Compare these beautiful, eloquent, and most of all true words to the hateful jeers and bigotry of the Mullahs and all the rest of the anti-semites of the world. It illustrates the stark juxtaposition between the beauty of truth and the banality of evil.
@JesusChristisMuslim Because he was a great man. He had great intelligence, great morality and never afraid to give his opinion in the face of those who disagreed with him.
Yes he died of cancer, so what? He was a man smart enough to realise that this is the only life we have and we should enjoy it while we can. He never did those things to excess, they did not rule his life. If those things gave him pleasure then who are we to judge - he had every right to do to himself whatever he wished.
"I careless about what he stands for, what matters is the manner of his passing" form is more important that function. I guess a little child dead because he was cut down by a drone is OK for hitchens. Fuck hithens a zionist neo-con racist bigot trash. Rot in hell you faggot.
@glower125 Either you are trolling or it is you yourself who are bigoted and ignorant. Hopefully you will realise how disgusting your comments are but i doubt it.
The Family of Daniel Pearl must be made aware of this information no matter how "insensitive" it may seem to post this. The Daniel Pearl Foundation is shamefully using the name of Daniel Pearl and his murder as a cause for celebration. Call it what you will, this is what the foundation does, just like in Gaza they celebrate the murder of Jews for being Jewish, so does the Daniel Pearl Foundation (sic) They said they are preparing a response, that was over 3 months ago!
In my opinion everything went wrong after Sargon 'the great' (2400 B.C.). He was the first war monger. It went then from Sargon to Saddam all wrong.
Sumerians are the original people of Iraq, Sumerians from Baghdad to Basra and Kurds in the north.
So official languages of Iraq should be Sumerian and Kurdish, not Arabic, because Iraqi Arabs are really arabized Sumerians, especially the Marsh Arabs.
I think that in the future Iraqi Arabs will switch from arabic to sumerian.
@milekrizman too bad for you it is a scientific fact that sumerians were Turkish not the iranian kurdi,sh. in Turkish today we still use sacred numbers of sumerian gods anlil-elli(50) and anki's sacred number karuq-kırk(40). you do not belong to mezopotamia, you are not sons of sumerians we Turks are.
@milekrizman too bad for you it is a scientific fact that sumerians were Turkish not the iranian kurdish. in Turkish today we still use sacred numbers of sumerian gods anlil-elli(50) and anki's sacred number karuq-kırk(40). you do not belong to mezopotamia, you are not sons of sumerians we Turks are. arabs are not sumerian also they use erbea in the meaning of three Turks use uch and sumerians us, in sumerian otus means a month in Turkish it means 30 (spelled as otuz).
@Igotangry I read on Wikipedia that Sumerian language is unrelated to any other in the world. I heard although that Sumerian is agglutinative language like Turkish or Hungarian. I just want to say that it would be better go Iraqi Arabs to adopt and revive Sumerian as their native language, because Sumerian is first written language in the world history.
@milekrizman no it is antique Turkish but the opposite is what europeans wanted to believe when it turned out to be non-european. in today we still their use sumerian words, terms, proverbs and numerals in Turkiye and central asian sibirian Turkish. if you adopt their language there will be no differnce between Turkish language speaken in sibiria and ıraq. even Gılgamish which is now spelled as BILGA-mish is a Turkish title used in Gokturk empire's Khan as name BİLGE which means wise man.
@Igotangry REALLY? So, Sumerians are in fact Turks? Interesting. I read that they came from Caucasus around 5000 years B.C. in Mesopotamia. Too bad only a handful of people speak it today. I am fond in foreign languages. Even the ancient ones. I am also interested in Hittite language.
@milekrizman today where russia stated had been belonged to Turks Mongolians namely asiana land for over 10000 years.in Russia there still found asian people arts, sculptures from past. the foreigners in asia and caucasia are european people not asian people.european people are in asia for only 500 years. you can not divide caucasia from asia by calling the area in a different name. everybody has eyes and everybody sees caucasia is east of anatolia in asia near Turkish lands.
@Igotangry Well Russians live there for a long time and Russia will stay Russian. I just wanted to say that homeland of Arabs is in fact Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Iraq was originally Sumerian country until 2000 B.C. I hope that Iraqi Arabs will speak Sumerian in a near future.
@milekrizman sumerians were from asia or central asia-india a place between them. their language was not persian, was not akkadian, was not hebrew, was not kurdish or was not any kind of language today exist below Turkey. Turkish is very similiar to it. so I think it is not a good idea for themselves to talk sumerian. it is agglunative and totally different.Turks are not arabs by the way. and sumerians were not kurds and jews.
He is a brilliant man but so was C.S Lewis, a believer that was also an atheist until the age of 33. Read the book that compares Freud to Lewis' life.
Well... Israel... My opinion is that it should have never been created, and if it WAS to be created then not in the mid-east but in Europe or America. Not in any of the then colonial area's.
But now that it's there, it's a bit more complex. Or rather it isn't. The jewish people should move their colonists to the half that was designated for them and the palestinians get the other half, as was decided. It's not ideal but that's the most pragmatic thing I think to do.
@jknows50. antisemitism started way back when the catholic church wouldn't allow their own bankers to charge interest on loans and the Jews were allowed. it was a money lending power move that started it. hence Shialoc in shakespere as the villian. we need not be anti or pro jew, just be pro-humanism. the golden rule works in this and every case. and you have to speak to your audience as well
@jknows50. antisemitism started way back when the catholic church wouldn't allow their own bankers to charge interest on loans and the Jews were allowed. it was a money lending power move that started it. hence Shialoc in shakespere as the villian. we need not be anti or pro jew, just be pro-humanism. the golden rule works in this and every case. and you have to apeak to your audience as well
so we gotta be anti god, anti religion but pro jew..... so what he's saying is the jews are the only civilised race on earth? where did anti semitism come from? theres effect with no cause. so jews are god?? amazing, i shall convert to jedism tomorrow.
Well that says it all Mr. Hitchens . Why don't you speak at a a memorial for Palestinian women and children ( 1300 ) who lost their lives at the hands of the Zionists in Gaza ? Or indeed the Turkish people shot through the head on board the aid ship bound for Gaza ? Oh no , only if they are Jewish eh ? I now understand why you hate the Catholic Church as well. You and Stephen Fry are the 'empty vessels' oft spoken about. And as irritating as a couple of mosquitoes.
Mosquitoes aside, I recommend you read 'Blaming the Victims', a book of essays which Hitchens compiled alongside the great Palestinian Edward Said.
It forms a denunciation of the Zionist movement.
Hitchens has been condemning the recent resurgence of Jew-hatred, but he does not support Israeli policy. Fair enough.
As for the question of religion, he views Judaism, Christianity and Islam as being equally bad. You may not agree with him, but you cannot say he is unbalanced in his views.
@AhmadAmor have you invited him? idiot when was the last time jews stole a muslim journalist and beheaded him for bragging rights you disgust me implying hitchens is a racist. hes fought for Kurdistan longer than you probably been alive. and he did come out immediately against the gaza boarding
@whysers I agree. Hitchens has always supported the Kurds (who are almost all Muslim). He was also one of the first to condemn the Serbs for their actions in Kosovo (a mostly Muslim area). The idea that he is picking on Muslims is absurd. He picks on EVERYBODY. The fact AhmadAmor is so sensitive about this tells us more about AhmadAmor than Christopher Hitchens.
He spends a great deal of time at the beginning of this video going on about Mel Gibson, a useless Hollywood idiot, then later goes on to say that Holocaust denial is not inherently anti-Semitic.
This doesn't make no sense to me.
Every Holocaust denier on the planet, if you listen to their comments about Jews in general, is excruciatingly anti-Semitic.
Free speech is important. But just cos someone exercises it doesn't mean they're automatically decent.
@terratrema Actually, he specifically said "questioning the Holocaust", and went on to say that any actual denial must be motivated by anti-Semitism. What he meant was that, like any complex and chaotic historical event, the precise story of what exactly happened hasn't been resolved in every detail. Since investigation into the tragedy is still ongoing, some historians may question accounts of certain parts of the story with genuine intellectual integrity without necessarily being anti-Semitic.
@terratrema no no no .....Jews in Europe are Ashkenazim , descendants of the Khazars in S. Russia who converted to Talmudic Judaism around 750AD. They are NOT Semitic . Mel Gibson was absolutely right to make the film ' The Passion of Christ' . It was a very accurate portrayal. The Holocaust ( a term coined in the 1960's) was indeed terrible but it has been used as a rod to beat everyone with ever since.
I think people should stop complaining about the term 'anti-Semitism'
The phrase was popularised by a bigoted German named Wilhelm Marr in the 1870s to make his Jew-hatred seem more political and palatable than all other forms of racism
The term 'anti-Semitism' may not be ideal, but we all know what it means; it's a useful enough term for the time being
As for poor old Mel Gibson, I did not say he was wrong to make the film, and I actually criticised Hitchens for complaining about it
@terratrema no no no .....Jews in Europe and USA are Ashkenazim , descendants of the Khazars in S. Russia who converted to Talmudic Judaism around 750AD. They are NOT Semitic . Mel Gibson was absolutely right to make the film ' The Passion of Christ' . It was a very accurate portrayal. The Holocaust ( a term coined in the 1960's) was indeed terrible but it has been used as a rod to beat everyone with ever since.
Hitchens implication is right. On some level, the reason that anti-Semitism is still around is because many of the great thinkers of our age were Jewish, and their great intellectual capacity caused them to undermine the credibility of political and religious dogma which gave many people a sense of security. All you have to do is think of the way Marx's and Einstein's ideas impacted people's religious and political perspective. Those who promote great change are always the most reviled.
19:00 wrong, racists do discriminate - in their behaviour towards different human beings by chopping them up into "races".
What if a 'white' and a 'black' produce a child that looks 'arab'. Is that child of an 'arab' race? What if the child looks 'asian'? Is he then classed as 'asian'?
The non-racist doesn't have that problem. We make an assessment of their physical 'look', but make no assumptions on their BACKGROUND and CULTURE because of it.
When the sound man turned down the sound, he spoiled the whole thing. I can't hear a damn word he says after that. Thumbs down. Shame, I would have liked to have heard this.
love this lecture...thoughtful, thoughtfilled, thought-provoking, and the comment on Victor Klemperer, "imperishable, the Winston Smith of" the Second World War.
