Video: Gloves off — Hannity versus Hitchens on Falwell
posted at 11:38 pm on May 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
I was going to save this for the a.m. but the word is out and commenters are asking for it. Here you go: Hitch proving that he can’t quite match Larry Flynt for basic decency and Hannity pretending that he’s shocked, shocked by Hitchens’s willingness to say the sorts of things that earned him a spot on the show in the first place.
I guess Hitch figures no one’s going to want to talk about Falwell in a week, so if he wants to get in his shots, now’s his chance. Is the body cold yet?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Athiests can take a lot of good ideas from Christianity just as Americans took a lot of good ideas from the ancient Greeks, Romans and the French. You don’t have to be something to recognize the good ideas while rejecting the sketchier ones. Christians seem to think that, without the devine guidance, humans would rather see society spiral into anarchy than progress as we have for the entire existance of this religion (even in spite of it). It’s rather pessimistic (and shows an appallingly short view of history) to think that overall we’re not progressing.
That book isn’t a blueprint for the next 10,000 years. It’s a good statement of some good ideas humanity was smart enough to come up with even 2000 years ago. We’ve been having good ideas as a species for a while now, even before the book.
askheaves on May 17, 2007 at 1:52 AM
No one can prove that God does not exist. Atheists like Hitchens are spinning their wheels. His book is a big waste of time. He is merely a cheerleader for those who are like minded.
Rose on May 17, 2007 at 1:55 AM
How do you figure? Was the twentieth century the worst century ever or merely one of the worst? Was that progress? Chalk it up to technology merely, not philosophy, but that’s all the more the point–we feel we’re improving ethically but our instinctive advance in technology leads to greater slaughter and misery than ever…
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 1:56 AM
Because, the more the intellect – that thing which you call you, the simple sense of awareness that underlies all your experience – is occluded by experience, hungers for it, grasps for it, hordes it…the more it is willing to fuck over other intellects to satiate itself.
That is to say, the good are more apt to realize the Good.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Had man evolved as animals did, man would have the morals of animals. Even if there were at one time animals with morals, they would not survive evolution because morals are counter-productive to survival. I cannot say none, but I will say I have never heard of any animal that will take care of an infirmed memeber of the group forever. If twenty members of a group of 25 were infirmed, the twenty would be allowed to die to ensure the survival of the strongest members.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Fair enough. But if you want to attempt to “prove” the existence of God: Please leave the banannas at home.
Plus, as a non-believer to a believer (I think, though I apologize if incorrect), I think people like to hear personal stories of how you (or someone else) came to faith. I know I do. It builds a connection to your intended audience that no skeptic can match, rather than the teleological arguments that I’ve heard ad nauseum.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 2:02 AM
AP
Sadly your career in public education is at an end….
:)
EricPWJohnson on May 17, 2007 at 2:03 AM
Oh For cripes sake.
Is there a blogger anywhere in more dire need of a girlfriend?
Stephen M on May 17, 2007 at 2:04 AM
have never understood this idea of not bad mouthing the dead
Geez, and here I thought my grandmother’s rant “What? Were you raised in a barn?” was merely rhetorical.
When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they will believe in anything
Darleen on May 17, 2007 at 2:04 AM
growing up in Oral Roberts old neigborhood of Valley Glenn in Tulsa Oklahoma there are some schools of thought on those such as Falwell, Robertson.
One. Its hard to publically keep up a constant stream of faith in the public eye (Of course giving private motel choir auditions like Swaggert does take some of the steam out of the hellfire)
Two. They are indeed blessed and extraordinary people that are a gift from the almighty (My Grannie used to say some gifts aren’t always rewards)
Three. Total and complete frauds
Personally I think Falwell was a combination of mostly two and partly one, he fell in some peoples eyes for his bizarre attacks on those who were unbelievers – but he also did an astonishing amount of good as well
Thus an entire journey into Americana a titan is gone
EricPWJohnson on May 17, 2007 at 2:11 AM
csdeven, don’t be smug, based on little, and don’t underestimate others’ capacity, here on this thread. That’s when you turn into honora-like quickly.
On your animal/morals comment, too late at night to start an evolution thread now. We’ve had several of those and solved nothing.
I can’t believe how many of you are up at this hour. You couldn’t possibly all live here on the West coast.
