Didn't look like a part of the car (unless it was a trailer hitch) - a piece of the guardrail binding?

Excellent tribute, thanks for posting. I used to enjoy, every day, searching for new pearls of wisdom from Hitch. There will, sadly, be no more. But his legacy is strong, and I hope all those remotely interested in free thought will read his work.

LaClair deserves a medal (perhaps he is the new Hitch, we need one). He stands as an inspiration to those who want, but are to afraid, to speak out against insidious, religious, indoctrination. Believe in whatever bronze age myth you choose, but keep it out of school and politics (imagine Romney, a follower of LDS, as president), and allow rational free thinkers to get on with life in the real world.

>> ^messenger:
I have watched a lot of Hitch videos, and he did sweat and stammer a lot. In this debate, objectively, I think he was drunk of his gourd, the way he rambled off on tangents, and that may mean he "lost" the debate for wasting a good chunk of Craig's question time. A lot of what Hitch said was nonsense, but when he was talking on point, he didn't miss anything. It was Craig who kept missing the point that what atheists are saying is that we accept none of the theistic stories, that weak atheism is a not a strong position or a belief.

OR, if your and Craig's claim is that so-called "atheists" are redefining the word and making it mean something wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. We're telling you what we believe (or don't). There wasn't a label for what we are until it became necessary to have one that identified people with a unique faith system (a lack of one). If we're not using the word according to what you believe the original meaning is, so what. It's just a label. When most modern atheists use it, it's a shorthand for, "There is no religious faith system or description of God that I believe is correct." Note that this doesn't exclude any possibility. It only states that right now, I don't believe it.

If you don't know then you're agnostic. If you do know, then youre an atheist. There is no position inbetween I know and I don't know. It's that simple. That's why Hitchens had to admit "I do not therefore believe that God exists". The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

>> ^messenger:
To your million dollar story, if you actually said those exact words to me, and as per your example, many others were in the habit of making the same promises which had always turned up empty, I would probably lump you in with the others and lose the opportunity, and so be it. If I didn't, I'd spend half my life digging up people's gardens. And yes, looking like an ass in public would be an additional penalty I'd work into the calculations.

Judging my decision as wrong based on the negative outcome is a logical fallacy, just as making a statistically incorrect play in poker, but still winning on a fluke doesn't make the decision correct. So if I make a logical decision -- the same one you made in your life many times before your numinous experiences started -- based on the information I have, it is the logical one.

My point had nothing to do with statistics. The point was how ridiculous it is to spend so much time doing everything you can to rule the claim out except to actually test it directly. Especially considering that there is nothing to lose in testing it, and everything to gain. So no, it isn't logical, and since you can pray in your room, you don't have to embarass yourself doing it.

>> ^messenger:
On another note: how can you assure me that what happened to you will also happen to me? Do you have personal experience that shows that everyone with no faith or numinous experience who tries opening their hearts to Jesus succeeds in being entered by the Holy Spirit? You never had to do so, so how would you know it always works?

What Jesus is interested in, foremost, is sincerity. Ask yourself these questions; if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him? Would you serve Him the rest of your days? Would you place your entire faith and trust in Him alone? If you can answer yes to those questions, and you sincerely want to know if Jesus really is God, then there is no doubt He will answer your prayer. It may not come immediately, but it will come, and it will be undeniable.

I have watched a lot of Hitch videos, and he did sweat and stammer a lot. In this debate, objectively, I think he was drunk of his gourd, the way he rambled off on tangents, and that may mean he "lost" the debate for wasting a good chunk of Craig's question time. A lot of what Hitch said was nonsense, but when he was talking on point, he didn't miss anything. It was Craig who kept missing the point that what atheists are saying is that we accept none of the theistic stories, that weak atheism is a not a strong position or a belief.

OR, if your and Craig's claim is that so-called "atheists" are redefining the word and making it mean something wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. We're telling you what we believe (or don't). There wasn't a label for what we are until it became necessary to have one that identified people with a unique faith system (a lack of one). If we're not using the word according to what you believe the original meaning is, so what. It's just a label. When most modern atheists use it, it's a shorthand for, "There is no religious faith system or description of God that I believe is correct." Note that this doesn't exclude any possibility. It only states that right now, I don't believe it.

To your million dollar story, if you actually said those exact words to me, and as per your example, many others were in the habit of making the same promises which had always turned up empty, I would probably lump you in with the others and lose the opportunity, and so be it. If I didn't, I'd spend half my life digging up people's gardens. And yes, looking like an ass in public would be an additional penalty I'd work into the calculations.

Judging my decision as wrong based on the negative outcome is a logical fallacy, just as making a statistically incorrect play in poker, but still winning on a fluke doesn't make the decision correct. So if I make a logical decision -- the same one you made in your life many times before your numinous experiences started -- based on the information I have, it is the logical one.

On another note: how can you assure me that what happened to you will also happen to me? Do you have personal experience that shows that everyone with no faith or numinous experience who tries opening their hearts to Jesus succeeds in being entered by the Holy Spirit? You never had to do so, so how would you know it always works?>> ^shinyblurry:

I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.

I miss Hitch. I didn't always agree with him, but I was always forced to question my beliefs, even (in fact especially) when he was on my side.

The world is a duller place without him.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Craig did extremely well in that debate, especially in the segment where they asked eachother questions. You can see that at the 1:19:00 mark, and I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.
Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
&
gt;> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.



You say; "Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?"
Yes, all of them.
As for your assertion that Hitch "folded," and was "unsure of himself." What are you talking about? He was perfectly concise and logical. He, quite understandably, becomes terse in the face of "white noise" being presented as fact. As you say; "there it is on video."

Craig did extremely well in that debate, especially in the segment where they asked eachother questions. You can see that at the 1:19:00 mark, and I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.

Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8


Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.

>> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.


You must have missed this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

>> ^aurens:

Funny: I don't find it at all hard to argue with the results. It was billions of years of biological evolution—particularly the development of coping mechanisms for acute stresses—that saved Captain Udell, not his appeal to the (presumably) Christian god. (Surely I don't need to explain the difference between correlation and causation, do I?) And yes, if he really did pause to pray, then his religious impulse was self-defeating: it delayed the instinctual biological responses that eventually saved his life.
The difference between me and the Westboro Baptist Church—I'll spell it out—is in intention, delivery, and degree. Of course, your criticism lost all its punch as soon as you went off the deep end in equating me with those crazies.
I learned from the Hitch, thankfully, to be weary of people like you, people who want to chastise—or, worse, forbid—the criticism of religion on the grounds that it's unacceptably irreverent. Well, goddamn right its irreverent (in the etymological sense); that's the point.>> ^Asmo:
Both are insensitive and intolerant towards people who have not offered any overt offense. Both are self justified and self righteous. I don't see much of a difference, even if you pan it off as humour.
Besides, the humour would have been closer to the target if the guy had actually died from his "self-defeating religious impulses". As it stands, he lived versus incredible odds in spite of taking time for prayer. Kinda hard to argue with the results in this case... X D



You are weary of his calling you a douche, and he is weary of you calling a guy whose body has been blown apart and is barely holding himself together for his wife and kids an idiot.



Way to raise the level of discourse here fellas.

Funny: I don't find it at all hard to argue with the results. It was billions of years of biological evolution—particularly the development of coping mechanisms for acute stresses—that saved Captain Udell, not his appeal to the (presumably) Christian god. (Surely I don't need to explain the difference between correlation and causation, do I?) And yes, if he really did pause to pray, then his religious impulse was self-defeating: it delayed the instinctual biological responses that eventually saved his life.

The difference between me and the Westboro Baptist Church—I'll spell it out—is in intention, delivery, and degree. Of course, your criticism lost all its punch as soon as you went off the deep end in equating me with those crazies.

I learned from the Hitch, thankfully, to be weary of people like you, people who want to chastise—or, worse, forbid—the criticism of religion on the grounds that it's unacceptably irreverent. Well, goddamn right its irreverent (in the etymological sense); that's the point.>> ^Asmo:
Both are insensitive and intolerant towards people who have not offered any overt offense. Both are self justified and self righteous. I don't see much of a difference, even if you pan it off as humour.
Besides, the humour would have been closer to the target if the guy had actually died from his "self-defeating religious impulses". As it stands, he lived versus incredible odds in spite of taking time for prayer. Kinda hard to argue with the results in this case... X D

>> ^nanrod:

This is why professional tree removers will top and trim a tree until it's down to a manageable size before falling it.>> ^Porksandwich:
We'd hook em to a truck tow hitch, tie it up high, and put tension on the tree in the direction we want it to fall. Even then trees can do some strange things, like pop/slide off the stump instead of falling over like you'd expect. Don't think I would have been crazy enough to cut a tree that large and that close to a house in one big chunk like that.



Ya, all the branches would have been dropped, then the trunk comes down in nice, fireplace-sized chunks. That tree would have probably been a couple hundred dollars, or two flats of decent beer on a Friday after shift.

This is why professional tree removers will top and trim a tree until it's down to a manageable size before falling it.>> ^Porksandwich:

We'd hook em to a truck tow hitch, tie it up high, and put tension on the tree in the direction we want it to fall. Even then trees can do some strange things, like pop/slide off the stump instead of falling over like you'd expect. Don't think I would have been crazy enough to cut a tree that large and that close to a house in one big chunk like that.