The 'observation' that Hitchens Jr makes at 6:30 is wholly without foundation and a scandalous lie! There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that three or four times per week, someone is kicked to death by 13-17 year old youths! No wonder he writes for The Mail! What a disingenuous twat! He offers no evidence for this claim whatsoever; he just blithely claims it! What a dick!
@undisputedgreatest him referring to adam and eve and the talking snake story to make his case nailed the debate for me,peter hitchens is just plain stupid
I did not know Peter Hitchens before. Based on the introduction I was curious. I lost the first half of the respect build up by the introduction when he said that we should not have gone to war against Hitler in his opening statement (He said that WWII was not "a good war") and I just lost the rest.
@PeterK1984 you weren't listening carefully. He was making a statement about war period. His argument also applied towards the rise of the Nazi "war machine"
I like Peter Hitchens, I really do, but bringing up the argument that non-belief is inherently immoral... well, that is shooting yourself in the foot in rational discourse.
They are both equally well-versed, and are equally powerful debaters. But Christopher comes out the better, primarily because Peter takes the same stale arguments in support of religion.
As some people seem to have failed to understand the references to pagan gods (Mammon, Ashtaroth, etc.), I will point out that Peter is not claiming there are cults of worship arising without Christianity, he is alluding to abortion, greed, and promiscuity (respective to the order of the gods he mentions). I side with Christopher, but let's not willfully or ignorantly misinterpret people's arguments just to take cheap shots.
Peter makes excellent, balanced, non flippant points here. I think that Christoper does make challenging points, but his tone lets him down completely. It is arrogant, in the extreme, to think that it is somehow intellectually superior to be an anti-theist; to assume that believers have not already considered the difficulties and you must educate them. Clearly secular laws are insufficient to govern the behaviour of a significant part of UK society, perhaps Christianity is worth a shot.
Peter is quite right about at least one thing: God is Not Great is a rather jeering book, as almost all of (Christopher) Hitchens' works/arguments are. In fact, I find most atheistic arguments are, especially from the layman atheists (not implying that Hitchens is a layman, but the point remains). If they're really trying to promote the truth, they need to realize that haughty, insulting arguments are going to get them nowhere with any sort of theist.
Christopher's arguments are not new nor original. He is deceptively trying to present a case ( though knowing he can be refuted), for he is actually debating the audience. The audience has no opportunity to respond, of course, and 10 minutes for each question is not sufficient for Peter. It goes much deeper than his shallow reasoning embellished with fancy words.
@randymullen511There are never winners in these type of debates, is my main point. A debater comes with an agenda to prove his own case and is gonna staunchly remain in his position. They merely expose on their arguments and rarely answer to the question posed but rather engage in tautology.
Peter owned Christopher in this one. Just as some say Peter comes with same Christian rhetoric, but so does Christopher, with the same atheistic rhetoric and nonsense.
'This is Christopher Hitchens's brother, he comes from good genetic stock, surely he would have some convincing arguments for the existence of God...Nope, same old Christian bullshit.'
yawn christopher......the middle east invented writing through the sumerians so your point is quite muuuuteeeeeeeee. Toook ya 10 minutes and you stilll haven't disproved the existence of god except call him a celestial dictator. Answer the actually question next tiiime instead of ravinggggg in youor drunken supor about how you thinkkk god is so evil. Pretty cooll debate overall though........
@jamaicanification You clearly don't understand how this works, so I'll explain it. Person "A" presents Idea "X." Person "A" then gives his reasons for making said claim. Person "B" then makes a rebuttal, pointing out whatever problems may occur in idea "X." At no point is Person "B" responsible for proving Idea "X" is false, only for giving reasons to disbelieve it. Christians claim there is a creator responsible for the origin and continued existence of the entire universe. Where's the proof?
@randymullen511 i understand how the debate works, and i know the ins and outs about how the first person gives his reason for a certain claim, and then the second person gives a rebuttal. I knew that already. As for physical proof for god, there is none of course, cause Christian theists, and Abrahamic theists in general believe that god is a transcendent being not subject to the laws of space or time. Our arguments come from metaphysical inquiry, as well as the moral dimension to the question
@jamaicanification BTW, just because one ethnic group in the region invented writing, doesn't mean that the entire region (or even large parts of it) were literate. By that logic, you (and most of your fellow canadians) should already know how to build a chainsaw from scratch.
@randymullen511 yes, but people like jesus came out of a pharisaic tradition in which they had to know how to read and write. So his arguments are pretty lacking in substance or fact if you really look at it carefully. And also, the whole "oh heaven took 95,000 years to intervene argument", he has repeated that over and over again that it makes me wonder. First of all, its it 98,000 years that it took them to intervene, or 95,000-96,000?
@randymullen511 cause if your gonna use an argument like that at least have your claims consistent and not self contradictory. Second, from whos perspective is that process long. If you look at it from the theistic perspective of a god who is transcendent, eternal and not subject to laws or space or time, whats 98,000 years on a mud ball called earth to him? thats like gardening your lawn for 10 minutes and then your friend saying it took too long from an ants perspective......so what?
@AlvahWatson1 We're all entitled to our opinions, aren't we Mr. Watson? I happen to agree with Peter more so than Christopher who - while I view as a very funny man - I have many reservations about.
How does he approach the question as a child? In fact, I believe Christopher approached the question with a bigger picture in mind, questioning where morals come from, the design, and everything else that he is repetitive and persistent in his answers with every debate he has.
I expected more of peter hitchens - something other than the tired arguments of 'professional' apologists - some kind of genuine religious intellectualism
Anyone watching this should research the daily mail that peter writes for. It is england's version of fox news. It is the conservatives propaganda tool. Peter is spouting the sort of thing that you can read in the daily mail all the time. That Britain is declining morally and that everything is going downhill. It is a wishful pessimism. They fail to mention that crime rates are nothing compared to 2-300 years ago when religion was rife. It is a false causality and not what I observe.
Peter hasn't really said anything which says that god exists. He just says that his brother isn 'wrong'. Don't they all just say that! Quoting talking serpents seems to be his proof of god. His force of argument is wouldnt it be worse if we didn't believe! Is this an reason for god's existence or a reason to believe in a god which really doesn't exist?
Peter is superemely intellectually inferior to Christopher.
by having to rely to on the "children kicking other children's heads like footballs in Godless neighborhoods" shows Peter's desperation. Christopher must be so proud ...