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 2:11 AM
Nobody can prove the concept of a god (who is capable of doing anything) is false just as nobody can prove this concept exists, but what people can do is prove that sections of certain religions holy texts are false which is equivalent to proving that religion false.
People might not be capable of proving a god does not exist, but people can prove that a Christian or Muslim God does not exist.
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 2:11 AM
I didn’t finish my point.
The only reason man is able to survive as a moral being is because he was created in his present form that allows him to dominate the earth and gather food enough for himself and his infirmed members. If he had to evolve as animals did, only those humans who were devoid of the desire to be moral would survive.
The eternal bane of the atheists insistance on eveolution is that they have never found the missing link.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 2:12 AM
I wasn’t being smug. Up to that point, the only responses to his question totally misunderstood his question.
See you tomorrow.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 2:14 AM
No one has proven that Christianity is false.
Rose on May 17, 2007 at 2:14 AM
All right then – good night csdeven. Dream of Fred :) Just kidding you. Be well,
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 2:16 AM
I thought it was a pretty good century. And I think this next one is going to be better. The most significant technologies of the last couple hundred years have been ways of connecting people who would have otherwise been unconnected. Philosophically, we’ve seen much of the world trade in government as “selected by God” for government as a servant of the governed.
I can’t argue that God does or doesn’t exist, and I can’t argue that there’s no place for faith in a life. I can argue that the world, overall, is becoming a better place with people being, overall, better to each other. And that this wasn’t wheels set in motion by a very special book.
The world can become a better place, and the Bible, written as a guidebook to those times, doesn’t have to be the arbitor of people who don’t want to live in fear of their neighbor. We’re perfectly capable of putting together a good society with the fear of secular judgement.
askheaves on May 17, 2007 at 2:16 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot some people don’t believe in the FOSSIL RECORD or igneous and sedimentary rock layers which proves that man did not live to be older than 200 years old 4,000 years ago or that there was no rainfall that flooded the world (or even a large section of it). I mean, if you guys don’t accept that as proof that parts in The Bible are false you won’t accept anything.
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 2:17 AM
Your facts are not absolute. I need more than bone fragments and theory as proof.
Rose on May 17, 2007 at 2:19 AM
Entelechy, I just have to correct you here… I never said that. Quite the opposite really, I believe the qualities you mention are God given to us humans. I simply pointed out that if I were an atheist, I don’t see why anyone could have a problem with me behaving in a “if it feels good do it” manner and shrug off any societal judgment and ignore any law that society thinks they can put on me. If I’m just another animal, and I truly believe that, screw everyone else it’s all about me and I will do what I want when I want.
Nonfactor, for the first part I’ll point you to my response to my friend Entelechy. As for the second part, leave the strawmen alone or leave me alone. I think all sides would agree I don’t come here and thump a Bible and tell people “XYZ because the Bible says so!”.
You’re on track to a really good point there that gets in to such a deeper area that is difficult to put in to words. I considered diving in to that earlier, but it’s tough enough to get people to stop putting words in our mouths, talking about bananas, and baselessly accusing people of flinging Bible verses. To try to go in to the area you’re headed would probably not be worth our time. One quick thing though, sometimes animals do take in and nurture something, but I don’t think any logical person on any side of the issue at hand would say they do it for moral reasons.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 2:20 AM
hahahahahahaha!!!!
Really? So everything that Da Vinci taught was false because some things he taught were false? Is that what yer saying here?
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 2:20 AM
So Hitchens is God now?
I hope this is his last judgment.
profitsbeard on May 17, 2007 at 2:22 AM
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Here’s another. When the touch of beingness is, in turn, freed from the snare of the intellect, one knows oneself as one is.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 2:23 AM
Also in increasing our capacity to kill. And how beneficial has it been to connect with each other? Emphasizing inequality and stoking resentment–and enabling the travel and technology that allows such emotions to translate into violence–has been the more noticeable result of the shrinking world. Awareness of the wonderful diversity of our species goes back centuries.
No, that happened in the centuries prior. In the 20th we got vanguards of the proletariat and a new wave of theocracies.
Compared to prehistoric times, maybe. Or the lawless time post-Rome. Compared to the centuries immediately before Nazism, Communism, et al? I doubt it.
