Great point; I've always felt the deathbed approaches are more about the person asking than the person being asked. "Faith" seems to seek constant maintenance and external justification.

Never underestimate the power of a *quality beard, I say.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by radx.

Don't hurt 'em Hammer.

"Well FUCK that!" Now those are some fine last words

God will get the last word on this one. Hitchens, justifying his life of sin to himself, has an ego a mile wide. His will, his way. He thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. He is trotting out his illness in national forums to stick it to God one last time. Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, who has made a career teaching others to sin, God shows him mercy. The whole thing is just heartbreaking to me. I pray he wakes up and finds the truth before its too late.

>> ^shinyblurry:

God will get the last word on this one. Hitchens, justifying his life of sin to himself, has an ego a mile wide. His will, his way. He thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. He is trotting out his illness in national forums to stick it to God one last time. Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, who has made a career teaching others to sin, God shows him mercy. The whole thing is just heartbreaking to me. I pray he wakes up and finds the truth before its too late.


Haha! Well played!

Oh ... wait... you're serious?

I suggest we all ignore shinyblurry's comment. Clearly nothing can affect shiny's world view. If Hitchen's eloquence doesn't do it, we mere peons can't do it. In my opinion.

Hitchens lives near me :]

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Seric.

Hitchen's would say (if I can presume) that shinyblurry is balancing his own problems by trying to make others as scared as he is of his imaginary supernatural Daddy in the sky.

Why do the religious NEED others to believe the same as them? If it makes you feel better then fine. Just keep your madness to yourself.

Shiny can I recommend 'God Is Not Great' for your next holiday read?

>> ^shinyblurry:

God will get the last word on this one. Hitchens, justifying his life of sin to himself, has an ego a mile wide. His will, his way. He thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. He is trotting out his illness in national forums to stick it to God one last time. Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, who has made a career teaching others to sin, God shows him mercy. The whole thing is just heartbreaking to me. I pray he wakes up and finds the truth before its too late.


Typical holier-than-thou, false dichotomy schlock. Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're full up here.

>> ^shinyblurry:

God will get the last word on this one.

Which god?

That would be my problem if I were dying. Even if I became convinced there were an afterlife I'd have the hardest time figuring out which one it is. Most gods seem fairly confident in their own existence.

He looks good.

Anyone who thinks they have figured it out hasn't thought about it too deeply. That which is seen is a poor reflection of that which is unseen.

If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Extremely well put. >> ^bareboards2:
I suggest we all ignore shinyblurry's comment. Clearly nothing can affect shiny's world view. If Hitchen's eloquence doesn't do it, we mere peons can't do it. In my opinion.

Hey well I do exist so you're just in denial. Yes, it's true, you won't be able to convert me to your mother science worshipping ways. That I love the Lord will never change, and neither would I put anything before Him.

I think it's rather childish of you two (so far) to summarily dismiss what I have to say. After all, Hutchins 'eloquent' fuck you to Christianity merits no response from a Christian, right? Since you want to claim its bogus I'll feel free to state the truth. You can meet me on terms like a grown up or you can bury your head in the sand like a little baby. Either way, it's no skin off my teeth.

I find this site primarily approves of anti-christian videos, and also its denizens seem to prefer them, at least as much as they are constantly promoted into the top 10 and lavished with praise by some of the most active members of this site. Hutchins, the so called great man and obviously the subject of a lot of hero worship on this site, is nothing more than a blasphemer, and he gets off on it. He enjoys it, and he also enjoys your praise and worship. He loves feeling right and it pleases him to no end when hordes of syncophants confirm all of his beliefs. Oh wait hes an atheist so he doesnt have beliefs right. An atheist is a singularity of unbelief..it is a nature onto to itself.

So with this anti-christian bent in mind, which is really quite apparent, I feel perfectly justified in responding to any of it. If you can't see that then it is your lack of understanding only.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Anyone who thinks they have figured it out hasn't thought about it too deeply.

I'm pretty sure Hitchens would agree with you on that point. People who claim to know exactly what the afterlife is like are given a free pass while those who claim it can't be known are labeled heretics and sinners.

[redacted]

>> ^shinyblurry: God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it.

He prefers Christopher.

*promote the Hitchslap

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, March 11th, 2011 7:40pm PST - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

You say as you use a computer. The real difference though is we dont have to worship science you ignorant bastard. We believe in science inasmuch as you believe in it. Science seems believable because it works. You can act all high and mighty all day, but if you become ill you wont pray it away; you'll go see a doctor who uses methods proved by science.
>> ^shinyblurry:

It's true, you won't be able to convert me to your mother science worshipping ways.

>> ^shinyblurry:

God will get the last word on this one. Hitchens, justifying his life of sin to himself, has an ego a mile wide. His will, his way. He thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. He is trotting out his illness in national forums to stick it to God one last time. Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, who has made a career teaching others to sin, God shows him mercy. The whole thing is just heartbreaking to me. I pray he wakes up and finds the truth before its too late.


Ah. Can I just say I meant to downvote this ridiculous comment. But I'm half asleep and have toothache. Boy do I have toothache.

>> ^shinyblurry:

God will get the last word on this one... has an ego a mile wide. ..Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. .. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, .. before its too late.


>> ^shinyblurry:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.


er..

Shiny, as a corporeal representative for God's so-called everlasting/universal love, you seem to really relish the idea of people who, y'know, don't fall in line with your incomprehensible and unjustified self-enslavement and stuff BURNING IN HELL FOREVER.

But please, defer the blame for your petty (calling it childish would be an insult to actual well-adjusted children), crass behavior right on back to your evidence-less imaginary friend so you don't have to ever engage anyone in good faith, ever; we're all sinners and you're God's special child/saved and that's that. Actually, considering that, it might be a better idea if you just fuck right off. Go drop a turd in someone else's punch-bowl.

Now guys, let's not be too quick to judge Shiny. Every time we get some good, entertaining crazy on this site you guys always want to chase them away with "f-this" and "f-that guy". Look I agree with you, but it's so much more entertaining to have them around sometimes.

You miss Choggie, don't you?

>> ^shinyblurry:

God will get the last word on this one. Hitchens, justifying his life of sin to himself, has an ego a mile wide. His will, his way. He thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. He is trotting out his illness in national forums to stick it to God one last time. Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, who has made a career teaching others to sin, God shows him mercy. The whole thing is just heartbreaking to me. I pray he wakes up and finds the truth before its too late.


so shiny puts forth a comment.
a comment based upon his/her religion concerning sin-repentance-absolution in regards to hitchens possible judgment.
and what does he/she get for his comment?
name-calling and disdain.
way to keep it classy guys.
do you KNOW shiny?
maybe he/she is a great person.spending time with the dying in their time of need or donates to local charities.
or maybe he/she is part of fred phelps "god hates fags" group.
i dont know and neither do you.
and to base a personal judgment on a comment is the height of presumption.

you can disagree with his ideology which is obviously based in dogma but to jump to conclusions based on so little and with such self righteous vigor is shameful.
might i suggest that you check yourselves before you begin to resemble the very thing i see so many of you admonish time and time again concerning religious hypocrisy.

God is such a sweetheart for giving Hitchens cancer so he can see the error of his ways. I see that now, a real pal.

>> ^enoch:
maybe he/she is a great person.spending time with the dying in their time of need


Did you WATCH the clip!!!???

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
Shiny, as a corporeal representative for God's so-called everlasting/universal love, you seem to really relish the idea of people who, y'know, don't fall in line with your incomprehensible and unjustified self-enslavement and stuff BURNING IN HELL FOREVER.
But please, defer the blame for your petty (calling it childish would be an insult to actual well-adjusted children), crass behavior right on back to your evidence-less imaginary friend so you don't have to ever engage anyone in good faith, ever; we're all sinners and you're God's special child/saved and that's that. Actually, considering that, it might be a better idea if you just fuck right off. Go drop a turd in someone else's punch-bowl.


I don't though, I do not relish that. It's the last thing I want. I don't relish the idea of anyone suffering, neither would I want anyone to have to suffer. I know that there are many people who will end up rejecting God, especially in these times. I pray God has mercy on their souls. I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, and neither does God.

People want to have it both ways. They want Gods justice but not His punishment. God has made it very clear He isn't letting any sin into Heaven and everyone knows that. It is only by a narrow margin that anyone could be saved under these circumstances, which is why Jesus Christ died for us. He made a provision for humanity, which despite its continual sinning was well loved by its Creator, even to the point of the death of His own Son.

Justice will be done for the evil committed on Earth and sin wont be allowed in Heaven. Those who hear the message and reject it with receive a greater punishment. That is why, noticing the anti-christian bent on the sift, I have been posting the truth in the threads of anti-christian videos. It's not about my ego..it is about Gods truth and His Word, and compassion for our collective spiritual plight. I don't feel like I am going to make it half the time, and I certainly wouldnt try to put it on that I am somehow more worthy than someone else.

That being said, the lies of the devil are too numerous to count, and far too many people have been duped by them. Anything which points away from Gods truth is a lie, and at least in this country sinning has become socially acceptable, and is even admired. It is also socially acceptable to disparage and denigrate Christians, and obstensively members of other religions. I don't mind it for the Lords sake but the worst part of it for me is knowing that the ones doing this will be judged for it if they don't repent. Society has embraced sin and has become seriously dystopian and nihilisitic. In any case it isn't something I can live with so when there is anti-christian propaganda out there I will respond with the truth. Not to justify myself to someone telling me to fuck off, but as this rudimentry and poorly thought out opinion on me seems to be becoming a concensus, I think the truth is worth stating.

>> ^shinyblurry:
That being said, the lies of the devil are too numerous to count, and far too many people have been duped by them. Anything which points away from Gods truth is a lie, and at least in this country sinning has become socially acceptable, and is even admired.

Lies. Clearly Islam is the one true religion. The Qur'an is the infallible word of God. Your bible is written, told and edited by men, and susceptible to the perversion and lies of the devil. It is the devil who tricked you into believing in the false divinity of Jesus Christ.

Renounce your belief in your false god and your soul may yet have a chance at redemption. Those who hear the word of Allah and reject it with receive a greater punishment. May He have mercy on your soul.

Shiny, lets assume for a moment that you're right, there is an after life, mr. god will judge us when we die and send us to the corner of shame and eternal hellfire to think about what we've done.

Fine, so I guess we can at least agree on one thing: until that day comes I will actually live, embrace life with all its temptation and unholiness, indulge the devil's ways and blaspheme my ass off, live, love, fuck, drink, hate, whatever the fuck I can get away with. And you, you sad little person, when that day comes you'll be as sad as you are today, you and the countless others who are an affront to life it self. And y'know what? I'll pick hellfire with the likes of Hitchens over your divine garden of twats any day.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

Shiny, lets assume for a moment that you're right, there is an after life, mr. god will judge us when we die and send us to the corner of shame and eternal hellfire to think about what we've done.
Fine, so I guess we can at least agree on one thing: until that day comes I will actually live, embrace life with all its temptation and unholiness, indulge the devil's ways and blaspheme my ass off, live, love, fuck, drink, hate, whatever the fuck I can get away with. And you, you sad little person, when that day comes you'll be as sad as you are today, you and the countless others who are an affront to life it self. And y'know what? I'll pick hellfire with the likes of Hitchens over your divine garden of twats any day.


I'm glad we could get all of this out in the open. Yes, you're free to do whatever you want. Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot, you can live life the charlie sheen way, shallowly indulging yourself in all the puerile tripe you identify with a winning lifestyle. But, as I mentioned earlier sin isn't allowed in Heaven. It will be plucked out like it never existed. All those who delight in wickedness will be punished for it so that is what you have to look forward to if you don't repent.

As far as being "an affront to life itself", I support life, I love life. It's people like you who think they're entitled to do any fucked up thing they'd like..ie, if it feels good do it, who are ruining society. People with no scruples or charity, characterized mainly by their lack of tolerance and narrow mindedness. People who enjoy sinning, get some sort of rush out of it. Well, it's an ugly thing you do, to yourself and to others. It's a shittier world that you create. So don't be surprised when you get shit in return.

[redacted]

>> ^Xaielao:

He looks good.


Indeed...

If the experimental drug does cure him, or at least put him into long-term remission, what will the religious zealots say?

I imagine that their god will get credit, not the humans that created the drug

Heaven as a logical construct cannot exist.

Argument:
There is evil in this world, because we have free will.
There is no evil in Heaven.
Ergo, there is no free will in heaven.
Ergo, it's not really heaven.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Now vanish in a puff of logic, god.

That is quite stupid and belies any understanding of what is going on. There is evil because man uses his free will to sin. He chooses it, yet he doesn't have to choose it. If we had no free will there would be no evil, yet, free will isn't the reason there is evil. You can have free will without evil. It's when mankind chooses evil that there is evil. It wasn't until man broke the law that sin entered the world. It's when mankind chooses the ways of the world over the ways of God. So, since it is possible to have free will without evil, so it is possible to have free will in Heaven. Your logic is full of holes, just like your idealogy.

You really shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

If you are not free to do whatever you want - even if it's bad - then it's not free will. Here in the real world we are free to do so, but obviously with consequences, that's why we have laws, but if heaven should exist without anything evil happening, it must suppose that free will has been eliminated.

>> ^shinyblurry:


... Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot ... All those who delight in wickedness will be punished for it ... People with no scruples or charity, characterized mainly by their lack of tolerance and narrow mindedness ... it's an ugly thing you do, to yourself and to others. It's a shittier world that you create. So don't be surprised when you get shit in return.


Projecting much? It is *you* who think you know it all. It is *you* who judge others. It is *you* who defines wickedness and sin to match what you wish to be true.

And most importantly, it is *you* who lack tolerance. I will keep my beliefs to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life and stop telling me that you are better than me because you know all the rules.

Faith. The belief in something without any evidence. No proof, no truth! Yet you people throw the word "truth" around like you own it. Go read that ancient, human-penned book you cherry pick quotes from. I did. And that's why I'm no longer a believer. Thank god.

Did you speak to God yourself shiny? Or did you read the re-re-re-translation of a book written by agenda driven nutters like you 600 years after a bunch of backward uneducated nomads in the desert wrote it?
(No offense to early mid-east culture but the Chinese at least could read and write by then, shame God gave them a miss).

You don't sound like a bad person but you HAVE to understand that to those of us who are not indoctrinated into believing in ancient peasant stories of magic tricks you sound like a NUTTER. And a nutter who claims to know the inner thoughts of a supreme being! If I was God I'd kick your ass for presumtion.

Come on, you must know you're crazy. If you lament the state of civilization then understand that tribal superstitions and fearfulness are FAR from part of the solution. Let's face it if you'd been born in a different country you'd be just as fervent about a whole different story.


>> ^shinyblurry:

I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, and neither does God..

God has made it very clear He isn't letting any sin into Heaven and everyone knows that..

I don't mind it for the Lords sake but the worst part of it for me is knowing that the ones doing this will be judged for it if they don't repent.

@shinyblurry
you are starting to sound a bit preachy my friend.
i defended you earlier because some here were being a tad hypocritical and i felt you had not been given a chance.
BUT..and please listen closely my friend...
faith is an intangible.you cannot prove nor disprove and to try is an exercise in futility but when you begin to use doctrine and dogma to make your argument you leave yourself wide open.
let me explain.
while faith may be an intangible,dogma and doctrine are NOT.they are tangible,physical texts and in being such are subject to the laws of scrutiny.
i.e:they can be debated,debunked and totally destroyed by a skilled debater.
and doctrine and dogma SHOULD be discussed and debated because they are written documents and ironically atheists tend to know MORE about biblical texts than the faithful.
you are on a site which is predominantly populated by atheists..see where im going with this?
you have been warned.

might i suggest that you take a more humanistic tone when commenting rather than one born from dogma?
because when you use dogma to make a case it tends to come across as self righteous,judgmental and holier-than-thou.
this may not be your intent but it is perceived that way by many.
but i have to tell you if you persist on using dogma to make your arguments you wont have to worry about the others coming after you.
i will be calling you to the carpet and you will find i am a formidable opponent.
for while i am a man of faith i am vigorously,vehemently... anti-religious...but i will always defend your right to BE religious.
just dont formulate arguments based in dogma or doctrine because if you do you may not like how those said arguments are taken apart.
just some friendly advice to a new commenter.
namaste.

@enoch, shinyblurry isn't that new. He's been at this before. Hence my comment above to ignore him.

But even I keep coming back to scan the drama. It's all so predictable.

ah..
so it was i that was being presumptuous.
i was unaware that this is not new.
seems i got some dirt on face...ah well.
thanks bud.

Hitchens: soon to be forgotten.

Jesus: less so.

no no no!!! no dirt!!!!!!

I just wanted to let you know that you were being kind to someone who isn't a complete noobie.

It is always good to be kind!

I enjoyed your posts on this thread. Reasoned and reasonable. My favorite.


>> ^enoch:

ah..
so it was i that was being presumptuous.
i was unaware that this is not new.
seems i got some dirt on face...ah well.
thanks bud.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Hitchens: soon to be forgotten.
Jesus: less so.


Quantumushroom : Soon to be forgotten.

Chris Kringle/Santa Claus: Less so.

>> ^enoch:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry
you are starting to sound a bit preachy my friend.

His first comment was...

"God will get the last word on this one. Hitchens, justifying his life of sin to himself, has an ego a mile wide. His will, his way. He thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. He is trotting out his illness in national forums to stick it to God one last time. Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, who has made a career teaching others to sin, God shows him mercy. The whole thing is just heartbreaking to me. I pray he wakes up and finds the truth before its too late."

Have you been paying attention?

Edit : I CAN SEE THE COOOODE

How you can all be so cruel to shinyblurry is beyond me - it's the best use of the term 'braggart' I've seen in 40 years. I was hoping he'd damn Hitchens for a mincing pimp, the cad and the bounder.

Huzzah!

Eternal life sounds so boring.

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! --George Carlin>> ^shinyblurry:

God will get the last word on this one.

Only if 'God' is not omnipotent. If 'God' is omnipotent, he is able to say a word AFTER the last word. Like Chuck Norris.

>> ^shinyblurry:

God will get the last word on this one.

I would just like the sift to note that the popularity of this video, which is anti-religion, if not anti-christian, is indicative of a broader trend of anti-religious sentiment on the sift. This video, along with many other anti-God videos, are consistently promoted into the top 10, to the point where they are nigh unavoidable. As a Christian, I find the sentiment more offensive than the videos themselves.

I have been a regular of the sift for many years, but I never had joined the commentary before now. I don't intend to join it very often either..that I am generally unwelcome has been made clear. However, because of this anti-religious sentiment, I feel compelled to speak the truth, and why should I mince words? I consider it the work of the devil. Of course, he would desire to manipulate the sift to spread his lies. So he populated it with militant anti-theists, who have managed to change the tone of the sift from a previous and more light hearted openness and acceptance and funny cat videos, to intolerance against Christians. I have seen it happen, and its a sad sight to see.

So, if you consider Christians unwelcome on the sift, or members of other religions, you should state it in your FAQ. Like, btw, if you believe in God go fuck yourself and die. I think it's only a fair warning. I like Faith Healer Ultimate Fight as much as the next guy, believe me..but this bullshit is the number one video? Really? It just shows how the tone on the sift has changed to intolerance and anti-religion. All I have to say is get the fuck over yourselves. You're not as smart as you think you are. How about you be honest and stop playing the philosophical gotchya game and admit there isn't a shred of evidence in your corner, what so ever, and if we want to get real, morality is inconvenient for your sinning so of course it has to go, after all its all relative right, and God doesn't have anything to do with that, that is one thing you're right about.

In conclusion, the sift needs an attitude adjustment. Thank you. That is all.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^shinyblurry:

... Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot ... All those who delight in wickedness will be punished for it ... People with no scruples or charity, characterized mainly by their lack of tolerance and narrow mindedness ... it's an ugly thing you do, to yourself and to others. It's a shittier world that you create. So don't be surprised when you get shit in return.

Projecting much? It is you who think you know it all. It is you who judge others. It is you who defines wickedness and sin to match what you wish to be true.
And most importantly, it is you who lack tolerance. I will keep my beliefs to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life and stop telling me that you are better than me because you know all the rules.
Faith. The belief in something without any evidence. No proof, no truth! Yet you people throw the word "truth" around like you own it. Go read that ancient, human-penned book you cherry pick quotes from. I did. And that's why I'm no longer a believer. Thank god.



What you're describing has nothing to do with faith. Faith is not "belief in something without any evidence." Faith is trust, the act of being true to something, loyalty. You have faith in a chair when you choose to sit on it - faith that it will hold you. You are faithful to your spouse when you remain true to your marriage vows. Furthermore, faith is built on experience, not blindness. You have faith in the stability of a chair because of your past experience with chairs - they have proven themselves to have the capability of holding you. You have faith in your spouse that he/she will remain true to you because of the history of your relationship together. You do not put your faith in a stranger.


And you think you have tolerance?? Tolerance applies to those who have beliefs different from your own, not the same(Here's a hint: how you treat people like shinyblurry shows how tolerant or intolerant you are).


"I will keep my believes to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life..." Do you see what you don't here? Judging someone as being a nutjob for believing in God and expressing an opposing opinion here on the sift, as opposed to all the sane, rational, non-nutjobs who are people that don't believe in God. Would you care to be the pot or the kettle this time?

I understand that there has been an attempt to ban shinyblurry. I don't understand that. What has he done? State his opinion? As has everyone else here?

Isn't that censorship, to ban someone for a point of view?

I agree with him, I don't like the personal beatdown that immediately follows when someone like him makes his comments.

What I don't understand is why these kind of comments aren't just ignored, like trolling is ignored. Granted, trolls don't tend to believe what they post, but so what? It's effectively the same thing.

To a rational person -- which includes rational religious people -- shinyblurry's comments are egregiously annoying, internally inconsistent, and mindblowingly clueless. So what? Why the need to point out the obvious to someone who will never ever understand what you are saying?

This whole comment thread was completely predictable, as soon as shiny made his first comment that ignored the basic point of Hitchens eloquent summation of death bed conversions. I told myself I wasn't going to come back and watch it all unfold, but I am drawn to train wrecks like everyone else. Rubbernecking the disaster.

He should not be banned, though. To ban him for his opinion goes against everything that the Sift stands for, or I thought stood for.

In my opinion, of course. In my opinion.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So, if you consider arrogant, preachy, holier-than-thou Christians unwelcome on the sift, or members of other religions, you should state it in your FAQ. Like, btw, if you believe in God feel the need to preach, codemn, boast and be self-righteous, then go fuck yourself and die.

Fixed that for you.

Pretty sure that shiny dude is just trolling. There is nothing logical about religion, so having a logical discourse with someone who refuses to alter their beliefs when presented with evidence is pretty pointless imho. This is one of the reasons I have so much respect for people like Dawkins and Hitchens though, they can take left field stuff and come up with amazingly well thought out and in depth rebuttals and/or answers.

What others see as sin, I see as human nature.

And yes, eternal life does sound boring. Thats why I put stock in reincarnation. It just sounds a hell of a lot more fun.

http://i.imgur.com/3Qupx.jpg

You cannot debate religion with those unwilling to reason. That's like explaining Cramer's rule to somebody that doesn't know math, or like teaching politics to me. At a certain point a person just tunes out. The culmination of years of brainwashing and indoctrination cannot be changed externally. It has to start from within. The questioning of reality isn't for everybody and nobody should feel so heated when they can't force that upon somebody.

The best thing to do, is to classify somebody based on their religious views. It's really easy. Obviously they're not one to question anything. Obviously they don't have the emotional capacity to accept that their fate is 6 feet under and not high in the heavens (or otherwise). And definitely we'd all hope these people would stop breeding, but unfortunately religion in and of itself is too tenacious of a idea for certain people to get past.

I've got to be honest, though, I can't read shinyblurrylogic's comments in their entirety. As part of my classification method that I stated above, he is not an expert on anything real, so reading the blither is a waste of my time. Writing about it isn't though, it's cathartic and a mental exercise, as always.

>> ^bareboards2:

I understand that there has been an attempt to ban shinyblurry. I don't understand that. What has he done? State his opinion? As has everyone else here?

I agree. To misquote Voltaire; I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Hitchens: soon to be forgotten.
Jesus: less so.


There he is!

It's very appropriate that you would bring this point up in a Hitchens thread. I can't speak for the rest of the atheists here but, for myself, this isn't about tolerance. I don't tolerate religious faith, much like I don't any other number of things I find completely and utterly ridiculous. What I do tolerate is you (as an example, you, or shiny, or whoever represents those beliefs). I tolerate your right to believe that nonsense, I tolerate your right to live your life according to that nonsense and teach that nonsense to your children, but I will never tolerate the actual nonsense, I will never stop calling bullshit on that nonsense.

Much like you would probably never tolerate, say, I dunno, racism? (hopefully). The racist has every right to be racist and has every right to live his life in peace as a racist, that doesn't mean we shouldn't stomp our feet in rage at the garbage that pours through his mouth. That is the basis of the pursuit of knowledge, asking a forward thinking person to intellectually accept religious belief would be like asking a grown man to accept that sometimes babies come from storks.

>> ^Morganth:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:

... Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot ... All those who delight in wickedness will be punished for it ... People with no scruples or charity, characterized mainly by their lack of tolerance and narrow mindedness ... it's an ugly thing you do, to yourself and to others. It's a shittier world that you create. So don't be surprised when you get shit in return.

Projecting much? It is you who think you know it all. It is you who judge others. It is you who defines wickedness and sin to match what you wish to be true.
And most importantly, it is you who lack tolerance. I will keep my beliefs to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life and stop telling me that you are better than me because you know all the rules.
Faith. The belief in something without any evidence. No proof, no truth! Yet you people throw the word "truth" around like you own it. Go read that ancient, human-penned book you cherry pick quotes from. I did. And that's why I'm no longer a believer. Thank god.


What you're describing has nothing to do with faith. Faith is not "belief in something without any evidence." Faith is trust, the act of being true to something, loyalty. You have faith in a chair when you choose to sit on it - faith that it will hold you. You are faithful to your spouse when you remain true to your marriage vows. Furthermore, faith is built on experience, not blindness. You have faith in the stability of a chair because of your past experience with chairs - they have proven themselves to have the capability of holding you. You have faith in your spouse that he/she will remain true to you because of the history of your relationship together. You do not put your faith in a stranger.

And you think you have tolerance?? Tolerance applies to those who have beliefs different from your own, not the same(Here's a hint: how you treat people like shinyblurry shows how tolerant or intolerant you are).

"I will keep my believes to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life..." Do you see what you don't here? Judging someone as being a nutjob for believing in God and expressing an opposing opinion here on the sift, as opposed to all the sane, rational, non-nutjobs who are people that don't believe in God. Would you care to be the pot or the kettle this time?

>> ^shinyblurry:

I have been a regular of the sift for many years, but I never had joined the commentary before now. I don't intend to join it very often either..that I am generally unwelcome has been made clear.

If you choose to present your ideas in a public forum then you must realize that others will likely disagree with you. I'm sure multiple members here are more than willing to examine the supporting evidence behind your beliefs.

However, I do agree that personal attacks have no place here. Discussions are more productive when they are about ideas rather than the person expressing them.

@shinyblurry, your efforts to stimulate public discussion would be more successful if you didn't act like a persecuted, preaching hobgoblin. I've had the atheism/religion debate with lots of people, both in person and over the Inter Nets, but very few have been as hard to read or empathize with as you have.

Your approach is wrong. Your manner and method are wrong. The way you're presenting yourself is awful. If your objective is a debate, this is not the way to do it. If your objective is to troll, good job, you succeeded.

blech. a nasty board accompanying an interesting video...


@shinyblurry; try not to take the barbed comments personally. Your comments have the feeling of judgment, by you, on the people who don't share your beliefs. Its natural to be defensive when someone who doesn't know you says you're ignorant.

A good number of the non-religious have arrived there through questioning and struggling with a faith they were born into, so its hard for them to abide comments that they are ignorant and haven't thought things through.

Is it so very important that everyone here love Hitchens and read his books and laugh at his quips? When you post a Hitchens sift or any other sift you agree to weather comments both positive and negative.

shinyblurry may or may be not out to ruffle feathers. I believe s/he is sincere. According to recent studies, supposedly atheists know more about religion then the religious. So why is atheisift 'shocked' that a Christian critiques atheist Hitchens according to Christian values? According to a Muslim's values, Hitchens is an infidel to be converted, enslaved or killed.

Any my original statement is true, whether you or I accept it or not. Evil governments have attempted to eradicate religion. Instead they were eradicated.

Viva Santa!

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Hitchens: soon to be forgotten.
Jesus: less so.

Quantumushroom : Soon to be forgotten.
Chris Kringle/Santa Claus: Less so.

@quantumushroom

I merely was showcasing how the comparisons you gave were no more different than the ones I made.

When the site's general bias is "pro reason" then the "anti reason" will naturally have a problem with it. Reason generally comes with greater intelligence, thus it could be deduced that because the users of videosift are very pro reason, they are smarter than the average bear. I have no problem with that - in fact, I think that's a good thing.

We don't have an anti christian bias per se, but we have an anti "unreason" bias. It's a good thing.


I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can seriously, seriously, believe in something like god, which is demonstrably false. How can your brain justify it?

"God's justice" includes stoning people for a variety of offenses including a woman not being a virgin on her wedding night, and disobeying your parents; very specific rules on how to take, keep and treat slaves; supposedly wiping out nearly every creature on Earth; and condemning all of humanity for sin in the first place. No, I don't want God's justice, thank you very much.

You, like many Christians, seem to have this misguided idea that all atheists want to do is have hedonistic orgies and go on Christian killing sprees, when in fact atheists are usually the ones that understand that, in reality, we only have one short life and we must all work together as a species on this tiny, fragile, blue spaceship, whizzing alone through the cosmos with nothing else around us for light-years. It's the religious fantasy of an afterlife and the proper way to get to the proper afterlife that keeps everyone segregated into factions, with everybody at each other's throats.
>> ^shinyblurry:

They want Gods justice but not His punishment.

Hey I just want to say I think this is a fairly healthy conversation.

For example I love Beck but he's a scientologist, and, without wanting to offend more sifters, that's CLEARLY bonkers. Hubbard's on record during his pulp sci-fi days saying 'if you want to make real money start a religion'. Then he did. And Beck's a genius but he was brought up that way and he can't extract it from his self-identity (or doesn't want to, I don't know him so I don't know).

Doesn't mean I don't love Beck and wouldn't want to upset him or make him miserable. Same to the religious sifters. Any vim around here (trying to match braggart..:) is rage against entrenched and abused power, and sorry, any major religion is guilty of that.

I have some problems with Hitchens (IRAQ!) but he's a clear thinking dialectic who will listen and respond logically. He loves to fight which is good and bad (mostly good in my book:) The English Christian establishment tried to force it on him as a kid and he's been firing back ever since.

Here's another clip from the same event that explains his anger (and that of some here I think):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoH5OFzRbRo (sorry sound is screwy)

And, if you want to see what these guys are really about, for better or for worse, have a look at this high profile debate in London when the English establishment tried to get a handle on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh7G87m4

Peace out.

EDIT: and this one because it just broke my heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwDYbNIHyN0
>> ^bamdrew:

blech. a nasty board accompanying an interesting video...

I would assume that shiny represents himself truthfully in his comments, and from that we can draw quite a few conclusions.

He may give candy to orphans or be an axewielding mass murderer, but that doesn't change the fact that through his comments we get insight into his mind - and from what he has put forth, and certainly the tone and presentation of it, I am less than impressed.

I would argue that there is more hatred streaming from his comments than from the comments mocking him and his beliefs... after all, we don't tell him that he will burn in hell for ever and ever unless he buys charter or gives to charity, or support the republican party. We just point and laugh.

Opinions that are wrong deserve enlightenment and help, but when they are presented as they have been here, they deserve scorn.

Religion strikes so much to the base of a person, his morals, that you learn a lot from a comment. Some devout christians and spiritual people are genuinely nice and good while others are genuinely bad. So far, I've not seen much evidence presented here that puts shiny in the first category.
>> ^enoch:

>> ^shinyblurry:
God will get the last word on this one. Hitchens, justifying his life of sin to himself, has an ego a mile wide. His will, his way. He thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. He is trotting out his illness in national forums to stick it to God one last time. Well, when he is judged he won't have any excuse. God has been trying to save him and Chris has rejected that help, even belittled and made fun of it. Even being a loudmouthed arrogant braggart with delusions of grandeur, who has made a career teaching others to sin, God shows him mercy. The whole thing is just heartbreaking to me. I pray he wakes up and finds the truth before its too late.

so shiny puts forth a comment.
a comment based upon his/her religion concerning sin-repentance-absolution in regards to hitchens possible judgment.
and what does he/she get for his comment?
name-calling and disdain.
way to keep it classy guys.
do you KNOW shiny?
maybe he/she is a great person.spending time with the dying in their time of need or donates to local charities.
or maybe he/she is part of fred phelps "god hates fags" group.
i dont know and neither do you.
and to base a personal judgment on a comment is the height of presumption.
you can disagree with his ideology which is obviously based in dogma but to jump to conclusions based on so little and with such self righteous vigor is shameful.
might i suggest that you check yourselves before you begin to resemble the very thing i see so many of you admonish time and time again concerning religious hypocrisy.

