A God-less void of non-conscious, immaterial, non-rational, non-feeling, lawless, amoral nothingness through unguided purely natural, non-intelligent processes produces a conscious, sentient, moral, intelligent, rational human being who believes in God.
I disagree with the girl at 1:30. Relgion deserves respect. Anyone who has a point of view deserves respect. Its only when someones views obstruct you from living your life that you can disrespect them or "fight" back.
I wouldconsider myself an Athiest, but for me to tell someone they should think like i do, would be like me telling someone that their new favorite color should be green.
@masonTganes Not at all, religion does not deserve respect when their views and beliefs are unfounded and unscientific. Religion almost always obstructs other people's lives - there is no debate there.
In your second paragraph - I think you are confusing facts with opinions -
OPINIONS: a preference in color, hair length, beauty, taste,
CANNOT be likened to
FACTS: a preference of whether the earth is a sphere or a cube OR whether god exists or not OR whether evolution happened or not.
A God-less void of non-conscious, immaterial, non-rational, non-feeling, lawless, amoral nothingness through unguided purely natural, non-intelligent processes produces a conscious, sentient, moral, intelligent, rational human being who believes in God.
@BENJIMANBREEG33 "Above all I have learned from the Jesuits. And so did Lenin too, as far as I recall. The world has never known anything quite so splendid as the hierarchical structure of the [Roman] Catholic Church. There were quite a few things I simply appropriated from the Jesuits for the use of the [Nazi] Party.
@BENJIMANBREEG33 "In the agreement to rescue Rome [i.e., the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy] from the predicament of losing its world control to Protestantism, and to preserve the spiritual and temporal supremacy which the popes [had] 'usurped' during the Middle Ages, Rome now 'sold' the [Roman Catholic] Church to the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuits]; in essence the popes surrendered themselves into their hands."
@BENJIMANBREEG33 Michael Tsarion is the worlds premier conspiracy researcher/lecturer/author. Leo Zagami, Jordan Maxwell and Alexandre Dumas pere are highly informative as well. p.s. Melting Euphoria is similar to Ozric Tentacles and Gong.
@BENJIMANBREEG33 "If you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Superior General of the Jesuit Order] are one and the same person."
@BENJIMANBREEG33 Alexandre Dumas pere wrote over 400 historical novels exposing world tyranny(Roman Catholic Empire). He was born near Paris in 1802 and 'coincidentally' in 1902 the Society of Gesu(Jesuits) were expelled from France for the 3rd and last time. The Society of Jesu(Jesuits) have been expelled from 83 countries, city states and cities and their pope is ARAMIS AND HE IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE COUNT OF MONTE CHRISTO(GENERAL OF THE JESUITS).
1. no they were not. i don't know why you would think that.
2. they are not. they fight against dogma of religions and promote rational and free thinking.
3. that kid seemed like an extraordinarily smart young girl. and the beautiful part about that bit is that it was the last recorded video of hitchens. his last words on camera were "lots of love, take it easy, and remember the love bit" to a young child.
@clancym1 I was joking. Its not free thinking. If they were free thinking, they'd just get on with their lives, and not push their opinion's on people. A child is only a child once, she should still be thinking about whether the tooth fairy or santa are real, not God and worrying about politics. Actually there's another video that says was his last. I thought he was a bit self righteous.
@dougsdreamdotcom it is an assumption based on plenty of actual experience of meeting plenty of god fucking assholes like yourself who are gullible enough to believe in fairy tales.
Ridiculing and disrespecting others' beliefs (1:00 &1:31), reducing them to "sadomasochism" (4:56), insulting prominent figures (5:19), narrow minded disregard to others' opinions (7:00). All of this & these atheists still call themselves "free thinkers"! What a joke.
If this was a religious conference then the same atheists would be all over the media howling about how religion preaches bigotry. Yet their attitude towards religions is not so different except that it's disguised as "science".
@samaroo96 actually there is plenty of evidence. You don't know about it because it the facts behind evolution is very threatening to your religious beliefs so you choose to ignore it. If you do read anything about evolution it would be books written by extremely biased Christian writers.
@drpiddleton the facts behind evolution threaten what religious belief or belief's? How do you know they would read books written by extremely biased Christians writers? What proof do you have of your assumptions? Do you always make assumptions to conclude your beliefs?
It is better to Believe in God of The Bible than Believing in evolution without any evidence. We have NO evidence and proof of our origin from apes but it's just an idea and blindly Believe. Other Hand our Words, Imagination, Thoughts and power of creation are the proof that man have Spirit which makes him an Image of God. We can create computer while an ape can not. Because We have Spirit but they don't. We are more than a physical man.
@samaroo96 asserting something does not make it true, and saying "We have NO evidence and proof of our origin" displays ignorance of the highest order.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
Ridiculing others' beliefs (1:00), disrespecting them (1:31), reducing them to "sadomasochism" (4:56), insulting prominent figures (5:19), narrow minded disregard to others' opinions (7:00). All of this & these atheists still call themselves "free thinkers"! What a joke.
If this was a religious conference then the same atheists would be all over the media howling about how religion preaches bigotry. Yet their attitude towards religions is not so different except it's disguised as science.
As far as I'm concerned, until christianity is singled down to one denomination-every christian being able to agree on one integrated interpretation of the bible, thus not being able to complain about "being grouped together" and finding loop-holes to defend their faith by saying "oh, THEY aren't true christians. NONE of them nor do any church clergy have any credibility in preaching or proselytizing the supposed "gospel of christ". Not that it's the fucking truth to begin with!
God spoke to me today and said that creationists are wrong. "12? May I call you 12? I chose you to be my messenger. Please go on YouTube and write the following: "The bible sucks! Creationists are idiots! None of the religious get the truth and there is no Hell!" Oh, and please tell the creationists to do the effort and understand this instead of cowering behind idiotic dogma! Thanks". Ok...I am still not over the schock - me - a devout atheist! OMG!!!
Actually, this is conistent with Gen. 3:14. A talking 'snake' is a misnomer as it wasn't a 'snake' as we know it that spoke with Eve. The snake was changed to its present form as part of the curse. It originally walked and likely looked a lot different than it does today. So there's good reason for the vestiges of pelvic bones.
You gentlemen have been going at this for some considerable time now, slugging away like cage fighters. The thing that has disillusioned me the most, is that the atheist once again has managed to hold the believer in the cage with his typical vice like grip. Your not going to change one single thing here, unless of course, you can make the blind see, and I don't see that happening on YouTube. Back off my friend, unless your ego won't allow, in which case, you belong with these atheist nut jobs.
Although i'm atheist and i agree with what i see in the video and Hitchens and Dawkins, i get uneasy when i see children being guided by it. I feel anger when i see children being taught Christianity and having that seed planted so early on when very impressionable, that i can't help but feeling the same way toward planting the seed of Atheism in a child.
@PrimeEden I'm sure that child's parents did not force her into going and asking that question. And even if she was, teaching a child a FACT should not be a problem. Teaching a child how rainbows are actually formed contradicts religions and is it, as a result, indoctrinating children with atheism? If you ask Hitchens what books you should read he won't suggest the bible. He answered honestly (as he always did) and teaching a child atheism is indistinguishable from teaching truth.
Hold on now. Where does the Bible comment on the scientific explanation of a rainbow?
Re: "he won't suggest the Bible"
You (and Hitchens) are guilty of exactly what you charge theists with. Close-mindedness.
The most-read book in the world CERTAINLY should be on one's list of books to read. How could you make any intelligent comment on the contents of any writing or the thoughts of any author when you haven't even read what they wrote?
@greatgulffixed Doesn'ty the bible suggests that the rainbow was a sign of God's covenant with man after the great flood? Which is wrong. Because it's caused by the rain hgitting the sun and as a result would not have suddenly one day been created by God following a flood. I actually have read the bible, not all of it (bit dry). If someone asked me a good book, and i was known for being an atheist, I wouldn't suggest the bible. Much like you wouldn't suggest the god delusion... would you?
@greatgulffixed Great so we both read both sections of the literature. Brilliant.
Right so if you believe that explanation it means you must think there was a time when rainbows didn't form? Like before the flood which was apparently 4000 years ago? This is impossible because rainbows happen whenever there is rain and sun. They are a naturalistic phenomenon which are not associated with God or any covenant. They have existed since rain existed. FACT.
@greatgulffixed hahaha i'm finding it so hard to believe you've read any actual literature on the world. No rain? So how were rivers replenished? crops grown? how did people drink?
Also, a literal believer in Noah's ark? are you actually shitting me? the most ridiculous story ever told and I'm actually talking to a believer in its literal truth? wow you are a special gentleman, they don't make you like that on this side of the Atlantic. What's it like ignoring everything you see and hear?
@greatgulffixed You base this on what exactly? An incredibly old book. I can send you to numerous videos (and I do mean numerous) detailing the many different reasons why Noah's worldwide flood couldn't have happened. Your suggestion of that method of precipitation is insane because it doesn't even make sense. The steam (Genesis 2:6) would have to condense and fall as droplets (can't drink mist) and we call condensed steam falling as droplets "rain". Next.
@greatgulffixed I will play ball with you when you said "a lot of good arguments for the flood". Name any you think you have and I will send you the actual explanation. Provided the things you say are true of course. If they are untrue I will just explain why they are untrue.
No. Not good enough. The flood has been shown to have not happened. There was not world wide extinction of creatures in the last 10,000 years. No evidence the world was covered in water. There is no evidence all but 8 people were killed and then repopulated the planet fast enough that the egyptians were then able to build pyramids a hundred years later, or that all people can trace their genetics back to noah and his family.
Let me answer for you since you are afraid to venture further. What you're basically saying is that you demand proof for a supernatural entitiy, but you don't know what that proof is.
With a closed-minded attitude like that, it's no wonder than you don't have sufficient evidence.
Not true. The reality is, the proof needed would depend on which one of the many thousands Gods of religion appeared. I need specific evidence they were that God, and I can't define that in one sentence.
You believe in a world wide flood dis-proven by science, talking snakes, virgin births.... all with no evidence other than an old book proven to be unreliable.
Yet you criticize my proof requirement standards?
Re: Talking snakes etc. - not a problem if God existed at all. You are discounting what you are trying to prove.
Re: old book
Precisely. It has passed the test of time, despite a million pea-shooters like yourself, and it'll be around long after you're gone. Hitchens is dead. The Bible remains.
Re: unreliable
The very opposite. You're very limited in your sources, my friend.
Hindu and budhist texts are similarly old. The Koran is a 500-600 years newer, but still dark ages inspired. So... does age make these texts simarly as acceptable as your bible?
A group of people hanging onto the teachings of books written by ignorant, frightened men of an age long since past is not unique to christianity and i hardly see how longevity of such texts shows anything other than people can be really silly.
So in short. Your say old book is true, even though is proven not to be(Noah is just one of hundreds of examples of nonsense in the bible). The Koran, equally silly and untrue, is REALLY untrue though. This is what you are saying right?
Oh and Christopher Hitchens, has died what... so therefore there is a God? Is this what you are saying?
Nyah Nyah, Hitchens died HA! That proves the bible is true and there is a God?
That's a bit of scary concept. Newsflash. Isaac Newton is dead. You better tie yourself to the ground as his theory of gravity is not going to be right and it won't apply anymore, you are in danger of floating away.
Acting smug because of the death of another is pathetic.
Goat herder is metaphoric for ignorant, backwards, and easily fooled.
There you go again. All mighty and smug, and again, but missing the point.
When these people are called goat herders, its not because the literally were herding goats, its becuase they were dark ages born, most were illiterate, and one who was educated, never met Jesus and wrote of things he had no personal experience of.
there is a video by darkmatter2525 that very credibly and sensibly sends up how ridiculously impossible the flood story is. You are a true believer, it won't make any differernce to you but others here will have a good laugh.
@greatgulffixed Fine, okay. You claim that rain was invented following the flood? You claim that rainbows caused by rain are a sign of a covenant with God? You literally believe Noah's flood? I don't believe you are serious. Genuinely, I thought you people were a myth. How can you call me closed minded? Take any of your claims about the flood, do some research and see the truth. I hope you see all the flaws in your arguments.
No. You are just plain wrong. There is not a single peer reviewed scientific opininon that states there is physical evidence of a world wide flood covering all land in the last 100 years. None. Nada. Not one. You aren't naming any, because they don't exist.
Duck, weave, dodge as you do.
Fine.
It seems the bullshit smelling aroma emanating from that hidden bag of information you claim to be holding is in fact - just plain old bullshit.
You are joking aren't you? Quirin Schiermeier was talking about a flood of a few meters. In the bible the great flood covers all land, it would need to have been a flood of what.... 9 klms high world wide? Yes. With the rise and fall of ocean temperatures, or massive chunks of ice breaking off from the poles and melting, this can happen. This has no relevance to Noah's ark. Schiermeier does nto suggest all land worldwide was covered!
There are at least 5 predictions for a global flood: global erosion and sedimentation, a predominance of marine sediments, some sedimentary sequences and unconformities should have very large georgraphic extent, global volcanity, and rapid mountain chasm building and intense tectonism.
Oh yes. Fossils. A global flood would leave behind a predominance of marine fossils (95% in actuality), evidence of violent deaths in those fossils, mass extinctions, land creatures buried in water-laid sediments, land creatures buried inside marine sediments, fossils out of evolutionary order (yes, it's a fact), fossils of different ecoysystems occurring together, and high frequency of exceptional preservation.
This, is your evidence. Wow. Sunday school science. You are really presenting this? I'm flabbergasted.
Marine fossil evidence on land occurs where the land in question used to be sea floor, and by reason of tectonic forces, the sea floor has been pushed up to become land, even mountains. This takes millions of years. There is no evidence of marine fossils on land as a result of a world wide flood 5000 years ago. You are being scientifically moronic.
What exactly do you think happened in the flood? There were tremendous tectonic forces pushing up the sea floor into mountains and dropping them into canyons.
Same process. Prove to me that it takes millions of years!
I agree with the accepted view that the flood is a myth so I think nothing happened. Regarding how long tectonic forces take to make mountains - scientists have been measuring their speed now for long enough to know they move at about the speed of fingernail growth. Look it up. Its true.
