Segment from Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate on god, war, politics, and culture ~ Recorded April 3, 2008 at Fountain Street Church, Grand Rapids, MI. This ten-minute segment starts at about thirty-five minutes into the debate. The brothers just finished debating the war in Iraq and have moved onto an even more controversial subject. Christopher Hitchens makes a strong case against belief in the monotheistic god of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. He states that there is no evidence to support belief in this deity or any deity. And that belief is harmful because it enslaves the individual under a celestial dictatorship. Amen! 
On May 6, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
Segment from Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate on god, war, politics, and culture ~ Recorded April 3, 2008 at Fountain Street Church, Grand Rapids, MI. This ten-minute segment starts at about thirty-five minutes into the debate. The brothers just finished debating the war in Iraq and have moved onto an even more controversial subject. Christopher Hitchens [...]
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
@showABCshow
he uses “gravamen” which is a latin word meaning “load”
What does he say at 1:25?
So I’ll add a couple things: The reasons why I’m glad this is not true, would I suppose, be the _____________ of my case.
I thought “graver manner” or “graver matter”
thanks for the help.
Hitchens is wrong on this one: North Korea is not one short of its trinity; the spirit is Juche.
Oh I dont know. The main push behind Humanism is the realisation that all decisions come from us and we are the only beings able to make a difference to the current state of the world. Bowing down to people like Hitler and the god of the Jews is just rolling over and accepting defeat. As a soldier it is my job to fight ALL evil dictators and their supporters.
Calm down, insulting people for their beliefs is not very humanist.
You can praise the sick twat if you like but:
If you support a monster it makes you a monster, even if that monster is not real.
Praise be to common sense and Humanism.
Praise and Glory to Yahweh.
“at least u can fuckin die and get out” Hitchens with no regard 4 the church…I LOVE IT.
Yes, I’m arrogant. Because I’m the one claiming to have a hotline to the omniscient creator of the universe who designed it with exploding stars billions of light years away for my viewing pleasure.
@Grak70 , your words, and arrogant they are.
I have to hand it to you, for building your castle on sand, you stick to your guns.
What is he point, The Creator’s Power Is Absolute.
He puts religious stupidity so brilliantly…
Don’t get how that works. But he is a knobhead so maybe you’re right,
He’s an American now, bub.
He just takes the piss out the yanks.
Bigotry is what deserves ridicule and contempt.
“If one could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.” I don’t happen to agree with that statement. If anyone uses the epistemology of empiricism to reason against religion(which most skeptics do)then that reasoning doesn’t hold up simply because empiricism only accounts for that knowledge obtained through the 5 senses-nothing more. Other epistemologies can ^ the probabilities of diety. There is no absolute proof for nor against.
If something is impossible to disprove- is it good enough reason to assume it is true?
I agree that his argumentation is in many cases more provocative than philosophically sound or logical. Yet you know the saying: “If one could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.”
Ridicule and contempt is all that organized religion deserves. Note the change in his tone when he moves from “religion” to “beliefs”
read, or listen, to his book (God is not Great) …here on youtube, and then see if you can say the same…he is very well informed, and a true intellectual.
well i disgree with your disagreeing. By the way, what is it you disagree with?
i disagree
hitchens is just straight ownage… welcome to reasoning and not superstition
Lucidity incarnate.
DH is a great speaker but his reasoning doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. All of his positions on religion are purely personal opinion. He also uses some loose empiricism, but it is impossible to prove or disprove diety by using empiricism. He has NO case- nothing but pure opinion. Insults, insinuations,intimidation, ad hoc, ad hominem, blather, bluff, and BS. By no standard does he provide any basis for his argument on an academic nor philosophic level. all hot air.