By far one of Christopher Hitchens' finest moments. The ruthless double-team of him and Stephen Fry utterly destroying their opponents is a fantastic sign to behold...
@MrTrilliondollarman Why ? I think he commited many mistakes when he gave historical lines without considering historical contexts, but it is always good to know what the other people's opinions.
I was really sick of watching my Catholic schoolmates post nasty things about Hitchens on Facebook after his death, so I link this video on their pages.
Thats a good idea :) I just hope you have enough friends left after this stunt. At school, i would say the most effective thing, if teachers promote religion, is to ask difficult questions about their faith, or to confront when they want to pass off faith-based truth as truth. The question "How do you know that?" is perfect, science teachers love this question, theologians hate it.
@kurtilein3 I am a member of the Catholic church but I miss Hitch very much. Yes, there must always be a question "how do you know it?" Btw., I do not think the religion is to be taught in school, let the school be a place for science and the human common sense.
RIP, Requiescat in pace, derives from the Bible and the Catholic burial service. I would think that it is not the appropriate phrase to use in this case.
you have to watch this more than once to digest this - there's too much information here for the mind to handle - i'm watching this a third time and learning new things
watch Roman Empire RulesToday The New World Order and see how the Hitler salue isn't a nazi salute - its a catholic salute
this nearly 2 hour documentary is the most important one on the Vatican I have ever seen
into 11 minutes it says the 4th Reich is into play now
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I find it quite funny that such a large number of people gathers just to listen to someone speaking about an organisation that they are obviously not member of and about a belief they don't share. Thats like Manu fans discussing in their stadium the pros and cons of Chelsea
@oberlindea Nice idea but it doesn't quite stand up. If those Chelsea fans came up to Manchester, told them all they were sinners and that they would spend an eternity in torment, then the analogy would match up. The Catholic church makes great claims about other peoples lives. As such, it seems fair enough for non-believers to have a passing interest in the matter.
Hitchens, ' God is not great' is one of my favourite books. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey
2000 years of History, AM I guilty of all the sins of the church?, No I am not, Has any one said that the Catholic Church wa made of divine members?, Sinless members?, No. So what is the point to appologize for something I didn't? the only reazon I see of thei stupid bastard is that he hates the Catholic Church But I Am part of the Catholic Churh though I don't necesarilly share the sins of some member of it, Does he want me to leave the Catholic Church? I wont do it.
@jorgecarrillo2 - You are a deluded apologist for a sick and corrupt organisation. Look at the current issues if you don't want to be blamed for the old ones: insitutionalised child rape; preventing the use of condoms in Africa; preventing women who've been raped from having abortions; and subjecting gay people to ridule and abuse. You sound like much more of a "hateful bastard" (your words) than Mr Hitchens if you condone your church in this. If you don't condone it you should leave.
What part of "You can't blame ALL Catholics for the Few BAD Catholics" you dont understand?, your logic is so tweested as that of Nazi and comunist followers, you relayivistic atheistic ideology has blinded you, You are intolerant to Catholics.
Your Void Argument that All catholics should stop to believe in the Only Church of Christ because of the few Bad Ministers is only for stupid minded guys like you.
@jorgecarrillo2 - I don't blame all catholics. I am blaming catholics like you who support the organisation strongly enough to make excuses for it's existing digusting policies and the way in which they abuse peoples sincerely held beliefs to enforce them. It's not a few bad ministers - it's wholesale widespread lies and abuse which the pope fully supports and condones. p,s, I don't recall telling you I'm an atheist or a Nazi - read what I write not what you think I've written.
@jorgecarrillo2 I find this very fun :-) , do you really think it's wrong to blame all for a thing that a few do?
Well. you are right some way, they who know about the wrong doing, or should know about it and do nothing is to blame too. But what is the core of your religion? We are all doomed to be tortured forever in hell for a crime (eating an apple) done by someone that didn't even exist other then an old myth in the bible.
@ytbabbler Apple? No such thing in the Hebrew. The word, properly translated, would be "fruit." In all Scripture This "fruit" is actually a teaching, and not from a snake, but a spirit that is likened to "a serpent", satan. The sin was following him. Don't feel bad, even most "Christians" don't know anything about their own Scriptures. The core of Christianity in the Scriptures is that YHVH came as Yeshua to save you, but that most are too proud of their own intelligence to accept the gift.
@TRUTHISIAM Well, I actually did know it was just not the apple, but it don't matter what it was, nobody alive now can help it, it's FICTION. I don't think Jesus even existed as a person, there is no evidence for it, and so many things indicate it's just made up with old pagan figures as template. > 100 years later.
I'm not to proud to not accept Jesus "gift" , I'm to honest.
I can't accept that anyone get tortured just because they don't share your faith.
@ytbabbler Wow.....opinions are now facts and revisionism is now history.......good luck with all of that, you are primed to be a most excellent Nazi. You do realize that's where the sweeping condemnations of en entire group of people by like Hitchins and Dawkins (who already preaches that religious people should be removed from the gene pool, for the good of the "race", to the applause of mesmerized students) is heading, right? Dusting sandles off....and...Shalom. "Babbler" sad.....
@TRUTHISIAM Are you sure that Hitchens and Dawkins think that religious peoples should be removed from the gene pool?
Well, your name is TRUTH , so it can't be possible that you make it up so you have an argument.
Jewish archaeologists did a try to find evidence with "Bible and spade approach" , but found out it never happened, and they where honest enough to publish it anyway as "The Bible Unearthed"
Do you have one single evidence other then "I just know" to support your faith.
@TRUTHISIAM Book of Revelations talks about the "lake of fire and sulphur" as a punishment for those who do not accept Jesus as lord and saviour. That would also include muslims, hindus and sikhs, not just atheists
@MamaMario13 The only people who go to hell are those who follow satan, God's accusers. The Word is clear, Yeshua saved His people from their sins and lost not one. Much Christian preaching is simply flawed. But there is a huge difference between the elect and the spared which is almost never addressed by the churches. If works cannot save, then they cannot condemn. God tests the hearts of men. People who don't believe may well be saved "as one pulled from a fire." Election is different.
@ytbabbler Yes, I'm certain. But he has been careful to delete his most damning statements from public media, like the rest of his Nazi friends. As far as my faith goes, yes, I have much more. But scorners will never have them. Get your own evidence, laughing boy. I have no argument. Truth is not debatable. It can only be stated. Could you please keep your statements about "it" more vague please. You sound lamer than that which you hate.
These creeps (like Hitchens) are mostly resentful marxists that know that to achieve a total and complete cultural maxist hegemony in the west, belief in God and unchanging morality needs to be overcome. It is the only thing in the way.
@ExtantFrodo2 Variance in punishment is not a sign of change in morality. Adultery was wrong then, and is wrong now. And belief in universal, unchanging morality is not a Christian exclusive anyway, or even a theist exclusive. Norman Chomsky defends it, and he's an atheist.
Morals are a contract and agreement between 2 or more people about how to least trample on the others needs. Morals are a social construction. Societies make morals in order to maintain themselves. They COME from our shared physicality and facts about our nature like being vulnerable to physical harm either through direct attack to our body or to an attack to our peripheral support mechanisms (family, property,etc) and what we can reasonably expect as compromise to avoid such harm.
@ExtantFrodo2 Copy and paste? Can't you say in in your own words? Actually, morality is inherent of humans. Like the instincs of animals (that we also have), who were written in their (and our) brains, morality was written in our souls. That is fairly easily provable. One way of doind that is by comparing different cultures and realising that their moral codes are similar. Another way, more to the point of your quote, is to observe that (traditional) morality often goes against selfishness.
@theantisauronist Can I not C&P my own words? That their moral codes are similar is no more surprising than the fact that we share the same physiology. It is wrong to say any morality is against selfishness. It is the compromise of personal good for group good, but it is still out of the self-interest that the group not fail or fall apart.
@ExtantFrodo2 That's fair up to a point. Just because nations that had never had contact and (obviously) share the same physiology should share many moral traits is not enough at all. The circunstances, environments and past experiences are often so completely different and that it would be extremely likely that their moral code would also had evolved completely differently. Yet that seldom happens. I didn't say ANY morality is against selfishness. I said (traditional) morality often does.
Was the Mayan culture like the European one or the Japanese one? Very different moral codes all 3. But what survives and gets copied over time? The ones that work, the ones that help a society support itself and it's people. There IS a default and a reason for that default. The standard I spoke of earlier.
@ExtantFrodo2 The mezzo american cultures are THE exception. They were completely different from any other culture that has been known before or since. Their absolute madness and cruelty were indeed (and thankfully) unique. I have no explanation for it. As for the japanese one, it fits perfectly in the Natural Law hypotheses. Their values were very close to the european (contemporanean and ancient), other high asian ones, and many others.
@theantisauronist Were their blood games so different than the Roman gladiators? Tribes people the world over engaged in blood sacrifices of many sorts (including Christianity). Were the Mayans cruel in family life or in business? It's hard to say. I don't have data that deep.
Oh please the Japanese morals were very difficult for westerners to comprehend and I'm sure the reciprocal held as well.
@ExtantFrodo2 Are you serious? It's not "deep data". It is common knowledge that approximately 20,000 people per year were sacrificed by the Aztec royalty, who were quite partial eat a few hands and tighs afterwards. Gettit? Quite different from Roman barbarism. Japanese society was all too similar to European (at the time) except for the over the top social ritual. The society was structured identically, and the family norms of behaviour and social conduct almost identical.
God is the only logical explanation because any Unmoved Mover is spiritual, not material, since all material things (or conversions into energy) are in motion.
The First Cause of the universe is God, who is also an Unmoved Mover. Why? All things in the universe are in motion. In the "chain" of motions (your motion came about due to a previous motion), there cannot be an infinite regression of motions or causes; otherwise your current existence and motion could not be realized. But you are here and are moving.
Hitchens is such a big fat douchebag. This same tired old list of anti-Catholic crapola gets brought up by every pseudo-intellectual trying to make a buck off opposing the Church. What an asshole!
@JEJMDTD Truth hurts, doesn't it? If the list is tired and old, care to tell us which of the charges have been refuted? That the list is *old* only means the church has been committing atrocities for a very long time. If you're *tired* of hearing it, it means you have become jaded to such inhumanities as torture, genocide and child rape. I pity you, and I defy your moral abnegation.
@foxfireman188 Dorks like Hitchens and his fans like to have a focus for their hatred. The fact that institutionalized child abuse, torture and genocide have occurred and are still occurring with astonishing regularity by currnt governments does not phase them. No, they would rather focus on coneturies old BS, where nobody really knows what happened anyway.
Your hatred of the Churhc reveals more about your character than about your knowledge, buddy.
Yeah he's a total poopy face isn't he? Ever heard the phrase, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it? Also these atrocities are *still* happening to this day, just recently a pastor was charged on 60 counts of suspicion of sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist. He abused countless boys and do you know what reason he gave for this? Because he believed it would cure them of their homosexuality.
@ScouseCaspaXS Those who ignore the present are... well just stupid. Instead of digging up centuries old accusations, many of which are debatable, how about speaking out against abuse in NYC public schools? Murder and torture of Christians in Islamic countries that happened last Chirstmas? No, the Hitchen's of this world make a buck from justifying the hatered and fear people have for a Church they can not understand. Score one for ignorance.
I absolutely love the British for having the cultural balls to televise debates of this nature. It takes guts to openly debate such fundamentally divisive world views as religion. I wish we could see more of this in the States.
@GermanChocolateCake totally agree, we don't even have presidential or congressional debates here in the states, they may be called debates but all it is are 2 or more stump speeches that take place, they cant even address the other candidate directly.
@GermanChocolateCake Are you kidding? The debate in America was never needed, all American TV mocks God, especially the "Christian" channels, and applauds sin. The more I read the posts in this thread, the more I am convinced of the profound ability of media to mesmerize the masses. It's like listening to sleepwalkers in a dream..... Shalom
@jzcp99 The monkeys thing isn't saying it would actually happen it's just saying, basically, that if you have a long enough timeline i.e infinity, anything will happen. It's just a way of explaining to some degree the nature of infinity.
A genuine debate would not pit two articulate Oxbridge men against a stammering recent convert and a cleric whose first language is not English and whose talent is preaching not debating. A real apologist or theologian would have gutted the other side. So it was a setup, even the audience was maybe a setup. Anyone must intelligently discern these things before forming any opinion. Unless of course, you're watching the video because you hate the church already and just seeking affirmation.
Reading previous comments. I think the point here is not that life is a result of evolution/ mathematical probability or the result of a divine being, but, rather that the Catholic Church as an institution is fundamentally wrong in many of it's views by any standard of modern thinking. I wouldn't ask that anyone give up their faith or belief in God. Rather I would ask them to question their church's view of what it means in this day and age.
I have always noted that if there is an afterlife, with a heaven and hell, I would not like to spend eternity with the people who wrap themselves in dogma and doom everyone else to the other place. It would be like spending eternity with a very loud, very unpopular classmate who constantly has the teacher's ear, reminding them when the rest of the class is out of line. So sad...
Since evolution is mentioned a lot here, could anyone explain the mathematical odds of "life" beginning from material/molecular interaction? Reminds me of the example of monkeys creating Shakespeare's plays: supposedly enough monkeys with enough typewriters hitting random keys would someday create all Shakespeare's works (which mathematically wouldn't happen).
multiply 400 billion stars per galaxy (thats the amount of stars in each galaxy) with 100 billion galaxies. now each of these stars can have several planets. so the formation of life may be highly unlikely, and it would still happen often in our universe.
by the way, this has NOTHING TO DO with evolution. thats abiogenesis. evolution explains how you can get all the species on our planet, all of them, from one living cell.
@kurtilein3 You're the shit. Excellent comment. GOD still can exist tho. In some crazy way that even scientists dont have the capacity to comprehend. Think about it. Classic comment tho. Classic.
you are right, the existence of god cannot be disproven. But as Bertrand Russell said, you also cannot disprove the existence of a chinese teapot somewhere in orbit around sun and too small for our telescopes to detect. not being able to disprove something doesnt make it plausible. God can exist, but does it matter unless not a single one of the billions of followers of that thing can prove its existence in any meaningful way? it doesnt. prove it exists = prove that it matters.
@kurtilein3 Word says that YHVH doesn't matter to most until it's too late for them because men are full of themselves and delight in evil. Tragic. Shalom
@kdpflanders1 Yes; every imaginable being, soul, object, troll, divine thing CAN exist just because no human can know for sure... That shouldnt impress a donkey as an argument should it?
@richter75 What it should do is cause those of us to think twice about dismissing the existence of something that we clearly to this day dont yet understand. And please dont mistake me. I do not believe in a GOD with a white beard with some enormous GOD dick up in the sky. The earth is 4 billion years old, not 6 thousand. The universe is 14 billion. So im not saying GOD as a person, but I am saying that what caused the universe to explode into existence is STILL a mystery, and we atheist know it
... second comment evolution does NOT talk about where the first self-replicating molecule came from.
then, the typewriter-example. actually, mathematically it WOULD HAPPEN. you can calculate how many monkeys would need to type for how long until the chance of a given work of shakespeare appearing in the randomness exceeds 90% or 99%. you turned this on its head, arriving at the opposite conclusion.
on abiogenesis again: if it only happens on a few planets out of these hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars, where would we end up living? on a planet where life formed, or on a planet where life didnt form? we are here to talk about it, so our planet was among the lucky ones, but there is much room out there for many other planets where life didnt form. room for monkeys with typewriters producing nothing useful, to use your example.
@kurtilein3 If someone really wants to learn about that stuff they read a biology book or ask a biologist, if someone wants to troll they post on youtube comments.
@jzcp99: "explain the mathematical odds of "life" beginning from material interaction? Like enough monkeys with enough typewriters would someday create Shakespeare's works"
Why is it that religious folk wave such questions among non-experts, Mr zcp99? The answer of course is ignorance and cowardice; fear of the relentless logic of the evolutionary synthesis that is now accepted by overwhelming scientific consensus. Have you posed your question to the NAS or the Royal Society?
@jzcp99 "(which mathematically wouldn't happen)" - Absolutely incorrect, it's a model on the nature of infinity. It is not guaranteed that it would happen but it is certainly extremely likely. Much more likely to happen at some point than it to never happen, actually.
The odds are 1 - certainty! By that I mean that the only reason we are here is that this happened - if it hadn't we wouldn't be here to talk about it!
I understand your point, but the chances that you, as an individual, are here if we go back to the beginning of life are virtually zero; your parents had to live long enough to successfully reproduce and so did EVERY one of the millions of generations before. But the virtual impossibility of your existence does not prove anything.
@jzcp99 Mathematically, given the variable of infinitity, or "enough time" as you so eloquently put it - monkeys would not only type all of shakespeare's works, but also the entire history of English literature. The key to the example is that, given infinite resources, infinite outcomes will appear.
@jzcp99 1) Mathematically it 'would' happen. It is an analogy meant to explain the concept of infinity, nothing more. They would produce everything ever written by anyone, and infinite nonsense, and all things in between
2) Abiogenesis is distinct from evolution in that it only needs to happen once. Likely explanations involve the formation of fatty acids in hydrothermal vents, resulting in clusters of vesicles (or micelles) which may contain concentrations of the 'raw materials' for life.
@jzcp99 Once these vesicles are in place, there come two 'big' steps: the formation of a replicating system, and the formation of a metabolic system. Current thinking places the replicating system as the eariest of these.Certain materials with charged surfaces such as clays catalyse the formation of RNA, which is similar to DNA, from its monomers. RNA is capable of self replicating and even folding to form structures with functional roles within the aforementioned 'cells'.
@jzcp99 3) metabolic systems may then have 'evolved'. I say evolved because once we have a system, however simple, that is capable of replicating itself, it is subject to natural selection. In short, the tiny infinitesimally simple systems went through 'descent with modification' and became gradually more complex. This is a non-random process, with the exception of mutations present in DNA as it is passed on. tl;dr, the 'mathematical odds' are near impossible, but once it happens...
@Mirthomaniac its a genuine pleasure to read eloquent, intelligent and thought out posts anywhere, but on youtube in particular. Thank you for taking the time to write some of these ideas down.
@jzcp99 No one can answer your question, as we have yet to explore enough space to give a sample big enough to determine anything. And even then, it's only a tiny portion of the galaxy, which is but one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. Do you see? It's an unanswerable question.
@jzcp99 All life on Earth is based on DNA. It is in fact mathematically impossible to imagine that a molecule of such complexity did not evolve. So the burden of proof is on creationists, not on people who believe in evolution.
@jzcp99 If you gave a monkey a typewriter (there by making the process random) and left it for and infinite amount of time then it would eventually type the works of Shakespeare. It was also type Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and every other book. It would type every possible combination of letters there are, and it would type them an infinite number of times too. In all likelihood anyway, technically given that it's random it could just keep hitting the "J" button for all eternity...
@01000001011100100111 Actually that "theory" expounded by a writer of fiction, was scientifically tested. They produced only gibberish, licking and attempting to mate with the machines far more that "typing." Result. If you give a monkey a typewriter, the monkey will destroy it in a day. Shalom
@TRUTHISIAM You're missing the point. It's a theorem designed to illustrate the nature of infinity, not to actually predict what a monkey would get up to with a typewriter.
@01000001011100100111 Actually, that is the point. Randomness, even guided by something somewhat intelligent, produces nothing. Time doesn't help the argument at all, it actually makes the "odds" far worse. Why? Because the Universe is in a state of entropy. Even the speed of light is diminishing.... so, as time goes by, there is even less "material" to work with, because all is in decay. In this case, this speaker is the monkey, and reality is the typewriter. Dry humped to pieces.
@TRUTHISIAM You sound like someone who has cobbled together a couple of arguments you read somewhere else. Complexity need only be a possibility, and a random system can create it, just like any other state. Mathematically speaking, the state needed for life to begin is not even remotely significant, especially when you consider the size of the universe itself and the sheer opportunity for it to come about by chance alone.
@01000001011100100111 Hey, if you say so.... ever see a "simple" one celled critter on the inside? If you have, and still believe it just randomly happened, then brother, you got WAY more blind religious faith than me! Science? Wait ten years and this will be the dark ages all over again. Btw, be careful what you believe. The majority of cash spent on scientific research is spent by corporations, and therefore on controlling your mind. Oh, and the Emperor really doesn't have any clothes. Shalom
@TRUTHISIAM I've no idea how life started on Earth. I don't pretend to. What I don't have, is any reason whatsoever to believe that there was any supernatural involvement. History has taught us to know better. If we assumed a deity had a hand in everything we didn't understand, we'd still be living in mud huts.
@01000001011100100111 I don't believe in the supernatural. Fact- Scientists are baffled by aging and death, by the entropy of all things observable as well. There is no logical reason for any of it. So, taking in account both the bewilderment of scientists and the Word of Truth together, I see a fallen state that came from the natural state that God intended. Are you seriously arguing that superstitious or religious people are therefore too stupid to develop advanced technologies??? Wow!
@TRUTHISIAM I'm sorry but you've been mislead. Scientists are not baffled by entropy, and they're certainly not baffled by ageing and death. Telomere gets used up when cells divide, that's why we age. The reason closed systems always suffer to entropy, is because they're never 100% energy efficient.
@01000001011100100111 All just chemically reactionary machines......how sad.... but, if that were really true, why would the animated meat lumps care about anything intangible????? How? < Why? Shalom
@TRUTHISIAM I've no idea. A by-product of social evolution perhaps? I don't know. Still, no reason to assume that there was any magic involved. There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something, in fact it's often the most intelligent thing you can say.
@TRUTHISIAM I never suggested that religious people are incapable of developing advanced technologies, you're attacking a straw man there. What I did say however, is that if you assume anything you can't understand is the work of a deity, then you learn nothing, and cannot advance. Luckily not everyone is so narrow-minded as to assume such things, even theists.
@01000001011100100111 Perhaps if one assumes that nothing can be the work of a deity then you can learn nothing and never discover God. Why assume anything at all? Why not free scientific inquiry to discover whatever happens to be true without mucking it up with ANY ideology, philosophy or belief? Isn't the fact that there is this argument at all proof that both religious and secular zealotry are equally stupid and hinder honest discovery?
@TRUTHISIAM Science is the study of the natural world. A deity is a SUPERnatural explanation, and therefore has no place in science. The only people who 'discover God' are those that forgo logic and reason, and replace it with faith and a religious crutch. If people need that in their lives then they're welcome to it, but to try and bring it into a discipline like science is absurd. It would be like looking for unicorns in the fossil record.
@01000001011100100111 Not really, science is the study of the reality we exist within. You think it is natural, I think it is fallen from it's natural state. If I an correct then science is the study of a fallen world through fallen flesh, and will mean nothing in the very near future. When I look at a daisy the "glorious" achievements of man become laughable to me. The fact that man can't create anything, just muck with what he finds, should be enough to cause you to ponder YHVH. Shalom
@TRUTHISIAM Then you're incredibly weak minded. To look at something as complex as nature and instead of engaging your brain simply attribute it to a fictional character from bronze-age mythology is pathetic, frankly. It's no more profound and no more rational than someone believing that rainbows are made by leprechauns.
@01000001011100100111 And yet you are the one who's position is already reduced to insults and crass supposition. That's ok, I forgive you. I don't care what men are, only what YHVH purposed them to be. My eternal and loving family. This hitchins goes on and on about the R.C.C. They aren't even Christian, they are pagan. They have and will kill more. If he could stop mocking YHVH, then he could understand Rev 13, which prophesied the R.C.C., the first beast, and what they would do. So blind.
@TRUTHISIAM I'm not blind, I just don't cling to vague prophesies as proof of something I want to be true. Islam, Christianity and Judaism as so blatantly the work of oppressive men trying to dictate a set of ethics for those around them that it's almost comical. Clearly the work of backward minds, which is why the "God" character is so egotistical, narcissistic, homophobic, sexist and just plain evil by modern standards.
@0100000101110 The prophecy of a church rising, placing a man upon a throne and murdering the saints, is exceedingly detailed and not vague at all, just like the very first one found in the Hebrew of the first line of Genesis, that YHVH Himself would be nailed to a cross, suspended between heaven and earth. Though, since you think I called you blind when I was clearly speaking of hitchins, I'm not at all surprised that the far more intricate elegance of the Scriptures eludes your grasp. Shalom
@TRUTHISIAM It's very interesting how any 'prophecy' that vaguely resembles reality is celebrated as proof, yet any inconsistencies or absurdities refutable claims are just dismissed as an allegory or metaphor. Very convenient. Believers believe because they want to believe, not because it's rational.
@timewilltell7 Truth is often disgusting. Don't like dog tits? Don't nurse them. O, and I absolutely DO know. The Word "believe" in Scripture means fully persuaded, absolutely confirmed. True, any simply "believe", in the modern sense of the word, and according to that same Scripture, such are fools to do so. I defended some black robed cult? And I'm the one imagining things......hmm...
@TRUTHISIAM I don't know what that acronym stands for. But yeah, I was referring to the higher ethical standards we have these days, compared with bronze age mythologies that endorsed things like sexism, racism, homophobia, slavery etc...
Again Mr Hitchens reveals what the church truly is:
the sordid and brutal propagator of a mental disease that has afflicted humanity for 2000 years. An instrument of power for the control of stupid and vulnerable people.
Hi crabbit. Thanks for your reply. I would begin with atheism itself, which I think is often a function of a lack of education. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but only as a matter of fact. Hitchens and Dawkins both misrepresent St. Thomas's five ways through straw man fallacies. To see what I mean, we should start our conversation by reading St. Thomas' proofs for God's existence in the Summa Contra Gentiles or Summan Theologica. Sound good?
@helpyouseeit A lack of education? Wow! It's funny how almost every poll in recent years clearly shows that atheists are better educated and informed and generally more intelligent. Did you see the results of the recent Pew survey on religious knowledge? Atheists and agnostics scored highest whereas White Catholics were 5/9 and Hispanic Catholics 9/9. The evidence doesn't support your claim regarding education I'm afraid. Fair enough, I can't defend Hitchens et al when I have not...
@helpyouseeit ...read those books. If you could point out their so-called strawman fallacies and when they wrote or uttered them I'll be happy to go from there. I have no idea when I will read those books so shall we start by discussing a book we have both read? How about the bible? I'm no expert but reading it was by far the biggest influence on my becoming an atheist.
Could you reply directly to my comment otherwise I have no idea you've replied? Thanks.
Has anyone else noticed that Dawkins and Hitchens (God bless them) are unable to build a substantial case against any particular teaching of the Catholic Church? This reality serves to deepen my faith in the Church that Christ established on earth, so I somewhat thank them for that service. They seem to barely understand the teachings that the Church presents, or at least avoid the essence of arguments that defend the Catholic faith.
Would you care to dazzle us with your acumen? Were you not watching the same video? Have you read their books? In which points are they most inaccurate?
@helpyouseeit Why would you want to defend ANY faith? Faith is nothing more than an excuse to not really come up with any real answers!(or proof) Blindly believing that there is a magic space daddy waiting on a cloud for you is just a sign of mental decay! Admit it, if you were born in another country, you would have been brainwashed to believe in yet another fairy tale.Religious people scare me:so adamant about things they don't know anything about, and mostly just severly uneducated sheep.
@williemetoyer1 What a redundant statement to make! Of course it's my opinion!
Unlike theists, I don't proselytise children into believing garbage:
watch?v=2STDH14aJVk
BTW, what truth are you yapping about? We're talking about religion, here.It's nothing more than puerile, pleonastic nonsense wrapped in false promises of eternal life.
Every religion surely can't be right, but they can ALL sure as hell be WRONG!
Which fairy tale have you been brainwashed into believing is the "truth"?
@helpyouseeit -The fact that the Catholic church has done more to prevent gay marriage and the use of contraception than to prevent child rape and genocide strengthen's your faith? The fact that fugitives from the law(wanted for protecting rapists and catalysts in genocides) are currently being protected by the Vatican strengthens your faith? Your bar in morality couldn't possibly be any lower. As for the teachings of the church,well,at the rate that those change kudos for being able to keep up.
Hitchens made a little mistake there... Jan Hus was not burned in Prague. He preached in Prague in the Betlehem chapel but was trialed and burned in Konstanz
It's really funny how often you zealots do that; pretend that my point helped yours. It's ludicrous. Do you have ANY more evidence of your god than anyone does of an invisible pink unicorn? No, you don't. You might be stupid enough to point to the bible as proof, to which I'll point to any other "holy" book to prove their god is right.
Lol Tell you what kiddo. When you explain to me how an invisible unicorn or an invisible ANYTHING for that matter can be pink or any color Ill respond to you further lol
*sigh* this is a bit off-topic, but wouldn't it be nice if Christianity was more like Buddhism or Confucism? Unpretentious, relatively-peaceful, no hierachies, no TV evangelists, no Hillsong, no Vatican. I think that THAT is what Jesus the homosapien was going for.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lucifer did exist. There was a world which existed before this world. There were nations and cultures just like we have now although 'man' wasnt made in the image of God. It was destroyed when Lucifer left his throne on earth and ascended into heaven with a 1/3 of the angels. That was the first time God destroyed the earth with a flood. Thats why in Genesis 1:1 its says the earth was void and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
@Davemustang2600 Please tell me you're being sarcastic?! So if your school teacher told you that the Earth was flat, that is to be believed? Or if a President told you that Scientology was correct and that we did indeed originate from an alien source? What about if your mum told you that the holocaust didn't happen? You're either joking/have a mental impairment or are purposefully deceiving yourself
Its recorded in a Book that has survived and shaped history.
If 2500 prophecies and fulfilled prophecies in Scripture were %100 accurate ranging from Genesis through Revelation why would it be lying concerning this?
Im basing my belief on the credibility of the Bible.
Did you know my little friend that Enoch knew the earth was round? The shape of the earth wasnt a mystery then but it was to the rest of the world for another 3600 years.
@Davemustang2600 Are you kidding me? It's authors are not known, it was written decades after Jesus's death, no original copies exist and it is full of literally hundreds of contradictions. Many "historical" events in the bible are not confirmed by any records of the time.
Never mind that there isn't any proof that Jesus and Moses even existed!
1. The ENTIRE Old Testament was translated to Greek in 300BC by 70 Jewish Scholars in Alexandria.
It was written decades after Jesus death. Now dont you look stupid?
Yep youre right there are a few historical events that are not confirmed by records but only because none exist.
However, in the year 2000 theres a stretch of the Dea Sea from Egypt all the way across to the other side where thousands of chariots lie at the bottom.
@Davemustang2600 Fair enough, I should've been more specific and said that the New Testament was written decades after Jesus' death. However, it does not change the fact that they have no known authorship. Whether they were translated answers nothing about who the authors were.
A few historical events not confirmed? Try the unlocated Mt. Sinai, the flood, the wanderings of the Jews and subsequent exodus for starters. Jewish Archaeologists with every motive to prove the wanderings and....
By far one of Christopher Hitchens' finest moments. The ruthless double-team of him and Stephen Fry utterly destroying their opponents is a fantastic sign to behold...
videogamenostalgia 2 days ago
i thought i found true love - then i heard hitchens
timewilltell7 1 week ago
I'll miss how he always layed waste to religious maniacs like Mother Teresa and the Catholic Church
BayAreaOrBust 1 week ago
@BayAreaOrBust
Good riddance I say....the Vatican took his report on Mother Teresa, dubbed it "completely without merit" and wisely threw it in the trash.
MrTrilliondollarman 3 days ago
It is a great loss that Christopher Hitchens has died.
kurtilein3 1 month ago 20
@kurtilein3
What the hell are you talking about? We should be glad this idiot is silenced FOR GOOD!!
MrTrilliondollarman 3 weeks ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Why ? I think he commited many mistakes when he gave historical lines without considering historical contexts, but it is always good to know what the other people's opinions.
WALTKRIEG 3 days ago
@kurtilein3 You are right. He was a brave man.
WALTKRIEG 3 days ago
@kurtilein3
We are much better off now that Hitchens is gone for good...what are YOU talking about?
MrTrilliondollarman 3 days ago
I was really sick of watching my Catholic schoolmates post nasty things about Hitchens on Facebook after his death, so I link this video on their pages.
WhimsicalAphorist 1 month ago 19
@WhimsicalAphorist
Thats a good idea :) I just hope you have enough friends left after this stunt. At school, i would say the most effective thing, if teachers promote religion, is to ask difficult questions about their faith, or to confront when they want to pass off faith-based truth as truth. The question "How do you know that?" is perfect, science teachers love this question, theologians hate it.
kurtilein3 1 month ago 3
@kurtilein3 I am a member of the Catholic church but I miss Hitch very much. Yes, there must always be a question "how do you know it?" Btw., I do not think the religion is to be taught in school, let the school be a place for science and the human common sense.
TheMirko1958 3 weeks ago
@WhimsicalAphorist
If Hitchens wasn't such a liar or a shit-distributor, this wouldn't be a problem.
MrTrilliondollarman 3 days ago
I already miss him dearly
morgenthaler 1 month ago 6
@morgenthaler
Absolutely :-((
sillysod33 1 month ago
RIP, Requiescat in pace, derives from the Bible and the Catholic burial service. I would think that it is not the appropriate phrase to use in this case.
ClanhaloVD 1 month ago
RIP Christopher...the world will be less interesting without you.
msilverthorpe 1 month ago 4
RIP
TheFartoholic 1 month ago
I'm going to miss having him in the world so much. It will be a much less interesting party without him.
Sinbad94CSD 1 month ago
you have to watch this more than once to digest this - there's too much information here for the mind to handle - i'm watching this a third time and learning new things
watch Roman Empire RulesToday The New World Order and see how the Hitler salue isn't a nazi salute - its a catholic salute
this nearly 2 hour documentary is the most important one on the Vatican I have ever seen
into 11 minutes it says the 4th Reich is into play now
and the Vatican just asked for a World Bank
timewilltell7 2 months ago
this is a |MUCH longer version that the edits i've seen (same message tho)
Harani66 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
I find it quite funny that such a large number of people gathers just to listen to someone speaking about an organisation that they are obviously not member of and about a belief they don't share. Thats like Manu fans discussing in their stadium the pros and cons of Chelsea
oberlindea 3 months ago
@oberlindea Nice idea but it doesn't quite stand up. If those Chelsea fans came up to Manchester, told them all they were sinners and that they would spend an eternity in torment, then the analogy would match up. The Catholic church makes great claims about other peoples lives. As such, it seems fair enough for non-believers to have a passing interest in the matter.
jimhigham 2 months ago
@oberlindea Actuallybefore the debate the majority disagreed with Hitchens, after the debaye yjeu agreed
moroney1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens, ' God is not great' is one of my favourite books. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey
zytigon 5 months ago
Youtube should have a "RANT" button that leads to a random Christopher Hitchens video :P
mewboy5 5 months ago 25
2000 years of History, AM I guilty of all the sins of the church?, No I am not, Has any one said that the Catholic Church wa made of divine members?, Sinless members?, No. So what is the point to appologize for something I didn't? the only reazon I see of thei stupid bastard is that he hates the Catholic Church But I Am part of the Catholic Churh though I don't necesarilly share the sins of some member of it, Does he want me to leave the Catholic Church? I wont do it.
jorgecarrillo2 6 months ago
@jorgecarrillo2 - You are a deluded apologist for a sick and corrupt organisation. Look at the current issues if you don't want to be blamed for the old ones: insitutionalised child rape; preventing the use of condoms in Africa; preventing women who've been raped from having abortions; and subjecting gay people to ridule and abuse. You sound like much more of a "hateful bastard" (your words) than Mr Hitchens if you condone your church in this. If you don't condone it you should leave.
kingscat3 6 months ago
Comment removed
jorgecarrillo2 6 months ago
@kingscat3
What part of "You can't blame ALL Catholics for the Few BAD Catholics" you dont understand?, your logic is so tweested as that of Nazi and comunist followers, you relayivistic atheistic ideology has blinded you, You are intolerant to Catholics.
Your Void Argument that All catholics should stop to believe in the Only Church of Christ because of the few Bad Ministers is only for stupid minded guys like you.
jorgecarrillo2 6 months ago
@jorgecarrillo2 I'm intolerant towards ignorance and apologetics like yourself.
mscubana 6 months ago
@jorgecarrillo2 - I don't blame all catholics. I am blaming catholics like you who support the organisation strongly enough to make excuses for it's existing digusting policies and the way in which they abuse peoples sincerely held beliefs to enforce them. It's not a few bad ministers - it's wholesale widespread lies and abuse which the pope fully supports and condones. p,s, I don't recall telling you I'm an atheist or a Nazi - read what I write not what you think I've written.
kingscat3 6 months ago
@jorgecarrillo2 I find this very fun :-) , do you really think it's wrong to blame all for a thing that a few do?
Well. you are right some way, they who know about the wrong doing, or should know about it and do nothing is to blame too. But what is the core of your religion? We are all doomed to be tortured forever in hell for a crime (eating an apple) done by someone that didn't even exist other then an old myth in the bible.
ytbabbler 5 months ago
@ytbabbler Apple? No such thing in the Hebrew. The word, properly translated, would be "fruit." In all Scripture This "fruit" is actually a teaching, and not from a snake, but a spirit that is likened to "a serpent", satan. The sin was following him. Don't feel bad, even most "Christians" don't know anything about their own Scriptures. The core of Christianity in the Scriptures is that YHVH came as Yeshua to save you, but that most are too proud of their own intelligence to accept the gift.
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM Well, I actually did know it was just not the apple, but it don't matter what it was, nobody alive now can help it, it's FICTION. I don't think Jesus even existed as a person, there is no evidence for it, and so many things indicate it's just made up with old pagan figures as template. > 100 years later.
I'm not to proud to not accept Jesus "gift" , I'm to honest.
I can't accept that anyone get tortured just because they don't share your faith.
Jesus justice watch?v=pDFAmc3xHoE
ytbabbler 3 months ago
@ytbabbler Wow.....opinions are now facts and revisionism is now history.......good luck with all of that, you are primed to be a most excellent Nazi. You do realize that's where the sweeping condemnations of en entire group of people by like Hitchins and Dawkins (who already preaches that religious people should be removed from the gene pool, for the good of the "race", to the applause of mesmerized students) is heading, right? Dusting sandles off....and...Shalom. "Babbler" sad.....
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM Are you sure that Hitchens and Dawkins think that religious peoples should be removed from the gene pool?
Well, your name is TRUTH , so it can't be possible that you make it up so you have an argument.
Jewish archaeologists did a try to find evidence with "Bible and spade approach" , but found out it never happened, and they where honest enough to publish it anyway as "The Bible Unearthed"
Do you have one single evidence other then "I just know" to support your faith.
ytbabbler 3 months ago 9
@ytbabbler you just have to believe or you will burn in hell forever, thats the only reason why people believe it
MamaMario13 2 months ago
@MamaMario13 greatest hitchslap ever
Hellenologophilia 2 months ago
@MamaMario13 I defy you to find Scripture to support that assertion.
TRUTHISIAM 2 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM Book of Revelations talks about the "lake of fire and sulphur" as a punishment for those who do not accept Jesus as lord and saviour. That would also include muslims, hindus and sikhs, not just atheists
MamaMario13 2 months ago
@MamaMario13 The only people who go to hell are those who follow satan, God's accusers. The Word is clear, Yeshua saved His people from their sins and lost not one. Much Christian preaching is simply flawed. But there is a huge difference between the elect and the spared which is almost never addressed by the churches. If works cannot save, then they cannot condemn. God tests the hearts of men. People who don't believe may well be saved "as one pulled from a fire." Election is different.
TRUTHISIAM 2 months ago
@ytbabbler Yes, I'm certain. But he has been careful to delete his most damning statements from public media, like the rest of his Nazi friends. As far as my faith goes, yes, I have much more. But scorners will never have them. Get your own evidence, laughing boy. I have no argument. Truth is not debatable. It can only be stated. Could you please keep your statements about "it" more vague please. You sound lamer than that which you hate.
TRUTHISIAM 2 months ago
@jorgecarrillo2 "So what is the point to appologize for something I didn't?"
Coming from a Catholic I must admit that statement is somewhat funny.
infinit888 5 months ago
These creeps (like Hitchens) are mostly resentful marxists that know that to achieve a total and complete cultural maxist hegemony in the west, belief in God and unchanging morality needs to be overcome. It is the only thing in the way.
theantisauronist 6 months ago
@theantisauronist "unchanging morality"
you mean like "stone the adulterer", "don't stone the adulterer"?
ExtantFrodo2 6 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2 Variance in punishment is not a sign of change in morality. Adultery was wrong then, and is wrong now. And belief in universal, unchanging morality is not a Christian exclusive anyway, or even a theist exclusive. Norman Chomsky defends it, and he's an atheist.
theantisauronist 6 months ago
Morals are a contract and agreement between 2 or more people about how to least trample on the others needs. Morals are a social construction. Societies make morals in order to maintain themselves. They COME from our shared physicality and facts about our nature like being vulnerable to physical harm either through direct attack to our body or to an attack to our peripheral support mechanisms (family, property,etc) and what we can reasonably expect as compromise to avoid such harm.
ExtantFrodo2 6 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2 Copy and paste? Can't you say in in your own words? Actually, morality is inherent of humans. Like the instincs of animals (that we also have), who were written in their (and our) brains, morality was written in our souls. That is fairly easily provable. One way of doind that is by comparing different cultures and realising that their moral codes are similar. Another way, more to the point of your quote, is to observe that (traditional) morality often goes against selfishness.
theantisauronist 6 months ago
@theantisauronist Can I not C&P my own words? That their moral codes are similar is no more surprising than the fact that we share the same physiology. It is wrong to say any morality is against selfishness. It is the compromise of personal good for group good, but it is still out of the self-interest that the group not fail or fall apart.
ExtantFrodo2 6 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2 That's fair up to a point. Just because nations that had never had contact and (obviously) share the same physiology should share many moral traits is not enough at all. The circunstances, environments and past experiences are often so completely different and that it would be extremely likely that their moral code would also had evolved completely differently. Yet that seldom happens. I didn't say ANY morality is against selfishness. I said (traditional) morality often does.
theantisauronist 6 months ago
@theantisauronist "Yet that seldom happens."
Was the Mayan culture like the European one or the Japanese one? Very different moral codes all 3. But what survives and gets copied over time? The ones that work, the ones that help a society support itself and it's people. There IS a default and a reason for that default. The standard I spoke of earlier.
ExtantFrodo2 6 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2 The mezzo american cultures are THE exception. They were completely different from any other culture that has been known before or since. Their absolute madness and cruelty were indeed (and thankfully) unique. I have no explanation for it. As for the japanese one, it fits perfectly in the Natural Law hypotheses. Their values were very close to the european (contemporanean and ancient), other high asian ones, and many others.
theantisauronist 6 months ago
@theantisauronist Were their blood games so different than the Roman gladiators? Tribes people the world over engaged in blood sacrifices of many sorts (including Christianity). Were the Mayans cruel in family life or in business? It's hard to say. I don't have data that deep.
Oh please the Japanese morals were very difficult for westerners to comprehend and I'm sure the reciprocal held as well.
ExtantFrodo2 6 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2 Are you serious? It's not "deep data". It is common knowledge that approximately 20,000 people per year were sacrificed by the Aztec royalty, who were quite partial eat a few hands and tighs afterwards. Gettit? Quite different from Roman barbarism. Japanese society was all too similar to European (at the time) except for the over the top social ritual. The society was structured identically, and the family norms of behaviour and social conduct almost identical.
theantisauronist 6 months ago
hitch regulated the CC
xn117 7 months ago
Thanks for responding :)
helpyouseeit 8 months ago
Which part of the argument (that I just posted in two parts) is in error?
helpyouseeit 8 months ago
God is the only logical explanation because any Unmoved Mover is spiritual, not material, since all material things (or conversions into energy) are in motion.
helpyouseeit 8 months ago
The First Cause of the universe is God, who is also an Unmoved Mover. Why? All things in the universe are in motion. In the "chain" of motions (your motion came about due to a previous motion), there cannot be an infinite regression of motions or causes; otherwise your current existence and motion could not be realized. But you are here and are moving.
helpyouseeit 8 months ago
Huss was burned in Constance, but I'll forgive one tiny mistake in this huge Hitchslap.
hejcoze 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the catholic church is demonic and everybody knows it. dont play stupid.
1980vince 10 months ago
Hitchens is such a big fat douchebag. This same tired old list of anti-Catholic crapola gets brought up by every pseudo-intellectual trying to make a buck off opposing the Church. What an asshole!
JEJMDTD 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JEJMDTD Truth hurts, doesn't it? If the list is tired and old, care to tell us which of the charges have been refuted? That the list is *old* only means the church has been committing atrocities for a very long time. If you're *tired* of hearing it, it means you have become jaded to such inhumanities as torture, genocide and child rape. I pity you, and I defy your moral abnegation.
foxfireman188 10 months ago
@foxfireman188 Dorks like Hitchens and his fans like to have a focus for their hatred. The fact that institutionalized child abuse, torture and genocide have occurred and are still occurring with astonishing regularity by currnt governments does not phase them. No, they would rather focus on coneturies old BS, where nobody really knows what happened anyway.
Your hatred of the Churhc reveals more about your character than about your knowledge, buddy.
JEJMDTD 10 months ago
@JEJMDTD
Yeah he's a total poopy face isn't he? Ever heard the phrase, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it? Also these atrocities are *still* happening to this day, just recently a pastor was charged on 60 counts of suspicion of sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist. He abused countless boys and do you know what reason he gave for this? Because he believed it would cure them of their homosexuality.
ScouseCaspaXS 10 months ago
@ScouseCaspaXS Those who ignore the present are... well just stupid. Instead of digging up centuries old accusations, many of which are debatable, how about speaking out against abuse in NYC public schools? Murder and torture of Christians in Islamic countries that happened last Chirstmas? No, the Hitchen's of this world make a buck from justifying the hatered and fear people have for a Church they can not understand. Score one for ignorance.
JEJMDTD 10 months ago
I absolutely love the British for having the cultural balls to televise debates of this nature. It takes guts to openly debate such fundamentally divisive world views as religion. I wish we could see more of this in the States.
GermanChocolateCake 11 months ago 5
@GermanChocolateCake totally agree, we don't even have presidential or congressional debates here in the states, they may be called debates but all it is are 2 or more stump speeches that take place, they cant even address the other candidate directly.
HBCjunke 11 months ago
@GermanChocolateCake Are you kidding? The debate in America was never needed, all American TV mocks God, especially the "Christian" channels, and applauds sin. The more I read the posts in this thread, the more I am convinced of the profound ability of media to mesmerize the masses. It's like listening to sleepwalkers in a dream..... Shalom
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@jzcp99 The monkeys thing isn't saying it would actually happen it's just saying, basically, that if you have a long enough timeline i.e infinity, anything will happen. It's just a way of explaining to some degree the nature of infinity.
Flowerblood 11 months ago
And after this....UK, September 2010, 600.000 with the Pope.........
cavdi 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A genuine debate would not pit two articulate Oxbridge men against a stammering recent convert and a cleric whose first language is not English and whose talent is preaching not debating. A real apologist or theologian would have gutted the other side. So it was a setup, even the audience was maybe a setup. Anyone must intelligently discern these things before forming any opinion. Unless of course, you're watching the video because you hate the church already and just seeking affirmation.
robocrapz 11 months ago
Did god create farting or did it evolve?
bedtime4bonz 1 year ago
talk about awkward situation on the stage
Dethreid 1 year ago
Reading previous comments. I think the point here is not that life is a result of evolution/ mathematical probability or the result of a divine being, but, rather that the Catholic Church as an institution is fundamentally wrong in many of it's views by any standard of modern thinking. I wouldn't ask that anyone give up their faith or belief in God. Rather I would ask them to question their church's view of what it means in this day and age.
apritchard 1 year ago
I have always noted that if there is an afterlife, with a heaven and hell, I would not like to spend eternity with the people who wrap themselves in dogma and doom everyone else to the other place. It would be like spending eternity with a very loud, very unpopular classmate who constantly has the teacher's ear, reminding them when the rest of the class is out of line. So sad...
MrUndersolo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since evolution is mentioned a lot here, could anyone explain the mathematical odds of "life" beginning from material/molecular interaction? Reminds me of the example of monkeys creating Shakespeare's plays: supposedly enough monkeys with enough typewriters hitting random keys would someday create all Shakespeare's works (which mathematically wouldn't happen).
jzcp99 1 year ago
@jzcp99
multiply 400 billion stars per galaxy (thats the amount of stars in each galaxy) with 100 billion galaxies. now each of these stars can have several planets. so the formation of life may be highly unlikely, and it would still happen often in our universe.
by the way, this has NOTHING TO DO with evolution. thats abiogenesis. evolution explains how you can get all the species on our planet, all of them, from one living cell.
kurtilein3 1 year ago 34
@kurtilein3 You're the shit. Excellent comment. GOD still can exist tho. In some crazy way that even scientists dont have the capacity to comprehend. Think about it. Classic comment tho. Classic.
kdpflanders1 11 months ago
@kdpflanders1
you are right, the existence of god cannot be disproven. But as Bertrand Russell said, you also cannot disprove the existence of a chinese teapot somewhere in orbit around sun and too small for our telescopes to detect. not being able to disprove something doesnt make it plausible. God can exist, but does it matter unless not a single one of the billions of followers of that thing can prove its existence in any meaningful way? it doesnt. prove it exists = prove that it matters.
kurtilein3 11 months ago 7
@kurtilein3 Word says that YHVH doesn't matter to most until it's too late for them because men are full of themselves and delight in evil. Tragic. Shalom
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@kdpflanders1 Yes; every imaginable being, soul, object, troll, divine thing CAN exist just because no human can know for sure... That shouldnt impress a donkey as an argument should it?
richter75 4 months ago
@richter75 What it should do is cause those of us to think twice about dismissing the existence of something that we clearly to this day dont yet understand. And please dont mistake me. I do not believe in a GOD with a white beard with some enormous GOD dick up in the sky. The earth is 4 billion years old, not 6 thousand. The universe is 14 billion. So im not saying GOD as a person, but I am saying that what caused the universe to explode into existence is STILL a mystery, and we atheist know it
kdpflanders1 4 months ago
@kdpflanders1 Yes, atheists don't dismiss the existence of anything. Its just no reason to believe it to be true. Its a difference.
richter75 3 months ago
@jzcp99
... second comment evolution does NOT talk about where the first self-replicating molecule came from.
then, the typewriter-example. actually, mathematically it WOULD HAPPEN. you can calculate how many monkeys would need to type for how long until the chance of a given work of shakespeare appearing in the randomness exceeds 90% or 99%. you turned this on its head, arriving at the opposite conclusion.
kurtilein3 1 year ago 2
@jzcp99
third comment...
on abiogenesis again: if it only happens on a few planets out of these hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars, where would we end up living? on a planet where life formed, or on a planet where life didnt form? we are here to talk about it, so our planet was among the lucky ones, but there is much room out there for many other planets where life didnt form. room for monkeys with typewriters producing nothing useful, to use your example.
kurtilein3 1 year ago 2
@kurtilein3 If someone really wants to learn about that stuff they read a biology book or ask a biologist, if someone wants to troll they post on youtube comments.
chazdoit 1 year ago
@jzcp99: "explain the mathematical odds of "life" beginning from material interaction? Like enough monkeys with enough typewriters would someday create Shakespeare's works"
Why is it that religious folk wave such questions among non-experts, Mr zcp99? The answer of course is ignorance and cowardice; fear of the relentless logic of the evolutionary synthesis that is now accepted by overwhelming scientific consensus. Have you posed your question to the NAS or the Royal Society?
Why not
gangster3591 1 year ago
@jzcp99 "(which mathematically wouldn't happen)" - Absolutely incorrect, it's a model on the nature of infinity. It is not guaranteed that it would happen but it is certainly extremely likely. Much more likely to happen at some point than it to never happen, actually.
Aardvarked88 1 year ago
@jzcp99
The odds are 1 - certainty! By that I mean that the only reason we are here is that this happened - if it hadn't we wouldn't be here to talk about it!
I understand your point, but the chances that you, as an individual, are here if we go back to the beginning of life are virtually zero; your parents had to live long enough to successfully reproduce and so did EVERY one of the millions of generations before. But the virtual impossibility of your existence does not prove anything.
alan111best 1 year ago
@jzcp99 Mathematically, given the variable of infinitity, or "enough time" as you so eloquently put it - monkeys would not only type all of shakespeare's works, but also the entire history of English literature. The key to the example is that, given infinite resources, infinite outcomes will appear.
Obviously not a mathematics major.
circuitben 1 year ago 2
@jzcp99 1) Mathematically it 'would' happen. It is an analogy meant to explain the concept of infinity, nothing more. They would produce everything ever written by anyone, and infinite nonsense, and all things in between
2) Abiogenesis is distinct from evolution in that it only needs to happen once. Likely explanations involve the formation of fatty acids in hydrothermal vents, resulting in clusters of vesicles (or micelles) which may contain concentrations of the 'raw materials' for life.
Mirthomaniac 11 months ago
@jzcp99 Once these vesicles are in place, there come two 'big' steps: the formation of a replicating system, and the formation of a metabolic system. Current thinking places the replicating system as the eariest of these.Certain materials with charged surfaces such as clays catalyse the formation of RNA, which is similar to DNA, from its monomers. RNA is capable of self replicating and even folding to form structures with functional roles within the aforementioned 'cells'.
Mirthomaniac 11 months ago
@jzcp99 3) metabolic systems may then have 'evolved'. I say evolved because once we have a system, however simple, that is capable of replicating itself, it is subject to natural selection. In short, the tiny infinitesimally simple systems went through 'descent with modification' and became gradually more complex. This is a non-random process, with the exception of mutations present in DNA as it is passed on. tl;dr, the 'mathematical odds' are near impossible, but once it happens...
Mirthomaniac 11 months ago
@Mirthomaniac its a genuine pleasure to read eloquent, intelligent and thought out posts anywhere, but on youtube in particular. Thank you for taking the time to write some of these ideas down.
TheAcad3mic 11 months ago
@jzcp99 You need to study more, my friend. Or at least read some Jorge Luis Borges for your enlightenment ...
acasouk 11 months ago
@jzcp99 No one can answer your question, as we have yet to explore enough space to give a sample big enough to determine anything. And even then, it's only a tiny portion of the galaxy, which is but one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. Do you see? It's an unanswerable question.
jymbo1969 11 months ago
@jzcp99 All life on Earth is based on DNA. It is in fact mathematically impossible to imagine that a molecule of such complexity did not evolve. So the burden of proof is on creationists, not on people who believe in evolution.
adi87tya 11 months ago
@jzcp99 Learn what evolution is first.
theinsane102 10 months ago
@jzcp99 over simplification asshole
Papptherapper 9 months ago
@jzcp99 Fucking idiot!
deathmetal931 5 months ago
@jzcp99 yep, and also watch this video /watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
insanewarlock666 5 months ago
@jzcp99 If you gave a monkey a typewriter (there by making the process random) and left it for and infinite amount of time then it would eventually type the works of Shakespeare. It was also type Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and every other book. It would type every possible combination of letters there are, and it would type them an infinite number of times too. In all likelihood anyway, technically given that it's random it could just keep hitting the "J" button for all eternity...
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@01000001011100100111 Actually that "theory" expounded by a writer of fiction, was scientifically tested. They produced only gibberish, licking and attempting to mate with the machines far more that "typing." Result. If you give a monkey a typewriter, the monkey will destroy it in a day. Shalom
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM You're missing the point. It's a theorem designed to illustrate the nature of infinity, not to actually predict what a monkey would get up to with a typewriter.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@01000001011100100111 Actually, that is the point. Randomness, even guided by something somewhat intelligent, produces nothing. Time doesn't help the argument at all, it actually makes the "odds" far worse. Why? Because the Universe is in a state of entropy. Even the speed of light is diminishing.... so, as time goes by, there is even less "material" to work with, because all is in decay. In this case, this speaker is the monkey, and reality is the typewriter. Dry humped to pieces.
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM You sound like someone who has cobbled together a couple of arguments you read somewhere else. Complexity need only be a possibility, and a random system can create it, just like any other state. Mathematically speaking, the state needed for life to begin is not even remotely significant, especially when you consider the size of the universe itself and the sheer opportunity for it to come about by chance alone.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@01000001011100100111 Hey, if you say so.... ever see a "simple" one celled critter on the inside? If you have, and still believe it just randomly happened, then brother, you got WAY more blind religious faith than me! Science? Wait ten years and this will be the dark ages all over again. Btw, be careful what you believe. The majority of cash spent on scientific research is spent by corporations, and therefore on controlling your mind. Oh, and the Emperor really doesn't have any clothes. Shalom
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM I've no idea how life started on Earth. I don't pretend to. What I don't have, is any reason whatsoever to believe that there was any supernatural involvement. History has taught us to know better. If we assumed a deity had a hand in everything we didn't understand, we'd still be living in mud huts.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@01000001011100100111 I don't believe in the supernatural. Fact- Scientists are baffled by aging and death, by the entropy of all things observable as well. There is no logical reason for any of it. So, taking in account both the bewilderment of scientists and the Word of Truth together, I see a fallen state that came from the natural state that God intended. Are you seriously arguing that superstitious or religious people are therefore too stupid to develop advanced technologies??? Wow!
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM I'm sorry but you've been mislead. Scientists are not baffled by entropy, and they're certainly not baffled by ageing and death. Telomere gets used up when cells divide, that's why we age. The reason closed systems always suffer to entropy, is because they're never 100% energy efficient.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@01000001011100100111 All just chemically reactionary machines......how sad.... but, if that were really true, why would the animated meat lumps care about anything intangible????? How? < Why? Shalom
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM I've no idea. A by-product of social evolution perhaps? I don't know. Still, no reason to assume that there was any magic involved. There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something, in fact it's often the most intelligent thing you can say.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM I never suggested that religious people are incapable of developing advanced technologies, you're attacking a straw man there. What I did say however, is that if you assume anything you can't understand is the work of a deity, then you learn nothing, and cannot advance. Luckily not everyone is so narrow-minded as to assume such things, even theists.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@01000001011100100111 Perhaps if one assumes that nothing can be the work of a deity then you can learn nothing and never discover God. Why assume anything at all? Why not free scientific inquiry to discover whatever happens to be true without mucking it up with ANY ideology, philosophy or belief? Isn't the fact that there is this argument at all proof that both religious and secular zealotry are equally stupid and hinder honest discovery?
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM Science is the study of the natural world. A deity is a SUPERnatural explanation, and therefore has no place in science. The only people who 'discover God' are those that forgo logic and reason, and replace it with faith and a religious crutch. If people need that in their lives then they're welcome to it, but to try and bring it into a discipline like science is absurd. It would be like looking for unicorns in the fossil record.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@01000001011100100111 Not really, science is the study of the reality we exist within. You think it is natural, I think it is fallen from it's natural state. If I an correct then science is the study of a fallen world through fallen flesh, and will mean nothing in the very near future. When I look at a daisy the "glorious" achievements of man become laughable to me. The fact that man can't create anything, just muck with what he finds, should be enough to cause you to ponder YHVH. Shalom
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM Then you're incredibly weak minded. To look at something as complex as nature and instead of engaging your brain simply attribute it to a fictional character from bronze-age mythology is pathetic, frankly. It's no more profound and no more rational than someone believing that rainbows are made by leprechauns.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@01000001011100100111 And yet you are the one who's position is already reduced to insults and crass supposition. That's ok, I forgive you. I don't care what men are, only what YHVH purposed them to be. My eternal and loving family. This hitchins goes on and on about the R.C.C. They aren't even Christian, they are pagan. They have and will kill more. If he could stop mocking YHVH, then he could understand Rev 13, which prophesied the R.C.C., the first beast, and what they would do. So blind.
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM I'm not blind, I just don't cling to vague prophesies as proof of something I want to be true. Islam, Christianity and Judaism as so blatantly the work of oppressive men trying to dictate a set of ethics for those around them that it's almost comical. Clearly the work of backward minds, which is why the "God" character is so egotistical, narcissistic, homophobic, sexist and just plain evil by modern standards.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@0100000101110 The prophecy of a church rising, placing a man upon a throne and murdering the saints, is exceedingly detailed and not vague at all, just like the very first one found in the Hebrew of the first line of Genesis, that YHVH Himself would be nailed to a cross, suspended between heaven and earth. Though, since you think I called you blind when I was clearly speaking of hitchins, I'm not at all surprised that the far more intricate elegance of the Scriptures eludes your grasp. Shalom
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM It's very interesting how any 'prophecy' that vaguely resembles reality is celebrated as proof, yet any inconsistencies or absurdities refutable claims are just dismissed as an allegory or metaphor. Very convenient. Believers believe because they want to believe, not because it's rational.
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM
your sucking on a dogs tit comment was so disgusting and at the same time you say Shalom - you sound like an inbred nutjob
shame on you defending the cult of men in black robes which teaches people to "believe" and be "commanded" down to
what is so intricately elegant about your cult's offspring? you? you sound like you have caught rabies from a rabbi from the way you are frothing ...
you're called believers cos you believe what someone tells you - you don't "know"
timewilltell7 2 months ago
@timewilltell7 Truth is often disgusting. Don't like dog tits? Don't nurse them. O, and I absolutely DO know. The Word "believe" in Scripture means fully persuaded, absolutely confirmed. True, any simply "believe", in the modern sense of the word, and according to that same Scripture, such are fools to do so. I defended some black robed cult? And I'm the one imagining things......hmm...
TRUTHISIAM 2 months ago
@01000001011100100111 "Modern standards" LMCBO!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
TRUTHISIAM 3 months ago
@TRUTHISIAM I don't know what that acronym stands for. But yeah, I was referring to the higher ethical standards we have these days, compared with bronze age mythologies that endorsed things like sexism, racism, homophobia, slavery etc...
01000001011100100111 3 months ago
Again Mr Hitchens reveals what the church truly is:
the sordid and brutal propagator of a mental disease that has afflicted humanity for 2000 years. An instrument of power for the control of stupid and vulnerable people.
You should take no survivors Christopher
gangster3591 1 year ago
Hi crabbit. Thanks for your reply. I would begin with atheism itself, which I think is often a function of a lack of education. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but only as a matter of fact. Hitchens and Dawkins both misrepresent St. Thomas's five ways through straw man fallacies. To see what I mean, we should start our conversation by reading St. Thomas' proofs for God's existence in the Summa Contra Gentiles or Summan Theologica. Sound good?
helpyouseeit 1 year ago
@helpyouseeit A lack of education? Wow! It's funny how almost every poll in recent years clearly shows that atheists are better educated and informed and generally more intelligent. Did you see the results of the recent Pew survey on religious knowledge? Atheists and agnostics scored highest whereas White Catholics were 5/9 and Hispanic Catholics 9/9. The evidence doesn't support your claim regarding education I'm afraid. Fair enough, I can't defend Hitchens et al when I have not...
crabbit101 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
St. Thomas Aquinas' "proof of god" is a list of questions that taken together prove nothing, except to dullards (ie; Christians).
The modern philosophical consensus characterizes the medieval "proofs of god" as nonsense
gangster3591 1 year ago
@gangster3591 Thanks, but don't worry, as no-one has managed to demonstrate "proof of god" yet I'm not in a big hurry to read those books.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@helpyouseeit ...read those books. If you could point out their so-called strawman fallacies and when they wrote or uttered them I'll be happy to go from there. I have no idea when I will read those books so shall we start by discussing a book we have both read? How about the bible? I'm no expert but reading it was by far the biggest influence on my becoming an atheist.
Could you reply directly to my comment otherwise I have no idea you've replied? Thanks.
crabbit101 1 year ago
Has anyone else noticed that Dawkins and Hitchens (God bless them) are unable to build a substantial case against any particular teaching of the Catholic Church? This reality serves to deepen my faith in the Church that Christ established on earth, so I somewhat thank them for that service. They seem to barely understand the teachings that the Church presents, or at least avoid the essence of arguments that defend the Catholic faith.
helpyouseeit 1 year ago
@helpyouseeit
The Pope himself does a pretty good job of building a case of nonbelief against the Catholic Church =P
dummbatz48 1 year ago
@helpyouseeit
Would you care to dazzle us with your acumen? Were you not watching the same video? Have you read their books? In which points are they most inaccurate?
crabbit101 1 year ago
@helpyouseeit When did they start putting computers in Mental Wards? GTFO retard
xxxsukit 1 year ago 3
@helpyouseeit Why would you want to defend ANY faith? Faith is nothing more than an excuse to not really come up with any real answers!(or proof) Blindly believing that there is a magic space daddy waiting on a cloud for you is just a sign of mental decay! Admit it, if you were born in another country, you would have been brainwashed to believe in yet another fairy tale.Religious people scare me:so adamant about things they don't know anything about, and mostly just severly uneducated sheep.
V45Rider 1 year ago 14
@V45Rider that is an opinion which does not prove or disprove truth
williemetoyer1 9 months ago
@williemetoyer1 What a redundant statement to make! Of course it's my opinion!
Unlike theists, I don't proselytise children into believing garbage:
watch?v=2STDH14aJVk
BTW, what truth are you yapping about? We're talking about religion, here.It's nothing more than puerile, pleonastic nonsense wrapped in false promises of eternal life.
Every religion surely can't be right, but they can ALL sure as hell be WRONG!
Which fairy tale have you been brainwashed into believing is the "truth"?
V45Rider 9 months ago
@V45Rider and you can be wrong also and you are
williemetoyer1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@helpyouseeit -The fact that the Catholic church has done more to prevent gay marriage and the use of contraception than to prevent child rape and genocide strengthen's your faith? The fact that fugitives from the law(wanted for protecting rapists and catalysts in genocides) are currently being protected by the Vatican strengthens your faith? Your bar in morality couldn't possibly be any lower. As for the teachings of the church,well,at the rate that those change kudos for being able to keep up.
14mofo 1 year ago 13
Hitchens made a little mistake there... Jan Hus was not burned in Prague. He preached in Prague in the Betlehem chapel but was trialed and burned in Konstanz
Eternaldream00 1 year ago
Very odd. I finally made it through this video series.
I must say I agree with %97 of everything Christopher Hitchens said.
Its too bad he through out the whole of Christianity because of the Non Christian Catholic Cults practices.
If all we have is intelligence and nothing more we are doomed
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
God-of-the-gaps isn't an answer, it's an impatient response based on nothing.
You could say the invisible pink unicorn farted the universe into existence and have exactly the same amount of credibility as you do now.
k7leetha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@k7leetha
Nope that just makes you an idiot.
1. Who would say an invisible pink unicorn? Can an invisible unicorn be pink? lol Can it? I mean seriously?
Thats why youd have no credibility. Thanks for verifying all ive been saying here.
Its all great to have an accidental & unintentional witness.
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
@k7leetha
Any person who could say they saw an INVISIBLE pink unicorn wouldnt have much credibility to begin with Im afraid.
You unintentionally and unwillingly gave a brilliant witness to my point.
Accidentally agreement. Not the best but always welcome.
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
@Davemustang2600
It's really funny how often you zealots do that; pretend that my point helped yours. It's ludicrous. Do you have ANY more evidence of your god than anyone does of an invisible pink unicorn? No, you don't. You might be stupid enough to point to the bible as proof, to which I'll point to any other "holy" book to prove their god is right.
I'm done with you already, child.
k7leetha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@k7leetha
Tell ya what little one.
When you explain how an invisible unicorn can be PINK or any other color lol Ill respond further.
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@k7leetha
Tell ya what little one.
When you can explain how an invisible unicorn or an invisible anything for that matter can be PINK Ill respond to your further lol
I mocked you for saying that earlier evidently I was too subtle.
For the hearing impaired I guess things like that have to be amped up lol
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
@k7leetha
Lol Tell you what kiddo. When you explain to me how an invisible unicorn or an invisible ANYTHING for that matter can be pink or any color Ill respond to you further lol
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
*sigh* this is a bit off-topic, but wouldn't it be nice if Christianity was more like Buddhism or Confucism? Unpretentious, relatively-peaceful, no hierachies, no TV evangelists, no Hillsong, no Vatican. I think that THAT is what Jesus the homosapien was going for.
freakystyley4000 1 year ago
@freakystyley4000
Well if it were youd never heard of it.
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
Man does this guy have the fattest head on planet earth or what?
His face looks like a dump truck.
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lucifer did exist. There was a world which existed before this world. There were nations and cultures just like we have now although 'man' wasnt made in the image of God. It was destroyed when Lucifer left his throne on earth and ascended into heaven with a 1/3 of the angels. That was the first time God destroyed the earth with a flood. Thats why in Genesis 1:1 its says the earth was void and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
@Davemustang2600 Circular arguments for the win!
CRISNCHIPS12398 1 year ago
@Davemustang2600
this is complete nonsense. or do you have evidence to back up your claims? if you dont have evidence, then i think you are suffering from delusions.
actually we know from science that a global flood is not possible on this planet. not enough water.
kurtilein3 1 year ago 11
@kurtilein3
Lol Not enough water?
Wait...did you say not enough water?
Just so im clear. Did you just say not enough water? lol
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
@kurtilein3
Lol Not enough water?
Wait...did you say not enough water?
Just so im clear. Did you just say not enough water? lol
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
@kurtilein3
Im basing my evidence on a book which has credibility concerning a million other things.
No matter how outlandish something 'sounds' the deciding factor isnt on the sound of a thing but rather the source from which it comes.
The Bible is an extremely credible source.
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
@Davemustang2600 Please tell me you're being sarcastic?! So if your school teacher told you that the Earth was flat, that is to be believed? Or if a President told you that Scientology was correct and that we did indeed originate from an alien source? What about if your mum told you that the holocaust didn't happen? You're either joking/have a mental impairment or are purposefully deceiving yourself
GodManifested 1 year ago
@GodManifested
No this happened.
Its recorded in a Book that has survived and shaped history.
If 2500 prophecies and fulfilled prophecies in Scripture were %100 accurate ranging from Genesis through Revelation why would it be lying concerning this?
Im basing my belief on the credibility of the Bible.
Did you know my little friend that Enoch knew the earth was round? The shape of the earth wasnt a mystery then but it was to the rest of the world for another 3600 years.
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
@Davemustang2600 Are you kidding me? It's authors are not known, it was written decades after Jesus's death, no original copies exist and it is full of literally hundreds of contradictions. Many "historical" events in the bible are not confirmed by any records of the time.
Never mind that there isn't any proof that Jesus and Moses even existed!
Credible source it aint.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101
Haha what dummy told you that garbage? lol
1. The ENTIRE Old Testament was translated to Greek in 300BC by 70 Jewish Scholars in Alexandria.
It was written decades after Jesus death. Now dont you look stupid?
Yep youre right there are a few historical events that are not confirmed by records but only because none exist.
However, in the year 2000 theres a stretch of the Dea Sea from Egypt all the way across to the other side where thousands of chariots lie at the bottom.
Davemustang2600 1 year ago
@Davemustang2600 Fair enough, I should've been more specific and said that the New Testament was written decades after Jesus' death. However, it does not change the fact that they have no known authorship. Whether they were translated answers nothing about who the authors were.
A few historical events not confirmed? Try the unlocated Mt. Sinai, the flood, the wanderings of the Jews and subsequent exodus for starters. Jewish Archaeologists with every motive to prove the wanderings and....
crabbit101 1 year ago