To think massive mountain ranges could be pushed up in short space of time, is nutty.
You have no scientific grounds at all and are becoming evermore nutty.
And like I did with another on this thread, I am going to withdraw from further discussion with you.
You are presenting nonsense as science. Its embarrassingly juvenile.
Present these opinions in any educated scientific forum and you would be laughed at as ridiculous. Your propositions are unlikely to the point of near impossibility. You present them only so you can hang onto your delusions yet you present them smugly as if they are fact.
You are locked into a paradigm and won't allow yourself to even peek out of the box.
If there were no account of a Genesis flood, would you consider the hypothesis of a global flood. Yes, if you're a true objective scientist. And would not discount it until you considered all the available evidence.
My evidence is there is NO such fossil evidence. None. You are totallly bullshitting, mixing scientific observations at a below child like level to try and match your beliefs.
@greatgulffixed Until they find a fossilized rabbit in the Cambrian Layer you and your ilk have absolutely no credability. You are just parroting the mindless and irresponsible bilge of the cult of the glorified zombie.
What about pollen grains of archefructus sinensis (from the cretaceous period presumably) the earliest known flowering plant) being found in pre-cambrian formations?
R.M. Stainfortl: Occurrence of pollen and spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guinea (Nature 210: p. 292-294, 1966)
Are you really asking me to show you evidence that all life on earth was not wiped out around 5000 years ago, and completely repopulated to where it is today?
You really feel that one, jovial article suggesting a local rise in water levels caused not be God, but by a natural event... means now I should prove mankind is not not all descendants of Noah, and his wife? You are joking right?
Aboriginals culture for starters shows an unbroken 50,000 year history.
You ask for evidence of no flood. The fact that there is NO evidence of a flood, no world wide extintctions, There are even trees still living that have been shown to be OLDER than 5000 years, some by around double that age. I suppose the lived under water for 300 + days did they with no sunlight in salt water?
My evidence that there was no flood, is the lack of any indication at all that it happened.
@greatgulffixed I pride myself on accepting a lot of evidence but if someone asks my opinion on what to read I'm not going to give your opinion for the sake of it. I will give my opinion.
The bible is also filled with falsehoods which it should be wrong to direct at children (the christian creation for one). Don't accuse me for being closed minded just for having an opinion. Now if i rejecting overwhelming evidence, like a theist, that would be closed minded.
@PrimeEden point of atheism is not to believe in something without proof, and I dont see the harm in teaching your kid to ask for proof if someone claims something. If there were proof of god than atheist would "believe" in him, well in fact know he's real and accept it.
So go on the offence against religion is not equal atheism. Hitchens called himself an anti-theist and not atheist simply cause of his approch.
No, what you mean is. "Someone who wrote some things that were later published in a book, who reckons there is a God, says God says... yada yada.
There is no evidence God said these things, and by sayin "God said" you are expecting everyone here to accept that he not only existed, but spoke.
TSS was using literal metaphor to describe how CH will be seen one day as the man who dragged humanity from a time of belief in fairy stories to belief in reality,.
@greatgulffixed You're quoting from a book written by crazy desert arabs 2,000 years ago. Should I respond by telling you about Zeus and Thor? You need to grow up and learn to think for yourself! The modern world has lots of answers. Better ones than nutty brown people living in the middle-east a long time ago!
@greatgulffixed It's not racist, just factual! The primitive people who invented the Jesus myth were brown. As was Jesus himself (assuming he ever existed at all).
@greatgulffixed nutcase? There is little evidence for Jesus outside of a few texts written hundreds of years after he was born. While I think that someone did exist to start the religion it is preposterous to claim he actually did anything written in the bible, due to the scale of the supposed miracles and the lack of anything written about them for at least 60 years.
The gospel accounts (except for John) were written within 20-30 years of Christ's death. The apostle Paul met with Peter and James (eyewitnesses) just 5 years after Christ died.
Get educated. You wouldn't want to expose you ignorance of these topics like Hitchens repeatedly did.
@greatgulffixed The problem is that the gospels are anonymous. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are just stand in names for people they don't know anything about. They were not written by the disciples of Jesus, because the disciples were uneducated men who spoke Aramaic, and the authors of the gospels were educated men who spoke Greek. You act like the dates the gospel are set in stone, they are not. There is a huge time range for all of them ranging from 10 to 70 years after the death of Jesus.
@greatgulffixed Okay, I do not think they were written ten years afterwards, and back then, there was no internet, no television, everything was spread by word of mouth. It's funny you mention 9/11 because just in ten years with perfect video records of what happened, there are loads of conspiracy theories and rumors. Take away the technology we have today and thirty years after Jesus was born there could be any amount of stories added or details changed.
@greatgulffixed Plus, unlike the stories about Jesus, there are most likely thousands of written records from the same day as so 9/11, so that isn't a logical comparison.
@greatgulffixed Absolute nonsense. No accurate account of any meeting with Jesus has ever been discovered. The Bible is a work of fiction! When will you get that through your thick skull? And you have the nerve to call someone else ignorant? Oh the irony!
@greatgulffixed Personally I think he did exist, but there's nothing nutty about someone who thinks he didn't.
My point is that there was nothing special about Jesus. He was just an evolved primate like all other human beings and 99% of the things that were written about him aren't true.
I hate to break this to all the Atheists out there, but atheism relies on unprovable beliefs not unlike any religion. Saying nothing happens after you die is no different than a Catholic saying you specifically go to one place or another - heaven or hell. It is equally egocentric to assert the belief that when you die, this is the end - nothing happens. The non-belief, non-religious answer to the question, "what happens after you die," is simply, "I don't know."
Exactly - other than the bit where atheists understand there is no reason to believe there is a god, heaven or hell so when we die we most likely dont need to worry about those things. There is simply no evidence to believe otherwise.
You aren't suggsting we should try and believe in these things in case they exist? Its simply not possible. I mean... force yourself to BELIEVE in a massive long shot?
Atheism is the rejection of belief in God as no religion has ever provided anywhere near enough evidence to justify having faith that that religion is true. The most credible of religions is a massive unlikely longshot flying in the face of logic, reason and science.
It's true we should use our reason, logic and scientific evidence to form our beliefs rather than rely on a dark ages collection of stories, many of which are clearly false, the rest wholy unreliable.
I'm not talking about whether a 'religion is true'. Or theism.
I'm asking for good reasons that ATHEISM is true.
There used to be no evidence to justify the existence of magnetism, solar radiation, dark enery etc. but they DO exist.
Theists have many arguments that point to the existence of a God (teleological, cosmological, etc.). Sweeping these under the carpet while pretending YOU have NOTHING to defend reveals the bankruptcy of your beliefs.
You are missing the point. This is a thread on a Christopher Hitchens Video. He was not an atheist, he was an Anti-theist. I think if most people who defined themselves as athiests stopped to consider the difference, they'd say they were as well.
A theist believes in God with no evidence, relying instead on faith.
An Anti-theist believes there is no evidence of a God so believing in one is unreasonable.
Theists have personal reasons, not sound reasons. The bible has been shown over and over to be a tail of silliness. Take Noah's ark. Regardless of how impossible it would have been to build, gather the animals, feed them for a year, breed them to their massive numbers today.... it does't even match with the physical evidence that at the time of the supposed flood... the world was simply not flooded.
OK, I will grant you there is no evidence there is no God. Or vampires. Or ghosts. There is no evidence Mary didn't have an incestuous relationship with her brother or that Jesus wasn't secretly Gay.
But yes you are right, its not possible to disprove God, thus, I am not an atheist, I am an anti-theist as are most "atheists" they just don't know it.
But no proof of something's non existence would be a silly reason to believe it in fact existed.
@greatgulffixed The claim for a supreme being is as outrageous as the claims of bring a child into this world by means of a virgin, it has nothing to do with bible bashing. God is an outrageous idea, apparently he is more focused than you are.
awww man its horrible to see hitchens like that :(
What a loss :(
netgear123456 3 hours ago
UPSETS ME TO SEE HIM SO FRAIL
watsinyrwallet 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A God-less void of non-conscious, immaterial, non-rational, non-feeling, lawless, amoral nothingness through unguided purely natural, non-intelligent processes produces a conscious, sentient, moral, intelligent, rational human being who believes in God.
Go figure.
greatgulffixed 1 day ago
I disagree with the girl at 1:30. Relgion deserves respect. Anyone who has a point of view deserves respect. Its only when someones views obstruct you from living your life that you can disrespect them or "fight" back.
I wouldconsider myself an Athiest, but for me to tell someone they should think like i do, would be like me telling someone that their new favorite color should be green.
masonTganes 2 days ago
@masonTganes Not at all, religion does not deserve respect when their views and beliefs are unfounded and unscientific. Religion almost always obstructs other people's lives - there is no debate there.
In your second paragraph - I think you are confusing facts with opinions -
OPINIONS: a preference in color, hair length, beauty, taste,
CANNOT be likened to
FACTS: a preference of whether the earth is a sphere or a cube OR whether god exists or not OR whether evolution happened or not.
RoninMiyamotoMusashi 1 day ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
A God-less void of non-conscious, immaterial, non-rational, non-feeling, lawless, amoral nothingness through unguided purely natural, non-intelligent processes produces a conscious, sentient, moral, intelligent, rational human being who believes in God.
Go figure.
greatgulffixed 3 days ago
Comment removed
greatgulffixed 4 days ago
Comment removed
greatgulffixed 4 days ago
Thats child is brainwashed lol. No child acts like that. She a child!
BENJIMANBREEG33 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BENJIMANBREEG33 "Above all I have learned from the Jesuits. And so did Lenin too, as far as I recall. The world has never known anything quite so splendid as the hierarchical structure of the [Roman] Catholic Church. There were quite a few things I simply appropriated from the Jesuits for the use of the [Nazi] Party.
Adolph Hitler
augustmaquet 2 days ago
They are just as bad as the fanatic religions.
BENJIMANBREEG33 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BENJIMANBREEG33 "In the agreement to rescue Rome [i.e., the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy] from the predicament of losing its world control to Protestantism, and to preserve the spiritual and temporal supremacy which the popes [had] 'usurped' during the Middle Ages, Rome now 'sold' the [Roman Catholic] Church to the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuits]; in essence the popes surrendered themselves into their hands."
John Daniel
augustmaquet 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BENJIMANBREEG33 Michael Tsarion is the worlds premier conspiracy researcher/lecturer/author. Leo Zagami, Jordan Maxwell and Alexandre Dumas pere are highly informative as well. p.s. Melting Euphoria is similar to Ozric Tentacles and Gong.
augustmaquet 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BENJIMANBREEG33 "If you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Superior General of the Jesuit Order] are one and the same person."
James Parton (American historian)
augustmaquet 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BENJIMANBREEG33 Alexandre Dumas pere wrote over 400 historical novels exposing world tyranny(Roman Catholic Empire). He was born near Paris in 1802 and 'coincidentally' in 1902 the Society of Gesu(Jesuits) were expelled from France for the 3rd and last time. The Society of Jesu(Jesuits) have been expelled from 83 countries, city states and cities and their pope is ARAMIS AND HE IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE COUNT OF MONTE CHRISTO(GENERAL OF THE JESUITS).
augustmaquet 2 days ago
His last words were "help me God"
BENJIMANBREEG33 4 days ago
@BENJIMANBREEG33
1. no they were not. i don't know why you would think that.
2. they are not. they fight against dogma of religions and promote rational and free thinking.
3. that kid seemed like an extraordinarily smart young girl. and the beautiful part about that bit is that it was the last recorded video of hitchens. his last words on camera were "lots of love, take it easy, and remember the love bit" to a young child.
he was a kind, loving man with no god.
clancym1 4 days ago
@clancym1 I was joking. Its not free thinking. If they were free thinking, they'd just get on with their lives, and not push their opinion's on people. A child is only a child once, she should still be thinking about whether the tooth fairy or santa are real, not God and worrying about politics. Actually there's another video that says was his last. I thought he was a bit self righteous.
BENJIMANBREEG33 2 days ago
@dougsdreamdotcom it is an assumption based on plenty of actual experience of meeting plenty of god fucking assholes like yourself who are gullible enough to believe in fairy tales.
drpiddleton 4 days ago
7:01-7:39 ...epicosity!
virginWHORE69 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ridiculing and disrespecting others' beliefs (1:00 &1:31), reducing them to "sadomasochism" (4:56), insulting prominent figures (5:19), narrow minded disregard to others' opinions (7:00). All of this & these atheists still call themselves "free thinkers"! What a joke.
If this was a religious conference then the same atheists would be all over the media howling about how religion preaches bigotry. Yet their attitude towards religions is not so different except that it's disguised as "science".
ShogunV 5 days ago
@samaroo96 actually there is plenty of evidence. You don't know about it because it the facts behind evolution is very threatening to your religious beliefs so you choose to ignore it. If you do read anything about evolution it would be books written by extremely biased Christian writers.
drpiddleton 5 days ago
@drpiddleton the facts behind evolution threaten what religious belief or belief's? How do you know they would read books written by extremely biased Christians writers? What proof do you have of your assumptions? Do you always make assumptions to conclude your beliefs?
DougsDreamDotCom 4 days ago
It is better to Believe in God of The Bible than Believing in evolution without any evidence. We have NO evidence and proof of our origin from apes but it's just an idea and blindly Believe. Other Hand our Words, Imagination, Thoughts and power of creation are the proof that man have Spirit which makes him an Image of God. We can create computer while an ape can not. Because We have Spirit but they don't. We are more than a physical man.
samaroo96 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@samaroo96 asserting something does not make it true, and saying "We have NO evidence and proof of our origin" displays ignorance of the highest order.
sun5621 6 days ago
@samaroo96 lol nice try but your "logic" fails
alvesrocha 5 days ago
@samaroo96 Yes, of course. Scientists have just faith in the Evolution, they just made this up.
itsSkmt 2 days ago
Holy crap. I didn't even recognise him, so weak and gaunt. Cancer is a horrible thing.
MegaLolburger 1 week ago
This almost brought tears to my eyes.Such a lose ,such a great person.
rodbob11 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheAndiePerson 1 week ago
i thought the thumbnail was richard dawkins and bruce willis.
ilshockll 1 week ago
Dawkins stares at Hitchens the way I stare at 'rtw.
I know that look ...
Coookieez 1 week ago
@mythreligion
>I wish i would have got to meat him......
>got to meat him
>meat him
>meat
ThoughtCrime88 1 week ago
@ThoughtCrime88 my bad, meet, I wich I could have met him, before he died.
mythreligion 3 days ago
I wish I would have got to meat him........
mythreligion 1 week ago
@mythreligion Meat????????? is that a euphemism?
Evilrolfharris 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ridiculing others' beliefs (1:00), disrespecting them (1:31), reducing them to "sadomasochism" (4:56), insulting prominent figures (5:19), narrow minded disregard to others' opinions (7:00). All of this & these atheists still call themselves "free thinkers"! What a joke.
If this was a religious conference then the same atheists would be all over the media howling about how religion preaches bigotry. Yet their attitude towards religions is not so different except it's disguised as science.
ShogunV 1 week ago
Comment removed
ShogunV 1 week ago
It takes a lot of belief to believe what you do that there is no such thing as God thats a strong accusation that you carry
Ihavebeenchosentw 1 week ago
@Ihavebeenchosentw are you saying that you actually believe that gods exist?
vinegarthomas 1 week ago
Luckily I am free to think that God exists, that's the advantage of being a free thinker.
try watch?v=f7rrEFJ8Da4 an introduction into worldviews to see how free your thinking is
fourteatwo 1 week ago
Silly religious people.
AliT1995 1 week ago
Oi !! The both of you (greatgulffixed and imrightyskeptical) are really beginning to do my head in now.
These pages are infested with the pollution of your over inflated ego's.
Stop! Now!
REVELATION159 1 week ago
The crazy thing is this was 2 weeks before he died :(
ObsidianSaint 1 week ago
@ObsidianSaint This was uploaded on October 31st 2011, Christopher died on December 15th 2011 so it was more like 6 weeks before he died. Very sad :(
midas41 1 week ago
No offense to Dawkins but it's rather twisted that anyone can achieve an award for "free thinker of the year". This world is really fucked up...
InsanityComplex1 1 week ago
As far as I'm concerned, until christianity is singled down to one denomination-every christian being able to agree on one integrated interpretation of the bible, thus not being able to complain about "being grouped together" and finding loop-holes to defend their faith by saying "oh, THEY aren't true christians. NONE of them nor do any church clergy have any credibility in preaching or proselytizing the supposed "gospel of christ". Not that it's the fucking truth to begin with!
InsanityComplex1 1 week ago
5:00 dawkins got fat, hitchens got skinny hahahahaha
CropDuster33 1 week ago
God spoke to me today and said that creationists are wrong. "12? May I call you 12? I chose you to be my messenger. Please go on YouTube and write the following: "The bible sucks! Creationists are idiots! None of the religious get the truth and there is no Hell!" Oh, and please tell the creationists to do the effort and understand this instead of cowering behind idiotic dogma! Thanks". Ok...I am still not over the schock - me - a devout atheist! OMG!!!
12Monkeys8u 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imrightyskeptical
Re: the pelvic bones of snakes
Actually, this is conistent with Gen. 3:14. A talking 'snake' is a misnomer as it wasn't a 'snake' as we know it that spoke with Eve. The snake was changed to its present form as part of the curse. It originally walked and likely looked a lot different than it does today. So there's good reason for the vestiges of pelvic bones.
Thanks for pointing that out! :)
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imrightyskeptical
There is no such thing as 'your' scientists and 'my' scientists.
If they are objective and honest, they come up with trustworthy data.
How they interpret the SAME data is determined by their mindset and which paradigm they adhere to.
You don't understand this?
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
Comment removed
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
Comment removed
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
Thank God I have a roll model like Jesus in my life, YOU CAN KEEP CHRISTOPHER ATHEIST FRIENDS, peace out
msofinowski1 1 week ago
Comment removed
msofinowski1 1 week ago
100 years from now they will all be believers
MrJimthebaptist 2 weeks ago
You gentlemen have been going at this for some considerable time now, slugging away like cage fighters. The thing that has disillusioned me the most, is that the atheist once again has managed to hold the believer in the cage with his typical vice like grip. Your not going to change one single thing here, unless of course, you can make the blind see, and I don't see that happening on YouTube. Back off my friend, unless your ego won't allow, in which case, you belong with these atheist nut jobs.
REVELATION159 2 weeks ago
oh hail hitchens i wana kiss your ass lol i worship you oh great one lol bunch of idiots!
MrXMerchant 2 weeks ago
It brings a legitimate tear to my eye knowing i will never get the opportunity to even be in the presence of such a logical man.
biggboots 2 weeks ago
Damn, I could cry. I didn't start reading or following Hitchen's work till 2011, my time was too short.
TheLegendOfRandy 2 weeks ago
Although i'm atheist and i agree with what i see in the video and Hitchens and Dawkins, i get uneasy when i see children being guided by it. I feel anger when i see children being taught Christianity and having that seed planted so early on when very impressionable, that i can't help but feeling the same way toward planting the seed of Atheism in a child.
PrimeEden 2 weeks ago
@PrimeEden I'm sure that child's parents did not force her into going and asking that question. And even if she was, teaching a child a FACT should not be a problem. Teaching a child how rainbows are actually formed contradicts religions and is it, as a result, indoctrinating children with atheism? If you ask Hitchens what books you should read he won't suggest the bible. He answered honestly (as he always did) and teaching a child atheism is indistinguishable from teaching truth.
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago 2
@Gouldsonuk Good point.
PrimeEden 2 weeks ago
@Gouldsonuk
Hold on now. Where does the Bible comment on the scientific explanation of a rainbow?
Re: "he won't suggest the Bible"
You (and Hitchens) are guilty of exactly what you charge theists with. Close-mindedness.
The most-read book in the world CERTAINLY should be on one's list of books to read. How could you make any intelligent comment on the contents of any writing or the thoughts of any author when you haven't even read what they wrote?
Free thinkers? What a joke!
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed Doesn'ty the bible suggests that the rainbow was a sign of God's covenant with man after the great flood? Which is wrong. Because it's caused by the rain hgitting the sun and as a result would not have suddenly one day been created by God following a flood. I actually have read the bible, not all of it (bit dry). If someone asked me a good book, and i was known for being an atheist, I wouldn't suggest the bible. Much like you wouldn't suggest the god delusion... would you?
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@Gouldsonuk
I've read my share of atheistic writers. How else could I get the whole picture?
Yes, the rainbow was a sign of God's covenant with man. What does THAT have to do with the physics BEHIND the formation of it?
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed Great so we both read both sections of the literature. Brilliant.
Right so if you believe that explanation it means you must think there was a time when rainbows didn't form? Like before the flood which was apparently 4000 years ago? This is impossible because rainbows happen whenever there is rain and sun. They are a naturalistic phenomenon which are not associated with God or any covenant. They have existed since rain existed. FACT.
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@Gouldsonuk
You just not getting it, are you? There WAS no rain before the flood. So, a rainbow 'in the cloud' had never been seen before.
Is that the best you've got?
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed hahaha i'm finding it so hard to believe you've read any actual literature on the world. No rain? So how were rivers replenished? crops grown? how did people drink?
Also, a literal believer in Noah's ark? are you actually shitting me? the most ridiculous story ever told and I'm actually talking to a believer in its literal truth? wow you are a special gentleman, they don't make you like that on this side of the Atlantic. What's it like ignoring everything you see and hear?
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed P.S. rainbows don't necessarily need rain. Go to any waterfall and you will see them there.
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@Gouldsonuk
Re: rainbows don't necessarily need rain
A rainbow 'in the clouds' does.
The Bible says that the earth was watered by a mist arising from the earth.
There were extreme differences in pre-flood atmospheric conditions to what we have today.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed You base this on what exactly? An incredibly old book. I can send you to numerous videos (and I do mean numerous) detailing the many different reasons why Noah's worldwide flood couldn't have happened. Your suggestion of that method of precipitation is insane because it doesn't even make sense. The steam (Genesis 2:6) would have to condense and fall as droplets (can't drink mist) and we call condensed steam falling as droplets "rain". Next.
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@Gouldsonuk
Who knows what exactly was going on? Not a lot of information is given. As I said, conditions were obviously very different.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed I will play ball with you when you said "a lot of good arguments for the flood". Name any you think you have and I will send you the actual explanation. Provided the things you say are true of course. If they are untrue I will just explain why they are untrue.
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@Gouldsonuk
Your attitude as to holding the 'actual' explanation is likely to make for an unproductive discussion and a colossal waste of time on the subject.
Been there. Done that.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed fine then. Ignore that video. Ignore everything you ever see. 2+2=5 as well by the way. I have an old book that claims it.
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@Gouldsonuk
Your childish attitude confirms my decision not to pursue your little rut any further.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
No. Not good enough. The flood has been shown to have not happened. There was not world wide extinction of creatures in the last 10,000 years. No evidence the world was covered in water. There is no evidence all but 8 people were killed and then repopulated the planet fast enough that the egyptians were then able to build pyramids a hundred years later, or that all people can trace their genetics back to noah and his family.
Its all total nonsense.
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
@imrightyskeptical
Let me answer for you since you are afraid to venture further. What you're basically saying is that you demand proof for a supernatural entitiy, but you don't know what that proof is.
With a closed-minded attitude like that, it's no wonder than you don't have sufficient evidence.
You wouldn't know it if you did.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
Not true. The reality is, the proof needed would depend on which one of the many thousands Gods of religion appeared. I need specific evidence they were that God, and I can't define that in one sentence.
You believe in a world wide flood dis-proven by science, talking snakes, virgin births.... all with no evidence other than an old book proven to be unreliable.
Yet you criticize my proof requirement standards?
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imrightyskeptical
Ok, your evidence for a creator, whosever, whatever it is. You wouldn't have eye-witnesses. Or a video.
And that's what we're talking here, isn't it?
You say you have insufficient evidence. What would be sufficent then?
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@imrightyskeptical
Re: flood disproven
Depends on which scientists you want to believe.
Re: Talking snakes etc. - not a problem if God existed at all. You are discounting what you are trying to prove.
Re: old book
Precisely. It has passed the test of time, despite a million pea-shooters like yourself, and it'll be around long after you're gone. Hitchens is dead. The Bible remains.
Re: unreliable
The very opposite. You're very limited in your sources, my friend.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
Hindu and budhist texts are similarly old. The Koran is a 500-600 years newer, but still dark ages inspired. So... does age make these texts simarly as acceptable as your bible?
A group of people hanging onto the teachings of books written by ignorant, frightened men of an age long since past is not unique to christianity and i hardly see how longevity of such texts shows anything other than people can be really silly.
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
@imrightyskeptical
I never said that 'old' books are necessarily true. Just that age has no bearing on it. Besides the Koran is historically messed up.
The Bible has been used as a guide for historians and is by far the best documented set of writings from the ancient world.
Many have worn out their pea-shooters trying to refute it.
Heads up. Put yours away.
Hitchens' pea-shooter has been put down. The Bible remains unscathed.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
So in short. Your say old book is true, even though is proven not to be(Noah is just one of hundreds of examples of nonsense in the bible). The Koran, equally silly and untrue, is REALLY untrue though. This is what you are saying right?
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
Oh and Christopher Hitchens, has died what... so therefore there is a God? Is this what you are saying?
Nyah Nyah, Hitchens died HA! That proves the bible is true and there is a God?
That's a bit of scary concept. Newsflash. Isaac Newton is dead. You better tie yourself to the ground as his theory of gravity is not going to be right and it won't apply anymore, you are in danger of floating away.
Acting smug because of the death of another is pathetic.
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@imrightyskeptical
Don't be so childish.
I simply quoted 2 facts. Hitchens is dead. The Bible remains.
Can't handle facts?
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed "Hitchens is dead. The Bible remains."
You forget that the goat herders who wrote the bible died too. Hitchens has books and videos that will remain.
Iconoclast444 1 week ago
@Iconoclast444
David, Solomon, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, Luke, and Paul etc. were not goat herders.
Get educated.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed David was supposedly a shepherd, close enough.
Iconoclast444 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed "Get educated."
If education keeps rising, Christianity and Islam will soon fade away.
Iconoclast444 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
Goat herder is metaphoric for ignorant, backwards, and easily fooled.
There you go again. All mighty and smug, and again, but missing the point.
When these people are called goat herders, its not because the literally were herding goats, its becuase they were dark ages born, most were illiterate, and one who was educated, never met Jesus and wrote of things he had no personal experience of.
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@imrightyskeptical
How can writers be illiterate? :)
Just read what they wrote and that should answer your question. You probably can't even understand it!!
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed "Hitchens is dead. The Bible remains."
-Can you prove to me that you have the one true understanding of the bible in its entirety?
InsanityComplex1 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed The bible is a silly book full of silly stories. Should be located only in fiction sections of book stores and libraries.
MrAlsfan5 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
there is a video by darkmatter2525 that very credibly and sensibly sends up how ridiculously impossible the flood story is. You are a true believer, it won't make any differernce to you but others here will have a good laugh.
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
And lost the argument, and don't wish to lose it again?
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
Comment removed
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed Also, rainbows would form in mist. Provided the sun existed (you may have a different opinion).
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@Gouldsonuk
Of course, they form in mist. There's no indication that rainbows were 'created' or 'invented' after the flood.
It was just became symbolic of the covenant given to Noah and his descendants that the earth would never again be destroyed by a flood.
It's a minor point. I don't know why you are making such a big deal of it.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed Fine, okay. You claim that rain was invented following the flood? You claim that rainbows caused by rain are a sign of a covenant with God? You literally believe Noah's flood? I don't believe you are serious. Genuinely, I thought you people were a myth. How can you call me closed minded? Take any of your claims about the flood, do some research and see the truth. I hope you see all the flaws in your arguments.
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gouldsonuk
Of course, the flood was universal. It makes no sense otherwise, either logically or theologically.
I don't think you have checked out ALL the available evidence. There are good scientific arguments for the flood.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
No. You are just plain wrong. There is not a single peer reviewed scientific opininon that states there is physical evidence of a world wide flood covering all land in the last 100 years. None. Nada. Not one. You aren't naming any, because they don't exist.
Duck, weave, dodge as you do.
Fine.
It seems the bullshit smelling aroma emanating from that hidden bag of information you claim to be holding is in fact - just plain old bullshit.
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@imrightyskeptical
um, i mean 10,000 years lol
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@imrightyskeptical
Oceanography: Noah's Flood, Quirin Schiermeier
Nature 430, 718-719 (12 August 2004)
Noah's flood. Mestel, R.
New Scientist. Vol. 156, no. 2102, pp. 24-7. 4 Oct. 1997
You cite me some peer reviewed studies that show for sure there wasn't.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
You are joking aren't you? Quirin Schiermeier was talking about a flood of a few meters. In the bible the great flood covers all land, it would need to have been a flood of what.... 9 klms high world wide? Yes. With the rise and fall of ocean temperatures, or massive chunks of ice breaking off from the poles and melting, this can happen. This has no relevance to Noah's ark. Schiermeier does nto suggest all land worldwide was covered!
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@imrightyskeptical
There are at least 5 predictions for a global flood: global erosion and sedimentation, a predominance of marine sediments, some sedimentary sequences and unconformities should have very large georgraphic extent, global volcanity, and rapid mountain chasm building and intense tectonism.
ALL are readily observed by geologists.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@imrightyskeptical
Oh yes. Fossils. A global flood would leave behind a predominance of marine fossils (95% in actuality), evidence of violent deaths in those fossils, mass extinctions, land creatures buried in water-laid sediments, land creatures buried inside marine sediments, fossils out of evolutionary order (yes, it's a fact), fossils of different ecoysystems occurring together, and high frequency of exceptional preservation.
My evidence.
What's yours?
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
This, is your evidence. Wow. Sunday school science. You are really presenting this? I'm flabbergasted.
Marine fossil evidence on land occurs where the land in question used to be sea floor, and by reason of tectonic forces, the sea floor has been pushed up to become land, even mountains. This takes millions of years. There is no evidence of marine fossils on land as a result of a world wide flood 5000 years ago. You are being scientifically moronic.
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@imrightyskeptical
What exactly do you think happened in the flood? There were tremendous tectonic forces pushing up the sea floor into mountains and dropping them into canyons.
Same process. Prove to me that it takes millions of years!
Time is your starting assumption.
You are being scientifically moronic.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
I agree with the accepted view that the flood is a myth so I think nothing happened. Regarding how long tectonic forces take to make mountains - scientists have been measuring their speed now for long enough to know they move at about the speed of fingernail growth. Look it up. Its true.
To think massive mountain ranges could be pushed up in short space of time, is nutty.
You have no scientific grounds at all and are becoming evermore nutty.
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
And like I did with another on this thread, I am going to withdraw from further discussion with you.
You are presenting nonsense as science. Its embarrassingly juvenile.
Present these opinions in any educated scientific forum and you would be laughed at as ridiculous. Your propositions are unlikely to the point of near impossibility. You present them only so you can hang onto your delusions yet you present them smugly as if they are fact.
Contemptible.
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@imrightyskeptical
Just as I thought. The usual cop out.
You are locked into a paradigm and won't allow yourself to even peek out of the box.
If there were no account of a Genesis flood, would you consider the hypothesis of a global flood. Yes, if you're a true objective scientist. And would not discount it until you considered all the available evidence.
But, hey it's in the Bible. So it MUST be wrong.
You're patheticc.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
Comment removed
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
My evidence is there is NO such fossil evidence. None. You are totallly bullshitting, mixing scientific observations at a below child like level to try and match your beliefs.
Fail
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Until they find a fossilized rabbit in the Cambrian Layer you and your ilk have absolutely no credability. You are just parroting the mindless and irresponsible bilge of the cult of the glorified zombie.
NotEnoughLions 1 week ago
@NotEnoughLions
What about pollen grains of archefructus sinensis (from the cretaceous period presumably) the earliest known flowering plant) being found in pre-cambrian formations?
R.M. Stainfortl: Occurrence of pollen and spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guinea (Nature 210: p. 292-294, 1966)
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Where is the rabbit? :) Creationism is fantasy.
NotEnoughLions 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
Are you really asking me to show you evidence that all life on earth was not wiped out around 5000 years ago, and completely repopulated to where it is today?
You really feel that one, jovial article suggesting a local rise in water levels caused not be God, but by a natural event... means now I should prove mankind is not not all descendants of Noah, and his wife? You are joking right?
Aboriginals culture for starters shows an unbroken 50,000 year history.
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@imrightyskeptical
Re: are you really asking me to show you evidence ... blah, blah
In a word. Yes. You asked ME for evidence for a flood. Why can't I ask YOU?
Got none, don't you?
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed
You ask for evidence of no flood. The fact that there is NO evidence of a flood, no world wide extintctions, There are even trees still living that have been shown to be OLDER than 5000 years, some by around double that age. I suppose the lived under water for 300 + days did they with no sunlight in salt water?
My evidence that there was no flood, is the lack of any indication at all that it happened.
imrightyskeptical 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed I pride myself on accepting a lot of evidence but if someone asks my opinion on what to read I'm not going to give your opinion for the sake of it. I will give my opinion.
The bible is also filled with falsehoods which it should be wrong to direct at children (the christian creation for one). Don't accuse me for being closed minded just for having an opinion. Now if i rejecting overwhelming evidence, like a theist, that would be closed minded.
Gouldsonuk 2 weeks ago
@Gouldsonuk
Truth is not based on opinions - neither yours nor mine.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@PrimeEden point of atheism is not to believe in something without proof, and I dont see the harm in teaching your kid to ask for proof if someone claims something. If there were proof of god than atheist would "believe" in him, well in fact know he's real and accept it.
So go on the offence against religion is not equal atheism. Hitchens called himself an anti-theist and not atheist simply cause of his approch.
wizardaim 2 weeks ago
What a great man. Hitchens will be worshipped someday, when people grow up and face reality!
TenStoryLoveSong 2 weeks ago
@TenStoryLoveSong
So ... worshipping a man as opposed to God is what 'facing reality' is?
You might find it interesting that God has already commented on your opinion -
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and WORSHIPPED and served the CREATURE more than the Creator." Romans 1:25
You might want to read verses 20-22 for a further commentary on your position.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
No, what you mean is. "Someone who wrote some things that were later published in a book, who reckons there is a God, says God says... yada yada.
There is no evidence God said these things, and by sayin "God said" you are expecting everyone here to accept that he not only existed, but spoke.
TSS was using literal metaphor to describe how CH will be seen one day as the man who dragged humanity from a time of belief in fairy stories to belief in reality,.
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed You're quoting from a book written by crazy desert arabs 2,000 years ago. Should I respond by telling you about Zeus and Thor? You need to grow up and learn to think for yourself! The modern world has lots of answers. Better ones than nutty brown people living in the middle-east a long time ago!
TenStoryLoveSong 1 week ago
@TenStoryLoveSong
Do I detect a hint of racism in your nutty 'brown' people reference?
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed It's not racist, just factual! The primitive people who invented the Jesus myth were brown. As was Jesus himself (assuming he ever existed at all).
TenStoryLoveSong 1 week ago
@TenStoryLoveSong
It just sounded weird.
I hope you're not one of those outer fringe nutcases who doesn't believe that Jesus existed.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed nutcase? There is little evidence for Jesus outside of a few texts written hundreds of years after he was born. While I think that someone did exist to start the religion it is preposterous to claim he actually did anything written in the bible, due to the scale of the supposed miracles and the lack of anything written about them for at least 60 years.
SuperBspb 1 week ago
@SuperBspb
Just as I thought. Ignorant.
The gospel accounts (except for John) were written within 20-30 years of Christ's death. The apostle Paul met with Peter and James (eyewitnesses) just 5 years after Christ died.
Get educated. You wouldn't want to expose you ignorance of these topics like Hitchens repeatedly did.
.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed The problem is that the gospels are anonymous. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are just stand in names for people they don't know anything about. They were not written by the disciples of Jesus, because the disciples were uneducated men who spoke Aramaic, and the authors of the gospels were educated men who spoke Greek. You act like the dates the gospel are set in stone, they are not. There is a huge time range for all of them ranging from 10 to 70 years after the death of Jesus.
SuperBspb 1 week ago
@SuperBspb
10 years after the death of Christ is likely writing about 9/11! What's your problem with that?
Re: just stand in names
Says who? A few liberals? Get real.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Okay, I do not think they were written ten years afterwards, and back then, there was no internet, no television, everything was spread by word of mouth. It's funny you mention 9/11 because just in ten years with perfect video records of what happened, there are loads of conspiracy theories and rumors. Take away the technology we have today and thirty years after Jesus was born there could be any amount of stories added or details changed.
SuperBspb 1 week ago
@SuperBspb
Conspiracy theories are one thing.
No one can deny that it happened.
The Book of the Acts was definitely written before AD. 70 - that's within 40 years.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed "Conspiracy theories are one thing.
No one can deny that it happened."
I'm not denying the existence of Jesus
Conspiracy theories based deeper in reality than miracles.
SuperBspb 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Plus, unlike the stories about Jesus, there are most likely thousands of written records from the same day as so 9/11, so that isn't a logical comparison.
SuperBspb 1 week ago
@SuperBspb
It wasn't meant to be a 'logical' comparison. It was a temporal one.
10-30 years is a very short time historically. Dissenters and skeptics could easily disclaim what was written since they were there too.
There are none. In fact, even the Roman historians who had no time for the Jews or their Messiahs made records of His existence.
To claim He didn't exist is asinine.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@SuperBspb
Paul certainly had to write his epistles before he died - which was in AD 67 or so. He spoke directly with James and Peter 5 years after Christ died.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed "Re: just stand in names
Says who? A few liberals? Get real."
Actually most scholars who aren't already biased by their religion.
SuperBspb 1 week ago
@SuperBspb
There are no originals of the gospels. How do YOU know they weren't originally written in Aramaic? Greek is a translation.
greatgulffixed 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed An argument from ignorance is a fallacy. How do you know the later gospels even resemble the originals?
SuperBspb 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Absolute nonsense. No accurate account of any meeting with Jesus has ever been discovered. The Bible is a work of fiction! When will you get that through your thick skull? And you have the nerve to call someone else ignorant? Oh the irony!
TenStoryLoveSong 1 week ago
@greatgulffixed Personally I think he did exist, but there's nothing nutty about someone who thinks he didn't.
My point is that there was nothing special about Jesus. He was just an evolved primate like all other human beings and 99% of the things that were written about him aren't true.
TenStoryLoveSong 1 week ago
His body was weak but his mind, values and strength of character were all there in abundance. You will be sorely missed, but not forgotten
freedomofthought1000 2 weeks ago
I hate to break this to all the Atheists out there, but atheism relies on unprovable beliefs not unlike any religion. Saying nothing happens after you die is no different than a Catholic saying you specifically go to one place or another - heaven or hell. It is equally egocentric to assert the belief that when you die, this is the end - nothing happens. The non-belief, non-religious answer to the question, "what happens after you die," is simply, "I don't know."
bottleracket 2 weeks ago
@bottleracket
Exactly - other than the bit where atheists understand there is no reason to believe there is a god, heaven or hell so when we die we most likely dont need to worry about those things. There is simply no evidence to believe otherwise.
You aren't suggsting we should try and believe in these things in case they exist? Its simply not possible. I mean... force yourself to BELIEVE in a massive long shot?
It's just not possible.
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
@imrightyskeptical
Give me some good reasons why atheism is true.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
Atheism is the rejection of belief in God as no religion has ever provided anywhere near enough evidence to justify having faith that that religion is true. The most credible of religions is a massive unlikely longshot flying in the face of logic, reason and science.
It's true we should use our reason, logic and scientific evidence to form our beliefs rather than rely on a dark ages collection of stories, many of which are clearly false, the rest wholy unreliable.
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
@imrightyskeptical
I'm not talking about whether a 'religion is true'. Or theism.
I'm asking for good reasons that ATHEISM is true.
There used to be no evidence to justify the existence of magnetism, solar radiation, dark enery etc. but they DO exist.
Theists have many arguments that point to the existence of a God (teleological, cosmological, etc.). Sweeping these under the carpet while pretending YOU have NOTHING to defend reveals the bankruptcy of your beliefs.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
You are missing the point. This is a thread on a Christopher Hitchens Video. He was not an atheist, he was an Anti-theist. I think if most people who defined themselves as athiests stopped to consider the difference, they'd say they were as well.
A theist believes in God with no evidence, relying instead on faith.
An Anti-theist believes there is no evidence of a God so believing in one is unreasonable.
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
@imrightyskeptical
Stopped peddling falsehoods. ANYONE is a fool who believes in ANYTHING without evidence - and that includes atheists.
Theists have sound reasons for being in a God. YOU have NO sound reasons for not believing in one.
Come out of hiding and give me your reasons.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
Theists have personal reasons, not sound reasons. The bible has been shown over and over to be a tail of silliness. Take Noah's ark. Regardless of how impossible it would have been to build, gather the animals, feed them for a year, breed them to their massive numbers today.... it does't even match with the physical evidence that at the time of the supposed flood... the world was simply not flooded.
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
@imrightyskeptical
I'm not talking about the Bible.
I'm talking about God. Don't change the subject.
What 'plain old real evidence'? What?
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed
OK, I will grant you there is no evidence there is no God. Or vampires. Or ghosts. There is no evidence Mary didn't have an incestuous relationship with her brother or that Jesus wasn't secretly Gay.
But yes you are right, its not possible to disprove God, thus, I am not an atheist, I am an anti-theist as are most "atheists" they just don't know it.
But no proof of something's non existence would be a silly reason to believe it in fact existed.
imrightyskeptical 2 weeks ago
@imrightyskeptical
I'm not talking about Mary or vampires. Get out of your comfort zone of Bible bashing for a moment.
We're talking about God. Try to focus.
Give me the 'evidence that is lacking' that would convince you that God does exist.
greatgulffixed 2 weeks ago
@greatgulffixed The claim for a supreme being is as outrageous as the claims of bring a child into this world by means of a virgin, it has nothing to do with bible bashing. God is an outrageous idea, apparently he is more focused than you are.
hislord1 2 weeks ago