What is Digg?348 Comments
- TheDiver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+58How did Al Sharpton ever get the position of official spokesman for Christianity?
- NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -7/+61Sharpton is a mental midget.
-jcr - omnithought, on 10/10/2007, -11/+61My two cents; I'm reading the book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and I find a lot to agree with, despite Hitchens' haughty, prickish attitude most of the time. He's an *****, and I don't like his political views, but he makes some excellent points regarding religion.
- drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -12/+45They're no more or less arrogant than the hundreds of reverends, ministers, preachers, and other clergymen who proceed to tell us we're going to hell if we don't believe what they do.
- djsputnik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33Please. . .
Sharpton has no formal education, was "ordained" a minister by a fringe church at age 10, and has proven himself again and again to be nothing more than a media whore. this is like watching me debate my 5 year old - TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33I think you need to go back to school and learn what theory means
- Lumbage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28This is a weak debate due to the fact that Sharpton really doesn't attempt to make a debate out of anything...
It is still worth watching, but you will see what I mean. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27She tortured sick people by denying them medicine and pain relief because pain and suffering brought them "closer to Jesus and what he felt on the cross". Thats ***** evil.
Plus, she spent most of her life in the poorest most over populated places on Earth teaching them that contraception was a sin. EVIL!!! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Holy ***** how did this comment get dugg up?
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In summation you are an arrogant idiot that needs to go back to school and pay attention. - rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Wow, that was very interesting. I had looked for the whole thing before, but couldn't find it. Thanks.
I actually agree with Hitchens "Just don't bother me." attitude more than Dawkins more evangelical ideas. The only 2 things I disagree with, is his point about 'hating' our enemies, (I am more pacifistic, but not totally so,) and that in addition to his 'believe whatever just don't bother me' position I would add that you must accepted the beauty and truth of science. I'm not saying you have to give up your current religion like Dawkins is. Just that you can't deny scientific facts like evolution. - Yage2006, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23i found Christopher Hitchens very polite and not arrogant at all.
- Birdoftruth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23Because that horse has been beatten to death by Dawkins
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22The biggest mass murderers in the history of the world have all been religious. History doesn't start with the 20th century. The biggest mass murders took place during the medieval era, and the centuries just after. Crusades (look up the Albigensian Crusade which took place against christians, in Europe) witch trials, the inquisition, etc, etc, etc. Religious fanatics have killed many, many more people than the atheist dictators of the 20th century. Oh, and Hitler was a Catholic. He constantly invoked God in his speeches and writings. One will never know if he truly believed, but he didn't endorse atheism.
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Sharpton did an excellent job of dodging the real issues of the debate by insisting that the debate was about his book, which attacks God directly, and wanted to keep that separate from religion. What Sharpton fails to realize (or more likely did realized which I will come back to later) is that he was saying that, he was only referring to the damn title of the book. Does he really think it makes any sense to debate a book title? The book as a whole makes many more points, and if he wanted to have a competent debate, he should have read it all and realized that, because all of those issues are fair game in the debate and should be addressed by both parties, not just Hitchens.
I believe that Sharpton does in fact realize that he was using a cheap trick to dodge the major issues, and he did so specifically to trap Hitchens into having to concede that he can't disprove God's existence and that religion is an interpretation of God's will by man. However, he really went out of his way to avoid talking about the fact that he himself is Christian, a denomination, which is something that he said in his own argument is easily corruptible. He did that because those are the only two talking points he could possibly win when debating with Hitchens, his actions throughout the debate make that abundantly clear.
It is Sharpton that misunderstood the debate and the issues. No one, especially atheists, have a problem with anyone's personal beliefs about God. The problem only occurs when those beliefs are then imposed on others. That's where the ***** starts to hit the fan and it becomes a religion. In Religion is the problem, and it is the illogical belief in God that starts the trend. In fact, it is other people that believe in God that is the largest threat to people of faith, because there are those that believe they have been ordained by God to destroy those that do not believe the way they do, which includes them. There is no atheist or atheist movement with an even remotely analogous agenda. As Hitchens says numerous times throughout the debate: if people want to believe there is a God, fine, that's great, just shut up about it and let people make up their own minds, especially your children. - stubadub, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Read the title of his book. That's the point he set out to make.
- genezorz, on 10/10/2007, -10/+27You cant debate the existence of God, only the validity of a religion.
- kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19yes you can
dog breeders make a living out of it - internetcoward, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18including you?...
- bruenig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14The book itself operates pretty much on that assumption and goes beyond that to show the negative effects it has. He doesn't need to go on the existence of god stuff because if you want to read that there are so many books that already do that.
- drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16The problem isn't really with the average person pushing religion, or even pushing atheism for that matter, but with politicians and the church influencing policy.
- newanalog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18I wish C.S. Lewis were still alive. I'd rather have him in the place of Al Sharpton.
- Kimidori, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14The problem with people believing anything they want is... they vote.
- thekassette, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16I'm only about 15 minutes in, but it's sure good to know they're finally going to settle this once and for all.
- chesbomb, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20wow, he called saint Theresa an old bitch.
- MadLeper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14@aeiou: apes didn't turn into humans, that's a creationist myth. Apes and humans share a common ancestry. And you can prove evolution yourself with a few simple tools, google "fruit fly evolution" and prepare to be enlightened.
- Kratisto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Who else wasn't expecting "I Feel Good..." from a stuffy debate? *still watching*.
- revenge7, on 10/10/2007, -7/+20Yeah, its like debating the existence of Santa.
- omnithought, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14By the way, folks, if you make it through the debate to the Q&A section you'll get a real treat in seeing a freaked out Christian woman shrieking about Hitchens' penis.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Affirmative action.
- onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Good thing being a devout Christian doesn't give you some sort of authority in the matter of them being morons or not.
- SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Yes, not only that but she was also one of the tools used by the Catholic Church to take money from all of these extremely wealthy monarchs and dictators who were causing those situations in the first place, and instead of using that money to build better places and to provide proper care, they were just giving that cash to the vatican. She was nothing more than a really successful way to wring money out of people.
- 3toe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Probably because you are using Internet Explorer.
- SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14He's not forcing people to read his book. Christians here want Intelligent Design taught in schools. They go door to door looking for new mind-slaves. I wish more people would write books condemning religion and theism in general. Why delude yourself with ***** like that?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Hey guess what there are a lot of christians that killed people too. Guess what that means? Believing in God or not believing in God makes no difference as to whether someone has the desire to kill.
- psyon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12People who do not believe in God, go out of there way to say it, because people who DO believe in God, try to force their views upon others through law.
- emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Gravity is only a theory too, but after repeated experimentation - and no exceptions - it is scientifically accepted. The evidence of gravity is so strong, that it is absolutely ridiculous to believe that you can step off of a cliff without falling. It requires a TINY bit of faith, because we cannot without a doubt PROVE you will fall when you do, but such a belief requires so little faith that you have to be quite stupid if you "believe" you won't fall. Granted, some theories are stronger than others, but there is so much evidence for evolution and it requires so much less faith that you also have to be quite stupid not to "believe" in it.
- MetalXSlug, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Adolf Hitler was a Christian, his anti-semitic views were actually taken from other Christian politicians of his era. Stalin learned about communism at the seminary where he was studying to become a priest. Maybe you could do some research on people before condemning entire belief systems.
- skyfire1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I think youtubers have invaded digg.
- omnithought, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Well, as you know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
- Simcom, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I agree. We need another Carl Sagan :(
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10rcholbert: You are wrong.
Faith is an acceptance of a belief without evidence or inspite of evidence. A theory is a framework which is used to explain or describe a phenomena(basically why something happens) while a law just describes a phenomena. So Newton's laws describe how gravity makes things fall and how you can calculate it while Einsteins Theory on Gravity explains why an object falls due to the curvature of space.
Science is based on probability and evidence. As evidence builds, the theory is modified and refined. The Theory of Evolution is the best theory we have to tie biology together with the current evidence available. Do you have an alternative to evolution that explains how life changes with the evidence to back it up? - stubadub, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12How is it these things are so often mentioned without any remembering all of the wars fought as a result of religion. What about the crusades? When you made this comment did you not expect someone to mention the Spanish Inquisition?
- Gadren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Oh my...
I just started listening to this, and Sharpton's arguments are so intellectually empty... - ThE0eNiGmA, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I agree with drmangrum. Why do people make such a big issue out of the arrogance of Hitchens and Dawkins, when there are so many religious people out there who are infinitely more arrogant? At least with these two you can argue with them. Try arguing with a die hard religious fanatic. No argument is really worth having if the other side won't listen to reason.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Fanaticism is the force of evil, not non-religion or religion itself. All the people you've mentioned were maniacs(some have argued that Hitler was Christian but I think he just used it to his own ends) and they were fanatics for their ideology. Their lack of religion was not an issue. Religion dictates how people act, often without any reason behind it. This has lead to various harmful dogmas such as the anti-condom, anti-sex actions of Christians. It has also led to bigotry against gays or people who are different. Religious people select their morality from the bible and leave out the harmful aspects of it. I argue that good people are good because they are good not because a book tells them to be good.
PS:America was founded on Freedom and secularism and was no way founded on Christian ideals. - Reno582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Yeah, he's putting up some weak arguments.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9So he doesn't fit your definition of a 'True Christian', so what? What Biblical standards are those? Your standards or the Unitarians or the Catholics? Whose standards are you talking about?
- emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Best line of the debate:
"Those who think there's any connection between ethics and religion have all their work still ahead of them" - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You're a liar. Go take a look at the Constitution of the United States of America.
I see "We the People...", no where do I see "In the Name of God or Jesus Christ...".
If the Founders wanted it to be Christian they would've done so. Go look into a history book and look up what God meant to the people of the Enlightenment. Most of them were Deistic and although Washington's religiosity is not well known, go look up some quotes by Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and a host of others about what they thought about Christianity and then tell me if we are a Christian nation. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10He's arrogent because he he is right. People that are right can be arrogent and get away with it, just a pretty girl can get away with being a bitch.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 337 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is