Ellen Degeneres Videos
Ellen Degeneres Related Videos
Ellen Degeneres Sponsors
You like it? Share it!
Search
Ellen Degeneres videos :: Social Bookmarking
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: Css
:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: CssEllen Degeneres Videos
Currently Watching: Watching: Christopher hitchens illustrated 1 of 2 by 43alley
Video scenes shots:

Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
![]() |
Christopher Hitchens ILLUSTRATED 1 of 2 by 43alley Posted by: 43alley
Video duration: 520 seconds by 43Alley. This is the brilliant opening statement that Christopher Hitchens gave in a religion vs. atheism debate with Alister McGrath on October 11, 2007. Instead of simply watching Hitchens at the podium, here the speech's audio is overlayed with illustations to try to do justice to the logic of this very compelling argument. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
Eddie Izzard ILLUSTRATED - Vol. II - Jesus and the Dinosaurs Posted by: 43alley
Video duration: 489 seconds Jesus goes down to minister to the dinosaurs. Hilarity ensues. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
Christopher Hitchens ILLUSTRATED 2 of 2 by 43alley Posted by: 43alley
Video duration: 300 seconds by 43Alley. This is part 2. Hitchens continues a methodical dissection of religion. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
Eddie Izzard ILLUSTRATED - Vol. I - Noah's Ark - by 43alley Posted by: 43alley
Video duration: 312 seconds Noah's Ark starring God, Sean Connery & an evil giraffe. Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||



Latest comments made on this video:
By: mtheoryrules. on 04 Dec 08, 23:54:10
No I do not have "faith" in my chair, I empirically verify that I am in fact sitting on it, I physically demonstrate it why it is possible. Nor am I a nihilist by any stretch of the word, if I were I would not have mentioned the virtue of reason. The question of authority is resolved, evidence, observation, and reason are demonstrably more applicable and reliable when asserting truth claims about reality than assertions based on faith and beliefs this is my position object to it all you like.
By: in6days. on 04 Dec 08, 23:32:09
Belief can be rational.Faith can be reasonable .What I object to is the unreasonable position which you take.You have to have faith in the chair your sit on.You trust it.You also would have to have full knowledge of this whole universe to claim there is no God.That seems to be what you are saying.Your authority is in nihilism.You have nothing to offer-nothing!What is worse, pride seems to blind you..Again the authority question is not answered.
By: mtheoryrules. on 04 Dec 08, 22:04:21
Your right, if you can not see the virtue of reason then we will not find common ground. Your position seems to be that faith trumps reason, if reason conflicts with your belief, this is not rational. Most religious claims are demonstrably false or fallacious. It amounts to belief for the sake of believing. Why should you accept that progress has been made in our understanding of ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics? Because examination of history points to precisely this conclusion.
By: in6days. on 04 Dec 08, 17:09:42
So what! you guys!Again I ask you a simple question.Why should I follow your way? Why should I follow your idea?Why should I accept Hitchens idea?Answer me.lol You cannot answer me except by asserting your own authority and so we are back in the same old argument.I should call you guys sheep.Why dont you set up a cult of atheism and go live with Hitchens if you like him so much?
By: mtheoryrules. on 03 Dec 08, 01:19:42
This is why I consider many theists irrational, they are of the opinion that without their dogma humans are incapable of morality, this may be true of you as an individual but it does not apply to me. Also theists are of the opinion that belief that something is true is the same as knowing something is true. You can believe it all you like, but that does not make it truth the only truth is that you believe it. Hitchens view does not require hell to insure morality.
By: CatoWadel. on 03 Dec 08, 00:33:07
The christian morality has changed over time, and it varies from region to region. Do not say it is objective.
By: middlekk. on 02 Dec 08, 17:39:24
"Jesus is truth"...pure fantasy. Jesus probably never existed. The evidence suggests that at best he's a composite character based on several messianic preachers of the time. More likely, the character of Jesus was meant to be totally noncorporeal; an intercessor in heaven who had "sacrificed" at the beginning of time. You ought to at least learn the origins of your mythology before you denigrate critiques of it.
By: 43alley. on 02 Dec 08, 15:13:17
So you're basically saying that YOU would kill if there was no God?
By: in6days. on 02 Dec 08, 14:07:01
Well I can kill you then, if there is no objective morality. Again this is foolish reasoning. There are so many errors to Hitchens view. He used"would" a lot, as if he is the authority ,as if he has the sole claim to the true myth,his myth. Why should I believe him rather than Christ? Answer me you people who are so authoritative. .Why should I accept Hitchens view? You dont accept truth,only your truth.Jesus is Truth-simple.Hitchens view is from the pit of hell
By: mtheoryrules. on 30 Nov 08, 13:41:50
This would be true if you could conclusively demonstrate that an objective morality does exist and that Hitchens reasoning does not conform to that objective morality so that his arguments rest only upon his authority. Further he starts by asking a question, is it ethical believe that my lacking can be redeemed by the suffering of another human being. He then argues the case that it is not ethical. There is no Yeah truth is a red herring in a debate about morality.
By: mtheoryrules. on 30 Nov 08, 13:33:14
This would be true if you could conclusively demonstrate that an objective morality does exist and that Hitchens reasoning does not conform to that objective morality so that his arguments rest only upon his authority. Further he starts by asking a question, is it ethical believe that my lacking can be redeemed by the suffering of another human being. He then argues the case that it is not ethical. There is no Yeah truth is a red herring in a debate about morality.
By: mtheoryrules. on 30 Nov 08, 13:20:21
How space-time it self came to exist is not fully understood granted, but our universe is random at an intrinsic level, see quantum uncertainity and inflationary cosmology. Terms like purpose and creation can not be said to apply to the desinger of our universe if indeed there is such an entity, some simply project them upon nature to serve pyschological needs. It does not require faith only observation of our universe and application of the knowledge that observation provides.
By: 43alley. on 29 Nov 08, 14:09:49
The difference is that you're arguing against scientists & authors that are dozens of years old who have the support of vast evidence & scientific experiment on their side. Does religion have a red-shift that we can observe to determine its age? Can we use a telescope to observe the large evidence for it, or an electron microscope or Large Hadron Collider to observe the very small? At the edge of scientific knowledge is religious feeling. Always has been. Science keeps chipping it away.
By: Brantneal. on 29 Nov 08, 13:53:38
Regardless of Christopher Hitchens eloquent, and articulate argument, he is arguing against philosophy and authors (Those of the books in the bible, Torah, Koran, ect.. ect..) that are thousands of years old. Does it not take a far greater leap of "faith" to subscribe to the theory that all life and existence as we are aware of it, derived from from a gravitational singularity known as the Big Bang that occurred at random? With no explicit explanation? Hmm :)
By: peetrpeetr. on 27 Nov 08, 00:45:00
If bullshit actually smelled, no one would be able to stand the stench in church.
By: AGK. on 20 Nov 08, 06:33:00
excellent illustrations added...
By: kmish213. on 18 Nov 08, 04:57:04
when did hitchens ever say he has any authority? he is questioning these things.
By: talicohen. on 04 Nov 08, 18:52:25
There is, no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer: the creator of the universe takes an interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell. ...
By: TheLogicalTheist. on 24 Oct 08, 14:18:08
Oh middlekk...you're not a theist. Sorry. :( I didnt understand you correctly and I didnt realize you were responding to in6days. Im an idiot. Please excuse me.
By: wauzers. on 24 Oct 08, 13:40:12
in6day: Atheists rely on proof and evidence of god, Christians rely on Faith. Atheists appeal to logic and reason, Christians claim absolute authority from fairy tales and myths.
By: TheLogicalTheist. on 24 Oct 08, 10:04:36
middlekk take your amateur philosophers hat off for just a moment and use your common sense. This argument appeals to common sense and to imply that it doesnt is both a lie to others and to yourself. I could understand if you werent of average intelligence; but I will assume from your rhetoric that you are at least of average intelligence. And so, I cannot understand for the life of me why you would venture to discover logical fallacy in his argument, when you should simply nod your head.
By: middlekk. on 23 Oct 08, 17:16:56
Argumentum ad auctoritatem is otherwise known as "appeal to authority". Except Hitchens isn't arguing that you should believe in him because he's an authority. So, the argument fails in its first instance. The reference to Socrates is a red herring/nonsequitur. No bearing whatsoever on Hitchens, this video, the arguments made within. It only describes the process Socrates used to get to the "truth".
By: Soundgarden4eva. on 22 Oct 08, 20:40:03
35,018 hits. Why so low?
By: 43alley. on 21 Oct 08, 22:38:57
Why don't you rebut specific points instead of trying to impress us with your Latin terms? What makes Hitchens more authoritative (ie, more persuasive) is logical arguments. You don't make any. Can you address why God waited 96,000 years to appear as the burning bush?
By: in6days. on 21 Oct 08, 19:07:38
What makes Hitchens view any more aauthoritative than the Christian view. This is easily refutable.Argumentum ad auctoritatem is the same as Jesus used,only He had more authority than Hitchens.He was God in the flesh!That is where we are at in the theist v atheist debate.The Atheist appeals to his own authority for absolute claim! And as for ignorance,Socrates used a principle of ignorance in his argumentation-elenchos.