Did any of you happen to catch yesterday’s Hardball with yet another debate between atheist Bush lover Christopher Hitchens and big-mouthed Al Sharpton? If not, below are three YouTube videos of the entire program.
I forced myself to sit and watch the entire thing and just took an extra blood pressure pill afterwards. Sharpton has serious diarrhea of the mouth. Hitchens, while I may not agree with him on his political stance, could at least express his point in an intelligent manner, whereas Mr. Media-Attention-Whore-Loud-Mouth barely let Hitchens have a word in edgewise much of the time. I particularly didn’t like Chris Matthews’ sarcastic comments aimed at Hitchens at the close of the program (not on the YouTube video, but I am trying to find it somewhere.)
Overall, for me, it was an extreme overdose of religion/anti-religion dialogue and anti-war from the religious side, and right-wing politics and pro-war comments coming from the atheist side… very weird interview.
Part 1
6/28/07 Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton Hardball pt2
6/28/07 Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton Hardball pt3.
35 comments:
You know, I had decided to permanently ban Tweety's show after he pulled that Coulter stunt, but I wanted to see this. Between Sharpton and Matthews talking over Hitchens, it wasn't worth it.
So the ban is back in effect.
Matthews is a dick. My husband watches it after work every single day so I have to hear that sarcastic whiney-ass voice night after night. I hardly ever watch television, and I definitely don’t normally watch “newsertainment”…I only watched this because I was curious about the Sharpton-Hitchens debate (and was only annoyed by it). I heard the MAnn Coulter one the day before, only because hubby had the volume up and her voice makes my skin crawl. I had to go sit outside after about 5 minute of it because I couldn’t stand it anymore.
I can't stand Matthews, so I avoided this one. I don't think I will ever understand the appeal of watching programs where guests and host alike yell over each other. It just doesn't make for good news or good entertainment.
vjack, I will not be bothering with any more of Matthew's show and will go back to not watching it again, or entertainment news of any kind. I don't know what came over me...I should have known better.
I think I will stick to watching the BookSpan lectures where they have the person speak, and then questions and answer session afterwards. But I agree with you about the yelling, I absolutely cannot stand it. One of the programs I hate the most that my husband watches is the McClaughlin Report (I call it the Crabby Guy Show) I don't know how anyone can hear what the panelists are saying, it's all a jumble mess of shouting each other down.
I have not yet watched the clips, though I can't wait to do so, thanks for posting them stardust.
Even if Matthews talks over Hitchens, the good ol Hitch never leaves without getting his little bit.
btw - stardust, this is totally irrelevant, but, today on my way to the movie theater to watch sicko - a fantastic movie, I highly recommend it - I was, at one point, behind a nice cadi with a license plate which read stardst, it made me think of you and your blog!!
JD - yep, Hitch was awesome. I wish the clips had the part where he tells the one young man who asked a very lenghty and confused question that he was speaking jibberish. It was great.
The guy was making absolutely zero sense and no one understood even enough to "translate" for him. It was kind of mean, though...to be brushed off on national television like that.
Why, thanks for thinking of me when you saw the stardst plates. I wanted that for my vanity plate, but stardust is taken already in many different ways so impossible to get.
I can't watch McClaughlin either but for a very different reason. It makes me think of the SNL skit Dana Carvey used to do where he screamed "wrong" at all the guests every time they tried to say anything. Too funny.
vjack - LOL, I remember that skit. Hilarious!
One good point by Sharpton was that there must be a creator of the universe.
As the space-time theorem of General Relativity states:
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose,"The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London series A, 314 (1970): 529-48.
We are now in a position to state the corollary to our theorem.
COROLLARY. A space-time M cannot satisfy causal geodesic completeness if, together with Einstein's equations, the following four conditions hold.....We may interpret failure of the causal geodesic completeness condition in our corollary as virtually a statement that any space-time satisfying (3.20)-(3.23) 'possesses a singularity'.....The implication is virtually, that a space-time satisfying (3.20)-(3.23) must contain a causal geodesic which possesses no pair of conjugate points....Instead, we see that our theorem implies that some causal geodesic 'enters a singularity'(i.e. is compeled to be geodesically incomplete) before any repeated focusing has time to take place.
Gravitational Singularity, The Free Encyclopedia states:
More generally, a space-time is considered singular if it is geodesically incomplete....The simplest Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at (t=0), where all timelike geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions...
So, at the singularity 0(the lack of space, time, matter, and energy) there's a CAUSE. This places the CAUSE outside the physical universe.
So, the corollary of the space-time theorem is that if general relativity is accurate there is not only a beginnng to space, time, matter, and energy but there must also be a non-physical transcendent Fist Cause.
In the words of Roger Penrose general relativity is now the best proven principle in all of science. Since general relativity has been established beyond reasonable doubt the space-time theorem can be trusted. There must be a Creator of the cosmos. Atheism is irrational.
One good point by Sharpton was that there must be a creator of the universe.
infinite glory, LOLOLOL!!! Sharpton is a dumbass who knows NOTHING about science, and can hardly speak the English language. He hardly even knows anything about his own religion. You're just trying to use science to justify the beliefs you choose to believe.
You can try to rationalize superstitious belief all you want, but it is still irrational. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural deity/or deities because no evidence has ever been provided for the existence of any such entities.
Believing in a supernatural being is irrational.
Humans create gods in their own image and then use human knowledge and explanations to try to justify believe in imaginary concoctions.
infinite glory
You sound like the dumbass on the show who could not form a decent question.
Your thought is if it is unexplained then it must be god who made it.
So if you do not know how the F-22 is made, then your ignorance says that god made it.
Do not use theories or ideas to explain to prove god, try using one fact, any fact to prove god. Since there is none you have no case. Since you believe you obviously have a serious mental problem and should seek help.
It looks like the facts don't agree with you. Atheists try to justify their beliefs with facts even though there are none to support their beliefs. Richard Dawkins is the prime example of bafoonery. Like Einstein said I believe in a Superior Reasoning Power. He believed because of the evidence. Neither was he trying to support hid already prior beliefs.
Infinite glory,
Where is your proof of your god?
Do you go to the doctor when you are sick, or do you pray to your god and trust him to heal you?
Humans turn to other humans for help. When they don't, no help comes. You either have to help yourself or rely on others.
There is no magic.
Einstein was agnostic, at most. Christians always try to twist the facts, and make up explanations to justify their beliefs.
Albert Einstein said: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
I forgot to mention Antony Flews recent conversion to Deism. As he would say (the intelligent man that he is) we must follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Infinite glory,
That proves only that Antony Flew (no s) believes something without evidence. Lots of people fear death and out of that fear try to find some way to cope with that fear, and to try to magically live forever.
Again, provide one shred of positive evidence for the existence of your god.
It appears according to my sitemeter that infinite glory is from Plano, Texas,
Texas...that explains it.
I just gave you evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a transcendent creator.
Antony Flew doesn't believe in an afterlife.
It's really amazing how atheist can never deal with the scientific facts. They always attack people personally.
What a buffoon you are infinite.
Infinite buffoonery.
Religion is learned, not innate to humans.
If there was a fact to support your god, then all people who are religious would have to believe in your god. Since there is not one fact, again NOT ONE FACT, to support a believe in god, to believe in god is fantasy. There is more evidence to believe in Superman than there is in god. Using your logic prove to me that there was not a Superman.
infinite.
you are a personal idiot.
You did not give a fact.
You gave an idea, that you construed as a fact.
Belief in god is an idea, that you have made a fact in your own mind. You need help with reality
Albert Einstein
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to percieve with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Once again the space-time theorem of general relativity states that if General Relativity accurately describes the dynamics of the universe then space and time must have a beginnig along with matter and energy. Also, there must be a transcendent CAUSAL AGENT that brings the universe into existence. General relativity is now established as the best proven principle in all of physics. It's beyond reasonable doubt. The universe was created by a non-physical transcendent CAUSAL AGENT.
Again what we see is the irrationalism of atheists unable to deal with scientific facts.
As time goes on the conclusion of the space-time theorem will grow stronger for a transcendent Creator and the bizzare attempts of the naturalists to get arround it will continue as they try to control society with their ideologial belief system.
Creator and the bizzare attempts of the naturalists to get arround it will continue as they try to control society with their ideologial belief system.
You are taking what atheists say about god botherers and turning it around. I know the game you play. The power-hungry have used god concepts to control the ignorant and superstitious masses.
Infinite.
That is me.
The Casual Agent.
Please send all cash and donations to my personal bank account.
Prayers are personal, and you can keep them to yourself.
Of course you are basing your belief in me on a THEOREM. That is like believing in Jesus because of the bible. NO FACTS , only fantasy.
infinite glory
you still have not provided one shred of concrete evidence for the existence of a god. You have only provided only your own assumptions based on your own thoughts and ideas and analysis of things you have read. It still proves nothing.
infinite glory,
Your example of Einstein only proves that humans contemplate the idea of a god, but still that is not proof that a god exists.
infinite glory:
Wow, that's some leap of faith you've made there.
So, the corollary of the space-time theorem is that if general relativity is accurate there is not only a beginnng to space, time, matter, and energy but there must also be a non-physical transcendent Fist Cause.
Okay, 1st off, you're mixing in Aquinas' 'Fist Cause' (wow, the innunedoes that spring to mind) w/ modern physics. I think Hume demolished that already.
2nd, yes Virginia, there WAS a beginning to the universe, & time, but you've muddled the rest (using Newtonian concepts: space & time are interwined, but energy/matter's ALWAYS been around).
3rd, as Carrier states in his book 'Sense & Goodness w/o God', atheists & theists are in disagreement over the details of what caused it all.
4th, you're misquoting Einstein wildly. What Einstein believed (or didn't) has no bearing on his work, anymore than Newton's.
5th, Flew's not a prime mover in our world. In fact, we don't have any such person. You misunderstand the whole hierarchy.
There is none.
The universe was created by a non-physical transcendent CAUSAL AGENT.
How terribly inconvenient, that you can't prove that except by twisting physics to your needs, no?
Once again the space time theorem of general relativity establishes a transcendent CAUSE must exist. I never said anything about Jesus Christ. I never said Einstein believed in Jesus Christ and I never said Antony Flew believed in Jesus Christ because they don't and they don't believe in an afterlife.
I put a copy of the space-time theorem on the board.
No it's the atheist who twists physics to fit their belief system and their attempt to control the beliefs of society.
The space-time theorem says what it says. I'm not relying on any philosophical argument. Atheists will say and do anything to avoid a creator of the universe.
Completely bizzar even after I put it up on the board.
Infitile glory
Do you understand English?
Do yo know what a Theorem is?
And which god do you believe started all this??
Have you had talks with him or her or it?
We ask for one fact, not theory, not conjecture, not idea on the existence of a god.
You do not present one, as with other believers, you take what you want and elevate it to "factual status."
What a maroon.
Infantile glory
The evidence for your god is only inside your own brain. Believers have their own ideas of god according to their own imagination and however they want this god to be according to their own morals, values, preconceptions and desires.
ka and outofcontrol,
You've both made excellent points.
A theorem is a proven statement. If the universe contains mass and general relativity is accurate then there must exist a CAUSE that brings the universe into existence independent of space time matter and energy. General relativity is the most accurate principle in physics. So, the space-time theorem and it's corollary can be trusted. It's beyond reasonable doubt. I guess Einstein imagined general relativity up in his head and Penrose and Hawking imagined the space-time theorem up in their head and it has no basis in reality. How much more bizzare can this get? Even after I put a copy of it up on the board? You're right the earth is flat.
infinite glory--
It may be the case that your conclusion is true, that is, God exists. But I know with certainty your argument is invalid.
You cannot pull a non-tautological rabbit out of a tautological hat. It is true that every effect has a cause. One cannot infer from this necessary truth the contingent proposition that every event has a cause.
IG:
The space-time theorem says what it says. I'm not relying on any philosophical argument. Atheists will say and do anything to avoid a creator of the universe.
The hell you're not. You're personifying like crazy.
A theorem is a proven statement. If the universe contains mass and general relativity is accurate then there must exist a CAUSE that brings the universe into existence independent of space time matter and energy.
I agree there's a cause. There's no FIRST cause. Unless you can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, & create & destroy matter (ex nihil nihilo fit).
Otherwise, you welcome infinite regress? If everything has a 'first cause', then what caused said 'first cause'?
I guess Einstein imagined general relativity up in his head and Penrose and Hawking imagined the space-time theorem up in their head and it has no basis in reality.
Presuppositionalism at it's bizarre finest.
This doesn't mean that it has a human face, or is bipedal. Or even has opposable thumbs.
Really. What an eye-roller.
Playing the quote game:
Hawking - "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet"
Penrose - "So what I'm saying is why don't we think about changing Schrodinger's equation at some level when masses become too big at the level that you might have to worry about Einstein's general relativity. "
Einstein - "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
As to the last - welcome yourself to the ranks of the mediocre.
Post a Comment