How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
I agree with nearly everything Hitchens says, but I have to criticize that one hypothetical that he presents so often. He's saying that it's ridiculous that heaven would wait for 70 thousand years and then show up in the primitive middle east before anyone there was literate.
So he thinks it's absurd that God would show up so late in the human-game, but also absurd that he would show up so early in such a primitive time. It's a contradiction.
Hitchins is superb. I hope he beats his illness but even if he doesnt' he has thankfully left all his thoughts for the masses to watch over and over again. Spread the word and treat people of religion with suspicion and ridicule. IF religion doesn't destroy our species lets hope we can shed it and move on to a new era of knowledge and love based on humanity rather than ridiculous and bizarre superstitions. Peace.
@midnightjoker23 Oh yes, let's ridicule others because they have the free will to believe in different things. That sounds just, doesn't it? A person that does not advocate love has no business contemplating the origin of it. If love originates from humanity, then I would say you aren't much of a human.
@thenewovermind Hahaha, The free will to believe in different things??? The FREE WILL? The free will to believe in something that is forced upon us as children through lies and threat. You have NO IDEA what free will means obviously. Love is a human emotion NOT one that GOD gave us. Free will to believe Religion!!! You really are HILARIOUS, Think about your dumb statement. You MUST be American,
@midnightjoker23 This has nothing to do with religion. You can disagree with whatever you want, you can make up your own beliefs or you can be an atheist, I don't give a damn. This is about you calling for the disrespect of individuals. You think it's alright to make fun of someone who believes something different? You want to ostracize these people? You are not a loving human being, and I will gladly point this out.
@thenewovermind People of Religion disrespect atheists ALL the time. They used to kill them but now they just hound them with crazy ramblings and threats. Wake up pal - you are only half way there.
@midnightjoker23 And I don't support that. No person should condemn another for being different, I don't care if they are a religious nut job or lack faith of any kind. But don't do the same as your transgressors, you will become just as bad as they are. Whatever you hate controls you, it takes away your freedom. Ignore such things and move on with your life.
@midnightjoker23 I'm not religious, or uneducated, or fat. In fact, I hate how religion has tainted human history in the past; however, I am American. Why would you bring up Americans when your primary struggle is to disprove the lies and inconsistencies of religion?
@helpyouseeit For Aquinas to be the winner he should have first answered epicurus's riddle. Why didn't he? Cuz he can't :) same as every thiest ;) peace
@wHisperis001 The riddle poses the question of why evil exists if God exists, but then you have to define evil and how our understanding of it comes about. What if good and evil do not objectively exist? The riddle is self-defeating unless you can prove objective good and evil exist without God.
@thenewovermind You see the riddle plays along the rules of God, it assumes that good and evil are objective, because they would be if God exists. So a God would say murder or homosexuality is evil, therefor it means that there is evil in the world in gods view. Therefor the riddle fits perfectly
@wHisperis001 That is another way to look at it. Did Epicurus ever provide context for the riddle, or do we have to create meaning for it ourselves? I can't remember, it's been 2 years since I took philosophy.
If Christian fundies weren't standing in the way of funding stem cell research at the federal level, Hitchen's would be on his way back to health already. I tell you, humanity can't afford to lose this brilliant man.
@rooflee What you mean is that if we would have immediately started growing people in labs to kill them for parts, that Hitchins could be cured of his cancer. We will not grow people to kill them for parts!
@sirjames45 You really should actually go and find out what a stem cell really is, I know that's not in the religious' domain, but just give it a go. Besides, we may be coming toward a point where we can aquire stem cells (somehow, I have no idea how) from the actual patient from their own DNA. Nevertheless, your garage view on stem cells is just laughable. I sincerely hope the 45 in your username doesn't refer to your age. Besides, I wonder how your view would differ if your life depended on it
In math 0 always equals 0. You can’t get away from that. Stephen Hawkins has said, “there must always be a first cause, then the effect.” In order to have a universe of matter, and a beginning of space time, there had to be some power outside the finite, to start the engine. Infinite something above the finite. The question “so where did God come from,” is answered in the infinite. Something out of nothing, still leaves us with nothing starting everything.
Ummm....so where did this infinite something come from? "God did it" answers nothing, but only raises more questions. Who says the universe didn't always exist and simply expands and collapses regularly? If god can exist "infinitely", why not the universe without the need of a god?
Godel's incompleteness (roughly) says that within a system, there are axioms which cannot be proven or disproven, somewhat of a crisis in number theory. Yet math-based tech still works, pointing to the fact that the few axioms we've adopted in number theory do reflect the nature of things. Your reasoning is oversimplified, you take what you like and leave the rest. I notice you neither proved nor falsified God, as requested. You argue like a charlatan. And I am actually done now.
@GeneralGuitFiddle Your pompousness is incredible. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with what I'm talking about-you pulled that out of your rear end. "there are axioms which cannot be proven or disproven" This is what I am talking about-this theorem about a number system can be logically extended to systems in general, since math is our most precise means of thought. "I notice you neither proved nor falsified God"-I can't, you idiot, and no can. That's the point, now shut up!
Yes, ive noticed hitchens does repeat the same arguments sometimes but heres the reason. Its not about the quantity of the arguments, its about the quality of them. And besides, you dont need that many arguments to dissaprove religion since its has a such a weak barrier in front of it.
When christians debate they bring up many arguments and might seem well educated and smart, but, they're arguments are weak and half-baked which is why they need more and more of them.
I have to say this debate is, to me, the most thorough and well-deserved hitchslapping I've found on the tubes. Maybe it's a tie with the Olasky debate.
goodbye, my friend. The miracle of existence is beyond human knowledge, we will never understand it because we are a part of it. No British materailist reductionist can understand it, no mathematical equation can explain it, and that is that. The greatest minds of humanity haven't explained it so far, and there is no doubt they never will. Existence is incredible. It makes no sense, but we are here for no rational explanation. It is a matter of faith.
@rkyeun There are some things that cannot be found out by logic or science. The origin of the universe is one of them, and it can never be understood.
@frank47hammer You understand very little of mathematics. You're correct in saying that we cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God; this is because it is a poorly conceived, unfalsifiable notion to begin with. Spirituality and yearning for transcendence exist, clearly, through observation. Stick with that. You have glued concepts of "God" and "Origin" together in your mind, so you may be beyond help. Math symbols are not reality, but they help us see the numinous. Spinoza may help you
@GeneralGuitFiddle I don't confuse math symbols with reality at all; what is important is the concepts behind them, such as infinity. And God is not a poorly conceived, unfalsifiable notion to begin with. It is simply beyond human reason. And it will always be so. As Martin Gardner once said, even if you boiled the universe down to one equation, you could always ask why that equation? Why not some other? Existence is a paradox. I believe in creation; a self-sustaining world is absurb to me.
@frank47hammer What is your overall point? That we can't know anything or that we can't learn? That is ridiculous. Of course there are things which are beyond our comprehension now. It is a fallacy to assume that there are supernatural reasons for this. Perhaps a differently evolved life form could know or understand things in a much deeper, fundamentally different way. Self-sustaining is a bad way to describe the universe or even our own planet, it comes from your limited human view. Entropy.
@GeneralGuitFiddle Finally, that is not my point. We can learn a lot of things; but there are certain things beyond reason and science. You can either believe in a God or not. God means many different things to different people. As far as entropy is concerned; it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. So matter tends toward a state of equalibrium. Ok. Also, I've read Spinoza and I prefer other philosophers, such as Shopenhauer. So I am done here. GOOD BYE.
@frank47hammer Your silliness makes me reply again. On the previous page of comments you actually did say that mathematics is a bunch of bullshit, unless of course you deleted. Entropy does have very much to do with your simple characterization of the opposing viewpoint as "self-sustaining". Just because Aristotle proposed a prime mover doesn't mean it's valid. By Spinoza, I meant read his critique of the argument from contingency/infinity. Your reasoning wastes the time of anyone who read it.
@frank47hammer Furthemore, if a self-sustaining world is absurd (and therefore I assume unwelcome, unlikely) to you, then there is no reason to give assent to a self-sustaining being which is alone in its essence and capabilities. I don't mean to sound insulting, but you are not really thinking about any of these things, you are giving assent to that which you cannot understand. God is a lazily-conceived, unfalsifiable notion; if not, falsify it. Your posts disagree with themselves.
@GeneralGuitFiddle Sure, I thought of these things. You never asked. Aristotle thought of this long before you did, and proposed a "prime mover." You're talking about infinity; humans beings can always can conceive of adding or subtracting an infinite number to any entity. That's why these questions are pointless. The modern mind has bypassed this by saying the universe or multiverse is boundless and has no beginning or end. I just don't buy it. I believe in the Big Bang.
@frank47hammer Finally, the LAST thing I will say to your time-wasting: you are certainly correct in saying that there are things which we do not understand now, that science/logic are not equipped to answer now. This has nothing to do with "God" but with the limits of our physiology. Perception plays a part in science for sure. Our perception is imperfect, not principles of science. Looking back you say math is bullshit; medicine, satellites, even building of churches thanks to math
@GeneralGuitFiddle Time-wasting? I didn't reply to you, you replied to me. I haven't been on here in a while because I find it futile. But since you are so condescending, I decided to reply. If our perception is imperfect, so our the principles of science. I never said math was BS. I don't where you got that; I implied that Godel's incompeteness theorems indicate that reason is inherently limited. Therefore, science is limited.
Oh, come on! prove it, because you can't. I know what a number system is, just as every first grader does. This is a very basic question, show me an equation that proves my statement wrong. You can't! And it would take you years to do it...
@frank47hammer answer, what are your credentials?. Do you understand first order logic? VxVy (P(f(x,y)) -> ~E(P(z) -> P(x,y)) , do you understand what is an axiomatic system? do you understand what is an axiomatic system? a theory in an axiomatic system? ring theory? abelian groups? I think not, you can even get right the definition of "numerical system".
Why i should waste my time if you dont know what are you talking about?
@DemokritosAbdera Man, you are a piece of work. You are more trained than I, but you are clouded by your own training. I have no need to post my resume. There is no equation that exists that can prove that God does or does not exist, period, The equation I am referring to here is the incompleteness theorem of Kurt Godel. i do do believe it applies to the foundation of reality, and I trust him more than you.
" I am referring to here is the incompleteness theorem of Kurt Godel. i do do believe it applies to the foundation of reality"
Wel, you have no freaking idea of what the incompleteness theorem express, encompass and applies to, because you have no idea of mathematics at that level. I on the other hand know that it applies to finite axiomatic systems (wich you confuse with "numeric systems") and that not all systems in math are axiomatic.
@DemokritosAbdera well, I should like to meet you! The point is that there is no equtation that proves there is a God. If you know what it is, tell me? That is what Stephen Hawking is trying to do? What is the foundation of reality in an equation! It can't be done, and therefore life is a matter of faith.
@frank47hammer Axioms simply define the number system, they are the basic premises. Like most intellectuals, you make them out to be more than then they are. Mathematics is a bunch of bull shit.
@frank47hammer and I dont care how educated you are. it is logically impossible to mathematically prove the existence of god. Try as you may, you cant do it. It is a matter of faith, period. And that is that, and I have no qualls about it. I believe in God . There is a perception behind reality. You perceive, you exist.
@frank47hammer i will go further, my frieind. There is absolutely no mathemathical proof for or against God. It is purely a matter of faith. Ideaism is the the key, perception is the key to reality; we are dependent on the mind. God created reality through thought. He dreamed reality into existence. I am an idealist, and my thought is as valid as yours...
One more thing Demokritosabdera, does your avatar name refer to the great Democritus? Anyway, the quantum leap blows Dawkins and Hitchens out of the water. Materalism is not the answer. How can an electron simply disappear from the known universe and reappear somewhere else, in mathematical precision? Was Neils Bohr wrong? He is far superior to Dawkins, I assure you. There is a problem here that is not so easily solved by materialism.
Can't find this, but it's a good question: patrickledford420 said
@eameece hitler thought that it was god that wanted him to do the things he did he thought that it was god that put him in his position of power
Ultimately I think that's all we have, is our own understanding. WE decide what is sacred and holy; PEOPLE hold the Bible as the word of God. So it's up to us to discern what is the truth from the God that is within us all. People like Hitler don't do this well at all.
People continue to try to disprove religion with science. Random genetic mutation only shows how life has evolved-not why or what process created it, or especially the universe. It is a metaphysical question. Science will never give an answer because you can't explain a system within the system you are trying to explain. It is logically impossible. He may not like religion and that is fine, but don't pretend science proves anything.
How does the fact that science does not yet know the cause of the big bang prove that the christian god did it? Modern science is only about 300 years old and is still in its infancy. But in 300 years science has taken us from having absolutely no idea how old the universe is to knowing exactly what has happened up until the 1st 6 pico seconds after the big bang. Only a fool would think that we won't find out what happened in those 1st 6 pico seconds in the next 300 years.
@Mangels147 I disagree, Science has done everything you have said, and it has also brought us to the brink of disaster with nuclear weapons and all the other detrimental things it has wreaked on this planet. Science is a tool, not a guide. We need a guide in our lives, and in the past religion provided that.
Nuclear weapons brought us to the brink of disaster? I must have missed that in my modern history class. as far as I knew there is only 2 that have ever been used in combat and since then they have been the single most effective deterrant for large scale military conflict ever produced.
If science can't be used as a guide in our life what could you possibly use in its place? name one other method of knowledge that approxiamtes the truth as closely as science and I'll concede.
@Mangels147 down playing nuclear weapons? One terrorist could change the world as we know it. Science has its uses, but it is only a means to an end; not an end in itself.
@frank47hammer i like how you avoid what Mangels147 said, he mention the timespan of science against the ammount of scientific knowledge and then you jump to ethics in science. He got you.
I forgot who say "science have all the answers, we dont have all the science" or something along the lines. I just get the laught when this "great" thinkers say "science cant do x" and in 20 years its done, imagine 100, 1.000, 100.000, 1.000.000 years of science.
@DemokritosAbdera I don't think he got me at all. Science can not answer a metaphysical question-it is impossible. You can not explain a whole system while you are within that system. It is logically impossible. It is a question of infinity not science. Just as you can always conceive of adding or subtracting an infinite amount of numbers to a number system, you can always add an infinite number of answers to a hypothetical question.
@frank47hammer "You can not explain a whole system while you are within that system"Nop, that is not true. "It is logically impossible." No, it is not. ". It is a question of infinity not science." Demostrate that the question impliy some infinity. "Just as you can always conceive of adding or subtracting an infinite amount of numbers to a number system, you can always add an infinite number of answers to a hypothetical question. " False analogy.
@DemokritosAbdera It was not that hard. haha. You have no ideal what you are talking about. You don't know a thing about logic if you think you can explain something that is beyond reason or knowledge. Science will never to be able to prove whether or not "God" exists. Period. Atheism is on no more good footing than theism-because there is no footing! The origin of existence is absurb, beyond logic, beyond reason and beyond science.
@frank47hammer Is that all you got? I have good training in mathematics, physics, philosophy, science in general. My mater thesis was in autopoyetic mathematical extensions on turing machines.
Dont hold your keyboard, stop asserting things withiout supporting them. I might be a little rusty on notation and youtube doesnt use LaTex but you can at least try.
@frank47hammer You have training in mathematics? You must have cheated on your tests. In a numerical system, which can be extrapolated to any system, "there will always be at least one true but unprovable statement." Kurt Godel This applies to the to foundation of reality as well. Reality is a contradiction-there is no provable truth. It is a matter of relativity. These British materialist are as old as Thomas Hobbes; there is nothing new here. The quantum leap defies them.
Science proves a great deal, science proved all of the technology required for you to spread your nonsense instantly accross the world using wireless information transfer from an electronically powered proccessing machine.
@Mangels147 Nonsense? I can say the say for you. The internet has also enabled pornographers to spead across the globe as well. Boy, we can really appreciate what science has done for us, by extending human misery an extra mile or two. You need wisdom in life, Mangels147, and science doesn't provide that. There is nothing wrong with believing in god or atheism as long as one is not dogmatic, and that is the problem I have with these types of posts.
1st: porn existed EVERYWHERE long before the internet.
2nd: science did not develpoe the internet specifically for pornography, people chose of their own free will to upload porn and others chose to download it. If you think that people sexually gratifying themselves in the privacy of their own home can be best described as "extending human misery" then I can't help but feel that you are missing something.
3rd: Scientific inquiry is the most reliable known source of wisdom.
@Mangels147 Porn is not the issue. The point I mean is that the fruits of science can be used for good or not, depending on the application. Science is the most reliable source of knowledge-not wisdom. I have changed my opinion regarding Hitchens after rewatching this. He seems to be reacting to fundamentalist Christianity, which I agree with. It doesn't matter what someone believes so long as it is not pushed onto other people.
@arn123321 It's easier to disprove because of the lack of evidence. And since good scientific atheists don't claim to know things like the origin of the universe, while religious people claim to have an answer, the onus is not on the atheists to disprove claims, but rather on the religious to prove their claim. Basically, the more you claim, the more you have to prove. He's not taking advantage, he's using it legitimately.
The Christians have retreated so far from their orignial beliefs in the face of rational argument that they are utterly defeated in the argument.
If there is a creator who made us in his own image then he is like us too. He is flesh and blood and bone. Who made him? Where did this fantastic being come from who looks like a man but is in fact a creator of universes?
And how did he create a universe in six days which we know is 14 billion years old?
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book The World As I See It that the harmony of natural law Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.*
That's why they have questions at the end. And at least he is still entertaining. You should be more critical of the theists who have always been repeating the same 3 failed arguments since the beginning of time: Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological.
he repeats the same stuff everytime because its all true and all makes sense he doesnt need to think of new lines to say at every single debate he goes to, he leaves that to the bible bashers, why? because they are good at making shit up
@bencsk8r Actually he is debating w/ the arguments in his book. The debates are based off his book (god is not great, religion poisons everything, etc).
That is why. Hitchens can make new arguments (look at other videos he can do it perfectly and still wipe away the arguments for religion.)
he repeats the same truth wherever he goes. truth is timeless it doesn't get old. and does not depend on the age of the messenger. religious dogma is so old it is stinking fetid turd on the pool table of human existence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sorry, but this guy has NO training in science and no business uttering the words "event horizon." He knows nothing about black holes or the Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit. Who the heck ever said that the theist world view is based on a certainty? This "Science" versus "God" thing is insulting; both are simplifications and it is not either-or. I'm waiting tfor some evidence of real academic rigor in this guy. Please wake me up when you find it. Otherwise, why give him an audience?
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling.
You miss his point. He's not speaking with authority about the concept; he's expressing awe at the concept, at a scientific theory. Your insistence that so brilliant a thinker as Christopher Hitchens ("this guy"!) cannot grasp the broad concept only helps make his point.
@ladyinwashington and by your rhetoric you sound as if you want to be a scientist but fail miserably in your response if you are. and if you are i might as well certainly fail for being in the same general profession.
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.
Thanks! It's not easy to change world views. Faith has its own momentum and belief is comfortable. To restructure reality is traumatic and scary. That is why many intelligent people continue to believe: unbelief is an unknown.
you gotta love assholes who are totally unqualified talking about science with their idiotic pseudo knowledge they got off the internet in 10 minutes
shut the fuck up you assholes, you ridiculous braindead idiots still dont get it, christianity and its spawns has already been disproven to all SANE minds who are NOT brainwashed, you just dont want to see and accept it you weak spineless wormpeople
Wait for this one >>Now there's christians arguing that Adam and Eve WERE NOT the first people on Earth and that Cains wife was one of the numerous people created on day six of creation...
*bangs head on the table*
Uuum yeah no shit Adam and Eve weren't the first (THEY NEVER EXISTED)
and that's nothing...I once heard a minister on one of the sunday morning evangelist programs attempt to explain PARTICLE PHYSICS WITH THE BIBLE!
@nekftw yes and thats why smart people have to try to stop these barbaric beleifs it truly is the definition of insane debating with intelligent people expecting different results
@frank47hammer how is talking against PSYCOPATHS make you psycotic and no people dont need religion, religions needs us. and religion causes to much pain and suffering and needless death to deserve anything but ridicule and disgust
@patrickledford420 well, you have a good point. But I meant his tone is extremely pyschotic. I think Hitchens has a wrong view of religion-the Upanishads are deep spiritual documents, Buddhism is a unique religion, and I think Jesus is misunderstood. They all have something to teach people-like peace, meditation and a serene mind.
@frank47hammer well thats the point you never hear him speaking against buddhism because they dont have a donctrine that says to kill nonbeleivers or any of the insane things that lets say christianity or muslims say and as for me i would not give a shit about religion if it was not so bad i would still think there wrong but not that it would be bad
@patrickledford420 Well, monotheistic religions from the Middle East have been militant throughout history-that's true. So I guess I'll leave it at that...
Natural selection and random mutation explain nothing. Any consciousness, any spontaneous behavior and any creativity cannot be so explained. Neither can they be explained by creation myths.
@eameece actually our creativity can be explained by natural selection because we needed to be creative to survive. We ate meat (protein) which helped our brains develop which allowed us to create tools and develop new 'creative' hunting strategies. You can see the birth of creativity within this phenomena, it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that without creativity brought on by natural selection we wouldn't have survived as a species. Creativity is a central piece to our evolution.
Natural selection is a "species" of mechanistic determinism. Creativity brings new ideas and new behavior into the world. It can't be explained nu mechanical causes, in which things happen because some prior event made it happen. Evolution IS a central piece to our evolution, which means it did not happen by natural selection alone.
@eameece You aren't explaining yourself very well. Tell me what was wrong with what i said and how it doesn't show that creativity was essential in developing new hunting techniques. Also, the mechanical element that you are talking about was the action of being eaten repeatedly by larger animals, leading to fear, leading to ingenuity and creative hunting techniques.
I'll try! Natural selection implies that the mechanical element you referred to is ALL that is needed for evolutionj to occur; that all supposed "creativity" is mechanical. If what led to ingenuity was just the being eaten, leading to fear... if the ingenuity is explained by this series of causes mechanically, then there IS no creativity.
Natural selection does not account for creativity period. If it did, it would NOT be creative. That's why there IS a "creation" element in evolution, though it was not Father God creating things sometime ago. But it IS spiritual and beyond human mechanist science to explain.
Actually, God cannot be known by arguments. That does not disprove God, but argument! A mystic knows God exists through direct experience. But that does not mean a mystic "believes" in all the religious myths. A myth is a symbol that points beyond itself.
LOL Thronsohn. You (we, collectively) want to be open minded, but our side are frequently articulate and engaging enough, especially Hitch, to make the same arguments compelling to listen to with repeated viewings. The apologists are always boring and dull and illogical, and with a serious irony deficiency.
If the synthesis doesnt exist in POTENTIALITY, the Thesis and Anti-Thesis doesn't exist period.
If laws are the mere authorships of a religious god they are arbitrary, and thus, making the pursuit of discovering and understanding them in vain i.e if a religious god authored mathematical laws, principals, and functions, 1+1 could have very well equaled 6, and if that's the case, there is no real meaning behind 1+1=2
The Law of Inertia was not authored by a religious god- it exist because the laws of gravity and acceleration exist, who in turn exist because other laws exist and so forth. To share a more advanced perception of mine, I would go so far as to say that laws are SYMBIOTIC of each other. Example: if the Law of Inertia wasn't functioning or didn't exist the laws of gravity and acceleration arent functioning or existing, thus, a symbiotic relationship is the means by which Law begets Law.
for such exists only in the illusions of the senses"
RELIGIOUS gods are outside of Law, thus, they are illusions, hence they do not exist. If you try to say that god is above law, ill just say that there is neither above nor below, but rather, inwards and outwards, thus making the statement " god is above Law" the non-pejorative way of saying" god is outside of Law: my initial statement from the beginning.
Scotch or whiskey, terpentine or wodka, funnily this great mind still holds many truths, eloquantly stated. Awe and respect for him, but bare in mind his political background. A man and his follies...
Htchens really enjoys his 100,000 years example.
acrazyone1 6 months ago
Nothing new here, just Christopher Hitchens once again showing why he's the most awesome person ever.
APetulantWhiteGuy 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@APetulantWhiteGuy The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 3 months ago
I agree with nearly everything Hitchens says, but I have to criticize that one hypothetical that he presents so often. He's saying that it's ridiculous that heaven would wait for 70 thousand years and then show up in the primitive middle east before anyone there was literate.
So he thinks it's absurd that God would show up so late in the human-game, but also absurd that he would show up so early in such a primitive time. It's a contradiction.
instereovideos 11 months ago
Hitchins is superb. I hope he beats his illness but even if he doesnt' he has thankfully left all his thoughts for the masses to watch over and over again. Spread the word and treat people of religion with suspicion and ridicule. IF religion doesn't destroy our species lets hope we can shed it and move on to a new era of knowledge and love based on humanity rather than ridiculous and bizarre superstitions. Peace.
midnightjoker23 11 months ago
@midnightjoker23 Oh yes, let's ridicule others because they have the free will to believe in different things. That sounds just, doesn't it? A person that does not advocate love has no business contemplating the origin of it. If love originates from humanity, then I would say you aren't much of a human.
thenewovermind 10 months ago
@thenewovermind Hahaha, The free will to believe in different things??? The FREE WILL? The free will to believe in something that is forced upon us as children through lies and threat. You have NO IDEA what free will means obviously. Love is a human emotion NOT one that GOD gave us. Free will to believe Religion!!! You really are HILARIOUS, Think about your dumb statement. You MUST be American,
midnightjoker23 10 months ago
@midnightjoker23 This has nothing to do with religion. You can disagree with whatever you want, you can make up your own beliefs or you can be an atheist, I don't give a damn. This is about you calling for the disrespect of individuals. You think it's alright to make fun of someone who believes something different? You want to ostracize these people? You are not a loving human being, and I will gladly point this out.
thenewovermind 10 months ago
@thenewovermind People of Religion disrespect atheists ALL the time. They used to kill them but now they just hound them with crazy ramblings and threats. Wake up pal - you are only half way there.
midnightjoker23 10 months ago
@midnightjoker23 And I don't support that. No person should condemn another for being different, I don't care if they are a religious nut job or lack faith of any kind. But don't do the same as your transgressors, you will become just as bad as they are. Whatever you hate controls you, it takes away your freedom. Ignore such things and move on with your life.
thenewovermind 10 months ago
@midnightjoker23 I'm not religious, or uneducated, or fat. In fact, I hate how religion has tainted human history in the past; however, I am American. Why would you bring up Americans when your primary struggle is to disprove the lies and inconsistencies of religion?
captonkickass 8 months ago
Bottom Line? St. Thomas Aquinas proves that God exists, and Hitchens can't defeat Aquinas. Peace :)
helpyouseeit 1 year ago
@helpyouseeit For Aquinas to be the winner he should have first answered epicurus's riddle. Why didn't he? Cuz he can't :) same as every thiest ;) peace
wHisperis001 1 year ago
@wHisperis001 The riddle poses the question of why evil exists if God exists, but then you have to define evil and how our understanding of it comes about. What if good and evil do not objectively exist? The riddle is self-defeating unless you can prove objective good and evil exist without God.
thenewovermind 10 months ago
@thenewovermind You see the riddle plays along the rules of God, it assumes that good and evil are objective, because they would be if God exists. So a God would say murder or homosexuality is evil, therefor it means that there is evil in the world in gods view. Therefor the riddle fits perfectly
wHisperis001 10 months ago
@wHisperis001 That is another way to look at it. Did Epicurus ever provide context for the riddle, or do we have to create meaning for it ourselves? I can't remember, it's been 2 years since I took philosophy.
thenewovermind 10 months ago
The amount of pwnage in this video almost cause me to black out
snipeshow920 1 year ago
Hitchens dances around the questions. Tell us how we got here dork.
orsmiles 1 year ago
@orsmiles Science answers that, not Hitchens...
kusalaviro 1 year ago
@orsmiles He doesn't claim to know how we got here dork. Thats the job of deluded religious lunatics.
midnightjoker23 11 months ago
@orsmiles Science doesn't offer anything beyond the Big Bang. Religion does. Where's YOUR proof? Dork.
BillF1967 11 months ago
@orsmiles So, you're saying that if science can't tell you how we got here, that "God did it" must be the correct answer?
instereovideos 11 months ago
If Christian fundies weren't standing in the way of funding stem cell research at the federal level, Hitchen's would be on his way back to health already. I tell you, humanity can't afford to lose this brilliant man.
rooflee 1 year ago 37
@rooflee What you mean is that if we would have immediately started growing people in labs to kill them for parts, that Hitchins could be cured of his cancer. We will not grow people to kill them for parts!
sirjames45 7 months ago
@sirjames45 You really don't understand how stem cells work, do you?
MCMXCII 6 months ago
@sirjames45 You are a moron if that is your understanding of stem cell research.
thenofxer 6 months ago
@sirjames45 You really should actually go and find out what a stem cell really is, I know that's not in the religious' domain, but just give it a go. Besides, we may be coming toward a point where we can aquire stem cells (somehow, I have no idea how) from the actual patient from their own DNA. Nevertheless, your garage view on stem cells is just laughable. I sincerely hope the 45 in your username doesn't refer to your age. Besides, I wonder how your view would differ if your life depended on it
russellrummage 5 months ago
@rooflee oh well... :/
Wh3tst0nE 2 months ago
324 likes, 3 dislikes. That is 99%+ =0) Live on, please. The world desperately needs you Hitch.
sparky7718 1 year ago 4
@sparky7718 ......Three christians watched this video.
kusalaviro 1 year ago
When I grow up, I want to be like Christopher Hitchens.
Karimha 1 year ago 8
@Karimha start reading!
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
I think the guy in the redshirt at 6:23 is paralyzed by Hitchens genius.
TheGuyAlwaysOnTime 1 year ago 33
@TheGuyAlwaysOnTime
Ha ha, good spot!
artspooner 9 months ago
In math 0 always equals 0. You can’t get away from that. Stephen Hawkins has said, “there must always be a first cause, then the effect.” In order to have a universe of matter, and a beginning of space time, there had to be some power outside the finite, to start the engine. Infinite something above the finite. The question “so where did God come from,” is answered in the infinite. Something out of nothing, still leaves us with nothing starting everything.
digital0707neo 1 year ago
@digital0707neo
Ummm....so where did this infinite something come from? "God did it" answers nothing, but only raises more questions. Who says the universe didn't always exist and simply expands and collapses regularly? If god can exist "infinitely", why not the universe without the need of a god?
rohanwotan2 1 year ago 4
DISCOVERED in the 21st century: The Underlying Law of Nature
The underlying law of nature may be the world's most useful, profitable and encouraging knowledge.
The top 3 General Characteristics of The underlying law of nature are:
#1. The Way of All Things
#2. The Basis of All Laws and Principles
#3. The Basis of All Health, Growth, Efficacy and Efficiency
Google it–as a start.
The empirical process for identifying the underlying law of nature was discovered in 2008.
Someday we all may
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
Godel's incompleteness (roughly) says that within a system, there are axioms which cannot be proven or disproven, somewhat of a crisis in number theory. Yet math-based tech still works, pointing to the fact that the few axioms we've adopted in number theory do reflect the nature of things. Your reasoning is oversimplified, you take what you like and leave the rest. I notice you neither proved nor falsified God, as requested. You argue like a charlatan. And I am actually done now.
GeneralGuitFiddle 1 year ago
@GeneralGuitFiddle Your pompousness is incredible. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with what I'm talking about-you pulled that out of your rear end. "there are axioms which cannot be proven or disproven" This is what I am talking about-this theorem about a number system can be logically extended to systems in general, since math is our most precise means of thought. "I notice you neither proved nor falsified God"-I can't, you idiot, and no can. That's the point, now shut up!
frank47hammer 1 year ago
Yes, ive noticed hitchens does repeat the same arguments sometimes but heres the reason. Its not about the quantity of the arguments, its about the quality of them. And besides, you dont need that many arguments to dissaprove religion since its has a such a weak barrier in front of it.
When christians debate they bring up many arguments and might seem well educated and smart, but, they're arguments are weak and half-baked which is why they need more and more of them.
BlakeC9409 1 year ago
:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
FreeeeS 1 year ago
At 6:23, the expression of that guy in the red shirt pretty much sums up my feelings whenever I listen to Hitchens.... straight up awe.
BenTheMagnifice 1 year ago
I have to say this debate is, to me, the most thorough and well-deserved hitchslapping I've found on the tubes. Maybe it's a tie with the Olasky debate.
ManDuderGuy 1 year ago
Is he coked?
vjwebster 1 year ago
goodbye, my friend. The miracle of existence is beyond human knowledge, we will never understand it because we are a part of it. No British materailist reductionist can understand it, no mathematical equation can explain it, and that is that. The greatest minds of humanity haven't explained it so far, and there is no doubt they never will. Existence is incredible. It makes no sense, but we are here for no rational explanation. It is a matter of faith.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer
Religion has been claiming for a very long time each thing will never be understood by mankind.
Then we do, and religion either claims we don't, or retreats to the next thing we don't yet understand to claim as ineffable.
You don't need faith when you can look and find out.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun There are some things that cannot be found out by logic or science. The origin of the universe is one of them, and it can never be understood.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frank47hammer
Religion has been claiming for a very long time each thing will never be understood by mankind.
Then we do, and religion either claims we don't, or retreats to the next thing we don't yet understand to claim as ineffable.
I don't find your argument from ignorance fallacy very convincing in light of the recurring pattern of scientific discovery.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@frank47hammer You understand very little of mathematics. You're correct in saying that we cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God; this is because it is a poorly conceived, unfalsifiable notion to begin with. Spirituality and yearning for transcendence exist, clearly, through observation. Stick with that. You have glued concepts of "God" and "Origin" together in your mind, so you may be beyond help. Math symbols are not reality, but they help us see the numinous. Spinoza may help you
GeneralGuitFiddle 1 year ago
@GeneralGuitFiddle I don't confuse math symbols with reality at all; what is important is the concepts behind them, such as infinity. And God is not a poorly conceived, unfalsifiable notion to begin with. It is simply beyond human reason. And it will always be so. As Martin Gardner once said, even if you boiled the universe down to one equation, you could always ask why that equation? Why not some other? Existence is a paradox. I believe in creation; a self-sustaining world is absurb to me.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer What is your overall point? That we can't know anything or that we can't learn? That is ridiculous. Of course there are things which are beyond our comprehension now. It is a fallacy to assume that there are supernatural reasons for this. Perhaps a differently evolved life form could know or understand things in a much deeper, fundamentally different way. Self-sustaining is a bad way to describe the universe or even our own planet, it comes from your limited human view. Entropy.
GeneralGuitFiddle 1 year ago
@GeneralGuitFiddle Finally, that is not my point. We can learn a lot of things; but there are certain things beyond reason and science. You can either believe in a God or not. God means many different things to different people. As far as entropy is concerned; it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. So matter tends toward a state of equalibrium. Ok. Also, I've read Spinoza and I prefer other philosophers, such as Shopenhauer. So I am done here. GOOD BYE.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer Your silliness makes me reply again. On the previous page of comments you actually did say that mathematics is a bunch of bullshit, unless of course you deleted. Entropy does have very much to do with your simple characterization of the opposing viewpoint as "self-sustaining". Just because Aristotle proposed a prime mover doesn't mean it's valid. By Spinoza, I meant read his critique of the argument from contingency/infinity. Your reasoning wastes the time of anyone who read it.
GeneralGuitFiddle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeneralGuitFiddle Then don't read it, you idiot! You contacted me first. So do me a favor and shut up! You are a moron who thinks he is educated.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer Furthemore, if a self-sustaining world is absurd (and therefore I assume unwelcome, unlikely) to you, then there is no reason to give assent to a self-sustaining being which is alone in its essence and capabilities. I don't mean to sound insulting, but you are not really thinking about any of these things, you are giving assent to that which you cannot understand. God is a lazily-conceived, unfalsifiable notion; if not, falsify it. Your posts disagree with themselves.
GeneralGuitFiddle 1 year ago
@GeneralGuitFiddle Sure, I thought of these things. You never asked. Aristotle thought of this long before you did, and proposed a "prime mover." You're talking about infinity; humans beings can always can conceive of adding or subtracting an infinite number to any entity. That's why these questions are pointless. The modern mind has bypassed this by saying the universe or multiverse is boundless and has no beginning or end. I just don't buy it. I believe in the Big Bang.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer Finally, the LAST thing I will say to your time-wasting: you are certainly correct in saying that there are things which we do not understand now, that science/logic are not equipped to answer now. This has nothing to do with "God" but with the limits of our physiology. Perception plays a part in science for sure. Our perception is imperfect, not principles of science. Looking back you say math is bullshit; medicine, satellites, even building of churches thanks to math
GeneralGuitFiddle 1 year ago
@GeneralGuitFiddle Time-wasting? I didn't reply to you, you replied to me. I haven't been on here in a while because I find it futile. But since you are so condescending, I decided to reply. If our perception is imperfect, so our the principles of science. I never said math was BS. I don't where you got that; I implied that Godel's incompeteness theorems indicate that reason is inherently limited. Therefore, science is limited.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
Oh, come on! prove it, because you can't. I know what a number system is, just as every first grader does. This is a very basic question, show me an equation that proves my statement wrong. You can't! And it would take you years to do it...
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer answer, what are your credentials?. Do you understand first order logic? VxVy (P(f(x,y)) -> ~E(P(z) -> P(x,y)) , do you understand what is an axiomatic system? do you understand what is an axiomatic system? a theory in an axiomatic system? ring theory? abelian groups? I think not, you can even get right the definition of "numerical system".
Why i should waste my time if you dont know what are you talking about?
DemokritosAbdera 1 year ago
@DemokritosAbdera Man, you are a piece of work. You are more trained than I, but you are clouded by your own training. I have no need to post my resume. There is no equation that exists that can prove that God does or does not exist, period, The equation I am referring to here is the incompleteness theorem of Kurt Godel. i do do believe it applies to the foundation of reality, and I trust him more than you.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer
" I am referring to here is the incompleteness theorem of Kurt Godel. i do do believe it applies to the foundation of reality"
Wel, you have no freaking idea of what the incompleteness theorem express, encompass and applies to, because you have no idea of mathematics at that level. I on the other hand know that it applies to finite axiomatic systems (wich you confuse with "numeric systems") and that not all systems in math are axiomatic.
DemokritosAbdera 1 year ago
@DemokritosAbdera well, I should like to meet you! The point is that there is no equtation that proves there is a God. If you know what it is, tell me? That is what Stephen Hawking is trying to do? What is the foundation of reality in an equation! It can't be done, and therefore life is a matter of faith.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer Axioms simply define the number system, they are the basic premises. Like most intellectuals, you make them out to be more than then they are. Mathematics is a bunch of bull shit.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer and I dont care how educated you are. it is logically impossible to mathematically prove the existence of god. Try as you may, you cant do it. It is a matter of faith, period. And that is that, and I have no qualls about it. I believe in God . There is a perception behind reality. You perceive, you exist.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer i will go further, my frieind. There is absolutely no mathemathical proof for or against God. It is purely a matter of faith. Ideaism is the the key, perception is the key to reality; we are dependent on the mind. God created reality through thought. He dreamed reality into existence. I am an idealist, and my thought is as valid as yours...
frank47hammer 1 year ago
One more thing Demokritosabdera, does your avatar name refer to the great Democritus? Anyway, the quantum leap blows Dawkins and Hitchens out of the water. Materalism is not the answer. How can an electron simply disappear from the known universe and reappear somewhere else, in mathematical precision? Was Neils Bohr wrong? He is far superior to Dawkins, I assure you. There is a problem here that is not so easily solved by materialism.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
Can't find this, but it's a good question: patrickledford420 said
@eameece hitler thought that it was god that wanted him to do the things he did he thought that it was god that put him in his position of power
Ultimately I think that's all we have, is our own understanding. WE decide what is sacred and holy; PEOPLE hold the Bible as the word of God. So it's up to us to discern what is the truth from the God that is within us all. People like Hitler don't do this well at all.
eameece 1 year ago
People continue to try to disprove religion with science. Random genetic mutation only shows how life has evolved-not why or what process created it, or especially the universe. It is a metaphysical question. Science will never give an answer because you can't explain a system within the system you are trying to explain. It is logically impossible. He may not like religion and that is fine, but don't pretend science proves anything.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer
How does the fact that science does not yet know the cause of the big bang prove that the christian god did it? Modern science is only about 300 years old and is still in its infancy. But in 300 years science has taken us from having absolutely no idea how old the universe is to knowing exactly what has happened up until the 1st 6 pico seconds after the big bang. Only a fool would think that we won't find out what happened in those 1st 6 pico seconds in the next 300 years.
Mangels147 1 year ago
@Mangels147 I disagree, Science has done everything you have said, and it has also brought us to the brink of disaster with nuclear weapons and all the other detrimental things it has wreaked on this planet. Science is a tool, not a guide. We need a guide in our lives, and in the past religion provided that.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer
Nuclear weapons brought us to the brink of disaster? I must have missed that in my modern history class. as far as I knew there is only 2 that have ever been used in combat and since then they have been the single most effective deterrant for large scale military conflict ever produced.
If science can't be used as a guide in our life what could you possibly use in its place? name one other method of knowledge that approxiamtes the truth as closely as science and I'll concede.
Mangels147 1 year ago
@Mangels147 down playing nuclear weapons? One terrorist could change the world as we know it. Science has its uses, but it is only a means to an end; not an end in itself.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer i like how you avoid what Mangels147 said, he mention the timespan of science against the ammount of scientific knowledge and then you jump to ethics in science. He got you.
I forgot who say "science have all the answers, we dont have all the science" or something along the lines. I just get the laught when this "great" thinkers say "science cant do x" and in 20 years its done, imagine 100, 1.000, 100.000, 1.000.000 years of science.
DemokritosAbdera 1 year ago
@DemokritosAbdera I don't think he got me at all. Science can not answer a metaphysical question-it is impossible. You can not explain a whole system while you are within that system. It is logically impossible. It is a question of infinity not science. Just as you can always conceive of adding or subtracting an infinite amount of numbers to a number system, you can always add an infinite number of answers to a hypothetical question.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer "You can not explain a whole system while you are within that system"Nop, that is not true. "It is logically impossible." No, it is not. ". It is a question of infinity not science." Demostrate that the question impliy some infinity. "Just as you can always conceive of adding or subtracting an infinite amount of numbers to a number system, you can always add an infinite number of answers to a hypothetical question. " False analogy.
See? it was not that that hard.
DemokritosAbdera 1 year ago
@DemokritosAbdera It was not that hard. haha. You have no ideal what you are talking about. You don't know a thing about logic if you think you can explain something that is beyond reason or knowledge. Science will never to be able to prove whether or not "God" exists. Period. Atheism is on no more good footing than theism-because there is no footing! The origin of existence is absurb, beyond logic, beyond reason and beyond science.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer Is that all you got? I have good training in mathematics, physics, philosophy, science in general. My mater thesis was in autopoyetic mathematical extensions on turing machines.
Dont hold your keyboard, stop asserting things withiout supporting them. I might be a little rusty on notation and youtube doesnt use LaTex but you can at least try.
DemokritosAbdera 1 year ago
@frank47hammer You have training in mathematics? You must have cheated on your tests. In a numerical system, which can be extrapolated to any system, "there will always be at least one true but unprovable statement." Kurt Godel This applies to the to foundation of reality as well. Reality is a contradiction-there is no provable truth. It is a matter of relativity. These British materialist are as old as Thomas Hobbes; there is nothing new here. The quantum leap defies them.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer "In a numerical system, which can be extrapolated to any system"
And now is when i ask, do you have any training in mathematics? because the statement above is false.
DemokritosAbdera 1 year ago
@DemokritosAbdera Sure it can be, you are joke, man, show me how it can not be in an equation ...you have no ideal what you are talking about
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer your credentials? you are making such a basic mistake, you dont even know what a "numical system" is.
Why do you came so pompous if you know nothing about the subject?
DemokritosAbdera 1 year ago
@frank47hammer
Science proves a great deal, science proved all of the technology required for you to spread your nonsense instantly accross the world using wireless information transfer from an electronically powered proccessing machine.
Mangels147 1 year ago
@Mangels147 Nonsense? I can say the say for you. The internet has also enabled pornographers to spead across the globe as well. Boy, we can really appreciate what science has done for us, by extending human misery an extra mile or two. You need wisdom in life, Mangels147, and science doesn't provide that. There is nothing wrong with believing in god or atheism as long as one is not dogmatic, and that is the problem I have with these types of posts.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer
1st: porn existed EVERYWHERE long before the internet.
2nd: science did not develpoe the internet specifically for pornography, people chose of their own free will to upload porn and others chose to download it. If you think that people sexually gratifying themselves in the privacy of their own home can be best described as "extending human misery" then I can't help but feel that you are missing something.
3rd: Scientific inquiry is the most reliable known source of wisdom.
Mangels147 1 year ago
@Mangels147 Porn is not the issue. The point I mean is that the fruits of science can be used for good or not, depending on the application. Science is the most reliable source of knowledge-not wisdom. I have changed my opinion regarding Hitchens after rewatching this. He seems to be reacting to fundamentalist Christianity, which I agree with. It doesn't matter what someone believes so long as it is not pushed onto other people.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
Love the folded arms argument..
Hirnlego999 1 year ago
My fellow atheists, you are not alone.
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
clap clap clap clap... Hitchens puts it very nicely. Wake up all you that still believe in these fairy tales!
Darw1n1st 1 year ago
hitchens is taking advantage of a fact that it's vastly easier to disprove a claim than to prove it
arn123321 1 year ago
@arn123321 It's easier to disprove because of the lack of evidence. And since good scientific atheists don't claim to know things like the origin of the universe, while religious people claim to have an answer, the onus is not on the atheists to disprove claims, but rather on the religious to prove their claim. Basically, the more you claim, the more you have to prove. He's not taking advantage, he's using it legitimately.
callumpassells67 1 year ago
The Christians have retreated so far from their orignial beliefs in the face of rational argument that they are utterly defeated in the argument.
If there is a creator who made us in his own image then he is like us too. He is flesh and blood and bone. Who made him? Where did this fantastic being come from who looks like a man but is in fact a creator of universes?
And how did he create a universe in six days which we know is 14 billion years old?
Religion is bullshit.
wlwak 1 year ago
I like this Guy I think that we need to think with our brains not with emotion
sagitarian000028 1 year ago
hey now.... you know thinking is not the opposite of emotion. :) Just ask Carl Sagan!!!
planetdarwin 1 year ago
the mark twain of my generation
LEFTY677 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book The World As I See It that the harmony of natural law Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.*
majorl31 2 years ago
I respect Hitchens but you guys would obviously suck his cock in admiration.
TargetGuy2245 2 years ago
hell yeah i would suck his cock in admiration
anitraff 2 years ago 3
@anitraff lol i couldnt help but laugh at that damn you put a smile on my face thank you
patrickledford420 1 year ago
He fights the good fight and is worthy of love and admiration. Is it possible you're a bit jealous of this?
DamonIcke 2 years ago 2
Is there any more to the same shit? Do you say is there anymore to 2+2=4?? Do you say "why do you always say 2+2=4 say something different"
studman165 2 years ago
That's why they have questions at the end. And at least he is still entertaining. You should be more critical of the theists who have always been repeating the same 3 failed arguments since the beginning of time: Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological.
harrycrumb1989 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He repeats the same shit wherever he goes. IS he a preacher??? Get a new script Christopher. I respect you but you are getting old.
TargetGuy2245 2 years ago
he repeats the same stuff everytime because its all true and all makes sense he doesnt need to think of new lines to say at every single debate he goes to, he leaves that to the bible bashers, why? because they are good at making shit up
bencsk8r 2 years ago 53
@bencsk8r
true mate .....very very true.....its simply irrefutable...oh .... except to maniacal fanatic imbeciles....
his best selling book "god is not great." .....refutes the ridiculous arguments 100%%% of the time.
blutobelushi 1 year ago
@bencsk8r Actually he is debating w/ the arguments in his book. The debates are based off his book (god is not great, religion poisons everything, etc).
That is why. Hitchens can make new arguments (look at other videos he can do it perfectly and still wipe away the arguments for religion.)
xn117 1 year ago
he repeats the same truth wherever he goes. truth is timeless it doesn't get old. and does not depend on the age of the messenger. religious dogma is so old it is stinking fetid turd on the pool table of human existence.
thunderferretsarego 2 years ago 4
The shit that trully is getting old is the fucking idiots who believe in God. Ill listen to Hitchens or others, thank you very much.
abaskcasckbackj 2 years ago 29
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry, but this guy has NO training in science and no business uttering the words "event horizon." He knows nothing about black holes or the Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit. Who the heck ever said that the theist world view is based on a certainty? This "Science" versus "God" thing is insulting; both are simplifications and it is not either-or. I'm waiting tfor some evidence of real academic rigor in this guy. Please wake me up when you find it. Otherwise, why give him an audience?
ladyinwashington 2 years ago
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling.
CelestialWoodway 2 years ago 5
You miss his point. He's not speaking with authority about the concept; he's expressing awe at the concept, at a scientific theory. Your insistence that so brilliant a thinker as Christopher Hitchens ("this guy"!) cannot grasp the broad concept only helps make his point.
unkastacky 2 years ago
@ladyinwashington science can't prove the non-existance so im not sure where you are going or want from him
clymbhigh7 2 years ago
@ladyinwashington and by your rhetoric you sound as if you want to be a scientist but fail miserably in your response if you are. and if you are i might as well certainly fail for being in the same general profession.
clymbhigh7 2 years ago
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.
CelestialWoodway 2 years ago 6
haha, very well said!
notsuretho 2 years ago
Post of the week on Youtube :)
Pippin76 2 years ago 2
Thanks! It's not easy to change world views. Faith has its own momentum and belief is comfortable. To restructure reality is traumatic and scary. That is why many intelligent people continue to believe: unbelief is an unknown.
CelestialWoodway 2 years ago
you gotta love assholes who are totally unqualified talking about science with their idiotic pseudo knowledge they got off the internet in 10 minutes
shut the fuck up you assholes, you ridiculous braindead idiots still dont get it, christianity and its spawns has already been disproven to all SANE minds who are NOT brainwashed, you just dont want to see and accept it you weak spineless wormpeople
nekftw 2 years ago 18
Wait for this one >>Now there's christians arguing that Adam and Eve WERE NOT the first people on Earth and that Cains wife was one of the numerous people created on day six of creation...
*bangs head on the table*
Uuum yeah no shit Adam and Eve weren't the first (THEY NEVER EXISTED)
and that's nothing...I once heard a minister on one of the sunday morning evangelist programs attempt to explain PARTICLE PHYSICS WITH THE BIBLE!
(sigh) >(nod head) >(move on)
teched246 2 years ago 2
@nekftw yes and thats why smart people have to try to stop these barbaric beleifs it truly is the definition of insane debating with intelligent people expecting different results
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 RE:nekflw. that man doesn't sound too intelligent to me; he sounds like a psychopath. He's the reason people need religion.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer how is talking against PSYCOPATHS make you psycotic and no people dont need religion, religions needs us. and religion causes to much pain and suffering and needless death to deserve anything but ridicule and disgust
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 well, you have a good point. But I meant his tone is extremely pyschotic. I think Hitchens has a wrong view of religion-the Upanishads are deep spiritual documents, Buddhism is a unique religion, and I think Jesus is misunderstood. They all have something to teach people-like peace, meditation and a serene mind.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer well thats the point you never hear him speaking against buddhism because they dont have a donctrine that says to kill nonbeleivers or any of the insane things that lets say christianity or muslims say and as for me i would not give a shit about religion if it was not so bad i would still think there wrong but not that it would be bad
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@patrickledford420 Well, monotheistic religions from the Middle East have been militant throughout history-that's true. So I guess I'll leave it at that...
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer you dont need religion to teach these things
SuperNanel 1 year ago
@SuperNanel Come up with a better argument. You need to go back to your play pen. Wah-wah, cry baby. Grow up, and then I might take you seriously .
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@frank47hammer your a fucking idiot.
SuperNanel 1 year ago
@SuperNanel well, you only prove that your beliefs don't work. You are a sad person that has to resort to name calling. You need some help.
frank47hammer 1 year ago
@nekftw To be fair Hitchens is not qualified to comment on science either really >.>
jimjamgumbob 1 year ago
Don't be desperate eameece.
MrGem7 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I know, and you know; we are all God "intervening" in the workings in the universe, because God is acting through and as us.
eameece 2 years ago
@eameece So I guess God was acting through Hitler then.
RJElite 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitler such God out; much as you guys do (with less drastic results to be sure).
eameece 2 years ago
I meant Hitler shut God out...
eameece 2 years ago
@eameece No actually Hitler was a Catholic and also a big fan of Martin Luther The Protestant reformer who taught killing Jews was a great idea.
CelestialWoodway 2 years ago
@eameece
Whether or not Hitler "shut god out" is irrelevant. His followers were most certainly catholic.
fequalsma42 2 years ago
His followers were catholic, protestant, neo-pagan, and probably even atheist.
TargetGuy2245 2 years ago
@eameece hitler thought that it was god that wanted him to do the things he did he thought that it was god that put him in his position of power
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Not only is it incompatible with reality, but it also isn't compatible with your dogma of "free-will." RETARD ALERT, RETARD ALERT!!!!
infectingthecrypts 2 years ago 2
Hitchens is great! One of the pioneers of our day, no-doubt!
railroadtrash09 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens does not know how ignorant he is. He thinks modern human science is the only way to explain or understand anything.
eameece 2 years ago
at least he's not arrogant enough to say HE KNOWS who made the universe started, and he knows him personally!.
lukeism2 2 years ago
Natural selection and random mutation explain nothing. Any consciousness, any spontaneous behavior and any creativity cannot be so explained. Neither can they be explained by creation myths.
eameece 2 years ago
@eameece actually our creativity can be explained by natural selection because we needed to be creative to survive. We ate meat (protein) which helped our brains develop which allowed us to create tools and develop new 'creative' hunting strategies. You can see the birth of creativity within this phenomena, it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that without creativity brought on by natural selection we wouldn't have survived as a species. Creativity is a central piece to our evolution.
mat4mckay 2 years ago
Natural selection is a "species" of mechanistic determinism. Creativity brings new ideas and new behavior into the world. It can't be explained nu mechanical causes, in which things happen because some prior event made it happen. Evolution IS a central piece to our evolution, which means it did not happen by natural selection alone.
eameece 2 years ago
@eameece You aren't explaining yourself very well. Tell me what was wrong with what i said and how it doesn't show that creativity was essential in developing new hunting techniques. Also, the mechanical element that you are talking about was the action of being eaten repeatedly by larger animals, leading to fear, leading to ingenuity and creative hunting techniques.
mat4mckay 2 years ago
I'll try! Natural selection implies that the mechanical element you referred to is ALL that is needed for evolutionj to occur; that all supposed "creativity" is mechanical. If what led to ingenuity was just the being eaten, leading to fear... if the ingenuity is explained by this series of causes mechanically, then there IS no creativity.
eameece 2 years ago
Natural selection does not account for creativity period. If it did, it would NOT be creative. That's why there IS a "creation" element in evolution, though it was not Father God creating things sometime ago. But it IS spiritual and beyond human mechanist science to explain.
eameece 2 years ago
you tube did not allow me to correct or repost my previous comment, in which I wrote evolution when I meant creativity.
eameece 2 years ago
Actually, God cannot be known by arguments. That does not disprove God, but argument! A mystic knows God exists through direct experience. But that does not mean a mystic "believes" in all the religious myths. A myth is a symbol that points beyond itself.
eameece 2 years ago
HItchens is primarily attacking a myth of a God-King which unfortunately many religious people take literally.
eameece 2 years ago
its very nice that the pointless babble of the opposite site are cut out :-)
Thronsohn 2 years ago 2
LOL Thronsohn. You (we, collectively) want to be open minded, but our side are frequently articulate and engaging enough, especially Hitch, to make the same arguments compelling to listen to with repeated viewings. The apologists are always boring and dull and illogical, and with a serious irony deficiency.
TheConciseStatement 2 years ago 3
yeah actually that is +
freef49 2 years ago
A Hitchens smile is worth its weight in diamonds.
TAz69x 2 years ago 8
Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis
Synthesis = Thesis + Anti-Thesis
If the synthesis doesnt exist in POTENTIALITY, the Thesis and Anti-Thesis doesn't exist period.
If laws are the mere authorships of a religious god they are arbitrary, and thus, making the pursuit of discovering and understanding them in vain i.e if a religious god authored mathematical laws, principals, and functions, 1+1 could have very well equaled 6, and if that's the case, there is no real meaning behind 1+1=2
teched246 2 years ago
The Law of Inertia was not authored by a religious god- it exist because the laws of gravity and acceleration exist, who in turn exist because other laws exist and so forth. To share a more advanced perception of mine, I would go so far as to say that laws are SYMBIOTIC of each other. Example: if the Law of Inertia wasn't functioning or didn't exist the laws of gravity and acceleration arent functioning or existing, thus, a symbiotic relationship is the means by which Law begets Law.
teched246 2 years ago
"Consider the Law, for all is Law.
Seek not that which is not of the Law,
for such exists only in the illusions of the senses"
RELIGIOUS gods are outside of Law, thus, they are illusions, hence they do not exist. If you try to say that god is above law, ill just say that there is neither above nor below, but rather, inwards and outwards, thus making the statement " god is above Law" the non-pejorative way of saying" god is outside of Law: my initial statement from the beginning.
teched246 2 years ago
I love chris hitchens brain!
ManOnTheMoon09 2 years ago 2
Scotch or whiskey, terpentine or wodka, funnily this great mind still holds many truths, eloquantly stated. Awe and respect for him, but bare in mind his political background. A man and his follies...
Svennusmax 2 years ago
Looks like he's had his obligatory pint of vodka before coming on. Maybe church ministers should do the same they might start talking sense.
Guarding 2 years ago 3
I see Hitchens as more of a scotch or whiskey kind of man.
Besides, as long as you don't overdo it, a person can still be quite eloquent when buzzing.
Bringerofdeath9753 2 years ago 4