the world lost a great debater, and too early
hitch, r.i.p

there's a couple of these online- and perhaps d'souza was more up to a debate against hitchens,
in particular in defending the religion using science, than this frank turek guy

but i also agree with hitch, that its a bit disingenious to (attempt to) use scientific theory
to try and explain religion, when religion exists only through faith
i mean, the question who made all this; a being must have should then end there.
it doesnt then mean that this being exists in a religion
and i also liked that this addresses the hijacking of religion as morality
and hence without religion there can be no morality. its a bit ridiculous

Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens (II): What Best Explains Reality - Theism or Atheism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDCDTaKfzXU

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

I'd trade him for Dawkins any day of the week.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

>I'd trade him for Dawkins any day of the week.
>
>
>"All the world's a stage,
>And all the men and women merely players:
>They have their exits and their entrances;
>And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

lining up to offer him salvation when he was quite clear he didnt want it

his memoir on this was pretty intense

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

i think the god delusion was a pretty seminal piece
without that book, i dont see the success of god is not great (which is a great read)

i definitely appreciate dawkins, dont necessarily rank them

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

I just don't care for his public persona. I don't find him to be as effective a public speaker as Hitchens. What's more Hitchens was also an amazing political commentator.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

i concede that
he was also a great journalist (he was wrong in his defense of bush, though)
but dawkins is a great biologist,
so they both succeed in their chosen professions.

this is why i cant rank them

i've been watching these youtube videos
and i gotta say, there is a succint difference in the british vs american mode of debate
and perhaps maybe what i am seeing is merely that good cambridge education

i need to listen to some great american debaters

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

I could watch Hitchens debate all day...Dawkins...I just find him to be kind of grating.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

there's no need to say stuff like that, both have their places.

dawkins is a brilliant scientist and writer - nobody has elucidated
the theory of evolution better than him, and i've read a lot of
books on it.

he's also a great speaker who has no problems calling out bullshit
as soon as he sees it oozing out of people's mouths. he's a much
needed bastion of knowledge and wisdom and it's guys like him who
help light up our dark world.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

I said I didn't like his style. I didn't say anything about his content or thesis, go pick a fight with Case one. I don't like Bill Maher's style either. Should I say that I do just because he bashes religion?


I knew you were going to try to find a way to talk shit for no reason whatsoever.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

way possible.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

this is a thread about the late great christopher hitchens.
there's no need to be all "WHY COULDN'T DAWKINS HAVE DIED INSTEAD?! "

let's just be thankful for both of these brilliant minds.

i understand that as a religious man richard dawkins makes you
feel uncomfortable, but it is what it is. he's only telling the
truth, regardless of how harsh it comes across. not everybody shares
your ned flanders-esque world view.

okely dokely, neighborino?

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

Flanders? Really? Go pull some of my quotes that actually line me up with Flanders. Oh right, you can't because you're a disingenuous piece of shit.

I mean the fact that you think I dislike Dawkins because of what he says kind of proves that you're a jackass since Hitchens is just as likely to call bullshit on religion, but you just wanted to pick a fight with me because I had the audacity to say that the Sistine Chapel has some nice art. Go play in traffic you troglodyte.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

well maybe libertarian

>the world lost a great debater, and too early
>hitch, r.i.p
>

The village idiot will come forth
To be acclaimed the leader

I can take him or leave him

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

watching this guy's 'arguments' be completely obliterated,
does make me feel pity for him
but the arrogance in which he thinks he's right is so much of what you experience whenever talking religion with religious
that i find listening to hitch's arguments to me, provides a way to address some of the stupidity
(e.g the issue of without religion there will be no morality... that gets thrown at you every time you say you are non-believer).

i concede that the debate with d'souza was on slightly more even keel

but the average religious fundamentalist is not d'souza

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>watching this guy's 'arguments' be completely obliterated,
>does make me feel pity for him
>but the arrogance in which he thinks he's right is so much of
>what you experience whenever talking religion with religious
>that i find listening to hitch's arguments to me, provides a
>way to address some of the stupidity

It's not hard to find atheists who are just as arrogant and condescending, and I've seen Dawkins act in such a way. You can have the most perfect wisdom at your disposal, but if you deliver it like an ass you're an ineffective teacher and should be just as ashamed as anyone who is loud and wrong. Perhaps moreso actually because you ought to know better.