@bernlin2000 yeah I agree. Same with me, but for everyone else who has posted on this, you can't be ranting that Peter is spouting nonsense or that he is stupid. These are two very highly educated people who presented their arguments articulately with plenty of explanation, and approaching these issues with your mind already made up is absolutely pointless. That type of close-mindedness is in large part what keeps the tension so high between theists and atheists.
How do you think christopher hitchens became such an imposing figure in the name of atheism? he understands BOTH sides of the argument as well as anybody, and makes his assertions from there. His argument wouldn't be anything if all he said was, "he believes in superstition, therefore that man is an idiot." I'm so sick of all the stereotypes for atheists, especially that highly overused keyword, "arrogant."
If you really believe as i do that science and humanism hold the answers, EDUCATE yourselves to a level where nobody can compete with your argument; don't just dismiss theists as crazy or idiotic, it undermines the voice and message of humanists desperately trying to be heard and make a difference.
man i gotta say, christopher is amazing, but if you try to look at it objectively they both speak very knowledgeably at least in this first portion. I was really impressed, this was the first time i heard his brother speak and he is a very formidable opponent. Didn't sway my stance for secularism, but still i think it's got to be said that so far he's really holding his own. what a family
@POR97212 Yes, I think the ad hominem attacks against Peter haven't been very useful: he's clearly an intelligent individual. I do think Christopher is a better debater, but I'm sure he's had a lot more practice. I'm and atheist, and Peter didn't present anything new to change that.
It's funny to hear Peter proclaim that christopher only pointed out the aspects of christianity that educated believers are themselves troubled by, when christopher basically encompassed most of the teachings of christianity, and even left out a large amount of the other morally corrupting versus that the bible preaches.
@Dillingerman1 I thumbs'd down your comment by accident :x meant to thumbs up but I agree. His head looks a little smaller and more disproportionate o.o
@ScientificExploits Nothing about that statement was ad-hominem, it was merely an observation about Peter's face, and how it's ironic that he believes in God. I wasn't trying to belittle his side of the argument either. So, shut the fuck up.
Interesting that Peter would bring up the Snake again....It would appear that 1) Most religions are greedy and their leaders exploit people to become "godlike" and 2) Why shouldn't we be godlike? Is it fair to be forced to worship a tyrannical, evil god?? Is it right that we are the meak, expendable creatures in a god's universe?? I don't think so.....I don't think so. If we were all gods, we'd all finally be equal. Religion denies us the right to give ourselves that comfort and honor.
Christopher was really playful in this debate, which I found hilarious (yelling at the audience to stop clapping for his brother, interrupting him when he spoke). Obviously, this was in some part due to him being related to his opponent, but I also think Christopher could tell his brother was struggling on the God topic. Here, Peter's strongest argument is the morality one, which is actually kind of sad. He's not so much arguing as he is giving excuses and disparaging his sibling's tone.
North Korea is an incredibly religious country. Watch the documentary Lisa Ling made for National Geographic if you doubt me. Just because they worship the Dear Leader and the not god of the Bible doesn't make a bit of difference.
@deathtotheism that is one thing i am not allergic to i hate bull and he is full of it ,he should stick to world affairs and keep away from science and the bible for that matter he is just a first rate cynic and attention seeker .
@SuperPatrick777 I have a question for you Patrick. Do you believe that "Green Eggs and Ham" is the divine word of Dr. Seuss? Have you excepted The Cat in the Hat as your personal lord and savior? Because if you haven't I would love to invite you to become my brother and worship the Cat. The Cat died for your sins so that you may enter into the gates of Whoville. Did you know that? Oh and the Cat also hates gays. So if you're gay then never mind.
Peter "Since we don't know anything at all about our origins"
And he has the gall to accuse Christopher of not knowing the thing he's criticizing??? You can hardly say that Science knows nothing about our origins. What we DO know fills libraries! Peter is still using the Mark I version of mankind's assessment of reality.
Did Peter really just put forth the argument that if people do not believe in a god, then they probably have no qualms with beating and kicking people to death? Even if this was true, anyone could point to every example of people who have killed on behalf of their religion. There is an inarguable direct correlation there, whereas Peter's argument, not surprisingly I suppose, is faith-based, and ignores any other causes of crime and violence in cities.
peter hitchens contrives absolute nonsense, i'm english and i don't know what nor where he gets his facts from. completely synthesised in his own head
At 3:27 Peter implores his brother to "if only the flippant, jeering tone could be abandoned for a moment, we could discuss this more seriously". Peter is truly foolish for being frustrated by this. He should know that his brother has made millions of dollars by giving the audience exactly what they want, not serious discussion but rather shallow arguments. Christopher is magnificent trained monkey. He performs like a sea lion at sea world and the crowd loves it.
@markp10311969 You are absolutely right. I enjoy Christopher for his wit and his devious mind in the same way i enjoy an insightful stand up comic. You can learn a lot from what he omits in his arguments and in the not so subtle way he can twist an issue and put a cynical cherry on top. Doesn't he love the adulation.
You are completely absent of mind, I would implore for you to give an example of Hitchen's being shallow. Hitchen's is very fact based in arguments, I doubt you could compare.
Christopher uses fallacy and sarcasm which doesn't account for a good debate strategy, not that Peter is the best debtor either he did mess up in the beginning of the debate.
@Ohyewildthong Did you not hear the first 2 minutes of this video?! He made it very clear why religion is ridiculous. It's hard not to mock something as ridiculous as religion while arguing against it.
@Ohyewildthong Well, he is an anti-theist. What do you want, him to put on kid gloves when he debates and not hurt anybody's faith-based sensitivities.
Peter does nothing to prove the existence of the supernatural here, all he does is to falsely claim that religion is a good way to control degenerate people.
@andypdq I'm an atheist myself, but to play devil's advocate, how can you prove his existence? I guess the best you can do is try and argue that it's healthy morally and psychologically. I don't believe that of course, but I think that's what Peter's suggesting.
@stevkh5 If you read his biography, you'd learn that christopher had the benefit of being the first born, and this recieved a 'private education' - in other words, a higher class and level of education than Peter.
