I look at this ape as he sits there and continues to speak for god. The arrogance. The shame. Religious people like this prat need to be ridiculed until they see the error of their ways. As it stands, just looking at his face sickens me.
What a fucked up excuse for a human being. This immoral psychopathic monger of moral anarchy has caused so much chaos in our otherwise God-fearing society and u Marxist-subverted psychological sheep buy right into it with no discernment between truth & deception. I bet if Illuminati offered u a million dollars to kill a million families, u depraved scumbags wouldn't even hesitate. Atheism frees man's evil will unrestrained & is the cause of ALL your problems. Yet you worship these wicked idols.
All of the "statistics" arguments he offers could never alone demonstrate anything other than deism; the gap between deism and a specific interpretation of theism is quite the leap. Otherwise, *any* faith could say, "Look around you at creation; His handiwork is evident."
the crackpot 'doctor' he debates here has always angered me; talking loudly and commandingly (and being civil only when it matters to you) - firstly - doesn't mean you have a valid point - and secondly - does little to add to the debate. But in reality, when you are using out-dated 'arguments' (ontological, teleological, etc. - which have been torn to shreds many times over), I guess all you have left is intimidation.
Hitchen's should distinguish both rather than lumping them male and female circumcision together. From my understanding, female circumcision is culturally based and is practiced in parts of eastern sub-saharan africa by peoples who just happen to also be Muslim.
@gurufabbes1 Wow. That's probably the most foolish thing I've ever heard. Just happen to be muslim? The whole point of the mutilation is from a demonization of sex, inferiority of women, male control, and making women's sexual pleasure decreased so they won't be tempted into adultery. They are there to please their husbands at all cost. This is directly tied to the medieval barbarism of their religious beliefs.
That's like saying Christianity caused infanticide during the Middle Ages. Buddhism and Taoism caused female foot binding in China.
Differentiate cultural and religious practices, rather than making ignorant uninformed statements and then claiming any nuanced comment is 'the most foolish thing' you've ever heard. I seriously doubt it.
That's like saying Christianity caused infanticide during the Middle Ages. Buddhism and Taoism caused female foot binding in China.
Differentiate cultural and religious practices, rather than making ignorant uninformed statements and then claiming any nuanced comment is 'the most foolish thing' you've ever heard. I seriously doubt it.
@gurufabbes1 maybe a lack of understanding could explain the parts you think are bullshit. No Rhetoric, you sound like you're still a believer.... sad for you
not your stupid god - hitchens makes more sense that your stupid christ does - how can you take not thought for tomorrow - do you do that? and can you sell your things and share it amongst others - if you can't do that then stop criticizing a brilliant man
The world is a much sadder place without Mr Hitchens in it. A great mind, departed. If the absence of an afterlife doesn't kick you into action today, then what will?
...is just as much a claim to know something as "God does exist", and thus needs evidence. By playing word games, the Atheist has attempted to escape their burden of proof.
As for evidence for God, I believe that Alvin Plantinga's/Robert Maydole's formulations of the Ontological argument, and the moral arguments are sufficient for accepting Theism as true.
...position that God doesn't exist because it has not met its burden of proof. In other words, Atheists are just playing word games when they attempt to define their position as the lack of belief rather than the presence of non-belief (the two are logically equivalent).
"The problem for you remains no matter how many word games you want to play"
I am not denying that the burden of proof is on the Theist. Rather, I'm pointing out that the statement "God does not exist...
"you're still making a positive claim that objective morals exist"
For dichotomies (i.e. p or q), p is logically equivalent to ~q. With ethics, for example, either morality is objective or subjective. Therefore, "objective morality" is logically equivalent to "not subjective morality". Similarly, either theism is true or atheism is true. An A-theist is one who denies the theistic claim, but couldn't I just retort that I am an A-Atheist, that is, that I deny the Atheistic...
Theism. However, I can become an "A[insert here]" for almost any position. Take morality for example: I claim that morals are objective. The Atheists, usually an ethical subjectivist, asks me for evidence for that claim. I can easily change my position to "Asubjectivism" (a logical equivalence) to avoid needing to provide a burden of proof for my view. I can't but notice that the evolution of the word "Atheism" is the result of people doing such a thing.
"you may end up looking like an idiot... well, too late for that"
I'm using the common contemporary definition of Atheism, so if you want to call that stupid, be my guest.
"language evolves"
...whenever you want it to...
"the definition of atheism is 'the lack of belief in a deity'"
The problem I have with such a definition is it can be used to escape the burden of proof. What I mean by this is Atheists define Atheism as the rejection of a claim, namely...
@moonshineinsummer1 He doesn't kill religion. He blinds man to be psychological slaves to a hierarchy that CREATED the religions in the first place. Oh that's right, you thing the world is good & dandy & there are no liars controlling your mind. I better get my tin foil hat then.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I was referring to the Bible. A book that claims that that everything was created from Nothing by God (using magic I assume), claims that the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old, claims your loving God killed everything on Earth except two of everything (Noahs Ark), claims it's OK to have Slaves, claims it's fine to sell your Daughter if you are poor, claims it's OK to stone people who work on Sundays . . .
"A book that claims that that everything was created from Nothing by God (using magic I assume)"
The difference between Theism and Atheism, however, is that Christians have a "magician". Atheists have magic without a magician, and, I'm sorry, I just don't have that much faith.
It claims that it is OK, or it allows it? There is a difference. For example, the OT law allowed people to divorce. However, when the Pharisees asked Christ about this, he commented that divorce was allowed, but was still against God's nature. Furthermore, the OT law requires slaves to be treated humanely, and even freed after a certain time. For some people, slavery was the only way they could make a living. For more information, do some more...
@THEEVANTHETOON Oh my! The excuses never stop coming...and they are always so old and tiresome...just goes to show that it's true...you can justify ANYTHING in the name of religion!
"claims it's OK to stone people who work on Sundays"
The OT law says nothing about stoning people who work on Sundays. It does say something about people who work on the Sabbath day, that is Saturday, however. And, again, was this just a petty rule, or did it have some benevolent purpose behind it? What did Christ have to say about this? Again, it helps if you read the Bible.
Even though I myself cannot maybe fully disprove the existence of gods I know that no way in this life I can satisfy their requirements. If I try to satisfy other god, I hurt another god s feelings. Of course one can get emotional support from those imaginary friends some times, if he is alone and needs to save on antidepressant bills. But to be honest instead of psychopatic gods maybe people should talk more to their dead grandmothers . At least they dont send people to hell very often.
Everyone deserves hell. Athiests, Christians and everyone else. God chooses to save some out of His love and grace. He could have chosen to let everyone burn for all eternity. But because of his great love He came to rescue the sinner throught faith in Christ. Whoever dies without Christ will suffer the wrath of God. That is how it is. Believe it or not, like it or not.
@NotAG4yName Who made the human race? A big bang? The problem is that you are unwilling and unable to respond to the call of God because you are evil, just like every human on this planet and apart from God's grace you are headed for destruction.
@EIGHTYNINENINERS You sir can go fuck yourself because i wont hear from another human that i am evil when i know in my heart i am not...i bet you are the kind of person who looks forward to the end of the world and wishes to float up to heaven when you can watch the torture and damnation of the rest of us sinners in hell...do you know what its called when you enjoy the torture of another creature? its called sadism and that is truly evil just like you are...i however am different then you
@LondonIrishRover I expect a childish remark from you. Since you are unwilling and unaable to respond to the truth. I was the same way. God can open your eyes and you are still breathing so there is hope.
@EIGHTYNINENINERS Don't tell me your horrible lies! Anyone whos mind has not been corrupted by evil knows that the only way to the truth is through Mithras! He will open your eyes and you will spend eternity in his glory. I worry for your soul, but their is still hope for you. Accept him.
@LondonIrishRover You believe zeigtgeist and your own foolish darkened heart. You can mock all you want and act childish because you are unable to provide facts, just nonsense of what you heard someone else say. In a court of law your case would be thrown out because hearsay is just that.
@EIGHTYNINENINERS This makes so LITTLE sense, what you just wrote; it makes my brain hurt. Were there a god such as this, that would let little kids suffer torture, dictate and mandate such things as penis and clitoris cutting, etc., I'd tell him to go fuck himself. That goes for you, too.
My Mom is a deist. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that there is a "higher power" like she does.But that is her philosophy. That is way different from the "theists" who preach a specific practice, and claim that others who don't believe like them will go to hell. Many founding fathers of the US believed in god. But many were not christians.
GOD EXPANDING VOICE SPOKE THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE INTO EXISTANCE > JESUS IS GOD AND REPENT AND BE SAVED!!! DON"T MISS HEAVEN BECAUSE OF REPENTANCE! PRAY TO JESUS~
If religious fundamentalist people in the United States would open a fucking book once in while, we would not have to waste time on this shit in the 21st century. They should all be declared mentally ill and treated as such. Why do they insist on poisoning the minds of our children with 1st century ignorance? They should create their own fucking country and no one would give a shit about what they believe.
I BELIEVE THAT REALITY FOLLOWS A CONSTRUCTED PATTERN , OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T WORK . TO SAY THIS IS GOD, POSSIBLY ? INTELLIGENT ENERGY , AT WORK IN THE BACKGROUND , HAS A BELIEVABLE ARGUMENT .
WHICHEVER THE CASE , THE RELIGIOUS PROPHETS SET THE PROCESS OF MODERN THOUGHT . MAN CORRUPTS IT'S MESSAGE TO SUIT HIS OWN WANTS . BUT THE WORDS ARE STILL ALIVE.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
theists who are honest do not claim to know anything about God, they have FAITH, as in they merely believe, that He exists. that is all. atheists always get that part wrong... they also believe in plenty of things that can't even be proven, scientifically or even legally... like the idea that God doesn't exist... prove it? win a prize. all i hear from hitchens is a lot of what if, no facts...
@cwross1976 Atheists believe that there is no god. However, the burden of proof always lie on the one presenting a claim of existance, in this case theists.
@silverstream314 Id say atheists do not believe in a god, now most atheists believe there is no god, but there is a difference in the two. And yes, burden of the proof lies on the one making a claim.
That is wrong...the burden of proof lies on both parties because both hold positions. If only one party held a position and the other held no position then the burden of proof lies on the party that holds a position. However, since both positions can not prove, empirically whether or not God exists, both parties have to lay the "proof" out. That is just common logic, however, on YouTube, this is not quite so common obviously.
@ItsSolaFide The onus is on the believer to explain why we should collectively assume there is a magical sky daddy when the evidence we uncover in our investigations of the natural world increasingly implies otherwise.
If I told you I believe there's a green teapot flying around Saturn, then the onus is not on you to prove there isn't a green teapot. The onus is on me to explain why I assume there is a teapot in the first place.
Atheism is absence of belief, not belief in absence.
You BELIEVE there is no God, you cannot prove it imperially, nor can anyone else, that means you BELIEVE that it is improbable that God exists. Therefore, no matter how mad it makes you, and no matter how red in the face you get, you believe in absence, not absence of belief. Therefore you have to prove that there is no God, which is impossible, it cannot be done...
Teapots, Santa Claus, or any other tangible idea is a terrible analogy, God isn't tangible...
@ItsSolaFide Heheh. Some of us look at the world through the lens of reason rather than that of overt sentimentalism. You assume my emotional life is like your own because you're unable to think outside the box.
It's telling you find yourself dependant on semantics. Emphasis on style is usually a way to mask lack of substance.
Lastly, I'd say the analogy was accurate. Adulthood requires we face the notion that magical sky daddies, unicorns and the like are but figments of our imagination.
So no believer chooses to view the world reasonably? Maybe, believers think that you are not viewing the world through true reason, maybe there is more to life that has not yet been revealed to you (I say revealed because you cannot necessarily find it, although pressing into God helps). Maybe then you will see what is truly "reasonable". I find myself dependent on semantics? I guess you could make that argument, but doesnt everyone? Its fine if you think the analogy is good.
@ItsSolaFide Well, pretty much all people have it in them to be reasonable. Faith however is a system that assumes certain things are true even when there's no evidence to support it, or more disturbingly, even when these assumptions run contrary to the evidence.
The scientific method on the other hand starts by gathering all the facts & evidence it can, and then begins to construct theories that can coherently account for them. This approach to reality is vastly superior to idle assumption.
I agree with you to an extent, I think that there could come a time when my faith could trump evidence that science or maybe logic tells me. However, I have not had to come to that point yet. There are some things that are "cloudy", but never have I had to disregard any scientific belief to say that my faith was true. Science does not disprove God, it can only show us attributes of God, that is if a theory is in fact correct. I agree totally with the scientific method.
@silverstream314 "Atheists believe that there is no god. However, the burden of proof always lie on the one presenting a claim of existance, in this case theists." Theists certainly have a burden of proof for their affirmative claim that a god exists, but strong atheists have a burden of proof as well since they affirmatively claim no god exists. Weak atheists don't have a burden of proof since they don't affirmatively deny that deities exist but rather merely lack belief that they do.
@silverstream314 I would prefer to say that atheists are almost certain that there is no God, for belief (at least in the supernatural sense), seems to properly belong to the religious. Then again, I am not an atheist, so the matter does not personally concern me.
@silverstream314 Most definitely, but many theists assume all atheists are gnostic. I'm sure we've all heard the argument "How do you know there isn't a god?" We then have to explain that we don't, and they get all jittery with an assumed victory.
"they lack a belief in god, they haven't been convinced"
Aside from the fact that this definition goes against that of most authorized dictionaries of philosophy, this is very interesting. Were this true, than my writing utensil is an Atheist as well. It lacks belief in God or gods, right Mr. Pencil...
Besides, us Christians aren't going to lose much sleep now that Atheism has been reduced to this "no-thought" position.
Stop being childish. It is a commonly-held notion that when we are taking about an -ism, -ian, or -ist, we are referring to human beings.
>reduced to this "no-thought" position.
Actually, there is quite a bit of thought put into our lack of position. Skepticism is not easy or intuitive, it is not the easy way out. It takes quite a lot of intellectual honesty to say "I don't know, and I'm not going to just make stuff up".
"the burden of proof always lie on the one presenting a claim of existance"
Tis' true that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, but the statement "God does not exist" is just as much as a claim to know something as is the statement "God does exist".
@cwross1976 Actually, by definition, theists do claim to know something about god. Otherwise they'd be more like deists. If you believe even one "divine" instruction, claim, or idea then it follows you think you know something about god. You can try to drag down atheists into the same hole as theist by saying they also believe things with no proof but you're not going to get that one past many people.
@cwross1976 You are correct and i do have faith. problem is that man thru his hate racism lust, murder and so on and so on and so many apparent wrong doing doesnt make a good argument. both sides appear as fools from different angles. but i believe in what is concrete, not the disorganized religion, but what is in me. i advise everyone to do the same.
When? If you turn on a religious channel or radio at any part of the day you will hear men who claim to know what god wants, who claim to know what he is, who he is, what his personality is like, etc. Theists are constantly claiming things like god is just, or good, or loving.
>>like the idea that God doesn't exist
That's not our burden. When someone claims that Santa exists, it isn't your burden to prove him wrong.
Theists do claim to know God, with faith, but just believing in something doesn't make it exist. In your mind, sure, but it doesn't make it real. But here's what no theist can do, and that is prove their god's existence.
All the athiest says is, "There's no evidence to support the idea of a god in any religion, therefore, I don't believe in one."
@cwross1976 Christians claim to know a lot about God: triune personhood, omniscience, a plan of salvation, a war in heaven, the futrue of the world, etc. You can't deny that.
not true..there are gnostic theists, and agnostic theists. there are also gnostic atheists, and agnostic atheists..a gnostic atheist not only lacks belief in god, but claims to know a god doesn't exist. gnostic theists not only believe in god, but claim to know a god exists..hitchens is obviously referring to gnostic theists in this clip.
Exactly. Pointless, sensationalist rhetoric more in the vein of entertainment value for the spiritless, and of course, selling his porn...his books, his own fame, etc. Hitchens is no more an expert on the idea of God than an ant is an expert on the spatial dimensions of galactic superclusters. People lap this man's vomit up like it were ambrosia from the Beloved; quite a twisted irony, considering he's much more of a blowhard than those he condemns to ignorance.
@TheDreamMechanic Hitchens' intelligence is not to be matched by your demagogy. You're clearly constipated with godly beliefs, and you say Hitchens isn't an expert on God? You're right, except you probably go to a church, a mosque, or some other filthy place of "worship" and listen to people speak about god as if THEY know what they're talking about, and speak as if they're better primates than you and I. So not only do you offer demagogy, but hypocrisy too! Shame on you.
@TheDreamMechanic Yet you attack the person who's at the forefront of the push against theocracy. And you call his words vomit? Again I will repeat, shame on you.
Attack, eh? What do you call it when Hitchens calls any and every person who believes in God "delusional"? Just because his verbal vomit resonates with your own personal prejudices doesn't mean that they are (at all) true.
Shame on YOU for being so mindless.
Think for yourself. Don't regurgitate the words and ideas of a noted sensationalist and try to pass it off as intelligence.
@TheDreamMechanic That's because they are delusional. Their whole system of beliefs is based on an assertion that is supplanted by better explanations! If that's not delusional, I don't know what is. And then they try to get out of it by saying "That's because faith is a virtue and the words of God should go unquestioned."
Just because I don't write in purple prose like you do, it doesn't mean I don't think for myself. You probably think you're a really good writer, don't you?
Actually, I know I am. Your opinion is not required.
They're ALL delusional, eh? Take note of how shamelessly and mindlessly sensationalist that remark is. The actual truth of the matter is: YOU DON'T KNOW. You know dick. Don't confuse your own intellectual shortcomings for flights of fancy among "others"...quite peculiar how you've distanced yourself from them, isn't it?...as it turns out, the greatest minds of science have historically been believers in a higher power.
@TheDreamMechanic You're such a great writer, yet you repeat phrases like "mindless," "sensationalist," and, on a lighter note, "vomit" quite a lot. Tip: A little variety goes a long way.
If you're such a great writer and so much smarter than Christopher Hitchens, I can't wait to see a book on the shelves refuting his arguments and generally surpassing his genius. I'll buy it as soon as I see your name on the cover (that is, if you would be gracious enough to notify me when it's published).
You continue to prove my point. Why do I need to have a book deal in order to be considered of intellectual importance? If you'll take note, Hitchens' (a supposed champion of science and reason) arguments are inherently rhetorical; if science is the true basis of this debate, then why isn't he selling science books? It's because he's a sensationalist (a consciously chosen word to be repeated, and for good reason), and also his audience is too dumb to notice.
@TheDreamMechanic He's said repeatedly that science and REASON are the two main pillars of ethics and truth. Debate and dialectic are forms of argumentatitive reasoning. Yet you continue to make the baseless assertion that he's a sensationalist.
And I didn't say you'd need a book deal to be considered of intellectual importance, I said (you can go back and check) that if you're smarter than Hitchens and you have something intellectually superior to present to the world, why haven't you done so?
@TheDreamMechanic Well you've certainly made it obvious that you have some agenda to push here. Trying to break through your egotism and into anything rational is like trying to break fucking rocks. Best of luck to you too, although your level of pride is never an attractive feature.
Interesting that you consider me an egotist, when I am nothing of the sort. First you accuse me of "clearly" being one of those Bible thumping idiots, and were completely wrong. Same thing with this. All I'm advocating is free thought; and shining a light on the fact that you neglect to apply the same level of criticism to your own prejudices than you do to others. Typical.
Ah well. The seed is sewn. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
Regarding why I haven't "done so", funny you should ask. I'm in the beginnings of a song writing process that is the better part of a decade in the making. Some interesting sounds...flowing like a river out of me.
But there's no proselytizing involved. No grand standing. No calling people names. Not proclaiming anyone else ignorant, nor myself superior...rather, we (myself and the audience) meet at the level of the heart to affirm and celebrate life, not condemn it.
@cwross1976 honest was your keyword there, and theists CAN claim knowledge (fallaciously) and still be honest. I know a girl who thinks she KNOWS Christianity is real. She thinks she saw a being of light hugging someone, who she then approached and explained her vision to, and the pedestrian said "wow, I felt like I needed a hug!". She honestly thinks that proves the bible true, wrong as she is. (a large portion of pedestrians would say they feel like they need a hug anyway, hallucinations, etc)
Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's "sacrifice of atonement is retroactive to everybody who lived before him" or anything of the sort? Anyone? Bueller?
@paxpaul - "Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's "sacrifice of atonement is retroactive..." - agreed. On the other hand, where in the Bible does it say ANYTHING that is true? I'm with you, though. Great point. CHALLENGE: Name any other book, ever, that is more full of lies and immoral advice than the Blble? I can't think of any. Maybe you know of one.
I've heard Hitch make the "and in what position" point many times and I've never exactly understood it. I take it there's a spot in the bible or in some other religious text or what have you that states some kind of rule regarding missionary position as the only acceptable form of intercourse. Does anyone know exactly what he's referring to here? Thanks in advance.
@adtl5555 - regarding "in what position," I believe he means the fact that Christian leaders say that only intercourse is acceptable, not oral sex, for example. I have not come across specific instructions on sex in the bible, except the famous "god hates fags" sections.
Turek doesn't seem to understand what probabilities are. You can't just make up probabilities out of thin air. You have to know the frequency of events in reality to assign probabilities. You can't assign probabilities to supernatural things. What is the probability that I have an invisible friend? Is it fifty/fifty because I either do or do not have an invisible friend? Then I take that 50% and say my life wouldn't have meaning without him, so it is 51%, or 75%, or whatever I make up. NONSENSE.
"its is quite convenient---and that is the nature of god" what a horribly foolish thing to say.....im sure youll be praising the ocnveneince of god when your afflicted with a brain tumor---or broken one of your limbs....or have had a stroke---or one of the other attrocities his nature is apparently indicative of.....i hate it when any debater throws in the label complex ideologies to back a horribly juvenile view
Gotta love how no matter how obvious it is that one side won a certain point or a whole debate. there will alway be fans of the other side laughing at the side that won, crying out " look how bad you just got owned!" It's just sad.
hitchens owns the apologist once again. not hard when your up against such childish beliefs. still its good for a laugh, or is it,. in this day and age we have such apologists trying to intellectualise there nonsense and the sheep buy into like the simpletons or indoctronated ones that they are.how sad. 81 deluded followers to date. tut tut. and they say there sky daddie has it all in hand, yeah right.
@kram83au who the fuck are you to take away the beliefs of others? I don't believe in god, I think its all bullshit, yet my mother for example hangs on to it because its the only way she can make sense of the horrible things that go on in this world.So just because you can comprehend and handle the anxiety of non-existence, its not something you fuck with when it comes to others. Don't be so ignorant to others beliefs. tut tut? What the fuck kind of saying is that?
@megaterra69 Im not arguing with you just wanted to point something out. I think alot of atheists would argue that the "relief" from religious affiliation, and the "exposure" that god doesnt exist would be beneficial to your mom. The world can't be "evil" if we acknowledge that people walk freely among societies who are simply mentally unstable, or perhaps mankind as a whole is still trying to evolve from primitive instincts, instead of thinking of them as possessed or evil. Knowledge is power.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
its unbelievable how many sad people are duped by hitchens. no truth comes from his mouth. interesting claims from a man that puts his faith in no god to justify his depraved life, and hope is in no penalty for sin. those that choose to be blind will certainly be blind and if you want to see you will see. just wish hitch wasnt so off base cause people hear this stuff and take him at his word like he has some sort of perspective.
Go on, attack his life. Assume that all atheists are "sad". If you really believe that all you can know is that you exist (cogito ergo sum), you naturally can't claim to know anything about his life or anyone else's. Everyone has 'some sort of perspective' you moron.
@TheBuckhouse "just wish hitch wasnt so off base cause people hear this stuff and take him at his word like he has some sort of perspective"
Couldn't the same be said of the bible? We don't even know the people who wrote the bible, but we're supposed to take them at their word as if it's the WORD OF GOD.
"no truth comes from his mouth."
That's just ridiculous. Even the bible tells SOME truth. Those people who say that something tells NO TRUTH gives insight into their own nature: they're liars
Praxis: One can wonder if there might be a higher power / grand designer / creator / or something. However, no one can tell me that they speak for God, if God exists. Furthermore, no one can tell me that their idea / definition of God is correct. I am always annoyed that even most intelligent debates do not address the feeble, simple-minded concepts most people and all religions have of what God is.
I think, therefore I am. I am conscious, therefore there is consciousness. This I know.
.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
You notice that he never answered the question of how he could know something for a fact from the same evidence available where Hitchens can't. How can believers know conclusivly that god exists from the same evidence availbe to non-believers who say that god many not exist. They can't and have to have faith. But faith is belief without proof. So they admit that they have no proof.
Honestly, no one in this entire world can claim to KNOW anything other than, "Cogito Ergo Sum". All this man has done is biased it in such a literate way that it seems as though he has triumphed over religion.
We should ALL be skeptical of ANY religion that requires the testimony of other HUMAN BEINGS in order to spread its word.
chewface 1 week ago
@chewface Oh, hell yes. Not to mention mandate and enforce its principles.
manthasagittarius1 4 days ago
"How Can Theists Claim To Know? - Christopher Hitchens" is a reasonable title, I suppose.
However "Frank Turek gets buttfucked on Youtube" might be more appropriate.
mouthyweasel 1 week ago 2
I look at this ape as he sits there and continues to speak for god. The arrogance. The shame. Religious people like this prat need to be ridiculed until they see the error of their ways. As it stands, just looking at his face sickens me.
mouthyweasel 1 week ago
What a fucked up excuse for a human being. This immoral psychopathic monger of moral anarchy has caused so much chaos in our otherwise God-fearing society and u Marxist-subverted psychological sheep buy right into it with no discernment between truth & deception. I bet if Illuminati offered u a million dollars to kill a million families, u depraved scumbags wouldn't even hesitate. Atheism frees man's evil will unrestrained & is the cause of ALL your problems. Yet you worship these wicked idols.
cosmosmonger 2 weeks ago
I don't think you will ever find another video on Youtube of someone getting more intellectually owned than this one here. Wow.
torontoBluejays87 2 weeks ago
Idiot below me.
dkthg 1 month ago
All of the "statistics" arguments he offers could never alone demonstrate anything other than deism; the gap between deism and a specific interpretation of theism is quite the leap. Otherwise, *any* faith could say, "Look around you at creation; His handiwork is evident."
themediocrenontheist 1 month ago
the crackpot 'doctor' he debates here has always angered me; talking loudly and commandingly (and being civil only when it matters to you) - firstly - doesn't mean you have a valid point - and secondly - does little to add to the debate. But in reality, when you are using out-dated 'arguments' (ontological, teleological, etc. - which have been torn to shreds many times over), I guess all you have left is intimidation.
sdmac21 1 month ago
Note to self: Do not go out in the sun all day then shave off your beard before a debate.
Officeglen01 1 month ago
4:00
A source that female genital mutilation is religiously based?
gurufabbes1 1 month ago
@gurufabbes1 Well its done by people thinking its a god's will. Its not about some holy text.
Klurike 1 month ago
@Klurike
Hitchen's should distinguish both rather than lumping them male and female circumcision together. From my understanding, female circumcision is culturally based and is practiced in parts of eastern sub-saharan africa by peoples who just happen to also be Muslim.
gurufabbes1 1 month ago
@gurufabbes1 Wow. That's probably the most foolish thing I've ever heard. Just happen to be muslim? The whole point of the mutilation is from a demonization of sex, inferiority of women, male control, and making women's sexual pleasure decreased so they won't be tempted into adultery. They are there to please their husbands at all cost. This is directly tied to the medieval barbarism of their religious beliefs.
NSaibot999 1 month ago
@NSaibot999
???
That's like saying Christianity caused infanticide during the Middle Ages. Buddhism and Taoism caused female foot binding in China.
Differentiate cultural and religious practices, rather than making ignorant uninformed statements and then claiming any nuanced comment is 'the most foolish thing' you've ever heard. I seriously doubt it.
gurufabbes1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NSaibot999
That's like saying Christianity caused infanticide during the Middle Ages. Buddhism and Taoism caused female foot binding in China.
Differentiate cultural and religious practices, rather than making ignorant uninformed statements and then claiming any nuanced comment is 'the most foolish thing' you've ever heard. I seriously doubt it.
gurufabbes1 1 month ago
@NSaibot999
I liked Christopher Hitchens, but even he could say bullshit sometimes, just by being caught up in his own rhetoric.
gurufabbes1 1 month ago
@gurufabbes1 u r an idiot
10290gilmore 1 month ago
@10290gilmore
Expert answer from an obvious non-idiot. Debate in the playground, you might win there.
gurufabbes1 1 month ago
@gurufabbes1 maybe a lack of understanding could explain the parts you think are bullshit. No Rhetoric, you sound like you're still a believer.... sad for you
TubularTNT 2 weeks ago
@TubularTNT
I think you should concentrate on the point rather than assuming things about the person who made it.
The point was: Female Genital Circumcision is not apart of Islam. It's a cultural custom from certain parts of Africa.
gurufabbes1 2 weeks ago
Hes not dead hes debating christianity and religion in the afterlife....that doesnt exist
C0mm0nS3ns3 1 month ago
May he rest in....Oh wait....WHAT DO I SAY!!???
Laprevraven 2 months ago
@Laprevraven u just said it.
2yung4grey 1 month ago
Religion is for RETARDS ! ! ! !
Plain and simple!
robonez 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
not your stupid god - hitchens makes more sense that your stupid christ does - how can you take not thought for tomorrow - do you do that? and can you sell your things and share it amongst others - if you can't do that then stop criticizing a brilliant man
melvindavid1622 2 months ago
The world is a much sadder place without Mr Hitchens in it. A great mind, departed. If the absence of an afterlife doesn't kick you into action today, then what will?
deadlypalms 2 months ago
RIP
esmielawrence 2 months ago 3
It's good to know that a lot of Americans had their head surgically removed from their asses.
franciscopuyol 2 months ago
"It won't take a minute to ask", he said, and took two minutes. Always a joy to watch Christopher take his time to make a point.
KryzMasta 2 months ago 4
is knowledge a property of the observer or a property of the object?
romney27 2 months ago
@romney27 Knowledge isn't a property.
bulmeruk 2 months ago
@bulmeruk I think you confuse "information" with "knowledge". no such thing as objective experience.
romney27 2 months ago
@hempartist420
...is just as much a claim to know something as "God does exist", and thus needs evidence. By playing word games, the Atheist has attempted to escape their burden of proof.
As for evidence for God, I believe that Alvin Plantinga's/Robert Maydole's formulations of the Ontological argument, and the moral arguments are sufficient for accepting Theism as true.
"I provide examples subjective morality"
Go ahead. You'll be surprised.
THEEVANTHETOON 3 months ago
@hempartist420
...position that God doesn't exist because it has not met its burden of proof. In other words, Atheists are just playing word games when they attempt to define their position as the lack of belief rather than the presence of non-belief (the two are logically equivalent).
"The problem for you remains no matter how many word games you want to play"
I am not denying that the burden of proof is on the Theist. Rather, I'm pointing out that the statement "God does not exist...
THEEVANTHETOON 3 months ago
@hempartist420
"you're still making a positive claim that objective morals exist"
For dichotomies (i.e. p or q), p is logically equivalent to ~q. With ethics, for example, either morality is objective or subjective. Therefore, "objective morality" is logically equivalent to "not subjective morality". Similarly, either theism is true or atheism is true. An A-theist is one who denies the theistic claim, but couldn't I just retort that I am an A-Atheist, that is, that I deny the Atheistic...
THEEVANTHETOON 3 months ago
@hempartist420
Theism. However, I can become an "A[insert here]" for almost any position. Take morality for example: I claim that morals are objective. The Atheists, usually an ethical subjectivist, asks me for evidence for that claim. I can easily change my position to "Asubjectivism" (a logical equivalence) to avoid needing to provide a burden of proof for my view. I can't but notice that the evolution of the word "Atheism" is the result of people doing such a thing.
THEEVANTHETOON 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hempartist420
"you may end up looking like an idiot... well, too late for that"
I'm using the common contemporary definition of Atheism, so if you want to call that stupid, be my guest.
"language evolves"
...whenever you want it to...
"the definition of atheism is 'the lack of belief in a deity'"
The problem I have with such a definition is it can be used to escape the burden of proof. What I mean by this is Atheists define Atheism as the rejection of a claim, namely...
THEEVANTHETOON 3 months ago
He ends that beautifully.
xythx 3 months ago 24
This has been flagged as spam show
hitchens is so smart
you will be missed Hitch
Johnandvanessa 3 months ago
Hitchens...killing religion one syllable at a time!
moonshineinsummer1 3 months ago 37
@moonshineinsummer1 He doesn't kill religion. He blinds man to be psychological slaves to a hierarchy that CREATED the religions in the first place. Oh that's right, you thing the world is good & dandy & there are no liars controlling your mind. I better get my tin foil hat then.
cosmosmonger 2 weeks ago
@cosmosmonger I do think there are liars controlling peoples minds...The people who are being controlled are the one that go to a church.
Poor bastards....jesus was a bastard...he was born out of wedlock...that makes him a bastard.
Hitchens makes religious people laugh at thier own religion...now thats funny!
There are hundreds of reigions and thousands of gods..which one did you pick?
If you're too stupid to understand science...try religion.
moonshineinsummer1 2 weeks ago
@cosmosmonger If I were jesus I would take a crap and make all my devoted followers eat the corn from my shit...fuck this water into wine bit!
moonshineinsummer1 2 weeks ago
@moonshineinsummer1 Look at all the dislikes on pro-religious videos and all the negative comments.
Then look at all the anti-religious videos and all the likes and how people leave comments supporting these anti-religious videos.
This is a coming trend...religions are dying...all of them.
Everyone was born an athiest...everyone...all babies are athiests.
moonshineinsummer1 2 weeks ago
Cheers for putting a link to the whole debate. Iv usually gotta hunt around for ages trying to find the origin.
jasmac04 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
@projectlevydelta Who mentioned microscopic eggs???
I was referring to the Bible. A book that claims that that everything was created from Nothing by God (using magic I assume), claims that the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old, claims your loving God killed everything on Earth except two of everything (Noahs Ark), claims it's OK to have Slaves, claims it's fine to sell your Daughter if you are poor, claims it's OK to stone people who work on Sundays . . .
Uberlaser 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Uberlaser
"A book that claims that that everything was created from Nothing by God (using magic I assume)"
The difference between Theism and Atheism, however, is that Christians have a "magician". Atheists have magic without a magician, and, I'm sorry, I just don't have that much faith.
"claims that the Earth is flat"
It doesn't.
"only 6000 years old"
Another common misconception. It doesn't.
THEEVANTHETOON 4 months ago
@Uberlaser
"claims it's OK to have Slaves"
It claims that it is OK, or it allows it? There is a difference. For example, the OT law allowed people to divorce. However, when the Pharisees asked Christ about this, he commented that divorce was allowed, but was still against God's nature. Furthermore, the OT law requires slaves to be treated humanely, and even freed after a certain time. For some people, slavery was the only way they could make a living. For more information, do some more...
THEEVANTHETOON 4 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Oh my! The excuses never stop coming...and they are always so old and tiresome...just goes to show that it's true...you can justify ANYTHING in the name of religion!
boc1953 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boc1953
"you can justify ANYTHING in the name of religion"
I'm sure you can, just as you can justify almost anything in the name of any idealology (Marxism, Nazism, Atheism, etc.) Your point?
THEEVANTHETOON 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Uberlaser
...research. It helps if you read the Bible too.
"claims it's OK to stone people who work on Sundays"
The OT law says nothing about stoning people who work on Sundays. It does say something about people who work on the Sabbath day, that is Saturday, however. And, again, was this just a petty rule, or did it have some benevolent purpose behind it? What did Christ have to say about this? Again, it helps if you read the Bible.
THEEVANTHETOON 4 months ago
@projectlevydelta the human egg is not microscopic.
fdota 5 months ago
@projectlevydelta Nope - The Bible is not proof of anything. It's just a book written by Iron-age men about 1600 years ago.
Uberlaser 5 months ago
Even though I myself cannot maybe fully disprove the existence of gods I know that no way in this life I can satisfy their requirements. If I try to satisfy other god, I hurt another god s feelings. Of course one can get emotional support from those imaginary friends some times, if he is alone and needs to save on antidepressant bills. But to be honest instead of psychopatic gods maybe people should talk more to their dead grandmothers . At least they dont send people to hell very often.
jan09842 5 months ago
EIGHTYNINENINERS: A future Bachmann voter. This pathethic person's mind is as schitzophenic as her eyes.
kauaiphil 5 months ago
Everyone deserves hell. Athiests, Christians and everyone else. God chooses to save some out of His love and grace. He could have chosen to let everyone burn for all eternity. But because of his great love He came to rescue the sinner throught faith in Christ. Whoever dies without Christ will suffer the wrath of God. That is how it is. Believe it or not, like it or not.
EIGHTYNINENINERS 6 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS Belief has little to do with truth.
blobvision 6 months ago 2
@EIGHTYNINENINERS I feel sorry for your wretched beliefs, but most of all I'm glad they're not the truth.
blobvision 6 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS you are a pathetic and servile creature and i am ashamed that a member of my species could fall so low
NotAG4yName 6 months ago
@NotAG4yName Who made the human race? A big bang? The problem is that you are unwilling and unable to respond to the call of God because you are evil, just like every human on this planet and apart from God's grace you are headed for destruction.
EIGHTYNINENINERS 6 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS You sir can go fuck yourself because i wont hear from another human that i am evil when i know in my heart i am not...i bet you are the kind of person who looks forward to the end of the world and wishes to float up to heaven when you can watch the torture and damnation of the rest of us sinners in hell...do you know what its called when you enjoy the torture of another creature? its called sadism and that is truly evil just like you are...i however am different then you
NotAG4yName 6 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS Obvious troll is obvious. Try harder.
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
@LondonIrishRover I expect a childish remark from you. Since you are unwilling and unaable to respond to the truth. I was the same way. God can open your eyes and you are still breathing so there is hope.
EIGHTYNINENINERS 5 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS Don't tell me your horrible lies! Anyone whos mind has not been corrupted by evil knows that the only way to the truth is through Mithras! He will open your eyes and you will spend eternity in his glory. I worry for your soul, but their is still hope for you. Accept him.
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
@LondonIrishRover You believe zeigtgeist and your own foolish darkened heart. You can mock all you want and act childish because you are unable to provide facts, just nonsense of what you heard someone else say. In a court of law your case would be thrown out because hearsay is just that.
EIGHTYNINENINERS 5 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS Oh, the irony. Yeah, you're not fooling anyone, dude. You're a troll and not a very good one at that. Move along.
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LondonIrishRover You can call me what you want, and I fully understand your foolishness.
EIGHTYNINENINERS 5 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS This makes so LITTLE sense, what you just wrote; it makes my brain hurt. Were there a god such as this, that would let little kids suffer torture, dictate and mandate such things as penis and clitoris cutting, etc., I'd tell him to go fuck himself. That goes for you, too.
Jbear9 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012 NO REGRETS!!!
mayhoo22 6 months ago
My Mom is a deist. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that there is a "higher power" like she does.But that is her philosophy. That is way different from the "theists" who preach a specific practice, and claim that others who don't believe like them will go to hell. Many founding fathers of the US believed in god. But many were not christians.
joshuaoha 6 months ago
This man is almost too smart.
shea333 6 months ago 2
GOD EXPANDING VOICE SPOKE THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE INTO EXISTANCE > JESUS IS GOD AND REPENT AND BE SAVED!!! DON"T MISS HEAVEN BECAUSE OF REPENTANCE! PRAY TO JESUS~
bass109 6 months ago
If religious fundamentalist people in the United States would open a fucking book once in while, we would not have to waste time on this shit in the 21st century. They should all be declared mentally ill and treated as such. Why do they insist on poisoning the minds of our children with 1st century ignorance? They should create their own fucking country and no one would give a shit about what they believe.
saburius 6 months ago
I BELIEVE THAT REALITY FOLLOWS A CONSTRUCTED PATTERN , OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T WORK . TO SAY THIS IS GOD, POSSIBLY ? INTELLIGENT ENERGY , AT WORK IN THE BACKGROUND , HAS A BELIEVABLE ARGUMENT .
WHICHEVER THE CASE , THE RELIGIOUS PROPHETS SET THE PROCESS OF MODERN THOUGHT . MAN CORRUPTS IT'S MESSAGE TO SUIT HIS OWN WANTS . BUT THE WORDS ARE STILL ALIVE.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI . JULY /28/ 2011
9493760 7 months ago
@9493760 fix your caps lock button.
hellbirdsflight 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
theists who are honest do not claim to know anything about God, they have FAITH, as in they merely believe, that He exists. that is all. atheists always get that part wrong... they also believe in plenty of things that can't even be proven, scientifically or even legally... like the idea that God doesn't exist... prove it? win a prize. all i hear from hitchens is a lot of what if, no facts...
cwross1976 7 months ago
@cwross1976 Atheists believe that there is no god. However, the burden of proof always lie on the one presenting a claim of existance, in this case theists.
silverstream314 7 months ago 37
@silverstream314 Id say atheists do not believe in a god, now most atheists believe there is no god, but there is a difference in the two. And yes, burden of the proof lies on the one making a claim.
smallfellow 6 months ago
@silverstream314
That is wrong...the burden of proof lies on both parties because both hold positions. If only one party held a position and the other held no position then the burden of proof lies on the party that holds a position. However, since both positions can not prove, empirically whether or not God exists, both parties have to lay the "proof" out. That is just common logic, however, on YouTube, this is not quite so common obviously.
ItsSolaFide 6 months ago
@ItsSolaFide The onus is on the believer to explain why we should collectively assume there is a magical sky daddy when the evidence we uncover in our investigations of the natural world increasingly implies otherwise.
If I told you I believe there's a green teapot flying around Saturn, then the onus is not on you to prove there isn't a green teapot. The onus is on me to explain why I assume there is a teapot in the first place.
Atheism is absence of belief, not belief in absence.
GluttonForSex 6 months ago
@GluttonForSex
You BELIEVE there is no God, you cannot prove it imperially, nor can anyone else, that means you BELIEVE that it is improbable that God exists. Therefore, no matter how mad it makes you, and no matter how red in the face you get, you believe in absence, not absence of belief. Therefore you have to prove that there is no God, which is impossible, it cannot be done...
Teapots, Santa Claus, or any other tangible idea is a terrible analogy, God isn't tangible...
ItsSolaFide 6 months ago
@ItsSolaFide Heheh. Some of us look at the world through the lens of reason rather than that of overt sentimentalism. You assume my emotional life is like your own because you're unable to think outside the box.
It's telling you find yourself dependant on semantics. Emphasis on style is usually a way to mask lack of substance.
Lastly, I'd say the analogy was accurate. Adulthood requires we face the notion that magical sky daddies, unicorns and the like are but figments of our imagination.
GluttonForSex 6 months ago
@GluttonForSex
So no believer chooses to view the world reasonably? Maybe, believers think that you are not viewing the world through true reason, maybe there is more to life that has not yet been revealed to you (I say revealed because you cannot necessarily find it, although pressing into God helps). Maybe then you will see what is truly "reasonable". I find myself dependent on semantics? I guess you could make that argument, but doesnt everyone? Its fine if you think the analogy is good.
ItsSolaFide 6 months ago
@ItsSolaFide Well, pretty much all people have it in them to be reasonable. Faith however is a system that assumes certain things are true even when there's no evidence to support it, or more disturbingly, even when these assumptions run contrary to the evidence.
The scientific method on the other hand starts by gathering all the facts & evidence it can, and then begins to construct theories that can coherently account for them. This approach to reality is vastly superior to idle assumption.
GluttonForSex 6 months ago
@GluttonForSex
I agree with you to an extent, I think that there could come a time when my faith could trump evidence that science or maybe logic tells me. However, I have not had to come to that point yet. There are some things that are "cloudy", but never have I had to disregard any scientific belief to say that my faith was true. Science does not disprove God, it can only show us attributes of God, that is if a theory is in fact correct. I agree totally with the scientific method.
ItsSolaFide 6 months ago
@GluttonForSex
I have a question...what do you mean by "in them" how can anyone have something "in them" with your worldview?
ItsSolaFide 6 months ago
@silverstream314 "Atheists believe that there is no god. However, the burden of proof always lie on the one presenting a claim of existance, in this case theists." Theists certainly have a burden of proof for their affirmative claim that a god exists, but strong atheists have a burden of proof as well since they affirmatively claim no god exists. Weak atheists don't have a burden of proof since they don't affirmatively deny that deities exist but rather merely lack belief that they do.
nichtmuttersprachler 6 months ago
@silverstream314 I would prefer to say that atheists are almost certain that there is no God, for belief (at least in the supernatural sense), seems to properly belong to the religious. Then again, I am not an atheist, so the matter does not personally concern me.
writersblock26 6 months ago
@silverstream314 Atheists don't necessarily believe that there is no god- they lack a belief in god, they haven't been convinced.
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 5 months ago 2
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Very true. Bad wording on my part.
silverstream314 5 months ago
@silverstream314 There are both gnostic and agnostic atheists. One asserts they KNOW whereas the other is the kind HarmonicaLuke mentioned.
xcoibyx 5 months ago
@xcoibyx Indeed, but gnostic atheists are few and far in between....
silverstream314 5 months ago
@silverstream314 Most definitely, but many theists assume all atheists are gnostic. I'm sure we've all heard the argument "How do you know there isn't a god?" We then have to explain that we don't, and they get all jittery with an assumed victory.
xcoibyx 5 months ago
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke
"they lack a belief in god, they haven't been convinced"
Aside from the fact that this definition goes against that of most authorized dictionaries of philosophy, this is very interesting. Were this true, than my writing utensil is an Atheist as well. It lacks belief in God or gods, right Mr. Pencil...
Besides, us Christians aren't going to lose much sleep now that Atheism has been reduced to this "no-thought" position.
THEEVANTHETOON 4 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON >my writing utensil is an atheist
Stop being childish. It is a commonly-held notion that when we are taking about an -ism, -ian, or -ist, we are referring to human beings.
>reduced to this "no-thought" position.
Actually, there is quite a bit of thought put into our lack of position. Skepticism is not easy or intuitive, it is not the easy way out. It takes quite a lot of intellectual honesty to say "I don't know, and I'm not going to just make stuff up".
TheGeneralCritic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGeneralCritic
"It is a commonly-held notion that when we are taking about an -ism, -ian, or -ist, we are referring to human beings"
Oh, so now the definition is "Lack of belief in God by a human"?
I just had a question (I forgot what you had said): what do you think of Alvin Plantinga's version of the Ontological argument?
THEEVANTHETOON 3 months ago
@TheGeneralCritic
I answered your "objections", but I don't know if you got them.
THEEVANTHETOON 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silverstream314
"the burden of proof always lie on the one presenting a claim of existance"
Tis' true that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, but the statement "God does not exist" is just as much as a claim to know something as is the statement "God does exist".
THEEVANTHETOON 4 months ago
@cwross1976 Actually, by definition, theists do claim to know something about god. Otherwise they'd be more like deists. If you believe even one "divine" instruction, claim, or idea then it follows you think you know something about god. You can try to drag down atheists into the same hole as theist by saying they also believe things with no proof but you're not going to get that one past many people.
jbass02 7 months ago
@cwross1976 You are correct and i do have faith. problem is that man thru his hate racism lust, murder and so on and so on and so many apparent wrong doing doesnt make a good argument. both sides appear as fools from different angles. but i believe in what is concrete, not the disorganized religion, but what is in me. i advise everyone to do the same.
DONNIMETROPOLIS313 7 months ago
@cwross1976
>>atheists always get that part wrong
When? If you turn on a religious channel or radio at any part of the day you will hear men who claim to know what god wants, who claim to know what he is, who he is, what his personality is like, etc. Theists are constantly claiming things like god is just, or good, or loving.
>>like the idea that God doesn't exist
That's not our burden. When someone claims that Santa exists, it isn't your burden to prove him wrong.
kDest 7 months ago
@cwross1976
Theists do claim to know God, with faith, but just believing in something doesn't make it exist. In your mind, sure, but it doesn't make it real. But here's what no theist can do, and that is prove their god's existence.
All the athiest says is, "There's no evidence to support the idea of a god in any religion, therefore, I don't believe in one."
bicsc7 6 months ago
@cwross1976 Christians claim to know a lot about God: triune personhood, omniscience, a plan of salvation, a war in heaven, the futrue of the world, etc. You can't deny that.
daophos 6 months ago
@cwross1976
not true..there are gnostic theists, and agnostic theists. there are also gnostic atheists, and agnostic atheists..a gnostic atheist not only lacks belief in god, but claims to know a god doesn't exist. gnostic theists not only believe in god, but claim to know a god exists..hitchens is obviously referring to gnostic theists in this clip.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@cwross1976
Exactly. Pointless, sensationalist rhetoric more in the vein of entertainment value for the spiritless, and of course, selling his porn...his books, his own fame, etc. Hitchens is no more an expert on the idea of God than an ant is an expert on the spatial dimensions of galactic superclusters. People lap this man's vomit up like it were ambrosia from the Beloved; quite a twisted irony, considering he's much more of a blowhard than those he condemns to ignorance.
TheDreamMechanic 6 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic Hitchens' intelligence is not to be matched by your demagogy. You're clearly constipated with godly beliefs, and you say Hitchens isn't an expert on God? You're right, except you probably go to a church, a mosque, or some other filthy place of "worship" and listen to people speak about god as if THEY know what they're talking about, and speak as if they're better primates than you and I. So not only do you offer demagogy, but hypocrisy too! Shame on you.
patrick112590 6 months ago
@patrick112590
Clearly, eh?
Hey stupid:
I'm not religious. At all.
Thank you for proving my point, and making an ass out of yourself in the process. Goodbye.
TheDreamMechanic 6 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic Yet you attack the person who's at the forefront of the push against theocracy. And you call his words vomit? Again I will repeat, shame on you.
patrick112590 6 months ago
@patrick112590
Attack, eh? What do you call it when Hitchens calls any and every person who believes in God "delusional"? Just because his verbal vomit resonates with your own personal prejudices doesn't mean that they are (at all) true.
Shame on YOU for being so mindless.
Think for yourself. Don't regurgitate the words and ideas of a noted sensationalist and try to pass it off as intelligence.
TheDreamMechanic 6 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic That's because they are delusional. Their whole system of beliefs is based on an assertion that is supplanted by better explanations! If that's not delusional, I don't know what is. And then they try to get out of it by saying "That's because faith is a virtue and the words of God should go unquestioned."
Just because I don't write in purple prose like you do, it doesn't mean I don't think for myself. You probably think you're a really good writer, don't you?
patrick112590 6 months ago
@patrick112590
Actually, I know I am. Your opinion is not required.
They're ALL delusional, eh? Take note of how shamelessly and mindlessly sensationalist that remark is. The actual truth of the matter is: YOU DON'T KNOW. You know dick. Don't confuse your own intellectual shortcomings for flights of fancy among "others"...quite peculiar how you've distanced yourself from them, isn't it?...as it turns out, the greatest minds of science have historically been believers in a higher power.
TheDreamMechanic 6 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic You're such a great writer, yet you repeat phrases like "mindless," "sensationalist," and, on a lighter note, "vomit" quite a lot. Tip: A little variety goes a long way.
If you're such a great writer and so much smarter than Christopher Hitchens, I can't wait to see a book on the shelves refuting his arguments and generally surpassing his genius. I'll buy it as soon as I see your name on the cover (that is, if you would be gracious enough to notify me when it's published).
patrick112590 6 months ago
@patrick112590
You continue to prove my point. Why do I need to have a book deal in order to be considered of intellectual importance? If you'll take note, Hitchens' (a supposed champion of science and reason) arguments are inherently rhetorical; if science is the true basis of this debate, then why isn't he selling science books? It's because he's a sensationalist (a consciously chosen word to be repeated, and for good reason), and also his audience is too dumb to notice.
Cha-CHING!
TheDreamMechanic 6 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic He's said repeatedly that science and REASON are the two main pillars of ethics and truth. Debate and dialectic are forms of argumentatitive reasoning. Yet you continue to make the baseless assertion that he's a sensationalist.
And I didn't say you'd need a book deal to be considered of intellectual importance, I said (you can go back and check) that if you're smarter than Hitchens and you have something intellectually superior to present to the world, why haven't you done so?
patrick112590 6 months ago
@patrick112590
Baseless? He has a book whose title is "GOD IS NOT GREAT: How Religion Poisons Everything".
If you can't see the sensationalism in that, then you and I have no business conversing. I can't deal with that level of ignorance.
Best of luck to you in the future.
It's been a slice.
TheDreamMechanic 6 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic Well you've certainly made it obvious that you have some agenda to push here. Trying to break through your egotism and into anything rational is like trying to break fucking rocks. Best of luck to you too, although your level of pride is never an attractive feature.
patrick112590 6 months ago
@patrick112590
Interesting that you consider me an egotist, when I am nothing of the sort. First you accuse me of "clearly" being one of those Bible thumping idiots, and were completely wrong. Same thing with this. All I'm advocating is free thought; and shining a light on the fact that you neglect to apply the same level of criticism to your own prejudices than you do to others. Typical.
Ah well. The seed is sewn. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
TheDreamMechanic 6 months ago
@patrick112590
Regarding why I haven't "done so", funny you should ask. I'm in the beginnings of a song writing process that is the better part of a decade in the making. Some interesting sounds...flowing like a river out of me.
But there's no proselytizing involved. No grand standing. No calling people names. Not proclaiming anyone else ignorant, nor myself superior...rather, we (myself and the audience) meet at the level of the heart to affirm and celebrate life, not condemn it.
TheDreamMechanic 6 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic Congrats. I wish you best of luck, once again.
patrick112590 6 months ago
@patrick112590
Thanks. Bon voyage.
TheDreamMechanic 6 months ago
Comment removed
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 5 months ago
@cwross1976 honest was your keyword there, and theists CAN claim knowledge (fallaciously) and still be honest. I know a girl who thinks she KNOWS Christianity is real. She thinks she saw a being of light hugging someone, who she then approached and explained her vision to, and the pedestrian said "wow, I felt like I needed a hug!". She honestly thinks that proves the bible true, wrong as she is. (a large portion of pedestrians would say they feel like they need a hug anyway, hallucinations, etc)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 5 months ago
haha he said penis
impulse120291 7 months ago
Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's "sacrifice of atonement is retroactive to everybody who lived before him" or anything of the sort? Anyone? Bueller?
paxpaul 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@paxpaul - "Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's "sacrifice of atonement is retroactive..." - agreed. On the other hand, where in the Bible does it say ANYTHING that is true? I'm with you, though. Great point. CHALLENGE: Name any other book, ever, that is more full of lies and immoral advice than the Blble? I can't think of any. Maybe you know of one.
libomann 7 months ago
GO Hitch...GO RAMS!
moneymakerps 7 months ago
Hitchens is brilliant... Not only is his logic flawless, he is so well versed in literature
ToAcUt 7 months ago
....how flacid the theistic argument is when exposed in this manner.
faithisfiction 8 months ago
The Christian guy looks like there's a lot of anger stuffed in there.
TheAlvinealy 8 months ago
I've heard Hitch make the "and in what position" point many times and I've never exactly understood it. I take it there's a spot in the bible or in some other religious text or what have you that states some kind of rule regarding missionary position as the only acceptable form of intercourse. Does anyone know exactly what he's referring to here? Thanks in advance.
adtl5555 8 months ago
@adtl5555 - regarding "in what position," I believe he means the fact that Christian leaders say that only intercourse is acceptable, not oral sex, for example. I have not come across specific instructions on sex in the bible, except the famous "god hates fags" sections.
geneolune 7 months ago
Turek doesn't seem to understand what probabilities are. You can't just make up probabilities out of thin air. You have to know the frequency of events in reality to assign probabilities. You can't assign probabilities to supernatural things. What is the probability that I have an invisible friend? Is it fifty/fifty because I either do or do not have an invisible friend? Then I take that 50% and say my life wouldn't have meaning without him, so it is 51%, or 75%, or whatever I make up. NONSENSE.
greyeyed123 8 months ago 3
"its is quite convenient---and that is the nature of god" what a horribly foolish thing to say.....im sure youll be praising the ocnveneince of god when your afflicted with a brain tumor---or broken one of your limbs....or have had a stroke---or one of the other attrocities his nature is apparently indicative of.....i hate it when any debater throws in the label complex ideologies to back a horribly juvenile view
TheGreatDeciever55 9 months ago
Gotta love how no matter how obvious it is that one side won a certain point or a whole debate. there will alway be fans of the other side laughing at the side that won, crying out " look how bad you just got owned!" It's just sad.
babertron 9 months ago
the nature of god is convenient.
"there. i got him to say it."
hahaaahahaaahah! holy shit!!
and that slick idiot didn't even catch it; went right over his head.
avalanchesoul 9 months ago 27
@avalanchesoul I know probably my favorite part of the whole debate XD
Ni73sh4d3 7 months ago
@Ni73sh4d3 it was good wasn't it? i had to watch it again. love listening to hitch debate.
avalanchesoul 7 months ago
@avalanchesoul Oh me too he has absolutely no mercy.
Ni73sh4d3 7 months ago
Excellent work again!
templarart 9 months ago
hitchens owns the apologist once again. not hard when your up against such childish beliefs. still its good for a laugh, or is it,. in this day and age we have such apologists trying to intellectualise there nonsense and the sheep buy into like the simpletons or indoctronated ones that they are.how sad. 81 deluded followers to date. tut tut. and they say there sky daddie has it all in hand, yeah right.
kram83au 9 months ago
@kram83au who the fuck are you to take away the beliefs of others? I don't believe in god, I think its all bullshit, yet my mother for example hangs on to it because its the only way she can make sense of the horrible things that go on in this world.So just because you can comprehend and handle the anxiety of non-existence, its not something you fuck with when it comes to others. Don't be so ignorant to others beliefs. tut tut? What the fuck kind of saying is that?
megaterra69 8 months ago
@megaterra69 anger management alert. tut tut. bring it on buddy. lol
kram83au 8 months ago
@megaterra69 Im not arguing with you just wanted to point something out. I think alot of atheists would argue that the "relief" from religious affiliation, and the "exposure" that god doesnt exist would be beneficial to your mom. The world can't be "evil" if we acknowledge that people walk freely among societies who are simply mentally unstable, or perhaps mankind as a whole is still trying to evolve from primitive instincts, instead of thinking of them as possessed or evil. Knowledge is power.
jgm1234567 7 months ago
@jgm1234567
Well said.
jordaniothefourth 7 months ago
Hitchens = Clarity
jmal7211 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its unbelievable how many sad people are duped by hitchens. no truth comes from his mouth. interesting claims from a man that puts his faith in no god to justify his depraved life, and hope is in no penalty for sin. those that choose to be blind will certainly be blind and if you want to see you will see. just wish hitch wasnt so off base cause people hear this stuff and take him at his word like he has some sort of perspective.
TheBuckhouse 9 months ago
@TheBuckhouse its unbelievable how many sad people are duped by superstition.
JuryDutySummons 9 months ago
@TheBuckhouse
Go on, attack his life. Assume that all atheists are "sad". If you really believe that all you can know is that you exist (cogito ergo sum), you naturally can't claim to know anything about his life or anyone else's. Everyone has 'some sort of perspective' you moron.
'if you want to see you will see' <- enough said.
jakethewoz 9 months ago 3
@TheBuckhouse "just wish hitch wasnt so off base cause people hear this stuff and take him at his word like he has some sort of perspective"
Couldn't the same be said of the bible? We don't even know the people who wrote the bible, but we're supposed to take them at their word as if it's the WORD OF GOD.
"no truth comes from his mouth."
That's just ridiculous. Even the bible tells SOME truth. Those people who say that something tells NO TRUTH gives insight into their own nature: they're liars
KayBeeEee1983 9 months ago
Praxis: One can wonder if there might be a higher power / grand designer / creator / or something. However, no one can tell me that they speak for God, if God exists. Furthermore, no one can tell me that their idea / definition of God is correct. I am always annoyed that even most intelligent debates do not address the feeble, simple-minded concepts most people and all religions have of what God is.
I think, therefore I am. I am conscious, therefore there is consciousness. This I know.
cmpilot 9 months ago 2
.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
Damn you got POUWNDHA! Man that was devastating!
slipcurve 10 months ago
You notice that he never answered the question of how he could know something for a fact from the same evidence available where Hitchens can't. How can believers know conclusivly that god exists from the same evidence availbe to non-believers who say that god many not exist. They can't and have to have faith. But faith is belief without proof. So they admit that they have no proof.
lautz73 10 months ago
Did he say ''I *won't* take a minute to ask?'' Because it took him a minute and 50 seconds. LOL, I love him <3
Nerd0042 10 months ago
Honestly, no one in this entire world can claim to KNOW anything other than, "Cogito Ergo Sum". All this man has done is biased it in such a literate way that it seems as though he has triumphed over religion.
BlakeBarable 10 months ago
@BlakeBarable you're an idiot.
devious222 9 months ago
And you're a butt plugging cock sucking fiery anus fagot. So STFU and and hop back on your daddy's dick cunt.
BlakeBarable 9 months ago
Turek is just plain embarrassing, an intellectual lightweight compared to Hitchens. Rock on Hitch!
SidheDragon 10 months ago
Sorry. Not Hitchslapped... Hitchsmashed!
WakeUpMightyEarth 10 months ago 3
What a brilliant man
nwwh 10 months ago