PassingFair
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-10-09 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #58 |
| 62. Of course there was "evidence". That's why science was used to bring it to light. |
|
Again, I'm not saying that the wee folk CAN'T live
under my desk, I'm saying I don't BELIEVE that they
do, and I don't leave them small, burnt offerings,
either.
|
| -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 host....by 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 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread