Did CHitchens ever actively seek out a YouTube user or channel and troll that person or channel? Not that I know of. In fact, no he did not.
So calling him a troll is the feeble attempt of associating a negative term with him and creating a bond of confirmation bias with other double-digit IQ holders.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
NO VIOLATION OF CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION in teaching both evolution and Intelligent Design because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
ATHEISTS ARE MORE EDUCATED is a red herring argument. What about all the educated that aren't atheists? Many times, the minority has been right in history. The atheists and evolutionists control the education system and certain arguments and evidences aren't presented or known, even among the educated. There are strong personal motives involved on the issue of origins. That is why it is important to present arguments and evidences of both sides to the public.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Show me a religious person who can do something moral that an atheist cannot. Now show me a religious person who can do something immoral which an atheist could not do.
It's not in here but it's possibly the best argument Hitchens has ever stated. Love this man.
@ripmev said: "Hitchens will never die, his work made him immortal. you will die without leaving a trace."
Until millions of years from now, when the Sun expands to swallow the Earth, obliterating all record of Hitchens' work. Even the radio waves of his TV/radio broadcasts will continue to propagate lightyears beyond Earth until finally fading to a static hiss, lost forever in the abyss of the cosmos.
Wow man JQ you do realize your being trolls if your not posting these as some crazy attempt to ride the coat tails of hitchens into publicity on the internet.
You've created a situation where it's either your trolling or being trolled. You pick, well a good troll never trolls and tells.
If you want to bash Hitchens, if you want to discredit him or show him up, then attack his arguments. Dispute his reasoning or counter any of the points he has made. Explain why Falwell wasn't full of shit, or why Mother Theresa wasn't a hypocrite - then you'll have a video that isn't laced with comments calling you a retard.
I've seen 3 of these anti-Hitch vids today and every one of them has failed miserably. JQ I don't think you realise that people like me respect Hitchens because he says what he believes without the sugar-coating of undeserved respect. If you make a video of him doing exactly that, it's only going to reinforce the admiration people have for his way with words.
You'll be glad to know that while having a nice discussion about the morality of pornography, JQ deleted my comments on his channel, though they contained no personal insults whatsoever. Not quite so "awesome" anymore, eh?
@JQisAwesome Because your like a train that's derailed. People know what they see will be utterly horrific and upsetting yet it's so bizarre and insane you can't look away. In short, it's because your a troll. Irony! You say outlandish things which annoy people and they become intrigued by you. Just the same way you did by Christopher Hitchens statements which you found to be outlandish. In closing, after watching quite a few of your videos I have concluded you are a simple troll. You suck buddy
JQisNOTawesome, why don't you make a video that actually has a valid point instead of just Ad Hominems? Hitchens may be blunt and a drinker but that does not make him wrong. In fact it is a wonderfully empowering trait to be able to agree on a point with someone you otherwise might not like or agree with. The truth never depends on who is more pleasant.
The point about Falwell was that he was full of sh*t, which is a pretty accurate assessment in my opinion. That's what was meant by "give him an enema and bury him in a matchbox". Was it offensive because that criticism was made the day after he died? Well then ask yourself if you thought of anything offensive to the memory of Saddam Hussein the day after he died. One has to be a good person before such can be offensive. Falwell was not a good person.
Out of all the many hours of debates, lectures & TV appearances, the best you can come up with to support your labelling him "troll" are clips of him pointing out how YT makes his and others' work accessible.
Oh, and a few controversial statements such as on Mother Theresa, who turned out to be an atheist at the end, and a blunt description of female circumcision in some cultures - just an unpeasant fact.
Never mind; I'm sure he'd thank you for increasing his YT exposure :)
The best way to annoy this troll is to debate among ourselves on his videos without paying any attention to him at all.
Can anybody explain to me why Americans are so fond of the phrase douche bag? Does such an object even exist outside of 1950s America? Why are Americans so horrified by the vulva?
The practice of douching is now largely restricted to the United States, where douching equipment is often available in pharmacies. A 1995 survey quoted in the University of Rochester study found that 27 percent of U.S. women age 15 to 44 douched regularly, but that douching was more common among African-American women (over 50%) than among white women (21%). - wikipedia
it's odd that you're complaining that Hitchens is a supertroll when you seem to be a bigger troll yourself. You've devoted an entire channel to the process.
Are all you're criticisms and videos ad hominem? Because they seem to be, and that would indicate you have a whole page dedicated to being a troll, you have like one youtube comment from me which is only evidence five minutes of my life dedicated to being a douchebag. I also didn't call someone else a douchebag, so there's no hypocrisy on my part.
It's a lot easier to gain attention by being an arsehole than it is by having something to say. The way to combat him is to debate among ourselves and to ignore him.
This guy completely took hitchens out of context. At 1:18 Hitchens says heres another four letter word and the word is beeped out. In the original video hitchens four letter word is not a curse word but "flat", referring to a heartbeat monitor. Idk why this JQ guy feels he must doctor chris's videos. He has videos complaining that hitchens likes to drink liquor. I dont see the big deal. Hitchens likes attention.He writes interesting books. He drinks a lot. Whats wrong with that?
You could quite easily argue Hitchens is, to some extent, a troll and I'd be inclined to agree.
The implication in this video is that it is necessarily a bad thing, but when done properly, trolling is an art form and is beautiful to watch, it really is. Hitchens is a master of it and is so effective because he knows his stuff and is invariably right.
I'm a huge fan of Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins...
but the only thing I don't like about Hitch is his almost naked greed...perhaps he's kidding but I think he wants to be richly rewarded for his brains.
If he wanted money he should've gotten into business or real estate.
By the way your vids won't change people's views on Hitchens...you must've taken some of his devastating attacks on religion (or other subject you disagree with him on) rather personally.
Is there anything wrong with his 'naked greed' though?
Everybody wants to be richly rewarded for doing a job, he's just honest about it and his intentions are always clear. I don't begrudge him that at all.
will-I think most humans deep down are greedy, but to display it overtly as he sometimes does, appears desperate, vulgar and beneath someone with his refinement and wisdom.
I think he'd sell as many if not more books if he was more dignified and restrained, like Sam Harris and not look like a money-grubber. Its actually turned me off from wanting to buy his books. But hey if his approach is working then more power to him.
will-I love his lack of restraint in his debates...but I don't consider it brilliant when applied to being compensated...I guess that's where we differ.
Congratulations, JQ. You've ruined Hitch's rep by posting your annoying vids all over Youtube. Now that that's done, you should consider getting a life.
Oh, please do. It's SO important to me that you subscribe. I just can't sleep at night knowing that you won't be here, watching my videos. Please, tell me what to do to earn your approval.
I like how JQ takes Hitchens words out of context and tries to make it seem like Hitchens was the one calling people "Nazis, Stalinists, sadists", etc. When actually he was condemning that kind of talk.
Yeah, the "God Hates Gays" pastor and who said 9/11 happened because of how God was angry that america has supported "liberal social issues" like homosexuals and the right to choose, saying he is full of shit is being real controversial.
Hitchens is the man! that falwell joke is classic. anybody that hears those phrases you put together without the full context would say thats a bit vulgar. But his writing is much deeper than a sound bite. His believes about mother teresa are well founded, deeply researched and meticulously evaluated. you can not deny the truth; you can only keep it hidden behind out of context sound bites.
The irony here is that this stupid poster is the troll. He clearly does not know his ass from the deflated body of Jerry Falwell in a match box.
Hitchens will live on forever for those who know what he was really all about.
GrandmasterBBC 2 months ago in playlist More videos from JQisAwesome
Did CHitchens ever actively seek out a YouTube user or channel and troll that person or channel? Not that I know of. In fact, no he did not.
So calling him a troll is the feeble attempt of associating a negative term with him and creating a bond of confirmation bias with other double-digit IQ holders.
StopSpamming1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 5 months ago
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NO VIOLATION OF CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION in teaching both evolution and Intelligent Design because no one is being forced to believe in God's existence or any religion. Taxpayers on the both sides of the issue pay for public education. It is only fair that scientific arguments and evidence of both sides be presented, at the very least in public school textbooks. The issue is important because it affects people's lives, their values, philosophy, and worldview.
Mogley52 5 months ago
ATHEISTS ARE MORE EDUCATED is a red herring argument. What about all the educated that aren't atheists? Many times, the minority has been right in history. The atheists and evolutionists control the education system and certain arguments and evidences aren't presented or known, even among the educated. There are strong personal motives involved on the issue of origins. That is why it is important to present arguments and evidences of both sides to the public.
Mogley52 5 months ago
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This JQ guy is the biggest looser on this planet. Get a life!
angellicvoices 5 months ago
Show me a religious person who can do something moral that an atheist cannot. Now show me a religious person who can do something immoral which an atheist could not do.
It's not in here but it's possibly the best argument Hitchens has ever stated. Love this man.
Kruezoraxe 6 months ago 2
This is my favorite video from this guy because it's pure brilliant Hitch, no JQ interruptions.
Nerd0042 6 months ago in playlist More videos from JQisAwesome
The guy who made this video in an insane Christian fundamentalist and a moron as well.
andygray 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are nasty JQ
akwon5 7 months ago
you ccunt
akwon5 7 months ago
JQisafuckface
akwon5 7 months ago
@ripmev said: "Hitchens will never die, his work made him immortal. you will die without leaving a trace."
Until millions of years from now, when the Sun expands to swallow the Earth, obliterating all record of Hitchens' work. Even the radio waves of his TV/radio broadcasts will continue to propagate lightyears beyond Earth until finally fading to a static hiss, lost forever in the abyss of the cosmos.
JQisAwesome 8 months ago
@JQisAwesome Beautiful
Blurtex33 2 months ago
JQisAwesome's channel is not available in my country.
Somehow, I'm grateful.
manusdextra 10 months ago
is this beast going to die or what? come on cancer, do the job God gave you and kill the beast..painfully!
glower125 1 year ago
Haha well done
blopajmbar62 1 year ago
Absolutely horrible sound quality. This video fails to show how Hitchens is a troll.
Morahg 1 year ago
Honestly!
Wow man JQ you do realize your being trolls if your not posting these as some crazy attempt to ride the coat tails of hitchens into publicity on the internet.
You've created a situation where it's either your trolling or being trolled. You pick, well a good troll never trolls and tells.
dibaterman 1 year ago
JQ, you sir are an idiot. How's that for a troll?
elknifo 1 year ago
Without a doubt defining yourself “JQisnotAwesome”
xLance2000 1 year ago
Most normal discussions need interrupting, as they are mostly inane ramblings. I like disrupting the status quo. God is a sadistic twat! See?
pupil8 1 year ago
I don't get it. Is this video anti-Hitchens? If it is, it's not very clear about it...
reefpirate 1 year ago
The Ubertroll JQ accuses CH to be a troll. Oh the irony...
reafdaw01 1 year ago
Crap, Ive ended up on another of your shite vids. Ungraded - give up.
jgsouter 1 year ago
I think everyone knows that JQisAwesome is the troll. Every video of his i've seen is intentionally inflammatory
memento18poker 1 year ago
pure fail
Rockster969 1 year ago
If you want to bash Hitchens, if you want to discredit him or show him up, then attack his arguments. Dispute his reasoning or counter any of the points he has made. Explain why Falwell wasn't full of shit, or why Mother Theresa wasn't a hypocrite - then you'll have a video that isn't laced with comments calling you a retard.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago 9
I've seen 3 of these anti-Hitch vids today and every one of them has failed miserably. JQ I don't think you realise that people like me respect Hitchens because he says what he believes without the sugar-coating of undeserved respect. If you make a video of him doing exactly that, it's only going to reinforce the admiration people have for his way with words.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
This video is pure fail. Hitch is amazing
2edsajdmsa 1 year ago
Why make a title that makes it as you are about to show Hitchens as a troll, then make him look good by showing him say things that need to be said?
trueleroix 1 year ago
the edited part at 1:19 made me laugh.