Yea, and on that note, this may be just the alcohol talking but, shiny, I'm feeling sexually experimental, wanna get it on?

Bottom line is...You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? --Jeremiah 17:9

This is a damned good line whether you're a Christian or not. There's nothing wrong with promoting reason and celebrating reason---brilliant and reasonable religious people abound.

Unless you are an unfeeling siftbot, your capacity for self-deception is bottomless.

Too often, atheists imagine they are immune from this self-deception. That's all.


>> ^gwiz665:

When the site's general bias is "pro reason" then the "anti reason" will naturally have a problem with it. Reason generally comes with greater intelligence, thus it could be deduced that because the users of videosift are very pro reason, they are smarter than the average bear. I have no problem with that - in fact, I think that's a good thing.
We don't have an anti christian bias per se, but we have an anti "unreason" bias. It's a good thing.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can seriously, seriously, believe in something like god, which is demonstrably false. How can your brain justify it?

True. Atheists can imagine they are immune from self-deception. But so can everybody. However the lack of a belief in any god isn't a deception, it's a lack reception. You have to be decepted into believing something, or decepted into believing the opposite, let's say, but how can you be decepted into not having any reason to believe?>> ^quantumushroom:
The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? --Jeremiah 17:9
This is a damned good line whether you're a Christian or not. There's nothing wrong with promoting reason and celebrating reason---brilliant and reasonable religious people abound.
Unless you are an unfeeling siftbot, your capacity for self-deception is bottomless.
Too often, atheists imagine they are immune from this self-deception. That's all.
>> ^gwiz665:
When the site's general bias is "pro reason" then the "anti reason" will naturally have a problem with it. Reason generally comes with greater intelligence, thus it could be deduced that because the users of videosift are very pro reason, they are smarter than the average bear. I have no problem with that - in fact, I think that's a good thing.
We don't have an anti christian bias per se, but we have an anti "unreason" bias. It's a good thing.
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can seriously, seriously, believe in something like god, which is demonstrably false. How can your brain justify it?

@shinyblurry I misinterpreted the note I got about your "banning" -- it was something that happened in the past, when you unwittingly self linked, and I thought it was current.

Sorry for any confusion. My bad.

>> ^Morganth:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:

... Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot ... All those who delight in wickedness will be punished for it ... People with no scruples or charity, characterized mainly by their lack of tolerance and narrow mindedness ... it's an ugly thing you do, to yourself and to others. It's a shittier world that you create. So don't be surprised when you get shit in return.

Projecting much? It is you who think you know it all. It is you who judge others. It is you who defines wickedness and sin to match what you wish to be true.
And most importantly, it is you who lack tolerance. I will keep my beliefs to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life and stop telling me that you are better than me because you know all the rules.
Faith. The belief in something without any evidence. No proof, no truth! Yet you people throw the word "truth" around like you own it. Go read that ancient, human-penned book you cherry pick quotes from. I did. And that's why I'm no longer a believer. Thank god.


What you're describing has nothing to do with faith. Faith is not "belief in something without any evidence." Faith is trust, the act of being true to something, loyalty. You have faith in a chair when you choose to sit on it - faith that it will hold you. You are faithful to your spouse when you remain true to your marriage vows. Furthermore, faith is built on experience, not blindness. You have faith in the stability of a chair because of your past experience with chairs - they have proven themselves to have the capability of holding you. You have faith in your spouse that he/she will remain true to you because of the history of your relationship together. You do not put your faith in a stranger.

And you think you have tolerance?? Tolerance applies to those who have beliefs different from your own, not the same(Here's a hint: how you treat people like shinyblurry shows how tolerant or intolerant you are).

"I will keep my believes to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life..." Do you see what you don't here? Judging someone as being a nutjob for believing in God and expressing an opposing opinion here on the sift, as opposed to all the sane, rational, non-nutjobs who are people that don't believe in God. Would you care to be the pot or the kettle this time?


Augh! It drives me crazy when you people do that. Stop conflating the different definitions of the word "faith"!

Look it up in the dictionary. The two primary definitions are something along these lines:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

These are two separate concepts! If I have sat on a chair in the past, I might have faith that it will hold me the next time I sit on it, or the next time I sit on something similar. If I have become close with a person, I might have faith that their behavior would remain consistent toward me.

But if I have faith in a religion, that is the SECOND definition. Religions, specifically the Judeo-Christian varieties, are based on texts. There is absolutely NO reason to accept those as proof of anything. I can write something down on paper, that does not make what I have written true. Therefor faith in this type of religion is a belief that is not based on proof!

You may stay "faithful" to your religion when pressed by others to convert. That is a use of the word based on the first definition. You may have faith that your church will be there to support you when you have life challenges. Again, that is related to the first definition. But when you say that you have faith that the Lord Jesus Christ will grant you eternal paradise, that is the second definition. There is no proof that you will go somewhere when you die, and there is no proof that Jesus even was a real person to begin with. All of that is belief without proof. If you were somehow able to witness a person living a virtuous and pious life being rewarded with paradise after death, then yes, you might be able to say you have a reasonable expectation of receiving the same treatment. But that is not available to us mortals.

And as far as tolerance goes, let me ask you a couple questions. Have you ever had someone show up at your door specifically to try to convince you that religion is a lie? No. But there are plenty of people who will come around and tell me that I am on the path to hell if I don't join their cult. Have you ever heard of someone passing legislation to teach school children that religions are lies? No. But plenty of religious organizations are trying to inject their religion into public schools, if it wasn't already there! The closest you get is the total absence of any religious discussion at all, which is NOT the same as teaching atheism. It is a neutral position, allowing for everybody to keep their beliefs to themselves.

I am only intolerant of religion insomuch as it is shoved in my face by faithers. Keep your ancient desert blood cult fantasies to yourself, and you will hear no more from me. THAT IS TOLERANCE. Do NOT expect me to hold my tongue as religion is forced upon me or anybody else. That is the entire point of the video above. The man is dying, and they feel perfectly justified in shoving their beliefs in his face again and again. You know what would happen if nobody did that to him? He would say "Actually everybody has been very respectful and held their opinions to themselves. It's been quite nice and I appreciate it." When religions *give* tolerance, they will *get* tolerance.

>> ^gwiz665:

Heaven as a logical construct cannot exist.
Argument:
There is evil in this world, because we have free will.
There is no evil in Heaven.
Ergo, there is no free will in heaven.
Ergo, it's not really heaven.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Now vanish in a puff of logic, god.


I like this, but it's wrong. The idea of heaven is that it's a selective club. Only people who don't choose evil get in. Ergo, people still have free will there, they just have to be the kind of people who never choose "evil" to have gotten there in the first place.

Also, free will doesn't exist.

Hehe, fair enough, free will doesn't exist, technically, but Christianity (and everyday life) assumes it does.

Can people in heaven never change their minds? Are they locked in a stasis? How come evil can exist here on earth but not in heaven? Is it not even a possibility that it could spring up in heaven? Or is it possible but just doesn't happen?

Are people selected on actions they might take in the future or on stuff they have already done? What about being already forgiven because of jesus or confessional or whatever way you are absolved of your sins? Is that suddenly not enough anyway?

Heaven cannot exist within logic. The only possible heaven that could exist, can't have people in it anyway, because as soon as it has people, it's no longer "heaven".

Free will exists, but it's deterministic.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
Heaven as a logical construct cannot exist.
Argument:
There is evil in this world, because we have free will.
There is no evil in Heaven.
Ergo, there is no free will in heaven.
Ergo, it's not really heaven.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Now vanish in a puff of logic, god.

I like this, but it's wrong. The idea of heaven is that it's a selective club. Only people who don't choose evil get in. Ergo, people still have free will there, they just have to be the kind of people who never choose "evil" to have gotten there in the first place.
Also, free will doesn't exist.

>> ^gwiz665:

Hehe, fair enough, free will doesn't exist, technically, but Christianity (and everyday life) assumes it does.
Can people in heaven never change their minds? Are they locked in a stasis? How come evil can exist here on earth but not in heaven? Is it not even a possibility that it could spring up in heaven? Or is it possible but just doesn't happen?
Are people selected on actions they might take in the future or on stuff they have already done? What about being already forgiven because of jesus or confessional or whatever way you are absolved of your sins? Is that suddenly not enough anyway?
Heaven cannot exist within logic. The only possible heaven that could exist, can't have people in it anyway, because as soon as it has people, it's no longer "heaven".
Free will exists, but it's deterministic.

Well now you're on safer ground.

Except, if free will is deterministic, and God is omniscient, then he knows who will eventually change their minds and choose evil. They go to hell. Yes, that means heaven is probably a pretty empty place, and not so fun, while hell is a seriously happenin' place filled with people who mostly do right, but occasionally do wrong...

Mostly my issue with heaven is that it perpetuates the idea that you can sort people into black and white categories of good and evil. Judging the morality of a single act taken by a person is a dizzying challenge in all but the most clear-cut cases. To judge a person in their entirety is not something people really should feel is within their capability. Even if you hypothesize that there's some supreme, invisible being doing the judging, you really have to question why such judgments are necessary, given how totally murky the human moral existence really is. I mean for God's sake, we can only keep living if we kill and eat massive numbers of other living organisms...how is that moral?!

But I don't really think there's a simple logical fault with the definition of heaven. Mostly there's just no evidence to believe that any of it exists, or functions based on the rules in the Bible(s) or elsewhere.

*dead

Invocations (dead) cannot be called by longshot because longshot is not privileged - sorry.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by Grimm.

Replaced video embed code with backup #4098 (supplied by member Grimm) - embed replaced by member Grimm.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*promote

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, March 13th, 2011 5:42am PDT - promote requested by original submitter gwiz665.

Hitchens insists on taking other people's view on God and dismissing it, which is fine, but he apparently never went looking for God himself.

I don't think this bothers God any more than an errant wave bothers the sea. There are people far more out of tune than Hitchens.

It is Hitchens' loss, however, not God's, really.

Why has Hitchens relied on others' interpretations of God? He can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than anyone else can prove that God does exist, yet he clings to that notion with a stronger faith than many Christians have.

You don't need "faith" or "proof" to not believe in something that doesn't exist. I don't believe in fairies either (I can't speak for you). I don't need "proof" that they don't exist it's the other way around and it isn't "faith" for me (or anyone) to think that way.

I bet there are hundreds of other "gods" that you don't believe in and yet what "proof" did you require to not believe in their existence?>> ^lantern53:

He can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than anyone else can prove that God does exist, yet he clings to that notion with a stronger faith than many Christians have.