Christopher Hitchens’ epic final word/conclusion @ Intelligence²
Posted by admin in Finance Thursday, 1 September 2011 17:12 25 Comments
Yet another master at work. The statement or motion under discussion was “we’d be better off without religion” Hitchens quite obviously is a defender of the motion and what we see here is his final argumentation in favor of the motion. Taken from the full length video available for free on www.intelligencesquared.com
@surangasa C’mon now, we’re better than that. No need to take up the same tools of destruction they so commonly have used throughout our existence, we have intellect, humor and the ability to reach millions now. Let’s use the tools of which we are much better suited and simply help nudge them along into obscurity.
@surangasa
i think you are deluded as well
it is in our responsibility to prevent hatred and violence from spreading, and “sequest pacem parabellum” should only be applied when you are defending yourself, which a “reverse crusade” doesn’t represent, it would be a violation of human rights and against all reason.. that we are trying to promote.
Not only deluded, but too big for your boot’s as well, atheists are not organized and we are a minority, how fast we would vanish from this world?
@agriakorn Mind forged manacle
@Kruezoraxe “mind forg’d manacle”
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see…
@xomiakas I know for a fact that a reverse-crusade is the way to go because it work just as they did before.
@xomiakas I know for a fact that reverse-crusades are the way to go because they work just as they did before.
@surangasa It’s time for a reverse-crusade.
@Kruezoraxe I didn’t suggest that we burn books, but what I did suggest is that we burn the theists.
@66fredo99
Perhaps “as good as it gets” is right. It’s too bad that the inconsistencies are so blatantly obvious — not just inconsistencies with physical evidence, but SELF-inconsistencies.
And of course you won’t see my at those conferences: YOU won’t be there, by your own admission; I won’t be there, because I find history and evidence interesting, not the meandering ramblings of a document which ladles patent faith on top of what meagre facts it might hide.
@surangasa And did you really just suggest that we burn books?
@surangasa Richard Dawkins has an entire section of his website of people’s letters to him who read The God Delusion and saw the light. As Hitchens said, it is a mind formed manacle. It is difficult to remove, but logic can do it.
Why are we debating? since I don’t get this. Debating won’t solve anything. Religion is something that you believe regardless of how much evidence that stands against its necessity. I know that god is unnecessary, but the faithful will never learn that because they are faithful and that alone. I think we should adapt militant atheism to finish this forever. Unless, Richard Dawkins will keep getting richer from his books but nothing will change in the world with or without it. Burn them all.
@writersblock26 If only i would receive the chance to see him debate live!!
@jjoneil73 Agreed.
@66fredo99 My heart is in my chest, pumping blood. I don’t delegate my thinking to organs which are fully occupied on other tasks.
Nobody gets hurt by religion? Are you fucking insane? People are spending money they can’t afford to keep charlatans rich. People are killing other people over religion every day. Enmities are being prolonged by religious differences. People are praying for help from an empty sky rather than getting up on their feet and finding a real solution.
@66fredo99 A Christian wouldn’t have that problem, he’d open a hospital to glorify God, that being far more important than helping children. People get the impression that Christians are more charitable simply because Christians always do their charity in the name of Christianity, a particular saint or denomination. Atheists just do charity because it’s a good thing to do, which is why Warren Buffett gave $33 billion to the Gates Foundation, not in the name of their unbelief, but to do good.
@MartinJWillett – Here’s what I take away from this conversation, Martin: you are bright, but not as open as you perhaps you think yourself to be. But the “your faith is a sick joke”, “unable to grasp this basic point”, “piss-poor argument for god”, etc., remarks are the stuff of seething anger. Your mind is sharp but where oh where is your heart? Even if I am wrong, in your worldview nobody – in the end of it all – gets hurt.
@MartinJWillett – b/c ppl always do things for themselves or others. A philanthropist might ask “Should I build a Children’s Burn Ward at a hospital b/c it makes me feel good or should I do it for the health and wellness of children?” If he does it b/c it makes him “feel” good, well…I know how it is w/ you atheists and feelings. But is it worthwhile to one who doesn’t care about how it ends up? The concept of “worth” to me has enduring value. I submit an eternal God is as worthy as it gets.
@66fredo99 You are so used to defending the indefensible (why?) that you haven’t even noticed that I wasn’t making any points about the church, just about the total disconnect between knowing you are right and being prepared to suffer or be killed. I assumed that we could agree that Galileo was right and knew it. But no, you just retreated to your usual position of trying to imply that Galileo brought trouble upon himself by incautiously stating the truth! Your faith is a sick joke.
@66fredo99 Why don’t you just try looking it up? It’s not exactly secret information. Just Google world’s biggest philanthropists.
People like doing good because it makes them feel good and they can see it achieves something worthwhile. Why would anybody need a supernatural element or a reward beyond death to make that equation add up?
Why do you assume only hope of pie in the sky counts as something to live for? Is your life really THAT empty and shallow? How pathetic.
@MartinJWillett – Granted. I never once stated Galileo was wrong. He was right all along (at least Copernicus was) and the whole affair might have gone in a different direction had he been more collegial with the astronomers of his day. I think that’s what I was trying to say. It needn’t have been a “religion vs. science” debate. Indded it wasn’t viewed that way until centuries later. No need to insult me, I agree with you on this point.
@66fredo99 The point about Galileo is that he was right and DIDN’T die for his beliefs. Being prepared to die and being wrong are two totally separate concepts, you appear to be unable to grasp this basic point.
@MartinJWillett – So two atheists are behind the biggest “case” of charitable giving. Pardon me if I cough as I drink my water. Sounds like a “dog walks into a bar” preamble to a joke. And what might that singular case be? And for what reason might it give them any satisfaction to be so altruistic? Educate me. I’m open. And please, I’m not arguing for God, I’m arguing against “no-God”. An enormous difference. A “no-God” = no hope, as you admit. I want to keep hope alive and my mind open.
@66fredo99 Two atheists are behind the biggest case of individual charitable giving in all human history. Go and educate yourself.
Yes, death is death. I can handle that. The afterlife is a human invention, the Jews show no sign of any belief in it for more than half the Bible, if you read it with eyes to see. The afterlife was invented in order to make life seem fair and gods seem like they actually cared. “Is this all there is?” is a piss-poor argument for the existence of gods.