Thom Hartmann Debates Christopher Hitchens On Religion. How Religion Poisons Everything?

[thomhartmann]

Run time: 09:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08XgoU53WHI   Posted on YouTube: April 09, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 09, 2009 By DU Member: thomhartmann Views on DU: 3496

 
God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything or does it? Thom spars with author/journalist/pundit Christopher Hitchens

[Ilsa]

1. That was a good discussion. Thanks for the post. nt

[Bonobo]

2. I think Hitchens handed Hartmann his ass on a plate.

Hartmann actually embarrassed himself several times, once notable with his clumsy attempt to pin the word "evangelism" onto Hitchens It was cringeworthy for me, a Hartmann fan in general. Clearly Religion is Thom's achilles heal and his blindspot. He should stick with politics and leave his faith at home.

[sellitman]

4. I'm in total agreement.

I hate to see my hero's knocked down but Tom is clearly out of his league here.

[The Night Owl]

8. Agreed. I like both Hartmann and Hitchens but Hartmann is a fuzzy thinker...

...when it comes to the topic of religion.

[lostnotforgotten]

61. I Think The Discussion Was More Evenly Balanced Than That

eom

[borelord]

3. Hartmann comes off

as kind of an obtuse ass in this vid, IMO.

[mrfocus]

5. Sorry, Thom

You got your ass handed to you by Hitchens on this one. Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color.

[Ian David]

10. This is only the second time I've ever seen Thom lose an argument.

The other time he lost an argument, it was with a woman lobbying for the nuclear power industry.

And the nuke-woman only won because she was cheating-- she lied.

Callers to the show called-in and Thom (with the help of his audience) won the argument during the extra-innings after the interview.

[ihavenobias]

13. I agree, and I LOVE Thom Hartmann.

This is one of the very few issues where I disagree with him and I was a little disappointed. And I'm surprised Hitchens didn't point out the very clear research explaining the neurochemical explanations for those feelings of "transcendence", etc.

Or the fact that many people taking psychedelics feel much the same thing.

[humblebum]

12. Radical atheism is becoming a religion without a god nt

[stopbush]

28. Whole-cloth hokum.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course.

And what the hell is "radical" atheism anyway? Is that like radical moderation?

BTW - Buddhism is a religion without a god.

[shellfishgene]

6. Atheism as religion?

Is Hartmann really asserting that attempting to convince people of any proposition makes it evangelism in the religious sense? Hitchens isn't peddling a final answer like the religious are, he is merely attempting to convince that what people know about religion is wrong; the same way that most religious people are atheist to all other religions but their own. Perhaps there are atheists peddling absolute certainty, but I don't think that Hitchens is one of them. The certainty of an atheist is certainty in a practical sense. I haven't heard a single atheist foreclose totally on any possibility of an afterlife. It is just outrageously improbable to the degree that if you value evidentiary inquiry, you have to reject it on that level. Show me an atheist who is absolutely certain about anything and you will have found the mythical evangelizing atheist.

[TheCoxwain]

11. Actually that is true ...Hinduism makes room for Atheism ... If you do not believe

in gods and in beyond anything that meets the eye ..

you belong to the 'Lokayukta' school of thought.

I read this in a Prof. Amartya sen's book ( Argumentative Indian)


The whole idea is that you are subscribing to some philosophy where you know it or not.

[tabatha]

7. Huge Hartmann fan.

But, Thom did not make his case with regard to "evangelism".
He has to think it through better.

[humblebum]

14. Actually I think Hartmann asked the questions that need to be asked

and did it remarkably well. Hitchens spouts the typical atheist rhetoric and uses the typical atheistic reasoning, which I consider to be very narrow,namely: If you cannot see, smell, taste, hear, or touch something it doesn't exist. Pure science, pure empiricism - nothing else.

[ihavenobias]

15. Right, Hitchens applies the standard we all consider to be the best for 99.9% of the life.

It's just that some people think it suddenly makes sense to throw logic, rationality, facts, science and evidence out the window on this ONE area in life...and some don't.

I'll let you guess what I think makes more sense.

[humblebum]

16. There is nothing rational about ignoring other epistemologies,

such as philosophy, psychology, history, mathematics etc., which can be instumental in forming a much broader and deeper form of thought and certainly can at the very least suggest a diety or a divine creator. In other words, the scientific method that hitchens and dawkins and so many others use is a fantastic tool for research, but it has limitations.

[ihavenobias]

19. The problem is

that if someone says that Elvis is still alive, we (rightly) laugh at him and or (rightly) try to find help for him.

But if he convinces enough people that belief in the life of Elvis can be transformative and give insight to life's mysteries, eventually it can become a religion, beyond criticism.

It's one thing to say that there are things we have yet to discover or explain (you know, Zeus doesn't actually throw lightning bolts), but that in and of itself does not mean a supernatural force is or should be the default explanation. It's like cracking the human genome. Give it time, there will be plenty more insights long after we're dead and even in our lifetimes.

Besides, even if there is a supernatural force I think it's absurd to pretend to know what what It (He seems to assume genitals which is strange for a supreme being which wouldn't reproduce or excrete waste, or so you'd think) wants. Or that books written by men that have been translated and retranslated and edited ad nauseum over the centuries somehow have the "answers".

Finally, it's one thing to believe in the concept of a creator, but quite another to make the rather bold (and incredibly questionable IMO) assumption that the creator is benevolent and has your best interests at heart.

[humblebum]

21. I think you prove my point because you ignore centuries of philosophy

both pro and con, plus history and elements of other ways of knowing which solidify arguments. Two things I am positive about. Science absolutely does not have the capacity by itself to validate the existence of a god.The results are totally open to interpretation. Also, no epistemology can or will convince everyone of the existence of diety. But when anyone is ridiculed for their beliefs or lack of them, then the person doing the ridiculing is left looking stupid to those who see things from a different perspective.

[stopbush]

22. What history is being ignored?

[humblebum]

23. That's what I'm talking about. nt

[stopbush]

24. Be specific. You say centuries of history are being ignored.

What history would that be? History that says god exists? History that says Jesus existed? Those histories don't exist. Myths and legends exist about such beings, not histories.

[ihavenobias]

26. Exactly.

And much of early philosophy was just antiquated attempts at understanding things that are now much better understood through biology, psychology, physics, chemistry and other fields of study.

So yes, in *that* respect I suppose one could say I'm ignoring the history of man's early attempts of explaining life.

[humblebum]

29. More atheistic blather. We know what's true and don't tell us

any different, even if our arguments don't stand up either.

[stopbush]

30. Perhaps for your 63rd post you could actually respond to the

questions being asked of you, questions based on assertions you have made in this thread. Ad hominem dismissals like the one you just posted don't count for much on this board.

Mull it over. In the meanwhile, why not make a donation to DU and earn yourself a star? :)

[humblebum]

31. I'm so glad you used the term ad hominem arguing because that's exactly the way

atheists (Hitchens) often proceed. My point here is not to discuss history or philosophy or psychology, but to point out that there most certainly are other ways of thinking. Movies like 'The God Who Wasn't There' are so full of holes and ane easily debunked, but irregardless of that fact, it points out that a religion and a culture are under attack and that is nothing short of bigotry. We have witnessed it time and again throughout history,ie. racial stereotyping of blacks, or movies degrading Jews, or Japanese during WW2, or whatever. I think many Americans are beginning to see this and the sad fact is that it is probably going to backlash on atheists. There are some very decent upright atheists out there, but the few who are ridiculing and degrading people of faith are going to make it very hard for the ones who merely want to be accepted.
Your arguments ring true to you, but not to me, and mine not to you - that's just the way things are. However, if groups like American Atheists continue to pursue a course of intolerance, then that's how they'll probably be labled and that is sad.
There. That's how I am answering your question. A debate in history or philosophy can take all day long and I have work to do. Good Night.

[stopbush]

33. Wow! You've added a healthy dose of the straw man to your large serving of ad hominem.

And all without responding to the simple questions I asked of your earlier questions.

What I do get from you is BS, pure and simple:

"the sad fact is that it is probably going to backlash on atheists."

Hmm? Where have I heard that before? Oh, right: "Democrats/Obama/atheists better be careful, or this might backfire on them."

"Movies like 'The God Who Wasn't There' are so full of holes and ane easily debunked, but irregardless of that fact, it points out that a religion and a culture are under attack and that is nothing short of bigotry."

1. I agree that the movie TGWWT is easily debunked as it's based on a false premise.
2. "Irregardless" isn't a word
3. You misunderstand the word "bigotry."
Bigotry is directed at a person, not at an idea/opinion. Religious beliefs are ideas/opinion. Atheists have nothing against you. It's your religious ideas they dismiss. Equating the dismissal of a belief in the supernatural (gods) with racism and antisemitism is a piss-poor playing of the "Hitler card."

Religious belief by definition is an opinion as there is no factual/rational basis to hold such beliefs. All opinions are open for discussion. Discussing the validity of religious beliefs is no more intolerant than discussing the merits or demerits of supply side economics.

I've been down this path with religionists before, and it's futile. I realize that you will never answer the question I asked: ie: what specific history do you say is being ignored in the atheist "argument?"

Here's the deal: you answer that specific question, and we'll talk. Otherwise, I bid you a fond ta-ta.

PS - don't forget to make your donation to DU.

[humblebum]

38. Yes, "irregardless" is a word. Maybe slang, but definitely used for

emphasis. And yes, I do understand bigotry. Criticism is one thing, condemnation another. Atheist groups crossed that line quite awhile back. It's very common to see atheists jumping on believers for their beliefs. Not a good trend.
Hitchens is still holding to his positivistic/empiricist ideas and that is the box that he lives in and if anyone holds views outside of that small confinement - to him they are wrong. Hitchens is well rehearsed in his answers but they are extremely narrow in focus and if he thinks that religion can poison society, the same can certainly be said of atheism, but then I've already heard him trying to rationalize that fact as incorrect.

[stopbush]

40. Still won't answer the question, will you?

Typical of your ilk...and, sorry to say, you are of an ilk.

And, yes, you're right about "irregardless" as a slang expression. I don't see any reason to make that the focus of this conversation, do you?

I'll try not to offer you such easy tangent-enabling ideas going forward. That is, if you'll answer my "history" question at some point.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

17. Hartmann didn't do well at all here

Hartmann is the smartest guy on the radio hands down, but when it comes to religion you can see that his own faith gets in the way of a reasoned discussion. Trying to pin evangelism on Hitchens is nothing short of riduculous. I dont' see Hitch trying to convert people to Atheism, which is the definition of evangelism. It is a weak argument and yesterday when I was hearing this I too was cringing in places. Hartmann is better than this.

[humblebum]

18. I would say that's because you are partial to the atheist argument.

Hartman could have used more descriptive language. The style of hitchens resembles the style of an evangelist and the way in which atheism has organized an taken on elements and ideas resembles a religion. then again, I think Hitchens is about ego, bluff, and blather. So I guess I'm somewhat partial too.

[ihavenobias]

20. Funny.

He disagrees so he's fully partial, but of course you are fully partial. I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'.

;)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

25. Obviously you are partial

At least you admit it. That being said, you know absolutely nothing about me personally so to assume I am an Atheist (I am not) is pretty lazy of you.

[humblebum]

32. I definitely apologize for my unreasonable assumption. nt

[spiritual_gunfighter]

34. It's okay n/t

[PassingFair]

42. Personally, I love Thom, and I can't stand the "Gin-soaked popinjay"...

but when you're right, your right.



Score one for Hitchens.

[swishyfeet]

9. Thanks for the vid.

I haven't listened to Hartmann all that often, but it seems Hitchens pretty well turned the tables on him on this subject.

[stopbush]

27. Like many religionists who attempt to debate Hitchens,

Hartmann makes the mistake of assuming that Hitchens will allow his (Hartmann's) unfounded assumptions to stand. Hitch has been through this enough to know when a religionist is trying to move the debate off the point and drag it into territory where speculation and opinion have standing with reason and fact, ie: the usual stomping ground of the religionist.

Hitch will have none of it. It's kinda sad to see how easily Hitch destroys these maneuvers on Hartmann's part. What's the saying? Don't bring an imaginary knife to a gunfight?

[mr_smith007]

35. I agree with Hartmann

that Hitchen's atheism and his methods are evangelical assertion. I am equally annoyed by both evangelical christians and atheists that assert without doubt the non-existence of the supernatural. I am will Bill Maher on this one, I embrace and try to spread doubt. Because that is all we have, we have no fucking idea and anyone who claims to know either the absolute existence or lack thereof regarding a supreme being is simply fucked in the head. Agnostics UNITE!

[PassingFair]

37. I have never met an "atheist" who asserts that there is NO possibility of the supernatural...

just those that say they don't believe in it.

I think the chance of the existence of
the Christian or Jewish versions of "god"
being true is slim to none. EQUAL to my
level of belief in fairy folk and Zeus.

The concept of "god" is like a mental
bandaid for those that NEED answers to
unanswerable questions.

Atheist=without a belief in a deity

Agnostic=without knowledge of a deity or "spirit"

Those without knowledge are necessarily
those without belief.

I have heard people say that
an agnostic is an atheist with an inferiority complex.

Hitchens asserts that he will not accept the possibility
of "god" because there is NO EVIDENCE of it. That is all.

I am sure he will change his mind when presented with the
evidence.

[stopbush]

39. Exactly. In fact, were the supernatural to be proven, it would take its

place in the natural world, wouldn't it? Being so defined rather removes the aura of being supernatural.

And, yes, the atheist simply states that he sees no reason to believe in things for which there is no evidence. That includes fairies, werewolves, and gods.

The real bugbear is that the religious resent the fact that their god is being given the same lack of consideration as are the fairies and werewolves. They believe that some special carve out is deserved for their particular supernatural fantasy (ie: "the free play of creative imagination; a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived; a fanciful design or invention; a chimerical or fantastic notion") when considered against all other supernatural fantasies. They believe this because their god is to them a mighty creature who holds life and death in his hands, and eternal life and death, at that. The skeptic/atheist simply rejects with the same force - no less, no more - ideas asserted without evidence, be they ideas of gods or fairies (that which can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence).

What's so hard to understand?

[mr_smith007]

44. That wasn't the point of my

post at all. My point was that Hitchen's would be well served to embrace a bit of fallabism with his views. You said:

"And, yes, the atheist simply states that he sees no reason to believe in things for which there is no evidence. That includes fairies, werewolves, and gods."

I am fine with the first sentence but I think it is incomplete. Just like in the scientific method and statistics, you can never assert anything one way or the other as truth or proven. You can just confirm or disprove a guess with evidence but you can never wholly rule out the opposite.

If I state "I have no reason to believe in fairies, werewolves and gods because there is no evidence" then that is half way there. But if I am to be intellectually honest and admit that I am just one step away from a chimpanzee, intellectually, then I have to state that "based on the same lack of evidence above, I cannot wholly rule out the existence of fairies, werewolves and gods either".

I don't personally think that there is a "supreme being" or at least one that gives a shit about humans. But to be honest, I can't rule it out either, that would be intellectually dishonest.

[PassingFair]

46. You can rule out the possibility of BELIEVING in it, though. n/t

[mr_smith007]

48. Well if evidence

ever presents itself wouldn't I be forced to "believe" it. I don't think it ever will of course, but again, I can never rule it out.

Belief is such a silly notion anyway.

[stopbush]

55. Science asserts proven, immutable truths all the time, like the laws of physics.

Science can also be inconclusive about certain things and will state so. But science also asserts theories, which are a body of fact that have been proven to be true and accurate to a statistical probability that allows one to accept them as entirely accurate and to totally rule out the opposite.

Please do not confuse a proven scientific theory with a guess based on evidence.

I hear your argument all the time from many quarters, but I have yet to have a person cite a single example of a scientific theory that has been tested, retested, subjected to falsification and strenuous peer review (and whose predictive power has been confirmed many times over) that at a later date was proven to be the complete opposite of what the theory had originally seemed to confirm. What happens all the time, however, is that proven scientific theories gain more nuance and depth as further research explores avenues of the theory that have opened up as a theory grows in its application. But this is not a total reversal of a theory. Neither is it an undoing of the basic theory itself (and realize that we are talking about scientific theory here, not conjecture or unproven hypotheses).

So, I would assert that no one is being "intellectually dishonest" if they assert that a scientific theory that proves something to an extremely high probability allows them to "rule out" other explanations, especially explanations that fly in the faced of evidence that has been put through the scientific method. What IS intellectually dishonest is to aver that a "guess" that has no evidence to support it (creationism) should be considered to be as viable a truth as a truth for which overwhelming, tested, retested and proven evidence exists (evolution).

But I'm game: please cite a scientific theory that has been REVERSED. I'd be interested to hear it.

[mr_smith007]

43. That is the part

with which I have a problem:

"Hitchens asserts that he will not accept the possibility
of "god" because there is NO EVIDENCE of it. That is all."

I just don't get that. That would be like saying 500 years ago that I cannot accept the possibility of the atom because there is simply no evidence for it. Well, the evidence would eventually reveal itself but we simply did not have any intellectual foundation, reference or tools to even imagine it. So instead of saying "I cannot accept the possibility of the existence of the atom", I would be better advised to state "I have no basis for believing that an atom exists because I am simply don't have the data to back it up and I am intellectually limited...but based on the same limitations, I can't rule it out either".

I think we are at that primitive stage where we cannot know and even worse, because of our primitive biological minds, will likely never reach a point that if indeed there is a "supreme being" or entity of any kind, we could know or understand it.

The point is doubt based on understanding of our severe intellectual limitations. I guess you could call it an inferiority complex but I would call it realism. We can't know and probably never will know anything one way or the other. It is just those that assert with absolute certainly either for the existence of a supreme being AND those asserting with the same certainty the lack of existence that drives me crazy....you CAN'T know one way or the other.

[PassingFair]

45. There is a big difference between an "atom" and an "omnipotent being".

Omnipotent Being who can be reached and
coerced with intercessory prayer?

No possibility of me having FAITH or
BELIEF in that.

None.

Unless proof is supplied.

[mr_smith007]

47. I am not

talking about "Omnipotent Being who can be reached and coerced with intercessory prayer?" at all. I am only talking about the existence of a cause or supreme being...I didn't say anything about a relationship with it.

On another note, if indeed there is a supreme being and we can in some dimension interact one day with it, I would give it a swift kick in the nuts for using such a cruel method of biological diversification such as evolution. I am convinced that if there is a god, he's a pissed off 5th grader starved for attention and fucked up our creation out of frustration and anger. And the adult gods are worse for letting this little jackass create this heartless world without supervision. >:(

[stopbush]

57. Excuse me, but the idea of the atom was first broached in India in 600 BCE

and by the Greeks in 450 BCE.

Anyone living 500 years ago who "simply did not have any intellectual foundation, reference or tools to even imagine it" didn't know philosophies that existed two millenia before their time.

And "severe intellectual limitations?" Why do you accept the self-loathing that religion imposes upon the mind of man? With all of the awe and mystery that the mind of man has discovered, why do you denigrate our intellectual achievements? And "primitive biological minds?" The primitive mind we started with has evolved tremendously, even as the primitive physical part of our mind still lies buried within each of us.

And why would we not be able to understand a supreme being if one existed? Because books thought up and written by men in the Bronze Age say so? Well, geez Edna, we've moved on from then. We're better men than they were back then. Why accept the religionist's mantra that human nature doesn't change? Isn't religion THE main influence that is keeping human nature trapped in the Bronze Age mindset?

[whathehell]

51. Your definitions of agnosticism and atheism are flawed.

Agnostics are people who say "I don't know". They wisely refuse to close the door on a possibility.

It is atheists, rather than agnostics, who seem to need a definite "answer". To the question of god, they give a decided "no".

Strict empiricists are terribly limited. The "evidence" they seek is highly dependent on technology...There was no "evidence" of germs before the invention of the microscope.

[PassingFair]

53. I think that your definitions are the flawed ones.

But go ahead and define non-belief
into the cubicles you have set.

I have given the bases of the words themselves.

The only real difference between the two
is that one has a more negative connotation
to believers.

[whathehell]

60. "The only real difference between the two is that one has a more negative connnotation to believers"

Wrong.

They are two different words because they describe two different views.

[PassingFair]

63. According to Y-O-U.

It is only a matter of semantics to ME.

I consider myself both agnostic and atheist,
as I worship no gods, I believe in no gods,
and I have no evidence of any gods.

[whathehell]

71. Yes -- as your "semantics" are according to Y.O.U.

[stopbush]

41. You are quite wrong about Hitchens, who does not assert a

"without doubt" view that god doesn't exist. He simply says there's no evidence for it and he treats it the same as he does other things for which there is no evidence. That led Hartmann to get into the discussion of whether or x-rays existed before they were proven to exist.

Hitchens' position is that there is no reason to favor one speculation-derived explanation for the natural world over another. His position is not one of asserting god doesn't exist. It is one of asserting the evidence doesn't exist for god's existence. There's a big difference. His beef with religionists is that they assert that god exists as a fact without a shred of evidence to back it up.

The assertion of something as fact without evidence to prove it so is an evangelical assertion.

The assertion that one cannot consider something to be factual if there is no evidence to show that it is, indeed, a fact, is a rational and logical assertion, but it is not evangelical.

[humblebum]

49. It totally depends on what can be considered as evidence.

And that is where atheists follow a different path so to speak. And the argument keeps going in circles. It is an unwinnable argument. Kinda like discussing birdwatching with a blind person, except the blind person would be a loud mouth know-it-all and the bird watcher would probably have poor eyesight himself.

[stopbush]

56. Well, you're wrong.

The dictionary defines evidence as "something that furnishes proof."

The dictionary defines proof as "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a fact."

The dictionary defines fact as "the quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality."

The dictionary defines objective as "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; having reality independent of the mind."

The dictionary defines reality as "the quality or state of being real."

The dictionary defines real as " having objective independent existence."

Simply stated, you are arguing for a SUBJECTIVE standard for what can be considered evidentiary. Yet, the very definition of the word "evidence" cries out for an OBJECTIVE standard of proof.

You are the one following a different and subjective path, not the atheists.

And, truth be told, there really is no argument. Evidence is objective or it isn't evidence.

[humblebum]

64. You obviously know little about "proof"as related to philosophy

and math and science. Proof in science is not the same as proof in math. Proof can vary in science if new evidence is presented. However in math proof is unchanging. Proof in philosophy or evidence in philosophy is subjective, but has a very real outcome. Atheism is an extremely limited and narrow philosophy.

[stopbush]

66. You're now conflating evidence with proof.

We were discussing evidence.

BTW - I caught this from you in an earlier post: "My point here is not to discuss history or philosophy or psychology, but to point out that there most certainly are other ways of thinking."

Looks like your "point" is to make unfounded assertions about history and then declare off limits any challenges to your whole-cloth assertions. You still have offered no response to my question from yesterday as to what history is being ignored when you wrote, " I think you prove my point because you ignore centuries of philosophy both pro and con, plus history and elements of other ways of knowing which solidify arguments."

So, Mr Bum, what history is being ignored in the atheist view that god doesn't exist? We're waiting.

[humblebum]

67. Are you telling me that you can have evidence without proof and

proof without evidence? And what about circumstantial evidence, if it's not really evidence is it really proof? And what about extrapolated evidence is that proof? All of these methods or concepts have been used for centuries by theists and nontheists alike to validate claims. You have already said that old histories are only myths and that old philosophers' propositions are no longer valid, then why do you even care to discuss history or philosophy. Atheism can only be made valid if you eliminate some of the elements that don't fit in with the reasoning and theism is only valid if one believes that there is the possibility of existence beyond the senses. If you want to be content to accept only what is before your eyes as finality, that is your right. BUT, if you discourage or attempt to dissuade others from questioning those views or denying those atheistic views - you have most certainly crossed the line.

[stopbush]

68. Care to respond to my question about history?

I'm waiting.

[whathehell]

59. If Hitchens is simply asserting that "evidence doesn't exist for god's existence"

he's not exactly making a new observation.

The fact that science "cannot prove or disprove the existence of God" has been around a long time, and I know of NO "religionists" who believe otherwise. They simply feel that science is limited to that which can be measured.

[humblebum]

65. That is an absolute truth which is based on the Scientific Method

and is limited solely to empiricism. People who follow that line of thinking are "positivists" and recognize nothing beyond what the senses reveal.

[whathehell]

70. Correct...and they are very limited.

[whathehell]

50. Exactly.

[PassingFair]

36. Hartmann is my favorite radio host....by FAR.

But he cannot win an argument
against REALITY.

Not without evidence.

I applaud his trying, though.

Any atheist or agnostic will
concede that they don't have
all the answers to all the questions...

[whathehell]

52. You seem to misunderstand the difference between atheism and agnosticism

The only "reality" is that we do NOT know and it was Hartmann who was making that case.

Hitchens is the arrogant ass who claims to KNOW.

[PassingFair]

54. Hitchens was making the case that there is no evidence for the existence...

of a "supreme being".

Therefore, belief or faith is irrational.

And I think it is you who misunderstand
the words atheist and agnostic.

You have a very superficial understanding
of non-belief.

[whathehell]

58. "no evidence for the existence of a supreme being"

No. And there was no "evidence" for the existence of radiation or microrganisms until the invention of tools that GAVE evidence of them.

Does this mean they didn't exist until the tools were invented?

It is you who have a superficial understanding of the whole issue.

[PassingFair]

62. Of course there was "evidence". That's why science was used to bring it to light.

Again, I'm not saying that the wee folk CAN'T live
under my desk, I'm saying I don't BELIEVE that they
do, and I don't leave them small, burnt offerings,
either.

[whathehell]

69. No, dear...there's no "of course" about it...

Or are you unaware of all that's been discovered by ACCIDENT?

"Again, I'm not saying that the wee folk CAN'T live
under my desk, I'm saying I don't BELIEVE that they
do".

Um..yeah, I think we've all GOT that now :eyes:

The question is, besides excercising your pathological need to demean those who do not "believe" as you do, what is your POINT?

Who the hell CARES what you "believe" or for that matter, what anyone "believes"?

ACTIONS count more than beliefs.

[PassingFair]

72. .

:crazy:

Yeah, THAT made sense...

Believe is the core of the "argument".

[whathehell]

73. First of all, it's "belief", not "believe"

secondly, If it doesn't make sense to you, perhaps you're not as prepared for the "argument" as you thought you were.

Whatever the situation, I DO find you a bitter, uninteresting individual
and so I will say buh-bye:hi: