You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #34: It's okay n/t [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. It's okay n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Thom Hartmann Debates Christopher Hitchens On Religion. How Religion Poisons Everything? thomhartmann  Apr-09-09 09:49 AM   #0 
  - That was a good discussion. Thanks for the post. nt  Ilsa   Apr-09-09 10:02 AM   #1 
  - I think Hitchens handed Hartmann his ass on a plate.  Bonobo   Apr-09-09 10:06 AM   #2 
  - I'm in total agreement.  sellitman   Apr-09-09 10:31 AM   #4 
  - Agreed. I like both Hartmann and Hitchens but Hartmann is a fuzzy thinker...  The Night Owl   Apr-09-09 11:02 AM   #8 
  - I Think The Discussion Was More Evenly Balanced Than That  lostnotforgotten   Apr-10-09 04:29 AM   #61 
  - Hartmann comes off  borelord   Apr-09-09 10:09 AM   #3 
  - Sorry, Thom  mrfocus   Apr-09-09 10:35 AM   #5 
  - This is only the second time I've ever seen Thom lose an argument.  Ian David   Apr-09-09 11:03 AM   #10 
  - I agree, and I LOVE Thom Hartmann.  ihavenobias   Apr-09-09 12:58 PM   #13 
  - Radical atheism is becoming a religion without a god nt  humblebum   Apr-09-09 12:48 PM   #12 
     - Whole-cloth hokum.  stopbush   Apr-09-09 02:19 PM   #28 
  - Atheism as religion?  shellfishgene   Apr-09-09 10:35 AM   #6 
  - Actually that is true ...Hinduism makes room for Atheism ... If you do not believe  TheCoxwain   Apr-09-09 11:35 AM   #11 
  - Huge Hartmann fan.  tabatha   Apr-09-09 10:53 AM   #7 
  - Actually I think Hartmann asked the questions that need to be asked  humblebum   Apr-09-09 01:03 PM   #14 
     - Right, Hitchens applies the standard we all consider to be the best for 99.9% of the life.  ihavenobias   Apr-09-09 01:06 PM   #15 
     - There is nothing rational about ignoring other epistemologies,  humblebum   Apr-09-09 01:17 PM   #16 
        - The problem is  ihavenobias   Apr-09-09 01:28 PM   #19 
           - I think you prove my point because you ignore centuries of philosophy  humblebum   Apr-09-09 01:44 PM   #21 
              - What history is being ignored?  stopbush   Apr-09-09 01:57 PM   #22 
                 - That's what I'm talking about. nt  humblebum   Apr-09-09 02:00 PM   #23 
                    - Be specific. You say centuries of history are being ignored.  stopbush   Apr-09-09 02:06 PM   #24 
                       - Exactly.  ihavenobias   Apr-09-09 02:12 PM   #26 
                       - More atheistic blather. We know what's true and don't tell us  humblebum   Apr-09-09 02:19 PM   #29 
                          - Perhaps for your 63rd post you could actually respond to the  stopbush   Apr-09-09 02:24 PM   #30 
                             - I'm so glad you used the term ad hominem arguing because that's exactly the way  humblebum   Apr-09-09 02:47 PM   #31 
                                - Wow! You've added a healthy dose of the straw man to your large serving of ad hominem.  stopbush   Apr-09-09 03:16 PM   #33 
                                   - Yes, "irregardless" is a word. Maybe slang, but definitely used for  humblebum   Apr-09-09 05:13 PM   #38 
                                      - Still won't answer the question, will you?  stopbush   Apr-09-09 05:25 PM   #40 
     - Hartmann didn't do well at all here  spiritual_gunfighter   Apr-09-09 01:20 PM   #17 
        - I would say that's because you are partial to the atheist argument.  humblebum   Apr-09-09 01:25 PM   #18 
        - Funny.  ihavenobias   Apr-09-09 01:29 PM   #20 
        - Obviously you are partial  spiritual_gunfighter   Apr-09-09 02:07 PM   #25 
           - I definitely apologize for my unreasonable assumption. nt  humblebum   Apr-09-09 02:58 PM   #32 
              - It's okay n/t  spiritual_gunfighter   Apr-09-09 03:31 PM   #34 
        - Personally, I love Thom, and I can't stand the "Gin-soaked popinjay"...  PassingFair   Apr-09-09 05:42 PM   #42 
  - Thanks for the vid.  swishyfeet   Apr-09-09 11:02 AM   #9 
  - Like many religionists who attempt to debate Hitchens,  stopbush   Apr-09-09 02:13 PM   #27 
  - I agree with Hartmann  mr_smith007   Apr-09-09 03:51 PM   #35 
  - I have never met an "atheist" who asserts that there is NO possibility of the supernatural...  PassingFair   Apr-09-09 04:26 PM   #37 
  - Exactly. In fact, were the supernatural to be proven, it would take its  stopbush   Apr-09-09 05:21 PM   #39 
  - That wasn't the point of my  mr_smith007   Apr-09-09 06:25 PM   #44 
     - You can rule out the possibility of BELIEVING in it, though. n/t  PassingFair   Apr-09-09 06:27 PM   #46 
     - Well if evidence  mr_smith007   Apr-09-09 07:15 PM   #48 
     - Science asserts proven, immutable truths all the time, like the laws of physics.  stopbush   Apr-10-09 12:26 AM   #55 
  - That is the part  mr_smith007   Apr-09-09 06:15 PM   #43 
  - There is a big difference between an "atom" and an "omnipotent being".  PassingFair   Apr-09-09 06:25 PM   #45 
  - I am not  mr_smith007   Apr-09-09 07:14 PM   #47 
  - Excuse me, but the idea of the atom was first broached in India in 600 BCE  stopbush   Apr-10-09 01:00 AM   #57 
  - Your definitions of agnosticism and atheism are flawed.  whathehell   Apr-09-09 08:16 PM   #51 
     - I think that your definitions are the flawed ones.  PassingFair   Apr-09-09 08:31 PM   #53 
        - "The only real difference between the two is that one has a more negative connnotation to believers"  whathehell   Apr-10-09 04:11 AM   #60 
           - According to Y-O-U.  PassingFair   Apr-10-09 08:09 AM   #63 
              - Yes -- as your "semantics" are according to Y.O.U.  whathehell   Apr-10-09 03:53 PM   #71 
  - You are quite wrong about Hitchens, who does not assert a  stopbush   Apr-09-09 05:41 PM   #41 
  - It totally depends on what can be considered as evidence.  humblebum   Apr-09-09 07:37 PM   #49 
  - Well, you're wrong.  stopbush   Apr-10-09 12:41 AM   #56 
  - You obviously know little about "proof"as related to philosophy  humblebum   Apr-10-09 09:18 AM   #64 
     - You're now conflating evidence with proof.  stopbush   Apr-10-09 12:36 PM   #66 
        - Are you telling me that you can have evidence without proof and  humblebum   Apr-10-09 02:44 PM   #67 
           - Care to respond to my question about history?  stopbush   Apr-10-09 02:52 PM   #68 
  - If Hitchens is simply asserting that "evidence doesn't exist for god's existence"  whathehell   Apr-10-09 03:58 AM   #59 
     - That is an absolute truth which is based on the Scientific Method  humblebum   Apr-10-09 09:25 AM   #65 
        - Correct...and they are very limited.  whathehell   Apr-10-09 03:49 PM   #70 
  - Exactly.  whathehell   Apr-09-09 07:51 PM   #50 
  - Hartmann is my favorite radio FAR.  PassingFair   Apr-09-09 04:05 PM   #36 
     - You seem to misunderstand the difference between atheism and agnosticism  whathehell   Apr-09-09 08:23 PM   #52 
        - Hitchens was making the case that there is no evidence for the existence...  PassingFair   Apr-09-09 08:36 PM   #54 
           - "no evidence for the existence of a supreme being"  whathehell   Apr-10-09 03:29 AM   #58 
              - Of course there was "evidence". That's why science was used to bring it to light.  PassingFair   Apr-10-09 08:07 AM   #62 
                 - No, dear...there's no "of course" about it...  whathehell   Apr-10-09 03:40 PM   #69 
                    - .  PassingFair   Apr-10-09 05:08 PM   #72 
                       - First of all, it's "belief", not "believe"  whathehell   Apr-11-09 07:38 AM   #73 

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC