview, where the interviewer is doing all the talking? If this was indeed the entire interview as seen on TV ,then it is clear that it has been edited to excise the stronger points that Hitchens usually makes when dealing with boneheads like Hannity.

Other Comments by Rick777

2. Comment #54773 by AmericanHumanist on July 9, 2007 at 12:06 am

If I was a believer in fairy tales/gods/santa/your-supernatural-drivel-here, as Hannity clearly is, I would be disappointed in his performance as the host of this particular interview. Hannity is no match for Hitchens.

If Hitchens is "intellectually snobby", then Hannity is ignorantly and unjustifiably snobby.

Other Comments by AmericanHumanist

3. Comment #54777 by ricey on July 9, 2007 at 12:35 am

If Hannity were British he would be a Sun columnist - too dum to know how dum he sounds.

Other Comments by ricey

4. Comment #54778 by Jyazz21 on July 9, 2007 at 12:36 am

This type of tv editing gives me the shits. There are so many camera cuts and parts where they've edited out a heap of material that it's not funny.

It's a bad idea to go onto a biased tv show, because they'll just edit out all the really good arguments and will try to make you look like an idiot. Luckily they weren't able to make hitchens look like an idiot but that may be my own bias speaking for me

Other Comments by Jyazz21

5. Comment #54780 by wkburnette on July 9, 2007 at 12:40 am

No, they didn't make Hitchens look like an idiot...even with their editing. This stuff goes on and on and on but is simply a lot of noise. That's how Fox operates and that's what their demographic craves.

Other Comments by wkburnette

6. Comment #54782 by Enlightenme.. on July 9, 2007 at 1:04 am

^ I love it, Hitch doesn't appear as if he's gonna convince fencesitters with his aggressive, 'snobby' bearing, and that's why I think he appeals to people who wish to 'interview' a 'nasty anti-theist'.
However, I think he's great at soundbytes, like 'celestial North Korea', and 'people dictating to you that they know his mind' and these will sink in especially well with a nation of people who purport to value freedom.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

7. Comment #54785 by Nicholas Kalar on July 9, 2007 at 1:11 am

I can't understand how American Media (this goes beyond Fox News) can be so biased when they pride themselves on being the non-biased media. I'm a literally sickened every time I come across something like this.

Other Comments by Nicholas Kalar

8. Comment #54786 by Feuerbach on July 9, 2007 at 1:11 am

Hannity is a fake of the highest order. A college dropout who is awarded an honorary degree from a fake university, now working for a fake news network, with what looks like fake hair colouring.

Faux news indeed.

Other Comments by Feuerbach

9. Comment #54790 by Moridin on July 9, 2007 at 1:28 am

Too bad he did not attempt to destroy the first-cause argument. Well, Fox is that way it is.

Other Comments by Moridin

10. Comment #54791 by Andrew Brown on July 9, 2007 at 1:31 am

I banged my head on the keyboard when Hannity started wittering on about the need for a first cause and energy in the universe. Where's Neil deGrasse Tyson when you need him? This argument has been dealt with so many times. It's like saying there must be something north of the North Pole. Why is it that when semi educated simians such as Hannity start trying to sound intelligent they end up sounding even more stupid?

Other Comments by Andrew Brown

11. Comment #54792 by Darwin's badger on July 9, 2007 at 1:32 am

Fox News is slightly less credible than the National Enquirer or (for those of us in the UK) the Sunday Sport. Fair play to Hitch for giving it a shot on there, but the phrase "pissing in the wind" does spring to mind.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

12. Comment #54796 by Graeme on July 9, 2007 at 1:52 am

I've just watched that twice and think Chris did OK.
I love the way he responds to Hannitys waffling with such dismissive contempt...
"You seem to be angry with religion, angry with god?...am I wrong in my perception?"
"Of course I'm not angry with god, obviously that would be absurd."
and later..
"thats a little intellectual snobbiness on your part"
"Well, that could well be right"
Despite Hannity having his finger on the edit button Hitchens still outclasses him.

Other Comments by Graeme

13. Comment #54797 by ImagineAZ on July 9, 2007 at 1:52 am

I thought Hitchens did quite well. There was an obvious EDIT when Hannity asked a question and instead of an answer, there was another question, but other than that, I think Hannity got properly butchered.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

14. Comment #54809 by ajpb on July 9, 2007 at 3:07 am

Speaking of the National Enquirer...

When on earth is RD's "The Rational Enquirer" series coming to TV. This is getting ridiculous now! I assume someone somewhere has authorised/paid for the production of this series, so where is it? Why is it not being broadcast?

ajpb

Other Comments by ajpb

15. Comment #54823 by blueollie on July 9, 2007 at 3:40 am

Interestingly enough, Hitchens does quite well (in the eyes of people like us), but the average Fox viewer will have seen Hannity "putting that arrogant egg-head in his place with his "common sense" positions".

Other Comments by blueollie

16. Comment #54835 by nothing on July 9, 2007 at 4:34 am

I'm afraid I have to agree with blueollie. The believer-viewer will be all too happy to see Hitchens as an "arrogant egg-head" being defeated by Hannity's "common sense". Although, maybe, just maybe, a seed of doubt will be planted?

Other Comments by nothing

17. Comment #54843 by savroD on July 9, 2007 at 5:33 am

Well.... you can certainly tell this Hannity dude is illiterate when it comes to science. He's a flunkie...like Bush!

Other Comments by savroD

18. Comment #54844 by _J_ on July 9, 2007 at 5:56 am

That wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be! I reckon Hitchens came over rather well, there.

It's a lovely moment when Hannity loses the ability to string coherent sentences together and instead falls back on replacing every second word with 'energy'. I don't think this is actually deliberate use of the Chewbacca defence - the magic of 'energy' seems to be one of the most popular universal (non)explanations among people addicted to everything from homeopathy to Hindu.

As an entertaining diversion, play Energy Bingo: see if you can predict when someone is going to take a nosedive out of meaningful discourse and start making sweeping appeals to Energy. Fun for all the family!

Other Comments by _J_

19. Comment #54845 by Alex Malecki on July 9, 2007 at 6:00 am

Hannity is a demagogue, who quite clearly, as Hitchens pointed out, hasn't read any of the argument against his position.

Other Comments by Alex Malecki

20. Comment #54848 by Crazymalc on July 9, 2007 at 6:00 am

I too think Christopher Hitchens did quite well.

The "First Cause" argument seems to get more airtime than it deserves.

Thesit: Ha ha! But what came before energy? You can't answer. I say God came before.

Atheist: But, what came before God?

Theist: Ummm...

Both sides are asking: What came before X?

And the answer to both questions is that we just don't know. Theists can't answer what came before X (X being god) and Atheist can't answer what came before X (X being energy/matter).

It is what Richard Dawkins calles PAP (Permamnent Agnosticm in Principle) in TGD. We can't know. We'l never know. In TGD, Richard Dawkins uses the example of whether I see Red that the same way you see Red. We'll just never know.

Other Comments by Crazymalc

21. Comment #54849 by windweaver on July 9, 2007 at 6:18 am

I note that Hannity raises the old chestnut beloved of theists "Why is there something rather than nothing? Science actually has a good answer to this question. Check it out at:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

Other Comments by windweaver

22. Comment #54850 by PrimeNumbers on July 9, 2007 at 6:26 am

The science answer would baffle a Fox viewer though..... That's half the battle that the "you can't get something from nothing" makes sense to a lot of people. Then you throw in the "godidit" and they nod their heads approvingly......

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

23. Comment #54852 by konquererz on July 9, 2007 at 6:27 am

This interview will come off as another victory for the Christian right to fox viewers. My parents definitely view this as another shut down of an arrogant ignorant atheist by a fox news retard.

And the problem with the "infinite regression" of evolution and the creation of the universe is this. When you argue with true believing fundamentalists you get an argument you simply cannot win. And that argument goes something like this:

Fundy: If the big bang started it, what made the big bang?
Atheist: Obviously we don't know for sure, we have theories, but we weren't there.
Fundy: AH HA! See, it had to be god since you don't know the answer!
Atheist: But then what came before god, what created god?
Fundy: Nothing, in the beginning was just god. God always was, always has been, and always will be. He was never created, or he wouldn't be god!
Atheist: Well that makes zero sense. How can someone have no beginning when everything we know about life says it had a beginning somewhere?
Fundy: No one knows the mysteries of god. You just have to have faith. When we get to heaven, we will know all the answers!
Atheist: Your as loony as they come you know!
Fundy: Thats why I'm going to heaven and your going to burn in torment for an eternity that I can't comprehend while I laugh at you. Your an arrogant wicked man for thinking you know the answer to the god question when its obvious that someone as humble as myself has all the answers.