It's a lesson that a lot of Christians need to learn, especially some of the more vocal ones, but there are atheists who would do well to remember it too.

>(e.g the issue of without religion there will be no
>morality... that gets thrown at you every time you say you are
>non-believer).

Hey, we don't all tow that line.

At the same time, I think it stems from Christians who do need that sense of Godly fear to keep them in line, because they otherwise lack the empathy to consider others' feelings.

Just IMO though.

no one's saying atheists cant be assholes when it comes to discussing religion
many are

its one reason i appreciate hitchens approach when discussing religion

one nuanced difference i find though, is that a religious argument typically ends with a...
well we are right because god, and no you cant prove his existence but he exists and so there. religion is right
usually there is very little space for doubt (which is why i say religion requires faith- thats what it takes to get to belief)
and atheists agree with the religious on this pov: you cant prove the existence of god.
the difference then becomes that atheists stop here...
religion does not.

>It's a lesson that a lot of Christians need to learn,
>especially some of the more vocal ones, but there are atheists
>who would do well to remember it too.

no one disagrees with this. at the end of the day human beings behavve like human beings
usually has little to do with religious belief or lack of

>>(e.g the issue of without religion there will be no
>>morality... that gets thrown at you every time you say you
>are
>>non-believer).
>
>Hey, we don't all tow that line.

i know. its why i appreciate dialogue with you.

>At the same time, I think it stems from Christians who do need
>that sense of Godly fear to keep them in line, because they
>otherwise lack the empathy to consider others' feelings.

this is a bit.... i dont know.
i mean its saying these christians are basically horribly terrible people
and christianity is the retainer without which they would go on plunderous evil
i prefer not to believe this
because we also know that even xtians fail in their mission to do good
i would be fearful if i felt that they were on some lease without which they would then be a threat
(this is the same argument we give for prison/ punishment/canings etc)

i think religious people deserve/need to come up with a better argument than this

teh majority of humans (even though who have no concept of religion/ but are spiritual) are inately good
at this point, its a result of evolution. lets not discredit it by saying its because of ...

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>no one's saying atheists cant be assholes when it comes to
>discussing religion
>many are
>
>its one reason i appreciate hitchens approach when discussing
>religion
>
>one nuanced difference i find though, is that a religious
>argument typically ends with a...
>well we are right because god, and no you cant prove his
>existence but he exists and so there. religion is right
>usually there is very little space for doubt (which is why i
>say religion requires faith- thats what it takes to get to
>belief)
>and atheists agree with the religious on this pov: you cant
>prove the existence of god.
>the difference then becomes that atheists stop here...
>religion does not.

Which is crazy, to think that faith is the overcoming of doubt, then to lose respect for the reason why the doubt is there. With all the cautions in the Bible about false prophets, so many people tow a line that allows them to flourish. Even Gideon needed a couple of confirmations to ease his doubts.

>
>>It's a lesson that a lot of Christians need to learn,
>>especially some of the more vocal ones, but there are
>atheists
>>who would do well to remember it too.
>
>no one disagrees with this. at the end of the day human beings
>behavve like human beings
>usually has little to do with religious belief or lack of

I don't know. Sometimes I come across the argument that the world would be so much better without religion.


>>At the same time, I think it stems from Christians who do
>need
>>that sense of Godly fear to keep them in line, because they
>>otherwise lack the empathy to consider others' feelings.
>
>this is a bit.... i dont know.
>i mean its saying these christians are basically horribly
>terrible people
>and christianity is the retainer without which they would go
>on plunderous evil
>i prefer not to believe this
>because we also know that even xtians fail in their mission to
>do good
>i would be fearful if i felt that they were on some lease
>without which they would then be a threat
>(this is the same argument we give for prison/
>punishment/canings etc)
>
>i think religious people deserve/need to come up with a better
>argument than this
>
>teh majority of humans (even though who have no concept of
>religion/ but are spiritual) are inately good
>at this point, its a result of evolution. lets not discredit
>it by saying its because of ...
>

I didn't mean for it to be an across the board statement. But I think for those who really cling to the idea that religion begets morality, there's an element of that type of thinking in there. Otherwise, how could they so fervently believe it to be true?

Just IMO though.

>
>I don't know. Sometimes I come across the argument that the
>world would be so much better without religion.

i think its exploitative

especially because humans are humans, not because of religious belief or lack of
to me religion makes little to no difference in how ethically we behave
but a lot of times it is used/has been used to justify acts that would otherwise
be considered unethical by entire communities
and this has been the history of religion - the justification of the chosen against the other
(and speaking as a former catholic- but its not limited to catholicism

that's my opinion though, i dont think i will be changing anyone's mind

so for me it is important to wrestle away from religion this arrogance that without religion we would all be evil
no.
society can exist without religion
and i think there are numerous places in the world today (including the u.s)
where without religion, would be a nicer place

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>I don't know. Sometimes I come across the argument that the
>world would be so much better without religion.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

Atheists can't act out of ignorance? They're never racist or sexist?

Just IMO though.

that the world is a better place with religion

(although i'd wager we probably have more to support this hypothesis)

>Atheists can't act out of ignorance? They're never racist or
>sexist?

again, being an atheist does not mean you cease to be human and become infallible
you are still a human being, capable of every wickedness we've seen in the human race
and yes there are those who are born innately evil (and luckily, they tend to be a minority of the human race, otherwise, we would've gone extinct by now.
anomalies exist in nature)
what atheism does do is that you then do not become absolved of your racism, ignorance, wickedness etc
because of some sort of divine intervention
you dont get to not take responsibility and blame the devil
you dont get to justify some utterly wicked things that have been done in the name of following religion

That is what i mean when i say, yes we would most probably be better off without religion

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>that the world is a better place with religion
>
>(although i'd wager we probably have more to support this
>hypothesis)
>

I wouldn't plump for that viewpoint either. I think people will be shitty either way, only the justifications would change.

>>Atheists can't act out of ignorance? They're never racist or
>>sexist?
>
>again, being an atheist does not mean you cease to be human
>and become infallible
>you are still a human being, capable of every wickedness we've
>seen in the human race
>and yes there are those who are born innately evil (and
>luckily, they tend to be a minority of the human race,
>otherwise, we would've gone extinct by now.
>anomalies exist in nature)
>what atheism does do is that you then do not become absolved
>of your racism, ignorance, wickedness etc
>because of some sort of divine intervention
>you dont get to not take responsibility and blame the devil
>you dont get to justify some utterly wicked things that have
>been done in the name of following religion
>
>That is what i mean when i say, yes we would most probably be
>better off without religion
>


I guess I don't see absolution as the problem. A person can be shitty and find a way to warp religion to justify it. If religion never existed, I don't think that people would have naturally been less shitty to justify their actions. I believe they would have just looked to warp facts or other ideas to achieve their ends. Religion is just efficient because the playbook is so old and well entrenched.

Just IMO though.

>
>I guess I don't see absolution as the problem. A person can be
>shitty and find a way to warp religion to justify it. If
>religion never existed, I don't think that people would have
>naturally been less shitty to justify their actions. '

people can be shitty, with or without religion
what is my reaction then, is that they should not have the excuse of religion to explain their behaviour
i.e.
i did good = god
i did evil = the devil made me do it

lets take responsibility for our shittiness and our goodness as human beings

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>
>>
>>I guess I don't see absolution as the problem. A person can
>be
>>shitty and find a way to warp religion to justify it. If
>>religion never existed, I don't think that people would have
>>naturally been less shitty to justify their actions. '
>
>people can be shitty, with or without religion
>what is my reaction then, is that they should not have the
>excuse of religion to explain their behaviour
>i.e.
>i did good = god
>i did evil = the devil made me do it
>
>lets take responsibility for our shittiness and our goodness
>as human beings

people try to say the world would be better with women in charge
taking thatcher as an example
i heartily disagree with that

and like to give more thought to JSmooths thing on racism and practicing being better people

which i thought religion is supposed to be about
but that message is so lost on so many


