@fukkensully Well said, couldn't agree more. Hitchens, a man who lived and died stong in his convictions. Sadly missed by all reasoning people...... that of course excludes the "Abracadabra" theorists.
What a privilege today to have the freedom to watch this wonderful, honest interview. I have not always agreed with "everything" that he has said, I would not have a mind of my own if I did, but I have listened and concurred on enough to add to my repertoire of learning tools to decide on who I am. Thank you Mr Hitchens. I will not forget you.
@ostmagart Like you, I disagreed with Hitch on some stuff - mostly regarding support for interventionism. But I could never accuse him of having not done his homework on a subject, even if he drew a different conclusion. I could RESPECT the difference. Most of all, I had to THINK about the subject at length to work out just how I really felt and why. If nothing else, Hitch had the wonderful, maddening ability to make people think and question. He was a contrarian of the first order.
@m00sheLLe If not all, then most creatures living today on this planet has a survival instinct. One of the best thing about the evolution of the human species is the development of empathy. Not just to fellow human but to almost all species we encounter.It is coming from our brain. Individually, we see the world in our own and put meaning into it. Take the letters of the English alphabet, put it inside a box, shake it and dump the letters on the floor. We will always try to find meaning from it.
@m00sheLLe As atheist I think i can answer for Christopher .Life is far more precious to atheist, its are one and only shot there is no heaven go to after. So thats why he tries to live and deals with the pain instead of taken the easy way out
@m00sheLLe And an additional premise that is important is IF he believes there is no after life, what motivates us to not want to die? That is a premise.Hitchens' premise is there IS no afterlife. The question of what motivates him to live is philosophically and brilliantly logical and reasonable of a question to beckon.
@m00sheLLe As for eternity making life more valuable... think of how you would spend your time in a exotic vacation spot vs. how you would spend it if you were moving there. The fact that the time you are spending on vacation is limited you surely going to make the best of it everyday. But to be in the same place and someone hands you a free ticket to the best vacation spot in the world all expensive paid and you never have to leave... The original place seems kinda lame now. EMBRACE LIFE
@m00sheLLe Why do we pull our hands back from something that's hot? Pain! Not surviving causes pain. The instinct is to stop pain. If you are starving to death you are not driven by you desire to survive your driven by the pain of sever hunger. Every example you can think of boils down to the avoidance of pain which in most cases is a warning of danger of death.
It might be secondary to a desire to avoid pain. Evolutionist have a term for these sorts of traits that develop secondarily to some other primary trait, but I can't think of what it is called. I've heard this said of our appreciation of music -- that it is some sort of offshoot of another evolutionary development. I think it might have been mentioned in the video 'Steven Pinker - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' (youtu.be/yIMReUsxTt4)
@m00sheLLe There is a perfect video that can answer the question I thing you are asking. Please watch the first 5 min of the the video. The question, to me, is like asking "Why do we do anything instead of nothing? " If you clarify I can try and answer. Video: /watch?v=7qX_d4TDmz0
I suspect it is hardwired deep in most creatures' psyche, at least, most that are of a higher order. Have you ever seen a zebra stand still while a lion attacks it? Not likely. Typically, we all want to survive. Even Christians who can't wait to sit by the side of God don't usually want to speed the process of death up any more than anyone else.
@m00sheLLe The point is we cherish the one life we have and not (like you imply) treat our time alive as just a place to wipe out feet until we move on to (as you think) a eternity in heaven. I as you, why take any preventive measures (medication, seat belts, any caution etc.) when the best time is in the afterlife? If gods plan is unchangeable then what will happen will happen right? READ YOUR COMMENTS BEFORE POSTING SUCH GARBAGE?
@HighPoweredLasers I disagree. There was NO "religious" presupposition or predisposition in m00sheLLe's comment. It was a deeply philosophical question with a true premise. Even you agreed that you feel there is something we value about living. The question was: WHY are we fixated on not dying? The question wasn't: Why doesn't Hitchens' desire to live reveal to him that God exists? Read YOUR comments before you POST IGNORANT, PHILOSOPHICALLY ARROGANT GARBAGE ;)
@HighPoweredLasersGod exists , our time here is to prepare us for eternity .Hitchens is doing everything he can to stay alive because he is terrified .His own false atheism offers him nothing , not even peace ..he is now realising that ever word he has ever spoken in his life has been absolute garbage ..absolute filth and could have been spoken by Satan..the demon who is waiting for him and for you ..whether you believe it or not
@HighPoweredLasers well, he is just asking a general question, I guess hte point here is not to offend anyone, but share a common doubt. why do u call it garbage
In fact I picked up Das Capital and my girlfriend said it looked like a heavy read. It probably is, but I replied "If you can work your way through a Hitchens sentence, everything else is lemon squeezy."
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Hitch but Hitch-22 - as Bastiat90 points out - is a massive wall of words. I don't mind this per se, but I do have a problem when it's employed for effect, or when it could be simplified greatly (as is true of most of its pages). It's making me go off the book. There are some brilliant memoirs, but every now and again I hit upon the brakes of a section that just stops everything. It's a shame, but his orations are much better.
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Hitch but Hitch-22 - as @Bastiat90 points out - is a massive wall of words. I don't mind this per se, but I do have a problem when it's employed for effect, or when it could be simplified greatly (as is true of most of its pages). It's making me go off the book. There are some brilliant memoirs, but every now and again I hit upon the brakes of a section that just stops everything. It's a shame, but his orations are much better.
Christopher Hitchens would be more bearable were his orations more compact. He tends to ramble on. His autobiography for example is reveals a mania, almost lust, for quotation. He seems desperate to prove his own intelligence. He is an intelligent man but he's far too in love with the sound of his own voice to practice a little modesty, and his tendency to resort to ad hominem attacks on those who oppose the foreign adventures in the Middle East is rather unfortunate.
@Bastiat90 Well thats the problem with most people. Once we hit a certain age we think we know it all and don't want to hear something that conflicts with our point of views. I love hitchens position on religion but think he's insane when it comes to the middle east. It seems no matter what everyone has some type of biased drilled in their head. But I think its obvious he loves the sound of his voice haha
While Christopher might be outlived by Kissinger and Benedict his spirit will endure longer than those douche-bags. If he didn't manage to touch anyone else he has empowered my ideas. The party will go on without you but it is possible it won't be as much fun.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@Recordbhoy Which god do you believe in? There are thousands. Hundreds of religions...new ones popping up all the time...and all of them have no facts to back them up. Most religions are plagerised. Hitchens makes religious people laugh at their own religious beliefs...that why hes so funny. If I were jesus I would take a crap and make all my devoted followers eat the corn from my shit.... fuck this water into wine bit! I need to shit...now where did I leave that bible?
@moonshineinsummer1 The only one God ..I don't care if there were a thousand " religions" ( there isn't of course , there's just one ) .Hitchens' isn't laughing at anyone right now , in fact Hitchens' will soon be weeping for eternity ( as will you ) ..You're an arsehoile , just like Hitchens , now run along
@Recordbhoy Don't worry, once hes gone we will still all be here to laugh at dumb muthafuckers like you. In fact you're last post did just that for me. One mans death is not the end of the war on stupidity, its just empowers us all. There will be 100 more to step up in his place, the ball is already rolling downhill and its only a matter of time. Just give it another 500 years or so, religion will be toast like it never even existed in the first place, just like you...
@pac6010 You won't be laughing anywhere you scum sucking prick .Hitchens & Dawkins et all will be in hell in 500 years ..as will you . God will never die in men's hearts because God is eternal , like his truth ...In 500 years , this world will be toast , all the good people of today will be in paradise , hell will be populated by filth like you and God will still reign over the earth he created
@Recordbhoy hahaha, see my point, its just fucking comedy how little sense you make. You cant even put forth an argument other than "my imaginary friend is gonna get ya" Why dont you go get laid, or try to leave you're mothers basement and get a life. This is truly pathetic to see you post things.
@xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx But you don't believe in Christianity right ? except of course when you need to throw it in someone's face ..you fuckin' hypocrite
sorry for misspelling "hypocrites", i have better things to do than worry about proper grammar, i do believe in Christianity, it does exist... but as for believing in God... nahh
@moonshineinsummer1 Hitchens will die and be damned to hell . I've never seen him laugh ever , and he will never laugh for eternity once gone ( and neither will you ) .." religion" can never die but in fact will be reborn with more vigour than ever as these are the end times and God will return to rule his people very soon ( you won't know this as you will be in hell ) ..The internet ( Satan's best tool ) will be destroyed as the vile evil tool that it is ..good riddance to it ,and to you
@Recordbhoy If you haven't seen Hitchens ever laughed you clearly dont know or seen any videos of the man. And if your God does come he will save us, there is no hell. get your fake facts right.
@procommenter No but we are consciousness and everything is an illusion otherwise. So, the universe, science, and all the brilliance that we think we can acheive is rather meaningless and egotistical. Love (lower entropy) is our goal.
ok I have volunteered some thoughts but I will ignore anyone who wants to fight in an uncivil way. I will simply say your right and move on. These ideas are here for those who want to consider them and wants to agree or disagree in part or in whole civilly. Hopefully cordially. Because again I am bringing them up as a discussion not as a gotcha. And honestly I hate to see Hitchens the man sick with Incurable cancer. his person, his active consciousness and his point of view will be missed
And I am not anti-athiest, I am simply anti any movement that wants to make others ashamed for holding points of view based on some facts but also some intuitions when to be quite frank. No one knows what comes after from a stand point of having empirical or logical evidence that does anything more than imply possibilities. So in my book the believers and the Atheists are equal footing. As to the bad things being done in the name of religion, I think we have to look at man not the pretexts.
And notice i did not say Christian though clearly in the beginning those were the dominant influencing faiths. I also do not claim that US and yank hospitality and pragmatic Optimisim came soley from religious influences, but another area that is also in decline is the value of philosophic education and understanding which were two areas that were evident in all of the American founders. It was the founders guiding wisdom has allowed for the time of great social exploration Including the 60s.
And notice i did not say Christian though clearly in the beginning those were the dominant influencing faiths. I also do not claim that US and yank hospitality and pragmatic Optimisim came soley from religious influences, but another area that is also in decline is the value of philosophic education and understanding which were two areas that were evident in all of the American founders. And whose guiding wisdom has allowed for the time of great social exploration. Including the 60s.
But back to Hitchens, I understand and in large measure agree with his hostility to Organized power grabbing religion. but I am sorry that he cannot see that is the very religious values of protestants that supported the right of every man to worship or not worship as he pleased because of the belief of the sacred rights of the individual which did in fact come from religious beliefs. In short in part one its fascinating that he bemoans the loss of things attached to a faithful society.
It is the boon of the culture that it is the youth that are perpetually new and biologically vital and amazingly innocent of history and experience. I mean the arrogance that even during the period of the Greek philosopher state, or the enlightenment that a generation thought oh no one has ever thought about trying just love and collective communities enormously arrogant and as a result they often get harsh education, but the also learn new things and try old yearnings in new contexts as well.
I am not in any way trying to bash the great changes in that era, but if we are honest there was a lot of really awful selfish debauchery that took place as well. I think that is why there are so many as Hitchens call them, Self loathing boomers. All revolutions of ideology that act as if they have THE simple answer, like flower power, turn on, tune in, drop out were grossly over simplifying the difficulties of life and were doomed to hit some hard lessons in failure. but they meant well.
On part one -- I find it so ironic and very poignant that what it is that he liked about America were largely part of Christian or not the American Frontier Flavored Judeo-Christian hospitality culture. That kind of sincere warmth has faded as does the effects of the 60s liberation which clearly was a positive time of change in many ways, was also the grounds for a number of disillusioned generations that was not taught nor do they believe in simple good will as part of a belief system.
if an atheist debated with a religious person that had 110 IQ and believed in facts he would be an atheist after 2 minutes of the debate.. if you are a religious person ask your self; "why am i a christian/muslim etc, and not a jew or buddhist? or the other way around? there is no good answer, because every religion concists of diffrent lies and undermining of truth. sorry for some poor english, but its not my first language.
A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
As the late great Carl Sagan said, "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology". Educate yourself before you blather on.
Yesterday a law passed in my country (Israel) which basically out-laws freedom of speech against ideological-jewish settlements outside the '67 borders. Boycotting these settlements is now punishable by imprisonment and hefty fines. THIS IS WHAT RELIGION DOES. It destroys harmony, it destroys thought, it poisons EVERYTHING.
The function of hydrogen working inside of us shows us that God is much greater than people first thought. The entire universe made of hydrogen and derivatives has a Maker great enough to stretch out the entire universe with the same working element that makes possible our existence.
@JungleJargon you are full of shit, and your arguments are full of shit. the same principle that has filled the universe with hydrogen has also filled you with shit - meaningless and fear. fuck you and fuck all you religious retards. you are a waste of skin.
@liadsman Hydrogen does make our existence possible. In fact, most of the most common elements are essential working parts inside of us. Hydrogen ions run motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP so we can live. It's true. That shows us that hydrogen has a Maker of the function that it has inside of us because no lesser functions exist without having a maker. Evolution cannot make any of the lesser functions and most certainly cannot make any of the greater functions.
@JungleJargon you can use phrases like "in fact", "it's true" and so on all you want. You can even write down hard facts. That still doesn't make your argument smart. It's dumb. No matter how you put it, no matter how you twist it, no matter how much you believe it - unless the motherfucker comes down here and pulls off some decent magic tricks, YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD! Just like you can't DISPROVE it. The existence of a god is the weakest, most un-provable argument of all times. Grow the FUCK up.
We would be very naive to think that we will never have to face our Maker.
The function of most of the most common elements as ordered requires having a Maker and life forms only function when ordered by a preexisting written word.
I just proved the existence of a Maker who is greater than the entire universe that He stretched out with great function.
I suppose it would be asking too much to show me a lesser function that does not have a maker.
Boring. There is no issue. The intellectual level of your arguments is beneath my concerns and what you refer to as "proof" I could easily refer to as "none-sense" in the most literal meaning of the phrase. "I just proved" - brother please... you proved nothing. Do some homework, read some books, practice your rhetoric skills and ability to form a sane, logical, step-by-step argument. Maybe then we could actually discuss something but for the time being I see no reason.
@JungleJargon how have you proven anything? Explain your reasoning, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and your camp has thus put forth the most fantastic explanations without providing one iota of evidence.
@mrjohnson2289 I proved we have a Maker because the very function of most of the most common elements inside of us requires having a Maker. The function is the evidence of a Maker.
You failed to show us any lesser functions that do not have a maker. If all lesser functions have a maker than the much greater functions have a Maker too. It is a preexisting written word that orders our existence.
The elements obey the preexisting word that order us. The Maker of the word knew about the function.
@JungleJargon why does the function of elements inside of us require a maker? The elements are not a function of us, we are a function of the elements. We are a byproduct of math, a small probability which occurred. You are postulating that nature is formed to suit us, when in fact we are formed to suit nature, as evolution has proven. The universe is not required to conform to human ambition, sorry to bust your bubble. But people who capitalize "maker" are ignorant of these basic natural laws.
@mrjohnson2289 You are extremely naive to think that the function that hydrogen has inside of us does not need a Maker. Hydrogen ions run motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP molecules so that we can live.
No other lesser function of any kind ever existed without having a maker. What makes you think that greater functions do not have a Maker?
The elements have to function before they can obey preexisting orders.
@JungleJargon how so? Using the argument from irreducible complexity also relies on knowledge of the modern day, which is to say that 500 years ago your kind would have presented the same argument but using the mysteries of our solar system as "evidence". Just because we do not know every single explanation for every single facet of nature, doesn't prove god. 500 years ago god's role was large, because our knowledge of science was small, and 500 years from now god's role will just be a memory.
@JungleJargon It is YOU who is extremely naive to believe that just because YOU don't understand something the only logical conclusion is that it isn't understandable and god made it. If the world were run by idiots like you, we wouldn't get anywhere. Fortunately, science is championed by intelligent people, whereas religion the opposite, so it isn't difficult to maneuver around your "evidence" and get on with keeping the world running. Read the God Delusion, educate yourself.
@mrjohnson2289 Your world view (your belief) is getting the best of you. It's because I do understand that the elements obey a preexisting word written in and with the function the elements have that I can see there is a Maker of all of the function that most of the most common elements have working inside of us. Intelligent people know that the function of the elements requires having a Maker. You aren't even able to explain what it is you believe in your own words giving credit to objects.
Elements don't obey any words. never saw any written words inside the elements. where the fuck is your evidence for a maker?
you are just doing circular reasoning. by your logic: you write stupid shit you are moronic and you are moronic because stupid shit is written by you. right?
over 90% of the national academy of sciences (intelligent people) are atheists. therefore they claim that no function in nature requires a maker.
@JungleJargon you are making no sense, and our words are obviously having no effect on you, so I'm casting you off as a lost cause. 93% of all Nobel Laureates are atheists, meaning the most intelligent people in our world do not believe in a god.
@mrjohnson2289 Dude, think about it, the guys who hand out the nobel prizes ARE atheists themselves, so of course they are not going to give a nobel prize to someone who disagrees with their world view. Please try and think about these things before making silly comments.
@Darsaan you could do well to use your own advice. Nobel prizes aren't handed out to atheists, they are handed out to people who provide this world with important improvements/world changing discoveries. The only people capable of providing these improvements/discoveries are intelligent people. Intelligent people tend to be skeptics, and the first thing a skeptic questions is religion. Therefore, Nobel prizes winners(intelligent people) are atheists. Logic, use it.
@mrjohnson2289 Yeah, but think about it mate, the only scientist these atheists are going to consider giving the prize to are other atheists. Sure there are plenty of Christian scientists who are making valuable contributions to science, but they aren't know in the community. Know why? Because secular scientist don't want people like you and me to know that there are other people of an equal or better intellectual footing to them who think differently.
@Darsaan I have thought about it, but apparently you still haven't. Science doesn't have a religion, science doesn't have a bias, the Nobel prize is awarded on merit of scientific value, not allegiance to any faith camp. There are absolutely brilliant Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., scientists who make invaluable contributions to the world of science, there are just more atheist ones. There ARE more atheist ones because science (logic, reason) doesn't jive with religion.
@mrjohnson2289 a few more points... if u want to talk about intelligent scientists who are atheists to support your argument (an appeal to authority fallacy btw), here are some examples of famous Christian scientists for u: Isaac Newton (considered even by most atheist scientists to be the greatest scientist and mathematician that ever lived, Galileo, Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon (who developed the scientific method we use today), Luis Pasteur, Blaise Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Sir Robert Boyle etc.
@Darsaan Galileo was absolutely NOT a theist, and by providing that incredible flawed insight, as well as repeating your little authority fallacy phrase, it appears to me you have read some book and are eschewing its flawed contents verbatim. Galileo was threatened with death for his book on heliocentrism by the church, as was Copernicus. The only reason any of those same-era thinkers were "religious" was to appease the church, which dominated all aspects of life. You really need to read son.
@mrjohnson2289 To further my explanation, look no further than aristotle and plato. They taught the geocentric view of the universe (that all the planets of our solar system orbit the earth). These were brilliant thinkers, yet they were completely wrong, as Christians such as Copernicus and Galileo would go on to prove. And just look at how many people subscribed to Artistotle and Plato's views! It wasn't until recently (after the Reformation) that the heliocentric view became widely accepted.
@Darsaan And I would also state in regards to your Plato and Aristotle comment, that the Church widely fueled support for the geocentric model, as it seemed to reinforce our FALLACY of a human oriented universe, in which humans are the whole "point". Galileo and Copernicus, once again, were condemned by the church for their heliocentric models, with Copernicus' work being released after his death. I concede that these men were religious, but I don't concede that they truly believed.
@Darsaan continued....these men were stuck in a time of absolute religious domination, where religion controlled nearly all aspects of life. Today, most scientists and philosophers are atheist/agnostic, so I would argue that if galileo and copernicus popped up in modern times, where it's not ILLEGAL to be an atheist, they would most assuredly reject scripture. But that is conjecture of course. And I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing for, so like I said, can you please state your beliefs?
@mrjohnson2289 First of all i would like apologize for the insulting comments i made earlier, and sincerely hope that u will forgive me :). What do i believe? I believe that in the beginning there was God, that the Man He made sinned, and in His lovingkindness God decided to punish us. But hope was not lost, because God made a promise that He would one day send His only Son, to come to earth and live amongst us, and die on a cross to save us from our sins, so we could have eternal life with God
@mrjohnson2289 I can understand why you would call this blind faith, it is in a way: to blindly believe in a supernatural power withot empirical "evidance" of there being one. I myself that there can be any argument (scientifically speaking) for or against a God. Science is not to do with God, it is something He created. My problem with science is this: origins. Thats what it all boils down to: which religion can explain how we got here.
@Darsaan continued... Science has proven it can't explain this (the best atheist cosmologists and astronomers can say is that the universe can from a piece of matter the size of a pea, which breaks the first and second laws of thermodynamics). Secondly, wouldn't biological evolution require the simultaneous evolution of all the different vital organs of an animal for that animal to survive long enough to reproduce and continually evolve (hope u understand what i mean by this)
@Darsaan continued ..... Thirdly, how can science explain the concious, why do we feel that something is wrong or right if there is no right or wrong? I've heard Freud and Dawkin's arguments for this before but both r completely unconvincing. I'm not trying to say i have no faith in science. Certainly not, I think very highly of science (and am a student in engineering, so I get to do all sorts of fun stuff with physics).
@Darsaan The problem is the more i learn of science the more I see that there is so much we don't know. We don't even know what electricity is; i know that science says that it is a form of energy and can describe the way it flows and rate it flows at through different mediums, but how do we define this amazing, mysterious energy? Quantum physics is so complex, it was said by Richard Dawkins "if you thing you understand the quantum theory, you don't understand the Quantum theory".
@Darsaan I'm not trying to say that the lack of answers in science proves the existance of God, no, that would be a fallacy indeed. What I'm saying is that while science is a powerful tool, even we do not fully understand it and i do not believe we ever will. Converesely, just because there is no evidence "scientificall speaking" that there is no God, that does not mean He does not exist.
@Darsaan So why do i believe in God? While i have problems with the atheistsevolutiary hypothesis, and the numerous questions science can't currently answer, these are not the reasons that i believe in God. Simply put, I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me and convicted me of the truth. Sound like the ravings of a madman? I'll leave that for you to decide. This debate has been interesting and I take the chance again to apologize for the things i said. I will be praying for you :)
@Darsaan "which religion can explain how we got here." It depends on what you mean by 'explain'. Anybody can come up with a story describing how we got here, as we humans have been doing for thousands of years. But just because somebody comes up with a story does not mean that that explains anything. "God did it" explains nothing more than "We don't know".
@mrjohnson2289 Robert Hooke, Johannes Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, the list goes on and on. Any one of these men mentioned were far greater thinkers than any of todays scientists, whether Christian or atheist. But if you think that science (without observation or proof) can explain the universe's origins, please by all means go ahead. Answer this question and I'll be impressed: Where did our universe come from?
@Darsaan How can religion (without observation or proof) explain ANYTHING about our universe? You're using the ass-backwards assumption of "we don't understand this, therefore it isn't understandable." But science and discovery takes time. 500 years ago your kind were using the mysteries of the mechanisms that control the orbit of the planets as proof of god. Now we understand gravity. Just because science can't explain something NOW doesn't mean it can't at some point and by all reason will.
@mrjohnson2289 So you see from the quote i gave you earlier from the ATHEIST professor, saying that science can disprove the existance of the supernatural is a dumb thing to say. Science can no more prove that God exists than it can prove I was just thinking of eating some chicken. Oh, and by the way, I'm not your son :).
@Darsaan And yes, there IS an answer to the existence of a god/gods. It is a very slim chance of being true, but the information exists in the universe to answer this question. Just because we can conceive of a question, it doesn't prove the question's subject to be feasible. Science can't prove you were thinking about chicken; yet. See the thing is I'm open to these things, there is just no reason to believe in it without some sort of proof. If god reveals himself then I'm on board.
@mrjohnson2289 As to your Galileo comment, . i see your once again using patent atheist dishonesty again, Galileo was indeed persecuted by the CATHOLIC church (not protestant) but he was mainly protestant in his theology, but certainly not atheist.This is an exert from a letter he wrote in 1615 "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood".
@Darsaan And you are absolutely using appeal to authority fallacy incorrectly. If scientists aren't experts in their fields, who is? An authority fallacy would indicate that the person being appealed to is exhibiting false pretenses. If anything, religious leaders are the ones who should be accused of this, as they have no empirical evidence to substantiate their claims. Therefore your argument sucks, and you're using points which work against you. Again, educate yourself son.
@mrjohnson2289 Oh no, you're showing your ignorance again! It seems my fate to correct you, let me explain: an appeal to authority fallacy is not a situation where the person being appealed to is exhibiting false pretenses, no no no, an appeal to authority fallacy is the fallacy of appealing to authority (ie- noble laureates, intelligent people etc;) to support your argument. Just because someone (or a large group) is "intelligent" does not mean that they are always right
@Darsaan I absolutely and unequivocally understand appeal to authority fallacy, the difference between Plato and Aristotle, and contemporaries such as Hawking and Sagan, is that we have proven the heliocentric model, we have proven the existence of atoms, we have proven the speed of light, it's refraction due to gravity, its constancy and it's utterly strange behavior on the quantum level. You can't have a fallacy when appealing to something PROVEN. The fallacy lies in religion.
@Darsaan It really gets on my nerves when religous nuts such as yourself ask " well how was the universe created? " knowing full well no one can ever know for sure, but there has been a lot of speculation and there are a few different theories floating about, look them up and have a read. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean an all-powerful being created it. There is no God. Fact.
@bennyboyjones It's called the "god of the gaps"... and it slows down progress! People get to a point where they THINK we'll never be able to explain it so they write it off as "oh god did it' FUCKING BULLSHIT!
@Recordbhoy I wipe my arse with the bible. You're obviously a troll, but you're not very good at it yet. Try not to be so inflammatory in future and your trolling will improve greatly. Cunt.
@Darsaan To give you an example, look no further than David Coppedge. He was a Christian scientist working with NASA's jet propulsion laboratory, and was fired for his religious views. Don't believe me? Google it. This is just the sort of treatment Christians can expect from atheists, which is sad. Doesn't sound very rational or fair to me, firing someone for their beliefs. But this is what you can expect from people who are neither reasonable, rational, or fair.
@mrjohnson2289 You obviously can't see what I'm saying, but I understand why and pity you. As for your "Therefore, Noble prizes winners (intelligent people) are atheists", please, can't you do better than that? Thats not logic, its a pitiful example of the appeal to authority fallacy. You make the assumption that the only people who are intelligent are atheists because the only scientists you see in the media ARE atheists (yet another example of how atheists censor the media).
A honest man a joy to listen to
bobbytaxi1 3 weeks ago
Savouring this video, a syllable from Hitch worth more than a 1000 words from most men.
Thanks for posting.
metube80 1 month ago
So long, big man.
DanielNothing 2 months ago
Good bye Hitch. We'll miss you.
Trips1103 2 months ago
You will be missed, Christopher. Thank you for the insight and the humor you've given us all these years. There will never be another like you.
HisokanoOkami 2 months ago
RIP
dezmika 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wonder if cannabis oil would help
truthseeker010101 2 months ago
Is he still pissed off at W. AXL ROSE???
MrCharhead 3 months ago
a dying atheist isn't worried about hell, you fucking schmucks. they fight for their lives because they are well aware that this is all we've got.
go peddle your voodoo somewhere else. god is dying faster than you realize. a few hundred years and the poisonous concept will be on its deathbed.
fukkensully 3 months ago 29
@fukkensully awesome, perfect comment!
otavioandradas 2 months ago
@fukkensully unless extremists end the world first :( which is my fear.
BrantFortunate 1 month ago
@fukkensully Well said, couldn't agree more. Hitchens, a man who lived and died stong in his convictions. Sadly missed by all reasoning people...... that of course excludes the "Abracadabra" theorists.
nzer48 1 month ago
What a privilege today to have the freedom to watch this wonderful, honest interview. I have not always agreed with "everything" that he has said, I would not have a mind of my own if I did, but I have listened and concurred on enough to add to my repertoire of learning tools to decide on who I am. Thank you Mr Hitchens. I will not forget you.
ostmagart 3 months ago 4
@ostmagart Like you, I disagreed with Hitch on some stuff - mostly regarding support for interventionism. But I could never accuse him of having not done his homework on a subject, even if he drew a different conclusion. I could RESPECT the difference. Most of all, I had to THINK about the subject at length to work out just how I really felt and why. If nothing else, Hitch had the wonderful, maddening ability to make people think and question. He was a contrarian of the first order.
njcurmudgeon 2 months ago
He looks like Darth Vader when he's dying in Episode 6.
mmim810 3 months ago
@mmim810 no, he does not.
btw, when you write YOUR opinion about something, start your sentence with IN MY OPINION...bla bla bla argh...
otavioandradas 2 months ago
That interviewer is hard to look at. He looks more ill than Hitchens.
SaturdaySellout 3 months ago
Noticed?
Edited comment at (06:53)
I wonder what he said that they had to edit out.
Domzdream 3 months ago
The host seems worse off than Hitchens
getlostinadub 4 months ago 3
This man literally changed my life.......and i wish i could thank him personally a intellectual genius for the common man.thanx hitch
tony671 4 months ago in playlist In Confidence 2
@m00sheLLe If not all, then most creatures living today on this planet has a survival instinct. One of the best thing about the evolution of the human species is the development of empathy. Not just to fellow human but to almost all species we encounter.It is coming from our brain. Individually, we see the world in our own and put meaning into it. Take the letters of the English alphabet, put it inside a box, shake it and dump the letters on the floor. We will always try to find meaning from it.
Emarquez1896 4 months ago
@m00sheLLe wow you got told lol!!!
XRedxEyedxWandererX 4 months ago
@m00sheLLe As atheist I think i can answer for Christopher .Life is far more precious to atheist, its are one and only shot there is no heaven go to after. So thats why he tries to live and deals with the pain instead of taken the easy way out
XhardcorehistorianX 4 months ago
@m00sheLLe And an additional premise that is important is IF he believes there is no after life, what motivates us to not want to die? That is a premise.Hitchens' premise is there IS no afterlife. The question of what motivates him to live is philosophically and brilliantly logical and reasonable of a question to beckon.
chrisbowman777 4 months ago
The world's IQ will drop a few points when this great mind dies.
zeroeffects88 4 months ago
the best,god is logic
paginipro 4 months ago
Hitchens has lost none of his guts, style and urbane wit from being ill. Get well soon, Christopher!
benthejrporter 4 months ago
@m00sheLLe because life is infinitely interesting? Until you get bored. And he ain't bored yet! :)
xanto279 4 months ago
great to hear he got his voice back.a legend
tony671 4 months ago in playlist In Confidence
@m00sheLLe As for eternity making life more valuable... think of how you would spend your time in a exotic vacation spot vs. how you would spend it if you were moving there. The fact that the time you are spending on vacation is limited you surely going to make the best of it everyday. But to be in the same place and someone hands you a free ticket to the best vacation spot in the world all expensive paid and you never have to leave... The original place seems kinda lame now. EMBRACE LIFE
HighPoweredLasers 4 months ago
@m00sheLLe Why do we pull our hands back from something that's hot? Pain! Not surviving causes pain. The instinct is to stop pain. If you are starving to death you are not driven by you desire to survive your driven by the pain of sever hunger. Every example you can think of boils down to the avoidance of pain which in most cases is a warning of danger of death.
HighPoweredLasers 4 months ago
@m00sheLLe
It might be secondary to a desire to avoid pain. Evolutionist have a term for these sorts of traits that develop secondarily to some other primary trait, but I can't think of what it is called. I've heard this said of our appreciation of music -- that it is some sort of offshoot of another evolutionary development. I think it might have been mentioned in the video 'Steven Pinker - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' (youtu.be/yIMReUsxTt4)
comingatchu 4 months ago
@m00sheLLe There is a perfect video that can answer the question I thing you are asking. Please watch the first 5 min of the the video. The question, to me, is like asking "Why do we do anything instead of nothing? " If you clarify I can try and answer. Video: /watch?v=7qX_d4TDmz0
HighPoweredLasers 4 months ago
@m00sheLLe
I suspect it is hardwired deep in most creatures' psyche, at least, most that are of a higher order. Have you ever seen a zebra stand still while a lion attacks it? Not likely. Typically, we all want to survive. Even Christians who can't wait to sit by the side of God don't usually want to speed the process of death up any more than anyone else.
comingatchu 4 months ago
@m00sheLLe The point is we cherish the one life we have and not (like you imply) treat our time alive as just a place to wipe out feet until we move on to (as you think) a eternity in heaven. I as you, why take any preventive measures (medication, seat belts, any caution etc.) when the best time is in the afterlife? If gods plan is unchangeable then what will happen will happen right? READ YOUR COMMENTS BEFORE POSTING SUCH GARBAGE?
HighPoweredLasers 4 months ago 23
@HighPoweredLasers I disagree. There was NO "religious" presupposition or predisposition in m00sheLLe's comment. It was a deeply philosophical question with a true premise. Even you agreed that you feel there is something we value about living. The question was: WHY are we fixated on not dying? The question wasn't: Why doesn't Hitchens' desire to live reveal to him that God exists? Read YOUR comments before you POST IGNORANT, PHILOSOPHICALLY ARROGANT GARBAGE ;)
chrisbowman777 4 months ago
@HighPoweredLasersGod exists , our time here is to prepare us for eternity .Hitchens is doing everything he can to stay alive because he is terrified .His own false atheism offers him nothing , not even peace ..he is now realising that ever word he has ever spoken in his life has been absolute garbage ..absolute filth and could have been spoken by Satan..the demon who is waiting for him and for you ..whether you believe it or not
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@HighPoweredLasers well, he is just asking a general question, I guess hte point here is not to offend anyone, but share a common doubt. why do u call it garbage
bekacynthia 4 months ago
@bekacynthia Most intelligent people expect folks to THINK before they post thoughtless questions. I mean, "not to offend" but don't be an idiot.
handsup48 4 months ago
he is a great man ! wish him the best.
ZeusZahouani 4 months ago
@ZeusZahouani There is no best in hell
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy no best what ?
art0neable 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy wishes
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
"Songs like Godzilla". Go Go, BOC!
brazenhubris 5 months ago
In fact I picked up Das Capital and my girlfriend said it looked like a heavy read. It probably is, but I replied "If you can work your way through a Hitchens sentence, everything else is lemon squeezy."
AlexRichardVocat 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Hitch but Hitch-22 - as Bastiat90 points out - is a massive wall of words. I don't mind this per se, but I do have a problem when it's employed for effect, or when it could be simplified greatly (as is true of most of its pages). It's making me go off the book. There are some brilliant memoirs, but every now and again I hit upon the brakes of a section that just stops everything. It's a shame, but his orations are much better.
AlexRichardVocat 5 months ago
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Hitch but Hitch-22 - as @Bastiat90 points out - is a massive wall of words. I don't mind this per se, but I do have a problem when it's employed for effect, or when it could be simplified greatly (as is true of most of its pages). It's making me go off the book. There are some brilliant memoirs, but every now and again I hit upon the brakes of a section that just stops everything. It's a shame, but his orations are much better.
AlexRichardVocat 5 months ago
Christopher Hitchens would be more bearable were his orations more compact. He tends to ramble on. His autobiography for example is reveals a mania, almost lust, for quotation. He seems desperate to prove his own intelligence. He is an intelligent man but he's far too in love with the sound of his own voice to practice a little modesty, and his tendency to resort to ad hominem attacks on those who oppose the foreign adventures in the Middle East is rather unfortunate.
Bastiat90 5 months ago
@Bastiat90 Well thats the problem with most people. Once we hit a certain age we think we know it all and don't want to hear something that conflicts with our point of views. I love hitchens position on religion but think he's insane when it comes to the middle east. It seems no matter what everyone has some type of biased drilled in their head. But I think its obvious he loves the sound of his voice haha
JG129 5 months ago
"Let's get the shit out of the way." Wow, I love Europe.
erikglimpse 5 months ago
lol obama might be a kenyan... lol stay in religion cuz thats what we all love about you
ADOG51412 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
C.H. is, in my opinion, the ideal, flawed human being.
He thinks honestly, speaks honestly, even when I disagree with him, I can understand where he is coming from.
He is real. An asset to our species.
Iamtopcoach 6 months ago
anyone who goes around calling people Marxist or communist as a point in argument are stuck in the wrong century
dawgpost90 6 months ago
He's a Marxist. He has no credibility.
procommenter 6 months ago
@procommenter He has changed his mind.
Rogersmith026 6 months ago
The only thing that there is to debate about religion is how they abuse people. Besides that who cares but the poor dupes that send their money in.
donnyhubbard 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
America gave him cancer.
ModestDeity 6 months ago
While Christopher might be outlived by Kissinger and Benedict his spirit will endure longer than those douche-bags. If he didn't manage to touch anyone else he has empowered my ideas. The party will go on without you but it is possible it won't be as much fun.
TheMotherEagle 6 months ago 37
On a slight...socato?
Brockhad 6 months ago
@Brockhad On a slight sort of plateau.
RyleHN 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Hitchens...a great mind.
moonshineinsummer1 6 months ago 28
@moonshineinsummer1 He'll be the best mind in hell
Recordbhoy 5 months ago
@Recordbhoy Which god do you believe in? There are thousands. Hundreds of religions...new ones popping up all the time...and all of them have no facts to back them up. Most religions are plagerised. Hitchens makes religious people laugh at their own religious beliefs...that why hes so funny. If I were jesus I would take a crap and make all my devoted followers eat the corn from my shit.... fuck this water into wine bit! I need to shit...now where did I leave that bible?
moonshineinsummer1 4 months ago
@moonshineinsummer1 The only one God ..I don't care if there were a thousand " religions" ( there isn't of course , there's just one ) .Hitchens' isn't laughing at anyone right now , in fact Hitchens' will soon be weeping for eternity ( as will you ) ..You're an arsehoile , just like Hitchens , now run along
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy Don't worry, once hes gone we will still all be here to laugh at dumb muthafuckers like you. In fact you're last post did just that for me. One mans death is not the end of the war on stupidity, its just empowers us all. There will be 100 more to step up in his place, the ball is already rolling downhill and its only a matter of time. Just give it another 500 years or so, religion will be toast like it never even existed in the first place, just like you...
pac6010 4 months ago
@pac6010 You won't be laughing anywhere you scum sucking prick .Hitchens & Dawkins et all will be in hell in 500 years ..as will you . God will never die in men's hearts because God is eternal , like his truth ...In 500 years , this world will be toast , all the good people of today will be in paradise , hell will be populated by filth like you and God will still reign over the earth he created
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy hahaha, see my point, its just fucking comedy how little sense you make. You cant even put forth an argument other than "my imaginary friend is gonna get ya" Why dont you go get laid, or try to leave you're mothers basement and get a life. This is truly pathetic to see you post things.
pac6010 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pac6010 That's because you are too stupid to understand the argument .You are an imbecile ..why would I waste my time with an imbecile ?
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy You display classic symptoms of being messed with as a child, probably the priest. { cue small minded, messed up reply}.
katandmcgee 4 months ago
@katandmcgee You display the classic symptoms of being an arsehole , prick and cocksucking maggot ..
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy simply put: ALLAH AKHBAR
art0neable 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy
that was very christian, good work you showed how selfish you crazies are...
xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx 4 months ago
@xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx But you don't believe in Christianity right ? except of course when you need to throw it in someone's face ..you fuckin' hypocrite
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy
no im sane. and your the hyprocrites
xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx 4 months ago
@xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx Actually , you're thick ..judging by your spelling
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy
rrriiiggghhhttt...
xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx 4 months ago
@xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx
sorry for misspelling "hypocrites", i have better things to do than worry about proper grammar, i do believe in Christianity, it does exist... but as for believing in God... nahh
xXDISASTERPIECE934Xx 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy Hitchens will die just like everyone else. Cancer, car accident, suffocation, gun shot, heart attack, etc....we will all die.
Hitchens is still laughing at religion...get over it....and Im not talking about the preist who fucked you in the ass.
religion has less than 100 years to live.
The internet super information highway is getting out the truth and exposing religion for the evil and hateful thing thtat it is!
religion is dying faster every day....good riddens!
moonshineinsummer1 4 months ago
@moonshineinsummer1 Hitchens will die and be damned to hell . I've never seen him laugh ever , and he will never laugh for eternity once gone ( and neither will you ) .." religion" can never die but in fact will be reborn with more vigour than ever as these are the end times and God will return to rule his people very soon ( you won't know this as you will be in hell ) ..The internet ( Satan's best tool ) will be destroyed as the vile evil tool that it is ..good riddance to it ,and to you
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy If you haven't seen Hitchens ever laughed you clearly dont know or seen any videos of the man. And if your God does come he will save us, there is no hell. get your fake facts right.
XhardcorehistorianX 4 months ago
@XhardcorehistorianX There is a hell of course and a place is waiting for you ..know it
Recordbhoy 4 months ago
@Recordbhoy If you think the internet is evil...stop using it!
There is no hell...and there is no heaven!
Hitchens does have a poker face and he does laugh...watch his videos!
People created religion...and one day...religion will be but all be in the past!
I know what it is like for religion to be strong in a society...its called "the dark ages"!
moonshineinsummer1 4 months ago
Respond to this video... Benedict will be in Paradise .Do you think he'll worry about the soul of Hitchens as he endures his eternity in hell ?
Recordbhoy 5 months ago
The metaphysical world is fantastical to humans and humanoids with 3-pound brains, as 3-pound brains aren't brains enough to measure infinity.
procommenter 6 months ago
@procommenter No but we are consciousness and everything is an illusion otherwise. So, the universe, science, and all the brilliance that we think we can acheive is rather meaningless and egotistical. Love (lower entropy) is our goal.
joemoe23 6 months ago
@joemoe23 : It's not without meaning. It's stilted.
procommenter 6 months ago
ok I have volunteered some thoughts but I will ignore anyone who wants to fight in an uncivil way. I will simply say your right and move on. These ideas are here for those who want to consider them and wants to agree or disagree in part or in whole civilly. Hopefully cordially. Because again I am bringing them up as a discussion not as a gotcha. And honestly I hate to see Hitchens the man sick with Incurable cancer. his person, his active consciousness and his point of view will be missed
JustAnotherBeardo 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
And I am not anti-athiest, I am simply anti any movement that wants to make others ashamed for holding points of view based on some facts but also some intuitions when to be quite frank. No one knows what comes after from a stand point of having empirical or logical evidence that does anything more than imply possibilities. So in my book the believers and the Atheists are equal footing. As to the bad things being done in the name of religion, I think we have to look at man not the pretexts.
JustAnotherBeardo 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
This has been flagged as spam show
And notice i did not say Christian though clearly in the beginning those were the dominant influencing faiths. I also do not claim that US and yank hospitality and pragmatic Optimisim came soley from religious influences, but another area that is also in decline is the value of philosophic education and understanding which were two areas that were evident in all of the American founders. It was the founders guiding wisdom has allowed for the time of great social exploration Including the 60s.
JustAnotherBeardo 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
And notice i did not say Christian though clearly in the beginning those were the dominant influencing faiths. I also do not claim that US and yank hospitality and pragmatic Optimisim came soley from religious influences, but another area that is also in decline is the value of philosophic education and understanding which were two areas that were evident in all of the American founders. And whose guiding wisdom has allowed for the time of great social exploration. Including the 60s.
JustAnotherBeardo 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
But back to Hitchens, I understand and in large measure agree with his hostility to Organized power grabbing religion. but I am sorry that he cannot see that is the very religious values of protestants that supported the right of every man to worship or not worship as he pleased because of the belief of the sacred rights of the individual which did in fact come from religious beliefs. In short in part one its fascinating that he bemoans the loss of things attached to a faithful society.
JustAnotherBeardo 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
It is the boon of the culture that it is the youth that are perpetually new and biologically vital and amazingly innocent of history and experience. I mean the arrogance that even during the period of the Greek philosopher state, or the enlightenment that a generation thought oh no one has ever thought about trying just love and collective communities enormously arrogant and as a result they often get harsh education, but the also learn new things and try old yearnings in new contexts as well.
JustAnotherBeardo 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
I am not in any way trying to bash the great changes in that era, but if we are honest there was a lot of really awful selfish debauchery that took place as well. I think that is why there are so many as Hitchens call them, Self loathing boomers. All revolutions of ideology that act as if they have THE simple answer, like flower power, turn on, tune in, drop out were grossly over simplifying the difficulties of life and were doomed to hit some hard lessons in failure. but they meant well.
JustAnotherBeardo 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
On part one -- I find it so ironic and very poignant that what it is that he liked about America were largely part of Christian or not the American Frontier Flavored Judeo-Christian hospitality culture. That kind of sincere warmth has faded as does the effects of the 60s liberation which clearly was a positive time of change in many ways, was also the grounds for a number of disillusioned generations that was not taught nor do they believe in simple good will as part of a belief system.
JustAnotherBeardo 6 months ago in playlist In Confidence
@JustAnotherBeardo fuck dude, go write a goddamned blog
sansdeity420 5 months ago
if an atheist debated with a religious person that had 110 IQ and believed in facts he would be an atheist after 2 minutes of the debate.. if you are a religious person ask your self; "why am i a christian/muslim etc, and not a jew or buddhist? or the other way around? there is no good answer, because every religion concists of diffrent lies and undermining of truth. sorry for some poor english, but its not my first language.
oaaserud 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?
QuestionForAtheists 6 months ago
Christopher kinda looks like Darth Vader when he takes off his mask.
OutlawedSaviour 7 months ago
@OutlawedSaviour That is exactly what i thought, no disrespect though, I feel sorry for the poor guy...
Darsaan 7 months ago
Homosexuals ARE let alone in the West. Thirty years ago the laws against homosexual cohabitation were enforced. They no longer are.
TheWorldFarOff 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Eugenicist Charles Darwin has screwed up everything. His
plagiarized, dogmatic, formulaic supposition has mucked
up practical research. The anomalies are mounting.
TheWorldFarOff 7 months ago
theoretic n, pl theoretics : the speculative part of an art or science : THEORY ["Webster's Unabridged Dictionary," 1967]
TheWorldFarOff 7 months ago
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
TheWorldFarOff 7 months ago
As the late great Carl Sagan said, "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology". Educate yourself before you blather on.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
Chris, there are alternative treatments to cancer, there are cures for cancer, all through a plant based diet.
235RB 7 months ago
Yesterday a law passed in my country (Israel) which basically out-laws freedom of speech against ideological-jewish settlements outside the '67 borders. Boycotting these settlements is now punishable by imprisonment and hefty fines. THIS IS WHAT RELIGION DOES. It destroys harmony, it destroys thought, it poisons EVERYTHING.
liadsman 7 months ago
Comment removed
kolach 7 months ago
The function of hydrogen working inside of us shows us that God is much greater than people first thought. The entire universe made of hydrogen and derivatives has a Maker great enough to stretch out the entire universe with the same working element that makes possible our existence.
JungleJargon 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon
maker? lol...begging the question logical fallacy.
why not makers?
where's the proof that hydrogen have a maker and that it has a function designed by a maker?
are you saying that rain is designed and happens when god sees fit?
moron. you are full of shit
transtlantic 8 months ago
@JungleJargon you are full of shit, and your arguments are full of shit. the same principle that has filled the universe with hydrogen has also filled you with shit - meaningless and fear. fuck you and fuck all you religious retards. you are a waste of skin.
liadsman 7 months ago
@liadsman Hydrogen does make our existence possible. In fact, most of the most common elements are essential working parts inside of us. Hydrogen ions run motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP so we can live. It's true. That shows us that hydrogen has a Maker of the function that it has inside of us because no lesser functions exist without having a maker. Evolution cannot make any of the lesser functions and most certainly cannot make any of the greater functions.
watch?v=yAL-jRO6hjE
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon you can use phrases like "in fact", "it's true" and so on all you want. You can even write down hard facts. That still doesn't make your argument smart. It's dumb. No matter how you put it, no matter how you twist it, no matter how much you believe it - unless the motherfucker comes down here and pulls off some decent magic tricks, YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD! Just like you can't DISPROVE it. The existence of a god is the weakest, most un-provable argument of all times. Grow the FUCK up.
liadsman 7 months ago
@liadsman You are not addressing the issues.
We would be very naive to think that we will never have to face our Maker.
The function of most of the most common elements as ordered requires having a Maker and life forms only function when ordered by a preexisting written word.
I just proved the existence of a Maker who is greater than the entire universe that He stretched out with great function.
I suppose it would be asking too much to show me a lesser function that does not have a maker.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon
Boring. There is no issue. The intellectual level of your arguments is beneath my concerns and what you refer to as "proof" I could easily refer to as "none-sense" in the most literal meaning of the phrase. "I just proved" - brother please... you proved nothing. Do some homework, read some books, practice your rhetoric skills and ability to form a sane, logical, step-by-step argument. Maybe then we could actually discuss something but for the time being I see no reason.
liadsman 7 months ago
@liadsman The credit of function does not go to objects. The credit goes to an intelligent Maker.
Show me your reasoning.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon how have you proven anything? Explain your reasoning, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and your camp has thus put forth the most fantastic explanations without providing one iota of evidence.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 I proved we have a Maker because the very function of most of the most common elements inside of us requires having a Maker. The function is the evidence of a Maker.
You failed to show us any lesser functions that do not have a maker. If all lesser functions have a maker than the much greater functions have a Maker too. It is a preexisting written word that orders our existence.
The elements obey the preexisting word that order us. The Maker of the word knew about the function.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon why does the function of elements inside of us require a maker? The elements are not a function of us, we are a function of the elements. We are a byproduct of math, a small probability which occurred. You are postulating that nature is formed to suit us, when in fact we are formed to suit nature, as evolution has proven. The universe is not required to conform to human ambition, sorry to bust your bubble. But people who capitalize "maker" are ignorant of these basic natural laws.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 You are extremely naive to think that the function that hydrogen has inside of us does not need a Maker. Hydrogen ions run motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP molecules so that we can live.
No other lesser function of any kind ever existed without having a maker. What makes you think that greater functions do not have a Maker?
The elements have to function before they can obey preexisting orders.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon
"You are extremely naive to think that the function that hydrogen has inside of us does not need a Maker. "
- unless you can provide evidence it does require a maker then it not requiring a maker is the logical default.
"Hydrogen ions run motors that turn shafts that manufacture ATP molecules so that we can live."
- incorrect, humans are not comprised of motors .etc we are simply comprised of biological structures that are in SOME ways analogous to them.
try again.
types10000 7 months ago
@JungleJargon
"No other lesser function of any kind ever existed without having a maker"
- this is an argument from ignorance (logical fallacy).
"What makes you think that greater functions do not have a Maker?"
- the fact we OBSERVE complexity to arise via unguided naturalistic means eg. snow flakes.
types10000 7 months ago
@JungleJargon how so? Using the argument from irreducible complexity also relies on knowledge of the modern day, which is to say that 500 years ago your kind would have presented the same argument but using the mysteries of our solar system as "evidence". Just because we do not know every single explanation for every single facet of nature, doesn't prove god. 500 years ago god's role was large, because our knowledge of science was small, and 500 years from now god's role will just be a memory.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@JungleJargon It is YOU who is extremely naive to believe that just because YOU don't understand something the only logical conclusion is that it isn't understandable and god made it. If the world were run by idiots like you, we wouldn't get anywhere. Fortunately, science is championed by intelligent people, whereas religion the opposite, so it isn't difficult to maneuver around your "evidence" and get on with keeping the world running. Read the God Delusion, educate yourself.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 Your world view (your belief) is getting the best of you. It's because I do understand that the elements obey a preexisting word written in and with the function the elements have that I can see there is a Maker of all of the function that most of the most common elements have working inside of us. Intelligent people know that the function of the elements requires having a Maker. You aren't even able to explain what it is you believe in your own words giving credit to objects.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon
Elements don't obey any words. never saw any written words inside the elements. where the fuck is your evidence for a maker?
you are just doing circular reasoning. by your logic: you write stupid shit you are moronic and you are moronic because stupid shit is written by you. right?
over 90% of the national academy of sciences (intelligent people) are atheists. therefore they claim that no function in nature requires a maker.
you are therefore: a proven retard.
transtlantic 7 months ago
@JungleJargon you are making no sense, and our words are obviously having no effect on you, so I'm casting you off as a lost cause. 93% of all Nobel Laureates are atheists, meaning the most intelligent people in our world do not believe in a god.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 Dude, think about it, the guys who hand out the nobel prizes ARE atheists themselves, so of course they are not going to give a nobel prize to someone who disagrees with their world view. Please try and think about these things before making silly comments.
Darsaan 7 months ago
@Darsaan you could do well to use your own advice. Nobel prizes aren't handed out to atheists, they are handed out to people who provide this world with important improvements/world changing discoveries. The only people capable of providing these improvements/discoveries are intelligent people. Intelligent people tend to be skeptics, and the first thing a skeptic questions is religion. Therefore, Nobel prizes winners(intelligent people) are atheists. Logic, use it.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 Yeah, but think about it mate, the only scientist these atheists are going to consider giving the prize to are other atheists. Sure there are plenty of Christian scientists who are making valuable contributions to science, but they aren't know in the community. Know why? Because secular scientist don't want people like you and me to know that there are other people of an equal or better intellectual footing to them who think differently.
Darsaan 7 months ago
@Darsaan I have thought about it, but apparently you still haven't. Science doesn't have a religion, science doesn't have a bias, the Nobel prize is awarded on merit of scientific value, not allegiance to any faith camp. There are absolutely brilliant Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., scientists who make invaluable contributions to the world of science, there are just more atheist ones. There ARE more atheist ones because science (logic, reason) doesn't jive with religion.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 a few more points... if u want to talk about intelligent scientists who are atheists to support your argument (an appeal to authority fallacy btw), here are some examples of famous Christian scientists for u: Isaac Newton (considered even by most atheist scientists to be the greatest scientist and mathematician that ever lived, Galileo, Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon (who developed the scientific method we use today), Luis Pasteur, Blaise Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Sir Robert Boyle etc.
Darsaan 7 months ago
@Darsaan Galileo was absolutely NOT a theist, and by providing that incredible flawed insight, as well as repeating your little authority fallacy phrase, it appears to me you have read some book and are eschewing its flawed contents verbatim. Galileo was threatened with death for his book on heliocentrism by the church, as was Copernicus. The only reason any of those same-era thinkers were "religious" was to appease the church, which dominated all aspects of life. You really need to read son.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 To further my explanation, look no further than aristotle and plato. They taught the geocentric view of the universe (that all the planets of our solar system orbit the earth). These were brilliant thinkers, yet they were completely wrong, as Christians such as Copernicus and Galileo would go on to prove. And just look at how many people subscribed to Artistotle and Plato's views! It wasn't until recently (after the Reformation) that the heliocentric view became widely accepted.
Darsaan 7 months ago
@Darsaan And I would also state in regards to your Plato and Aristotle comment, that the Church widely fueled support for the geocentric model, as it seemed to reinforce our FALLACY of a human oriented universe, in which humans are the whole "point". Galileo and Copernicus, once again, were condemned by the church for their heliocentric models, with Copernicus' work being released after his death. I concede that these men were religious, but I don't concede that they truly believed.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@Darsaan continued....these men were stuck in a time of absolute religious domination, where religion controlled nearly all aspects of life. Today, most scientists and philosophers are atheist/agnostic, so I would argue that if galileo and copernicus popped up in modern times, where it's not ILLEGAL to be an atheist, they would most assuredly reject scripture. But that is conjecture of course. And I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing for, so like I said, can you please state your beliefs?
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 First of all i would like apologize for the insulting comments i made earlier, and sincerely hope that u will forgive me :). What do i believe? I believe that in the beginning there was God, that the Man He made sinned, and in His lovingkindness God decided to punish us. But hope was not lost, because God made a promise that He would one day send His only Son, to come to earth and live amongst us, and die on a cross to save us from our sins, so we could have eternal life with God
Darsaan 6 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 I can understand why you would call this blind faith, it is in a way: to blindly believe in a supernatural power withot empirical "evidance" of there being one. I myself that there can be any argument (scientifically speaking) for or against a God. Science is not to do with God, it is something He created. My problem with science is this: origins. Thats what it all boils down to: which religion can explain how we got here.
Darsaan 6 months ago
@Darsaan continued... Science has proven it can't explain this (the best atheist cosmologists and astronomers can say is that the universe can from a piece of matter the size of a pea, which breaks the first and second laws of thermodynamics). Secondly, wouldn't biological evolution require the simultaneous evolution of all the different vital organs of an animal for that animal to survive long enough to reproduce and continually evolve (hope u understand what i mean by this)
Darsaan 6 months ago
@Darsaan continued ..... Thirdly, how can science explain the concious, why do we feel that something is wrong or right if there is no right or wrong? I've heard Freud and Dawkin's arguments for this before but both r completely unconvincing. I'm not trying to say i have no faith in science. Certainly not, I think very highly of science (and am a student in engineering, so I get to do all sorts of fun stuff with physics).
Darsaan 6 months ago
@Darsaan The problem is the more i learn of science the more I see that there is so much we don't know. We don't even know what electricity is; i know that science says that it is a form of energy and can describe the way it flows and rate it flows at through different mediums, but how do we define this amazing, mysterious energy? Quantum physics is so complex, it was said by Richard Dawkins "if you thing you understand the quantum theory, you don't understand the Quantum theory".
Darsaan 6 months ago
@Darsaan I'm not trying to say that the lack of answers in science proves the existance of God, no, that would be a fallacy indeed. What I'm saying is that while science is a powerful tool, even we do not fully understand it and i do not believe we ever will. Converesely, just because there is no evidence "scientificall speaking" that there is no God, that does not mean He does not exist.
Darsaan 6 months ago
@Darsaan So why do i believe in God? While i have problems with the atheistsevolutiary hypothesis, and the numerous questions science can't currently answer, these are not the reasons that i believe in God. Simply put, I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me and convicted me of the truth. Sound like the ravings of a madman? I'll leave that for you to decide. This debate has been interesting and I take the chance again to apologize for the things i said. I will be praying for you :)
Darsaan 6 months ago
@Darsaan "which religion can explain how we got here." It depends on what you mean by 'explain'. Anybody can come up with a story describing how we got here, as we humans have been doing for thousands of years. But just because somebody comes up with a story does not mean that that explains anything. "God did it" explains nothing more than "We don't know".
1n354a 6 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 Robert Hooke, Johannes Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, the list goes on and on. Any one of these men mentioned were far greater thinkers than any of todays scientists, whether Christian or atheist. But if you think that science (without observation or proof) can explain the universe's origins, please by all means go ahead. Answer this question and I'll be impressed: Where did our universe come from?
Darsaan 7 months ago
@Darsaan How can religion (without observation or proof) explain ANYTHING about our universe? You're using the ass-backwards assumption of "we don't understand this, therefore it isn't understandable." But science and discovery takes time. 500 years ago your kind were using the mysteries of the mechanisms that control the orbit of the planets as proof of god. Now we understand gravity. Just because science can't explain something NOW doesn't mean it can't at some point and by all reason will.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 So you see from the quote i gave you earlier from the ATHEIST professor, saying that science can disprove the existance of the supernatural is a dumb thing to say. Science can no more prove that God exists than it can prove I was just thinking of eating some chicken. Oh, and by the way, I'm not your son :).
Darsaan 7 months ago
@Darsaan And yes, there IS an answer to the existence of a god/gods. It is a very slim chance of being true, but the information exists in the universe to answer this question. Just because we can conceive of a question, it doesn't prove the question's subject to be feasible. Science can't prove you were thinking about chicken; yet. See the thing is I'm open to these things, there is just no reason to believe in it without some sort of proof. If god reveals himself then I'm on board.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 As to your Galileo comment, . i see your once again using patent atheist dishonesty again, Galileo was indeed persecuted by the CATHOLIC church (not protestant) but he was mainly protestant in his theology, but certainly not atheist.This is an exert from a letter he wrote in 1615 "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood".
Darsaan 7 months ago
@Darsaan And you are absolutely using appeal to authority fallacy incorrectly. If scientists aren't experts in their fields, who is? An authority fallacy would indicate that the person being appealed to is exhibiting false pretenses. If anything, religious leaders are the ones who should be accused of this, as they have no empirical evidence to substantiate their claims. Therefore your argument sucks, and you're using points which work against you. Again, educate yourself son.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 Oh no, you're showing your ignorance again! It seems my fate to correct you, let me explain: an appeal to authority fallacy is not a situation where the person being appealed to is exhibiting false pretenses, no no no, an appeal to authority fallacy is the fallacy of appealing to authority (ie- noble laureates, intelligent people etc;) to support your argument. Just because someone (or a large group) is "intelligent" does not mean that they are always right
Darsaan 7 months ago
@Darsaan I absolutely and unequivocally understand appeal to authority fallacy, the difference between Plato and Aristotle, and contemporaries such as Hawking and Sagan, is that we have proven the heliocentric model, we have proven the existence of atoms, we have proven the speed of light, it's refraction due to gravity, its constancy and it's utterly strange behavior on the quantum level. You can't have a fallacy when appealing to something PROVEN. The fallacy lies in religion.
mrjohnson2289 7 months ago
@Darsaan It really gets on my nerves when religous nuts such as yourself ask " well how was the universe created? " knowing full well no one can ever know for sure, but there has been a lot of speculation and there are a few different theories floating about, look them up and have a read. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean an all-powerful being created it. There is no God. Fact.
bennyboyjones 5 months ago
@bennyboyjones It's called the "god of the gaps"... and it slows down progress! People get to a point where they THINK we'll never be able to explain it so they write it off as "oh god did it' FUCKING BULLSHIT!
Hitchens is the man!
lq4fcrx7 5 months ago in playlist In Confidence
@bennyboyjones There is a God ..fact
Recordbhoy 5 months ago
@Recordbhoy Facts can be backed up with evidence. I'm waiting.
bennyboyjones 5 months ago
@bennyboyjones You won't have to wait much longer ..soon you'll have all the facts you need in hell
Recordbhoy 5 months ago
@Recordbhoy I'd rather go to hell than to spend an eternity with dickheads like you so either way I'm good.
bennyboyjones 5 months ago
@bennyboyjones You're not good , you're an arsehole , and you will spend eternity in hell..getting raped by demons ..hopefully soon
Recordbhoy 5 months ago
@Recordbhoy I wipe my arse with the bible. You're obviously a troll, but you're not very good at it yet. Try not to be so inflammatory in future and your trolling will improve greatly. Cunt.
bennyboyjones 5 months ago
@Darsaan To give you an example, look no further than David Coppedge. He was a Christian scientist working with NASA's jet propulsion laboratory, and was fired for his religious views. Don't believe me? Google it. This is just the sort of treatment Christians can expect from atheists, which is sad. Doesn't sound very rational or fair to me, firing someone for their beliefs. But this is what you can expect from people who are neither reasonable, rational, or fair.
Darsaan 7 months ago
@mrjohnson2289 You obviously can't see what I'm saying, but I understand why and pity you. As for your "Therefore, Noble prizes winners (intelligent people) are atheists", please, can't you do better than that? Thats not logic, its a pitiful example of the appeal to authority fallacy. You make the assumption that the only people who are intelligent are atheists because the only scientists you see in the media ARE atheists (yet another example of how atheists censor the media).
Darsaan 7 months ago