I have to go pray now!! please jesus can you suck my left nut so I can enjoy more video watching!! thank you but after I take a piss so wait 5 minutes please!! amen!
That we cannot keep the Law, and therefore in need of Christ. Hitchens is correct when he said that religion is bad, and little does he know that Jesus taught the very same thing. Religion never saved anyone, but only gives people a sense of piousness. The law should (if used correctly) convict us, not save us. It is a tool God uses to show us that we need another Way. That Way is thru His Son, Jesus who was the perfect sacrifice for us. We can never be 'good'.
@brono25 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psalm 51:16,17. It had the same purpose in the OT as in the NT.
What Hitchens and so many others don't know is the Mosaic Law isn't just about having guidelines for morals. The thing is, he left off the first commandment which is to "Love thy God..." interestingly enough. But there are 2 separate purposes for the giving of the law. The first is to show us that God is perfect and holy. The Law shows us something of God's character, who cannot lie etc. The second is a revealer and a reminder that we all fall short of God's perfection. (continued)
archeologists have found strong evidence that someone named Cyrenius WAS a governor of Syria from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod. Either there were two separate rulers, both named Cyrenius (a rather common Roman name), who ruled about ten years apart, or the same man ruled Syria on two separate occasions. It should be noted that Jesus was probably born around 5 B.C., earlier than the makers of our calendars thought.
The assumption of contradiction is that Cyrenius (AKA Quirinius) became governor of Syria in 6 A.D., many years after the death of King Herod in 4 B.C. (note: this is a different Herod than the one Jesus was brought before prior to His trial), which would make it impossible for Jesus to be born while they both reigned.
@naybobdenod He used the same arguments here that he did with Craig. Craig brutalized Hitchens positions as Hitchens never answered any of Craig's points. Hitchens was pathetic.
I agree with everything Hitchens says about religion, but calling the war in Iraq the noblest thing the US has done is laughable. Whether or not he does (mistakenly) believe that the motives were to remove Sadam (any fool can see it was for the oil), he ignores the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who've been killed since the invasion. All his (justifiable) remarks he makes against the brutality of religion become undone when he simultaneously supports a war of agression.
@urcritic True! And one of the only times I've seen him look uncomfortable answering a question in relation to religion. I have to admit, I wasn't expecting such a concise and insightful question (and follow-up) from that guy
@gallantentry My church relied on my ignorance when the pastor took me, as a five year old, before the congregation and cast out the demons that caused my chronic ear infections. Apparently he missed one, or God wished me to be deaf in one ear when the eardrum ruptured a painful year later.
@gallantentry Really? According to your Bible Mark 16:17-18 that's not true:
"17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
@frightenedsoul God does the healing and in this particular case, He did so through the disciples. It was God who healed, but these gifts were given to the disciples alone.
@gallantentry Nope, those versus are Jesus speaking to his disciples, but he doesn't say only the disciples will be able to, it specifically says all of those that believe. Read it again. It's okay, you can admit it's nonsense because it obviously is.
Regarding his first question, he cannot live without some things that he cannot prove. That is okay for him--but he still feels that he has the rfight to tell others what they should not live with--if they cannot prove it to HIS satisfaction. Regarding the question in which Hitchens mentions the Samaritan man and the religious Jew, funny that is the point that Jesus was making. That the neighbor's desire to help the fallen man (what we are supposed to do) was greater than his religion.
@gallantentry And what is the absence of goodness? Abhorrent behavior maybe? Narcissist personality disorder? Let's try and move on from mid evil language and leave loaded religious words in the past.
I find that the word itself (evil) has become, for those more intellectually enlightened, simply a label for the idea of the kind of psychotic sadism which they believe can not be explained by a tainted childhood or a personality disorder or, god forbid, religion.
I, myself, do not subscribe to the idea, but I find that, most often, those who do are those who have been confronted with the worst that humanity has to offer. I believe it to be an emotional disturbance of reason.
@petepamf why should this word be classified as a midievel word or any era? Why would anyone be offended by the use of this word? Evil is simply the absence of good as this broadens the scope of realization of what is truly wrong with society. Men are evil by nature. The reason many atheists (or anyone) would oppose the use of this word is because they don't like being exposed for who and what they are, such as Hitchens. He is inevitably afraid of of God's opinion of himself.
@gallantentry Well at least I now understand where you're coming from. If I felt man (oh. shall we go out on a limb and include women? Yeah let's) are born abhorrent (or as you insist evil) that would strip everything I know to be true about sociology, neurology, and the like.. You might want to take a deep breath and do a little study in these areas before making such definite statements about human behavior.
@petepamf Hitchens as with many people have missed one of th key points of the 10 commandments which is to reveal to mankind that we cannot keep the law. That we are law breakers by nature and therefore need a Saviour. It is the mirror that reveals the dir on our face, but it is grace that gives us the water to wash our face. But we must look at the mirror and see the dirt before we can truly know that we need grace. I have studied human behavior and man is deprived.
Hitchens relies on the ignorance of the general population. He has a poor understanding of the Bible and after hearing his case is no closer to convincing a true believer that they are wrong than to convince someone that food is bad. I assure that when Kind David wrote the words, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.", He meant every word he said. God's word is truth whether we like it or not.
@gallantentry The only way religion works is if the general population is or chooses to be ignorant. Religion builds false walls in your mind, narrowing your perspective. In a world where faith is epidemically prevalent, it takes guts to not believe in a God, and it takes an enlightened mind to come to understanding with that fact, especially after years of indoctrination.
The "ignorance of the population" that you refer to is actually your own undoing.
@garybgardnerful Religion builds false wall surely. I would agree 100% with you. Jesus spoke harshly against religion. True Christianity is not about keeping the law or obedience to God for salvation. True Christianity is the opposite. It is realization that we cannot keep the law and thus realizing our need for salvation, less Jesus died in vain. Salvation is a gift and cannot be earned. Christianity is actually a relationship with God through Christ.
@gallantentry 'God's word is truth whether we like it or not. ' Is that a statement of fact, or a definition, I mean is it a synthetic or an analytic statement, a priori or a posteori?
@gamesbok I have a choice as does anyone to either believe Hitchens or Jesus. Jesus said clearly that He is the Truth. Hitchens is a flawed human who judges by his own standards. Jesus made the claim no man has made, that He is God in the flesh. I would believe Jesus who spake as no man spake, this includes Hitchens.
@gallantentry and I think Hitchens is right~ it would do you good to lose some of that pride (mortal sin btw) you have and admit YOU could be wrong~ fair play, I will admit I am wrong when someone provides demonstrable repeatable evidence for the existence of an all powerful entity, rather than a weak inference. Will you not admit that the evidence is stacked heavily against you?
@Nazarus8 The evidence is definitely not stacked against me. There is sufficient evidence that there is a God. Watch the debate between Hitchens and Craig 'the existence of God'. It is fair to say that Hitchens lost that debate by a large margin. For me to admit I could be wrong that there is no God would be a sin. (anything that is not of faith, is sin).
@gallantentry watched the suggested clip, and I have disagree, I thought Hitchens won, as Craig as all other apologist for religion, FAILS to produce evidence that is just slightly convincing compaired to the claims christianity makes for itself.
@gallantentry Well if you are brain washed, you can believe anything when it's coming from your authority. Hitchens himself has stated that he wishes religion to continue on because it serves as a tool for free thinkers to sharpen their wits on. It seperates those who don't understand the meaning of life, the sheep, from the ones who live life to its fullest. I disagree with him however, because I would like to see religion gone but if you can't think for yourself, you need guidelines. Nuff said
@gallantentry What evidence is that ? I have been asking that for years ! So far all I've gotten is quotations from s book that is thousands of years old . Thats not good enough ! I want physical evidence like the kind we get from scientific research .
@420gma Wrong! If someone lies, then they are by definition a liar. If someone steals, they are by definition a thief. Maybe you think otherwise, but the truth is still the truth.
@petepamf So, your position is that there is no evil in the world? That would explain your position and reason for rejecting the Bible. Of course there's evil and to deny so is rejecting common sense.
@gallantentry If you are going to make a statement like "Of course there's evil and to deny so is rejecting common sense." You might want to give examples on how it is rejecting common sense.. Just saying something means nothing. If you read all my comments you'll see I've made examples and given practical and critical thought to the idea that Evil is a loaded word.. I understand your position being religious you think it's obvious.. I don't M'kay? Oh and as for rejecting the Bible.. Duh.
@petepamf I cannot debate this with someone who would close his eyes to common sense. Evil=stealing, lying, cheating, hatred, murder etc etc. If you would say that these things are anything but evil, I would say, "case closed."
@gallantentry And I would say if you think a poor person with no help is evil because he steals to feed his family then I would say go fuck yourself you self righteous ignorant fuckwit. How dare you.. You should be ashamed of yourself religious or not, Bad form. Read more books.
@gallantentry Ah. Well at least I know now I was chatting to a child. Look forward to growing up. It's a liberating experience learning and taking things in. Don't be afraid.
It is impossible to be opposed to something which does not exist. I started THINKING almost 20 years ago, and have been an Atheist, oddly enough, just about as long. I lack belief in ANY gods or anything supernatural.
According to you I am evil- as is my lovely family, as is my job in a hospital, as are my volunteering efforts in animal shelters, as are my donations.......
You should be laughed at & ridiculed for believing such absolute immoral nonsense. Use your brain & think.
@easyas314 There is no higher standard for morals than the Bible. If you tell me you've kept the 10 commandments, I would say that you have deceived yourself into believing a lie as you already have with being agnostic. (there are no true atheists) and because you claim atheism shows your dishonesty with your own self. Try using your head and asking God to reveal to your heart what is truth. But it takes great honesty with yourself to do so, so be fair warned. We are all wicked in God's sight.
Bahhh your fuckin bulshit stinks a mile wide....open your heart and ask...fucker...if god is that egotistical and shallow fuck it and fuck you...stupid beliefs...
Geez, can't believe someone pulled out the old pascal faulty logic.... Hitchens blew my counter argument out of the water, however, I typically go the route of Pascal gives no weight or value to truth, knowledge, or insight.
Well,I like Hitchens on religion,but I can't agree with his assessment of the Iraq War,it's really surprising when a man like him can think that the religious people are respondsible for the collaspse of the Iraqi society,Sadamm was not religious,he was one of the only secular government's in the middle east.
@k9a2g6 The religious people he was mentioning was the United States and its initial invasion. He also mentions that if we pull out now, we're leaving them to fall into that religious barbarism. That's his argument as to why we must stay until we've made their nations stable and secular.
@k9a2g6 but I I think you need to listenm again - he's not talking about Saddham and the war to overthrow hims, he's talking about the current situation, the war top creat satbility, which is being manipulated, blocked and jostled from a straight path, and held-up, by parties motivated by opposing religious ideology.
I wonder if the good Mr. Hitchens ever heard of the H.A.A.R.P. facilities in Alaska and other areas? I do believe there are some gaps in his education if I may be so bold.
@BrokenBard Don't get me wrong. I don't know of any speaker against the evils of all organized religions better than Hitchens. But his 'philosophy' stops being educational when he starts to rant about 'politics'. A topic he knows very little about. He should just stick with writing books vs religion. Just read what UseyerEFFINBrain has to say below. Did I say 'HAARP'?.....Sorry,I meant to say SHARP...Mr. Hitchens has very SHARP mental facilities.
@tjrxk7 In what capacity, exactly, are you an authority in terms of Hitchens knowledge of politics? Rational insight into various political arguments depends upon the time invensted studying the subject, not what some random on youtube types. As to UseyerEFFINBrain, even a child knows it's a mistake to take on too many fights at once. Past confrontations have taught this the hard way. Additionally, you're HAARP comment is quite ambiguous & adds nothing constructive to the conversation. Try again
I don't understand what people here are talking about in argument against Hitchens support for the war. He supports the conflict against religious fanatics that are trying to overtake the entire Middle East. If you were a woman in Afghanistan you might cheer Hitchens. Religious control of anything has to be ended. Maybe when they are done they can stop the Catholic Church's battle against birth control.
Well, if religious fanaticism justified a violent military invasion, then Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria and many other countries deserved to be bombed more than Iraq
If the abuse of women (and the raping of children) were sufficient justification for bombing a country, then we should be dropping a nuke on the Vatican
The reality is that as bad as religion is, it does NOT justify military invasion by another equally religious country
- Justify all the atrocities that your cult is guilty of... how bad would it suck to have to try and justify the stoning of gays, the burning of witches, the penis mutilation of infants.
- Look genuinely kindhearted people in the eye and say " i know you are a good person but you are going to burn in hell if you dont join my cult"
- Try to put aside the thought that god watches you have sex, even when its with yourself... how intrusive is that.
1. I can justify the death of gays, witches, fornicators, adulterers, etc. God made human to life for us to live in peace and harmony. premarital sex causes disease, abortions, illegitimate children and loneliness. fornication cause suffering of children, divorce, etc. God's laws are there to protect us...and to free us from damage and suffering.
2. Hell is not biblical. Death is the price of sin. Hell is pagan belief. Hitchens does not know the Bible well.
"Death is the price of sin"?????? Are you serious? Death is an unending biological process during which cells age, decay and die. One more win for the home team. Hitchens is brilliant and you are a believer.
@Jazizi8520 , Death is a mistery in science. Scientists still do not know why cells decay at a certain time. They supposed to be eternal, but at some point they are programmed to decay. Science is a map of what we think the world is. Science is a human effort to understand the universe from our limited perspective, it is a human map of what we think reality is. Hitchens is right, I don't deny it, and agree with him with the evils of man made religion. But even Jesus warned us about the bad seed.
3. When you obey God you are free from many things, including drugs, alcoholism, sex addiction (masturbation), etc. Hitchens fails to point out that people are always a slave to something... You can be a slave to God...or you can be a slave to the world, society and the current system of things. a slave to money, sex, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.. We each choose our master.
If you are a slave to God, you are actually FREE from all the harm to yourself and your body.
Hitchens got it right and you got it wrong buddy. Being slave to your imaginary god is not only bad for your health, it pushes you to the realm of insanity, take a look at yourself in the mirror. Another lunatic chasing a pipe dream in the face of all that sceince has to offer.
@Jazizi8520 , I think the slave part is true. I am against religions, But I do believe in the Bible. I think God exists. When I say Hitchens got it wrong, I mean Bible teachings and beliefs.The Bible does not teach of eternal Hell in which bad people go to suffer. This is totally pagan, and not biblical. I do agree that religion is man made and it is evil. But the Bible is a very powerful book, so much so that it was banned during the dark ages, but today still exists.
@sfumato1002 Do you truly obey God?? If you love me, keep my commandments.John 14:15. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." John 6:29 I would agree that Hitchens does not know the Bible well. But according to the Bible, there is a hell.
@HackNinja420 I also must say that i do NOT justify stoning.... Jesus said, let the person without sin through the first rock! Who are we to stone anybody when we are all imperfect and sin daily. Homosexuality is as much a sin against God as lying or cursing, fornication or adultery. Adam first sin was eating a fruit which God told him not to eat... all sins against God are equal. Hitchens is for ignorant people that do not read the Bible are do not Know. he is pleasing to your ears.
@TheGoalSetter, be realistic, humans don't want to share earth my friend. Human nature is greedy and selfish. Were have you been?? only in the last 100 years we have had 2 world wars, hundreds of other wars, genocides, world wide hunger, etc. Share earth??? are you kidding??? Humans cannot govern themselfs, the last 2k years have been bloodshed, from conquests to extermination of civilizations. Science? What has science brought? Nuclear weapons, our oceans are junk and we are killing the planet.
"I regard the war in Iraq as part of the war on religion."
I hope you forgive my utterance, Chris, but...oh my God.
If anti-sectarianism was your goal, then keeping Saddam Hussein in power was your best bet. He had his own war on religion going for several decades. And it was only when your friends kicked down the door that the religious loons got their chance.
I know Hitchens is too intelligent not to know that. Very sad that he feels the need to rationalise away his massive error.
And Lo did the great prophet Rowling, peace be upon her, proclaim that Dumbledore did lay with men and that it was good. There was much consternation and gnashing of teeth but the great prophet Rowling , peace be upon her, looked kindly on the rabble and sayeth " Do not fear the Batty men, for ,even they, are worthy of the lord thy gods eternal passage" excerpt of the New Testament of Harry found in a cave in Connecticut in the year 2120. Blessed be the Harry
I find Hitchens answer to question on the war in Iraq as being a bit disingenuous. Really, the religious fanaticism and the conflict therein arose after Sadam was deposed. Hitchens has much better reasons in other debates. This reason is not supported by fact.
In math 0 always equals 0. You can’t get away from that. Stephen Hawkins has said, “there must always be a first cause, then the effect.” In order to have a universe of matter, and a beginning of space time, there had to be some power outside the finite, to start the engine. Infinite something above the finite. The question “so where did God come from,” is answered in the infinite. Something out of nothing, still leaves us with nothing starting everything.
@digital0707neo 0 = 0 = 1 + (-1) Now I have something while still having zero.
Stephen Hawking does not believe in a theistic god, and you qoute-mining him to further w/e cause you are trying to promote is dishonest. You cannot use the words of people who dont believe in your religion to make it look like they give support when they really dont. That´s just qoute-mining and misrepresentation.
A universe creating pixie could take the place of the first cause of the universe. An infinite one, too.
@spruntfemalespray Sure... It is forbidden in savoir vivre to say "fuck" you will die socially. And who cares about your chi gong anyway? Do you also practice drinking your urine?
I've given up having objective views on the existence of a creator.
What I have not given up and will never give up, and I implore all people of faith to join me in this, is the belief that religions and their doctrines are poison, more so than cyanide; cyanide can only end you life, but religion will destroy it along with all the things that are integral to your humanity.
The very acceptance of belief in an unacountable unknowable unproovable unrealistic unexaminable, rapidly diverse, nonsense, being such as (god, tooth fairy's, flying teapots etc...)
Is in Logical terms a form of externally caused mental Retardation Quote - Lmhjs1000 - this is not an opinion or belief, it is logic
This 1 statement sums up my opponent..."Logic doesnt explain anything to do with life".......ANYTHING??????? LMAO, haha,
The fact we KNOW we are alive is down to logic.
It takes logic to choose a particular religion, (this is where Religious morality goes out he window)
People CHOOSE! using their intuition!!! a certain religion...And Then LOL say that moral aspects are divine and foundational?? lol lol lol lol lol lol.
My goodness. theists are so hypocritical and brainwashed. KRAUSS!
@lmhjs1000 Don't twist my words. If you cite - do it right. Your behavoiur sums up your reasoning - TWISTED. And learn how to read with understanding. It would help you a lot.
You wrote that you won? But what did you win exactly? HAHA You boast of giving blood without any reward? Pumpung up your pride is your reward. You wouldn't say anything about it nor charity etc if you were modest. I didn't... over and out
4 days ago @lmhjs1000 Logic doesn't explain anything when it comes to life, morals and the reason of it all. - this is wrong
You have falsely accused me of manipulation, yet you have just stripped my mind and reasembled my feelings, emotions and motives for giving . The hypocrisy!
How very dare you, and i'm aparently the twisted 1 lol
1. Atleast i give due to free will, not fear or hope of god
@lmhjs1000 You wrote a supposed cite "Logic doesnt explain anything to do with life". But I wrote: "Logic doesn't explain anything when it comes to life, morals and the reason of it all".
Can't you see a difference??? Please... give me a brake... Ok I can put it in simpler sentences especially for you. Logic doesnt explain the reason of life. Logic doesn't explain why there is morality. Even animals could be more moral than some people and they don't think logically.
@adknerr No, because people can be moral while hating everyone around them. Some people alienate and live outside society, but still remain moral. That shows morals are not correlated with solidarity.
Also people can be solidary in doing evil (every terror is based on that). Some savage people formed society of cannibals etc.
So, morals don't come from evolution - it comes from love. And where does love come from? There is no explanation. We simply were created as loving.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn All of the examples you gave are clearly against why I stated evolution could have 'created' morals. People that are loners and/or alienated have a reduced probability and opportunity for both survival and reproduction. Cannibals face a natural, not moral law, of not eating people... you'll die from the disease of Kuru. Morality from evolution is also not required to be perfect... it's random, which explains edge cases directly in the theory.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn "Even animals could be more moral than some people and they don't think logically". You have theorized that God has given us love, which then brings forth morals, therefore God decided to give some animals love as well? How do you know which ones have this love? Love correlates to having a soul as well? You just have me stumped. How do you KNOW any of this? :)
@adknerr I've just said we were created this way. And animals were also created in the way they are. I don't think animals love but some of them show love-like emotions. Love which people have is something more than emotions. In my opinion love is domain of the people because we are created in God's image and since God is love, so...
@LetTheHolySpiritIn 'God is love'. Well this is a belief I think almost anyone can get behind, since it doesn't feel very theological to me. The problem usually is when people start assuming 'why' a creator would have done something, or even worse some additional revealed knowledge that tells people who, what and why they should love.
@adknerr God is love and human created in his image is also love. If you think rationally, love is the only sense of life. Truelly there is no other. A person should love everybody. Jesus tought to love one another, even those who hurt you. The problem is when people start assuming that love=sex or love=being submissive. Love can be tough. But love is love. Whoever truely loves others - he is love. God is love.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn And right when you had a great philosophy, you turned it into a theology without any possible way of proof. 'created in his image' makes no sense without evidence as well as 'the only sense of life'. There are certainly more senses than just love alone, proof by experience such as fear, hate, jealousy, empathy or even the obvious physical senses like sight, hearing, touch, etc. Once you make these claims... I'm sorry but it is up to you to prove them with evidence.
@adknerr Well, I wrote that because, this is what I believe. And I'm aware that there is no evidence to those who didn't experience God in action. Hate and frear of what? You hate God or satan? If you are criminal you hate police. Obvoiusly. And empathy is a manifest of love. The final sense of life is love and the sense of love it is life (for me it is God who is love and life). I'm sorry but you are unable to disprove that. Even simple fact that people didn't extinct proves that.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn The fact something can't be disproved is not a point in it's favor, my friend. If an arguement is unfalsifiable, it's not even an argument. I notice your religious views consist unintelligible watered down non-statements, and I wonder how you can possibly believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, or the virgin birth, or the crucifixion and resurrection... When there's not one shred of evidence for it? And if you don't believe these things, why call yourself a christian?
@adraim69 Theory of human being evolving from nothing is proven by poor circumstantial evidence and my experience is reproducible. Which is stronger? To make experiment, you have to stop denying everything, live acording to ALL Jesus Christ's commandments and teaching of apostles and live a SINLESS life by the most rigorous definition. Pray everyday for Holy Spriti's guidance.Try for one year. Before and after that read the Gospels. You will repent and believe.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn If you don't believe in evolution, you've either been undereducated or miseducated. Any one of a millions things could prove evolution wrong, but none of these things can be found. In other words, it could be disproven with just one shred of evidence (i.e. an organ of irreducible complexity). However, despite tireless efforts by the creationist pseudo scientific community to find such an organ, the search has been fruitless. Evolution explains the complexity of live to a tee.
@adraim69 No, my friend. Macro evolution can't be proven. It is micro evolution which is unquestionable. Such organ is a single cell which is molecular micro machine realizing a specific task. It can't possibly raise from nothing. Darwin didn't knew that. Read a bit about it and you will see. Also existance and role of DNA which mutations are taken as mechanism of evolution is actually a proof for creation.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn You seem to equate the modern theory of evolution to Darwins origin of species, which is a foolish thing to do. There are many things Darwin got wrong, which scientists openly admit. That is the beauty of the scientific method, none of the knowledge we have is accepted by authority. Skepticism and peer review are key components of our quest for knowledge. You, on the other hand, start with an assumption (that goddidit) and try to prove it with what you see.
@adraim69 "That is the beauty of the" theology, "none of the knowledge we have is accepted by authority. Skepticism and peer review are key components of our quest for knowledge. You on the other hand start with the assumption" (that macroevolutiondidit) "and try to prove it with what you see".
@LetTheHolySpiritIn One mantra of the creationist community is that you can't prove evolution because it happens to slowly, and no one can see it. This is a red harring, Firstly because there are many examples of observable evolution, and secondly, just because something can't be observed doesn't mean it can't be proven. If we needed an eye witness to convict anyone of murder, we'd have a lot more killers roaming the streets. Presumably you want examples of observable evolution, they'll follow.
@adraim69 The problem is that in the theory of macro evolution are to many assuptions which we have to take by faith. Macro evolution can't be scientificaly proven. It is a matter of belief. And as I wrote before Darwin thought that a cell is just some kind of jelly-bio-blob. He couldn't possibly know it is so complex. Read about flagela and its micro rotors. Or the functioning of cell itself. If Darwin lived today he would withdraw his theory.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn You say beleiving in Macro evolution requires many assumptions which have to be taken on faith. I would be very interested to hear what exactly needs to be assumed. What exactly are we taking on faith? You also assert that all I talked about where small changes. Well of course I do, those are the only changes that occur in genetic variation! It doesn't mean that over a course of tens of millions of years, small changes can accumulate resulting in immense variation.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Point of fact, large changes in phenotype (Phenotype means physical traits) has been observed in domestication of dogs. The example of a great Dane having a common ancestor with a chihuahua that dates back meer tens of thousands of years seems to have slipped your mind. I'd like you to explain how it doesn't prove macro-evolution occurs.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn The domestication of dogs is one prime example. We know beyond doubt (from DNA evidence) that all domestic dogs decent from wolves. Their genotype and phenotype have changed a substantial amount since then, due to selective pressured not imposed by natural selection, but instead by human selection. If you want to know how fast evolution can take place, just look at a chihuahua and a great Dane and realize they have a common ancestor that dates back only 20,000 years (approx.)
@adraim69 If we take two different models of recent cars from one car company. Arent they similar? They have close shapes, identical subassemblies, the same function, but one is a bit better. Does it prove the better one evolved from the another one? No, they just have the same designer. Why do you disagree that the same could be with living creatures and one creator?
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Another example of observable evolution would be an illness that grows resistant to antibiotics. Every time a Germ divides, there's a small chance of genetic variation. It may be useless, useful, or detrimental. If a Germ develops an immunity to antibiotics, It has a tremendous advantage over the other germ culture with little no resistance to the medicine. What we see is just what we expect, over time the illness gets worse as selective pressures favor cells with immunity.
@adraim69 All the time you are writing about small changes. Ok, I agree - if I type randomly at my keyboard I can write one word or two which have some meaning. But I wont be able to reproduce "Romeo and Juliet" this way. The probability is around zero. If I lived since the beginning of the earth I wouldn't be able to acomplish that. This is the diference between micro and macro evolution.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn You've also made a common mistake by equating the theory of slowly accumulating advantageous (and increasingly complex) characteristics with just random chance. Evolution is not a process of chance. Although small variation is random (in your example it would be like changing a dozen letters of nonsense for each generation of book) The selection of which variations pass on is certainly NOT random.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn The very fact you have to use spurious objections to evolution like claiming it's just random (Which is exactly what you did with your lame Romeo and Juliet Analogy) Serves as further proof of your misapprehension of the theory of evolution. The same can be said of your car example. How stupid and laughable of you to try and equate the diversity and uniqueness of life to two models of car.
@adraim69 On the other hand how wise is your belief in macroevolution? Why weren't changes random? What selects the valid variation? Why only birds have bones empty inside? Isn't this a simple mutation wchich could have happened to all species over milions of years? What is life according to you? Why there is life in the universe if the whole known universe except earth is dead? Life comes from life and something dead usually remains dead.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn I notice all you do is bring up childish and naive objections to the theory of evolution, instead of trying to give any positive evidence for your "theory" that is was all magic. I'm happy to answer every question you have about evolution, but what you should first understand is that your alternative "theory" is absolutely wrong. The fact that you think the god of the old testiment created adam from some dirt and eve from a rib, is hilarious and stupid.
@adraim69 And what about cloning? If creating an animal from a single cell of livinf animal isn't hilarious and stupid, how come it is hilarious and stupid creating a body of woman from a part of body of man by God (a creator). Are you such a hypocrite? I admit, I can't say what really "dust" was but for me it suggests it was some materia existing on Earth and for sure it wasn't some transient form of animal...
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Now, this is to say nothing about the mountain of Genealogical evidence we have. We can compare the DNA of a human to that of a chimpanzee (our closest ancestral cousin) and see that 98% of our DNA is the same. We compare our DNA to that of a banana, and see we share 40% of our DNA. Shared genetic information always scales with physical similarity. A beautiful proof in and of itself, but only one of a million pieces of the puzzle.
@adraim69 Or maybe chimpanzee evolved from a human-like ancestor. Give me a break. Will your grand-grand-...-grand-children become one day a bannana? Such reasoning is some kind of joke.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn In what way would my grand-children becoming bananas conform to the theory of evolution? Again, all you're proving is that you have an incomplete understanding of the theory. I think it's interesting you use disease, more specifically the occasional remission of disease, to prove there's a creator. remission occurs when the immune system successfully does the job it's unperfectly evolved to do. This imperfect evolution explains why so many people DIE from their illness.
@adraim69 What prevents your grand-grand...-children from becoming a bannana a million years from now? We are talking about slight modifications occuring in a very long time. Explain it if you understand it.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn As I say, I'll address the specific objections you have to the theory of evolution in due time. But right now you need to understand how stupid and full of shit the bible is, so you can stop pretending you already know all the answers (which is something that makes intellectual discourse very difficult if not impossible). First of all, the bible was written by men. Not only that, but men who knew absolutely nothing about the world around them.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Christianity comes from the infancy of our species, when we didn't have answers to simple questions (why do we get sick? What is the sun? Why are there natural disasters? Why do the crops fail?). as a pattern seeking species which is inclined to project agency even onto things with no intention, furthermore as a species acutely aware of our own mortality, comforting answers were given not based on fact, but based on guessing.
@adraim69 Yes, bible was written by men, however under inspiration of God. It is commonly known. So what? You on the other hand do not seem to know anything about christianity. What you wrote refers to pagan religions. Christianity doesn't say anything about sticks etc.. You are starting to be funny.
And why do you think species are pattern seeking? You threw assumption which didn't have to be true hundreds of years ago. After all species evolve, don't they?
@LetTheHolySpiritIn The very idea that a theistic god cares about the human race is laughable. Let alone having created us in his own image. It couldn't be clearer that man made god, and not the other way around. there are so many flaws and holes in the biblical account of creation that I don't know where to start. If you believe genesis is the literal word of god, why didn't god give man dominion over dinosaurs, and germs? Surely he knew of these things existence.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Why are there so many rules about agricultural practice? Why a prohibition against sewing two different seeds in the same field? Why so many demands for animal sacrifice in order to aid the harvest and appease god? All of these questions are already answered if you except that the bible was written by men who knew nothing, and had no answers.
@adraim69 There are no dinosaurs now and people are still alive. There are germs and people cope with it. You contradict yourself. What about seeds? Show me reference. Jew scriptires were also their law and showed way of life, not only the divine revelations. Your objections don't undermine bible.
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Why do you believe the bible is the word of god, and not the Qu'ran? Surely if you were born in the middle east, you'd believe man was made from a clot of blood. Don't you understand your religion is nothing more than an accident of your upbringing? You wouldn't believe any of these things if they hadn't been hammered into your head from the time you where born. Do you feel the holy spirit? That's cool. Muslims feel Allah.
@adraim69 Qur'an has many contradictions. Especially when we compare Meccan and Medinan parts. So, there can be many interpretations of specific verses. Bible is different. And the most important difference is that its truth is confirmed by life of Jesus Christ and disciples.
No, HS isn't about feeling. And maybe you feel your evolution? ROTLF
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Really, I can't bring myself continue this conversation. I know I wont get anywhere with someone so brainwashed by their religious indoctrination. All I can say is that a pity you, and that I hope one day you'll rethink your beliefs. Because there is no afterlife, and devoting the only life you have to something that simply isn't true is one hell of tragedy. I hope one day you understand that.
@adraim69 I am not indoctrinated. It took me years of searching what is really happening in my life. I'd rather say, that you are brainwashed, because you believe what you were taught in school and you didn't study other alternatives. I hope you will, it is difficult to understand christianity, but beneficial. And why do you lie that you care about me? Well, if so, thank you, but you shouldn't - ever heard about Pascal's gamble?
@LetTheHolySpiritIn I disagree that Christianity is difficult to understand. It is difficult to justify its contradictions and reconcile its obvious fabrications. The suspension of disbelief is the hard part. It's clear from the prevalence and diversity of religion throughout the world that the difficult thing to understand is that things happen, both good and bad, without divine oversight.
It breaks my heart that Christopher is gone.
FatherTiresias1 1 week ago
I have to go pray now!! please jesus can you suck my left nut so I can enjoy more video watching!! thank you but after I take a piss so wait 5 minutes please!! amen!
fueldbybeans 4 months ago
Another perspective on Pascal's Wager:
The argument for God is not 100%. Bet on it, though you are not completely convinced. Lie and say you are, for personal gain.
If you are ever converted by Pascal's Wager, or promote Pascal's Wager to convert others, then you do not truly believe in your god.
TuahShinguru 5 months ago
That we cannot keep the Law, and therefore in need of Christ. Hitchens is correct when he said that religion is bad, and little does he know that Jesus taught the very same thing. Religion never saved anyone, but only gives people a sense of piousness. The law should (if used correctly) convict us, not save us. It is a tool God uses to show us that we need another Way. That Way is thru His Son, Jesus who was the perfect sacrifice for us. We can never be 'good'.
gallantentry 5 months ago
@gallantentry How is that fair on people living before Jesus?
brono25 4 months ago
@brono25 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psalm 51:16,17. It had the same purpose in the OT as in the NT.
gallantentry 4 months ago
What Hitchens and so many others don't know is the Mosaic Law isn't just about having guidelines for morals. The thing is, he left off the first commandment which is to "Love thy God..." interestingly enough. But there are 2 separate purposes for the giving of the law. The first is to show us that God is perfect and holy. The Law shows us something of God's character, who cannot lie etc. The second is a revealer and a reminder that we all fall short of God's perfection. (continued)
gallantentry 5 months ago
archeologists have found strong evidence that someone named Cyrenius WAS a governor of Syria from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod. Either there were two separate rulers, both named Cyrenius (a rather common Roman name), who ruled about ten years apart, or the same man ruled Syria on two separate occasions. It should be noted that Jesus was probably born around 5 B.C., earlier than the makers of our calendars thought.
gallantentry 5 months ago
The assumption of contradiction is that Cyrenius (AKA Quirinius) became governor of Syria in 6 A.D., many years after the death of King Herod in 4 B.C. (note: this is a different Herod than the one Jesus was brought before prior to His trial), which would make it impossible for Jesus to be born while they both reigned.
gallantentry 5 months ago
I am so amazed at how little Hitchens know about the God of the Bible.
gallantentry 5 months ago
I was hoping to hear a debate? Hitch is da man! I'd probably get up there and say "Hey, it's all fuckin bullshit...okay!!"
bermudaguy1 7 months ago
OMG, his answer for Pascal's Wager was the best I ever heard!!
itirnitii 7 months ago
"and only when they get there they're told by God 'you've gotta cut that shit out'" LOL
jek21 8 months ago
Hitchens at his very best
naybobdenod 8 months ago
@naybobdenod He used the same arguments here that he did with Craig. Craig brutalized Hitchens positions as Hitchens never answered any of Craig's points. Hitchens was pathetic.
gallantentry 8 months ago
I agree with everything Hitchens says about religion, but calling the war in Iraq the noblest thing the US has done is laughable. Whether or not he does (mistakenly) believe that the motives were to remove Sadam (any fool can see it was for the oil), he ignores the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who've been killed since the invasion. All his (justifiable) remarks he makes against the brutality of religion become undone when he simultaneously supports a war of agression.
urcritic 8 months ago
@urcritic True! And one of the only times I've seen him look uncomfortable answering a question in relation to religion. I have to admit, I wasn't expecting such a concise and insightful question (and follow-up) from that guy
joeldevinbrown 8 months ago
@gallantentry My church relied on my ignorance when the pastor took me, as a five year old, before the congregation and cast out the demons that caused my chronic ear infections. Apparently he missed one, or God wished me to be deaf in one ear when the eardrum ruptured a painful year later.
Ematched 9 months ago
@Ematched You pastor was a heretic obviously. Only God can cast out demons and heal the sick. Probably was a Pentecostal movement.
gallantentry 8 months ago
@gallantentry Really? According to your Bible Mark 16:17-18 that's not true:
"17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
frightenedsoul 6 months ago
@frightenedsoul God does the healing and in this particular case, He did so through the disciples. It was God who healed, but these gifts were given to the disciples alone.
gallantentry 6 months ago
@gallantentry Nope, those versus are Jesus speaking to his disciples, but he doesn't say only the disciples will be able to, it specifically says all of those that believe. Read it again. It's okay, you can admit it's nonsense because it obviously is.
frightenedsoul 6 months ago
If God was a dictator, Hitchens wouldn't be an atheist.
gallantentry 9 months ago
Regarding his first question, he cannot live without some things that he cannot prove. That is okay for him--but he still feels that he has the rfight to tell others what they should not live with--if they cannot prove it to HIS satisfaction. Regarding the question in which Hitchens mentions the Samaritan man and the religious Jew, funny that is the point that Jesus was making. That the neighbor's desire to help the fallen man (what we are supposed to do) was greater than his religion.
ScottWaltA 9 months ago
Chris Hitchens. I would.
archiewillmot 9 months ago
@archiewillmot ......Christopher.
TheSpoonFedFukWit 9 months ago
@TheSpoonFedFukWit Apologies :P
archiewillmot 9 months ago
A very rare fail by Hitchens.. Evil is surely a religious loaded term that means absolutely nothing.
Still love the guy.
petepamf 10 months ago
@petepamf evil is the absence of goodness.
gallantentry 9 months ago
@gallantentry And what is the absence of goodness? Abhorrent behavior maybe? Narcissist personality disorder? Let's try and move on from mid evil language and leave loaded religious words in the past.
Evil.. Please.. What is this dungeon and dragons?
petepamf 9 months ago
@petepamf
I find that the word itself (evil) has become, for those more intellectually enlightened, simply a label for the idea of the kind of psychotic sadism which they believe can not be explained by a tainted childhood or a personality disorder or, god forbid, religion.
I, myself, do not subscribe to the idea, but I find that, most often, those who do are those who have been confronted with the worst that humanity has to offer. I believe it to be an emotional disturbance of reason.
lumburgapalooza 9 months ago
@lumburgapalooza Fair enough.
petepamf 9 months ago
@petepamf why should this word be classified as a midievel word or any era? Why would anyone be offended by the use of this word? Evil is simply the absence of good as this broadens the scope of realization of what is truly wrong with society. Men are evil by nature. The reason many atheists (or anyone) would oppose the use of this word is because they don't like being exposed for who and what they are, such as Hitchens. He is inevitably afraid of of God's opinion of himself.
gallantentry 9 months ago
@gallantentry Well at least I now understand where you're coming from. If I felt man (oh. shall we go out on a limb and include women? Yeah let's) are born abhorrent (or as you insist evil) that would strip everything I know to be true about sociology, neurology, and the like.. You might want to take a deep breath and do a little study in these areas before making such definite statements about human behavior.
petepamf 9 months ago
@petepamf Hitchens as with many people have missed one of th key points of the 10 commandments which is to reveal to mankind that we cannot keep the law. That we are law breakers by nature and therefore need a Saviour. It is the mirror that reveals the dir on our face, but it is grace that gives us the water to wash our face. But we must look at the mirror and see the dirt before we can truly know that we need grace. I have studied human behavior and man is deprived.
gallantentry 9 months ago
Hitchens relies on the ignorance of the general population. He has a poor understanding of the Bible and after hearing his case is no closer to convincing a true believer that they are wrong than to convince someone that food is bad. I assure that when Kind David wrote the words, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.", He meant every word he said. God's word is truth whether we like it or not.
gallantentry 9 months ago
@gallantentry The only way religion works is if the general population is or chooses to be ignorant. Religion builds false walls in your mind, narrowing your perspective. In a world where faith is epidemically prevalent, it takes guts to not believe in a God, and it takes an enlightened mind to come to understanding with that fact, especially after years of indoctrination.
The "ignorance of the population" that you refer to is actually your own undoing.
And isn't it ironic....doncha think?
garybgardnerful 9 months ago
@garybgardnerful Religion builds false wall surely. I would agree 100% with you. Jesus spoke harshly against religion. True Christianity is not about keeping the law or obedience to God for salvation. True Christianity is the opposite. It is realization that we cannot keep the law and thus realizing our need for salvation, less Jesus died in vain. Salvation is a gift and cannot be earned. Christianity is actually a relationship with God through Christ.
gallantentry 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@garybgardnerful Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:29
gallantentry 8 months ago
@gallantentry 'God's word is truth whether we like it or not. ' Is that a statement of fact, or a definition, I mean is it a synthetic or an analytic statement, a priori or a posteori?
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gamesbok I have a choice as does anyone to either believe Hitchens or Jesus. Jesus said clearly that He is the Truth. Hitchens is a flawed human who judges by his own standards. Jesus made the claim no man has made, that He is God in the flesh. I would believe Jesus who spake as no man spake, this includes Hitchens.
gallantentry 8 months ago
@gallantentry You didn't answer my question.
I think you'll find many have made the claim that Jesus did.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@gallantentry and I think Hitchens is right~ it would do you good to lose some of that pride (mortal sin btw) you have and admit YOU could be wrong~ fair play, I will admit I am wrong when someone provides demonstrable repeatable evidence for the existence of an all powerful entity, rather than a weak inference. Will you not admit that the evidence is stacked heavily against you?
Nazarus8 7 months ago
@Nazarus8 The evidence is definitely not stacked against me. There is sufficient evidence that there is a God. Watch the debate between Hitchens and Craig 'the existence of God'. It is fair to say that Hitchens lost that debate by a large margin. For me to admit I could be wrong that there is no God would be a sin. (anything that is not of faith, is sin).
gallantentry 7 months ago
@gallantentry watched the suggested clip, and I have disagree, I thought Hitchens won, as Craig as all other apologist for religion, FAILS to produce evidence that is just slightly convincing compaired to the claims christianity makes for itself.
neuromatiker 7 months ago
@neuromatiker Either you didn't understand what was said or you simply did not watch it.
gallantentry 6 months ago
@gallantentry Well if you are brain washed, you can believe anything when it's coming from your authority. Hitchens himself has stated that he wishes religion to continue on because it serves as a tool for free thinkers to sharpen their wits on. It seperates those who don't understand the meaning of life, the sheep, from the ones who live life to its fullest. I disagree with him however, because I would like to see religion gone but if you can't think for yourself, you need guidelines. Nuff said
Revolution2pointO 6 months ago
@gallantentry What evidence is that ? I have been asking that for years ! So far all I've gotten is quotations from s book that is thousands of years old . Thats not good enough ! I want physical evidence like the kind we get from scientific research .
420gma 4 months ago
@420gma Philosophical evidence is credible.
gallantentry 4 months ago
@gallantentry In your own mind it is.
420gma 4 months ago
@420gma Wrong! If someone lies, then they are by definition a liar. If someone steals, they are by definition a thief. Maybe you think otherwise, but the truth is still the truth.
gallantentry 4 months ago
@petepamf So, your position is that there is no evil in the world? That would explain your position and reason for rejecting the Bible. Of course there's evil and to deny so is rejecting common sense.
gallantentry 8 months ago
@gallantentry If you are going to make a statement like "Of course there's evil and to deny so is rejecting common sense." You might want to give examples on how it is rejecting common sense.. Just saying something means nothing. If you read all my comments you'll see I've made examples and given practical and critical thought to the idea that Evil is a loaded word.. I understand your position being religious you think it's obvious.. I don't M'kay? Oh and as for rejecting the Bible.. Duh.
petepamf 8 months ago
@petepamf I cannot debate this with someone who would close his eyes to common sense. Evil=stealing, lying, cheating, hatred, murder etc etc. If you would say that these things are anything but evil, I would say, "case closed."
gallantentry 6 months ago
@gallantentry And I would say if you think a poor person with no help is evil because he steals to feed his family then I would say go fuck yourself you self righteous ignorant fuckwit. How dare you.. You should be ashamed of yourself religious or not, Bad form. Read more books.
petepamf 6 months ago
@petepamf "Read more books" IN RESPONSE I GIVE YOU MY BEST BARNEY RUBBLE LAUGH...EH-HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE. :)
gallantentry 6 months ago
@gallantentry Ah. Well at least I know now I was chatting to a child. Look forward to growing up. It's a liberating experience learning and taking things in. Don't be afraid.
Now it's far past your bedtime. Good night.
petepamf 6 months ago
@petepamf Your idea of evil is not what God has called evil or wicked. Anything that is not of faith or in opposition of God is evil/wickedness.
gallantentry 6 months ago
@gallantentry
It is impossible to be opposed to something which does not exist. I started THINKING almost 20 years ago, and have been an Atheist, oddly enough, just about as long. I lack belief in ANY gods or anything supernatural.
According to you I am evil- as is my lovely family, as is my job in a hospital, as are my volunteering efforts in animal shelters, as are my donations.......
You should be laughed at & ridiculed for believing such absolute immoral nonsense. Use your brain & think.
easyas314 6 months ago
@easyas314 There is no higher standard for morals than the Bible. If you tell me you've kept the 10 commandments, I would say that you have deceived yourself into believing a lie as you already have with being agnostic. (there are no true atheists) and because you claim atheism shows your dishonesty with your own self. Try using your head and asking God to reveal to your heart what is truth. But it takes great honesty with yourself to do so, so be fair warned. We are all wicked in God's sight.
gallantentry 6 months ago
@gallantentry
Bahhh your fuckin bulshit stinks a mile wide....open your heart and ask...fucker...if god is that egotistical and shallow fuck it and fuck you...stupid beliefs...
Killer0fTheSun 5 months ago
@gallantentry No thank you ! Keep your god and your religon !
420gma 4 months ago
Pascal's wager is so transparent, Tater's surprised anyone, much less Pascal, fell for it.
TaterGumfries 10 months ago
I want my dick-skin back you thieving child molesters
Mataunazeta2010 10 months ago
I want my dick-skin back you thieving child molesters
Mataunazeta2010 10 months ago
questions and ownage nuff said
churchjamespeter 11 months ago
09:47 - great punchline!
WhyteH0use 11 months ago
I enjoyed the music, worked well with the power of the Hitchens.
achooothanks 1 year ago
Geez, can't believe someone pulled out the old pascal faulty logic.... Hitchens blew my counter argument out of the water, however, I typically go the route of Pascal gives no weight or value to truth, knowledge, or insight.
losghost 1 year ago
the background music was profane. as if hitchens needs oprah heartstrings. it was a vulgar and distracting conceit of production.
badenette 1 year ago
Well,I like Hitchens on religion,but I can't agree with his assessment of the Iraq War,it's really surprising when a man like him can think that the religious people are respondsible for the collaspse of the Iraqi society,Sadamm was not religious,he was one of the only secular government's in the middle east.
k9a2g6 1 year ago
@k9a2g6 The religious people he was mentioning was the United States and its initial invasion. He also mentions that if we pull out now, we're leaving them to fall into that religious barbarism. That's his argument as to why we must stay until we've made their nations stable and secular.
TKnightcrawler 1 year ago
@k9a2g6 but I I think you need to listenm again - he's not talking about Saddham and the war to overthrow hims, he's talking about the current situation, the war top creat satbility, which is being manipulated, blocked and jostled from a straight path, and held-up, by parties motivated by opposing religious ideology.
MusicStudyMan 11 months ago
The guy on the left is still circling the errors in the bible , ok now I'm convinced Hitchens is right .
Earrot 1 year ago
Astonishingly good. Thanks for the upload.
fatcat2939 1 year ago
I wonder if the good Mr. Hitchens ever heard of the H.A.A.R.P. facilities in Alaska and other areas? I do believe there are some gaps in his education if I may be so bold.
tjrxk7 1 year ago
@tjrxk7 What? How is that relevant?
BrokenBard 1 year ago
@BrokenBard Don't get me wrong. I don't know of any speaker against the evils of all organized religions better than Hitchens. But his 'philosophy' stops being educational when he starts to rant about 'politics'. A topic he knows very little about. He should just stick with writing books vs religion. Just read what UseyerEFFINBrain has to say below. Did I say 'HAARP'?.....Sorry,I meant to say SHARP...Mr. Hitchens has very SHARP mental facilities.
tjrxk7 1 year ago
@tjrxk7 In what capacity, exactly, are you an authority in terms of Hitchens knowledge of politics? Rational insight into various political arguments depends upon the time invensted studying the subject, not what some random on youtube types. As to UseyerEFFINBrain, even a child knows it's a mistake to take on too many fights at once. Past confrontations have taught this the hard way. Additionally, you're HAARP comment is quite ambiguous & adds nothing constructive to the conversation. Try again
theshortestpath 1 year ago
This is brilliant! What an intellect! I thought I was smart until I heard this guy talk!
morgandude2 1 year ago
Guy on the left looks like a dork !
Earrot 1 year ago
Hitchens makes two jokes and smiles. As much as I like what he has to say I didn't think he had a sense of humor.
DXP6 1 year ago
I don't understand what people here are talking about in argument against Hitchens support for the war. He supports the conflict against religious fanatics that are trying to overtake the entire Middle East. If you were a woman in Afghanistan you might cheer Hitchens. Religious control of anything has to be ended. Maybe when they are done they can stop the Catholic Church's battle against birth control.
Trapar137 1 year ago
Well, if religious fanaticism justified a violent military invasion, then Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria and many other countries deserved to be bombed more than Iraq
If the abuse of women (and the raping of children) were sufficient justification for bombing a country, then we should be dropping a nuke on the Vatican
The reality is that as bad as religion is, it does NOT justify military invasion by another equally religious country
PUT THE GUN DOWN, YOU REDNECKS!
UseYerEFFINBrain 1 year ago
Pascal "what have you got to lose?"
You lose:
-Your ability to reason out your morality.
-Your faith in humans to reason out morality.
-Your authority over yourself...as you have to obey some guys who claim to be divine mediums.
-If enough people believe in it, you lose gobs of freedoms...from buying beer on Sunday to your foreskin to your life!
-At least 10% of your belongings.
-The advances of science that are counter to religious belief.
-Opportunities for the humans to share Earth
TheGoalSetter 1 year ago
@TheGoalSetter Lets not forget... you must...
- Justify all the atrocities that your cult is guilty of... how bad would it suck to have to try and justify the stoning of gays, the burning of witches, the penis mutilation of infants.
- Look genuinely kindhearted people in the eye and say " i know you are a good person but you are going to burn in hell if you dont join my cult"
- Try to put aside the thought that god watches you have sex, even when its with yourself... how intrusive is that.
-
HackNinja420 11 months ago
@HackNinja420 your anwers:
1. I can justify the death of gays, witches, fornicators, adulterers, etc. God made human to life for us to live in peace and harmony. premarital sex causes disease, abortions, illegitimate children and loneliness. fornication cause suffering of children, divorce, etc. God's laws are there to protect us...and to free us from damage and suffering.
2. Hell is not biblical. Death is the price of sin. Hell is pagan belief. Hitchens does not know the Bible well.
3.cont..
sfumato1002 10 months ago
Comment removed
sfumato1002 10 months ago
@sfumato 1002
"Death is the price of sin"?????? Are you serious? Death is an unending biological process during which cells age, decay and die. One more win for the home team. Hitchens is brilliant and you are a believer.
Jazizi8520 10 months ago
@Jazizi8520 , Death is a mistery in science. Scientists still do not know why cells decay at a certain time. They supposed to be eternal, but at some point they are programmed to decay. Science is a map of what we think the world is. Science is a human effort to understand the universe from our limited perspective, it is a human map of what we think reality is. Hitchens is right, I don't deny it, and agree with him with the evils of man made religion. But even Jesus warned us about the bad seed.
sfumato1002 10 months ago
@sfumato1002 if only eve didn't eat that shiney apple huh?
oliverlovesgorts 10 months ago
@sfumato1002 How is there not a hell, when Christ spoke more on hell than any other subject????
gallantentry 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respond to this video...
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
gallantentry 9 months ago
@sfumato1002 marital sex can cause disease wtf yo really witches really. man u missed that boats by hundreds years.
tupacalypse88 9 months ago
@HackNinja420
3. When you obey God you are free from many things, including drugs, alcoholism, sex addiction (masturbation), etc. Hitchens fails to point out that people are always a slave to something... You can be a slave to God...or you can be a slave to the world, society and the current system of things. a slave to money, sex, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.. We each choose our master.
If you are a slave to God, you are actually FREE from all the harm to yourself and your body.
sfumato1002 10 months ago
@sfumato1002
Hitchens got it right and you got it wrong buddy. Being slave to your imaginary god is not only bad for your health, it pushes you to the realm of insanity, take a look at yourself in the mirror. Another lunatic chasing a pipe dream in the face of all that sceince has to offer.
Jazizi8520 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jazizi8520 , I think the slave part is true. I am against religions, But I do believe in the Bible. I think God exists. When I say Hitchens got it wrong, I mean Bible teachings and beliefs.The Bible does not teach of eternal Hell in which bad people go to suffer. This is totally pagan, and not biblical. I do agree that religion is man made and it is evil. But the Bible is a very powerful book, so much so that it was banned during the dark ages, but today still exists.
sfumato1002 10 months ago
@sfumato1002 Do you truly obey God?? If you love me, keep my commandments.John 14:15. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." John 6:29 I would agree that Hitchens does not know the Bible well. But according to the Bible, there is a hell.
gallantentry 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HackNinja420 I also must say that i do NOT justify stoning.... Jesus said, let the person without sin through the first rock! Who are we to stone anybody when we are all imperfect and sin daily. Homosexuality is as much a sin against God as lying or cursing, fornication or adultery. Adam first sin was eating a fruit which God told him not to eat... all sins against God are equal. Hitchens is for ignorant people that do not read the Bible are do not Know. he is pleasing to your ears.
sfumato1002 10 months ago
@TheGoalSetter, be realistic, humans don't want to share earth my friend. Human nature is greedy and selfish. Were have you been?? only in the last 100 years we have had 2 world wars, hundreds of other wars, genocides, world wide hunger, etc. Share earth??? are you kidding??? Humans cannot govern themselfs, the last 2k years have been bloodshed, from conquests to extermination of civilizations. Science? What has science brought? Nuclear weapons, our oceans are junk and we are killing the planet.
sfumato1002 10 months ago
I can't believe all the people gettting onto you about these videos.
Thank you very much. I enjoyed these alot.
TheGoalSetter 1 year ago
I barely minded the music.
216trixie 1 year ago
Bright questions from these kids. How refreshing.
Murphy1844 1 year ago
"I regard the war in Iraq as part of the war on religion."
I hope you forgive my utterance, Chris, but...oh my God.
If anti-sectarianism was your goal, then keeping Saddam Hussein in power was your best bet. He had his own war on religion going for several decades. And it was only when your friends kicked down the door that the religious loons got their chance.
I know Hitchens is too intelligent not to know that. Very sad that he feels the need to rationalise away his massive error.
geoff2204 1 year ago
hahahahaha!! I love me some Hitchens baby
missydebby 1 year ago
And Lo did the great prophet Rowling, peace be upon her, proclaim that Dumbledore did lay with men and that it was good. There was much consternation and gnashing of teeth but the great prophet Rowling , peace be upon her, looked kindly on the rabble and sayeth " Do not fear the Batty men, for ,even they, are worthy of the lord thy gods eternal passage" excerpt of the New Testament of Harry found in a cave in Connecticut in the year 2120. Blessed be the Harry
jimbob1969 1 year ago
4:17 onwards is just brilliant. "Actually, you gotto cut that shit out now"
bassie117 1 year ago
I find Hitchens answer to question on the war in Iraq as being a bit disingenuous. Really, the religious fanaticism and the conflict therein arose after Sadam was deposed. Hitchens has much better reasons in other debates. This reason is not supported by fact.
keereekee 1 year ago
mandatory hitchens in philosophy and debate classes
blazereef 1 year ago
In math 0 always equals 0. You can’t get away from that. Stephen Hawkins has said, “there must always be a first cause, then the effect.” In order to have a universe of matter, and a beginning of space time, there had to be some power outside the finite, to start the engine. Infinite something above the finite. The question “so where did God come from,” is answered in the infinite. Something out of nothing, still leaves us with nothing starting everything.
digital0707neo 1 year ago
@digital0707neo "The question “so where did God come from,” is answered in the infinite."
- It is not answered at all. You are re-labelling infinite as 'God'. Do you know what 'answered' means?
"Something out of nothing, still leaves us with nothing starting everything."
- Scientists don't believe that, believers believe things can come from nothing.
Intiom 1 year ago
@digital0707neo 0 = 0 = 1 + (-1) Now I have something while still having zero.
Stephen Hawking does not believe in a theistic god, and you qoute-mining him to further w/e cause you are trying to promote is dishonest. You cannot use the words of people who dont believe in your religion to make it look like they give support when they really dont. That´s just qoute-mining and misrepresentation.
A universe creating pixie could take the place of the first cause of the universe. An infinite one, too.
Korkzor 1 year ago
@spruntfemalespray Sure... It is forbidden in savoir vivre to say "fuck" you will die socially. And who cares about your chi gong anyway? Do you also practice drinking your urine?
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
I've given up having objective views on the existence of a creator.
What I have not given up and will never give up, and I implore all people of faith to join me in this, is the belief that religions and their doctrines are poison, more so than cyanide; cyanide can only end you life, but religion will destroy it along with all the things that are integral to your humanity.
jizzfish 1 year ago
holy shit he just destroys them
patrickledford420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist Bumper Stickers:
FictionStickers-dot-com
TheFictionGuy 1 year ago
Thanks for posting. Hitchen's is spot on.
I wish him a speedy recovery.
chip8989 1 year ago
i'm arguing about religion.... on the internet!
alexmovies 1 year ago
The very acceptance of belief in an unacountable unknowable unproovable unrealistic unexaminable, rapidly diverse, nonsense, being such as (god, tooth fairy's, flying teapots etc...)
Is in Logical terms a form of externally caused mental Retardation Quote - Lmhjs1000 - this is not an opinion or belief, it is logic
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
This 1 statement sums up my opponent..."Logic doesnt explain anything to do with life".......ANYTHING??????? LMAO, haha,
The fact we KNOW we are alive is down to logic.
It takes logic to choose a particular religion, (this is where Religious morality goes out he window)
People CHOOSE! using their intuition!!! a certain religion...And Then LOL say that moral aspects are divine and foundational?? lol lol lol lol lol lol.
My goodness. theists are so hypocritical and brainwashed. KRAUSS!
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000 Don't twist my words. If you cite - do it right. Your behavoiur sums up your reasoning - TWISTED. And learn how to read with understanding. It would help you a lot.
You wrote that you won? But what did you win exactly? HAHA You boast of giving blood without any reward? Pumpung up your pride is your reward. You wouldn't say anything about it nor charity etc if you were modest. I didn't... over and out
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn - have you got a memory?
LetTheHolySpiritIn
4 days ago @lmhjs1000 Logic doesn't explain anything when it comes to life, morals and the reason of it all. - this is wrong
You have falsely accused me of manipulation, yet you have just stripped my mind and reasembled my feelings, emotions and motives for giving . The hypocrisy!
How very dare you, and i'm aparently the twisted 1 lol
1. Atleast i give due to free will, not fear or hope of god
2. I definately do win!
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000 You wrote a supposed cite "Logic doesnt explain anything to do with life". But I wrote: "Logic doesn't explain anything when it comes to life, morals and the reason of it all".
Can't you see a difference??? Please... give me a brake... Ok I can put it in simpler sentences especially for you. Logic doesnt explain the reason of life. Logic doesn't explain why there is morality. Even animals could be more moral than some people and they don't think logically.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn I take it you aren't sold on the idea that morals are a part of our evolution as an attempt to ensure solidarity and society?
adknerr 1 year ago
@adknerr No, because people can be moral while hating everyone around them. Some people alienate and live outside society, but still remain moral. That shows morals are not correlated with solidarity.
Also people can be solidary in doing evil (every terror is based on that). Some savage people formed society of cannibals etc.
So, morals don't come from evolution - it comes from love. And where does love come from? There is no explanation. We simply were created as loving.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn All of the examples you gave are clearly against why I stated evolution could have 'created' morals. People that are loners and/or alienated have a reduced probability and opportunity for both survival and reproduction. Cannibals face a natural, not moral law, of not eating people... you'll die from the disease of Kuru. Morality from evolution is also not required to be perfect... it's random, which explains edge cases directly in the theory.
adknerr 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn "Even animals could be more moral than some people and they don't think logically". You have theorized that God has given us love, which then brings forth morals, therefore God decided to give some animals love as well? How do you know which ones have this love? Love correlates to having a soul as well? You just have me stumped. How do you KNOW any of this? :)
adknerr 1 year ago
@adknerr I've just said we were created this way. And animals were also created in the way they are. I don't think animals love but some of them show love-like emotions. Love which people have is something more than emotions. In my opinion love is domain of the people because we are created in God's image and since God is love, so...
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn 'God is love'. Well this is a belief I think almost anyone can get behind, since it doesn't feel very theological to me. The problem usually is when people start assuming 'why' a creator would have done something, or even worse some additional revealed knowledge that tells people who, what and why they should love.
adknerr 1 year ago
@adknerr God is love and human created in his image is also love. If you think rationally, love is the only sense of life. Truelly there is no other. A person should love everybody. Jesus tought to love one another, even those who hurt you. The problem is when people start assuming that love=sex or love=being submissive. Love can be tough. But love is love. Whoever truely loves others - he is love. God is love.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn And right when you had a great philosophy, you turned it into a theology without any possible way of proof. 'created in his image' makes no sense without evidence as well as 'the only sense of life'. There are certainly more senses than just love alone, proof by experience such as fear, hate, jealousy, empathy or even the obvious physical senses like sight, hearing, touch, etc. Once you make these claims... I'm sorry but it is up to you to prove them with evidence.
adknerr 1 year ago
@adknerr Well, I wrote that because, this is what I believe. And I'm aware that there is no evidence to those who didn't experience God in action. Hate and frear of what? You hate God or satan? If you are criminal you hate police. Obvoiusly. And empathy is a manifest of love. The final sense of life is love and the sense of love it is life (for me it is God who is love and life). I'm sorry but you are unable to disprove that. Even simple fact that people didn't extinct proves that.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn The fact something can't be disproved is not a point in it's favor, my friend. If an arguement is unfalsifiable, it's not even an argument. I notice your religious views consist unintelligible watered down non-statements, and I wonder how you can possibly believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, or the virgin birth, or the crucifixion and resurrection... When there's not one shred of evidence for it? And if you don't believe these things, why call yourself a christian?
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 Theory of human being evolving from nothing is proven by poor circumstantial evidence and my experience is reproducible. Which is stronger? To make experiment, you have to stop denying everything, live acording to ALL Jesus Christ's commandments and teaching of apostles and live a SINLESS life by the most rigorous definition. Pray everyday for Holy Spriti's guidance.Try for one year. Before and after that read the Gospels. You will repent and believe.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn I forgot about practicing all sacraments. You will find the list in cathehism of catholic church. Good luck.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn If you don't believe in evolution, you've either been undereducated or miseducated. Any one of a millions things could prove evolution wrong, but none of these things can be found. In other words, it could be disproven with just one shred of evidence (i.e. an organ of irreducible complexity). However, despite tireless efforts by the creationist pseudo scientific community to find such an organ, the search has been fruitless. Evolution explains the complexity of live to a tee.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 No, my friend. Macro evolution can't be proven. It is micro evolution which is unquestionable. Such organ is a single cell which is molecular micro machine realizing a specific task. It can't possibly raise from nothing. Darwin didn't knew that. Read a bit about it and you will see. Also existance and role of DNA which mutations are taken as mechanism of evolution is actually a proof for creation.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn You seem to equate the modern theory of evolution to Darwins origin of species, which is a foolish thing to do. There are many things Darwin got wrong, which scientists openly admit. That is the beauty of the scientific method, none of the knowledge we have is accepted by authority. Skepticism and peer review are key components of our quest for knowledge. You, on the other hand, start with an assumption (that goddidit) and try to prove it with what you see.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 "That is the beauty of the" theology, "none of the knowledge we have is accepted by authority. Skepticism and peer review are key components of our quest for knowledge. You on the other hand start with the assumption" (that macroevolutiondidit) "and try to prove it with what you see".
How about that?
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn One mantra of the creationist community is that you can't prove evolution because it happens to slowly, and no one can see it. This is a red harring, Firstly because there are many examples of observable evolution, and secondly, just because something can't be observed doesn't mean it can't be proven. If we needed an eye witness to convict anyone of murder, we'd have a lot more killers roaming the streets. Presumably you want examples of observable evolution, they'll follow.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 The problem is that in the theory of macro evolution are to many assuptions which we have to take by faith. Macro evolution can't be scientificaly proven. It is a matter of belief. And as I wrote before Darwin thought that a cell is just some kind of jelly-bio-blob. He couldn't possibly know it is so complex. Read about flagela and its micro rotors. Or the functioning of cell itself. If Darwin lived today he would withdraw his theory.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn You say beleiving in Macro evolution requires many assumptions which have to be taken on faith. I would be very interested to hear what exactly needs to be assumed. What exactly are we taking on faith? You also assert that all I talked about where small changes. Well of course I do, those are the only changes that occur in genetic variation! It doesn't mean that over a course of tens of millions of years, small changes can accumulate resulting in immense variation.
adraim69 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Point of fact, large changes in phenotype (Phenotype means physical traits) has been observed in domestication of dogs. The example of a great Dane having a common ancestor with a chihuahua that dates back meer tens of thousands of years seems to have slipped your mind. I'd like you to explain how it doesn't prove macro-evolution occurs.
adraim69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adraim69 Dane and chichuachua are still a dog. One didn't change into a horse did it?
Why does the number of chromosomes change with different species?
Why there is so small number of "transient forms" between species?
The assumption taken by faith is "over a course of tens of millions of years, small changes can accumulate resulting in immense variation".
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn The domestication of dogs is one prime example. We know beyond doubt (from DNA evidence) that all domestic dogs decent from wolves. Their genotype and phenotype have changed a substantial amount since then, due to selective pressured not imposed by natural selection, but instead by human selection. If you want to know how fast evolution can take place, just look at a chihuahua and a great Dane and realize they have a common ancestor that dates back only 20,000 years (approx.)
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 If we take two different models of recent cars from one car company. Arent they similar? They have close shapes, identical subassemblies, the same function, but one is a bit better. Does it prove the better one evolved from the another one? No, they just have the same designer. Why do you disagree that the same could be with living creatures and one creator?
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Another example of observable evolution would be an illness that grows resistant to antibiotics. Every time a Germ divides, there's a small chance of genetic variation. It may be useless, useful, or detrimental. If a Germ develops an immunity to antibiotics, It has a tremendous advantage over the other germ culture with little no resistance to the medicine. What we see is just what we expect, over time the illness gets worse as selective pressures favor cells with immunity.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 All the time you are writing about small changes. Ok, I agree - if I type randomly at my keyboard I can write one word or two which have some meaning. But I wont be able to reproduce "Romeo and Juliet" this way. The probability is around zero. If I lived since the beginning of the earth I wouldn't be able to acomplish that. This is the diference between micro and macro evolution.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn You've also made a common mistake by equating the theory of slowly accumulating advantageous (and increasingly complex) characteristics with just random chance. Evolution is not a process of chance. Although small variation is random (in your example it would be like changing a dozen letters of nonsense for each generation of book) The selection of which variations pass on is certainly NOT random.
adraim69 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn The very fact you have to use spurious objections to evolution like claiming it's just random (Which is exactly what you did with your lame Romeo and Juliet Analogy) Serves as further proof of your misapprehension of the theory of evolution. The same can be said of your car example. How stupid and laughable of you to try and equate the diversity and uniqueness of life to two models of car.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 On the other hand how wise is your belief in macroevolution? Why weren't changes random? What selects the valid variation? Why only birds have bones empty inside? Isn't this a simple mutation wchich could have happened to all species over milions of years? What is life according to you? Why there is life in the universe if the whole known universe except earth is dead? Life comes from life and something dead usually remains dead.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn I notice all you do is bring up childish and naive objections to the theory of evolution, instead of trying to give any positive evidence for your "theory" that is was all magic. I'm happy to answer every question you have about evolution, but what you should first understand is that your alternative "theory" is absolutely wrong. The fact that you think the god of the old testiment created adam from some dirt and eve from a rib, is hilarious and stupid.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 And what about cloning? If creating an animal from a single cell of livinf animal isn't hilarious and stupid, how come it is hilarious and stupid creating a body of woman from a part of body of man by God (a creator). Are you such a hypocrite? I admit, I can't say what really "dust" was but for me it suggests it was some materia existing on Earth and for sure it wasn't some transient form of animal...
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Now, this is to say nothing about the mountain of Genealogical evidence we have. We can compare the DNA of a human to that of a chimpanzee (our closest ancestral cousin) and see that 98% of our DNA is the same. We compare our DNA to that of a banana, and see we share 40% of our DNA. Shared genetic information always scales with physical similarity. A beautiful proof in and of itself, but only one of a million pieces of the puzzle.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 Or maybe chimpanzee evolved from a human-like ancestor. Give me a break. Will your grand-grand-...-grand-children become one day a bannana? Such reasoning is some kind of joke.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn In what way would my grand-children becoming bananas conform to the theory of evolution? Again, all you're proving is that you have an incomplete understanding of the theory. I think it's interesting you use disease, more specifically the occasional remission of disease, to prove there's a creator. remission occurs when the immune system successfully does the job it's unperfectly evolved to do. This imperfect evolution explains why so many people DIE from their illness.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 What prevents your grand-grand...-children from becoming a bannana a million years from now? We are talking about slight modifications occuring in a very long time. Explain it if you understand it.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn As I say, I'll address the specific objections you have to the theory of evolution in due time. But right now you need to understand how stupid and full of shit the bible is, so you can stop pretending you already know all the answers (which is something that makes intellectual discourse very difficult if not impossible). First of all, the bible was written by men. Not only that, but men who knew absolutely nothing about the world around them.
adraim69 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Christianity comes from the infancy of our species, when we didn't have answers to simple questions (why do we get sick? What is the sun? Why are there natural disasters? Why do the crops fail?). as a pattern seeking species which is inclined to project agency even onto things with no intention, furthermore as a species acutely aware of our own mortality, comforting answers were given not based on fact, but based on guessing.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 Yes, bible was written by men, however under inspiration of God. It is commonly known. So what? You on the other hand do not seem to know anything about christianity. What you wrote refers to pagan religions. Christianity doesn't say anything about sticks etc.. You are starting to be funny.
And why do you think species are pattern seeking? You threw assumption which didn't have to be true hundreds of years ago. After all species evolve, don't they?
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn The very idea that a theistic god cares about the human race is laughable. Let alone having created us in his own image. It couldn't be clearer that man made god, and not the other way around. there are so many flaws and holes in the biblical account of creation that I don't know where to start. If you believe genesis is the literal word of god, why didn't god give man dominion over dinosaurs, and germs? Surely he knew of these things existence.
adraim69 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Why are there so many rules about agricultural practice? Why a prohibition against sewing two different seeds in the same field? Why so many demands for animal sacrifice in order to aid the harvest and appease god? All of these questions are already answered if you except that the bible was written by men who knew nothing, and had no answers.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 There are no dinosaurs now and people are still alive. There are germs and people cope with it. You contradict yourself. What about seeds? Show me reference. Jew scriptires were also their law and showed way of life, not only the divine revelations. Your objections don't undermine bible.
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Why do you believe the bible is the word of god, and not the Qu'ran? Surely if you were born in the middle east, you'd believe man was made from a clot of blood. Don't you understand your religion is nothing more than an accident of your upbringing? You wouldn't believe any of these things if they hadn't been hammered into your head from the time you where born. Do you feel the holy spirit? That's cool. Muslims feel Allah.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 Qur'an has many contradictions. Especially when we compare Meccan and Medinan parts. So, there can be many interpretations of specific verses. Bible is different. And the most important difference is that its truth is confirmed by life of Jesus Christ and disciples.
No, HS isn't about feeling. And maybe you feel your evolution? ROTLF
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn Really, I can't bring myself continue this conversation. I know I wont get anywhere with someone so brainwashed by their religious indoctrination. All I can say is that a pity you, and that I hope one day you'll rethink your beliefs. Because there is no afterlife, and devoting the only life you have to something that simply isn't true is one hell of tragedy. I hope one day you understand that.
adraim69 1 year ago
@adraim69 I am not indoctrinated. It took me years of searching what is really happening in my life. I'd rather say, that you are brainwashed, because you believe what you were taught in school and you didn't study other alternatives. I hope you will, it is difficult to understand christianity, but beneficial. And why do you lie that you care about me? Well, if so, thank you, but you shouldn't - ever heard about Pascal's gamble?
LetTheHolySpiritIn 1 year ago
@LetTheHolySpiritIn I disagree that Christianity is difficult to understand. It is difficult to justify its contradictions and reconcile its obvious fabrications. The suspension of disbelief is the hard part. It's clear from the prevalence and diversity of religion throughout the world that the difficult thing to understand is that things happen, both good and bad, without divine oversight.
AfraidtoFly 1 year ago