About WHAT is below said, when and if Goodle's Eric Schmidt decides to interview the #Moshiach(sm), iin Jerusalem; the subject(s) will be for him somewhat challenging, namely the subject of such an interview will FOCUS on the Jerusalem Narrative, as is about #Moshiach(sm) and redemption, in the genenrality; and its "antecedents," in particular, FOCUSED on its NEW science(s) and technology(s). Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
However, we should NOT expect, any time soon Google's Eric Schmidt interviewing Jerusalem's Yehoshua Ya'acov. Since AFTER he learns, as he surely will, that Yehoshua received the Blessing, of Israel greatest modern day Sage, Ha Rav Yitzchak Kaduri, zt''l, as Klal Yisrael's #Moshiach(sm), he too probably, will as well run and hide; as did Hitch, from His authentic self. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
Lastly, as a Jew, talking with another Jew, I guarded his honor, as WAS most precious to his ego, while it was His authentic Jewish identity and soul, that I guarded, NOT his ego; even though he did NOT have a clue of the difference. That said we recite Kaddish in Jerusalem for Christopher, since his passing, And too we will, when and if requested teach/train his son brother and other males in his family, to as well recite Kaddish for his soul's Tikkun. Blessings, His Brother & True Friend
It WAS Hitchens, NOT I who avoided my ANSWER & thus negated his own challenge, with no where to hide & so he ran away & pretended. As defined a life, as WAS one "long unanswerd phone call, " from HItch, to Hitch's "authentic self." Absent any knowldge of G-d, nor of His innate nxus with Hashem, from birth, Chris as well lacked any authentic nexus with His authentic self. This is Einstein's definition of insanity, as WAS Hitch's DELUSIONAL expectation(s) of a differnt result(s). Tky, yy
ONLY the post Freudians, when and provided they possess comprehensive knowledge and training in #Moshiach(sm)'s redemptive paradigm's #Receiving, to give(sm), in general, & its post Freudian NEW psychology, of Identity Resolution-IR in particular, can possibly comprehend the scale and complexity of the hoax HItchens perpatrated on himself and the public and this is the price for being well schooled; being uneducated. It's written a little knowledge, can be a dangerous thing. Blessings, yy
AFTER 353 comments, still HItch's loyalists, cannot accept that he's NOT merely WRONG, he's WAS DELUSIONAL. A religious Jew I am and like others WHAT we can do that, the non-beliver cannot do is "PRAY & CONNECT, with the Creator of Creation, Blessed be He; & too with one's Authentic Self." Chris never achieved this, nor even knew of it, in his life. Claiming to be an atheist, DENYING covertly & delusionally the "demi-god" within, in which he NOT only believed, he as well obeyed. Tky, yy
@yyba1: The level of turgidity with which you craft your position is quite laughable. To address this point,"A religious Jew I am and like others WHAT we can do that, the non-beliver cannot do is "PRAY & CONNECT, with the Creator of Creation.."
This is an insubstantial refutation at any measure - you have proven nothing. Since you state that you can "connect" with a Creator, perhaps you could set up an outside examination of this claim. Prove that you can interact with a deity.
Your answer does not in any way meet his challenge.
You talk about him ranting on and on but I and millions of others find his arguments and points well made and coherent. Clearly most find that yours are not apart from fellow religionists who pretend to understand you. You repeatedly claim that Hitchens has no understanding of local versus non local phenomena yet you seem to have no idea what that means. Invoking the word 'quantum' is now common among the superstitious but meaningless.
@queenastilon I can't imagine how anyone could misunderstand Hitchen's challenge but apparently you did. I strongly doubt you're stupid. Are you pretending you don't understand in order to lie that you have met his challenge and then falsely accuse him? Yes: truth is always truth. That is not a morally good statement that could only be said by a religious person (= the challenge). It is morally neutral and can be said by anyone. Show you have some decency; admit you were wrong.
Hitchen's said "name me an action, moral action, taken by a believer, or a moral statement uttered by one that could not have been made an infidel or non-believer" -- you failed the challenge the moment you threw reason out the window.
Your "paradox" is ridiculous meta-ethical drivel and is not, in any way, a response to the challenge given.
Out of context. Also, You also mention a humble god @3:07 Which god is this that is so humble? I have never heard of a humble god.
Organized religion is not bad? Even my own father has said he is out of organized religion for good, he claims he is now a proper follower.
Then move on to a personal attack, not answering the call but a Freudian diagnoses. Then another mention of a humble god? I ask again who is this humble god?
Belief does not = truth, Even if the whole world believes.
Hitchens CHALLENGE that he now hides from, was/is ANSWERED, and without repeating it, the ANSWER is, "the TRUTH, is the information, that never changes (in finality) changing (in intentionality)." He has NOT, repeated this, as promised, as it is written "the fish dies by an open mouth." A simple paradox, challenged his intended dilemma, with a logical dichotomy. Hitchens FAILS ,as his challenge is met, as he hides. Why? Ask Hitch! If it's NOT obvious?
Hitchens issue is NOT whether one believes, or does NOT believe in G-d, it's to raise the general consciousness, so that people believe in themselves. WHAT is delusional about this approach, in the extreme, is this is NOT the problem. The problen is man's belief in a FALSE self, that is a mini deity, the demi-God witin and this is Hitchens "one G-d to many." And it's absolutely certain this he would know, but NOT strangely, he does NOT. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
@ParadigmaticShift Some "paradigm shift." It's one thing "to be silent and thought the fool, while it's another to open your mouth, and remove ALL doubt." A suggestion... never mind, you would probably need a "rule book." Good luck Yehoshua Ya'acov
@carouselcarouse My name is the one G-d provided me and my Mother, zt''l agrees is more suited, than the one she and my Abba choose. No ned for the pity. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
Hitchens intelligence is a gift from G-d, very rare and clearly misused, yet it was with sorrow that we today learned of his extreme illness. The issue of his atheism, was/is for me significant in relation to the youth metric, that he influenced with his polemics, failing to teach them. His claim(s) ignored the classics, their three primary antecedents, as his modeus tollens argument(s) were crafted to align with "non-falsifiable" logic. I ANSWERED him and he hid,
@davidgunnells It should be obvious, that it is ONLY the first, as ONLY it could be the first; for reasons that should as well be obvious; anyway. Tky,
yes, this IS a statement that can be made by a religious person, not likely to be made by a rational person. but it is NOT a moral statement or action. Hitchens' challenge is to name a MORAL action or statement that cannot be performed or sincerely uttered by a nonbeliever.
@aleceiffel7 Chris already tried that "bluff," and soon abandoned it, as he saw his modus tollens argument(s) growing ever weaker. And besides, Hitchens wrote and said "God is..." (not great, not rich, not smart, etc.) do you, or any of his followers and supporters, actually know, understand, much less comprehend WHAT this means? He's obviously having a good laugh, about America's extreme cultural ignorance, as is extreme, in the generality and even more extreme in the particularity. YYBA
@aleceiffel7 OK, so let us hear from Mr. Hitchens, G-d willing, he should receover and be healed, and make this statement. As ONLY, in HItchens keepiing, his word (no proxies accepted), which to date he has NOT, will he prove three things. One he is absolutely rational. Two, he's relatively honest. And three, he's NOT an atheist. WHAT does... "G-d is?" mean? And "The G-d?" WHAT does this mean? As refers to Hitchens and Dawkins respectively . Tky, Yehoshua Ya'acov
@csakide You obviously do NOT know formal logic, noor advanced mathematics in general (which is formal logic) nor set theory in particular, Zermelo's axiom and the axiom of choice, and really much more, that for now is NOT needed. Thanks Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
His point in making said challenge is to highlight the ease with which people can bring to mind the evils done by religious people. It has nothing to do with the question being unanswerable.
I suppose you were too busy trying to sound smarter than you are to take the time to actually listen to the question.
@Apathyist Actually, this is probably correct. Though it is to be NOTED, this is NOT what he said. It's your interpretation. And in fact, I did listen, the problem is it is Hitchens, who has NOT listened to his own question. ANd as he did NOT listen, so too is he did NOT framed it very well, in fact it was framed very poorly. He intended, entrapment, and fell it his own pit. Explanations in counterpart. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
You have to apply his statements in context with his other interviews, debates and writing. Doing so, his implications seemed quite plain to me (even if he didn't spell out every statement he made phrase-by-phrase).
I think the problem isn't Hitchens' framing. You came up with a theory that made sense at first glance and went with it, without taking the time to properly critique your own idea and see that it doesn't stand up when applied with appropriate context and impartiality.
@Apathyist It's just the opposite, as Hitchens came up with his theoretical challenge, that he wrongly believed no one could answer; and he was/is silenced then and since, It's Hitch who FAILED to critique his own half baked idea(s); as the saying goes in the Middle East-ME "the 'Hitch' fish, dies by an open mouth." We pray for hisTeshuuvah & recovery. Even Hitch has the ethics to confirm, as he has indirectly, that my ANSWER is on target.. Anyway, nice try. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
No. As I explained, you missed the point of his challenge. Your video response, in full, reply to a question he did not ask.
Instead of examining the question in proper context, to find a reasoned conclusion, you started with your conclusion and then misrepresented the question to suit it to your purpose. It's hard to tell whether you did this deliberately or if the truth was simply lost in your haste to point out a perceived flaw in someone who's opinions you dislike.
What is he talking about,I understand what Hitchens is talking about.
Religious people call god a him, so has'nt man created god in mans image? Sounds sexist.A human quality.Not a character flaw of an all knowing etity.Face it, all theories about god,be them from scientist or theologians,are attempts to explain the unexplainable.If god exist,we all should be benevolent,healthy,wealthy,and ultimately HAPPY.If god is perfect,we would be perfect, created in god's image,no need to prove worthiness
Hitchens WRONGLY claims his "challenge" has NOT been met, it has been ANSWERED and he's not repeated the statement made by a religious person, as in this video, as he promised he could and would... YYBA
@iamtheVitor It's both. Ethic's first principle is its orimary truth function and the ACTION performed, is that my words have silenced him, who has and continues in hiding himself, from the callenge. Why? He's aware ONLY after he utters this statement is he liable, to the consequences of his own words and a comprehensive public defrocking, as an intellectual. Anyway, good luck to Hitch and his blind followers. As when the blind lead the blind, BOTH fall...
haven't found that in my research about it so far. can you specify that idea. what exactly makes this sentence a moral one, that only a religious person could make? and about the world being full delusional and noisy, that's what it always was, since eternity..
@carryall69 It defines truth's continuum complexity(s), as herein truth is, the first priinciple, of morality and ethics, as this statement confirms, on the fundamental level(s). Tky, Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
it deals with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light.. it's cosmologically interessting indeed. but from that to the biblical yahwe, that needs further explanation. anyway, if you up for it, we can chat about it. now back to the moral content of that sentence. you write about this being the first principle of ethics.
@carryall69 Actually, falsehood, lies and deceit, in particular, is the address(es) of quantum entanglement(s) of the mind/sou in manl, and yes, the interaction(s) as well allow(s_ for "action at a distance." Interesting indeed.
i think this goes in a platonic direction, it has to do with the theory of forms.. nevertheless, lets think of it for a moment. feel free to interfer if i haven't got your thoughts right, after all, it's apologeticism.. what is the nature of an information.. it's generally speaking a message recieved and understood. it's a nowadays trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information. there's a new branch called digital physics.
when you write: "start with the antecedents of creation and you'll be well directed", this is too indefinite. can i translate this sentence in: "find out about the origins of our cosmos and you'll understand"? well, feel free to elaborate but for now, lets go back to this statement "truth is information that never changes" .. in finality / intensionality.. do you mean something like: "information is absolute and its therefor an indicator for the divine? i heard that kind of idea once before..
It's TRUTH that's absolute and this is WHAT is existential continuum of my identity, as is commonly found, nearly everywhere in the "white space" of my listenting, mediatation, contempletion, speaking, writing and integral thinking," that has no doting admirers. All the other rant, above, is NOISE... though obviously NOT to you and this is understandable.
shalom yehoshua.. i don't mean to offend you, you were kind to answer me, but i wasn't able to understand you, or what you exactly mean. i still can't see a connection from your statement to hitchens' challenge. your statement about information, is more of an opinion about the nature of abstractions, rather than an moral or ethical one. a moral statement would be something like: "be kind to others", or:" help someone who's in need", or:"don't steel or murder"..
TRUTH is absoluute, information is a mere attribute of TRUTH, whose relativity is, best uderstood as the more cognitive, is the INFORMATION, the closer to the TRUTH in the absolute.
@yyba1 hello yehoshua, happy to hear from you, how are you? it's been a while, hasn't it? i try to portend this rather spontaneous comment you've addressed to me, maybe it was inadvertently.** however, i took the opportunity to reread our chat we held many months ago and also what is written since then so far. how can i help you?
@carryall69 Perhaps, you should have listened more carefully? Acutally, I had in mind other issues in Cosmology. Gothe's "abide moment" Faust Act -3. And the parallel Cosmos of consciousness, descritive consciously as the governing agent(s) of its four invisible worlds of emanations, creation, formation and ACTION of all that ever was, is or ever will be, after our Cosmos', expansion ends, and implodes, to be regenerated. Its proof is and will remain a "sticky wicket." Blessings, yy
@yyba1 "I hear your message, but faith fails me": 765
about kabbalah's four worlds of consciousness of the zohar: emanation, creation, formation and action. romantic metaphysical transfigurations out of a solipsistic desire to be eminently exceptional. psychoanalytically speaking, mysticism constitutes an attempted escape from the realization of the finitute of life..
"the truth is the information that never changes" that's the statement only a believer could make? eh.. first of all, what does this mean? the truth is.. the information.. that never changes.. i don't understand it.. which information? you mean, something like:"i believe in god".. that's the statement only a believer could make? that is true. but that wasn't the challenge dear, was it? no. it was about a moral one. a moral statement or action only a believer could make.. what's moral about that?
Start with the antecedents of creation and you'll be well directed. AGAIN, the answer to Hitch's "challenge" is... "the TRUTH is the INFORMATION that never changes ( in finality) changing in INTENTIONALITY."
Now really, this is not so difficult to grasp, as a moral statement, as after all, it's the first principle of ethics, especially relevant to TODAY'S, world of unending DELUSIONS and noise.
Oh, is THAT what you were saying? Well, I'm a non-religious person. And I say, "The truth is the information that never changes (in finality) changing in intentionality." So that's that.
Also, "Hitch's" (sic) comment wasn't geared towards simply saying something, but accomplishing something. So you as a religious person, is there anything you can do that I as a non-religious person cannot? That's the real issue.
@hgryphon OK well done. NOW that was simple, and it was accurate. NOW see if you, or anyone can get Hitchens to do, EXACTLY, this and make this same statement, while claiming he is an atheist. He will NOT, as he's both intelligent and cunning, as is manifest, in his "opposition character." That manifestation of his mind and identity, he really does not know very well and obviously does NOT comprehend the extreme nature of his self deceit. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
@yyba1 You missed the point. I wasn't saying it as if it were my own words or as if I were agreeing with you.
And you're still missing the point. Religion doesn't allow you to do something that I can't do. It doesn't give you super powers or ANY power. For all your faith, you're still just a man like me. That was Christopher Hitchens's point and it flew right over your head. He wasn't asking you to make up a catchprhase. Do you understand that?
@carryall69 Everything. It's difficult to teach one as remarkable, and very bright as Hitchens, though he too is on the blind side of his authentic self in man's exile as everyine else, and so the device devised was/is to catch him, as it did, in his very own devices of self deceit, as a wake up call, to this very bright person; as it was clear he was overextended, without clubbbing him over the head with religion. It's deep, as is our Blessed Mr. Hitchens. Blessings, Yehoshua
Sir, a rebuttal: 6:29 "You put in every -ism in the book"- You do a fine job as well. This video is murky and difficult to understand at best. You do a disservice to your arguments by failing to speak in a clear, coherent, understandable manner.
Still, I deciphered enough to look up Bell's Theorem, and concluded it does not support the existence of a God any more than a UFO sighting confirms alien life.
starting at 8:22 "it's since been confirmed by events..." What events? Please cite them.
More rebuttal: Hitchen's challenge was not to come up with a STATEMENT that only a religious person could make, but rather an example of an ACTION that only a religious person could take. Hitchen's basic ethical principles are, like mine, founded not on what I think but rather what I DO. You do not meet his challenge. Your entire video is reduced to theoretical bantering, nothing more.
Your point about humility is interesting, as Hitchens certainly lacks humility. Still, it's a moot point.
@fiddlercrab3 My challenge, were it taken up, as it WAS not, would have confirmed the primary ACTION and grevious unconscious injustice of Hitchens life was/is the "sin of omission." And honoring my challenge, would have proven he's absolutely NOT an atheist, as he WRONGLY and delusionally believes. I'll not explain, as either he is restored to life and health and meets the challennge or I'll explain why & how he FAILED, himself in life and the challenge; as the two are really one. Tky, YY
but i could tell them the following: based on human history and human behavior, there is a chance that this place was once perfect, wonderful and enjoyable as created by a perfect Designer.. however, over decades of degeneration and breaking all kinds of natural and moral laws humanity now is where it is.. life can still be enjoyable at times and i just hope for the sake of humanity that by bringing you into this world we might all get to see this mess reversed some day..
and you might die of a disease of some kind or a terrible accident before you outlive this succesion of mutations! you might be raped or mollested by other humans because the evolutionary process has a few misfits along the way, or you might simply be killed for $20 even if you give it up without a fight, again for the sake of evolutionary misfits and survival of the fittest
here's the thing! i don't know about this issue.. i'm not religious nor an evolutionist or atheist. what i do say is the following: when my children will ask me some day why i brought them into this world, i cannot say to them "so you can be a prime experiment of evolution, which thus, so far, has brought us incredible scientific mess, polutions of all kinds, more crimes of all kinds (online and offline) and a total unbalanced standard of living (85% poverty, 15% troubled about the future)
Only an intelligent man can make his intelligent thoughts simple.
Furthermore, I disagree with your statement. That's because the concept is poorly phrased. Normally I could make a damn good guess at what you were saying but there is no context provided.
From what I can read I assume you're saying the truth is information that has not changed at "the end". This simply isn't true.
Falsehoods can exist for all time. Many cultures think bizarre thoughts that have not (nor ever will be) addressed. If they're not addressed, they're not proven wrong, and if they're not proven wrong sir, then they don't change.
Furthermore, concepts that cannot be proven true or false automatically fall into your description. For example, the concept that there is a God. Is that the truth? No one really knows.
Remember, I'm only guessing at your phrasing as I stated earlier.
That is NOT what is said. My ANSWER is the first principle of Humanomics(sm) ethics. The anticedents of creation are its proof of the oneness of Cosmic consciousness; as all existence and even matter exists ONLY through the vibration(s) of the atom's electrons and sub-particle fields; thus all CHANGEis first this vibration and so when you change the vibration you cahnge the reality and this is the immutable unchanging nature of all existence's oneness, that is God. Blessings Yehoshua Ya'acov
That's NOT what is said. It's really simple ALL that ever WAS, is and will be eternally, exits in 'the' cosmic vibration of consciousness, and when you change the vibration you CHANGE the reality of what is and/or is perceived. Blessings, NOW really that's NOt so tough to grasp, comprehend? Well that's another matter yes? Blessings, Yehoshua
> It's really simple ALL that ever WAS, is and will be eternally, exits in 'the' cosmic vibration of consciousness, and when you change the vibration you CHANGE the reality of what is and/or is perceived.
