Morality sits MUCH better in an atheistic world view than a theistic one. Many religious texts command immoral acts and hardly tell the followers to stop immoralities. Where does it say in the Quran or Bible that slavery is wrong? Evolution explains innate morality better than religion does. "God wrote it in their hearts," doesn't explain anything. And his next point attempts to argue why a theistic world view was useful to Galileo and Copernicus. It isn't relevant to whether theism is true.
Asking william lane craig for advice on debating a logically minded polemicist is the fastest known way to introduce complete and utter bullshit into your arguments.
It's not really atheism-theism, is it. It's more Atheism- American Christianity. If it wasn;t, it would be clear to Jay that morality is far to different in different society's.
The idea that having morality is indicative of a divine degree is absurd. I would consider it a plausible explanation if I knew right from wrong, but was baffled by how I know it. There's a very easy logical path for explaining why torturing children is wrong. There's also a compelling evolutionary argument for explaining how we acquired an intuitive sense of right and wrong. The last nail in the coffin is the fact that most religious texts contain decrees we know accept as immoral.
Why in the FUCK would this guy bring up Carl Sagan's Cosmos?! In the middle of episode 2 of Cosmos, Sagan pretty much lays WASTE to even the CONCEPT of an "intelligent designer/creator," a.k.a. God! And it's not even an argument that he ADDRESSES! (The whole "who created God," argument.) WTF?! lol!
Oh my God ;0) the moral theistic argument is tripe. Just because there is an overwhelming subscription to the recognition of a natural sense of morality there must be an external arbiter of this morality. WHY because it feels that way? Isn't it obvious what the directly opposing postulation is? Why can't this simply be explained by evolution. From my own personal perspective this is the perfect, logical explanation.
The difference between atheism and theism is that you can learn from an atheist and be used and controlled by a theist. It's quite obvious even from the most simplistic form of observation between the two ideas. I am entertained by this debate, but there really is no need for such a debate when one side provides facts and information while the other side provides "guidance" or a better way of living. I would much rather want to see a debate for what you happen when the authority is taken away.
Blondie lost me on his first point - "our knowlege and certainty of certain moral truths" - this is in no way evidence for intelligent design. Any sociologist will explain the evolutionary basis of morality. We are social animals and 'morality' exists as a process to allow the collective to survive.
Jay Richards claims that objective morality exists because God put it there, that we all know "torturing children is wrong". I guess he's never heard of female genital mutilation. Different cultures have wildly different moral codes. What is considered torture in one culture may be a common practice in another. If moral objectivity exists, it seems to me that either everyone would find female genital mutilation reprehensible, or it would be a common practice (like male circumcision).
@MeebleMeeble Indeed. Female genital mutilation, male circumsion, Ashura and on and on. No such thing as a common moral code across the world that can be pointed at and said to have come from some god being. Even "torturing children is wrong" is subjective.
@writersblock26, the entire thing, I suppose. Hitchens' ability to cut to the absolute truth brings the realization that we are a speck of lint dust in an infinite universe. It makes our trivialities seem even more trivial. Also, his health situation makes me feel a great deal of loss for him, his family and for the entire human race.
I'm not an theist or atheist, i just don't see reason or evidence to believe in a big abusive daddy in the sky who hates women and gay people. In fact, i see plenty of evidence and reasons to believe otherwise. And i don't see why i have to defend something so simple and obvious.
God is nonexistent until proven to exist. And if it is ever proven, i would consider it my moral duty to oppose such a cruel cosmic dictator, because in essence, that is what such a god would be.
@emptyhighways You sound like an atheist, perhaps an agnostic atheist, but an atheist doesn't have to say "there is no god", but just has to believe that the arguments for a god haven't met their burden of proof.
@jappud - Amen good sir ;-) Exactly. You worded in much better than i could ever have. And more than the pure philosophy of it all, i am much more concerned with the kind of values and societies religion promotes. Homophobia, misogyny, erotophoboia, xenophobia, anti-intllectualism, repression and oppression of all kinds for example. It's much more than just the abstract metaphysics that bother me about religion. More the concrete outcomes.
who IS this blond haired moron, I never heard of the guy but he is certainly a deluded fucking idiot...'antoganist' my ass, this Richards asshole is just ANOTHER fucking relgio-retard
Why do creationists, or humans for that matter, always have to have a purpose for existence? Do you think animals try to figure out their purpose? Or do they just eat, defecate, and procreate.
So essentially Jay Richard's argument is because there are some things we can't fully explain with the knowledge and science we have so there must be a God? I'm sorry how is that even a valid argument?
@Plagueis1017 It's not valid at all - in fact, there's an own category of fallacy reserved for such arguments: an argument from ignorance, it's called. We don't know how things got around, so Christianity must be an accurate description of how we came to be.
@Pomme843 Right, on top of that the argument operates on the basis that we as a society have nothing left to learn about the universe which is a totally absurd notion.
@Plagueis1017 That's how religion survives. It feeds on the questions to which we don't have an answer, and on the answers we would like to hear. And then, we have to give it money, so it can proliferate and contaminate others, lest we must go to the purgatory.
@Prologicful First of all, atheism does not necessarily mean to deny the existance of a creator, it can also mean to lack belief in one.
Second, to deny the existance of a creator does not mean that one thinks that the universe created itself - one may believe that the universe is eternal, or that it sprung into existance, without causal grounds. This last position is actually supported by many prominent scientists, like Hawking.
Third, a creator doesn't imply any particular religion.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that heat flows from warm areas to cool ones- the universe is cooling. So the universe CANNOT be eternal. It is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. If it was eternal it would've had eternity to reach absolute zero, but it has not.
Show me an example of ANYTHING within our universe that "springs into existence without cause". There is no such thing. Even at the quantum level, particles SEEM to pop into and out of existence. But they don't remain. (Continued)
@Prologicful 1.1 When I say that the universe may be eternal, I mean that it may have always existed. I don't see how whether the universe is going to exist forever, is relevant. But the fact that heat spreads in space, does not mean that the universe is going to cease existing. It simply means that it is going to spread beyond a point at which it can't support life. Spreading out, and ceasing to exist, are different things. Time is not going to just stop at some point. The universe is eternal.
@Pomme843 1.2 I can't show you anything coming into existence from nothing, because I can't take you to before the universe did come into existence. To say that causality must have always been the same as we percieve it in our little corner of the universe, even before the existence of our universe, is, I believe a non sequitur. It is believed that before the universe, neither timespace, nor energy or matter, existed. How can we know that causality existed? I don't buy pre-universal causality.
@Pomme843 1.3 Hawking is a theoretical physicist. Of course he doesn't have any evidence for his hypothesis. And, I don't think he claims that the universe popped out of nothing, but rather, suggests it. A big difference. And may I add that I'll rather trust in Hawking than in some washed-up youtube theist/deist. It's not like science is about either "figuring something out", or "giving up and saying something stupid". That's an extremely misleading dichotomy - science deals in theories.
I AM a scientist. I know what "science is about." But science does not merely "deal in theories." True science deals in testable hypotheses.
Hawking's bizarre statement that the universe created itself from nothing isn't a testable hypothesis. There's no evidence of ANYTHING creating itself from nothing in our universe.
Theists also think the universe was created from nothing, but by a creator. It's no surprise that a man with Hawking's disease does not believe in a creator.
@Prologicful I don't see how Hawking's disease is relevant.
Saying that atheists believe that the universe "created itself" is misleading. I think, like Hawking, that the universe came into existence, without causal ground, and without intention. He poses an interesting theory about this coming-into-existence, explained by a quantum probability curve that he calls Phi. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know its full contents or implications, but blaming god is yet the primitive version: a cop-out.
The religious believe God exists without cause and are endlessly ridiculed for it by atheists. Yet Hawking says the universe came into existence without causal ground and atheists applaud him??
We know little about the quantum realm, yet even there, no one has ever observed a particle creating itself, and then continuing to exist.
I could understand a man with his disease hating the idea of a caring God.
Your English is excellent for someone who is not a native speaker
@Prologicful I don't know why people applaud Hawking's argument. It's in "The Grand Design". Read it, or it's criticisms.
As I said, I don't buy pre-universal causality. And the clash between causality and the notion that the universe came from nothing, is hardly the only paradox in our current understanding of physics. That's why people are working on it.
Thanks for the compliment! I see that you add "for someone who's not a native speaker" - would you like to make any correction to my English?
You don't understand basic science. Time is a function of space. Time measures how long it takes to travel from point A to point B. There was no time at the Singularity because there was only a single point.
All time, space & matter began with the Big Bang. You think the universe existed before the BB? To exist before the BB, your universe would have to be nowhere (there was no space) made of nothing (there was no matter) never (there was no time).
I did not say the universe is going to exist forever. The background radiation from the Big Bang, and the fact that the universe is 2.7 degrees Kelvin, and has not cooled to absolute zero indicates that it is NOT infinite; it began apprximately 14 billion years ago.
There is absolutely NO evidence that the universe continually expands and contracts. With these facts, the explanation for the universe's existence can only be that it was created, or that it created itself.
Hawking, a good scientist, is a complete idiot for saying the universe popped into existence without cause. He has NO evidence to support the idea. He could not figure it out, so he gave up and said something stupid
Because the universe isn't eternal and because atheists don't believe it was created, by logical default, atheists are saying the universe created itself. And yes, a "creator" doesn't imply a specific religion
But it is more sensible to believe there is a creator
@Pomme843 "i can almost hear the bishops cry out to the scientists 'please stop doing research because you are chipping away the blocks of ignorance and we need those blocks so God can exsist!'"
@abeeftec I consider you moronic due to your tendency to spout non-sequiturs, your fondness for nonsensical statements, your complete and repeated failure at any sort of logic, your seeming inability to construct a paragraph without indiscriminate capitalisation, and the fact you seem to have a problem with basic literacy, given that half the debate you have directed towards me has been completely unrelated to and unsubstantiated by anything I have said.
@xincrii The feeling is mutual. Insulting people online because you think you are superior only enforces my views. It proves that your denial is nothing more then a self righteous HOPE that God does not exist so you can continue to be whoever it is you mistakingly think you are and to continue to do the things you want to do calling Morality half what you want it to be and half of what the majority thinks it is. Sorry that is moronic. I said nothing moronic. So your thoughts are self exalting.
I hear hitchens contradictiing himself many times. he is willing to conceed that "Of course children have a sense of morality or else how would we have survived this long."Yet please explain to me in his viewpoint how on earth we go from a one celled organism with no thought that only has the ability to this day to reproduce itself only to a moral compass which has kept us this long as well as the ability to change it way of reproduction without dying off before the change takes place?
I personally think that Hitchens is not very smart because the things he claims are all others theories which he cannot prove or disprove. Saying the world is millions of years old based on what? WHO reading any of this can PROVE this?? You are not scientists so you cannot say with certainty that those who did tests were right so dont even try to debate. No one can say that EITHER is fact!! and Hitchens MUST admit that. He said himself no one expects a WIN
This person lost all credibility when he said "lets treat atheism and theism as competing hypotheses". That's like saying "lets treat stamp collecting and not collecting stamps as competing hobbies".
In the case of saying lets treat them as Hypothesis is NOT like saying lets treat DOING something and NOT doing something as hypothesis because not DOING something is NOT a viewpoint whereas Atheism and Theism are BOTH Viewpoints.
@abeeftec Just as you would consider the question of whether or not you have a voyeuristic invisible pink unicorn following you around and stealing your underwear as competing viewpoints?
@xincrii Another person not worth acknowledging. Until you can SAY what it is you have issue with using things that are NO WHERE in the Bible just make you look that much more foolish, And as you Scientific Atheists LOVE to say to people of faith, You only prove just how much you do not know about the Bible! Just because people say things dont make them so!! READ IT FOR YOURSELF before you judge!! The problem with most of you is you spend more time listening to people fight instead of LOOKING!!
@abeeftec I'm glad you feel so strongly that I am not worth your acknowledgement that you went to the trouble of saying so. I think I'll let your comment speak for itself.
@xincrii again, that was a really smart thing to say. I think Ill let your comment speak for itself is a really wise thing to say which meant nothing. But it surely was a nice attempt at making me look bad. LoL! again, You should stay out of this arguement, debate, whatever you want to call it. All I really see in most comments are people thinking this was about WINNING a debate. A debate is not an arguement. It is a chance for two sides to give their views. No one debates FACTS.
People debate opinions. So thinking someone WON shows total ignorance. It would be totally Ignorant for HITCHENS To get up there and debate FACTS. It would be like argueing whether or not it is electricity that makes your Computer work!!! Everyone knows it certainly, to borrow one of your analogies, isnt PINK UNICORNS that makes your Computer work!!! So please, before you start talking about hitchens WINNING FACT learn the difference between facts and opinion.
@abeeftec I respect your comments, but I feel I must say something about atheists not knowing the bible. A poll of 3,400 random people was conducted regarding religion.... and those who knew the most were atheists. You can't say atheists are ignorant of the bible. Atheism stems from that bible knowledge, it is not a LACK of knowledge. I was given a bible while young... That's how I turned atheist. Please understand I intend no rudeness. If I misunderstood your comments I apologize.
@ffgew22 And I do not disagree with you that atheists know probably more scriptures then most Christians. What I do not agree with is that ALL Christians must be like the ones most atheists have met. What if through a Conversation with a REAL Christian you found out some things that you never knew? What if you start to see through a light that you never saw through? I can tell you that it takes years of reading the Word to just start to scratch the surface of understanding......
The very fact that every time I hear Hitchens speak on a scripture it is horribly misquoted and its meaning mistaken. For instance. When Jesus said," I came not to bring peace but a sword," He was not talking about war. Though I can see how one could draw that conclusion. If you know the history of what the Jewish people were waiting for and you know the ministry of Jesus you start to see what the scripture really means. ......
The Jews thought that Messiah was coming to crush their enemies(the surrounding nations against them) and Set up Peace for Jews because in their ignorance they always assumed that since God chose them he chose them above men and not AMONG men. Secondly, the Bible speaks in many places about the Sword and what it can do to the Thoughts and Intents of Mens hearts. SO what Jesus was saying to the Jews was. I did not come to do what you think I did..... Set up Peace for JUST Isreal which.....
was the Ignorance of the Jews...... But I came to Bring a Sword to your Intents Thoughts, YOUR HEARTS. Because a Sword seperates Flesh. That was its purpose .. He was saying," I came to seperate those who are Choosen of God from those who are worldy, selfish, whos motivations are continually towards self, Just like the Jews were. So in simple terms.. I did not come to set up world Peace as you thought. But I came to Divide!!
And Obviously he means those who are His from those who are not.
Let me say this, I do Understand how one could draw the conclusion that Hitchens has. However, That comes from a Bias while reading the Bible and purposly looking for something you can use as Ammo. He did NOT look deeply into that scripture before using it to discredit. And the reason it did not register with anyone in the audience when he said," I rest my case." Is because they do not, nor could they know, that he is wrong about the scripture.....
And the reason they could not know is as you know still, When reading a book you hold no ill toward a book because it is just a book. But on this Subject, it has much to do with our future when you read it. Those who read it to continue to be as they are, Will find reason to be so. And those who really want to know what it means will not rush to think they understand it because hopefully they are taught that doing so will yield a viewpoint that is of thier own instead of the Intention of GOD.
I know that last statement could draw another argument entirely but let me just say this about that... You cannot say that NO ONE has Heard from God. You CAN say that the people who say they have that you have spoken with or listened to, If they have heard from God then God must be crazy! I understand many Christians make themselves to look like fools. Even the ones that seem to be defenders of the faith. But let me just say that does not make them Believers in the truth just because they say so
I will not judge whether they are or are not but I can tell you that like most people, the too are succeptible to taking the lazy way out and when the hard question arises in their minds they ask their pastor and then that answer becomes canned and repeated without doing what the Bible tells them to do which is study to show thyself approved unto God. Most People dont actually give due dilligence to something they supposedly ARE because asking someone else is easier. It is just not wise.
No, you're wrong! He said, "there is some one die here, let's has two hypotheses, he was killed or not". It is something like that, you just plainly miss his point! It's a fair opening!
@xincrii I guess that explains all the non-stamp collector conventions and all the non-stamp collectors tv shows and all the non-stamp collectors suing the stamp collectors for violating their rights and all the non-stamp collector books and all the non-stamp collector speakers and all the non-stamp collector websites and all the non-stamp collector theories taught in school and all the non-stamp collector debates and all the ...etc
intelligent design has been SCIENTIFICALLY and LEGALLY discredited. not a single argument for creationism or intelligent design has ever been conclusive.
so wait, where is the problem? alchemy has been killed by chemistry, and rightly so. creationism has been killed by biology, the STUDY OF LIFE, rightly so.
cant believe theists want or deserve a platform for a reasonable, scientific and logical discussion. just so rediculous listening to them trying to sound smart on behalf of religion. why cant they just say "my faith is just that, faith. no proof, just feelings and indoctrination" the more they try to sound legit, the more silly they sound
This is probably the smartest guy I have ever seen debate Christopher HItchens. That is not saying a whole lot I must admit but at least this guy is trying his best to be rational about his argument.
Hitchens is, as always, succinct in his delivery, and has nothing to hide. Richards is playing a shell game right off the bat, trying to set up a premise, while moving it around under several rhetorical coverings until the listener is completely disengaged. He lost me at the 4 minute mark of his response. Absolutely laborious and uninteresting.
Jay Richards starts out by shifting the burden and setting up a false dichotomy. He starts out by saying that theism and atheism are competing explanations? Atheism is not an explanation of anything, and it was never designed as such. An atheist is simply someone who has considered the claims of theists and rejected them for lack of evidence.
@kshackleton - I completely caught onto this as well. Jay Richards has, in the course of 4 minutes, made it undesirable, if not impossible, for me to listen to this debate. I already had my mind made up anyway.
Jay's 1st Point: Despite my dislike of appeals to common sense and subjective 'gut feelings' (i.e. where something is more 'at home'), morality is at home in both an atheistic and theistic universe. Natural selection dictated that those species that could work together to accomplish goals (or, at the very least, co-exist peacefully) would die less than those who showed no solidarity or sympathy (i.e. morality) towards one another.
Jay Richards is clearly ignorant of the animal studies showing that many animals that move in groups have rules within their group to stabilise the group. These rules are based on empathy and reciprocity which are the source of what we call morals and ethics.
@EndeavourAlways He is not ignorant of them. His answer is that animals received their empathy as a gift from the big daddy sky god too. The fall back position of the blind faith brigade must always be: God did it!
They just feel that it must be inherently true. No proof necessary because it‘s a matter of faith and it’s immoral to question God. Hence the futility of arguing with these fucking retards.
@FLUSEM666 I'm sure most of them aren't retarded, they just decided to relinquish their faculties in favor of the comfort of complacency; something, in my experience, many people do.
@ExEverest10 Semantics. It seems we disagree over the meaning of the word retarded. This Richards chap is a young earth creationist. In the 21st C. anyone from the western world holding that view, is without doubt intellectually inferior to the extent of being psychotic.
The overwhelming body of scientific data available makes creationism laughably retarded. Don’t make excuses for these fools.
@FLUSEM666 Oh, that I certainly will do. If an excuse or justification follows logic and evidence, as far as I know, it should be made; it's convenient and comfortable to paint those you disagree with in the broadest strokes and view them in the worst possible light. Such an inclination, however, and in my experience, always results in a partial psychosis and a further loss of objectivity.
@FLUSEM666 And if they are indeed fools, it would be better to extend one's hand than to split the proverbial room through weighted rhetoric into those who agree whole-heartedly, and those who disagree completely; or is it just me?
@ExEverest10 I see your point but we will just have to agree to disagree. In the 21st C. creationists are not barnacles slowing our progress to the future. They are fully blown parasites draining resources and threatening our long term existence. Over population is approaching as are the associated difficult decisions. Climate change will simply speed thing along a little. Give that some thought.
Anybody who believes that some apparent "fur" that appears and then disappears in the womb does so because of some artifact of earlier adaptation, believes something that's at least as silly, if not sillier, than the faux "minimum" theistic belief that Hitchens posited in the last video. It assumes, among other things, that we will never have an explanation for features we cannot explain today. History shows that to be a wretched assumption. And that's just the most obviously wrong assumption.
Jay thinks that atheism has a philosophy about the origins of the universe? He doesn't know what atheism is......atheism doesn't attempt to explain anything, because its not a belief....its the non-belief in an invisible sky daddy.
@UdallIn72 ...I am not trying to convert, so I have little care for what may be offensive to the people who are slaves to "invisible sky daddy". I also have to disagree with you when you say that 'all religious people aren't irrational'....the nature of what they believe in (without any evidence), by definition makes them irrational...
If you'd prefer, I can say "invisible sky dictator" instead.
I dis-agree. They don't deserve any type of intelligent respect. Being that the belief is as silly as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow all it deserves is ridicule and mockery of the stupidity that it upholds. People who don't like having their beliefs laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.
Then tell me Why the Jewish leaders who did not believe that Jesus was the Christ NEVER,even in Jewish history, refuted that Miracles happened but just claimed they were done in the power of evil?
What is the point of your question? Ask yourself why I would care or believe what a bunch of Jewish supposed leaders claim? Their beliefs are as false and unsubstantiated as christian/catholic beliefs.
I would not expect you to care. But being here at all would suggest that you wish to think logically. Not even Rome suggested that Jesus did not perform miracles. And they had every reason to prove him wrong. But they do not either. Tell me why there is not one shread of evidence of someone in denial that jesus did what he claimed? And if you say that those in Romes beliefs were as unsubstantiated as the jews then you must be also saying so is everyones.
Rome eventually excepted that faith as majority. If you mean some guy named Rome I don't know what you mean then because there were many different faiths in Rome even till the end and some of them did not accept Christ as a real figure. I have no care to except anyone's claims of anything with out evidence. There is no evidence that EVER in the history of humanity anyone suspended the laws of physics. Jews words are as trust worthy as any other religions, which is none at all.
Really there is no evidence that someone did not suspend those laws.It is speculation and is all it can be that no one has ever suspended the laws of Physics because if you were not there needed EVIDENCE then you cannot know for certain.The fact is that 12 men, All of whom,with the exception of jogn,are not refuted to have existed by anyone All died deaths carried out by the state because they would not deny Christ who they SAW put to death. His resurection is PROVEN in that
alone because If I told you that I was God himself and did no miracles and lied about everything and you followed me for years you would NOT be martyred for my claims if you knew I was lying if all you had to do was tell the state what you knew to be true anyway IF I did no miracles or did not show myself to you after my death that you witnessed yourself without own eyes. Their testimony and deaths prove the resurection. And no one denies the way they died no more then Washington is 1st POTUS
And let me add that I do not think that Jay Richards argues for true Christianity. Not knowing what he believes let me say that just because there are Christains who claim things they know nothing about or are wrong in things they say DOES NOT give Hitchens an arguement against creation based on peoples shortcomings or mistakes or phoney faiths. He lumps them altogether and that is not a solid argument against true religion undefiled. Yet he uses a lump sum from all faiths to discredit them.
I'm sorry, logic isn't in the business of proving the negatives. I am not concerned with trying to disprove flying fart teapots in another galaxy just because I don't know if they are there. I can't disprove that they are not there so I toss it in the "it doesn't exist" bin with everything else we can't prove or disprove...including your Jebus walked on water and rose 3 days later, Allah, Buddha, and so on. They say some crazy things about kungfu masters also, hearsay is not evidence.
heresay is not evidence but even our court systems go back to other cases to decide new ones and I am fairly certain Abraham lincoln was really president. How about you? I am also fairly sure that we landed a man on the moon though some would doubt that. Does it make it not true because you didnt actually see the man on the moon? The fact is true that these men Died for not denying what they knew to be true. The evidence that surrounds those 11 deaths demands a verdict of true
Perhaps your "it doesnt Exist" Bin should be updated to an " I dont really know" Bin. I can say that most so called christians give the faith they claim a bad name with sayings such as FREE WILL and how old the world is.. Let me give you just one thing to think about.Could it be that the dirt we call earth, since it floated in the universe before being formed could account for the millions of years? not saying that is true, Just saying it more then likely is something most have not considered.
The bottom line is this.Sure I could argue against God and make the whole thing sound ridiculous if I wanted to. And with that said, that is all Hitchens does. He lumps every faith under one cover called GOD and fights bad points from all of them. And some bad points from good or bad intentioned God seekers. You cannot argue against Theists and make a rational argument using bad theology as something to be ridiculed no more then you can argue against Athiests using bad science!! Both are foolish
You mean downgrade? because the "I don't know" bin sounds logically pretty stupid when you start introducing ridiculous claims like pink unicorns and fairy tales. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary lives. If I am to believe and allow for some belief to enter our schools, governments, and lives it better have some damn good evidence for itself.
We know Abraham Lincoln was a president, we don't believe Abraham Lincoln was a president but rather we know he was. Sorry, I did see the men walk on the moon. There is footage from Nasa as well as nearly 8 years of records of preparation for the mission. There is a golf ball still there as well as a left over moon rover vehicle. We have photographs of earth taken from the surface of the moon. These are not something someone just claimed to be true with out evidence.
No you see these things on TV. And we do know that those things on TV can be faked. You are believing something YOU YOURSELF did not PERSONALLY SEE. And I am saying that I have more Logical evidence to believe in the resurection of Jesus then you do to believe that a man walked on the moon or that AL was POTUS!! Because you were not there either yet men write about it. I was not there when Jesus was resurrected but yet 11 men(who are as much history as AL)died deaths not denying
What makes you believe them more is because MORE people believe those things and they are taught since you were young. PLus it is not thousands of years ago. Not to mention the fact that we do have a current president who is number 44th POTUS which means we have been counting presidents and AL was the 16th. So Rationally you conclude that he was real. I rationally conclude with strong certainty that 11 men would just say he was not who he claimed to spare their own lives rather then purport lies
Obviously I did not mean you see ABE on TV. But the moon landing. You Learned of ABE in School and with a level of certainty you beleive he exsisted. And I with that same logic can conclude that so did JESUS and he did do what the bible claims because even if we didnt have the bible History records the deaths of his followers. And HOW they died. Rationally there is no way 11 men would ALL die early deaths at the hands of the state when all they had to do was DENY CHRIST.
You are wrong. There are objects left on the moon by us. One being a rover that still bounces back information when we send towards it. Not to mention as time goes on and we learn more about the world the bible becomes more falsified. You have to really be an idiot these days to think that the world is only a few thousand years old. Tree rings alone prove that false, yet the bible seems to wish otherwise. Sorry, it is just a fairy tale written by men...not even a good one.
Im not wrong because you miss the point that YOU personally do not know. its as much hearsay as anything because YOU have not been to the moon to know there is a golf ball on it!! The double standard you use amazes me. Dont put arguements into my mouth that I have not made. And you judge faith based off most SO CALLED Christains who are lazy. I am a Believer in Christ but Never do I make claims I know nothing about which I cannot say that for most who call themselves Christains
You also fail to see that I am not saying we did not land on the moon. I never said that. I said YOU have no more proof of that then I have that Jesus was resurrected from the dead yet you beleive it beause its easier to believe. It takes little faith to believe a man landed on the moon. Yet you didnt see it and it is in fact Hearsay to you. And your thoughts of the bible being a fairytale stem from again ignorance. I would bet you have never read it in its entirety.
You like most americans(i say americans because I havent been anywhere else) listen to what others say and form opinions based on whether or not someone sounds profound. And you know thats true, tell me where the Bible says anything about a Pink unicorn? Or is that just more tactics to make the text sound ridiculous? Of course it is. Use real words when you respond. Not fake ones. If you want to say the ark isnt true then say it. Dont use nonsense to make something seem ridiculous.
the fact of the matter is You were not there either so you cannot know if anything in the Bible did or did not happen. Again, because of what you know(strike that HEAR) regarding Physics you assume that those laws cannot be broken despite recent evidence to the opposite. And further if God is the maker of those laws to support human life in his creation(you know not what it takes to sustain life on that scale) he can in fact break them without your permission and doesnt need to prove it to you
11 men did not go to their deaths to prove the moon landing. However, 11 men were killed by the state and all the had to do was say," Jesus did not rise from the dead" and " He was a fraud". I dont know about you but to me, without GOD death is quite final. And as such I would think No man would go to his death when all he had to do was deny a man that was SUPPOSEDLY DEAD to everyone NOT of faith. But to those 11 men, They knew he was alive though he was dead.....
Meaning, He had risen and they were willing to die for that. I would NOT had died for that unless I had witnessed him alive after seeing him die a death no man has lived through! That is more evidence to me then the moon landing. It is more evidence to me then any skeptic could bring about. Unless someone can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no such people on this earth or that they did not die the way History says, I am going to have to side with Jesus on this!
I used to upload a few hundred clips on YouTube before I...ummm...had a few issues that required me to close my account. One thing you have to pay attention to is the video/audio. The audio is out of sync with the video...with that said, I great appreciate you uploading this. Most people don't know how long it takes just to upload 1 10-minute segment, let alone 10 10-minute segments.
Jay Richards looks exactly like the 80s cartoon version of Egon Spengler. That guy is about to fire a proton pack at something. Seriously, this debate is about to be interrupted by Slimer.
Science works, therefore there is a god? That's his argument?
The same science that has destroyed countless claims made by the believers in the various gods?
Yeah, we can't defend anything ever claimed by those who have spoken to our supposed gods, so let's just say science is proving us wrong, therefore we're right.
God does not let babies starve or wars happen...........Human beings do. There is enough wealth in the world to feed every human and science is advanced enough to the point that nobody should die of malaria.
Morality sits MUCH better in an atheistic world view than a theistic one. Many religious texts command immoral acts and hardly tell the followers to stop immoralities. Where does it say in the Quran or Bible that slavery is wrong? Evolution explains innate morality better than religion does. "God wrote it in their hearts," doesn't explain anything. And his next point attempts to argue why a theistic world view was useful to Galileo and Copernicus. It isn't relevant to whether theism is true.
TheUsername1029 2 weeks ago
Asking william lane craig for advice on debating a logically minded polemicist is the fastest known way to introduce complete and utter bullshit into your arguments.
325982668 1 month ago
It's not really atheism-theism, is it. It's more Atheism- American Christianity. If it wasn;t, it would be clear to Jay that morality is far to different in different society's.
By the way: not an atheist, just a transformer
askandir 1 month ago
The idea that having morality is indicative of a divine degree is absurd. I would consider it a plausible explanation if I knew right from wrong, but was baffled by how I know it. There's a very easy logical path for explaining why torturing children is wrong. There's also a compelling evolutionary argument for explaining how we acquired an intuitive sense of right and wrong. The last nail in the coffin is the fact that most religious texts contain decrees we know accept as immoral.
Setzer 3 months ago
@Setzer well put
Floortjahh 1 month ago
IF you lack something, you don't have it intrinsically.Read carefully and think!
mlcollins10 3 months ago
For those who are enlightened morals are intrinsic - isn't this clear/
mlcollins10 3 months ago
Why in the FUCK would this guy bring up Carl Sagan's Cosmos?! In the middle of episode 2 of Cosmos, Sagan pretty much lays WASTE to even the CONCEPT of an "intelligent designer/creator," a.k.a. God! And it's not even an argument that he ADDRESSES! (The whole "who created God," argument.) WTF?! lol!
macgeek2004 3 months ago
Oh my God ;0) the moral theistic argument is tripe. Just because there is an overwhelming subscription to the recognition of a natural sense of morality there must be an external arbiter of this morality. WHY because it feels that way? Isn't it obvious what the directly opposing postulation is? Why can't this simply be explained by evolution. From my own personal perspective this is the perfect, logical explanation.
ChrisBrett2K 4 months ago
Whenever Jay speaks I go to sleep.. zzzZZZZZzzzz
FlawlessCock 4 months ago
For of those who lack intrinsic moral values, religion is essential. For the enlightened, honest seekers of the truth morals are intrinsic, obvious.
mlcollins10 4 months ago 3
@mlcollins10 how do you lack something that is intrinsic?
paegun 3 months ago
The difference between atheism and theism is that you can learn from an atheist and be used and controlled by a theist. It's quite obvious even from the most simplistic form of observation between the two ideas. I am entertained by this debate, but there really is no need for such a debate when one side provides facts and information while the other side provides "guidance" or a better way of living. I would much rather want to see a debate for what you happen when the authority is taken away.
RageSchism 4 months ago 2
I've been listening to the blond guy, and I don't think he can go 30 seconds without taking cover behind a logical falicy...
Waltham1892 5 months ago
Blondie lost me on his first point - "our knowlege and certainty of certain moral truths" - this is in no way evidence for intelligent design. Any sociologist will explain the evolutionary basis of morality. We are social animals and 'morality' exists as a process to allow the collective to survive.
mrbond59 5 months ago
Jay Richards claims that objective morality exists because God put it there, that we all know "torturing children is wrong". I guess he's never heard of female genital mutilation. Different cultures have wildly different moral codes. What is considered torture in one culture may be a common practice in another. If moral objectivity exists, it seems to me that either everyone would find female genital mutilation reprehensible, or it would be a common practice (like male circumcision).
MeebleMeeble 5 months ago 2
@MeebleMeeble Indeed. Female genital mutilation, male circumsion, Ashura and on and on. No such thing as a common moral code across the world that can be pointed at and said to have come from some god being. Even "torturing children is wrong" is subjective.
MrWonkoSane 5 months ago
Comment removed
MeebleMeeble 5 months ago
Wow, I love Hitch. But he sort of brings me down here.
grade21 5 months ago
@grade21 What do you mean?
writersblock26 5 months ago
@writersblock26, the entire thing, I suppose. Hitchens' ability to cut to the absolute truth brings the realization that we are a speck of lint dust in an infinite universe. It makes our trivialities seem even more trivial. Also, his health situation makes me feel a great deal of loss for him, his family and for the entire human race.
grade21 5 months ago
1. Moral truths don't exist.
fdasherv 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
These questions cannot be answered.
No Human Being can know or prove there is a God.
No Human Being can know or prove that there isn't a God.
Therefore Religions - Philosophies - and Pontifications regarding this subject are all - in a sense - useless exercises.
SALESPRODUCTIONS 6 months ago
proof of evolution: hitchen's brain. it is far more evolved than my own.
imuawarriors 6 months ago 3
This guy just apes Craig's method of spouting out made-up bullshit like it's fact as quickly as possible and hope some of it sticks.
hammertime419 6 months ago
richards' hair is glorious :L
PR0B1TCH3S 7 months ago
I'm not an theist or atheist, i just don't see reason or evidence to believe in a big abusive daddy in the sky who hates women and gay people. In fact, i see plenty of evidence and reasons to believe otherwise. And i don't see why i have to defend something so simple and obvious.
