1. Comment #136802 by firehot on March 1, 2008 at 6:05 pm

hahahaha loved the very last comment hitchens made.

Other Comments by firehot

2. Comment #136803 by wundergeist on March 1, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Hitchens in great shape!

The best part:

[People say that a candidate for president has to be religious or won't be elected]

Hitchens - Go ask a 1975 republican if they'll vote for a divorced second-rate actor; they'll say no, because they don't know Ronald Reagan yet. Same with religion.

There's an old problem in market research: how to test a completely new proposition. It is known that simply asking is not the solution; however, simply asking whether people would vote for an atheist is exactly like asking whether they'd like a product they never heard about. Imagine asking people in 1900 about the internet...

W

Other Comments by wundergeist

3. Comment #136805 by info_dump on March 1, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Nice to see some of my favourite media personalities all in one place. I thought Dan Savage was pretty well-spoken.

Other Comments by info_dump

4. Comment #136806 by firehot on March 1, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Surely the fact that no congressman in the US has managed to be voted in if he is openly atheist strongly suggests it wouldn't currently be possible for a president to be openly atheist.

Other Comments by firehot

5. Comment #136807 by Steve Zara on March 1, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Hitchens is wrong about the birth of Buddha. There is no consistent dogma about how the Buddha was born. There are some Buddhist schools which include supernatural nonsense, but there are others than accept that he was born the normal way.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #136810 by Lenny on March 1, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Some awkward moments there for Chris (what was that bit about the Rodham brothers about?), but still entertaining for the most part.

Other Comments by Lenny

7. Comment #136817 by Pentecost on March 1, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Since this is the clear-thinking oasis, I should point out that Maher has some crackpot theories about medicine. Plus, he is a raging misogynist and a poor comedian. He is the type of arrogant persona that turns people off to atheists.

Other Comments by Pentecost

8. Comment #136819 by robotaholic on March 1, 2008 at 7:16 pm

i think Maher is funny and don't care what you think about him Pentecost- Hitchens was great too

Steve Buddha is grown and smoked... lol

Other Comments by robotaholic

9. Comment #136826 by 4horsefins on March 1, 2008 at 7:28 pm

"Romney, and the magical Mormon underpants."

This should be the punch line for an american express commercial...someone help me...

...magical Mormon underpants...priceless.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

10. Comment #136827 by robotaholic on March 1, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Steve I don't think Hitch is wrong about Buddha...I mean mabye there are different versions of the Buddha's birth, but even the 2nd-3rd century relief shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SiddhartaBirth.JPG shows him coming out of his mother's side...

Other Comments by robotaholic

11. Comment #136829 by Radesq on March 1, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Actually robotaholic, after looking at the link you provided it appears to me more likely that Buddha is coming from the same place all religions come from.

Other Comments by Radesq

12. Comment #136831 by 4horsefins on March 1, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Steve, I agree with you completely, but you would have to agree that it just wouldn't be Hitchens style to make an exception here.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

13. Comment #136838 by Mitchell Gilks on March 1, 2008 at 8:08 pm

There isn't complete agreement in any religion Steve. By that logic, I couldn't say that Christians believe in heave and hell, because some don't. Surely he didn't mean to imply that every single Buddhists does. Not every single christian believes that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I also don't like Maher, he isn't funny, and is a tool, (those are of course my opinion) but I was surpized to see Hitchens back on there after what happened last time.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

14. Comment #136842 by Thanny on March 1, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Pentecost:

Oh no! Bill Maher isn't right about everything! Let's hurry up and accuse him of being a completely worthless human!

If you think Maher is a poor comedian, you're merely demonstrating a crippled sense of humor. The notion that he's a misogynist is rather ludicrous, but you'd have to actually pay attention to what he says to know that.

Yes, he's got some wacky ideas about food and medicine. Hitchens has some wacky ideas about Iraq. That doesn't mean I need to assassinate their characters, and dismiss everything they say as tainted.

That's because I'm a grown-up. Look into it.

Other Comments by Thanny

15. Comment #136845 by Saerain on March 1, 2008 at 9:04 pm

I quite like Maher when he is not wasting time on celebrity antics, although that seems to usually be filler material.

As far as the American media goes, he is one of the few closest to being on 'our side'. I think we can debate amongst ourselves on the other issues later. Right now we have religious tension across the globe like we have not seen in some time, and I'm content to find allies there first.

Besides, his views on medicine are not superstitious, they're just ill-founded. I get the distinct impression that he has never been formidably challenged on it. He doesn't strike me as the type who would remain unswayed by a good debate.

Then again, I am sometimes told that I have too much confidence in the human brain.

Other Comments by Saerain

16. Comment #136849 by HitbLade on March 1, 2008 at 9:18 pm

I enjoyed that. I loled some.

Other Comments by HitbLade

17. Comment #136852 by Saerain on March 1, 2008 at 9:27 pm

By the way, Hitchens is going on about Obama's church, yes? Has he talked about this at more length anywhere else? I'm not sure I understand what better alternative he sees in this particular election.

He has expressed his support of Giuliani in the past, and I can't say that I understand where they would see eye-to-eye except on their similarly belligerent stance the war. Very strange.

Other Comments by Saerain

18. Comment #136853 by Pentecost on March 1, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Wow! Didn't realize this was the Bill Maher love-fest page. No need for people to get their shorts in a bunch. Maher is scientifically illiterate while arrogantly attacking people's characters for being "religulous."
@ Thanny. I would also add that Hitchens is an equally arrogant (though infinitely more entertaining) war-monger. I'm free to have these opinions and you are free to disagree, but try using an argument rather than taunting my lack of humour (or at least lack of interest in the sex and pot jokes that Maher beats to death. He'd probably get a kick out of robotaholic's Buddha ref.) And I'll look into that grown-up thing you mentioned.

Other Comments by Pentecost

19. Comment #136855 by Rob3fm on March 1, 2008 at 9:39 pm

I listen to Maher's show every week as a podcast (it's free on iTunes--and probably elsewhere--in case any of you don't get HBO and want Bill for free), so I miss whatever pleasures the video may have to offer.

But anyway, I enjoy his show a lot. I laugh and enjoy the conversations, but it still can be infuriating to listen to. His monologues are sometimes embarrassingly bad, and he can be REALLY hypocritical and inconsistent with his logic. And I can see the misogyny charge that Pentecost is making. There have been several just plain mean jokes that were clearly not tongue-in-cheek. One thing that sticks out in my mind right now is a rant he did about mothers breastfeeding in public. He boiled the issue down to mothers being self-righteous about how their status as divine mothers or something can't be criticized, and he said something like "wow, you made a baby--something a monkey could do." I'm totally paraphrasing off the top of my head. Anyway, it really pissed me off, as he totally missed the point of what it can be like to have babies and really want to occasionally go out and feel like a normal human participant in society while caring for a newborn--which can be really stressful, Bill! You ass. (Love your show!)

Other Comments by Rob3fm

20. Comment #136857 by Pentecost on March 1, 2008 at 9:49 pm

@Saerain
Hitch has written about Romney vis-a-vis religion.
http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/
http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/
And briefly about Obama's church:
http://www.slate.com/id/2181460/

The criticisms about Obama's church seem to have more to do with the pastor and that single church, rather than the denomination. The United Church of Christ is actually one of the most progressive protestant denominations in the US - the only one I know of that will ordain gay ministers - and seems to be the lesser of all evils.

Other Comments by Pentecost

21. Comment #136861 by info_dump on March 1, 2008 at 10:08 pm

There is no consistent dogma about how the Buddha was born.

I'd like to add that "The Buddha" doesn't strictly refer to a single person. Besides Gautama Buddha, there are several people in history referred to as "buddhas", and all people are supposed to be capable of becoming buddhas. As I understand it, Buddhists don't really worship Gautama Buddha or any of the others, and I don't think they're considered "deities". Hitchens' point about gods bypassing the birth canal is interesting, but I don't think it applies to Buddha.

Other Comments by info_dump

22. Comment #136864 by JanChan on March 1, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Talking about Buddhism, believing that some kind of invisible force that causes bad things to happen to you when you do bad things, karma, isn't any different than an invisible sky god meeting out punishments. Both of them are blind ridiculous faith. And it's not moral in any sense to not do bad things just because you're afraid of getting punished.

Other Comments by JanChan

23. Comment #136869 by V1ktor on March 1, 2008 at 10:39 pm

I did see those stats. It is funny how atheists have lowest rate of divorce, for theists divorce more often against their beliefs.

Good video, entertaining.

Viva la Atheism!

Other Comments by V1ktor

24. Comment #136870 by Roland_F on March 1, 2008 at 10:51 pm

22. Comment #136864 by JanChan Talking about Buddhism, believing that some kind of invisible force that causes bad things to happen

There seems to be a misunderstanding about Buddhism : there is no invisible bad force (Evil, Devil, Satan) everything is inside and is coming from the person itself. And this person is only itself responsible for the own Karma. Accumulating good Karma allows a rebirth of the soul into a better future life of another sentient being.
And when the ultimate stage of goodness and enlightenment is reached (= Buddha hood) the cycle of endless rebirth and suffering of physical existence is reached and the soul don't have to suffer longer in physical existence and is reaching Nirvana. The Buddha statues are not for prayer or worship but can be possibly used to concentrate and focus the mind for meditation.

Other Comments by Roland_F

25. Comment #136875 by Mitchell Gilks on March 1, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Buddhism has always made me laugh, it is build on the completely idiotic belief of reincationation, and it's practicianers attempt to reach a state of enlightenment so they don't get reincarnated again, but instead meet oblivion, or non-existence...yeah I am pretty sure I don't have to study to reach nirvana, in fact I am confident that everything that has ever died has reached nirvana.

I'd rather reincarnation, but they reality doesn't opporate based on what I'd rather.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

26. Comment #136876 by info_dump on March 1, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Talking about Buddhism, believing that some kind of invisible force that causes bad things to happen to you when you do bad things, karma, isn't any different than an invisible sky god meeting out punishments.

I think that's a misunderstanding of karma. I won't pretend I'm some expert on Buddhism, but you can look up "karma in buddhism" on wikipedia for a start, if you're actually interested. Suffice it to say karma is way more nuanced, and isn't an invisible force.

Your point is well taken though, that there are many aspects of Buddhism that seem like superfluous mysticism, which is not so appealing to me. Some of the ideas are pretty interesting though. Most of what I know about Buddhism comes from listening to MP3 lectures by Alan Watts, which I would recommend to anyone who wants to learn from someone who understands the rather complicated subject, and knows how to teach it.

Other Comments by info_dump

27. Comment #136878 by info_dump on March 1, 2008 at 11:23 pm

it is build on the completely idiotic belief of reincationation

Again, another common misunderstanding. Buddhism is by no means built on a belief in reincarnation (which is idiotic, I agree). I think some forms of Buddhism do believe in reincarnation, but there are major branches of Buddhism, including Zen, which don't believe any such thing. It's not really a central belief, and is by no means a foundational teaching.

I always like when you post - your avatar is, um, titillating.

Other Comments by info_dump

28. Comment #136879 by irate_atheist on March 1, 2008 at 11:29 pm

5. Comment #136807 by Steve Zara -

Hitchens is wrong about the birth of Buddha. There is no consistent dogma about how the Buddha was born. There are some Buddhist schools which include supernatural nonsense, but there are others than accept that he was born the normal way.

Could not the same be said about Christians and Jesus? An interesting parallel perhaps? One that we can employ the 'No True Scotsman' on, anyway.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

29. Comment #136880 by irate_atheist on March 1, 2008 at 11:33 pm

9. Comment #136826 by 4horsefins -

...magical Mormon underpants...priceless.

Perhaps, more accurately: ...magical Mormon underpants...worthless.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

30. Comment #136883 by dragonfirematrix on March 1, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Christopher Hitchens was terrific!!!

It is great to see a such a dynamite display by Christopher Hitchens at a simple fire cracker party.

Will humanity ever learn the truth?

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

31. Comment #136884 by Roland_F on March 1, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Perhaps, more accurately: ...magical Mormon underpants...worthless.

No they are needed for the almighty all knowing God at the end of days, to separate the good Mormons from the bad (non Mormon) people.
Very logical: an all knowing God needs a special marker of fancy underpants to know, otherwise the all-knowing God would not know ?!?!

Other Comments by Roland_F

32. Comment #136887 by irate_atheist on March 2, 2008 at 12:02 am

31. Comment #136884 by Roland_F -

Ah. Now I see.

Nothing like 'John Major - The Underpants Years'.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

33. Comment #136888 by chefmoz22 on March 2, 2008 at 12:16 am

19. Comment #136855 by Rob3fm

He boiled the issue down to mothers being self-righteous about how their status as divine mothers or something can't be criticized, and he said something like "wow, you made a baby--something a monkey could do." I'm totally paraphrasing off the top of my head. Anyway, it really pissed me off, as he totally missed the point of what it can be like to have babies and really want to occasionally go out and feel like a normal human participant in society while caring for a newborn--which can be really stressful

I have to disagree with you on this Rob3fm. Yes, Bill did say something similar to what you described, except instead of monkeys, he said dog. Bill isn't a misogynist. That's a gross misuse of that word. Just because you disagree with someone of the opposite sex, doesn't mean you hate that gender.

In any case, child-free people like me (and even parents who go out of their way to get babysitters) are sick and tired of dealing with people taking their kids places they shouldn't be, i.e. restaurants, movies, shopping. We go out to relax, not deal with other peoples' personal problems. Why not get a babysitter? The answer often is, "We can't find one," or "we can't afford it." Not our problem! That's just totally inconsiderate to subject others to your children. Bill is right that there is this bogus aura of motherhood as an exalted position in this country, where you cannot even suggest that it isn't, or else you get a lot of flack for it. Unfortunately, it's got this charmed status from criticism, much like religion. I know, it's an emotional subject and using logic doesn't work on these people. It doesn't make it any less frustrating.

Do you recall what happened to the mother of two (Helen Kirwan-Taylor) who wrote the article, "Sorry, but my children bore me to death" for the DailyMail? She got a lot of vicious hate mail for that. She's a woman and mother, so what's up with that? It's apparently not even okay for her to speak out her true feelings without getting hell for it. Man, I'm glad I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid.

Other Comments by chefmoz22

34. Comment #136890 by irate_atheist on March 2, 2008 at 12:28 am

33. Comment #136888 by chefmoz22 -

What you are objecting to is not children in 'places they shouldn't be, but badly behaved and badly parented children in these places.

Or parents who are not considerate enough to ask for a corner table, out of the way of others, when they have their baby with them.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

35. Comment #136892 by mmurray on March 2, 2008 at 12:40 am

Anyway, child-free people like me (and even people who go out of their way to get babysitters) are sick and tired of dealing with people taking their kids places they shouldn't be, i.e. restaurants, movies, shopping. We go out to relax, not deal with other peoples' personal problems.

When did feeding your child become a `personal problem'. Or did you mean seeing a woman breastfeed is a personal problem for you ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

36. Comment #136893 by irate_atheist on March 2, 2008 at 12:45 am

35. Comment #136892 by mmurray -

Or did you mean seeing a woman breastfeed is a personal problem for you ?

Sometimes it's a personal problem for me. But only if she's taken over the whole sofa and there's nowhere for me to sit in front of the telly.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

37. Comment #136896 by Matt7895 on March 2, 2008 at 1:12 am

I totally understand the marriage thing. That's the main reason for switching religion over here, too.

Other Comments by Matt7895

38. Comment #136901 by Steve Zara on March 2, 2008 at 2:13 am

Comment #136879 by irate_atheist

Could not the same be said about Christians and Jesus? An interesting parallel perhaps? One that we can employ the 'No True Scotsman' on, anyway.

Well, it sounds like that, but I don't think it applies. There is no core version of Christianity that believes that Jesus was just this chap who was born as a result of normal sex and just died!

But, the original version of Buddhism says just that about the Buddha. Lots of stuff got added on as different strains of Buddhism evolved to compete with local religions (indeed, Buddhism itself encourages such evolution).

Talk to a Theravaddin Buddhist (a follower of what is closest to the "original common ancestor") and say that the Buddha was born through his mother's side, and they will most likely think you are a bit strange.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #136902 by madame_zora on March 2, 2008 at 2:16 am

Hahaha, those guys were funny. It was odd to see three people from the same side on the show though, not much in the way of controversy. I'm not too eager to call Maher a mysogynist, and even his whacky ideas about meds don't bother me much. Let us not forget Newton was also an alchemist. Hitchens was unusually robust, it's good to see him smirking.

Other Comments by madame_zora

40. Comment #136932 by JanChan on March 2, 2008 at 3:42 am

I don't think I was too wrong in describing karma, this is what wikipedia has to say:

In Buddhism, the term karma is used specifically for those actions which spring from :
* mental intent (Pali: cetana)
* mental obsessions
which bring about a fruit (Pali, phala) or result (vipāka), either within the present life, or in the context of a future rebirth. Karma is the engine which drives the wheel of the cycle of uncontrolled rebirth (saṃsāra) for each being.

As I said, not much different from a sky daddy meeting out punishments in this life or the afterlife.

Other Comments by JanChan

41. Comment #136937 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 3:52 am

Does one really need to understand the theological nuances of Buddhism to know that it's just another one of man's wrong ideas? To me, any idea that is dogmatically telling people what to think about the big questions of life, i.e. the what's, the how's and the why's of the universe, is not appealing, as a source for truth, because it refuses to admit when it is wrong. Any valid philosophy should certainly not be based on dogmatism. That's the essential flaw in Buddhism without even getting to the debate about whether or not Buddha is this or that. Who cares. Why waste time debating such BS?

