I strongly recommend Hitchens' book "god is not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything". It's a great book for any intellectual person who wishes to acquire more knowledge on the subject, religious or
not. He makes a ridiculously strong case against religion, and shows just how obvious it is that religion is a man made ideology.
@thegiantpeople people are still killing people in the name of God, esp. in the middle east which they really follow the Koran LITERALLY. Christians are giving gays a hard time here in the great US of A. This is still going on, these problems are still here which is why Hitchens continued to have these debates. It's simple really.
I find it interesting with those who don't believe in the concept in following religion through the source of a 'God' who will sit an argue against those who do. I personally don't follow a religion, because i know its power, but i believe in something. The reason i find this interesting is because those you debate against it find it necessary to notice is catastrophic power, in terms of wars and slaughter, which starts from arguments.
@thegiantpeople So you recommend that there be no argument, from fear of violence? Can you not see the problem right there?
Fighting with words against dogma that wants to enslave every person on the planet? I find that a fitting passtime. Better it doesn't come to violence, but the violence will only ever come from the opposing side first. History has shown that fact clearly enough. The religious are always the first to draw the blade or pull the trigger.
Very sad still that Hitch is gone. He was probably the biggest part of my reaching the point where I became interested in learning about the world rather than assuming I already knew.
The promoted video has nothing at all to do with the list of videos below. Currently the promoted directs one to the Mormon YouTube channel and their proponent propaganda. It seems to me that a promoted video might or should more closely follow the general content of the others, which in this case is about Atheists. Maybe the only criteria needed to promote any YouTube page is money and in that the title of this video would better be “Hitchens: Religion is about power (or trying not to lose it)”
(I say this from the perspective of being raised Catholic; and while loathing many aspects of "organised religion", I've never found the idea of a God/Supreme Being to be as utterly offensive to reason and dignity as it is sometimes spoken of as being).
Something that's always troubled me slightly about Christopher Hitchens' comments on religion and god(s) is the seeming assumption that they are almost the same thing, and that one always follows another. Would it not be possible to have a belief/informed guess/hope (whatever you wish to call it) that a God, or several, exists, BUT not subscribe to a man-made institution based on said belief?
@Sascopa Agree, he confused God, religion and politics, he had a dogmatic belief in atheism based on a political anger, as evident in some comments here.. It's a shame, I liked him, but I think if he had used his intellect more openly, he may have found a higher purpose in life, that may have prevented him smoking and drinking himself to death...
@GuyThreepwoody "he may have found a higher purpose in life"
He found the highest purpose in life : be honest with yourself, be honest with others, think with logic not emotion, never fear anything, and admit you're wrong when you are.
@Sascopa If that was true, he might have shrugged and moved on to bigger fish. But how likely is it that someone comes to the conclusion there's a God or Gods seperately, without inspiration or influence from Religion? Not very! And how likely is it that the person in question keeps it to themselves and doesn't cause trouble while spreading this new message? Even less likely!
If a logical, pragmatic person reviews the track-record of religious cultures/individuals across the centuries, and fairly judges them,- there is only one inevitable conclusion;
that is, that religious people generally are bad, untrustworthy, evil. But then what else could be expected when their entire life is based on a lie?
The only war worth fighting, in my opinion, is the war against ignorance. Mr Hitchens does that brilliantly. Anyone exposed to sufficient knowledge will agree that all gods are superstition and that humanity should now let go of that ridiculous security blanket. The war would be easily won, were it not for people that wish to remain ignorant. JUST AS SOME DISEASES WILL MAKE THE SICK REFUSE TO SEEK TREATMENT, THIS KIND OF SUPER-IGNORANCE DESTROYS THE WILL TO SEEK THE TRUTH.
Wow, that Turek guy is so full of hate, he's practically sweating it. I can't understand how he can be seriously "arguing" for his side with so much anger flowing out of him, considering that's the opposite of what his side usually tries to present themselves as.
@ThePobri The law of probability is against atheism, we are not amebas living in a puddle, we are a very complex form of life living in a very complex world, so structured that THIS KIND of life by accident is impossible. Just look the water cycle. Humans don’t make water and without water we can not live. Only an intelligent being could make the water cycle
@fundie2008 are you serious, humans cannot make water! H2O simple rearranging of atoms. We as a primate species have been able to make water from hydrogen and oxygen atoms for a while now. What we cannot do yet it create energy nor destroy it, the rest is just a complicated erector set. Do some research before you open you mouth.
The power/control aspect of religion is what made me drop my faith. Being a proponent of cannabis, I naturally reached the "fuck the lying government" phase. After that, I just took a step back and said, how can I not point that same finger at religion? I never would have thought my life would change so much for the better by asking that simple question. Fuck all the lies and fuck all the power that thrives on those lies. Religion is squandering mankind and it needs to be eradicated.
Turek's just another one of those intellectual cheaters that tries to argue for a deist God and then goes ahead and leaps to the intellectual fallacy of insisting that if there is a deist God it must be the one the J author made up from shreds of other earlier man made gods and myths 3,000 years ago and that the priestly classes made up the rules and rituals of following ~2,500 years ago.
Yeah, right on. Hitchens has it right: Jesus was just nightmarish, with all that stuff about love and forgiveness and tolerance... I mean, who in their right mind would want to believe in any of that crap?
Yeah, right on. Hitchens has it right: Jesus was just nightmarish, with all that stuff about love and forgiveness and tolerance... I mean, who in their right mind would want to believe in any of that crap?
@danielhmanning Lest us not forget that Jesus was all about sending people to a fiery furnace for all eternity that had never bothered anyone for simply believing differently and his insistence that the whole world has to end in a cataclysmic battle where out of 6 Billion people on earth with well over 90% of them being by all accounts kind and good human beings only 140,000 Jews will survive.
@ed12261972 I know that's been pushed on you by churches, but it ain't true, bro. There's no such thing as Hell in the Bible; it's a lie propagated by churches to keep power over people. Check out my video, man; nine minutes out of your life that'll change the way you look at Jesus. He wasn't about eternal torture, dude. Just check it out, and if I'm lying, you can be the first person to dislike my video.
Turek is an idiot who willingly believes in impossible things that fit his agenda but won't believe provable things when they don't. He's not fit to lick Christopher Hitchens' boots.
Moreover, religions have evolved from simple superstitions....they build upon earlier superstitions until you get a huge "power" structure. This is where religion directly affects society and where criticism focuses on the POWER hold a head figure has on the society.
I don't believe religion is about power at all. It's about misunderstanding at its core. It's about superstition. Hitchens breaks down Christian belief to basically washing your own sins in an innocent man's blood, to paraphrase. He remarks that it's a terrible and ghastly idea to get away so easily.
But at its core, it's about showing the love of God; that God would be forgiving enough to provide his son. Now whether you believe it or not doesn't excuse you from cutting away the gist of it.
Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
ofc religion is all about power, power to control people in both subtle and direct ways. Thier may well be a god (divine being) of some sort but its not the god thats written about (by humans) in the Bible. You can bet the Bible has been changed and edited many many times since it was first written to suit the current needs of what ever church decided it was time for a change.
And do you think that onto such as you / A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew, / God gave a secret and denied it me? / Well well, what matters it? / Believe that too.
does turek honestly pass as a philosopher/intellectual in america? he misses words out of sentences, he stutters, he gets aggressive, he's clearly not very bright , its almost tragic that hitch has to share a stage with him- cant count how may times ive seen a non-believer destroy a believers argument, only for the believer to then turn aggressive because he's ran out of logical arguments. theres a vid of hitch debateing some irish-american catholic, the guy actually threatens hitch.
if "god" was in the market for saving souls, he would just do it right?!?!! Why put people through all this gilt and bullshit if he already sent his "son" to die.
@humanist7117 It's because the Bible says Jesus is the only medium by which eternal salvation may be attained, through faith and not by works. That in itself isn't arrogant. What is arrogant is when people who claim to be Christians behave in a non-Christian manner and discriminate against non-believers. This is 180° opposite from the loving compassion taught by Jesus Christ.