Sorry to hear of Christopher's recent esophageal cancer diagnosis. I am praying for him, and doing so in the Name of Jesus, and hope he is OK with that. :-) Nevertheless, may he be Healed.
@revpgesq I doubt he would be OK with that. I don't think Hitchens suffers fools all too well. Keeping in mind that a thousand praying hands are not worth one set of working hands. Better you volunteer in a cancer ward than waste your time publically condescending to Christopher Hitchens and his illness. Stop calling yourself out. It makes you appear stupid, patronizing and delusional.
@FaganRoberts who says praying hands are not also working hands? you are limited not only by your lack of a relationship with the Living God, but also by your either/or thinking.
tell me tho what you think of C. Michael Langan's contention of God's existence, how reality accretes in general, and where all this came from,originally speaking. since you are not stupid as am I, you certainly will not only know the answers, but be able to break them down for me. btw: sticks,stones, names, :-)
@revpgesq Faith without material deeds is dead. Prayer is useless and wholly counter intuitive and non-productive, a cop out for actual work. Bear in mind we always insert a god in the gaps when we lack real knowledge of things or events that otherwise mystify us. God probably doesn't exist. Get on with living.
@FaganRoberts as i said, both/and is the way to think. How many times has your self-manufactured morality got you down to the homeless shelter this year? How is your tithing going? Did you even try to analyze Langan's work? I appreciate your stating your creed, Fagan, but i prefer the Apostles and the Nicaean Creeds. Have you evidence for your claims? If the praying hands have no object, then the working hands are sure to be futile and finally fail. More believe than don't: an evolutionary edge?
@revpgesq I make no claims to absolute certainty. The burden of proof is upon YOU to prove that prayer works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anything asserted w/out evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I just dismiss you claim based on lack of evidence. Working hands produce things. Praying hands merely soothes the conscious and does nothing to better mankind. An edge? Perhaps in the stone ages. But we're big boys now. You and me!
@revpgesq mr Hitchens doesn't need your santa to get cured he needs doctors not your fairy tales.i am not going to have a discussion with you i just want to say that i find it disgusting that you would bring up his illness and associate it with with your non existent friend jesus.And you type a prayer and a smiley like you won the argument and that mr hitchens is now going to be a believer ,it says allot about your personallity.I suggest you busy yourself with the child raper epidemic in church!
@MrBasilGanglia thats quite a statement... what do you base that on?
But if that was true it doesn't change the fact that priests get protection from vatican city and can continue their disgusting perversion at other churches.
.
Also good to know that the current pope has been responsible for 25 years as cardinal ratsinger to cover up the child abuse scandals in the roman chatholic church
@xXxXTravisBickleXxXx I suppose you think Jesus was a fictional character? Fair enough, if you want to think that. Travis Bickle was a fictional character as well and was a paranoid freak who murdered people. I would rather have Christ as my "Fictional" hero to look up to than Bickle...even if he is fictional...so piss off you paranoid freak.
@MrBasilGanglia I don't look up to fictional characters like you ,i like scorsese as a movie director but thats another discussion that i am not going to have with you :)
@xXxXTravisBickleXxXx What a wonderful envoy you are for anti-theism. Spewing bile like an atheist who's just BEGGING for life to catch up with him. Are you 16 or 17 years old?!
@xXxXTravisBickleXxXx And yet you seem to spend all your time debating and insulting believers... the psychiatrists say that you often hate the thing you most resemble. So how would you describe `believers`? What kind of idiot would be offended if a stranger tried to pull them out of the way of what they perceived to be an oncoming vehicle? If there's nothing there neither you or I have lost anything... if there is, your children can thank me. Other than that, I don't really care what you think
Right, it's so hard to know... Usually seeing airplanes crashing into buldings followed by the guilty party boasting about it would--erm, I dunno-- convience people of who the culprit might be. But good on you that you don't buy into the "mainstream media" propaganda ;)
To reduce criticism of Israel and Zionism to anti-semitism is the ultimate intellectual cowardice.
The anti-Jewish sentiment coming from the Muslim countries is indeed unfortunate, but one must remember that it exists because of the barbaric policies of Israel (bulldozing homes, killing civilians), and the fact that Israel does what it does in the name of Judaism and Zionism.
Just as Islamic terrorism draws legit criticism of Muslims, Israel's policies draws legit criticism of Jews.
There's criticism and there's criticism. There's no shortage of criticism of Israel that is not called anti-Semitism. But you don't have to look far to find folks obsessed with Israel, who couldn't care less about human rights anywhere on earth other than West Bank or Gaza, who deny Israel's right to exist and insist that anyone who disagrees is a pawn of the "Zionist" lobby. To say that this form of anti-Zionism is not antiSemitism or to make excuses for it, requires astonishing credulity.
@basehead617@basehead617 Agreed. It makes me wonder who, if anyone, will be able to give Hitchens' funeral oration that merits his courage- maybe Dutch representative (and scholar) Ayaan Ali?
A Dream: "The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria produce after their own, that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life. Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for, "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". Pasteur stated: "Spontaneous generation is a dream". Alechemists, however, will never believe this Law. They are a Faith to keep.
LOL omg read your definition of "the Law of Biogenesis" again....tell me when you realize the stupid mixup you made, in assuming it disproves abiogenesis. LOL if you dont see it, then I'm not going to correct it cuz I want everyone who reads your comment to see how stupid u looked just there. LOL that is the perfect way to end this discussion
Fairies could conceivably (and by a stretch!) be analogous to angels, but we are not talking intermediate realities here but the Prime Mover, the Ground and Source of all being.
@orbis2009 Again, you are completely missing my point, and making the same flaw in your argument. What is your evidence that there IS a "prime mover" in the first place? Further, if you claim its god, and retort that god doesnt need a cause...then why not save a step and say the universe exist in some form as the "prime mover?" The principle of Occams razor makes my position more reasonable than yours (which makes unneccesary assumptions of supernatural beings)
@boorens18 ---No. Your larger point is as untenable as a fish who doubts the existence of water. Step on a nail. Yeow! . You exist as an effect, a contingent being who cannot be explained apart from the Prime Mover. But you do not wish to see it. Descartes' cogito dissolved the minute he passed for the world carried on and was not contingent on his perception of either his own thoughts or being. You are a watch who does not believe in a Watchmaker. Sad. Human foolishness and myopia,.
@orbis2009 "you exist as an effect" That statement is COMPLETELY without support, thus your entire argument, is invalid. Not once has science EVER observed something "come into existance" as an effect. A watch requires a watch maker because it's parts have no natural affinity for eachother (thus they cant self arrange) so your analogy is flawed. See cdk007's video "evolution IS a blind watchmaker to see ur point completely destroyed.
@boorens18 basically what you are doing is CLAIMING in order for something to exist it must have a cause....says who? Certainly not experience or science. All we have ever observed is matter rearrange. We have never observed matter "come into existance" let alone witness something else cause it. Once arguable exception is at the quantum level..where things DO come into existance then vanish WITHOUT cause.
@orbis2009 lol the title is sarcastic dumb dumb. Watch the video.
"Evolution IS a blind watchmaker" by CDK007 on youtube.
It accomadates your lack of intelligence and puts everything in nice simple easy to understand terms. More so than you deserve quite frankly but I digress, the ignorant cant be blamed for being such.
@boorens18 says "It accomadates (sic) your lack of intelligence and puts everything in nice simple easy to understand terms. More so than you deserve quite frankly but I digress, the ignorant cant be blamed for being such."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow: "For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
I find it puzzling that an atheist who considers human being to be an equal family of closely-related primates, can identify as a Jew, or to think that a religious/ethnic/tribal label should apply. Surely the definition of a Jew is one of the descendants of Abraham who were chosen by God as his people. No God, no Jews.
@dashinvaine Aye? and to see what is really going on here I recommend another atheist who is at least frank and fair, "brainpolice2" at YouTube on "politicized atheism". Then I recommend for light but cogent reading Peter Hitchens' new book; he is a believer, and Christopher's brother (also a widely known journalist but in the UK).
See Christopher's brother, the famous journalist Peter Hitchens' new book The Rage Against God (Continuum, avaliable at Amazon) and his long piece at his Daily Mail blog today: How I Found God and Peace With My Atheist Brother
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitchens' visceral, indeed patholigiucal hatred of Christianity in general and Catholicisim in particulat disqualifies him from being taken seriously at all. He's a bigot, pure and simple, fighting his own shadow, as his brother says. He even wrote a book against Mother Teresa. Imagine. Today he has switched from Trostky to the Neocon internationale. Is it any wonder he panders to Israel? Defended David Irving. Ha! What a mess of a man, as Jews themselves can see.
No, he has logic on his side. He hates hypocrisy and people pretending to know what they don't and, more, foisting their views on others. No need to call him pathological.
@orbis2009, isn't the creation of matter out of nothing at all just good old-fashioned Judeo-Christian dogma? Science has no clear answer on where matter came from, though, predictably, dogma does. Is that dogma logical?
Chris Hitchens has recently come into some sense, especially on foreign policy and grasping the threat of Islam. On other topics (read, religion), he's still a raving dogmatist.
@Mesmeridicus The rejection of religious dogma is not, in itself, a dogma. Is your rejection of Thor, Ra, and Zeus as deities dogmatic or, rather, based on the reasonable conclusion that you see no evidence to support belief in their existence and authority? Hitchens, like many others, looks around him and sees no evidence for dogmatic religious belief, Christian or otherwise.
No. God is hardly "nothing". He alone is the One who IS (read Exo 3:14; John 8:58)....all the rest of everything is contingent, created being. We are the effect, not the Cause. God is the precondition of even the head that doubts, or Mr. Hitchens' mouth that incessantly and curiously mocks. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al....poor Christopher is in bad company, Hitler was a pagan-occultist (not much better) who rejected Christianity as well. Atheism is made ancient wars look quaint by comparison. .
Hitler was a christian. Thats sort of a matter of public record...as was the fact that the pope sent him friendly letters and the catholic church celebrated his birthday.
Problem is, none of this matters. Evil or good acts by the religious dont make their beliefs true or false. Just like evil or good acts by atheists dont prove them right.
"Cheap?" If you really think Hitler "despised christianity" then you are the one who needs to "do your homework."
Have you ever actually read "Mein Kampf?" Hitler was a christian and a member of the catholic church (and was never excommunicated, by the way) who regularly praised christianity in his speeches and private writings.
Instead of burying your head in the sand and claiming that Im making this up why dont you just go do the reading and see for yourself?
Maybe you should actually do your homework. He was a Catholic, but he was despised by the hierarchy. Pius XII, never trusted Hitler, even before he became pope. He believed in Christianity because he realized that there were verses in Scripture that can be used to control the people which is what he wanted. True Catholics, Padre Pio and Therese Neuman, to name a few, worked against Hitler especially Neuman which Adolf Hitler feared the most.
lol Well then why should I "do my homework?" You just admitted that what I said about Hitler being a catholic and a christian is true. The halfhearted assertions you make in retreat- essentially that a lot of catholics didnt like Hitler- do not refute anything I have said one iota.
Why should I "do my homework" when you just acknowledged that my claims were correct? It seems like some of you out there just love to say that to sound smarter than your arguments later prove to be.
@Gonzo707 Hitler was from a catholic background, he was however an athiest. Hence why he tried to get rid of the church and killed many cleric. And had many churches put under Nazi control were instead of teaching from the Bible, they preached Nazi ideology from the pulpit. Hitler was NOT a christian. He was from a catholic background, but not a chrisitan, just like many athiests today who are from catholic backgrounds but are not religious.
"Hitler was from a catholic background, he was however an athiest. Hence why he tried to get rid of the church and killed many cleric"
Let's say for the sake of argument that he was an atheist (which is untrue btw), there's still no bridge between atheism and wanting to kill people. One cannot kill people in the name of not believing in god no more than a non-stamp collector kills in the name of not collecting stamps.
Plus, Christians believe Jesus was a jew, so to openly execute "God's people" would also be a bit stupid.
"there's still no bridge between atheism and wanting to kill people" - countless athiests murder daily! and it would make more sense for an athiest to try and wipe out the entire Jewish race than a Christian trying to do! esp seeing as Christianity is supposed to carry on from the Old testament Jewish text!
Not in the name of atheism they don't. Would you blame all bearded people if a bearded person killed someone? Show me the manual of bearded people which teaches to kill? Show me the manual of atheism which teaches to kill...
@byteresistor yes, but trying to put Hitler's murdering of Jews etc down to him supposedly being a Christian is silly, firstly because he never once killed in the name of "God" and secondly, i've read the Bible and no where does it state that a follower of that religion must go out and slaughter Jews!
I haven't claimed Hitler's actions were because of his faith. On the other hand it was you who claimed it was because of his supposed atheism without offering no proof to your claim. No proof that he was an atheist and no proof that atheism leads to killing people.
@byteresistor no proof that atheism leads to killing people? Ever heard of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? Stalin killed more in the Ukraine than the mad man Hitler even salivated for. These "men" killed more in just ONE century than in all the wars in all the centuries that ever were. Read Solzenitsyn's Archipelago volumes. Get real.
They killed in the name of their ideology (communism etc.). Atheism isn't an ideology anymore than not believing in unicorns is. But if you think otherwise I challenge you to show me the book of atheism which has teachings that would lead people to kill others. Heck, show me the book of atheism that teaches anyone to do anything. Provide this simple proof to back up your claim or shut up. Linking atheism to these crimes is so old and childish.
Ever heard of Richard Dawkins? Christopher Hitchens? Ayn Rand? Penn Jilette? Bertrand Russell? How many people did they kill?
You said that atheism leads to killing people. So either every atheist has killed someone or you just made a completely idiotic statement. I think I know which.
@Gonzo707 Bertrand Russell was a eugenicist (look it up); Ayn Rand's economic policies were elitist and who knows how many suffered? Dawkins likely is another pro-abortion eugenicist....No, none of this is idiotic. I've read all these, for decades, l...you are simply an ideologue who thinks nothingness and chance are inexplicably omnipotent---which is why atheists must anthropomorphise endlessly "Mother" nature.... to mitigate the implications of their Faith. See my page on Darwin and eugenics
It should pain you to libel thinkers in order to appeal to your argument; as you jumble a series of arguments into one poor and unrelated non sequitur. Your motivations seem obvious, the self promotion of an agenda,.
@CadaverSplatter Evidently you haven't read much of Russell? See "Population Control and the Scientific Breeding of Humans" online and particularly his terminal passages from his The Impact of Science on Society. The technocracy has plans which starry eyed idealists turn their eyes from? As for "agenda," do you want fuller answers or not? I can't very well answer in these little comment boxes can I?
Nice dodge, but that wasnt the question. How many people did those I listed murder?
Now youre just lashing out wildly, claiming I hold beliefs or make statements I have not even insinuated yet. Leave that strawman be.
Its becoming obvious that you are yet another religious person who struggles to wield facts or logic to defend their arguments, so eventually you fall back on predictable strawman and ad hominem attacks.
@Gonzo707 Nah, it's no struggle to see you being sucked into the Nihil. The struggle is in holding on to your ankles to keep you from dropping into that Vortex completely.
Sure, whatever you say. I guess youve abandoned the actual subject (realizing the facts are against you) and moved on to presumptuous and defensive pity? Rich.
@Gonzo707 I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.---Jean Paul Sartre, National Review, June 11, 1982. Needless to say, Simone de Bouevoir was horrified ; In her Cérémonie Des Adieux she wrote How should one explain this senile act of a turncoat? . (ibid)
you dont "FEEL?"...too bad that reality nor fact doesnt care what you feel. Further, how dare you complain that you dont feel grand enough in the cosmos. How dare you complain that your personal significance is some how deadened by the reality that your existance is due to natural processes. Of all the potential people and lifeforms that could be formed, it is you in your ordinariness that exists. You are so blinded by your self centeredness u miss the beauty that is all around u.
How many potential combinations of dna that will never exist and be given the INCREDIBLE honor to exist at all, to live and to understand are there? You remind me of a rich child who complains that he cant have ALL he wants, while there are those who get so little. What selfishness becomes you? Just some speck? no, we are not some speck, "in" the universe, we are a speck OF the universe, and a unique speck in that we understand as much.
@orbis2009 In short Orbis, it is only the pathetically self-centered who succumb to the belief of paradise, and fail to see the virtual paradise that is right next to you. In a universe of nigh infinite nothingness, you represent a unique combination, where matter has come together in such a way as to comprehend itself, and the rest of the universe. We are a method for the universe to know itself. only the utmost selifsh being would not be satisfied with that.
@boorens18 "pathetically"? Nay, nay. Far greater minds than thine have been believers, though you must put your mirror down if you are to ponder this sufficiently. I have been in the paradise right next to me all day. Splendid in wonder, impossible that it and everything there is came from nothing at all but for the One who Is (Exo 3:14). You are merely a contingent complex integrated system, utterly dependent for your being on Another's will. Now pick up your hymnal and turn to page 1...
@orbis2009 yes they have, and far greater minds believed in spontaneous generation. It is completely meaningless to point to people who use to believe, before there was a comprehensive theory for life. It doesnt support the claim that there is a god at all. I find it HILARIOUS that you state (with zero evidence) that:
@boorens18 Ah, yes. The most you can honestly say is you simply don't know. To conclude that there is no God you would have to know that there is no God. You would have to know the whole of Reality. Now since that is impossible, if you are an atheist you are positing a faith of your own. Even as a theory the best theory would be the one which explains the most. God explains the most, indeed everything. Atheism retreats into a Negative unknowing. The empty tomb we consider evidence.
That isnt "faith" and that isnt how logic works. Non-belief requires no proof. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, THEY have to provide proof that it is true. I could tell you that I have a jar full of fairies in my garage that created the universe. You have no proof that I dont. But I have to prove it if I expect you to believe it. And the best theory is not the one which explains the most- the best theory is the one that is not refuted.
@Gonzo707 I don't know why you guys are always making allusions to fairies, like it was some kind of Freudian slip. You assert that nothingness is the source of all that is---- apart from a Prime Mover. That is a faith assertion since it is not demonstrable and you cannot know that it is so.
Theism in SOME form is the majority opinion of humankind and in all ages. Thus you are the novelty. Nothingness has no potency and so cannot be the matrix of existent at all. So this is your Faith. Amen.
@orbis2009 and why is it that when someone makes the TOTALLY reasonable and suitable analogy to fairies, rather than point out how it is wrong...you just dodge it?
Fairies evidence:
-People believe in them on faith
-there is historical writings of fairies.
-people worshipped them
Gods evidence
(the exact same) how is this analogy invalid? Please, enlighten me
@boorens18 Nah, nobody believes in fairies. Yet even you cannot but ponder the question that is God. Everybody is taking a position regarding God, but none but polemicists and cartoonists talk of fairies. God haunts us, enrages us, questions us, Hitchens knows there ain't no heaven and prays there ain't no judgment. God is that One Whom we cannot avoid because He iS... our origin and end. A babe in the womb is convinced the womb is all there is ----based on experience.
@orbis2009 you clearly dont know your history if you think no one ever believed in fairies. Do I ponder the question that of gods existance? No not really, I am certainly open to evidence should it arise, but 2 decades of waiting and seeing fruitless attempts has made me highly skeptical of the idea. Again, you still evade answering what is exactly wrong with the analogy of faires, and thus you appear weak in your argument.
@orbis2009 as for your argument about babies in the whom. Babies are not capable of critical thinking for one, and secondly if they were capable, they COULD get evidence. The rest of your comment was just unsubstantiated claims with zero support so I can justly dismiss it. That which is stated without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So again I ask you, what is the fundamental supporting evidence for god that puts it above fairies?
@boorens18 Discursive thinking is one thing, thinking itself another. There is little difference between a baby 8-9 months in utero and a baby just outside the womb; neuro-science (hard measurable science; you like science) says babies think, in either case. The question is whether babies are content in the womb. But surely they cannot conceive of life in "another" world, outside? But it exists or all that.
Now to us. Does your hunger point to the existence of bread?
@orbis2009 Im sorry but I'm not going to let you change the subject....please answer the question, I've asked now 4 times. What is the defining difference that makes the analogy of fairies not suitable to god? Why is god more reasonable? I've already pointed out that fairies were a real part of old folk lore and pre-monotheist religions
@boorens18 Let's get serious please? Fairies have not been the preoccupation of any but story- tellers, Disney and people like yourself; whereas theism has been pondered by the greatest minds and philosopher in all ages. So you are simply being silly and tactical with the question. Or if you to think the analogy is fair I will have to dismiss you as a rascal and not respond further.
@orbis2009 I am serious...dead serious. So I ask you, will you? You keep avoiding my question. Rather then belittle my argument...why not freaking answer it? WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN EVIDENCE BETWEEN FAIRIES AND GOD? Answer the question. Fairies have been part of several religions which boast great minds (Pagan/Wiccan/Greek), as well play a large role in folk lore in Ireland, Cornwall, Whales, and Scotland
Yes. And the idea of an anthropomorphic all-powerful deity who looks after you and will reward you with heaven or punish you with hell after death is your ideological "womb." You either cant conceive of or dont want to consider the mind-boggling implications that science is uncovering about the nature of existence and the cosmos, so you cling to a bronze-age mythological fable and pretend it is fact.
@Gonzo707 The immensity of the universe dwarfs heads and the conflicting endless theories of scientists . But scientists hold a secret that must not out else it will give the game away. The more they see and know, the less they know in the face of immensity. Every theory breaks down into endless schools of thought, ways of seeing things. All knowledge hangs on the ifs and these ifs break down into even more ifs at every critical juncture. God must reveal or the universe is unknowable.
lol What you describe isnt some "secret" guarded by the science community. Its actually just the socratic paradox in a nutshell. This doesnt mean epistemology is for naught and people should accept whatever fairy tale they wise as fact- it means that the acquiring of knowledge is an endless process and that there is no ultimate "truth" at which that process ends.
Science does not assert that nothingness is all there is. Im not sure where you got that idea. In fact, science "asserts" as fact NOTHING that it cannot demonstrate. Again you dont seem to be familiar with what science and faith actually are.
Yes, free-thinking human beings who abandon superstition, dogma and myth for empiricism, doubt and skepticism are the novelty. This comes as a compliment to evolutionists.
@orbis2009 the most I can say is that god is about as likely as the tooth fairy is at this point. And that is a fair, justified and reasonable statement. You cant deny that. There is no objective evidence to support any being. And faith is the ACCEPTANCE of an idea, not the rejection of one, without evidence. So no. As for the theory of god, actually it doesnt explain anything. I suspect you dont understand what "explain" means. How does saying "god did it" contribute any knowledge?
So you can find a quote where an existentialist wants to believe that he was the center of the universe? Im not sure what this proves. If you choose to dismiss the years of scientific discovery and evidence gathered for evolution in favor of a bronze-age myth that you were spontaneously and manually molded in the image of an all-powerful supervising deity then that's fine. But in my opinion, simple anthropocentrism like that isnt exactly surprising, compelling, or insightful.
@Gonzo707 A book you should read is "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy From the 19th to the 21st Century" by Phillip and Paul Collins on, among other things, the difference between science and scientism. Read also anything by Dr. Wolfgang Smith. Or even Heisenberg and Feyerabend. It's all at amazon if you are willing to put your dogmas to critical examination.
Lets get something clear. Science is not dogma...nor is a willingness to trust what science can demonstrate, repeat, or prove. "Dogma" is not the trust in a system of skepticism, doubt, retesting, and theorization as an epistemological tool. The thesis alone of the book you mention is nonsense. There is a reason scientific inquiry has come to be considered more reliable than insistence on mythology and "sacred" texts as fact, and it has nothing to do with a conspiracy.
@Gonzo707 says "Science is not dogma...willing to trust what science can demonstrate". By all means do "trust" good man. See? You are religious after all, since it is highly doubtful you can show what it "demonstrates". You do not even say "theorizes"....but It depends on where you stand, friend, and how you filter your perceptions. It's ALL epistemology. Ironic, I am more skeptical than thee. The more we know.. the greater the problems. All of "science" hangs on endless intersecting "ifs"...
lol No, I am not religious. You seem confused as to what religion itself is and how it and religious faith differ from the sort of trust placed in the scientific method. I did bring up theorization, btw.
Religion is NOT epistemology. It is simply belief- usually in disproven mythology. Verification and belief regardless of evidence are not the same thing. You are very obviously not more skeptical than I am.
@Gonzo707 You are religious to the extent that you you live by faith. You cannot possibly have seen demonstrative proof, good fellow, of all that you "believe". But it has been a pleasure corresponding with you and I suggest again you get the Collins book. Or read in dome depth the others recommended. Your excllusion of theism has everything to do with epistemology. Francis Bacon said, "a little science takes a man away from the question of God. But a GREAT DEAL of it brings him back." Amen.
Again, you need to look up the word "religious" in the dictionary and see what it means. Also look up the word "faith." You dont seem to understand how it differs from a willingness to place trust in science...namely, that faith is belief that can and does persist in spite of evidence or even proof to the contrary while science is based entirely upon evidence and CONSTANTLY RESHAPES its theories to accomodate any new evidence which challenges them.
@Gonzo707 its best to just avoid contact with these people, they wield faith like a sword and think theyre in battle. when you show up only armed with facts they swing wildly screaming "NA NA NA I DONT HEAR YOU" and saying things like "morality" and "there must be" which, at the time, are completely irrelevant to the argument you're having and you end up wasting your time talking to someone with the logic of a muskrat.
@Vermin298 saith " it's best to just avoid contact with these people..".They said the same for Socrates. But spare me, please, your Hemlock {Thou shalt not kill") if not your derision?
@orbis2009 pardon me please. what i meant was "its best to avoid arguing or debating with these people" sorry i didnt type what i meant. the reason you should avoid arguing with these people is because they dont care about facts, clearly. thanks
@Vermin298 Sure, thanks for the clarification. Did I also mistake you for being on the atheist side? If so, my apology. If not, then I can only insist that theists do care about facts and indeed see them as teleological.
@orbis2009 once again ive been a bit hasty in posting my comment. i am indeed an atheist, or rather a rationalist is what id prefer to be known as after seeing the definition of atheist in the dictionary. i generalised in my comment which isnt what a rationalist would do. to be more precise, its best to avoid debating with extremists of any kind as they dont care about facts. i know only a few people that are religious and i wouldnt say they dont care about facts. my mistake again, sorry :)
This has been flagged as spam show
I am glad Daniel Pearl was killed. He was a spy not a journalist. I do not want israeli terrorists roaming around Pakistan.
Israel has imprisoned and killed many innocent journalists which is never mentioned in the western media.
DawahalIslam 1 week ago
Compare these beautiful, eloquent, and most of all true words to the hateful jeers and bigotry of the Mullahs and all the rest of the anti-semites of the world. It illustrates the stark juxtaposition between the beauty of truth and the banality of evil.
Thank you Christopher Hitchens.
johnbenjamin12 1 month ago
@johnbenjamin12 - Only true evil in this world are the Jewish supremacist. You sound like one too.
DariusDaGreat86 1 week ago 3
@JesusChristisMuslim Because he was a great man. He had great intelligence, great morality and never afraid to give his opinion in the face of those who disagreed with him.
Yes he died of cancer, so what? He was a man smart enough to realise that this is the only life we have and we should enjoy it while we can. He never did those things to excess, they did not rule his life. If those things gave him pleasure then who are we to judge - he had every right to do to himself whatever he wished.
MrHedgehog380 1 month ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens
notice how hitchens blame arabs for watching the passion of christ, this racist asshole never passes a chance to defame arabs and Muslims.
glower125 1 month ago
this gathering is nothing by a jew zionist bacchanal. shitting on the goys because they dared to off a stinking spy.
glower125 1 month ago
"I careless about what he stands for, what matters is the manner of his passing" form is more important that function. I guess a little child dead because he was cut down by a drone is OK for hitchens. Fuck hithens a zionist neo-con racist bigot trash. Rot in hell you faggot.
glower125 1 month ago
@glower125 You are clearly dumb and ignorant. Please don't comment again.
DidHeDied 1 month ago
@glower125 Either you are trolling or it is you yourself who are bigoted and ignorant. Hopefully you will realise how disgusting your comments are but i doubt it.
MrHedgehog380 1 month ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens
@JesusChristisMuslim Because I am a decadent hedonist. I'm having a great time, There is nothing more, but I want nothing more.
skankingrudeboy 1 month ago
So righteous. Preach on Mr. Hitchens!
ethanedwards420 1 month ago
as of now there are 12 douche bags who don't like this video...and counting.
thenewrapstyle 1 month ago
You will be missed, Hitch. RIP.
rsanjiv 1 month ago
Hitchens shows just how much you can learn in one lifetime if you put your mind to it.
daemonowner 2 months ago
We should all try and become public intellectuals.
hypernation2007 4 months ago
@hypernation2007 yes sir, yes ... sir.
xlr8rkid98 2 months ago
The Family of Daniel Pearl must be made aware of this information no matter how "insensitive" it may seem to post this. The Daniel Pearl Foundation is shamefully using the name of Daniel Pearl and his murder as a cause for celebration. Call it what you will, this is what the foundation does, just like in Gaza they celebrate the murder of Jews for being Jewish, so does the Daniel Pearl Foundation (sic) They said they are preparing a response, that was over 3 months ago!
yosalov 4 months ago
@MrEnglishmanAbroad
Wait, what?
From what angle? Early Christianity is tightly connected to anti-Semitism, and being Jewish doesn't give you any new "angle" on that.
From the way you comaplain about "attacking Christians", something tells me that I shouldn't take your objections seriously ;)
twooffour 4 months ago
I remain in awe of Hitchens' wit and erudition.
HappyTheAtheist 9 months ago
In my opinion everything went wrong after Sargon 'the great' (2400 B.C.). He was the first war monger. It went then from Sargon to Saddam all wrong.
Sumerians are the original people of Iraq, Sumerians from Baghdad to Basra and Kurds in the north.
So official languages of Iraq should be Sumerian and Kurdish, not Arabic, because Iraqi Arabs are really arabized Sumerians, especially the Marsh Arabs.
I think that in the future Iraqi Arabs will switch from arabic to sumerian.
milekrizman 1 year ago
@milekrizman too bad for you it is a scientific fact that sumerians were Turkish not the iranian kurdi,sh. in Turkish today we still use sacred numbers of sumerian gods anlil-elli(50) and anki's sacred number karuq-kırk(40). you do not belong to mezopotamia, you are not sons of sumerians we Turks are.
Igotangry 7 months ago
@milekrizman too bad for you it is a scientific fact that sumerians were Turkish not the iranian kurdish. in Turkish today we still use sacred numbers of sumerian gods anlil-elli(50) and anki's sacred number karuq-kırk(40). you do not belong to mezopotamia, you are not sons of sumerians we Turks are. arabs are not sumerian also they use erbea in the meaning of three Turks use uch and sumerians us, in sumerian otus means a month in Turkish it means 30 (spelled as otuz).
Igotangry 7 months ago
@Igotangry I read on Wikipedia that Sumerian language is unrelated to any other in the world. I heard although that Sumerian is agglutinative language like Turkish or Hungarian. I just want to say that it would be better go Iraqi Arabs to adopt and revive Sumerian as their native language, because Sumerian is first written language in the world history.
milekrizman 7 months ago
@milekrizman no it is antique Turkish but the opposite is what europeans wanted to believe when it turned out to be non-european. in today we still their use sumerian words, terms, proverbs and numerals in Turkiye and central asian sibirian Turkish. if you adopt their language there will be no differnce between Turkish language speaken in sibiria and ıraq. even Gılgamish which is now spelled as BILGA-mish is a Turkish title used in Gokturk empire's Khan as name BİLGE which means wise man.
Igotangry 7 months ago
@Igotangry REALLY? So, Sumerians are in fact Turks? Interesting. I read that they came from Caucasus around 5000 years B.C. in Mesopotamia. Too bad only a handful of people speak it today. I am fond in foreign languages. Even the ancient ones. I am also interested in Hittite language.
milekrizman 7 months ago
@milekrizman today where russia stated had been belonged to Turks Mongolians namely asiana land for over 10000 years.in Russia there still found asian people arts, sculptures from past. the foreigners in asia and caucasia are european people not asian people.european people are in asia for only 500 years. you can not divide caucasia from asia by calling the area in a different name. everybody has eyes and everybody sees caucasia is east of anatolia in asia near Turkish lands.
Igotangry 7 months ago
@Igotangry Well Russians live there for a long time and Russia will stay Russian. I just wanted to say that homeland of Arabs is in fact Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Iraq was originally Sumerian country until 2000 B.C. I hope that Iraqi Arabs will speak Sumerian in a near future.
milekrizman 7 months ago
@milekrizman sumerians were from asia or central asia-india a place between them. their language was not persian, was not akkadian, was not hebrew, was not kurdish or was not any kind of language today exist below Turkey. Turkish is very similiar to it. so I think it is not a good idea for themselves to talk sumerian. it is agglunative and totally different.Turks are not arabs by the way. and sumerians were not kurds and jews.
Igotangry 7 months ago
He is a brilliant man but so was C.S Lewis, a believer that was also an atheist until the age of 33. Read the book that compares Freud to Lewis' life.
niplagenaid 1 year ago
Well... Israel... My opinion is that it should have never been created, and if it WAS to be created then not in the mid-east but in Europe or America. Not in any of the then colonial area's.
But now that it's there, it's a bit more complex. Or rather it isn't. The jewish people should move their colonists to the half that was designated for them and the palestinians get the other half, as was decided. It's not ideal but that's the most pragmatic thing I think to do.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
Hitchens your wrong there is a god , your him !
Earrot 1 year ago
Thank you again Hitch- you give us back our balls with your fearless and unapologetic defense of the human spirit.
on a lighter note: The HITCH drinking game!
1) whenever he whips off his glasses, quickly pour a shot of Johnny Walker.
2) when he immediately puts them back on, slam the shot and exclaim loudly:
"BUILD UP THAT WALL!"
belodeau 1 year ago 18
@belodeau . I will play your game.
CntrBrdr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jknows50. antisemitism started way back when the catholic church wouldn't allow their own bankers to charge interest on loans and the Jews were allowed. it was a money lending power move that started it. hence Shialoc in shakespere as the villian. we need not be anti or pro jew, just be pro-humanism. the golden rule works in this and every case. and you have to speak to your audience as well
joberle293366 1 year ago
@jknows50. antisemitism started way back when the catholic church wouldn't allow their own bankers to charge interest on loans and the Jews were allowed. it was a money lending power move that started it. hence Shialoc in shakespere as the villian. we need not be anti or pro jew, just be pro-humanism. the golden rule works in this and every case. and you have to apeak to your audience as well
joberle293366 1 year ago
so we gotta be anti god, anti religion but pro jew..... so what he's saying is the jews are the only civilised race on earth? where did anti semitism come from? theres effect with no cause. so jews are god?? amazing, i shall convert to jedism tomorrow.
jknows50 1 year ago
@jknows50
hey Jedi-ism is the only true religion. judaism, not so much
111steven 1 year ago
Well that says it all Mr. Hitchens . Why don't you speak at a a memorial for Palestinian women and children ( 1300 ) who lost their lives at the hands of the Zionists in Gaza ? Or indeed the Turkish people shot through the head on board the aid ship bound for Gaza ? Oh no , only if they are Jewish eh ? I now understand why you hate the Catholic Church as well. You and Stephen Fry are the 'empty vessels' oft spoken about. And as irritating as a couple of mosquitoes.
AhmadAmor 1 year ago
@AhmadAmor
Mosquitoes aside, I recommend you read 'Blaming the Victims', a book of essays which Hitchens compiled alongside the great Palestinian Edward Said.
It forms a denunciation of the Zionist movement.
Hitchens has been condemning the recent resurgence of Jew-hatred, but he does not support Israeli policy. Fair enough.
As for the question of religion, he views Judaism, Christianity and Islam as being equally bad. You may not agree with him, but you cannot say he is unbalanced in his views.
terratrema 1 year ago
@AhmadAmor have you invited him? idiot when was the last time jews stole a muslim journalist and beheaded him for bragging rights you disgust me implying hitchens is a racist. hes fought for Kurdistan longer than you probably been alive. and he did come out immediately against the gaza boarding
whysers 1 year ago
@whysers I agree. Hitchens has always supported the Kurds (who are almost all Muslim). He was also one of the first to condemn the Serbs for their actions in Kosovo (a mostly Muslim area). The idea that he is picking on Muslims is absurd. He picks on EVERYBODY. The fact AhmadAmor is so sensitive about this tells us more about AhmadAmor than Christopher Hitchens.
metrx330 1 year ago
I like Hitchens very much, but:
He spends a great deal of time at the beginning of this video going on about Mel Gibson, a useless Hollywood idiot, then later goes on to say that Holocaust denial is not inherently anti-Semitic.
This doesn't make no sense to me.
Every Holocaust denier on the planet, if you listen to their comments about Jews in general, is excruciatingly anti-Semitic.
Free speech is important. But just cos someone exercises it doesn't mean they're automatically decent.
terratrema 1 year ago
@terratrema Actually, he specifically said "questioning the Holocaust", and went on to say that any actual denial must be motivated by anti-Semitism. What he meant was that, like any complex and chaotic historical event, the precise story of what exactly happened hasn't been resolved in every detail. Since investigation into the tragedy is still ongoing, some historians may question accounts of certain parts of the story with genuine intellectual integrity without necessarily being anti-Semitic.
UppruniTegundanna 1 year ago 5
@terratrema no no no .....Jews in Europe are Ashkenazim , descendants of the Khazars in S. Russia who converted to Talmudic Judaism around 750AD. They are NOT Semitic . Mel Gibson was absolutely right to make the film ' The Passion of Christ' . It was a very accurate portrayal. The Holocaust ( a term coined in the 1960's) was indeed terrible but it has been used as a rod to beat everyone with ever since.
AhmadAmor 1 year ago
@AhmadAmor
I think people should stop complaining about the term 'anti-Semitism'
The phrase was popularised by a bigoted German named Wilhelm Marr in the 1870s to make his Jew-hatred seem more political and palatable than all other forms of racism
The term 'anti-Semitism' may not be ideal, but we all know what it means; it's a useful enough term for the time being
As for poor old Mel Gibson, I did not say he was wrong to make the film, and I actually criticised Hitchens for complaining about it
terratrema 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@terratrema no no no .....Jews in Europe and USA are Ashkenazim , descendants of the Khazars in S. Russia who converted to Talmudic Judaism around 750AD. They are NOT Semitic . Mel Gibson was absolutely right to make the film ' The Passion of Christ' . It was a very accurate portrayal. The Holocaust ( a term coined in the 1960's) was indeed terrible but it has been used as a rod to beat everyone with ever since.
AhmadAmor 1 year ago
Hitchens implication is right. On some level, the reason that anti-Semitism is still around is because many of the great thinkers of our age were Jewish, and their great intellectual capacity caused them to undermine the credibility of political and religious dogma which gave many people a sense of security. All you have to do is think of the way Marx's and Einstein's ideas impacted people's religious and political perspective. Those who promote great change are always the most reviled.
alphacause 1 year ago
I love that line in minute 9:00 - 9:20. "If whiskey made you anti Jewish then the Pearl family wouldn't have invited me to be here". Hilarious.
alphacause 1 year ago
19:00 wrong, racists do discriminate - in their behaviour towards different human beings by chopping them up into "races".
What if a 'white' and a 'black' produce a child that looks 'arab'. Is that child of an 'arab' race? What if the child looks 'asian'? Is he then classed as 'asian'?
The non-racist doesn't have that problem. We make an assessment of their physical 'look', but make no assumptions on their BACKGROUND and CULTURE because of it.
We don't ACT on "race" as a concept.
natmanprime 1 year ago
"the liberation (occupation) of Iraq"
tulapi123 1 year ago
When the sound man turned down the sound, he spoiled the whole thing. I can't hear a damn word he says after that. Thumbs down. Shame, I would have liked to have heard this.
exchangeisno 1 year ago
Comment removed
exchangeisno 1 year ago
Brilliant, irrefutable - what an incredible mind. Above all, deeply moral.
Get well soon, Hitch.
vjwebster 1 year ago
Much respect to Daniel Pearl. Also, I hope Hitchens recovers from cancer as quickly as possible.
12AX74Life 1 year ago
Hitchens answers the question "Can Antisemitism be Flattering?" in the affirmitive; Nietzsche did too.
sartrekk 1 year ago
love this lecture...thoughtful, thoughtfilled, thought-provoking, and the comment on Victor Klemperer, "imperishable, the Winston Smith of" the Second World War.
Sorry to hear of Christopher's recent esophageal cancer diagnosis. I am praying for him, and doing so in the Name of Jesus, and hope he is OK with that. :-) Nevertheless, may he be Healed.
Gil-Galad Haskalah Morris
revpgesq 1 year ago
@revpgesq I doubt he would be OK with that. I don't think Hitchens suffers fools all too well. Keeping in mind that a thousand praying hands are not worth one set of working hands. Better you volunteer in a cancer ward than waste your time publically condescending to Christopher Hitchens and his illness. Stop calling yourself out. It makes you appear stupid, patronizing and delusional.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts who says praying hands are not also working hands? you are limited not only by your lack of a relationship with the Living God, but also by your either/or thinking.
tell me tho what you think of C. Michael Langan's contention of God's existence, how reality accretes in general, and where all this came from,originally speaking. since you are not stupid as am I, you certainly will not only know the answers, but be able to break them down for me. btw: sticks,stones, names, :-)
revpgesq 1 year ago
@revpgesq Faith without material deeds is dead. Prayer is useless and wholly counter intuitive and non-productive, a cop out for actual work. Bear in mind we always insert a god in the gaps when we lack real knowledge of things or events that otherwise mystify us. God probably doesn't exist. Get on with living.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts as i said, both/and is the way to think. How many times has your self-manufactured morality got you down to the homeless shelter this year? How is your tithing going? Did you even try to analyze Langan's work? I appreciate your stating your creed, Fagan, but i prefer the Apostles and the Nicaean Creeds. Have you evidence for your claims? If the praying hands have no object, then the working hands are sure to be futile and finally fail. More believe than don't: an evolutionary edge?
revpgesq 1 year ago
@revpgesq I make no claims to absolute certainty. The burden of proof is upon YOU to prove that prayer works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anything asserted w/out evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I just dismiss you claim based on lack of evidence. Working hands produce things. Praying hands merely soothes the conscious and does nothing to better mankind. An edge? Perhaps in the stone ages. But we're big boys now. You and me!
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@revpgesq mr Hitchens doesn't need your santa to get cured he needs doctors not your fairy tales.i am not going to have a discussion with you i just want to say that i find it disgusting that you would bring up his illness and associate it with with your non existent friend jesus.And you type a prayer and a smiley like you won the argument and that mr hitchens is now going to be a believer ,it says allot about your personallity.I suggest you busy yourself with the child raper epidemic in church!
xXxXTravisBickleXxXx 1 year ago
@xXxXTravisBickleXxXxWell said!
vjwebster 1 year ago
@xXxXTravisBickleXxXx The percentage of Priests who molest is less than the general population who molest.
MrBasilGanglia 1 year ago
Comment removed
xXxXTravisBickleXxXx 1 year ago
@MrBasilGanglia thats quite a statement... what do you base that on?
But if that was true it doesn't change the fact that priests get protection from vatican city and can continue their disgusting perversion at other churches.
.
Also good to know that the current pope has been responsible for 25 years as cardinal ratsinger to cover up the child abuse scandals in the roman chatholic church
xXxXTravisBickleXxXx 1 year ago
@xXxXTravisBickleXxXx I suppose you think Jesus was a fictional character? Fair enough, if you want to think that. Travis Bickle was a fictional character as well and was a paranoid freak who murdered people. I would rather have Christ as my "Fictional" hero to look up to than Bickle...even if he is fictional...so piss off you paranoid freak.
MrBasilGanglia 1 year ago
@MrBasilGanglia I don't look up to fictional characters like you ,i like scorsese as a movie director but thats another discussion that i am not going to have with you :)
xXxXTravisBickleXxXx 1 year ago
@xXxXTravisBickleXxXx What a wonderful envoy you are for anti-theism. Spewing bile like an atheist who's just BEGGING for life to catch up with him. Are you 16 or 17 years old?!
silvi01977 1 year ago
@silvi01977 i am 2 years older then you.
.
is it so hard to believe that there are people like me that you can't turn into a believer
xXxXTravisBickleXxXx 1 year ago
@xXxXTravisBickleXxXx And yet you seem to spend all your time debating and insulting believers... the psychiatrists say that you often hate the thing you most resemble. So how would you describe `believers`? What kind of idiot would be offended if a stranger tried to pull them out of the way of what they perceived to be an oncoming vehicle? If there's nothing there neither you or I have lost anything... if there is, your children can thank me. Other than that, I don't really care what you think
silvi01977 1 year ago
Protestants protest Catholicism. Google it dipshit.
ashwebdiz 1 year ago
it could have done without that mel gibson silliness....
JeffSims009 1 year ago
@ScotlandMaleGlasgow
Right, it's so hard to know... Usually seeing airplanes crashing into buldings followed by the guilty party boasting about it would--erm, I dunno-- convience people of who the culprit might be. But good on you that you don't buy into the "mainstream media" propaganda ;)
regelemihai 1 year ago
To reduce criticism of Israel and Zionism to anti-semitism is the ultimate intellectual cowardice.
The anti-Jewish sentiment coming from the Muslim countries is indeed unfortunate, but one must remember that it exists because of the barbaric policies of Israel (bulldozing homes, killing civilians), and the fact that Israel does what it does in the name of Judaism and Zionism.
Just as Islamic terrorism draws legit criticism of Muslims, Israel's policies draws legit criticism of Jews.
amibidhrohi2006 1 year ago
There's criticism and there's criticism. There's no shortage of criticism of Israel that is not called anti-Semitism. But you don't have to look far to find folks obsessed with Israel, who couldn't care less about human rights anywhere on earth other than West Bank or Gaza, who deny Israel's right to exist and insist that anyone who disagrees is a pawn of the "Zionist" lobby. To say that this form of anti-Zionism is not antiSemitism or to make excuses for it, requires astonishing credulity.
hazydavey 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Zigiwy 1 year ago
a cutting, funny, beautiful, and touching memorial - hitchens is untouchable
basehead617 1 year ago 67
@basehead617 @basehead617 Agreed. It makes me wonder who, if anyone, will be able to give Hitchens' funeral oration that merits his courage- maybe Dutch representative (and scholar) Ayaan Ali?
writersblock26 10 months ago
This guy has prob 10 times more info in his head than me lol.
buffenbison 1 year ago 2
@buffenbison
You're not the only one - he is definitely one of the most intelligent men in the world.
Ellesime89 1 year ago 43
@Ellesime89 cept for the whole getting cancer thing
highlanderdurp 6 months ago
A lovely documentary on this matter of biogenesis - spontaneous generation
noevolution . org
orbis2009 1 year ago
A Dream: "The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria produce after their own, that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life. Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for, "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". Pasteur stated: "Spontaneous generation is a dream". Alechemists, however, will never believe this Law. They are a Faith to keep.
orbis2009 1 year ago
LOL omg read your definition of "the Law of Biogenesis" again....tell me when you realize the stupid mixup you made, in assuming it disproves abiogenesis. LOL if you dont see it, then I'm not going to correct it cuz I want everyone who reads your comment to see how stupid u looked just there. LOL that is the perfect way to end this discussion
boorens18 1 year ago
Fairies could conceivably (and by a stretch!) be analogous to angels, but we are not talking intermediate realities here but the Prime Mover, the Ground and Source of all being.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 Again, you are completely missing my point, and making the same flaw in your argument. What is your evidence that there IS a "prime mover" in the first place? Further, if you claim its god, and retort that god doesnt need a cause...then why not save a step and say the universe exist in some form as the "prime mover?" The principle of Occams razor makes my position more reasonable than yours (which makes unneccesary assumptions of supernatural beings)
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 ---No. Your larger point is as untenable as a fish who doubts the existence of water. Step on a nail. Yeow! . You exist as an effect, a contingent being who cannot be explained apart from the Prime Mover. But you do not wish to see it. Descartes' cogito dissolved the minute he passed for the world carried on and was not contingent on his perception of either his own thoughts or being. You are a watch who does not believe in a Watchmaker. Sad. Human foolishness and myopia,.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 "you exist as an effect" That statement is COMPLETELY without support, thus your entire argument, is invalid. Not once has science EVER observed something "come into existance" as an effect. A watch requires a watch maker because it's parts have no natural affinity for eachother (thus they cant self arrange) so your analogy is flawed. See cdk007's video "evolution IS a blind watchmaker to see ur point completely destroyed.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 basically what you are doing is CLAIMING in order for something to exist it must have a cause....says who? Certainly not experience or science. All we have ever observed is matter rearrange. We have never observed matter "come into existance" let alone witness something else cause it. Once arguable exception is at the quantum level..where things DO come into existance then vanish WITHOUT cause.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 ..."evolution IS a blind watchmaker". You sum the incoherence up very well.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 lol the title is sarcastic dumb dumb. Watch the video.
"Evolution IS a blind watchmaker" by CDK007 on youtube.
It accomadates your lack of intelligence and puts everything in nice simple easy to understand terms. More so than you deserve quite frankly but I digress, the ignorant cant be blamed for being such.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 says "It accomadates (sic) your lack of intelligence and puts everything in nice simple easy to understand terms. More so than you deserve quite frankly but I digress, the ignorant cant be blamed for being such."
Ridicule is a poor substitute for thought.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
boorens18 1 year ago
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow: "For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries."
orbis2009 1 year ago
Christopher, I hope you are taking notes.
orbis2009 1 year ago
I find it puzzling that an atheist who considers human being to be an equal family of closely-related primates, can identify as a Jew, or to think that a religious/ethnic/tribal label should apply. Surely the definition of a Jew is one of the descendants of Abraham who were chosen by God as his people. No God, no Jews.
dashinvaine 1 year ago
@dashinvaine Aye? and to see what is really going on here I recommend another atheist who is at least frank and fair, "brainpolice2" at YouTube on "politicized atheism". Then I recommend for light but cogent reading Peter Hitchens' new book; he is a believer, and Christopher's brother (also a widely known journalist but in the UK).
orbis2009 1 year ago
Take the red pill
TheSafecracker777 1 year ago
ucla --worst sound engineering in all continental us... go figure...
howudoingbaby 1 year ago
/watch?v=SNrEo3HXVlI
OradanBuradan 1 year ago
See Christopher's brother, the famous journalist Peter Hitchens' new book The Rage Against God (Continuum, avaliable at Amazon) and his long piece at his Daily Mail blog today: How I Found God and Peace With My Atheist Brother
orbis2009 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens' visceral, indeed patholigiucal hatred of Christianity in general and Catholicisim in particulat disqualifies him from being taken seriously at all. He's a bigot, pure and simple, fighting his own shadow, as his brother says. He even wrote a book against Mother Teresa. Imagine. Today he has switched from Trostky to the Neocon internationale. Is it any wonder he panders to Israel? Defended David Irving. Ha! What a mess of a man, as Jews themselves can see.
orbis2009 1 year ago
No, he has logic on his side. He hates hypocrisy and people pretending to know what they don't and, more, foisting their views on others. No need to call him pathological.
peterbobbe 1 year ago
Peterbobbe, logic means believing that everything there is came from nothing at all, eh?
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009, isn't the creation of matter out of nothing at all just good old-fashioned Judeo-Christian dogma? Science has no clear answer on where matter came from, though, predictably, dogma does. Is that dogma logical?
peterbobbe 1 year ago
What is the source of logic?
Chris Hitchens has recently come into some sense, especially on foreign policy and grasping the threat of Islam. On other topics (read, religion), he's still a raving dogmatist.
Mesmeridicus 1 year ago
@Mesmeridicus The rejection of religious dogma is not, in itself, a dogma. Is your rejection of Thor, Ra, and Zeus as deities dogmatic or, rather, based on the reasonable conclusion that you see no evidence to support belief in their existence and authority? Hitchens, like many others, looks around him and sees no evidence for dogmatic religious belief, Christian or otherwise.
peterbobbe 1 year ago
No. God is hardly "nothing". He alone is the One who IS (read Exo 3:14; John 8:58)....all the rest of everything is contingent, created being. We are the effect, not the Cause. God is the precondition of even the head that doubts, or Mr. Hitchens' mouth that incessantly and curiously mocks. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al....poor Christopher is in bad company, Hitler was a pagan-occultist (not much better) who rejected Christianity as well. Atheism is made ancient wars look quaint by comparison. .
orbis2009 1 year ago
Hitler was a christian. Thats sort of a matter of public record...as was the fact that the pope sent him friendly letters and the catholic church celebrated his birthday.
Problem is, none of this matters. Evil or good acts by the religious dont make their beliefs true or false. Just like evil or good acts by atheists dont prove them right.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 Adolf Hitler was feared by Therese Neumann and she was a stigmatized Catholic.
jvaz003 1 year ago
Gonzo707...Do your homework. He despised Christianity, was a Nietzschean, Don't be cheap, it's a poor substitute for facts or seriousness.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
"Cheap?" If you really think Hitler "despised christianity" then you are the one who needs to "do your homework."
Have you ever actually read "Mein Kampf?" Hitler was a christian and a member of the catholic church (and was never excommunicated, by the way) who regularly praised christianity in his speeches and private writings.
Instead of burying your head in the sand and claiming that Im making this up why dont you just go do the reading and see for yourself?
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707
Maybe you should actually do your homework. He was a Catholic, but he was despised by the hierarchy. Pius XII, never trusted Hitler, even before he became pope. He believed in Christianity because he realized that there were verses in Scripture that can be used to control the people which is what he wanted. True Catholics, Padre Pio and Therese Neuman, to name a few, worked against Hitler especially Neuman which Adolf Hitler feared the most.
jvaz003 1 year ago
@jvaz003
lol Well then why should I "do my homework?" You just admitted that what I said about Hitler being a catholic and a christian is true. The halfhearted assertions you make in retreat- essentially that a lot of catholics didnt like Hitler- do not refute anything I have said one iota.
Why should I "do my homework" when you just acknowledged that my claims were correct? It seems like some of you out there just love to say that to sound smarter than your arguments later prove to be.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 Hitler was from a catholic background, he was however an athiest. Hence why he tried to get rid of the church and killed many cleric. And had many churches put under Nazi control were instead of teaching from the Bible, they preached Nazi ideology from the pulpit. Hitler was NOT a christian. He was from a catholic background, but not a chrisitan, just like many athiests today who are from catholic backgrounds but are not religious.
Gemz8 1 year ago
@Gemz8
"Hitler was from a catholic background, he was however an athiest. Hence why he tried to get rid of the church and killed many cleric"
Let's say for the sake of argument that he was an atheist (which is untrue btw), there's still no bridge between atheism and wanting to kill people. One cannot kill people in the name of not believing in god no more than a non-stamp collector kills in the name of not collecting stamps.
byteresistor 1 year ago
Plus, Christians believe Jesus was a jew, so to openly execute "God's people" would also be a bit stupid.
"there's still no bridge between atheism and wanting to kill people" - countless athiests murder daily! and it would make more sense for an athiest to try and wipe out the entire Jewish race than a Christian trying to do! esp seeing as Christianity is supposed to carry on from the Old testament Jewish text!
Gemz8 1 year ago
@Gemz8
"countless athiests murder daily!"
Not in the name of atheism they don't. Would you blame all bearded people if a bearded person killed someone? Show me the manual of bearded people which teaches to kill? Show me the manual of atheism which teaches to kill...
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor yes, but trying to put Hitler's murdering of Jews etc down to him supposedly being a Christian is silly, firstly because he never once killed in the name of "God" and secondly, i've read the Bible and no where does it state that a follower of that religion must go out and slaughter Jews!
Gemz8 1 year ago
@Gemz8
I haven't claimed Hitler's actions were because of his faith. On the other hand it was you who claimed it was because of his supposed atheism without offering no proof to your claim. No proof that he was an atheist and no proof that atheism leads to killing people.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor no proof that atheism leads to killing people? Ever heard of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? Stalin killed more in the Ukraine than the mad man Hitler even salivated for. These "men" killed more in just ONE century than in all the wars in all the centuries that ever were. Read Solzenitsyn's Archipelago volumes. Get real.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
They killed in the name of their ideology (communism etc.). Atheism isn't an ideology anymore than not believing in unicorns is. But if you think otherwise I challenge you to show me the book of atheism which has teachings that would lead people to kill others. Heck, show me the book of atheism that teaches anyone to do anything. Provide this simple proof to back up your claim or shut up. Linking atheism to these crimes is so old and childish.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@orbis2009
Ever heard of Richard Dawkins? Christopher Hitchens? Ayn Rand? Penn Jilette? Bertrand Russell? How many people did they kill?
You said that atheism leads to killing people. So either every atheist has killed someone or you just made a completely idiotic statement. I think I know which.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gonzo707 Bertrand Russell was a eugenicist (look it up); Ayn Rand's economic policies were elitist and who knows how many suffered? Dawkins likely is another pro-abortion eugenicist....No, none of this is idiotic. I've read all these, for decades, l...you are simply an ideologue who thinks nothingness and chance are inexplicably omnipotent---which is why atheists must anthropomorphise endlessly "Mother" nature.... to mitigate the implications of their Faith. See my page on Darwin and eugenics
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
It should pain you to libel thinkers in order to appeal to your argument; as you jumble a series of arguments into one poor and unrelated non sequitur. Your motivations seem obvious, the self promotion of an agenda,.
CadaverSplatter 1 year ago
Comment removed
orbis2009 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CadaverSplatter Evidently you haven't read much of Russell? See "Population Control and the Scientific Breeding of Humans" online and particularly his terminal passages from his The Impact of Science on Society. The technocracy has plans which starry eyed idealists turn their eyes from? As for "agenda," do you want fuller answers or not? I can't very well answer in these little comment boxes can I?
orbis2009 1 year ago
Comment removed
orbis2009 1 year ago
Comment removed
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
Nice dodge, but that wasnt the question. How many people did those I listed murder?
Now youre just lashing out wildly, claiming I hold beliefs or make statements I have not even insinuated yet. Leave that strawman be.
Its becoming obvious that you are yet another religious person who struggles to wield facts or logic to defend their arguments, so eventually you fall back on predictable strawman and ad hominem attacks.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 Nah, it's no struggle to see you being sucked into the Nihil. The struggle is in holding on to your ankles to keep you from dropping into that Vortex completely.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
lol
Sure, whatever you say. I guess youve abandoned the actual subject (realizing the facts are against you) and moved on to presumptuous and defensive pity? Rich.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.---Jean Paul Sartre, National Review, June 11, 1982. Needless to say, Simone de Bouevoir was horrified ; In her Cérémonie Des Adieux she wrote How should one explain this senile act of a turncoat? . (ibid)
orbis2009 1 year ago
you dont "FEEL?"...too bad that reality nor fact doesnt care what you feel. Further, how dare you complain that you dont feel grand enough in the cosmos. How dare you complain that your personal significance is some how deadened by the reality that your existance is due to natural processes. Of all the potential people and lifeforms that could be formed, it is you in your ordinariness that exists. You are so blinded by your self centeredness u miss the beauty that is all around u.
boorens18 1 year ago
How many potential combinations of dna that will never exist and be given the INCREDIBLE honor to exist at all, to live and to understand are there? You remind me of a rich child who complains that he cant have ALL he wants, while there are those who get so little. What selfishness becomes you? Just some speck? no, we are not some speck, "in" the universe, we are a speck OF the universe, and a unique speck in that we understand as much.
boorens18 1 year ago
@orbis2009 In short Orbis, it is only the pathetically self-centered who succumb to the belief of paradise, and fail to see the virtual paradise that is right next to you. In a universe of nigh infinite nothingness, you represent a unique combination, where matter has come together in such a way as to comprehend itself, and the rest of the universe. We are a method for the universe to know itself. only the utmost selifsh being would not be satisfied with that.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 "pathetically"? Nay, nay. Far greater minds than thine have been believers, though you must put your mirror down if you are to ponder this sufficiently. I have been in the paradise right next to me all day. Splendid in wonder, impossible that it and everything there is came from nothing at all but for the One who Is (Exo 3:14). You are merely a contingent complex integrated system, utterly dependent for your being on Another's will. Now pick up your hymnal and turn to page 1...