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 2:23 AM
The thing about your statement, RightWinged, is this: all too many non-Christians (and, sadly, even more nominal Christians)haven’t picked up the Bible in years are are merely quoting from a memory that sometimes isn’t all that pleasant.
For example, I had a conversation with a guy some years ago about Joseph’s reaction to the announcement that his fiance, Mary, was pregnant with the famed Jesus. Joseph hadn’t known Mary (um, biblically).
The guy in question laughed at Joseph for taking Mary’s word on the subject, But having actually read the Gospels more than once, I told the guy in question that Joseph was ready to kick Mary to the curb at first, albeit quietly. But the Holy Spirit came to Joseph and told him that Mary’s version of events was true. And that Joseph believed.
Now, whether one believes this story or not is irrelevant. As I told the guy, at least *know* what you’re believing in, not believing in, or ridiculing. Know the scripture that you’re refuting. Or embrace it.
baldilocks on May 17, 2007 at 2:24 AM
That is the next logical area to get into and if they try to argue that animals have morals, they will find themselves in the unenviable position of claiming a belief that has no evidence to back it up. No one can read an animals mind. They use science to cast doubt on others faith, yet run to faith to buoy up their science.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 2:26 AM
How can both sides of such a polarised debate be so right and, at the same time, so wrong?
uptight on May 17, 2007 at 2:28 AM
The point is PRCalDude, Transcendence can only be realized via Imminence. And Imminence resides in the tiniest house of time.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 2:28 AM
Randy, I understand so long as it is, as you stated “if I were an atheist” and not the assumption that all atheists/agnosts live like that.
You are a very correct man and I appreciate the clarification. Regards,
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 2:28 AM
Hitchens punked both Colmes and Sean… easily.
I don’t know enough about Falwell to have an opinion either way but I know Hitchens is almost always right. My favorite part was when Chris put Hannity in his place after pointing out he interrupted his answer before he could finish.
Not to mention, organized religion is a complete hypocritical force for supposed “good”. It’s easy for Hannity to embarrass liberals but it’s a different thing to try to embarrass Hitchens
HItchens won’t apologize for being right! -It’s tomfoolery on your part
Opinionnation on May 17, 2007 at 2:29 AM
Radioactive half-lives aren’t your thing I’m guessing? What about Hubble’s Law? If people like you aren’t willing to accept physical evidence there’s no use.
Not even close to an apt analogy. The Bible states that it is true, if it is physically proven that The Bible is false (in my view) the entire religion is discounted. Da Vinci hasn’t claimed himself to be infallible and he didn’t claim to be writing the word of “God.”
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 2:33 AM
Yeah, that banana gimmic was a joke.
I rarely try to prove Gods existance to others, because I think it is insulting. I do try to argue the fallices in their arguments against the existance of God. I guess sometimes that leads to trying to prove Gods existance, but that is a byproduct of the debate and not the main point.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 2:33 AM
Hitchens needs to wallow in his own filth while he is allowed too because Jerry Falwell will in the long run will be one thousand times his stature.
Hitchens hates, Falwell did not, that’s fairly simple even as Hitchens can’t see through his own narrow myopic delusion.
Speakup on May 17, 2007 at 2:36 AM
These threads truly are red meat.
Ian on May 17, 2007 at 2:37 AM
Hitchens is an embarrassment to humanity. And I do not have absolute faith in science because it is not an absolute. I am not talking about the age of the earth. I am talking about Christianity itself as it appears in the New Testament. The way it was founded and its teachings. The history of it. That has not been disproved even though there are those who wish to rewrite history by saying that Jesus never even existed. Any way, I am not abandoning this debate, I just need to leave to go to work.
Rose on May 17, 2007 at 2:38 AM
I see you are arguing against the bible is infallible argument. I don’t believe the bible is infallible.
In Da Vincis case, if he had a body of thought he accepted as fact, yet later it was found to be partially wrong, that would not make the entire body of work wrong.
But, as stated you are responding to those who take the bible completely literally.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 2:38 AM
I give up as well.
Everybody should believe as they feel they must. Just don’t foist your beliefs on a populace as their only salvation from hell and from themselves.