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

that i as a non-religious man can't.

when you do the reverse of this, by asking for a bad deed that
is only performed by religious people for religious reasons, it
starts to look pretty bad for religion.

hitchens argues this way better than i can. have a look at this
intelligence squared debate, "is christianity a force for good":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA

one of the best quotes from it: "good people will do good things
and bad people will do bad things. but to get good people to do
bad things, you need religion."

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

>that i as a non-religious man can't.
>
>when you do the reverse of this, by asking for a bad deed
>that
>is only performed by religious people for religious reasons,
>it
>starts to look pretty bad for religion.
>
>hitchens argues this way better than i can. have a look at
>this
>intelligence squared debate, "is christianity a force for
>good":
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA

What are some examples of deeds only religious people can commit for ill?

My other issue is, when someone comes to a bad conclusion using poor science, people who support science don't blame science. I don't see how religion can be given agency where science cannot.

>
>one of the best quotes from it: "good people will do good
>things
>and bad people will do bad things. but to get good people to
>do
>bad things, you need religion."

It's pithy and sounds nice but to me is overly reductive and the kind of statement that unnecessarily creates barriers. Religion has been around for much longer and through our most primitive and tumultuous times. It's almost inevitable that it will have more bodies on it.

Just IMO though.

you know full well that atrocities have been committed
in religion's name, atrocities that would not have been committed
had religion not been invented.

for example, let's look at some of the least problematic instances.
in islam, pigs are regarded as dirty, evil creatures. as a result,
all muslims are forbidden from ever eating any pig-related meat or
from even touching them - unless to slaughter them.

as we move up in extremity we start arriving at things like genital
mutilation, rape, murder etc. etc. all things that are justified
and promoted in religious texts.

people do horrific things because they believe they have the divine
right to do so. these people may generally be good, decent and loving,
but when they become brainwashed by religion, they can turn nasty.

i'm sorry you feel that this viewpoint "creates barriers," but
religion has been dividing people and creating barriers ever since
humans invented it.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

>you know full well that atrocities have been committed
>in religion's name, atrocities that would not have been
>committed
>had religion not been invented.

In my opinion that argument amounts to post hoc ergo propter hoc in many instances, which is why I asked for examples to see where you're coming from.

>
>for example, let's look at some of the least problematic
>instances.
>in islam, pigs are regarded as dirty, evil creatures. as a
>result,
>all muslims are forbidden from ever eating any pig-related
>meat or
>from even touching them - unless to slaughter them.

If people have a tradition of not touching a certain kind of animal because cooking it was problematic, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think the world is a worse place because people don't eat certain animals. Otherwise, boo vegans.

>
>as we move up in extremity we start arriving at things like
>genital
>mutilation, rape, murder etc. etc. all things that are
>justified
>and promoted in religious texts.

Because people can't ever do these things without religion? The only way your argument appears to work is if there actually is a God promoting these rules. Otherwise, to me, the rational explanation is that people wanted to do some sick shit to each other and developed some rules to justify it. Using flimsy justifications for heinous acts is hardly unique to religion. Again, my argument is that if they didn't have religion, they would have reached for something else, because the people creating these rules are warped.

>
>people do horrific things because they believe they have the
>divine
>right to do so. these people may generally be good, decent and
>loving,
>but when they become brainwashed by religion, they can turn
>nasty.

Except that most religions have some form of the golden rule in their doctrine somewhere. People choose to ignore the rules that would hold them back from doing those things, so again, in my opinion, it's not the religion to blame, it's the person.

>
>i'm sorry you feel that this viewpoint "creates barriers,"
>but
>religion has been dividing people and creating barriers ever
>since
>humans invented it.
>

It's fair to place that on religion in terms of how it has been used, but really, what have we gained if atheism and other anti-religion movements do the same thing?

