GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: MS1COYS on 11 October 2012, 23:10
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR0GyYaeI-k
RIP Christopher Hitchens.
-
Seen him quite a few times over the years, always excellent delivery, and entertaining on so many different levels, he may even have made my short list of guests for dinner, just for controversial input :rolleyes:
RIP
Thom
-
Seen him quite a few times over the years, always excellent delivery, and entertaining on so many different levels, he may even have made my short list of guests for dinner, just for controversial input :rolleyes:
RIP
Thom
I agree wholeheartedly. The man was a genius and I shall continue to post links on this thread to display that.
It doesn't surprise me that this topic has had over 50 views and only yet 1 post.
A truly remarkable and brave man.
CH49
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k
:grin:
-
Hitchens is a legend, I am just starting his Hitch-22 book atm.
-
Hitchens is a legend, I am just starting his Hitch-22 book atm.
A complete and utter legend!
The legacy he has left is incredible and the way he took on Northern American Christianity is to be admired. I've never once seen him get mauled ever and I've never usually seen him use notes, very impressive considering he was pissed as a fart most of the time.
I'm not such a fan of the 'Four Horsemen'. I think they're already preaching to the converted. Hitchens however is something else, Christopher that is. His brother Peter, whilst fiercely intelligent, academically at least is a complete thingy!
-
Legendary voice of reason, god knows where he is know! :evil:
-
Never heard of him but that video was great.
RIP.
Watching videos of atheists arguing with Americans is always entertaining, love watching Richard Dawkins videos too.
-
Never heard of him but that video was great.
RIP.
Watching videos of atheists arguing with Americans is always entertaining, love watching Richard Dawkins videos too.
You should watch the debate on drugs on the programme 'Newsnight' from the other day between Christopher's brother, Peter Hitchens and Russell Brand.....I say it was a debate, it wasn't Brand destroyed him, repeatedly. To coin one of my favourite boxers quotes 'it was as one sided as a gang rape'.....#nooffencemeant
-
Hitchens always comes across as a 'computer says no' type of bloke and Brand started off ok and then descended in to his trademark 4 year old on a sugar rush routine which gets wearing after a while.
-
Hitchens always comes across as a 'computer says no' type of bloke and Brand started off ok and then descended in to his trademark 4 year old on a sugar rush routine which gets wearing after a while.
I think you need to do a little more research Gavv. 'A computer says no' kind of bloke. Of course at times he is going to come across repetitive, because he is continually battling the 'non thinking' people's Christian values and their relentless arguments. He was a crusader and a very brave man. I've never seen him 'get owned' by anyone. He is the cleverest and best polemicist I have ever witnessed.
Frankly as far as Russell Brand is concerned, there are more than enough reasons to hate him with a passion. But you can't argue he destroyed Peter Hitchens with ease.
-
He was a crusader
Was that intentional irony or just a slip of the tongue?
-
Hitchens always comes across as a 'computer says no' type of bloke and Brand started off ok and then descended in to his trademark 4 year old on a sugar rush routine which gets wearing after a while.
I think you need to do a little more research Gavv. 'A computer says no' kind of bloke. Of course at times he is going to come across repetitive, because he is continually battling the 'non thinking' people's Christian values and their relentless arguments. He was a crusader and a very brave man. I've never seen him 'get owned' by anyone. He is the cleverest and best polemicist I have ever witnessed.
Frankly as far as Russell Brand is concerned, there are more than enough reasons to hate him with a passion. But you can't argue he destroyed Peter Hitchens with ease.
He didn't destroy Hitchens he just wouldn't let him get a word in and having a born again christian preaching morals to an ex drug addict is typical of the church's deluded attitude to the modern world, we as a race really need to move on from this 'religion' thing or we are never going break free from our fear of 'god' and the world will just end up swallowed whole by war-mongering fanatics and extreme right wing whacko's.
-
He was a crusader
Was that intentional irony or just a slip of the tongue?
Need you really ask haha.
Hitchens always comes across as a 'computer says no' type of bloke and Brand started off ok and then descended in to his trademark 4 year old on a sugar rush routine which gets wearing after a while.
