Hitchens apparent winner in religion debate

[LBloom]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/26/blair-htichens-religion.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0692335:b39861710

Atheist Christopher Hitchens debated born again (more than once) Christian Tony Blair about religion and came out the winner in Toronto last night.

This link http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/26/religion-good-evil-poll-hitchens-blair.html

...is to a CBC article that shows Canadians along with Australians, the French, the Scandahoovians and a whole lot of lefty liberals don't believe in god. Of course the Yanks, and the Saudis still do....

Interesting to see that the Brits do not LOL.

[Shady]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/26/blair-htichens-religion.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0692335:b39861710

Atheist Christopher Hitchens debated born again (more than once) Christian Tony Blair about religion and came out the winner in Toronto last night.

This link http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/26/religion-good-evil-poll-hitchens-blair.html

...is to a CBC article that shows Canadians along with Australians, the French, the Scandahoovians and a whole lot of lefty liberals don't believe in god. Of course the Yanks, and the Saudis still do....

Interesting to see that the Brits do not LOL.

You mean in a debate between an athiest and a believer, CBC actually comes out on the side of the athiest? Shocked I tells ya!

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that Canadians, Austrailians, French, etc, don't believe in God. Personally I'm agnostic.

[Guest TrueMetis]

You mean in a debate between an athiest and a believer, CBC actually comes out on the side of the athiest? Shocked I tells ya!

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that Canadians, Austrailians, French, etc, don't believe in God. Personally I'm agnostic.

You can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic means you can't be sure and atheist means you don't believe they aren't mutually exclusive.

[dre]

You can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic means you can't be sure and atheist means you don't believe they aren't mutually exclusive.

Yeah neither atheists or agnostics believe in god. The only difference is that atheists believe firmly in the absense of a god. Im an apathetic agnostic myself... dont know, and dont care either.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yeah neither atheists or agnostics believe in god. The only difference is that atheists believe firmly in the absense of a god. Im an apathetic agnostic myself... dont know, and dont care either.

Not necessarily, a strong atheist believes firmly there is no god a weak atheist doesn't believe in god. It's a slight but important difference with the vast majority of atheists being the latter. If you're agnostic you don't think it is knowable whether there is or is not a god and if your gnostic you think it is knowable. So most weak atheists are also agnostic while a strong atheist would usually be gnostic. Theists can also be gnostic or agnostic.

[kimmy]

You can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic means you can't be sure and atheist means you don't believe they aren't mutually exclusive.

What's the formal name for somebody who doesn't believe in God but doesn't care enough to argue about it with a bunch of zealots from either side?

-k

[Guest TrueMetis]

What's the formal name for somebody who doesn't believe in God but doesn't care enough to argue about it with a bunch of zealots from either side?

-k

Just atheist, the ones that really like to argue are generally considered militant atheist.

Edited November 28, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Jack Weber]

What's the formal name for somebody who doesn't believe in God but doesn't care enough to argue about it with a bunch of zealots from either side?

-k

In this case??

Apathetic???

[Topaz]

Macleans did a piece on Blair and the debate and religion can be a touchy subject at times. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/19/when-god-and-politics-collide/

[dre]

What's the formal name for somebody who doesn't believe in God but doesn't care enough to argue about it with a bunch of zealots from either side?

-k

Lesbian.

[ToadBrother]

What's the formal name for somebody who doesn't believe in God but doesn't care enough to argue about it with a bunch of zealots from either side?

-k

Those people are called "sensible".

Edited November 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Macleans did a piece on Blair and the debate and religion can be a touchy subject at times. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/19/when-god-and-politics-collide/

Haven't watched the debate, but I'm sure it boils down to "Lots of people love God and need Him in their lives" vs. "God is a ghost and religion is EVIL!!!"

I find the arguments of both groups to be pretty damned infantile. I'm a weak atheist. I don't see any need for a god, don't see any evidence, but if someone has something convincing that isn't ultimately some variant on circular logic, some argument from aesthetics or some sort of insulting claim that Hitler was an atheist or I think I think I'm some sort fo god then by all means whiz it past me.

The same goes for Hitchens and Dawkins and all the other militant atheists. I find their arguments infantile and usually more about insulting religious people; just a big pissing contest.

[bloodyminded]

The same goes for Hitchens and Dawkins and all the other militant atheists. I find their arguments infantile and usually more about insulting religious people; just a big pissing contest.

This is my impression as well. And the combative tone would be utterly foregiveable were they applying some sort of new insights into the fray. But they're not.

If I feel like reading somebody on atheism, I'll stick to the wise old grandfather: Bertrand Russell.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The same goes for Hitchens and Dawkins and all the other militant atheists. I find their arguments infantile and usually more about insulting religious people; just a big pissing contest.

I see that about Hitchens but I rarely see Dawkins insult people unless they've made a totally moronic statement completely misrepresenting the science, or they've tried to set him up to make him look like an idiot.

[bloodyminded]

I see that about Hitchens but I rarely see Dawkins insult people unless they've made a totally moronic statement completely misrepresenting the science, or they've tried to set him up to make him look like an idiot.

Actually, I have seen little of Dawkins, so I should have been more careful in my criticism. I was really referring to Hitchens, not to Dawkins.

And at any rate, Hitchens' caustic and angry tone has nothing to do with his atheism anyway: he applied it when he was a Trotskyist; he applied it as a born-again neo-con; and he uses it in equal measure in his atheism arguments.

That's just Hitchens.

[dre]

I see that about Hitchens but I rarely see Dawkins insult people unless they've made a totally moronic statement completely misrepresenting the science, or they've tried to set him up to make him look like an idiot.

Ive really enjoyed the books of Dawkins that I read... hes nowhere near as bombastic as Hitch.

As far as atheists becoming more militant, people need to look at the context. Atheists are most hated minority in the entire world.

Heres an example of what atheists are up against... A billboard that says "Don't believe in God? You're not alone." has resulted in a rash of death threats and has been taken down because people fear for their lives.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/death-threats-force-removal-of-atheist-billboard

So yeah... some people have had it, and theyre starting to fight fire with fire, and go "evangelical". Especially with the attempts by abrahamic religion to become a force in the civil sphere again... refusing to give liberal leaning policians communion, trying to put fake textbooks in schools and other such horseshit.

Edited December 2, 2010 by dre

[Guest TrueMetis]

Actually, I have seen little of Dawkins, so I should have been more careful in my criticism. I was really referring to Hitchens, not to Dawkins.

And at any rate, Hitchens' caustic and angry tone has nothing to do with his atheism anyway: he applied it when he was a Trotskyist; he applied it as a born-again neo-con; and he uses it in equal measure in his atheism arguments.

That's just Hitchens.

Yea Hitchens is a dick, he'd be a dick if he was a Christian to.

Ive really enjoyed the books of Dawkins that I read... hes nowhere near as bombastic as Hitch.

As far as atheists becoming more militant, people need to look at the context. Atheists are most hated minority in the entire world.

Heres an example of what atheists are up against... A billboard that says "Don't believe in God? You're not alone." has resulted in a rash of death threats and has been taken down because people fear for their lives.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/death-threats-force-removal-of-atheist-billboard

So yeah... some people have had it, and theyre starting to fight fire with fire, and go "evangelical". Especially with the attempts by abrahamic religion to become a force in the civil sphere again... refusing to give liberal leaning policians communion, trying to put fake textbooks in schools and other such horseshit.

And yet we still haven't resorted to blowing people up.

In any event here's an example of the angriest I've ever seen Dawkins and keep in mind he's dealt with people who have come to his house and lied about who they were in order to get video of him looking stupid.

(Warning the person he is talking to is a moron and he's stays a lot more calm than I would have.)

I've seen him angrier once when he talked with that gay christian evangelical, can't remember his name the one who preached against homosexual then was found with a gay prostitute.

[dre]

Yea Hitchens is a dick, he'd be a dick if he was a Christian to.

And yet we still haven't resorted to blowing people up.

In any event here's an example of the angriest I've ever seen Dawkins and keep in mind he's dealt with people who have come to his house and lied about who they were in order to get video of him looking stupid.

(Warning the person he is talking to is a moron and he's stays a lot more calm than I would have.)

I've seen him angrier once when he talked with that gay christian evangelical, can't remember his name the one who preached against homosexual then was found with a gay prostitute.

Hehe Iv seen that before TM... its damn hard to watch.

And thats a good point. So called "militant atheists" get called out for merely taking a strong view, or for being (for lack of a better word) "evangelical". The more extreme members of abrahamic religions literally slaughter people.

So it rings hollow to me when I see people condemning people like Dawkins when they get a little bit aggressive in their advocacy for evidence-based-reality-ism. Like I said.. atheists are a tiny minority in the world and by far the most hated minority. They have every reason to be on the defensive and every reason to push back.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Hehe Iv seen that before TM... its damn hard to watch.

And thats a good point. So called "militant atheists" get called out for merely taking a strong view, or for being (for lack of a better word) "evangelical". The more extreme members of abrahamic religions literally slaughter people.

So it rings hollow to me when I see people condemning people like Dawkins when they get a little bit aggressive in their advocacy for evidence-based-reality-ism. Like I said.. atheists are a tiny minority in the world and by far the most hated minority. They have every reason to be on the defensive and every reason to push back.

Fortunately you can't beat facts no matter how much you try, it's why some studies have pegged atheism as the fastest growing group in the western world.

ETA Video explaining the many types of atheists, because even though I generalized into strong and weak it's a bit more complicated than that.

Edited December 2, 2010 by TrueMetis

[bloodyminded]

Fortunately you can't beat facts no matter how much you try, it's why some studies have pegged atheism as the fastest growing group in the western world.

ETA Video explaining the many types of atheists, because even though I generalized into strong and weak it's a bit more complicated than that.

Interesting video. I, like many atheists, have considered most of this already, but he articulates it better than I ever have.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Interesting video. I, like many atheists, have considered most of this already, but he articulates it better than I ever have.

That's why I posted his video instead of typing it out myself.

[wyly]

Fortunately you can't beat facts no matter how much you try, it's why some studies have pegged atheism as the fastest growing group in the western world.

atheists are now the majority in some countries and fast approaching that in many others...that's what a good secular educational system can do...there are over a billion atheists...

I watched a program tonight on CBC called Apocalypse 2012it was interesting seeing how people get drawn into a what is new religion...they have no basis for their beliefs only the word of a messiah type who claims they have all the answers and will guide them through the Mayan end of days scenario...amazing to see what you take to be rational intelligent people accepting what they are told without question...one lawyer claimed he has been chosen to save humanity by jumping of a cliff through a portal that will open on the summer solstice 2012, if he doesn't jump we will all die...of course he will jump and nothing will happen and he will claim that he saved us all and be the messiah...just to help him achieve this savior status he's asking for $100 donations to accomplish the jump (jumping has overhead)...

[eyeball]

I watched a program tonight on CBC called Apocalypse 2012

You managed to make it all the way through that? I nearly threw my beer through the TV screen myself. I finally snapped when one idiot started talking about heading for the hills while another was heading out to sea.

This is what, the third time the world was supposed to end in recent memory? Y2K and some comet if I recall. So what's the fall back position if the Mayans turn out to be full of hooey too?

[Guest TrueMetis]

You managed to make it all the way through that? I nearly threw my beer through the TV screen myself. I finally snapped when one idiot started talking about heading for the hills while another was heading out to sea.

This is what, the third time the world was supposed to end in recent memory? Y2K and some comet if I recall. So what's the fall back position if the Mayans turn out to be full of hooey too?

I know of 6 times that it should have ended since 2000. Twice in 2001, twice 2004, once 2007, once 2008.

And a quick Google search shows I missed quite a few. My link And these are just Christian based ones.

Edited December 3, 2010 by TrueMetis

[wyly]

You managed to make it all the way through that? I nearly threw my beer through the TV screen myself. I finally snapped when one idiot started talking about heading for the hills while another was heading out to sea.

I lasted until about 40 minutes it was hilarious, funniest part was the guy who claimed we're living in a "matrix" ...then there were all the messiahs keeping a straight face as they were fleecing their followers, of course when nothing happens in 2012 they'll all claim it was their followers show of faith that prevented the end of times...and such is how religious beliefs are formed...

my archeologist living in the basement rolls her eyes in disbelief with 2012, she's always being asked questions about this by 2012 believers and avoids answering so as not to offend...she says the Mayan calendar ends because it just does there is no end of days prediction that goes with it, it's just the end of a cycle like our year end, end of the century or millennium...but that explanation doesn't sell any books or make movies...

This is what, the third time the world was supposed to end in recent memory? Y2K and some comet if I recall. So what's the fall back position if the Mayans turn out to be full of hooey too?

Y2K wasn't supposed to be the end of days though just potential computer failures, which were either overblown or avoided by all the corrective programs that were sold...the next fallback is real Apophis a 320 meter wide meteorite that has one near collison with earth and will have another in 2029, then again in 2036 odds for collision are calculated at about one in 45,000 but no doubt movies will be made and more books written... Edited December 3, 2010 by wyly