Reverend Al Sharpton Debates Atheist Christopher Hitchens

On the fence between Christianity and Atheism? Pondering the existence of God? Enjoy passionate and riveting debates? Curious to know the best arguments from both sides? Like Cheese? Well this is the debate for you!!



Al Sharpton, an ordained minister since the age of 9, faces off against Christopher Hitchens himself! Hitchens is the author of the controversial book "God Is Not Great" and is one of the leading voices of Hard Atheism. This debate covers the existence or veracity of God, morality of Religion, truth of the Bible, and touches on the origins of human beings.

Please watch the debate without bias and without any preconceived notions, for it is the best way to open your mind and learn.

Part 1
youtube.com...

Part 2
youtube.com...

Part 3
youtube.com...

Part 4
youtube.com...

Part 5
youtube.com...

Part 6
youtube.com...

Part 7
youtube.com...

Part 8
youtube.com...

Part 9 (Final)
youtube.com...

For me, Christopher Hitchens really comes out on top in this debate. His arguments are extraordinarily in depth, he gives excellent and specific examples of the dangers of religion ("Dangerous, sinister, and nonsense. The pope says AIDS may be bad but condoms are much worst, what kind of moral teaching is this? And how many people are going to die for such dogma?"), and isn't afraid to ask the tough questions relating to the existence of God.

Sharpton, on the other hand, floats around the arguments and never really answers a question with certainty. He also resorts to speaking in parables, like his reference to the existence of God as the existence of Electricity in the building. He claims that he has read "God is not Great" but misinterprets it many times and even makes some outright wrong claims about the book. For example, he says that the book does not criticize the bible or Christianity, which it certainly does (he is even booed for this assumption). In the end Sharpton isn't left with any arguments except for his own personal relationship with God.

This is definitely one of the best debates I have seen, and Christopher Hitchens is at his absolute best here. I hope you find it engaging as well, and share your opinions.

Even if one did change the other's mind or shatter one or the other's belief(s) in one area or another. That wouldn't change who's family either one belongs to.

If a man has been snatched supernaturally out of one family and implanted into another. No amount of debate on earth can convince him that he hasn't been.

Good God.

I would love, (LOVE) to debate this soul.

First of all, its simple, the creation is made known in the complexity of the human body, and also alls you have to do is research 2000 years of saints and their miracles.

I have seen cancer cured by prayer alone when all hope was lost..... but oh well it will never change...


The antipope is right.... He will say soome truths which that is..


Its not ok to cover up sin for the sake of unmarried sex..

If you die, we all die. I could put a condom on and get hit by a car the same night and die.

people want to exdpand their lives forever and never search for God. The saints came to a point in life where they hated living here and wanted to go home..
and many died at early ages....


If ou got aids, it would be best to accept it and do Gods will and prpare for the next life if its incurable.....

No excuse to sin.. The antiPope is right about that, absolutey so and im glad he though not a real pope stood up for that....


just dont have sex if you got aids....

peace.


[edit on C:/120192451111America/ChicagoFri, 01 Feb 2008 21:55:11 -060011/Feb by JesusisTruth]

Jesusistruth, I mean this question in all seriousness. What in the world does your post mean? Can you break it down into a concise, coherent paragraph for me?

The pope said aids are bad but worse is people with aids having sex using condoms.

I say hes right and is following Christ teachings....

If you got aids then just dont have sex, and if its incurable then prepare for death, we will all die, and do Gods will but dont contain your seed in a condom..

Hes right... I tried to make that as clear as possible....

as for the Atheist, I wish to God I could debate him....


God bless you.

[edit on C:/120193542606America/ChicagoSat, 02 Feb 2008 00:57:06 -060006/Feb by JesusisTruth]

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
Good God.

I would love, (LOVE) to debate this soul.

no, you wouldn't. he'd make you look like a fool, he's a very good debater.

First of all, its simple, the creation is made known in the complexity of the human body,

we've been over this argument, the human body works better in the evolution model...

and also alls you have to do is research 2000 years of saints and their miracles.

all that goes to prove is how sainthood was bestowed willy nilly
like the blood libel saints, people made saints because they were reportedly sacrificed by jews (which isn't true... in case you were wondering)

Little St. Hugh
and
St. William of Norwich

I have seen cancer cured by prayer alone when all hope was lost..... but oh well it will never change...

really?
and medical science had nothing to do with it?
can you back up this claim you repeatedly make with evidence?

The antipope is right.... He will say soome truths which that is..

antipope?
what makes him not a proper pope?

Its not ok to cover up sin for the sake of unmarried sex..

i'm sorry, but the concept of "sin" is a bad form of moral teaching. it teaches us to hate every natural urge we have.

If you die, we all die. I could put a condom on and get hit by a car the same night and die.

huh?
seriously...
what the hell does one have to do with the other?

a soldier could wear a bullet proof vest and hit by a blast of napalm in the same night and die...
why should the soldier not wear the vest?

people want to exdpand their lives forever and never search for God.

you keep making this claim...but B1ue and I are former theists
so...yeah...

The saints came to a point in life where they hated living here and wanted to go home..
and many died at early ages....

If ou got aids, it would be best to accept it and do Gods will and prpare for the next life if its incurable.....

or you could just say... hey, i'm going to try to prevent getting AIDS...

No excuse to sin.. The antiPope is right about that, absolutey so and im glad he though not a real pope stood up for that....

again, why isn't he a real pope?
and i've made my thoughts clear on the concept of "sin"

just dont have sex if you got aids....

but you don't always know if you have AIDS...
and condoms serve other uses...like preventing other diseases from spreading.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


or you could just say... hey, i'm going to try to prevent getting AIDS...

Or how about trying to cure it, too? I think its totally irresponsible when I hear, "it's in God's hands now" or "God will work it out/leave it to God." How about doing for yourself! Working hard and figuring out things with reason and your own brain.

About the debate, I kind of thought Hitchens would have addressed the belief in "God" a little more and less about the scriptures, which Sharpton wasn't defending at all. After watching all of them, I do think Hitchens came out on top.

reply to post by DiabolusFireDragon


well...i was tempted to say that, but there isn't much the typical person can do to help cure AIDS. for now, all the individual can do is prevent its spread.

" no you wouldnt hes a very good debater "

Yea, but hes not street smart, you can beat his debaes by simple truths.. It would be easy to out debate him using child like arguments and self evident things.....he might be street smart I dont know.


" the human body worsk better in evolution "

madnss im not talking about that, im talking about the specific body parts created for specific reasons....I just dont get how you cant see that brother.


" people made saints "


Thats insane, I repeat insane. Many saints never were martyred.... many, more so than the ones who were killed... their lovesare recorded and witnessed by family members and the church, and I have seen God do the things they have seen and my family has...



" medical science had nothing to do with it "

Not a thing. This certain person when all hope as lost went to an underground presit who has been nown to work miracles becuase of his (faith), and after this person assigned funeral arrangments, about a couple weeks later this person was (cured)......

No medicine, no nothing but God and the doctor didnt absolutely didnt understand it.... You can believe what you will but ive literally seen it with my own eyes...



" antipope "


Because madness the freemasons have talked about for (decades) of infiltrating the church and they have with V2 council. All popes since then have taught heresy and were freemasons in their speech..

The church has had 40 some antipopes in history and these last popes are ones as well... But this is being set up so antichrist can control rome when he arrives, its the last age, and hes going to have an easy tme since the whole hiearchy is infested with freemasons...

read my prophecies, you can see God mention it in there.



" It teaches us to hate every natural urge we have "

Not true, it teaches us to live spiritully and prepare for the next world an only use these things for need here...

It teaches not over consumption, so that people dont hurt each other in the process..... Like adultury or fornication can destroy families which I have seen happen..

If we give into constant urges wheres the limit at? WQhy cant I go rape someone and why is that wrong?

you see, there has to be limits to certain things or else all hell would break loose..

He wants us to reject our natural urges as a sacrafice so we dont become overly selfish, now if you want to get married thats fine, God didnt say sex was wrong, just in proper context.....



" should the soldier not wear the vest? "


Yes he should, because hes not sinning while wearing the vest.... hes not containing seed in by wearing it.... But condoms are not of God in my faith......

This logic only works where sin isnt involved..


" you dont always know if you hve aids "

Yes, but wait a while, get tested, know the person, and then have sex without a condom. Condoms are most of the time used for people who just wat casual sex......



peace.

Oh btw, I truly believe the governemnt created aids for population control, I dont remmeber where I read this at, but I know they have the cure which they wont let out...

Now that is true evil...

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
Yea, but hes not street smart, you can beat his debaes by simple truths.. It would be easy to out debate him using child like arguments and self evident things.....he might be street smart I dont know.

if you used a childlike argument against a renowned journalist like hitchens, you'd be ripped to shreds

he's both intellectual and street smart.

madnss im not talking about that, im talking about the specific body parts created for specific reasons....I just dont get how you cant see that brother.

because they weren't created, they developed through evolution.
the appendix used to be an organ that assisted in digestion, we don't use it now and evolution incorporated it into the immune system...with potentially fatal results.

Thats insane, I repeat insane. Many saints never were martyred.... many, more so than the ones who were killed... their lovesare recorded and witnessed by family members and the church, and I have seen God do the things they have seen and my family has...

um...ok, but the entire institution of sainthood is obviously corrupt if 2 people were made saints over anti-semitic paranoia

Not a thing. This certain person when all hope as lost went to an underground presit who has been nown to work miracles becuase of his (faith), and after this person assigned funeral arrangments, about a couple weeks later this person was (cured)......

so the person stopped all medical treatment?
can you provide any evidence of this happening?

No medicine, no nothing but God and the doctor didnt absolutely didnt understand it.... You can believe what you will but ive literally seen it with my own eyes...

there are many instances where doctors don't understand the end results...but that doesn't make them miracles, that makes the phenomenon that we currently don't understand...and the gap of what we don't understand that so many religious people like to shove god into keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Because madness the freemasons have talked about for (decades) of infiltrating the church and they have with V2 council. All popes since then have taught heresy and were freemasons in their speech..

um..vatican 2 actually brought the catholic church closer to early church teaching.
one example being the removal of mandatory latin mass...
the first masses would have been held in hebrew and greek, not latin

The church has had 40 some antipopes in history and these last popes are ones as well...

but what makes them antipopes?

But this is being set up so antichrist can control rome when he arrives, its the last age, and hes going to have an easy tme since the whole hiearchy is infested with freemasons...

every age since the year 33 has been the last age, according to christians...

read my prophecies, you can see God mention it in there.

...no, humans mention it

Not true, it teaches us to live spiritully and prepare for the next world an only use these things for need here...

exactly, shunning every natural urge because the next life will be better.

It teaches not over consumption, so that people dont hurt each other in the process..... Like adultury or fornication can destroy families which I have seen happen..

fornication can't destroy families...seriously...how can premarital sex destroy a marriage?
adultery isn't a natural urge, it's a breaking of commitment... it's something that's just objectively wrong

If we give into constant urges wheres the limit at?

your freedoms end where mine begin
understand?

WQhy cant I go rape someone and why is that wrong?

because that would be objectively wrong

and if you're not out raping people because of the existence of god, you're simply avoiding punishment. you're not being moral

you see, there has to be limits to certain things or else all hell would break loose..

and we don't need religion for that

He wants us to reject our natural urges as a sacrafice so we dont become overly selfish, now if you want to get married thats fine, God didnt say sex was wrong, just in proper context.....

sex outside of marriage isn't selfish...
well, it can be...but so can sex within marriage.
sex outside of marriage can be a loving and wonderful thing

Yes he should, because hes not sinning while wearing the vest.... hes not containing seed in by wearing it.... But condoms are not of God in my faith......

condoms didn't exist when your faith was in

This logic only works where sin isnt involved..

Yes, but wait a while, get tested, know the person, and then have sex without a condom.

yay!
pregnancy...
and it's not a seed...
seriously, get the medieval mindset out of your head. people used to think that a sperm was a tiny baby ready to be implanted in the woman...that's not how it is

Condoms are most of the time used for people who just wat casual sex......

actually, statistics have shown that married couples engage in condom use about at the same rate as people outside of marriage unless said married couples are specifically trying to get pregnant

Madness you have too many qoutes at once, you got to minimize them alittle please...


" If you used childlike arguments. "

You dont understand, I mean arguments baised on simplicity and self evident things... Like man and women made for each other. Perfectly fit for each other, and the fact that the child comes out of the same area women have to have sex tells you something.... You dont get it...

and he wouldnt come close to destroying me

" we dont use it now "

O really, evidence? How can it be used and suddenly not? The other body parts were created, they have specific uses, how on Gods earth can you not see this? You have no deepness at all.... I dont get you guys... Its like you dont want God to be true, and I know why...............but................



" The entire institution is corrupt "

Who are those two you mention? the church takes seriously who they make saints by miracles, and it can happen at an early age Madness. Your also forgetting many saints who raised the dead and had stigmatas and were cured of strange diseases...



" So the person stopped all medical treatment "

No treatment at all, this person wanted to accept fate and die and be with God... The evidence is in my own eyes and my families...


" there are many instances where the doctors dont understand the end result "

First of all we like to (shove) God into? (theirs your frigin arrogance again) you dont know if he exist or not, your not open minded...

anyways, if cancer can cure itself that sure is incredible to me, because this person took neither natural remedies or doctors prescribed medicines... Just prayer by a holy presit made it go away in its (late) stages...

you can believe what you want, and I apologize for that tone I justused...you tick me off sometimes...



" V2 rought the hurch closer to early church teaching "

Thats false. Ive studied the councils, and this council is completely oposite in many things , I mean completely as far back as Constantinople....

furthermore the latin mass was uthorized by the Vatican as the universal language of the church since about the 1500s or further back... and was confirmed by every pope since then..

Not to mention the fact that the east have their own languages, its just that the new mass english has removed certain prayers and changed wording which they were not supposed to do which makes the sacrament invalid a key trick by satan used to rid the world of communion which was prophecied to happen a 100 years ago....



" But what makes them antipopes "

well, the fact that they taught heresy against Catholic doctrine that the oforsaid popes withheld and the saints accused them as well and they were removed.




" No humans mention it "

No, God talking to humans as he does with saintly people....



" Exactly shunning (EVERY) natural urge because the next life wil be better "


Did I say that? no. I didnt say every urge. I said to not over consuption ad sacrafice selfishness over selfishness for the next life.....



" Fornication cant destroy families "

False. If someone cheats on their wives like sneaky idiots not only does it break their vows, becase Gods sees them still, but if they get caught they destroy thei childrens lives as well.. I have seen it happen.



" Your freedoms end where mine begin understand "

Nope I dont.. firstly I said that context was about rape.. Why is rape wrong if its anatural urge? because dont hurt others is the rule.. Thats what the commandments are, the same thing.

and I dont want to sin, so I have all the freedom in the world, nothing you can do, that I cant, is going to make me happier than I am now, understand?




" and we dont need religion for that "

I believe in revealed truth madness, by miracles. Now the moral law comes from God.. Love comes fom him, so in the context of my faith its from him...ive tried my guts out to explain what grace is with you and I hope you would understand what it is someday... Its love.




" Sex outside of marriage isnt selfish, it can be, but so can sex within marriage "


This is a good point. However, God would rather us find a soul mate. you see many people want to live life as a big fling, sex here, there, here, there, no real ties to that person, no children, no bond but buddies..

many saints I believe have had sex without marriage because they loved sex like St Augustine, but he finally put the fling lifestyle behind him and gave his life to God...

Now if st augustine can become a saint anybody can....




" midevil mindset "

No its called Godlymindset. he wants people to wait to have sex and know if they are the right ones...

That goes to show you (my midevil) mindset just what times we are in...





Now you last qoute I dont understand. People get married for what? I dont know why they wear condoms while married. and I dont know why they get married and dont want children..... I dont believe its right though...



Now madness if there is any way brother, that you can (shorten) your responses I would appretiate it, I dread reading your qoutes because it takes me ages to respond to them...


peace.




[edit on C:/120202863737America/ChicagoSun, 03 Feb 2008 02:50:37 -060037/Feb by JesusisTruth]

[edit on C:/120202889353America/ChicagoSun, 03 Feb 2008 02:54:53 -060053/Feb by JesusisTruth]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if you used a childlike argument against a renowned journalist like hitchens, you'd be ripped to shreds

he's both intellectual and street smart.

Putting aside your near worshipful awe of this fellow (without knowing him personally in the least), if he'd win the debate due to oratorical skills, that is not really a point-up for his side (haven't watched them yet, will do in a minute). Besides, if the picture is anything to go by, he may look awesomely cool (and Al Sharpton too. I love that header picture ) but he is technically a fool, because he is smoking.

NB: Now that I checked up some stuff, he seems to have given up smoking, but is still very much an excessive drinker of alcohol (which I only mention because it amounts to the same thing).

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
because they weren't created, they developed through evolution.
the appendix used to be an organ that assisted in digestion, we don't use it now and evolution incorporated it into the immune system...with potentially fatal results.

I find it hilarious when people who claim scientific objectivity use this argument. You are using an argument over a century old (just because it matches up with your beliefs), in favour of later research and understanding. Even when I was in high-school, there was nothing about this "originally helped in digesting plants" silliness (my father, however, does believe this, but his basic education in this field ended some 50 years ago). The important point here is that there is no proof that the appendix (in any current or previous form) was ever used to digest plant matter, and there is no proof of any evolution or adaptation of the organ to newer functions. There IS proof that it is used as part of the immune system, but this has nothing to do with 'potentially fatal results'- for example, you may get a tumor in your brain, but that isn't 'one of the fatal results' of using your brain.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

If we give into constant urges wheres the limit at?

your freedoms end where mine begin
understand?

That is a very loaded question, and a very vague answer. Are you within your moral right to hurt yourself? Are you within your moral right to kill yourself? Are you within your moral right to abort fetuses for no reason other than you don't want a baby? Are you within your moral right to bum around in front of the TV the whole day? Are you within your moral right to remain unemployed and not seek employment? Are you within your moral right to insult someone physically? Are you within your moral right to insult someone verbally?

Every single action we perform affects someone else in some way.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

WQhy cant I go rape someone and why is that wrong?

because that would be objectively wrong

That is a pretty weird answer. What do you mean objectively wrong? If it isn't your family or the law, why is it wrong? The answer is something that 'objectivity' doesn't enter into. It is something innate.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yay!
pregnancy...
and it's not a seed...
seriously, get the medieval mindset out of your head. people used to think that a sperm was a tiny baby ready to be implanted in the woman...that's not how it is

Where did you get this idea from? Who said that sperm is a tiny baby?


PS: Sorry again for any perceived sharpness of my response. It comes out like that sometimes without me meaning to. I have no intention to be nasty or rude to anyone. Please don't take it so.



EDIT:
After having gone through the whole debate, I'd have to say, while that while it was interesting and all, there really wasn't any point. The two weren't debating the same thing. On a side note (I swear, no bias here ), I can't really understand how, from this debate, anyone would come to the conclusion that Hitchens is some sort of extraordinary debater.

Haven't read the book, so can't really say anything about that, but I too (as silly and unlikely as such an interest would be), would like to meet both these personalities, and perhaps engage in a little back and forth with them.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
Madness you have too many qoutes at once, you got to minimize them alittle please...

...no, that's my style and i'm sticking to it

You dont understand, I mean arguments baised on simplicity and self evident things... Like man and women made for each other. Perfectly fit for each other, and the fact that the child comes out of the same area women have to have sex tells you something.... You dont get it...

that evolution is very elegant?
well...if things worked so well, childbearing wouldn't be such a painful and potentially deadly process...
in the past, childbirth was quite high on the list of causes of death in women, the only reason it isn't like that now is modern medicine

O really, evidence? How can it be used and suddenly not?

through evolution
we have a tailbone, but no tail. that vertebrae is a vestige of having a tail
the appendix is vestige of a digest system that was adapted to a different diet

The other body parts were created, they have specific uses,

what's the function of goosebumps? they're a vestige
we don't have enough body hair for them to be useful

we have ear muscles connected but they don't develop enough to create ear mobility

how on Gods earth can you not see this?

because it's not there.
just like that cloud isn't a motorcycle.

You have no deepness at all....

no, i have plenty of deepness, it's how i can tell that it's a cloud instead of a motorcycle, i see past the surface.

I dont get you guys... Its like you dont want God to be true, and I know why...............but................

the repulsive, bigoted myth is the part that you "know why"
we don't need your deity for morality.

sure, i may prefer a deity-free universe, but i really don't care so long as the truth is provable.
i'd also prefer it if i could fly, but i accept the reality that i can't.

Who are those two you mention?

i gave you links to them, they're catholic saints.

the church takes seriously who they make saints by miracles, and it can happen at an early age Madness. Your also forgetting many saints who raised the dead and had stigmatas and were cured of strange diseases...

ok..i just showed you two people who were made saints because they were SUPPOSEDLY MARTYRED BY JEWS WHO USED THEM AS BLOOD SACRIFICES

that's a myth...jews don't do that...

No treatment at all, this person wanted to accept fate and die and be with God... The evidence is in my own eyes and my families...

that's not evidence. evidence would be medical documentation.

First of all we like to (shove) God into?

yep, god has been shoved into all kinds of gaps in knowledge
just look at the bible, god is used to explain plenty in there.

(theirs your frigin arrogance again)

it's not arrogant, it's evident.

you dont know if he exist or not, your not open minded...

says the person who wouldn't even consider that god might not exist...
i don't know, but i don't assume said being does as their is absolutely no evidence.

anyways, if cancer can cure itself that sure is incredible to me, because this person took neither natural remedies or doctors prescribed medicines... Just prayer by a holy presit made it go away in its (late) stages...

i call BS as you cannot show anything to back up this statement.

you can believe what you want, and I apologize for that tone I justused...you tick me off sometimes...

well, that's because you need to be more open minded. you don't really tick me off, though you often times say things i whole heartedly think are ignorant and outright wrong.

Thats false. Ive studied the councils, and this council is completely oposite in many things , I mean completely as far back as Constantinople....

i meant early church, pre-constantinople.

furthermore the latin mass was uthorized by the Vatican as the universal language of the church since about the 1500s or further back... and was confirmed by every pope since then..

ok...but jesus didn't speak latin. jesus would have known aramaic, hebrew, and probably greek, as it was the trade language of the eastern empire

Not to mention the fact that the east have their own languages, its just that the new mass english has removed certain prayers

and those prayers were added at one point...there was a period in which they didn't exist in the church...

and changed wording which they were not supposed to do which makes the sacrament invalid

no, it doesn't. you clearly misunderstand the concept of the sacraments. a sacrament can be performed by a priest with no tongue...

a key trick by satan used to rid the world of communion which was prophecied to happen a 100 years ago....

wow.... just wow

well, the fact that they taught heresy against Catholic doctrine that the oforsaid popes withheld and the saints accused them as well and they were removed.

you're being insanely vague

No, God talking to humans as he does with saintly people....

you'd think god would use mass media outlets if he wanted to get his message out....

Did I say that? no. I didnt say every urge. I said to not over consuption ad sacrafice selfishness over selfishness for the next life.....

False. If someone cheats on their wives like sneaky idiots not only does it break their vows, becase Gods sees them still, but if they get caught they destroy thei childrens lives as well.. I have seen it happen.

that's not fornication...that's adultery. fornication is premarital sex.
if you had been reading, i clearly stated that adultery, sex that breaks a commitment, is immoral

Nope I dont.. firstly I said that context was about rape.. Why is rape wrong if its anatural urge?

because it infringes on other people's freedoms.
it's called reasoning

because dont hurt others is the rule.. Thats what the commandments are, the same thing.

...the commandments? which version?
the one that equates a woman to property?

and I dont want to sin, so I have all the freedom in the world, nothing you can do, that I cant, is going to make me happier than I am now, understand?

well, i don't care about the concept of sin, i want to be a moral person.

I believe in revealed truth madness, by miracles. Now the moral law comes from God.. Love comes fom him, so in the context of my faith its from him...ive tried my guts out to explain what grace is with you and I hope you would understand what it is someday... Its love.

have you read the bible's legal code?
a woman gets stoned to death for being raped...i'm sorry, but where's the morality in that?
in another scenario, she has to marry the guy who raped her! where's the morality there?

you see many people want to live life as a big fling, sex here, there, here, there, no real ties to that person, no children, no bond but buddies..

you don't need children to have that bond...
you see sex as such a superficial thing...

Now if st augustine can become a saint anybody can....

yep, even if your martyrdom is completely fictional!

No its called Godlymindset. he wants people to wait to have sex and know if they are the right ones...

except if it's rape within the context of genocide...just read how god asks the middianites to be treated.

That goes to show you (my midevil) mindset just what times we are in...

you use the word "seed"
that shows your mindset entirely....

Now you last qoute I dont understand. People get married for what? I dont know why they wear condoms while married. and I dont know why they get married and dont want children..... I dont believe its right though...

marriage isn't about children, it's about wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone. you don't immediately jump into the whole "having kids" thing.

Now madness if there is any way brother, that you can (shorten) your responses I would appretiate it, I dread reading your qoutes because it takes me ages to respond to them...

that would explain why you don't respond in full...
but i can't shorten my responses, it would cheapen the discussion for me to hold back

I'm leaving the house in 10 minutes so I have to make this quick. Jesusistruth, this question is for you. Please answer it truthfully.


If God did not exist, would you rape someone simply because you felt the urge to?

If God did not exist, would you murder your neighbour because you wanted to?


Character is the morality that we display when nobody is watching us. I'm curious if you have any character. Do you really need an imaginary friend in order to keep you from raping people?

oops, i missed this one, my bad.

Originally posted by babloyi
Putting aside your near worshipful awe of this fellow (without knowing him personally in the least),

what can i say? i'm a fan of his journalistic work

if he'd win the debate due to oratorical skills, that is not really a point-up for his side (haven't watched them yet, will do in a minute).

not oratorical skills, debate skills. knowing which pieces of evidence to apply to which arguments and whatnot

Besides, if the picture is anything to go by, he may look awesomely cool (and Al Sharpton too. I love that header picture

) but he is technically a fool, because he is smoking.

NB: Now that I checked up some stuff, he seems to have given up smoking, but is still very much an excessive drinker of alcohol (which I only mention because it amounts to the same thing).

so?
the argument is separate from who is arguing it unless the argument rests on who they are

I find it hilarious when people who claim scientific objectivity use this argument. You are using an argument over a century old (just because it matches up with your beliefs), in favour of later research and understanding. (snip)

Here's a bit of reading that you might find interesting

That is a very loaded question, and a very vague answer.

it's only vague because i've been trying to make JiT understand my position on the subject for quite a while...

Are you within your moral right to hurt yourself? Are you within your moral right to kill yourself?

eh...i never implied that. i said that your rights end where mine begin, i never said i have the right to kill myself...
the issue of doctor assisted suicide is something...well..complex

Are you within your moral right to abort fetuses for no reason other than you don't want a baby?

also a very complex issue, but that has to do with when we consider something a human life.
the religious answer to this is very lacking

Are you within your moral right to bum around in front of the TV the whole day?

well, that's a lot less extreme, and i'd say yes.

Are you within your moral right to remain unemployed and not seek employment?

as long as you're supporting yourself...

Are you within your moral right to insult someone physically?

as in call them fat?
it depends if you're doing it to insult them or if you're doing it to inform them so that can attempt to fix that...

Are you within your moral right to insult someone verbally?

that depends on circumstance. i trade insults with my best friends all the time for the sake of hilarity.

Every single action we perform affects someone else in some way.

true, but they don't infringe on their rights.
if i get a haircut, people have to look at it, but it's my hair.

That is a pretty weird answer. What do you mean objectively wrong? If it isn't your family or the law, why is it wrong? The answer is something that 'objectivity' doesn't enter into. It is something innate.

objectively under the statement i made earlier about my rights ending where yours begin and vice versa.
it's technically not 100% objective

however, JiT is shifting the issue, as he isn't being moral by not raping people when he's being watched by a supreme being, he's being obedient. there's a difference.

Where did you get this idea from? Who said that sperm is a tiny baby?

look atthe first drawings based off of microscope viewings of sperm and you'll see that the scientist took the liberty of drawing things that way

PS: Sorry again for any perceived sharpness of my response. It comes out like that sometimes without me meaning to. I have no intention to be nasty or rude to anyone. Please don't take it so.

hey, don't worry. even if you meant to be offensive, it wouldn't matter to me. it's the internet.

After having gone through the whole debate, I'd have to say, while that while it was interesting and all, there really wasn't any point. The two weren't debating the same thing.

yeah, that's why i'm not really a fan of this particular debate

On a side note (I swear, no bias here

), I can't really understand how, from this debate, anyone would come to the conclusion that Hitchens is some sort of extraordinary debater.

it's actually not this one that i'd argue shows his stuff, there are others that do it better. i believe there's one in which he debates d'souza that proves his skills to be better

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
not oratorical skills, debate skills. knowing which pieces of evidence to apply to which arguments and whatnot

Debate skills, oratorical skills, as you say, in this particular debate, they didn't seem to be very evident, though you could say there wasn't a chance for them to be.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so?
the argument is separate from who is arguing it unless the argument rests on who they are

What a person does with himself is very indicative of how intelligent they are. That is all I was pointing out.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Here's a bit of reading that you might find interesting

That article seems somewhat out of date (considering that it believes that there is minimal study on the function of immunity in the appendix, when this isn't so, and it fails to mention the lack of appendix in many other mammals (herbivores or non-herbivores). Check this out:
Vermiform appendix

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
eh...i never implied that. i said that your rights end where mine begin, i never said i have the right to kill myself...
the issue of doctor assisted suicide is something...well..complex

But on a superficial level, one may believe that since their body is their own right, they have a right to harm and kill themselves.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Are you within your moral right to bum around in front of the TV the whole day?

well, that's a lot less extreme, and i'd say yes.

Are you within your moral right to remain unemployed and not seek employment?

as long as you're supporting yourself...

What about the money your parents invested in your education? What about their hopes for you? What about your nephew that looks up to you? What about, what about, what about....

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
as in call them fat?
it depends if you're doing it to insult them or if you're doing it to inform them so that can attempt to fix that...

Actually, I meant anything from tapping them, to poking them, to punching them in the face.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that depends on circumstance. i trade insults with my best friends all the time for the sake of hilarity.

You know that is not what I meant. If it is your friend, and they realise everyone is just kidding around, then it isn't really insulting, is it?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
true, but they don't infringe on their rights.
if i get a haircut, people have to look at it, but it's my hair.

What if you engraved some vulgar comment on the back of your head? What if your grandmother is hurt by this?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's actually not this one that i'd argue shows his stuff, there are others that do it better. i believe there's one in which he debates d'souza that proves his skills to be better

I'll check it up when I have some time. Thanks!

Originally posted by babloyi
What a person does with himself is very indicative of how intelligent they are. That is all I was pointing out.

not really....hemmingway was a genius, yet he drank more heavily than even hitchens.

That article seems somewhat out of date (considering that it believes that there is minimal study on the function of immunity in the appendix, when this isn't so, and it fails to mention the lack of appendix in many other mammals (herbivores or non-herbivores).

it's not really, check the references.

Check this out:
Vermiform appendix

ok....i couldn't really find enough in the way of references to substantiate a lot of what this wiki said...and that's how i tend to look at things from wiki.

But on a superficial level, one may believe that since their body is their own right, they have a right to harm and kill themselves.

i guess so... we have the right to put ourselves in a potentially harmful situation for the sake of another, which is essentially harming ourselves.

What about the money your parents invested in your education?

i don't see anyone's rights there...

What about their hopes for you?

again, not an issue of rights

What about your nephew that looks up to you? What about, what about, what about....

what about giving me something that's an example of rights?

Actually, I meant anything from tapping them, to poking them, to punching them in the face.

well...tapping and poking might be playful and fun, that one depends on the situation

punching someone in the face...unless it's in self defense or the context of an organized even in which face punching is kosher (like boxing), is a direct infringement of a person's right to security

You know that is not what I meant. If it is your friend, and they realise everyone is just kidding around, then it isn't really insulting, is it?

that's why i said "depends on the circumstances" as the other circumstances are clearly wrong. sure, you have the right to say it, but it isn't moral to insult people

What if you engraved some vulgar comment on the back of your head? What if your grandmother is hurt by this?

then she needs to lighten up. my right in this instance overrides her right.

I'll check it up when I have some time. Thanks!

no problem.

Originally posted by babloyi
That article seems somewhat out of date (considering that it believes that there is minimal study on the function of immunity in the appendix, when this isn't so, and it fails to mention the lack of appendix in many other mammals (herbivores or non-herbivores). Check this out:
Vermiform appendix

Once I read this:

The most common explanation is that the appendix is a vestigial structure with no absolute purpose. In The Story of Evolution, Joseph McCabe argued thus:

The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost.

wiki.w2n.net...

I knew this webpage was made by someone who has no idea what they are talking about. He says in the first bit that evolutionary theory suggests the Appendix is vestigial, which means it has no absolute function/purpose. But the second bit he quoted from McCabe says it can be vestigial and also take on a secondary function. Did he actually read it?

Wings in Ostriches are vestigial. They no longer function for flight. But they still have other uses for balance and display. Vestigial doesn't mean it has no purpose/function.

His reference for the claim 'nowadays seen to contradict the explanation of the appendix as a vestige of evolutionary development' is an article that discusses a hypothetical function of the appendix. So what? That isn't important to the claim for vestige status.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by melatonin]