I think you need to do a little more research Gavv. 'A computer says no' kind of bloke. Of course at times he is going to come across repetitive, because he is continually battling the 'non thinking' people's Christian values and their relentless arguments. He was a crusader and a very brave man. I've never seen him 'get owned' by anyone. He is the cleverest and best polemicist I have ever witnessed.
Frankly as far as Russell Brand is concerned, there are more than enough reasons to hate him with a passion. But you can't argue he destroyed Peter Hitchens with ease.
He didn't destroy Hitchens he just wouldn't let him get a word in and having a born again christian preaching morals to an ex drug addict is typical of the church's deluded attitude to the modern world, we as a race really need to move on from this 'religion' thing or we are never going break free from our fear of 'god' and the world will just end up swallowed whole by war-mongering fanatics and extreme right wing whacko's.
I am in complete agreeance with you on the moving on from religion. Atheism is the fastest growing belief system in the USA, so lets hope it follows on from there.
-
he looks like the devil if you ask me
-
Great man!!
-
he looks like the devil if you ask me
To Christians he may as well be. Because to my knowledge I've never seen anyone even challenge him and get one over on him, let alone take him to pieces in debate.
So I suppose, if you yourself are a Christian or person of religious faith, then he may well appear as the Devil. Don't let it test your faith though......
-
I go to church every week. I use my brain to form my opinions. I do not share those of Christopher Hitchens although I can see why he had them given how he interpreted religious wars, bad events etc.
But don't tar all Christians with the same brush if you happen to see an arrogant or ignorant few portrayed on US television.
-
I go to church every week. I use my brain to form my opinions. I do not share those of Christopher Hitchens although I can see why he had them given how he interpreted religious wars, bad events etc.
But don't tar all Christians with the same brush if you happen to see an arrogant or ignorant few portrayed on US television.
You're entitled to your opinion and that's all cool with me. Some people need faith.
My mum is a born again Christian has been for 20 years, goes to a Baptist Church every week, worship practice every Friday night and whilst I love her as any son should do, she is one of the more delusional people that I have ever met.
Believes the world is between 6,000 and 12,000 years old. Thinks Dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old. Doesn't believe in evolution, you get my drift hopefully.....
-
Even if you eradicated the world of religion, it still wouldn't change anything other than the reason for the war. Remember that Kim Jong Il, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc were all atheists. Millions died because of them.
Man will kill for whatever reason be it power, money, greed, hatred etc. Unless you address the cause you'll never stop war.
-
Even if you eradicated the world of religion, it still wouldn't change anything other than the reason for the war. Remember that Kim Jong Il, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc were all atheists. Millions died because of them.
Man will kill for whatever reason be it power, money, greed, hatred etc. Unless you address the cause you'll never stop war.
Nobodies disputing this. Everybody is capable of evil.....
-
I go to church every week. I use my brain to form my opinions. I do not share those of Christopher Hitchens although I can see why he had them given how he interpreted religious wars, bad events etc.
But don't tar all Christians with the same brush if you happen to see an arrogant or ignorant few portrayed on US television.
You're entitled to your opinion and that's all cool with me. Some people need faith.
My mum is a born again Christian has been for 20 years, goes to a Baptist Church every week, worship practice every Friday night and whilst I love her as any son should do, she is one of the more delusional people that I have ever met.
Believes the world is between 6,000 and 12,000 years old. Thinks Dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old. Doesn't believe in evolution, you get my drift hopefully.....
Then I would also be regarded as delusional I guess. Being a christian makes sense to me though and while I believe it shouldn't be rammed down other people's throats, if it is true (which I obviously do), then surely it shouldn't be kept a private thing.
And by your own admission, people do have bad in them which tells that the bible is correct in that regard.
Hitchens was highly intelligent. He was a skilled speaker and could verbally attack like next to no one else. And truth be told, if I saw things the way he did, I might agree with him. But as it happens, I have listened to others, I have taken time to think things through for myself and I just don't agree with him.
And for what it's worth, I have yet to hear where the matter came from that allowed evolution. No matter how far back scientists explain our beginnings, the question of where things come from still stands. I.e. with God out of the question, am I being asked to believe that, at one point something came out of nothing of it's own accord?
-
And for what it's worth, I have yet to hear where the matter came from that allowed evolution. No matter how far back scientists explain our beginnings, the question of where things come from still stands. I.e. with God out of the question, am I being asked to believe that, at one point something came out of nothing of it's own accord?
Here's a link directly related to your comment of 'where matter came from that allowed evolution'. Skip to 1 minute 10 seconds to hear an answer that makes sense to a 'thinking person'. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xeK7R-TgHI
What is more likely. That the whole natural order of the world is suspended or that a Jewish woman told a lie? (David Hume)
"The theory of (a deistic) creation is essentially a refusal to think back beyond a certain time in the past when it becomes difficult to follow the chain of causation. To hold such a belief is, therefore, always an excuse for intellectual laziness, and generally a sign of it." - JBS Haldane
Scientists are at least trying to validate their findings (somethings which Christians do not adopt and follow principally on 'blind faith')
I mean do you agree that the earth is 13.77 billion years old or do you believe that it is between 6,000-12,000 years old?
Do you believe that it would be possible for instance to find the fossil of a rabbit from the Precambrian era?
Are 'Atheists/Non believers' expected to believe that 'God' flung the stars out into the sky?
That God placed Adam and Eve on this planet as the first humans and we've evolved from there and that humans have not evolved from Chimpanzee's?
That Noah built an ark that was able to capacitate 7 (male/female) pairs of every 'clean' animal and 7 (male/female) pairs of every bird and 2 (male/female) pairs of every 'unclean' animal and bird specie as suggested in Genesis 7:2–3 and that God shut the door before Dinosaurs, Kangaroos and Penguins had a chance to hop aboard?
Would it not be acceptable to expect that if God did create the planet as Christians believe, that he would have at least mentioned it was of spherical form?
Why for example, did the 'Ten Commandments' not include, child molestation, rape, slavery, human trafficking etc. Could it be that this was because all of this was endorsed in the beginning by the Bible?
As Hitchens says, why did 'God/Heaven' wait for 98,000 years witnessing all that went before it in that time, famine, struggle, vision less war, people dying of their teeth, before suddenly deciding 2,000 years ago 'enough is enough' and the best way to intervene is to condemn someone to a human sacrifice (Jesus, the son of God), in the less literate parts of the Middle East, when for example 'God/Heaven' could have appealed to the Chinese for example, where people could read, write, study evidence and where there was civilisation, rather than a desert, where there was nothing? After all it was Jesus' own people, the Jews who crucified him, because they were non-believers.....
I think the most preposterous incinuation of all, is that our whole futures are pre-determined. That our destiny is out of our hands, everything that goes before us was pre-supposed and determined by God and we have nothing to do with it and that we are 'dead' until we become 'believers' and that we can only live by accepting an absolute authority?
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish to believe my friend, that is your choice. But the subject of this thread is Anti-Theism not Mono-Theism. You obviously believe you have an argument against and I would thrive on a debate, but.....
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” - Hitch
-
Just for the record it was Peter Hitchens debating Russel Brand and he is a born again christian.
-
Just for the record it was Peter Hitchens debating Russel Brand and he is a born again christian.
Who are you reaffirming that to Gavv? Are you implying that Skred believes the wrong Hitchen brother is a born again Christian?
-
Lets say.. for arguments sake, that there was conclusive proof of god and religion and in this case chiristianity. How would this effect you?
-
Lets say.. for arguments sake, that there was conclusive proof of god and religion and in this case chiristianity. How would this effect you?
Well obviously it would destroy my whole belief system and ethos of thinking, that much should be obvious. But it's not true so I'm well and truly safe on that front.
Why R32UK are you about to announce the 'second coming'.
To satisfy your question entirely, the whole ethos behind Christianity, is you must repent your sins before you die, otherwise you will not be granted entry to 'heaven'. So what do you think I would do...... #lastchancesaloon
Now let's turn your comment on it's head!
What would happen if there was conclusive proof that no God existed, there was no heaven and no hell and 'god forbid' :grin: evolution did actually exist?
What would that do Christianity, in fact, to religion as a whole? It would certainly do far more damage! Inextricably so in fact, because it would probably be the end of the world as we know it!
Here's another link, that maybe of interest. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xeK7R-TgHI
I will also post this link in my previous post directed at Skred, just so it can help answer his question in respect of where the 'matter came from that allowed evolution'....... Skip to 1 minute 10 seconds if you want an answer to your question.
-
I dont think it would change me... although it would take much more courage to 'do right' for more people I guess.
Would the world be a better place without religion... im not sure it would. I dont believe any religion promotes hate, violence and murder against other religions. Just those that seek solace in something to justify their crazy ways.
Everyone likes to think that 'they are better' be it location, hair colour, football team or religion. Religious folk tend to have a air of superiority about them... this does little to justify their cause.
I also think sometimes you need to look at many religions differently... many come with storys, tales, if you like which become the point of focus. The focus needs to be on the message.... not its means of delivery.
As we all know a story told a 100 times is going to be very different from the original story.... but as long as the message remains unchanged.
I guess it boils down to one thing and one thing only.... FAITH. You either got it, or you dont!
-
I don't believe any religion promotes hate, violence and murder against other religions.
I don't want to come across as rude, but it seems to be the case, that you have either wrongly worded this statement or you are unaware of religious war crimes that have been committed over the last 1000 years.
From the 'first crusade' some 1000 years ago by the Roman Catholics to eradicate the Muslim settlers by way of mass genocide and regain the supposed holy land of Jerusalem to the 'second crusade' some 50 years later, also committed by the Roman Catholics, principally Pope Eugene III.....(luckily second time round the Turks defended their settlement and the planned mass atrocities did not come to fruition.)
In today's world we have the raging war between extreme Christians and Muslims, that is currently wiping out hundreds and thousands of lives in the middle east and please let's not forget also that George Bush Snr and Jnr are both Episcopalian Catholics and Tony Blair is a Roman Catholic, these three men are mostly to blame for leading us to war against the Islamic extremist, but fundamentally the Muslim community abroad, by declaring it a 'war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm not even going to go into the Israel/Palestine divide.......
Please don't let my statements incinuate that religion is incapable of 'doing good', of course it does.
-
I think for once i am really enjoying your posts MS1COYS :grin: :kiss:
-
I don't believe any religion promotes hate, violence and murder against other religions.
I don't want to come across as rude, but it seems to be the case, that you have either wrongly worded this statement or you are unaware of religious war crimes that have been committed over the last 1000 years.
From the 'first crusade' some 1000 years ago by the Roman Catholics to eradicate the Muslim settlers by way of mass genocide and regain the supposed holy land of Jerusalem to the 'second crusade' some 50 years later, also committed by the Roman Catholics, principally Pope Eugene III.....(luckily second time round the Turks defended their settlement and the planned mass atrocities did not come to fruition.)
In today's world we have the raging war between extreme Christians and Muslims, that is currently wiping out hundreds and thousands of lives in the middle east and please let's not forget also that George Bush Snr and Jnr are both Episcopalian Catholics and Tony Blair is a Roman Catholic, these three men are mostly to blame for leading us to war against the Islamic extremist, but fundamentally the Muslim community abroad, by declaring it a 'war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm not even going to go into the Israel/Palestine divide.......
Please don't let my statements incinuate that religion is incapable of 'doing good', of course it does.
I think you may have missed my point a little/I may not have explained it clearly. All of the conflicts you speak of above are started/caused by man.
No religion states that you have to wipe out another religion for you to live happily forever after... these are just people who interpret the same text with shaded specs. They take something to mean what they would like it to mean rather that what it actually means.
A simple example would be Jesus turning water into wine. However this is interpreted in many many different ways...
Jesus drank wine, so I will drink 3 bottles a night
Water is no good for you
Jesus had a group of alcoholic followers
.... and so on. The message means whatever you what it to mean was my original point.
-
I think for once i am really enjoying your posts MS1COYS :grin: :kiss:
That's the nicest compliment I've had today mate. :kiss:
I don't believe any religion promotes hate, violence and murder against other religions.
I don't want to come across as rude, but it seems to be the case, that you have either wrongly worded this statement or you are unaware of religious war crimes that have been committed over the last 1000 years.
From the 'first crusade' some 1000 years ago by the Roman Catholics to eradicate the Muslim settlers by way of mass genocide and regain the supposed holy land of Jerusalem to the 'second crusade' some 50 years later, also committed by the Roman Catholics, principally Pope Eugene III.....(luckily second time round the Turks defended their settlement and the planned mass atrocities did not come to fruition.)