Maddacheb 1 year ago
@Dfatboy112
You'll be glad to know that while having a nice discussion about the morality of pornography, JQ deleted my comments on his channel, though they contained no personal insults whatsoever. Not quite so "awesome" anymore, eh?
kissfan7 1 year ago 4
That's patently false. I never deleted any comments. Repost them. I never delete comments.
JQisAwesome 1 year ago
Comment removed
kissfan7 1 year ago
@Dfatboy112
So using homphobic slurs against JQ is bad, but using them against Hitchens is OK?
I've seen much, much worse personal comments that haven't been blocked. JQ is not much of an exception.
kissfan7 1 year ago
jb is a nerd in real life!!!!!!!!!!!!
llHyRaXll 1 year ago
@Dfatboy112
"JQ is awesome because he never deletes the stupid fan boys comments"
How is this praiseworthy? It's like saying someone is awesome for tying their own shoes.
kissfan7 1 year ago
oooooh he said falwell was full of shit. he was
ericisaflamer 2 years ago
I think JQ is jealous. He want's Hitchen's mind...but he would use it for good not evil.
darwonka 2 years ago
Another pointless, pathetic attack on Hitchens by some cunt who speaks like he has two tongues in his mouth. Fuck off and get another hobby, loser.
ryko26 2 years ago
why is this JQ guy so obsessed with hitchens?
jstewart0420 2 years ago 22
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is this jstewart0430 guy so obsessed with JQ?
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
@JQisAwesome Because your like a train that's derailed. People know what they see will be utterly horrific and upsetting yet it's so bizarre and insane you can't look away. In short, it's because your a troll. Irony! You say outlandish things which annoy people and they become intrigued by you. Just the same way you did by Christopher Hitchens statements which you found to be outlandish. In closing, after watching quite a few of your videos I have concluded you are a simple troll. You suck buddy
CredibleConservation 11 months ago
@jstewart0420
Because he can't wait to go to heaven and gloat about the misfortunes of others like Hitchens, whilst giving Jesus a tug job....
stonewickison 1 year ago
JQisNOTawesome, why don't you make a video that actually has a valid point instead of just Ad Hominems? Hitchens may be blunt and a drinker but that does not make him wrong. In fact it is a wonderfully empowering trait to be able to agree on a point with someone you otherwise might not like or agree with. The truth never depends on who is more pleasant.
DarwinPHX 2 years ago 2
The point about Falwell was that he was full of sh*t, which is a pretty accurate assessment in my opinion. That's what was meant by "give him an enema and bury him in a matchbox". Was it offensive because that criticism was made the day after he died? Well then ask yourself if you thought of anything offensive to the memory of Saddam Hussein the day after he died. One has to be a good person before such can be offensive. Falwell was not a good person.
DarwinPHX 2 years ago
This video is utter shit.
BoZakface 2 years ago 2
lololololololololololol this is fucking hillarious.
amartin7889 2 years ago 4
Out of all the many hours of debates, lectures & TV appearances, the best you can come up with to support your labelling him "troll" are clips of him pointing out how YT makes his and others' work accessible.
Oh, and a few controversial statements such as on Mother Theresa, who turned out to be an atheist at the end, and a blunt description of female circumcision in some cultures - just an unpeasant fact.
Never mind; I'm sure he'd thank you for increasing his YT exposure :)
queenastilon 2 years ago 2
By that logic
Venom Fang X is a troll
badpanda84 2 years ago
and thats not true about falwell.....
ARODPACK4 2 years ago
Troll = JQisAwesome
Don't forget to come back with some snide comment.
Diasanti 2 years ago
The best way to annoy this troll is to debate among ourselves on his videos without paying any attention to him at all.
Can anybody explain to me why Americans are so fond of the phrase douche bag? Does such an object even exist outside of 1950s America? Why are Americans so horrified by the vulva?
0olon 2 years ago
The practice of douching is now largely restricted to the United States, where douching equipment is often available in pharmacies. A 1995 survey quoted in the University of Rochester study found that 27 percent of U.S. women age 15 to 44 douched regularly, but that douching was more common among African-American women (over 50%) than among white women (21%). - wikipedia
MartinJWillett 2 years ago 2
it's odd that you're complaining that Hitchens is a supertroll when you seem to be a bigger troll yourself. You've devoted an entire channel to the process.
tolchock1984 2 years ago
Yes. And it would be really odd if you complained about Hitchens being a douchebag since you seem to have devoted an entire lifetime to the process.
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
Are all you're criticisms and videos ad hominem? Because they seem to be, and that would indicate you have a whole page dedicated to being a troll, you have like one youtube comment from me which is only evidence five minutes of my life dedicated to being a douchebag. I also didn't call someone else a douchebag, so there's no hypocrisy on my part.
tolchock1984 2 years ago
"Are all you're criticisms ..."
It's spelled "your", not "you're".
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
I notice your attacking my grammer not my point?
tolchock1984 2 years ago
You did it again. This time it should be "you're" and not "your".
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
ROFL ...pure gold commenting
temporaldisplacement 2 years ago 4
Ignore the troll. I'll criticize your grammar instead and not let him have the satisfaction of having people pay attention to him.
0olon 2 years ago
That is a statement not a question.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
@tolchock1984 Yeah he does that a lot. I think it’s an insecurity thing.
xLance2000 1 year ago
(_!_)
0olon 2 years ago
It's a lot easier to gain attention by being an arsehole than it is by having something to say. The way to combat him is to debate among ourselves and to ignore him.
Do you agree with Hitchens about Iraq?
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
This guy completely took hitchens out of context. At 1:18 Hitchens says heres another four letter word and the word is beeped out. In the original video hitchens four letter word is not a curse word but "flat", referring to a heartbeat monitor. Idk why this JQ guy feels he must doctor chris's videos. He has videos complaining that hitchens likes to drink liquor. I dont see the big deal. Hitchens likes attention.He writes interesting books. He drinks a lot. Whats wrong with that?
Ringodomass 2 years ago
LOL! someone actually mad a hitchens diss video featuing a dancing troll.
This actually makes me love the Hitch even more!!!!!
martintod2006 2 years ago
You could quite easily argue Hitchens is, to some extent, a troll and I'd be inclined to agree.
The implication in this video is that it is necessarily a bad thing, but when done properly, trolling is an art form and is beautiful to watch, it really is. Hitchens is a master of it and is so effective because he knows his stuff and is invariably right.
WillB85 2 years ago
I'm a huge fan of Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins...
but the only thing I don't like about Hitch is his almost naked greed...perhaps he's kidding but I think he wants to be richly rewarded for his brains.
If he wanted money he should've gotten into business or real estate.
By the way your vids won't change people's views on Hitchens...you must've taken some of his devastating attacks on religion (or other subject you disagree with him on) rather personally.
yreuq0 2 years ago
Is there anything wrong with his 'naked greed' though?
Everybody wants to be richly rewarded for doing a job, he's just honest about it and his intentions are always clear. I don't begrudge him that at all.
WillB85 2 years ago
will-I think most humans deep down are greedy, but to display it overtly as he sometimes does, appears desperate, vulgar and beneath someone with his refinement and wisdom.
I think he'd sell as many if not more books if he was more dignified and restrained, like Sam Harris and not look like a money-grubber. Its actually turned me off from wanting to buy his books. But hey if his approach is working then more power to him.
yreuq0 2 years ago
I think you're probably right, but his lack of restraint, though perhaps vulgar, is all part of his brilliance.
WillB85 2 years ago
will-I love his lack of restraint in his debates...but I don't consider it brilliant when applied to being compensated...I guess that's where we differ.
yreuq0 2 years ago
Hitch has such a wicked wit. God bless him! XD
Fadedpoetry123 2 years ago 5
Congratulations, JQ. You've ruined Hitch's rep by posting your annoying vids all over Youtube. Now that that's done, you should consider getting a life.
Fadedpoetry123 2 years ago 2
1 * is too much but... Okay...
June28July 2 years ago
Beautifully said Klubiy.
thethirdchimp 2 years ago 2
"...and Ill subscribe in a millisecond."
Oh, please do. It's SO important to me that you subscribe. I just can't sleep at night knowing that you won't be here, watching my videos. Please, tell me what to do to earn your approval.
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
anyone else notice the eerie resemblance between hitch and the great yngwie malmsteen in girth, swagger, and speech?
brandoscostumes 2 years ago
This video is pointless, and Hitchens would wipe the floor with you.
BBMix 2 years ago 7
I like how JQ takes Hitchens words out of context and tries to make it seem like Hitchens was the one calling people "Nazis, Stalinists, sadists", etc. When actually he was condemning that kind of talk.
Ryker556 2 years ago 10
how about that *bleep* noiseI added to make it seem like the "four letter word" was a curse word! lol
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
enjoy your life of obscurity and irrelevance. Hitchens is 10 x the intellect you will ever be.
regularkid 2 years ago 7
Yes, if only I were as famous as you.
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
it is you who is claiming to be awesome , he is just a regukar guy.
hmt444 2 years ago 4
And that's just when he's drunk! (which is often)
Seriously, Hitchens rules. This vid gets 1 star from me.
JorickHorn 2 years ago 5
Oh, no! You'll ruin my rating!
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
lol I'll give you this: you know how to troll.
JorickHorn 2 years ago 3
thank you. I take pride in my ability to piss of dumbasses like you.
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
how are you doing my christian friend,
how is life being spent all day hating atheist like hitchens and richard.
hmt444 2 years ago 3
This video and your chanel are shit
therealtruth123 2 years ago 5
Yup, one sad star. Me thinks you the troll.
Gumbee65 2 years ago 2
Say where he is wrong, don't make personal attacks against him.
kormyniska 2 years ago
Yeah, the "God Hates Gays" pastor and who said 9/11 happened because of how God was angry that america has supported "liberal social issues" like homosexuals and the right to choose, saying he is full of shit is being real controversial.
PuzzleBox83 2 years ago
One star rating...ouch!
kosmiske 2 years ago 3
My videos, much like Hitchens whole career, are meant to provoke disdain.
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
Success!
kosmiske 2 years ago
Douchebag!
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
I love you Hitchens!
rudyhenkel 3 years ago
Hitchens is a polemicist, but a good one.
johnnycon 3 years ago 3
funny how people use the word "polemicist" because it sounds scholarly and dignified, like something out of ancient rome.
the synonyms, Provocateur, Troll, Attention-seeker - are never used.
JQisAwesome 2 years ago
This is so stupid it's funny!
tabber87 3 years ago
LOL
Okay. I know it's no where near the quality of YOUR videos. I came to your page and the first thing I see is a close up of a vagina.
JQisAwesome 3 years ago
Now you made me go to his page. :)
But the vagina video is gone. :(
drdirs 2 years ago
Hitchens is the man! that falwell joke is classic. anybody that hears those phrases you put together without the full context would say thats a bit vulgar. But his writing is much deeper than a sound bite. His believes about mother teresa are well founded, deeply researched and meticulously evaluated. you can not deny the truth; you can only keep it hidden behind out of context sound bites.
smilz32 3 years ago 6
If comes down to an actual debate then Hitchens wins.
CognosSquare 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens is a gutless warmonger who takes BushCo money to praise the war, Gitmo, torture etc.
The guy is a complete CUNT.
ProzrachnyTeatr 3 years ago
Man, Hitchens is such a badass!
NoxMortus 3 years ago 4
my bad....I meant to hit the thumbs up, and I accidently clicked the thumbs down. Sorry.
biggregg5 3 years ago
I hit thumbs up to make up for it.
All even now!
Andraste77 3 years ago