To help you out Gaz, I will give some reference to read: Summa Contra Gentiles; Summa Theologica; The Handbook of Christian Apologetics. These are decent primers to engage in philosophical/theological discussions.
Wow, six posts in a row, huh. You're obviously way more into this than I am.
This isn't a debate, mate. We're not getting points for any of this. I just enjoy quizzing crazy religious types in my spare time, just to see what wacky new 'evidence' they have this week. And as usual your 'evidence' has been "god must exist because the universe can't be infinite. But god is allowed to be infinite because he's god, so there".
One day people like you will be laughed at in the street.
Sorry Gaz ... for a moment I thought you were serious. It was fun though ... thanks mate :)
Regarding the laughter, which has happened from unaware men since the beginning, it as Jesus says: "Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep."
I've stood on the mountain of REASON showing you the path for days now, and instead of actually debating the points I raise, you go and stand on a different mountain and shout in a different direction, while throwing impotent grenades in my direction, and pretend like you have won the debate. Pathetic, gaz! Let me guess your next response: " You haven't proven a thing!" Show me scientific evidence that your not ignorant!!
You are committing the Fallacy known as a category error or mistake. Essentially, to be reasonable, which you are not, you need to show why the way to God through deductive logic, not the scientific method, is unreasonable. You can't do it, so your replies amount to a distraction from that fact.
Science, gaz, is neutral on the subject of God. All scientists know it, even RIchard Dawkins. Ask Dawkins to give a % of probability that God doesn't exist -- he won't, because he has no data. Science doesn't study God. Deductive logic after a sensory experience is the path to know God. To do that, you have understand formal logic. Most people don't, so the Bible is a shortcut for them. There is nothing inconsistent in the Bible or Catholic Tradition that contradicts reason.
"There is nothing inconsistent in the Bible or Catholic Tradition that contradicts reason."
That may be the single most fallacious comment I've ever seen in a religious discussion. Only a theist could consider their faith reasonable, and as reason is not limited to one person's preferences on what is objectively true and what is not objectively true, the system of faith itself is unreasonable.
Being a theist is the result of proving by reason that God exists and has certain qualities. The fact that you don't know how to do that doesn't mean it can't be done. Google Peter Kreeft on proofs for God, and get an education, moron :)
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
HItchens argument against Christianity is primarily against Protestant theology -- there is no "scapegoat" in Catholic theology. Why wouldn't Christ know that? Because, although he has a broad vocabulary, he never substantially studied philosophy and theology. And why are his views respected in this area? We should say not "Chris is brilliant", but rather "Christ has a larger vocabulary than some people".
Theology is the study of God, whose existence can be proved by deductive logic after an initial scientific observation. My post pointed out that Chris never picks on the Catholic position, only on unreasonable Protestant positions. I would love to see Chris actually attempt to dismantle the philosophical underpinnings of Catholic thought, and then realize it can't be done.
The 'philosophical underpinnings of Catholic thought' are just as full of bullshit and half-logic as any other branch of Christianity. In fact Catholicism is worse since it just blatantly makes shit up beyond what's in the big book; purgatory anyone?
You're no better than any of the thousands of other branches.
OK ... shall we start with purgatory? I can explain why purgatory is not contrary to reason. Why don't you tell me why you think purgatory is unreasonable first, so I know how to best answer. Agreed?
Fine. Reason dictates that nobody can know for sure what happens when they die. Even if they could, they'd have no way of confirming it to the living, seeing as they are now dead.
Yet somehow Catholicism claims that not only does it know what happens when you die, but that it has a detailed and comprehensive blueprint of god's waiting room. Which, by the way is no longer believed by many Roman Catholics.
To top it off, prove that it exists. Point to it. Find it on a map.
There is only one official teaching of the Church, which expands, but which has never retracted its original teaching. Purgatory is essentially a state of being in which a soul has not fulfilled the demands of justice before entering God's presence in full. There are plenty of terms here and I don't know if whether or not you're a serious atheist. If you are we should first prove that God exists.
Prove that god exists? Don't be a fool, you can't. You just can't, don't even try. Millions have tried for thousands of years and failed every time, you will be no different.
OK ... I will do that tomorrow, as I'm going to sleep. I will first demonstrate that there is a First Cause/ Unmoved Mover in a way that atheists typically don't understand. Then I will give qualities of the First Cause/Unmoved Mover, so that we can predicate intelligence, oneness, immateriality, and eternity of that cause. Talk tomorrow :)
You're not going to prove anything. Saying that 'atheists don't understand' doesn't validate it or make it true, frankly I don't care what it is now because no matter how ridiculous or nonsensical it is, you'll have the excuse that I 'don't understand it' and claim victory by infuriation.
You're just throwing out big, pseudo-scientific words to try and make your babble seem intelligent or reasonable, when in reality it's based entirely in faulty logic and assumptions.
If you could prove god's existence, you'd be on the news. Millions would be converting to Christianity as we speak. Scientists would be falling to their knees and burning their books.
But none of that is happening. Because you don't 'know' anything.
Gaz ... billions have converted to Christianity. Islam is essentially a Christian heresy. Judaism is a kind of prototype of Christianity. The Church is not shrinking, but even if it was, it wouldn't necessarily be because God's existence proofs were misunderstood. Sometimes people do understand, but with their free will, they reject anyway. So let's have a stab at the proofs for God ... beginning with the reality that there must be a first cause ... do you accept a first cause?
Easy Gaz ... first, consider Messianic Jews, who see Judaism exactly as I described ... it's not arrogant ... Jesus fulfills the expectations of the Old Testament - more to say here. Second point - you initiated the topic concerning "millions converting to Christianity" -- I didn't create an argument out of that point, just an observation. Third point -- multiverses are consistent with a First Cause argument -- because all the universes may be in motion or there is .... next post
a single possibly infinite universe in motion, the universe or universes cannot be Unmoved Movers, and hence not the First Cause, which deductive logic necessitates. Infinity without God is not logically possible for this reason. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes or motions; otherwise current motion and existence cannot be experienced. You would have to reject formal deductive logic to reject that statement.
Your 'deductive logic' is completely flawed and based on an assumption that there has to be a First Cause.
It doesn't 'fix' the regress, it makes it WORSE. You put god at the beginning; what came before god?
God made the universe; what made god?
God put everything in motion; what put god in motion?
By putting god there you just create more questions than you've dodged. You haven't answered or proved anything, you've just found a hole and squeezed your god-of-the-gaps into it.
nothing came before the first cause, Gaz ... there cannot be an infinite regression ... otherwise, you can't exist. Existence can't be passed through an infinite chain to you, so you can't exist. To ask "what made god?" is to reveal your lack of understanding. That's OK though, because there are other ways to come to know God.
'You don't understand' isn't an argument, it's a cop-out.
If god created the universe, then he existed before the universe did. How long did he sit around, twiddling his almighty thumbs, before he decided to make the universe?
Did he always exist? Is god infinite? Because if he is then he existed for an infinite amount of time before he created the universe, which, as you've already stated, is impossible. If he's not, where did he come from?
You say "then he existed before the universe did" -- this is true. To ask "how long" is to not understand that the fabric of space-time is created ... there is no waiting in God ... God is eternal, spiritual, and unchanging and "comes from" nowhere, since that would admit of potentiality which is not possible for the first cause.
So you're saying god comes from nowhere and has always existed, yet apply that statement to the universe and it can't possibly be true?
There must be some small part of you that can see the complete hypocrisy there. You're just taking things you say are impossible and attributing them to an equally impossible being.
Here's your logic; "Infinite universe is impossible, therefore god. Infinite god is possible because...god SO THERE." In fact it's not even logic, it's nonsense.
You probably noticed that I put "comes from" in quotes to indicate that "from" indicates a place, and so there is no place from which the First Cause comes, since the FC initiates all places from which other being can come. There is no logical inconsistency there. I'm thinking if I word the syllogism in a different way, you might get it. Let me try, and then we can debate more ...
