Christopher Hitchens Discussing Atheism With Hannity
Written by admin on October 2, 2008 – 9:26 pm -Tags: atheism, Hannity, Hitchens, religion
Posted in Atheism in Politics | 25 Comments »
Tags: atheism, Hannity, Hitchens, religion
Posted in Atheism in Politics | 25 Comments »
By bluecats on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
Why does there have …
Why does there have to be a starting point? That is an idea that is constrained by the human experience. Just because we “start and end” in our lives does not mean that everything else does. The debate is nothing more than entertainment inspired by instinctive human curiosity.
By beingforitse1f on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
you are believing …
you are believing that there is a possibility without a creator that somehow energy has created itself or that energy predates or… any concept of time, and energy that.. or. for example, something can come from nothing, because fundamentally there has to be that starting point
By truthchannel on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
Hitchens is a …
Hitchens is a mental gymnast with more weapons and moves than just about anyone else I have seen speak on religion.
By trpsoxc on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
Hannity is scum
Hannity is scum
By rossovg on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
In his interview …
In his interview with Richard Dawkins, Bill O’Reilly was much more subdued (than usual), probably a tip from his producers that Dawkins was not a guest to be taken lightly. You could sort of tell O’Reilly knew he was out of his league.
Not so much in this case. Pure foolishness on the part of Hannity.
At least in the Palin interview, Hannity switches out the clown act so he can drool for a good 30 minutes.
By TrumanBarkley on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
Hannity is a clown, …
Hannity is a clown, an absolute stooge for that peculiar brand of nationalism he and his fellow travellers inaptly call consevatism. How about that hard – hitting interview he conducted with Sarah Palin? Hitchens v. Hannity; even the comparison is embarrassing.
By carytodd on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
Hitchens kicks ass. …
Hitchens kicks ass. Hannity is out of his little league.
By nag73 on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
I pity the fool who …
I pity the fool who debates Hitch
By andsowot on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
yet again more …
yet again more idiotic comprehensions of what theory means in the field of science. in scientific terms creationism isnt even a theory and isnt even one in the strict literal sense. a scientific theory is born out of and backed up by empirical data and is only without this at its conception as a simple idea!!! so please stop using the word theory as a means to compare the two sides. the debate is a non starter. viva la reason you dumb religious nob heads:)
By andsowot on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
yet again more …
yet again more idiotic comprehensions of what theory means in the field of science. in scientific terms creationism isnt even a theory and isnt even one in the strict literal sense. a scientific theory is born out of and backed up by empirical data and is only without this at its conception as a simple idea!!! so please stop using the word theory as a means to compare the two sides. the debate is a non starter. viva la reason you dumb religious nob heads:)
By rossovg on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
Hitchens makes …
Hitchens makes Hannity look like a circus clown.
By thesethreekings on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
robertelee7, …
robertelee7, everything in science is ONLY a theory, including the theory that the world is round (and we’re not all on the back of tortoises). However, there is too much evidence to suggest that the Earth is round to teach the tortoise stuff to our children. The same applies to evolution. People might believe in dogs with 5 tails and 13 ears, but that does not means we should teach it because, like a diety, we’ve never seen one.
By threecundies on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
robertelee, …
robertelee, evolution is a scientific theory backed by overwhelming evidence, not least of which is DNA. Creationism, on the other hand, is an ignorant primitive belief driven by religion, in other words by a lack of scientific understanding. Saying that both should be taught equally in schools is absurd and dangerous. As Hitchens has said, if creationism is to be taught alongside evolution, why not teach astrology alongside astronomy or alchemy alongside chemistry?
By robertelee7 on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
last time i checked …
last time i checked creationism and evolution were still theories each should be taught equally
By jfcarpio on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
excellent point.
excellent point.
By AndrewDewittBaker on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
god dammit hitches …
god dammit hitches up, when hannity says “you believe everything came from nothing” i would have said “so do you” because, by that logic, for everything that is created, there must be a creator, then who created the creator? that argument goes both ways, but no one seems to mention it.
By hagenttzd on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
yeah, but cartman …
yeah, but cartman is much better at manipulating people:D
By meursault48 on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
Why did Hitchens …
Why did Hitchens waste his time debating this moron? That pointy thing Hannity does with his fingers makes him look like Cartman.
By porbello9 on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
Im a dumb so …
Im a dumb so there is a god, great argument tit
By ABoffman on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
That was so much …
That was so much rape…
By acomment on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
i wonder what was …
i wonder what was edited at 3:14…
Hannity changed his usual demeanor during this interview… as opposed to being overly agressive and sensationalist with an opposing viewpoint, he was with hitchens (out ofintimidation i’m sure) a lot more willing to listen and “bargain”
either way, it didn’t help him in his arugment
By bodah44 on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
owned!
owned!
By biggregg5 on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
I have this fantasy …
I have this fantasy of watching Hannity and O’Reilly in the octagon with Chuck Liddell
By andytoz on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
There are many. …
There are many. Here’s one video that might help answer your question
watch?v=doF4sNrQtmg
By kyleharper16 on Oct 2, 2008 | Reply
So who is our …
So who is our supposed ancestor then?