I just have one question regarding his argument at 6:30
How the hell do you explain all the ghetto areas full of African Americans who believe in the Christian god and still promote black on black crime to a RIDICULOUS level?! It is the negative lifestyle these people are brought up in that cause violence, not a lack of belief in a deity.
think already fact that Christopher and Peter are on opposite sides shows that convictions are personal, not culturaly or socially constructed, as Christopher was trying make people to believe at some point. While Peter learned from mistakes of his Marxist past relating to self-righteousness Christropher is still making his way through it. Bravo Peter, you are maybe not as experienced and professional (ladies man) debator as your brother, but are definitely more courageous!
@askegg You missed the point - did he ever claim to be able to demonstrate it as true? No - he spoke of inference to best explanation. You seem to want him to provide evidence for an idea rather than provide and idea to explain evidence.
Christopher Hitchens is being such a jackass. What right does he have to tell others not to applaud? The man thrives off a captive audience and stirring their approval through highly-charged rhetoric. But when it comes to people disagreeing with him, and wanting to express their approval for his opponent's ideas...? The whole point of a debate is that you should not expect everyone to be on your side! How pathetic. Disagree with Peter all you want, but he didn't try to suppress any clapping!
Because of Christopher’s reputation, I expected a more formidable argument. In essence, he assumes there is no God, and then spends most of the segment explaining why it is good not to believe in God. His argument is characterized by pithy statements, not by forceful reasoning. Even so, I’ve not yet listened to the entire debate. Perhaps Christopher puts forward something more substantial later.
Because of Christopher’s reputation, I expected a more formidable argument. In essence, he assumes there is no God, and then spends most of the segment explaining why it is good not to believe in God. His argument is characterized by pithy statements, not by forceful reasoning. Even so, I’ve not yet listened to the entire debate. Perhaps Christopher puts forward something more substantial later.
"he assumes there is no God, and then spends most of the segment explaining why it is good not to believe in God."
Exactly! Couldn't have put it any better myself! He brushes over the idea of theism by merely asserting "we have more elegant explanations"...well, explanations for what? ...and what are they!?
He also gets atheism wrong. Atheism means "God does not exist". To be merely unconvinced of God's existence is agnosticism, as Bertrand Russell himself realized. Very cheap.
Peter Hitchens, I direct you to any mob as an example of violent activity. It has nothing to do with Atheism. Any group is capable of a mob action. *sigh*
Serpent? Does he seriously think that adds weight to his arguments? Quoting the bible does absolutely nothing to advance his point. Why would any non-Judeo-Christian care about that passage?
I look and look again for someone that can make a strong case for religion to maintain it's hold on society and all come up way short of the mark.
Christopher Hitchens is a spin doctor! Anyone who believes his BS is just ignorant!
For instance the Jews have all the brains and he says 0:55 "but only in barbaric illiterate parts of the middle East" What? The Jews have all the brains! They are amongst the smartest people on earth.
Listen again. He is talking about the time when god showed himself to the Jews, not modern Jews, but ancient Jews. Outbackcafe, you need to pay closer attention.
"since we know next to nothing about our origins... it would be unwise to form absolute certainties" Does anyone else think that's an amazing statement when he's representing the "God deffinately did it" position?
"Does anyone else think that's an amazing statement when he's representing the "God deffinately did it" position?"
That's your straw man. His position is that it appears most likely that there is a God, therefore he'll believe it and place his trust there. He's honest that he has faith. Christopher, on the other hand, likes to have it both ways: saying that you cannot tell there is no God yet making assertions that God does not exist AND denying that he has any faith of any kind!
Peters argument is deeply flawed, he sees 21st century Britain, one of the least violent societies in history where there is some murder but relatively little of it and concludes that there would be less if there were more belief. Yet if we were to go back 150 years, to the height of empire we would almost certainly find more murder at home and in our foreign policy. He argues against Iraq but it was orchestrated by two deeply religious men whilst secular governments in the EU opposed it.
It's a shame that the discussion of the Iraq War/intervention was tied up with the God debate. Peter made some very good points on Iraq but loses any sapient beings in the room with his ill conceived arguments for his particular brand of God.
I have to say I am a bit disappointed. I though Peter would have better things to say. I thought he'd be smarter than many other pro-God debaters. Unfortunately, as some have pointed out, he sort of reiterated some of the old, refuted arguments.
Another thing I didn't like was when he said that Hitchens whole book just looked at the "bad" parts of religion, then goes on to one of the worst parts (I assume) of society in England and says that's what happens when you have no God.
Nomatter how well equipped with intelligence,education and communication skills it is still impossible to make a rational argument in favour of the existence of a god let alone the childish belief of the Christian God.
Regarding the young hooligans,one may aswell come to the conclusion that it is sport to blame for their anti-social,voilent behaviour.
Solution: Stop funding religious organisations and invest into the law with police and jail sentences.
"They're atheists. Wait they're not atheists." Make up your mind.
"I've been to North Korea too and had the opposite impression. These are people who hate the idea of gods and have made themselves into gods."
What the hell? C.H. just said exactly that! The point is that it doesn't matter who god is (Kim Jung Il...jesus...allah), it's that it is poisonous and unscientific no matter how you do it.
Gangs happen predominantly because of poverty. It's not lack of god it's lack of education, money.
Wooooww. I thought Peter would have had a much better argument than this. Wow. "Unwise to form absolute certainties?" C.H. made a point of saying it's not objective to say absolutely "There is no god" but rather to say "There is no evidence therefore no reason to believe." I'm disappointed. We don't believe we are the product of random chaos. We know for a FACT that we are the product of evolution by natural selection. We evolved to be social primates who in order to survive needed to cooperate.
@MakeshiftEstablished yes, but evolution by natural selection is chaos acting upon chaos: chaos.
chaotic genetic mutation, plyatropic linkage etc, and chaotic change in environments, e.g. meteor crashing in out of nowhere ferchryssake, etc.
survival of the fittest just means survival of whoever happens to survive in that particular environment, so it's a tautology that can be reduced to: survival.
so we chaotically survived through chaos and here we are, born of chaos.
@natmanprime genetic mutation and certainly natural selection are hardly chaotic, they are often statistically predictable and often very easily understood.
@Skipissatan If evolution were to start again from scratch it would be completely different, and that is virtually guaranteed by Dawkins and co., he actually sez so.
genetic mutation is also recognized as random, by the same people. And if not, pliatropic linkage ensures it. This is the idea that a characteristic nothing to do with survival is thrown up along with a survival characteristic.
Natural selection is a rationalization looking back (survival as I said)
The 'observation' that Hitchens Jr makes at 6:30 is wholly without foundation and a scandalous lie! There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that three or four times per week, someone is kicked to death by 13-17 year old youths! No wonder he writes for The Mail! What a disingenuous twat! He offers no evidence for this claim whatsoever; he just blithely claims it! What a dick!
musiclover9361 1 week ago
This putz isn't so much as a pimple on his big brother's ass. Sorry.
mouthyweasel 3 weeks ago
authoritarianism sucks. I wonder why so many people feel such a strong need for it.
HelFKiernan 4 weeks ago
OMG Peter this argumenting is shameful. Please go back to bashing the Irak war were you made so much more sense.
Floruxman 1 month ago
The whistle is like nails on a chalkboard
H8Cr1me 1 month ago
justifying adam and eve was very dumb.i am not even sorry to say this.
rouzbehazshab 1 month ago
christianity is a fraud and hitchens junior is an idiot
thescorpionking2020 1 month ago
@thescorpionking2020 Right on. This guy is a bumbling fool. This was pathetic.
It is obvious which brother got all the good genes.
undisputedgreatest 1 month ago
@undisputedgreatest him referring to adam and eve and the talking snake story to make his case nailed the debate for me,peter hitchens is just plain stupid
thescorpionking2020 1 month ago
how can one brother be brilliant and the other one a DICK. Guess that's why his name is Peter :)
rfranklinw1 2 months ago
I did not know Peter Hitchens before. Based on the introduction I was curious. I lost the first half of the respect build up by the introduction when he said that we should not have gone to war against Hitler in his opening statement (He said that WWII was not "a good war") and I just lost the rest.
PeterK1984 3 months ago
@PeterK1984 you weren't listening carefully. He was making a statement about war period. His argument also applied towards the rise of the Nazi "war machine"
mikejpete 3 months ago
two brilliant men--and yet one is obviously much more brilliant.
rysw19 3 months ago
I like Peter Hitchens, I really do, but bringing up the argument that non-belief is inherently immoral... well, that is shooting yourself in the foot in rational discourse.
JaguarEscarlata 4 months ago
@JaguarEscarlata
My opinion of him has just taken a nose-dive.
Surtak 4 months ago
"Stop clapping"
This made me giggle like a schoolgirl.
sugarfreelemonade 4 months ago
4:40. Lol "Stop that!" these two brothers are so funny. Despite their differences they can't be apart.
Sumoto999 5 months ago 2
Once again Christopher Hitchens is a pure master class!
jjoneil73 5 months ago
Thank you for posting this, HauensteinCenter.
writersblock26 5 months ago
well, ive been looking for the past two years and i have finally found someone on youtube who can argue well for the existence of a god
benehan 5 months ago
They are both equally well-versed, and are equally powerful debaters. But Christopher comes out the better, primarily because Peter takes the same stale arguments in support of religion.
Emaniac69 6 months ago
As some people seem to have failed to understand the references to pagan gods (Mammon, Ashtaroth, etc.), I will point out that Peter is not claiming there are cults of worship arising without Christianity, he is alluding to abortion, greed, and promiscuity (respective to the order of the gods he mentions). I side with Christopher, but let's not willfully or ignorantly misinterpret people's arguments just to take cheap shots.
TheGaryuu 6 months ago
Peter makes excellent, balanced, non flippant points here. I think that Christoper does make challenging points, but his tone lets him down completely. It is arrogant, in the extreme, to think that it is somehow intellectually superior to be an anti-theist; to assume that believers have not already considered the difficulties and you must educate them. Clearly secular laws are insufficient to govern the behaviour of a significant part of UK society, perhaps Christianity is worth a shot.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 couldn't have put it better, agree completely.
Speighty2 5 months ago
Peter is quite right about at least one thing: God is Not Great is a rather jeering book, as almost all of (Christopher) Hitchens' works/arguments are. In fact, I find most atheistic arguments are, especially from the layman atheists (not implying that Hitchens is a layman, but the point remains). If they're really trying to promote the truth, they need to realize that haughty, insulting arguments are going to get them nowhere with any sort of theist.
Grant692 6 months ago
Christopher's arguments are not new nor original. He is deceptively trying to present a case ( though knowing he can be refuted), for he is actually debating the audience. The audience has no opportunity to respond, of course, and 10 minutes for each question is not sufficient for Peter. It goes much deeper than his shallow reasoning embellished with fancy words.
Ivomise1 6 months ago
@randymullen511There are never winners in these type of debates, is my main point. A debater comes with an agenda to prove his own case and is gonna staunchly remain in his position. They merely expose on their arguments and rarely answer to the question posed but rather engage in tautology.
ivomise 6 months ago
Peter owned Christopher in this one. Just as some say Peter comes with same Christian rhetoric, but so does Christopher, with the same atheistic rhetoric and nonsense.
ivomise 6 months ago
@ivomise name one claim made by CH in this video that was either nonsensical or false
randymullen511 6 months ago
Stop that, lol
spp41 6 months ago
I thought Peter Hitchens only wrote shite but he seems to talk it also.
dilwich123 6 months ago
Oh course he's a retard, he writes for the Daily Mail
alsdaftable 6 months ago
Peter's chair is a...GHOST CHAIR!!
vikingfortiesfaeroes 6 months ago
I thought Peter seemed pretty reasonable up until this point... turns out he's an absolute lunatic!
henryc2006 6 months ago
"belief in God, in my case god, calling him by his first name" * I spit my milk on my keyboard and laugh*.
LambdaQuarks 6 months ago
Am I the only one who was thinking:
'This is Christopher Hitchens's brother, he comes from good genetic stock, surely he would have some convincing arguments for the existence of God...Nope, same old Christian bullshit.'
