Men are created sick and will continue to remain sick until they find that God the Cure The only Cure and that There is no other Cure. The SICKNESS is Mans desire to resist God and live with out knowing God. It is strongly apparent to me that Mr. Hitchens Intensely Loves and desires God. For who loves Goodness, Justice and Mercy loves God ...Now ..all that is left is for God to reveal himself to Mr. Hitchens.
@mariamhmha So take a slice of humble pie and just face that your not as special as you'd like to think ad no magic man took time to hand craft a perfect world for you, your just an accident produced by complex chemistry while the universe was forming from something that you have no information on but the smartest people on the earth believe it was the big bang.
@mariamhmha So take a slice of humble pie and just face that your not as special as you'd like to think ad no magic man took time to hand craft a perfect world for you, your just an accident produced by complex chemistry while the universe was forming from something that you have no information on but the smartest people on the earth believe it was the big bang.
@mariamhmha Science actually is taking time to understand the complexities of this universe and will one day humans will understand the workings of the universe through studying and laugh at the stupidity of modern people who actually believed in magic that could defy physics. So as to how the materials to make a rocket, car, or a computer came to be I don't know yet, but neither do you and your the one making up answers. So take a slice of humble pie and just face that your not as special as y
@mariamhmha no religion originates from primal fears and ignorance of mankind ad his desires to understand in simple terms a complex thing. So most religion came up with an explanation any idiot could formulate, that a magic man created everything and he demands praise. Organized religion is a few political hustlers taking advantage of this primal fear and forming cults which they train to follow their lead. Science actually is taking time to understand the complexities of this universe and wi
look at the computer you are sitting at right now. now look at a car or a rocket. you think that they had to have been made by a human right. now look at your heart and your brain and the whole human body for that matter. now look at the arrangement of stars and planets. HOW might i ask could they have come up by chance are they not more complicated then your computer or car, only a clotpole wouldnt believe in god, religion is worshipping the one who gave you everything and saying thankyou.
faith based organisations provide help but only to push there religion.
The catholic church and america faith groups have succefully restricted help if condoms are advised or distributed, mostly for prvention of AIDS, estemates put the deaths as a result at 2million per year.
Watch BBC doco called "Witch Children in Africa/Nigeria" the real result of faith based invasion and cultural destruction.
If you are not angry by the end you have no conscience. One of the few times I cried
RELIGION DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER PERSON, IN FACT IF YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE RELIGION IS TELLING YOU TOO, YOU ARE LYING TO YOURSELF IN THE NAME OF GOING TO A BELIEF YOU HAVE IN THE SKY. "GOOD" PEOPLE DO "GOOD" THINGS. "BAD" PEOPLE DO "BAD" THINGS. THE WORLD IS THEREFORE FOREVER AN INFINITE SHADE OF NEUTRALITY.
Blair: "A quarter of worldwide HIV/AIDS care is provided by catholic organizations."
One would hope so, considering that the catholic church's stance against condom use is almost certainly responsible for many of those cases of HIV/AIDS.
If you are sick and tired of listening to these crackpot old men torch your religion, you may join mine, and together we can rule the universe! Grab your tin foil hats and join the tasty, borscht-flavored revolution! Tin-hat face!
Let's face it; Hitchens was always going to win this debate. Why? Because Blair has absolutely no understanding of his Roman Catholic faith whatsoever. How is Blair supposed to defend something he has no understanding of? If Hichens has actually debated someone like Dr. Scott Hahn he would have been ripped to pieces. But instead he debated someone who disagree's with the Catholic church's teachings on nearly every levels and who, quite frankly, should be excommunicated.
It's hard to escape the old buddhism,like 97% of religions/traditions one feels he or she still has a soft spot for "the lying bastards" tony blair is a catholic LAIR before that he was a protestant LAIR.
Let me come to my point,which you are missing and will forever miss because of you're religious BRAIN WASHING. These two men have never done a hard days work,in their lives. Moral law was lead down by God not Religion. Sorry for contaminating you're wall!
@Goldie450 God laid down moral law??...first define GOD and then prove that GOD entity exists before saying anything else. OWNED again!! Anyway, I do not have time for this, feel free to have the last word.
@statickk14 Unlike the confused religious folk that are WIRED UP, I don't have to prove God exists to you or anyone else,as I don't have the time for this. However, it's funny how you found time to post you're comment,CAN you prove God does not exist NO NO NO you can't, you're welcome to try.
@statickk14 Brains! Hitchy is right about religion it is a load of crap,however I was commenting on the fact that these 2 men were friends and simply making money. Still, good to see you turned your back on your own WACKO religion.
@Goldie450 What is wrong with making money in an honest way? These two men could be friends, so what? Are you implying that they conspired to make money (like religious folks do by propagating lies, myths and misinformation) by arranging this debate and fooling people? Anyway, you do not make any sense, your logic is ridiculous and it is OWNED!!
As for the debate it was rather interesting.Hitchens put on a convincing shown which NO ONE can deny but sarcasm,humor and red herring arguments is no substitute for intellectual honesty.This is the problem with debates.It's not about who is right or wrong.It's about who is more convincing no matter how right or wrong they are.Tony was cool,calm and collective and held his cool against an audience that was bias.He presented his points well and is in my eyes the real "winner" of this debate.
As for the debate it was rather interesting.Hitchens put on a convincing shown which NO ONE can deny but sarcasm,humor and red herring arguments is no substitute for intellectual honesty.This is the problem with debates.It's not about who is right or wrong.It's about who is more convincing no matter how right or wrong they are.Tony was cool,calm and collective and held his cool against an audience that was bias.He presented his points well and is in my eyes the real "winner" of this debate.
As for the debate it was rather interesting.Hitchens put on a convincing shown which NO ONE can deny but sarcasm,humor and red herring arguments is no substitute for intellectual honesty.This is the problem with debates.It's not about who is right or wrong.It's about who is more convincing no matter how right or wrong they are.Tony was cool,calm and collective and held his cool against an audience that was bias.He presented his points well and is in my eyes the real "winner" of this debate.
I was very disappointed with entire debate.It stunk of MTV,reality tv shenanigans.The mere fact that tickets go for 125 pounds had me in awe.You'd think in a debate like this the audience would be unbiased and randomly selected.Indeed you'd hope that the hosts of the debate would be unbiased so imagine my shock when I see the intelligence squared debate website littered with Hitchens worship.I really can't trust any news media.
Christopher Hitchens is super brilliant. He should be awarded a Nobel Prize. Articulate, Concise, Bold, Provocative, Persuasive, Charming, Witty, Out-of-the-Box thinker, philosopher. Tony Blair is charming, wafling his way with examples of religious' entities' good work not mentioning the much bigger damage they have done and do everyday to humanity, especially to children, women and gays.
Neither of these two know how to compare Theism with Atheism.
Try South vs North Korea, or East versus East Germany and count the bodies and ruined lives! Or just compare Soviets versus Western Europe before the latter's "We Don't Do God".
Atheism is blind faith in the reversionary state, and that proves to be puppeted nomenklaturists using Aristotle's heavenless slave dogma every time. There are no exceptions.
Theism oppositely tries to prevent the reversionary Devil/ Original Sin use.
And as for Creationists who think Evolution is just theory, they should go to the jungles of Malaysia where they will witness Evolution in action. A forest-dwelling gecko has split into two species: one forest-dwelling, one cave-dwelling. Side by side, both are nearly identical, save a few minor but important adaptations. The cave-dwelling species is completely new to science, and has only just been found. Oh, and if you want a transitional fossil, go look at Archaeopteryx!
Many geckos look similar, but that doesn't mean they've 'evolved' from only one. You could say that about frogs or turtles, just because they "both are nearly identical" doesn't mean evolution.
Scientist find new things constantly in the ocean. How is that any different from finding new stuff in Malaysia?
This 'transitional fossil' you mention looks like any other bird. Just another drop in the bucket for bird diversity.
Do you have a link so I can see these geckos? I'm curious.
Blair demolished his own argument when he admitted that he knows plenty of people who are not religious but "do good for their community and for the world". In that case, what is religion FOR? Blair's position was entirely "well, err, I believe because...well just because, ok?!". Hitchens won without even trying. It was pitiful, like candy from a baby.
I'm an atheist, but I love rooting for the underdog.
Actually after the debate I did feel that religion can be an important force for good, because religion exist and is important to many people in the world. It is possible to settle difference between religions as well as within the same religion now, through religion, as a channel of communication.
So religion, can be a force for good indeed, in a time like today.
I don´t believe the naive arrogance of that cunt Blair, to even harbour the thought that he could take on hitchens is just utterly mindfucking. What an arse.
General theory of evolution: Mutation (random)==> natural selection (not random)===> gene pooling.
No one knows the way life initiated. This is why scientists have to theorize. Initiation of life by DNA has been the first to be theorized. Then, the theory of RNA being the starter came about. The evolution of humans is understood and is a fact based on not only fossils, but also molecular biology. If we want to understand in depth the theories, we should study science and be analytical.