By the way, another vote for Atheists who hate (well maybe that's too strong), but anyway, dislike Bill Maher very much. I don't want to be part of a leftist Atheist movement. If Atheism cannot live without being tied to leftism, then I don't want any part of it.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

42. Comment #136938 by Steve Zara on March 2, 2008 at 3:54 am

Buddhism has always made me laugh, it is build on the completely idiotic belief of reincationation

No, not really.

All Buddhism is really based on is ways of thinking to live a happy life. These include the opposite of what many consider to be reincarnation; the doctrine of "anatta" (no self) - which implies that you don't even exist as a self in the way you think you do (Dan Dennett would be proud!), so there isn't really a "you" to even come back. Re-incarnation is basically a way of saying "life goes on, even when you stop".

"Karma" is simply a statement of the Golden Rule. Be good to others, and good will come back, be bad and that will come back too.

Like a game of Chinese whispers, these ideas get embelleshed and have a lot of mystical nonsense added, which, admittedly, do form part of the belief systems of many, many Buddhists.

Also Buddhism can often be a condescending form of "belief in belief"... (sure, if you want to believe re-incarnation means you actually come back, why not?)

But if you are talking about what Buddhism seems to have been actually based on, it does not make sense to talk about karma and re-incarnation as we typically think of them in our society.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #136940 by Abdi Sanati on March 2, 2008 at 3:56 am

Derek Smalls from Spinal Tap is there too!

Other Comments by Abdi Sanati

44. Comment #136943 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:01 am

Here's a question to sum up my feelings about Buddhism. Do I need to waste my time thinking about it? If so, why?

Other Comments by AtheistJon

45. Comment #136947 by Diacanu on March 2, 2008 at 4:09 am

AtheistJohn-

If Atheism cannot live without being tied to leftism, then I don't want any part of it.

Enough so, that you'd run into the welcoming embrace of imaginary spooks?

If so, good thing it's not a binary choice like that.

Other Comments by Diacanu

46. Comment #136951 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:14 am

Well, to be fair, I wouldn't want Atheism if it could only be valid if we all were Republicans either. I like an a-political form Atheism.

To set the record, I would never embrace any invisible forces into my life without a fight. But, if Atheism doesn't mean just this, i.e. if you have to carry along all the political baggage that goes with Bill Maher type atheists, then you can count me out. Hopefully that clears the air.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

47. Comment #136952 by Steve Zara on March 2, 2008 at 4:15 am

Here's a question to sum up my feelings about Buddhism. Do I need to waste my time thinking about it? If so, why?

Well, apart from the fun of finding out something new, it seems to be a recipe for living a happy life that can potentially be free of superstition. So it seems at least worth looking at to me.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #136956 by AtheistJon on March 2, 2008 at 4:21 am

Finding out about something new isn't always fun. It can also be a waste of time. There are plenty of Christians telling us the same BS about happy lives, once we would find Jesus.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

49. Comment #136958 by Steve Zara on March 2, 2008 at 4:24 am

Comment #136956 by AtheistJon

There are plenty of Christians telling us the same BS about happy lives, once we would find Jesus.

True, but that is based on supernaturalism.

Providing your "supernatural bullshit" detector is working, and you can see what to avoid, I believe you can find a lot of useful ideas in Buddhism.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #136960 by Roland_F on March 2, 2008 at 4:27 am

40. Comment #136932 by JanChan about Buddihist Karma: As I said, not much different from a sky daddy meeting out punishments in this life or the afterlife.

The difference here is that in Buddhism every person is itself responsible for it's own future, you can't bribe a priest, bishop, cardinal with increasing amounts to shorten your time in purgatory or abolish your sins,
You can't gain your place in eternal heaven despite being a mass murderer just as reward for holding the Catholic faith, so as Buddhist you have to 'sit out' your current accumulated Karma in the next life.
At least Buddhism is the encouragement of living and improving your current live, not the Christian 'opium for the masses' agenda of the kleptocracy-theocracy joint venture doctrine to bear all suffering as slave like peasant for the dim hope of the eternal heaven in afterlife.

Without believing all the rebirth crap, or the glorification of meditation experience of deep autohypnosis as enlightenment , I am still convinced the world would be a safer and much more peaceful place if there would be more Buddhist (Dalai Lama types) than fundamental Muslims or Christina Bible-Belt Taliban's.

Other Comments by Roland_F