You can't win this argument when people are willing to simply stop the regress and accept what ever the hell they want to believe on faith and zero evidence. Thats like trying to win an argument with a retarded person. You get no where and in the end, you look like the bully.

Other Comments by konquererz

24. Comment #54856 by Kimpatsu on July 9, 2007 at 6:35 am

Hannitty makes the age-old mistake of assuming that the universe was created ex nihilo. As any modern physicist can tell you, the universe has ALWAYS existed, just not in its current form (which is no greater than assuming it was was created by some external entity). Hitchens should have nailed Hannity on this fundamental ad hoc misconception.

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

25. Comment #54857 by Alkal on July 9, 2007 at 6:36 am

One thing I can never understand how the theist position of the "starting point" makes for more "majesty".

They refuse to even acknowledge the wonder of "Creation" by saying , "God did it, can we eat now..." ( or some such thing)

Also the whole insistence on "God, god, god" after a while becomes idiotic,

Other Comments by Alkal

26. Comment #54858 by Alkal on July 9, 2007 at 6:38 am

I think I posted it before completing my argument.

Plus he quickly changes the topic. And is no match for the logic...

Other Comments by Alkal

27. Comment #54859 by didhereallysay on July 9, 2007 at 6:43 am

Hitch was right from the getgo. Hannity lied, there's no possible way he could have heard "all the arguments" against faith already if he thought the complexity argument had any type of strength at all.

I have no problem with interviewers being dumb (a lot of them are) and their guests showing them up, but I have a burning anger towards interviewers who will not innovate or change up the line of questioning any. Nearly every interview with Dawkins and Hitchens has been about, "you're an atheist. What's your problem with god? Can't you see a lot of people think there is one? Doesn't religion help instead of hurt? Why are you angry?"

COME ON... Talk within the 40 yard lines gets nobody anywhere and cuts off all intellectual discussion.

Other Comments by didhereallysay

28. Comment #54862 by Dr Benway on July 9, 2007 at 7:05 am

Andrew Brown:

It's like saying there must be something north of the North Pole.

Oh that's very good. It illustrates an abstract concept with a concrete visual. Excellent meme replication potential. Yours, or has it been around? Mind if I steal it?

My updated response to the ol' "Why is there something rather than nothing?":

Physicists have a lot to say about the first few moments of our universe. I'm not a physicist so I'll leave the details to others more qualified. But in brief: it appears that the notion of "before" loses meaning at the moment of the Big Bang, just as the notion of "further north" loses meaning once you reach the North Pole.

Hitch, If Andrew doesn't mind, I certainly don't mind your stealing this wee retort.

I must agree with the several voices at this web site wishing to hear a tighter, TV friendlier reply to the first cause challenge.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

29. Comment #54865 by _J_ on July 9, 2007 at 7:19 am

Crazymalc,

It is what Richard Dawkins calles PAP (Permamnent Agnosticm in Principle) in TGD. We can't know. We'll never know. In TGD, Richard Dawkins uses the example of whether I see Red that the same way you see Red. We'll just never know.

Ooh, I'd forgotten that part of TGD. For a bit of fun, would you mind going over to the Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath thread and saying that to Dianelos? Especially the 'We'll just never know' part...

Andrew Brown,

Dr Benway's right - that's a very concise and expressive visualisation. Well done, sir.

Other Comments by _J_

30. Comment #54867 by robert s on July 9, 2007 at 7:31 am

I first came across the 'north of the North Pole' concept in A Brief History of Time.

Other Comments by robert s

31. Comment #54868 by Lutrasimilis on July 9, 2007 at 7:37 am

I do believe there must be a memo passing around the conservative news circuits and it goes something like this:

"Will someone please, please defeat Christopher Hitchens in a debate so we can sleep at night."

They're going to need more Soma.

Other Comments by Lutrasimilis

32. Comment #54870 by PeterK on July 9, 2007 at 7:37 am

I can sympathize with the frustration many experience when debating the first cause, when the theist insists there can be no other explanation of the origins of the universe, or turtles into his cozy 'faith' corner. Yes, perhaps we will never know what occured before the Big Bang-but what could NOT have occured was a conscious entity existing BEFORE anything else existed. And I will ask the theist "So if god created everything, then there was a point in time when He existed before anything else did?" If he says "yes" Then I know I've got him nailed. ( getting him to admit it this is so may be is another thing--but sometimes you can ) The problem here is that consciousness means to be conscious of SOMETHING, and if there is nothing to be conscious OF, there can be no consciousness. At that point the theist will say something like "God is conscious of himself"
But God could not exist in the first place if his entire being is dependent on being conscious--which again means he must be conscious of something. The key here is to have the theist agree with you point by point, and I have yet to hear anything that comes close to an adequate rebuttal. The theist will usually act like he doesn't understand what I'm saying, again attempts to hide in his faith corner, says "well we don't know the ways of God" ( even though up till now he acted like he did )or changes the subject to another facet of his God being necessary being for explanation of "how we see beauty all around us" etc.. but it all goes back to the original point. He simply can't be there first.

