Video: Hitchens tries to convince atheists why they should be hawkish on Iraq and Iran
posted at 5:00 pm on October 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
With a surprising amount of success, judging from the applause. This comes from the same atheist gathering at which last week’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali video was taken; she’s obviously in the audience here per his affectionate comments at the very beginning of the first part. It’s an hour long and there’s some plenty of criticism of Christianity mixed in, of course, but he’s before them to talk about Islam and Islamism and he doesn’t disappoint. You’re watching for four segments: in the first clip, his remarks on the Mohammed cartoon fiasco at around -16:15, and in the second clip, his remarks on Iraq at -28:30, on the prospect of war with Iran at -11:30, and the can’t miss passage at -4:30 on why the west is to blame for the conflict. “It’s a matter of pride that they want to attack us,” he declares, while acknowledging at one point that there aren’t enough soldiers in the world to deal with the threat. What that means going forward is ominous, and unclear.
I’m surprised to see that he hasn’t given up on Iraq yet. He’s been moving in that direction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
I don’t believe my beliefs are fact, unless they’re backed by logic. I don’t claim my weaksauce faith to be backed by logic. I just find myself aggravated by the constant nasty haranguing by Atheists first and foremost, I just see no reason to mock decent people’s beliefs, its abusive.
As for the rest, one of thousands of reasons I don’t support public education. Private schooling or home schooling lets you decide what your education is. We should let the free market and personal liberty be what drives our education system. Let America be American, personal ambition is what has driven us to the top, we’re forgetting that.
Bad Candy on October 21, 2007 at 3:52 PM
I certainly tolerate those with differing beliefs than mine, except for Islam. In fact I find most beliefs to be quite amusing and would miss them, except for Islam.
I wouldn’t. Few atheists would and they could not even if they wanted to.
Grave risks from Atheists? They are just pussy cats. As for the other, why do you think I keep quoting Pope Urban II?
MB4 on October 21, 2007 at 4:08 PM
So Satanism and Christianity are equivalent ???
No wonder nobody takes “athiest morality” seriously.
boris on October 21, 2007 at 4:08 PM
At least atheists don’t think that believers are going to eternal hell.
MB4 on October 21, 2007 at 4:10 PM
So your intolerance is harmless and theirs is ineffective. How reassuring. Still if you want to claim your “morality” is just as good how come it so isn’t?
boris on October 21, 2007 at 4:11 PM
So mocking = thinking ???
No wonder nobody takes “athiest morality” seriously.
boris on October 21, 2007 at 4:14 PM
The danger from atheism is that some have said that teaching Christianity to children is abusive. This is enough to convince Christian parents to see atheism as a dangerous belief (or non belief).
Rose on October 21, 2007 at 4:14 PM
So your intolerance is harmless (What intolerance? Having different beliefs and saying so is not intolerance.) and theirs is ineffective (Theirs is not ineffective). How reassuring. Still if you want to claim your “morality” is just as good how come it so isn’t? (A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein)
boris on October 21, 2007 at 4:11 PM
MB4 on October 21, 2007 at 4:18 PM
There there. Poor baby. There is a difference between saying “I don’t believe … ”
And … “You guys are MORONS”
boris on October 21, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Nice theory Einstien. In practice, not so much.
boris on October 21, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Atheists have their own type of morality based on their absolutes. They would do better if they would allow that those of faith have absolutes also. Our society is based on a belief in God and we reject Satan. For you to suggest that Satanism or Wicken beliefs be given equal standing would be like someone demanding that a system of geometry be taught in schools that is at odds with the system we have that works. You can complain that it isn’t right and doesn’t work, but that is the same argument that people of faith use when the idea that Satanism is of equal standing.
There are absolutes. Atheists have them and so do people of faith. Both would do well to respect the absolutes of the other.
csdeven on October 21, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Did I claim atheists were going to eternal hell somewhere?
Bad Candy on October 21, 2007 at 4:37 PM
That’s what believers in God don’t understand. To me, there is no difference between God and Satan. Why would there be? There is no difference between Santa Claus and God. Why would there be?
You know what God is. I don’t. I only know what you tell me he is. All I have is your word for it. And you know what? None of you can agree. There is nothing funnier to an Atheist than two Christians going at it. It’s like watching two Superman fans argue about two different editions of the same comic book.
I’ll tell you the same thing I tell gay rights activists:
I don’t care what you believe. I don’t care what you do. Just leave me out of it, and stay away from the public schools with your beliefs.
Actually, I don’t have to say that last part anymore because I’m home schooling my kid now. It’s costing me a fortune, but it’s worth it, and the online school she attends takes credit cards.
Jaynie59 on October 21, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Strange that when CAIR uses lawsuits to limit Christianity everyone can see the threat but when atheists use those same lawsuits it’s all so benign.
Buzzy on October 21, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Which comes across as “no difference between good and evil”.
No wonder nobody takes “athiest morality” seriously.
boris on October 21, 2007 at 6:41 PM
People just can’t admit that religion is a lie and get over it. For thousands of years they were taught to respect lies.
Syndic Nuruodo on October 21, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Doubtless Albert Einstein was a great scientist, Mark Twain a clever writer and John Adams a worthy President but simply quoting them as if they were theologians or their opinions were irrefutable due to their timeless stature is straying into Absolute Historical Authority territory.
aengus on October 21, 2007 at 9:38 PM
I quote them because they are not “theoligians”. They don’t have “a dog in the fight” so to speak. I do not think that what they say is irrefutable, just hard to logically refute.
MB4 on October 21, 2007 at 10:34 PM
If you ever get in a real bind, just let us know.
RushBaby on October 21, 2007 at 11:03 PM
The justification of Hitchens’s moral argument is predicated solely upon his ability to enforce it physically. It is not intrinsically true, as there is no intrinsic nature (or soul) of man apart from his genetically predetermined tastes. It is true only by common agreement among men, and even then only when it doesn’t conflict with tea time. In essence, he’s trading justification by divine fiat for justification by popular fiat.
Popular fiat is what has Ayan Hirsi Ali under armed guard. A popular fiat determined both by the irrational and violent rejection of liberty among religious zealots and the quiet and embarrassed rejection of liberty among wholly irreligious effetes.
Hitchens thinks that’s wrong, and so it is. Now let’s see him enforce it. He’s not exactly leading an army on this one.
Let me ask this: if freedom exists and is self-evident apart from any divine justification, does it exist apart from the human race? When man is gone, who will be free?
Is man still free if he choses not to be? If so, how is that freedom if one cannot sovereignly reject it? If not, and all men chose to be slaves, does freedom still exist?
It would seem that the wholesale rejection of God requires quite a bit of intellect to accept and maintain. Why is that?
spmat on October 22, 2007 at 2:32 AM
There are plenty of atheists who regard themselves as enlightened. But let us not forget from whom the phrase “I have seen the light” most frequently emanates.
And proof is not something I’m looking for when it comes to Christianity. I’m looking for mere evidence. For instance:
1. What is the evidence that Jesus Christ existed and did what the Bible claimed he did?
2. What is the evidence that the Bible is the perfect word of a divine being?
And those are the things that you consider yourself enlightened for believing in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence.
Faith is a character flaw.
Loundry on October 22, 2007 at 10:31 AM
This is a moral judgment that requires faith in the absolute efficacy of rationalism/skepticism. Pot, meet kettle.
spmat on October 22, 2007 at 10:40 AM
The old Christian trope, “You have to have MORE faith to be an atheist!” rears its ugly head. It’s respite for those who know that having faith is incredibly retarded in the first place.
Would it be useful at this point to ask, “Where did I claim that I thought that rationalism/skepticism had absolute efficacy?”? Of course not. Your accusation is merely rhetoric and projection.
Let it be shown that your response ignored my questions in lieu of making a personal attack.
Loundry on October 22, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Job well done Hitch
Ochlan on October 22, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Silly little mush brained atheists.
Rose on October 22, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Video gone, what is going on?
Observation on December 18, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3