Also, go Fred! /pander
askheaves on May 17, 2007 at 2:40 AM
God I love a big fat juicy steak before hitting the sack.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 2:41 AM
I agree with those here saying that discussing faith and religion and church (or lack thereof) is basically pointless and counterproductive, because really, 99.99% of the time you just can never get anywhere with anyone about this. It’s too rooted in the private and the personal and the emotional.
But my attempted point above was political. It seems clear to me that what we call the Right needs to be, above all, rational. What is best? What is real? What works? What – in the real world, not fantasyland – leads to the most freedom and happiness for the most people? This is how the Right succeeds and gains ground in the world, by showing how things work. The area of, shall we say, non-rationality called “faith” is tricky, to say the least, to combine with the Right’s use of applied logic in so much else.
Especially so, since it gives the Left an open door that can’t be shut. If “I believe” is all the rationality required to accept the entire New Testament as truth, then “I believe” is all the Left then needs to justify its crusade for socialism, against all empirical evidence that socialism works.
That is, if we’re against double standards.
Halley on May 17, 2007 at 2:43 AM
It is.
If a non-believer is so silly that he will attempt to falsify the existence of God, then you should point out the fallacies of such an endeavor. I would.
I don’t think we disagree all that much.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 2:43 AM
Jeez, Hitch just polished off my bottle of Johnny Black. Jerk.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 2:44 AM
Of course. AP, for one, has expressly admitted that he posts such fodder for the very reason that they draw many comments and diverse points of view.
Nothing wrong with that.
baldilocks on May 17, 2007 at 2:45 AM
I forgot–there are different versions of Christianity and everyone thinks their version is right, but they can’t all be right, can they? Do you believe The Bible to be the word of God? Do you believe the word of God to be fallible? It seems like the more and more evidence that comes out against Christianity the more and more “pick-your-own-adventure” Christians seem to emerge (i.e. proof is provided sections of The Bible are wrong and people come along saying The Bible was never meant to be infallible).
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 2:48 AM
Oh for Christ’s sake, Hitch…the leftover prime rib is on the second shelf behind the roasted potatoes, right where you put it. No, Hitch. Not in the freezer…sigh…there goes the vodka.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 2:54 AM
Hitch just passed out and he’s still gassing on about God. Sad. Yes. But impressive.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 2:58 AM
To the religion debate,
The Bible is but a guide written by men decades after Christ’s death to efficiently control power and suppress independent thinking.
Not to say that the Bible is a work of immorality… but more of a “pick N choose” recounting of remembered history based upon political leverage and antiquated beliefs. For Christians (in other words) live as Christ lived, not as if he is beyond human.
Church is NOT God. Religion is NOT God!
Opinionnation on May 17, 2007 at 3:00 AM
Cool, glad you got me now. I in now way was trying to imply that atheists live that way, I was simply making the point that I don’t see any reason not to if they are indeed atheists and believe they are nothing more than animals and long ago evolved bacteria.
I feel like there’s an easy gay joke in there somewhere, but I’ll leave it alone.
I had a little trouble following where you went with that, because right off the bat, reading my own comment, I realize it may have been written poorly and not said exactly what I intended.
In response to someone (as they often do) building the strawman that we’re pushing Bible verses on them, I said (among other things)
That should have read (to makes sense to the reader):
The point being basically, why would any logical Christian try to prove a point based simply on a Bible verse to someone (an Atheist) who doesn’t accept the Bible/Christian God in the first place. You may have understood what I meant the first time, but I had trouble following your comment after recognizing my own confusing wording of my comment.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 3:00 AM
Nonfactor,
For me, it has always been very difficult to discern what people mean when they say they interpret the Bible literally (this may be a bit off subject, but not too much). St. Augustine did mental gymnastics attempting to redefine words (“day” really means “age” yadayada), while Falwell and his ilk see the 4 Horseman of the Apocalypse to be a metaphor for some catastrophe or person, rather than 4 ACTUAL Horses.
My view of religion is it’s an institution and seeks to propogate itself, like families, government, ect… Do do this, it must be able to bend itself (to a point) to remain relevant as attitudes change and new things are discovered. To not do so would lead to its own destruction.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 3:03 AM
So by that logic, no book can be trusted if it isn’t written as an event happens? (By the way, archeology is in a constant state of proving Biblical stories to be true.)
I agree that Church is NOT God and that religion is NOT God though. I don’t like the fact that a lot of Christians don’t really get this.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 3:04 AM
I agree. I think it’s pointless to quote Bible verses to an atheist in attempts to use them as proof to anyone’s point, but it doesn’t stop people from doing it: “God intervened in history at varioius times, progressively revealing of a coming Redeemer. The first time he did this was in Genesis 3:15, then later with Noah, Abraham, Israel, the prophets, and lastly in Jesus.” -PRCalDude
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 3:05 AM
Not quite my friend. by my logic, no book witten by man can speak for God
Opinionnation on May 17, 2007 at 3:06 AM
Agreed; aswell as with your first point about how “religion” is and has largely been used to control the masses. I think the teachings of Christ to be pretty honorable (give up your possessions, help the poor, feed the hungry, etc.), but sadly religion has taken this message and used it to propagate more mainstream goals (adapted for the times of course).
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 3:07 AM
Sounds a lot more like you’re talking about evolution theory to me here. Evolution theory must constantly rewrite itself to adjust to a constant flow of contradicting evidence, without ever questioning the assumed evolution. Even when evidence says nothing about how something evolved, the assumption forces evolution language to be included saying “must have evolved faster than previously thought” or “convergent evolution had to occur”. When in reality, all that was found was that the evolution angle they’d been telling on a certain species or deposit didn’t fit in light of newly discovered evidence.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 3:07 AM
excuse the mistype: w[r]itten by man not witten
Opinionnation on May 17, 2007 at 3:07 AM
Sorry, I’m mixing up bert and Opinionnation.
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 3:08 AM
Hitch stumbled out the door a few minutes ago mumbling something about hailing a cab to “that hack Friedrich Nietzsche’s place in Williamsburg” for some schnapps.
Good riddance. I’m crashing.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 3:11 AM
Yeah. When the evidence speaks, the theory changes. The evidence has never been sufficient enough to throw all of biological taxonomy out the window.
Scary new evidence makes evolutionists think, “Wow, this is even more complicated than we thought. We’d better figure out how to incorporate this and find patterns in other areas.” Faith seems to take new evidence and either discount it outright or throw it into the big dev/null of “It must be God’s way.”
askheaves on May 17, 2007 at 3:13 AM
Thank you, but I think you are confusing my statement with someone elses. I never said anything about religion being used to control the masses. My first point was about the problem with taking the Bible literally: I tend to think people don’t really do it although they claim too.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 3:16 AM
But that doesn’t make it true!!!!
Think about it – nobody has proved that atheism is false, yet they can’t both be true.
Nobody has proved that Mohammed DIDN’T fly to heaven on a magic horse. Nobody has proved that God DIDN’T speak to Moses via a burning bush.
But, by the same token, nobody has “proved” that the universe WASN’T sneezed out by a giant bunny rabbit named “Lance”.
If the criteria for validity is simply “prove it’s false”, then any wacko, supernatural, unprovable theory is “valid”.
The onus is on a belief to prove that is true.
I’ve an open mind, and at least the case that atheism presents is based upon physical evidence in the world around us.
Religions are simply based on faith in the unprovable and tales of implausible miracles in an book written thousands of years ago by religious fanatics.
That’s not enough for me.
uptight on May 17, 2007 at 3:23 AM
ZZZ…ZZZ…ring…ring…fumble…fumble…Hello…What Hitch……well maybe you can’t find Nietzsche’s place because Nietzsche is dead…Yeah, I know Hitch…and so is Nietzsche…Talk to you later…What?…You ran into Ken Wilber?…He didn’t recogize you?……Good for him. Good night Hitch….Click.
ganeshpuri89 on May 17, 2007 at 3:29 AM
Of course. AP,
Er, Ian. (Dude, you should post more often.)
baldilocks on May 17, 2007 at 3:47 AM
All I was saying that most nay-sayers to Christianity don’t really known what they’re saying ‘no’ to and all too many CINOs don’t know what they’re saying ‘yes’ to. In addition, I gave an example of the former.
baldilocks on May 17, 2007 at 3:51 AM
don’t really known know
baldilocks on May 17, 2007 at 3:51 AM
I never knew hitchens before this episode. I must say I just looked at one of the most into himself smug asses ever. How he’s never pissed anyone off to beat the crap out of him is beyond my comprehension. His voice, face, words……ugly…ugly soul..inside and out.
Highrise on May 17, 2007 at 3:58 AM
Cool gotcha, I just couldn’t get past the fact that my comment you were replying to didn’t read as I intended.
This is a much broader topic not worth delving that far in to, but there are plenty of Christians who don’t see their belief as “faith in spite of evidence” as you seem to suggest.
And you’re completely missing the point I was making about how evolution takes evidence against it’s assumptions and forces them to fit back in to their larger picture, not because the evidence leads them that way, but because they refuse to question their own dogma. No amount of evidence can ever disprove evolution, because no matter how much data conflicts with it, the evolutionists assume (without evidence) how new data must fit back in to the theory (because the theory is not to be challenged). More often than not, there isn’t evidence to support the adjustments to the theory, but because evolution is not to be questioned, evolutionists always say that all evidence that contradicts it must just be evidence for a different path to evolution.
Again, that’s all off on another topic, but I only mentioned it at all because you were talking about things “bending” to fit new discoveries, when this is done far more on the atheist/evolution side.
RightWinged on May 17, 2007 at 4:04 AM
People, people, people…can’t you see the big picture? Why squabble over the little differences and realize that we are ALL part of the big picture?
With that said, I might not have agreed with Falwell on many occassions (as Christian as I am), there is such a thing as human decency. You know the world is goign to hell in a handbasket when a pornographer can have nice things to say and this guy doesn’t allow anyone to make their point because in his head only his point matters.
ScoopPC11 on May 17, 2007 at 7:16 AM
I’ll join the suicide pact just to get away from threads like these
I remember these threads popping up all over the place when I was about 7-10 years younger, it seems bizarre to see them coming up on a political site. Then again, “hotair: So much more than a political site!”(tm)
Actually, I’ll admit it’s interesting if not humourous at times. And both.. ‘sides’.. writing things out in a far more interesting manner than the average 14yo online gamer does.
Reaps on May 17, 2007 at 7:39 AM
This has to be the most disingenuous interview ever. They invite Hitchens on KNOWING what he is going to say precisely to attack him for it. Just as Hitchens repeated again and again, why did you invite me here if you know what I am going to say and you aren’t going to let me say it. This really disgusts me. There isn’t anyone in the media who follows Hitchens who doesn’t know how he feels about religion. Hannity kept up with the cheap shots as it he was outraged that Hitchens was saying what he KNEW he would say.
Glynn on May 17, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Hitchens is notable only for his irrelevence.
franksalterego on May 17, 2007 at 9:25 AM
It’s obvious that Hannity invited him on to confront him. Hitchens should have known that, it’s what Hannity does all the time. Anyone going on his and Alan’s show surely must know what’s going to happen.
Rose on May 17, 2007 at 9:29 AM
I think it’s odd that so many are answering the question of by what standard an atheist has to judge anyone. I guess because I look at myself and figure that, religious or atheist, I certainly don’t have the standard to judge anyone. Nobody I know does either.
I can certainly throw my opinions out there willy nilly, tell people what I believe. To “judge” someone and say “This man is a good man” or “This woman is a bad woman”, though. Pffft. I got nothin.
serpentineshel on May 17, 2007 at 10:13 AM
And for the first time in history,
fire melted the fossil record.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 17, 2007 at 10:39 AM
The question is where does a person learn to decerne between right and wrong. THAT is the standard by which they judge morality vs immorality. Hitchens judges Falwell as immoral. Well, the question to Hitchens is, where did Hitchens learn that what Falwell did as immoral?
Thus, the question posed to atheists…..
“By what standard does an atheist judge anybody?”
sarc on/
The fact that this simple concept has escaped many atheists is a clear indication that the evolutionary path they are on, has weeded out those humans that possesed that trait.
sarc off/
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 10:46 AM
That was an interesting clip. (I feel as if I’ve missed the faith debate, but maybe that is just as well).
I liked Colmes’ question to Reed about Jesus embracing the GOP. Hopefully, no thinking Christian would say that Jesus “would embrace” the GOP.
On the other hand, I think it is a good question. Christianity (or, most faiths for that matter), is an all-encompassing faith – it challenges the person’s entire view of reality. Therefore, one’s belief in a supreme being, and an ethic based on that narrative, would of necessity dictate/influence one’s actions, and political views.
So, outlining various values, such as the sanctity of life, etc… should influence how a Christian votes. Since I find that the GOP mostly, (more than the Democrats), reflects those values in my opinion, I find myself voting for a GOP candidate.
This is no different from any person, not necessarily of faith. Our values/world views/meta-narratives dictate our actions, and our votes. I guess I am saying that Colmes’ question about Jesus embracing the GOP is interesting, but off-target – WWJD is a silly question.
nailinmyeye on May 17, 2007 at 11:21 AM
It’s okay if you don’t believe in God. God believes in you.
Ugly on May 17, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Like I said, I missed most of this, but this caught my eye:
Come on. If you are a Christian, your narrative should be telling you that everyone, atheists included, are made in God’s image. And, therefore have the capacity for reasoning, thinking, relationship, and a “moral compass”. Didn’t Allah cite C.S. Lewis above (while disagreeing with him), on this issue?
All I’m saying is maybe the conversation could be extended further by not taking a stance of intellectual/evolutional superiority.
nailinmyeye on May 17, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Damn it, I hate when I get to these threads after there’s already 100+ comments. All my heretic snarkiness loses its punch after about 50.
I’m already on the Slow Suicide Plan – half a pack of cigarettes, 3-5 alcoholic beverages, and one bowl of dope per day. And I don’t wear seatbelts. And I don’t stretch properly before I work out. And I don’t watch my carbs.
HA! I’m completely wasting the gift of life that God gave me – take THAT, culture of life! ;)
Enrique on May 17, 2007 at 11:37 AM
By standards of basic human decency. You don’t need an invisible God to hand those standards down to you on stone tablets.
Enrique on May 17, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Jesus loves you, but he’ll send you to hell forever if you don’t believe in him.
Nonfactor on May 17, 2007 at 11:41 AM
You should have read my second comment here….
Let see if a rational thought can enter your thick head…..
WHERE did you learn basic human decency?
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 11:52 AM
I know an atheist who lived just like that—which I can respect, he’s living consistently with his beliefs. He’s doing a nickel in the pokey right now.
jdpaz on May 17, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Oh brother. Let’s keep the strawmen up.
nailinmyeye on May 17, 2007 at 11:55 AM
The question is one of a socratic nature. It is meant to encourage the subject to examine his stated beliefs and the genesis of those beliefs. Atheists LEARNED morality from somewhere and the question is…….WHERE? As of yet, not one atheist can grasp that simple concept.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 11:56 AM
csdeven –
I don’t want to argue with you. I understand the nature of your question – I just happen to think that it comes across in a way that you might not intend.
nailinmyeye on May 17, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Understood and peace. :-)
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 12:10 PM
You don’t “prove” things empirically. Proofs are the stuff of math and logic. One can only provide evidence that supports or refutes empirical propositions. And, generally, the more complex the subject of the proposition, the less impact any individual bit of evidence has on the veracity of the proposition.
Propositions about the emotional states of other humans pertain to their past behaviors, and make predictions about their future behaviors. We are all admittedly rather bad at producing good predictive results in this arena, no doubt owing to the complexity of the subjects.
Blacklake on May 17, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Do you hear yourself? Not only does Hitchens not have the right to judge Falwell, but it’s logically impossible for him to do so. And you wonder why Hitchens is so angry.
student on May 17, 2007 at 12:22 PM
So the only reason you live a moral life is because of fear of God’s punishment? How is that different from an atheist who obeys the law out of fear of punishment from the legal system?
student on May 17, 2007 at 12:26 PM
If you are a believer in God, you must also believe that he has imbued us with a soul.
The soul is the regulator of our belief system and the repository of our conscience.
Since atheist do not believe in God, by implication, they are soulless and their conscience is suspect.
Atheists, like Hitchens, are intellectual snobs who will not be ruled by anyone other than themselves. That’s all well and good until they take it to the next step into the intolerance of others.
Why they find it necessary to take that next step is beyond explanation unless it is just a pure and simple case of jealousy.
pocomoco on May 17, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Question: When is he ever sober?
Just asking.
bert169 on May 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Could we knock off the ad hominem? Hitchen’s sobriety or lack of it have absolutely nothing to do with the value and correctness of his arguments. If you can’t address his arguments, please don’t add noise to the discussion.
student on May 17, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Hitchens needs to be exorcised. He sat there in a wine soaked stupor channeling demonic pander with a foppish British accent. I kept waiting for his head to spin.
Hening on May 17, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Jai: “What does scripture say about death by bratwurst?”
Houston: “Let me get back to you on that, Jai…”
Jaibones on May 17, 2007 at 12:46 PM
What argument? Blabbering insults and interupting everyone is not an argument. He was invited on the show purely because he is a freak show. They probably had boxes of wine in his dressing room just to add fuel to the fire.
Hening on May 17, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I know there is a God. I see it when I look at my husband an children, when I saw my grandchildren come into this world, I see God in a rainbow, sunrises and sunsets, walking through the forest, watching waves crash onto the shore, etc. I believe in a heaven and hell. I need to because someday I will be able to hug my Dad and hear his laughter. Religon is not something you have to prove, it’s something that lives inside of a person, it tells you whats right or wrong, it’s in your thoughts and actions.
ChrisIansNana on May 17, 2007 at 12:49 PM
No, actually not. When someone makes an assertion, such as God exists, it is up to that person to provide a compelling argument for that assertion. It is not incumbent on the listener to disprove the assertion anymore than you would be required to prove that, say, Zeus doesn’t exist or that Russell’s teapot is not orbiting the sun.
The atheist says, “I don’t believe in God.” That’s something we can accept as true unless you believe him to by lying. If a religious person says, “I believe in God,” that’s also something we can accept as true. But if the religious person say, “God exists,” it is up to that person to provide an argument for the assertion.
student on May 17, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Hitchens equates Christianity with totalitarianism. He has no sense of the variety of religions out there and the societies that they produce, nor how to compare them, despite writing an entire book on them. He wrote completely theoretically. To him, they are all equally stifling. That is not the truth. Some religions do produce totalitarian societies; the radical Islamofascism of the Wahhabist is just such a case. What are the innovations found in a rigidly straightjacketed Sharia-dominated society? Innovation disappears. The status-quo itself is pushed down to the lowest denominator. How is it that India, the land of call-centers and A+++ students, excelling in their studies, sat unchanging for more than a thousand years, until the British entered in? Ghandi’s ideas of human dignity did not come from Indian culture and his appeal to the British conscience came from Western, Christian influences on him. Indian culture was and remains caste and kharma and stuck with your fate. Ghandi himself, an Indian raised outside the sub-continent, in British society had a different mind-set, he had stronger concept of justice, than the average Indian and he had much frustration for it from Indians themselves, many who rebuffed him. Conscience of a different nature was what Ghandi tried to develop. Live in India a year and learn how the religion informs the mind-set and thus behavior of the individual and thus the society. It’s not something that can be truly understood by even reading about it. The things a Western/Judeo-Christian raised person (church-going or atheist) takes for granted, believing to be universal, will be revealed to have been learned so early as to not have been known to have been taught. And the way a Westerner develops these unexpected insights will be with shock and sadness – by being close to human suffering, suffering that could have been easily avoided.
But to equate totalitarianism which is in complete, profound, utter opposition in every way to Christianity is a misconception of such magnitude that Hitchens cannot possibly understand in the least what Christianity represents, on any level.
naliaka on May 17, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Well, my parents would be the start. After that, I found that all of they taught didn’t mesh well with who I was. I retained some of it, added some other stuff. The one thing that they drilled into me, much to my dad’s chagrin at times, was to be skeptical. My mom made sure I could read, and comprehend what I read.
I find it easy to reject morals imposed by religion. Specifically, those ones that obsess about sex. You know, birth control being bad. Homosexuals being bad. Premarital sex being bad. Masturbation being bad. I find such prohibitions on humanity immoral.
I fully and unequivocally reject the notion that if science contradicts the Bible, then the science is wrong. I utterly reject the notion that if something is currently unknowable, then it is the work of God and no further study is required.
Quite frankly, I’m rather saddened that some people need God to not be jerks in society, just as I’m a trifle annoyed that some people think not having a God belief somehow allows them to not contribute to society.
My morality is based on reason, and not faith.
Krydor on May 17, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Enrique, you’re funny – first this
Enrique on May 17, 2007 at 11:37 AM, followed by this
Enrique on May 17, 2007 at 11:39 AM
You kill me :)
Entelechy on May 17, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »