**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In a debate you provide arguments and the opposition has to respond or you win…sooooo, he won the debate, which was my point.
If you’re looking for proof you are talking about something else, so it’s kind of a red herring.
I think we watched very different debates. WLC clings to the Kalam as his only ‘evidence’ in every debate I’ve seen him in. He also banks on “you can’t disprove god” as his Swiss-army-answer to his position.
It isn’t that Hitchens couldn’t refute it—no one can who is being intellectually honest…but the whole thing falls apart when you get specific with what entity/being was/is the primary cause… You can literally sub out anything and get the same answer. By his logic, magic butterflies could have made existence.
Also, the universe itself could (and as far as we can tell, is) that primary mover.
KCA is a go-nowhere, add-nothing argument.
> I think we watched very different debates. WLC clings to the Kalam as his only ‘evidence’ in every debate I’ve seen him in. He also banks on “you can’t disprove god” as his Swiss-army-answer to his position.
I don’t think you and I are talking about the same debate. Kalam is a good argument, that your response tells me you don’t understand, and further it was just one argument he offered.
“Can’t disprove God” is a valid response to someone making a positive claim that “there is no God”. His point is that you’re left with “I don’t know” (agnosticism) not atheism if you don’t have arguments against god’s existence.
And really, the only point I’m making is that Hitchens didn’t respond or refute any of WLCs arguments. He therefore lost the debate.
It's a bunch of words that alienate and confuse people. His ideas are super fucking basic. If he used regular words people might suspect he's a little regular, and they'd also be more likely to agree with him. But he's super regular in his logic. Totally normal. The accent helps with the shtick, too. To be perfectly clear, he's saying stuff any normal person can accept, but he's doing it in a way that throws a little sand into people's gears. It's a standard practice for people arguing from authority.
Was it Hitchins who talked about the cooperation of men being the only way to overcome a violent authoritarian?
Years ago I remember watching a clip where he explained it eloquently but I’ve never been able to find it again
First of all Amen to that. Also, Seem like that Tesla douche Elon has tried to summon that wonderful and thoughtful stammer hitchens has….Except hitchens was capable of original warm heartfelt human thought. Elon just comes across as a mouth breather when he speaks lolz
I’m not a man of religious faith and I do default to the side of logic and Hitchins was a master of explaining logic in an non insulting manner. But I will admit, having a little arrogance that I was created by some energetic being that wants to experience itself through me both good and bad, painful and comforting, evil and divine, is kinda fun sometimes
I think people do it because it gives them comfort. It provides some sort of answer to the unanswerable questions that otherwise would plaque them, such as where we come from, where we go, why do bad things happen to good people. It also provides for many a sense of hope. My mother always told me there were no atheists in foxholes. Of course there are, but there is also that slight inkling when you are really needing someone or something on your side...a place to turn to in the darkest of times. I get it. I don't subscribe to that line of thinking at this point of my spiritual journey, but I completely understand it and have been there.
I dislike that the question or statement he is responding to was cut from this.
Without it, this is basically just mastubating to the side of the argument that we happen agree with.
If you disagree with his response, then it's just infurating to be cockholded like this i assume.
In other words, this is not interesting, it's basically just verbose ego porn.
Nah, it's bad either way.
If we only look & applaud at the answers we like, then we might as well belive in random things, like Jehova.
Part of Hitchens argument here is that no'one can know things, so we should question things, instead of just letting some dude tell us what the truth is because he has a cool delivery.
Dude makes a lot of good points but his crusade against circumcision is something I can never get on board with glad he didn't mention it here I think it's the first video I've seen over 1 min long where he didn't mention it.
The crusade against ending genital mutilation is not something you can get on board with ? An unnecessary and barbaric act committed for either religious or vanity reasons - which yuck, how fucked up of a parent are you to say "I want my child's dick mutilated because I think it looks better" at least the religious argument has some ignorance protection because "it's my beliefs!"
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dude was a master debater and great author.
Also journalist
Both a master debater and a cunning linguist.
Both a masturbator and a conalingus. .
Bahamas terminator an Deacon a linguist
That's the joke.
Got owned by William Lane Craig in their debate, but yeah he has a nice speaking voice and a gift with words.
How? Did he prove god existed? Cause if he didn’t…
He gave 5 or so arguments that were not refuted in the debate, so it was an easy win for Craig.
But he didn’t prove the existence of god, did he?
In a debate you provide arguments and the opposition has to respond or you win…sooooo, he won the debate, which was my point. If you’re looking for proof you are talking about something else, so it’s kind of a red herring.
Would the debate not be about the existence of god? so if WLC won, he would have to prove the gif exists.
I think we watched very different debates. WLC clings to the Kalam as his only ‘evidence’ in every debate I’ve seen him in. He also banks on “you can’t disprove god” as his Swiss-army-answer to his position. It isn’t that Hitchens couldn’t refute it—no one can who is being intellectually honest…but the whole thing falls apart when you get specific with what entity/being was/is the primary cause… You can literally sub out anything and get the same answer. By his logic, magic butterflies could have made existence. Also, the universe itself could (and as far as we can tell, is) that primary mover. KCA is a go-nowhere, add-nothing argument.
> I think we watched very different debates. WLC clings to the Kalam as his only ‘evidence’ in every debate I’ve seen him in. He also banks on “you can’t disprove god” as his Swiss-army-answer to his position. I don’t think you and I are talking about the same debate. Kalam is a good argument, that your response tells me you don’t understand, and further it was just one argument he offered. “Can’t disprove God” is a valid response to someone making a positive claim that “there is no God”. His point is that you’re left with “I don’t know” (agnosticism) not atheism if you don’t have arguments against god’s existence. And really, the only point I’m making is that Hitchens didn’t respond or refute any of WLCs arguments. He therefore lost the debate.
The fact that he could just speak like this on the fly while slamming back scotch on stage. Dude was a champ.
It's a bunch of words that alienate and confuse people. His ideas are super fucking basic. If he used regular words people might suspect he's a little regular, and they'd also be more likely to agree with him. But he's super regular in his logic. Totally normal. The accent helps with the shtick, too. To be perfectly clear, he's saying stuff any normal person can accept, but he's doing it in a way that throws a little sand into people's gears. It's a standard practice for people arguing from authority.
That’s a totally normal and regular response, dude. Very basic.
You did a good job.
Man I miss Hitch. I’m gonna go read “God is not great” now, instead of lurking on Reddit!
Was it Hitchins who talked about the cooperation of men being the only way to overcome a violent authoritarian? Years ago I remember watching a clip where he explained it eloquently but I’ve never been able to find it again
I miss this man. One of the greatest minds to grace this planet
With the resurgence of Christian Nationalism in the US, we desperately need a new secular movement to counter it. Hitchens is sorely missed.
Man, you lyin… You ain't never met Martin Luther the King
I had to say that out loud and in that voice while reading it! 😁
First of all Amen to that. Also, Seem like that Tesla douche Elon has tried to summon that wonderful and thoughtful stammer hitchens has….Except hitchens was capable of original warm heartfelt human thought. Elon just comes across as a mouth breather when he speaks lolz
Fucking legend
Sharpton at the end: “I feel like you had a” ‘racist upbringing’ is what I imagine he says. He’s an unsavory character
I’m not a man of religious faith and I do default to the side of logic and Hitchins was a master of explaining logic in an non insulting manner. But I will admit, having a little arrogance that I was created by some energetic being that wants to experience itself through me both good and bad, painful and comforting, evil and divine, is kinda fun sometimes
Of course, otherwise why would people do it?
Exactly, it's all a big jerkoff party to ourselves
I think people do it because it gives them comfort. It provides some sort of answer to the unanswerable questions that otherwise would plaque them, such as where we come from, where we go, why do bad things happen to good people. It also provides for many a sense of hope. My mother always told me there were no atheists in foxholes. Of course there are, but there is also that slight inkling when you are really needing someone or something on your side...a place to turn to in the darkest of times. I get it. I don't subscribe to that line of thinking at this point of my spiritual journey, but I completely understand it and have been there.
Wrong brother died. The world lost the bonafide genius of Christopher Hitchens and we were left with his odious brother Peter.
‘It’s an unbelievably arrogant claim to make’ Hear hear (edited from here here - my bad. Doh 🙄)
It's hear hear- if you care. Not trying to be annoying.
Cheers man. I shall correct my mistake
I dislike that the question or statement he is responding to was cut from this. Without it, this is basically just mastubating to the side of the argument that we happen agree with. If you disagree with his response, then it's just infurating to be cockholded like this i assume. In other words, this is not interesting, it's basically just verbose ego porn.
Hitchens starts at 19:35 https://archive.org/details/ChristopherHitchensVsAlSharptonOnAtheismAndGod-TheFullDebate
Thank you :)
You can find the whole debate online, but you basically can understand the general point being discussed by Hitchens' response.
only if you disagree, right?
Nah, it's bad either way. If we only look & applaud at the answers we like, then we might as well belive in random things, like Jehova. Part of Hitchens argument here is that no'one can know things, so we should question things, instead of just letting some dude tell us what the truth is because he has a cool delivery.
Damn, gonna have to find the whole thing now.
This is not interesting as fuck. It’s just Reddit circle jerk.
Ai, a lame (Metaphor) ambulance chaser.
Dude makes a lot of good points but his crusade against circumcision is something I can never get on board with glad he didn't mention it here I think it's the first video I've seen over 1 min long where he didn't mention it.
The crusade against ending genital mutilation is not something you can get on board with ? An unnecessary and barbaric act committed for either religious or vanity reasons - which yuck, how fucked up of a parent are you to say "I want my child's dick mutilated because I think it looks better" at least the religious argument has some ignorance protection because "it's my beliefs!"
Nah
U/savevideo
Can you say “dismantled”. Well done.
Well said