@NoKiddingMan bro i showed you a vid of a black person giving birth to whites ok in you racist theory you will not say we gave birth to you you will say a monkey did.anyway to really understand evolution you need to understand the past meaning at least 5000bc and look up the words annunaki nephilim,in you science you say neanderthals history has better detail and understanding of them ,and pls remeber theory is not real its another man idea and you supposed to be above that otherwise you fail
Never believe in what you just hear. Investigate, ask yourself questions and do not base your ideas on feelings and wishful thinking. And, never accept anything withoug evidence. Knowledge based on evidence (research, peer review, publications and replication of the studies) is the only tool that can help us to understand life. Do not rely only on what you read/hear/view on the Internet. Be your own investigator, talk to several scientists and read a lot. Read valid publications NotClaims
@FUCKSALT666 Religious believers should be openly ridiculed, you don't need to respect a religion to tolerate it. Tolerance for atheism has come a long way for that kid to be able to say that, innocent or as vicious as it may be, support it.
I have never seen anyone so utterly destroyed in a debate. All Blair could do was just deny deny deny and apologize for all the evils religion has and does cause. All religious people are sick and need to be unbrainwashed in order to be normal functioning humans.
and explore life with open eyes based on evidence and analysis are those who have a purpose in life, and can shape their purpose of life the way they wish to. As I mentioned before, I don't care who believes in God and who does not, as long as his/her actions does not include harming other humans to gain power, wealth or just harm the others because they are not the way he/she wants them to be (killing/harming homosexuals, atheists conquering other lands for profit etc.
@NoKiddingMan I can agree here,you made a statement which is great but you diss yourself at the same timeyou do exactly what you stated "Those who chose to base their beliefs on feelings, wishful thinking, instructions from above etc. are those who live a life without purpose. However, those who submit to reality continues...
as for youtube claims ?youtubhe claim nothing i gave you a link of something that has been recorded by the news yet you claim its youtube?think about what ur saying?
This is my last post: No scientific claims can be accepted by any rational person unless proper scientific research based on evidence is done, which should appear on valid scientific papers after peer reviews. Then, the study/experiment should be replicated and the results should not vary significantly. Those who chose to base their beliefs on feelings, wishful thinking, instructions from above etc. are those who live a life without purpose. However, those who submit to reality continues..
@NoKiddingMan its all good telling something but i need proof?is that much to ask ?.you have been doing this for 15 yrs so i cannot understand why you refuse to give me proofs.quoting richard dawkins or his words is not proof..
by the way you cannot have dna without protien at the same time otherwise the cell dies ,this is another example to disprove evolution, and by your answer you proved the cell to die before it starts
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD disprove the flying spaghetti monster the tooth fairy. The debate is not on the existence of god, its about religion being a force of good in the world, Be it resolved. even if god does exist, we should abolish religion because god does not support evil right? God is incompetent and we're moving on.
400 yrs ago christianity islam judaism ,Zoroastrian hindu etc put my ppl into slavery ,then treated us as animals gave us false promise,rape murder kill,right ?then they blair)have the audacity to act like religion is good knowing how it has been used .
i agree with certain things you say but the reality is religion has never gone out its way to do good or do anything in love ,they only response when there is money to be made from a crisis
This is my last post for you,as I do not have time to give a course in biology. If you have pre-requesits, please take the basic molecular biology course at an accredited university. And, please do not assume that your statements are scientifically valid, as you are just shooting phrases. I am sorry but I have to tell you this. You have not provided any evidence whatsoever. And, yes Prof. Dawkins's book contains hundreds of evidence. He is a valid biologist.
@NoKiddingMan if darwins book has so much evidence ?dont you think the world should be allowed to see it?you see friend darwin was inspired by charles lyell and all he wanted to do is disprove moses and they cannot even to this day the bible and moses have proven to be true and the fact that i showed you blacks giving birth to whites also prove that it does not take billions of yrs for mutation etc,bro you need to man up and stop telling fairytale . you have no evidence ,your in denial
the bible is not a religous book ,it has never promoted religion.
of any type.
there is no named religion in it except Christianity but educated ppl know the word christian was put in it after the fact just like the word jew etc
Blair and Hitchens do what they do best and that is to lie and talk out their a hole about things they know nothing of because the understanding of scriptures was given to israelites not edomites
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD Have you read the bible or Torah in the original Hebrew then? The messiah was prophecised many years before "Christianity" which is an English word. Never read the Latin but assume it was Christos - labels mean little though. Not sure Israelites are mentioned in the Hebrew either, but could be wrong - it's been a while...
@suefew yes i have.the bible.Christ was prophesied before Christianity and died before christianity was invented.
if anyone read the bible you will see that Christianity is not biblical,Christ never came for Christians,he never ever talks about them etc.
Jacob (Israel) had 12 sons,these 12 sons are collectively called israelites(not jews) the word israelites means sons of Israel and prince with god.the word ites means son of.
Only acceptance of facts based on evidence is rational. Evidence is examined, peer reviewed, published, replicated...... I do not believe in any fairytale just because I am told to believe in it, or just because it feels good to believe in it. As far as religion is concerned, I am on the same page with Hitchens. In general, I care more about people's actions than their beliefs. I have religious friends and atheist ones. I can coexist with both.
His point about the health care organizations hardly supports his argument. "Almost half of the care provided to Africans is inspired by religion." Therefore, he is also saying one half isn't and that it doesn't take religion to do good. What an idiot.
Faith that 100,000 Iraqs lives was worth it?? Hitchens won, but I always hope common sense and facts will win. Peace.... Not whilst a single human remains on this planet. It will be well rid of us. amen.
Blair really said: Some of us Christians are ok. Some of religion is ok. We don't really look to closely at what is written in the bible, because we know it's nonsense. Yes religion kills people but so do people? People and religion are the same thing tony. Religion can't exist without people. I don't see many chimps bible bashing! And also he said, you just gotta have faith....
Blair speaking about religion...what a laugh, he committed such huge sins against humanity and he still smiles and lies without a blush. How much did he pocket from this useless debate...religion destroys spirituality.
Respond to this video...genetic mutation is not evolution,a mutation is weaker and less advance that the original,we can see this effect in ppl for eg,europeans are born with their pineal glands calcified blacks dont..the fact that blacks dont have their pineal glands calcified allows the melatonin in the body to work to produce color .the effect on europeans is known as biblical leprosy,or a genetic disorder in science.the point is your going backwards not forwards aka evolving
@NoKiddingMan educate myself on what playa?lies, deciet that comes from the mouth of fools that think they know what they are talking about but in reality they don't.
or do i need to educate myself to your level?
from your comments i expected a bit more brains from you playa.
but yet again for a person to really thin environment is the cause for mutations,well get your brains checked out ,
fact 1 blacks give birth to whites this is not due to environment etc but a wearing down of the gene
There is no evidence for the existence of God. Our lack of knowledge of all natural phenomena is an evidence of our ignorance not a proof that God exists (or HE exists. Why not SHE?).
You cannot bully people to believe what you are telling them to believe in by insulting them. If you want to be convincing, provide evidence and reason. Otherwise, no one is going to take your remarks seriously. Imaging someone else tried to MAKE you believe in his/her beliefs.
@NoKiddingMan i am not bullying anyone,maybe my words a a bit rough but thats life,get over it.
i am not sure about you but when ppl say something to me i research it.,its called using the brains.
i an not here to make anyone belive anything i just wondering why people have no clue about factual history,.and why some ppl chose to be brainwashed by nonsense.
as for insults i do remember you telling to to educate myself not me starting being silly by telling you that
A fact is not an insult. You are not providing an evidence, so educate yourself about how good science is done. I have been in research for over 15 years.
That's life, get over it (saying this in a friendly way...).
@NoKiddingMan ok so give me facts ,you have been researching for over 15 yrs ,i can find out eveything you know in less than a week ,evolution etc is very simple for me.
look did DNA come first or did protein?this is not a trick question
I have not been doing research in evolution, but I do know how scientific research is done. As far as your question is concerned, no one know exactly what happened at the beginning. Some theorize that DNA came first, some other believe it was RNA. These are the biological factories that produce proteins.
Scientists are humble and accept any new evidence based findings that contradicts the previous ones. Current knowledge of evolution is based on fossils, genetics..
@NoKiddingMan i have given proof evidence which backs up bible stories now you show me proof that ppl or color evolve over millions of yrs etc,i dont want to hear about phenotypes,dna etc etc i want to see facts like i gave
@NoKiddingMan well why dont you type in the title of the vid i gave?you want dates and publication to what ?the bible or the fact that blacks gave birth to whites over a nine to ten month period?like i said i want proof not some random link with theories etc .
i am man enough to back up my words so likewise i expect the same even if your a woman also
You have posted a lot of text. I simply asked for a publication in a valid scientific journal and its first author as well as date of publication. I need to see the methodology, replications etc. I am not interested in YouTube claims. I need scientific publication please.
@NoKiddingMan .a noble prize winner "george wald" states "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others.That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God."
Haha! Ah, yes, the good old "flies don't spontaneously arise from meat" experiment. It's revolutionary, and we're lucky to have had Pasteur. You, not so much. You thought the experiment has much to do with life's origin? What a crock.
@NoKiddingMan He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)"and yet they teach what is scientifically impossible to you and you believe it LOL
All you are capable of, based on your posts, is to insult. I have not read not even a small reasoning. Are you sure I am the ignorant? Reasonable people who are reading your posts are not getting any intelligent remarks from you. My statements are based on evidence and there are so many publications about evolution. If you do not refuse to read, think and analyze, and based your remarks on your analysis, then people are going to reason with you. Otherwise, you are going nowhere!
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD So, if you are a white person, you genes are worn down relative to a black person? I have never heard this from any evolutionist scientist. Please educate yourself. The, you can discuss the evidence.
@NoKiddingMan White baby born to black parents (not albino) type these words into youtube and then tell me if this event took millions of years or nine to ten months.
unfortunately science does not want to talk about it because it will mean they have been lied to you and it will take away the racist ideals that is already in place of certain race being better than another ,
what is in the vid happens in my family and others i knew from childhood ,it happens to Indians etc also
This is not evolution. This is abnormality. An evolutionary trait stays with all members of a species. Please refer to thousands of publications on evolution around the world.
@NoKiddingMan BRO GIVE THE proof do quote me books with out HARD factual evudence.
look friend i know about evolution etc,and i know there is no evidence to support it ,well not yet not untill the strong delusion comes that written in scriptures weras you will see another advanced lifeform posing as our higher brothers etc leading to ppl believing that satan is god,you telling me to educate myself yet you dont know whats going on int the world from ancient times to today and its implications
Professor Richard Dawkins's latest publication: The Greatest Show On Earth. It contains explanation with scientific references. There are other books on evolution, which you can certainly find in a good library not dominated by creationists.
Correction: I said random selection instead of natural section. My typo:
Random genetic mutation ---> Survival of phenotypes that can co-exist with the environment (NATURAL selection, WHICH IS NOT RANDOM)-----> Gene pooling
Not clear what you mean. My typo was a major one, i.e., the natural selection is not radom. And, why should you say that these are my detractors? What I wrote is a very basic in the theory of evolution, which is now a fact.
OK, agreed, that was a pretty major typo. But you soon corrected it. What I found amusing is that your correction---a response to your own posting---was flagged as spam.
Yes indeed. Well, as you know, this is one of the major weaknesses the detractors have. Those intolerant people just cannot accept any other ideas that are not theirs. Imagine if all humans could simply reason and provide evidence for their reasoning. How many humans would survive fanatic killings/expansionism etc. World would still have other problems, but at least no one would die or lose his/her livelihood at the hands of fanatics. Sorry for misunderstanding you ....
If religious people were looking for a high profile God fearing former politician to debate Christopher Hitchens on a topic as comprehensive as this, you would think they might have chosen someone who was more able to articulate the profound intelligence of the religious point of view.
This would have been an excellent debate about the function of superstition, except for the fact that Blair is a hypocrite who had to lie because he was so keen to start a war, and who was so ashamed of his wacky beliefs that he didn't convert to papism until after he'd left office.
religion is a force for both good and evil. this debate should be seen in its true context, a fun debate between two people with opposing views, two big egos satisfyingly their faithful followers in a more intellectual manner to a sporting event but still only satisfyingly the same basic need. we diminish the struggle against oppression by debating the belief of oppressor. this only gives the oppressor credibility. hitch through the debate gives life to religious belief.
Tony Blair commented on the catholic churches work in HIV care. Perhaps if the Vatican et al, hadn't spent years spreading distortion and outright lies regarding condoms and their reliability, not to mention using fear of the wrath of a primitive god; there wouldn't be so many people in need of this care. Especially in the developing world where many either don't yet have the insight, or even the actual ability to ignore or avoid the catholic churches vile stance of this matter.
@smartwarlord - very true - 'hadn't,' implying past tense - was definately a bad choice in my wording. The Vatican & the rest of the church sadly continues to spout evil dangerous and distorted nonsense regarding the use of contraception. Any secular group behaving in such a manner would in many cases have been widely pilloried and restrained by now, but through playing the 'religion card' it continues to get away with it.
um what? Religion is 'evolving'? Its a STATIC belief in an UNCHANGING god with UNALTERABLE holy books. There is no news from heaven because nothing changes there, never has , never can, and never will.
I think you might not even have a loose understand of what religion is. EVERYTHING ELSE evolves, religion stays the same. Religion is the iron shackles that must be cast off in order for us to evolve as a society.
@aegisgfx Catholicism is one of the largest religions in the world. It is, by it's own self-definition, evolving. The truth it teaches is based on the Bible and on Tradition. Tradition evolves over time. The church teaches stuff now based on what happened in 400 AD that it wasn't teaching in 50 AD.
Also, you can fix what constitutes the Bible, but even then, it's only point is meaning, and the interpretation of the words for the purposes of ''meaning" evolves over time, even outside catholicism
@MikaShelley99 - the words 'truth' and 'tradition' do not belong in the same sentence. Traditions are nothing but long established man-made rituals and beliefs, usually with many layers of meaning and purpose beyond what might appear obvious, and some or all of the original motivations and ideas behind traditions can be lost. That aside, a tradition isn't always good. Circumcision for example (especially amongst Muslims), foot binding in Qing China, aztec ritual sacrifices, bull fighting, etc.
@ravingthundergod In the religion of Roman Catholicism, they believe that truth comes from the bible and from tradition. By 'tradition' they are not referring to customs in the normal sense of the word, you are wrong on this, they are referring to the truth handed from generation to generation. Google 'catholic tradition' and you will see what they mean and where you are misunderstanding it.
@aegisgfx No, I am not a religious apologist, and I did not say anywhere that the size of the Roman Catholic Church makes it have a right to the truth, although I can see how you would jump to that conclusion. I do not believe that Jesus is God or that what catholicism teaches is true. However, I do know what form their religion takes: that is an evolving religion, because it is based on a Truth Tradition that evolves. Doesn't mean I beliveve it, I just know what I'm talking about.
@MikaShelley99 - further - the size of Catholicism is irrelevant. Popularity is often viewed as a sign of baseness and vulgarity - the fact that The Sun is the most popular 'newspaper' in the country is an example of this. As for the church 'evolving' - if anything, it has gone backwards in recent decades, thanks mainly to the succession of conservative popes that followed John XXIII. It took over 4 centuries for the church to abandon latin, and to formally admit that Gallileo was correct.
@ravingthundergod The statement I was criticizing was the one that said that religions were static. I needed to use an example of a religion that I thought was not static, it helped to point out that catholicism was one of the largest, therefore a salient example, not an outlier. I do not believe in the church, not saying that it's size makes it any more 'true', just a good example of religion. Evolution does not mean to progress or get better, it means to change, google 'common evolution myths'
It seems to me in some of the comments written here about the equality of women, there are Christians who have not read the whole Bible. In an era of the church ripping itself apart over the appointment of women Bishops, that inequality is still very much alive today.
HItchens is by far an eloquent and educated speaker. He is a light of intelligence in a world run by people who believe in magic people who live in the sky. Bravo to you sir...
Everyone will be given according to they faith. There is no other way and no men can change it. What you believe in creates your destiny and the place in the life after death. And there is a lake of fire in hell you like it or not.
For thouse of you whom think being a bible believing or evangelical christian or Pentecostal christian as not a religion the proper definition of religion and I'm using the oxford dictionary is "
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods". Therefore, if you believe in god its a religion, in less you insist on making up your own definition. Thus, religion does not apply to just catholics but to all matters of faith that warship.
I wonder if Hitchens ever actually read the Bible and investigated the content of it to the point of a clear conclusion? Topics like the equality of women, God's intentions and motivations as described in the bible, or even the subject of original sin and its origin ... Hitchens obviously misunderstands completely.
@jml04 My guess is that not only did he read the Bible, but all the other popular holy texts as well. This is no intellectual lightweight. Hitchens can run circles around you (and me) because he has done a lot more thinking than you when it comes to theology.
@mparker18311 Oh, i am sure Mr. Hitchens is no intellectual lightweight. It is clear that he is a studied man with insights and a willingness to learn and to further his knowledge. To make the statement, however, that the bible teaches or even promotes inequality of women is just flat out false. Also, not knowing me at all, to say that Hitchens thought more about theology than me is a bit biased. It might be true but to assume it seems to me that you place Mr Hitchens in a almost divine status.
I think it is rather foolish to ask this question. Evidently, Christopher not just read it, but also did quite a bit of thinking over the ideas and biblical messages. Hence his exceptional understanding of the subject.
@MyLoser To make the statement that the bible teaches or even promotes things like inequality of women is just flat out false. Its like saying 1+1=5 just because i don't want to admit that 2 is the right answer. Because if 2 is right it would mean i have to submit to it. And that's where the challenged begins. If there really is a creator, or a supreme God the most rational responds would be to submit to Him. Even a intelligent man like Hitchens can't deny that. That's why to Him 1+1=5 ...
I see a lot of responses done by you and I am not sure if you meant to say this to me. "If there is really a creator" is the subject addressed by Christopher splendidly. There are no signs of the creator, not one. Coming up with an idol, an imaginary omnipotent figure, to submit to it is plain silly. The rational response will be do review the evidence, not building illusions and submitting to them.
@MyLoser It is very irrational to "belief" in any other origin of the complexity of our universe other than intelligent design. Darwinism or any other evolutionary theory have yet to give us solid proof of a alternative to intelligent design. When it comes to the God of the Bible, as the supreme Creator, there is always faith involved. You won't easily find mathematic formulas explaining God's existents. But if you are really searching, willing to except reality, you will find there is a God!
Really? Please present a single shred of evidence supporting creationism. Darwinism is proven by millions of fossils stored in museums around the globe, while there is not a single evidence for creationism.
There is always faiths? Sure. Because when there is no evidence, faith is the only remnant. Having faith explains everything that cannot be explain by reason or logic. Amen, brother, it makes no sense, but have faith.
@MyLoser Scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative. Is that what you build your life upon? Speculation? It seems to me you need more faith to hold on to that, than someone holding on to their faith in God.
@jml04 People who believe in evolution don't by definition build their lives upon it. I assume you're a religious person? If you're a person of faith, then it's understandable that you are reacting so emotionally and defensively.
You were asked to present a "single shred of evidence supporting creationism" and you along with a number of other religious people here have decided to dodge the questions being asked of you.
If you're not going to be civil about this, then just go away.
@AsSomedayItMayHappen Not sure what you mean about not being civil. I got to say the sarcasm and degrading comments used by Dawkins, Hitchens and others are not very uplifting. I'm sorry if i came across uncivil. I just used the question of faith regarding theories and unproved claims like Darwinism in a way atheists use them to highly question any faith-based belief. If you say "faith" is rooted upon speculation then so it atheism.
Well, Dawkins has been a gentleman dealing with this creationism nonsense. A good example is his interview with Wendy Wright. There it is prominent that a duel is between an educated intellectual and a person with an IQ in low-double digits. Ignore evidence, present no evidence of your own - that's her approach. Earth is flat, light bulbs are powered by pixies and fireflies and all living things are created by the Creator.
@MyLoser You're right. The eloquence of how Dawkins uses the English language to make his statements is very impressive. A lot of people can learn from that. But to equate human inadequacies of comprehension (like the earth's form, or the light bulb's development), with the reality of historic and biblical truths is absurd...
I have found that Hitchens is far more skilled in the English language than Dawkins. Personal opinion i suppose. Maybe I'm biased since Hitchens is Jewish. :)
@jml04 "I got to say the sarcasm and degrading comments used by Dawkins, Hitchens and others are not very uplifting." A comment doesn't have to be uplifting in order for it to be valid.
I DON'T say that faith is rooted in speculation and I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth and that's what I mean by not being civil.
Science of evolution is like solving a jigsaw puzzle - theories and ideas come together, and if they fit, they stay. Sometimes, mistakes are made and pieces have to be removed and replaced. All in all, with every piece the final picture becomes clearer. However, even before it's complete you have a good idea what it will be at the end.
Creationism, on the other hand, is like "knowing" all fine details of the puzzle without seeing a single jigsaw piece. The accuracy of it is zero.
@MyLoser Oh my, i never claimed to "KNOW" all the details. No human can ever do that. Again, when it comes to a belief in the God of the Bible, there is always faith involved. I don't claim to know the details of creation at all, but I am certain the origin is not chance or a big bang out of nothing; but it is a Creator who had the 'idea' and willed it forth, just because He is God. I know you gonna twist my words here on this one, won't you ;)) ...
You've twisted your own words. You claim to be certain of something for which there is utterly no evidence, and which gives you no predictive power. That's disingenuity to one's self of the highest caliber.
@MsCoralline Your statement would be right if we both have the same understanding of the word "evidence". It is to make clear; show clearly; or manifest. The fact and reality of the historic and theological accuracy of the bible, historic evidence of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the reality of the enormous unexplainable complexity of the universe and our planet, my personal experiences, and many other elements are making it very clear, are enough evidence...
Oh yes? What historical evidence of Jesus definitely existing, dying, and being raised from the dead are you talking about?
How is it that the so-called "complexity" of the universe and this planet is unexplained? What do you mean by "complexity"? Is it quantifiable (as is energy, entropy, temperature)?
Can you share these personal experiences and "many other elements", or a
Men are created sick and will continue to remain sick until they find that God the Cure The only Cure and that There is no other Cure. The SICKNESS is Mans desire to resist God and live with out knowing God. It is strongly apparent to me that Mr. Hitchens Intensely Loves and desires God. For who loves Goodness, Justice and Mercy loves God ...Now ..all that is left is for God to reveal himself to Mr. Hitchens.
nickelbird103 2 weeks ago
@mozaic89 and it's just as ridiculous.
MBoothe517 1 month ago
@mariamhmha Arguments from ignorance and disbelief are pathetic.
MBoothe517 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mariamhmha So take a slice of humble pie and just face that your not as special as you'd like to think ad no magic man took time to hand craft a perfect world for you, your just an accident produced by complex chemistry while the universe was forming from something that you have no information on but the smartest people on the earth believe it was the big bang.
lakerskins21 3 months ago
@mariamhmha So take a slice of humble pie and just face that your not as special as you'd like to think ad no magic man took time to hand craft a perfect world for you, your just an accident produced by complex chemistry while the universe was forming from something that you have no information on but the smartest people on the earth believe it was the big bang.
lakerskins21 3 months ago
@mariamhmha Science actually is taking time to understand the complexities of this universe and will one day humans will understand the workings of the universe through studying and laugh at the stupidity of modern people who actually believed in magic that could defy physics. So as to how the materials to make a rocket, car, or a computer came to be I don't know yet, but neither do you and your the one making up answers. So take a slice of humble pie and just face that your not as special as y
lakerskins21 3 months ago
@mariamhmha no religion originates from primal fears and ignorance of mankind ad his desires to understand in simple terms a complex thing. So most religion came up with an explanation any idiot could formulate, that a magic man created everything and he demands praise. Organized religion is a few political hustlers taking advantage of this primal fear and forming cults which they train to follow their lead. Science actually is taking time to understand the complexities of this universe and wi
lakerskins21 3 months ago
Discover the truth about the New World Religion, worshipping lucifer
Google
olive farmer crete blogspot
Blair is a part of this unified UN led luciferian religion, hundreds of years in the making, coming your way soon
OliveFarmer1 5 months ago
look at the computer you are sitting at right now. now look at a car or a rocket. you think that they had to have been made by a human right. now look at your heart and your brain and the whole human body for that matter. now look at the arrangement of stars and planets. HOW might i ask could they have come up by chance are they not more complicated then your computer or car, only a clotpole wouldnt believe in god, religion is worshipping the one who gave you everything and saying thankyou.
mariamhmhA 5 months ago
"created sick and commanded to be well"... well that's the christian belief.. the islamic belief is we're created pure...
MoZaIc89 7 months ago
Africa.
faith based organisations provide help but only to push there religion.
The catholic church and america faith groups have succefully restricted help if condoms are advised or distributed, mostly for prvention of AIDS, estemates put the deaths as a result at 2million per year.
Watch BBC doco called "Witch Children in Africa/Nigeria" the real result of faith based invasion and cultural destruction.
If you are not angry by the end you have no conscience. One of the few times I cried
VideoAudioDisco09 8 months ago
RELIGION DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER PERSON, IN FACT IF YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE RELIGION IS TELLING YOU TOO, YOU ARE LYING TO YOURSELF IN THE NAME OF GOING TO A BELIEF YOU HAVE IN THE SKY. "GOOD" PEOPLE DO "GOOD" THINGS. "BAD" PEOPLE DO "BAD" THINGS. THE WORLD IS THEREFORE FOREVER AN INFINITE SHADE OF NEUTRALITY.
Revolution2pointO 8 months ago
Blair: "A quarter of worldwide HIV/AIDS care is provided by catholic organizations."
One would hope so, considering that the catholic church's stance against condom use is almost certainly responsible for many of those cases of HIV/AIDS.
YY4Me133 8 months ago
If you are sick and tired of listening to these crackpot old men torch your religion, you may join mine, and together we can rule the universe! Grab your tin foil hats and join the tasty, borscht-flavored revolution! Tin-hat face!
EvilTrojanBorscht 8 months ago
Sorry but this is like feeding the lamb to the dragon.
Falsel1ght 9 months ago
right? tony blare was about to get that ass WORKED
aharder91 9 months ago
We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
bryant9236 9 months ago
almost half is faith based... so the majority is secular? argument DESTROYED
AidansVlog 10 months ago
Positively pointed, Hitch Long live reason and high standards for evidence.
dwolfcoach 10 months ago
Let's face it; Hitchens was always going to win this debate. Why? Because Blair has absolutely no understanding of his Roman Catholic faith whatsoever. How is Blair supposed to defend something he has no understanding of? If Hichens has actually debated someone like Dr. Scott Hahn he would have been ripped to pieces. But instead he debated someone who disagree's with the Catholic church's teachings on nearly every levels and who, quite frankly, should be excommunicated.
Ohyewildthong 11 months ago
@Ohyewildthong Hitch has debated many Theists and always came away victorious.
trinitymike 9 months ago
It's hard to escape the old buddhism,like 97% of religions/traditions one feels he or she still has a soft spot for "the lying bastards" tony blair is a catholic LAIR before that he was a protestant LAIR.
Let me come to my point,which you are missing and will forever miss because of you're religious BRAIN WASHING. These two men have never done a hard days work,in their lives. Moral law was lead down by God not Religion. Sorry for contaminating you're wall!
Goldie450 1 year ago
@Goldie450 God laid down moral law??...first define GOD and then prove that GOD entity exists before saying anything else. OWNED again!! Anyway, I do not have time for this, feel free to have the last word.
statickk14 1 year ago
@statickk14 Unlike the confused religious folk that are WIRED UP, I don't have to prove God exists to you or anyone else,as I don't have the time for this. However, it's funny how you found time to post you're comment,CAN you prove God does not exist NO NO NO you can't, you're welcome to try.
Love you're reverse psychology.
Goldie450 1 year ago
LET’S MAKE ALL MYTHS, RELIGIONS AND SUPERSTITIONS HISTORY.
mohfoz77 1 year ago 40
Two professional con men,plug their books. If you believe this debate,you'll believe anything. To chose a victor, would be to admit your a fool.
Still, you could watch wrestling or Toy Storey,
Goldie450 1 year ago
@Goldie450
Exactly what I was thinking!
Neither of these two "have got religgion' (Twain) nor ethics. They are going to discuss good & evil.
63 fools so far.
rollingklouds 1 year ago
@rollingklouds
You're an idiot.
samrobson123 1 year ago
@samrobson123
Cherie, the guru and Tony's toenail clippings
telegraph dot co dot uk
_____
Then nibble yours.
rollingklouds 1 year ago
@Goldie450
Maybe when you learn to spell I might take you seriously. Actually, with comments like that I still wouldn't.
samrobson123 1 year ago
@Goldie450 You need brain to understand Hitchens!!
statickk14 1 year ago
@statickk14 Brains! Hitchy is right about religion it is a load of crap,however I was commenting on the fact that these 2 men were friends and simply making money. Still, good to see you turned your back on your own WACKO religion.
Goldie450 1 year ago
@Goldie450 What is wrong with making money in an honest way? These two men could be friends, so what? Are you implying that they conspired to make money (like religious folks do by propagating lies, myths and misinformation) by arranging this debate and fooling people? Anyway, you do not make any sense, your logic is ridiculous and it is OWNED!!
statickk14 1 year ago
As for the debate it was rather interesting.Hitchens put on a convincing shown which NO ONE can deny but sarcasm,humor and red herring arguments is no substitute for intellectual honesty.This is the problem with debates.It's not about who is right or wrong.It's about who is more convincing no matter how right or wrong they are.Tony was cool,calm and collective and held his cool against an audience that was bias.He presented his points well and is in my eyes the real "winner" of this debate.
Groudie101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As for the debate it was rather interesting.Hitchens put on a convincing shown which NO ONE can deny but sarcasm,humor and red herring arguments is no substitute for intellectual honesty.This is the problem with debates.It's not about who is right or wrong.It's about who is more convincing no matter how right or wrong they are.Tony was cool,calm and collective and held his cool against an audience that was bias.He presented his points well and is in my eyes the real "winner" of this debate.
Groudie101 1 year ago
As for the debate it was rather interesting.Hitchens put on a convincing shown which NO ONE can deny but sarcasm,humor and red herring arguments is no substitute for intellectual honesty.This is the problem with debates.It's not about who is right or wrong.It's about who is more convincing no matter how right or wrong they are.Tony was cool,calm and collective and held his cool against an audience that was bias.He presented his points well and is in my eyes the real "winner" of this debate.
Groudie101 1 year ago
I was very disappointed with entire debate.It stunk of MTV,reality tv shenanigans.The mere fact that tickets go for 125 pounds had me in awe.You'd think in a debate like this the audience would be unbiased and randomly selected.Indeed you'd hope that the hosts of the debate would be unbiased so imagine my shock when I see the intelligence squared debate website littered with Hitchens worship.I really can't trust any news media.
Groudie101 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens is super brilliant. He should be awarded a Nobel Prize. Articulate, Concise, Bold, Provocative, Persuasive, Charming, Witty, Out-of-the-Box thinker, philosopher. Tony Blair is charming, wafling his way with examples of religious' entities' good work not mentioning the much bigger damage they have done and do everyday to humanity, especially to children, women and gays.
DavidandLayla 1 year ago
Was going to watch the whole debate....not necessary after Blair uttered his first sentence.
scampywiak 1 year ago
So would all those people don't offer health care if they didn't believe insane stuff?
drandersw 1 year ago
just saw the debate. have to praise Tony for his polite and tolerance speech regarding his religious view. but Hitches still the best
jojoinhere 1 year ago
Neither of these two know how to compare Theism with Atheism.
Try South vs North Korea, or East versus East Germany and count the bodies and ruined lives! Or just compare Soviets versus Western Europe before the latter's "We Don't Do God".
Atheism is blind faith in the reversionary state, and that proves to be puppeted nomenklaturists using Aristotle's heavenless slave dogma every time. There are no exceptions.
Theism oppositely tries to prevent the reversionary Devil/ Original Sin use.
cloudbusterman 1 year ago
Hitch fukin rocks!!
sail1948 1 year ago
And as for Creationists who think Evolution is just theory, they should go to the jungles of Malaysia where they will witness Evolution in action. A forest-dwelling gecko has split into two species: one forest-dwelling, one cave-dwelling. Side by side, both are nearly identical, save a few minor but important adaptations. The cave-dwelling species is completely new to science, and has only just been found. Oh, and if you want a transitional fossil, go look at Archaeopteryx!
sulijoo 1 year ago
@sulijoo
Many geckos look similar, but that doesn't mean they've 'evolved' from only one. You could say that about frogs or turtles, just because they "both are nearly identical" doesn't mean evolution.
Scientist find new things constantly in the ocean. How is that any different from finding new stuff in Malaysia?
This 'transitional fossil' you mention looks like any other bird. Just another drop in the bucket for bird diversity.
Do you have a link so I can see these geckos? I'm curious.
zarlus8 1 year ago
Blair demolished his own argument when he admitted that he knows plenty of people who are not religious but "do good for their community and for the world". In that case, what is religion FOR? Blair's position was entirely "well, err, I believe because...well just because, ok?!". Hitchens won without even trying. It was pitiful, like candy from a baby.
sulijoo 1 year ago 13
So let me get this straight, in this debate, Tony Blair, is gods representative on earth?
ktkraft 1 year ago
@ktkraft No wonder he lost. He bet on a losing horse.
RonAlmeida 1 year ago
@ktkraft
Yes.
IbanezSAS36FM 1 year ago
I'm an atheist, but I love rooting for the underdog.
Actually after the debate I did feel that religion can be an important force for good, because religion exist and is important to many people in the world. It is possible to settle difference between religions as well as within the same religion now, through religion, as a channel of communication.
So religion, can be a force for good indeed, in a time like today.
wildreams 1 year ago
I don´t believe the naive arrogance of that cunt Blair, to even harbour the thought that he could take on hitchens is just utterly mindfucking. What an arse.
yatter1 1 year ago
Blair is such a twerp! Hitchens out debated him at every turn.
dannysierra 1 year ago
It's interesting to hear Blair talking about "horrific acts"
nouvellefag 1 year ago
There are two meanings to theory - look them up. The theory of evolution is a confirmed and undisputed fact based on empirical evidence!
suefew 1 year ago
@suefew This shoul be obvious to most but somehow still isn't!
mrlebowski33 1 year ago
@mrlebowski33 I know - we have to keep trying :-)
suefew 1 year ago
Hitchens is gold
bliss314159 1 year ago
General theory of evolution: Mutation (random)==> natural selection (not random)===> gene pooling.
No one knows the way life initiated. This is why scientists have to theorize. Initiation of life by DNA has been the first to be theorized. Then, the theory of RNA being the starter came about. The evolution of humans is understood and is a fact based on not only fossils, but also molecular biology. If we want to understand in depth the theories, we should study science and be analytical.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan bro i showed you a vid of a black person giving birth to whites ok in you racist theory you will not say we gave birth to you you will say a monkey did.anyway to really understand evolution you need to understand the past meaning at least 5000bc and look up the words annunaki nephilim,in you science you say neanderthals history has better detail and understanding of them ,and pls remeber theory is not real its another man idea and you supposed to be above that otherwise you fail
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
Never believe in what you just hear. Investigate, ask yourself questions and do not base your ideas on feelings and wishful thinking. And, never accept anything withoug evidence. Knowledge based on evidence (research, peer review, publications and replication of the studies) is the only tool that can help us to understand life. Do not rely only on what you read/hear/view on the Internet. Be your own investigator, talk to several scientists and read a lot. Read valid publications NotClaims
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
Comment removed
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@FUCKSALT666 Religious believers should be openly ridiculed, you don't need to respect a religion to tolerate it. Tolerance for atheism has come a long way for that kid to be able to say that, innocent or as vicious as it may be, support it.
robbinsjca 1 year ago
I have never seen anyone so utterly destroyed in a debate. All Blair could do was just deny deny deny and apologize for all the evils religion has and does cause. All religious people are sick and need to be unbrainwashed in order to be normal functioning humans.
aegisgfx 1 year ago
continues..
and explore life with open eyes based on evidence and analysis are those who have a purpose in life, and can shape their purpose of life the way they wish to. As I mentioned before, I don't care who believes in God and who does not, as long as his/her actions does not include harming other humans to gain power, wealth or just harm the others because they are not the way he/she wants them to be (killing/harming homosexuals, atheists conquering other lands for profit etc.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan I can agree here,you made a statement which is great but you diss yourself at the same timeyou do exactly what you stated "Those who chose to base their beliefs on feelings, wishful thinking, instructions from above etc. are those who live a life without purpose. However, those who submit to reality continues...
as for youtube claims ?youtubhe claim nothing i gave you a link of something that has been recorded by the news yet you claim its youtube?think about what ur saying?
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
This is my last post: No scientific claims can be accepted by any rational person unless proper scientific research based on evidence is done, which should appear on valid scientific papers after peer reviews. Then, the study/experiment should be replicated and the results should not vary significantly. Those who chose to base their beliefs on feelings, wishful thinking, instructions from above etc. are those who live a life without purpose. However, those who submit to reality continues..
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan its all good telling something but i need proof?is that much to ask ?.you have been doing this for 15 yrs so i cannot understand why you refuse to give me proofs.quoting richard dawkins or his words is not proof..
by the way you cannot have dna without protien at the same time otherwise the cell dies ,this is another example to disprove evolution, and by your answer you proved the cell to die before it starts
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD disprove the flying spaghetti monster the tooth fairy. The debate is not on the existence of god, its about religion being a force of good in the world, Be it resolved. even if god does exist, we should abolish religion because god does not support evil right? God is incompetent and we're moving on.
robbinsjca 1 year ago
@robbinsjca lol flying spaghetti .check this out
400 yrs ago christianity islam judaism ,Zoroastrian hindu etc put my ppl into slavery ,then treated us as animals gave us false promise,rape murder kill,right ?then they blair)have the audacity to act like religion is good knowing how it has been used .
i agree with certain things you say but the reality is religion has never gone out its way to do good or do anything in love ,they only response when there is money to be made from a crisis
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
This is my last post for you,as I do not have time to give a course in biology. If you have pre-requesits, please take the basic molecular biology course at an accredited university. And, please do not assume that your statements are scientifically valid, as you are just shooting phrases. I am sorry but I have to tell you this. You have not provided any evidence whatsoever. And, yes Prof. Dawkins's book contains hundreds of evidence. He is a valid biologist.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan if darwins book has so much evidence ?dont you think the world should be allowed to see it?you see friend darwin was inspired by charles lyell and all he wanted to do is disprove moses and they cannot even to this day the bible and moses have proven to be true and the fact that i showed you blacks giving birth to whites also prove that it does not take billions of yrs for mutation etc,bro you need to man up and stop telling fairytale . you have no evidence ,your in denial
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
the bible is not a religous book ,it has never promoted religion.
of any type.
there is no named religion in it except Christianity but educated ppl know the word christian was put in it after the fact just like the word jew etc
Blair and Hitchens do what they do best and that is to lie and talk out their a hole about things they know nothing of because the understanding of scriptures was given to israelites not edomites
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD Have you read the bible or Torah in the original Hebrew then? The messiah was prophecised many years before "Christianity" which is an English word. Never read the Latin but assume it was Christos - labels mean little though. Not sure Israelites are mentioned in the Hebrew either, but could be wrong - it's been a while...
suefew 1 year ago
@suefew yes i have.the bible.Christ was prophesied before Christianity and died before christianity was invented.
if anyone read the bible you will see that Christianity is not biblical,Christ never came for Christians,he never ever talks about them etc.
Jacob (Israel) had 12 sons,these 12 sons are collectively called israelites(not jews) the word israelites means sons of Israel and prince with god.the word ites means son of.
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
Only acceptance of facts based on evidence is rational. Evidence is examined, peer reviewed, published, replicated...... I do not believe in any fairytale just because I am told to believe in it, or just because it feels good to believe in it. As far as religion is concerned, I am on the same page with Hitchens. In general, I care more about people's actions than their beliefs. I have religious friends and atheist ones. I can coexist with both.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
His point about the health care organizations hardly supports his argument. "Almost half of the care provided to Africans is inspired by religion." Therefore, he is also saying one half isn't and that it doesn't take religion to do good. What an idiot.
RitzCrackerz86 1 year ago
Faith that 100,000 Iraqs lives was worth it?? Hitchens won, but I always hope common sense and facts will win. Peace.... Not whilst a single human remains on this planet. It will be well rid of us. amen.
garysgreat 1 year ago
Blair really said: Some of us Christians are ok. Some of religion is ok. We don't really look to closely at what is written in the bible, because we know it's nonsense. Yes religion kills people but so do people? People and religion are the same thing tony. Religion can't exist without people. I don't see many chimps bible bashing! And also he said, you just gotta have faith....
garysgreat 1 year ago
Comment removed
garysgreat 1 year ago
fuck blair
blazereef 1 year ago
Blair speaking about religion...what a laugh, he committed such huge sins against humanity and he still smiles and lies without a blush. How much did he pocket from this useless debate...religion destroys spirituality.
johnnyshamma 1 year ago
Random genetic mutation ---> Survival of phenotypes that can co-exist with the environment (random selection)-----> Gene pooling
Random neutral genetic mutation is not affected by natural selection.
Thus, evolution is not random due to natural selection.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
Comment removed
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
Respond to this video...genetic mutation is not evolution,a mutation is weaker and less advance that the original,we can see this effect in ppl for eg,europeans are born with their pineal glands calcified blacks dont..the fact that blacks dont have their pineal glands calcified allows the melatonin in the body to work to produce color .the effect on europeans is known as biblical leprosy,or a genetic disorder in science.the point is your going backwards not forwards aka evolving
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD LMFAO, your hilarious.
Wyndstarthedruid 1 year ago
@Wyndstarthedruid thanks ,im glad you can see the funny side to all this lol
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
You need to educate yourself my man.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan educate myself on what playa?lies, deciet that comes from the mouth of fools that think they know what they are talking about but in reality they don't.
or do i need to educate myself to your level?
from your comments i expected a bit more brains from you playa.
but yet again for a person to really thin environment is the cause for mutations,well get your brains checked out ,
fact 1 blacks give birth to whites this is not due to environment etc but a wearing down of the gene
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
There is no evidence for the existence of God. Our lack of knowledge of all natural phenomena is an evidence of our ignorance not a proof that God exists (or HE exists. Why not SHE?).
You cannot bully people to believe what you are telling them to believe in by insulting them. If you want to be convincing, provide evidence and reason. Otherwise, no one is going to take your remarks seriously. Imaging someone else tried to MAKE you believe in his/her beliefs.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan i am not bullying anyone,maybe my words a a bit rough but thats life,get over it.
i am not sure about you but when ppl say something to me i research it.,its called using the brains.
i an not here to make anyone belive anything i just wondering why people have no clue about factual history,.and why some ppl chose to be brainwashed by nonsense.
as for insults i do remember you telling to to educate myself not me starting being silly by telling you that
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
A fact is not an insult. You are not providing an evidence, so educate yourself about how good science is done. I have been in research for over 15 years.
That's life, get over it (saying this in a friendly way...).
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan ok so give me facts ,you have been researching for over 15 yrs ,i can find out eveything you know in less than a week ,evolution etc is very simple for me.
look did DNA come first or did protein?this is not a trick question
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
I have not been doing research in evolution, but I do know how scientific research is done. As far as your question is concerned, no one know exactly what happened at the beginning. Some theorize that DNA came first, some other believe it was RNA. These are the biological factories that produce proteins.
Scientists are humble and accept any new evidence based findings that contradicts the previous ones. Current knowledge of evolution is based on fossils, genetics..
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan i have given proof evidence which backs up bible stories now you show me proof that ppl or color evolve over millions of yrs etc,i dont want to hear about phenotypes,dna etc etc i want to see facts like i gave
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
I have not seen any proofs of yours. I need the name of the journal, date of publication, name of the first author, and number of replications.
As far as evolution is concerned, visit an accredited university of your country. You can find huge number of books/publications online.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan well why dont you type in the title of the vid i gave?you want dates and publication to what ?the bible or the fact that blacks gave birth to whites over a nine to ten month period?like i said i want proof not some random link with theories etc .
i am man enough to back up my words so likewise i expect the same even if your a woman also
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
You have posted a lot of text. I simply asked for a publication in a valid scientific journal and its first author as well as date of publication. I need to see the methodology, replications etc. I am not interested in YouTube claims. I need scientific publication please.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan .a noble prize winner "george wald" states "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others.That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God."
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
Haha! Ah, yes, the good old "flies don't spontaneously arise from meat" experiment. It's revolutionary, and we're lucky to have had Pasteur. You, not so much. You thought the experiment has much to do with life's origin? What a crock.
MsCoralline 1 year ago
@MsCoralline yes i am very aware of that greek idea(meat experiment) its not new its like 2000 yrs old .
when are you going to give me facts?trust me you may not like the truth but allot of ppl do that why i have over 2000 subscriber on my real channel.
the only crock i see is a person telling me to go to experts and and when i quote the experts suddenly its a crock LOL..
luis pasturre and wald are experts you are not so what is your point .?
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@MsCoralline sorry this comment was part to you and nokidding forgot to post the right parts to the right person
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)"and yet they teach what is scientifically impossible to you and you believe it LOL
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
All you are capable of, based on your posts, is to insult. I have not read not even a small reasoning. Are you sure I am the ignorant? Reasonable people who are reading your posts are not getting any intelligent remarks from you. My statements are based on evidence and there are so many publications about evolution. If you do not refuse to read, think and analyze, and based your remarks on your analysis, then people are going to reason with you. Otherwise, you are going nowhere!
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
Comment removed
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD So, if you are a white person, you genes are worn down relative to a black person? I have never heard this from any evolutionist scientist. Please educate yourself. The, you can discuss the evidence.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan White baby born to black parents (not albino) type these words into youtube and then tell me if this event took millions of years or nine to ten months.
unfortunately science does not want to talk about it because it will mean they have been lied to you and it will take away the racist ideals that is already in place of certain race being better than another ,
what is in the vid happens in my family and others i knew from childhood ,it happens to Indians etc also
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
Comment removed
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
This is not evolution. This is abnormality. An evolutionary trait stays with all members of a species. Please refer to thousands of publications on evolution around the world.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan BRO GIVE THE proof do quote me books with out HARD factual evudence.
look friend i know about evolution etc,and i know there is no evidence to support it ,well not yet not untill the strong delusion comes that written in scriptures weras you will see another advanced lifeform posing as our higher brothers etc leading to ppl believing that satan is god,you telling me to educate myself yet you dont know whats going on int the world from ancient times to today and its implications
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
MsCoralline 1 year ago
@MsCoralline i can agree with your statement ,hope its not about me though as i have given proof and i do not intend on misleading anyone,
ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD 1 year ago
@ISRAELITEKNUCKLEHEAD
Professor Richard Dawkins's latest publication: The Greatest Show On Earth. It contains explanation with scientific references. There are other books on evolution, which you can certainly find in a good library not dominated by creationists.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NoKiddingMan
Correction: I said random selection instead of natural section. My typo:
Random genetic mutation ---> Survival of phenotypes that can co-exist with the environment (NATURAL selection, WHICH IS NOT RANDOM)-----> Gene pooling
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan
Love how your reply to yourself, correcting a minor typo, has been marked as 'spam'. This is how ridiculous your detractors are.
MsCoralline 1 year ago
@MsCoralline
Not clear what you mean. My typo was a major one, i.e., the natural selection is not radom. And, why should you say that these are my detractors? What I wrote is a very basic in the theory of evolution, which is now a fact.
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
@NoKiddingMan
OK, agreed, that was a pretty major typo. But you soon corrected it. What I found amusing is that your correction---a response to your own posting---was flagged as spam.
Who would flag it as spam other than detractors?
MsCoralline 1 year ago
@MsCoralline
Yes indeed. Well, as you know, this is one of the major weaknesses the detractors have. Those intolerant people just cannot accept any other ideas that are not theirs. Imagine if all humans could simply reason and provide evidence for their reasoning. How many humans would survive fanatic killings/expansionism etc. World would still have other problems, but at least no one would die or lose his/her livelihood at the hands of fanatics. Sorry for misunderstanding you ....
NoKiddingMan 1 year ago
Wiggle! Wiggle! Wiggle!
2ndSTARMAN 1 year ago
If religious people were looking for a high profile God fearing former politician to debate Christopher Hitchens on a topic as comprehensive as this, you would think they might have chosen someone who was more able to articulate the profound intelligence of the religious point of view.
Like George Bush or Sarah Palin for example.
HAHAHAHA
Oops, I think I pulled something.
yoursuchagoodguy 1 year ago
This would have been an excellent debate about the function of superstition, except for the fact that Blair is a hypocrite who had to lie because he was so keen to start a war, and who was so ashamed of his wacky beliefs that he didn't convert to papism until after he'd left office.
groinhat 1 year ago
religion is a force for both good and evil. this debate should be seen in its true context, a fun debate between two people with opposing views, two big egos satisfyingly their faithful followers in a more intellectual manner to a sporting event but still only satisfyingly the same basic need. we diminish the struggle against oppression by debating the belief of oppressor. this only gives the oppressor credibility. hitch through the debate gives life to religious belief.
Interpellator1 1 year ago
Tony Blair commented on the catholic churches work in HIV care. Perhaps if the Vatican et al, hadn't spent years spreading distortion and outright lies regarding condoms and their reliability, not to mention using fear of the wrath of a primitive god; there wouldn't be so many people in need of this care. Especially in the developing world where many either don't yet have the insight, or even the actual ability to ignore or avoid the catholic churches vile stance of this matter.
ravingthundergod 1 year ago
@ravingthundergod
This is all true, except for the "hadn't" part, it's still going on.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord - very true - 'hadn't,' implying past tense - was definately a bad choice in my wording. The Vatican & the rest of the church sadly continues to spout evil dangerous and distorted nonsense regarding the use of contraception. Any secular group behaving in such a manner would in many cases have been widely pilloried and restrained by now, but through playing the 'religion card' it continues to get away with it.
ravingthundergod 1 year ago
Good people will do good and can do good without a belief in a conceptual entity.
RATIONALMIND001 1 year ago
Goodby religion, you had a nice run. A nice destructive, abusive, racist, atrocity ridden run.
aegisgfx 1 year ago
@aegisgfx
Religion is a constantly evolving thing , like the species itself. Don't count on it disappearing bud.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@smartwarlord
um what? Religion is 'evolving'? Its a STATIC belief in an UNCHANGING god with UNALTERABLE holy books. There is no news from heaven because nothing changes there, never has , never can, and never will.
I think you might not even have a loose understand of what religion is. EVERYTHING ELSE evolves, religion stays the same. Religion is the iron shackles that must be cast off in order for us to evolve as a society.
aegisgfx 1 year ago
@aegisgfx Catholicism is one of the largest religions in the world. It is, by it's own self-definition, evolving. The truth it teaches is based on the Bible and on Tradition. Tradition evolves over time. The church teaches stuff now based on what happened in 400 AD that it wasn't teaching in 50 AD.
Also, you can fix what constitutes the Bible, but even then, it's only point is meaning, and the interpretation of the words for the purposes of ''meaning" evolves over time, even outside catholicism
MikaShelley99 1 year ago
@MikaShelley99 - the words 'truth' and 'tradition' do not belong in the same sentence. Traditions are nothing but long established man-made rituals and beliefs, usually with many layers of meaning and purpose beyond what might appear obvious, and some or all of the original motivations and ideas behind traditions can be lost. That aside, a tradition isn't always good. Circumcision for example (especially amongst Muslims), foot binding in Qing China, aztec ritual sacrifices, bull fighting, etc.
ravingthundergod 1 year ago
@ravingthundergod In the religion of Roman Catholicism, they believe that truth comes from the bible and from tradition. By 'tradition' they are not referring to customs in the normal sense of the word, you are wrong on this, they are referring to the truth handed from generation to generation. Google 'catholic tradition' and you will see what they mean and where you are misunderstanding it.
MikaShelley99 1 year ago
@MikaShelley99
Bullshit, you are nothing but a religious apologist. And being the largest mass delusion doesn't make catholicism any less of a delusion.
aegisgfx 1 year ago
@aegisgfx No, I am not a religious apologist, and I did not say anywhere that the size of the Roman Catholic Church makes it have a right to the truth, although I can see how you would jump to that conclusion. I do not believe that Jesus is God or that what catholicism teaches is true. However, I do know what form their religion takes: that is an evolving religion, because it is based on a Truth Tradition that evolves. Doesn't mean I beliveve it, I just know what I'm talking about.
MikaShelley99 1 year ago
@MikaShelley99 - further - the size of Catholicism is irrelevant. Popularity is often viewed as a sign of baseness and vulgarity - the fact that The Sun is the most popular 'newspaper' in the country is an example of this. As for the church 'evolving' - if anything, it has gone backwards in recent decades, thanks mainly to the succession of conservative popes that followed John XXIII. It took over 4 centuries for the church to abandon latin, and to formally admit that Gallileo was correct.
ravingthundergod 1 year ago
@ravingthundergod The statement I was criticizing was the one that said that religions were static. I needed to use an example of a religion that I thought was not static, it helped to point out that catholicism was one of the largest, therefore a salient example, not an outlier. I do not believe in the church, not saying that it's size makes it any more 'true', just a good example of religion. Evolution does not mean to progress or get better, it means to change, google 'common evolution myths'
MikaShelley99 1 year ago
It seems to me in some of the comments written here about the equality of women, there are Christians who have not read the whole Bible. In an era of the church ripping itself apart over the appointment of women Bishops, that inequality is still very much alive today.
MrShandydash 1 year ago
@MrShandydash
I'm not seeing this ripping. 99% of Roman Catholics, and 95% of Protestants are in agreement, women can not be in positions of power.
(this is not based on any studies, but if you carefully look at the situation, you probably will agree with my percentages)
smartwarlord 1 year ago
I respect both Blair and Hitch, but side with Hitchens when it comes to religion.
AndrewTally 1 year ago
@lockyuk2000 I want to see this too, where can i find it?
dittbub 1 year ago
HItchens is by far an eloquent and educated speaker. He is a light of intelligence in a world run by people who believe in magic people who live in the sky. Bravo to you sir...
marklogtenberg 1 year ago
Everyone will be given according to they faith. There is no other way and no men can change it. What you believe in creates your destiny and the place in the life after death. And there is a lake of fire in hell you like it or not.
Luda88888 1 year ago
For thouse of you whom think being a bible believing or evangelical christian or Pentecostal christian as not a religion the proper definition of religion and I'm using the oxford dictionary is "
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods". Therefore, if you believe in god its a religion, in less you insist on making up your own definition. Thus, religion does not apply to just catholics but to all matters of faith that warship.
apple2018 1 year ago
I wonder if Hitchens ever actually read the Bible and investigated the content of it to the point of a clear conclusion? Topics like the equality of women, God's intentions and motivations as described in the bible, or even the subject of original sin and its origin ... Hitchens obviously misunderstands completely.
jml04 1 year ago
@jml04 My guess is that not only did he read the Bible, but all the other popular holy texts as well. This is no intellectual lightweight. Hitchens can run circles around you (and me) because he has done a lot more thinking than you when it comes to theology.
mparker18311 1 year ago
@mparker18311 Oh, i am sure Mr. Hitchens is no intellectual lightweight. It is clear that he is a studied man with insights and a willingness to learn and to further his knowledge. To make the statement, however, that the bible teaches or even promotes inequality of women is just flat out false. Also, not knowing me at all, to say that Hitchens thought more about theology than me is a bit biased. It might be true but to assume it seems to me that you place Mr Hitchens in a almost divine status.
jml04 1 year ago
@jml04
I think it is rather foolish to ask this question. Evidently, Christopher not just read it, but also did quite a bit of thinking over the ideas and biblical messages. Hence his exceptional understanding of the subject.
MyLoser 1 year ago
@MyLoser To make the statement that the bible teaches or even promotes things like inequality of women is just flat out false. Its like saying 1+1=5 just because i don't want to admit that 2 is the right answer. Because if 2 is right it would mean i have to submit to it. And that's where the challenged begins. If there really is a creator, or a supreme God the most rational responds would be to submit to Him. Even a intelligent man like Hitchens can't deny that. That's why to Him 1+1=5 ...
jml04 1 year ago
@jml04
I see a lot of responses done by you and I am not sure if you meant to say this to me. "If there is really a creator" is the subject addressed by Christopher splendidly. There are no signs of the creator, not one. Coming up with an idol, an imaginary omnipotent figure, to submit to it is plain silly. The rational response will be do review the evidence, not building illusions and submitting to them.
MyLoser 1 year ago
@MyLoser It is very irrational to "belief" in any other origin of the complexity of our universe other than intelligent design. Darwinism or any other evolutionary theory have yet to give us solid proof of a alternative to intelligent design. When it comes to the God of the Bible, as the supreme Creator, there is always faith involved. You won't easily find mathematic formulas explaining God's existents. But if you are really searching, willing to except reality, you will find there is a God!
jml04 1 year ago
@jml04
Really? Please present a single shred of evidence supporting creationism. Darwinism is proven by millions of fossils stored in museums around the globe, while there is not a single evidence for creationism.
There is always faiths? Sure. Because when there is no evidence, faith is the only remnant. Having faith explains everything that cannot be explain by reason or logic. Amen, brother, it makes no sense, but have faith.
MyLoser 1 year ago
@MyLoser Scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative. Is that what you build your life upon? Speculation? It seems to me you need more faith to hold on to that, than someone holding on to their faith in God.
jml04 1 year ago
@jml04 People who believe in evolution don't by definition build their lives upon it. I assume you're a religious person? If you're a person of faith, then it's understandable that you are reacting so emotionally and defensively.
You were asked to present a "single shred of evidence supporting creationism" and you along with a number of other religious people here have decided to dodge the questions being asked of you.
If you're not going to be civil about this, then just go away.
AsSomedayItMayHappen 1 year ago
@AsSomedayItMayHappen Not sure what you mean about not being civil. I got to say the sarcasm and degrading comments used by Dawkins, Hitchens and others are not very uplifting. I'm sorry if i came across uncivil. I just used the question of faith regarding theories and unproved claims like Darwinism in a way atheists use them to highly question any faith-based belief. If you say "faith" is rooted upon speculation then so it atheism.
jml04 1 year ago
@jml04
Well, Dawkins has been a gentleman dealing with this creationism nonsense. A good example is his interview with Wendy Wright. There it is prominent that a duel is between an educated intellectual and a person with an IQ in low-double digits. Ignore evidence, present no evidence of your own - that's her approach. Earth is flat, light bulbs are powered by pixies and fireflies and all living things are created by the Creator.
MyLoser 1 year ago
@MyLoser You're right. The eloquence of how Dawkins uses the English language to make his statements is very impressive. A lot of people can learn from that. But to equate human inadequacies of comprehension (like the earth's form, or the light bulb's development), with the reality of historic and biblical truths is absurd...
jml04 1 year ago
@jml04
The reality of historic and biblical truths? What is biblical truth? The book of fables, written by men is a source of absolute truth?
MyLoser 1 year ago
@jml04
I have found that Hitchens is far more skilled in the English language than Dawkins. Personal opinion i suppose. Maybe I'm biased since Hitchens is Jewish. :)
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@jml04 "I got to say the sarcasm and degrading comments used by Dawkins, Hitchens and others are not very uplifting." A comment doesn't have to be uplifting in order for it to be valid.
I DON'T say that faith is rooted in speculation and I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth and that's what I mean by not being civil.
AsSomedayItMayHappen 1 year ago
@jml04
Science of evolution is like solving a jigsaw puzzle - theories and ideas come together, and if they fit, they stay. Sometimes, mistakes are made and pieces have to be removed and replaced. All in all, with every piece the final picture becomes clearer. However, even before it's complete you have a good idea what it will be at the end.
Creationism, on the other hand, is like "knowing" all fine details of the puzzle without seeing a single jigsaw piece. The accuracy of it is zero.
MyLoser 1 year ago
@MyLoser Oh my, i never claimed to "KNOW" all the details. No human can ever do that. Again, when it comes to a belief in the God of the Bible, there is always faith involved. I don't claim to know the details of creation at all, but I am certain the origin is not chance or a big bang out of nothing; but it is a Creator who had the 'idea' and willed it forth, just because He is God. I know you gonna twist my words here on this one, won't you ;)) ...
jml04 1 year ago
@jml04
You've twisted your own words. You claim to be certain of something for which there is utterly no evidence, and which gives you no predictive power. That's disingenuity to one's self of the highest caliber.
MsCoralline 1 year ago
@MsCoralline Your statement would be right if we both have the same understanding of the word "evidence". It is to make clear; show clearly; or manifest. The fact and reality of the historic and theological accuracy of the bible, historic evidence of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the reality of the enormous unexplainable complexity of the universe and our planet, my personal experiences, and many other elements are making it very clear, are enough evidence...
jml04 1 year ago
@jml04
Oh yes? What historical evidence of Jesus definitely existing, dying, and being raised from the dead are you talking about?
How is it that the so-called "complexity" of the universe and this planet is unexplained? What do you mean by "complexity"? Is it quantifiable (as is energy, entropy, temperature)?
Can you share these personal experiences and "many other elements", or a