Watch Agora the movie. You will definitely see that the dominating religion will allways slaughter the other non-believers. The christians first kill pagans then jews and at last the atheists in ancient Egypt. The same rule applied in Islam. If they cannot convince , they threaten with their swords and use the governments to reach their goals. Just watch the movie and see what is the enemy of the humanity and civilization?
This should be REQUIRED watching for every citizen of this planet from the moment they are able to comprehend. Period. The death of reason is on course to KILL us.
Yes, and all the revelations occurred in the same illiterate, superstitious, barbaric district - with zero confirmation by way of revelation to any civilization that could leave coherent records. How anyone in their right mind....oh, right, sorry.
Proverbs 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception.
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD.
1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
@oscarmarin1995 im just speaking the truth. you coming here and posting stupid little verses like you can't say anything for yourself really does make you look like a desperate moron.
@OyonTheAdept I guess dude. You haven't proven anything except your prejudice and bigotry. God loves you, the Son of God died so you could have everlasting life if you believe on Him. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life everlasting through the Lord Jesus Christ.
The argument against this is that at the time of Jesus the world's population was around 1% of the total population to have lived. Which would be almost perfect timing...
@Sirstingray Perfect timing to appear somewhere educated and populated. Like China, or Rome. It also would have been perfect timing to appear even earlier than that.
Of course, it is quite likely that even more would be saved if he appeared today instead, when we have scientific tools, cameras, etc. Other religious could be conclusively disproven, and atheists would have conclusive evidence.
If you watch William Lane Craig, it's interesting.. He says that he believes not based on faith but because of positive evidence for Jesus. He has it down to a tee.
The cameras point is a good one and the Rome/China one makes even more sense. Personally, I think, that if God were to exist he would be as obvious and as empirical as the existence of the sun. If Jesus did turn out to be God, I don't think I could forgive him!
@Sirstingray No what WLC puts forward is all shit really, please take a look at a sort of blog like paper by lawrence krauss called "Dealing with William Lane Craig" proves how stupid WLC's arguement really is
@instereovideos No, I'm not a bit thick, you just didn't explain your criticism clearly enough. Though, now that you have explained it more clearly, I think you make a good point.
Though, I suppose one could say that since God decided to appear to such an ignorant culture it seems odd that he would have waited 90 thousand years to do so, when he could have appeared to another ignorant culture when modern man first appeared on the scene.
He claims that watching humanity for tens of thousands of years with folded arms is absurd, so God didn't act early enough. Then he says that God chose a backward, uneducated time to make his appearance... so now God came too early. Sounds good when he says it, but upon reflection it's a weak argument.
@instereovideos Your criticism is a little off base. He doesn't say that God chose the most backwards and uneducated TIME, but area. That's why he continues with "we won't appear to the Chinese, who can already read ... the Indus Valley..."
@zakiechan OK, but what "area" should he have appeared if he intervened "early enough?" If it was so absurd that he waited 90 thousand years, where should he have appeared to tribes of people who couldn't read, write, or even speak developed languages? I don't think my criticism is off base here.
@instereovideos Hitchens answers your question, as did I (quoting him). I hope I don't sound rude, but it seems like you didn't pay attention to the video, or even read what I wrote.
@instereovideos You said Hitchens said God chose a backward time-- when Hitchens said area. You then claimed that Hitchens didn't say where God should have appeared-- even though Hitchens did (which I also quoted). What am I missing?
He's making the point that we can know pretty much that God (or ANY god) does not exist. If he did he wouldn't have sat around with his finger up his arse for at least 97,000 years letting humanity suffer. Then when he could be bothered, he revealed himself to a tribe of people who weren't the sharpest tools in the box at the time.
Basically, if God was real, it would be fair to say that he's a fucking useless cunt and should fuck off.
I never get this stuff. Our specific species is here for some 200,000 years. But clearly monotheism is far more recent. The question why we are religious is being studied today in great depth - which offers a lot more intriguing thoughts and possibilities than these old arguments used by the new atheists. The whole matter is far more complex, to say the least. The religion-discussion is more about what consciousness is - it is not something you can read from evolution theory.
Humans on Earth for 100,000 years? What a joke. Let me see, we are supposed to believe that man played with sticks for 99,800 years and then.....THEN!!!!!! created the Industrial Revolution.!!!! Man has not been on earth for 100,000 years. Maybe the Earth is 100,000 years old but that doesn't mean man has lived in a dying earth for 100,000 years. No one knows how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden. Hitchens argument is a.....I'll use one of his terms..a "non sequitur".
@YesYou123333 Did you even listen to what he said? He said that we haven't evolved in 100k years, and that since then, we've matured and come up with new technologies with GREAT struggle, without the help of god. Don't criticize someone's argument if you can't understand it.
@panamanian911 Hitchens first wants us to believe that God sat around and watched us for 100,000 years and did nothing about suffering, dying, etc. Now, you say, we weren't "mature" enough during those years? Did you ever think God didn't want to send His Son until we were mature enough? Also, the population would be larger. From 0-2011 our population grows from 100,000,000 to 6,000,000,000.
However, from -100,000 to 0 our population grows from 0 to 100,000,000? Doesn't make sense.
@YesYou123333 Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't said. I said that Hitchens was trying to say that we matured (as in advancing) over the course of 100k years (the amount of years homo sapiens have walked the Earth) with great struggle while God was doing nothing to help, and then all of the sudden he wants to help? lol.
And no you idiot. Human population came from evolution. It didn't magically get from 0 to 6 billion people. I'm in the evolution side, not the creationist side,remember?
@panamanian911 That's strange because how much has man evolved in the past 2000 years? My answer: not much. So, where did the 100,000,000 come from? Did they come from the primordial goo in 100,000 years? Doesn't primordial goo multiply? So, I'll state it a different way. Now we have 6,000,000,000 goo-ettes. 2000 years ago we only had 100,000,000 goo-ettes. Why the different rate of change? Seems pretty drastic to me. And, all this happens at the time of Christ. Hmmmmmmmmm........
@panamanian911 The part that is confusing me is this; how could the population only grow to 100,000,000 in 100,000 years and grow to 6,000,000,000 in a mere 2000 years? Doesn't that seem strange? And, all this is bracketed around the birth of a man who claims to be God. I just don't like coincidences.
@YesYou123333 Ok just because you believe in Jesus doesn't mean that you can attribute everything to him. This is not even in the bible. I still don't understand why you would think that a change in rate is a proof of anything. The reason why you think that 2000 years ago was somehow important is because that's the reference point that we've taken. Have you never heard of exponential graphs or exponential growth? That's what happens to anything that isn't stopped. It grows until it IS stopped.
@YesYou123333 Again, you're seeing everything in prospective from the years 0- 2000. Look at the difference between 2,000bc-0. Huge difference between those two. That's what exponential numbers are all about. The difference between 2000-4000 will be much bigger than 0-2000. Just because it became billions during those years doesn't mean that it started during those years.
@panamanian911 Yes, I understand your point. But, why did the growth start at that specific time? Jesus was born BEFORE it happened. There was no way they could of predicted such a population growth and then somehow make up a person to pretend he is God without this foreknowledge. There is no way they, meaning these "deceivers" who wrote the Bible, could of known about this unless........ it is true and Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be. I just think it is more than a mere coincidence.
@YesYou123333 *Facepalm* That's not what I tried to say. Here's an example: If this was the year 0, we'd be arguing about the big difference of population from 100k bc -10k bc to 10k bc- 0. You'd be saying that the big change between in population from 10k to 0 is too drastic compared to what came before. Now, compared with years 0-2k,the example I gave you seems like nothing.not huge numbers at all. Same thing will happen 2k-4k.Population will grow so much and itll make your argument look worse
@panamanian911 Hitchens is making the argument that man has been here for 100,000 years before Christ. If that is the case, then man went from (some small number, not 0) to 100,000,000 in 100,000 years. But, the population went from 100,000,000 to 6,000,000,000 in a lousy 2000 years!!! Give me a function that when plotted on a x-y graph and the x values go from -100,000 to +2000 and y goes from 100 to 6,000,000,000 with a drastic change at x=0. I know it will be exponential.
@YesYou123333 *Facepalm #2* Exponential growth didn't start 2000 years ago... I've explained it to you like four times already. I know what you're trying to say about 100m against 6billion. This doesn't mean that the exponential growth started 2k years ago. It started when we started, when we separated from out mother species. Yes, billions in growth is more than millions in growth in the past, but that's how it's supposed to be. In the next thousand of years, it'll be MUCH larger.
@YesYou123333 I'm not a mathematician. I'm a 17-year-old wanna be musician. You don't need a function to understand exponential growth. Anyone would've thought that after 5 easy examples, you would've understood.
@YesYou123333 It didn't happen 2000 years ago, it happened after the 10th century think all your arguments about coincidence of population growth and jesus got flushed down the toilet ;) thank me for bringing you nearer to atheism
@MrDubidubidubidu Even if you could prove the explosion happened after the 10th century, so what? A thousand year difference? C'mon put your atheist-science hat on. What is the standard deviation here? We're looking at a 102,000 year range according to Hitch. 1000 years is less than 1%. That's usually close enough for you people to claim we used to swing from trees.
@YesYou123333 Okay I'll try to put it in a way you can understand. Organised religion started when the human development was sufficient. Population explosion happened mostly because of the industrial revolution which had nothing to do with the apperance of christianism. And that is not all, if you want to thank a religion for huma development thank Islam, they were far more advinced for centuries after jesus appearance
@MrDubidubidubidu The point I am trying to make is that it is NOT a coincidence the population exploded right after Christ was born. Why didn't it happen 10,000 years before? Or, 10,000 years after? It is a point of interest to look at a graph and isolate the year Christ was born and then, all of a sudden, the worlds population explodes! This would seem like a strange occurrence, unless.....UNLESS the worlds population began only 3000 years before Christ instead of 100,000 years. Hmmmmmmm.....
@YesYou123333 The moment were humanity society has advanced enough so that organised religions can grow is near to the moment were society has advanced enough for industralisation, its just like that.
Your theory that humans appear 3000 years ago and that is why population is growing faster is just stupid, the biggest population explosion was due to industralisation which happened 3 centuries ago
@MrDubidubidubidu You didn't answer my question. Why didn't the population explode 10,000 years ago? Or, 10,000 years from now? Isn't it peculiar the population exploded right after Christ? Do you think this was a coincidence? And, notice I wrote "after" Christ. It is not as if the "creators" of Christianity saw the population explosion and said to themselves, "hey, this is a good time to fake a religion."
@YesYou123333 I explained to you that the fact is that in a scale of society evolution, the moment where humas attein a level where organised religions flourish is very near to the moment wher eindustrial revolution starts, this is because some major factors are needed for both, eg big cities.
Furthermore, even if it was a coincidence (which wasn't) its a better explanation than yours, because saying that humans appeared 3000 years ago and thats why 300 yeas ago population exploded is illogical
Just being the "devil's advocate" here, but it doesn't logically follow that theists MUST believe that God didn't intervine until just a few thousand years ago. For all a Theist would know and still be consistent wtih his or her theology God and Angels etc could have done it 1 billion times before the events in the Christian Bible. But then they believe the Earth is 6000 years old and all the science to the contrary is wrong.
@zakiechan "Sure, but do you think any Christian is going to actually claim that God was doing stuff way before he said he started doing stuff?
"
haha no not really. There might be some some new-agey Christians out there who do... if not, maybe we could start our own sect and bask in the tax exempt status :)
@sinistar99 You are missing the point a bit here. The point is this: if god is all-knowing and all-powerful, and the history of life on this planet is anything even remotely like we think it is, then god is evil, cruel, and despicable even by our own average moral standards. Lucretius made the same point long ago, and it is as true now as it was then--as Hitchens beautifully illustrates.
@hundertneun haha yeah that's true... I was just saying that Hitchens is making some assumtions (perfectly valid and very defensible assumptions) that the ever-rationalizing Christian mind will try to "lawyer it's way around."
I love this type of stuff. Atheists (or anti-theists) that can articulate their arguments. Being an anti-theist I find it very interesting. Respect to believers and non believers alike, I just find dogmatic belief irrational. But, whatever floats your boat hey? Just don't force it on me.
Congratulations for posting three lines without actually saying anything of value. If you disagree with something I've said then feel free to explain why, but scoffing at something I've said and insulting me just betrays your lack of virtue, not mine.
@Restayvien I see, so you were actually being serious. For shame. No, I'm not going to explain it to you, and I'm not looking for your approval. A 5 year old could easily see the flaws in your thought process. Figure it out yourself, if you care to. "Waiting until we're evolved". It's really quite unbelievable the bullshit that theists will come up with to prop up the childish fantasies that they don't have the courage to renounce.
@kerryfox C'mon, you know that isn't true... how could it even possible be true? Things like heart disease, cancer, traffic accidents are responsible for the VAST majority of deaths.
I just thought of something. We liked to attribute things we didn't know to some weird ideas and try to protect ourselves from them. We would attack other tribes who in turn had no idea was going on and came up with a meaning also and attack back... well, that didn't go anywhere... Well, good video.
I went to a Catholic school and my teachers were nuns and priests (no, I was not molested). Anyway, I was forced to read the bible almost every day - including the barbaric parts. It took many years of reasoning before I abandoned religion but I'm glad I did. I just don't understand how anyone can say Hitchens is ignorant? Where is he being ignorant? He actually read the bible which is more than most Christians.
@IronChefofPoon Reading the Bible and studying the Bible are two different things. Unless God opens his eyes he, and others like him, will continue to think that what the Bible says is foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This man is completely wrong about everything he said. His ignorance is unbelievably massive. I pray that one day he discovers the Truth and Light of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
@craigdb84 Well, our completely wrong scientists have enabled the Human race to withstand terrible diseases and weather, and have extended our lifespans by decades. THey've taken us to the moon and back, and we can communicate with each other over vast distances because of them.
Jesus Christ on the other hand has given us nothing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
With all of his intelligence he never ceases to amaze me with his ignorance. Why expend so much time and energy arguing against God if he doesn't beleive that God exists?
@nobuckle40 Because many people who DO believe in God are trying to make the US a theocracy, teach creationism in science class, base public policy on ancient superstition, etc. That is only the least of it, Islam is doing way scarier things.
@zakiechan People that are trying to make America a theocracy are kidding themselves. This country doesn't want to be a theocracy. It's evident that this country doesn't care about God. To believe that this country could ever find favor in the eyes of God is crazy. It's a wonder that God has allowed this country to exist as long as He has. That is quickly coming to an end.
@zakiechan well, i would also include the literally MILLIONS that die every year directly because of religion, alot of it in africa with the aids and islam with terrorists, abortion clininc bombings etc oh, and the rape of THOUSANDS of little boys, not directly caused by religion but definitely covered up by it, name ONE other thing that could defend that and get away with it till this day and i will give you 100 dollars :D
@patrickledford420 Try to remember that abortion clinic bombings are extremely rare. Especially in light of how violent Islam is, the fundy Christians are quite tame.
@zakiechan yes they are quite rare, i would have to say if you included everything that was directly caused by the religion, islam and christianity would be close but indeed the christian fundies have been forced to act better, pisslam has not been civilized
@fgjegl1 not directly because of it but the massive amount of it in africa is because of catholic doctrine being told to them, they are told that condoms are worse (sometimes even cause) AID's. abortion is not because of religion but bombing abortion clinics is, even though christians are the ones to always do that specific thing, if they would read their bible, it supports abortion all the way.
@nobuckle40 cause 97% of the world believes in this bs and are to ruin everything, just because he doesnt believe does not mean he cant talk about the million and one things of why he doesnt believe, and u call it ignorance, hmmm what a silly thing to write ffs
@gezzer2 First, where did you obtain your statistics? Second, I never said that he is not free to talk about why he doesn't believe. It seems to me that he spends more time railing against what he doesn't believe than he does about what he actually believes. But that's just my perspective. I know about what he doesn't believe. Can you enlighten me on what he does believe? I am willing to listen.
@nobuckle40 wow, what a dumb thing to say. most of the world believes in god(s) and tries to use that belief as an excuse for some form of unspeakable evil or another, and you wonder why people would want such a false belief stamped out?
and how is it ignorant to argue against something you don't believe in? ignorance is not knowing something. were you, being ignorant of the meaning of ignorance, simply reaching for a word you thought sounded insulting?
@BalzacCinema Allow me to assure you that I try not to use words if I don't know what they mean. If I sought to insult Mr. Hitchens I would not have pointed out his intelligence. I am merely saying that he does not have knowledge in the arena of theoleogy and thus is ignorant of God. Mr. Hitchens only sees what he wants to see concerning religion. His issue with God is not one of intellect but one of morality.
@nobuckle40 and if god is supposedly the source of morality and his morality fails upon examination, then he's at least not a good god.
i always wonder why, when dealing with theists, they think that you need to have extensive theological knowledge in order to just whether a particular god is a good god or not. perhaps you can enlighten me?
@BalzacCinema I don't think a peron has to have extensive knowledge of theology but at least have some. To say that God fails upon examination is to place faulty human understanding on a being that is outside humanity. Even the best of man's morality fails compared to God.
@nobuckle40 "Even the best of man's morality fails compared to God." Ok. God's morality as contained in the bible says that if a priests daughter starts whoring around you're supposed to set her on fire. (Lev 21:9)
How in the hell can you possibly defend that as being better than the best of my morality?
And do you really think Hitchens doesn't have some knowledge about theology? Just because he doesn't make the same assumption which you do that god automatically = good doesn't make him wrong.
@BalzacCinema Becuase God is holy and mankind is not. "What does that mean?", you might ask. It means that because God is holy, God and morality are synonymous. Holiness is something that mankind knows nothing about. If indeed Hitchens has some theological knowledge it is only used to form innacurate views of who God is.
@nobuckle40 "Holiness is something that mankind knows nothing about." Then how can you say it's synonymous with good? You know nothing about it, right?
And it's still just a bald assertion that god = good. Sorry, but you've not said anything profound and convincing. You've taken the thing I called you on and, rather than demonstrate it, merely reasserted it in more flowery language which by your own admission is meaningless to humans.
Why would I find this convincing? Why would Hitchens?
And if you leave it up to your god to convince me, may I point out that thus far he has completely and utterly failed. He must not be powerful enough to demonstrate his own existence or something.
@nobuckle40 You make it sound like that without religion there is no god. Does one "need" to embrace religion to discover god? If so, NO THANK YOU! Religion(at least the abrahamic and Islamic)has been so very corrupted over the centuries how can one filter through what's "truth" vs the "junk" laced into religion?
@nobuckle40 Also, aren't you only "seeing what you want to see?" Everyone is biased toward their belief system! In addition, Hitchen's doesn't doesn't have an issue with something he doesn't believe exists(as you claim he does), how could he? Hitchen's issue I think is with the evils that religion has attached with it! He has made it clear numerous times that so long as you "keep it to yourself" and aren't in any way hurting others, he has no problem with you believing what you want!
@nobuckle40 I gotta ask nobuckle ..why did shock of god subscribe to your ch? you have no vids of any kind..or any content for that matter.I only ask because I know he stes up lots of pages so he can troll around atheists vids..and act like an ass.
Why does religion reccomend be like a child......because you have to be a very childish to believe. dont be afraid to grow up.....nothing bad happens!
man i wish i could read minds, i would love to know exactly what theists think when hitchens destroys ALL of there nonsense arguments and completely bullshit EVIL beleifs.
Like moths to a flame the trolls will come and have to deposit on the screen the same worn out debate about why their zombie vampire cannibal god is best. They will do this because children need attention and there are none more childish than the religious.
Watch Agora the movie. You will definitely see that the dominating religion will allways slaughter the other non-believers. The christians first kill pagans then jews and at last the atheists in ancient Egypt. The same rule applied in Islam. If they cannot convince , they threaten with their swords and use the governments to reach their goals. Just watch the movie and see what is the enemy of the humanity and civilization?
readthenquestion 2 weeks ago
This should be REQUIRED watching for every citizen of this planet from the moment they are able to comprehend. Period. The death of reason is on course to KILL us.
Cos2mwizToo 1 month ago
Yes, and all the revelations occurred in the same illiterate, superstitious, barbaric district - with zero confirmation by way of revelation to any civilization that could leave coherent records. How anyone in their right mind....oh, right, sorry.
HeatherSpoonheim 1 month ago
Dammit Hitchens; STOP MAKING SENSE!
dkthg 2 months ago
Proverbs 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception.
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD.
1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
oscarmarin1995 3 months ago
@oscarmarin1995 dude, gtfo of here. you're making yourself look like a desperate moron.
sorry, but it's true.
OyonTheAdept 3 months ago
@OyonTheAdept If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you - John 15:18
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life everlasting through the Lord Jesus Christ.
oscarmarin1995 3 months ago
@oscarmarin1995 you never learn, do you?
OyonTheAdept 3 months ago
@OyonTheAdept I do learn, you resort to personal insults. Is that all you got buddy?
oscarmarin1995 3 months ago
@oscarmarin1995 im just speaking the truth. you coming here and posting stupid little verses like you can't say anything for yourself really does make you look like a desperate moron.
OyonTheAdept 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OyonTheAdept I guess dude. You haven't proven anything except your prejudice and bigotry. God loves you, the Son of God died so you could have everlasting life if you believe on Him. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life everlasting through the Lord Jesus Christ.
oscarmarin1995 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OyonTheAdept If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you - John 15:18
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life everlasting through the Lord Jesus Christ. - Romans 6:23
oscarmarin1995 3 months ago
Comment removed
oscarmarin1995 3 months ago
The argument against this is that at the time of Jesus the world's population was around 1% of the total population to have lived. Which would be almost perfect timing...
Sirstingray 8 months ago
@Sirstingray Perfect timing to appear somewhere educated and populated. Like China, or Rome. It also would have been perfect timing to appear even earlier than that.
Of course, it is quite likely that even more would be saved if he appeared today instead, when we have scientific tools, cameras, etc. Other religious could be conclusively disproven, and atheists would have conclusive evidence.
zakiechan 8 months ago 4
@zakiechan
You really don't get this "faith" thing!
If you watch William Lane Craig, it's interesting.. He says that he believes not based on faith but because of positive evidence for Jesus. He has it down to a tee.
The cameras point is a good one and the Rome/China one makes even more sense. Personally, I think, that if God were to exist he would be as obvious and as empirical as the existence of the sun. If Jesus did turn out to be God, I don't think I could forgive him!
Sirstingray 8 months ago
@Sirstingray lol you're right ;)
Btw, WLC says in numerous places that evidence doesn't matter (such as pg 43, 47-48 of his book Reasonable Faith).
zakiechan 8 months ago
@zakiechan
Ya he does say it in a few other youtube clips as well. He is a bundle of contradictions that guy!
Sirstingray 8 months ago
@Sirstingray LOL. WLC is deluded. The only 'evidence' for the Christ he believes in is the Bible.
HybridD91 7 months ago
@Sirstingray No what WLC puts forward is all shit really, please take a look at a sort of blog like paper by lawrence krauss called "Dealing with William Lane Craig" proves how stupid WLC's arguement really is
tombstone909 1 month ago
@Sirstingray he was talking about the time of moses, not the time of jesus
zcxsx 2 months ago
@zcxsx
Indeed. Probably doesn't alter the argument though. And if it does, it enhances the argument if anything, as Moses's time was before Jesus.
Sirstingray 2 months ago
Love Hitchens. Thanks for uploading.
WSilva832 9 months ago
@instereovideos No, I'm not a bit thick, you just didn't explain your criticism clearly enough. Though, now that you have explained it more clearly, I think you make a good point.
Though, I suppose one could say that since God decided to appear to such an ignorant culture it seems odd that he would have waited 90 thousand years to do so, when he could have appeared to another ignorant culture when modern man first appeared on the scene.
zakiechan 10 months ago
To be fair, Hitchens contradicts himself.
He claims that watching humanity for tens of thousands of years with folded arms is absurd, so God didn't act early enough. Then he says that God chose a backward, uneducated time to make his appearance... so now God came too early. Sounds good when he says it, but upon reflection it's a weak argument.
instereovideos 10 months ago
@instereovideos Your criticism is a little off base. He doesn't say that God chose the most backwards and uneducated TIME, but area. That's why he continues with "we won't appear to the Chinese, who can already read ... the Indus Valley..."
zakiechan 10 months ago
@zakiechan OK, but what "area" should he have appeared if he intervened "early enough?" If it was so absurd that he waited 90 thousand years, where should he have appeared to tribes of people who couldn't read, write, or even speak developed languages? I don't think my criticism is off base here.
instereovideos 10 months ago
@instereovideos Hitchens answers your question, as did I (quoting him). I hope I don't sound rude, but it seems like you didn't pay attention to the video, or even read what I wrote.
zakiechan 10 months ago
@zakiechan No, you don't sound rude. You sound like you're still missing what I said. I guess you didn't pay attention to what I wrote.
instereovideos 10 months ago
@instereovideos You said Hitchens said God chose a backward time-- when Hitchens said area. You then claimed that Hitchens didn't say where God should have appeared-- even though Hitchens did (which I also quoted). What am I missing?
zakiechan 10 months ago
@instereovideos
He's making the point that we can know pretty much that God (or ANY god) does not exist. If he did he wouldn't have sat around with his finger up his arse for at least 97,000 years letting humanity suffer. Then when he could be bothered, he revealed himself to a tribe of people who weren't the sharpest tools in the box at the time.
Basically, if God was real, it would be fair to say that he's a fucking useless cunt and should fuck off.
Zed1967 9 months ago 14
@Zed1967 Why don't you tell us how you really feel? Hahaha!
zakiechan 9 months ago
@zakiechan
I'd love to but I wouldn't want to upset any Christians with my opinion of their God. :)
Zed1967 9 months ago
I never get this stuff. Our specific species is here for some 200,000 years. But clearly monotheism is far more recent. The question why we are religious is being studied today in great depth - which offers a lot more intriguing thoughts and possibilities than these old arguments used by the new atheists. The whole matter is far more complex, to say the least. The religion-discussion is more about what consciousness is - it is not something you can read from evolution theory.
jcmmanuel 1 year ago
Humans on Earth for 100,000 years? What a joke. Let me see, we are supposed to believe that man played with sticks for 99,800 years and then.....THEN!!!!!! created the Industrial Revolution.!!!! Man has not been on earth for 100,000 years. Maybe the Earth is 100,000 years old but that doesn't mean man has lived in a dying earth for 100,000 years. No one knows how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden. Hitchens argument is a.....I'll use one of his terms..a "non sequitur".
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333
The only non sequiter is your nonsense about adam and eve
Killer0fTheSun 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 Did you even listen to what he said? He said that we haven't evolved in 100k years, and that since then, we've matured and come up with new technologies with GREAT struggle, without the help of god. Don't criticize someone's argument if you can't understand it.
panamanian911 1 year ago
@panamanian911 Hitchens first wants us to believe that God sat around and watched us for 100,000 years and did nothing about suffering, dying, etc. Now, you say, we weren't "mature" enough during those years? Did you ever think God didn't want to send His Son until we were mature enough? Also, the population would be larger. From 0-2011 our population grows from 100,000,000 to 6,000,000,000.
However, from -100,000 to 0 our population grows from 0 to 100,000,000? Doesn't make sense.
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't said. I said that Hitchens was trying to say that we matured (as in advancing) over the course of 100k years (the amount of years homo sapiens have walked the Earth) with great struggle while God was doing nothing to help, and then all of the sudden he wants to help? lol.
And no you idiot. Human population came from evolution. It didn't magically get from 0 to 6 billion people. I'm in the evolution side, not the creationist side,remember?
panamanian911 1 year ago
@panamanian911 That's strange because how much has man evolved in the past 2000 years? My answer: not much. So, where did the 100,000,000 come from? Did they come from the primordial goo in 100,000 years? Doesn't primordial goo multiply? So, I'll state it a different way. Now we have 6,000,000,000 goo-ettes. 2000 years ago we only had 100,000,000 goo-ettes. Why the different rate of change? Seems pretty drastic to me. And, all this happens at the time of Christ. Hmmmmmmmmm........
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 What the hell is your point then? How does a change of rate prove that God exists?
panamanian911 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 That's just how every single species works. Are you insinuating that we got here magically? Again, the number was never zero.
panamanian911 1 year ago
@panamanian911 The part that is confusing me is this; how could the population only grow to 100,000,000 in 100,000 years and grow to 6,000,000,000 in a mere 2000 years? Doesn't that seem strange? And, all this is bracketed around the birth of a man who claims to be God. I just don't like coincidences.
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 Ok just because you believe in Jesus doesn't mean that you can attribute everything to him. This is not even in the bible. I still don't understand why you would think that a change in rate is a proof of anything. The reason why you think that 2000 years ago was somehow important is because that's the reference point that we've taken. Have you never heard of exponential graphs or exponential growth? That's what happens to anything that isn't stopped. It grows until it IS stopped.
panamanian911 1 year ago
@panamanian911 Yes, but why did it start to happen at THAT specific time? Why not the 2000 years before?
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 Again, you're seeing everything in prospective from the years 0- 2000. Look at the difference between 2,000bc-0. Huge difference between those two. That's what exponential numbers are all about. The difference between 2000-4000 will be much bigger than 0-2000. Just because it became billions during those years doesn't mean that it started during those years.
panamanian911 1 year ago
@panamanian911 Yes, I understand your point. But, why did the growth start at that specific time? Jesus was born BEFORE it happened. There was no way they could of predicted such a population growth and then somehow make up a person to pretend he is God without this foreknowledge. There is no way they, meaning these "deceivers" who wrote the Bible, could of known about this unless........ it is true and Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be. I just think it is more than a mere coincidence.
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 *Facepalm* That's not what I tried to say. Here's an example: If this was the year 0, we'd be arguing about the big difference of population from 100k bc -10k bc to 10k bc- 0. You'd be saying that the big change between in population from 10k to 0 is too drastic compared to what came before. Now, compared with years 0-2k,the example I gave you seems like nothing.not huge numbers at all. Same thing will happen 2k-4k.Population will grow so much and itll make your argument look worse
panamanian911 1 year ago
@panamanian911 Hitchens is making the argument that man has been here for 100,000 years before Christ. If that is the case, then man went from (some small number, not 0) to 100,000,000 in 100,000 years. But, the population went from 100,000,000 to 6,000,000,000 in a lousy 2000 years!!! Give me a function that when plotted on a x-y graph and the x values go from -100,000 to +2000 and y goes from 100 to 6,000,000,000 with a drastic change at x=0. I know it will be exponential.
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 *Facepalm #2* Exponential growth didn't start 2000 years ago... I've explained it to you like four times already. I know what you're trying to say about 100m against 6billion. This doesn't mean that the exponential growth started 2k years ago. It started when we started, when we separated from out mother species. Yes, billions in growth is more than millions in growth in the past, but that's how it's supposed to be. In the next thousand of years, it'll be MUCH larger.
panamanian911 1 year ago
@panamanian911 So, you can't come up with a function. So, STFU.
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 I'm not a mathematician. I'm a 17-year-old wanna be musician. You don't need a function to understand exponential growth. Anyone would've thought that after 5 easy examples, you would've understood.
panamanian911 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 It didn't happen 2000 years ago, it happened after the 10th century think all your arguments about coincidence of population growth and jesus got flushed down the toilet ;) thank me for bringing you nearer to atheism
MrDubidubidubidu 1 year ago
@MrDubidubidubidu Even if you could prove the explosion happened after the 10th century, so what? A thousand year difference? C'mon put your atheist-science hat on. What is the standard deviation here? We're looking at a 102,000 year range according to Hitch. 1000 years is less than 1%. That's usually close enough for you people to claim we used to swing from trees.
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 Okay I'll try to put it in a way you can understand. Organised religion started when the human development was sufficient. Population explosion happened mostly because of the industrial revolution which had nothing to do with the apperance of christianism. And that is not all, if you want to thank a religion for huma development thank Islam, they were far more advinced for centuries after jesus appearance
MrDubidubidubidu 1 year ago
@MrDubidubidubidu The point I am trying to make is that it is NOT a coincidence the population exploded right after Christ was born. Why didn't it happen 10,000 years before? Or, 10,000 years after? It is a point of interest to look at a graph and isolate the year Christ was born and then, all of a sudden, the worlds population explodes! This would seem like a strange occurrence, unless.....UNLESS the worlds population began only 3000 years before Christ instead of 100,000 years. Hmmmmmmm.....
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 The moment were humanity society has advanced enough so that organised religions can grow is near to the moment were society has advanced enough for industralisation, its just like that.
Your theory that humans appear 3000 years ago and that is why population is growing faster is just stupid, the biggest population explosion was due to industralisation which happened 3 centuries ago
MrDubidubidubidu 1 year ago
@MrDubidubidubidu You didn't answer my question. Why didn't the population explode 10,000 years ago? Or, 10,000 years from now? Isn't it peculiar the population exploded right after Christ? Do you think this was a coincidence? And, notice I wrote "after" Christ. It is not as if the "creators" of Christianity saw the population explosion and said to themselves, "hey, this is a good time to fake a religion."
YesYou123333 1 year ago
@YesYou123333 I explained to you that the fact is that in a scale of society evolution, the moment where humas attein a level where organised religions flourish is very near to the moment wher eindustrial revolution starts, this is because some major factors are needed for both, eg big cities.
Furthermore, even if it was a coincidence (which wasn't) its a better explanation than yours, because saying that humans appeared 3000 years ago and thats why 300 yeas ago population exploded is illogical
MrDubidubidubidu 1 year ago
Yes, this is a regression (0:52).
drhoobad 1 year ago
Probably the best little spiel of Hitchens' that I've ever seen...
Sirstingray 1 year ago
Sublime.
SkinnerSG 1 year ago
Long live Hitchens.
ararmaya 1 year ago
Just being the "devil's advocate" here, but it doesn't logically follow that theists MUST believe that God didn't intervine until just a few thousand years ago. For all a Theist would know and still be consistent wtih his or her theology God and Angels etc could have done it 1 billion times before the events in the Christian Bible. But then they believe the Earth is 6000 years old and all the science to the contrary is wrong.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 Sure, but do you think any Christian is going to actually claim that God was doing stuff way before he said he started doing stuff?
Also, this is presuming that the Christians are somewhat educated (ie, aren't creationists).
zakiechan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zakiechan "Sure, but do you think any Christian is going to actually claim that God was doing stuff way before he said he started doing stuff?
"
haha no not really. There might be some some new-agey Christians out there who do... if not, maybe we could start our own sect and bask in the tax exempt status :)
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 You are missing the point a bit here. The point is this: if god is all-knowing and all-powerful, and the history of life on this planet is anything even remotely like we think it is, then god is evil, cruel, and despicable even by our own average moral standards. Lucretius made the same point long ago, and it is as true now as it was then--as Hitchens beautifully illustrates.
hundertneun 1 year ago
@hundertneun haha yeah that's true... I was just saying that Hitchens is making some assumtions (perfectly valid and very defensible assumptions) that the ever-rationalizing Christian mind will try to "lawyer it's way around."
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 Indeed, so true. :)
hundertneun 1 year ago
Hitchens is god lol, I've heard him say this many time now, but this is his best attempt at showing the madness of religious thinking.
NIXIMvideo 1 year ago
I love this type of stuff. Atheists (or anti-theists) that can articulate their arguments. Being an anti-theist I find it very interesting. Respect to believers and non believers alike, I just find dogmatic belief irrational. But, whatever floats your boat hey? Just don't force it on me.
avester777 1 year ago
Does he pause to consider that maybe we needed to evolve and develop to a sufficient degree before intervention was viable? :P
Restayvien 1 year ago
@Restayvien 100,000 years ago, humans had evolved to their present day form. There wasn't any significant additional evolution that took place.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan
I'm talking culturally, geographicaly and philosophically, rather than physically.
Perhaps I should have said 'mature' rather than evolve.
Restayvien 1 year ago
@Restayvien I wonder what about the middle east was more mature than China...
Anyway, this is just ad hoc.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan
Yeah...I don't necessarily mean mature in the traditional sense. More that they were at the right stage to be introduced to the idea.
It was a good time and place to pick evidently, as it is now the largest religion on Earth.
Restayvien 1 year ago
@Restayvien I hope you are only joking, because if not, then your comment betrays an astounding lack of imagination and intelligence.
hundertneun 1 year ago
@hundertneun
Congratulations for posting three lines without actually saying anything of value. If you disagree with something I've said then feel free to explain why, but scoffing at something I've said and insulting me just betrays your lack of virtue, not mine.
Restayvien 1 year ago
@Restayvien I see, so you were actually being serious. For shame. No, I'm not going to explain it to you, and I'm not looking for your approval. A 5 year old could easily see the flaws in your thought process. Figure it out yourself, if you care to. "Waiting until we're evolved". It's really quite unbelievable the bullshit that theists will come up with to prop up the childish fantasies that they don't have the courage to renounce.
hundertneun 1 year ago
@hundertneun
Then you are merely trolling, and I don't plan on wasting any more of my time responding to you.
Restayvien 1 year ago
Religion is the cause of most death in one way another.
kerryfox 1 year ago
@kerryfox C'mon, you know that isn't true... how could it even possible be true? Things like heart disease, cancer, traffic accidents are responsible for the VAST majority of deaths.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan
Yep. And don't forget fear, intolerance, greed and misunderstandings
Restayvien 1 year ago
Brilliant, simply brilliant.
DarwinAwardsInc 1 year ago
The Hitch at his very best.Just hope the guy beats this awful bloody cancer
naybobdenod 1 year ago 3
Great point about the Chinese...
progrockcoffee 1 year ago
lol
This video is great(:
erinxevolution 1 year ago
Go, Mr. Hitchens. This nearly reaches Izzardian levels of hilarity.
MargarettaL 1 year ago 9
I just thought of something. We liked to attribute things we didn't know to some weird ideas and try to protect ourselves from them. We would attack other tribes who in turn had no idea was going on and came up with a meaning also and attack back... well, that didn't go anywhere... Well, good video.
CraniumOnEmpty 1 year ago
I went to a Catholic school and my teachers were nuns and priests (no, I was not molested). Anyway, I was forced to read the bible almost every day - including the barbaric parts. It took many years of reasoning before I abandoned religion but I'm glad I did. I just don't understand how anyone can say Hitchens is ignorant? Where is he being ignorant? He actually read the bible which is more than most Christians.
IronChefofPoon 1 year ago
@IronChefofPoon Reading the Bible and studying the Bible are two different things. Unless God opens his eyes he, and others like him, will continue to think that what the Bible says is foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14).
nobuckle40 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nobuckle40
"Reading the Bible and studying the Bible are two different things."
I agree.
"others like him, will continue to think that what the Bible says is foolish"
That's because it is foolish:
Matthew 5 :21-22 (saying, "you fool" and go to hell)
Matthew 23:13-17 (Jesus saying "you fool")
IronChefofPoon 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This man is completely wrong about everything he said. His ignorance is unbelievably massive. I pray that one day he discovers the Truth and Light of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
craigdb84 1 year ago
@craigdb84 What was he wrong about? Everything he said was either scientific fact, or followed logically from the facts (if you are a theist).
zakiechan 1 year ago 30
@craigdb84 enlighten us with how you think he is wrong. Provide verifiable evidence.
arseymcpherson 1 year ago
@craigdb84 Well, our completely wrong scientists have enabled the Human race to withstand terrible diseases and weather, and have extended our lifespans by decades. THey've taken us to the moon and back, and we can communicate with each other over vast distances because of them.
Jesus Christ on the other hand has given us nothing.
phocjame 1 year ago
@craigdb84 Cool story. Care to elaborate? Let me give you a tasteof your own medicine here.
OMFG yoo are sooooooo stupid omg.
Make a fucking point or don't bother writng anything.
glenwut 1 year ago
Hitchens delivers a flying knee to religions face, KO.
Davey850 1 year ago
That had to be one of Hitchens best stand routines I have yet seen, tragic as always in it's realization, but hilarious all the same.
mattghtpa 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
With all of his intelligence he never ceases to amaze me with his ignorance. Why expend so much time and energy arguing against God if he doesn't beleive that God exists?
nobuckle40 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 Because many people who DO believe in God are trying to make the US a theocracy, teach creationism in science class, base public policy on ancient superstition, etc. That is only the least of it, Islam is doing way scarier things.
zakiechan 1 year ago 31
@zakiechan People that are trying to make America a theocracy are kidding themselves. This country doesn't want to be a theocracy. It's evident that this country doesn't care about God. To believe that this country could ever find favor in the eyes of God is crazy. It's a wonder that God has allowed this country to exist as long as He has. That is quickly coming to an end.
nobuckle40 1 year ago
@zakiechan well, i would also include the literally MILLIONS that die every year directly because of religion, alot of it in africa with the aids and islam with terrorists, abortion clininc bombings etc oh, and the rape of THOUSANDS of little boys, not directly caused by religion but definitely covered up by it, name ONE other thing that could defend that and get away with it till this day and i will give you 100 dollars :D
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 Try to remember that abortion clinic bombings are extremely rare. Especially in light of how violent Islam is, the fundy Christians are quite tame.
Anyway, you get to keep you $100.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan yes they are quite rare, i would have to say if you included everything that was directly caused by the religion, islam and christianity would be close but indeed the christian fundies have been forced to act better, pisslam has not been civilized
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 sorry man i cant be bothered to read all the previous comments, how is aids and abortions directly a cause of religion?
fgjegl1 1 year ago
@fgjegl1 not directly because of it but the massive amount of it in africa is because of catholic doctrine being told to them, they are told that condoms are worse (sometimes even cause) AID's. abortion is not because of religion but bombing abortion clinics is, even though christians are the ones to always do that specific thing, if they would read their bible, it supports abortion all the way.
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 cause 97% of the world believes in this bs and are to ruin everything, just because he doesnt believe does not mean he cant talk about the million and one things of why he doesnt believe, and u call it ignorance, hmmm what a silly thing to write ffs
gezzer2 1 year ago
@gezzer2 First, where did you obtain your statistics? Second, I never said that he is not free to talk about why he doesn't believe. It seems to me that he spends more time railing against what he doesn't believe than he does about what he actually believes. But that's just my perspective. I know about what he doesn't believe. Can you enlighten me on what he does believe? I am willing to listen.
nobuckle40 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 wow, what a dumb thing to say. most of the world believes in god(s) and tries to use that belief as an excuse for some form of unspeakable evil or another, and you wonder why people would want such a false belief stamped out?
and how is it ignorant to argue against something you don't believe in? ignorance is not knowing something. were you, being ignorant of the meaning of ignorance, simply reaching for a word you thought sounded insulting?
BalzacCinema 1 year ago 3
@BalzacCinema Allow me to assure you that I try not to use words if I don't know what they mean. If I sought to insult Mr. Hitchens I would not have pointed out his intelligence. I am merely saying that he does not have knowledge in the arena of theoleogy and thus is ignorant of God. Mr. Hitchens only sees what he wants to see concerning religion. His issue with God is not one of intellect but one of morality.
nobuckle40 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 Google "courtier's reply"
zakiechan 1 year ago 7
@nobuckle40 and if god is supposedly the source of morality and his morality fails upon examination, then he's at least not a good god.
i always wonder why, when dealing with theists, they think that you need to have extensive theological knowledge in order to just whether a particular god is a good god or not. perhaps you can enlighten me?
BalzacCinema 1 year ago
@BalzacCinema I don't think a peron has to have extensive knowledge of theology but at least have some. To say that God fails upon examination is to place faulty human understanding on a being that is outside humanity. Even the best of man's morality fails compared to God.
nobuckle40 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 "Even the best of man's morality fails compared to God." Ok. God's morality as contained in the bible says that if a priests daughter starts whoring around you're supposed to set her on fire. (Lev 21:9)
How in the hell can you possibly defend that as being better than the best of my morality?
And do you really think Hitchens doesn't have some knowledge about theology? Just because he doesn't make the same assumption which you do that god automatically = good doesn't make him wrong.
BalzacCinema 1 year ago
@BalzacCinema Becuase God is holy and mankind is not. "What does that mean?", you might ask. It means that because God is holy, God and morality are synonymous. Holiness is something that mankind knows nothing about. If indeed Hitchens has some theological knowledge it is only used to form innacurate views of who God is.
nobuckle40 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 "Holiness is something that mankind knows nothing about." Then how can you say it's synonymous with good? You know nothing about it, right?
And it's still just a bald assertion that god = good. Sorry, but you've not said anything profound and convincing. You've taken the thing I called you on and, rather than demonstrate it, merely reasserted it in more flowery language which by your own admission is meaningless to humans.
Why would I find this convincing? Why would Hitchens?
BalzacCinema 1 year ago
@BalzacCinema You twist my words. It's not up to me to convince you or Mr. Hitchens, I'll leave that up to God.
nobuckle40 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 How have I twisted your words?
And if you leave it up to your god to convince me, may I point out that thus far he has completely and utterly failed. He must not be powerful enough to demonstrate his own existence or something.
BalzacCinema 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 Having a proclaimed knowledge in theology is about as silly as me claiming to an 'ology' in 3.5 AD&D rules. It is meaningless drivel.
Superstition is not knowledge, it is what one makes when lacking knowledge.
Might as well say "I am merely saying that he does not have knowledge in the arena of fayology and thus is ignorant of fairies."
Peddle your silly beliefs elsewhere and take your magic sky man and shove him up your ass.
BallzDeep4Jeebus 1 year ago
@BallzDeep4Jeebus Thank you for your kind words.
nobuckle40 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 You are welcomed. Hope those words pulled your head out of whatever imaginary sky-man's ass it was dwelling up.
Glad to be a service.
BallzDeep4Jeebus 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 You make it sound like that without religion there is no god. Does one "need" to embrace religion to discover god? If so, NO THANK YOU! Religion(at least the abrahamic and Islamic)has been so very corrupted over the centuries how can one filter through what's "truth" vs the "junk" laced into religion?
99minerkc 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 Also, aren't you only "seeing what you want to see?" Everyone is biased toward their belief system! In addition, Hitchen's doesn't doesn't have an issue with something he doesn't believe exists(as you claim he does), how could he? Hitchen's issue I think is with the evils that religion has attached with it! He has made it clear numerous times that so long as you "keep it to yourself" and aren't in any way hurting others, he has no problem with you believing what you want!
99minerkc 1 year ago
@nobuckle40 I gotta ask nobuckle ..why did shock of god subscribe to your ch? you have no vids of any kind..or any content for that matter.I only ask because I know he stes up lots of pages so he can troll around atheists vids..and act like an ass.
So again why did he sub to your ch?
alltiedup217 1 year ago
Why does religion reccomend be like a child......because you have to be a very childish to believe. dont be afraid to grow up.....nothing bad happens!
Intactisin 1 year ago
that was one of the best versions of that speech yet!!! great
IamMichaelGabriel 1 year ago
Brilliant!
julzabro 1 year ago
man i wish i could read minds, i would love to know exactly what theists think when hitchens destroys ALL of there nonsense arguments and completely bullshit EVIL beleifs.
patrickledford420 1 year ago 4
@patrickledford420 thing is they just don't hear it! goes in one ear and out the other!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@patrickledford420
Many of them are propably thinking Hitch is an idiot since they believe humans have been around for only ~6000 years :P
Nevertheless it doesn't explain what was god doing during those ~3000 years before he decided to intervene.
byteresistor 1 year ago
great post! i laughed!
FromOutsideTheBox 1 year ago 2
Like moths to a flame the trolls will come and have to deposit on the screen the same worn out debate about why their zombie vampire cannibal god is best. They will do this because children need attention and there are none more childish than the religious.
yourmomdidsayyourean 1 year ago 5
Great video Hitchens is indeed awesome. Thanks Zakie you rock.
Atheistx82 1 year ago 2
Hitchens is awesome!
Electronic897 1 year ago 3
Second!
Atheistx82 1 year ago
First
truvelocity 1 year ago