I love Chris.I do not love Jesus ....but I love Chris....I have nothing against religious people as long as they are not pushing it or say I'm going to hell for not loving or believing in Jesus.
First hand- I got deluded ..... a man told me " i talk to god andhewants u 2 have my baby....the hope of the world depends on it" AND I LET HIM RAPE ME!!!V LIKE AN IDIOT... false forceful 'god' terrible. It must stop, its ruining lives.... causing insanity/superstition/lifedraining hellish minds+beliefs.
when you accept the "right" things in a religion & discard the "wrong" things, you only lend creedence to the supporters of the wrong things, all the right things work fine without the religious aspect, stop giving unwarrented respect to the wrong things
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
We're becoming a militarized culture without the benefit of backlash-experiences that instruct the opposite. Bad times are ahead; the kids have been allowed to play with danger.
Still, I don't know whether or not God exists. I won't assume I know that until I die. If, then, God doesn't exist, I will keep on not-knowing, because I will be dead. If God exists, perhaps I will ask God for a complete Shakespeare with better notes and yellowing pages.
@TRUNDLETHOR I dare suggest that most atheists ARE agnostic atheists whether they self identify with it or not. And anyway, I wasn't aware that a person declining to believe in a faith based assertion is an assumption on the atheists part...
@TRUNDLETHOR "This sanctimonious acceptance of assumption as fact is very scary to me"
You know, that's exactly what nonbelievers say about religion, how ironic is that?
A great many atheists do in fact self-identify as agnostic atheists. They do this because they are aware that they are unable to disprove the existence of any gods.
Science makes evidence-based claims only, religion's claims are evidence-free. Which side seems more likely to be presenting assumptions as fact?
"2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." for whoever has any questions about Christianity, feel free to message me.
"preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." 2 Timothy 4:2-4 For whoever has any questions about Christianity, feel free to message me.
ad hominem fallacies are supposed to be reason enough to discount religion? you want something different so other people are just plain stupid "no need for large arguments" "its just so obvious" and my favorite "I really do not see how anyone of intelligence could believe in such nonsense." There are plenty of people with brilliant minds that are believers in Christ. No one is stopping you from believing in what you choose but there are consequences for every action.
@sparky7718 Unless you lead a sinless life, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" Acts 4:12
@tadpoleposition You can't have heard Hitchens speak much. Islam generally gets the harshest criticism. And Christianity has over half a billion more followers so I think it's a bit insincere to say Islam crushes all other theologies. Anyway, they're both immoral, delusional, opportunistic and prejudiced theologies, with little to choose between them. Muslims just happen to generally a bit less well educated so that's why a few of the nutters go off bombing themselves.
This freak is insincere and making money off of shallow and dense, probably mostly homos, subhumans who are witless and conceptually challenged. He based his assumptions solely on the creed of Christianity. Who wouldn't go "atheist" after applying moral logic to it's dogma? Islam, however, crushes all other theologies, including atheism. Islam has withstood every test it was put up against and continues to thrive and spread even with these likes in existence and the constant media bashing.
He is right that religion does poison everything. Christianity is not a religion, it is a faith. The false religions and cults of the world (i.e. Islam) are simply man's spiritual rebellion to the God of the Bible and His Truth.
did white people invent the bible because of horendous crimes they committed towards people of color. first of all white people know slavery is wrong and no way is slavery godly they would have to be totaley ignorant if they feel other wise.
@1980vince Slavery was blessed by god! So long as the "master" of slaves didn't abuse his slaves all was good! A master, if he found wrong in a slave was allowed to beat a slave but not to death! As long as the slave lived for a certain amount of time after the beating all was good! If the slave died after that time frame was up, so be it, all was still good! That's what religion did, abuse people!
@1980vince Slavery was used by every society...still is used in every society (see involuntary taxation and involuntary servitude); dont try to pin slavery to "white people"..."white people" didnt charter boats to African and steal the "black people" from their homeland...the "black people" transported and sold their own people to the "white people"...
As for the Bible, it is a fairy tale...similar to Cinderella and Peter Pan...make believe, weak minds buy in to it and have "faith"...
@mariek12 God is just as man made as religion! If god did exsist which of course he doesn't, he is evil beyond doubt! Its just so obvious, i really do not see how anyone of intelligence could believe in such nonsense.
@stagehandbob So just how intelligent are you? What has intelligence got to do with it if far more intelligent people than you and your hero DO believe? Do not make it an intelligence issue when it has nothing to do with it. It's about belief. There is a pattern here- I can respect people who have no faith-doesn't seem to be reciprocated. Wonder why?
Religion is BULLSHIT, stupid and destructive. Simple as that... No need for large arguements. Only brainwashed sheep would argue FOR religion...I rest my case...
@Teddybhoy32 Hahah You take stuff at face value like most other simple minded folk. Pics of models and dark artwork is NOT as destructive as these STUPID and DESTRUCTIVE RELIGIONS(YES I said it again) FYI, My page is NOT a personal page, it represents my openly Anti Religious heavy metal band and it is our channel...I just think for myself and stay away from Death cults. sorry if your too lame to understand that...Go judge some more books by their covers....
@godawefulll Yes you did say it again...and what? I wasn't defending religion stupid, merely pointing out the stupid and destructive sights on your page.' Bloodlust and perversion!!!!' 'Not as' therefore is..think about it. I underdstand-I used to be into metal music..until I grew up! Now go and give daddy a cuddle and do the same.
@RedsNMaduroMan actually, Hitler was a very big proponent of Christian ideals. He made many speeches on the subject. Used religion as a tool to get people together;)
@godawefulll Stalin also reopened the russian orthodox church to gain support from the people during ww2. Religion is a great way to get people to support war.
@RedsNMaduroMan Hitler was Roman Catholic and sought to eradicate atheism and atheists while he spoke on the importance of Christian faith to Germany. He wrote and said many times that he was killing Jews for God. Most Nazis were Catholic or Lutheran. I could point to far more examples over the centuries of religious tyrants and mass murderers than you can non-religious ones. So what exactly was your point supposed to be?
@godawefulll Funny. Your argument has the same tone as a radical theist. Just replace "religion" with "atheism." You make us freethinking atheists look like bigger assholes than the guy who raped your ass in that shitty little motel off of little Santa Monica in West Hollywood. Keep your self-loathing between you and your shrink.
You can teach at least try to teach how ignorant the "fairy tales" may be. You may get a few to join your side. Our species has a healthy component of reasoning the unreasonable. We reasonable people have created the perfect tools to destroy Mankind. The clock is ticking. There will only be so much time left when the radiation pollutes the atmosphere. Were we capable of anything better when
the last breath of man is taken? Shades of "on the Beach"by Neville Shute to come. Good news is coming
I remember going to a christian group as a child called crusaders, I was around the age of 7. I suddenly recalled why I don't like the memory of going there and why I behaved rebeliously, it was simply because I DREADED going off to the bible talk when they talked a lot about being judged and punished for eternity if you were a sinner or a non-bleliever, and it literally scared the shit out of me! I remember going to bed and feeling terrified, it was horrible. Hitchens is absolutely 100% right
I was heavily indoctrinated as a child and still struggle with internal conflict to this day. I was just thinking about how horrible it would be if I threw my pet cat out in the rain and cold after I beat it terribly so that It could pay of my misconducts and I'm horrified by the thought of it. Even if it wasn't a pet but some cow in a field, I would still feel like a sociopath if I inhumanely killed it so that I could appease myself for something I did. How sick is that really?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is a fact that God created the heavens and earth. It is a fact that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. It is a fact that He arose from the dead after paying the price for our sins by vicarious sacrifice. It is a fact that there is a literal heaven and a literal hell that will last for eternity. It is a fact that only by faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and confession of His Lordship can one be saved from eternal damnation. These are facts and you must choose or be eternally lost.
@frederickj3 those aren't facts -- those are your beliefs. just because you believe them to be true, doesn't make them true. you may even deeply want them to be true, but that doesn't mean that they are. and just because the bible says so, doesn't make it so. you and your bible are making extraordinary claims, and that requires extraordinary evidence to prove those claims true -- and you have none.
