Hitchens vs. Wilson, promoting their Documentary coming out next week.
Quote:Last fall, we went on tour debating the topic "Is Religion Good For The World?" Our arguments were captured on film for a new documentary, Collison. Are our morals dictated to us by a supreme entity or do discoveries made by science and reason, make Atheism a natural conclusion? You decide.
opening arguments at the link are:
Religion Is Absurd
by Christopher Hitchens
vs
Atheists Suck at Being Atheists
by Pastor Douglas Wilson
There are about 1700 hilarious comments at HuffnPuff, totally not getting the Soda/Fizz thing
Although there is no basis for Ethics within his atheistic worldview, Mr. Hitchens criss-crosses the country selling his books while making moral judgements. It's all so funny...deliciously funny.
One thing for sure, regardless of your thoughts on this specific topic, Christopher Hitchens is one hell of a writer / commentator. That boy can write and talk with the best.
some good outtake videos there(love the Lord of Rings reference in debate with Columbia students).....there is a vid of Wilson interviewed by John Piper. He explains what he was doing and why he cussed at the end of the Documentary to Hitchens.
interesting stuff, hopefully the media types give this as much play as Kirk Cameron's apologetics and other ridiculous stuff.
(10-21-2009 02:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]One thing for sure, regardless of your thoughts on this specific topic, Christopher Hitchens is one hell of a writer / commentator. That boy can write and talk with the best.
plus I think Americans love to hear that British accent, there is something intoxicating about it.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
(10-21-2009 03:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
And just what "Title" do YOU give your self when you pour poison over a Fire Ant Bed ????
Are you being "Just & Righteous" or are you being Greedy and Misogynistic because you don't want these little holy terrors eating up one of your Children ??
You forget to mention that the God you are talking about 'Created All Things' and has the right to dispense with His creation in anyway He pleases .... even though it sounds horrible in some parts of the Old Testament, there is a purpose to the means and to the end.
If YOU build it, you have to Right To Destroy It and at least God is honest about his attitudes and tells it like it is.
(10-21-2009 03:21 PM)Tripster Wrote: [ -> ]And just what "Title" do YOU give your self when you pour poison over a Fire Ant Bed ????
Are you being "Just & Righteous" or are you being Greedy and Misogynistic because you don't want these little holy terrors eating up one of your Children ??
Well, speaking for myself I guess it is irrelevant to a non-religious person.
Using your example, I am simply being a pro-active homeowner, no need to apply any titles to doing yardwork.
I'm glad swagger brought up Dr. Dawkins. Here is my favorite Dawkins gem. Back in 1998, Dawkins felt the need to enlighten us with his Darwinian explanation of the Bill and Monica "situation".
"I must throw in the usual health-warning. 'Is' does not mean 'ought'. I do not long to return to ancestral ways. I'd hate to live in a hunter-gatherer world where men fight over women, or in any polygynous culture where a woman is a man's chattel rather than companion or colleague. With pleasure I take the un-Darwinian personal decision to live as a deliberately monogamous individual."
What? I take the un-Darwinian personal decision? Darwinian macro-evolution; so utterly amazing that it provides one the ability to circumvent it!
(10-21-2009 03:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
And just what "Title" do YOU give your self when you pour poison over a Fire Ant Bed ????
Are you being "Just & Righteous" or are you being Greedy and Misogynistic because you don't want these little holy terrors eating up one of your Children ??
You forget to mention that the God you are talking about 'Created All Things' and has the right to dispense with His creation in anyway He pleases .... even though it sounds horrible in some parts of the Old Testament, there is a purpose to the means and to the end.
If YOU build it, you have to Right To Destroy It and at least God is honest about his attitudes and tells it like it is.
.
The epitome of human arrogance is the personification of God, which you are demonstrating beautifully. S'gotta be human ... because my feeble mind cannot conceive of anything greater.
Who created your creator? Wouldn't that thing have the power to eliminate your creator? Who created the creator of the creator? "God" answers no questions, and is merely a convenient crutch feeble minded people ascribe all things they cannot explain to.
Moreover, the "God" of the Old Testament flys in the face of those who claim morality stems from Christianity. As if "Onward Christian Soldiers" and the relentless persecution of science and scientists wasn't an offensive enough rebuttal of that.
(10-21-2009 07:21 PM)GGniner Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy his explanation of the possibility of Space Aliens being our designer the best personally
Prepare to be owned:
Quote:In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things. Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents -- so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything. No matter how god-like our interstellar aliens may be, and no matter how vast and wonderful their starships, they cannot have designed the universe because, like human engineers and all complex things, they are late arrivals in it.
Intelligent design "theorists" (a misnomer, for they have no theory) often use the alien scenario to distance themselves from old-style creationists: "For all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space." This attempt to fend off accusations of unconstitutionally importing religion into science classes is lame and disingenuous. All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are.
Nevertheless, despite their notorious dishonesty, I sometimes hand an olive branch to these people by pretending to take their "space aliens" political ploy seriously. Unrealistic as the space alien theory is, it constitutes intelligent design's best shot.
(10-21-2009 07:00 PM)niucob86 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm glad swagger brought up Dr. Dawkins. Here is my favorite Dawkins gem. Back in 1998, Dawkins felt the need to enlighten us with his Darwinian explanation of the Bill and Monica "situation".
"I must throw in the usual health-warning. 'Is' does not mean 'ought'. I do not long to return to ancestral ways. I'd hate to live in a hunter-gatherer world where men fight over women, or in any polygynous culture where a woman is a man's chattel rather than companion or colleague. With pleasure I take the un-Darwinian personal decision to live as a deliberately monogamous individual."
What? I take the un-Darwinian personal decision? Darwinian macro-evolution; so utterly amazing that it provides one the ability to circumvent it!
This is your best argument against evolution? That somebody can make a conscious decision to act in non-Darwinian ways? I consider that a defacto win. Moreover, I'd argue that as time progresses, monogamy is an extension of social contract theory, in which it actually becomes advantageous from a Darwinian standpoint to be monogamous.
Rebel
10-22-2009, 03:21 PM
GTS, you can't prove that humans evolved from apes. So, what's the point? You're gonna have your beliefs and others are going to have theirs.
(10-22-2009 03:21 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]GTS, you can't prove that humans evolved from apes. So, what's the point? You're gonna have your beliefs and others are going to have theirs.
Evolution is a proven thing.
Can I, with 100% certainty, say that humans evolved from apes? No. Can I with a high degree of certainty say that, particularly given loads of evidence from DNA sequencing to the fossil record? Yes.
Can I, with even 0.1% certainty say that humans are here as a product of a God? No. Faith is defined as the belief in something without any supporting evidence. Religion is called "faith" for a reason. Can I prove with 100% certainty that there is, however, no God? No.
But on the balance of things, it seems only one belief is rational. Much like Dawkins I am a defacto athiest.
(10-21-2009 07:21 PM)GGniner Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy his explanation of the possibility of Space Aliens being our designer the best personally
Prepare to be owned:
Quote:In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things. Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents -- so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything. No matter how god-like our interstellar aliens may be, and no matter how vast and wonderful their starships, they cannot have designed the universe because, like human engineers and all complex things, they are late arrivals in it.
Intelligent design "theorists" (a misnomer, for they have no theory) often use the alien scenario to distance themselves from old-style creationists: "For all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space." This attempt to fend off accusations of unconstitutionally importing religion into science classes is lame and disingenuous. All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are.
Nevertheless, despite their notorious dishonesty, I sometimes hand an olive branch to these people by pretending to take their "space aliens" political ploy seriously. Unrealistic as the space alien theory is, it constitutes intelligent design's best shot.
- Richard Dawkins
ummm, okay.
Yeah, his after the fact spin makes zero sense in context of the clip.
Very similar to the other quote about Monica/Clinton above.
"I don't claim to really beleive this, but for this instance I'll choose to go against Darwinism!".... Talk about CYA.
BTW, GTS you SUCK AT BEING AN ATHEIST!
Try being as Logical in your thinking as you are with Computer programing. The whole thing comes crashing down when everything isn't accounted for.
P.S. if you really want to test your anger levels, continue to follow the arguments of the Pressupositional Apologist. Good start is with this documentary and the coming media blitz next week.
Yeah, his after the fact spin makes zero sense in context of the clip.
Very similar to the other quote about Monica/Clinton above.
"I don't claim to really beleive this, but for this instance I'll choose to go against Darwinism!".... Talk about CYA.
BTW, GTS you SUCK AT BEING AN ATHEIST!
Try being as Logical in your thinking as you are with Computer programing. The whole thing comes crashing down when everything isn't accounted for.
P.S. if you really want to test your anger levels, continue to follow the arguments of the Pressupositional Apologist. Good start is with this documentary and the coming media blitz next week.
Awllllllllllll got the religious righty all wound up?
The clip you linked does NOTHING to mitigate my above quote from Dawkins. This hypothetical alien civilization will have still arose in a Darwinian way. I am being very logical. Your argument this far can be summed up as: "ALIENS LOL!"
Now, go home and study and come back when you have an argument with even the residue of substance to it.
(10-22-2009 03:21 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]GTS, you can't prove that humans evolved from apes. So, what's the point? You're gonna have your beliefs and others are going to have theirs.
Evolution is a proven thing.
Can I, with 100% certainty, say that humans evolved from apes? No. Can I with a high degree of certainty say that, particularly given loads of evidence from DNA sequencing to the fossil record? Yes.
Can I, with even 0.1% certainty say that humans are here as a product of a God? No. Faith is defined as the belief in something without any supporting evidence. Religion is called "faith" for a reason. Can I prove with 100% certainty that there is, however, no God? No.
But on the balance of things, it seems only one belief is rational. Much like Dawkins I am a defacto athiest.
There is no proof that one species changes into another. The only thing proven is cell adaptation, I.e. height, weight, size. Brown bears do not become polar bears just because they hang out on the ice.