You want to borrow a book called "Existence" and ask the previous lender it they have it (since you know they had it), and they point you to the previous lender to get the book, and that lender points you the to the previous lender, and that routine goes on in an unlimited way. Now ... answer this question, Gaz, to prove you understand the argument made by Aquinas regarding causality: When will you get "Existence" in this scenario?
What's sad is that you actually think you're making some kind of point here. Even if the idea of an infinite number of previous universes is somehow incompatible with you, what makes you so absolutely certain that the thing that started it all is god, specifically YOUR god? How long had that god existed, and how can you possibly know or prove it?
You're finding a problem, then 'explaining' it with THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM. It's nonsense, I can't believe you can't see that.
What's sad, Gaz, is that you won't or can't answer the question I posed: "When will you get "Existence" in this scenario?" However, assuming that you accept a First Cause, we can show qualities about that First Cause by deductive logic, with no more scientfic data required (except your current existence, and a developed vocabulary). Are you surprised by the power of deductive logic? It seems you are ... like you think the vast amount of knowledge we have is from science?
Patronizing all you like but I'm aware of the point you're making and it's irrelevant, because the existence of god is contradictory to it. You can't use a point to discredit an argument then choose to ignore it when making your own.
You say you're using logic, but it's huge leaps of logic based on an assumption that you can't prove to be true. I could say, 'based on the assumption that you are a dog, one can logically assume that you have four legs'. Doesn't mean you're a dog.
I don't mean to be patronizing. OK. I think the First Cause is God for a number of reasons: because the First Cause is responsible for all that exists, including the immaterial things we think about (truth, justice, etc.), the immaterial free will we have, the immaterial ability for us to love each other (even when it goes against our instinct to love), the immaterial ability to perceive a Creator, the immaterial ability to call something a "variable" in science or math, etc.
These immaterial expressions that we do constantly count as evidence in my court of REASON, not to mention miracles (google Padre Pio), scientifically studied and unaccounted for visions of the Virgin Mary (google Medugorje), exorcisms (google Gabrielle Amorth), Eucharistic miracles (google Julia Kim). Why, in your court of REASON, do they not count as evidence, especially as they have manifestations in the physical world? There are countless others too! Not evidence? Why?
Everything you're claiming as 'evidence' of god is either a concept or emotion which is easily and comprehensively explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory, something which hasn't been scientifically explained yet, or an utter fabrication. We used to think that Tourette's and epilepsy were demonic possession but we're smarter than that now. Old men in convents claiming visions are not demonstrable proof.
Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it's god. That's why.
I find it interesting how general your response is -- red herring? Which part is explained by Darwinian theory? Which part is fabrication? Where is your "scientific explanation" for your statements, or are you revealing your atheist "FAITH"? This is the most concerning part -- "something which hasn't been scientifically explained yet" -- to say that these things will be explained by science is NOT a scientific statement (nothing to support it), and so has ZERO value in YOUR view.
Let me answer your questions in order; No it's not; human emotions, religious mindset and the sense of right and wrong; the majority of Catholic dogma; the library.
You remember the library, right? It's that place that keeps all the books locked up so that the Christians can't burn them.
What if I told you that I worshipped an invisible pink unicorn that only I could see? Would you accept that with 'grace and faith', or would you call me a lunatic?
Blindly accepting something without question makes one a fool and a hypocrite.
@Gaz6231 First of all I dont go around calling people crazy, and second of all if it is a ridculous notion of such as a pink unicorn obviously I would believe. Howeverm the bible is my proof for God, I also can feel him so there is a bit of difference between a Saviour to came to save the world and a unicorn.
@Gaz6231 I would say you free to worship whatever you want, that is your decision, be it an invisible pink unicorn, that big shiny ball in the sky or nothing.......Just do not attempt to persuade me to join you, or cause suffering to other humans because of your beliefs.....and we could co exist in peace.....I know and get on with people who believe in Tarot cards, and spend money on it, they can ill afford to.......I personally think they are fools......but the world is full of them.
Then by letting me (and them) be utterly wrong you're condemning me to a life of ignorance. If someone thought an apple was a buzzard, would you let them believe that or would you correct them?
@Gaz6231 I thought we talking about the freedom of religious worship, not the acquision of knowledge ( two entirly different things).....Supposedly there are qualified scientists who believe in the complete word of the bible.They actually believe God took a rib from man and made woman....Each individual must reach his own conclusion, find his own truth.....Tweny minutes studying Mormonism persuades me Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a con man... I could be wrong,but I can live with that.
@elibeth121 I'm a little sad that someone gave you the pleasure of an answer. Because you're either a troll, or a fucking idiot, and neither one is okay.
But based on your continual "non-ideal holding, under 5 syllable" responses, you're making fun of the Christian in this video, because you sound just like him lol.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
"God Gives you what you deserve." Wow... I swear man, these Christians are fucking hypocritical, "holier-than-thou" know-it-alls who do not live in reality at all. Scientists and Atheists and free thinkers are willing to admit they are wrong. Science is always evolving, and scientists are always trying to disprove others' claims. However, with religion there is no margin of error. It's all or nothing. How can you argue with someone like that? Insane.
We used religions for our Politics, Jesus Christ was punished cz he was a threat for Roman Empire because he believe in helping poor, Muhammad was punished because he became great danger for the wealth and power of Arabs. Muhammad talk about rights of poor, orphans, women, children and even animals. Religions came for Men but how can politicians want the rights of poor?
Turek is giving probability is he? He is giving Cosmological, taleological, moral, conciousness, reason, mahematics. The problem is that none of these support a god. The probability argument lays on the side of the Hitch.
THIS HITCHIN GUY IS SO NEGATIVE, EVERYTIME YOU HEAR HIM. ITS APPARENT HE HAS SOME KIND OF ISSUE GOING ON. HERE YOU HAVE A GUY WHO IS FAMOUS FOR WHAT? BEING AN ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK FOR SOME IRRELEVANT MAGAZINE, CRITICISING OTHERS, YET HE ACHIEVED NO GREATNESS IN HIS OWN LIFE. CHECK OUT HIS DEBATES AGAINST CHRISTIANS, THAT SAYS IT ALL.
@untwerf I do know hat he was prescribed Interferon & that a common side effect is skin problems , rashes, psoriasis, blotches , but obviously this is just a guess,or maybe he was just hot?
Wow a man whose beliefs are only reactive calls religion power hungry. There is nothing but a hunger for power from reactionist. Everytime Hitch speaks it is reactive looking for the weakness of thought in anothers belief.Atheist who react rather than give original thesis for their beliefs are the blood sucking power seekers of the most deplorable kind. I have no problem with atheists or being atheist but to say religion seeks power but Hitch does not in his religion is dis ingenuous
He said "God gives you what you desire" and what he was saying is that Hitchens is going to hell in response to "Nor am I going anywhere after I die...and I don't wish it otherwise". However there is no fictional place called hell so Hitchens is correct and Turek's god will give him nothing.
We can't prove there isn't a god. That's freely granted. However, even if there is some deity or something like a deity, what the hell are the odds that he, she or it just happens to precisely fit the description layed out by bronze-age mystics and gat-herders on one particular planet in the arse-end of nowhere? Not great, I should imagine.
@vulnerabledonkey Sure you can disprove God. You'd really like the youtube video Proofs for God's Existence Destroyed by a Philosophical Athiest by the Philosopher Stefan Molynuex. As brilliant and Hitchens is(I've even met him and had my book signed by him) Molynuex's arguments are much more simple and conclusive. Stefan Molynuex also has a free audiobook called 'Against the God's' which you can download at his website.
@vulnerabledonkey We can disprove god.There is zero evidence of god,and even a fool knows 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence." The burden of proof is on the positor NOT the negator. Your right about the silly Bronze Age 'objective(absolute)moral relativism' of the Bible and Quran. Its degrading and subhuman,Compassion,the highest of Ethics is lit between bearer and offspring at birth ,so Ethics are innate and entirely 'subjective'.
@PAULOcbi I agree with your point yet from a logical/linguistic view the phrase "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is massive butcher job in the area of definition(s). The LACK OF evidence implies absence of the particular thing of interest. "Evidence" implies the "existence" of something which points to something else. Evidence can't point to something that does not exist therefore "Evidence of absence" is complete contradiction of words by definition. Fancy phrase though :)
@PAULOcbi Actually the observation is right-on. This is what I actually study. You could have put up a counter-argument but you prefered the classic ad-hominem as your way out. You should stop instead. Assumption on your part of my educational back ground says alot of your thinking process and your observation skills. Yet, enough of the childish back and forth.
@vulnerabledonkey As a firm believing Christian I actually somewhat agree with you. The description of God in the Bible is as accurate as is humanly possible, however it doesn't come anywhere close to the true glory of God. The human mind is simply too primitive to fully comprehend the glory of the Lord. It's like describing string theory to an ant.
@objectivechristian Hi, glad to begin this discussion with you! My first response to your comment is this: If the Bible can not come close to the glory of God (presumably because it is the work of natural, mortal men), why could god (who is of course, capable of anything) not reveal himself in some crystal-clear, un-pervertable way? Why must he always reveal his will through fallible, corruptible men when it would be so much easier and more advantageous to every soul to make his will obvious?
@vulnerabledonkey "why could god not reveal himself in some crystal-clear, un-pervertable way"
I refer back to our primitive minds for one. Also I would say the most crystal clear way would be to become a human on Earth, share a message of love and peace, and then provide a completely sacrificial expression of his love toward us. Perhaps in this sacrificial expression he could even be willing to entirely lay down his life.
@objectivechristian So, you have unlimited power, unlimited knowledge, with the truest meanings those words hold - and the BEST way for you to make your existence LIKELY (I'm not even asking for COMPLETE proof) to a group of stupid, uneducated, gullible, peasants - is by appearing to them as... a stupid uneducated gullible peasant-god?
I like Hitchins' debating style. He doesn't seem to even break a sweat.
CyeOutsider 1 week ago
Hitchens is gone and yet idiots like the one below are still alive.
dkthg 2 weeks ago 6
great upload thanks
jihadulnafs 2 weeks ago
"How convenient"
"It is convenient and that is the Nature of God!"
"Well, I got him to say it..."
LOL
ChollieD 3 weeks ago in playlist Atheism: The Best of...Christopher Hitchens
I strongly recommend Hitchens' book "god is not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything". It's a great book for any intellectual person who wishes to acquire more knowledge on the subject, religious or
not. He makes a ridiculously strong case against religion, and shows just how obvious it is that religion is a man made ideology.
BER2ERKER 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@BER2ERKER What do you call a dead Christopher Hitchens? One less war monger.
RPenta 2 weeks ago
"God gives you what you desire."
Oh what's this? A thinly veiled threat of violence? My goodness, Mr Christian, how uncharacteristic of you!
andromidius 3 weeks ago
....Yet you argue yourself. Wars have been fought religion v religion. The next will be fought atheist vs theism
thegiantpeople 3 weeks ago
@thegiantpeople people are still killing people in the name of God, esp. in the middle east which they really follow the Koran LITERALLY. Christians are giving gays a hard time here in the great US of A. This is still going on, these problems are still here which is why Hitchens continued to have these debates. It's simple really.
Em183 3 weeks ago
I find it interesting with those who don't believe in the concept in following religion through the source of a 'God' who will sit an argue against those who do. I personally don't follow a religion, because i know its power, but i believe in something. The reason i find this interesting is because those you debate against it find it necessary to notice is catastrophic power, in terms of wars and slaughter, which starts from arguments.
thegiantpeople 3 weeks ago
@thegiantpeople So you recommend that there be no argument, from fear of violence? Can you not see the problem right there?
Fighting with words against dogma that wants to enslave every person on the planet? I find that a fitting passtime. Better it doesn't come to violence, but the violence will only ever come from the opposing side first. History has shown that fact clearly enough. The religious are always the first to draw the blade or pull the trigger.
andromidius 3 weeks ago
@Guytheepwoody
"He had a dogmatic belief in atheism... confused God, religion, and politics."
Atheism isn't a belief, so how does one hold a "dogmatic belief" in it? Cite the dogmas, please.
And the rest... I believe is spurious nonsense, but in case it isn't, please state his confusion of "God, politics and religion".
arthurneddysmith 3 weeks ago
Very sad still that Hitch is gone. He was probably the biggest part of my reaching the point where I became interested in learning about the world rather than assuming I already knew.
BeforeWorldGoesBoom 4 weeks ago
The promoted video has nothing at all to do with the list of videos below. Currently the promoted directs one to the Mormon YouTube channel and their proponent propaganda. It seems to me that a promoted video might or should more closely follow the general content of the others, which in this case is about Atheists. Maybe the only criteria needed to promote any YouTube page is money and in that the title of this video would better be “Hitchens: Religion is about power (or trying not to lose it)”
MadMacISmad 1 month ago
(I say this from the perspective of being raised Catholic; and while loathing many aspects of "organised religion", I've never found the idea of a God/Supreme Being to be as utterly offensive to reason and dignity as it is sometimes spoken of as being).
Sascopa 1 month ago
Something that's always troubled me slightly about Christopher Hitchens' comments on religion and god(s) is the seeming assumption that they are almost the same thing, and that one always follows another. Would it not be possible to have a belief/informed guess/hope (whatever you wish to call it) that a God, or several, exists, BUT not subscribe to a man-made institution based on said belief?
Sascopa 1 month ago
@Sascopa Agree, he confused God, religion and politics, he had a dogmatic belief in atheism based on a political anger, as evident in some comments here.. It's a shame, I liked him, but I think if he had used his intellect more openly, he may have found a higher purpose in life, that may have prevented him smoking and drinking himself to death...
GuyThreepwoody 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody "he may have found a higher purpose in life"
He found the highest purpose in life : be honest with yourself, be honest with others, think with logic not emotion, never fear anything, and admit you're wrong when you are.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@Sascopa If that was true, he might have shrugged and moved on to bigger fish. But how likely is it that someone comes to the conclusion there's a God or Gods seperately, without inspiration or influence from Religion? Not very! And how likely is it that the person in question keeps it to themselves and doesn't cause trouble while spreading this new message? Even less likely!
Faith and Dogma go hand in hand most of the time.
andromidius 3 weeks ago
he took over a minute to ask.
ryanneil93 1 month ago
If a logical, pragmatic person reviews the track-record of religious cultures/individuals across the centuries, and fairly judges them,- there is only one inevitable conclusion;
that is, that religious people generally are bad, untrustworthy, evil. But then what else could be expected when their entire life is based on a lie?
ThePobri 1 month ago
The only war worth fighting, in my opinion, is the war against ignorance. Mr Hitchens does that brilliantly. Anyone exposed to sufficient knowledge will agree that all gods are superstition and that humanity should now let go of that ridiculous security blanket. The war would be easily won, were it not for people that wish to remain ignorant. JUST AS SOME DISEASES WILL MAKE THE SICK REFUSE TO SEEK TREATMENT, THIS KIND OF SUPER-IGNORANCE DESTROYS THE WILL TO SEEK THE TRUTH.
withonemoresecret 1 month ago 3
Wow, that Turek guy is so full of hate, he's practically sweating it. I can't understand how he can be seriously "arguing" for his side with so much anger flowing out of him, considering that's the opposite of what his side usually tries to present themselves as.
Linkdouble0zero 1 month ago
why atheists think God is catholic or He belong to any religion?
atheists are right about religion, but completely wrong about God
fundie2008 1 month ago
@fundie2008
Whats the proof of god. How did you come about this proof? Was the source of the proof not accessible to us?
papermermaid 1 month ago
@fundie2008 " but completely wrong about God "
Fundie- go ahead and prove that right now. Not to just me, but to all the people responding to this video. We are waiting..........
ThePobri 1 month ago
@ThePobri The law of probability is against atheism, we are not amebas living in a puddle, we are a very complex form of life living in a very complex world, so structured that THIS KIND of life by accident is impossible. Just look the water cycle. Humans don’t make water and without water we can not live. Only an intelligent being could make the water cycle
fundie2008 1 month ago
@fundie2008 are you serious, humans cannot make water! H2O simple rearranging of atoms. We as a primate species have been able to make water from hydrogen and oxygen atoms for a while now. What we cannot do yet it create energy nor destroy it, the rest is just a complicated erector set. Do some research before you open you mouth.
larsonb33 1 month ago
Anyone know if I can find the entire debate from start to end, or in ten minute sections, anywhere on youtube?
BradWatson128 1 month ago
The power/control aspect of religion is what made me drop my faith. Being a proponent of cannabis, I naturally reached the "fuck the lying government" phase. After that, I just took a step back and said, how can I not point that same finger at religion? I never would have thought my life would change so much for the better by asking that simple question. Fuck all the lies and fuck all the power that thrives on those lies. Religion is squandering mankind and it needs to be eradicated.
auroraman56 1 month ago 2
Turek's just another one of those intellectual cheaters that tries to argue for a deist God and then goes ahead and leaps to the intellectual fallacy of insisting that if there is a deist God it must be the one the J author made up from shreds of other earlier man made gods and myths 3,000 years ago and that the priestly classes made up the rules and rituals of following ~2,500 years ago.
ed12261972 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, right on. Hitchens has it right: Jesus was just nightmarish, with all that stuff about love and forgiveness and tolerance... I mean, who in their right mind would want to believe in any of that crap?
danielhmanning 1 month ago
Yeah, right on. Hitchens has it right: Jesus was just nightmarish, with all that stuff about love and forgiveness and tolerance... I mean, who in their right mind would want to believe in any of that crap?
danielhmanning 1 month ago
@danielhmanning Lest us not forget that Jesus was all about sending people to a fiery furnace for all eternity that had never bothered anyone for simply believing differently and his insistence that the whole world has to end in a cataclysmic battle where out of 6 Billion people on earth with well over 90% of them being by all accounts kind and good human beings only 140,000 Jews will survive.
ed12261972 1 month ago
@ed12261972 I know that's been pushed on you by churches, but it ain't true, bro. There's no such thing as Hell in the Bible; it's a lie propagated by churches to keep power over people. Check out my video, man; nine minutes out of your life that'll change the way you look at Jesus. He wasn't about eternal torture, dude. Just check it out, and if I'm lying, you can be the first person to dislike my video.
danielhmanning 1 month ago
@danielhmanning The Bible ends with The Book of Revelations. 'Nuff said.
ed12261972 1 month ago
RIP Christopher Hitchens. We shall always treasure your hitchslaps.
ThePhantom135 1 month ago
Christian love! Yeah right! "And I'd give you what you desire." Ouch. Turn the other cheek....forgiveness. HAHAHAHA.
macco360 1 month ago
Turek.....
LOL...sounds like a Vulcan
sammy2trees 1 month ago
Hitchens' very eloquent and emotive description of emerging properties made me chuckle, a great debater.
D4vy87 1 month ago
Turek is an idiot who willingly believes in impossible things that fit his agenda but won't believe provable things when they don't. He's not fit to lick Christopher Hitchens' boots.
mikefromwa 1 month ago
I didn't know Turok was a mindless Christian...
torontoBluejays87 1 month ago
Rest in piece Mr. Hitchens.
pinora13 1 month ago
Love you Hitch!
The best part is that'll you'll be pissing of christians for centuries. Mindless drones.
northoforacle 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm the next hitchens ,fuck religions logic is god see my website theoreticalphysics.webs.com
paginipro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens has died. A great man leaves us.
deanosumo 1 month ago
Notice one has notes.... The other doesn't..... Rip hitch!!!!!!!
MetalSiicken 1 month ago 36
Moreover, religions have evolved from simple superstitions....they build upon earlier superstitions until you get a huge "power" structure. This is where religion directly affects society and where criticism focuses on the POWER hold a head figure has on the society.
AceofDlamonds 1 month ago
I don't believe religion is about power at all. It's about misunderstanding at its core. It's about superstition. Hitchens breaks down Christian belief to basically washing your own sins in an innocent man's blood, to paraphrase. He remarks that it's a terrible and ghastly idea to get away so easily.
But at its core, it's about showing the love of God; that God would be forgiving enough to provide his son. Now whether you believe it or not doesn't excuse you from cutting away the gist of it.
AceofDlamonds 1 month ago
Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 1 month ago
damn he said i'd give you what you desire, turok is such a creep
readi1 1 month ago
This Mr Turek is punching well below his weight.
dilwich123 1 month ago
ofc religion is all about power, power to control people in both subtle and direct ways. Thier may well be a god (divine being) of some sort but its not the god thats written about (by humans) in the Bible. You can bet the Bible has been changed and edited many many times since it was first written to suit the current needs of what ever church decided it was time for a change.
andysim232 2 months ago
Hitchens and Dawkins - I could listen to them both for hours. Thank God at least two high profile people are spreading the truth (pardon the pun!).
RickDougall 2 months ago
And do you think that onto such as you / A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew, / God gave a secret and denied it me? / Well well, what matters it? / Believe that too.
AndoDouglas 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Melvin6566842
does turek honestly pass as a philosopher/intellectual in america? he misses words out of sentences, he stutters, he gets aggressive, he's clearly not very bright , its almost tragic that hitch has to share a stage with him- cant count how may times ive seen a non-believer destroy a believers argument, only for the believer to then turn aggressive because he's ran out of logical arguments. theres a vid of hitch debateing some irish-american catholic, the guy actually threatens hitch.
CarloTheGambino 3 months ago
if "god" was in the market for saving souls, he would just do it right?!?!! Why put people through all this gilt and bullshit if he already sent his "son" to die.
Hbazzell 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hbazzell Nope, he wants you to trust, have faith and believe in him for Faith is a gift from God.
elibeth121 1 month ago
Very telling, that last statement.
Dream on, Turek, your invisible friend will never place you above your betters.
MrZardoz777 3 months ago
Why is it Christians think that their religion is the only correct version? Arrogance to the max!
humanist7117 3 months ago
@humanist7117 It's because the Bible says Jesus is the only medium by which eternal salvation may be attained, through faith and not by works. That in itself isn't arrogant. What is arrogant is when people who claim to be Christians behave in a non-Christian manner and discriminate against non-believers. This is 180° opposite from the loving compassion taught by Jesus Christ.
objectivechristian 3 months ago
@humanist7117 because it is
elibeth121 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@humanist7117 Religion has nothing to do with it. It is who you are worshipping, and the true God is Jesus Christ
elibeth121 1 month ago
To help you out Gaz, I will give some reference to read: Summa Contra Gentiles; Summa Theologica; The Handbook of Christian Apologetics. These are decent primers to engage in philosophical/theological discussions.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
Wow, six posts in a row, huh. You're obviously way more into this than I am.
This isn't a debate, mate. We're not getting points for any of this. I just enjoy quizzing crazy religious types in my spare time, just to see what wacky new 'evidence' they have this week. And as usual your 'evidence' has been "god must exist because the universe can't be infinite. But god is allowed to be infinite because he's god, so there".