In today's world we have the raging war between extreme Christians and Muslims, that is currently wiping out hundreds and thousands of lives in the middle east and please let's not forget also that George Bush Snr and Jnr are both Episcopalian Catholics and Tony Blair is a Roman Catholic, these three men are mostly to blame for leading us to war against the Islamic extremist, but fundamentally the Muslim community abroad, by declaring it a 'war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm not even going to go into the Israel/Palestine divide.......
Please don't let my statements incinuate that religion is incapable of 'doing good', of course it does.
I think you may have missed my point a little/I may not have explained it clearly. All of the conflicts you speak of above are started/caused by man.
No religion states that you have to wipe out another religion for you to live happily forever after... these are just people who interpret the same text with shaded specs. They take something to mean what they would like it to mean rather that what it actually means.
A simple example would be Jesus turning water into wine. However this is interpreted in many many different ways...
Jesus drank wine, so I will drink 3 bottles a night
Water is no good for you
Jesus had a group of alcoholic followers
.... and so on. The message means whatever you what it to mean was my original point.
I agree. Whatever scripture certain religious folk follow, has generally been b astardised through years of 'Chinese whispers' and so only autonomous 'thinking' people can truly interpret the good in some of these religious scriptures, holy books, call them what you will.
And you know what they say. First rule of Chinese whispers club. Don't talk about tiny whiskers grub......
:smiley:
-
spot on I would say :cool:
-
Religion is nothing but a system of control that goes back to the dawn of civilisation, as soon as one human realised they could control another through fear of the unknown the complexity and diversity of the stories and legends required to perpetuate the 'control' grew and grew.
If anyone ever asks me about my views on religion i simply say that i think lord of the rings is a fantastic story but it doesn't make me want to worship Gandalf.
-
No religion states that you have to wipe out another religion for you to live happily forever after... these are just people who interpret the same text with shaded specs. They take something to mean what they would like it to mean rather that what it actually means.
Just going back to your earlier point. I apologise for bringing it up again, but I didn't properly read your earlier post as I was having a sh!t!
In total there are at least at least 109 decipherable verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Here's just one excerpt from the Qu'ran.
(2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
The bible is somewhat more tolerant of other religions or maybe it's wording is just more subtle :laugh:
Here's an excerpt from Deuteronomy.
20:10-17 - “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes”
Except for the part about sparing women and children, this sounds similar to another verse from the Qur’an,
17:16 - "And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation."
So whilst I appreciate and we can agree that misintepretation is common in religious scripture, let's please not delude ourselves into believing that no religion calls for 'non-believers' not to be wiped out or eradicated. Sorry if I sound patronising, but this is quite a strong topic and can be very offensive to some people so it's best we all get our facts straight before posting.
:smiley:
-
I think it would be hard to agrue against the fact that the bible was kind of re-written to suit.... well whoever was writing them at the time.
As for the quran... i think that there is a distinct line drawn between believers and non-believers. I would also argue that this creates a double standard in many cases. You certainly could say that there are not preachings of hate and violence towards others in the quran.
Some see them more as a fight against evil.... only its left to me to decide whom they class as evil.
Every religion will in someway tell you to stand up for your rights... some see that as an excuse to go out there and kick a$$
-
Despite being an atheist myself, I often find atheists just as bad, if not worse than religious folk that preach.
I believe what I believe, and others believe what they believe.
At the end of the day we're all humans and we have to share this rock together, life's too short to be arguing about books that were written X amount of years ago.
-
Despite being an atheist myself, I often find atheists just as bad, if not worse than religious folk that preach.
I believe what I believe, and others believe what they believe.
At the end of the day we're all humans and we have to share this rock together, life's too short to be arguing about books that were written X amount of years ago.
Well let's not argue about what we believe in is that what you're saying? How can you possibly say that Atheists are worse than Religious followers?
At least Atheists and Anti-Theists use evidence and scientific fact to back their position, something which mono-thiest's do not adhere too, they're faith is based purely on something superficial and archaic scripture.
Life is short and peaceful co-existence is essential, but change comes only from within, having a precept to adhere to is fine, but if the individual doesn't change then the position won't either. And you can't argue Religious scripture that endorses war and tyranny on other non-believers isn't something worth fighting for, if you genuinely believe that then I suggest you're not Atheist but Agnostic.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4
:grin: :grin: :grin: