Added: 11 months ago
From: KYLYKaHYT
Views: 29,936
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (243)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • These debates are the reason why I am and will probably always be an agnostic. I dont think either side has proved their point completly. To me if someone believes the earth is only 6000 years old I think they should change their veiws. But I think scientists are are also talking out of their ass when they expect me to believe that they found a 1.7 million year old ancestor of mine.

  • @larjjlion Anyone that calls themselves a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist is an idiot. As you said, neither side has proven their point beyond reasonable doubt. However, you can be an agnostic atheist (as I am) or an agnostic theist and still be rational in your opinion, just leaning toward one side or the other.

  • @TheOmnImpotent Im not sure where you are coming from. there are different levels of agnostisism just as there are different types of christianity. I believe there may be a god but I am skeptical of religion. But I also have respect for science but Im very skepttical of many of the theories it has proposed over the last 150 years in regards to the evolutionary process. The bible and vast other cultures remember some type of a massive flood that took place 1000"s of years ago.

  • @TheOmnImpotent I agree that these legends that span from Peru to the Middle East contaian much myth. However they do contain some odd similarities that in my opinion has not been explained enough to be put t nbed as nonesense. Ive met many people from the scientific community that have told me that if this flood did take place most of the theories that have been entetained about man before that time may have to be seriously adjusted.The entire atmospheric and geological situation could have

  • @TheOmnImpotent been completly different before that event thus rendering the c14 aand other dating methods either very qustioable or completly useless. I dont believe that scientists are correct in assuming that these radio active clocks have been the same for ions of time like they say. They also have not convinced me in the absence of god. This why Im in the middle> I feel he has a lot of explaining to do. But at the same time the scientific community has got to stop diefying theirtheories.

  • @TheOmnImpotent There are people who do horrible things in the name of religion and god. There are others that do kind things in gods name. However the thigs people do may just be because of human nature. Now it may be true that god gave us an inate concience to do the good things we do. But did he also give us the ability to become an an adolf hitler. These questions are what make me glad to be agnostic because i dont think atheists or theists have the answers.

  • hitchens pushed dislike as hes alive in the spirit realm lol

  • Obviously Hitch is pulling his punches here because Olavsky seems a nice man but still wipes the floor with religion.

  • I MISS HITCHENS! Why are all the cool people dying?!?

  • @hiph0pfiend Every man dies, not every man really lives.

  • 17:13 "are 1 billion Hindus all nutty? " This is the pathetic side to religion

    A christian man would look at a Muslim mans faith and laugh at how crazy it is

    A muslim man would look at a Christian mans faith and laugh at how crazy it is

    A hindu would laugh at a Christians a buddist would laugh at a muslims ect

    When you break them all down you find they all pretty much wind down to the same bullshit

    I find it HILARIOUS when i see a Christian laugh at another religion.Epitome of the term hypocrisy

  • @netgear123456 That's all part and parcel with having "faith". It is blind and narrow-sighted. It is accepting a belief without critically analyzing or producing evidence. So in other words, it is predictable and obvious that believers would be self-centered and hypocritical.

  • @netgear123456 Agreed when you believe in a virgin birth and resurrection and talking snake you can't make fun of anything. 

  • I believe that it is much more accurate to say that religion CAN poison anything instead of saying that religion DOES poison everything. Many people have been helped by religion and many people have been hurt by religion. My main beef with religion is arrogance; many of them are immensely proud of their humility. They do not accept anything except their own beliefs and immediately discard anything else without a second thought. This closed mindedness is extremely dangerous.

  • I still can't believe hitchens is gone, forever.

  • I have seen a lot of these debates with Christopher and he seems very respectful of Olasky in this debate.

  • Brilliant, Brilliant, Brilliant....Hitchens will not soon be replaced; if ever.

  • Posters:Turn your TV on "Bible Mysteries Explained": There are about 7 to 9 versions of the Bible. The Thomas version and the Mary Magdalene were the oldest and agnostic versions, buried until discovered in the early19th century. Constantine of Roman Empire chose John's version and perhaps, modified it to his advantage and political power at the time. John's version said "Jesus is the only Son of God" while Thomas Version only contained the sayings of Jesus: "Anyone can become Son of God".

  • This guy is sooooo off base......you don't have to be religious to be good and not every religious people are not evil either. Waste of time....

  • Olasky did a decent job trying to attack HItchens claim that religion poisons everything by pointing out religious charity. The most dangerous poisons are the ones that appear not to be poisons by having some positive attributes while destroying at the same time.

    Drugs, for example, make you feel amazing. So you assume you need them to feel good when in fact they are destroying your life.

  • I really like most of the people Hitchens debates. I appreciate christians who are open to discuss their beliefs rather than taking offense and hiding from nonbelievers.

  • Olasky- no arguments, just anecdotes

  • I can and do listen to him all day.

  • Hitchens was an intellectual fool. I hope people do not get seduced by his smooth but empty ideas.

  • @curlysue27 You mean evidence. Sorry when I listened to both sides I came to the conclusion that he was politically informed and as far as the religion is as a whole smooth/empty can describe it I guess but that's another topic. The central idea that religion poisons everything seems more or less met in his book but there are hours upon hours of it on the internet I am sure you can read it/hear it. You can't console random youtubers into throwing away facts just because you disagree.

  • @NickCarefoot God and Hell are the only facts I know personally Nick. They are the only facts that count in the life of a soul and the only job a human should concern himself with on this planet is the salvation of his eternal soul. All this is just empty blather.

  • @curlysue27 You can't call something a fact without evidence. And no, a "Holy" book is not evidence.

  • @curlysue27 this beleiive is cause by indoctrination,

    you think you beleive that out of choice, but indoctrination does that, you also beleive you have the only possible truth, indoctrination, you beleive it is also wrong to think otherwise, indoctrination,

    think about it, youd be a muslim or a jew, assuming your christian, being born elswhere,

    iv seen 100 of people dying, not one of them seem to loose somthing more then life

    where is this soul before you were born,?

  • @curlysue27 Are you saying that purely from a neutral point of view or are you another religious nutcase?

  • only atheists give for the right reasons...tax breaks.

  • The name of Hitchens victories should not include the actual name of the defeated. Just because it might save them and their families the shame. Lets just name these debate videos something like...Hitchens versus degenerate subhuman treasonous failed fallen cowardly superstitious unstable religitard number 231. The name of the crazy religitard isn't required because they arent important. They dont say anything logical.

  • did he really say what he said about RANDOMNESS??

  • I've noticed that the Theist retorts are usually that which are tantamount to splitting hairs. Hitchens is a brilliant man who inspired to free myself from the chains of religion. It all makes sense. And ever time I watch his debate, he says something new every time, while, the Theists say the same thing over and over and over.

  • @Redcrayon2121 *Inspired me to*

  • ONe thing that still baffles me is why anyone would ever challenge Christopher Hitchens intellectually

  • Comment removed

  • Olavsky's main argument is that Christianity is sometimes atrocious but also sometime benign and Christians sometimes do charitable things.... therefore Jesus is the Lord and the Bible is the word of God. PATHETIC

  • Christopher Hitchens, you have 4 years to live...

  • @buitrami And you have?

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • that guy on the left never says anything that means anything.

  • @norwegin Not many people Hitchens debated in his entire career EVER had even a slight chance of coming out looking intelligent afterward.

  • that african aids orphanage wouldn't exist if the religious people would let the world use condoms. ZING.

  • I wonder if Olasky actually thinks that religious people who do good things wouldn't do good things without religion.

  • If you need religion to do the right thing, then you were never a very good person to begin with.

  • The theist here is, as usual, totally full of shit. You can use your imagination and shoehorn your favorite fairytale into anything, doesn't make it right.

  • Trust Christopher Hitchens to make a damn fine point at the end of the debate that makes the most sense out of this debate

  • damnit i hate that "it's all random! RANDOM RANDOM RANDOM!" argument. it's so stupid it's actually hard to tell someone why. (coz you basicly have to point out the obvious)

  • WTF why does it cut off right when he is talking about Marjoe Gortner at 39:53?? i wanted to hear it! so annoyed right now.

  • @anderdorm I'm just a quiet observer who studies religion. I find religious people to be very interesting. I'm mostly interested in what people believe and why. I don't read minds. A few questions if I may. Do you proselytize the people you help? Talk about god with them? Show them the Bible? If the answer to these questions is a "yes", then you do have an agenda. I didn't specify Christianity although I probably should have. Christianity is known for its proselytizing.

  • @AstronomyGuru84 A heart-to-heart is hardly what I'd consider coercive. C'mon. And I think it's shameful to believe that Christianity is the preeminent "proselytizer," especially if you happen to be an American; the United States does not even HAVE a state religion, unlike most of the world. We're fortunate that way, and I have a hard time believing that Christians keep some sneaky "good deeds" quota on their personal time. The last guy was right: You cannot read people's minds.

  • @BrotherAtticus No shame here, I just report what I see. Christianity makes the top of the list. Door to door, college campus preaching, street preachers, Christian missions. “I’ll help rebuild your home and by the way do you know the lord.” I’ve been to numerous college campuses where a preacher will be handing out bibles. In some cases they will be preaching out loud. The US does not have a state religion, but some people argue that it is a Christian nation. The constitution says otherwise.

  • How did Marvin Olasky ever get a PhD? Either his professors were afraid of his family, or they got paid off by his family, or they gave it to him just to get rid of him. This is why college degrees alone don't impress me.

  • Hitchens rules. Olasky bores.

  • I love Hitchens. But unfortunately he had constantly levied the same doomed argument about the "inhumane" god. Suppose, as he does within it, that there is a god. Imagine being God yourself. Can you fathom your creation accusing you of things like racism and genocide, when YOU'RE the one who formulated the possibility of those things, AND the human capacity to create words for them, AND the human gumption to try to comprehend them? How can your creation understand your ways? They don't, simply.

  • @BrotherAtticus Your argument simply provides ammunition for anti-theist arguments, as well as anti-deist. If god is theistic, then god makes no sense. If god is a deistic god then what does it prove if not that god is superstition.

  • @Schneboll I think that analysis puts God in a pretty tight box, frankly. It falls in line with what I said.

  • @BrotherAtticus You can't use that argument, or you can no longer use the Bible. If God is not understandable then either the Bible is total nonsense or that it is a special exception. If it is a special exception, how did you come to this conclusion? Because citing the Bible as evidence of its special nature is logically irrelevant. Now if you simply reject all logic and evidence then you cannot argue with anyone because debate is either rational or non-existent.

  • @halfLotusMusic That's a false dichotomy; one doesn't have to either understand something completely or not understand it at all. The Bible is not meant to be a complex database of explanations for every intricate detail of existence, it is meant to supply spiritual growth. Supposing there is an almighty God, wouldn't it make sense that man will understand only what God wants him to understand?

  • @BrotherAtticus Firstly, that ISN'T what that word means. And secondly, I made it very clear the problem. If the Bible CAN be understood but God cannot otherwise, then you must explain why it is special. Saying "because I can" isn't logical nor evidence. You have to point to something that offers objective suggestion that the Bible is special and understandable whereas the entirety of the rest of will of God is not.

    So, as I have made it clear; your argument cannot sustain itself.

  • @halfLotusMusic 1) false dichotomy: n. "a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options."

    2) I'm saying God's intentions can only be made as clear as the Bible makes them. A major problem with the world is Christians who think they know His will and do evil and reckless things accordingly. Human misunderstanding of God does not make Christianity inherently bad, nor the Bible nonsensical.

  • You don't have to be religious or believe in a god to help people. Secularist and atheist also help people. I'm an atheist and I help people and donate to charity all the time. While religious people do help people they don't do it without an agenda.

  • @AstronomyGuru84 i hate it as well...

    that religioun peoples "help" as well

    but they help because god say soo 0:23:30 that just not even careing

    its like if the gov will go to a family and tell them that they will become an orphinage and take care of kids that they sent them...

    what i want to ask after that is

    what if it will be proven that there is no god a day after will they still take care of this kids or leave them

  • @ARAFELI It goes a little something like this. “I’ll help rebuild your home and by the way do you know the lord.” You don’t need religion or a god to be good or to do good things. As a matter of fact there are cases where people do bad things because they believe they have divine permission.

  • @AstronomyGuru84 you dont have to tell me

    i live in israel

    land of the craz religion

    just last week there was a story of a grown men yelling at a 8 year old girl and calling her a whore because the way shes dress (not his girl someone alse girl)

    its sick...

  • @ARAFELI Israel the so called Holy land. Where a lot of religions butt heads. Despite the religious presence I've always wanted to visit Israel because of the history. Very sad, I hope that doesn't leave any emotional scars on that little girl.

  • @AstronomyGuru84 i hope as well

    they started to go crazy here in the last month

    wanting to make a street just for girls or boys

    they "asked" the girls to sit in the back of the busses

    and the crazy of all if shes undear the age of 50 you cant leasen to her because she might curapet you

    i want to be anywhere but here...

  • @AstronomyGuru84 Not only that, all studies show that those that consider themselves atheistic donate a far greater percentage of both their time and money to charitable causes than those that identify as theists.

  • @AstronomyGuru84 almost all* studies, I didn't mean to say ALL studies show that.

  • @cyberslick18 I can see that being true. The church needs the money to polish the pews and shampoo the rugs. Can’t be given it to the poor those pews need to be shiny. A religious person will help others but not without proselytizing. "I'll help rebuild your home……by the way have you found Jesus."

  • Atheist help others because it's the right thing to do... NOT because Dad tells us to!

  • @AstronomyGuru84 I'm also a proud Atheist,but only a fool would give to a charity.EXAMPLE!! The billions of lost dollars(STOLEN) for the Haiti earthquake.If you let others handle your money,instead of doing it yourself,then you're only lining the pockets of those who will touch it first.Don't be fooled by ANY human.We are a much more intelligent part of the species.We are the next step in evolution.Atheist or theist cannot be trusted with your money.hunter, gatherer syndrome!

  • @MrAmericanzombie I don't give money. I give clothes and other items. I'm not a fool. I know where the items go because I work with these charities.

  • @AstronomyGuru84 I'm also an astronomy freak! I'm self-proclaimed light yrs. ahead of anyone around me.I'm stuck in the bible belt of the USA.Can you imagine such hell?? I wish a biased CME would come our way,and wipe out all Christians in about 8 mins,lol.

  • @MrAmericanzombie So your in favor of genocide? Are you making a joke or are you serious about wiping out all Christians? If so then I strongly disagree with your morals.

  • @AstronomyGuru84 While I do agree that atheists can help, poles show that the epically vast majority of people who go to Africa to help children or disease, people who donate to charity, and people who volunteer are in the 90%+ religious. Though I do like atheists, don't get me wrong.

  • @MysteryoftheGods "I will give you clean water to drink and I will help you rebuild your home. By the way have you found Jesus." Religious people do help but not without a religious agenda. Thank you for your kind words.

  • @AstronomyGuru84 Bill Gates once gave a million dollars to a charity that, in effect, helped fund the high school that I attended which gave me free college. When asked why he did this out of his own money, he said that it was because his wife told him to. Everyone laughed. It's the same thing. Unlike Hindus who would do this for Karma, religious people do this to satisfy their father. Would you slap a child for making his biological father happy? No. Same deal..

  • @MysteryoftheGods The problem with basing your morality on keeping your celestial father happy becomes apparent when you realize that said father is genocidal, sexist, racist, a promoter of slavery, and encourages mutilation as both a form of ensuring your immortality as well as punishment for the "wicked". Besides that, I personally have a greater respect for those who do the right thing for its own sake, not out of fear or because they are commanded to do so.

  • @Dobermonster Virtually every Christian I know does not see God as evil in the way that you say it. Yes, they may ignore those parts of the Bible, but everyone has their own personal God. No two Christians, Muslims, anything see God the exact same way. There is always SOMETHING different for each, even if it is minute. While They do it for God, you see it negative but rather you should see it, in my opinion, as God being right, so they do it for the right..

  • @MysteryoftheGods "No two Christians, Muslims, anything see God the exact same way. " And that's how you know that it's all made-up stuff.

  • @TomFynn No two scientists see science the same way.

  • @MysteryoftheGods Most scientists agree on the Newtonian Laws of Gravity, the Black-Body radiation, evolution, the Dirac-equation, the laws of thermodynamics, you get the picture.

  • @TomFynn And most Christians believe in the holy trinity, the Christ, the flood. You get the picture.

  • @MysteryoftheGods Strange. There are quite a lot of Christians who deny the holy trinity and even more who will have no business with claptrap like the flood.

  • @TomFynn Strange. There's a lot of scientists trying to prove ghosts and psychics, don't believe in the big gang but rather the steady state theory, some believe the theory of super strings, some don't. Some believe in the Higgs, some don't. Funny how that works.

  • @MysteryoftheGods Those that believe in the steady-state theory are idiots, who have to come up with crap like "mini-bangs" or "tired light". Likewise those that try to prove ghost and physics. Those that *disprove* ghost and physics are much more successful. Actually they are the only ones who are successful.

    As for the string theory, that is - currently - mathematics, the Higgs boson is now at 3sigma confidence.

    Science. It works.

  • @TomFynn Regardless of your answers, true or not, to these scientific problems, the problem that you face is that people still argue with all of these regardless of how proven they are, so you can't harp on religion for doing the same thing your precious science is doing. Christians have their holy books, scientists have their holy books. Both are believed to be the truth by who reads them, so in the end we find that science is another type of religion (one which I agree with).

  • @MysteryoftheGods Yes, people argue. On the basis of evidence. That which everyone *can* see. "Holy" books are not evidence. Otherwise "Buffy" would be evidence for vampires.

  • @TomFynn I am not arguing for the validity of religion. I said people argue, which you agreed on, so therefore I see no further point to debate it..

  • @MysteryoftheGods And I said that without evidence there is no point in debating. Or arguing.

    PS: Nice attempt at shifting the semantic goalpost. Won't work.

  • @TomFynn The hell? You quoted me as saying no two people see things the same way...how the everloving fuck am I ducking out of an argument when defend by saying that God doesn't exist?

  • @MysteryoftheGods To clarify: Science does *not* have holy books. Only to the ignorant they seem to be. And I did not quote you.

  • @TomFynn Okay this is getting silly. Your first message to me was a quotation of what I said which started this "debate"..

  • @MysteryoftheGods Yes I agree. To untangle this, I would need to go back though the comments, but frankly, I find I couldn't be bothered. So I would propose to agree to disagree.

  • @TomFynn Agree to disagree? My quote was "No two Christians, Muslims, anything see God the exact same way." You said "Yes, people argue." I never said anything about evidence, proving the validity of God, all subjects which you brought in here to try and aid you in your fight against a theist..so..you are the one introducing principles that have shadowed my own beginning statement which is that people disagree, which even you have agreed on previously..

  • @MysteryoftheGods *psychics

  • @Dobermonster (2) But eventually, in your way of thinking, you get to a split road. If you took away that religion, many people, in your eyes, would stop doing what they are doing, so instead of helping people there would be a dark patch of people suffering where others could have helped. Regardless of why they do they right thing, they are doing the right thing and as a result people are benefiting from it. Can't you at least appreciate that part of it?

  • He did an excellent job of moving a mountain here. lol

  • Beginning to 14:30 = HITCH PWNAGE

  • i really cant believe that people ask what we can get morality from...... come on!!! use your fucking heads!

  • looooot of fallacious arguments coming from olasky.

  • Now there's some Irony that Hitch would have enjoyed.

  • RIP Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011.

    A great man, who did great work. Truly inspirational.

  • Christianity is not spreading like wildfire in China fyi.

  • Historical revisionist & women's magazine hack Christ' Hitchens NEVER, in his rhetoric, endorses the plainly-written strictures of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, shared powers, checks & balances. His politics are of the Thomas Woodrow Wilson model: expeditionary forces, base-building, occupation/colonization of the outlands, spying on Americans (to rat out the illusory 5th column, “loose lips sink ships”) & expansion of the Anglo-American empire.

  • @IconsOfTeleplay you're really amusing you know that?

  • @IconsOfTeleplay the anglo-american empire is what enables you to watch youtube. shhhhh.

  • @GustavBalderdash : The Anglo-American Empire is the reason behind why you are unable to compose a proper sentence.

  • @hevy99 I'm just going to pretend you are trolling, and actually don't believe what you're saying. Goodbye, I'm not commenting again.

  • @hevy99 Actually, if I replied, you would comment back, and therefore you wouldn't be finished. Next, you didn't even give a subject in which to change. All you said is "HITCHENS SUCKS!", and I correctly called you a moron for making such a stupid, childish comment. I backed that up by your inability to put sentences together properly.

  • @hevy99 I'll be damned if I stand here and watch a guy who can't type "you" and "your" judge my comment as mature or immature. I have no need for any more words from you.

  • @hevy99 You're unlucky to be born with genes that make your intelligence inferior to most other people. Whether you're just trolling, or expressing your actual opinion, I feel sorry for you.

  • Olasky does not respond to Hitchens rational and logical observations, he just waffles and dribbles. Hitch always impresses me how he continues to debate these fools, they do not LISTEN to his arguments but simply respond with quotes from an ancient book written by desert dwellers struggling to understand life!! I don't have hero's, but if I did Hitch would be one.

  • @Sailright21 His way with words blows my mind. I've watched every debate of his multiple times, and I am continually astounded at his ability to express ideas within these debates in such an aesthetically pleasing manner. I very much envy his arrangement of language.

  • Hitchen's voice is aural chocolate, and fuck am I overindulging

  • @weefeatures It's really strange when you see him as a young man... and he has the same voice!

  • Unfathomable, that Olasky, trying to find a Christian parallel to Hitchen's secular Polio innoculators, can only come up with the early American Puritan Cotton Mather. Cotton Mather??!! Yes, Mather promoted small pox inoculations in Boston. Mather is most famous as the main whose writings zealously urged on and later justified the Salem Witch Trials and hangings. Talk about religion poisoning everything!

  • Marvin Olasky is an insult to the art of debate. 

  • Comment removed

  • 46:36 - read 1st timothy 2:12 - yeah, the positive view. smh

  • Olasky acts as if ignorance is a virtue

  • this theologian is so insufferably smug in front of who is arguably the greatest secular mind of a century

  • @manonthemount Ignorance is a powerful drug.

  • how tragically are hitch's coughs indicative of esophageal cancer

  • This debate , mainly everything that Mr.Hitchens mentions, completely unveiled reality , changed everything for me: ESP the part "resist this with every fiber of your being", thanks so much

  • @hevy99 Said the man with an ozzy osbourne video on his channel.

  • dat was a classic pawnage session

  • The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

  • Marvin Olasky is not completely unbearable. Click Hitchens vs Jay Richards. Now Richards is one unbearable douchebag.

  • @shadowdragon1414 the whole time richards was talking i swear i couldnt hear anything. though i laughed when ben stein tried to rescue him

  • I'm not quite sure Christianity has been practiced. Loving God with all your heart mind and soul and your neighbour as yourself hasn't been touched. If it had been done on a global scale this planet will probably resemble a utopia. Science is great and so is faith if practiced properly. We are all entitled to our opinions and it's great that we can have open debates. I'm confident Jesus wouldn't want us to judge one another harshly rather be tolerant and accepting to each other.

  • The sooner that God goes into the mass grave with call Mythology, the better.

  • @Wrahns how did you mix up with and we? :P lol

  • i thought he had a brit/usa passport

  • Well, Olasky isn't as obscenely dishonest as most of Hitchens's opponents, but he appears to have a mighty hard time thinking.

  • @nosensetoitatall its tricky hitchens is a very good public speaker..most of us arent.

  • @nosensetoitatall Nah, he is just imitating Hitchens.

  • olasky is so way out of his class here... in fact there are so few people who can counter hitch well and still sound somewhat sane

  • I love olaskey's opening...it's clear he either didn't read the book or didn't understand it.

  • The Inquisition only killed about 5,000 people? What about the Native American Indians? Especially those in South America who the Spanish and Portuguese set upon like wolves with the full backing of the Roman Church? According to the eye witness account of Bartelome de las Casas he witnessed the murder of tens of thousands and estimated a death toll of 50 million.

  • I love hitchens at 14:30 ¬¬

  • WHAT?!? Did Olasky say the Inquisition only killed 5.000 people, implying that church doesn't have much blood on it's hands? That is windowdressing, as if saying "In june 1983 Belgian priests only raped 3 boys"... In the city of Béziers, Pope Innocentus III (nice name) and his fellows said: "Kill them all, God will recognize his own", and then slaughtered many thousands of people from a slightly different christian sect. Estimates are between 5.000 and 22.000 depending on who is counting.

  • What is Hitchens doing here? The opposition is chinless.

  • Are we to believe Mr. Olasky, that all these people would not have done all these humane and charitible things if they were not religious? Nigga please.

  • Hitchens rocks, as usual. I've yet to see him be defeated in debate

  • This Olasky fella is very poor in my view. Religious apologists always come back with acts of charity to 'support' their 'case', missing the essential points that applying all ones abiltiies to reason (as one would with any other issue in life) the evidence for religion does not even begin.

  • ughhh that guy with the glasses is sooooooo boring

  • "The eyes of Texas are upon you". That's some creepy, weird shit.

  • some times theist drive me insane with the stupidity of a question.

    The universe is all random so how can i trust what your saying?

    fucking stupid question. for once i want an atheist to respond with something like.... If I draw a square circle how can we jump sideways?

    Just drives me crazy!!!!!

  • I can't help but feel a tad sorry for Olasky.. He's so horribly out of his depth it makes me cringe. He has absolutely NOTHING to offer to this debate.

    PS - fuck, fuck, fuck