Christopher Hitchens - Christianity is false and immoral

[cmmwboarding]

Then how come i pointed out a clear lie.... That you can't dispute. Do the research and figure out for your self and don't listen to this person who hasn't made any achievements in his life other than say God isn't real

[testmark1]

@cmmwboarding Except that even theologians have indicated that christianity isn't real. Further, Hitchens did more in his life than say that God isn't real. This is only what he engaged in, among other things, in the last few years of his life.

[Redping2020]

@cmmwboarding you're dumb and not listening, and your definition of 'lie' is as false as your mental slavery you subject yourself to. Hell was mentioned before jesus shows up? (btw didnt botehr to check this because your religion is a global scam) i guess CHRISTIANITY IS RIGHT AFTER ALL! lolol go awaey

[cmmwboarding]

He says that the bible says nothing about Hell until jesus shows up.... actually there are 31 accounts in the old testament of hell. So get your facts right Mr. Hitchens

[imthedoctor10]

@cmmwboarding LOL Christopher Hitchens is the best guy to talk about all things wrong about the bible and Christianity so im pretty sure his facts are exponentially better than anything you can come up with

[wallpaper72]

@cmmwboarding who cares, the bible is laughable to anyone capable of critical thinking, it was written when people thought the world was flat and devised to keep ignorant peasants in order, the minute they dug the first dinosaur bones up the bible was proven false.

[ndzoko]

@cmmwboarding Look it up, sheol is not the hell of christianity. Hell like we know it is a figment of the imagination of Dante. Besides if you believe in the christian hell, you also must believe that your god is the worst tyrant imaginable,

[Helpmeknowthings]

Simply brilliant

[Terncote]

@ben3304 "There are no morals with out their being a higher being."

That's an unsubstantiated assertion which theists, especially apologists for the Abrahamic religions, like to broadcast as if it were universal law.

Morals are neither infallible nor divine. The bible demonstrates their malleability.

They are characteristic behaviours and agreements exhibited by social creatures, to facilitate the smoother functioning of the group.

That's it.

Their evolutionary function is well documented.

[Projoiner1]

Great video ....thanks for sharing it.

[Terncote]

@ben3304 "He offers not a single argument against the existence of a God except that the concept does not sit well with him."

He doesn't need to, he did that in the previous section.

Here, for those still unmoved from their intellectual torpor, he addresses the claim of christian moral superiority. Not only does he demonstrate the immorality of vicarious redemption he shows it to be a functional impossibility.

This in itself is an argument against the existence of Yaweh. Thus you are wrong.

[ben3304]

@Terncote There are no morals with out their being a higher being. If there is no God then every moral concept we have is simply an opinion of another fallable man. You say killing another person is immoral, but why? If you think it is immoral and I don't who is right? For the concept of morals to work there has to be a higher metaphysical meaning set in figurative stone by something or someone that cannot be wrong.

[dudesonman4200]

@ben3304

You touched on the essence of theism's invalidity. Neitzsche once said, "There is no right and wrong, only thinking makes it so." Atheism's proposition is that murder is wrong because we, as humans, say it is. We come to that conclusion through the logical understanding that society as a whole would be better off if people didnt kill eachother. That is why we have laws, some of which, luckily, directly contradict the laws of your bible.

[longtail4711]

@ben3304 Why does there have to be a higher being? Why couldn't it simply be a human characteristic as part of being rational, thinking, self-aware beings? If god and religions are man-made, then the morals that are attributed to them are man-made as well and god and sin is simply a primitive fear tactic. Why not have tested, verifiable, and agreed upon reasons to shape moral standards by? The reasons that people have for not killing other people still stand solidly without gods factoring in.

[ben3304]

@longtail4711 Ok lets assume for arguments sake that there is no God. A man marries 14 child brides none of whom are over 15 in whereveristan. I consider this repugnant and most Americans and Europeans would agree. So this is now considered wrong, but the shiek does not and it is encouraged in his society. How would you convince that shiek that what he is doing is immoral without ultimately saying "Because i think it is wrong"? At which point he will say "I dont". Who is quantitatively right?

[Superslemmet]

@ben3304 Why should you be ethical, even if there is a God? For the consequences of course. The idea behind ethical behaviour is that it benefits you and those around you, either in the now, or after death if you so choose to see it.

It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, the entire idea of morality makes no sense if you are not talking about consequences.

So, does society, and all those poor girls, benefit from the shiek marrying (and presumably raping) them at a low age?

[longtail4711]

@ben3304 Good question. I would start by amassing as much information as I could on the effects of marrying girls too early. Psychiatric reports, accounts of former child brides, statistics, medical reports, clinical study results, etc. I would present these to the shiek and to the public. If the shiek is an intelligent and compassionate man but uneducated, he would conclude that what he was doing was harmful from the information presented before him.

[ben3304]

"No more cookies for you"? Only moron argues with a moron. Suprisingly your stupidity has created a black hole of ignorance that has reached across the internet and temporarily (I hope) has lowered my IQ because I have argued with you. I yield the Youtube floor to your vast intelligence and let it hereafter be known that the tower of intellect that is "Dopamean" has revoked my internet cookies.

[ben3304]

Yes a coward would read something "Christianity is false and immoral." I am sure that calling people names is considered and intelligent argument where you come from. Here is a clue- let off the Xbox Live philosophical discussions, put the bong down and try to think through the haze and put together some sort of intelligible argument. You are certainly a convincing argument against Intelligent design.

[VvDOPAMEANvV]

@ben3304 Yes, because all I did was call you names? You've missed it again.

Unimpressive and fully expected. No more cookies for you.

[alltiedup217]

@ben3304 so calling the nazi's immoral would be nothing more than name calling and render the FACT that they are immoral invalid? Much of the bible is immoral FACT if you want proof read it.

[ben3304]

He offers not a single argument against the existence of a God except that the concept does not sit well with him.

[VvDOPAMEANvV]

@ben3304 No, he said specifically that Christianity pursues anthropomorphic goals of nonsense in the form of everlasting life and ultimate forgiveness. How silly is that?

And bear in mind, it is not Hitchen's responsibility to argue against the existence of a God. Furthermore, you don't even know what the debate is about. The uploader linked the full debate.

How does it feel to be a fucking moron?

[ben3304]

@VvDOPAMEANvV roid rage much?

[VvDOPAMEANvV]

@ben3304 Wow, you sure showed me didn't you? I'll take "roid rage" and anything else you can throw at me over being as dumb as you. How about do something truly impressive, something that would floor me?

Watch the full debate, but you won't do it. You're afraid of what you might hear. Coward.

[MrMymanalishi]

We have been a slave to these imbecilic religons, for too long,lets give love and reason a chance.

[porrsmurfen]

The person booing at 12:52 either sat with his eyes closed and fingers in his ears during the entire speech, or is severely mentally impaired.

[skywize]

I do have only one correction, though I think the rest was dead on. Monotheistic religions shame you for sex. Polytheism, as I recall never did. I can only vouch for Wicca, but as I recall, both Greek and Egyptian mythology had no issues with sex whatsoever. To my knowledge, however, every monotheistic religion shames you for it.

[RisqueRooster]

wow that final point he made about heaven waiting 98,000 years to do anything was just fantastic! Ive never even thought about bringing up that point in an argument but thats pretty much a game ender.

[squareatheist]

Vintage Christopher Hitchens at his best. I love his ornate, English speaking style.

[shakeval]

worshipers of Aphrodite or Venus don't worry about their sexuality

[JeffreyGodwin]

He pulls no punches. He says the things I would love to say, but lack the moral courage.

[euroman32589]

brill as per usual hitch. you changed my life in 2008..the first time i heard you speak...tnks to you tube too.....

[Kalevala87]

A giant among men. That's all there is to say about Christopher Hitchens.

[xephyr1000]

Hitchens is a very logical and eloquent speaker. Demonstrating the stupidity of Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

[statewithinastateuk]

Christopher now hides the fact that he is Marxist. this heinous faith is more evil and has killed more people than any religion.

[Kalevala87]

@statewithinastateuk You just had nothing to say but you thought you'd make a twat of yourself and comment on this video anyway, didn't you?

[TheJonnyEnglish]

@Bravens92 Lol because god created youtube? I believe thousands of years of research by man lead to this website. Go back to school kid

[TAXEXEMPTION]

@archampmangcmg

great job on missing the point sir. my point was, i have no more evidence for or against myself being jesus as christianity and christians have for the existence of a man named jesus christ in the first place. -1 for humanity.

[davisgreen2020]

It is such as shame that such a brilliant mind was not smart enough not to smoke..Dying of cancer..Such a waste!!! I will miss Mr.Hitchen!!

[trooperJac]

Bravo

[TAXEXEMPTION]

what if i told you i was jesus? what evidence have you that disproves me?

[archapmangcmg]

@TAXEXEMPTION The rational default position is to reject your claim unless you provide sufficient supporting evidence.

You have to provide evidence in favour before anyone has to provide a shred of evidence against. This applies to all positive claims.

[TheJonnyEnglish]

@TAXEXEMPTION What evidence would you have to prove yourself to be jesus? We could go around in circles. I have one though, he died thousands of years ago as a mortal man. it is impossible for you to be jesus. Unless, of course, your parents decided to name you that.

[Cenamark2]

@TheJonnyEnglish Shaq is God. First there was nothing, but then Shaq slammed dunked a basketball so hard it caused the Big Bang.

[M0j0S0D0pe420]

5 dislikes are supporters of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann

lolol

[K01101993]

Christopher Hitchens is born just anti-Christ..., you misused your knowledge...

May God change your mind there is God..

[Karoke77]

@K01101993 Are you anti-volcano God? @_@

[bagassa]

do y'all think there is such a thing as OVER RATIONALIZING? There is a reason why you keep stirring this 'so logical notion' over and over in your head.. because you walk by Faith also, believe it or not.

[bagassa]

do y'all think there is such a thing as OVER RATIONALIZING?

[heesakkersj]

its always interesting to hear what you supposedly believe from somebody else. in all honesty, i really think hitchens doesn't understand or want to understand christianity. as a curious person, i still have to wonder what is christianity? who was jesus? c.s lewis says somewhere that christianity is not the conclusion of a debate about the universe, it is one of the awkward facts that we have to fit into any system we make. i mean its an interesting point of view but engage with the history pls

[EvolBob1]

@heesakkersj

What a load of dribble...

[Lunchbert]

I hate it because he says great and awesome things on theology but at the same time he was a fucking shill for the Iraq war

I literally dont know how to feel about it

[bdwilson1000]

@Lunchbert

Nobody is perfect. 

[Lunchbert]

@bdwilson1000 true, true

[bkim9289]

@Lunchbert Its not really his fault. The usa was waiting for an attack to happen. And when it did the gov wanted to invade with full force and any propaganda you can name. It really sickening how this government works. Its not for the protection of the people but self interest.

[Eye4Fail]

@Lunchbert I've also struggled with this, but he's considering the "freeing tons of people from an insane regime" rather than the reasons they went in there in the first place, which was shady business.

[inademv]

@Lunchbert Do you know why he was in favor of the Iraq war? His position in favor of it can be summed up easily in one sentence.

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

@Lunchbert

First and foremost, he supported the struggle of the Kurds.

[chipleeiii]

@Lunchbert , he was right about both. 

[Rarae192]

@Lunchbert The Iraq war was a tough call. It could have been a meaningful enterprise (remember, it was called "Iraqi Freedom"), but it turned into a genocide. I haven't paid serious attention to Hitch's views on Iraq, but even though I despise the the war effort of the government and military, if it had have been done properly, I believe it is something that needed to be done. As it stands now, I ask myself: half a million dead under Saddam, or a million dead under Bush?

[casperguylkn]

To the rational thinker, all of this makes perfect sense. God is imaginary.

[Karoke77]

If a Christian can watch this and remain a Christian.........well, I guess they are mentally ill.

[K01101993]

@Karoke77 May God change your mind to be Christian,,,you don't know how much Jesus loves you how much you are sinned....

[Karoke77]

@K01101993 There is no God. Grow up.

[dattebenforcer]

@Karoke77 or they cover their ears and yell 'blasphemy!!' lol, those i know do that. and they also get mad at you for bringing up the subject :(

[deathman1021]

@Karoke77 the same could be said for reading the bible, thats why so few do, in fact reading anything other than the parts the priest tells them to is highly discouraged, thats why origianlly it was all in latin, so no one would understand it

[Pitfytr]

Haaaaa...making an argument against a Pokefuckingmonfan! You guys are hilarious.....lol!

[GoldeneyePwner]

Intellectual annihilation; it's what Hitchens does very well.

[oihhow]

Hitchens is not even a philosopher, and does not have a good grip on philosophy and/or theology. What he's saying here is of course a rational critique against the beliefs he points out, but not against Christianity in general, or religion in general. Because religion, like all theories on the supernatural, is completely subjective and inherently irrational; and therefore, no rational conclusions on it can be made. He also seems to lack a good understanding of human nature and conditioning.

[PrinceWalter]

For our purposes, the order of Scientific Classification is as follows:

1. Kingdom

2. Phylum

3. Class

FACT: Every "oph" listed in Leviticus 11:13-19 is a member of the PHYLUM: CHORDATA.

FACT: The first group of "oph" listed in Leviticus 11:13-19-- is a member of the CLASS: REPTILIA. (Birds.)

FACT: The very last "oph" listed in Leviticus 11:19-- is a member of the CLASS: MAMMALIA. "the bat"

FACT: Birds are not members of the CLASS: MAMMALIA.

CONCLUSION = "the bat" is not a bird.

[PrinceWalter]

Question: if Leviticus is unreliable as a taxonomic source, then from the text of Leviticus 11:13-19, and the Scientific Classification System:

1. Logically CONCLUDE that "the bat" IS a bird.

2. Or INVALIDATE the Scientific Classification System.

My function is to probe for biological infestations, to destroy that which is not perfect...

[ThePokemonfan365]

I have a quick question that I would like to throw out there:

Is it moral to attack someones faith just because they don't have the same views?

[bdwilson1000]

@ThePokemonfan365

If it were "just because" the views were different, possibly not..but I think Hitch has given a few other reasons why magical thinking is worth attacking in his other speeches. He believes religion is false, harmful, divisive, and a hindrance to human progress. Those are darn good reasons to speak against it.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@bdwilson1000 - As long as he doesn't tell people that he will kill them for believing in something different, I'm okay with his views.

[Floweringlotus]

@bdwilson1000 Don't forget its also a direct threat to survival of civilization :/

[doggo5000]

@ThePokemonfan365 Yes, challenging beliefs is certainly not immoral. What is immoral is trying to force your views onto others and stunt scientific progress (e.g. stem cell research)

[ThePokemonfan365]

@doggo5000 - Speaking of your example, "stem cell research" is one of the things I would disagree on for being moral (at least according to my beliefs).

[doggo5000]

@ThePokemonfan365

Challenging beliefs is certainly not immoral. What is immoral is trying to force your views onto others and stunt scientific progress (e.g. stem cell research)

[Sigrhofundr]

@ThePokemonfan365 The greatest lie ever told is that faith is a virtue; the religious call delusion 'faith' and claim it to be so; the more deluded you are, the more pious you are.

It would certainly be immoral to see so many caught up in this dangerous delusion and not speak out against it.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@Sigrhofundr - Religion aside, I would like to mention something about you mentioning that faith is not a virtue. I'm sure that there are some people in the world that might missinterprite that into "you should not have faith in others."

Please make sure you are specific about that for future reference.

[village1diot]

@ThePokemonfan365 If there was an actual "attack" on someone's beliefs, then I missed it. Pointing out the failure of religion is not an "attack" on religion. It's just easier for you to accuse him of "attacking beliefs" than it is to reconcile the problems within said belief.

[LogicSpeaks]

@ThePokemonfan365 Yes, it is very moral to attack beliefs that have absolutely zero evidence for them, and thats especially if these beliefs are forced on my children, my family, and on me (which they always are; it is of course what the religious are told to do as a good Christian). Faith in ideology+doctrine is extremely irrational, and anyone claiming to know certain things they have no possible ability to know is immoral and deserve to be attacked, insulted, and discredited.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@LogicSpeaks - I don't mean to disrespect any of what you say, but I think you are forgetting one key think:

Credibility.

[LogicSpeaks]

@ThePokemonfan365 Well... that is a shorter way of putting it ;)

[ThePokemonfan365]

@LogicSpeaks - IT's funny how a single word can help so much, wouldn't you agree?

[LogicSpeaks]

@ThePokemonfan365 haha, definitely - language is a wonderful thing!

[ThePokemonfan365]

@LogicSpeaks - I think that it is something that many people take for granted.

[ciaochowbella]

@ThePokemonfan365 It depends on the tenets of the faith.

This is not about mere disagreement. It's about faiths that condone and endorse misogyny, child abuse, slavery, xenophobia, ignorance and a host of other hideous ideals. If the faith includes those tenets, it is utterly moral and right to not only attack those faiths, but revile and ridicule them at every opportunity.

If a person's faith doesn't cause people to harm others, then there is no reason to attack it.

[nosajj12345]

@ThePokemonfan365 "is it moral to attack somoenes faith just because they don't have the same views?"

Is it immoral for an organized faith to impose archaic, absurd and even harmful tenets on those who want nothing to do with them.

[gigamabyte]

@ThePokemonfan365 That it is "your" faith does not excuse it from scrutiny and criticism. It is offensive to me that you think you are owed some special consideration just because you believe in something.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@gigamabyte - Even with that said, I am willing to respect our differences if you are willing to do the same.

[AcquiredKnowledge]

@ThePokemonfan365,

"Is it moral to attack someones faith just because they don't have the same views?"

Yes, when someone's faith inherently attacks you.

[barrius1234]

@ThePokemonfan365 hes not attacking, hes simply stating how fucked up the belief is with facts. And I would say its moral to attack a faith that has caused as much destruction as christianity.

[Mercuryvegetable]

@ThePokemonfan365 Yes, it absolutely is. That's the whole point of freedom of speech. The ENTIRE point of freedom of speech. If you live in a country with such democratic values, you should be embarrassed that you didn't realize that yourself.

[TheIntolerantAtheist]

@ThePokemonfan365 If it were "just because" of their faith no. But when faith tries to deny the basic civil rights of homosexuals, tries to teach creationism in schools, denies global warming and goes on Fau卍 News to undermine science and Democracy, promotes ignorance and angers people into supporting non-scientific bullshit into schools then we MUST become angry about what religion is doing and fiercely fight back.

[SeerSucker1981]

@ThePokemonfan365 i dont know, sir. Why dont you ask that to your own people, if you should be a christian. The christian crusades, colonization of the americas, the spanish inquisition, the holocaust, the dark ages, etc..not including the persecution of sexuality here in the states, the KKK, mental terrorism of children, abortion clinic bombings...

[DiamandaHagan]

@ThePokemonfan365 no. but attacking someones faith for legitimate reasons should be applauded

[ThePokemonfan365]

@DiamandaHagan - What you said sounds the same as attacking someone because of their skin color for legitimate reasons.

[FrankieSayRelaxxx1]

@ThePokemonfan365 Yeh but people's skin colour doesn't lead them into flying planes into skyscrapers. The connection you made is a false one.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 - I don't see how. You can't blaim every black guy because of what OJ Simpson did, just like you can't judge every Muslim for the stupidity of a single person.

[FrankieSayRelaxxx1]

@ThePokemonfan365 The only problem is, the Qu'ran explicity sanctions the murdering of non muslims. While black skin does not sanction the murdering of non-blacks.

[DarkBunnyLord]

@ThePokemonfan365 That's quite an completely irrelevant tangent you ran off on. Two "black guys" may have completely different interests. A physical quality they did not choose is not even remotely similar to a religious doctrine that makes statements they claim to believe in.

Thus comparing skin color to religion is like comparing the color orange to ones political stance. There's absolutely nothing in common.

[DiamandaHagan]

@ThePokemonfan365 Someone skin colour is neutral to their character. it doesnt matter. someone can have faith in very very bad things. if someone has faith in immoral stuff then that should be attacked. sorry. but faith and skin colour have nothing in common and you're being cowardly or simple minded by trying to connect the two.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@DiamandaHagan - I would accept a reason why bringing up a common issue for both situations make me cowardly. They may be different, but this statement still holds truth for both:

You can't judge people just because their different, or even lumping everyone like the person together. The common issue is people in today's society misjudge everyone else because of the actions of one person.

[DiamandaHagan]

@ThePokemonfan365 No one is calling for people to judge everyone based on one person, or just because their different. We're talking about attacking peoples STATED beliefs, when those stated beliefs can be argued to be unethical. Please limit your argument to whats actually being said.

And theres still no similarity between this and attacking someone for the colour of their skin.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@DiamandaHagan - That's brings up an interesting point, one of Chrisianity's core beliefs is treating people equally. Would you find THAT false and immoral like the video is trying to state about Christianity?

[DiamandaHagan]

@ThePokemonfan365 Treating people equally is a fine standard. Unfortunately Christianity ISNT into that. Re-read the Gospel of Matthew.

Besides Hitchens is attacking particular parts of the Christian faith. you are nakedly trying to deflect rather than counter his argument by trying to make people connect Christianity with this good that you think people wont argue against. Its a pathetic tactic. Please talk about what Hitchens said.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@DiamandaHagan - Have you even spoken to a Christian? Anyone who has any knowledge of the faith can see they promote equality. Besides, Chrisianity has more of the scriptures of the New Testament over the Old Testament, which, in fact, does promote equality.

[DiamandaHagan]

@ThePokemonfan365 I grew up in a Christian country, surrounded by Christians. And unlike you I know that the Gospel of Matthew is in the New Testament. Maybe its you who should learn about Christianity.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@DiamandaHagan - You've heard of "not paying attention", right? Reguardless of what faith someone ism it happens to all of us. I'll admit that I wasn't paying attention, and read your reply too quickly. That doesn't mean I'm uninformed.

[DiamandaHagan]

@ThePokemonfan365 If you're informed then show us all. Destroy Hitchens points.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@DiamandaHagan - I'm beginning to see that the culture of someone has a lot to do with their interpretation of the scriptures.

[DiamandaHagan]

@ThePokemonfan365 what does that have to do with the points Mr Hitchens made in the clip?

[ThePokemonfan365]

@DiamandaHagan - It seems that the area where someone is raised shapes the way they view different things. No one is immune to that effect, not even Mr Hitchens. He must have been raised in an area where people thought Christianity was immoral.

[raverdeath100]

@ThePokemonfan365 have you any idea where Hitchens was born? just wondering because if you did, i think you'd realise the nonsense you've just asserted.

[DiamandaHagan]

@ThePokemonfan365 Iv read his autobiography. He grew up nominally christian in the Church of England. His brother ended up a Christian Fundamentalist. Please address his points and stop trying to ignore them.

[champjklccmk]

@ThePokemonfan365 I suggest you give up now, friend. Christianity's merits were destroyed the moment they connected it to a perfect, almighty creator who can never go wrong.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@champjklccmk - Please answer this question to satisfy my curiosity:

Are you telling me to give up because it's impossible to imagine anything thats perfect?

[saiyanmage]

@ThePokemonfan365

Key word is imagine.

If you can prove it to be true, go for it. Here-in lies the problem... You can't.

[champjklccmk]

@ThePokemonfan365 Absolutely. Perfection is a human concept. Flawed, over-reaching and therefore, impossible. It's biggest drawback is that it depends heavily on an individual's perception on perfection and as you may know, every individual is different.

[ThePokemonfan365]

@champjklccmk - It seems that people are afraid of the unknown, and a perfect entity is about as unknown as it gets.

[champjklccmk]

@ThePokemonfan365 True, humans ARE afraid of the unknown. But just because it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it will...

[reaperdead]

@ThePokemonfan365 oh yes, speaking of your new testament you also realize its the same book that promotes incest, rape, gay affairs, god condoning the masscre of entire towns, etc?

If your only going to look at the things that "help" your argument and then neglect the horrible hate crimes then you are blatantly lying and denying the fact that your religion is utterly fucked.

[DarkBunnyLord]

@ThePokemonfan365 I know that many Christians preach that (few follow it though) however reading the doctrine it ISN'T about treating people equally. It promotes slavery in the old and new testament (not equality) promotes anti-women rights in both the old and new testiment treating them instead as property. Now then there's much more (though admittedly in the old testament). I do not however see how stating that the "new testament does x" is relevant, God calls himself perfect and unchanging.

[SM1135ster]

funny this guy is jewish and never mentions the hillbilly quality of the psycho god the jews came up with, more of a reflection of the primitives that came up with this crap than than any god or goddess. Jesus was love not loving, love- jews didn't get it then and still don't apparently look at the depraved israel which hitchkins supports

[skaseisback]

@SM1135ster oi moron, he says at the start that he only has time to reference christianity

[Sigrhofundr]

Beyond brilliance.

If debating was sport, Hitch just ran a 9 second 100m, a 2 hour marathon, served a perfect love match of tennis, hit every ball pitched at him for a home run or every ball bowled for six.

I'm utterly bewildered as to how any religious person can listen to that and not be deconverted on the spot.

[Clifton100]

@Sigrhofundr Religion is a deeply rooted problem becasue it has been indoctrinated and makes people feel special. People don't want to lose this feeling. I didn't when I first became an atheist, but I found out how special everything is in a short time thereafter. Many people aren't willing to try and open their minds to something in which they think there's something to lose. And I don't think that it's a mystery why older folks are more stubborn than the younger generations.

[jwlbailey]

I would hate to be Dr Mcgrath following that pawnage. :D

[saxmanchiro]

Having a relationship with sky daddy reminds me of an abusive relationship. Sad that in this day and age of knowledge and contradictory evidence to holy book fairytales, we still have people deep into this abusive 'relationship' and the other party never shows it's face, ever. Pretty screwed up.

[saxmanchiro]

Hitch is da man. He is a beacon of reason and logic in a foggy sea of woo.

[Clifton100]

I haven't seen this close-up version before. 

Thank you very much bdwilson1000!

[OxbowisaMstie]

@Clifton100

I think the full debate is on youtube, i may have even playlisted it. If not check the 'tubes' or Apologetics 315. This was an extraordinary debate of high caliber, well worth your time.