God is nonexistent until proven to exist. And if it is ever proven, i would consider it my moral duty to oppose such a cruel cosmic dictator, because in essence, that is what such a god would be.
emptyhighways 7 months ago
@emptyhighways You sound like an atheist, perhaps an agnostic atheist, but an atheist doesn't have to say "there is no god", but just has to believe that the arguments for a god haven't met their burden of proof.
jappud 6 months ago
@jappud - Amen good sir ;-) Exactly. You worded in much better than i could ever have. And more than the pure philosophy of it all, i am much more concerned with the kind of values and societies religion promotes. Homophobia, misogyny, erotophoboia, xenophobia, anti-intllectualism, repression and oppression of all kinds for example. It's much more than just the abstract metaphysics that bother me about religion. More the concrete outcomes.
emptyhighways 6 months ago
That stupid moderator couldn't stand that Hitchens had a good ovation for just some seconds more than normal. What a loser.
LuisManuelLealDias 7 months ago
xian 1)adhomonim attack 2)define argument on own terms 3)assert equal standing 4)appeal to faith as above 5)fail, goto 1)
breaneainn 7 months ago
I love watching Christopher Hitchens destroy these guys :) It gives me hope.
Euchrid1973 7 months ago 3
Anyone else think Jay Richards looks like a muppet?
cchris000043 7 months ago
"We are here to examine the scientific evidence for design" -- Richards
Congrats, Richards, you have just convicted yourself of being a total Moron.
Ekenedil 7 months ago 2
who IS this blond haired moron, I never heard of the guy but he is certainly a deluded fucking idiot...'antoganist' my ass, this Richards asshole is just ANOTHER fucking relgio-retard
oneirishpoet 7 months ago 2
@oneirishpoet What a wonderfully graceful way to present your argument... By using ignorant, ad hominem attacks.
pantherfanatic7 6 months ago
Why do creationists, or humans for that matter, always have to have a purpose for existence? Do you think animals try to figure out their purpose? Or do they just eat, defecate, and procreate.
cygnusfloyd 8 months ago
ok wdf atheism doesn't explain shit, wdf is this guy on about??
awia12 8 months ago
@awia12 Good intelligent well thought out contribution to the debate :D
Plagueis1017 8 months ago 5
@awia12 Unless you type in a way that doesn't make you seem but 12 years old, no one will answer your questions.
rpsmith014 8 months ago
So essentially Jay Richard's argument is because there are some things we can't fully explain with the knowledge and science we have so there must be a God? I'm sorry how is that even a valid argument?
Plagueis1017 8 months ago
@Plagueis1017 It's the ONLY argument for theism.
BlckSbthMan 8 months ago
@Plagueis1017 It's not valid at all - in fact, there's an own category of fallacy reserved for such arguments: an argument from ignorance, it's called. We don't know how things got around, so Christianity must be an accurate description of how we came to be.
Pomme843 8 months ago
@Pomme843 Right, on top of that the argument operates on the basis that we as a society have nothing left to learn about the universe which is a totally absurd notion.
Plagueis1017 8 months ago
@Plagueis1017 That's how religion survives. It feeds on the questions to which we don't have an answer, and on the answers we would like to hear. And then, we have to give it money, so it can proliferate and contaminate others, lest we must go to the purgatory.
Pomme843 8 months ago 19
@Pomme843
No. Religion "survives" because when atheists deny the existence of a creator, by logical necessity, they are saying the universe created itself.
That's stupid.
Prologicful 5 months ago
@Prologicful First of all, atheism does not necessarily mean to deny the existance of a creator, it can also mean to lack belief in one.
Second, to deny the existance of a creator does not mean that one thinks that the universe created itself - one may believe that the universe is eternal, or that it sprung into existance, without causal grounds. This last position is actually supported by many prominent scientists, like Hawking.
Third, a creator doesn't imply any particular religion.
Pomme843 5 months ago
@Pomme843
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that heat flows from warm areas to cool ones- the universe is cooling. So the universe CANNOT be eternal. It is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. If it was eternal it would've had eternity to reach absolute zero, but it has not.
Show me an example of ANYTHING within our universe that "springs into existence without cause". There is no such thing. Even at the quantum level, particles SEEM to pop into and out of existence. But they don't remain. (Continued)
Prologicful 5 months ago
@Prologicful 1.1 When I say that the universe may be eternal, I mean that it may have always existed. I don't see how whether the universe is going to exist forever, is relevant. But the fact that heat spreads in space, does not mean that the universe is going to cease existing. It simply means that it is going to spread beyond a point at which it can't support life. Spreading out, and ceasing to exist, are different things. Time is not going to just stop at some point. The universe is eternal.
Pomme843 5 months ago
@Pomme843 1.2 I can't show you anything coming into existence from nothing, because I can't take you to before the universe did come into existence. To say that causality must have always been the same as we percieve it in our little corner of the universe, even before the existence of our universe, is, I believe a non sequitur. It is believed that before the universe, neither timespace, nor energy or matter, existed. How can we know that causality existed? I don't buy pre-universal causality.
Pomme843 5 months ago
@Pomme843 1.3 Hawking is a theoretical physicist. Of course he doesn't have any evidence for his hypothesis. And, I don't think he claims that the universe popped out of nothing, but rather, suggests it. A big difference. And may I add that I'll rather trust in Hawking than in some washed-up youtube theist/deist. It's not like science is about either "figuring something out", or "giving up and saying something stupid". That's an extremely misleading dichotomy - science deals in theories.
Pomme843 5 months ago
@Pomme843
I AM a scientist. I know what "science is about." But science does not merely "deal in theories." True science deals in testable hypotheses.
Hawking's bizarre statement that the universe created itself from nothing isn't a testable hypothesis. There's no evidence of ANYTHING creating itself from nothing in our universe.
Theists also think the universe was created from nothing, but by a creator. It's no surprise that a man with Hawking's disease does not believe in a creator.
Prologicful 5 months ago
@Prologicful I don't see how Hawking's disease is relevant.
Saying that atheists believe that the universe "created itself" is misleading. I think, like Hawking, that the universe came into existence, without causal ground, and without intention. He poses an interesting theory about this coming-into-existence, explained by a quantum probability curve that he calls Phi. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know its full contents or implications, but blaming god is yet the primitive version: a cop-out.
Pomme843 5 months ago
@Pomme843
The religious believe God exists without cause and are endlessly ridiculed for it by atheists. Yet Hawking says the universe came into existence without causal ground and atheists applaud him??
We know little about the quantum realm, yet even there, no one has ever observed a particle creating itself, and then continuing to exist.
I could understand a man with his disease hating the idea of a caring God.
Your English is excellent for someone who is not a native speaker
Prologicful 5 months ago
@Prologicful I don't know why people applaud Hawking's argument. It's in "The Grand Design". Read it, or it's criticisms.
As I said, I don't buy pre-universal causality. And the clash between causality and the notion that the universe came from nothing, is hardly the only paradox in our current understanding of physics. That's why people are working on it.
Thanks for the compliment! I see that you add "for someone who's not a native speaker" - would you like to make any correction to my English?
Pomme843 5 months ago
@Pomme843
You don't understand basic science. Time is a function of space. Time measures how long it takes to travel from point A to point B. There was no time at the Singularity because there was only a single point.
All time, space & matter began with the Big Bang. You think the universe existed before the BB? To exist before the BB, your universe would have to be nowhere (there was no space) made of nothing (there was no matter) never (there was no time).
Good luck with proving that.
Prologicful 5 months ago
@Pomme843
I did not say the universe is going to exist forever. The background radiation from the Big Bang, and the fact that the universe is 2.7 degrees Kelvin, and has not cooled to absolute zero indicates that it is NOT infinite; it began apprximately 14 billion years ago.
There is absolutely NO evidence that the universe continually expands and contracts. With these facts, the explanation for the universe's existence can only be that it was created, or that it created itself.
Prologicful 5 months ago
@Pomme843
Hawking, a good scientist, is a complete idiot for saying the universe popped into existence without cause. He has NO evidence to support the idea. He could not figure it out, so he gave up and said something stupid
Because the universe isn't eternal and because atheists don't believe it was created, by logical default, atheists are saying the universe created itself. And yes, a "creator" doesn't imply a specific religion
But it is more sensible to believe there is a creator
Prologicful 5 months ago
@Pomme843 "i can almost hear the bishops cry out to the scientists 'please stop doing research because you are chipping away the blocks of ignorance and we need those blocks so God can exsist!'"
-Richard Dawkins
Mystro1989 5 months ago
well said!!....
chad70ra1 4 months ago
@abeeftec I consider you moronic due to your tendency to spout non-sequiturs, your fondness for nonsensical statements, your complete and repeated failure at any sort of logic, your seeming inability to construct a paragraph without indiscriminate capitalisation, and the fact you seem to have a problem with basic literacy, given that half the debate you have directed towards me has been completely unrelated to and unsubstantiated by anything I have said.
xincrii 8 months ago
this Jay Richards guy is just talking and talking without really saying anything
graymer11 8 months ago
"By the extended clapping your eating up into the next speakers time....."
Asshole?
loordargyle 8 months ago
@abeeftec I do apologise if I was being too subtle. Since you seem to think that something I said 'meant nothing' I will clarify for you.
When I said "I'll let your comment speak for itself" what that meant was: "I think you are a moron".
I do hope this clears up any confusion.
xincrii 8 months ago
@xincrii The feeling is mutual. Insulting people online because you think you are superior only enforces my views. It proves that your denial is nothing more then a self righteous HOPE that God does not exist so you can continue to be whoever it is you mistakingly think you are and to continue to do the things you want to do calling Morality half what you want it to be and half of what the majority thinks it is. Sorry that is moronic. I said nothing moronic. So your thoughts are self exalting.
abeeftec 8 months ago
Ravi Zacharias would make hitchens look foolish. Ravi is who Hitchens needs to debate and lose thoroughly too.
abeeftec 8 months ago
I hear hitchens contradictiing himself many times. he is willing to conceed that "Of course children have a sense of morality or else how would we have survived this long."Yet please explain to me in his viewpoint how on earth we go from a one celled organism with no thought that only has the ability to this day to reproduce itself only to a moral compass which has kept us this long as well as the ability to change it way of reproduction without dying off before the change takes place?
abeeftec 8 months ago
whydo they CHOP up what Richards says and not Chop up hitchens speaking at all in the videos?? WORHTLESS
abeeftec 8 months ago
I personally think that Hitchens is not very smart because the things he claims are all others theories which he cannot prove or disprove. Saying the world is millions of years old based on what? WHO reading any of this can PROVE this?? You are not scientists so you cannot say with certainty that those who did tests were right so dont even try to debate. No one can say that EITHER is fact!! and Hitchens MUST admit that. He said himself no one expects a WIN
abeeftec 8 months ago
Thumbs up if after 4:30 you lost interest. Case closed.
ambygirl1008 8 months ago
Comment removed
xincrii 8 months ago
This person lost all credibility when he said "lets treat atheism and theism as competing hypotheses". That's like saying "lets treat stamp collecting and not collecting stamps as competing hobbies".
xincrii 8 months ago 17
@xincrii It is not.
In the case of saying lets treat them as Hypothesis is NOT like saying lets treat DOING something and NOT doing something as hypothesis because not DOING something is NOT a viewpoint whereas Atheism and Theism are BOTH Viewpoints.
abeeftec 8 months ago
@abeeftec Just as you would consider the question of whether or not you have a voyeuristic invisible pink unicorn following you around and stealing your underwear as competing viewpoints?
xincrii 8 months ago
@xincrii Another person not worth acknowledging. Until you can SAY what it is you have issue with using things that are NO WHERE in the Bible just make you look that much more foolish, And as you Scientific Atheists LOVE to say to people of faith, You only prove just how much you do not know about the Bible! Just because people say things dont make them so!! READ IT FOR YOURSELF before you judge!! The problem with most of you is you spend more time listening to people fight instead of LOOKING!!
abeeftec 8 months ago
@abeeftec I'm glad you feel so strongly that I am not worth your acknowledgement that you went to the trouble of saying so. I think I'll let your comment speak for itself.
xincrii 8 months ago
@xincrii again, that was a really smart thing to say. I think Ill let your comment speak for itself is a really wise thing to say which meant nothing. But it surely was a nice attempt at making me look bad. LoL! again, You should stay out of this arguement, debate, whatever you want to call it. All I really see in most comments are people thinking this was about WINNING a debate. A debate is not an arguement. It is a chance for two sides to give their views. No one debates FACTS.
abeeftec 8 months ago
People debate opinions. So thinking someone WON shows total ignorance. It would be totally Ignorant for HITCHENS To get up there and debate FACTS. It would be like argueing whether or not it is electricity that makes your Computer work!!! Everyone knows it certainly, to borrow one of your analogies, isnt PINK UNICORNS that makes your Computer work!!! So please, before you start talking about hitchens WINNING FACT learn the difference between facts and opinion.
abeeftec 8 months ago
@abeeftec I respect your comments, but I feel I must say something about atheists not knowing the bible. A poll of 3,400 random people was conducted regarding religion.... and those who knew the most were atheists. You can't say atheists are ignorant of the bible. Atheism stems from that bible knowledge, it is not a LACK of knowledge. I was given a bible while young... That's how I turned atheist. Please understand I intend no rudeness. If I misunderstood your comments I apologize.
ffgew22 8 months ago
@ffgew22 And I do not disagree with you that atheists know probably more scriptures then most Christians. What I do not agree with is that ALL Christians must be like the ones most atheists have met. What if through a Conversation with a REAL Christian you found out some things that you never knew? What if you start to see through a light that you never saw through? I can tell you that it takes years of reading the Word to just start to scratch the surface of understanding......
abeeftec 8 months ago
The very fact that every time I hear Hitchens speak on a scripture it is horribly misquoted and its meaning mistaken. For instance. When Jesus said," I came not to bring peace but a sword," He was not talking about war. Though I can see how one could draw that conclusion. If you know the history of what the Jewish people were waiting for and you know the ministry of Jesus you start to see what the scripture really means. ......
abeeftec 8 months ago
The Jews thought that Messiah was coming to crush their enemies(the surrounding nations against them) and Set up Peace for Jews because in their ignorance they always assumed that since God chose them he chose them above men and not AMONG men. Secondly, the Bible speaks in many places about the Sword and what it can do to the Thoughts and Intents of Mens hearts. SO what Jesus was saying to the Jews was. I did not come to do what you think I did..... Set up Peace for JUST Isreal which.....
abeeftec 8 months ago
was the Ignorance of the Jews...... But I came to Bring a Sword to your Intents Thoughts, YOUR HEARTS. Because a Sword seperates Flesh. That was its purpose .. He was saying," I came to seperate those who are Choosen of God from those who are worldy, selfish, whos motivations are continually towards self, Just like the Jews were. So in simple terms.. I did not come to set up world Peace as you thought. But I came to Divide!!
And Obviously he means those who are His from those who are not.
abeeftec 8 months ago
Let me say this, I do Understand how one could draw the conclusion that Hitchens has. However, That comes from a Bias while reading the Bible and purposly looking for something you can use as Ammo. He did NOT look deeply into that scripture before using it to discredit. And the reason it did not register with anyone in the audience when he said," I rest my case." Is because they do not, nor could they know, that he is wrong about the scripture.....
abeeftec 8 months ago
And the reason they could not know is as you know still, When reading a book you hold no ill toward a book because it is just a book. But on this Subject, it has much to do with our future when you read it. Those who read it to continue to be as they are, Will find reason to be so. And those who really want to know what it means will not rush to think they understand it because hopefully they are taught that doing so will yield a viewpoint that is of thier own instead of the Intention of GOD.
abeeftec 8 months ago
I know that last statement could draw another argument entirely but let me just say this about that... You cannot say that NO ONE has Heard from God. You CAN say that the people who say they have that you have spoken with or listened to, If they have heard from God then God must be crazy! I understand many Christians make themselves to look like fools. Even the ones that seem to be defenders of the faith. But let me just say that does not make them Believers in the truth just because they say so
abeeftec 8 months ago
I will not judge whether they are or are not but I can tell you that like most people, the too are succeptible to taking the lazy way out and when the hard question arises in their minds they ask their pastor and then that answer becomes canned and repeated without doing what the Bible tells them to do which is study to show thyself approved unto God. Most People dont actually give due dilligence to something they supposedly ARE because asking someone else is easier. It is just not wise.
abeeftec 8 months ago
@ffgew22 I actually did not know that bit of information. I am grateful for you sharing it with us :D
Plagueis1017 8 months ago
@xincrii Actually, it's not like saying that at all. = )
AriloeuLaleelae 8 months ago
@xincrii
No, you're wrong! He said, "there is some one die here, let's has two hypotheses, he was killed or not". It is something like that, you just plainly miss his point! It's a fair opening!
dennibs1973 6 months ago
@xincrii I guess that explains all the non-stamp collector conventions and all the non-stamp collectors tv shows and all the non-stamp collectors suing the stamp collectors for violating their rights and all the non-stamp collector books and all the non-stamp collector speakers and all the non-stamp collector websites and all the non-stamp collector theories taught in school and all the non-stamp collector debates and all the ...etc
YesYou123333 6 months ago
★★★★★ AUDIO FIXED ON MY PAGE ★★★★★
Part 1 watch?v=V7M7Yu5Ks4U
HighPoweredLasers 8 months ago
Torturing little children is fun? Your argument is invalid.
dustindo 8 months ago
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... That is one of the most boring arguments for a Sky God on Youtube. Snore!
Grimpus1972 8 months ago
when he starts talking about morals, its quite obvious he has done no research about the other side of his argument.
bleedingxhearts2 9 months ago
intelligent design has been SCIENTIFICALLY and LEGALLY discredited. not a single argument for creationism or intelligent design has ever been conclusive.
so wait, where is the problem? alchemy has been killed by chemistry, and rightly so. creationism has been killed by biology, the STUDY OF LIFE, rightly so.
sinprelic 9 months ago
cant believe theists want or deserve a platform for a reasonable, scientific and logical discussion. just so rediculous listening to them trying to sound smart on behalf of religion. why cant they just say "my faith is just that, faith. no proof, just feelings and indoctrination" the more they try to sound legit, the more silly they sound
xamot27 9 months ago
"You know that it's wrong to torture children." Tell that to the authors of the bible you follow.
