You're welcome, but I think you took a wrong turn somewhere when you followed that link, because Hitchens lost that debate pretty badly. Don't get me wrong, because I think Hitchens did win most of his debates, if only on his rhetorical abilities, but on that one he floundered..which is particularly clear when watching from 1:19:00 or so when he was subject to direct questioning by Craig.

In any case, the fallacious claims are all on your side, considering the rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. Congratulations, you defeated me in your imagination..did you get a boost of self-esteem? I also wonder how a self-described militant antitheist could escape the label of zealotry?

Let's say that I told you that I buried one million dollars somewhere in your neighborhood, and I gave you the GPS coordinates for its location. I also told you that if you didn't dig up the money within 48 hours, it would go back into my bank account. The GPS coordinates are very convenient to your location and are on public property. All you would have to do is go and check it out for yourself.

But, instead of going over to the location to dig, you start doing some research. You interview a lot of people in the neighborhood and you find out that no one actually saw me bury the money. You also find out that many other people have claimed to have buried treasure in the past, and many of those claims have turned out to be false. Further, on the basis of speculation as to what I was doing that day, you dig around many other locations where I was said to have been. After this, you finally come to the GPS location and look for forensic evidence, such as foot prints, that I was there. You test the malleability of the dirt at the location to see if it feels like it had been dug in recently. In that 48 hour time period, you do absolutely everything except putting your shovel into the ground and directly investigating the claim. At the end of the time period, you tell me that on the basis of your investigation, you have rejected my claim as false. I take you over to the location, dig up a suitcase and show you the money. It would have been yours if you had just taken a leap of faith and spent 5 minutes of your time investigating it.

Do you think the way you investigated this made any sense? If not, then why you do you think that the way you investigate the question of Jesus Christ makes any sense? You want to investigate it on your own terms, in your own way, stubbornly refusing to even consider the only actual way you would find evidence for the claim; the way that He told us to find Him. In all the time you have ever invested in this, you have refused to do the one thing that could yield up the truth. Does that make sense?

Jesus specifically said you wouldn't find any evidence for God any other way. He said He is the only way, and if you want to know God, you have to go through Him. Why are you so against actually testing His claim to see if it is true? Do you think the Lord of all Creation is incapable of proving His existence to you? Is it because you would feel silly? Isn't it worth feeling silly for a few minutes to potentially gain an eternal reward? Isn't it worth stepping outside your comfort zone for a few minutes to potentially avoid an eternal consequence? The only thing which is stopping you is pride.

I wasn't spoon fed anything; I was agnostic for most of my life. I had no predisposition towards Christianity, and actually many against it. I was opposed to religion in general, and the claims of Christianity in particular. I did just what you're doing; I dismissed it, thinking I knew enough about it to rule it out, when it was all just based on my superficial understanding. My proof constituted a few verses taken out of context, my rejection of any judgment for my sins, and the hypocripsy I had seen in Christians in general. Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.

Yet, God was merciful to me. He drew me near to His Son, and when I finally gave my life to Him, Jesus revealed Himself to me. He will do the same for you, if you came to Him in humility and asked Him into your life. If you just asked Him what the real truth is, instead of arrogantly believing that you have it all figured out, He would show it to you. He makes it plain to everyone that He exists, it's just that people write these things off or deny them to themselves because they don't want to submit to God. They don't want to believe it is true.

Only God can reveal Himself to someone; I can only point to Him. No amount of argument is going to give you faith. You have to choose to want to know Him, to want to know what the actual truth is. It's something that happens in your heart, when you desire to know the love of God, and you simply do not have any idea how much He loves you. It is what you are here on Earth for, to know that love of His; to be in relationship with your Creator.

I pray that you learn that and understand that. You have to realize that you don't actually know either way. Step outside your comfort zone and listen to your conscience, because it witnesses against you that you have sinned against a holy God. There is forgiveness for you, but it is your choice to receive it or not.

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.
First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.
Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.
Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.
No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.
You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.
You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...
...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.

Dont be angry Enzoblue, JPM floundered a bit last season but its his choice/job/challenge/idea of fun (in most motor racing you need to be in the right team at the right time to win regularly).
The only big thing wrong in nascar+JPM IMHO is a bit of an attitude problem (like in Paybacks comment).

Notice what is said. Culprit first reacts to what he actually saw:
"I saw sparks coming from under the car as if it had a tyre down or something."
Looks like something broke. Likely a wheel/tyre/suspension/pit crew/previous contact problem.
And then he thinks it over and tries to come up with a more popular angle:
"I just wonder if Montoya was going down the back catching up with the field and he didnt know the safety truck was up there and they called him on the radio.."
Look ma he hit the big yellow track dryer on the end of the straight, he must be blind/stupid/distracted and dangerous. LOL

JPMs slightly awkward comment about the truck driver looking scared (not in this video) was funny too.

Still so angry that Montoya went Nascar. The man is still one of the top ten best drivers on the planet and he's floundering in a series where your driving talent only counts for 10% of your success, (who you know and who you blow being the other 90). What a waste.

>> ^jmzero:
How many bands flounder on their next album after their "first big hit"? How many comedians end up seeming like a "bad impression of themselves 5 years ago"? How many authors seem to just coast later in their career?

Quite a few probably, but then artistic endeavors aren't like making widgets in a factory, after your "first big hit" you don't just pump out a thousand more of those and you're set. I'm sure even successful bands may put out a second album that was maybe a lot like the first one, which some people liked and others thought was boring, then they try a different direction in their third album and the old school fans hate it but people who didn't listen to them before pick it up.

Does he go onto to talk about the phase many artists hit where they're now capable of doing good work, but have lost their taste - they can no longer discern whether what they're doing is good?

How many bands flounder on their next album after their "first big hit"? How many comedians end up seeming like a "bad impression of themselves 5 years ago"? How many authors seem to just coast later in their career?

How many directors go back to a great work a decade later and take a big dump on it? Only one that I can think of. But you get the idea.

tactic: reduce the budget of a social service, restrict them with ridiculous regulations... wait for the service to flounder... use that as a reason to privatize it.... watch the revenue for that service increase, while the level/quality of service remains the same or worse



its easy to want to blame the firefighters/police there... but two things are probably preventing them... not having the proper equipment combined with the fact that perhaps this person is looking to/will inadvertantly take someone with him... 2 reprisal from doing their job outide of the guidelinse set for them... ie suspension or most likely termination

in a society where everyone is actually doing well economically, and not under a state of constant fear, it would be ALOT easier for morality to win out in this situation... but when you have to risk your job, to do your job which risks the security of say... your family... its not easy

the sad thing is, ANY inquiry into this matter will stop at the police/firemen involved... and not look at the environment/atmosphere/mentality involved here

Hitchens does a great job here. Not sure what the title is all about. It's yet another awesome Hitchslap upside some fundy's head, but I don't feel right about upvoting something with such a ridiculous title. Let it flounder.

Wow, someones a little sensitive. On the contrary, Hitchens struggles here to articulate his views because after he said God didn't exist the burden of proof was on him. He stutters, he dodges, he just basically flounders through the first five minutes.."that's a big question!" no shit, really Chris? WLC is a gentlemen here and doesn't call him on it.

It's amusing that you say that "The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."

lol, this is a debate, not a schoolyard..I can just imagine Christopher Hitchens going up to the podium and declaring: I'm right and you're wrong! Owned! lol...If you come to a debate you have to prove why your view is right and the others is wrong. Hitchens failed here to do that..offering no counter-evidence to any of Craigs assertions..

This was a debate on philosophical terms, and Hitchens was woefully underprepared. You probably don't know much about philosophy (or just aren't a deep thinker) so you believe that Hitchens didn't do so badly..but on the actual terms of the debate, he lost on every point.


>> ^KnivesOut:
This vid's title is just as accurate and compelling as your magic book. Your new one sucks just as bad.
It's as if Hitchens is arguing with an intellectual child. He's attempting to deal with a line of questioning that is idiotic.
It is not up to the athiest to prove that something that cannot be proven to exist doesn't exist. The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."
It is up to the thiest to provide conclusive evidence that god exists. The thiest cannot. Personal testimony is not admissible as evidence.
When was the last time god intervened in the world of man? Why are there no animals being spontaneously created to prove that evolution is false? Why would a god, supposedly so jealous and obsessed with his need for man's belief, not simply prove it, conclusively, in a way that requires no faith?
If your god does exist, he's a massive dick.>> ^shinyblurry:
Okay, since it's clear the sift bias is going to sink this video, even though the title is accurate and compelling, I'll change it.

"shit-hole of pansies" = LOL

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
First of all, let me start off by saying that was a horrible interview. Tinkerbell247 was obviously just trying to be clever and in doing so blew any chance at having a simple cheat sheet we could use to bash Fister Misk. I can't do anything with that shit.

I don't have much to say about MrFisk other than he was banned like a sissy. Real men stand up and say they want a permanent ban rather than come back to this shit-hole of pansies. During his siftquisition he floundered and pointed fingers like a little bitch. I'm beginning to wonder that the "Mr" in his name is a typo.

Anyway, that's enough for me to get on the list for the next roast right? Hopefully we'll roast somebody that matters.

First of all, let me start off by saying that was a horrible interview. Tinkerbell247 was obviously just trying to be clever and in doing so blew any chance at having a simple cheat sheet we could use to bash Fister Misk. I can't do anything with that shit.

I don't have much to say about MrFisk other than he was banned like a sissy. Real men stand up and say they want a permanent ban rather than come back to this shit-hole of pansies. During his siftquisition he floundered and pointed fingers like a little bitch. I'm beginning to wonder that the "Mr" in his name is a typo.

Anyway, that's enough for me to get on the list for the next roast right? Hopefully we'll roast somebody that matters.

>> ^rebuilder:
Germany seems to be doing pretty well...
>> ^mgittle:
>> ^raverman:
Aside from the whole ruthless racial genocide and being on the "other side"...
Hitler was a very successful leader. He turned a floundering near bankrupt country into an organised efficient global super power in less than a decade.

If you amend your statement to say he was successful in the short term, I agree. But, can you really label someone as a success if their success is short-lived and ends in disaster? That's like saying the CEOs of all the major banks that needed bailouts were successful. Yeah...they were successful until they weren't. Just like Hitler was a good leader...until he wasn't.



hitler's dead, dude.

Germany seems to be doing pretty well...
>> ^mgittle:

>> ^raverman:
Aside from the whole ruthless racial genocide and being on the "other side"...
Hitler was a very successful leader. He turned a floundering near bankrupt country into an organised efficient global super power in less than a decade.

If you amend your statement to say he was successful in the short term, I agree. But, can you really label someone as a success if their success is short-lived and ends in disaster? That's like saying the CEOs of all the major banks that needed bailouts were successful. Yeah...they were successful until they weren't. Just like Hitler was a good leader...until he wasn't.

>> ^raverman:

Aside from the whole ruthless racial genocide and being on the "other side"...
Hitler was a very successful leader. He turned a floundering near bankrupt country into an organised efficient global super power in less than a decade.


If you amend your statement to say he was successful in the short term, I agree. But, can you really label someone as a success if their success is short-lived and ends in disaster? That's like saying the CEOs of all the major banks that needed bailouts were successful. Yeah...they were successful until they weren't. Just like Hitler was a good leader...until he wasn't.

Aside from the whole ruthless racial genocide and being on the "other side"...

Hitler was a very successful leader. He turned a floundering near bankrupt country into an organised efficient global super power in less than a decade.