My opinion that he does not intend to find the truth; he only tries to find some points and take it as a plea.
Hitchens is only pointing out the fallacies in a belief system.
I understand that because your religious you would think that scepticism is a religion but it isn't.
I was once like you and thought the same thing.
I investigated, however, and discovered that scepticism is only a method; it is an approach to problems designed to find truth not hide from it.
Belief and faith in the unseen and unknowable does not show the truth.
While as regards this drukard: the atheist; they want to make some propaganda for him; it is only a tempest in a cup. The other man showed to people the books of the atheist, and clapped hands for him.
I'm not sure what this means but Hitchens was not drunk.
Actually, I saw about 26 minutes (as I remember) and the drunkard drank two times from the bottle of alcohol. He never raised his eyes to the people; I think he listened to the suggestions of devils (from his right and left sides: whispering in his ear) and instructing him to his atheism.
The man between them was the moderator. He wasn't Satan. No one else was on stage.
Thinking people are whispering in your ears is crazy.
I ask you: Can you become a repoter with such newspapers [unless you walk in their ways]; I mean there are some people who encourage and sponsor such an atheist, and make all this clapping and celebration for him; while he did not bring any new thing: the same known old atheistic ways and words.
He brings logic and calm to an otherwise naive and superstitious world. The system of logic squelches the tempest in the cup brought on by religion (which is why you don't like it). It is completely new to most of the world as most people are superstitious i.e., religious (to some extent).
I heard only few minutes from the Jewish rabbi; I saw him much better than the drunkard.
If you had watched it all you would have seen the rabbi clearly lost. He was a fool and by the end resorted to the same venomous spitting and hissing all religionists resort to.
If you truly want to see a demon you need look no further than a religious person clinging to their belief.
In addition, the written words are better than watching the video; because the orator may overcome the other person, by way of his personality, cunning or some shouting, in addition to the cheering and clapping ...etc; while the written words you can study his words and give the appropriate answer.
In order for the written word to be better you would need to be able to think on your own; that is, reason, deduce and comprehend meaning from the work as well as find and expose logic fallacies (which often is the only meaning).
If you can find such truths you should then be able to demonstrate them. Not with the text but by using the knowledge the text imparted to you. Using the text to prove a point is like a child hiding from the world under a safety blanket.
If, for example, the Koran had any scientific knowledge whatsoever in it then Islam could revolutionize science but instead they pervert it. In the early days Barbary did provide such knowledge before the poison of Islam and fundamentalism put out that light. The Moors were at the pinnacle of scientific knowledge before Mohammad squashed your intellect. I find it amazing you would defend such a person. His works have turned Islamic nations into superstitious fools.
Jordan), then his son Ismael lived at Mecca and was the father of some tribes of the Arab of Hijaz (Mecca and neighboring cities).