LondonIrishRover 7 months ago
yawn christopher......the middle east invented writing through the sumerians so your point is quite muuuuteeeeeeeee. Toook ya 10 minutes and you stilll haven't disproved the existence of god except call him a celestial dictator. Answer the actually question next tiiime instead of ravinggggg in youor drunken supor about how you thinkkk god is so evil. Pretty cooll debate overall though........
jamaicanification 7 months ago
@jamaicanification You clearly don't understand how this works, so I'll explain it. Person "A" presents Idea "X." Person "A" then gives his reasons for making said claim. Person "B" then makes a rebuttal, pointing out whatever problems may occur in idea "X." At no point is Person "B" responsible for proving Idea "X" is false, only for giving reasons to disbelieve it. Christians claim there is a creator responsible for the origin and continued existence of the entire universe. Where's the proof?
randymullen511 6 months ago
@randymullen511 i understand how the debate works, and i know the ins and outs about how the first person gives his reason for a certain claim, and then the second person gives a rebuttal. I knew that already. As for physical proof for god, there is none of course, cause Christian theists, and Abrahamic theists in general believe that god is a transcendent being not subject to the laws of space or time. Our arguments come from metaphysical inquiry, as well as the moral dimension to the question
jamaicanification 5 months ago
@jamaicanification BTW, just because one ethnic group in the region invented writing, doesn't mean that the entire region (or even large parts of it) were literate. By that logic, you (and most of your fellow canadians) should already know how to build a chainsaw from scratch.
randymullen511 6 months ago
@randymullen511 yes, but people like jesus came out of a pharisaic tradition in which they had to know how to read and write. So his arguments are pretty lacking in substance or fact if you really look at it carefully. And also, the whole "oh heaven took 95,000 years to intervene argument", he has repeated that over and over again that it makes me wonder. First of all, its it 98,000 years that it took them to intervene, or 95,000-96,000?
jamaicanification 5 months ago
@randymullen511 cause if your gonna use an argument like that at least have your claims consistent and not self contradictory. Second, from whos perspective is that process long. If you look at it from the theistic perspective of a god who is transcendent, eternal and not subject to laws or space or time, whats 98,000 years on a mud ball called earth to him? thats like gardening your lawn for 10 minutes and then your friend saying it took too long from an ants perspective......so what?
jamaicanification 5 months ago
I want to specify that I only liked this video until 1:53...
ameliaparvaneh 7 months ago
i expected a lot but but im disapointed in peter, i expected chistophers brother :P
MGsven 7 months ago
Peter will always out-do Chris.
matrix4022 7 months ago
@matrix4022 have you lost your brain ?
AlvahWatson1 7 months ago
@AlvahWatson1 I would be unable to type if that was the cause my friend!
matrix4022 7 months ago
@matrix4022 That is obvious, but to think Peter out-does Chris is just completely foolish
AlvahWatson1 7 months ago
@AlvahWatson1 We're all entitled to our opinions, aren't we Mr. Watson? I happen to agree with Peter more so than Christopher who - while I view as a very funny man - I have many reservations about.
matrix4022 7 months ago
No thanks Peter I quite like the flippant and the jeering
angryafghan 7 months ago
Astaroth.. wtf?
Is he seriously saying we need Abrahamic religion to keep us away from demonology? What a moron.
xincrii 7 months ago
@xincrii Yes, what an insult to the intelligence of the audience, he really is that condescending.
angryafghan 7 months ago
Bravo Peter Hitchens!
Christopher approches the question as a child, not seeing the big picture
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01
How does he approach the question as a child? In fact, I believe Christopher approached the question with a bigger picture in mind, questioning where morals come from, the design, and everything else that he is repetitive and persistent in his answers with every debate he has.
SuperAwesomeAtheist 7 months ago
I like peter but i disagree with him on this.
Saitothesushi 8 months ago
Peter Hiych
LJUncut 8 months ago
I expected more of peter hitchens - something other than the tired arguments of 'professional' apologists - some kind of genuine religious intellectualism
discipleoftheteapot 8 months ago
Why r we liking the videos where Peter talks?
33BANSH 8 months ago
Well then, one of these brothers has great genes shaping their brain, the other not so much.
Jotto999 8 months ago
Christopher Hitchens losing his voice is just a crime.
cpqarray 8 months ago
Anyone watching this should research the daily mail that peter writes for. It is england's version of fox news. It is the conservatives propaganda tool. Peter is spouting the sort of thing that you can read in the daily mail all the time. That Britain is declining morally and that everything is going downhill. It is a wishful pessimism. They fail to mention that crime rates are nothing compared to 2-300 years ago when religion was rife. It is a false causality and not what I observe.
Hivebot 8 months ago 16
@Hivebot you got the wrong paper. It's the Mail on Sunday. Good try though
mikejpete 3 months ago
"Stop that!" hahahhahaha
MrZebraZombie 9 months ago
Sorry Peter this round also goes to Christopher.
Aliof 10 months ago
Peter hasn't really said anything which says that god exists. He just says that his brother isn 'wrong'. Don't they all just say that! Quoting talking serpents seems to be his proof of god. His force of argument is wouldnt it be worse if we didn't believe! Is this an reason for god's existence or a reason to believe in a god which really doesn't exist?
Peter is superemely intellectually inferior to Christopher.
FranklyLate 10 months ago
by having to rely to on the "children kicking other children's heads like footballs in Godless neighborhoods" shows Peter's desperation. Christopher must be so proud ...
Okami87 10 months ago
Listening to Christopher makes me want to read the Bible.
Fike2308 10 months ago
It seems to me that pH is a little basic here don't you think?
hehehehehehe.
Dillingerman1 11 months ago
Read these 3 comments continuously. Stupid character limit
POR97212 11 months ago
@bernlin2000 yeah I agree. Same with me, but for everyone else who has posted on this, you can't be ranting that Peter is spouting nonsense or that he is stupid. These are two very highly educated people who presented their arguments articulately with plenty of explanation, and approaching these issues with your mind already made up is absolutely pointless. That type of close-mindedness is in large part what keeps the tension so high between theists and atheists.
POR97212 11 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
How do you think christopher hitchens became such an imposing figure in the name of atheism? he understands BOTH sides of the argument as well as anybody, and makes his assertions from there. His argument wouldn't be anything if all he said was, "he believes in superstition, therefore that man is an idiot." I'm so sick of all the stereotypes for atheists, especially that highly overused keyword, "arrogant."
POR97212 11 months ago
If you really believe as i do that science and humanism hold the answers, EDUCATE yourselves to a level where nobody can compete with your argument; don't just dismiss theists as crazy or idiotic, it undermines the voice and message of humanists desperately trying to be heard and make a difference.
POR97212 11 months ago 4
Comment removed
POR97212 11 months ago
Comment removed
POR97212 11 months ago
When PH speaks and uses words with 's' in them it hurts my ears!
TheBreadmondShow 11 months ago
man i gotta say, christopher is amazing, but if you try to look at it objectively they both speak very knowledgeably at least in this first portion. I was really impressed, this was the first time i heard his brother speak and he is a very formidable opponent. Didn't sway my stance for secularism, but still i think it's got to be said that so far he's really holding his own. what a family
POR97212 1 year ago 2
@POR97212 Yes, I think the ad hominem attacks against Peter haven't been very useful: he's clearly an intelligent individual. I do think Christopher is a better debater, but I'm sure he's had a lot more practice. I'm and atheist, and Peter didn't present anything new to change that.
bernlin2000 11 months ago 3
It's funny to hear Peter proclaim that christopher only pointed out the aspects of christianity that educated believers are themselves troubled by, when christopher basically encompassed most of the teachings of christianity, and even left out a large amount of the other morally corrupting versus that the bible preaches.
Dillingerman1 1 year ago
The irony which is peter hitchens is that he actually looks less evolved compared to christopher.
Dillingerman1 1 year ago 25
@Dillingerman1 I thumbs'd down your comment by accident :x meant to thumbs up but I agree. His head looks a little smaller and more disproportionate o.o
Territomauvais 11 months ago
@Dillingerman1 Yea Dillinger, because skipping straight to ad-hominem is the best way to start........ idiot.
ScientificExploits 4 months ago
@ScientificExploits Nothing about that statement was ad-hominem, it was merely an observation about Peter's face, and how it's ironic that he believes in God. I wasn't trying to belittle his side of the argument either. So, shut the fuck up.
Dillingerman1 4 months ago
" for a hundred thousand years " you think he was there , what arrogance
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
LOL He's all drunk \m/
SlayingMinion 1 year ago
i bet peter's relieved chris isn't a christian. imagine christmas dinner at their house.
noisyneil 1 year ago
@noisyneil that's a thought !!
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
Nobody can call an entire culture "stupid" as eloquently as Christopher Hitchens.
doomrot 1 year ago
one of the problems to me seems that the creator in eastern philosophies shouldnt be referred to as god
god is this abrahamic jealous blood wanting character
eastern nirvana is reached through meditation
timewilltell7 1 year ago
@timewilltell7 no -- GOD is your judge
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
Interesting that Peter would bring up the Snake again....It would appear that 1) Most religions are greedy and their leaders exploit people to become "godlike" and 2) Why shouldn't we be godlike? Is it fair to be forced to worship a tyrannical, evil god?? Is it right that we are the meak, expendable creatures in a god's universe?? I don't think so.....I don't think so. If we were all gods, we'd all finally be equal. Religion denies us the right to give ourselves that comfort and honor.
LalEnuNoah 1 year ago
The anti-Hitchens makes some good points. Quite scary.
jacksawild 1 year ago
Christopher was really playful in this debate, which I found hilarious (yelling at the audience to stop clapping for his brother, interrupting him when he spoke). Obviously, this was in some part due to him being related to his opponent, but I also think Christopher could tell his brother was struggling on the God topic. Here, Peter's strongest argument is the morality one, which is actually kind of sad. He's not so much arguing as he is giving excuses and disparaging his sibling's tone.
DancingTableLeg 1 year ago
North Korea is an incredibly religious country. Watch the documentary Lisa Ling made for National Geographic if you doubt me. Just because they worship the Dear Leader and the not god of the Bible doesn't make a bit of difference.
hammertime419 1 year ago
"Theory of Atheism"!?!? Goddamn it Peter you idiot.
alyu100tw 1 year ago
People kicked to death thrice per week?
I'm an Englishman too. How dare he insult my country of origin like that?
AlexGabrielYT 1 year ago
@AlexGabrielYT Peter writes for the Daily Mail. He is paid to see the UK through a terrified point of view.
allahonsteroids 10 months ago 2
I think we know who got the good genes in this family.
deathtotheism 1 year ago 31
@deathtotheism yes peter
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
@SuperPatrick777 Are you allergic to reason?
deathtotheism 1 year ago
@deathtotheism that is one thing i am not allergic to i hate bull and he is full of it ,he should stick to world affairs and keep away from science and the bible for that matter he is just a first rate cynic and attention seeker .
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
@SuperPatrick777 You need to keep away from my Twisted Sister albums and my condoms.
deathtotheism 1 year ago
@deathtotheism really
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
@SuperPatrick777 I have a question for you Patrick. Do you believe that "Green Eggs and Ham" is the divine word of Dr. Seuss? Have you excepted The Cat in the Hat as your personal lord and savior? Because if you haven't I would love to invite you to become my brother and worship the Cat. The Cat died for your sins so that you may enter into the gates of Whoville. Did you know that? Oh and the Cat also hates gays. So if you're gay then never mind.
deathtotheism 1 year ago
@deathtotheism
another homosexual -- typical
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperPatrick777 I'm not gay but I'd like to fuck you in the ass just to see the look on your face.
deathtotheism 1 year ago
@deathtotheism If it weren't for your username, I would of thought you were making a cruel cancer joke.
talesinart 8 months ago
ha ... "stop that... stop applauding". awesome
maths82 1 year ago
Peter looks like a stuffed up turkey, ready to be cooked for Christmas dinner.
lye54 1 year ago
That was an awfully weak response.
jamesstafforduk 1 year ago
The universe has eternal laws The laws of Physics.
soham087 1 year ago
the serpent says...hahahahahaha.....please peter ..you have got to be joking.. the serpent says......all together now....THE SERPENT SAYS.....
kalerr2512 1 year ago
Peter "Since we don't know anything at all about our origins"
And he has the gall to accuse Christopher of not knowing the thing he's criticizing??? You can hardly say that Science knows nothing about our origins. What we DO know fills libraries! Peter is still using the Mark I version of mankind's assessment of reality.
warren52nz 1 year ago
Peter is a discracefully stupid person. An intellectual giant like Chris should be ashamed to have such an imbecille for a brother!
marcohorowitz8 1 year ago
@marcohorowitz8 I'm guessing Peter was dropped on his head as an infant....
warren52nz 1 year ago
Did Peter really just put forth the argument that if people do not believe in a god, then they probably have no qualms with beating and kicking people to death? Even if this was true, anyone could point to every example of people who have killed on behalf of their religion. There is an inarguable direct correlation there, whereas Peter's argument, not surprisingly I suppose, is faith-based, and ignores any other causes of crime and violence in cities.
DRok112 1 year ago 2
peter hitchens contrives absolute nonsense, i'm english and i don't know what nor where he gets his facts from. completely synthesised in his own head
Hellenologophilia 1 year ago
At 3:27 Peter implores his brother to "if only the flippant, jeering tone could be abandoned for a moment, we could discuss this more seriously". Peter is truly foolish for being frustrated by this. He should know that his brother has made millions of dollars by giving the audience exactly what they want, not serious discussion but rather shallow arguments. Christopher is magnificent trained monkey. He performs like a sea lion at sea world and the crowd loves it.
markp10311969 1 year ago
@markp10311969 You are absolutely right. I enjoy Christopher for his wit and his devious mind in the same way i enjoy an insightful stand up comic. You can learn a lot from what he omits in his arguments and in the not so subtle way he can twist an issue and put a cynical cherry on top. Doesn't he love the adulation.
mutabrev 1 year ago
@markp10311969
You are completely absent of mind, I would implore for you to give an example of Hitchen's being shallow. Hitchen's is very fact based in arguments, I doubt you could compare.
shamayaify 1 year ago
this is a man that writes for the daily express..I rest my case
jimbob1969 1 year ago
Christopher uses fallacy and sarcasm which doesn't account for a good debate strategy, not that Peter is the best debtor either he did mess up in the beginning of the debate.
BenjaminWirtz 1 year ago
Its good to see Chris laughing
jerzy862 1 year ago
4:40 LOL
jerzy862 1 year ago
I agree with Hitchens
ripsaw111 1 year ago
Comment removed
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
peter sounded intelligent until 7:00 mark
vpsaline 1 year ago
I want a brain transplant from christopher... he's amazing
soseg 1 year ago
All Christophers statement is in this deabte is a series of attacks and mocking of religion.
Ohyewildthong 1 year ago
@Ohyewildthong Did you not hear the first 2 minutes of this video?! He made it very clear why religion is ridiculous. It's hard not to mock something as ridiculous as religion while arguing against it.
ISS5731 1 year ago
@Ohyewildthong Well, he is an anti-theist. What do you want, him to put on kid gloves when he debates and not hurt anybody's faith-based sensitivities.
morpheus8624 1 year ago
@morpheus8624 One would expect him to put up and adult and rational debate.
Ohyewildthong 1 year ago
Peter does nothing to prove the existence of the supernatural here, all he does is to falsely claim that religion is a good way to control degenerate people.
andypdq 1 year ago
@andypdq I'm an atheist myself, but to play devil's advocate, how can you prove his existence? I guess the best you can do is try and argue that it's healthy morally and psychologically. I don't believe that of course, but I think that's what Peter's suggesting.
maxreger91 1 year ago
i guess Christopher got all the good genes
stevkh5 1 year ago
@stevkh5 If you read his biography, you'd learn that christopher had the benefit of being the first born, and this recieved a 'private education' - in other words, a higher class and level of education than Peter.
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764 it was a joke, and i have read his memoir
stevkh5 1 year ago
I just have one question regarding his argument at 6:30
How the hell do you explain all the ghetto areas full of African Americans who believe in the Christian god and still promote black on black crime to a RIDICULOUS level?! It is the negative lifestyle these people are brought up in that cause violence, not a lack of belief in a deity.
heiyoulianglaohu 1 year ago 3
@askegg , I said nothing about 'require' and neither did he. As I did say, it's about inference to best explanation.
findo 1 year ago
Peter has no argument. He is simply stating why he'd LIKE christianity to be true, and therefore believes.
Naabenstadt 1 year ago 3
think already fact that Christopher and Peter are on opposite sides shows that convictions are personal, not culturaly or socially constructed, as Christopher was trying make people to believe at some point. While Peter learned from mistakes of his Marxist past relating to self-righteousness Christropher is still making his way through it. Bravo Peter, you are maybe not as experienced and professional (ladies man) debator as your brother, but are definitely more courageous!
kaunaskas 1 year ago
Comment removed
kaunaskas 1 year ago
Peter went nowhere near demonstrating his claims of god are a true claim. He evaded the entire point and thus loses the debate.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg You missed the point - did he ever claim to be able to demonstrate it as true? No - he spoke of inference to best explanation. You seem to want him to provide evidence for an idea rather than provide and idea to explain evidence.
findo 1 year ago
@findo Which set of data requires a "god" to explain?
The world is full of idea to explain things - very few of them are actually true. To differentiate the true ideas from just ideas requires evidence.
askegg 1 year ago
Peter is a twat
Kel106 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens is being such a jackass. What right does he have to tell others not to applaud? The man thrives off a captive audience and stirring their approval through highly-charged rhetoric. But when it comes to people disagreeing with him, and wanting to express their approval for his opponent's ideas...? The whole point of a debate is that you should not expect everyone to be on your side! How pathetic. Disagree with Peter all you want, but he didn't try to suppress any clapping!
Birdieupon 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Because of Christopher’s reputation, I expected a more formidable argument. In essence, he assumes there is no God, and then spends most of the segment explaining why it is good not to believe in God. His argument is characterized by pithy statements, not by forceful reasoning. Even so, I’ve not yet listened to the entire debate. Perhaps Christopher puts forward something more substantial later.
hrayanderson 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
hrayanderson 1 year ago
Because of Christopher’s reputation, I expected a more formidable argument. In essence, he assumes there is no God, and then spends most of the segment explaining why it is good not to believe in God. His argument is characterized by pithy statements, not by forceful reasoning. Even so, I’ve not yet listened to the entire debate. Perhaps Christopher puts forward something more substantial later.
hrayanderson 1 year ago
@hrayanderson
"he assumes there is no God, and then spends most of the segment explaining why it is good not to believe in God."
Exactly! Couldn't have put it any better myself! He brushes over the idea of theism by merely asserting "we have more elegant explanations"...well, explanations for what? ...and what are they!?
He also gets atheism wrong. Atheism means "God does not exist". To be merely unconvinced of God's existence is agnosticism, as Bertrand Russell himself realized. Very cheap.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
Peter Hitchens, I direct you to any mob as an example of violent activity. It has nothing to do with Atheism. Any group is capable of a mob action. *sigh*
Serpent? Does he seriously think that adds weight to his arguments? Quoting the bible does absolutely nothing to advance his point. Why would any non-Judeo-Christian care about that passage?
