Wikipedia: Hitchens has written of his homosexual experiences when in boarding school in his memoir, "Hitch-22." These experiences continued in his college years when he allegedly had relationships with two men who eventually became a part of the Thatcher government.
Was sodomite Christ' Hitchens' hollow death an early Christmas gift, or retribution for the total-war that he endorsed against the mothers & children of the Arab sphere?
And unfortunately for Christopher Hitchens he has now succumbed to that end and has met with the one he denied but can deny no more.
If we are all just animals, and that Life is nothing but a menagerie of no conscience or self worth the point of living is completely futile and meaningless.
Out of a void nothingness came life as we know it?
@FirebrandNIRE yes I do !! And how do YOU know that he met anyone after death? Have you been there? Or is it just Faith. And faith, be definition is believeing something w/o evidence; and I and C Hitchens cannot do that, because... we're NOT Idiots.
Tell me this, and I'm being serious. What part of Evolution have you personally witnessed ? Please be specific....
Even master Scientists have agreed to this fact, that there has been no observation of evolution but is mere speculation. That therefore is Faith!! Blind Faith in fact.
Please answer my question above though, without ad homs and insults like most folk, which is just characteristic of cop-out.
And another thing please don't use the like of CS Lewis and other pagans who in fact are as far removed from the BIBLE as you are. It just makes you look stupid.
@FirebrandNIRE Everyone who has seen a child has witnessed evolution. Haven't you noticed that children take traits from their parents, but are not exactly the same? That is how evolutions works. Something is born with certain traits that makes them better at surviving and/or finding a mate, therefore that something reproduces and its children inherit those features.
@FirebrandNIRE Read up on anti-biotic resistant bacteria. The reason why bacteria can become resistant to antibacterial products is because they EVOLVE. also, look up 'peppered moth evolution' in wikipedia. do it before (or if) you reply
@FirebrandNIRE please take your extreme form of genetically deficient mental retardation to a doctor STAT! maybe you can get a brain transplant though I doubt that would help even a moron like you...create your own meaning in life and save the rest of us from your ignorant religious drivel
An unfortunate title -- should be "Christopher Hitchens on CS Lewis' arguments for God". I liked it but he doesn't address some points properly i.e. he covers "if Jesus isn't God, he is arrogantly taking on everyone sins" but he doesn't give any time to the contrary "what if he is?"-- mainly because it appears he can't get past his outrage towards something like Jesus' ultimate self-sacrifice for others (oddly, he claims he would sacrifice himself in certain circumstances).
debates are not meant to be "won". they are there for knowledge. Also, I'm upset that we didn't get to hear Dinesh's argument. the title is false advertising.
I come down with Hitchens on this question. But it should be said--and has been said by Hitchens himself--that D'Souza is probably the best opposition he's ever faced on the issue of Does god exist.
@seans10 No. Absolutely not. Dinesh D'Souza is quite possibly one of the saddest apologists for the existence of god today. He uses the silliest arguments that people like Ray Comfort use, "Communists were atheists, so clearly that's not good, you know, to be an atheist." Or "Cars require makers, so universes do too." Absolutely insane vacuous nonsense.
@BigLundi I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I've watched all of Hitchens' debates of which I'm aware, and I can say, from the perspective of a life-long atheist, that D'Souza was his most compelling opponent.. And I swear I heard Hitchens made the same observation. What's to disagree with?
@dataika there are several parts to responsibility for a wrong: penalties, recognition of wrong, and restitution. Satisfying a karmic penalty is separate from righting a wrong and confessing guilt. On a human level we often see forgiveness of penalty for crimes committed in ignorance if the person has it in his heart to make restitution of some kind.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I read in Wiki that Hitchens is a switch hitter. I guess religion must have been a stumbling block in the face of his licentious and debauch life style.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfully framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Owns? Hitchens constructs straw man arguments and then cuts the straw man. The "hideous" forgiveness of sins does not mean you say, "I take your responsibility." The idea is that you "go and sin no more." I would release someone from jail if he realized his debt and would go on to sincere community service. BTW where is D'Souza's response? Why so tightly edited?
@MiloOfCrotona What does it mean to you, to hold someone responsible? What does it mean to be held responsible? Is it not to face the consequences of your actions? I'm interested in your point of view.
utter nonsense...... Hitchen's argument falls down on itself. It frankly unblievable that he could twist the majesty of CS Lewis' train of thought in this pernicious way. Unfortunately, Lewis in no longer with us to repudiate this nonsense!!
@Sholistic100 Lewis' train of thought is not majestical. Basically, what he's saying is that Jesus' teachings are so immoral that he has to be divine. Then, Hitchens comes around, saying that Jesus' teachings are so immoral that he must have been insane. Both agree, however, that Jesus shouldn't forgive people for their transgressions against others.
Your statement does not contain an actual argument. Why is it nonsense? In what respect does Hitchens reasoning fall down on itself? Substanciate.
I watched the debate and Christopher Hitchens did not own Dinesh D"Souza of matter of fact it was the other way around! It seem as if the audience was athiest as well and D'Souza was very impressive in arguing his beliefs. D'Souza answered all off Hitchens questions in detial but Hitchens could not do the same.To GOD be the Glory, know JESUS as your Lord and savior ask Jesus to come into your hart.
@kaynkaile obviously you would come with such a biased and fallacious statement. Sorry, but even a fucking kid who asks for GOD when it sees a lion killing a fucking gazelle to eat without mercy, is more logical than any rhethoric concerning Christianity's fantasies about unicorns running on the skies saying they're going to give you a ride.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 I wonder if you're aware that dust particles in outer space (zero gravity) have a tendency to assemble themselves in a double helix configuration, the same configuration that comprises DNA structure. Also all the necessary ingredients are readily available in space……think about that. There are many things left for us to understand in the universe & just because you can't imagine the complexity doesn't mean there isn't a fundamental reason for their order.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@Mogley52 If humans are "quite comfortable in the way they walk", then please tell me why we wear shoes. Evolution doesn't always equal comfort, discomfort can/is offset by other evolutionary traits such as calluses or modified behavior (buying shoes). Get real man
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
YOU KNOW WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WAY WE PORTRAYED WOMEN IN EARLIER TIMES , WELL EVERYBODY'S MOTHER WAS VIRGIN AT BIRTH .
IF JESUS DID'NT EXIST IT GREW TO BE ONE OF THE MOST COMPLICATED SCHEMES EVER. BUT YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE FREE GIVE AWAY'S THE BIBLE HAS, I.E. THE BLIND MAN HAD TO HAVE THE MUDSPIT PACK DONE TWICE TO CURE HIM, DOESN'T A MIRACLE WORK THE FIRST TIME?
No matter what your position, if you take a step back and look OBJECTIVELY at this WHOLE debate, Hitchen's was clearly outmatched. Dsouza vs Singer was much closer.. how is this "ownage" when you don't include Dsouzas rebuttal/response? You can find the whole debate on youtube.. not Hitch's best performance..
Hitchens has been in pretty closely matched debates before and indeed in some where it could be said without hestitation, that he was probably in the wrong, but never with D'souza. Mr. Hitchens has always been way above D'souza.
There is simply nothing that D'souza has ever said, debating Hitchens, that even came close to hitting home..rather he (D'souza) tends to be a character who shouts and flails his arms a lot, hoping to make his point by being loud rather than intelligent
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Brilliant. This is why I love listening to Hitchens. He points out the symbolism of a virgin birth clearly as well as the immorality of accepting the idea of an innocent mans (Jesus) death as a free pass to relinquish people of their sins. .
a virgin birth is an idea that at some point life had to have started. it's not rocket science, it's symbolism.
ask a jew if the book of Genesis was written to be literal and you will find that the answer historically is no. Hitchens is guilty of his own biases. Punching your way out of a paper bag is hardy a feat.
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
@dejesusluisx You said "Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love..."
Sir, with only a brief perusal of the Bible it is abundantly clear that the Christian god (which would include Jesus as part of the 'tri-god') is a malicious, vindictive, violent murderer who committed innumerable atrocities.
For someone to proclaim that he is 100% love is to completely disregard and/or rationalize these events.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Christ is a message to follow, "...and the word became flesh". The Bible can't be interpreted literally. The Bible is the inspired word of God, not the dictated word. God inspiration is often confounded with our own ideas and thoughts. We know God's true nature through Christ, He's the road, the truth and the life. The road because He's a role model mankind needed but wasn't prepared to receive before, the truth because He reveals the truth about God's essence and eternal life.
your comment was very poorly thought out..atheists reject the supposed divinity of jesus. we don't reject the peace and love jesus represented in the bible..we don't believe jesus was a living god..that has nothing to do with rejecting his, or anyone's messages of peace and love..we can refine our morality and heighten our consciousness without believing a man who lived thousands of years ago was the living form of the creator of the universe.
@itzahazylife "we don't reject the peace and love jesus represented in the bible" If you don't follow his message and live it, you're rejecting it.
"we can refine our morality and heighten our consciousness without believing a man" of course you can, but how? what will be your road map? what should you do? tell me and you may change my perception about atheism.
Seriously, how brilliant is the thread that Hitchens weaves here? Listening to some of his great debate moments is right on par with listening to my favorite music albums.
@mrw21 The problem here, is not whether or not Hitchens is an eloquent man. Everyone can see that Hitches is an eloquent and well spoken man. The issue is, whether or not what he is saying is true, and whether or not it has any relevance to the debate at hand. I have heard him wax eloquent for a long period of time, and only barely touch the question asked of him. What Hitchens says is at times poetic and eloquent, but not always relevant.
(3) There is still some damage ... but it is not caused by Religious belief per say. It is caused by *very rigid belief* itself. We have suicide bombers and we have suppression of condoms in aids ravaged countries, etc. But we also have Nazis, etc. More important are corporations behaving like psychopaths and to a lesser extent society as a whole because money is our "God". The rigid belief here is that economic growth must continue indefinitely and that it overrides all other issues. We die.
@whatyouwantyouare Ah, and the very rigid belief is not Religion in it's most unadultarated form? Bah, humbug. Religion means to blindly accept something as fact without asking for and indeed even forbidding to ask for hard evidence. On that kind of bullshit one can justify anything. And do it with a clean conscience.
(2) I would say Christians and other western Religions certainly hate their enemies (try as they might not to) and they worry plenty about planning for the future and the security and wellfare of the family and the state. Indeed, they worry about it *more* than nonreligious folks. Heaven and Hell is entirely a future based worry. And they constantly worry about family and society.
)1) Interesting point of view. But one thing sounded very wierd in the last 30 seconds: He said: "...loving our enemies, no thought for the morrow,
no thrift nor care for the family or society, these are immoral teachings which have done untold damage to the human species..." I get why he believes these are immoral; but have they done a lot of damage? No. They haven't because Christians or members of any other western Religion certainly do *not* behave according to those teachings.
@whatyouwantyouare - that's a very good point, the inane preachings "on the mount" have caused very little harm over the course of history. I guess the Hitch's point is that the central doctrines of Christianity's leader were invalid and immoral (and clearly should have admonished slavery, rape, incest, etc, but did not). One could go on to show they were also violent, racist, and Jesus showed idiotic belief in the fairy tales of the Old Testament. Thanks.
@whatyouwantyouare Some if not more than half** of Christians do not behave according to those cryptic teachings, no doubt. You and I know that there is a lesser percent of Christians that do seek to do damage. That being said, I'm telling you right now that this modern world can live without religions - they are not necessary. A secular society and civilization is already capable of providing everything that religion stands for on the side of doing good: It already offers shelter,
@whatyouwantyouare Some if not more than half** of Christians do not behave according to those cryptic teachings, no doubt. You and I know that there is a lesser percent of Christians that do seek to do damage. That being said, I'm telling you right now that this modern world can live without religions - they are not necessary. A secular society and civilization is already capable of providing everything that religion stands for on the side of doing good: It already offers shelter,
@whatyouwantyouare food for the needy, youth support, adult support, and the bigger ones: hope, knowledge, answers, and belonging. Why create a new avenue that the only new thing being introduced is damage in the forms of slavery (to god), molestation, bigotry and death? I also invite you to look up more on Nazi motives, because it was a lot more religion-driven than you let on. Saying they will stomp out the atheists in their global conquest is very hinting.
I find it extremely unfortunate that you give this a title saying that Hitchens "owns" Dinesh and then never show a comment, response, rebuttal, statement or anything from Dinesh. You are clearly ignorant in the method of debate and all argument you may have attempted to uphold has utterly failed and is of naught.
i'm sorry... but christopher hitchens simply doesn't understand jesus message. i know, i know... what makes me "understand" it more than him? i've heard it many times but the essential part of jesus was that he believed that any wrongdoing that had been done to any person he would put that to death on the cross. jesus brought a spiritual understanding and not at all literal. hitchens simply doesn't understand it.
@migol1984 Hitchens understood well enough that he either must be God or a lunatic and in saying so he only supported that which a large portion of christianity believes.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
@MamaMario13 not sure if any of the popular atheists address it but it would follow the same issues with the predictions of the likes of Nostradamus, where the the quatrains are interpreted in any number of different ways as to be molded to suit any given situation. They've been making those same claims for a rather long time over different events in many cases using the same verses. I doubt anyone takes it seriously enough to address it.
Excuse me, but there are factual errors in the statements made by Hitchens here.(By the way these are almost taken out from the zeitgeist movie).Like Lord Krishna was born to a "virgin mother".If you want to verify, google his birth and see that Krishna was actually 8th child of DEVAKI (not devaka), and the parents were imprisioned in the same cell.Thank you for reading.
@Aman066 I did find that statement but it also says, "According to Bhagavata Purana divine Krishna was born without a sexual union, but by divine "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki." So perhaps Devaki wasn't claimed to be a virgin but it is said that Krishna's conception was the type that would occur with a virgin birth.
@captainmjs Ohh no no.You are confusing two births here (the other one is in Mahabharata.Those were births of children of Vichitraveerya).Lord Krishna did not take form until the body of the 8th child came into the womb of mother Devaki.(So the body was already there)As told in Bhagvadgita, body is just a vehicle.
@captainmjs Anyways let us not forget the point here.The point is that Christopher is trying to generalise all belief systems in the world.Hinduism has never been corruptive to thirst of knowledge.It has so profound philosophy that there are many schools of thought in itself. the problem is, he thinks all belief systems are religions.But, hinduism is a dharma.Lord krishna was not a prophet.He was not a sin forgiving authority.He just came and said (contd..)
@Aman066 He may be trying to generalize them a bit but his point about the fact that many religions and cults suscribe to a virgin birth is not invalid. For example according to the gospels Jesus is said to have brothers and sisters, for all we know his mother may have had some of these children before Jesus and the ignorance of the writers has spread an idea to the contrary. But the point is that the writers found the idea that he be born of a virgin to be important for their message.
@captainmjs About your second point, Yes you are right.Showing extraordinary birth does help people convince that indeed Ishwara has come down to earth, but that is not the point of Hinduism at all.Whatever writers there may be of Bhagvadgita, they did not intend to start a "Religion" as that concept did not exist back then.See this as a thesis on the Vedanta philosophy.See this as the result of many thousands of years of research on spirituality.(contd..)
@captainmjs What you think is "divine"? violation of some natural laws to be "cool"? What you think is soul, does not exist.Atman exists.The entering of Atman makes a body alive.Atman is reflection of Brahma itself.In this sense, all of human's births are divine.But what was different here, that something which is beyond the Brahma itself : the Parabrahma entered the body of the child.It did not involve any kind of "magical" appearance of a child body from anywhere.(contd..)
@captainmjs This was like the God of all Gods, the omnipresent, who was never created, who was present before time and even place, substituted the place of just another divine Atman with his presence, who is father of all dinvinity. How could anyone distinguish between him and any other child in brij until they met and talked to him or fought him.On the outside, nothing out of ordinary, but really he was THE SRISHTI (all the worlds) himself personified in meagre human form.
@captainmjs First understand this: Body and Atman are two different things.Body is created by natural means, because it is how nature was setup.This is respected and not disturbed by anyone.Atman on the other hand, is the source of your existence beyond just matter.Atman is like reflection of sun in a pot of water,where sun represents Brahma.In ths case, "Sun" himself took charge of the body.I think I did explain this before in my comments.
@Aman066 so God took charge of the body therefore it was God semen that entered the egg or (fill in the blank)? Sorry I'm not seeing the other posts where you said this for some reason I'm only seeing the one post instead of the three or four that you posted altogether.
@captainmjs It isn't a physical intrusion (it is like light rays on pots). It is like when we are viewing reflections in the pots through holes in a wall and asked to tell when the sun comes down and sits in one of the pots (I know its loose analogy, think of a 4D Sun capable of being at two places at the same time).We couldn't because the reflections and sun are indistinguishable.It doesn't matter whether we are looking at the reflections or not, the replaced pot body is same.
@captainmjs Please remember this that there is only a difference of realisation between being a Brahma and being a reflection.So, there is no special "GOD SEMEN".The body, acting as a pot, may be containing Sun or reflection.We honestly can't know until some words come out of it.We all mimic the same Sun.
@Aman066 This is becoming way too confusing for me than the "google this" challenge you posed originally. I think I may study this topic more but I think I get the gist of it. I pulled the "divine transmission" thing off Wikipedia, if you have issues with their article perhaps you should challenge them on it.
@captainmjs "Whatever you do, you will get result accordingly (Karma).But the catch is, if you do it without the presence of your "self" i.e. full state of Sampragyata then the results will not touch you.Now there are many ways to attain that."He was not telling anyone that you are sinful or repent or whatever.He just asserted a law of this world.He does not concern himself with our matters.He just came to set an example that to attain anything, even Moksha, you have to do selfless Karma.
@captainmjs Sorry for posting so many replies but just last one: I think Hitchens and many other so called experts on belief systems need to examine the history and effects of every belief system before they talk about them.Hinduism has the same sources as that of Beejganita,SulbaSutra(Algebra and geometry) from Vedas.In no conceivable way it is comparable to others.It has infact played a major role in our (at least us Indians) civilisation's prosperity (though ruined repeatedly by others).
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION. ONLY MICRO-EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE IN NATURE, BUT NOT MACRO-EVOLUTION. WHY? TO FIND OUT WHY, PLEASE READ MY INTERNET ARTICLE ON RUSSIA'S PRAVDA NEWS: "WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!" JUST GOOGLE THE TITLE. I DISCUSS NATURAL SELECTION, GENETICS, MUTATIONS, FOSSILS, THE ISSUE OF GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SPECIES. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. THANK YOU.
hmmm, for him to have veritably owned Dinesh, shouldn't Dinesh at least be given the chance at a response? The title is false and the uploader doesn't understand the idea of encouraging debate.
@ThePenguinColonel Why ? What I can remind about the Bible is that people of old times were the same that the people who live today. Our human nature have not change from one iota since than. The jewish story resembles to other human groups around the world.
There is one and only one human group on the Earth.
@ThePenguinColonel Colonel ! When people «were»??? With the powerful grip that religious groups have actually on our societies, You should use the the present tense... Ha, Ha, ha !
Owned
ElMufro 1 hour ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wikipedia: Hitchens has written of his homosexual experiences when in boarding school in his memoir, "Hitch-22." These experiences continued in his college years when he allegedly had relationships with two men who eventually became a part of the Thatcher government.
Was sodomite Christ' Hitchens' hollow death an early Christmas gift, or retribution for the total-war that he endorsed against the mothers & children of the Arab sphere?
procommenter 5 days ago
I want to go to a church and shout "asinine fortuity!"
Arrakna 2 weeks ago 7
Little turtle faced Dinesh sweating bullets after that volley.
mouthyweasel 2 weeks ago
that's i like to call a HITCHSALP!!!
shave23 2 weeks ago 3
how the fuck i get here?
cokeizzay 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from thruthem
The wages of 'Sin is Death'.
And unfortunately for Christopher Hitchens he has now succumbed to that end and has met with the one he denied but can deny no more.
If we are all just animals, and that Life is nothing but a menagerie of no conscience or self worth the point of living is completely futile and meaningless.
Out of a void nothingness came life as we know it?
Do you honestly believe this?
FirebrandNIRE 3 weeks ago
@FirebrandNIRE yes I do !! And how do YOU know that he met anyone after death? Have you been there? Or is it just Faith. And faith, be definition is believeing something w/o evidence; and I and C Hitchens cannot do that, because... we're NOT Idiots.
groll103 2 weeks ago
@groll103
Tell me this, and I'm being serious. What part of Evolution have you personally witnessed ? Please be specific....
Even master Scientists have agreed to this fact, that there has been no observation of evolution but is mere speculation. That therefore is Faith!! Blind Faith in fact.
Please answer my question above though, without ad homs and insults like most folk, which is just characteristic of cop-out.
regards.
FirebrandNIRE 2 weeks ago
@FirebrandNIRE
And another thing please don't use the like of CS Lewis and other pagans who in fact are as far removed from the BIBLE as you are. It just makes you look stupid.
FirebrandNIRE 2 weeks ago
@FirebrandNIRE Everyone who has seen a child has witnessed evolution. Haven't you noticed that children take traits from their parents, but are not exactly the same? That is how evolutions works. Something is born with certain traits that makes them better at surviving and/or finding a mate, therefore that something reproduces and its children inherit those features.
funnygerard 2 weeks ago
@FirebrandNIRE Read up on anti-biotic resistant bacteria. The reason why bacteria can become resistant to antibacterial products is because they EVOLVE. also, look up 'peppered moth evolution' in wikipedia. do it before (or if) you reply
Babr900 1 week ago
@FirebrandNIRE please take your extreme form of genetically deficient mental retardation to a doctor STAT! maybe you can get a brain transplant though I doubt that would help even a moron like you...create your own meaning in life and save the rest of us from your ignorant religious drivel
oneirishpoet 2 weeks ago
@oneirishpoet
Simply churlish and pathetic, yet I need the transplant? If you'd only listen to yourself.
FirebrandNIRE 2 weeks ago
It is very difficult to reason someone out of a postion they did not reason themselves into.
Rich Rodriguez
elgar104 3 weeks ago
An unfortunate title -- should be "Christopher Hitchens on CS Lewis' arguments for God". I liked it but he doesn't address some points properly i.e. he covers "if Jesus isn't God, he is arrogantly taking on everyone sins" but he doesn't give any time to the contrary "what if he is?"-- mainly because it appears he can't get past his outrage towards something like Jesus' ultimate self-sacrifice for others (oddly, he claims he would sacrifice himself in certain circumstances).
iammarkfitz 3 weeks ago
debates are not meant to be "won". they are there for knowledge. Also, I'm upset that we didn't get to hear Dinesh's argument. the title is false advertising.
Jjboricua18 1 month ago
@Jjboricua18 You could simply search "Hitchens vs Dinesh" and watch the full video and embarrass yourself more.
DoubterApe 1 month ago
He was a great man!
FluffyAthiest 1 month ago 15
I come down with Hitchens on this question. But it should be said--and has been said by Hitchens himself--that D'Souza is probably the best opposition he's ever faced on the issue of Does god exist.
seans10 1 month ago
@seans10 No. Absolutely not. Dinesh D'Souza is quite possibly one of the saddest apologists for the existence of god today. He uses the silliest arguments that people like Ray Comfort use, "Communists were atheists, so clearly that's not good, you know, to be an atheist." Or "Cars require makers, so universes do too." Absolutely insane vacuous nonsense.
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I've watched all of Hitchens' debates of which I'm aware, and I can say, from the perspective of a life-long atheist, that D'Souza was his most compelling opponent.. And I swear I heard Hitchens made the same observation. What's to disagree with?
seans10 1 month ago
@seans10 ngh...dont make me say it...dont make me praise WLC...
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi I'm about 2/3rds through a bottle of wine and not that hip to begin with, so can you spell out those acronyms for me?
seans10 1 month ago
@seans10 William Lane Craig.
Probably the only debate I ever saw Hitchens in where I feel he lost. Happy now?
BigLundi 1 month ago
@BigLundi Huh? No. I don't really care. But have a nice life!
seans10 1 month ago
I saw the debate, D'Souza left Hitchens without reasonable and proper response. Awesome.
soccer1288 1 month ago
Yo, where's Dinesh? I bet Hitchens won, but seriously, I want to know he won.
bwall47 2 months ago
Nothing to do with owning any body, a specialy since U here only one side.....But it was excelant....''the best of'' Hitchens.
Aleksamson 2 months ago
@dataika there are several parts to responsibility for a wrong: penalties, recognition of wrong, and restitution. Satisfying a karmic penalty is separate from righting a wrong and confessing guilt. On a human level we often see forgiveness of penalty for crimes committed in ignorance if the person has it in his heart to make restitution of some kind.
MiloOfCrotona 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I read in Wiki that Hitchens is a switch hitter. I guess religion must have been a stumbling block in the face of his licentious and debauch life style.
Snotra 2 months ago
Amazing, Hitchens. Dinesh, as usual, is pwned.
Freethinking2010 2 months ago
You realize a debate shows both sides, right? Dinesh wasn't even in this video.. you can't say he owned him until you show his response.
rhadiem 2 months ago
Wonderful.
culturaltheorist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfully framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 months ago
Owns? Hitchens constructs straw man arguments and then cuts the straw man. The "hideous" forgiveness of sins does not mean you say, "I take your responsibility." The idea is that you "go and sin no more." I would release someone from jail if he realized his debt and would go on to sincere community service. BTW where is D'Souza's response? Why so tightly edited?
MiloOfCrotona 2 months ago
@MiloOfCrotona What does it mean to you, to hold someone responsible? What does it mean to be held responsible? Is it not to face the consequences of your actions? I'm interested in your point of view.
Dataika 2 months ago
utter nonsense...... Hitchen's argument falls down on itself. It frankly unblievable that he could twist the majesty of CS Lewis' train of thought in this pernicious way. Unfortunately, Lewis in no longer with us to repudiate this nonsense!!
Sholistic100 2 months ago
@Sholistic100 Lewis' train of thought is not majestical. Basically, what he's saying is that Jesus' teachings are so immoral that he has to be divine. Then, Hitchens comes around, saying that Jesus' teachings are so immoral that he must have been insane. Both agree, however, that Jesus shouldn't forgive people for their transgressions against others.
Your statement does not contain an actual argument. Why is it nonsense? In what respect does Hitchens reasoning fall down on itself? Substanciate.
Pomme843 2 months ago
I watched the debate and Christopher Hitchens did not own Dinesh D"Souza of matter of fact it was the other way around! It seem as if the audience was athiest as well and D'Souza was very impressive in arguing his beliefs. D'Souza answered all off Hitchens questions in detial but Hitchens could not do the same.To GOD be the Glory, know JESUS as your Lord and savior ask Jesus to come into your hart.
kaynkaile 2 months ago
@kaynkaile Can i ask the flying spaghetti monster to come into my heart?
WhoKilledMusic 2 months ago
@kaynkaile obviously you would come with such a biased and fallacious statement. Sorry, but even a fucking kid who asks for GOD when it sees a lion killing a fucking gazelle to eat without mercy, is more logical than any rhethoric concerning Christianity's fantasies about unicorns running on the skies saying they're going to give you a ride.
SophiasHeir 1 month ago
BOOM
ShaolinPete 3 months ago
Comment removed
durburgle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
You read the video title and all you can think is "Oh! As always!"
Mikesapien 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 3 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 months ago
@Mogley52
Worm to human, good one.
GFunkMachine 3 months ago
@Mogley52
"How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving?"
I'm always embarrassed when I see people trying to "disprove" evolution. Please, at least try to understand it before you argue against it.
Kloborgg 3 months ago 39
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
@Mogley52 I wonder if you're aware that dust particles in outer space (zero gravity) have a tendency to assemble themselves in a double helix configuration, the same configuration that comprises DNA structure. Also all the necessary ingredients are readily available in space……think about that. There are many things left for us to understand in the universe & just because you can't imagine the complexity doesn't mean there isn't a fundamental reason for their order.
newbeats4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 months ago
@Mogley52 If humans are "quite comfortable in the way they walk", then please tell me why we wear shoes. Evolution doesn't always equal comfort, discomfort can/is offset by other evolutionary traits such as calluses or modified behavior (buying shoes). Get real man
newbeats4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 3 months ago
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 3 months ago
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
YOU KNOW WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WAY WE PORTRAYED WOMEN IN EARLIER TIMES , WELL EVERYBODY'S MOTHER WAS VIRGIN AT BIRTH .
IF JESUS DID'NT EXIST IT GREW TO BE ONE OF THE MOST COMPLICATED SCHEMES EVER. BUT YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE FREE GIVE AWAY'S THE BIBLE HAS, I.E. THE BLIND MAN HAD TO HAVE THE MUDSPIT PACK DONE TWICE TO CURE HIM, DOESN'T A MIRACLE WORK THE FIRST TIME?
GIANFRANCO FRONZI . OCT. 11/2011
9493760 3 months ago
Dr.William Lane Craig owns Hitchen`s
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen very carefully to his arguments at the very end on how "loving your enemies" is immoral. That is where all of his arguments fall apart.
biguker 3 months ago
Listen very careful to his arguments at the very end on how "loving your enemies" is immoral. That is where all of his arguments fall apart.
biguker 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did'nt Hitchens admit to a homosexual relationship when he was in college!
SAUNDERSacts2618 3 months ago
Comment removed
SAUNDERSacts2618 3 months ago
Mercury was born of Jupiter's seed. Man oh man.
corioa 4 months ago in playlist Christopher Hutchens various
No matter what your position, if you take a step back and look OBJECTIVELY at this WHOLE debate, Hitchen's was clearly outmatched. Dsouza vs Singer was much closer.. how is this "ownage" when you don't include Dsouzas rebuttal/response? You can find the whole debate on youtube.. not Hitch's best performance..
primomobile 4 months ago
@primomobile
Hitchens has been in pretty closely matched debates before and indeed in some where it could be said without hestitation, that he was probably in the wrong, but never with D'souza. Mr. Hitchens has always been way above D'souza.
There is simply nothing that D'souza has ever said, debating Hitchens, that even came close to hitting home..rather he (D'souza) tends to be a character who shouts and flails his arms a lot, hoping to make his point by being loud rather than intelligent
DrDopehat 3 months ago
@primomobile may not be his best, but saying he got "owned" by Dsouza in that debate, i consider false. At best.
speider 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Brilliant. This is why I love listening to Hitchens. He points out the symbolism of a virgin birth clearly as well as the immorality of accepting the idea of an innocent mans (Jesus) death as a free pass to relinquish people of their sins. .
Strictlypointless 4 months ago
Hitchens offers a brilliant articulation of an objection I've had for many years but was unable to fully conceptualize.
cedartree696 4 months ago 18
This has been flagged as spam show
@cedartree696 beautiful, isn't it?
doyoublush 1 month ago
a virgin birth is an idea that at some point life had to have started. it's not rocket science, it's symbolism.
ask a jew if the book of Genesis was written to be literal and you will find that the answer historically is no. Hitchens is guilty of his own biases. Punching your way out of a paper bag is hardy a feat.
romney27 4 months ago
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx You said "Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love..."
Sir, with only a brief perusal of the Bible it is abundantly clear that the Christian god (which would include Jesus as part of the 'tri-god') is a malicious, vindictive, violent murderer who committed innumerable atrocities.
For someone to proclaim that he is 100% love is to completely disregard and/or rationalize these events.
Read your Bible, I did....it made me an atheist.
CynicalSkeptic1 4 months ago in playlist More videos from thruthem
This has been flagged as spam show
@CynicalSkeptic1 Christ is a message to follow, "...and the word became flesh". The Bible can't be interpreted literally. The Bible is the inspired word of God, not the dictated word. God inspiration is often confounded with our own ideas and thoughts. We know God's true nature through Christ, He's the road, the truth and the life. The road because He's a role model mankind needed but wasn't prepared to receive before, the truth because He reveals the truth about God's essence and eternal life.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx
your comment was very poorly thought out..atheists reject the supposed divinity of jesus. we don't reject the peace and love jesus represented in the bible..we don't believe jesus was a living god..that has nothing to do with rejecting his, or anyone's messages of peace and love..we can refine our morality and heighten our consciousness without believing a man who lived thousands of years ago was the living form of the creator of the universe.
itzahazylife 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itzahazylife "we don't reject the peace and love jesus represented in the bible" If you don't follow his message and live it, you're rejecting it.
"we can refine our morality and heighten our consciousness without believing a man" of course you can, but how? what will be your road map? what should you do? tell me and you may change my perception about atheism.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Seriously, how brilliant is the thread that Hitchens weaves here? Listening to some of his great debate moments is right on par with listening to my favorite music albums.
mrw21 4 months ago 19
@mrw21 The problem here, is not whether or not Hitchens is an eloquent man. Everyone can see that Hitches is an eloquent and well spoken man. The issue is, whether or not what he is saying is true, and whether or not it has any relevance to the debate at hand. I have heard him wax eloquent for a long period of time, and only barely touch the question asked of him. What Hitchens says is at times poetic and eloquent, but not always relevant.
theantihero420 3 months ago
@theantihero420 I agree, I'm very much of a fan of his but sometimes I wish he would just answer the question.
JSCwrd 2 months ago
@theantihero420 Exactly! Hitchens is brilliant. He's a literary rock star! But its all rhetoric. There's little or no substance.
AtheismKills 2 months ago
(3) There is still some damage ... but it is not caused by Religious belief per say. It is caused by *very rigid belief* itself. We have suicide bombers and we have suppression of condoms in aids ravaged countries, etc. But we also have Nazis, etc. More important are corporations behaving like psychopaths and to a lesser extent society as a whole because money is our "God". The rigid belief here is that economic growth must continue indefinitely and that it overrides all other issues. We die.
whatyouwantyouare 4 months ago
@whatyouwantyouare oops, I meant "per se".
whatyouwantyouare 4 months ago
@whatyouwantyouare Ah, and the very rigid belief is not Religion in it's most unadultarated form? Bah, humbug. Religion means to blindly accept something as fact without asking for and indeed even forbidding to ask for hard evidence. On that kind of bullshit one can justify anything. And do it with a clean conscience.
TomFynn 4 months ago
(2) I would say Christians and other western Religions certainly hate their enemies (try as they might not to) and they worry plenty about planning for the future and the security and wellfare of the family and the state. Indeed, they worry about it *more* than nonreligious folks. Heaven and Hell is entirely a future based worry. And they constantly worry about family and society.
whatyouwantyouare 4 months ago
)1) Interesting point of view. But one thing sounded very wierd in the last 30 seconds: He said: "...loving our enemies, no thought for the morrow,
no thrift nor care for the family or society, these are immoral teachings which have done untold damage to the human species..." I get why he believes these are immoral; but have they done a lot of damage? No. They haven't because Christians or members of any other western Religion certainly do *not* behave according to those teachings.
whatyouwantyouare 4 months ago
@whatyouwantyouare - that's a very good point, the inane preachings "on the mount" have caused very little harm over the course of history. I guess the Hitch's point is that the central doctrines of Christianity's leader were invalid and immoral (and clearly should have admonished slavery, rape, incest, etc, but did not). One could go on to show they were also violent, racist, and Jesus showed idiotic belief in the fairy tales of the Old Testament. Thanks.
gekritzl 4 months ago
@whatyouwantyouare Some if not more than half** of Christians do not behave according to those cryptic teachings, no doubt. You and I know that there is a lesser percent of Christians that do seek to do damage. That being said, I'm telling you right now that this modern world can live without religions - they are not necessary. A secular society and civilization is already capable of providing everything that religion stands for on the side of doing good: It already offers shelter,
Arcexey 4 months ago
@whatyouwantyouare Some if not more than half** of Christians do not behave according to those cryptic teachings, no doubt. You and I know that there is a lesser percent of Christians that do seek to do damage. That being said, I'm telling you right now that this modern world can live without religions - they are not necessary. A secular society and civilization is already capable of providing everything that religion stands for on the side of doing good: It already offers shelter,
Arcexey 4 months ago
@whatyouwantyouare food for the needy, youth support, adult support, and the bigger ones: hope, knowledge, answers, and belonging. Why create a new avenue that the only new thing being introduced is damage in the forms of slavery (to god), molestation, bigotry and death? I also invite you to look up more on Nazi motives, because it was a lot more religion-driven than you let on. Saying they will stomp out the atheists in their global conquest is very hinting.
Arcexey 4 months ago
FATHER TIME OWNS HITCH...
JoEEll2233 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JoEEll2233 - "FATHER TIME OWNS HITCH..." -- and ALL OF US, what is your point??
TownCryo 4 months ago
@FireBendingLord Seriously? How old are you and how much do you know about india?
Aman066 5 months ago
I find it extremely unfortunate that you give this a title saying that Hitchens "owns" Dinesh and then never show a comment, response, rebuttal, statement or anything from Dinesh. You are clearly ignorant in the method of debate and all argument you may have attempted to uphold has utterly failed and is of naught.
xslickxrollinx 5 months ago
i'm sorry... but christopher hitchens simply doesn't understand jesus message. i know, i know... what makes me "understand" it more than him? i've heard it many times but the essential part of jesus was that he believed that any wrongdoing that had been done to any person he would put that to death on the cross. jesus brought a spiritual understanding and not at all literal. hitchens simply doesn't understand it.
migol1984 5 months ago
@migol1984 Hitchens understood well enough that he either must be God or a lunatic and in saying so he only supported that which a large portion of christianity believes.
xslickxrollinx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
are there any atheists who address the issue of "bible prophecy"? A claim made by the christians is the supposed accuracy of bible predictions
MamaMario13 5 months ago
@MamaMario13 not sure if any of the popular atheists address it but it would follow the same issues with the predictions of the likes of Nostradamus, where the the quatrains are interpreted in any number of different ways as to be molded to suit any given situation. They've been making those same claims for a rather long time over different events in many cases using the same verses. I doubt anyone takes it seriously enough to address it.
achromat666 5 months ago
@MamaMario13 tell them Tyre is still standing
w1cked001 5 months ago
Excuse me, but there are factual errors in the statements made by Hitchens here.(By the way these are almost taken out from the zeitgeist movie).Like Lord Krishna was born to a "virgin mother".If you want to verify, google his birth and see that Krishna was actually 8th child of DEVAKI (not devaka), and the parents were imprisioned in the same cell.Thank you for reading.
Aman066 5 months ago
Comment removed
captainmjs 5 months ago
@Aman066 I did find that statement but it also says, "According to Bhagavata Purana divine Krishna was born without a sexual union, but by divine "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki." So perhaps Devaki wasn't claimed to be a virgin but it is said that Krishna's conception was the type that would occur with a virgin birth.
captainmjs 5 months ago
@captainmjs 'divine "mental transmission"' In other words: a mind fuck.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn God mind-fucked the shit out of her.
captainmjs 5 months ago
@captainmjs She can't have been much of lay. God never called her again.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@TomFynn God didn't even mentally transmit child support, what a douche.
captainmjs 5 months ago
@captainmjs No wonder his son went mad.
TomFynn 5 months ago
@captainmjs Ohh no no.You are confusing two births here (the other one is in Mahabharata.Those were births of children of Vichitraveerya).Lord Krishna did not take form until the body of the 8th child came into the womb of mother Devaki.(So the body was already there)As told in Bhagvadgita, body is just a vehicle.
Aman066 5 months ago
@captainmjs Anyways let us not forget the point here.The point is that Christopher is trying to generalise all belief systems in the world.Hinduism has never been corruptive to thirst of knowledge.It has so profound philosophy that there are many schools of thought in itself. the problem is, he thinks all belief systems are religions.But, hinduism is a dharma.Lord krishna was not a prophet.He was not a sin forgiving authority.He just came and said (contd..)
Aman066 5 months ago
@Aman066 He may be trying to generalize them a bit but his point about the fact that many religions and cults suscribe to a virgin birth is not invalid. For example according to the gospels Jesus is said to have brothers and sisters, for all we know his mother may have had some of these children before Jesus and the ignorance of the writers has spread an idea to the contrary. But the point is that the writers found the idea that he be born of a virgin to be important for their message.
captainmjs 5 months ago
Comment removed
Aman066 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@captainmjs About your second point, Yes you are right.Showing extraordinary birth does help people convince that indeed Ishwara has come down to earth, but that is not the point of Hinduism at all.Whatever writers there may be of Bhagvadgita, they did not intend to start a "Religion" as that concept did not exist back then.See this as a thesis on the Vedanta philosophy.See this as the result of many thousands of years of research on spirituality.(contd..)
Aman066 5 months ago
@captainmjs What you think is "divine"? violation of some natural laws to be "cool"? What you think is soul, does not exist.Atman exists.The entering of Atman makes a body alive.Atman is reflection of Brahma itself.In this sense, all of human's births are divine.But what was different here, that something which is beyond the Brahma itself : the Parabrahma entered the body of the child.It did not involve any kind of "magical" appearance of a child body from anywhere.(contd..)
Aman066 5 months ago
@captainmjs This was like the God of all Gods, the omnipresent, who was never created, who was present before time and even place, substituted the place of just another divine Atman with his presence, who is father of all dinvinity. How could anyone distinguish between him and any other child in brij until they met and talked to him or fought him.On the outside, nothing out of ordinary, but really he was THE SRISHTI (all the worlds) himself personified in meagre human form.
Aman066 5 months ago
@Aman066 So no divine birth then?
captainmjs 5 months ago
@captainmjs Just "divine" is not enough.
Aman066 5 months ago
@captainmjs Invent a new word for translation of that event.We could'nt.You people happily try.
Aman066 5 months ago
@Aman066 How about Devaki's pregnancy, was it a normal pregnancy involving a penis and a vagina or was it divine involving (fill in the blank)?
captainmjs 5 months ago
@captainmjs First understand this: Body and Atman are two different things.Body is created by natural means, because it is how nature was setup.This is respected and not disturbed by anyone.Atman on the other hand, is the source of your existence beyond just matter.Atman is like reflection of sun in a pot of water,where sun represents Brahma.In ths case, "Sun" himself took charge of the body.I think I did explain this before in my comments.
Aman066 5 months ago
@Aman066 so God took charge of the body therefore it was God semen that entered the egg or (fill in the blank)? Sorry I'm not seeing the other posts where you said this for some reason I'm only seeing the one post instead of the three or four that you posted altogether.
captainmjs 5 months ago
Comment removed
Aman066 5 months ago
@captainmjs It isn't a physical intrusion (it is like light rays on pots). It is like when we are viewing reflections in the pots through holes in a wall and asked to tell when the sun comes down and sits in one of the pots (I know its loose analogy, think of a 4D Sun capable of being at two places at the same time).We couldn't because the reflections and sun are indistinguishable.It doesn't matter whether we are looking at the reflections or not, the replaced pot body is same.
Aman066 5 months ago
@captainmjs Please remember this that there is only a difference of realisation between being a Brahma and being a reflection.So, there is no special "GOD SEMEN".The body, acting as a pot, may be containing Sun or reflection.We honestly can't know until some words come out of it.We all mimic the same Sun.
Aman066 5 months ago
@Aman066 This is becoming way too confusing for me than the "google this" challenge you posed originally. I think I may study this topic more but I think I get the gist of it. I pulled the "divine transmission" thing off Wikipedia, if you have issues with their article perhaps you should challenge them on it.
captainmjs 5 months ago
@captainmjs Thank you for the source.I will look into it.
Aman066 5 months ago
Comment removed
Aman066 5 months ago
@captainmjs "Whatever you do, you will get result accordingly (Karma).But the catch is, if you do it without the presence of your "self" i.e. full state of Sampragyata then the results will not touch you.Now there are many ways to attain that."He was not telling anyone that you are sinful or repent or whatever.He just asserted a law of this world.He does not concern himself with our matters.He just came to set an example that to attain anything, even Moksha, you have to do selfless Karma.
Aman066 5 months ago
@captainmjs Sorry for posting so many replies but just last one: I think Hitchens and many other so called experts on belief systems need to examine the history and effects of every belief system before they talk about them.Hinduism has the same sources as that of Beejganita,SulbaSutra(Algebra and geometry) from Vedas.In no conceivable way it is comparable to others.It has infact played a major role in our (at least us Indians) civilisation's prosperity (though ruined repeatedly by others).
Aman066 5 months ago
@Aman066 So are you saying that Krishna is not believed to have a divine birth?
captainmjs 5 months ago
Comment removed
Aman066 5 months ago
Comment removed
Aman066 5 months ago
Comment removed
Aman066 5 months ago
THERE ARE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION. ONLY MICRO-EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE IN NATURE, BUT NOT MACRO-EVOLUTION. WHY? TO FIND OUT WHY, PLEASE READ MY INTERNET ARTICLE ON RUSSIA'S PRAVDA NEWS: "WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!" JUST GOOGLE THE TITLE. I DISCUSS NATURAL SELECTION, GENETICS, MUTATIONS, FOSSILS, THE ISSUE OF GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SPECIES. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. THANK YOU.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 Macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution over time. There is no debate over this among evolutionists.
wownov83 5 months ago
The Catholics and Britishers have sheepishly tried to plant communal Christians in India..
JustAStoner 5 months ago
Comment removed
hapobelle 5 months ago
hmmm, for him to have veritably owned Dinesh, shouldn't Dinesh at least be given the chance at a response? The title is false and the uploader doesn't understand the idea of encouraging debate.
fcblaugrana0 5 months ago
@fcblaugrana0 there is no debate with religious fashists terrorist criminals...
TheRelitard 5 months ago
@TheRelitard please learn to spell fascist before you make such broad claims. this damn website even has a spell checker lol....
fcblaugrana0 5 months ago
What the hell is going on in that second picture?!
vulnerabledonkey 5 months ago
@vulnerabledonkey He's exercising.
writersblock26 5 months ago
This is probably one of the most eloquent of all of Hitchen's speeches that I've heard. This was wonderful.
colossus999 6 months ago
the best book for people to read if they want to become atheists: the bible
ThePenguinColonel 6 months ago 66
@ThePenguinColonel Why ? What I can remind about the Bible is that people of old times were the same that the people who live today. Our human nature have not change from one iota since than. The jewish story resembles to other human groups around the world.
There is one and only one human group on the Earth.
WALTKRIEG 5 months ago
@WALTKRIEG the bible is a weapon of subjugation which worked better when people were more ignorant.
ThePenguinColonel 5 months ago
@ThePenguinColonel Colonel ! When people «were»??? With the powerful grip that religious groups have actually on our societies, You should use the the present tense... Ha, Ha, ha !
WALTKRIEG 5 months ago
@WALTKRIEG at present the sheep are under subjugation, as for the humans we are opening our eyes. slowly, but they are opening
ThePenguinColonel 5 months ago
@ThePenguinColonel i read it all the time... nope, not an atheist.
migol1984 5 months ago
@migol1984 Im sure you look at it... but read it?
ThePenguinColonel 5 months ago
@ThePenguinColonel i've been studying its messages for quite some time now. i've spent hours on end... things i've shared with friends, and thin