One day people like you will be laughed at in the street.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
Sorry Gaz ... for a moment I thought you were serious. It was fun though ... thanks mate :)
Regarding the laughter, which has happened from unaware men since the beginning, it as Jesus says: "Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep."
patientthomist 3 months ago
LOOK OUT EVERYONE ... GAZ IS ABOUT TO NOT ACTUALLY RESPOND TO WHAT'S PRESENTED TO HIM ....
patientthomist 3 months ago
BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR CRITICISM, GAZ ... EXACTLY WHICH PART OF THE EVIDENCE FOR GOD DO YOU THINK SCIENCE ACCOUNTS FOR?
patientthomist 3 months ago
I've stood on the mountain of REASON showing you the path for days now, and instead of actually debating the points I raise, you go and stand on a different mountain and shout in a different direction, while throwing impotent grenades in my direction, and pretend like you have won the debate. Pathetic, gaz! Let me guess your next response: " You haven't proven a thing!" Show me scientific evidence that your not ignorant!!
patientthomist 3 months ago
You are committing the Fallacy known as a category error or mistake. Essentially, to be reasonable, which you are not, you need to show why the way to God through deductive logic, not the scientific method, is unreasonable. You can't do it, so your replies amount to a distraction from that fact.
patientthomist 3 months ago
Science, gaz, is neutral on the subject of God. All scientists know it, even RIchard Dawkins. Ask Dawkins to give a % of probability that God doesn't exist -- he won't, because he has no data. Science doesn't study God. Deductive logic after a sensory experience is the path to know God. To do that, you have understand formal logic. Most people don't, so the Bible is a shortcut for them. There is nothing inconsistent in the Bible or Catholic Tradition that contradicts reason.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
"There is nothing inconsistent in the Bible or Catholic Tradition that contradicts reason."
That may be the single most fallacious comment I've ever seen in a religious discussion. Only a theist could consider their faith reasonable, and as reason is not limited to one person's preferences on what is objectively true and what is not objectively true, the system of faith itself is unreasonable.
TheTexanCanadian 3 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian
Being a theist is the result of proving by reason that God exists and has certain qualities. The fact that you don't know how to do that doesn't mean it can't be done. Google Peter Kreeft on proofs for God, and get an education, moron :)
patientthomist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@patientthomist
"Being a theist is the result of proving by reason that God exists and has certain qualities. "
No, being a theist is preferring fantasy to reality. If you could prove in ANY way that your fantasy was reality, we would all be theists ;)
"The fact that you don't know how to do that doesn't mean it can't be done."
I've heard them all, and no, it can't be done.
"get an education, moron :)"
I love irony.
TheTexanCanadian 2 months ago
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
tubebooboob 3 months ago
Hilarious ... my last post had a spelling error -- Christ for Chris. Could there be a greater contrast?
patientthomist 3 months ago
HItchens argument against Christianity is primarily against Protestant theology -- there is no "scapegoat" in Catholic theology. Why wouldn't Christ know that? Because, although he has a broad vocabulary, he never substantially studied philosophy and theology. And why are his views respected in this area? We should say not "Chris is brilliant", but rather "Christ has a larger vocabulary than some people".
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
And what exactly is theology a study of? How can you study and categorize things which by their very definition defy study and categorization?
"He doesn't know what he's talking about" isn't an argument.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
Theology is the study of God, whose existence can be proved by deductive logic after an initial scientific observation. My post pointed out that Chris never picks on the Catholic position, only on unreasonable Protestant positions. I would love to see Chris actually attempt to dismantle the philosophical underpinnings of Catholic thought, and then realize it can't be done.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
Hahahaha no.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
Hahahaha yes :)
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
The 'philosophical underpinnings of Catholic thought' are just as full of bullshit and half-logic as any other branch of Christianity. In fact Catholicism is worse since it just blatantly makes shit up beyond what's in the big book; purgatory anyone?
You're no better than any of the thousands of other branches.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
OK ... shall we start with purgatory? I can explain why purgatory is not contrary to reason. Why don't you tell me why you think purgatory is unreasonable first, so I know how to best answer. Agreed?
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
Fine. Reason dictates that nobody can know for sure what happens when they die. Even if they could, they'd have no way of confirming it to the living, seeing as they are now dead.
Yet somehow Catholicism claims that not only does it know what happens when you die, but that it has a detailed and comprehensive blueprint of god's waiting room. Which, by the way is no longer believed by many Roman Catholics.
To top it off, prove that it exists. Point to it. Find it on a map.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
There is only one official teaching of the Church, which expands, but which has never retracted its original teaching. Purgatory is essentially a state of being in which a soul has not fulfilled the demands of justice before entering God's presence in full. There are plenty of terms here and I don't know if whether or not you're a serious atheist. If you are we should first prove that God exists.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
Prove that god exists? Don't be a fool, you can't. You just can't, don't even try. Millions have tried for thousands of years and failed every time, you will be no different.
Actually go on then, just out of curiosity.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
OK ... I will do that tomorrow, as I'm going to sleep. I will first demonstrate that there is a First Cause/ Unmoved Mover in a way that atheists typically don't understand. Then I will give qualities of the First Cause/Unmoved Mover, so that we can predicate intelligence, oneness, immateriality, and eternity of that cause. Talk tomorrow :)
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
You're not going to prove anything. Saying that 'atheists don't understand' doesn't validate it or make it true, frankly I don't care what it is now because no matter how ridiculous or nonsensical it is, you'll have the excuse that I 'don't understand it' and claim victory by infuriation.
You're just throwing out big, pseudo-scientific words to try and make your babble seem intelligent or reasonable, when in reality it's based entirely in faulty logic and assumptions.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
If you don't care now, I won't share what I know. Peace.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
If you could prove god's existence, you'd be on the news. Millions would be converting to Christianity as we speak. Scientists would be falling to their knees and burning their books.
But none of that is happening. Because you don't 'know' anything.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
Gaz ... billions have converted to Christianity. Islam is essentially a Christian heresy. Judaism is a kind of prototype of Christianity. The Church is not shrinking, but even if it was, it wouldn't necessarily be because God's existence proofs were misunderstood. Sometimes people do understand, but with their free will, they reject anyway. So let's have a stab at the proofs for God ... beginning with the reality that there must be a first cause ... do you accept a first cause?
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
Judaism is a prototype for Christianity? Fuck me, how arrogant can you get.
As for billions converting, that's called argumentum ad populum. The fact that loads of people believe something doesn't make it true.
And no, there doesn't have to be a 'first cause'. Current theory states that this universe is just one of an infinite number which came before it.
That's your problem; you're uncomfortable with the concept of infinity outside of god. There HAS to be a 'page one' for you.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
Easy Gaz ... first, consider Messianic Jews, who see Judaism exactly as I described ... it's not arrogant ... Jesus fulfills the expectations of the Old Testament - more to say here. Second point - you initiated the topic concerning "millions converting to Christianity" -- I didn't create an argument out of that point, just an observation. Third point -- multiverses are consistent with a First Cause argument -- because all the universes may be in motion or there is .... next post
patientthomist 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
a single possibly infinite universe in motion, the universe or universes cannot be Unmoved Movers, and hence not the First Cause, which deductive logic necessitates. Infinity without God is not logically possible for this reason. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes or motions; otherwise current motion and existence cannot be experienced. You would have to reject formal deductive logic to reject that statement.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
Your 'deductive logic' is completely flawed and based on an assumption that there has to be a First Cause.
It doesn't 'fix' the regress, it makes it WORSE. You put god at the beginning; what came before god?
God made the universe; what made god?
God put everything in motion; what put god in motion?
By putting god there you just create more questions than you've dodged. You haven't answered or proved anything, you've just found a hole and squeezed your god-of-the-gaps into it.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
nothing came before the first cause, Gaz ... there cannot be an infinite regression ... otherwise, you can't exist. Existence can't be passed through an infinite chain to you, so you can't exist. To ask "what made god?" is to reveal your lack of understanding. That's OK though, because there are other ways to come to know God.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
'You don't understand' isn't an argument, it's a cop-out.
If god created the universe, then he existed before the universe did. How long did he sit around, twiddling his almighty thumbs, before he decided to make the universe?
Did he always exist? Is god infinite? Because if he is then he existed for an infinite amount of time before he created the universe, which, as you've already stated, is impossible. If he's not, where did he come from?
Give me a straight answer here.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
You say "then he existed before the universe did" -- this is true. To ask "how long" is to not understand that the fabric of space-time is created ... there is no waiting in God ... God is eternal, spiritual, and unchanging and "comes from" nowhere, since that would admit of potentiality which is not possible for the first cause.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
So you're saying god comes from nowhere and has always existed, yet apply that statement to the universe and it can't possibly be true?
There must be some small part of you that can see the complete hypocrisy there. You're just taking things you say are impossible and attributing them to an equally impossible being.
Here's your logic; "Infinite universe is impossible, therefore god. Infinite god is possible because...god SO THERE." In fact it's not even logic, it's nonsense.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
You probably noticed that I put "comes from" in quotes to indicate that "from" indicates a place, and so there is no place from which the First Cause comes, since the FC initiates all places from which other being can come. There is no logical inconsistency there. I'm thinking if I word the syllogism in a different way, you might get it. Let me try, and then we can debate more ...
patientthomist 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
You want to borrow a book called "Existence" and ask the previous lender it they have it (since you know they had it), and they point you to the previous lender to get the book, and that lender points you the to the previous lender, and that routine goes on in an unlimited way. Now ... answer this question, Gaz, to prove you understand the argument made by Aquinas regarding causality: When will you get "Existence" in this scenario?
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
What's sad is that you actually think you're making some kind of point here. Even if the idea of an infinite number of previous universes is somehow incompatible with you, what makes you so absolutely certain that the thing that started it all is god, specifically YOUR god? How long had that god existed, and how can you possibly know or prove it?
You're finding a problem, then 'explaining' it with THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM. It's nonsense, I can't believe you can't see that.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
What's sad, Gaz, is that you won't or can't answer the question I posed: "When will you get "Existence" in this scenario?" However, assuming that you accept a First Cause, we can show qualities about that First Cause by deductive logic, with no more scientfic data required (except your current existence, and a developed vocabulary). Are you surprised by the power of deductive logic? It seems you are ... like you think the vast amount of knowledge we have is from science?
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
Patronizing all you like but I'm aware of the point you're making and it's irrelevant, because the existence of god is contradictory to it. You can't use a point to discredit an argument then choose to ignore it when making your own.
You say you're using logic, but it's huge leaps of logic based on an assumption that you can't prove to be true. I could say, 'based on the assumption that you are a dog, one can logically assume that you have four legs'. Doesn't mean you're a dog.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
I don't mean to be patronizing. OK. I think the First Cause is God for a number of reasons: because the First Cause is responsible for all that exists, including the immaterial things we think about (truth, justice, etc.), the immaterial free will we have, the immaterial ability for us to love each other (even when it goes against our instinct to love), the immaterial ability to perceive a Creator, the immaterial ability to call something a "variable" in science or math, etc.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
These immaterial expressions that we do constantly count as evidence in my court of REASON, not to mention miracles (google Padre Pio), scientifically studied and unaccounted for visions of the Virgin Mary (google Medugorje), exorcisms (google Gabrielle Amorth), Eucharistic miracles (google Julia Kim). Why, in your court of REASON, do they not count as evidence, especially as they have manifestations in the physical world? There are countless others too! Not evidence? Why?
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
Everything you're claiming as 'evidence' of god is either a concept or emotion which is easily and comprehensively explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory, something which hasn't been scientifically explained yet, or an utter fabrication. We used to think that Tourette's and epilepsy were demonic possession but we're smarter than that now. Old men in convents claiming visions are not demonstrable proof.
Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it's god. That's why.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231
I find it interesting how general your response is -- red herring? Which part is explained by Darwinian theory? Which part is fabrication? Where is your "scientific explanation" for your statements, or are you revealing your atheist "FAITH"? This is the most concerning part -- "something which hasn't been scientifically explained yet" -- to say that these things will be explained by science is NOT a scientific statement (nothing to support it), and so has ZERO value in YOUR view.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist
Let me answer your questions in order; No it's not; human emotions, religious mindset and the sense of right and wrong; the majority of Catholic dogma; the library.
You remember the library, right? It's that place that keeps all the books locked up so that the Christians can't burn them.
Gaz6231 3 months ago
@Gaz6231 why do you need proof? Why cant you accept it with grace and faith
elibeth121 2 months ago
@elibeth121
Are you serious?
What if I told you that I worshipped an invisible pink unicorn that only I could see? Would you accept that with 'grace and faith', or would you call me a lunatic?
Blindly accepting something without question makes one a fool and a hypocrite.
Gaz6231 2 months ago 44
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gaz6231 First of all I dont go around calling people crazy, and second of all if it is a ridculous notion of such as a pink unicorn obviously I would believe. Howeverm the bible is my proof for God, I also can feel him so there is a bit of difference between a Saviour to came to save the world and a unicorn.
elibeth121 1 month ago
@Gaz6231 I would say you free to worship whatever you want, that is your decision, be it an invisible pink unicorn, that big shiny ball in the sky or nothing.......Just do not attempt to persuade me to join you, or cause suffering to other humans because of your beliefs.....and we could co exist in peace.....I know and get on with people who believe in Tarot cards, and spend money on it, they can ill afford to.......I personally think they are fools......but the world is full of them.
movement26 3 weeks ago
@movement26
Then by letting me (and them) be utterly wrong you're condemning me to a life of ignorance. If someone thought an apple was a buzzard, would you let them believe that or would you correct them?
Gaz6231 3 weeks ago
@Gaz6231 I thought we talking about the freedom of religious worship, not the acquision of knowledge ( two entirly different things).....Supposedly there are qualified scientists who believe in the complete word of the bible.They actually believe God took a rib from man and made woman....Each individual must reach his own conclusion, find his own truth.....Tweny minutes studying Mormonism persuades me Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a con man... I could be wrong,but I can live with that.
movement26 3 weeks ago
@elibeth121 I'm a little sad that someone gave you the pleasure of an answer. Because you're either a troll, or a fucking idiot, and neither one is okay.
But based on your continual "non-ideal holding, under 5 syllable" responses, you're making fun of the Christian in this video, because you sound just like him lol.
skdjhfkdhfa 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skdjhfkdhfa Not making fun of Christians why would I do that.
elibeth121 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
very good answer, you know what is real
elibeth121 1 month ago
@Gaz6231 GOD EXISTS
elibeth121 2 months ago
@elibeth121 Sounds air-tight to me, should have said that from the start and saved a lot of trouble.
UnionGarside 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UnionGarside what did I say?
elibeth121 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gaz6231 what is the matter with purgatory? That is also there
elibeth121 1 month ago
no contest !
naybobdenod 3 months ago
convenience is the nature of god.....hahahahaaa, and that idiot didn't even realize what he said.
avalanchesoul 4 months ago
@avalanchesoul Convenience over here in the UK is another word for a Toilet,enough said lol
naybobdenod 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
TUREK IS A SCUM BAG
NO MATCH FOR MR HITCHENS
HE IS JUST A SPEAKER NOT A DEBATER
OUTMATCHED BY FAR
Johnandvanessa 4 months ago
Atheist are not just against the christian god they are against everyone's imaginary deity.
Elestareus 5 months ago
I keep trying to refute Hitchens in my mind, because I'm afraid that the soul does not survive the body and death is the end.
I haven't been able to do it, and I'm coming around to the realization that I can't.
Waltham1892 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Waltham1892 Don't fear, death may be the end for you but it will be exactly the same way it was before you were born. :)
Macabresque 5 months ago
"God Gives you what you deserve." Wow... I swear man, these Christians are fucking hypocritical, "holier-than-thou" know-it-alls who do not live in reality at all. Scientists and Atheists and free thinkers are willing to admit they are wrong. Science is always evolving, and scientists are always trying to disprove others' claims. However, with religion there is no margin of error. It's all or nothing. How can you argue with someone like that? Insane.
zamardii12 5 months ago 10
@zamardii12 There's method to their madness, though...
Azakhiel 3 months ago
how convenient...hahah turek. classic infallible argument.
cpt2115 5 months ago
11 people are sliding off the left hand side of the bell curve
johnwilliamgull 5 months ago
took me so long to realize Hitchens must have got sunburned with his beard grown out.
realhiphopfanami 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We used religions for our Politics, Jesus Christ was punished cz he was a threat for Roman Empire because he believe in helping poor, Muhammad was punished because he became great danger for the wealth and power of Arabs. Muhammad talk about rights of poor, orphans, women, children and even animals. Religions came for Men but how can politicians want the rights of poor?
blueskyblackthunder 5 months ago
Most religions were formed to maintain and control the flow of power and wealth; even now, in the 21st century, this is VERY evident.
Turek is a fool.
crownby 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Turek is giving probability is he? He is giving Cosmological, taleological, moral, conciousness, reason, mahematics. The problem is that none of these support a god. The probability argument lays on the side of the Hitch.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
Comment removed
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
Mr. Hitchens, your description of "religion" is strawman that doesn't even exist.
No one is ever releaved of responsibility. We are free to carry out our responsibilities and given the power to do as required.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
JungleJargon 5 months ago
5:28 Turek: "I'd gives you what you desire."
Was that a threat? Was that a threat of violence?
Does this Louse not care about human life?
What a scum bag... I'd never let him anywhere near my family ¬_¬
BlankPicketSign 5 months ago 15
@BlankPicketSign He said "god gives you" not "i'd give you".
assbitchfucky 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@assbitchfucky (Edited)
Turek: "God gives you what you desire."
Was that a threat? Was that a threat of violence?
Does this Louse not care about human life?
What a scum bag... I'd never let him anywhere near my family ¬_¬
(End Edit)
Fixed =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 4 months ago
@BlankPicketSign He said "God gives you what you desire". But yeah, nasty thing to say.
JSCwrd 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS HITCHIN GUY IS SO NEGATIVE, EVERYTIME YOU HEAR HIM. ITS APPARENT HE HAS SOME KIND OF ISSUE GOING ON. HERE YOU HAVE A GUY WHO IS FAMOUS FOR WHAT? BEING AN ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK FOR SOME IRRELEVANT MAGAZINE, CRITICISING OTHERS, YET HE ACHIEVED NO GREATNESS IN HIS OWN LIFE. CHECK OUT HIS DEBATES AGAINST CHRISTIANS, THAT SAYS IT ALL.
severnkenpo 5 months ago
I watched this debate. Turek becomes more and more defensive and angry as the debate goes on.
MrMarkless 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=o9ktS2U53Qg Write "Logical Evidences for Islam" and watch it...
There is A Creator. There a religion. Islam is the true religion.
shncsr 5 months ago
my God... Hitchens looks terrible in this video... what happened to his face?!
untwerf 5 months ago
@untwerf hes not a well man , he has been fighting cancer for a while He was diagnosed on 2008 I think ,
paulspydar 5 months ago
@paulspydar thats right... but I was referring to the rash he appears to have in this video - I doubt that's related to his cancer.
untwerf 5 months ago
@untwerf I do know hat he was prescribed Interferon & that a common side effect is skin problems , rashes, psoriasis, blotches , but obviously this is just a guess,or maybe he was just hot?
paulspydar 5 months ago
Wow a man whose beliefs are only reactive calls religion power hungry. There is nothing but a hunger for power from reactionist. Everytime Hitch speaks it is reactive looking for the weakness of thought in anothers belief.Atheist who react rather than give original thesis for their beliefs are the blood sucking power seekers of the most deplorable kind. I have no problem with atheists or being atheist but to say religion seeks power but Hitch does not in his religion is dis ingenuous
polopowers1 6 months ago
@polopowers1 Hitchens doesn't have a religion.
RSVJosephV 5 months ago
Hitchens once again trounces the opposition!!
jjoneil73 6 months ago
He said "God gives you what you desire" and what he was saying is that Hitchens is going to hell in response to "Nor am I going anywhere after I die...and I don't wish it otherwise". However there is no fictional place called hell so Hitchens is correct and Turek's god will give him nothing.
fukinblowme 6 months ago
We can't prove there isn't a god. That's freely granted. However, even if there is some deity or something like a deity, what the hell are the odds that he, she or it just happens to precisely fit the description layed out by bronze-age mystics and gat-herders on one particular planet in the arse-end of nowhere? Not great, I should imagine.
vulnerabledonkey 6 months ago 15
@vulnerabledonkey To quote Richard Dawkins "Human beings are insignificant in the Universe".
fukinblowme 6 months ago
@vulnerabledonkey Sure you can disprove God. You'd really like the youtube video Proofs for God's Existence Destroyed by a Philosophical Athiest by the Philosopher Stefan Molynuex. As brilliant and Hitchens is(I've even met him and had my book signed by him) Molynuex's arguments are much more simple and conclusive. Stefan Molynuex also has a free audiobook called 'Against the God's' which you can download at his website.
dopejoel 4 months ago
@vulnerabledonkey We can disprove god.There is zero evidence of god,and even a fool knows 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence." The burden of proof is on the positor NOT the negator. Your right about the silly Bronze Age 'objective(absolute)moral relativism' of the Bible and Quran. Its degrading and subhuman,Compassion,the highest of Ethics is lit between bearer and offspring at birth ,so Ethics are innate and entirely 'subjective'.
PAULOcbi 4 months ago
@PAULOcbi I agree with your point yet from a logical/linguistic view the phrase "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is massive butcher job in the area of definition(s). The LACK OF evidence implies absence of the particular thing of interest. "Evidence" implies the "existence" of something which points to something else. Evidence can't point to something that does not exist therefore "Evidence of absence" is complete contradiction of words by definition. Fancy phrase though :)
Sonimmortal 3 months ago
@Sonimmortal you should quit now ,your only making it obvious your a pseudo-intellectual.
PAULOcbi 3 months ago
@PAULOcbi Actually the observation is right-on. This is what I actually study. You could have put up a counter-argument but you prefered the classic ad-hominem as your way out. You should stop instead. Assumption on your part of my educational back ground says alot of your thinking process and your observation skills. Yet, enough of the childish back and forth.
Sonimmortal 3 months ago
@Sonimmortal what is it you 'actually ' study??
PAULOcbi 3 months ago
@PAULOcbi Philosophy of language and Symbolic logic. My next course will be one in Etymology.
Sonimmortal 3 months ago
@vulnerabledonkey Damn! I've never pasted a comment into my word processor for safe-keeping before but I'm going to remember that.
eswyatt 3 months ago
@vulnerabledonkey As a firm believing Christian I actually somewhat agree with you. The description of God in the Bible is as accurate as is humanly possible, however it doesn't come anywhere close to the true glory of God. The human mind is simply too primitive to fully comprehend the glory of the Lord. It's like describing string theory to an ant.
objectivechristian 3 months ago
@objectivechristian Hi, glad to begin this discussion with you! My first response to your comment is this: If the Bible can not come close to the glory of God (presumably because it is the work of natural, mortal men), why could god (who is of course, capable of anything) not reveal himself in some crystal-clear, un-pervertable way? Why must he always reveal his will through fallible, corruptible men when it would be so much easier and more advantageous to every soul to make his will obvious?
vulnerabledonkey 3 months ago
@vulnerabledonkey "why could god not reveal himself in some crystal-clear, un-pervertable way"
I refer back to our primitive minds for one. Also I would say the most crystal clear way would be to become a human on Earth, share a message of love and peace, and then provide a completely sacrificial expression of his love toward us. Perhaps in this sacrificial expression he could even be willing to entirely lay down his life.
That to me would be pretty darn crystal clear.
objectivechristian 2 months ago
@objectivechristian So, you have unlimited power, unlimited knowledge, with the truest meanings those words hold - and the BEST way for you to make your existence LIKELY (I'm not even asking for COMPLETE proof) to a group of stupid, uneducated, gullible, peasants - is by appearing to them as... a stupid uneducated gullible peasant-god?
I don't follow.
skdjhfkdhfa 2 months ago