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 yes they have, and far greater minds believed in spontaneous generation. It is completely meaningless to point to people who use to believe, before there was a comprehensive theory for life. It doesnt support the claim that there is a god at all. I find it HILARIOUS that you state (with zero evidence) that:
A) a god exists
B) said god cares about me
C) said god listens to hymns
D) said god's will holds everything together
zero evidence=dismissed without evidence.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Ah, yes. The most you can honestly say is you simply don't know. To conclude that there is no God you would have to know that there is no God. You would have to know the whole of Reality. Now since that is impossible, if you are an atheist you are positing a faith of your own. Even as a theory the best theory would be the one which explains the most. God explains the most, indeed everything. Atheism retreats into a Negative unknowing. The empty tomb we consider evidence.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
That isnt "faith" and that isnt how logic works. Non-belief requires no proof. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, THEY have to provide proof that it is true. I could tell you that I have a jar full of fairies in my garage that created the universe. You have no proof that I dont. But I have to prove it if I expect you to believe it. And the best theory is not the one which explains the most- the best theory is the one that is not refuted.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 I don't know why you guys are always making allusions to fairies, like it was some kind of Freudian slip. You assert that nothingness is the source of all that is---- apart from a Prime Mover. That is a faith assertion since it is not demonstrable and you cannot know that it is so.
Theism in SOME form is the majority opinion of humankind and in all ages. Thus you are the novelty. Nothingness has no potency and so cannot be the matrix of existent at all. So this is your Faith. Amen.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 and why is it that when someone makes the TOTALLY reasonable and suitable analogy to fairies, rather than point out how it is wrong...you just dodge it?
Fairies evidence:
-People believe in them on faith
-there is historical writings of fairies.
-people worshipped them
Gods evidence
(the exact same) how is this analogy invalid? Please, enlighten me
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Nah, nobody believes in fairies. Yet even you cannot but ponder the question that is God. Everybody is taking a position regarding God, but none but polemicists and cartoonists talk of fairies. God haunts us, enrages us, questions us, Hitchens knows there ain't no heaven and prays there ain't no judgment. God is that One Whom we cannot avoid because He iS... our origin and end. A babe in the womb is convinced the womb is all there is ----based on experience.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 you clearly dont know your history if you think no one ever believed in fairies. Do I ponder the question that of gods existance? No not really, I am certainly open to evidence should it arise, but 2 decades of waiting and seeing fruitless attempts has made me highly skeptical of the idea. Again, you still evade answering what is exactly wrong with the analogy of faires, and thus you appear weak in your argument.
boorens18 1 year ago
@orbis2009 as for your argument about babies in the whom. Babies are not capable of critical thinking for one, and secondly if they were capable, they COULD get evidence. The rest of your comment was just unsubstantiated claims with zero support so I can justly dismiss it. That which is stated without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So again I ask you, what is the fundamental supporting evidence for god that puts it above fairies?
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 oops typo, womb* not whom
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Discursive thinking is one thing, thinking itself another. There is little difference between a baby 8-9 months in utero and a baby just outside the womb; neuro-science (hard measurable science; you like science) says babies think, in either case. The question is whether babies are content in the womb. But surely they cannot conceive of life in "another" world, outside? But it exists or all that.
Now to us. Does your hunger point to the existence of bread?
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 Im sorry but I'm not going to let you change the subject....please answer the question, I've asked now 4 times. What is the defining difference that makes the analogy of fairies not suitable to god? Why is god more reasonable? I've already pointed out that fairies were a real part of old folk lore and pre-monotheist religions
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Let's get serious please? Fairies have not been the preoccupation of any but story- tellers, Disney and people like yourself; whereas theism has been pondered by the greatest minds and philosopher in all ages. So you are simply being silly and tactical with the question. Or if you to think the analogy is fair I will have to dismiss you as a rascal and not respond further.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 I am serious...dead serious. So I ask you, will you? You keep avoiding my question. Rather then belittle my argument...why not freaking answer it? WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN EVIDENCE BETWEEN FAIRIES AND GOD? Answer the question. Fairies have been part of several religions which boast great minds (Pagan/Wiccan/Greek), as well play a large role in folk lore in Ireland, Cornwall, Whales, and Scotland
boorens18 1 year ago
@orbis2009
Yes. And the idea of an anthropomorphic all-powerful deity who looks after you and will reward you with heaven or punish you with hell after death is your ideological "womb." You either cant conceive of or dont want to consider the mind-boggling implications that science is uncovering about the nature of existence and the cosmos, so you cling to a bronze-age mythological fable and pretend it is fact.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 The immensity of the universe dwarfs heads and the conflicting endless theories of scientists . But scientists hold a secret that must not out else it will give the game away. The more they see and know, the less they know in the face of immensity. Every theory breaks down into endless schools of thought, ways of seeing things. All knowledge hangs on the ifs and these ifs break down into even more ifs at every critical juncture. God must reveal or the universe is unknowable.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
lol What you describe isnt some "secret" guarded by the science community. Its actually just the socratic paradox in a nutshell. This doesnt mean epistemology is for naught and people should accept whatever fairy tale they wise as fact- it means that the acquiring of knowledge is an endless process and that there is no ultimate "truth" at which that process ends.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@orbis2009
Science does not assert that nothingness is all there is. Im not sure where you got that idea. In fact, science "asserts" as fact NOTHING that it cannot demonstrate. Again you dont seem to be familiar with what science and faith actually are.
Yes, free-thinking human beings who abandon superstition, dogma and myth for empiricism, doubt and skepticism are the novelty. This comes as a compliment to evolutionists.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@orbis2009 the most I can say is that god is about as likely as the tooth fairy is at this point. And that is a fair, justified and reasonable statement. You cant deny that. There is no objective evidence to support any being. And faith is the ACCEPTANCE of an idea, not the rejection of one, without evidence. So no. As for the theory of god, actually it doesnt explain anything. I suspect you dont understand what "explain" means. How does saying "god did it" contribute any knowledge?
boorens18 1 year ago
@orbis2009
So you can find a quote where an existentialist wants to believe that he was the center of the universe? Im not sure what this proves. If you choose to dismiss the years of scientific discovery and evidence gathered for evolution in favor of a bronze-age myth that you were spontaneously and manually molded in the image of an all-powerful supervising deity then that's fine. But in my opinion, simple anthropocentrism like that isnt exactly surprising, compelling, or insightful.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 A book you should read is "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy From the 19th to the 21st Century" by Phillip and Paul Collins on, among other things, the difference between science and scientism. Read also anything by Dr. Wolfgang Smith. Or even Heisenberg and Feyerabend. It's all at amazon if you are willing to put your dogmas to critical examination.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
Lets get something clear. Science is not dogma...nor is a willingness to trust what science can demonstrate, repeat, or prove. "Dogma" is not the trust in a system of skepticism, doubt, retesting, and theorization as an epistemological tool. The thesis alone of the book you mention is nonsense. There is a reason scientific inquiry has come to be considered more reliable than insistence on mythology and "sacred" texts as fact, and it has nothing to do with a conspiracy.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 says "Science is not dogma...willing to trust what science can demonstrate". By all means do "trust" good man. See? You are religious after all, since it is highly doubtful you can show what it "demonstrates". You do not even say "theorizes"....but It depends on where you stand, friend, and how you filter your perceptions. It's ALL epistemology. Ironic, I am more skeptical than thee. The more we know.. the greater the problems. All of "science" hangs on endless intersecting "ifs"...
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
lol No, I am not religious. You seem confused as to what religion itself is and how it and religious faith differ from the sort of trust placed in the scientific method. I did bring up theorization, btw.
Religion is NOT epistemology. It is simply belief- usually in disproven mythology. Verification and belief regardless of evidence are not the same thing. You are very obviously not more skeptical than I am.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 You are religious to the extent that you you live by faith. You cannot possibly have seen demonstrative proof, good fellow, of all that you "believe". But it has been a pleasure corresponding with you and I suggest again you get the Collins book. Or read in dome depth the others recommended. Your excllusion of theism has everything to do with epistemology. Francis Bacon said, "a little science takes a man away from the question of God. But a GREAT DEAL of it brings him back." Amen.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009
Again, you need to look up the word "religious" in the dictionary and see what it means. Also look up the word "faith." You dont seem to understand how it differs from a willingness to place trust in science...namely, that faith is belief that can and does persist in spite of evidence or even proof to the contrary while science is based entirely upon evidence and CONSTANTLY RESHAPES its theories to accomodate any new evidence which challenges them.
Gonzo707 1 year ago
@Gonzo707 its best to just avoid contact with these people, they wield faith like a sword and think theyre in battle. when you show up only armed with facts they swing wildly screaming "NA NA NA I DONT HEAR YOU" and saying things like "morality" and "there must be" which, at the time, are completely irrelevant to the argument you're having and you end up wasting your time talking to someone with the logic of a muskrat.
Vermin298 1 year ago
@Vermin298 saith " it's best to just avoid contact with these people..".They said the same for Socrates. But spare me, please, your Hemlock {Thou shalt not kill") if not your derision?
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 pardon me please. what i meant was "its best to avoid arguing or debating with these people" sorry i didnt type what i meant. the reason you should avoid arguing with these people is because they dont care about facts, clearly. thanks
Vermin298 1 year ago
@Vermin298 Sure, thanks for the clarification. Did I also mistake you for being on the atheist side? If so, my apology. If not, then I can only insist that theists do care about facts and indeed see them as teleological.
orbis2009 1 year ago
@orbis2009 once again ive been a bit hasty in posting my comment. i am indeed an atheist, or rather a rationalist is what id prefer to be known as after seeing the definition of atheist in the dictionary. i generalised in my comment which isnt what a rationalist would do. to be more precise, its best to avoid debating with extremists of any kind as they dont care about facts. i know only a few people that are religious and i wouldnt say they dont care about facts. my mistake again, sorry :)
Vermin298 1 year ago