I look and look again for someone that can make a strong case for religion to maintain it's hold on society and all come up way short of the mark.
Galactu5 1 year ago
"Practical" atheists? What the hell? So what are "practical" Christians like, human sacrifice, slavery?
RafaelH9X 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens is a spin doctor! Anyone who believes his BS is just ignorant!
For instance the Jews have all the brains and he says 0:55 "but only in barbaric illiterate parts of the middle East" What? The Jews have all the brains! They are amongst the smartest people on earth.
outbackcafe 1 year ago
@outbackcafe
Listen again. He is talking about the time when god showed himself to the Jews, not modern Jews, but ancient Jews. Outbackcafe, you need to pay closer attention.
Galactu5 1 year ago
"since we know next to nothing about our origins... it would be unwise to form absolute certainties" Does anyone else think that's an amazing statement when he's representing the "God deffinately did it" position?
gpdl00355 1 year ago
@gpdl00355
"Does anyone else think that's an amazing statement when he's representing the "God deffinately did it" position?"
That's your straw man. His position is that it appears most likely that there is a God, therefore he'll believe it and place his trust there. He's honest that he has faith. Christopher, on the other hand, likes to have it both ways: saying that you cannot tell there is no God yet making assertions that God does not exist AND denying that he has any faith of any kind!
Birdieupon 1 year ago
Peters argument is deeply flawed, he sees 21st century Britain, one of the least violent societies in history where there is some murder but relatively little of it and concludes that there would be less if there were more belief. Yet if we were to go back 150 years, to the height of empire we would almost certainly find more murder at home and in our foreign policy. He argues against Iraq but it was orchestrated by two deeply religious men whilst secular governments in the EU opposed it.
Skipissatan 1 year ago
Peter Hitchens is a stupid idiot if he thinks the only way to stop people kicking each other to death is by believing in a god.
"Bla bla bla, bla bla bla"
He is in danger of sounding like a sanctimonious prat.
GorbachevSausages 1 year ago
It's a shame that the discussion of the Iraq War/intervention was tied up with the God debate. Peter made some very good points on Iraq but loses any sapient beings in the room with his ill conceived arguments for his particular brand of God.
FlakMeister 1 year ago
ive got an answer for 8:07...its called dharma! u dont need a dick head in the clouds to believe in ORDER!
WORLDARYANREVIVAL 1 year ago
I have to say I am a bit disappointed. I though Peter would have better things to say. I thought he'd be smarter than many other pro-God debaters. Unfortunately, as some have pointed out, he sort of reiterated some of the old, refuted arguments.
Another thing I didn't like was when he said that Hitchens whole book just looked at the "bad" parts of religion, then goes on to one of the worst parts (I assume) of society in England and says that's what happens when you have no God.
TumshieX 1 year ago
Christopher hitchens makes the best arguments against religion. May he live long and spread his message far and wide. Bravo!!!
rooflee 1 year ago 8
Peter made an excellent point there ie.
Nomatter how well equipped with intelligence,education and communication skills it is still impossible to make a rational argument in favour of the existence of a god let alone the childish belief of the Christian God.
Regarding the young hooligans,one may aswell come to the conclusion that it is sport to blame for their anti-social,voilent behaviour.
Solution: Stop funding religious organisations and invest into the law with police and jail sentences.
petestrat07 1 year ago
christopher absolutely tore him to shreds
lukeism2 1 year ago
"They're atheists. Wait they're not atheists." Make up your mind.
"I've been to North Korea too and had the opposite impression. These are people who hate the idea of gods and have made themselves into gods."
What the hell? C.H. just said exactly that! The point is that it doesn't matter who god is (Kim Jung Il...jesus...allah), it's that it is poisonous and unscientific no matter how you do it.
Gangs happen predominantly because of poverty. It's not lack of god it's lack of education, money.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago
Wooooww. I thought Peter would have had a much better argument than this. Wow. "Unwise to form absolute certainties?" C.H. made a point of saying it's not objective to say absolutely "There is no god" but rather to say "There is no evidence therefore no reason to believe." I'm disappointed. We don't believe we are the product of random chaos. We know for a FACT that we are the product of evolution by natural selection. We evolved to be social primates who in order to survive needed to cooperate.
MakeshiftEstablished 1 year ago
@MakeshiftEstablished yes, but evolution by natural selection is chaos acting upon chaos: chaos.
chaotic genetic mutation, plyatropic linkage etc, and chaotic change in environments, e.g. meteor crashing in out of nowhere ferchryssake, etc.
survival of the fittest just means survival of whoever happens to survive in that particular environment, so it's a tautology that can be reduced to: survival.
so we chaotically survived through chaos and here we are, born of chaos.
No god, just an absolute
natmanprime 1 year ago
@natmanprime genetic mutation and certainly natural selection are hardly chaotic, they are often statistically predictable and often very easily understood.
Skipissatan 1 year ago
@Skipissatan If evolution were to start again from scratch it would be completely different, and that is virtually guaranteed by Dawkins and co., he actually sez so.
genetic mutation is also recognized as random, by the same people. And if not, pliatropic linkage ensures it. This is the idea that a characteristic nothing to do with survival is thrown up along with a survival characteristic.
Natural selection is a rationalization looking back (survival as I said)
Perception is gamble.
natmanprime 1 year ago
Teenage gangs kick heads.
It's not because their parents raised them devoid of empathy.
It's not because they are young and flexing their new muscles.
It's not because of the arrogance of youth.
It's not because so far nobody has kicked their head.
It's not because they are full of envy and spite.
It's not because teenage girls admire a "tough guy".
It's because they don't believe in a god that can crush them like a grape.
Give me a fucking break Peter, you're obviously smarter than that.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
what on earth is peter on about???
TheSnotwizard 1 year ago
Chris rocks, Peter sucks.
alien8ted 1 year ago
Peters position is a testament to the power of compartmentalisation. Such an intelligent person posing the same fallacious rationalisations.
joelmartens 1 year ago
From 5:50 on Peter speaks the truth.
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
It's troubling to see people debating on the side of a 2000 year old book in earnest...
tsumetaikage 1 year ago 2