The thoughtful religious have a more enquiring mind because sometimes they doubt their faith? lol They reject all real evidence in favor of some all powerful, all knowing invisible being & call that thoughtful? No doubt they question their faith, it's hard work to believe in something without a shred of evidence while mountains of evidence to the contrary is staring you in the face.
> They reject all real evidence in favor of some all powerful, all knowing invisible being & call that thoughtful?
As opposed to your invisible time god where anything is possible given enough unobservable , untestable, non-repepeatable time? . Is that what you mean by real evidence? Please be specific.
> it's hard work to believe in something without a shred of evidence
that you are aware of which makes a world of difference
"He is an atheist who has taken the firm position that there is no God"
Did you even watch the debate? Hitchens quite specifically says that it may NOT be said that there is no God but that there is no good reason to think that there is one. He says that in every debate.
Try addressing the actual argument that is made instead of mischaracterizing the argument and engaging in ad hominem. This display of yours here says a lot more about you than it does about Hitchens or his arguments.
Hitchen´s positive assertion as indicated in the video: "I think I am here because of the laws of biology, not because of a divine plan" That position is what is being called into question. So he´s even restating his position right here in your face and you´re STILL clueless.
> They are just trying to play stupid word games with Hitchens
What word game? It was a straight forward question that Hitchens understood and responded to. If Hitchens thought it was a trick question, don´t you think he would have been smart enough not to answer no?
@owensphil He clearly said atheism is a position of doubt. Asking him if he doubts that is a childish word game. How could an atheist ever even doubt their position? That would be like knowing how a car works & every once in a while getting in, starting it up & wondering if it's magic. I can see someone just learning biology & evolution & not fully understanding having doubts but once you know how it works there's no debate. You can't go back to believing a magic trick once the trick is revealed
> He clearly said atheism is a position of doubt. Asking him if he doubts that is a childish word game
Then he should have been smart enough to reflectively not answer "No" when asked the question.So maybe his debating skills needed polishing.
>How could an atheist ever even doubt their position?
He even states the basis of his position at 0.56 "I think I am here because of the laws of biology, not because of a divine plan" That position can´t be doubted?
@owensphil Once you have an understanding it's hard to doubt. Having faith in something & questioning that faith is very diff than having a scientific understanding of something based on evidence. You know your car mixes air & gas,sucks it in and ignites it to make it run. You may not know every detail like the valve timing or the exact compression but you know basically how your car works. Do you ever get in,turn the key & wonder if it's magic? Once you understand there's no room for doubt
> Having faith in something & questioning that faith is very diff than having a scientific understanding of something based on evidence. You know your car mixes
Your comparisons are grossly flawed. You're comparing something that is observable and can be demonstrated to something that is based on assumptions. Hitchens here speaks of an unobservable, non-testable, non- repeatable occurrence. that is the origins of life.
@owensphil How is evolution based on assumptions? We have tons of evidence.(fossil record, fused no#2 chromosome, direct DNA tracing) You can't directly watch it because it takes to long but we have fossils showing most every stage. You don't need to watch it,the evidence is clear. If you find a gun,match it with a bullet,then find a guy with powder residue on his hands & prints that match those left on the gun you don't need to see him fire it to know he did.
> How is evolution based on assumptions? We have tons of evidence.(fossil record, fused no#2 chromosome, direct DNA tracing
The fossil record is in no way evidence for evolution but rather that something died and fossilized. The lack of transitional stages, the Cambrian explosion which depict an abrupt appearance of body plans with no transitions leading up to them are fossil is evidence against evolution.As well as the thousands of living fossil which show little to no change.
That only shows us that a fusion took place. It could have happened in man´s own lineage. The assumption would be that it happened between man an ape. You guys can´t even agree on a common ancestor. It´s just merely asserted.
> direct DNA tracing)
How is this in any way evidence for evolution?
>but we have fossils showing most every stage
No we don´t. Who told you that lie? Name even a half way complete transitional series for anything.
> If you find a gun,match it with a bullet,then find a guy with powder residue on his hands & prints that match those left on the gun you don't need to see him fire
That´s a very good argument for design ie an intelligent agent. but a very poor one for evolution. No series of intermediate steps are needed in that example.
@owensphil Intermediate steps? Do you mean "transitional species" that evolution doesn't expect to find? Everything is in process if you will. There will not be fish with perfectly formed legs or something that is 1/2 duck 1/2 crock. People that think that's what evolution would say existed have no clue whatsoever.
> Everything is in process if you will. There will not be fish with perfectly formed legs or something that is 1/2 duck 1/2 crock.
Let´s say you have fossil A of a certain type of organism which you claimed evolved to fossil Z. What is your evidence for that claim other than that just a flat out assumption?
@owensphil There are lots of species with very complete fossil records. There were not large populations early human ancestors & then to have one die, become fossilized & have us find it now is very rare. That's why there isn't lots of original human fossils & a few gaps in the human line but those gaps are small & it's very clear despite a few gaps. We can directly trace DNA mutations back far enough to know exactly how that process works. Look into it,it really isn't as complex as it looks
@owensphil Trilobites, cephalopods sp? & most crustaceans have very extensive fossil records of their development. There are so many covering the full range of development you can buy one at virtually any fossil shop for just a few $. I think hyaenas have extensive records from a little rat like creature up to current form. There are more but I don't recall off the top of my head. Google species with complete fossil records. I am sure you will find a bunch. Take a look at them.
@owensphil Needless to say, I am done here unless you are willing to quit playing games. I find it hard to believe you don't know this information already. You are either playing stupid or are so invested in avoiding basic biology you will just ignore anything presented. All I can say is learn some of this stuff if you truly don't already know it. It is pretty basic & easy to learn & you just might find it fascinating whether or not you change anything you believe.
@owensphil We can track genetic markers back to an astonishing degree. There are common markers in living chimps & apes left from when we separated. It was even predicted humans would have a fused chromosome. We have 2 fewer(1 set)of chromosomes fewer than chimps. Sure enough in #2 there are 2 centeremeres marking a fused set. We can even tell this corresponds to #13 in chimps. DNA gives a clearer picture because it isn't open to speculation as to which line it comes from like a fossil may be
> There are common markers in living chimps & apes left from when we separated.
Such as???
> It was even predicted humans would have a fused chromosome.
This was not predicted at all. You just made that up and you know it. The fused chromosome only indicates that a fusion took place not that it was between ape and man. It could have very well been within man´s own lineage. Evolutionist don´t even know when this fusion took place.
@owensphil We knew humans had 1 less set of chromosomes long before the genome was mapped. We knew there had to be a fused chromosome in humans so yes,it was predicted we had a fused set. The cytochrome c protein sequence is found ONLY in chimps & humans & it is a very long sequence & no, I don't know exactly how long (on the order of thousands though) We also share many sequences with virtually all living things but cytochrome c is totally unique to chimps & humans
@owensphil It's amazing how hard you try not to learn anything. This is basic stuff. You should have covered it in HS biology or a 100 level college class. You are just hiding from information & looking for something science hasn't explained yet so you can somehow confirm your god in your brain. That's also faulty reasoning. Simply because science has not explained something is not evidence of a god in any way. Was zeuce real? Apollo? Any of the 100s of past gods invented to explain the unknown?
@shananagans5 Firstly men invented zeus, apollo, ra and countless other deities. Adonai, Elohim, God chose a people and revealed himself to them. He is not an explanation for some unknown phenomena. You are so deluded that you think this is some point? If one was to invent a deity to justify their idea of the universe they would make one with the same moral turpitude as themselves. The God of the Bible clearly is not such a construct he demands righteousness not moral turpitude
@BrotherMichael1000 You do realize, current religions look no less silly than zeus, apollo, or any others? It's simply the religion of the day packed in a slick story. You can't doubt god or you go to hell for eternity. Jesus loves you, It's gods will. It's a handy way to explain everything someone doesn't understand & a comfort for people that fear death. How is that not designed to answer the unknown questions in life? Christianity just added punishment for not believing.
@shananagans5 Christianity is not a current religion. Further you do not go to hell because of mere unbelief. You go to hell because you are depraved wicked and evil. That is why you go to hell. There is a way that seems right to a man but the ends of it lead to destruction. Human history more than expands on this theme. Christianity isn't a security blanket nor is it just answering unknown questions of life. As to being comforted because I fear death you really haven't a clue what cont.
@shananagans5 the faith is about do you? It is not about fear of death it is about life. God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses etc not a God of the dead but of the living. It is about life friend and walking in the truth. If one walks in the truth they are free. John 3:19-20 Light has entered the world and men loved darkness more than the light. They hate and fear the light because their deeds are evil and rather than be proved wrong and shown for what they are they reject.
@owensphil I don't believe but If somebody thinks god set everything in motion I don't have a problem with that. I do think it's crazy to deny evolution is the way things develop. The evidence is overwhelming & to deny that & justify that people promote flawed logic to children. This hurts them in other aspects of life forever. That's the only problem I have with religion. There are good aspects to religion but the denial of science & promotion of flawed thought processes hurts humanity overall
@owensphil He got tripped up in a childish word game. You consider that a lie? He simply wasn't expecting an adult to start playing grade school word games. That's almost as silly as saying there are no married bachelors & claiming you proved something doesn't exist.
What word game? Not at all. Anyone watching the video can clearly see that he reflectively listens to what is being asked and then give s decisive. NO. From that point at the very least, a skillful debater would stop to characterize the question as misleading but no, he goes on to make positive assertions why he has taken that position.
> That's almost as silly as saying there are no married bachelors
That's an absurd comparison. If you were asked about about married bachelors, you would think that your response would solely deal with the question itself. You wouldn't go on to give supporting statements as Hitchens does here.
Prager is trying to play a game and Hitchens isn't having any of it. (As Hitches explained rather clearly: For him, atheism IS a position of doubt and so Prager's question - essentially - "do you doubt your doubt" is nonsensical).
Maybe the critics of Hitchens can try to address Hitchens substantive arguments instead of playing this disingenuous game of "gotcha" - so clumsy, it would embarrass even a politician.
> Prager is trying to play a game and Hitchens isn't having any of it.
So why did he answer no?
> "do you doubt your doubt" is nonsensical).
That´s total nonsense! The question was does he doubt his position. Hitchens is not agnostic. He is an atheist who has taken the firm position that there is no God and has given numerous positive assertions for that position.
Christopher Hitchens, the former atheist now in Hell as a true believer LIED ALOT, as this video proves that immorality of the man. He perjured himself in under one minute for all to see. And he also demonstrated that his accusation that he isn't as arrogant as a theist is a farce--he is far more arrogant. Hitchens was often a clever liar, but a liar nonetheless
@TheRobinL I have no idea how you can not understand it?
He ask Hitchens if he ever have doubt about a god, Hitchens say no. 1min later he claim that Hitchens sad he never have doubt at all. And Hitchens answer I never sad that, witch he did not. . Don't know how I can put it more clearly?!
>1min later he claim that Hitchens sad he never have doubt at all
No, no doubts with respect his position regarding the existence of a God. I think that at least was clear to practically everyone. Don't know how you missed it.
@owensphil Assume that all you want but i'm only saying what he sad. If he don't mean what he say he should not say it. Are you going to talk in public in front of people you should neatly phrase your statement.
@rbfitz0529 Agreed. Anybody that is a Christian or a believer in another faith would say that at one time or another they have doubted their faith because we are incapable of perfect faith. Anyone who says they do not EVER have doubts are just lying to you or lying to themselves.
Hitchens made a definitive statement answering--then he tried to retract it only AFTER he realized he's caught. Hitchens in FACT was a DRUNK all his life (thank the Lord he has been taken to Hell & gone from us). Perhaps he killed off too many brain cells with his drunkenness. Believers in God claim God is INFINITE. They also claim man is FINITE. Man is proven as FINITE. Arguments for the existence of God go on & on. Finite humans DOUBT; Hitchens doesn't, so Hitchens isn't human:Simple as that!
No OP you are wrong. He started to speak by saying "no" then he was cut of immediately which is rude. You gotta let somebody think and respond fully when you ask a question.
@Ducky888888 That is NOT what happened. He said a definitive "No". Then when the opposition began to expound upon the significance of his answer, he realized what he had done and started equivocating. You better learn how to watch a video clip, bud. THAT is TYPICAL Hitchens behavior, because Hitchens is (was) a dishonest person, a DRUNK, an equivicator, not strictly speaking an intellectual, and an ASS. ;)
1. Christopher is right. He is not arrogant. He tries to doubt his atheism, therefore he is not arrogant, but because religion is non-sensical he can actually get himself to the point of doubting. In fact same with me, I sometimes try asserting the possibility that god but the sheer stupidity of this assertion makes me laugh.
2. Religions have been feeding lies to mankind's for thousands of years, why not make a video called "religion - a stupid lie"
@owensphil well Hitchen's isn't a biologist, but Richard Dawkins is. I suggest you watch his debate with John Lennox.
On the other hand, what you are referring to is known as the god of white spots. An idea which was criticised by religious John Lennox, that is looking for god in phenomena science didn't yet explain. Science has proven religion to be wrong and there is not doubt about that, no matter what Hitchens says
@owensphil oh gee let me think. How about that time Copernicus proved that the earth isn't the centre of the world, or I don't know maybe when Darwin proved that a man was not created by god but rather evolved from another species. Or how about that time when the science has proved that the Earth is not 10,000 but rather about 4 billion years old? or is that too far-fetched for you?
@owensphil Yes, I sure do. I had an email forwarded by YouTube responding to a comment I made here. There's no substance to the comment at all, but they did essentially say at the end: "The priest guy is not going to get into heaven asking questions like that...." That is a lame remark, so I responded...but when I got here the original reply was not here--so I just posted my comment regularly to the name that was in the email. Sorry if I "hit" the wrong name or whatever....
@malithe00 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
Actually, there is evidence for God but atheists don't accept our evidence. Just like Christians and other people of faith don't accept atheists dis-belief in God. I don't think that was the point if this video anyway. It simply caught an atheist in an uncomfortable position. Whats the problem with that?
@tnmusicman1 Didn't "simply catch an atheist uncomfortable". These debates(about the existence of God especially; but also about religion--two entirely different things to many) has been going on for millenia! It's a MAJOR point for a believer in God admit that they are sometimes "doubters", yet the atheist says he doesn't doubt the NON-existence of God EVER. Arguments FOR the existence of God are simply far better, more developed,&cogent. But to never doubt--that's a fool! CH=FOOL
I don't believe in Unicorns, do I ever doubt that lack of belief, no because there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Unicorns. The same goes for god, there is not a shred of evidence for god, and certainly not for a bronze aged zombie. This video fails.
> I don't believe in Unicorns, do I ever doubt that lack of belief,
You also haven't made any positive assertions as to why you don't unlike Hitchens who does make positive assertions for his position. So maybe you should come up with a better comparison.One in which you make positive assertions as to why you believe what you believe. Once you do that, then the question can be asked to you ever doubt those positive assertions.
@owensphil Could you please explain to me how one makes a positive assertion for a negative statement? To my knowledge, one cannot prove a negative. You can prove something which contradicts, and therefore invalidates, another item, but you cannot prove a negative.
@owensphil Could you please explain to me how one makes a positive assertion for a negative statement? To my knowledge, one cannot prove a negative. You can prove something which contradicts, and therefore invalidates, another item, but you cannot prove a negative.
@owensphil Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
There is tons of evidence for an intelligent agent with respect to the creation of the universe and life. What there isn't evidence of is for the absurd notion of Nobody dunnit
@owensphil There is not a single speck of evidence pointing to an intelligent agent. And idiodic angent, possibly, but certainly not an intelligent one. Why is the design of our eye inherantly inferior to an octopus? Evolution has an answer, ID doesn't. Why are our respiratory and digestive tracks connected? Evolution has an answer, ID doesn't. Why do we have wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth suck. Evolution has an answer, ID doesn't. ID explains nothing about the natural world.
>There is not a single speck of evidence pointing to an intelligent agent
That you are aware of.
> Why is the design of our eye inherantly inferior to an octopus?
It isn´t. The eye of the octopus is designed to detect motion, not detail as is true of human eyes, and must maximize its utilization of light since the ocean usually has little or no light at its lower depths.
2.) No, it's superior. We have a blindspot where the retina attaches to the optic nerve, the octopus doesn't. Intelligent human designers know how to engineer an eye with the best of both worlds. The human eye is poorly designed.
They aid in chewing our food as do all of our other 28 teeth. . Third molar problems are due to a change from a course abrasive diet to a soft western diet which does not give the teeth the workout which they require to ensure proper relationship in the mouth., lack of proper dental care, and genetic factors possibly including mutations.
@owensphil Most dentists reccomend removing wisdom teeth as early as possible because the problems they cause outweigh the benefits of having an extra tooth. If the human jaw was intelligently designed, there would be no disadvantage to wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are poorly designed.
> Why are our respiratory and digestive tracks connected?
Unlike the primates,our airway and esophagus allows for speech
Also, the pharynx structure permits the mouth and nose to alternate as breathing ports, a feature that is critical whenever the nose is plugged.The nostrils are used when there is a need for breathing normal quantities of air. The mouth allows rapid entry of much larger quantities of air when needed.
@owensphil I acknowledge the advantage of a secondary breathing port, but it doesn't explain why it's connected to our digestive track. An intelligent designer would give us this secondary respiratory hole in addition to a mouth, not as an alternate use for it. This would eliminate the risk of choking. The human throat is poorly designed.
@gofeedtina Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@gofeedtina LOL You obviously know about the topic! No evidence for God'sexistence? OMG! U best read up on the debates--they've been going for millenia--w/MANY arguments FOR God's existence. Evidence can be subject to interpretation. But you, my man, are a FOOL, because u don't even know the EASY response to ur own statement! (If it's simple as u say, then why did Hitchens & Dawkins spend LIVES debating?) But back to U:There's NO evidence for God's NON-EXISTENCE either, numbnuts! :)
@432ps Perhaps.... But hitchens, for my part has shown me the eloquence of cognitive dispute whether it be the directed at the religious or to whoever he has spoken for or against. I owe him a lot for giving me the tools and power of thought to realise that I am an antitheist rather than an atheist.
> there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of a fairytale skygod creating all of this
There isn't evidence for mother nature either. However, there is evidence for an intelligent designer. Your blatant ignorance of that fact doen't make it not so.
@owensphil haha......the whole point of faith is not to have evidence.....now people are pretending it's science, which it will never be, and undermining the faith. claiming there is evidence is making it worthless....
> the whole point of faith is not to have evidence
You have faith that there is a common ancestor of man and ape but you couldn´t tell me who it is. You have faith that male and female compatible sexual reproduction systems somehow evolved simulataneously both anatomically and biochemically, but you don´t know how. You have faith that DNA evolved but you don´t know how. You have faith that life evolved from non life but you don´t know how. Therefore there is no evidence
i do not have faith in any of those things. if i had faith i would reject evidence against them. i don't reject any contrary evidence because there is none.
they are the most plausible current ideas. not a dogma to which i accede. if better theories came about then i would go with them.
that i believe there is no god, that is a matter of faith and has nothing to do with these scientific theories. i don't want to try and prove god's nonexistence.
@owensphil 1. No evidence of sky god. 2. There is evidence of nature; just look around you. 3. If you think there is no nature, then why do you think there was an intelligent designer that designed it? 4. Your blatant ignorance does not make your god exist.
1) No evidence of mother nature nor your time god 2) Evidence of nature yes and the origin of that nature is the product of intelligent design not random processes. 4. You blatant ignorance doesn´t make your nature or your time god exist since you are clueless as to how we got life from non life as well what miracles can take place in unobservable time.
@owensphil 1. If you don't recognize "mother nature" exist, you have a problem. 2. If you reject #1, how can you say there is evidence for nature on the next point? And no, there is no evidence for ID -- perhaps it may appear like that, but we humans tend to look for patterns, etc. 4. Life from non-life? Ever hear about abiogenesis? Also, the fact we can produced life from non-life YET is not evidence of your god.
1. Yes, I have a problem with the existence of mother nature .2. Number 1 is rejected
3. Yes, there is plenty of evidence for ID. 4. Yes, abiogenesis falls under organic and chemical evolution. Biologist PJ Meyers chastises those who try and claim that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Read his blog. Document the ability to produce life from non life
@owensphil 1. Not sure what your problem (or definition) of "mother nature" is. Not sure how you can reject its existence. 3. There are no evidence for ID, just people ignorant of science thinking there is. 4. You are highly misguided at the importance the current experiments in abiogenesis means.
@owensphil Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@jimfocus69 Then what do you postulate that created this world that doesn't violate the laws of cause and effect. for every effect there must be and efficient cause for that effect
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
@owensphil i fail to see your point. it doesn't matter why he's an atheist when it comes to the strength of his arguement.
-as for your second contention, i think Dawkins quote pertains to how the process of evolution made our brains what they are today in which we can live a wholesome life without the need for the supernatural. But i still don't see how that pertains to Hitch's arguement. How Hitch chooses to lead his life has no bearing on the contentions he brings up
> i fail to see your point. it doesn't matter why he's an atheist
It shows that atheism is not just a rejection of the notion of a God as many state. He makes arguments for his position which is why he is being asked does he ever doubt his position based on those arguments.
@owensphil The pastor asks Hitch if he ever doubts his atheism (which is a loaded question to begin with aka screwed no matter what you answer) but its more complicated. Atheism isn't a standpoint on its own. You can doubt your reasoning and try to tease out bias in the arguement against theism, but you can't "doubt" atheism because the word doesn't really describe anything. Yes Hitch didn't itorate his response correctly intially, but that's the fault of the loaded question
@MrEchidna55 that's the problem with atheists...they can never give you a straight answer. But people would go nuts if the 'religious' person wouldn't give a straight answer...what a double standard. Keep making excuses for gutless atheists
@beto88keys I'm an atheist, so id' perfer you not make the broad generalization of gutlessness but if you want to ask something, i'd be glad to give you a straightforward answer if you think others are dodging it
@MrEchidna55 your point is well taken :) Just a quick observation, Hitchens did dodge the question and then contradicted himself by saying he had not said what he said...you defended him by saying it was a loaded question, that's why I then made the generalization but you are right, generalizations are unfair from both sides.
@beto88keys Well it was a loaded question, at least in logic terms. It was Hitchen's mistep not to realize that and to hastily speak in the way that he did causing him to somewhat fall over his own words. I am inclined to think he didn't intentionally dodge the question because of the quagmire a loaded question puts the person asked it once they answer. I've experianced that myself many a time haha. They set the wordplay trap, he fell for it and despite the effort couldn't get out.
@MrEchidna55 I don't think it was a loaded question at all...actually quite specific with a yes, no or even a maybe answer. It is so very typical of the new-age arrogant atheist-types to say they never doubt THEMSELVES. It's an ego thing as when they block history, science & anything they don't WANT agree on. See Wiki Egocentrism!!! Dawkins is the same.
@GoodyBob Thats not what a loaded question means, a loaded question is one which has negitive implications whether you answer yes or no. If Hitchens we're to answer yes he did doubt atheism, without wording it right then he immediatly weakens his arguement. If he answers no then he also immediatly weakens it because of the above response. Its like being asked "Have you stoped hitting you wife" your fucked no matter what answer you give.
@GoodyBob besides, even if he were the biggest meglomaniac in the world, his disposition has abosolutly no standing on the logic of his arguement. Ad hominem is the propper name. Besides they other debates above beside Hitch on top of trying to feed him a loaded question also commit the "Same Team" fallacy in asserting that the critisisms of their arguement, doubt, should also neccisarily be present in the opponents arguement. It's a form of genetic fallacy and equivocation
@GoodyBob I wouldnt disagree with you, but the thing most theists dont understand is that, the 'new-athiests' do ask themselves whether or not god does exist. Hitchens answered in an ill fashion when saying he never questions. What he meant was, no he never really wonders if allah or yawhew created the universe. just like he never wonders if Rah took the sun across the sky in a chariot, or if poseidon really rules the sea. Theists cant look at the answer from the perspective. Bad answer though
Hitch should have said that his atheism is based on empirical evidence and therefore has no need to be doubt in . Any evidence in support of the God would change that view . Since there are not even a one of them , there is no need to have any doubt . On the other side , if you base your view on a unobjective irrational wishfull thinking and tradition , then your values are not firm and are neturally under serious doubt by any intellectually honest person ...
@owensphil Empirical evidence is any evidence that can be tested by scientific methodology (usually by observation, either natural or experimetational ) . But in this context I was reffering to definition of empirical evidence in scientific research which goes : "Evidence that is not dependent on the observer (i.e., is objective), that appears the same no matter who observes the evidence, is considered to be empirical evidence."
@owensphil An example would be reading a thermometer.
No matter who observes the thermometer, it still displays the same temperature. The counterexample to this is physically sensing warmth or coolness which is based on subjective experience . Just like religion is based on subjectivity since there are no existing empirical evidence to be called on as objective values for that assumption . If its not observable than its not an empirical evidence !
@owensphil Glad that we got to that .You could ask that question in the start to spare me this expanations before .To make it clear I will not argue that we have scientific evidence for non existence of God . The case is based around evidences that indicate that we dont need God to answer any scientific question Just like Big bang and evolution theory indicates .Stephen Hawking once said :Science did not disprove God It showed us that we dont need him to explain anything. So why be a theist ?
@owensphil The observable does not support atheism because atheism isn't an assertion, rather its a rejection of a theist's assertion. The emperical evidence that we've gathered however doesn't give any credance to a theist position and in fact fly's in the very face of theism making it at best no longer neccisary when used to describe natural phenomenon
@owensphil He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance, which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole, that my dear sir is fallacy of association along side the "loaded question" they posed to Hitchens in the first place
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole.
Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
What would cause an atheist to doubt atheism? Evidence of the existence of a supernatural parent figure! This is a tall order for anyone who's really thinking, and to fill it would require either a blunt revelation from said figure or some really extraordinary circumstantial evidence. Failing this, how can he be faulted for not experiencing moments of religiosity?
The theist, on the other hand, uses dogma to support an irrational position from which he may be occasionally, unpleasantly shaken.
Christopher has based his theories on the fact that if the universe, or its substance, is eternal,(or not,)then there is either no possibility or no need of a creator. As none of us are capable of understanding or comprehending either infinity or eternity, because our brains are not hardwired to do so, how can he possibly understand the concept that 'God has always had His creation and always will have'? His arguments are therefore based on mankind's innate mental limitations.
For me, this point was the last nail in the coffin regarding the New Atheist position. While there some forms of atheism are very easy to respect, this branch does seem very incurious and dogmatic.
Christians aren't just arrogant, they're ignorant. Bad combo.
Anyone who can believe in demon-possession of pigs (matthew 8-32 miracle of Jesus) and think that they've got the whole big-bang figured out really needs medication. Christians, you so crazy!
> you got me with the "I know you are but what am I?" response.
You misunderstood. I said you were more ignorant than the ones you are calling ignorant. See the difference? Probably not which just goes to prove my point.
Christopher should have said that he acknowledges skepticism, which is all any atheist really knows. But they set him up for this by making him say that he didnt doubt gods non-existence. They twisted his words in that they made you think he blindly disbelieves in god. He doesnt just blindly doubt gods existence, but rather does so because of the lack of proof. So at this time there is no proof of gods existence that he finds credible. Not because he isnt open-minded.
@owensphil Nope. You dont understand what an atheist is. An atheist is not a person who has a negative belief in god, but one who lacks a belief in god (there is a difference). In hitchens case hes an agnostic atheist, but hes open to proof. Any of us are open to proof. There just is none.
Outsmarted? No such thing. He just didnt have a chance to explain himself as he was interrupted over and over again. He doesnt doubt gods non-existence because there is no evidence. Thats all.
@owensphil Hitchens was a bit awkward in responding to a question that essentially has no meaning (doubting something which already has no evidence in support is a nonsensical thing to attempt). An agnostic lacks knowledge to bring to the god question; and atheist has the knowledge that there is no support for the notion. It's exactly as if you were asked if you are "agnostic" about the existence of unicorns. Your logical position is they don't exist until support is provided.
> Hitchens was a bit awkward in responding to a question that essentially has no meaning (doubting something which already has no evidence in support is a nonsensical thing to attempt)
That wasn't what he was asked if he doubted. He was asked if he doubted his own position.
> An agnostic lacks knowledge to bring to the god question; and atheist has the knowledge that there is no support...
Says who_ Hitchens acknowledges that he can't prove God's non existence
@owensphil You don't know what is in your cherry-picked video bit. Hitchens is asked if he ever doubts his atheism, which is nonsensical. You should respond to my unicorn example, or else it looks evasive on your part.
Secondly, no one can "prove a negative." Go look this up on Google; it's basic logic. The burden of proof is on any person making a POSITIVE assertion. If you say there are unicorns and I say no there aren't, I win until you produce the evidence.
He's a complete lier throu and throu.
Is he a scientist, a historian or an archeologist? No
He's just a journalist who made himself famous by arguing and telling people lies and playng to the ordiance by telling them what they wanna hear.
MrHayeMekka 2 days ago
The thoughtful religious have a more enquiring mind because sometimes they doubt their faith? lol They reject all real evidence in favor of some all powerful, all knowing invisible being & call that thoughtful? No doubt they question their faith, it's hard work to believe in something without a shred of evidence while mountains of evidence to the contrary is staring you in the face.
shananagans5 5 days ago
@shananagans5
> They reject all real evidence in favor of some all powerful, all knowing invisible being & call that thoughtful?
As opposed to your invisible time god where anything is possible given enough unobservable , untestable, non-repepeatable time? . Is that what you mean by real evidence? Please be specific.
> it's hard work to believe in something without a shred of evidence
that you are aware of which makes a world of difference
owensphil 4 days ago
@shananagans5
> while mountains of evidence to the contrary is staring you in the face.
Name any that you think you could intellectually defend, that should shorten the list down to zero but anyways, give it your best shot.
owensphil 4 days ago
"He is an atheist who has taken the firm position that there is no God"
Did you even watch the debate? Hitchens quite specifically says that it may NOT be said that there is no God but that there is no good reason to think that there is one. He says that in every debate.
Try addressing the actual argument that is made instead of mischaracterizing the argument and engaging in ad hominem. This display of yours here says a lot more about you than it does about Hitchens or his arguments.
citizenghosttown 1 week ago
@citizenghosttown
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
.
Now did you see the word "may" in there ?
Hitchen´s positive assertion as indicated in the video: "I think I am here because of the laws of biology, not because of a divine plan" That position is what is being called into question. So he´s even restating his position right here in your face and you´re STILL clueless.
owensphil 5 days ago
They are just trying to play stupid word games with Hitchens
shananagans5 1 week ago
@shananagans5
> They are just trying to play stupid word games with Hitchens
What word game? It was a straight forward question that Hitchens understood and responded to. If Hitchens thought it was a trick question, don´t you think he would have been smart enough not to answer no?
owensphil 1 week ago
@owensphil He clearly said atheism is a position of doubt. Asking him if he doubts that is a childish word game. How could an atheist ever even doubt their position? That would be like knowing how a car works & every once in a while getting in, starting it up & wondering if it's magic. I can see someone just learning biology & evolution & not fully understanding having doubts but once you know how it works there's no debate. You can't go back to believing a magic trick once the trick is revealed
shananagans5 1 week ago
@shananagans5
> He clearly said atheism is a position of doubt. Asking him if he doubts that is a childish word game
Then he should have been smart enough to reflectively not answer "No" when asked the question.So maybe his debating skills needed polishing.
>How could an atheist ever even doubt their position?
He even states the basis of his position at 0.56 "I think I am here because of the laws of biology, not because of a divine plan" That position can´t be doubted?
owensphil 5 days ago
@owensphil Once you have an understanding it's hard to doubt. Having faith in something & questioning that faith is very diff than having a scientific understanding of something based on evidence. You know your car mixes air & gas,sucks it in and ignites it to make it run. You may not know every detail like the valve timing or the exact compression but you know basically how your car works. Do you ever get in,turn the key & wonder if it's magic? Once you understand there's no room for doubt
shananagans5 5 days ago
@shananagans5
> Having faith in something & questioning that faith is very diff than having a scientific understanding of something based on evidence. You know your car mixes
Your comparisons are grossly flawed. You're comparing something that is observable and can be demonstrated to something that is based on assumptions. Hitchens here speaks of an unobservable, non-testable, non- repeatable occurrence. that is the origins of life.
owensphil 4 days ago
@owensphil How is evolution based on assumptions? We have tons of evidence.(fossil record, fused no#2 chromosome, direct DNA tracing) You can't directly watch it because it takes to long but we have fossils showing most every stage. You don't need to watch it,the evidence is clear. If you find a gun,match it with a bullet,then find a guy with powder residue on his hands & prints that match those left on the gun you don't need to see him fire it to know he did.
shananagans5 4 days ago
@shananagans5
> How is evolution based on assumptions? We have tons of evidence.(fossil record, fused no#2 chromosome, direct DNA tracing
The fossil record is in no way evidence for evolution but rather that something died and fossilized. The lack of transitional stages, the Cambrian explosion which depict an abrupt appearance of body plans with no transitions leading up to them are fossil is evidence against evolution.As well as the thousands of living fossil which show little to no change.
owensphil 3 days ago
@shananagans5
>fused no#2 chromosome
That only shows us that a fusion took place. It could have happened in man´s own lineage. The assumption would be that it happened between man an ape. You guys can´t even agree on a common ancestor. It´s just merely asserted.
> direct DNA tracing)
How is this in any way evidence for evolution?
>but we have fossils showing most every stage
No we don´t. Who told you that lie? Name even a half way complete transitional series for anything.
owensphil 3 days ago
@shananagans5
> If you find a gun,match it with a bullet,then find a guy with powder residue on his hands & prints that match those left on the gun you don't need to see him fire
That´s a very good argument for design ie an intelligent agent. but a very poor one for evolution. No series of intermediate steps are needed in that example.
owensphil 3 days ago
@owensphil Intermediate steps? Do you mean "transitional species" that evolution doesn't expect to find? Everything is in process if you will. There will not be fish with perfectly formed legs or something that is 1/2 duck 1/2 crock. People that think that's what evolution would say existed have no clue whatsoever.
shananagans5 3 days ago
@shananagans5
> Everything is in process if you will. There will not be fish with perfectly formed legs or something that is 1/2 duck 1/2 crock.
Let´s say you have fossil A of a certain type of organism which you claimed evolved to fossil Z. What is your evidence for that claim other than that just a flat out assumption?
owensphil 3 days ago
@owensphil There are lots of species with very complete fossil records. There were not large populations early human ancestors & then to have one die, become fossilized & have us find it now is very rare. That's why there isn't lots of original human fossils & a few gaps in the human line but those gaps are small & it's very clear despite a few gaps. We can directly trace DNA mutations back far enough to know exactly how that process works. Look into it,it really isn't as complex as it looks
shananagans5 1 day ago
@shananagans5
> There are lots of species with very complete fossil records
Such as? Very telling that you don´t bother to name one.
> That's why there isn't lots of original human fossils & a few gaps in the human line but those gaps are small & it's very clear despite a few gaps.
Such as??? You keep giving the impression that you have no idea what you´re talking about.
owensphil 1 day ago
@owensphil Trilobites, cephalopods sp? & most crustaceans have very extensive fossil records of their development. There are so many covering the full range of development you can buy one at virtually any fossil shop for just a few $. I think hyaenas have extensive records from a little rat like creature up to current form. There are more but I don't recall off the top of my head. Google species with complete fossil records. I am sure you will find a bunch. Take a look at them.
shananagans5 1 day ago
@shananagans5
> We can directly trace DNA mutations back far enough to know exactly how that process works
What process is that exactly?
owensphil 1 day ago
@owensphil Needless to say, I am done here unless you are willing to quit playing games. I find it hard to believe you don't know this information already. You are either playing stupid or are so invested in avoiding basic biology you will just ignore anything presented. All I can say is learn some of this stuff if you truly don't already know it. It is pretty basic & easy to learn & you just might find it fascinating whether or not you change anything you believe.
shananagans5 1 day ago
@owensphil We can track genetic markers back to an astonishing degree. There are common markers in living chimps & apes left from when we separated. It was even predicted humans would have a fused chromosome. We have 2 fewer(1 set)of chromosomes fewer than chimps. Sure enough in #2 there are 2 centeremeres marking a fused set. We can even tell this corresponds to #13 in chimps. DNA gives a clearer picture because it isn't open to speculation as to which line it comes from like a fossil may be
shananagans5 1 day ago
@shananagans5
> There are common markers in living chimps & apes left from when we separated.
Such as???
> It was even predicted humans would have a fused chromosome.
This was not predicted at all. You just made that up and you know it. The fused chromosome only indicates that a fusion took place not that it was between ape and man. It could have very well been within man´s own lineage. Evolutionist don´t even know when this fusion took place.
owensphil 1 day ago
@owensphil We knew humans had 1 less set of chromosomes long before the genome was mapped. We knew there had to be a fused chromosome in humans so yes,it was predicted we had a fused set. The cytochrome c protein sequence is found ONLY in chimps & humans & it is a very long sequence & no, I don't know exactly how long (on the order of thousands though) We also share many sequences with virtually all living things but cytochrome c is totally unique to chimps & humans
shananagans5 1 day ago
@owensphil It's amazing how hard you try not to learn anything. This is basic stuff. You should have covered it in HS biology or a 100 level college class. You are just hiding from information & looking for something science hasn't explained yet so you can somehow confirm your god in your brain. That's also faulty reasoning. Simply because science has not explained something is not evidence of a god in any way. Was zeuce real? Apollo? Any of the 100s of past gods invented to explain the unknown?
shananagans5 1 day ago
@shananagans5 Firstly men invented zeus, apollo, ra and countless other deities. Adonai, Elohim, God chose a people and revealed himself to them. He is not an explanation for some unknown phenomena. You are so deluded that you think this is some point? If one was to invent a deity to justify their idea of the universe they would make one with the same moral turpitude as themselves. The God of the Bible clearly is not such a construct he demands righteousness not moral turpitude
BrotherMichael1000 1 day ago
@BrotherMichael1000 You do realize, current religions look no less silly than zeus, apollo, or any others? It's simply the religion of the day packed in a slick story. You can't doubt god or you go to hell for eternity. Jesus loves you, It's gods will. It's a handy way to explain everything someone doesn't understand & a comfort for people that fear death. How is that not designed to answer the unknown questions in life? Christianity just added punishment for not believing.
shananagans5 3 hours ago
@shananagans5 Christianity is not a current religion. Further you do not go to hell because of mere unbelief. You go to hell because you are depraved wicked and evil. That is why you go to hell. There is a way that seems right to a man but the ends of it lead to destruction. Human history more than expands on this theme. Christianity isn't a security blanket nor is it just answering unknown questions of life. As to being comforted because I fear death you really haven't a clue what cont.
BrotherMichael1000 2 hours ago
@shananagans5 the faith is about do you? It is not about fear of death it is about life. God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses etc not a God of the dead but of the living. It is about life friend and walking in the truth. If one walks in the truth they are free. John 3:19-20 Light has entered the world and men loved darkness more than the light. They hate and fear the light because their deeds are evil and rather than be proved wrong and shown for what they are they reject.
BrotherMichael1000 2 hours ago
@owensphil I don't believe but If somebody thinks god set everything in motion I don't have a problem with that. I do think it's crazy to deny evolution is the way things develop. The evidence is overwhelming & to deny that & justify that people promote flawed logic to children. This hurts them in other aspects of life forever. That's the only problem I have with religion. There are good aspects to religion but the denial of science & promotion of flawed thought processes hurts humanity overall
shananagans5 1 day ago
@shananagans5
> The evidence is overwhelming
The you should be aware of that evidence and be able to successfully articulate it.
owensphil 1 day ago
@owensphil He got tripped up in a childish word game. You consider that a lie? He simply wasn't expecting an adult to start playing grade school word games. That's almost as silly as saying there are no married bachelors & claiming you proved something doesn't exist.
shananagans5 5 days ago
@shananagans5
> He got tripped up in a childish word game.
What word game? Not at all. Anyone watching the video can clearly see that he reflectively listens to what is being asked and then give s decisive. NO. From that point at the very least, a skillful debater would stop to characterize the question as misleading but no, he goes on to make positive assertions why he has taken that position.
owensphil 4 days ago
@shananagans5
> That's almost as silly as saying there are no married bachelors
That's an absurd comparison. If you were asked about about married bachelors, you would think that your response would solely deal with the question itself. You wouldn't go on to give supporting statements as Hitchens does here.
owensphil 4 days ago
How silly. Anyone can see there is no lie here.
Prager is trying to play a game and Hitchens isn't having any of it. (As Hitches explained rather clearly: For him, atheism IS a position of doubt and so Prager's question - essentially - "do you doubt your doubt" is nonsensical).
Maybe the critics of Hitchens can try to address Hitchens substantive arguments instead of playing this disingenuous game of "gotcha" - so clumsy, it would embarrass even a politician.
Or maybe they can't.
citizenghosttown 1 week ago
@citizenghosttown
> Prager is trying to play a game and Hitchens isn't having any of it.
So why did he answer no?
> "do you doubt your doubt" is nonsensical).
That´s total nonsense! The question was does he doubt his position. Hitchens is not agnostic. He is an atheist who has taken the firm position that there is no God and has given numerous positive assertions for that position.
owensphil 1 week ago
Christopher Hitchens, the former atheist now in Hell as a true believer LIED ALOT, as this video proves that immorality of the man. He perjured himself in under one minute for all to see. And he also demonstrated that his accusation that he isn't as arrogant as a theist is a farce--he is far more arrogant. Hitchens was often a clever liar, but a liar nonetheless
Providential1611 3 weeks ago
Just want to point out that it is a BIG BIG BIG differences between have doubt in (monotheistic) god and NEVER have doubt (at all).
TheRobinL 1 month ago
@TheRobinL
>Just want to point out that it is a BIG BIG BIG differences between have doubt in (monotheistic) god and NEVER have doubt (at all).
Can you take that thought any further or is that it? Never have doubt about what? About a monotheistic God? You seem to be talking in circles.
owensphil 1 month ago
@TheRobinL I have no idea how you can not understand it?
He ask Hitchens if he ever have doubt about a god, Hitchens say no. 1min later he claim that Hitchens sad he never have doubt at all. And Hitchens answer I never sad that, witch he did not. . Don't know how I can put it more clearly?!
TheRobinL 1 month ago
@TheRobinL
>1min later he claim that Hitchens sad he never have doubt at all
No, no doubts with respect his position regarding the existence of a God. I think that at least was clear to practically everyone. Don't know how you missed it.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil Assume that all you want but i'm only saying what he sad. If he don't mean what he say he should not say it. Are you going to talk in public in front of people you should neatly phrase your statement.
TheRobinL 4 weeks ago
@rbfitz0529 Yes,Hitchens was a fool !! Dawkins is a fool. The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. But,darn it Hitchens sure could drank!!
tnmusicman1 1 month ago
@rbfitz0529 Agreed. Anybody that is a Christian or a believer in another faith would say that at one time or another they have doubted their faith because we are incapable of perfect faith. Anyone who says they do not EVER have doubts are just lying to you or lying to themselves.
tnmusicman1 1 month ago
Hitchens made a definitive statement answering--then he tried to retract it only AFTER he realized he's caught. Hitchens in FACT was a DRUNK all his life (thank the Lord he has been taken to Hell & gone from us). Perhaps he killed off too many brain cells with his drunkenness. Believers in God claim God is INFINITE. They also claim man is FINITE. Man is proven as FINITE. Arguments for the existence of God go on & on. Finite humans DOUBT; Hitchens doesn't, so Hitchens isn't human:Simple as that!
rbfitz0529 1 month ago
No OP you are wrong. He started to speak by saying "no" then he was cut of immediately which is rude. You gotta let somebody think and respond fully when you ask a question.
Ducky888888 1 month ago
@Ducky888888 That is NOT what happened. He said a definitive "No". Then when the opposition began to expound upon the significance of his answer, he realized what he had done and started equivocating. You better learn how to watch a video clip, bud. THAT is TYPICAL Hitchens behavior, because Hitchens is (was) a dishonest person, a DRUNK, an equivicator, not strictly speaking an intellectual, and an ASS. ;)
rbfitz0529 1 month ago
Comment removed
rbfitz0529 1 month ago
Comment removed
rbfitz0529 1 month ago
@malithe00 summary of this idiots remarks on Christopher Hitchens - "And now he's dead. - And now he's dead. - And now he's dead."
And you are still alive - proof positive that if there is a God, he has dreadful taste in humans.
Terncote 1 month ago
and the priest guy expects to get to heaven with questions like that
funkynosejob 1 month ago
@funkynosejob
> and the priest guy expects to get to heaven with questions like that
Most retarded comment of 2012 so far.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil
1. Christopher is right. He is not arrogant. He tries to doubt his atheism, therefore he is not arrogant, but because religion is non-sensical he can actually get himself to the point of doubting. In fact same with me, I sometimes try asserting the possibility that god but the sheer stupidity of this assertion makes me laugh.
2. Religions have been feeding lies to mankind's for thousands of years, why not make a video called "religion - a stupid lie"
aelvin12 1 month ago
@aelvin12
> He tries to doubt his atheism,
You think hw was serious when he said that?
What is his answer to the origin of the universe? The origin of life?
I can´t think of anything that he says about evolution that isn´t wrong.
He shown that he knows absolutely nothing about intelligent design.
I mean at least be familiar with the arguments.
Yet he has no doubt. Get real
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil well Hitchen's isn't a biologist, but Richard Dawkins is. I suggest you watch his debate with John Lennox.
On the other hand, what you are referring to is known as the god of white spots. An idea which was criticised by religious John Lennox, that is looking for god in phenomena science didn't yet explain. Science has proven religion to be wrong and there is not doubt about that, no matter what Hitchens says
aelvin12 1 month ago
@aelvin12
I just uploaded my fourth video on him and Lennox.
> Science has proven religion to be wrong and there is not doubt about that
Really? When did that happen?
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil oh gee let me think. How about that time Copernicus proved that the earth isn't the centre of the world, or I don't know maybe when Darwin proved that a man was not created by god but rather evolved from another species. Or how about that time when the science has proved that the Earth is not 10,000 but rather about 4 billion years old? or is that too far-fetched for you?
aelvin12 1 month ago
@owensphil Asking questions in a debate do not "get you to heaven", you imbecile. hahahahahahahahahahahaha ;)
rbfitz0529 1 month ago
@rbfitz0529
> Asking questions in a debate do not "get you to heaven", you imbecile. hahahahahahahahahahahaha ;)
Ok, I´m sure you know what you are referring to. Enjoy hahaha
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil Yes, I sure do. I had an email forwarded by YouTube responding to a comment I made here. There's no substance to the comment at all, but they did essentially say at the end: "The priest guy is not going to get into heaven asking questions like that...." That is a lame remark, so I responded...but when I got here the original reply was not here--so I just posted my comment regularly to the name that was in the email. Sorry if I "hit" the wrong name or whatever....
rbfitz0529 1 month ago
What's the difference between chrissy hitchens death and the death of a baboon?
The death of a baboon isn't funny. LOL
malithe00 1 month ago
Did you know that when hitchens died they couldn’t afford to bury him in a coffin so they gave him an enema and buried him in a shoebox. LOL
malithe00 1 month ago
atheism is a word in the dictionary somewhere between 'asshole' and 'cocksucker'. LOL
malithe00 1 month ago
So does Prager really believe that certitude is dogmatism?
Or is he just a damn liar?
MrShoeguy 1 month ago
Why is it that atheists like chrissy hitchens hardly ever get hemorrhoids?
They are such perfect assholes. LOL
And now he's dead
malithe00 1 month ago
@malithe00,
By your own joke, you must be a huge atheist, if you know what I mean.
But you probably don't, so I'll say it directly: You're an asshole.
OxTheWriter 1 month ago
@OxyMoronTheWriterOfCompletelyImbecilicComments, that was just stupid, but then you are your fathers boy! LOL douche
Speaking of "asshole" how's your mom?
malithe00 1 month ago
@malithe00,
Hey, troll...you lose. See you around.
OxTheWriter 1 month ago
@OxyMoronTheWriterWhoCan'tWrite, around where? Are you retarded? I don't think it's legal for me to talk to retarded kids LOL
malithe00 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@malithe00 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
What’s 8 inches long and hangs in front of an asshole?
chrissy hitchins' tie. LOL
And now he's dead
malithe00 1 month ago
Why did chrissy hitchens make such a terrible Santa Claus?
Instead of filling the stockings he was trying them on. LOL
And now he's dead.
malithe00 1 month ago
Actually, there is evidence for God but atheists don't accept our evidence. Just like Christians and other people of faith don't accept atheists dis-belief in God. I don't think that was the point if this video anyway. It simply caught an atheist in an uncomfortable position. Whats the problem with that?
tnmusicman1 2 months ago
@tnmusicman1 Didn't "simply catch an atheist uncomfortable". These debates(about the existence of God especially; but also about religion--two entirely different things to many) has been going on for millenia! It's a MAJOR point for a believer in God admit that they are sometimes "doubters", yet the atheist says he doesn't doubt the NON-existence of God EVER. Arguments FOR the existence of God are simply far better, more developed,&cogent. But to never doubt--that's a fool! CH=FOOL
rbfitz0529 1 month ago
I don't believe in Unicorns, do I ever doubt that lack of belief, no because there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Unicorns. The same goes for god, there is not a shred of evidence for god, and certainly not for a bronze aged zombie. This video fails.
gofeedtina 2 months ago
@gofeedtina
> I don't believe in Unicorns, do I ever doubt that lack of belief,
You also haven't made any positive assertions as to why you don't unlike Hitchens who does make positive assertions for his position. So maybe you should come up with a better comparison.One in which you make positive assertions as to why you believe what you believe. Once you do that, then the question can be asked to you ever doubt those positive assertions.
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil Could you please explain to me how one makes a positive assertion for a negative statement? To my knowledge, one cannot prove a negative. You can prove something which contradicts, and therefore invalidates, another item, but you cannot prove a negative.
stupidfatuglybastard 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil Could you please explain to me how one makes a positive assertion for a negative statement? To my knowledge, one cannot prove a negative. You can prove something which contradicts, and therefore invalidates, another item, but you cannot prove a negative.
stupidfatuglybastard 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@gofeedtina
> there is not a shred of evidence for god,
There is tons of evidence for an intelligent agent with respect to the creation of the universe and life. What there isn't evidence of is for the absurd notion of Nobody dunnit
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil There is not a single speck of evidence pointing to an intelligent agent. And idiodic angent, possibly, but certainly not an intelligent one. Why is the design of our eye inherantly inferior to an octopus? Evolution has an answer, ID doesn't. Why are our respiratory and digestive tracks connected? Evolution has an answer, ID doesn't. Why do we have wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth suck. Evolution has an answer, ID doesn't. ID explains nothing about the natural world.
Toyomo16 1 month ago
@Toyomo16
>There is not a single speck of evidence pointing to an intelligent agent
That you are aware of.
> Why is the design of our eye inherantly inferior to an octopus?
It isn´t. The eye of the octopus is designed to detect motion, not detail as is true of human eyes, and must maximize its utilization of light since the ocean usually has little or no light at its lower depths.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil 1.) That humanity is aware of.
2.) No, it's superior. We have a blindspot where the retina attaches to the optic nerve, the octopus doesn't. Intelligent human designers know how to engineer an eye with the best of both worlds. The human eye is poorly designed.
Toyomo16 1 month ago
@Toyomo16
> Why do we have wisdom teeth.
They aid in chewing our food as do all of our other 28 teeth. . Third molar problems are due to a change from a course abrasive diet to a soft western diet which does not give the teeth the workout which they require to ensure proper relationship in the mouth., lack of proper dental care, and genetic factors possibly including mutations.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil Most dentists reccomend removing wisdom teeth as early as possible because the problems they cause outweigh the benefits of having an extra tooth. If the human jaw was intelligently designed, there would be no disadvantage to wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are poorly designed.
Toyomo16 1 month ago
@Toyomo16
> Why are our respiratory and digestive tracks connected?
Unlike the primates,our airway and esophagus allows for speech
Also, the pharynx structure permits the mouth and nose to alternate as breathing ports, a feature that is critical whenever the nose is plugged.The nostrils are used when there is a need for breathing normal quantities of air. The mouth allows rapid entry of much larger quantities of air when needed.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil I acknowledge the advantage of a secondary breathing port, but it doesn't explain why it's connected to our digestive track. An intelligent designer would give us this secondary respiratory hole in addition to a mouth, not as an alternate use for it. This would eliminate the risk of choking. The human throat is poorly designed.
Toyomo16 1 month ago
@gofeedtina um look up yj word unicorn ur gona get a shock all lies start with truth its funny trust me lol
kingpharaohtsar 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gofeedtina Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@gofeedtina LOL You obviously know about the topic! No evidence for God'sexistence? OMG! U best read up on the debates--they've been going for millenia--w/MANY arguments FOR God's existence. Evidence can be subject to interpretation. But you, my man, are a FOOL, because u don't even know the EASY response to ur own statement! (If it's simple as u say, then why did Hitchens & Dawkins spend LIVES debating?) But back to U:There's NO evidence for God's NON-EXISTENCE either, numbnuts! :)
rbfitz0529 1 month ago
@rbfitz0529 Evidence is THE ONLY THING that cannot be subject to interpretation.
weeryan2008 2 weeks ago
Hitchens is a cult hero with an angry anti theist agenda. Real Atheists don't need Hitchens.
432ps1 2 months ago
@432ps Perhaps.... But hitchens, for my part has shown me the eloquence of cognitive dispute whether it be the directed at the religious or to whoever he has spoken for or against. I owe him a lot for giving me the tools and power of thought to realise that I am an antitheist rather than an atheist.
Bollockmetwotimes 2 months ago
So, this is what I got from this video:
Right: Have you ever doubt your atheism?
Left: No.
Right: You just said "no".
Left: You made me concede no such thing. It's not what I said.
Right: It's on tape and video.
gnolmahp 2 months ago
Misleading all caps title on a video = OWENSPHIL CAUGHT IN A LIE!!
TheBarelyExisting 2 months ago
He was not caught in a "lie." Please. Plus, there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of a fairytale skygod creating all of this. None.
jimfocus69 2 months ago
@jimfocus69
> He was not caught in a "lie
You lie
> there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of a fairytale skygod creating all of this
There isn't evidence for mother nature either. However, there is evidence for an intelligent designer. Your blatant ignorance of that fact doen't make it not so.
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil haha......the whole point of faith is not to have evidence.....now people are pretending it's science, which it will never be, and undermining the faith. claiming there is evidence is making it worthless....
DoubleReeds 2 months ago
@DoubleReeds
> the whole point of faith is not to have evidence
You have faith that there is a common ancestor of man and ape but you couldn´t tell me who it is. You have faith that male and female compatible sexual reproduction systems somehow evolved simulataneously both anatomically and biochemically, but you don´t know how. You have faith that DNA evolved but you don´t know how. You have faith that life evolved from non life but you don´t know how. Therefore there is no evidence
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil stop telling me what i have faith in!
i do not have faith in any of those things. if i had faith i would reject evidence against them. i don't reject any contrary evidence because there is none.
they are the most plausible current ideas. not a dogma to which i accede. if better theories came about then i would go with them.
that i believe there is no god, that is a matter of faith and has nothing to do with these scientific theories. i don't want to try and prove god's nonexistence.
DoubleReeds 2 months ago
@owensphil 1. No evidence of sky god. 2. There is evidence of nature; just look around you. 3. If you think there is no nature, then why do you think there was an intelligent designer that designed it? 4. Your blatant ignorance does not make your god exist.
sKIPper76M 2 months ago
@sKIPper76M
1) No evidence of mother nature nor your time god 2) Evidence of nature yes and the origin of that nature is the product of intelligent design not random processes. 4. You blatant ignorance doesn´t make your nature or your time god exist since you are clueless as to how we got life from non life as well what miracles can take place in unobservable time.
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil 1. If you don't recognize "mother nature" exist, you have a problem. 2. If you reject #1, how can you say there is evidence for nature on the next point? And no, there is no evidence for ID -- perhaps it may appear like that, but we humans tend to look for patterns, etc. 4. Life from non-life? Ever hear about abiogenesis? Also, the fact we can produced life from non-life YET is not evidence of your god.
sKIPper76M 2 months ago
@sKIPper76M
1. Yes, I have a problem with the existence of mother nature .2. Number 1 is rejected
3. Yes, there is plenty of evidence for ID. 4. Yes, abiogenesis falls under organic and chemical evolution. Biologist PJ Meyers chastises those who try and claim that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Read his blog. Document the ability to produce life from non life
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil 1. Not sure what your problem (or definition) of "mother nature" is. Not sure how you can reject its existence. 3. There are no evidence for ID, just people ignorant of science thinking there is. 4. You are highly misguided at the importance the current experiments in abiogenesis means.
sKIPper76M 2 months ago
@jimfocus69 You lie
owensphil 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@jimfocus69 Then what do you postulate that created this world that doesn't violate the laws of cause and effect. for every effect there must be and efficient cause for that effect
lejohnson2 1 month ago
Hitchens is an idiot,trying to back pedal such a lameass ,all you atheists are blind ,remember there are no atheists in hell
kbvorhis 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil i fail to see your point. it doesn't matter why he's an atheist when it comes to the strength of his arguement.
-as for your second contention, i think Dawkins quote pertains to how the process of evolution made our brains what they are today in which we can live a wholesome life without the need for the supernatural. But i still don't see how that pertains to Hitch's arguement. How Hitch chooses to lead his life has no bearing on the contentions he brings up
MrEchidna55 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55
> i fail to see your point. it doesn't matter why he's an atheist
It shows that atheism is not just a rejection of the notion of a God as many state. He makes arguments for his position which is why he is being asked does he ever doubt his position based on those arguments.
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil The pastor asks Hitch if he ever doubts his atheism (which is a loaded question to begin with aka screwed no matter what you answer) but its more complicated. Atheism isn't a standpoint on its own. You can doubt your reasoning and try to tease out bias in the arguement against theism, but you can't "doubt" atheism because the word doesn't really describe anything. Yes Hitch didn't itorate his response correctly intially, but that's the fault of the loaded question
MrEchidna55 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55 that's the problem with atheists...they can never give you a straight answer. But people would go nuts if the 'religious' person wouldn't give a straight answer...what a double standard. Keep making excuses for gutless atheists
beto88keys 2 months ago
@beto88keys I'm an atheist, so id' perfer you not make the broad generalization of gutlessness but if you want to ask something, i'd be glad to give you a straightforward answer if you think others are dodging it
MrEchidna55 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55 your point is well taken :) Just a quick observation, Hitchens did dodge the question and then contradicted himself by saying he had not said what he said...you defended him by saying it was a loaded question, that's why I then made the generalization but you are right, generalizations are unfair from both sides.
beto88keys 2 months ago
@beto88keys Well it was a loaded question, at least in logic terms. It was Hitchen's mistep not to realize that and to hastily speak in the way that he did causing him to somewhat fall over his own words. I am inclined to think he didn't intentionally dodge the question because of the quagmire a loaded question puts the person asked it once they answer. I've experianced that myself many a time haha. They set the wordplay trap, he fell for it and despite the effort couldn't get out.
MrEchidna55 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55 I don't think it was a loaded question at all...actually quite specific with a yes, no or even a maybe answer. It is so very typical of the new-age arrogant atheist-types to say they never doubt THEMSELVES. It's an ego thing as when they block history, science & anything they don't WANT agree on. See Wiki Egocentrism!!! Dawkins is the same.
GoodyBob 2 months ago 2
@GoodyBob Thats not what a loaded question means, a loaded question is one which has negitive implications whether you answer yes or no. If Hitchens we're to answer yes he did doubt atheism, without wording it right then he immediatly weakens his arguement. If he answers no then he also immediatly weakens it because of the above response. Its like being asked "Have you stoped hitting you wife" your fucked no matter what answer you give.
MrEchidna55 2 months ago
@GoodyBob besides, even if he were the biggest meglomaniac in the world, his disposition has abosolutly no standing on the logic of his arguement. Ad hominem is the propper name. Besides they other debates above beside Hitch on top of trying to feed him a loaded question also commit the "Same Team" fallacy in asserting that the critisisms of their arguement, doubt, should also neccisarily be present in the opponents arguement. It's a form of genetic fallacy and equivocation
MrEchidna55 2 months ago
@GoodyBob I wouldnt disagree with you, but the thing most theists dont understand is that, the 'new-athiests' do ask themselves whether or not god does exist. Hitchens answered in an ill fashion when saying he never questions. What he meant was, no he never really wonders if allah or yawhew created the universe. just like he never wonders if Rah took the sun across the sky in a chariot, or if poseidon really rules the sea. Theists cant look at the answer from the perspective. Bad answer though
DuppyBruh 2 months ago
I love this video !!
914light 2 months ago
Hitch should have said that his atheism is based on empirical evidence and therefore has no need to be doubt in . Any evidence in support of the God would change that view . Since there are not even a one of them , there is no need to have any doubt . On the other side , if you base your view on a unobjective irrational wishfull thinking and tradition , then your values are not firm and are neturally under serious doubt by any intellectually honest person ...
hldemi 2 months ago
@hldemi
>Hitch should have said that his atheism is based on empirical evidence
Give an example of the empirical evidence please. You might want to look up the word empircal first before making a further fool of yourself.
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil Empirical evidence is any evidence that can be tested by scientific methodology (usually by observation, either natural or experimetational ) . But in this context I was reffering to definition of empirical evidence in scientific research which goes : "Evidence that is not dependent on the observer (i.e., is objective), that appears the same no matter who observes the evidence, is considered to be empirical evidence."
Also there is no need to call me a fool . Cheers
hldemi 2 months ago
@hldemi
> the same no matter who observes the evidence, is considered to be empirical evidence."
Like what for example? If it´s not observable then it´s based on assumption. Everyon can have the same assumption but all be wrong.
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil An example would be reading a thermometer.
No matter who observes the thermometer, it still displays the same temperature. The counterexample to this is physically sensing warmth or coolness which is based on subjective experience . Just like religion is based on subjectivity since there are no existing empirical evidence to be called on as objective values for that assumption . If its not observable than its not an empirical evidence !
hldemi 2 months ago
@hldemi
>No matter who observes the thermometer,
That´s observable which has nothing to do anything. Both sides agree on the observable. How does the observable support atheism ?
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil Glad that we got to that .You could ask that question in the start to spare me this expanations before .To make it clear I will not argue that we have scientific evidence for non existence of God . The case is based around evidences that indicate that we dont need God to answer any scientific question Just like Big bang and evolution theory indicates .Stephen Hawking once said :Science did not disprove God It showed us that we dont need him to explain anything. So why be a theist ?
hldemi 2 months ago
@owensphil The observable does not support atheism because atheism isn't an assertion, rather its a rejection of a theist's assertion. The emperical evidence that we've gathered however doesn't give any credance to a theist position and in fact fly's in the very face of theism making it at best no longer neccisary when used to describe natural phenomenon
MrEchidna55 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55
Hitchens makes an assertion. Watch it again
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance, which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole, that my dear sir is fallacy of association along side the "loaded question" they posed to Hitchens in the first place
MrEchidna55 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
owensphil 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
owensphil 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55
@MrEchidna55
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole.
Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
owensphil 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55
@MrEchidna55
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
owensphil 2 months ago
@MrEchidna55
@MrEchidna55
> He makes an assertion about his own thoughts and his experiance,
so does everyone. Note that his assertion is part of reason he gives for being and atheist.
> which should not be construed with the atheist standpoint as a whole. Not according to Dawkins " Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." which is basically the same assertion that Hitchens makes here.
owensphil 2 months ago
What would cause an atheist to doubt atheism? Evidence of the existence of a supernatural parent figure! This is a tall order for anyone who's really thinking, and to fill it would require either a blunt revelation from said figure or some really extraordinary circumstantial evidence. Failing this, how can he be faulted for not experiencing moments of religiosity?
The theist, on the other hand, uses dogma to support an irrational position from which he may be occasionally, unpleasantly shaken.
1212kpm 2 months ago
Christopher has based his theories on the fact that if the universe, or its substance, is eternal,(or not,)then there is either no possibility or no need of a creator. As none of us are capable of understanding or comprehending either infinity or eternity, because our brains are not hardwired to do so, how can he possibly understand the concept that 'God has always had His creation and always will have'? His arguments are therefore based on mankind's innate mental limitations.
waiotahi52 2 months ago
If he's accusing Christopher Hitchens of not thinking critically and honestly, then he has no idea who is sitting beside him.
mouthyweasel 2 months ago
For me, this point was the last nail in the coffin regarding the New Atheist position. While there some forms of atheism are very easy to respect, this branch does seem very incurious and dogmatic.
changeinjoy 2 months ago
1:03
Christians aren't just arrogant, they're ignorant. Bad combo.
Anyone who can believe in demon-possession of pigs (matthew 8-32 miracle of Jesus) and think that they've got the whole big-bang figured out really needs medication. Christians, you so crazy!
HellRehab 2 months ago
@HellRehab
> Worst than that is someone calling others ignorant when he/she is more ignorant than they are.
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil
You got me with the "I know you are but what am I?" response.
I guess I've been schooled.
HellRehab 2 months ago
@HellRehab
> you got me with the "I know you are but what am I?" response.
You misunderstood. I said you were more ignorant than the ones you are calling ignorant. See the difference? Probably not which just goes to prove my point.
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil
So I'm more ignorant than you? Wow, that was disarming.
HellRehab 2 months ago
@HellRehab
> So I'm more ignorant than you?
And a whole lot of other people. Yes ahum
owensphil 2 months ago
@owensphil
We've both used sarcasm so much my head is spinning. :) You can have the last word if you want.
Peace!
HellRehab 2 months ago
Bit of a reach to say he was caught in a lie.
mclem51 3 months ago
Christopher should have said that he acknowledges skepticism, which is all any atheist really knows. But they set him up for this by making him say that he didnt doubt gods non-existence. They twisted his words in that they made you think he blindly disbelieves in god. He doesnt just blindly doubt gods existence, but rather does so because of the lack of proof. So at this time there is no proof of gods existence that he finds credible. Not because he isnt open-minded.
vidfreak56 3 months ago
@vidfreak56
Christopher should have said that he acknowledges skepticism, which is all any atheist really knows.
> Then he would have been accused of being agnostic and not atheist.
>But they set him up for this by making him say that he didnt doubt gods non-existence.
Are you saying Hitchens was outsmarted?
owensphil 3 months ago
@owensphil Nope. You dont understand what an atheist is. An atheist is not a person who has a negative belief in god, but one who lacks a belief in god (there is a difference). In hitchens case hes an agnostic atheist, but hes open to proof. Any of us are open to proof. There just is none.
Outsmarted? No such thing. He just didnt have a chance to explain himself as he was interrupted over and over again. He doesnt doubt gods non-existence because there is no evidence. Thats all.
vidfreak56 3 months ago
@owensphil A person who doesnt believe in god is called an anti-theist.
vidfreak56 3 months ago
@owensphil Hitchens was a bit awkward in responding to a question that essentially has no meaning (doubting something which already has no evidence in support is a nonsensical thing to attempt). An agnostic lacks knowledge to bring to the god question; and atheist has the knowledge that there is no support for the notion. It's exactly as if you were asked if you are "agnostic" about the existence of unicorns. Your logical position is they don't exist until support is provided.
Ofinfinitejest 3 months ago
@Ofinfinitejest
> Hitchens was a bit awkward in responding to a question that essentially has no meaning (doubting something which already has no evidence in support is a nonsensical thing to attempt)
That wasn't what he was asked if he doubted. He was asked if he doubted his own position.
> An agnostic lacks knowledge to bring to the god question; and atheist has the knowledge that there is no support...
Says who_ Hitchens acknowledges that he can't prove God's non existence
owensphil 3 months ago
@owensphil You don't know what is in your cherry-picked video bit. Hitchens is asked if he ever doubts his atheism, which is nonsensical. You should respond to my unicorn example, or else it looks evasive on your part.
Secondly, no one can "prove a negative." Go look this up on Google; it's basic logic. The burden of proof is on any person making a POSITIVE assertion. If you say there are unicorns and I say no there aren't, I win until you produce the evidence.
Ofinfinitejest 3 months ago
@Ofinfinitejest
> You don't know what is in your cherry-picked video bit. Hitchens is asked if he ever doubts his atheism, which is nonsensical.
Not to Hitchens, he answered it. So one of you two is dumber than the other. I'm fine with either answer.
> You should respond to my unicorn example, or else it looks evasive on your part.
I don't recall your example.
>Secondly, no one can "prove a negative.
Who is asking whom for proof? Are you substituting "doubt" for "proof" ?
owensphil 3 months ago