At which point I start talking about something like how tasty the taco dip is.

Other Comments by PeterK

33. Comment #54872 by Murray Keedis on July 9, 2007 at 7:52 am

As I've said before, I think Hitch is an excellent spokesman for atheism. Articulate, gets to the point and refuses to be shouted down by pious nutcases and blustering, red-faced theo-cons.

It's not about appealing to the religious folk. And perhaps his polemical style will turn away a few fence-sitters, but I think it's important that we have a voice. Hitch, by being his impish self, and Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, have helped to give the rest of us courage to speak our minds in the face of respect for religion and loathing for atheism.

Other Comments by Murray Keedis

34. Comment #54874 by _J_ on July 9, 2007 at 7:56 am

PeterK

I know I must sound like a recruitment agent, but please go and talk about consciousness with Dianelos on the RD and Alister McGrath thread. The Problem of Consciousness seems to be the lynchpin of his faith. If you find that consciousness is usually the undoing of theism, it could be an interesting discussion.

Other Comments by _J_

35. Comment #54876 by PeterK on July 9, 2007 at 8:07 am

Yes, the very skilled editors attempt to hide the mop from its faithful viewers that Hitchens is cleaning Haggity's floor with. The trouble is they will from most theists who possess not the tools to identify all the smoke and mirrors. And this is why MOST of them remain theists. However, I can't see how a few fence-sitters could not clearly see Hitchens mop here.

Other Comments by PeterK

36. Comment #54883 by Yankee on July 9, 2007 at 8:23 am

I'm a fan of Hitchens, but I'm also a fan of Fox News (just not the religious points of view).

Rather than saying something negative about liberals, since the Richard Dawkins branch of atheism here seems to be extremely leftist, let me just ask a simple question.

Do you think that Fox news makes as stupid arguments/editings of interviews when it comes to political issues? What about CNN and the leftist media? Don't you agree that this kind of things happens all the time on leftist news channels, too?

For example, here in Finland the media is so left wing, they refused to broadcast the fall of Saddam's statue during the Iraq war. I'm not defending Hannity, I just object to statements like "memo passing around the conservative news circuits" when such a memo could easily be passing around leftist circles... didn't you see Hitchen's trouncing of Al Sharpton the other day?

Other Comments by Yankee

37. Comment #54886 by dawson on July 9, 2007 at 8:32 am

I've come to realize that this kind of argument inevitably degrades. My solution has been to stop using the word "god" with christians and instead use "Jesus." In fact, I think it is utterly ridiculous for them to go back and forth between the two as it suits their argument, and silly of us to let them. "God" is too general a term. Using the name "Jesus" exclusively in place of "god" makes each person see the same color of red. Who knows if it can actually reduce the chances of seeing red, though.

Other Comments by dawson

38. Comment #54898 by ksskidude on July 9, 2007 at 9:12 am

I don't even know where to start when talking about dipshit hannity. I usually never watch anything on fox news. Its awful and usually always wrong.

Hitchens as usual owned the interviewer and made hannity look ignorant and silly. The only problem is, that most Americans are ignorant and silly, and have never read an atheistic book in their miserable life.

Other Comments by ksskidude

39. Comment #54901 by Yankee on July 9, 2007 at 9:22 am

I can't speak for most Americans, but I have read books about atheism. Yet, I happen to be very positive about America and Americans. I am dismayed by the unquestioning leftism in Europe and the rest of the world. I'd like to see Hitchens talk one day purely about political issues because I deem him to be a reasonable person who will admit it when he is wrong or if his position is weak. I tend to think that leftist atheists are generally very good at doing the same when talking about religion, but when it comes to politics, leftists don't know how to be objective.

Regarding Fox News. It's been many years since I've lived in the US. Here in Finland, there are only 4 tv channels available (I huge upgrade from Soviet times, i.e. the 80s), so tough luck watching anything other than CNN, if you're lucky enough to get cable. So, imagine the balanced reporting you see here in Finland. The good stuff which I've seen on Fox News and am willing to praise is when they take on leftist Hollywood actors who seem to think that they have a monopoly on righteous political viewpoints, as though the rest of America is too stupid to come up with anything on their own. I am sick of this kind of snobbish leftist arrogance. I, being an American, can kick the ass of any leftist European in a math contest, a foreign language contest, a physics contest. Probably in an IQ contest. So, does that prove that I am right? No. But it means you can stop criticizing American for their stupidity. You're just as likely to have met a stupid European in your life as a stupid American, so stop making these kinds of Ad Hominem arguments.

Other Comments by Yankee

40. Comment #54921 by cssimeur on July 9, 2007 at 10:26 am

Yankee,
I have to disagree with you on at least two issues. I think you're wrong to compare political issues with that of 'faith' and 'religion'. There is no evidence of a supernatural entity aware of our every thought and action. Politically, it isn't always a question of absolutely correct vs absolutely wrong. There are matters that it is simply statistically factual that leftist governments have gotten better results: life expectancy, infant mortality, save vs spend society (by that I mean that Americans on a whole tend to spend more than they earn, ie credit card debt). There are matters in which a rightist (?) government have statistically done better in areas than the leftists: American products have spread to every corner of the globe (watch a Middle East protest-as they burn the American flag it is more than a little ironic they often do it in Nike shoes, with a Zippo lighter, wearing an A&C shirt), despite the cultural war going on here with a vast, scientifically ignorant and hostile public, we still have great scientific achievements. You speak as though it's just a matter of 'all those stupid leftists' just taking off the blinders and admitting you're right. You may be in some instances, but as you admit that you haven't been here in some time, the left and the right as far as American politics are concerned, have both completely screwed the pooch and seem to have no intention of stopping in the near future. In case you were wondering, I consider myself more of a Hamiltonian. Small, but energetic government.
As for the "I can kick the ass of ANY" comment. Once again, I think you are vastly overestimating your own talents when you speak in such absolute terms. I'm reasonably convinced there are at least a few leftist Europeans who could kick your ass in those various subjects.
Anyway, also for the record I hate Faux news AND CNN. I think to pretend either one is actually a news channel is a sad statement on what consists of news these days.

Other Comments by cssimeur

41. Comment #54931 by Yankee on July 9, 2007 at 11:02 am

Please point out where I was doing it if I was, but I don't feel that I was comparing political issues with religion issues. These are 2 independent fields of debate that are generally best left separated. Unfortunately, in Richard Dawkins' book TGD (also in Sam Harris' book)... I still haven't gotten to Hitchen's book yet... the debate has a dismaying tendency to intermix the two subjects. I happen to agree quite strongly with Dawkins on Darwinism, science, and philosophy. But when it comes to the leftist politics, it makes me want to stay away from the whole atheist movement.

By the way, how could you even know if I am overestimating my talents? You know nothing about me. I would be willing of course to take up any challenge if you feel you are up to it. This, of course, was not the point of my statement, I was intentionally being an arrogant snob, to give you a taste of how it must feel to hear such annoying words. I think this must be a great source of annoyance for people in America who are the "butt" of these kinds of put downs. Anyway, arguments should not stand on the intelligence of the arguer nor on the stupidity of the other arguer. They should stand on their own.

Other Comments by Yankee

42. Comment #54946 by darwin2 on July 9, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I can't stand Sean Hannity. He is one of the most bigoted commentators on TV. However I think he did an outstanding job interviewing Hitchens. Hannity brilliantly defended the good points of religion and accurately criticized some of the evils of organized religion. Hannity did an excellent job demonstrating that the energy behind the creation of our universe had to come from Intelligent Design. One up for Sean Hannity.

Hitchens shows a prejudiced brain washed view of what heaven is by comparing heaven to living in North Korea. This is a horrible distortion of what heaven is like. God created our eternal souls to participate in the creation process with Him. Our destiny for our existence and being is to become gods ourselves, imitate God, and use our God given powers to create our own universes and beyond. This is what heaven and paradise is all about. To accomplish this we need to learn, obey, and master God's laws of physics and how to use energy correctly.

Other Comments by darwin2

43. Comment #54953 by Johnny O on July 9, 2007 at 12:33 pm

You should check out the related links after the video is done. There's one with Hannity, Hitchens Colmes and discussing that repulsive fat bastard Gerry Fallwell. Right at the end of it, after causing a near riot Hitchens comes out with a classic line...