Just IMO though.

i've beaten this dead horse many times in my life and it's
usually a fruitless task trying to explain it to religious people.

that's not snark either. i greatly appreciate your contributions
to this forum and if i was to point out a christian who's doing it
right, it would be you.

i used the pig example to show how people will do shit just because
their religion tells them to. it's the most benign example i could
think of, but it still illustrates the point i'm making.

of course people would be doing bad things without religion, but do you honestly think religion has worsened this or made it better?
if you think the latter then i really don't have much more to say.

religion is the most divisive and growth-stunting idea humans
ever invented. if we never invented it, i believe things would be
much, much better than they are today. the only proof i have of
this is to look back at human history. religion has been there all
the way, causing problems at every step.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

Rest In Peace, Bad News Brown

i also heavily disagree with communism

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

https://youtu.be/HPYxA8dYLBY

i think that would be awesome

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

I've only seen 20 min so far.


And Hitchens is dead wrong on Iraq and the Civil Rights movement. He clearly circle jerks his own argument and has distorted the facts. But this happens when people get to throw out fake bombs and half-truths. Plus has a SNARK god.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

throwing "fake bombs" and "half truths" please?

i know you won't, because he hasn't, but i've just gotta call
shit out like this when i see it. people misrepresent hitchens a lot
and judge him from the basis of "fake bombs" told about him.

sharpton was out of his depth in this. way out. as was anyone who
attempted to argue in favour of religion against hitch.

i did kinda feel bad for sharpton, but not enough to not take delight in hitch dismantling him and his "arguments". it's like watching a
mayweather fight.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

Many times. Hitchens keeps talking about what people do with religion and how they may act badly, but he NEVER debates the existence of God with Sharpton. And Sharpton keeps calling him to the carpet on it. Hitchens can't stand on his own argument that God doesn't exist. He keeps talking about the acts of humans and not the acts of GOD.


EDIT and Hitchens again escapes the clutches of his on silly traps by dodging the core argument. And Sharpton keeps pointing out that those traps are weak and poorly made.


Even the Moderator calls Hitchens to the carpet too and then the dude makes up some fake definition of religion.

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

>Many times. Hitchens keeps talking about what people do with
>religion and how they may act badly, but he NEVER debates the
>existence of God with Sharpton. And Sharpton keeps calling him
>to the carpet on it. Hitchens can't stand on his own argument
>that God doesn't exist. He keeps talking about the acts of
>humans and not the acts of GOD.
>
>
>EDIT and Hitchens again escapes the clutches of his on silly
>traps by dodging the core argument. And Sharpton keeps
>pointing out that those traps are weak and poorly made.


sounds familiar

The debate is very much like the arguments that take place here, where people ask questions with no real attempt to gain knowledge, and then randomly switch the conversation, or use cleverly dishonest half truth instead of having a serious honest debate about the core subject.


Plus Hitchens never really answers any questions posed to him by people who want to know about his opinions regarding God.



.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

>
>Plus Hitchens never really answers any questions posed to him
>by people who want to know about his opinions regarding God.
>

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

>
>>
>>Plus Hitchens never really answers any questions posed to
>him
>>by people who want to know about his opinions regarding God.
>
>>
>
>

Just IMO though.

Anytime you ever want to have a serious conversation about a topic, let me know.



.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

you cant help but really admire this guy
like he makes me wish i had stuck to studying chemistry
pshh, with this social science ish

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

-------------------
I wanna go to where the martyrs went
the brown figures on the walls of my apart-a-ment...

fucking hilarious.

If I hear one more creationist say, "Well (Insert Scientists born before 1920\ believed in God") I might just die of laughter.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

thats the best way its been described to me, how dangerous a concept it is

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

arguments do not change. It's unnerving. Hitchens by contrast doesn't just rehash his book, he actually debates the topic of the day.