Chaoticbravo 9 months ago
This is probably the smartest guy I have ever seen debate Christopher HItchens. That is not saying a whole lot I must admit but at least this guy is trying his best to be rational about his argument.
ctkachuk08 9 months ago
What was the purpose of burning people alive?
johneamer 9 months ago 2
@johneamer oppression through fear?
equallyeasilyfuqyou 9 months ago
Hitchens is, as always, succinct in his delivery, and has nothing to hide. Richards is playing a shell game right off the bat, trying to set up a premise, while moving it around under several rhetorical coverings until the listener is completely disengaged. He lost me at the 4 minute mark of his response. Absolutely laborious and uninteresting.
steve51704000 9 months ago 2
Jay Richards starts out by shifting the burden and setting up a false dichotomy. He starts out by saying that theism and atheism are competing explanations? Atheism is not an explanation of anything, and it was never designed as such. An atheist is simply someone who has considered the claims of theists and rejected them for lack of evidence.
kshackleton 9 months ago
@kshackleton - I completely caught onto this as well. Jay Richards has, in the course of 4 minutes, made it undesirable, if not impossible, for me to listen to this debate. I already had my mind made up anyway.
steve51704000 9 months ago
@steve51704000 But if you had already made up your mind, then why did you bother watching the debate?
writersblock26 9 months ago
Jay's 1st Point: Despite my dislike of appeals to common sense and subjective 'gut feelings' (i.e. where something is more 'at home'), morality is at home in both an atheistic and theistic universe. Natural selection dictated that those species that could work together to accomplish goals (or, at the very least, co-exist peacefully) would die less than those who showed no solidarity or sympathy (i.e. morality) towards one another.
ExEverest10 9 months ago
What a HITCHSLAP! #FTW
HighPoweredLasers 9 months ago
Hitchen's referencing L. Krauss = win.
mdiem 9 months ago
ow kay this sounded cool untill that weird guy came up
RzzRBladez 10 months ago
playing the "antagonist" card. very classy jay
kurdt40894 10 months ago
Jay Richards is clearly ignorant of the animal studies showing that many animals that move in groups have rules within their group to stabilise the group. These rules are based on empathy and reciprocity which are the source of what we call morals and ethics.
EndeavourAlways 10 months ago
@EndeavourAlways He is not ignorant of them. His answer is that animals received their empathy as a gift from the big daddy sky god too. The fall back position of the blind faith brigade must always be: God did it!
They just feel that it must be inherently true. No proof necessary because it‘s a matter of faith and it’s immoral to question God. Hence the futility of arguing with these fucking retards.
Euthanasia may be justified after all. lol
FLUSEM666 9 months ago
@FLUSEM666 I'm sure most of them aren't retarded, they just decided to relinquish their faculties in favor of the comfort of complacency; something, in my experience, many people do.
ExEverest10 9 months ago
@ExEverest10 "...they just decided to relinquish their faculties in favor of the comfort of complacency; ..."
And that's not retarded?
FLUSEM666 9 months ago
@FLUSEM666 Not in of itself, no. Ignorant, perhaps, but not necessarily intellectually inferior.
ExEverest10 9 months ago
@ExEverest10 Semantics. It seems we disagree over the meaning of the word retarded. This Richards chap is a young earth creationist. In the 21st C. anyone from the western world holding that view, is without doubt intellectually inferior to the extent of being psychotic.
The overwhelming body of scientific data available makes creationism laughably retarded. Don’t make excuses for these fools.
FLUSEM666 9 months ago
@FLUSEM666 Oh, that I certainly will do. If an excuse or justification follows logic and evidence, as far as I know, it should be made; it's convenient and comfortable to paint those you disagree with in the broadest strokes and view them in the worst possible light. Such an inclination, however, and in my experience, always results in a partial psychosis and a further loss of objectivity.
ExEverest10 9 months ago
@FLUSEM666 And if they are indeed fools, it would be better to extend one's hand than to split the proverbial room through weighted rhetoric into those who agree whole-heartedly, and those who disagree completely; or is it just me?
ExEverest10 9 months ago
@ExEverest10 I see your point but we will just have to agree to disagree. In the 21st C. creationists are not barnacles slowing our progress to the future. They are fully blown parasites draining resources and threatening our long term existence. Over population is approaching as are the associated difficult decisions. Climate change will simply speed thing along a little. Give that some thought.
FLUSEM666 9 months ago
Hitches wurst opponent evar. Utterly feeble.
tommiatkins 10 months ago
Comment removed
ChadMault 10 months ago
Anybody who believes that some apparent "fur" that appears and then disappears in the womb does so because of some artifact of earlier adaptation, believes something that's at least as silly, if not sillier, than the faux "minimum" theistic belief that Hitchens posited in the last video. It assumes, among other things, that we will never have an explanation for features we cannot explain today. History shows that to be a wretched assumption. And that's just the most obviously wrong assumption.
philWynk 10 months ago
Jay thinks that atheism has a philosophy about the origins of the universe? He doesn't know what atheism is......atheism doesn't attempt to explain anything, because its not a belief....its the non-belief in an invisible sky daddy.
tubiejonny 10 months ago
@tubiejonny
While I agree with you, I don't think expressions like "invisible sky daddy" help our cause any.
Apart from being disrespectful and childish, it's a borderline strawman.
It's a profound mistake to assume that all religious people are stupid or irrational.
And of those who are... Well, insulting them isn't going to help change any minds.
UdallIn72 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UdallIn72 ...I am not trying to convert, so I have little care for what may be offensive to the people who are slaves to "invisible sky daddy". I also have to disagree with you when you say that 'all religious people aren't irrational'....the nature of what they believe in (without any evidence), by definition makes them irrational...
If you'd prefer, I can say "invisible sky dictator" instead.
tubiejonny 10 months ago
@UdallIn72
I dis-agree. They don't deserve any type of intelligent respect. Being that the belief is as silly as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow all it deserves is ridicule and mockery of the stupidity that it upholds. People who don't like having their beliefs laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.
LambdaQuarks 10 months ago 19
@LambdaQuarks
Then tell me Why the Jewish leaders who did not believe that Jesus was the Christ NEVER,even in Jewish history, refuted that Miracles happened but just claimed they were done in the power of evil?
abeeftec 8 months ago
@abeeftec
What is the point of your question? Ask yourself why I would care or believe what a bunch of Jewish supposed leaders claim? Their beliefs are as false and unsubstantiated as christian/catholic beliefs.
LambdaQuarks 8 months ago
@LambdaQuarks
I would not expect you to care. But being here at all would suggest that you wish to think logically. Not even Rome suggested that Jesus did not perform miracles. And they had every reason to prove him wrong. But they do not either. Tell me why there is not one shread of evidence of someone in denial that jesus did what he claimed? And if you say that those in Romes beliefs were as unsubstantiated as the jews then you must be also saying so is everyones.
abeeftec 8 months ago
@abeeftec
Rome eventually excepted that faith as majority. If you mean some guy named Rome I don't know what you mean then because there were many different faiths in Rome even till the end and some of them did not accept Christ as a real figure. I have no care to except anyone's claims of anything with out evidence. There is no evidence that EVER in the history of humanity anyone suspended the laws of physics. Jews words are as trust worthy as any other religions, which is none at all.
LambdaQuarks 8 months ago
@LambdaQuarks
Really there is no evidence that someone did not suspend those laws.It is speculation and is all it can be that no one has ever suspended the laws of Physics because if you were not there needed EVIDENCE then you cannot know for certain.The fact is that 12 men, All of whom,with the exception of jogn,are not refuted to have existed by anyone All died deaths carried out by the state because they would not deny Christ who they SAW put to death. His resurection is PROVEN in that
abeeftec 8 months ago
alone because If I told you that I was God himself and did no miracles and lied about everything and you followed me for years you would NOT be martyred for my claims if you knew I was lying if all you had to do was tell the state what you knew to be true anyway IF I did no miracles or did not show myself to you after my death that you witnessed yourself without own eyes. Their testimony and deaths prove the resurection. And no one denies the way they died no more then Washington is 1st POTUS
abeeftec 8 months ago
**** Correction***** Should have read, " Witnessed yourself with your own eyes"
abeeftec 8 months ago
And let me add that I do not think that Jay Richards argues for true Christianity. Not knowing what he believes let me say that just because there are Christains who claim things they know nothing about or are wrong in things they say DOES NOT give Hitchens an arguement against creation based on peoples shortcomings or mistakes or phoney faiths. He lumps them altogether and that is not a solid argument against true religion undefiled. Yet he uses a lump sum from all faiths to discredit them.
abeeftec 8 months ago
@abeeftec
I'm sorry, logic isn't in the business of proving the negatives. I am not concerned with trying to disprove flying fart teapots in another galaxy just because I don't know if they are there. I can't disprove that they are not there so I toss it in the "it doesn't exist" bin with everything else we can't prove or disprove...including your Jebus walked on water and rose 3 days later, Allah, Buddha, and so on. They say some crazy things about kungfu masters also, hearsay is not evidence.
LambdaQuarks 8 months ago
@LambdaQuarks
heresay is not evidence but even our court systems go back to other cases to decide new ones and I am fairly certain Abraham lincoln was really president. How about you? I am also fairly sure that we landed a man on the moon though some would doubt that. Does it make it not true because you didnt actually see the man on the moon? The fact is true that these men Died for not denying what they knew to be true. The evidence that surrounds those 11 deaths demands a verdict of true
abeeftec 8 months ago
Perhaps your "it doesnt Exist" Bin should be updated to an " I dont really know" Bin. I can say that most so called christians give the faith they claim a bad name with sayings such as FREE WILL and how old the world is.. Let me give you just one thing to think about.Could it be that the dirt we call earth, since it floated in the universe before being formed could account for the millions of years? not saying that is true, Just saying it more then likely is something most have not considered.
abeeftec 8 months ago
The bottom line is this.Sure I could argue against God and make the whole thing sound ridiculous if I wanted to. And with that said, that is all Hitchens does. He lumps every faith under one cover called GOD and fights bad points from all of them. And some bad points from good or bad intentioned God seekers. You cannot argue against Theists and make a rational argument using bad theology as something to be ridiculed no more then you can argue against Athiests using bad science!! Both are foolish
abeeftec 8 months ago
@abeeftec
You mean downgrade? because the "I don't know" bin sounds logically pretty stupid when you start introducing ridiculous claims like pink unicorns and fairy tales. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary lives. If I am to believe and allow for some belief to enter our schools, governments, and lives it better have some damn good evidence for itself.
LambdaQuarks 8 months ago
@abeeftec
We know Abraham Lincoln was a president, we don't believe Abraham Lincoln was a president but rather we know he was. Sorry, I did see the men walk on the moon. There is footage from Nasa as well as nearly 8 years of records of preparation for the mission. There is a golf ball still there as well as a left over moon rover vehicle. We have photographs of earth taken from the surface of the moon. These are not something someone just claimed to be true with out evidence.
LambdaQuarks 8 months ago
@LambdaQuarks
No you see these things on TV. And we do know that those things on TV can be faked. You are believing something YOU YOURSELF did not PERSONALLY SEE. And I am saying that I have more Logical evidence to believe in the resurection of Jesus then you do to believe that a man walked on the moon or that AL was POTUS!! Because you were not there either yet men write about it. I was not there when Jesus was resurrected but yet 11 men(who are as much history as AL)died deaths not denying
abeeftec 8 months ago
What makes you believe them more is because MORE people believe those things and they are taught since you were young. PLus it is not thousands of years ago. Not to mention the fact that we do have a current president who is number 44th POTUS which means we have been counting presidents and AL was the 16th. So Rationally you conclude that he was real. I rationally conclude with strong certainty that 11 men would just say he was not who he claimed to spare their own lives rather then purport lies
abeeftec 8 months ago
Obviously I did not mean you see ABE on TV. But the moon landing. You Learned of ABE in School and with a level of certainty you beleive he exsisted. And I with that same logic can conclude that so did JESUS and he did do what the bible claims because even if we didnt have the bible History records the deaths of his followers. And HOW they died. Rationally there is no way 11 men would ALL die early deaths at the hands of the state when all they had to do was DENY CHRIST.
abeeftec 8 months ago
@abeeftec
You are wrong. There are objects left on the moon by us. One being a rover that still bounces back information when we send towards it. Not to mention as time goes on and we learn more about the world the bible becomes more falsified. You have to really be an idiot these days to think that the world is only a few thousand years old. Tree rings alone prove that false, yet the bible seems to wish otherwise. Sorry, it is just a fairy tale written by men...not even a good one.
LambdaQuarks 8 months ago
@LambdaQuarks
Im not wrong because you miss the point that YOU personally do not know. its as much hearsay as anything because YOU have not been to the moon to know there is a golf ball on it!! The double standard you use amazes me. Dont put arguements into my mouth that I have not made. And you judge faith based off most SO CALLED Christains who are lazy. I am a Believer in Christ but Never do I make claims I know nothing about which I cannot say that for most who call themselves Christains
abeeftec 8 months ago
You also fail to see that I am not saying we did not land on the moon. I never said that. I said YOU have no more proof of that then I have that Jesus was resurrected from the dead yet you beleive it beause its easier to believe. It takes little faith to believe a man landed on the moon. Yet you didnt see it and it is in fact Hearsay to you. And your thoughts of the bible being a fairytale stem from again ignorance. I would bet you have never read it in its entirety.
abeeftec 8 months ago
You like most americans(i say americans because I havent been anywhere else) listen to what others say and form opinions based on whether or not someone sounds profound. And you know thats true, tell me where the Bible says anything about a Pink unicorn? Or is that just more tactics to make the text sound ridiculous? Of course it is. Use real words when you respond. Not fake ones. If you want to say the ark isnt true then say it. Dont use nonsense to make something seem ridiculous.
abeeftec 8 months ago
the fact of the matter is You were not there either so you cannot know if anything in the Bible did or did not happen. Again, because of what you know(strike that HEAR) regarding Physics you assume that those laws cannot be broken despite recent evidence to the opposite. And further if God is the maker of those laws to support human life in his creation(you know not what it takes to sustain life on that scale) he can in fact break them without your permission and doesnt need to prove it to you
abeeftec 8 months ago
@abeeftec
You are wrong though, we do have more proof of the moon landing then the resurrection of Jesus.
LambdaQuarks 8 months ago
@LambdaQuarks
11 men did not go to their deaths to prove the moon landing. However, 11 men were killed by the state and all the had to do was say," Jesus did not rise from the dead" and " He was a fraud". I dont know about you but to me, without GOD death is quite final. And as such I would think No man would go to his death when all he had to do was deny a man that was SUPPOSEDLY DEAD to everyone NOT of faith. But to those 11 men, They knew he was alive though he was dead.....
abeeftec 8 months ago
Meaning, He had risen and they were willing to die for that. I would NOT had died for that unless I had witnessed him alive after seeing him die a death no man has lived through! That is more evidence to me then the moon landing. It is more evidence to me then any skeptic could bring about. Unless someone can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no such people on this earth or that they did not die the way History says, I am going to have to side with Jesus on this!
abeeftec 8 months ago
Jay Richards is not an analytic philosopher, he's a theologian. Let's draw some distinctions. He's teaching at a Bible College ffs!!
ahmedeox 11 months ago 2
I have never heard an intelligent argument in favor of intelligent design.
andyrooney12 11 months ago
@andyrooney12 That's why they felt the need to add "intelligent" to the title.
ahmedeox 11 months ago
I used to upload a few hundred clips on YouTube before I...ummm...had a few issues that required me to close my account. One thing you have to pay attention to is the video/audio. The audio is out of sync with the video...with that said, I great appreciate you uploading this. Most people don't know how long it takes just to upload 1 10-minute segment, let alone 10 10-minute segments.
andyrooney12 11 months ago
Jay Richards looks exactly like the 80s cartoon version of Egon Spengler. That guy is about to fire a proton pack at something. Seriously, this debate is about to be interrupted by Slimer.
instereovideos 11 months ago
jay's hair is too distracting
tylermanchesteruntd 11 months ago
Atheists should realise that they are not all as eloquent as Hitchens. YAWN
alexcrayon 11 months ago
Hitchens winds debate, Richards has unbeatable hair though....
buckshee1 11 months ago
Science works, therefore there is a god? That's his argument?
The same science that has destroyed countless claims made by the believers in the various gods?
Yeah, we can't defend anything ever claimed by those who have spoken to our supposed gods, so let's just say science is proving us wrong, therefore we're right.
Frottjeif 11 months ago
everytime a theist quotes a holy book, it negates his entire argument. sorry, just don't do it.
nehmanator333 11 months ago
Pixiology anyone?
PAPOW!!
benaberry 11 months ago
Comment removed
benaberry 11 months ago
Richard is talking bull!!!
What da hell is he sayin? wats he on about?
Also who are the 7 Creationists that voted this down?
nazmibest 11 months ago
Aaaand this was JUST Hitchens' intro!
nthomas87 1 year ago
jay you lose
phildirt3 1 year ago
thundercats....ho!
stephenexmachina 1 year ago 18
God does not let babies starve or wars happen...........Human beings do. There is enough wealth in the world to feed every human and science is advanced enough to the point that nobody should die of malaria.
617whitey 1 year ago
RAMOOOONE bring me a sexually repressed blond man who'd suck dick at god's command
WellConditionedChimp 1 year ago
in the distant pass I believe babies were left to exposure if there was not enough food or if there may have been a physical de