It's not that it's complicated sir. It's that you're speaking gibberish. And I can't change my "cosmic vibration of consciousness" to make the words you intelligent.
Could you please explain what you are saying in words that do not have subjective meanings?
@Rundvelt Good thinking. IN reverse order, TRUTH is ever changing, in the fractual logic, while the ontologic picture, preexists in divine consciousness in the parallel cosmos, to the physical, that preexisted the physcial cosmos and will exist AFTER its infiniite transformation(s), Goethe Faust's ACT three "abide moment, ut if you cannot abide, at least abide eternally." This doctrine of eternal recurrence. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
I'm an athiest and I have just repeated 'word for word' what you have just said! The challenge was for 'a statement made, by a religious person or person of faith'!!!! - I am not a person of faith and I repeated what you said! You have failed!
You are NOT Hitch, and so what you claim, does NOT count. When and if Hitch does answer... which I do NOT believe he ever will, then he'll fall publicly on his atheist sword, and confirm his self hatred and DENIAL as a Jew.
@MattofMalaga WRONG you failed, although I'll NOT explain this, at this time. As you'll NOT be allowed to become Hitchens proxy, as many have tried. Either he makes the statement as he promised, or I'll NOT explain his failing, as he's hiding like a child. And G-d williing he should live, I'll wait, and if G-d takes him early, then, and ONLY will I explain WHY he is NOT an atheist, by his own credible testimony, that his exile deafened him from haearing.
@MattofMalaga It was/is for Hitchens (no surrogates, for now(, to make and publicly, AFTER all why should you, and so many 'trusting' others be embarassed and humilitated for Hitchens SPINS and hidden agenda(s) wherein he goes to places NOT grasped by most of his fans and followers. Tky, yy
Hugely ironic. Hitchens asked if there were something that could be said by only a religious person that could not be said by a secular person. This guy actually DOES do that. No sane secular person would try to write down what this guy said and annotate it for comment. So, there you go, Hitchens challenge answered. What it proves, though, is you have to be a mumbling, rambling lunatic to answer the challenge, thus invalidating your claim to divine knowledge.
@gr8pumpkin In baseball, a bad hitter to begin with, becomes worse when he tries switch hitting, as this merely amplifies the basic weaknesses one begins with and so some advive; stay away from baseball, and if you think your a great pitcher, ONLY try in the league, that has the designated hitter rule, so you never have to come to bat. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
There is a reason your video is rated so low. You are not clear on anything in the sightest. From you up and down pitch of your speech, to your inability to end a sentence, to the words you use that while your audience understands the meaning of, when connected the way you do have little meaning. You have done a poor job in connecting with the audience and therefore have not answered the question. 1 star.
I've no interest to connect with Hitch's followers; just to ANSWER, and I've done that... Hitch is probably the only one who comprehends thisanswer and this explains his silence. Blessings, YYBA
i'd like to hear what the answer to the challenge is again please, i dont think i quite got that. can you send me a message or something explaining it?
@end073 OK, HItchens claims to be an atheist, and that no statement or action made by a religious person, tha's me, is something he cannot, NOT himself utter; and so let him say, publicly... "TRUTH, is the information that never changes (in finality) changing (in intentionality)." As Heaven has herein and in counterpart, imposed the extremes of the "man delusion" on Chris by the G-d of Israel and the Cosmos. BLESSINGS, Yehoshua Ya'acov
Enunciate - you mumble, you go through phases where you speak to quickly, then too slowly.
Perhaps you might like to write your ideas down on paper and organise them in a logical order with at least the appearance of a rational argument- you do tend to ramble.
Using large words in an apparently random order does nothing to further your argument.
And he first said "you have to name a statement made" and when his challenge was ANSWERED, he did what all good politicians, he changed what he said and no one was fooled, absolutely no one; he's not credible, not at all.
The ANSWER is simple, it's done NOT by the authentic you, but by exile's imposter in exile's infamous "giving, to receive" which was the old model of mind of man's exile NOW collapsed. Hitchens and his followers missed this historic sea change event. In physics it described as the COLLAPSE of the "local reality" and this refers to man's local reality globally, that was "giving, to receive." Thanks again, & Blessings, & keep listening, first & ONLY to God & you'll hear the real you... YYBA....
Thank you Adam for your comment. My belief in God, was NOT placed upon me, it was/is freely and cognitively chosen. Hitchens atheism was imposed by the imposter personality within him. I have questioned my "fears" and they are ONLY of God, not of man or anything he creates.
When you do find out, be sure to share it with Hitch, as he's very angry with God, like a child and most irrational, while he goes to great length to package his atheism, with just a few "branding" problems. Tky, YYBA
As someone who is clearly dependant on a system of believes placed upon you it's no surprise you fear for the "young and impressionable" people Hitchens apparently didnt offer an alternative for religion too. I believe he did offer an alternative and it was one without a structure demanding my submission! First question your fears of being free and let the rest of us find out for ourselves. (Why else would someone move from the land of the free to the capital of religion?)
i am a little late with this response, but i hope to have an answer from you.
First you missed quoted Hitchens. i'm sure this was pointed out. he asked for an act of charter that a non-believer. but will dismiss that for now.
you Said "the truth is the information that never changes". i offer a counter quote, "Do you really believe EVERYTHING you believed ten years ago? i hope not. it mean you've learned nothing in the last ten years." - Henry Rollins.
@yyba1 oh i remeber you, your the guy that removes even my most polite and pointed questions, then puts words in other peoples mouths, which is funny when they have videos and books to watch/read. As far as i'm concerned, you've failed at a productive conversation with me on every possible level. you've even removed the correction of errors i pointed out for you i see. plz, never post to me again.
I am not religious, in fact I'm an anti-theist by all accounts and I am very happy with my "empty bucket", as you put it. And am profoundly glad that I was not born into any religion. Don't try to tell me that my life is empty. All you do by making this 'assertion' is prove your prejudice.
@brindos7 Is a doctor prejudice, when he makes an essential, and in fact existential diagnosis, that directs and compels behavioral transformation(s), of a patient whose teminally ill? Absolutely, especially when the patient does NOT know his condition. Blessings, yy
Its Friday night at the end of a long week so excuse me if Ive missed something here. Your statement seems to be a contradiction or even false, by all definitions other than in mathematics. How can this falsehood not be said equally well by an atheist?
Didactic scientist - do you illustrate science books?
Absoultely, as the genetic expression of the donor's DNA. Souls exist, in the four dimensions of man's known physical existence and too in consciousness in the seven additional dimensions beyond our physical existence; and so now you have in the minimum seven reasons to believe in the soul of man, ONLY possible when you listen first and ONLY to God and NOT to man, He reveals to man, man's authentic self to INHABIT, this is called redemption.
I have a question for you wise elder. If a human were to clone another human would the clone have a soul? I don't think there is any reason to believe souls exist and people just fear death. It's most fanciful, and btw trying to justify genital mutilation through a god is embarassing to humanity and yourself especially. I'm 22 and feel nothing but hatred for you, disguising your lack of truth with stolen words. People like you enable suicide bombers to justify their wrongdoing. Thanks a lot.
Thanks. When man WAS in exile God was dead, to him; in his circumscribed perception. The good news is exile has ended, with the global COLLAPSE of the 'local reality' that in man's miind WAS "giving, to receive." Hitchens, although a bright chap,he lives in a four dimensional world, denying the existence of the other 7 dimmensions, beyond his NOW collapsed 'local reality.' He & his followers missed, this NOT surprisingly.
Time & history has proven that your particular delusion(s) with Hitch's spins are what is irreversible. Beware of what you want, because you'll get it and it appears you've managed to join the end of exile's "ground zero." Blessings, YYBA
It's God and His truth that has elevated Yehoshua, not me. And it's God and His truth that has defeated Hitchen's NOISE and really not Yehoshua and this is the simple truth of the matter. Blessings, YYBA.
UPDATE: After 256 comments, it's very clear Hitchens "challenge" has indeed been ANSWERED and he's in DENIAL, refusing to publicly speak the words that ANSWERED his "challenge" by pretending, through proxies that it's not an acceptable answer. It's first principle content rises to the level of a credible answer and Hitch's excuses fall & this is the consensus. Read the answers & conclude for youself. With nearly 4000 views, all agree Hitch's OMISSION is highly suspecious, let him explain. YYBA
Hitchens morality is self delusional. My ANSWER is not philosophy, it's a first principle in man's basic cognitive science's ethics. Perhaps when you go beyond "reasonably educated" to the level of better educated people, you might even begin to understand, to eventually comprehend, the antecedent moral value in my predicate moral ANSWER; which has to silenced Hitch, as he hides from the answer, he claims to seek; and if NOT, then let him "speak publicly my statement" in ANSWER, Tky , YYBA
How is your god a god of humility when he demands to praised and worshiped for something that comes natural to your god, for the rest of the worshipers life and then in the afterlife the worshipers souls is then sent to heaven yet to praise of worship for all of eternity. I would say by humility that your god expects the worshiper to take no praise of credit for acts of of accomplishment , but is expected to give the god the the praise for the act. Expecting praise for eternity is not humble.
God inhabits all eleven dimensions, unobtrusively; including the four we live in that we are not as yet, cognitively capable to INHABIT, much less the additional seven dimensions. This is what God is and this is extremely humble, beyond man's limits of comprehension. "Who can know the God." And "He (God) sees the end, when we see merely the beginning). These are the words of my teacher whose humility, well instructed His charge, when God gave me to be His student. Tky, Blessings, YYBA
Exile WAS the root of all evil; although it's now ended and Hitch & his followershave "missed" completely this watershed event, in human history. In exile it was man's false duality of mind and thus identity, that controlled man; NOT God; Who is long suffering & enduring of man's delusions of exile. NOT arrogantly, when Hitch wakes up, if he ever does, he's more than capable to do a lot of good, for a lot of people, with just a little authentic humility BEFORE God.
I am sorry, but does the speaker understand the challenge at all? This is not an answer , this is religious rant. The "empty bucket" , "stupid arguments" comments are completely appropriate , if they are used in reverse.
The problem, may just be that the one who posed the CHALLENGE, is the one who does not comprehend the implications of his own words; if you follow? This is since when ANSWERED he all of sudden did not respond; this is called a bluff. Tky, YYBA
No I do not follow. You are yet to produce anything that resembles an answer. All you do is make unsupported assertions and statements, and you also assume that those assertions have meaning outside of your religious views. Let me be the first to tell you - your statements hardly have any meaning to outside observer. Moreover judging by your response you do not understand Hitchens's challenge at all. Just because you say it was answered it does not make it so.
@cheburashka1326 Actually, I NOT oly understand it, I comprehend it and Hitchens does NOT, as he's first and foremost, flaming for attention. Yet this is so, for ALL in exile. And too you really do NOT follow Hitchens, as if you did, ou would reject is hypothesis and realize its source and underlying generic disfunctionality NOT only in Chris, but as wel in mankind.
@yyba1 Than answer his challenge, don't shift the topic to irrelevant issues like Hitchen's personal flaws. So far you only produced bunch of nonsense. Stop using meaningless(Yet this is so, for ALL in exile) phrases - it helps nobody.
We do NOT blame God for man's misuse of His free will; in exile; this is not exclusively partricular to Isirael. And this also does NOT excuse it's horrfic extremes and injustices for its act of revenge, on those shooting missles.
Disproportionate as the respone was, it's to be recognized Israel was incited after long suffering, before acting WRONGLY; still no excuse. It's a test from God and Israel failed it, completely.
Humble God? Where did you even get this idea from? Literatures? Personal experiences? How do you know?! You're talking about Israelian ppl being rational, let me ask you this what is so rational about killing other human beings for a piece of land? For centuries?! Because you believe what you believe? That's far from being rational, as a matter a fact there's no difference between you people with animals and their territorial behaviors
Hello. I just got one question for "yyba1": is it difficult for you to have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without resorting to insults or personal attacks?
Subscribe & I'll make a video for you, describing the science based proof(s) of God. However, I caution it will NOT be so easy to ascend the learning to comprehend much of this proof; but I never heard you claim you're a scientist & that's a good beginning; one Hitch cannot claim for himself among other significant errors, in repsect of the well established proof(s) of God's existence.
Beyond the 4 dimensions in which we exist, the other 7 dimensions are where most of this proof resides. YYBA
Up to the point where It was discovered that the earth is in-fact round, the belief that the world was flat was generally unchanged. Does that make it truth? No.
Certain truth is impossible to know, because how do you know that your senses are telling you what is really happening? If they're not, how do you know that this world exists?
All we have, is what we consider the closest thing to truth. We gather this information with evidence. This is called science. There is no evidence for god.
You're an angry little boy "flaming for attention" who has little or no capacity to understand, much less comprehend the issue(s) of the dialog. Hitch made a challenge and it was ANSWERED and he's hiding; why are you attacking me? Anyway you've serious development problems and I'm NOT the address to help you, when it must first come from you; as in life there are no "do it for me's."
I'm sorry but you sir make yourself appear more foolish with every video you post. The overriding tone I've noticed in all your responses is one of condescension. You assume that your diatribes and multisyllabic non sequitors are somehow beyond our grasp only belies your own ignorance. Spewing vitriol at Mr. Hitchens and accusing him of ignorance is the ultimate "pot and the kettle"
Unfortunately, your an angry little boy with a "kill daddy program." I'm NOT your daddy. You're merely flaming for attantion.
AGAIN I'm NOT your Daddy. And I and many others, often make typographical errors when tying on the Internet, as does Hitch and it has happened many times and no one it writing the rubbish you have attacked me with. Grow up and get a life; and don't go away mad, just go away. A dead fish smells ONLY from the head... Regards, YYBA
Dawkins is not even a good scientist. His so called "selfish gene" contrivance derives from standing on Lorenz's shoulders & others. Over 100 mil. links in the search/eng. might help you? About your "a little learning is a dangerous thing" you're almost talking about yourself, but you've NOT even the little learning to qualify for such a statement to be correct about you. And this reminds of "once silent & thought a fool, he opened his mouth & removed all dounbt."
Your're obviously NOT a scienist. Although, your statement is in part true, it's very far from the true and complete picture of what science is and is all about. No science, no politics.
I can only try to imagine what kind of fool it takes to consider those positions mutually exclusive. I really am done now though, hurl whatever sad little insult you feel is worthy of being the last word.
About WHAT is below said, when and if Goodle's Eric Schmidt decides to interview the #Moshiach(sm), iin Jerusalem; the subject(s) will be for him somewhat challenging, namely the subject of such an interview will FOCUS on the Jerusalem Narrative, as is about #Moshiach(sm) and redemption, in the genenrality; and its "antecedents," in particular, FOCUSED on its NEW science(s) and technology(s). Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 3 weeks ago
However, we should NOT expect, any time soon Google's Eric Schmidt interviewing Jerusalem's Yehoshua Ya'acov. Since AFTER he learns, as he surely will, that Yehoshua received the Blessing, of Israel greatest modern day Sage, Ha Rav Yitzchak Kaduri, zt''l, as Klal Yisrael's #Moshiach(sm), he too probably, will as well run and hide; as did Hitch, from His authentic self. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 3 weeks ago
Lastly, as a Jew, talking with another Jew, I guarded his honor, as WAS most precious to his ego, while it was His authentic Jewish identity and soul, that I guarded, NOT his ego; even though he did NOT have a clue of the difference. That said we recite Kaddish in Jerusalem for Christopher, since his passing, And too we will, when and if requested teach/train his son brother and other males in his family, to as well recite Kaddish for his soul's Tikkun. Blessings, His Brother & True Friend
yyba1 3 weeks ago
It WAS Hitchens, NOT I who avoided my ANSWER & thus negated his own challenge, with no where to hide & so he ran away & pretended. As defined a life, as WAS one "long unanswerd phone call, " from HItch, to Hitch's "authentic self." Absent any knowldge of G-d, nor of His innate nxus with Hashem, from birth, Chris as well lacked any authentic nexus with His authentic self. This is Einstein's definition of insanity, as WAS Hitch's DELUSIONAL expectation(s) of a differnt result(s). Tky, yy
yyba1 3 weeks ago
ONLY the post Freudians, when and provided they possess comprehensive knowledge and training in #Moshiach(sm)'s redemptive paradigm's #Receiving, to give(sm), in general, & its post Freudian NEW psychology, of Identity Resolution-IR in particular, can possibly comprehend the scale and complexity of the hoax HItchens perpatrated on himself and the public and this is the price for being well schooled; being uneducated. It's written a little knowledge, can be a dangerous thing. Blessings, yy
yyba1 3 weeks ago
AFTER 353 comments, still HItch's loyalists, cannot accept that he's NOT merely WRONG, he's WAS DELUSIONAL. A religious Jew I am and like others WHAT we can do that, the non-beliver cannot do is "PRAY & CONNECT, with the Creator of Creation, Blessed be He; & too with one's Authentic Self." Chris never achieved this, nor even knew of it, in his life. Claiming to be an atheist, DENYING covertly & delusionally the "demi-god" within, in which he NOT only believed, he as well obeyed. Tky, yy
yyba1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yyba1: The level of turgidity with which you craft your position is quite laughable. To address this point,"A religious Jew I am and like others WHAT we can do that, the non-beliver cannot do is "PRAY & CONNECT, with the Creator of Creation.."
This is an insubstantial refutation at any measure - you have proven nothing. Since you state that you can "connect" with a Creator, perhaps you could set up an outside examination of this claim. Prove that you can interact with a deity.
LogicinspiresLiberty 2 weeks ago
I am an atheist.Would you give me a reason to be a theist.
suzukix5owner 3 weeks ago
Your answer does not in any way meet his challenge.
You talk about him ranting on and on but I and millions of others find his arguments and points well made and coherent. Clearly most find that yours are not apart from fellow religionists who pretend to understand you. You repeatedly claim that Hitchens has no understanding of local versus non local phenomena yet you seem to have no idea what that means. Invoking the word 'quantum' is now common among the superstitious but meaningless.
queenastilon 6 months ago
@queenastilon I can't imagine how anyone could misunderstand Hitchen's challenge but apparently you did. I strongly doubt you're stupid. Are you pretending you don't understand in order to lie that you have met his challenge and then falsely accuse him? Yes: truth is always truth. That is not a morally good statement that could only be said by a religious person (= the challenge). It is morally neutral and can be said by anyone. Show you have some decency; admit you were wrong.
queenastilon 6 months ago
no comment
nashkita77 7 months ago
I can hear Christopher Hitchens reply to this:
Babble........MORE BABBLE!!!!!!!!
tlod61 10 months ago
Hitchen's said "name me an action, moral action, taken by a believer, or a moral statement uttered by one that could not have been made an infidel or non-believer" -- you failed the challenge the moment you threw reason out the window.
Your "paradox" is ridiculous meta-ethical drivel and is not, in any way, a response to the challenge given.
SirDarkStar 10 months ago
Out of context. Also, You also mention a humble god @3:07 Which god is this that is so humble? I have never heard of a humble god.
Organized religion is not bad? Even my own father has said he is out of organized religion for good, he claims he is now a proper follower.
Then move on to a personal attack, not answering the call but a Freudian diagnoses. Then another mention of a humble god? I ask again who is this humble god?
Belief does not = truth, Even if the whole world believes.
pumpstations 1 year ago
Foolish and addled to the point of being incomprehensible. If Hitch waisted his time dealing with nut cases he would never get anything serious done.
I challenge you, @yyba1, if that is your real name. Where are my toe lemons when their flaming lamingtons are field marshals? Huh? Huh?
Didn't think so.
MrMonkeyInk 1 year ago
are you a scientist?
JesseMoshe 1 year ago
Hitchens CHALLENGE that he now hides from, was/is ANSWERED, and without repeating it, the ANSWER is, "the TRUTH, is the information, that never changes (in finality) changing (in intentionality)." He has NOT, repeated this, as promised, as it is written "the fish dies by an open mouth." A simple paradox, challenged his intended dilemma, with a logical dichotomy. Hitchens FAILS ,as his challenge is met, as he hides. Why? Ask Hitch! If it's NOT obvious?
Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
americans are full of shit and even more so jewish americans.
irishgeal1 1 year ago
What drugs is the person on, they are obviuosly working very well
what an absolute load of crap.
colewx 1 year ago 6
Wow, someone likes to listen to himself. How many times a day do you watch your own vid?
The challenge is to name a moral statement made or a moral action perfomed by a believer, which could not be made by a nonbeliever.
and FYI, it is not your silly god who protects israel. It's the U.S. and nuclear weaponry. And the scism along the muslims.
diekerze 1 year ago
dude, just look at your ratings. Hitchens is brilliant. You are an ignorant fool. :)
holandes84 1 year ago
Gee you are in a real "special" place mate.
carouselcarouse 1 year ago
Hitchens issue is NOT whether one believes, or does NOT believe in G-d, it's to raise the general consciousness, so that people believe in themselves. WHAT is delusional about this approach, in the extreme, is this is NOT the problem. The problen is man's belief in a FALSE self, that is a mini deity, the demi-God witin and this is Hitchens "one G-d to many." And it's absolutely certain this he would know, but NOT strangely, he does NOT. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@ParadigmaticShift Some "paradigm shift." It's one thing "to be silent and thought the fool, while it's another to open your mouth, and remove ALL doubt." A suggestion... never mind, you would probably need a "rule book." Good luck Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@carouselcarouse My name is the one G-d provided me and my Mother, zt''l agrees is more suited, than the one she and my Abba choose. No ned for the pity. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1 How do you know God provided it? How does god provide a name?
carouselcarouse 1 year ago
@carouselcarouse "Emanations."
yyba1 1 year ago
Hitchens intelligence is a gift from G-d, very rare and clearly misused, yet it was with sorrow that we today learned of his extreme illness. The issue of his atheism, was/is for me significant in relation to the youth metric, that he influenced with his polemics, failing to teach them. His claim(s) ignored the classics, their three primary antecedents, as his modeus tollens argument(s) were crafted to align with "non-falsifiable" logic. I ANSWERED him and he hid,
He should be healed. YY
yyba1 1 year ago
Since you made two different "answers", which is it?
"The truth is the information that never changes (in finality) changing (in intentionality)." OR
"The truth is the information that never changes (changing (in intentionality)."
davidgunnells 1 year ago
@davidgunnells It is obvious, that it is ONLY the first, as could ONLY be so. Tky, Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@davidgunnells It should be obvious, that it is ONLY the first, as ONLY it could be the first; for reasons that should as well be obvious; anyway. Tky,
Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
are you drunk?
111steven 1 year ago
yes, this IS a statement that can be made by a religious person, not likely to be made by a rational person. but it is NOT a moral statement or action. Hitchens' challenge is to name a MORAL action or statement that cannot be performed or sincerely uttered by a nonbeliever.
aleceiffel7 1 year ago
@aleceiffel7 Chris already tried that "bluff," and soon abandoned it, as he saw his modus tollens argument(s) growing ever weaker. And besides, Hitchens wrote and said "God is..." (not great, not rich, not smart, etc.) do you, or any of his followers and supporters, actually know, understand, much less comprehend WHAT this means? He's obviously having a good laugh, about America's extreme cultural ignorance, as is extreme, in the generality and even more extreme in the particularity. YYBA
yyba1 1 year ago
@aleceiffel7 OK, so let us hear from Mr. Hitchens, G-d willing, he should receover and be healed, and make this statement. As ONLY, in HItchens keepiing, his word (no proxies accepted), which to date he has NOT, will he prove three things. One he is absolutely rational. Two, he's relatively honest. And three, he's NOT an atheist. WHAT does... "G-d is?" mean? And "The G-d?" WHAT does this mean? As refers to Hitchens and Dawkins respectively . Tky, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
"Truth is the information that never changes" Very bad definition of truth. I ll give you a very basic example:
Q: Has spain won the latest world cup? (now)
A : Yes.
Q: Has spain won the latest world cup? (2009)
A : No.
No further explanation needed.
By the way, any stupid atheist can say the same bullshit like you, its clearly not an answer to Hitchens' challenge.
csakide 1 year ago 2
@csakide You obviously do NOT know formal logic, noor advanced mathematics in general (which is formal logic) nor set theory in particular, Zermelo's axiom and the axiom of choice, and really much more, that for now is NOT needed. Thanks Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
His point in making said challenge is to highlight the ease with which people can bring to mind the evils done by religious people. It has nothing to do with the question being unanswerable.
I suppose you were too busy trying to sound smarter than you are to take the time to actually listen to the question.
Apathyist 1 year ago
@Apathyist Actually, this is probably correct. Though it is to be NOTED, this is NOT what he said. It's your interpretation. And in fact, I did listen, the problem is it is Hitchens, who has NOT listened to his own question. ANd as he did NOT listen, so too is he did NOT framed it very well, in fact it was framed very poorly. He intended, entrapment, and fell it his own pit. Explanations in counterpart. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1
You have to apply his statements in context with his other interviews, debates and writing. Doing so, his implications seemed quite plain to me (even if he didn't spell out every statement he made phrase-by-phrase).
I think the problem isn't Hitchens' framing. You came up with a theory that made sense at first glance and went with it, without taking the time to properly critique your own idea and see that it doesn't stand up when applied with appropriate context and impartiality.
Apathyist 1 year ago
@Apathyist It's just the opposite, as Hitchens came up with his theoretical challenge, that he wrongly believed no one could answer; and he was/is silenced then and since, It's Hitch who FAILED to critique his own half baked idea(s); as the saying goes in the Middle East-ME "the 'Hitch' fish, dies by an open mouth." We pray for hisTeshuuvah & recovery. Even Hitch has the ethics to confirm, as he has indirectly, that my ANSWER is on target.. Anyway, nice try. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1
No. As I explained, you missed the point of his challenge. Your video response, in full, reply to a question he did not ask.
Instead of examining the question in proper context, to find a reasoned conclusion, you started with your conclusion and then misrepresented the question to suit it to your purpose. It's hard to tell whether you did this deliberately or if the truth was simply lost in your haste to point out a perceived flaw in someone who's opinions you dislike.
Apathyist 1 year ago
What is he talking about,I understand what Hitchens is talking about.
Religious people call god a him, so has'nt man created god in mans image? Sounds sexist.A human quality.Not a character flaw of an all knowing etity.Face it, all theories about god,be them from scientist or theologians,are attempts to explain the unexplainable.If god exist,we all should be benevolent,healthy,wealthy,and ultimately HAPPY.If god is perfect,we would be perfect, created in god's image,no need to prove worthiness
wickliffead 1 year ago
Comment removed
wickliffead 1 year ago
Comment removed
wickliffead 1 year ago
Comment removed
wickliffead 1 year ago
Hitchens WRONGLY claims his "challenge" has NOT been met, it has been ANSWERED and he's not repeated the statement made by a religious person, as in this video, as he promised he could and would... YYBA
yyba1 1 year ago
ETHICAL statement or action.
iamtheVitor 1 year ago
@iamtheVitor It's both. Ethic's first principle is its orimary truth function and the ACTION performed, is that my words have silenced him, who has and continues in hiding himself, from the callenge. Why? He's aware ONLY after he utters this statement is he liable, to the consequences of his own words and a comprehensive public defrocking, as an intellectual. Anyway, good luck to Hitch and his blind followers. As when the blind lead the blind, BOTH fall...
Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
you poor failure...
rungazippa 1 year ago
Comment removed
vincentmack37 2 years ago
Comment removed
anfernee1983 2 years ago
haven't found that in my research about it so far. can you specify that idea. what exactly makes this sentence a moral one, that only a religious person could make? and about the world being full delusional and noisy, that's what it always was, since eternity..
carryall69 2 years ago
@carryall69 It defines truth's continuum complexity(s), as herein truth is, the first priinciple, of morality and ethics, as this statement confirms, on the fundamental level(s). Tky, Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
it deals with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light.. it's cosmologically interessting indeed. but from that to the biblical yahwe, that needs further explanation. anyway, if you up for it, we can chat about it. now back to the moral content of that sentence. you write about this being the first principle of ethics.
carryall69 2 years ago
@carryall69 Actually, falsehood, lies and deceit, in particular, is the address(es) of quantum entanglement(s) of the mind/sou in manl, and yes, the interaction(s) as well allow(s_ for "action at a distance." Interesting indeed.
Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
i think this goes in a platonic direction, it has to do with the theory of forms.. nevertheless, lets think of it for a moment. feel free to interfer if i haven't got your thoughts right, after all, it's apologeticism.. what is the nature of an information.. it's generally speaking a message recieved and understood. it's a nowadays trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information. there's a new branch called digital physics.
carryall69 2 years ago
@carryall69 Correct, although physics has NOT as yey accurate defined INFORMATION, and its complex funtion(s), as it's still a work in progress.
Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
when you write: "start with the antecedents of creation and you'll be well directed", this is too indefinite. can i translate this sentence in: "find out about the origins of our cosmos and you'll understand"? well, feel free to elaborate but for now, lets go back to this statement "truth is information that never changes" .. in finality / intensionality.. do you mean something like: "information is absolute and its therefor an indicator for the divine? i heard that kind of idea once before..
carryall69 2 years ago
Shalom Carryall69:
It's TRUTH that's absolute and this is WHAT is existential continuum of my identity, as is commonly found, nearly everywhere in the "white space" of my listenting, mediatation, contempletion, speaking, writing and integral thinking," that has no doting admirers. All the other rant, above, is NOISE... though obviously NOT to you and this is understandable.
Regards, YYBA
MrYehoshua123 2 years ago
shalom yehoshua.. i don't mean to offend you, you were kind to answer me, but i wasn't able to understand you, or what you exactly mean. i still can't see a connection from your statement to hitchens' challenge. your statement about information, is more of an opinion about the nature of abstractions, rather than an moral or ethical one. a moral statement would be something like: "be kind to others", or:" help someone who's in need", or:"don't steel or murder"..
carryall69 2 years ago 5
Backwards, is your thinking.
TRUTH is absoluute, information is a mere attribute of TRUTH, whose relativity is, best uderstood as the more cognitive, is the INFORMATION, the closer to the TRUTH in the absolute.
Blessings, Yehoshua
MrYehoshua123 2 years ago
Comment removed
vincentmack37 2 years ago
@carryall69 NOT from me, did you ever hear, what you claim...
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1 hello yehoshua, happy to hear from you, how are you? it's been a while, hasn't it? i try to portend this rather spontaneous comment you've addressed to me, maybe it was inadvertently.** however, i took the opportunity to reread our chat we held many months ago and also what is written since then so far. how can i help you?
carryall69 1 year ago
@carryall69 Perhaps, you should have listened more carefully? Acutally, I had in mind other issues in Cosmology. Gothe's "abide moment" Faust Act -3. And the parallel Cosmos of consciousness, descritive consciously as the governing agent(s) of its four invisible worlds of emanations, creation, formation and ACTION of all that ever was, is or ever will be, after our Cosmos', expansion ends, and implodes, to be regenerated. Its proof is and will remain a "sticky wicket." Blessings, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1 "I hear your message, but faith fails me": 765
about kabbalah's four worlds of consciousness of the zohar: emanation, creation, formation and action. romantic metaphysical transfigurations out of a solipsistic desire to be eminently exceptional. psychoanalytically speaking, mysticism constitutes an attempted escape from the realization of the finitute of life..
carryall69 1 year ago
ad hominem...
MrYehoshua123 2 years ago
"the truth is the information that never changes" that's the statement only a believer could make? eh.. first of all, what does this mean? the truth is.. the information.. that never changes.. i don't understand it.. which information? you mean, something like:"i believe in god".. that's the statement only a believer could make? that is true. but that wasn't the challenge dear, was it? no. it was about a moral one. a moral statement or action only a believer could make.. what's moral about that?
carryall69 2 years ago
Start with the antecedents of creation and you'll be well directed. AGAIN, the answer to Hitch's "challenge" is... "the TRUTH is the INFORMATION that never changes ( in finality) changing in INTENTIONALITY."
Now really, this is not so difficult to grasp, as a moral statement, as after all, it's the first principle of ethics, especially relevant to TODAY'S, world of unending DELUSIONS and noise.
Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
MrYehoshua123 2 years ago
Oh, is THAT what you were saying? Well, I'm a non-religious person. And I say, "The truth is the information that never changes (in finality) changing in intentionality." So that's that.
Also, "Hitch's" (sic) comment wasn't geared towards simply saying something, but accomplishing something. So you as a religious person, is there anything you can do that I as a non-religious person cannot? That's the real issue.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon OK well done. NOW that was simple, and it was accurate. NOW see if you, or anyone can get Hitchens to do, EXACTLY, this and make this same statement, while claiming he is an atheist. He will NOT, as he's both intelligent and cunning, as is manifest, in his "opposition character." That manifestation of his mind and identity, he really does not know very well and obviously does NOT comprehend the extreme nature of his self deceit. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1 You missed the point. I wasn't saying it as if it were my own words or as if I were agreeing with you.
And you're still missing the point. Religion doesn't allow you to do something that I can't do. It doesn't give you super powers or ANY power. For all your faith, you're still just a man like me. That was Christopher Hitchens's point and it flew right over your head. He wasn't asking you to make up a catchprhase. Do you understand that?
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon And the answer is absolutely, yes. Tky, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1 Well, there we go. That was all I was trying to say. Peace.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@carryall69 Everything. It's difficult to teach one as remarkable, and very bright as Hitchens, though he too is on the blind side of his authentic self in man's exile as everyine else, and so the device devised was/is to catch him, as it did, in his very own devices of self deceit, as a wake up call, to this very bright person; as it was clear he was overextended, without clubbbing him over the head with religion. It's deep, as is our Blessed Mr. Hitchens. Blessings, Yehoshua
yyba1 1 year ago
Sir, a rebuttal: 6:29 "You put in every -ism in the book"- You do a fine job as well. This video is murky and difficult to understand at best. You do a disservice to your arguments by failing to speak in a clear, coherent, understandable manner.
Still, I deciphered enough to look up Bell's Theorem, and concluded it does not support the existence of a God any more than a UFO sighting confirms alien life.
starting at 8:22 "it's since been confirmed by events..." What events? Please cite them.
fiddlercrab3 2 years ago
More rebuttal: Hitchen's challenge was not to come up with a STATEMENT that only a religious person could make, but rather an example of an ACTION that only a religious person could take. Hitchen's basic ethical principles are, like mine, founded not on what I think but rather what I DO. You do not meet his challenge. Your entire video is reduced to theoretical bantering, nothing more.
Your point about humility is interesting, as Hitchens certainly lacks humility. Still, it's a moot point.
fiddlercrab3 2 years ago 2
@fiddlercrab3 My challenge, were it taken up, as it WAS not, would have confirmed the primary ACTION and grevious unconscious injustice of Hitchens life was/is the "sin of omission." And honoring my challenge, would have proven he's absolutely NOT an atheist, as he WRONGLY and delusionally believes. I'll not explain, as either he is restored to life and health and meets the challennge or I'll explain why & how he FAILED, himself in life and the challenge; as the two are really one. Tky, YY
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1 "...either he is restored to life and health and meets the challenge..."
Are you implying that by uttering these words in succession Hitchens would
a) embrace G-d,
b) Be received by G-d and be healed, and
c) become "a religious person," having uttered something unutterable by an atheist?
Because you can teach a tele-type system to repeat those words, but it doesn't make the computer program religious!
In other words, I don't think your challenge is valid.
fiddlercrab3 1 year ago
but i could tell them the following: based on human history and human behavior, there is a chance that this place was once perfect, wonderful and enjoyable as created by a perfect Designer.. however, over decades of degeneration and breaking all kinds of natural and moral laws humanity now is where it is.. life can still be enjoyable at times and i just hope for the sake of humanity that by bringing you into this world we might all get to see this mess reversed some day..
livisda 2 years ago
@livisda Perhaps? ONLY with G-d's continued Blessings and sustained help. BLessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
and you might die of a disease of some kind or a terrible accident before you outlive this succesion of mutations! you might be raped or mollested by other humans because the evolutionary process has a few misfits along the way, or you might simply be killed for $20 even if you give it up without a fight, again for the sake of evolutionary misfits and survival of the fittest
livisda 2 years ago
here's the thing! i don't know about this issue.. i'm not religious nor an evolutionist or atheist. what i do say is the following: when my children will ask me some day why i brought them into this world, i cannot say to them "so you can be a prime experiment of evolution, which thus, so far, has brought us incredible scientific mess, polutions of all kinds, more crimes of all kinds (online and offline) and a total unbalanced standard of living (85% poverty, 15% troubled about the future)
livisda 2 years ago
@livisda Man's exile broght these problems, NOT evolution, as is postive life creating, nurturing and sustaining harmonious process. Tky, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
Jesus Christ, I've never known someone use so many long words out of context.
leave12 2 years ago 3
Whose context?
MrYehoshua123 2 years ago
The context in which the words are fit for use. ie. a completely different context to how you're using them.
leave12 2 years ago
@leave12 The CONTEXT of the use of my vocabulary is man's redemption.
Blessings, Yehoshua
yyba1 1 year ago
@leave12 Perhaps it's redemption, that is "out of context," in an identity and mindset of exile? Blessings, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
Let me explain something to you.
Only an intelligent man can make his intelligent thoughts simple.
Furthermore, I disagree with your statement. That's because the concept is poorly phrased. Normally I could make a damn good guess at what you were saying but there is no context provided.
From what I can read I assume you're saying the truth is information that has not changed at "the end". This simply isn't true.
Rundvelt 2 years ago 3
Falsehoods can exist for all time. Many cultures think bizarre thoughts that have not (nor ever will be) addressed. If they're not addressed, they're not proven wrong, and if they're not proven wrong sir, then they don't change.
Furthermore, concepts that cannot be proven true or false automatically fall into your description. For example, the concept that there is a God. Is that the truth? No one really knows.
Remember, I'm only guessing at your phrasing as I stated earlier.
Rundvelt 2 years ago
OBVIOUSLY, guessing.
yyba1 2 years ago
@Rundvelt G-d's existence, is NOT a concept, it's a fact. You are guessing.
Blessings, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
That is NOT what is said. My ANSWER is the first principle of Humanomics(sm) ethics. The anticedents of creation are its proof of the oneness of Cosmic consciousness; as all existence and even matter exists ONLY through the vibration(s) of the atom's electrons and sub-particle fields; thus all CHANGEis first this vibration and so when you change the vibration you cahnge the reality and this is the immutable unchanging nature of all existence's oneness, that is God. Blessings Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 2 years ago
That's NOT what is said. It's really simple ALL that ever WAS, is and will be eternally, exits in 'the' cosmic vibration of consciousness, and when you change the vibration you CHANGE the reality of what is and/or is perceived. Blessings, NOW really that's NOt so tough to grasp, comprehend? Well that's another matter yes? Blessings, Yehoshua
MrYehoshua123 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
> It's really simple ALL that ever WAS, is and will be eternally, exits in 'the' cosmic vibration of consciousness, and when you change the vibration you CHANGE the reality of what is and/or is perceived.
It's not that it's complicated sir. It's that you're speaking gibberish. And I can't change my "cosmic vibration of consciousness" to make the words you intelligent.
Could you please explain what you are saying in words that do not have subjective meanings?
Rundvelt 2 years ago
@Rundvelt Good thinking. IN reverse order, TRUTH is ever changing, in the fractual logic, while the ontologic picture, preexists in divine consciousness in the parallel cosmos, to the physical, that preexisted the physcial cosmos and will exist AFTER its infiniite transformation(s), Goethe Faust's ACT three "abide moment, ut if you cannot abide, at least abide eternally." This doctrine of eternal recurrence. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@Rundvelt The CONTEXT is implicit. It's man's redemption, in general and your and my SALVATION in particular. Tky, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
Comment removed
GreaseStain 2 years ago
There are no less than four versions of what Hitchens said and so my ANSWER id truthful... Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
I'm an athiest and I have just repeated 'word for word' what you have just said! The challenge was for 'a statement made, by a religious person or person of faith'!!!! - I am not a person of faith and I repeated what you said! You have failed!
MattofMalaga 2 years ago
You are NOT Hitch, and so what you claim, does NOT count. When and if Hitch does answer... which I do NOT believe he ever will, then he'll fall publicly on his atheist sword, and confirm his self hatred and DENIAL as a Jew.
Blessings, Yehoshua
yyba1 2 years ago
@MattofMalaga WRONG you failed, although I'll NOT explain this, at this time. As you'll NOT be allowed to become Hitchens proxy, as many have tried. Either he makes the statement as he promised, or I'll NOT explain his failing, as he's hiding like a child. And G-d williing he should live, I'll wait, and if G-d takes him early, then, and ONLY will I explain WHY he is NOT an atheist, by his own credible testimony, that his exile deafened him from haearing.
Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@MattofMalaga It was/is for Hitchens (no surrogates, for now(, to make and publicly, AFTER all why should you, and so many 'trusting' others be embarassed and humilitated for Hitchens SPINS and hidden agenda(s) wherein he goes to places NOT grasped by most of his fans and followers. Tky, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on, really?
mrcarlos15 2 years ago
Hugely ironic. Hitchens asked if there were something that could be said by only a religious person that could not be said by a secular person. This guy actually DOES do that. No sane secular person would try to write down what this guy said and annotate it for comment. So, there you go, Hitchens challenge answered. What it proves, though, is you have to be a mumbling, rambling lunatic to answer the challenge, thus invalidating your claim to divine knowledge.
gr8pumpkin 2 years ago 4
@gr8pumpkin In baseball, a bad hitter to begin with, becomes worse when he tries switch hitting, as this merely amplifies the basic weaknesses one begins with and so some advive; stay away from baseball, and if you think your a great pitcher, ONLY try in the league, that has the designated hitter rule, so you never have to come to bat. Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
There is a reason your video is rated so low. You are not clear on anything in the sightest. From you up and down pitch of your speech, to your inability to end a sentence, to the words you use that while your audience understands the meaning of, when connected the way you do have little meaning. You have done a poor job in connecting with the audience and therefore have not answered the question. 1 star.
SMSBJM1981 2 years ago
I've no interest to connect with Hitch's followers; just to ANSWER, and I've done that... Hitch is probably the only one who comprehends thisanswer and this explains his silence. Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
@SMSBJM1981 WHAT you say is reasonable, though NOT relevant to having met his challege (as above) imperfect as it is. Tky. yy
yyba1 1 year ago
i'd like to hear what the answer to the challenge is again please, i dont think i quite got that. can you send me a message or something explaining it?
end073 2 years ago
The ANSWER is....
"The TRUTH is the INFORMATION that never changes in (finality) changing (in intentionality)." Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
@end073 OK, HItchens claims to be an atheist, and that no statement or action made by a religious person, tha's me, is something he cannot, NOT himself utter; and so let him say, publicly... "TRUTH, is the information that never changes (in finality) changing (in intentionality)." As Heaven has herein and in counterpart, imposed the extremes of the "man delusion" on Chris by the G-d of Israel and the Cosmos. BLESSINGS, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
what?
end073 2 years ago
Verbalising parentheses is not necessary
Enunciate - you mumble, you go through phases where you speak to quickly, then too slowly.
Perhaps you might like to write your ideas down on paper and organise them in a logical order with at least the appearance of a rational argument- you do tend to ramble.
Using large words in an apparently random order does nothing to further your argument.
grazinggazelle 2 years ago 2
Yes excatly what i was thinking
postme12 2 years ago
lol, what was your answer to Hitchens's challenge? I am interested, I just couldn't make any sense of it
raunchbear 2 years ago
The ANSWER is....
"The TRUTH is the INFORMATION that never changes in (finality) changing (in intentionality)." Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
And he first said "you have to name a statement made" and when his challenge was ANSWERED, he did what all good politicians, he changed what he said and no one was fooled, absolutely no one; he's not credible, not at all.
Shalom, YYBA
MrYehoshua123 2 years ago
The ANSWER is simple, it's done NOT by the authentic you, but by exile's imposter in exile's infamous "giving, to receive" which was the old model of mind of man's exile NOW collapsed. Hitchens and his followers missed this historic sea change event. In physics it described as the COLLAPSE of the "local reality" and this refers to man's local reality globally, that was "giving, to receive." Thanks again, & Blessings, & keep listening, first & ONLY to God & you'll hear the real you... YYBA....
MrYehoshua123 2 years ago
Thank you Adam for your comment. My belief in God, was NOT placed upon me, it was/is freely and cognitively chosen. Hitchens atheism was imposed by the imposter personality within him. I have questioned my "fears" and they are ONLY of God, not of man or anything he creates.
When you do find out, be sure to share it with Hitch, as he's very angry with God, like a child and most irrational, while he goes to great length to package his atheism, with just a few "branding" problems. Tky, YYBA
MrYehoshua123 2 years ago
As someone who is clearly dependant on a system of believes placed upon you it's no surprise you fear for the "young and impressionable" people Hitchens apparently didnt offer an alternative for religion too. I believe he did offer an alternative and it was one without a structure demanding my submission! First question your fears of being free and let the rest of us find out for ourselves. (Why else would someone move from the land of the free to the capital of religion?)
adam3110 2 years ago
@adam3110 INDEED why? WHAT G-d directs, I obey. Tky, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
i am a little late with this response, but i hope to have an answer from you.
First you missed quoted Hitchens. i'm sure this was pointed out. he asked for an act of charter that a non-believer. but will dismiss that for now.
you Said "the truth is the information that never changes". i offer a counter quote, "Do you really believe EVERYTHING you believed ten years ago? i hope not. it mean you've learned nothing in the last ten years." - Henry Rollins.
GreaseStain 2 years ago
This is what I said, the ANSWER is....
"The TRUTH is the INFORMATION that never changes in (finality) changing (in intentionality)." Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
@GreaseStain Actually HItchens did this four timnes to his own words. Tky, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1 oh i remeber you, your the guy that removes even my most polite and pointed questions, then puts words in other peoples mouths, which is funny when they have videos and books to watch/read. As far as i'm concerned, you've failed at a productive conversation with me on every possible level. you've even removed the correction of errors i pointed out for you i see. plz, never post to me again.
GreaseStain 1 year ago
I am not religious, in fact I'm an anti-theist by all accounts and I am very happy with my "empty bucket", as you put it. And am profoundly glad that I was not born into any religion. Don't try to tell me that my life is empty. All you do by making this 'assertion' is prove your prejudice.
brindos7 2 years ago
It's intent was/is instructive, not prejudice.
Blessings, Yehoshua
yyba1 2 years ago
@brindos7 Is a doctor prejudice, when he makes an essential, and in fact existential diagnosis, that directs and compels behavioral transformation(s), of a patient whose teminally ill? Absolutely, especially when the patient does NOT know his condition. Blessings, yy
yyba1 1 year ago
What was the statement? And what is your point? Maybe you were just talking too fast?
brindos7 2 years ago
The ANSWER is....
"The TRUTH is the INFORMATION that never changes in (finality) changing (in intentionality)." Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
The truth is the information that never changes.
Its Friday night at the end of a long week so excuse me if Ive missed something here. Your statement seems to be a contradiction or even false, by all definitions other than in mathematics. How can this falsehood not be said equally well by an atheist?
Didactic scientist - do you illustrate science books?
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
The ANSWER is....
"The TRUTH is the INFORMATION that never changes in (finality) changing (in intentionality)." Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
Absoultely, as the genetic expression of the donor's DNA. Souls exist, in the four dimensions of man's known physical existence and too in consciousness in the seven additional dimensions beyond our physical existence; and so now you have in the minimum seven reasons to believe in the soul of man, ONLY possible when you listen first and ONLY to God and NOT to man, He reveals to man, man's authentic self to INHABIT, this is called redemption.
Shalom & Blessings in,
Receiving, to give(sm), YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
I have a question for you wise elder. If a human were to clone another human would the clone have a soul? I don't think there is any reason to believe souls exist and people just fear death. It's most fanciful, and btw trying to justify genital mutilation through a god is embarassing to humanity and yourself especially. I'm 22 and feel nothing but hatred for you, disguising your lack of truth with stolen words. People like you enable suicide bombers to justify their wrongdoing. Thanks a lot.
fetalbetal 2 years ago
Thanks. When man WAS in exile God was dead, to him; in his circumscribed perception. The good news is exile has ended, with the global COLLAPSE of the 'local reality' that in man's miind WAS "giving, to receive." Hitchens, although a bright chap,he lives in a four dimensional world, denying the existence of the other 7 dimmensions, beyond his NOW collapsed 'local reality.' He & his followers missed, this NOT surprisingly.
Be well & Blessings from Jerusalem
Shalom, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 2 years ago
Time & history has proven that your particular delusion(s) with Hitch's spins are what is irreversible. Beware of what you want, because you'll get it and it appears you've managed to join the end of exile's "ground zero." Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
It's God and His truth that has elevated Yehoshua, not me. And it's God and His truth that has defeated Hitchen's NOISE and really not Yehoshua and this is the simple truth of the matter. Blessings, YYBA.
yyba1 2 years ago
UPDATE: After 256 comments, it's very clear Hitchens "challenge" has indeed been ANSWERED and he's in DENIAL, refusing to publicly speak the words that ANSWERED his "challenge" by pretending, through proxies that it's not an acceptable answer. It's first principle content rises to the level of a credible answer and Hitch's excuses fall & this is the consensus. Read the answers & conclude for youself. With nearly 4000 views, all agree Hitch's OMISSION is highly suspecious, let him explain. YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
Hitchens morality is self delusional. My ANSWER is not philosophy, it's a first principle in man's basic cognitive science's ethics. Perhaps when you go beyond "reasonably educated" to the level of better educated people, you might even begin to understand, to eventually comprehend, the antecedent moral value in my predicate moral ANSWER; which has to silenced Hitch, as he hides from the answer, he claims to seek; and if NOT, then let him "speak publicly my statement" in ANSWER, Tky , YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
How is your god a god of humility when he demands to praised and worshiped for something that comes natural to your god, for the rest of the worshipers life and then in the afterlife the worshipers souls is then sent to heaven yet to praise of worship for all of eternity. I would say by humility that your god expects the worshiper to take no praise of credit for acts of of accomplishment , but is expected to give the god the the praise for the act. Expecting praise for eternity is not humble.
jedah76 2 years ago
God inhabits all eleven dimensions, unobtrusively; including the four we live in that we are not as yet, cognitively capable to INHABIT, much less the additional seven dimensions. This is what God is and this is extremely humble, beyond man's limits of comprehension. "Who can know the God." And "He (God) sees the end, when we see merely the beginning). These are the words of my teacher whose humility, well instructed His charge, when God gave me to be His student. Tky, Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
hello you take a long time to make your points. Chris Hitchens you know it yourself hits the nail right on the head.
Religion is the root of all evil. The need to
control the human.
golfdu222 2 years ago
Exile WAS the root of all evil; although it's now ended and Hitch & his followershave "missed" completely this watershed event, in human history. In exile it was man's false duality of mind and thus identity, that controlled man; NOT God; Who is long suffering & enduring of man's delusions of exile. NOT arrogantly, when Hitch wakes up, if he ever does, he's more than capable to do a lot of good, for a lot of people, with just a little authentic humility BEFORE God.
Blessings, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
ad hominem.
yyba1 2 years ago
Really, I think you're being to hard on Hitch. Tky, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
I am sorry, but does the speaker understand the challenge at all? This is not an answer , this is religious rant. The "empty bucket" , "stupid arguments" comments are completely appropriate , if they are used in reverse.
cheburashka1326 2 years ago
The problem, may just be that the one who posed the CHALLENGE, is the one who does not comprehend the implications of his own words; if you follow? This is since when ANSWERED he all of sudden did not respond; this is called a bluff. Tky, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
No I do not follow. You are yet to produce anything that resembles an answer. All you do is make unsupported assertions and statements, and you also assume that those assertions have meaning outside of your religious views. Let me be the first to tell you - your statements hardly have any meaning to outside observer. Moreover judging by your response you do not understand Hitchens's challenge at all. Just because you say it was answered it does not make it so.
cheburashka1326 2 years ago
@cheburashka1326 Actually, I NOT oly understand it, I comprehend it and Hitchens does NOT, as he's first and foremost, flaming for attention. Yet this is so, for ALL in exile. And too you really do NOT follow Hitchens, as if you did, ou would reject is hypothesis and realize its source and underlying generic disfunctionality NOT only in Chris, but as wel in mankind.
Blessings, Yehoshua Ya'acov
yyba1 1 year ago
@yyba1 Than answer his challenge, don't shift the topic to irrelevant issues like Hitchen's personal flaws. So far you only produced bunch of nonsense. Stop using meaningless(Yet this is so, for ALL in exile) phrases - it helps nobody.
cheburashka1326 1 year ago
We do NOT blame God for man's misuse of His free will; in exile; this is not exclusively partricular to Isirael. And this also does NOT excuse it's horrfic extremes and injustices for its act of revenge, on those shooting missles.
Disproportionate as the respone was, it's to be recognized Israel was incited after long suffering, before acting WRONGLY; still no excuse. It's a test from God and Israel failed it, completely.
Subscribe & see we're not all as bad as you think
Blessings, Yehoshua
yyba1 2 years ago
Humble God? Where did you even get this idea from? Literatures? Personal experiences? How do you know?! You're talking about Israelian ppl being rational, let me ask you this what is so rational about killing other human beings for a piece of land? For centuries?! Because you believe what you believe? That's far from being rational, as a matter a fact there's no difference between you people with animals and their territorial behaviors
themith2006 2 years ago
Hello. I just got one question for "yyba1": is it difficult for you to have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without resorting to insults or personal attacks?
ImperialLady 2 years ago
ad hominem.
yyba1 2 years ago
Subscribe & I'll make a video for you, describing the science based proof(s) of God. However, I caution it will NOT be so easy to ascend the learning to comprehend much of this proof; but I never heard you claim you're a scientist & that's a good beginning; one Hitch cannot claim for himself among other significant errors, in repsect of the well established proof(s) of God's existence.
Beyond the 4 dimensions in which we exist, the other 7 dimensions are where most of this proof resides. YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
Up to the point where It was discovered that the earth is in-fact round, the belief that the world was flat was generally unchanged. Does that make it truth? No.
Certain truth is impossible to know, because how do you know that your senses are telling you what is really happening? If they're not, how do you know that this world exists?
All we have, is what we consider the closest thing to truth. We gather this information with evidence. This is called science. There is no evidence for god.
mitchells00 2 years ago
You're an angry little boy "flaming for attention" who has little or no capacity to understand, much less comprehend the issue(s) of the dialog. Hitch made a challenge and it was ANSWERED and he's hiding; why are you attacking me? Anyway you've serious development problems and I'm NOT the address to help you, when it must first come from you; as in life there are no "do it for me's."
Good luck, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
I'm sorry but you sir make yourself appear more foolish with every video you post. The overriding tone I've noticed in all your responses is one of condescension. You assume that your diatribes and multisyllabic non sequitors are somehow beyond our grasp only belies your own ignorance. Spewing vitriol at Mr. Hitchens and accusing him of ignorance is the ultimate "pot and the kettle"
newtonslogic 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is lame...
vanacho 2 years ago
Unfortunately, your an angry little boy with a "kill daddy program." I'm NOT your daddy. You're merely flaming for attantion.
AGAIN I'm NOT your Daddy. And I and many others, often make typographical errors when tying on the Internet, as does Hitch and it has happened many times and no one it writing the rubbish you have attacked me with. Grow up and get a life; and don't go away mad, just go away. A dead fish smells ONLY from the head... Regards, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
Dawkins is not even a good scientist. His so called "selfish gene" contrivance derives from standing on Lorenz's shoulders & others. Over 100 mil. links in the search/eng. might help you? About your "a little learning is a dangerous thing" you're almost talking about yourself, but you've NOT even the little learning to qualify for such a statement to be correct about you. And this reminds of "once silent & thought a fool, he opened his mouth & removed all dounbt."
Good luck, you'll need it. Tky
yyba1 2 years ago
All scientists stand on the shoulders of others. That's the entire point of science.
preachingsin 2 years ago
Your're obviously NOT a scienist. Although, your statement is in part true, it's very far from the true and complete picture of what science is and is all about. No science, no politics.
Anyway, regards, Tky, YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
I could absolutely construct a philosophical argument backing my statement. Your obviously not much of a thinker so i wont be wasting my time here.
preachingsin 2 years ago
Amazing how fast the aspiring scientist has become a philosopher. Get that diaper looked after first; and you might stop flaming....YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago
I can only try to imagine what kind of fool it takes to consider those positions mutually exclusive. I really am done now though, hurl whatever sad little insult you feel is worthy of being the last word.
preachingsin 2 years ago
Yes indeed, you really are through! First principle science is so determined, by others; NOT the originator/author. Pathetic. YYBA
yyba1 2 years ago