"If Fallwell had an enoma he'd have been buried in a matchbox"... LMAO

Other Comments by Johnny O

44. Comment #54956 by Johnny O on July 9, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Hitchens shows a prejudiced brain washed view of what heaven is

Ok, we have one group of people that looks at evidence and make reasoned decisions based on what they find. (Or more importantly DON'T find).

Or another group of people that meet up every Sunday to discuss their 3,000 year old ideas. Make their children go with them, telling them that if they don't do what the pointing man in the dress tells them, then they will burn in Hell for eternity...

Pffftt, who's brainwashed?

Other Comments by Johnny O

45. Comment #54965 by Broshiesq on July 9, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Yankee, don't sweat, you were not comparing religion with politics, as "cssimeur" alleged, you were merely, imo, opining that liberal atheists tend to demonstrate less objectivity when it comes to debating politics v. religion, an accusation slightly less objectionable than say, "ksskidude"'s conclusion that "most Americans are ignorant and silly."

Other Comments by Broshiesq

46. Comment #54991 by Frostbit on July 9, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Sean- "Why are you so angry with religion and god"

Chris- "I'm not angry with god, that would be absurd"

LMAO

Other Comments by Frostbit

47. Comment #54998 by cssimeur on July 9, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Yankee,
if I misread you're statements regarding politics and religious issues, then I apologize.
I don't understand why you would expect me to know you were merely trying to be a snob to give me (or whoever) a taste of what it feels like to hear those annoying words. I think it's fair enough and safe enough to say that both sides hear plenty of annoying bulls***. You probably could "beat" me in the contests you mentioned. I didn't say you could or couldn't. What I said was that I'm "reasonably convinced there are at least a few leftist Europeans who could kick your ass in those various subjects". This does not imply you are an idiot or below average just not the greatest there is in all of them compared to every single available leftist challenger. Myself, not being European or a pure leftist, have no need to fret your challenge since I wouldn't fall into either category.
And maybe you didn't realize, but generally Hamiltonian's are placed in a more conservative camp. Rather than go into a huge lecture on that though, I trust we may see eye to eye on more things than you may think, though I wouldn't doubt there are a few deep and problematic differences.
Anyway, I hope I addressed all of your points, if not, I'll be following this thread for a few more hours.

Other Comments by cssimeur

48. Comment #54999 by Broshiesq on July 9, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Not that there's anything "wrong" with not being quite as smart as someone else, but how come everytime I hear someone's being accused of intellectually snobbiness, instead of the insult succeeding, it seems like lights start flashing and the accuser is blindingly revealed to be an idiot? It's so obvious that the person has nothing of value to contribute so resorts to basically "accusing" the other person of being more intelligent. Oh, wait, I just answered my own question.

Other Comments by Broshiesq

49. Comment #55002 by A on July 9, 2007 at 4:27 pm

darwin2 Hannity did an excellent job demonstrating that the energy behind the creation of our universe had to come from Intelligent Design. One up for Sean Hannity.

No, this is incorrect. Let us have a look at that 'excellent' hannity argument shall we ?

Hannity: (Verbatim.) From your position, when you really think about it, you are believing that there is a possibility - without a creator - that somehow energy has created itself or that energy pre-dates or any concept of time and energy that, that for example something that can come out of nothing because fundamentally there has to be that starting point, or you're saying or confirming that . . . . [interruption] . . . or you're confirming your belief system"

Hannity's argument from incredulity/ignorance does little more that show that Hannity lacks the nerve to say 'I don't know'.

It certainly does not do "an excellent job demonstrating that the energy behind the creation of our universe had to come from Intelligent Design."

His inclusion of the words ". . . there has to be . . ." tell me the man will never be capable when it comes to questions that do not adhere to our somewhat parochial view of the universe.

This does not make Hannity a village idiot by any stretch of that term, he is simply like so many inerrant supernatural wish thinkers - fixed.

Other Comments by A

50. Comment #55005 by USA_Limey on July 9, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Comment #54946 by darwin2 wrote:

"God created our eternal souls to participate in the creation process with Him. Our destiny for our existence and being is to become gods ourselves, imitate God, and use our God given powers to create our own universes and beyond. This is what heaven and paradise is all about. To accomplish this we need to learn, obey, and master God's laws of physics and how to use energy correctly"


... Sir. You are, are you not, rrremoving, (roll your tounge), our piss from us?

Other Comments by USA_Limey