Tyson is always a treat to watch. Know of any good substantial lectures that he has? I've watched a lot of his stuff on the history of science, but I'd love to see him discuss the latest concepts in physics.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

and he really says the exact same thing
it was unnerving. like none of the arguments made him change what he was saying
or even try to find stronger arguments
that was a bit lazy. its why i think the dsouza debate was probably more on par

i just discovered NDT's lectures - and im about to worship on his altar of science.
he's amazing

post what you have watched so far

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>fucking hilarious.
>
>If I hear one more creationist say, "Well (Insert Scientists
>born before 1920\ believed in God") I might just die of
>laughter.
>

Unquestioned authority in humans is definitely a dangerous thing.

Just IMO though.

>Unquestioned authority in humans is definitely a dangerous
>thing.

scientists also decry the unquestionable belief in ideas/notions that are unverifiable
a reason karl popper is one of my favourite philosophers; the notion of falsifiability is brilliant

now,religion?
one has to have faith- allowing us to suspend disbelief or an inability to verify/substantiate these beliefs
this is best illustrated by the whole argument of the existence of god... and how that somehow then justifies the existence of religion
it really doesnt. even if god does exist, its a leap (of faith) to go from there, to and now we need to organize a set of beliefs to go along with this
that somehow this allows us to have a relationship with this entity (its a bit presumptive, and definitely not humility)
and our religion is fundamentally better than that one over there, because we struck upon the right set of beliefs/ rituals.
so hey *we* get to go to heaven

some people accept this, i understand that.

but boy, im i glad we moved from the point in time where the church wielded a tremendous amount of power
because to be a skeptic in those times (or today in such places), was/is to be at risk of death and profound cruelty

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

pretty sure he didn't believe in that.

i dont believe in heaven either. idk why i say it. just to say that i appreciate his contributions while he was living i guess.

-------------------
I wanna go to where the martyrs went
the brown figures on the walls of my apart-a-ment...

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

in my opinion at least,

i mean he had every right to have his opinion, as wrong as it was

what was unforgivable though, was his alignment with bush
to support and defend someone he once said;

“He's a man who is lucky to be governor of Texas. He is a man who is unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things.”

that was the part that is indefensible
he could've very well supported the war in iraq without becoming an apologist for g.w

i mean one of the arguments he gives is 'islamofacism'... so maybe its a stand against religion....
but then to align oneself with one of the stupidest brands of christianity (that practised by the republican party, as promoted by g.w)
in order to stand against another brand of religion
is just... indefensible
(its the same charge he lays against the catholic church's historical atrocities)

the irony is not lost here- he did become the one thing he has criticized numerous people of being- which is hypocrites
or aligning themselves with whats wrong/irrational because of 'beliefs'

but...
even after sayign all that.
one cant deny he was a great debater.
which is what this post is about.

the iraq era is definitely a stain ... but his career spans over 40 years, i believe

i still admire his work, a great deal.
and there is a lot to admire

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>
>
>the iraq era is definitely a stain ... but his career spans
>over 40 years, i believe

and who's repercussions are still being felt to this day. and was unapologetic about it even in the face of the overwhelming evidence that that rationale for it was completely and utterly fabricated. I'd say it's more than a stain! but yes let's admire him for his great debate skills. foh

The village idiot will come forth
To be acclaimed the leader

his work was not just the t.v debates.

and yes, i admire that body of work.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

i'm not the one giving him a pass for an egregious and willful lapse in judgement and integrity

The village idiot will come forth
To be acclaimed the leader

Bc the whole enterprise seems like an incredible waste of time otherwise.

fuck you.

Christopher Hitchens is one of my favorites. Another is John Dominic Crossan who, while a Christian, has no problem saying that the Gospels are non-factual accounts and that Jesus was probably thrown to the dogs if he was truly killed via Crucifixion. Reza Aslan is pretty interesting as well. And of course NDT is always on point.

Hell I miss being at UofC because I would just go watch random lectures and dissertation defenses.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

fuck you.

Aslan is the most dishonest debater I've ever seen. Who else can make a career interpreting religious texts in some new way then claim to be a scholar.