..er, what? what glorious and utterly unalterable "facts" these are, who were we to think otherwise. My apologies for questioning such facts. You're right, it's a watertight "fact", any such ridicule is unfounded, and the argument is done and dusted. I feel really stupid.
Hinduism has much better explanations for these questions than abrahmic or other religions. Of course the very fundamental principle of that and other religions are false: we do not have a soul.
There is Only One God, The God of The Prophets, not Jesus But God. All People Should Fear Him from Birth to Death for He is The Absolut Power. He Is The Final Judge follow his commandment or Burn forever.
Not really, the worship of Allah in Mecca can be dated to only a few hundred years ago, and before that he was a moon god. As to the god of the Jews, he can be a mere 6000 years old, by their own admission. Science however has correctly and irrefutably determined that humans as a species have existed for at least 100,000 years and probably 250,000 years. The thing you worship was invented by people, and was never eternal, and in time it will be forgotten and cease to exist.
Over 2000 years ago atheism rose in Greece and in Rome it failed, it always fails.Their are a Origin of All, 2 if 1 other civilization in the Galaxy or in the Universe look like us, Darwins fail.
But religion has failed far more often than science if you consider how many Gods are no longer worshiped. Soon there will be no gods worshiped at all. Humans just don't need them anymore, we know better, can see the errors in their scriptures, know these Gods are made-up lies to fool gullible people like you into giving up their money. Your god is no different.
WITHOUT the Creator ? Look at the whole Muslim world. Corrupt, weak, ugly, dirty, smelly, vicious, their hand raised against every man and every man's hand raised against them. The Muslim world IS CHAOS. Your Silly God is worth nothing.
i bet 2000 years ago you where nailed to a cross for not beliving in jupiter & mars (not the planets) given a choice of "cake or death" id choose cake! if the choice was "not just one god but my god or death" id choose the man with the nails and hammers god.... as for your last comment you are an idiot.
You clearly do not understand anything of Greek or Roman history. Neither had even the slightest tolerance of atheism. Socrates for example with executed for the crime of corrupting the youth by blaspheming the gods. Not a single Roman emperor was an atheist, they went from pagans(successful society) to Christians(declining and eventually dead empire)
That's two nonsensical, non-answer for the price of one. Both are also wrong. I would no sooner as a buddhist for truth or about celestial beings than I would ask a cannibal for recipes. You pretend that atheism brought about the downfall of two great historical civilizations without any means off backing it then spout utter garbage at me? Are you simply a troll or do words not mean the same thing to you as they mean to me?
@TransitionalApe , The Universes, are to complex to host only 3 or 4 dimensions. The Creation is likely to contain plans of existence and dimensions. so superior entities can exist beyond our existence.
String theory postulates 10 and M-theory predicts 11. There is still no place to hide any gods. These extra dimensions aren't out there as 'planes of existence' they are rolled up and smashed down to the subatomic level. There is nothing to support the ideas you are presenting other than wishful thinking. That simply isn't something to base ones life philosophy on, in my opinion.
@TransitionalApe Give me then a Scientific prove that Homo sapians is the only sentient species, or existence of celastrial beings. and science now very little of this Universe and what it contains.
First problem, I never said we are the only sentient species I do not see any evidence, nor have you provided evidence for celestial beings. Second problem is you shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim for existence, you prove it. The onus is on you. I cannot prove that fairies don't exist, nor other made up fantasy creatures. I don't have to prove they don't exist, but anyone who claims they exist has to prove it. All the 'outside of ability to perceive' crap is useless. spare me.
@TransitionalApe First of all I reject darwinism because of black racism.I know that God , Angels, Demons, Shayteens, and so on.I dont believe God has created (Literly Created Humans) but given them I soul, He Created Angels of Pure Light. That is What I Know, and of course i cant prove it but I still Know it. I was not raised in Faith it was with me when I was born. Humans arent born with faith but Humans are born with the Seeds of Faith.
I reject racism in all forms, not just black racism. That has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin nor evolution. Your straw man attempted character assassination fails. I highly recommend you watch the 'brave new world' show, it might show you how evolution actually broke down the walls of religiously inspire racism. Darwin made all men equal as opposed to some being chosen of god, divine monarchy and all that garbage. What is the value of an unverifiable belief you know you can't prove?
Black racism has religion to blame for centuries of justification, not Darwin, should it really escape you that before Darwin slavery and colonialism/racism was unchecked. Once theistic monopolies on power were broken, who had many millennia to fix things and failed, we finally see the beginnings of actual civilization. Within decades, not even hundreds of years, decades. The overturning of institutions of bondage. Let go the superstitious non-sense. Stick with reality, it will serve you better.
That is a gross mischaracterization of set. I think I am done trying to have a rational interaction with you. There is nothing in your post worthy of any response. Its made even stupider by the implication that humanity begins with the Egyptians. You have demonstrated ignorance of every single culture you have referenced in your line of comments. Not once have you to get a single detail correct. Methinks thou art troll.
There actually was no Hinduism before Buddhism, there was primitive Vedism, but Buddhism was responsible for creating Hinduism by codifying the various local traditions in India. Historical fact. They did the same in most of Asia.
Yes, but Vedism predated Buddhism by 500 years and held to the caste system and belief in some type of deity or god. Buddhism may not have been god-centered but, it certainly wasn't the first religion.
Buddhism was actually the force that codified the Vedism into scriptures from tribal oral traditions. We in the West speak of "Vedism" as if it is a defined and named thing, but it was highly disunited prior to Buddhism with often conflicting beliefs amongst different tribes. Buddhism united these traditions and effectively turned them into Hinduism.
You will understand Buddhism when you analyze the concept of the guru within Hinduism. Buddha was one of several such 'gurus' that are alive in the past and today. It just happens that Buddhism caught on.
Similar gurus in modern Hindiusm are Vivekananda, Sai Baba, Ammachi, Ravi Shankar, Ramdev Baba, and thousands more.
Most yogic philosophies are 'atheist', especially Raja and Jnana yoga. But in light of neuroscience none of these including Buddhism hold as true.
As a psychologist I would like to know what parts of meditation don't hold true as far as you know. I am by no means saying you are wrong, you are correct, but there are some areas where they have some value. Meditation especially is quite useful. While I am not a "believer" there may yet be some value in some yogic phenomena if they can be properly understood. I will friend you so we can discuss this further off this channel.
I don't doubt meditation. It can alter some of the physiology of the brain, and has been shown to reduce cortisol levels.
The problem I have with meditation is the 'supernatural' part of it. And the extraordinary claims that it makes for itself, such as curing cancer and such.
Let us consider the phenomenon of biofeedback. Nearly anyone can do it, but currently it cannot be explained, and it is definitely a meditative process. I am not saying it is magical, it is just that when humans don't understand how something works they often say that it is magical, or divine, or demonic, or impossible. Thankfully most patent offices are sufficiently pragmatic to say "so long as it works reliably, we don't care if the explanation is accurate".
I'd say a big issue is how little we know about our own brains. Definitely an exciting area to do some reserach in. Pinker and Ramachandran have some interesting talks on youtube on the topic.
Very true Ramshobraja, neurophysiology is a constant source of new discoveries. I am waiting for the day when we can use nanotechnology to introduce an active 3 dimensional probe array into the brain without breaking the skin. It is a wonderful thing to know that the undiscovered country is in our own heads this century. Who knows what is possible ? A hopeful time.
He talks about all religions as if he knew them all very well and he "has" to "undermine" everything about religion. Evolutionism is not one bit more solid than a fiction novel. So far there was no discovery in science that evolutionism only could have reveal it. There are an abundance of stories and artistic pictures. Nothing matches the reality.
The moral superior ? No, Christopher is the intellectual superior of Jesus, which means he can see everything that is wrong with his cobbled philosophy, which means that it is easy to prove that Jesus' moral philosophy is actually demented masochism.
I grew up attending a Baptist church in Oklahoma City. On Sunday noring, we attended Sunday school class and then the main service. Sunday night we attended a prayer session. During the week we had bible study. In between days we had revivals, special quest talks, and fund raisers. This mode of life can go from just about birth to death. Church goes call it worshipping. Dawkins calls it chilhood indoctrination. I call it systematic brainwashing.
Nice job on this vid - I already watched the full original 'debate'(*), and this rendition of yours is much more palatable to the average youtuber, so thanks for aiding in that. ;)
More people are cured of the mindvirus every day, and many even go on to become productive members of society! ;)
(*if you can call it that; Crowley was like some weird waffling Mr Bean, the only difficulty Hitchens had in dismissing his non-arguments was working out if he was actually making any points at all lol)
But skepticism, that is hardly a criticism. the world could use more skepticism, we might have less folks who believe in fairly ridiculous things, and I don't just mean religion.
First of all, you can disscuss this topic in whatever fashion you want. But the fact of the matter is, like he says throughout the clip here, that the book itself says these things. He is not talking about general human understanding of said text, well he is that too, but he merely points the huge fraudulence the book has in itself. That the virgins birth, Jesus walking on water, making water into wine etc, are archaic myths which normal rational minds of the 21th century should be without.
But that's not what he's talking about because believing these things as exceptional to the norm (which is what the texts tell us they are) is in no different than saying that it is ridiculous to believe that these things happen. He's talking about getting rid of these people because of 3 factors, they breed violent warmongers, stunt scientific progress and lock out moral progress. Of course, this is only true if you don't understand what the texts are actually saying.
Problem is my friend, people read these texts and usually jump to the wrong conclusions. They read that the infidel must die, and take it literaly, they read that, if a man doesn't abide by me he shall be cast forth into the bush and burned. They take it too literaly. The only reason religion makes my stomach twinge, is because it enables people to think they are better than everyone else because they have "God" behind their back. So everything they do is justifiable, even if it is, fucked up.
That's really not the fault of the texts but the fault of the deranged desires of those seeking justification. The same can be said about any and all texts. Even the analysis of Darwinism, when applied to society, breeds damaging effects. This doesn't mean that we should get rid of Darwins valuable writtings just because people can reflect their own sadistic desires off of it. The problem is not the texts, it's the people who read them.
What is 'Darwinism'? it's a made up word by believers trying to convince themselves that evolution and religion are in the same level. It does not fool anybody unless the person is already a fool that can not see the dirty trick. Unless, of course, you call 'Newtonism' yours acceptance of the theory of gravity. Of course any text can be misinterpreted but it has been 2000 years of get it wrong? It does seem that the text may have some rotten part on it, don't you think?
@lovemrdarcy I was referring specifically to Social Darwinism in the comment you responded to. Social Darwinism is the system of belief that claims that the strongest or fittest members of society should flourish while the weaker members of society should be allowed to die off.
Just so that we're clear, the theory of gravity was never applied as a system of belief within society, nor was it employed as a philosophical position, but if it were, then you could call it Newtonism.
Gambleor, then I think we are indeed refering to the same thing... today Darwinism is only used in a pejorative way in a tentative to link defence of evolution to the way of thinking of those -very few if compared with any religion- that in 1800 took Darwin's lines to defend racism. I very much doubt you are unaware that social Darwinism is not the position of modern people - or even many in the past - but it's a very shameful way of creationists to try to look like it is.
@lovemrdarcy I believe evolution is real, both micro and macro and I certainly don't think that Darwin's findings should be used in a social setting, nor that they were intended for that purpose. In fact, I made sure that anyone reading my comment would understand that they same way that Darwin's findings have been twisted and misused is the same thing that we see being done with the Bible and with religion in general.
@lovemrdarcy Also, I did a quick search and though "Newtonism" doesn't seem to have ever existed, there was a system of thought that was called "Newtonianism."
Well, Newtonism is my own invention... I am actually surprised there is a Newtoniamism... I just hope nobody is disputing the law of Gravity as well based on something that does not go well with their religion...
Obviously the theory of gravity was never applied as a system of belief but that is exactly my point. For those trying to argue that defenders of evolution today are in fact making use of the ideas of 'Darwinism' is the same as to say that because they accept Newton's theory of gravity they subscribe to a 'Newtonism'. Maybe it's not your case but if you call somebody darwinist today, just go ahead and call him Newtonist as well, that's what I meant.
@lovemrdarcy oh okay. I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought that you were telling me that I was using underhanded creationist apologetic techniques by using the term "darwinism" the way I did. I myself didn't mean that term as derogatory, though I'll be sure to not use it anymore since it is viewed that way. Thank you.
@lovemrdarcy About the misinterpretation of the Bible, the Ancient Church had it's interpretation correct. There is an entire tradition of Apostles, Church Fathers, Desert Fathers, Bishops, Saints and Martyrs who have consistently interpreted scripture correctly. Problems in scriptural interpretation didn't appear until the abandonment of that tradition.
Gambleor, here is what is weird about your statement... You seem to know what is the correct interpretation of the Bible. This is weird, first because it's improbable that out of the millions of believers and other millions of religious authorities that stand of the current 'misinterpretation' of the Bible, you are the one that has the thing figured out. Also, what you mean by ancient church? The early Christianity was a mix of distinct sects, each one with their own interpretation fighting ...
@lovemrdarcy First, we have to understand that the New Testament scriptures didn't fall out of the sky and that they were written out of the tradition of the Church. They are literally a product of the Church. Second, the criteria of canonization for the texts was as follows: Apostolic, Catholic, Orthodox and Ancient. We must realize that the Church did not have canonized scripture until well after the Second Ecumenical Council.
They were the ones that wanted the Old Testment completely wipe out of the new religion, the ones that wanted to reinforce Judaism law, there were dozens ( I believe) versions of Gospels going around and the Bible we know today is actually put together by a few men - whoever won the political fight - that then chose to destroy or pick whatever fit their agenda. And we are not even counting centuries of editing with manual translations.
@lovemrdarcy If the one's who compiled the writings did so with an agenda, should we not trust also that they had interpreted the very same texts they chose and that this is the correct interpretation of those texts? Afterall, they are compiling those texts as a means of teaching their own agenda.
I didn't get your point on this one. What I'm curious is how someone can claim today that the book was ever correctly interpreted and then not anymore. The making of the book was already a random event and then they were adjusts and then -- as church grew stronger in power -- the core dogmas were set up for today's modern institutions. And if we discard whatever happened before the Church took control, once it was there, how exactly is the correct interpretation you talk about?
@lovemrdarcy How does one correctly interpret scripture and then, sometime down the line others interpret it incorrectly? Simple, they deny the tradition that formulated the canon and by way of doing so, rejected the interpretive discipline that was part of that tradition.
@Gambleor... I'm really confused. Maybe we come from different religious backgrounds and what we call 'Church' is flutuating in here. What I call 'gospels' are whatever writings existed after Jesus and the first ones mentioned were circulating around AD 65 and 80,... You seem to take in count only the four ones recognized by the Catholic Church later on and as far as I know, all the gospels were anonymous - although the Church 'decided' they were written by MMJL. So, yes, the 'Church' wrote it.
Sorry, not picking on you but still arguing about interpreting the Bible ... as much as I dread the fundamentalists, I have to give them the credit to be the ones that get it right because they take it literally. I mean, how many ways can you interpret plain words that order you to kill men that sleep with men? Most of the judeo-Christians are in fact 'interpreting' the Bible so they can adjust modern life with the impossibilities of what the book plainly advocates.
@lovemrdarcy Not at all. Read some of the interpretations of the scriptures as proposed by the Church Fathers of the first century. Check out what first century Rabbis say about the Hebrew scriptures. Face value theology is an indication of a lack of spiritual depth in the person seeking guidance. We don't need shallow commentary on our journey, we need deeply profound spiritual insights.
Gambleor, you have to be more specific in here. When you refer to interpretations proposed by the Church Fathers, which source are you referring to? You mean read the Torah? Lack of spiritual depth seems another word for lack of faith -- which I gladly assume -- and I honestly don't understand how difficult it is for someone to compreend that it actually takes much more depth, much more exercised thinking to break through indoctrination than take it because you were born into it.
@lovemrdarcy I don't mean to say lack of faith, I mean that someone who is looking at a book that is supposed to be used for spiritual purposes and reads it as a shallow text must by default believe that either they themselves are spiritually shallow or that the writer thinks the reader is spiritually shallow.
Church Fathers: Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, etc.
@Gambleor, but that is exactly what makes religion -- and the whole point of taking a book as a divine word -- the source of so much torment. You do not look at it with reality, you do not question it, you do not reason it. It's spiritual and by that all the reasonable filters that you would apply to any other book that someone told you that you must follow is off. Looking at something that is man created ( it is a book, it was not magically falled from heaven) and asking why is that so?
It is not shallow not to be spiritual. It is shallow to think that, among all the possibles religions, all the possibles gods, all the possibles truths that have been proposed you were special enough to be born with the right one. Why? Why is that a Muslim that would give his blood for the words on his book is to be considered wrong instead of you? That is the pin, the point of every walking man in this earth with arrogance enough to declare he/she is the one that got it right.
@lovemrdarcy What you're referring to is the difference between divine inspiration and divine dictation. Muslims believe that the Qur'an was written either by God Himself and given to Mohamed or that it was written by angels and given to Mohamed. This is not the same thing we believe about the Bible. We know that the Bible is a progressive work and that it reflects our growing understanding of our relationship with God.
What keeps going in circle and get's to the same point of this discussion: why you are the one right? It not possible that both of you are right ( and mind that I'm comparing only you and the Muslim) but it's quite possible that both of you could be wrong. And then comes the complete randomic thing that, supposed one of you is correct, how unfair is it to be born with almost no possibility to ever know the other side? I mean, I wonder how many Muslins have the chance to choose...
@lovemrdarcy I don't think that it makes much difference either way because Christianity, at least Orthodox Christianity, like Judaism is an "inclusive" faith.
@Gambleor, Judaism inclusive? As in ... we are the chosen people and reject Jesus because he was not good enough to be the Messiah yet? Hum... and because they were the chosen people Moses commited genocide, ordered rape and possesion of captive women... all under God's order because they had the right to the land. Yes, inclusive. Anyway, I have to go. It has been a good discussion, great talking to you! Peace.
@lovemrdarcy Yes, Judaism is an inclusive religion in that one does not need to be a Jew in order to be considered righteous (see Ruth, a righteous gentile woman who has a book dedicated to her in the Hebrew Scriptures) nor does one need to be a Jew in order to receive blessings from God.
@Gambleor, your examples of inclusion of Judaism ( and the little bone thrown as Ruth with one book while many of the others were dedicated to depicting jews slaughtiring whoever was not jewish - were all of them not righteous?? ) honestly does not make up for the genocide commited in name of the 'chosen people' in OT.
@lovemrdarcy A little bone thrown? You're talking about an entire book dedicated to the righteousness of a gentile woman at a time when a woman's opinion was not valid in any forum, even a family setting. That's not a little bone, that's a monstrous feat! In any case, the Hebrew scriptures were not meant to praise Israel for doing anything they did. In fact, the scriptures were their own accounts of their constant struggle with idolatry.
You must be kidding. Women are raped, humiliated and plainly considered second to man throughout the whole sacred scripture. It's not the first time that someone thinks that one book dedicated to a women is the ultimate gift and 'monstrous' grace. I bet that if Ruth ever existed and had the chance to ask anything in exchange for her sacrifice she would probably ask that women were given the same amount of books, respect and value given to men in the Bible!!
Are you serious? The way you make it sound, it's an incredible feat indeed. It's practically the same as the KKK writing about a black man that they think should be a role model for their organization. I think that's amazing that Ruth had everything going against her, she was Gentile and a woman, and was made an example to Jewish men. Of course, one has to understand the role of prophets and prophetesses in the Bible as well.
@Gambleor, what is tiring about religious people is that they circle around the questions. I made a couple of direct questions to you and you haven't answered. I specified why is arrogant of you to declare you have the correct path. I specified how ridiculous is it your reason since that is the same reason everybody else uses for their own religion. And I specify how paradox of you to believe your book/interpretation is of any value if it is not needed for God's blessing.
How about we stick to one question at a time so that we can come to answers. Would you like to undergo this conversation in PMs so that we don't have to post so many comments? If so, then PM me the first question you have for me and I'll gladly answer it to the best of my ability.
Constant struggle with idolatry? That's it? Oh, now I understand why there are so many children being slaughtered in the OT in the name of God. And why Moses was a murderer. It was a struggle with idolatry! Is that really all you got from the history? wow. I still have my skin crawling with the passages of the Jews killing the children in every village. Idolatry, yes, you really got it correct.
LOL, I don't believe in Darth Vader, but you don't see me putting up a video about that fact,arguing that he is most definitely not real : )
bpk0629 2 weeks ago
God does exist!
He exists in the human imagination.
huwrj 1 month ago
i hope there is a god so hitch could be like "why are you such a fucking ass?"
DraekoKhan 3 months ago
more people should see this
DraekoKhan 3 months ago
hitchens is RUNNIN IT
SmklookinGlass 4 months ago
I love Chris.I do not love Jesus ....but I love Chris....I have nothing against religious people as long as they are not pushing it or say I'm going to hell for not loving or believing in Jesus.
copycoonie 4 months ago
Very cool work with the stills, you made Hitchens even more poignant..
JeffStDeuce 5 months ago
First hand- I got deluded ..... a man told me " i talk to god andhewants u 2 have my baby....the hope of the world depends on it" AND I LET HIM RAPE ME!!!V LIKE AN IDIOT... false forceful 'god' terrible. It must stop, its ruining lives.... causing insanity/superstition/lifedraining hellish minds+beliefs.
Truth must prevail
*instinct is GOOD
LOVE
Do NOT fear your own thought/mind
HOPE+FAITH
juliachildsvoice 6 months ago
when you accept the "right" things in a religion & discard the "wrong" things, you only lend creedence to the supporters of the wrong things, all the right things work fine without the religious aspect, stop giving unwarrented respect to the wrong things
gta747 9 months ago 5
I only wish there more voices like that of Hitchens in the argument about religion.
Esotericanyc 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Really enjoyed you video informative. When you have time come visit my channel!
pheromoneaction 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Really enjoyed you video informative. When you have time come visit my channel!
TheHcgdietplan 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Really enjoyed you video informative. When you have time come visit my channel!
chocolatediet11 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Really enjoyed you video informative. When you have time come visit my channel!
850Nexus 10 months ago
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
luke2thab 1 year ago
The images make Hitchens' ideas even more powerful.
provgrays 1 year ago 2
We're becoming a militarized culture without the benefit of backlash-experiences that instruct the opposite. Bad times are ahead; the kids have been allowed to play with danger.
Still, I don't know whether or not God exists. I won't assume I know that until I die. If, then, God doesn't exist, I will keep on not-knowing, because I will be dead. If God exists, perhaps I will ask God for a complete Shakespeare with better notes and yellowing pages.
parafleet 1 year ago
@TRUNDLETHOR I dare suggest that most atheists ARE agnostic atheists whether they self identify with it or not. And anyway, I wasn't aware that a person declining to believe in a faith based assertion is an assumption on the atheists part...
...lol
Territomauvais 1 year ago
@TRUNDLETHOR "This sanctimonious acceptance of assumption as fact is very scary to me"
You know, that's exactly what nonbelievers say about religion, how ironic is that?
A great many atheists do in fact self-identify as agnostic atheists. They do this because they are aware that they are unable to disprove the existence of any gods.
Science makes evidence-based claims only, religion's claims are evidence-free. Which side seems more likely to be presenting assumptions as fact?
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago 2
Religion. lol.
CRISNCHIPS12398 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." for whoever has any questions about Christianity, feel free to message me.
unctarheel11 1 year ago
"preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." 2 Timothy 4:2-4 For whoever has any questions about Christianity, feel free to message me.
unctarheel11 1 year ago
ad hominem fallacies are supposed to be reason enough to discount religion? you want something different so other people are just plain stupid "no need for large arguments" "its just so obvious" and my favorite "I really do not see how anyone of intelligence could believe in such nonsense." There are plenty of people with brilliant minds that are believers in Christ. No one is stopping you from believing in what you choose but there are consequences for every action.
unctarheel11 1 year ago
Comment removed
sparky7718 1 year ago
@sparky7718 Unless you lead a sinless life, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" Acts 4:12
unctarheel11 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition You can't have heard Hitchens speak much. Islam generally gets the harshest criticism. And Christianity has over half a billion more followers so I think it's a bit insincere to say Islam crushes all other theologies. Anyway, they're both immoral, delusional, opportunistic and prejudiced theologies, with little to choose between them. Muslims just happen to generally a bit less well educated so that's why a few of the nutters go off bombing themselves.
ArtoftheState1 1 year ago
This freak is insincere and making money off of shallow and dense, probably mostly homos, subhumans who are witless and conceptually challenged. He based his assumptions solely on the creed of Christianity. Who wouldn't go "atheist" after applying moral logic to it's dogma? Islam, however, crushes all other theologies, including atheism. Islam has withstood every test it was put up against and continues to thrive and spread even with these likes in existence and the constant media bashing.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago
@tadpoleposition Islam only crushes ignorant minds...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
@Acrimonator And skyscrapers by way of jetliners.
Truth118 1 year ago
Religion is hate religion is fear religion is war religion is rape religions obscene religions a whore .
Earrot 1 year ago
I love how he almost says bodily erections at the beginning haha.
scrubrug 1 year ago
The nun @7:23 is a crazy lady.
eddo1983 1 year ago
I'm an athiest, but if your greatest debating point is to call your opponent an idiot, you only succeed in diminishing yourself.
belisarius2930 1 year ago
He is right that religion does poison everything. Christianity is not a religion, it is a faith. The false religions and cults of the world (i.e. Islam) are simply man's spiritual rebellion to the God of the Bible and His Truth.
BatNuklier 1 year ago
"We have better claims....excuse me....explanations" heheheh
Serpico261 1 year ago
Get well soon Christopher, I'll sacrifice a goat for you next full moon!
rudenoodle 1 year ago 2
did white people invent the bible because of horendous crimes they committed towards people of color. first of all white people know slavery is wrong and no way is slavery godly they would have to be totaley ignorant if they feel other wise.
1980vince 1 year ago
@1980vince: By "white people", do you mean Caucazoid Europeans, as is generally the case when that term is used? If so, then no. They didn't.
kagasan2008 1 year ago
@1980vince White people? What are you talking about?
ashleylovesdaddy 1 year ago
@1980vince Slavery was blessed by god! So long as the "master" of slaves didn't abuse his slaves all was good! A master, if he found wrong in a slave was allowed to beat a slave but not to death! As long as the slave lived for a certain amount of time after the beating all was good! If the slave died after that time frame was up, so be it, all was still good! That's what religion did, abuse people!
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell so are you still religious.
1980vince 1 year ago
@1980vince where did I say I was ever religious?
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell just answer one question do you think owning a slave is evil.
1980vince 1 year ago
@1980vince ABSOLUTELY!!
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@1980vince Slavery was used by every society...still is used in every society (see involuntary taxation and involuntary servitude); dont try to pin slavery to "white people"..."white people" didnt charter boats to African and steal the "black people" from their homeland...the "black people" transported and sold their own people to the "white people"...
As for the Bible, it is a fairy tale...similar to Cinderella and Peter Pan...make believe, weak minds buy in to it and have "faith"...
helltrackrider 1 year ago
Maybe we need to separate god from religion , i dont think they are even connected in the slightest
mariek12 1 year ago
@mariek12 God is just as man made as religion! If god did exsist which of course he doesn't, he is evil beyond doubt! Its just so obvious, i really do not see how anyone of intelligence could believe in such nonsense.
stagehandbob 1 year ago 55
@stagehandbob So just how intelligent are you? What has intelligence got to do with it if far more intelligent people than you and your hero DO believe? Do not make it an intelligence issue when it has nothing to do with it. It's about belief. There is a pattern here- I can respect people who have no faith-doesn't seem to be reciprocated. Wonder why?
Teddybhoy32 1 year ago
@stagehandbob ps Could you elaborate more on why 'it's just so obvious please?
Teddybhoy32 1 year ago
@stagehandbob testify!
tjones590 1 month ago
What do we do then?
QURWYN 1 year ago
@QURWYN what do you mean?
JUANMO94 1 year ago
Religion is BULLSHIT, stupid and destructive. Simple as that... No need for large arguements. Only brainwashed sheep would argue FOR religion...I rest my case...
godawefulll 2 years ago 95
@godawefulll What a bellend you are. 'Stupid and destructive'. Have you seem your own page freakshow? You have actually made me smile. Thank you.
Teddybhoy32 1 year ago
@Teddybhoy32 Hahah You take stuff at face value like most other simple minded folk. Pics of models and dark artwork is NOT as destructive as these STUPID and DESTRUCTIVE RELIGIONS(YES I said it again) FYI, My page is NOT a personal page, it represents my openly Anti Religious heavy metal band and it is our channel...I just think for myself and stay away from Death cults. sorry if your too lame to understand that...Go judge some more books by their covers....
godawefulll 1 year ago
@godawefulll Yes you did say it again...and what? I wasn't defending religion stupid, merely pointing out the stupid and destructive sights on your page.' Bloodlust and perversion!!!!' 'Not as' therefore is..think about it. I underdstand-I used to be into metal music..until I grew up! Now go and give daddy a cuddle and do the same.
Teddybhoy32 1 year ago
@godawefulll evidence for your "case"
swimmer1293 1 year ago
@godawefulll Mao. Stalin. Hitler. Pol Pot. Those were people who rejected religion as "primitive" and we see the fruits of their beliefs.
RedsNMaduroMan 1 year ago
@RedsNMaduroMan actually, Hitler was a very big proponent of Christian ideals. He made many speeches on the subject. Used religion as a tool to get people together;)
godawefulll 1 year ago
@godawefulll Stalin also reopened the russian orthodox church to gain support from the people during ww2. Religion is a great way to get people to support war.
ThatGuyWhoSucksBoobz 1 year ago
@RedsNMaduroMan Hitler was Roman Catholic and sought to eradicate atheism and atheists while he spoke on the importance of Christian faith to Germany. He wrote and said many times that he was killing Jews for God. Most Nazis were Catholic or Lutheran. I could point to far more examples over the centuries of religious tyrants and mass murderers than you can non-religious ones. So what exactly was your point supposed to be?
leavesof3 1 year ago
@godawefulll Funny. Your argument has the same tone as a radical theist. Just replace "religion" with "atheism." You make us freethinking atheists look like bigger assholes than the guy who raped your ass in that shitty little motel off of little Santa Monica in West Hollywood. Keep your self-loathing between you and your shrink.
GohModley 4 months ago
@godawefulll Well said ..
lamin14 3 months ago
You can teach at least try to teach how ignorant the "fairy tales" may be. You may get a few to join your side. Our species has a healthy component of reasoning the unreasonable. We reasonable people have created the perfect tools to destroy Mankind. The clock is ticking. There will only be so much time left when the radiation pollutes the atmosphere. Were we capable of anything better when
the last breath of man is taken? Shades of "on the Beach"by Neville Shute to come. Good news is coming
bbtel 2 years ago
Good well made video!! I believe a greater understanding of science and the Universe will give us a greater understanding of God
nickharvey7 2 years ago
thanks for artistry!
infinityjrh 2 years ago
the whole laughable notion, that is god and religion, is pathetic
SmilingThruStorms 2 years ago 2
I remember going to a christian group as a child called crusaders, I was around the age of 7. I suddenly recalled why I don't like the memory of going there and why I behaved rebeliously, it was simply because I DREADED going off to the bible talk when they talked a lot about being judged and punished for eternity if you were a sinner or a non-bleliever, and it literally scared the shit out of me! I remember going to bed and feeling terrified, it was horrible. Hitchens is absolutely 100% right
TawnyHallonds 2 years ago 4
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=Vg-zc62IgrM
- A great recollection about crusaders.
I feel your pain ;P
StephenKuma 2 years ago
I was heavily indoctrinated as a child and still struggle with internal conflict to this day. I was just thinking about how horrible it would be if I threw my pet cat out in the rain and cold after I beat it terribly so that It could pay of my misconducts and I'm horrified by the thought of it. Even if it wasn't a pet but some cow in a field, I would still feel like a sociopath if I inhumanely killed it so that I could appease myself for something I did. How sick is that really?
anamasteos 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is a fact that God created the heavens and earth. It is a fact that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. It is a fact that He arose from the dead after paying the price for our sins by vicarious sacrifice. It is a fact that there is a literal heaven and a literal hell that will last for eternity. It is a fact that only by faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and confession of His Lordship can one be saved from eternal damnation. These are facts and you must choose or be eternally lost.
frederickj3 2 years ago
@frederickj3 those aren't facts -- those are your beliefs. just because you believe them to be true, doesn't make them true. you may even deeply want them to be true, but that doesn't mean that they are. and just because the bible says so, doesn't make it so. you and your bible are making extraordinary claims, and that requires extraordinary evidence to prove those claims true -- and you have none.
jflaugher 2 years ago 5
..er, what? what glorious and utterly unalterable "facts" these are, who were we to think otherwise. My apologies for questioning such facts. You're right, it's a watertight "fact", any such ridicule is unfounded, and the argument is done and dusted. I feel really stupid.
rltsdj 2 years ago
Well said. How could I have ever doubted?
archtech2 2 years ago 2
Hinduism has much better explanations for these questions than abrahmic or other religions. Of course the very fundamental principle of that and other religions are false: we do not have a soul.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
There is Only One God, The God of The Prophets, not Jesus But God. All People Should Fear Him from Birth to Death for He is The Absolut Power. He Is The Final Judge follow his commandment or Burn forever.
Inshallah.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
First we had many gods, then we went to one. We're so close to the real number.
raunchbear 2 years ago
Their is only One God and He is The Creator, Glory to The Creator.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
Did your creator create himself, and if so...how ?
formless777 2 years ago
He is not created, He is Eternal,
Endless forever and so on.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
Not really, the worship of Allah in Mecca can be dated to only a few hundred years ago, and before that he was a moon god. As to the god of the Jews, he can be a mere 6000 years old, by their own admission. Science however has correctly and irrefutably determined that humans as a species have existed for at least 100,000 years and probably 250,000 years. The thing you worship was invented by people, and was never eternal, and in time it will be forgotten and cease to exist.
formless777 2 years ago
Over 2000 years ago atheism rose in Greece and in Rome it failed, it always fails.Their are a Origin of All, 2 if 1 other civilization in the Galaxy or in the Universe look like us, Darwins fail.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
But religion has failed far more often than science if you consider how many Gods are no longer worshiped. Soon there will be no gods worshiped at all. Humans just don't need them anymore, we know better, can see the errors in their scriptures, know these Gods are made-up lies to fool gullible people like you into giving up their money. Your god is no different.
formless777 2 years ago
Whitout Guidence There will be Chaos, and the Creator is the only true Leader.
Inshallah.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
WITHOUT the Creator ? Look at the whole Muslim world. Corrupt, weak, ugly, dirty, smelly, vicious, their hand raised against every man and every man's hand raised against them. The Muslim world IS CHAOS. Your Silly God is worth nothing.
formless777 2 years ago
i bet 2000 years ago you where nailed to a cross for not beliving in jupiter & mars (not the planets) given a choice of "cake or death" id choose cake! if the choice was "not just one god but my god or death" id choose the man with the nails and hammers god.... as for your last comment you are an idiot.
JGR1976 2 years ago
You clearly do not understand anything of Greek or Roman history. Neither had even the slightest tolerance of atheism. Socrates for example with executed for the crime of corrupting the youth by blaspheming the gods. Not a single Roman emperor was an atheist, they went from pagans(successful society) to Christians(declining and eventually dead empire)
TransitionalApe 2 years ago
@TransitionalApe My point is that atheism is not truth there are celastrial Beings, ask a buddhist.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
That's two nonsensical, non-answer for the price of one. Both are also wrong. I would no sooner as a buddhist for truth or about celestial beings than I would ask a cannibal for recipes. You pretend that atheism brought about the downfall of two great historical civilizations without any means off backing it then spout utter garbage at me? Are you simply a troll or do words not mean the same thing to you as they mean to me?
TransitionalApe 2 years ago
@TransitionalApe, its my answer if you dont like it, thats not my problem.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
@TransitionalApe , The Universes, are to complex to host only 3 or 4 dimensions. The Creation is likely to contain plans of existence and dimensions. so superior entities can exist beyond our existence.
my english suck so be patients.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
String theory postulates 10 and M-theory predicts 11. There is still no place to hide any gods. These extra dimensions aren't out there as 'planes of existence' they are rolled up and smashed down to the subatomic level. There is nothing to support the ideas you are presenting other than wishful thinking. That simply isn't something to base ones life philosophy on, in my opinion.
TransitionalApe 2 years ago
@TransitionalApe Give me then a Scientific prove that Homo sapians is the only sentient species, or existence of celastrial beings. and science now very little of this Universe and what it contains.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
First problem, I never said we are the only sentient species I do not see any evidence, nor have you provided evidence for celestial beings. Second problem is you shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim for existence, you prove it. The onus is on you. I cannot prove that fairies don't exist, nor other made up fantasy creatures. I don't have to prove they don't exist, but anyone who claims they exist has to prove it. All the 'outside of ability to perceive' crap is useless. spare me.
TransitionalApe 2 years ago
@TransitionalApe First of all I reject darwinism because of black racism.I know that God , Angels, Demons, Shayteens, and so on.I dont believe God has created (Literly Created Humans) but given them I soul, He Created Angels of Pure Light. That is What I Know, and of course i cant prove it but I still Know it. I was not raised in Faith it was with me when I was born. Humans arent born with faith but Humans are born with the Seeds of Faith.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
I reject racism in all forms, not just black racism. That has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin nor evolution. Your straw man attempted character assassination fails. I highly recommend you watch the 'brave new world' show, it might show you how evolution actually broke down the walls of religiously inspire racism. Darwin made all men equal as opposed to some being chosen of god, divine monarchy and all that garbage. What is the value of an unverifiable belief you know you can't prove?
TransitionalApe 2 years ago
Black racism has religion to blame for centuries of justification, not Darwin, should it really escape you that before Darwin slavery and colonialism/racism was unchecked. Once theistic monopolies on power were broken, who had many millennia to fix things and failed, we finally see the beginnings of actual civilization. Within decades, not even hundreds of years, decades. The overturning of institutions of bondage. Let go the superstitious non-sense. Stick with reality, it will serve you better.
TransitionalApe 2 years ago
@TransitionalApe The First Racist was A Black Man, Set the Egyptian God of Evil was a White Man, and the rest was Black.
NoorSaqr 2 years ago
That is a gross mischaracterization of set. I think I am done trying to have a rational interaction with you. There is nothing in your post worthy of any response. Its made even stupider by the implication that humanity begins with the Egyptians. You have demonstrated ignorance of every single culture you have referenced in your line of comments. Not once have you to get a single detail correct. Methinks thou art troll.
TransitionalApe 2 years ago
Buddhism was the first "religion", and it placed no importance on gods, and said that the soul was a delusion.
formless777 2 years ago
No it's not. Buddhism emerged out of Hinduism because the first Buddha rejected the caste system.
gambleor 2 years ago
There actually was no Hinduism before Buddhism, there was primitive Vedism, but Buddhism was responsible for creating Hinduism by codifying the various local traditions in India. Historical fact. They did the same in most of Asia.
formless777 2 years ago
Yes, but Vedism predated Buddhism by 500 years and held to the caste system and belief in some type of deity or god. Buddhism may not have been god-centered but, it certainly wasn't the first religion.
gambleor 2 years ago
Buddhism was actually the force that codified the Vedism into scriptures from tribal oral traditions. We in the West speak of "Vedism" as if it is a defined and named thing, but it was highly disunited prior to Buddhism with often conflicting beliefs amongst different tribes. Buddhism united these traditions and effectively turned them into Hinduism.
formless777 2 years ago
Oh, I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.
gambleor 2 years ago
You will understand Buddhism when you analyze the concept of the guru within Hinduism. Buddha was one of several such 'gurus' that are alive in the past and today. It just happens that Buddhism caught on.
Similar gurus in modern Hindiusm are Vivekananda, Sai Baba, Ammachi, Ravi Shankar, Ramdev Baba, and thousands more.
Most yogic philosophies are 'atheist', especially Raja and Jnana yoga. But in light of neuroscience none of these including Buddhism hold as true.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
As a psychologist I would like to know what parts of meditation don't hold true as far as you know. I am by no means saying you are wrong, you are correct, but there are some areas where they have some value. Meditation especially is quite useful. While I am not a "believer" there may yet be some value in some yogic phenomena if they can be properly understood. I will friend you so we can discuss this further off this channel.
formless777 2 years ago
I don't doubt meditation. It can alter some of the physiology of the brain, and has been shown to reduce cortisol levels.
The problem I have with meditation is the 'supernatural' part of it. And the extraordinary claims that it makes for itself, such as curing cancer and such.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
Let us consider the phenomenon of biofeedback. Nearly anyone can do it, but currently it cannot be explained, and it is definitely a meditative process. I am not saying it is magical, it is just that when humans don't understand how something works they often say that it is magical, or divine, or demonic, or impossible. Thankfully most patent offices are sufficiently pragmatic to say "so long as it works reliably, we don't care if the explanation is accurate".
formless777 2 years ago
I'd say a big issue is how little we know about our own brains. Definitely an exciting area to do some reserach in. Pinker and Ramachandran have some interesting talks on youtube on the topic.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
Very true Ramshobraja, neurophysiology is a constant source of new discoveries. I am waiting for the day when we can use nanotechnology to introduce an active 3 dimensional probe array into the brain without breaking the skin. It is a wonderful thing to know that the undiscovered country is in our own heads this century. Who knows what is possible ? A hopeful time.
formless777 2 years ago
He talks about all religions as if he knew them all very well and he "has" to "undermine" everything about religion. Evolutionism is not one bit more solid than a fiction novel. So far there was no discovery in science that evolutionism only could have reveal it. There are an abundance of stories and artistic pictures. Nothing matches the reality.
mircea273 2 years ago
Christopher Hitchens thinks he is the moral equivalent of Jesus.
He is NOT!!
tonybonez 2 years ago
If he thinks that, then he is a damn moron!
evildimondbros 2 years ago
The moral superior ? No, Christopher is the intellectual superior of Jesus, which means he can see everything that is wrong with his cobbled philosophy, which means that it is easy to prove that Jesus' moral philosophy is actually demented masochism.
formless777 2 years ago
I would say he only thinks. You not. ( sorry, couldn't resist)
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
I grew up attending a Baptist church in Oklahoma City. On Sunday noring, we attended Sunday school class and then the main service. Sunday night we attended a prayer session. During the week we had bible study. In between days we had revivals, special quest talks, and fund raisers. This mode of life can go from just about birth to death. Church goes call it worshipping. Dawkins calls it chilhood indoctrination. I call it systematic brainwashing.
gramcrocker 2 years ago 7
Nice job on this vid - I already watched the full original 'debate'(*), and this rendition of yours is much more palatable to the average youtuber, so thanks for aiding in that. ;)
More people are cured of the mindvirus every day, and many even go on to become productive members of society! ;)
(*if you can call it that; Crowley was like some weird waffling Mr Bean, the only difficulty Hitchens had in dismissing his non-arguments was working out if he was actually making any points at all lol)
Gliktch 2 years ago 3
Great use of pictures.
LlortnA 2 years ago
Comment removed
killyourself08 2 years ago
A drunk he is, but that does not make him wrong.
But skepticism, that is hardly a criticism. the world could use more skepticism, we might have less folks who believe in fairly ridiculous things, and I don't just mean religion.
MaxKBennett 2 years ago
Hitchens is right!
bombarderoazul 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
chris is smart, but hes a ball of shit/
matsutakneatche 2 years ago
Why I say old chap, you are quite the ball of shit yourself!
Baldurpet 2 years ago 5
First of all, you can disscuss this topic in whatever fashion you want. But the fact of the matter is, like he says throughout the clip here, that the book itself says these things. He is not talking about general human understanding of said text, well he is that too, but he merely points the huge fraudulence the book has in itself. That the virgins birth, Jesus walking on water, making water into wine etc, are archaic myths which normal rational minds of the 21th century should be without.
Faerlon123 2 years ago
But that's not what he's talking about because believing these things as exceptional to the norm (which is what the texts tell us they are) is in no different than saying that it is ridiculous to believe that these things happen. He's talking about getting rid of these people because of 3 factors, they breed violent warmongers, stunt scientific progress and lock out moral progress. Of course, this is only true if you don't understand what the texts are actually saying.
gambleor 2 years ago
Problem is my friend, people read these texts and usually jump to the wrong conclusions. They read that the infidel must die, and take it literaly, they read that, if a man doesn't abide by me he shall be cast forth into the bush and burned. They take it too literaly. The only reason religion makes my stomach twinge, is because it enables people to think they are better than everyone else because they have "God" behind their back. So everything they do is justifiable, even if it is, fucked up.
Faerlon123 2 years ago
That's really not the fault of the texts but the fault of the deranged desires of those seeking justification. The same can be said about any and all texts. Even the analysis of Darwinism, when applied to society, breeds damaging effects. This doesn't mean that we should get rid of Darwins valuable writtings just because people can reflect their own sadistic desires off of it. The problem is not the texts, it's the people who read them.
gambleor 2 years ago
What is 'Darwinism'? it's a made up word by believers trying to convince themselves that evolution and religion are in the same level. It does not fool anybody unless the person is already a fool that can not see the dirty trick. Unless, of course, you call 'Newtonism' yours acceptance of the theory of gravity. Of course any text can be misinterpreted but it has been 2000 years of get it wrong? It does seem that the text may have some rotten part on it, don't you think?
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy I was referring specifically to Social Darwinism in the comment you responded to. Social Darwinism is the system of belief that claims that the strongest or fittest members of society should flourish while the weaker members of society should be allowed to die off.
Just so that we're clear, the theory of gravity was never applied as a system of belief within society, nor was it employed as a philosophical position, but if it were, then you could call it Newtonism.
gambleor 2 years ago
Gambleor, then I think we are indeed refering to the same thing... today Darwinism is only used in a pejorative way in a tentative to link defence of evolution to the way of thinking of those -very few if compared with any religion- that in 1800 took Darwin's lines to defend racism. I very much doubt you are unaware that social Darwinism is not the position of modern people - or even many in the past - but it's a very shameful way of creationists to try to look like it is.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy I believe evolution is real, both micro and macro and I certainly don't think that Darwin's findings should be used in a social setting, nor that they were intended for that purpose. In fact, I made sure that anyone reading my comment would understand that they same way that Darwin's findings have been twisted and misused is the same thing that we see being done with the Bible and with religion in general.
gambleor 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy Also, I did a quick search and though "Newtonism" doesn't seem to have ever existed, there was a system of thought that was called "Newtonianism."
gambleor 2 years ago
Well, Newtonism is my own invention... I am actually surprised there is a Newtoniamism... I just hope nobody is disputing the law of Gravity as well based on something that does not go well with their religion...
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy HAHA I was surprised too
gambleor 2 years ago
Obviously the theory of gravity was never applied as a system of belief but that is exactly my point. For those trying to argue that defenders of evolution today are in fact making use of the ideas of 'Darwinism' is the same as to say that because they accept Newton's theory of gravity they subscribe to a 'Newtonism'. Maybe it's not your case but if you call somebody darwinist today, just go ahead and call him Newtonist as well, that's what I meant.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy oh okay. I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought that you were telling me that I was using underhanded creationist apologetic techniques by using the term "darwinism" the way I did. I myself didn't mean that term as derogatory, though I'll be sure to not use it anymore since it is viewed that way. Thank you.
gambleor 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy About the misinterpretation of the Bible, the Ancient Church had it's interpretation correct. There is an entire tradition of Apostles, Church Fathers, Desert Fathers, Bishops, Saints and Martyrs who have consistently interpreted scripture correctly. Problems in scriptural interpretation didn't appear until the abandonment of that tradition.
gambleor 2 years ago
Gambleor, here is what is weird about your statement... You seem to know what is the correct interpretation of the Bible. This is weird, first because it's improbable that out of the millions of believers and other millions of religious authorities that stand of the current 'misinterpretation' of the Bible, you are the one that has the thing figured out. Also, what you mean by ancient church? The early Christianity was a mix of distinct sects, each one with their own interpretation fighting ...
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy First, we have to understand that the New Testament scriptures didn't fall out of the sky and that they were written out of the tradition of the Church. They are literally a product of the Church. Second, the criteria of canonization for the texts was as follows: Apostolic, Catholic, Orthodox and Ancient. We must realize that the Church did not have canonized scripture until well after the Second Ecumenical Council.
gambleor 2 years ago
They were the ones that wanted the Old Testment completely wipe out of the new religion, the ones that wanted to reinforce Judaism law, there were dozens ( I believe) versions of Gospels going around and the Bible we know today is actually put together by a few men - whoever won the political fight - that then chose to destroy or pick whatever fit their agenda. And we are not even counting centuries of editing with manual translations.
What correct interpretation you have?
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy If the one's who compiled the writings did so with an agenda, should we not trust also that they had interpreted the very same texts they chose and that this is the correct interpretation of those texts? Afterall, they are compiling those texts as a means of teaching their own agenda.
gambleor 2 years ago
I didn't get your point on this one. What I'm curious is how someone can claim today that the book was ever correctly interpreted and then not anymore. The making of the book was already a random event and then they were adjusts and then -- as church grew stronger in power -- the core dogmas were set up for today's modern institutions. And if we discard whatever happened before the Church took control, once it was there, how exactly is the correct interpretation you talk about?
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy How does one correctly interpret scripture and then, sometime down the line others interpret it incorrectly? Simple, they deny the tradition that formulated the canon and by way of doing so, rejected the interpretive discipline that was part of that tradition.
gambleor 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy Prior to the Church, there were no gospels. The Church wrote the gospels.
gambleor 2 years ago
@Gambleor... I'm really confused. Maybe we come from different religious backgrounds and what we call 'Church' is flutuating in here. What I call 'gospels' are whatever writings existed after Jesus and the first ones mentioned were circulating around AD 65 and 80,... You seem to take in count only the four ones recognized by the Catholic Church later on and as far as I know, all the gospels were anonymous - although the Church 'decided' they were written by MMJL. So, yes, the 'Church' wrote it.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
Sorry, not picking on you but still arguing about interpreting the Bible ... as much as I dread the fundamentalists, I have to give them the credit to be the ones that get it right because they take it literally. I mean, how many ways can you interpret plain words that order you to kill men that sleep with men? Most of the judeo-Christians are in fact 'interpreting' the Bible so they can adjust modern life with the impossibilities of what the book plainly advocates.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy Not at all. Read some of the interpretations of the scriptures as proposed by the Church Fathers of the first century. Check out what first century Rabbis say about the Hebrew scriptures. Face value theology is an indication of a lack of spiritual depth in the person seeking guidance. We don't need shallow commentary on our journey, we need deeply profound spiritual insights.
gambleor 2 years ago
Gambleor, you have to be more specific in here. When you refer to interpretations proposed by the Church Fathers, which source are you referring to? You mean read the Torah? Lack of spiritual depth seems another word for lack of faith -- which I gladly assume -- and I honestly don't understand how difficult it is for someone to compreend that it actually takes much more depth, much more exercised thinking to break through indoctrination than take it because you were born into it.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy I don't mean to say lack of faith, I mean that someone who is looking at a book that is supposed to be used for spiritual purposes and reads it as a shallow text must by default believe that either they themselves are spiritually shallow or that the writer thinks the reader is spiritually shallow.
Church Fathers: Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, etc.
gambleor 2 years ago
@Gambleor, but that is exactly what makes religion -- and the whole point of taking a book as a divine word -- the source of so much torment. You do not look at it with reality, you do not question it, you do not reason it. It's spiritual and by that all the reasonable filters that you would apply to any other book that someone told you that you must follow is off. Looking at something that is man created ( it is a book, it was not magically falled from heaven) and asking why is that so?
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
It is not shallow not to be spiritual. It is shallow to think that, among all the possibles religions, all the possibles gods, all the possibles truths that have been proposed you were special enough to be born with the right one. Why? Why is that a Muslim that would give his blood for the words on his book is to be considered wrong instead of you? That is the pin, the point of every walking man in this earth with arrogance enough to declare he/she is the one that got it right.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy What you're referring to is the difference between divine inspiration and divine dictation. Muslims believe that the Qur'an was written either by God Himself and given to Mohamed or that it was written by angels and given to Mohamed. This is not the same thing we believe about the Bible. We know that the Bible is a progressive work and that it reflects our growing understanding of our relationship with God.
gambleor 2 years ago
What keeps going in circle and get's to the same point of this discussion: why you are the one right? It not possible that both of you are right ( and mind that I'm comparing only you and the Muslim) but it's quite possible that both of you could be wrong. And then comes the complete randomic thing that, supposed one of you is correct, how unfair is it to be born with almost no possibility to ever know the other side? I mean, I wonder how many Muslins have the chance to choose...
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy I don't think that it makes much difference either way because Christianity, at least Orthodox Christianity, like Judaism is an "inclusive" faith.
gambleor 2 years ago
@Gambleor, Judaism inclusive? As in ... we are the chosen people and reject Jesus because he was not good enough to be the Messiah yet? Hum... and because they were the chosen people Moses commited genocide, ordered rape and possesion of captive women... all under God's order because they had the right to the land. Yes, inclusive. Anyway, I have to go. It has been a good discussion, great talking to you! Peace.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy Yes, Judaism is an inclusive religion in that one does not need to be a Jew in order to be considered righteous (see Ruth, a righteous gentile woman who has a book dedicated to her in the Hebrew Scriptures) nor does one need to be a Jew in order to receive blessings from God.
gambleor 2 years ago
@Gambleor, your examples of inclusion of Judaism ( and the little bone thrown as Ruth with one book while many of the others were dedicated to depicting jews slaughtiring whoever was not jewish - were all of them not righteous?? ) honestly does not make up for the genocide commited in name of the 'chosen people' in OT.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
@lovemrdarcy A little bone thrown? You're talking about an entire book dedicated to the righteousness of a gentile woman at a time when a woman's opinion was not valid in any forum, even a family setting. That's not a little bone, that's a monstrous feat! In any case, the Hebrew scriptures were not meant to praise Israel for doing anything they did. In fact, the scriptures were their own accounts of their constant struggle with idolatry.
gambleor 2 years ago
You must be kidding. Women are raped, humiliated and plainly considered second to man throughout the whole sacred scripture. It's not the first time that someone thinks that one book dedicated to a women is the ultimate gift and 'monstrous' grace. I bet that if Ruth ever existed and had the chance to ask anything in exchange for her sacrifice she would probably ask that women were given the same amount of books, respect and value given to men in the Bible!!
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
Are you serious? The way you make it sound, it's an incredible feat indeed. It's practically the same as the KKK writing about a black man that they think should be a role model for their organization. I think that's amazing that Ruth had everything going against her, she was Gentile and a woman, and was made an example to Jewish men. Of course, one has to understand the role of prophets and prophetesses in the Bible as well.
gambleor 2 years ago
@Gambleor, what is tiring about religious people is that they circle around the questions. I made a couple of direct questions to you and you haven't answered. I specified why is arrogant of you to declare you have the correct path. I specified how ridiculous is it your reason since that is the same reason everybody else uses for their own religion. And I specify how paradox of you to believe your book/interpretation is of any value if it is not needed for God's blessing.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
How about we stick to one question at a time so that we can come to answers. Would you like to undergo this conversation in PMs so that we don't have to post so many comments? If so, then PM me the first question you have for me and I'll gladly answer it to the best of my ability.
gambleor 2 years ago
Constant struggle with idolatry? That's it? Oh, now I understand why there are so many children being slaughtered in the OT in the name of God. And why Moses was a murderer. It was a struggle with idolatry! Is that really all you got from the history? wow. I still have my skin crawling with the passages of the Jews killing the children in every village. Idolatry, yes, you really got it correct.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago