Christopher Hitchens explains the 10 Commandments.
YouTube - VANITY FAIR: Christopher Hitchens's Ten Commandments
Printable View
Christopher Hitchens explains the 10 Commandments.
YouTube - VANITY FAIR: Christopher Hitchens's Ten Commandments
^^Well, I went and got me some wine. Now let's see....
This is what confused me as a kid. I spent a Summer in a day school. I was 5. It was not a Christian center but they had these Xtian books. And the adults won't answer my questions from the book (a cartoon/picture book) that stated Noah lived to be 900 years old.
As a 5 year old, I didn't believe it, because it didn't make sense. The adult (daycare worker) backed the book, and said it was true.
Bullsh*t, IMO.
Quote:
“Methuselah lived 900 years . . . but these stories you’re liable to read in the Bible, they ain’t necessarily so.”1
Along with American composer George Gershwin, many people find it difficult to believe that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches quite plainly that the early patriarchs often lived to be nearly 1,000 years old and even had children when they were several hundred years old! Similar claims of long life spans are found in the secular literature of several ancient cultures (including the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, and Chinese). But even a life span of nearly 1,000 years is sadly abbreviated when we consider that God initially created us to live forever.
Link & Entire: Did People Like Adam and Noah Really Live over 900 Years of Age? - Answers in Genesis
Check this out Barb. it's a classic.
YouTube - Dave Allen on Religion
^ Thanks, JJ.
Christopher Hitchens debates some American Xtian. Note the how American Xtian raises his voice, and gets loud.
Hitchens keeps his school, and his arguments are far better than this Xtian guy.
Oxford grads seem to be very good debaters IMO. Far better debaters that most Americans I've seen.
Does Oxford or certain British high schools and Universities focus on debate and logic? (I know that Hitchens went to the good schools).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK1Im...eature=related
The Oxford and Cambridge debates are famous and yes, public speaking and debating is taught. Hitchens' is in a class of own though IMO.
World without god, would be a world without FEAR. me thinks.
Honest question:Quote:
Originally Posted by billy the kid
Why?
God is there, and that's all that matters
The non-believers, are just that, non-believers, doesn't mean God is not present and around us all the time :p
^Got any proof?
No, didn't think so....
^ do you think the universe could come out all by itself like a miracle ? :p
something started it,
or are you denying that the universe exist ? :)
Yeah, by why does it have to be God and why for us? That's the main point of contention I have with religion, the inherent arrogance of it all -- organised religion at any rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly
Douglas Adams put it best then describing the puddle of water in the pot-hole. The puddle thinks that the pot-hole fits it perfectly so must have therefore been made for it. Even when the sun comes out and starts evapourating the puddle it still insists that the pot-hole fits it perfectly.
So on the macro level with the universe being such an unfathomably vast place it's arrogance itself to assume that some divine entity created it for us, mankind. And on the micro level it's the same principle, that the Earth was created for mankind and that all other life on Earth is automatically subservient to, and there for the exploitation of, mankind.
Actually rather than the injustice of me mangling the whole thing, here's the words from the man himself:
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."
Great post Ant. Just theb nobber papillon making waves again.
who said it was for us ? I think you making assumptions here, and think about religion before thinking about a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
And why does it have to be god ? because that's how the early philosophers refer to it when thinking about the beginning or the source of our world, it's just a word. We could call it the Source or the Cause if that makes you feel better.
In the begining there was the "word", and the "word" was with (nameless), and (nameless) was the "word". The universe was formless, darkness"moved over the face of the deep". Then (nameless)/"word" said, "Let there be light." And then there was light.
Or so it goes if you translate the OT more accurately.
Sounds like the Big Bang theory to me.
:)
There's no assumption and nor does it matter what you call 'God'. The basis of all religion is some divine entity or force looking over mankind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly
In Christianity the Bible itself states that man was made in the image of his maker, and the 'He' held them above all others. So not only is man supposedly modelled on a God, but is also that Gods favourites in an apparently boundless universe.
Like I said, arrogance.
Or is that ignorance?
BF, what's your take then?
How did the universe come to be? If it's not the christian/jewish/muslin god, then what is it?
Please could you supply evidence to back up your claims/theories. Thanks.
The universe doesn't exist. It's all in your fuckin mind.
again you are thinking religion, making assumptions that god is only defined by religion, but it can also be defined by other means. Read a few pages back in the this thread where the issue of god existence vs religion is addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
but again who cares about Religion ? do we consult with Disney fan clubs when trying to address social issues in our society ? again you are barking at the wrong tree to discuss the existence of a god or deity.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
that is actually a good approach, read Descartes, he got the answer to that one :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFree
my take might a bit too sophisticated for the TD crowd, so I will refrain :pQuote:
Originally Posted by StrontiumDog
The question of god and indirectly the question of the existence of the universe can only be addressed through Philosophy and Science. Strangely those two disciplines have more in common than we think in their approach to fundamental questions. They often reach the same conclusions on the same questions, even though Philosophy never try to answer questions directly, it will supply more questions that in itself will reveal the answers.
Philosophy here is referred as "European Classic Philosophy", not the modern garbage we might encounter (public speakers, debaters references like we have seen in this thread) or some religious crap trying to be portrayed as philosophy.
I recommend reading classic authors of Philosophy work, they will give you more answers to the existence of a god or the universe than any religious or anti-religious books. Anti-religious authors are as much blind as the religious authors, they don't provide any answers, and they are limited to their "anti-religious" framework, which is logically the same as the "religious" framework.
The only classic authors to read are French, Germans, and Greek. The Germans are the most advanced creatively, and the French the most logical. The Greeks are fundamental though because they bring the early foundation of philosopher thinking.
I personally prefer the German authors,
You're splitting hairs -- the point's still the same irrespective of what or by whom 'God' is being defned. It's still the notion of a divine entity/being/whatever taking a particular interest in the affairs of humanity. It still has that inherent arrogance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly
The wine didn't help. BF, though reading what was thought of before is a good way of building a better understanding of issues, too much reading will stifle your own creativity and logic. Read 'educated' sheep being churned out of the factories called educational institutions.
Reading should be supplementary to your own thought processes, not the basis of those. There were great philosophers in days of yore, mainly because they were the pioneers, if you wish. They had the luxury of original thought, not thought as a derivative of the thoughts of someone else.
Modern day 'philosophers' are seldom up to the 'greatness' of the early philosophers because of this. They are a bit like the Japs, not really innovative, just adept at improving on someone else's ideas.
So stop talking about what 'classic authors' say. If you are truly interested in the subject, tell us what YOU think, not an extension of what others before you thought. This may be difficult to impossible though, as you appear to have based your theories on what you read, not developed your own theories then refined them by what you read. Once these thoughts/ideas have been implanted in your mind, it is next to impossible to have your own original thought.
This is why I believe education is the wrong way round. You should first develop your own thoughts and theories, then read, adapt and extend. Not read then develop your theories, cause that way round originality is sunk.
Which explains the slow(?) degradation of human 'intelligence'.