Hitch was simply the best. Never, ever, did I see him beaten in any debate. He was succinct, intellectually disarming and erudite. He had wit, common sense in abundance and his rational debunking of religion was a joy to behold. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett are all excellent in their own way, but Hitch? He was in a league of his own, and died leaving so much unsaid.

There is no love, either. No one can prove it exists.

Since I'm commenting on this post, I secretly want to be an atheist, right Voodoo?

Hormones can be measured. Electrical impulses in the brain as well.

I have no idea how to measure the holy spirit.

So hormones are love? You're such a romantic.

Also, just because you can't measure something, that means it doesn't exist? I suppose atoms didn't exist prior to the 20th century.

"everytime i attempted to quantify love i end up describing sex" -sigmund freud

love is that thing in-between,the glue that holds the intangible together.

and yes..i am a romantic.

your inability to move past a comment I made MONTHS ago is quite amusing. This is at least the 2nd time you've gotten really butthurt about that.

Must have really struck close to home.

Once again you show you don't know how things work. No one ever claimed love existed as a physical thing. Love is merely the description we have assigned to humans who exhibit a certain behavior towards other humans. No one ever claimed it was some sort of tangible...thing

Try again chum. Maybe after your next grinder hookup and you've had a chance to release your pent up desires and you're less cranky

A true Bigot with a mike.

@lantern53

Love, as a notion, is a human construct like all emotions. Asking us to prove it exists is like asking us to prove that mathematics exists.

Atoms existed before we discovered them. But no one assumed they existed before there was evidence to that effect.

What is love? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more.

Pfft. Reality. We can't even prove it's real ∴ stone the apostates!

As Hitch once said. Even if you could prove the existence of a god in the vague deist/pantheist sense you'd still have almost all your work still left to do to prove that your particular invisible skyman, who is inexplicably especially interested in what occurs in your bedroom (pervert imo), is THE ONE.

Atheist says : God doesn't exist! But love...I like love, so it exists. Interesting.

i see what you did there! clever boy

So you're saying that, like love, God is all in your head?

Atheist says: I don't like sadness, anger and despair....so they don't exist.

oh wait. No. Nobody ever said that.

lantern and bob shut down...yet again. no actual arguments, just strawmen, appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies.

I like how he completely ignores @Jinx's response and just continues to troll the same incorrect statement.

What idiot gave you a mike?

all this time and the idiot still doesn't understand the basic concept of what atheism is. Lantern and Bob are Dumb and Dumber


...or top and bottom...whatever works but I'm pretty sure bob is the catcher.

@lantern53 See I'm not really an atheist, but I tend to side with them in 90% of arguments like this because of the terrible reasoning people like yourself make.

There is room to manoeuvre but it has to have rational and/or empirical rigour. Straw man arguments and black & white thinking will do little but embarrass oneself.

@Jinx nailed it with this line:
"So you're saying that, like love, God is all in your head?"

^That is about the only line of argument you could have made stick. Idea's like God's and love etc. exist in our minds and one could reasonably argue that this constitutes a kind of "existence" insofar as they affect the "reality" we experience, "reality" as we experience it is necessarily at least in part a product of the mind. (to be clear such things can ONLY be said to exist in our minds and collective imagination in lieu of material evidence)

The above at the very least moves the argument to one of materialism vs idealism. "Scientific Materialists" will still disagree as they refute the existence of mind as anything other than an illusion created by the interactions of matter and energy, but philosophically speaking that argument will at least go somewhere (hopefully phenomenology and existentialism if you think it through enough!).

If you'd gone that way I could have jumped in to try and help. But instead you used cheap shot logical fallacies even a 1st year theology student would balk at.

Sad Panda!

You mean mic?

The spirit of Hitch lives on in videosift comments, where the toss can and will be argued against you.

I don't think i ever appreciated him when he was alive, in retrospect it was a tragic loss. He was a great mouth piece for the rational. I think he expressed in his outlook what it means to be human in many of his religious debates and gives me more comfort in my own mortality than any figment of somebody else's imagination could. In short, care for the ones you love and do what you enjoy (his purpose being to protect and love his kids and er... spread the seed).