I love the point that Harris made towards the end, in which he acknowledged Dennet's opinion on the illegitimacy of the faith argument, and then made the point that when say Islam and Christianity were to debate, the faith argument of eachother's opposition would not be legitimate in eachother's eyes.
In any legitimate debate, the arguments must be based off factual statements. You can share your opinion on the matter, but it has to be based off factual evidence. Anecdotal evidence simply does not count. Therefore, theism is inherently an undebatable topic.
What a ridiculous fucking beard! Does he think he's Jesus! What a plonker, does he look in the mirror ever. I cannot take seriously anything a man says when he inflicts this imbecilic shroud around his face. Evrey time he takes a drink he wipes the residue into the hair, yuk.
I love the way this video seemed to end due to the editing. Hitchens addresses the issue of scientifically disproving god, instantly, Dawkins adjusts his glasses. You can almost hear "Eye of the Tiger" begin to play in the background.
Hitchens is very patient and deferential to the other three when they're talking in detail about science. i think the other three forgive him his interruptions because he is SO good about making such concise points that others take a little longer to get to, and often don't express such points as eloquently.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
@SpencerBenedict2nd The Bible discredited itself. Genesis was wrong,Jesus never existed outside of the King James Bible, and the morality of the book is questionable to say the least.Do you know that your book is just a copy of a few books of there's?You should pay attention to what there saying, they are all much smarter and better educated than you ever could be.Did you learn to hate Jews in a christian church or home?
@pandorachild "Do you know that your book is... "-pandorachild
>Correction: our book
"I know of no finding in archaeology that`s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."
-Dr Clifford Wilson, of the Australian Institute of Archaeology
-What would ever give you the idea that i "hate Jews"? I don't. I am assuming then that you have no idea who or what jesuits are and are confusing the two?
I'm sorry I truly am but religion is used to many times by all sides as a way out. You can't blame everything on it. For fault is right at the feet of mankind. We kill one another its a basic instinct. Religion is really a small fraction of the problems mankind faces.
I think only the best physicists and scientists in general, stand humbled before all that which we don't understand. But likely, the very best priests, not the ones on television, not the ones that make you sick to your stomach, but the guys that have you thinking, that there might be something in that way of life, are humble too. I'm interested in the beliefs of deists, people who say there is something out there but they don't know what.
I love Hitch, but his propensity to cut other people off has always irritated the piss out of me. I've counted at least 4 or 5 times so far through the first 5 videos where Sam tries to start a thought, and Hitch overtakes the conversation. Dawkins is by far my favorite of the four with Sam running a close second. Dawkins is always very polite, analytical, and scientific. He always chooses his words so intelligently, and he seems to be a very likeable, socially conscientious scientist.
@ragzy02 A very good observation, but I think Hitchens doesn't do it attentionally. It would help if he would be careful about it but when one is speaking about something one is passionate about, one tends to overstep the social boundry of when to "step in".
@ragzy02 Sam Harris is well aware that Hitchens Interrupts people whenever he feels like it. I'm 100% sure it doesn't bother him in the slightest. He 's more of a passive person who uses incredibly sound logic and reason to make his points. He's not an active debater like Hitchens is. Hich is naturally confrontational and feels like he knows more than everyone. It helps him greatly when he's debating retards, but it can make him seem a bit dickish in normal conversations.
@ragzy02 I agree with you there, he does have that tendency to butt in. I think it comes from the many debates he has had in which if he didn't butt in his voice wouldn't be heard. But he is by far the most charismatic of the four, and the most entertaining in my opinion.
@ragzy02 Hitchens is just used to doing that to religious people, because with religious people you dont know if their listening to you or if theyre going to give you your say, even though he interupts his fellow atheists it doesnt mean he's being rude its just in his nature to say whats on his mind because your thoughts can disappear after listening to someone elses thoughts. You may say well then dont interupt at all, Sam may have forgot his thought, but then Sam should speak up more...
I couldnt agree more. I feel exactly the same way. It really bugs me also. Because Hitchens is (was) a brilliant speaker. If only he could be a little bit more humble. You can actually see how pissed he is. Arm dangling. Speach- slurring. Forgetting his gentlemanly manners.
I simply recoil in shame though when he says he doesnt want theism to end. Dawkins calls him out on it and gets him to admit that he enjoys the argument with the theist,not actually for the moral reasons, but-
-but rather because it's the theatrics of it all. Like a lawyer cross examining his 'victim', and ultimately decimating him through clever words and facts. He's kinda like the antithesis of Willy Lane Craig. OBVIOUSLY Craig is wrong once you filter out his verbose warble. But you can see he enjoys the battle of wits (though I give him too much credit on this).
One can see why Dawkins is so famous for his brilliance.
@ragzy02 why do you guys find the necessity to pick on characteristics of people and criticize them in every opportunity...Hitch also listens to them talk for a long time...in fact, they all speak more than him so he kind of has to cut through to state his opinion as well...
@crimsoncrazyable I actually don't think that they speak more than him. Certainly Harris doesn't. And I don't know why you say the OP is using "every opportunity" to pick on Hitchens. I see only one criticism from the OP, not a barrage of them. I also like Hitchens, but I see ragzy02's point. It really is bad manners and it made me uncomfortable at times watching it.
@fromis111 i respect the opinion of the both of you...i just don't see it that way...i mean that's more of his heated character the way i see it...i never saw Hitch be calm in any kind of discussion or debate...i did not see any bad manners from him...sometimes you do need to interrupt to make a point...but he does have that commanding attitude which i personally like. there are 4 different characters there...i care more about what they said, not how they made their points...but that's just me.
One can use math to perform operations with quantum mechanics. But does this remove all mystery? Isn't the whole point how we should interpret the mathematics & operations? Isn't that a mystery?
I wonder what Dawkins thought when Hitchens said we can't disprove that there's a mind at work in the universe--which Dawkins tried so hard and fallaciously to disprove in The God Delusion.
P.S. Even bimbo Tori is smart enough to know it's 'spelling'
Once in a while I find in my inbox a reply to that challenge: "well, isn't obvious? God could make the universe look that way!" Ironically the reply has always come from fellow secular thinkers, not the religious (we're pretty good at taking someone else's point of view ). I imagine that's due to either the inability of your average creationist to think of something like that; or perhaps, restrain after realizing that such proposal would just sound silly.
any1 plz help is global warming (i.e. the destruction of this planet real?) because ive seen/heard how john coleman feels but stephen hawking thinks its real... help!
@buktomsin global warming is real, but it's far from being a planet destroying event. Worse case it combined with human population growth would mean the end of thousands of species around the globe. best case scenario, extreme economic and property destruction, famine, pandemic spread. but far from global destruction. We humans would certainly survive it, but other species will certainly not be so lucky. hope that helped.
Irreducible complexity? How about a legitimate argument from this decade? What we see as IR has been adequately explained several times over, i.e. Mullerian two-step. They don't like to update their arguments because there isn't much to move onto. They like to find some crack they think science hasn't filled (God of the Gaps) but don't look for the answers scientists provide.
grimwatcher. Genealogically many creationists believe creation to have occured around 6000 years ago. Others claim more of an old earth theory where the universe is much much older and that it was not created in 7 of our current 24 hour days.
Also if God created the universe could he not have created light wherever he wanted as well? We first have birds. Not eggs which became birds. And trees. Not seeds that became trees. It has the appearance of being old without actually being old.
The magestic popes would take such pleasure on a grand scale prolonging the sadistic torture of these intellectuals who dare to be more than a "sheep" and think outside the confined structures enforced by their manipulative rulers.
Grimwatcher you do realise that in the eyes of many theists, they could discredit your claim by stating that 'god moves in mysterious ways' the literary term that is metaphorical to someone running away. Science is irrelevant when discussing god and faith. Instead try asking why there is no mention of Tyrannosaurus Rex in the bible, or are the thousands of dinosaur fossils that have been discovered just one big practical joke?
@avooslwuthoqquan hey this is still aortavi this is just my other sn. it really scares me when people doubt and question genuine human ingenuity and intelligence at solving some of life's most puzzling questions because they don't line up with some ridiculous "god" business. wake up to the 21st century people! science has done more to advance humanity in the past 100 years than religion has ever
The part I have a problem with is the very first statement. The notion that there are answers to questions that are incomprehensible to human beings, is a flawed one in my opinion. For obvious reasons, I cannot give an example, but you can understand this position by empathizing with a mentally handicapped person. Imagine the questions they have, without being able to understand the answer. The universe is too vast for there not to be things we cannot understand. (I would love some feedback)
RE Playing the faith card... too late! We rationalists have moved the goalposts. Good stuff: an all-too-human power grab. Religious or secular, the form is the same and it's just the content that has changed.
puzzles vs mystery is just semantics. Science doesn't presume to know everything. The existence of science is because we lack knowledge and need a method to learn more. Science is that method.
If these guys are managing to incite the same kind of intolerance towards religion in others that they do in me, then they are doing mankind a wonderful service.
@grantsnake Hey Grant. My thoughts; Fear. Wishful thinking. Innate selfishness resulting in the want for immortality. The idea of revenge brought upon people who have hurt you by an all powerful being, etc, etc.
There's a whole lot of brilliance going on here. For those of you who disagree on anything agreed upon by all four of these men: get over it, you're wrong.
The only reason to have a rational discourse and to use logic is to quantify the world so that the rich can own it with more certainty. This is a meritocracy. You have merit if you are RICH or EDUCATED. The corporatocracy uses religion vs. science as a smokescreen, by putting money behind these sorts of debates on the religious side, because they in term are paid off by the large religious organizations for political support (namely George Bush).
Friendship is a human virtue, doesn't reveal anything about god. Love is a human virtue, doesn't reveal anything about god. All you're doing is attributing these relations between humans to some supernatural bs. There's no reason why anyone who isn't completely deluded would believe that they speak of god. Instead I would say they speak of us, seems more evidence points to that.
If I can't see bacteria with the naked eye, this means the eye is limited and formed in such a way, that it needs man made tools to see otherwise: microscopes.
If I can't see God with the naked eye, this means the eye is limited and formed in such a way, that it needs God made tools to see otherwise: Faith, Friendship, Conjugal Love, etc. Oh, we are limited beings indeed, with incredible capacities.
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually dead.
Friendship isn't spiritual, love isn't spiritual. Nothing about them points to whatever god you believe in, and nothing I said reveals anything about whether I'm too foolish to understand these feelings or not. You're just being a bigot.
@socrstreets that might well be true, i might just be a bigot, :-) didnt mean to direct the verses at you, rather at the 4 men above.... which proofs ur point.... i am a bigot.. haha... life if but a breath, and then its gone, u av to enjoy it hey!!!
@Versgolem Your analogy is completely flawed. You should read it again and rewrite it. What you would actually have to say about bacteria to make it true is: It you can't see bacteria with the naked eye, this means the eye is limited and formed in such away, that you need bacteria made tools to see otherwise..lol You should work on your argument a liitle more.
the guy with the beard is a bit arrogant and not so humble. QUantum mechanics randomness is indeed mysterious. A lot of things in nature are mysterious. There is nothing wrong with this at all. I prefer sam and richard's view and I don't like the arrogance of the bearded Dnnett
i am buddhist. buddhism is atheist. god is not the point of buddhism. buddhists dont care about god. buddhists care about finding enlightenment and overcoming problem of suffering.
buddhism developed in the past when most people believed in gods and supernatural forces as part of culture, so some adoption of supernatural ideas happened.. but really itself has no interest in god at all and can exist with rational science.
But Buddhism [or at least most forms of it] is not strictly a religion, more a philosophy of how the mind works and how people can use it more effectively.
Also, it certainly isn't Creationist- the Creation isn't even considered.
@artstuX It still makes a set of claims about the nature of existence which have not been verified scientifically. Karma (ie some mystical judgement code) and reincarnation etc or the achievement of enlightenment. Along with loads of myths etc.
@lithfrasir some buddhist major writings mentions gods, demons, etc. but these are more like metaphor of human mental condition.. they used these terms because buddhism developed in the traditional past when all people believed in gods and supernatural forces in their culture. it was normal to believe in gods, so there was mixing of these ideas into buddhism, but the actual buddhism itself doesnt care about god, demons, supernatural forces, because they are not the real point of buddhism.
@artstuX i think buddhism is religion in a cultural sense, but in a philosophical sense i do not think its religion at all.. god cant help us become enlightened because there is no god.. we must help ourselves.. i think buddhism was an early form of global rationality that emerged 2500 years ago when belief in supernatural gods was normal.. so it had to talk to people about actual emptiness of reality using ideas of irrational supernatural.
Jesus freaks and right wing facist simpletons are already touting that god gave Hitchens throat cancer to stop his condemnation of the church and christianity. I despise all religious people. Fuck your god!
Hitchens "..we must exclude those who claim to know that which they could not possibly know..". If you watch children argue long enough one eventually says '..I claim infinity..' followed by '..then I claim 2X infinity..'. Current estimates says only about 4% of the universe is observable; within which our intelligence has arisen. A thought experiment: Is the intelligence (and the logic derived from it) of these four the infinite of this system; thus we can dismiss the 2X arguement of theists?
A second thought experiment: What if you were this 'greater intelligence' with a (borrowed from the startrek series) 'Prime Directive': How would you view this discussion? Who would be the more 'closed minded'? Who or what could possibly arbitrate this? Where could I possibly stand to make any of this make sense?
I've seen many a creationist attempt to use logic, with varying degrees of failure. The single core tenant of all religions is faith; logic and reason are superfluous.
If the core of ones belief is that a god created the universe, and by ones own craftily convoluted definition that belief is never challenged, then one could maintain belief indefinitely.
That is how religious people have "functioned" all these years.
Well said. They conclude logic and reason to be optional but invoke them just enough, in their view, to maintain sanity or the supposed appearance of sanity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
See, you can talk to whomsoever you want and you can exclude whomsoever you want. Whereas, the theists once wielded power to suppress atheists, is there time enough for atheists to wield power to foreclose on theists articulating what they please? And, as for numbers, do atheists suppose they shall decide the future of humanity? Apart from any consideration of TRUTH, do atheists suppose that they will prevail in disabusing humans of their theistic beliefs. I think not.
Sigh* sorry I had to say that. Anyway, here creationists, let me give you a challenge. So you're always reciting the old irreducible complexity, earth 6000 years old, fine tuning of the universe, yada, yada. If the the oldest, earliest measured galaxy is about 13billion light years away, meaning that it took light 13 billion years for that light to reach us, How can the universe only be 6000 years old and still see that galaxy?
by definition we could only see things 6000 light years away.
But once you get them to admit that, you can at least force them into admitting that God created the universe trying very, very hard to make it look as if he didn't exist, or at least trying to make the bible appear false.
And once they are forced to admit that too many times they start to realize how silly they sound. It never changes their belief but it does sometimes make them quieter.
@grimwatcher they'll just come up with some metaphor saying that light years are just an illusion and it's actually not a year it's just your illusion making you think so
@grimwatcher I've heard that debate, the creationist answered, "God made it like that so that we might have something to look at". Yup hard headed mofo's I swear
@grimwatcher I like that one. Although they could argue that those stars(suns) were there before the earth was created. So they are old... but the earth not so much... Silly I admit, but there you have it.
@ospTube Well, in most cases they would be right as our solar system, governed by the Sun, is no more than 8-10 billion years old. But, of course, where they fall down is arguing against the geological and paleantological evidence that proves the Earth is over 4 billion years old.
@Tapiola2007 The formation of our solar system is a really cool subject. The earth formed 4.54 bya, but the Sun ignited 4.57 bya from a dense nebula of hydrogen / helium gas condensed by the shock wave of a previous star's death, which was itself a second generation star! And the moon accreted from the shrapnel of a collision between proto-Earth and a Mars-sized proto-planet 4.53 bya. Transition from old solar system to a new, stable one only ~100 million years! A blink of an eye!
That 100 million years also contains the saga of how 50-100 inner proto-planets collided or were captured in passing to become 4 rocky planets and moons (the modern-day asteroid belt inwards was too hot for water and methane to solidify), how Jupiter outwards was cold enough to collect ices (increasing the core mass enough to retain hydrogen gas), and how as Jupiter grew more massive it traveled closer to the asteroid belt and scooped up several several of its 20-30 proto-planets as moons.
@darkmiles22 Agreed. Everything about astronomy is cool. The future of our solar system is fascinating, as is the possibility of some sort of human ancestor still living on this planet when the Sun starts expand and turn into a red giant. That's an awfully long time from now, however, and one can only imagine that life on this planet will have gone extinct or altered radically and/or human descendants would have found a way to travel to the stars and find a new home...
@aortavi I made the exact same point that grimwatcher did recently, and you know what the creationist said? God made the stars at the same time as the Earth, so we should be able to see them. I almost died laughing at how he couldn't even comprehend that he didn't answer the question. These people are clueless of the most basic knowledge about the universe.
@grimwatcher You do know that the earth is only 4.54 billion years old right(next time google it)? Also light can travel across the universe without the earth existing yet. You just committed a logical fail. There are plenty of ways to prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years old, but this is not one of them.
Oh I see what you're saying, that the age of the universe has nothing to do with the age of the earth. ha, I guess I sort of clumped them together. Still, at least that's a way of saying that the whole universe is far older than they can even imagine. and yeah, sure, radiometric measuring and tectonic drift would be nice but I wanted to give them something they could see right away. Nice catching that one btw
@grimwatcher I'm not religious but I can see someone answering this that it is within god's power to create the universe with age. Over all a week argument on both sides.
@Nathanalism It's WEAK not WEEK. That's W-E-A-K. It is also 'OVERALL' not 'OVER ALL'. I note that you are american so i'm assuming that english is your first language. It doesn't look good to make a simple speling mistake when you're trying to make an intelligent point.
damn it I gotta stop reading the comment sections!!! there's so many ignorant creationists who keep reciting the same mantra "evolution is only a theory, the earth is 6,00 yrs old" No matter how many times one says it they just don't get it do they?!
Geez!!! some people here have never hear of the term Socratic Method huh? My european lit. teacher back in high school made us have plenty of them. and yeah, look it up in wikipedia, I've better things to do like finishing all the dialogues
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I can't believe these guys even need to sit there and tape this conversation. Who is their audience? Themselves. They aren't debating anything. Anyone can understand the debate between science and religion. These 4 Horsemen aren't only condescending to those who are religious, but to agnostics as well.
what exactly is the point of getting 4 experts who all essentially agree on all relevant subjects together for a discussion? ... this is like a 2 hour long agreement session! ... it's like they're trying to reassure themselves that there are actually other people who believe what they believe. why don't they just start a church....LOLZZZZZ
What's the point of all the Catholics coming together to hear the Pope, or all the Christians meeting *every* *single* Sunday? These things happen consistently and serve only to cement out-of-date scripture. Yet you criticise a single meeting of four writers?!
That could be the reason these four object worshipers don't know very much. They don't have the time to think things through very well. They hardly have a clue as to what the issues are.
The Bible message (of a Savior
{God} being born of a woman) has been considered for thousands of years.
Why don't you challenge this with your own video? I'm sure they'd be interested in why they're wrong. And I'm not being sarcastic, I truly think that if you have a good point, they'd love to hear it.
Um...forgive me this video game analogy but I feel it's poignant to illustrating a point.
Atheism isn't just another option on the character selection screen....it's not in the faith options list. It's turning the fucker off and deciding not the play the silly game.
Also...humor me. Your evidence is...what? Beyond any tactic of positing the Bible as a reliable historical document...which it's not. Posit Josephus if you really must.
If you defend the point of this meeting by comparing it to christians or catholics meeting, the very people that the 'four horsemen' seem to detest, isn't that a bit of an insult to them? I think these incredibly intelligent gentlemen should spend time having a worthwhile debate on some issue so as to clarify it, rather than sitting around whining about how they hate religion. I mean, sure, religion's lame, but they already know they all agree on the issue. It's kind of uninteresting.
I only draw a parallel in defense of meeting. The other user says that for them to sit around and agree is stupid, but I see it as far less stupid than what goes on in countless houses of worship every single day/week.
I do not agree that they are 'sitting around whining about how they hate religion'
Surely this is a meeting of minds who are collectively involved in the fight against ignorance in the name of religion, discussing and de-constructing the artifice continually used against them. Is this not a think-tank rather than a whining session?
SItting around a table and discussing how the world, and groups within it, works is a perfectly normal thing to do. These guys (at the time) had given out books on this, so it was natural to focus on that subject. - I would love to see them do more of these on many different subjects.
Ps. debates where people regurgitate the same arguments over and over is never usefull. Discussions and conversations from different aspects on one side may atleast help make some refinements of views.
There is a canon of behaviors common to Creationist that have given rise to whole belief systems about the anomalousness of superstition or Faith vs.Reason.They are sorting the truths from the fallacies.
We separate truth from fallacies. We have always done so. Nothing we believe is without a basis. Everything we believe is either scientific (observable) or historical. Regardless of how much evidence you have, you still have to believe the evidence that is in front of you.
For the better part of recorded history we have accepted fallacies on there prima facie merits,AND from hearsay.Innate pattern-seeking habits have not long been inured of an adaptation program that reminds us:'Appearances can be deceptive.'
Good view points explained from different men who while all agree on the same basic things still disagree and explain arguments differently. Why do people go to church is a better question when they can just read their magic book????
I want Sam to contribute more. His perspective is always solid, yet refreshing and without the barbs of Hitchens and Dawkins, but I think barbs are necessary too!
The idea of rudimentary teeth just doesn't get into these redneck jesus worshiping people. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster was so fucken smart he would have either given us a larger mouth or less fucken teeth.
I guess a few extra teeth isn't so bad. I mean some of us he makes full blown retarded (redneck jesus worshiping people) or hows about an extra foot or even worse you could have been born in Africa. God=omnibenevolence?
If God wasn't such an asshole he wouldn't have made people curious by nature, and then punish them forever for simply following their nature and seeking knowlege...after all, he knew in advance it was going to happen.....right?
You fucken retard we didn't fucken exist with T-Rex and the raptor !!! You think there was an actual Jurrasic Park period with humans roaming the Earth at the same time ? There are many
I love the point that Harris made towards the end, in which he acknowledged Dennet's opinion on the illegitimacy of the faith argument, and then made the point that when say Islam and Christianity were to debate, the faith argument of eachother's opposition would not be legitimate in eachother's eyes.
seanpull 3 weeks ago
In any legitimate debate, the arguments must be based off factual statements. You can share your opinion on the matter, but it has to be based off factual evidence. Anecdotal evidence simply does not count. Therefore, theism is inherently an undebatable topic.
seanpull 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
seanpull 3 weeks ago
I had never actually known about Prof. Dennet, but I met him in these videos and I am impressed with what he has to say.
matprithellodave 1 month ago 2
What a ridiculous fucking beard! Does he think he's Jesus! What a plonker, does he look in the mirror ever. I cannot take seriously anything a man says when he inflicts this imbecilic shroud around his face. Evrey time he takes a drink he wipes the residue into the hair, yuk.
577666 1 month ago in playlist Richard Dawkins
256 anti-atheists took a lot of time to go through all these videos and 'dislike'. I gotta say, the retards are committed.
PHOSPH3R 2 months ago
I love the way this video seemed to end due to the editing. Hitchens addresses the issue of scientifically disproving god, instantly, Dawkins adjusts his glasses. You can almost hear "Eye of the Tiger" begin to play in the background.
TheJaredThingy 2 months ago in playlist More videos from PiroNiro
4 BRILLIANT men.
herrrrunsamok 3 months ago
Hitchens is very patient and deferential to the other three when they're talking in detail about science. i think the other three forgive him his interruptions because he is SO good about making such concise points that others take a little longer to get to, and often don't express such points as eloquently.
pinkybill2003 3 months ago 2
@pinkybill2003 agreed.
dreadedwheat26 3 months ago in playlist More videos from PiroNiro
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd The Bible discredited itself. Genesis was wrong,Jesus never existed outside of the King James Bible, and the morality of the book is questionable to say the least.Do you know that your book is just a copy of a few books of there's?You should pay attention to what there saying, they are all much smarter and better educated than you ever could be.Did you learn to hate Jews in a christian church or home?
pandorachild 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pandorachild "Do you know that your book is... "-pandorachild
>Correction: our book
"I know of no finding in archaeology that`s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."
-Dr Clifford Wilson, of the Australian Institute of Archaeology
-What would ever give you the idea that i "hate Jews"? I don't. I am assuming then that you have no idea who or what jesuits are and are confusing the two?
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
I'm sorry I truly am but religion is used to many times by all sides as a way out. You can't blame everything on it. For fault is right at the feet of mankind. We kill one another its a basic instinct. Religion is really a small fraction of the problems mankind faces.
LordHannigan 4 months ago
AND IT STOPS AT THE MOST INTERESTING QUESTION :D
robertgaudlitz 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
its like someone pulled the hair from his head out through his face
C1C0SS 7 months ago 15
@C1C0SS lol
alcoholya 6 months ago
@C1C0SS HAHAHA :D still, he looks VERY sophisticated like that :) because that is one well groomed beard there ;)
robertgaudlitz 6 months ago
@C1C0SS What?
writersblock26 4 months ago
I think only the best physicists and scientists in general, stand humbled before all that which we don't understand. But likely, the very best priests, not the ones on television, not the ones that make you sick to your stomach, but the guys that have you thinking, that there might be something in that way of life, are humble too. I'm interested in the beliefs of deists, people who say there is something out there but they don't know what.
aslekay 8 months ago
they should pack modules of this to ship out to people. the intelligent conversation module :D
thaoval123 8 months ago
I like how they have a whole "sophisticated people habitat" set up.
Pooternackle5 8 months ago
A group of very intelligent men agreeing on stuff
ascrawley 9 months ago 2
@ascrawley
what's not to like?
sineupp 8 months ago
"......we can now scientifically disprove the existence of God." Then God blew up the camera :(
Justen1980 9 months ago
@Justen1980 Ha!!!!!
drscribe 5 months ago
I love Hitch, but his propensity to cut other people off has always irritated the piss out of me. I've counted at least 4 or 5 times so far through the first 5 videos where Sam tries to start a thought, and Hitch overtakes the conversation. Dawkins is by far my favorite of the four with Sam running a close second. Dawkins is always very polite, analytical, and scientific. He always chooses his words so intelligently, and he seems to be a very likeable, socially conscientious scientist.
ragzy02 10 months ago 38
@ragzy02 A very good observation, but I think Hitchens doesn't do it attentionally. It would help if he would be careful about it but when one is speaking about something one is passionate about, one tends to overstep the social boundry of when to "step in".
Chanks420 7 months ago
@ragzy02 Sam Harris is well aware that Hitchens Interrupts people whenever he feels like it. I'm 100% sure it doesn't bother him in the slightest. He 's more of a passive person who uses incredibly sound logic and reason to make his points. He's not an active debater like Hitchens is. Hich is naturally confrontational and feels like he knows more than everyone. It helps him greatly when he's debating retards, but it can make him seem a bit dickish in normal conversations.
kragoon 5 months ago
@ragzy02 he has a feeling of superiorty about himself.
ThanksDoctorThoctor 5 months ago
@ragzy02 I agree with you there, he does have that tendency to butt in. I think it comes from the many debates he has had in which if he didn't butt in his voice wouldn't be heard. But he is by far the most charismatic of the four, and the most entertaining in my opinion.
jesse07ful 4 months ago
@ragzy02 Hitchens is just used to doing that to religious people, because with religious people you dont know if their listening to you or if theyre going to give you your say, even though he interupts his fellow atheists it doesnt mean he's being rude its just in his nature to say whats on his mind because your thoughts can disappear after listening to someone elses thoughts. You may say well then dont interupt at all, Sam may have forgot his thought, but then Sam should speak up more...
mikeyg789 3 months ago in playlist Liked
@ragzy02
I couldnt agree more. I feel exactly the same way. It really bugs me also. Because Hitchens is (was) a brilliant speaker. If only he could be a little bit more humble. You can actually see how pissed he is. Arm dangling. Speach- slurring. Forgetting his gentlemanly manners.
I simply recoil in shame though when he says he doesnt want theism to end. Dawkins calls him out on it and gets him to admit that he enjoys the argument with the theist,not actually for the moral reasons, but-
Domzdream 1 month ago
@ragzy02
-but rather because it's the theatrics of it all. Like a lawyer cross examining his 'victim', and ultimately decimating him through clever words and facts. He's kinda like the antithesis of Willy Lane Craig. OBVIOUSLY Craig is wrong once you filter out his verbose warble. But you can see he enjoys the battle of wits (though I give him too much credit on this).
One can see why Dawkins is so famous for his brilliance.
Domzdream 1 month ago
@ragzy02 why do you guys find the necessity to pick on characteristics of people and criticize them in every opportunity...Hitch also listens to them talk for a long time...in fact, they all speak more than him so he kind of has to cut through to state his opinion as well...
crimsoncrazyable 1 month ago
@crimsoncrazyable I actually don't think that they speak more than him. Certainly Harris doesn't. And I don't know why you say the OP is using "every opportunity" to pick on Hitchens. I see only one criticism from the OP, not a barrage of them. I also like Hitchens, but I see ragzy02's point. It really is bad manners and it made me uncomfortable at times watching it.
fromis111 1 week ago
@fromis111 i respect the opinion of the both of you...i just don't see it that way...i mean that's more of his heated character the way i see it...i never saw Hitch be calm in any kind of discussion or debate...i did not see any bad manners from him...sometimes you do need to interrupt to make a point...but he does have that commanding attitude which i personally like. there are 4 different characters there...i care more about what they said, not how they made their points...but that's just me.
crimsoncrazyable 1 week ago
One can use math to perform operations with quantum mechanics. But does this remove all mystery? Isn't the whole point how we should interpret the mathematics & operations? Isn't that a mystery?
I wonder what Dawkins thought when Hitchens said we can't disprove that there's a mind at work in the universe--which Dawkins tried so hard and fallaciously to disprove in The God Delusion.
P.S. Even bimbo Tori is smart enough to know it's 'spelling'
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
Dennett sounds like Hates from Hercules. What kind of accent is that?
rsgirl10 1 year ago
@rsgirl10
Hahahaha! I guess he kind of does. I don't think it's an accent, I think it's just a voice that can be described as 'nasally'.
BlckSbthMan 11 months ago
Once in a while I find in my inbox a reply to that challenge: "well, isn't obvious? God could make the universe look that way!" Ironically the reply has always come from fellow secular thinkers, not the religious (we're pretty good at taking someone else's point of view ). I imagine that's due to either the inability of your average creationist to think of something like that; or perhaps, restrain after realizing that such proposal would just sound silly.
grimwatcher 1 year ago
any1 plz help is global warming (i.e. the destruction of this planet real?) because ive seen/heard how john coleman feels but stephen hawking thinks its real... help!
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin global warming is real, but it's far from being a planet destroying event. Worse case it combined with human population growth would mean the end of thousands of species around the globe. best case scenario, extreme economic and property destruction, famine, pandemic spread. but far from global destruction. We humans would certainly survive it, but other species will certainly not be so lucky. hope that helped.
grimwatcher 1 year ago
Irreducible complexity? How about a legitimate argument from this decade? What we see as IR has been adequately explained several times over, i.e. Mullerian two-step. They don't like to update their arguments because there isn't much to move onto. They like to find some crack they think science hasn't filled (God of the Gaps) but don't look for the answers scientists provide.
nkennedy09 1 year ago
santa?
EivindTM 1 year ago
Dan Dennet is a genious!!!
rsolano60 1 year ago
This should be on the BBC
Surells 1 year ago
grimwatcher. Genealogically many creationists believe creation to have occured around 6000 years ago. Others claim more of an old earth theory where the universe is much much older and that it was not created in 7 of our current 24 hour days.
Also if God created the universe could he not have created light wherever he wanted as well? We first have birds. Not eggs which became birds. And trees. Not seeds that became trees. It has the appearance of being old without actually being old.
Cyprian3 1 year ago
@Cyprian3 So god is deliberately lying to us through creation.
BulletMagnetOWI 1 year ago
In the Einsteinian sense, physics and cosmology can show mankind the mind of "God", religion can not.
amphitrike 1 year ago
The magestic popes would take such pleasure on a grand scale prolonging the sadistic torture of these intellectuals who dare to be more than a "sheep" and think outside the confined structures enforced by their manipulative rulers.
kick08ful 1 year ago
Grimwatcher you do realise that in the eyes of many theists, they could discredit your claim by stating that 'god moves in mysterious ways' the literary term that is metaphorical to someone running away. Science is irrelevant when discussing god and faith. Instead try asking why there is no mention of Tyrannosaurus Rex in the bible, or are the thousands of dinosaur fossils that have been discovered just one big practical joke?
jsmitt06 1 year ago
@avooslwuthoqquan hey this is still aortavi this is just my other sn. it really scares me when people doubt and question genuine human ingenuity and intelligence at solving some of life's most puzzling questions because they don't line up with some ridiculous "god" business. wake up to the 21st century people! science has done more to advance humanity in the past 100 years than religion has ever
hobbesdream 1 year ago
@hobbesdream actually science tends to do this in direct opposition to religion.
T33Bon35 1 year ago
The part I have a problem with is the very first statement. The notion that there are answers to questions that are incomprehensible to human beings, is a flawed one in my opinion. For obvious reasons, I cannot give an example, but you can understand this position by empathizing with a mentally handicapped person. Imagine the questions they have, without being able to understand the answer. The universe is too vast for there not to be things we cannot understand. (I would love some feedback)
FrostuMcPenos 1 year ago
RE Playing the faith card... too late! We rationalists have moved the goalposts. Good stuff: an all-too-human power grab. Religious or secular, the form is the same and it's just the content that has changed.
eleuthromania 1 year ago
I take it that a mystery is still a puzzle ......... Just one that appears impossible rather than improbable
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
puzzles vs mystery is just semantics. Science doesn't presume to know everything. The existence of science is because we lack knowledge and need a method to learn more. Science is that method.
Triad3Force 1 year ago
If these guys are managing to incite the same kind of intolerance towards religion in others that they do in me, then they are doing mankind a wonderful service.
d1sgustpated 1 year ago
Hitchens looks pissed and uninterested most of the time. He's so awesome.
supermot34 1 year ago
Can't they just edit Dennetts comments out of the dialogue.
markp10311969 1 year ago
I was asked the question 'why do you think people believe in heaven?' in my GCSE R.E. exam anybody got any thoughts on this?
grantsnake 1 year ago
@grantsnake Hey Grant. My thoughts; Fear. Wishful thinking. Innate selfishness resulting in the want for immortality. The idea of revenge brought upon people who have hurt you by an all powerful being, etc, etc.
TheLeutrimExperience 1 year ago
@TheLeutrimExperience hey dude your in the same year as me do you remember this question in GCSE because I want to make sure I'm quoting it right.
grantsnake 1 year ago
@grantsnake I can't remember for the life of me, I think it was something along those lines though :/
TheLeutrimExperience 1 year ago
There's a whole lot of brilliance going on here. For those of you who disagree on anything agreed upon by all four of these men: get over it, you're wrong.
nyblake 1 year ago
Obfuscation, obscurantism, what wonderful words...
ObloquyCondemed 1 year ago
and hitchens drops the bomb that he watches reality tv at 6:11 hahaha
DormroomJim 1 year ago
Comment removed
DormroomJim 1 year ago
The only reason to have a rational discourse and to use logic is to quantify the world so that the rich can own it with more certainty. This is a meritocracy. You have merit if you are RICH or EDUCATED. The corporatocracy uses religion vs. science as a smokescreen, by putting money behind these sorts of debates on the religious side, because they in term are paid off by the large religious organizations for political support (namely George Bush).
unicorn187 1 year ago
@socrstreets. The same way any artist affirms himself. By making his work speak of him, revealing something of him, but not all. Cheers.
Versgolem 1 year ago
@Versgolem
Friendship is a human virtue, doesn't reveal anything about god. Love is a human virtue, doesn't reveal anything about god. All you're doing is attributing these relations between humans to some supernatural bs. There's no reason why anyone who isn't completely deluded would believe that they speak of god. Instead I would say they speak of us, seems more evidence points to that.
socrstreets 1 year ago 2
The God of Creation is of the air and atmosphere.NOT the Universe!
UnNamedApostle 1 year ago
If I can't see bacteria with the naked eye, this means the eye is limited and formed in such a way, that it needs man made tools to see otherwise: microscopes.
If I can't see God with the naked eye, this means the eye is limited and formed in such a way, that it needs God made tools to see otherwise: Faith, Friendship, Conjugal Love, etc. Oh, we are limited beings indeed, with incredible capacities.
Versgolem 1 year ago
@Versgolem
How does friendship and conjugal love affirm god?
socrstreets 1 year ago
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing eternily, but to us who are being saved eternily, it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually dead.
boef0308 1 year ago
@boef0308
Friendship isn't spiritual, love isn't spiritual. Nothing about them points to whatever god you believe in, and nothing I said reveals anything about whether I'm too foolish to understand these feelings or not. You're just being a bigot.
socrstreets 1 year ago
@socrstreets that might well be true, i might just be a bigot, :-) didnt mean to direct the verses at you, rather at the 4 men above.... which proofs ur point.... i am a bigot.. haha... life if but a breath, and then its gone, u av to enjoy it hey!!!
boef0308 1 year ago
@boef0308
uh, huh.
socrstreets 1 year ago
@Versgolem Your analogy is completely flawed. You should read it again and rewrite it. What you would actually have to say about bacteria to make it true is: It you can't see bacteria with the naked eye, this means the eye is limited and formed in such away, that you need bacteria made tools to see otherwise..lol You should work on your argument a liitle more.
UDamDirtyApes 1 year ago
Thank All that is living, I finally found people that actually reason how a human should reason!
XaneCrazy 1 year ago
the guy with the beard is a bit arrogant and not so humble. QUantum mechanics randomness is indeed mysterious. A lot of things in nature are mysterious. There is nothing wrong with this at all. I prefer sam and richard's view and I don't like the arrogance of the bearded Dnnett
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
i am buddhist. buddhism is atheist. god is not the point of buddhism. buddhists dont care about god. buddhists care about finding enlightenment and overcoming problem of suffering.
buddhism developed in the past when most people believed in gods and supernatural forces as part of culture, so some adoption of supernatural ideas happened.. but really itself has no interest in god at all and can exist with rational science.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
But Buddhism [or at least most forms of it] is not strictly a religion, more a philosophy of how the mind works and how people can use it more effectively.
Also, it certainly isn't Creationist- the Creation isn't even considered.
artstuX 1 year ago 3
@artstuX It still makes a set of claims about the nature of existence which have not been verified scientifically. Karma (ie some mystical judgement code) and reincarnation etc or the achievement of enlightenment. Along with loads of myths etc.
lithfrasir 1 year ago
@lithfrasir some buddhist major writings mentions gods, demons, etc. but these are more like metaphor of human mental condition.. they used these terms because buddhism developed in the traditional past when all people believed in gods and supernatural forces in their culture. it was normal to believe in gods, so there was mixing of these ideas into buddhism, but the actual buddhism itself doesnt care about god, demons, supernatural forces, because they are not the real point of buddhism.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@artstuX i think buddhism is religion in a cultural sense, but in a philosophical sense i do not think its religion at all.. god cant help us become enlightened because there is no god.. we must help ourselves.. i think buddhism was an early form of global rationality that emerged 2500 years ago when belief in supernatural gods was normal.. so it had to talk to people about actual emptiness of reality using ideas of irrational supernatural.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
Wow, now that is a beard!!
annabananah1 1 year ago 57
He's got a part- time job as a George Bernard Shaw lookalike.
artstuX 1 year ago
Or Charles Darwin! LOL
luarionte 1 year ago
An epic beard
adamscott 1 year ago
@ annabanana1
Looks like Chuck Norris is getting some competition
13lackLight 1 year ago
@annabananah1 He reminds me of charles Darwin
SimKoning 1 year ago
@annabananah1 you should see AUBREY DE GREYS beard
british123able 1 year ago
@annabananah1 A nice Darwinistic Beard indeed.
Ninjaheman 1 year ago
Jesus freaks and right wing facist simpletons are already touting that god gave Hitchens throat cancer to stop his condemnation of the church and christianity. I despise all religious people. Fuck your god!
scotttebben 7 months ago
CHRISTIAN VOTEBOT
Brongl 1 year ago
Hitchens "..we must exclude those who claim to know that which they could not possibly know..". If you watch children argue long enough one eventually says '..I claim infinity..' followed by '..then I claim 2X infinity..'. Current estimates says only about 4% of the universe is observable; within which our intelligence has arisen. A thought experiment: Is the intelligence (and the logic derived from it) of these four the infinite of this system; thus we can dismiss the 2X arguement of theists?
39knights 1 year ago
A second thought experiment: What if you were this 'greater intelligence' with a (borrowed from the startrek series) 'Prime Directive': How would you view this discussion? Who would be the more 'closed minded'? Who or what could possibly arbitrate this? Where could I possibly stand to make any of this make sense?
39knights 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Is anyone else as fascinated with the drinks on the table as they are with the conversation?
Why hasn't Richard touched his?
tarrek 2 years ago 28
@tarrek Because Hitch keeps drinking it and refilling it with water when he isn't looking ;-)
theocean1973 1 year ago
@tarrek the conversation seems pretty engaging, so much so that they forgot they're there. That's one explanation. The other: they're props.
Robbyguy 9 months ago
I've seen many a creationist attempt to use logic, with varying degrees of failure. The single core tenant of all religions is faith; logic and reason are superfluous.
If the core of ones belief is that a god created the universe, and by ones own craftily convoluted definition that belief is never challenged, then one could maintain belief indefinitely.
That is how religious people have "functioned" all these years.
wivvix 2 years ago 3
Well said. They conclude logic and reason to be optional but invoke them just enough, in their view, to maintain sanity or the supposed appearance of sanity.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
Comment removed
ASTCify 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
See, you can talk to whomsoever you want and you can exclude whomsoever you want. Whereas, the theists once wielded power to suppress atheists, is there time enough for atheists to wield power to foreclose on theists articulating what they please? And, as for numbers, do atheists suppose they shall decide the future of humanity? Apart from any consideration of TRUTH, do atheists suppose that they will prevail in disabusing humans of their theistic beliefs. I think not.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
No one ever lets Sam Harris talk. Poor respectful man.
Keeban3 2 years ago 3
@Keeban3 i know, its too bad
SmartStuff357 2 years ago
id like to answer the first question, Theyve functioned through tyranny, subtle brainwashing, and a mask called salvation.
Your are right that rights should be respected, but religous intolerance biggotry and ignorance is a different story my friend.
69Thrasha69 2 years ago 3
Sigh* sorry I had to say that. Anyway, here creationists, let me give you a challenge. So you're always reciting the old irreducible complexity, earth 6000 years old, fine tuning of the universe, yada, yada. If the the oldest, earliest measured galaxy is about 13billion light years away, meaning that it took light 13 billion years for that light to reach us, How can the universe only be 6000 years old and still see that galaxy?
by definition we could only see things 6000 light years away.
grimwatcher 2 years ago 63
these stupid fucks will tell you "god made the light already traveling towards us" trust me logic isnt a tool you can use against them :/
jurihaake 2 years ago 2
Jurihaake,
But once you get them to admit that, you can at least force them into admitting that God created the universe trying very, very hard to make it look as if he didn't exist, or at least trying to make the bible appear false.
And once they are forced to admit that too many times they start to realize how silly they sound. It never changes their belief but it does sometimes make them quieter.
Keeban3 2 years ago
@grimwatcher they'll just come up with some metaphor saying that light years are just an illusion and it's actually not a year it's just your illusion making you think so
EatsYouUp 1 year ago
@grimwatcher holy shit, that's one hell of an argument!
EresTremulent 1 year ago
@grimwatcher *sarcasm* God put the light there to test our faith herp de derp.... *sarcasm*
samonzo1221 1 year ago
@grimwatcher This is going to kill you, but they will say god created light on its way or made it go faster lol
SimKoning 1 year ago
@grimwatcher Apologists would say the same thing about carbon dating, that the measurements are inaccurate.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
@grimwatcher I've heard that debate, the creationist answered, "God made it like that so that we might have something to look at". Yup hard headed mofo's I swear
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@grimwatcher I like that one. Although they could argue that those stars(suns) were there before the earth was created. So they are old... but the earth not so much... Silly I admit, but there you have it.
ospTube 1 year ago
@ospTube Well, in most cases they would be right as our solar system, governed by the Sun, is no more than 8-10 billion years old. But, of course, where they fall down is arguing against the geological and paleantological evidence that proves the Earth is over 4 billion years old.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 The formation of our solar system is a really cool subject. The earth formed 4.54 bya, but the Sun ignited 4.57 bya from a dense nebula of hydrogen / helium gas condensed by the shock wave of a previous star's death, which was itself a second generation star! And the moon accreted from the shrapnel of a collision between proto-Earth and a Mars-sized proto-planet 4.53 bya. Transition from old solar system to a new, stable one only ~100 million years! A blink of an eye!
darkmiles22 1 year ago
That 100 million years also contains the saga of how 50-100 inner proto-planets collided or were captured in passing to become 4 rocky planets and moons (the modern-day asteroid belt inwards was too hot for water and methane to solidify), how Jupiter outwards was cold enough to collect ices (increasing the core mass enough to retain hydrogen gas), and how as Jupiter grew more massive it traveled closer to the asteroid belt and scooped up several several of its 20-30 proto-planets as moons.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
@darkmiles22 Agreed. Everything about astronomy is cool. The future of our solar system is fascinating, as is the possibility of some sort of human ancestor still living on this planet when the Sun starts expand and turn into a red giant. That's an awfully long time from now, however, and one can only imagine that life on this planet will have gone extinct or altered radically and/or human descendants would have found a way to travel to the stars and find a new home...
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@grimwatcher i guess they'd argue that the whole "light year" thing is satan deceiving us... lol i dunno, that's a great point though
aortavi 1 year ago
@aortavi I made the exact same point that grimwatcher did recently, and you know what the creationist said? God made the stars at the same time as the Earth, so we should be able to see them. I almost died laughing at how he couldn't even comprehend that he didn't answer the question. These people are clueless of the most basic knowledge about the universe.
avooslwuthoqquan 1 year ago
@grimwatcher You do know that the earth is only 4.54 billion years old right(next time google it)? Also light can travel across the universe without the earth existing yet. You just committed a logical fail. There are plenty of ways to prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years old, but this is not one of them.
ClintSevilla 1 year ago
@ClintSevilla
Oh I see what you're saying, that the age of the universe has nothing to do with the age of the earth. ha, I guess I sort of clumped them together. Still, at least that's a way of saying that the whole universe is far older than they can even imagine. and yeah, sure, radiometric measuring and tectonic drift would be nice but I wanted to give them something they could see right away. Nice catching that one btw
grimwatcher 1 year ago
@grimwatcher no problem
ClintSevilla 1 year ago
@grimwatcher I think you're overestimating the mental abilities of creationists now...
mrmadman86 1 year ago
@grimwatcher I'm not religious but I can see someone answering this that it is within god's power to create the universe with age. Over all a week argument on both sides.
Nathanalism 1 year ago
@Nathanalism It's WEAK not WEEK. That's W-E-A-K. It is also 'OVERALL' not 'OVER ALL'. I note that you are american so i'm assuming that english is your first language. It doesn't look good to make a simple speling mistake when you're trying to make an intelligent point.
Mug
vymmas 1 year ago
@vymmas Spelling*
Nathanalism 1 year ago
@Nathanalism No, it's speling, look it up.
vymmas 1 year ago
@vymmas It is not...
Nathanalism 1 year ago
@Nathanalism It is and that is the end of the argumant.
vymmas 1 year ago
@vymmas you misspelt the word spelling lol... but I agree with your point and I think Religion is a fucking joke!
MrPhantomcomments 1 year ago
@MrPhantomcomments If it is, I don't find it particularly funny.
writersblock26 9 months ago
@grimwatcher thats easy you atheist fool, god put the light there so that we would have more to look at.
Hadesofthe07 1 year ago
@Hadesofthe07 tee hee, cute, never had anyone actually answer that for real without sarcasm, but that'll be the day
grimwatcher 1 year ago
damn it I gotta stop reading the comment sections!!! there's so many ignorant creationists who keep reciting the same mantra "evolution is only a theory, the earth is 6,00 yrs old" No matter how many times one says it they just don't get it do they?!
grimwatcher 2 years ago 2
Geez!!! some people here have never hear of the term Socratic Method huh? My european lit. teacher back in high school made us have plenty of them. and yeah, look it up in wikipedia, I've better things to do like finishing all the dialogues
grimwatcher 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can't believe these guys even need to sit there and tape this conversation. Who is their audience? Themselves. They aren't debating anything. Anyone can understand the debate between science and religion. These 4 Horsemen aren't only condescending to those who are religious, but to agnostics as well.
davidshanesmith 2 years ago
"Who is their audience?"
Bottom right under the screen reads 67,000+ views. And some theist thought it was worth votebotting too.
wilfredthebold 2 years ago
Comment removed
UShistoryX2 2 years ago
what exactly is the point of getting 4 experts who all essentially agree on all relevant subjects together for a discussion? ... this is like a 2 hour long agreement session! ... it's like they're trying to reassure themselves that there are actually other people who believe what they believe. why don't they just start a church....LOLZZZZZ
bumbly1 2 years ago
What's the point of all the Catholics coming together to hear the Pope, or all the Christians meeting *every* *single* Sunday? These things happen consistently and serve only to cement out-of-date scripture. Yet you criticise a single meeting of four writers?!
reinforcedpenisstem 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
That could be the reason these four object worshipers don't know very much. They don't have the time to think things through very well. They hardly have a clue as to what the issues are.
The Bible message (of a Savior
{God} being born of a woman) has been considered for thousands of years.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Why don't you challenge this with your own video? I'm sure they'd be interested in why they're wrong. And I'm not being sarcastic, I truly think that if you have a good point, they'd love to hear it.
reinforcedpenisstem 2 years ago 2
"Object worshippers..."
Um...forgive me this video game analogy but I feel it's poignant to illustrating a point.
Atheism isn't just another option on the character selection screen....it's not in the faith options list. It's turning the fucker off and deciding not the play the silly game.
Also...humor me. Your evidence is...what? Beyond any tactic of positing the Bible as a reliable historical document...which it's not. Posit Josephus if you really must.
Eldeecue 2 years ago 2
If you defend the point of this meeting by comparing it to christians or catholics meeting, the very people that the 'four horsemen' seem to detest, isn't that a bit of an insult to them? I think these incredibly intelligent gentlemen should spend time having a worthwhile debate on some issue so as to clarify it, rather than sitting around whining about how they hate religion. I mean, sure, religion's lame, but they already know they all agree on the issue. It's kind of uninteresting.
bumbly1 2 years ago
I only draw a parallel in defense of meeting. The other user says that for them to sit around and agree is stupid, but I see it as far less stupid than what goes on in countless houses of worship every single day/week.
reinforcedpenisstem 2 years ago 3
I do not agree that they are 'sitting around whining about how they hate religion'
Surely this is a meeting of minds who are collectively involved in the fight against ignorance in the name of religion, discussing and de-constructing the artifice continually used against them. Is this not a think-tank rather than a whining session?
Muppetfleet 2 years ago 6
Uninteresting to you is interesting to me. I just like to see how they interact with each other
Thatonedude917 2 years ago
SItting around a table and discussing how the world, and groups within it, works is a perfectly normal thing to do. These guys (at the time) had given out books on this, so it was natural to focus on that subject. - I would love to see them do more of these on many different subjects.
Ps. debates where people regurgitate the same arguments over and over is never usefull. Discussions and conversations from different aspects on one side may atleast help make some refinements of views.
fjoo 2 years ago 4
There is a canon of behaviors common to Creationist that have given rise to whole belief systems about the anomalousness of superstition or Faith vs.Reason.They are sorting the truths from the fallacies.
djnross 2 years ago
We separate truth from fallacies. We have always done so. Nothing we believe is without a basis. Everything we believe is either scientific (observable) or historical. Regardless of how much evidence you have, you still have to believe the evidence that is in front of you.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
For the better part of recorded history we have accepted fallacies on there prima facie merits,AND from hearsay.Innate pattern-seeking habits have not long been inured of an adaptation program that reminds us:'Appearances can be deceptive.'
djnross 2 years ago
Good view points explained from different men who while all agree on the same basic things still disagree and explain arguments differently. Why do people go to church is a better question when they can just read their magic book????
party489 2 years ago
science and metaphysics can co-exist
pAbedaNSK 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Our Father in heaven hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sinsas we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trialand deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power,and the glory are yours
now and for ever. In Jesus name.Amen.
jaroncreed 2 years ago
Again what do you hope to acheive by your prayer of words.
mrtnsamson 2 years ago
I want Sam to contribute more. His perspective is always solid, yet refreshing and without the barbs of Hitchens and Dawkins, but I think barbs are necessary too!
xephyr1000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
The idea of rudimentary teeth just doesn't get into these redneck jesus worshiping people. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster was so fucken smart he would have either given us a larger mouth or less fucken teeth.
obscurusvita 2 years ago
I guess a few extra teeth isn't so bad. I mean some of us he makes full blown retarded (redneck jesus worshiping people) or hows about an extra foot or even worse you could have been born in Africa. God=omnibenevolence?
L3aK1m 2 years ago
I guess you don't know how to be grateful for what you still have left. Would you prefer that God had taken it entirely away?
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
If people weren't so sinful, maybe God would not have destroyed the earth. We would likely still have the dinosaurs with us today.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
If God wasn't such an asshole he wouldn't have made people curious by nature, and then punish them forever for simply following their nature and seeking knowlege...after all, he knew in advance it was going to happen.....right?
rhyfelur 2 years ago
Unlike many of us, God knows what He is doing and knows how to catch the evil doer in his evil ways.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You fucken retard we didn't fucken exist with T-Rex and the raptor !!! You think there was an actual Jurrasic Park period with humans roaming the Earth at the same time ? There are many