I'm in a way guilty of my own accusation, I went back to the book to read the chapter again and the word "opinion" was wrong of me to use as it has a tone of suggestion that would, too, be slightly misrepresentational. That argument was the strongest, he claimed, which "might be inverse proof that someone of later significance was indeed born".
@richardaberdeen and another thing.. "obviously certain poorly educated liars like Hitchens disputes his existence" - what can be said of people who make false representations of educated people? Hitchens was read up on the people he repudiated, the same couldn't be said of you. Christ, this is a video promoting his book, get your hands a little dirty and arm your arguments the real way.
@richardaberdeen you and unitedkingdomify are both wrong about what Hitchens said about the existence of Jesus. I don't know why you spout such misrepresentations, but if you read his book you'll see Hitch's opinion on Jesus' existence is that the myth's backbending maneuvers to place the Nazarene in Bethlehem for the sake of the prophecy seems to suggest that such a prophet had existed.
thaTs the thing who are to say anything ,we havent even been living on this ploanet long enough to know anything about God or Jesus, or Satan ,unless there an immortal on this comment page that can prove me ,....... i thought not, ppl are what ever they want , . hence Free Will... its a test will you pass?? oh and riddle me this ,if good and evil is real,which it is!! then why not God and Satan?
The problem with Hitchens - and it's a big one - is the way he buys an ideological package that has nothing directly to do with atheism. The sad result is his (and most of his fellow leftists') incapacity of realizing that political realities such as the Israel-Arab conflict have never been about civil and human rights, but rather a result of the very Islamic intolerance he so vociferously criticizes. That's where you distinguish a great thinker from a pretense one.
"Well, we've pretty much figured out the last 65 million years"
Really? We have? I for one have not. I still have a lot of questions. Apparently, some of us are just still ignorant of everything that has transpired in the last 65 million years and just need to be updated. So enlighten us, please.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Someone ought to point out to both Frost and Hitchens, that what religions claim about God has no relevance to the existence of God, any more than what people claim about the shape of the earth has any relevance to the shape of the earth. Someone who pretends there is no God and who then attempts to defend such gross superstition based on what religious people claim, clearly belongs in a mental institution.
@richardaberdeen Have you read Hitchens' book? Intellectual honesty is best recognised in somebody with the capacity to say, "I don't know." When what they are talking about is, in fact, an unknown. What you can say with certainty is that no human knows the mind of a god, that no human can speak for a god if there is one, and that no human being in the history of the species has enough evidence to assert there has ever been a god.
The religious make claims, and those claims lack evidence. >.<
@UnitedKingdomify According to Hitchens, "all Jewish historians now admit Moses probably didn't exist". According to Britannica article "Moses" written by a Jewish historian, the majority of historians believe Moses probably did exist. According to Hitchens, Jesus probably didn't exist. According to Will Durant and the vast majority of historians, there is overwhelming evidence for Jesus. It would seem that Hitchens is the on who has a problem with "intellectual honesty" & honesty altogether
@richardaberdeen Where are you getting "The vast majority of historians..." when it comes to evidence for Jesus? I don't know if you're intentionally lying or you're just ill-informed. It is patently untrue.
Regardless, I know Hitchens declares both men "probably" did not exist. He often makes a comparison with Socrates. What he does with both is go on, and grant for the sake argument that both men did exist, and goes onto say that it does nothing to prove god, or justify the claims of theists.
@UnitedKingdomify I'm a lifetime history major and I've studied a great many different atheist, agnostic, Jewish, Islamic, Christian historians. Legitimate historians overwhelmingly agree on the existence of Jesus. Out of the thousands who write for the Britannica in various articles, I havn't come across a single one who questions Jesus. You need to study legitimate historians and stop listening to frauds like Hitchens. Try "Ceasar and Christ" by Durant, a truly legitimate historian.
@UnitedKingdomify Will Durant, one of the greatest of all historians, in "Ceasar and Christ" concludes that only a idiot would pretend Jesus didn't exist. According to Durant, a world-renouned expert in history, languages, literature, philosopy, science and intellectual thought, his teachings alone represent a "singular highly advanced mind" far surpassing any other mind in human history. Paul's letter in 54 AD casually references the Jesus story, clearly demonstrating it existed prior to then
@UnitedKingdomify There is no effort at all in the 4 gospels to prove Jesus existed; rather, their is great effort to prove he was Messiah, including 2 geneologies (there were two different ways of determining geneology in the Jewish tradition, which is why they differ). Just as today where many biographies of people like MLK and the Kennedys trace their kin, none of them try to prove they existed, because it is "common knowledge" in our society, as Jesus obviously was in his. HITCHENS = FRAUD
@richardaberdeen Good lord. Where on Earth did all this come from? Strange assumptions like, "You need to study legitimate historians and stop listening to frauds like Hitchens." How on Earth did you come to the conclusion that I consider Hitchens to be anything more than a public intellectual, and seriously, an honest man? lol Odd.
For a history major you should know there is not enough evidence for any historian to honestly declare for or against Jesus' existence. Which would...
@UnitedKingdomify Already answered. Britannica is written by thousands of historians, scientists, archeologists and other scholars who are expert in their particular field. Most major articles contain contributions from several different experts, including the article "Jesus Christ". Major articles go through an extensive process of peer review. Britannica is by far, the most legitimate general source available, often quoted and footnoted by scientists and historians within their own writings.
@UnitedKingdomify All you have to do is to look up the articles "Moses" and "Jesus Christ" in Britannica to see what an obvious obvert LIAR Hitchens is. Hitchens says the opposite regarding Jewish historians, of what Jewish historians themselves actually say. The Britannic contains contributions from hundreds if not thousands of Jewish historian, none of who agree with what Hitchens said regarding Moses and Jewish historian. CHRISTOPEHR HITCHENS IS AN OBVIOUS FRAUD, GET OVER IT.
@richardaberdeen Your bias is evident in the way you read from your sources. The conclusions you reach when reading them, and then what you vomit here as if it is undisputed fact that "what I think and read IS X" where X is the conclusion of a man looking for confirmation. In this case, Jesus existed.
The nature of the evidence FOR Jesus is derived from theological documents. Making any assertion of actual historicity hard to reach.
@UnitedKingdomify It is not "bias" to state that the overwhelming majority of historians believe Jesus existed. Rather, it is a well known fact, just as it is a well known fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, from Socrates thru Einstein, believed in God. Facts are facts and apparently, you have a problem separating them from fiction.
No, Einstein did not believe in a god. In a letter he wrote on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind he said: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.... For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
And, the vast majority of scientists are atheists, actually.
@UnitedKingdomify No. there is much evidence that the main scholars of that time never even recorded the happening of "Christ". We are coming to a point in history now that we know this -Dionysus 1500BC.- Born of a Virgin, Had many disciples, performed miracles. This is just one of many creation myths made up thousands of years before the story of "Jesus". Further more believing in the scrips written by nomadic tribes men is truly the form of a weak mind. Sorry to say.
@richardaberdeen Christian apologists debating Hitchens would be the first to balk at any suggestion of Jesus having not existed. Audiences would be keeling over, and all of academia would be rolling in the aisles laughing at the Hitchens soundbites and written works floating around. They are not. Why aren’t they? Because they do not occupy the odd world in which you’ve chosen to live.
Re-read your Britannica, if you have to, read it objectively. lol Every word. Word for word.
@UnitedKingdomify I'm neither a Christian nor an apologist. God doesn't need to apologize to anybody, nor does God need anybody apologizing for God. God doesn't need a religion as Jesus taught; creation speaks for God. There is no evidence for magically appearing universes, which is what Hitchens pretends is true.
@richardaberdeen If it was undisputed fact that Jesus existed do you think I would be arguing with you? lol I'm no idiot. I'm open to information, and I don't hold dogmatically to views. I don't read men like Hitchens and make more of them than they are. I don't agree with everything he says, or swallow everything whole. I think his views on the Iraq war are just bad, for example.
I agree with him when it comes to god claims. That thing you've avoided in the comments here. The absurd god claims.
@UnitedKingdomify I didn't say it was "undisputed". Obviously, certain poorly educated liars like Hitchens dispute his existence. History is based on "weight of evidence". Legitimate scholars choose words carefully. "Problably" to a legitimate historian, means there is evidence heavily in favor of such a conclusion, as compared to "possibly" means the evidence weighs against such a conclusion. In the case of Jesus, the evidence is overwhelmingly weighed in his favor, rather than against.
@richardaberdeen ... explain your lack of "a single one who questions Jesus." Though they do exist, the real explanation is your obvious confirmation bias blinds you to them, probably. Your strange vehemence that Hitchens is a fraud, it's almost laughable.
As to your intitial comment, that I replied to, about denying god claims and/or the existence of gods as being a supernatural belief. That is just ridiculous. The god claim is and shall remain absurd until it meets its burden of proof.
@UnitedKingdomify My response represents no bias at all. You can look up "Jesus Christ" in Britannica and hundreds of related articles and not a single historian, who are experts in their field writing for Britannica, questions the existence of Jesus. The Britannica is written by scholars who are expert in their particular fields and is extensively peer-reviewed prior to and after publication. You are pretending that a long list of distinguished scholars is wrong and you are right.
@richardaberdeen There is no reason to believe it. And as I said, Hitchens said, that I, you, he, every historian or no historians at all, anyone can claim all of these men who either did or did not exist - that they did, we can grant them all. It does nothing to prove the god claim.
@UnitedKingdomify Bullshit, there is EVERY reason to believe Jesus existed and ZERO reason to conclude otherwise. Paul's 54 AD letter to Corthinians is considered authentic by EVERY legitimate scholar, thus the Jesus story clearly predates that, making it more contemporary than MLK is to today. It is totally abusrd to pretend a motley crew of fisherman and farmers with little or no education could invent the teachings of Jesus, or that anyone else in history could, as Will Durant pointed out.
@richardaberdeen In answer to "According to Hitchens "all Jewish historians..." etc. He cites the Jewish search for archeological evidence for the exodus of Jews from Egypt. He states if ever there were people with the desire to find such evidence, it is they, then goes onto to say that they found nothing, and that they confirmed that it 'probably' did not happen.
Very few honest people deal in absolutes. Hitchens admittedly does use the word 'probably' an awful lot. =)
@UnitedKingdomify Hitchens is an obvious fraud, speaking great lies that the majority of historians don't agree with at all. Archeologists are aware deserts have been known to swallow up entire cities, let alone a wandering group of nomads who pitched tents for a generation. It would be surprising if any evidence for such desert wanderings was found. A once thought mythical desert city in the story of Abraham, for example, was only recently uncovered, as evidence for David even more recently.
@UnitedKingdomify Also, legitimate historians and scientists who use the term "probably" only do so when evidence is heavily tipped in that direction. Otherwise, they use words like "possibly" or "maybe". Like I said, Hitchens is an obvious fraud. The evidence for Moses is strongly in favor rather than against (Britannica) and, the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming (Britannica & Durant). No legitimate historian would pretend either Moses or Jesus "probably" didn't exist.
@UnitedKingdomify And finally, the face and sands of deserts shift dramatically over time, similar to great waves in the ocean moving at a slower pace. It is well-known that major cities have been entirely swallowed up by deserts without leaving a trace. Thus, Hitchens positions regarding Moses are without any historical merit or other foundation whatsoever. It would be incredibly surprising if evidence of a group of tent dwelling nomads wandering in the desert over 3,000 years ago was found.
All I can tell you is that I had a growth about the size of a pea on my eyelid for two years and nothing would change it. The eye doctor said he thought it was cancerous but I did not have any tests. After 4 months of taking one b17 tablet per day and 15 apricot seeds per day the growth has totally disappeared.
"...We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment...Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind..." [Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man," 1871 ed. vol. I, p. 168]
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Support my You-Tube initiative to DEPORT CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS for PROMOTING the unconstitutional war in Iraq. Post: DEPORT CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS FOR TREASON!
He's an American citizen you idiot. So what you really want is to throw any American who disagrees with your world view out of the country? What are you? A fucking fascist?
@procommenter hey u can keep him haha..any english man who can upset so many americans is a legend.keep up the good work hitch .. listen fuck iraq... theres gonna be plenty more wars.. bring on libya
2. He's a citizen, and he has first amendment rights just like you do; he had no power to declare or mandate the aggression, just advocate it, so for what criminal act would you revoke his citizenship and deport him?
Citing specific intelligence would most likely violate the law. The 'security state" we live in guards its lies as well as any other and would punish the officer in every way it could. Not useful to any legal proceedings, but interesting to me none the less. Its a good thing to be reminded that the military does have people willing to dissent on important matters.
What a waste of time that interview with the woman officer was! She didnt reveal ANYTHING. Just made a bunch of claims... What the fuck?
It doesnt matter how obvious it is, she still has to back it up! Or at the very least state what the lies were. Name the specific talking points. Say SOMETHING of substance!
I mean, its rediculous since Im 2 years late, but fuck ME! What do they take me for?
I had the pleasure on hearing Christopher Hitchens in person at the 92nd st Y in NYC while he was promoting Hitch 22. It was a matter of weeks later that he revealed his bout with esophageal cancer. To help bolster his intellectual badassedry, he is still writing.
lol love how frost put that at the beginning, how true and funny. Hitchens has taken on Mother Theresa, The President of the United States and God. . .what a badass
i think that hitchens confuses judaism with christianity and the bush administration. he also associaties creation education as a hinderance to economic prosperity, as if evolution were to advance a brave new world.
the problem is christianity does not exist in america. hitchens doesn't get this yet.
The word is homosexual , and he did experiment when he was young just like many people did , does it make gay ?, i don't think so,not that there is any thing wrong with being gay, but it surely doesn't make him a FAG .
Fag is such an ugly word,and should not be used to attack any one, i don't think this man deserves to be put down like that ,especially now that he is sick ,he as given us so much, and helped us grow as rational human-beings .
Human beings with extraordinary sources of intelligence and understanding of how things work are usually atheist because if they can't figure it out, it must not be real.
All the hogwash aside Hitchens tends to equate atheism with apathy, ignorance with piety, and polarization of the issues in order to sell a book.
Well, we've pretty much figured out the last 65 million years. Just because we havent figured out how it all began, also doesnt mean we should throw in the towel, devolve a few century's and go back to the brainwashed slavemaking crap thats commited some of the most hatefull atrocities known to our species. because of Ignorance etc..
And the father of Jesus, was pretty apathetic to civilisation for a fucking loooooooong time before he sent down his kid by the way.
@Fireod75 theres no real evidence of Jesus even existing,Catholic apologists point to Roman historians` C.Tacitus(56-117AD),GaiusTranquillas(69-130AD) and F.Josephus(37-100AD) and their accounts for evidence of Jesus,but all were born AD and wrote their accounts at the same time Jewish Reformists were writing the Gospels under the auspices of the RomanEmpire. The Jesus story is a fabrication just like the Jewish Exodus which the IsraeliSchool of Archaelogy admits Exodus story was a fabrication
Christopher Hitchens is best when he haven't got a audiance, because he always gets so worked up when the crowd cheers him on. So this is really good. Go Christopher!
If we were brought into Exsistance by God's Design , and he Made us in his own Image , would it then not be fair to assume that not only did God give us the Mental ability to be able to wonder and Be curiouse about oooh Science say ...Are really suggesting that if there is a God , he did not see that coming , maybe he wants you to figure it out ...maybe that Gods plan...have you ever considered that?
@IHATEATHEIST2 Google" no one is innocent " lyrics where you will find the verse
I wrote. Then you will see that you take yourself too seriously for no reason. I'm amazed how every half wit on these atheist forums fills the comment box as if they are philosophers.
Just the mention of the word God and you all fly off the handle.
At least my Question is productive ...and only placed once ..I did not feel the need to find all the Crationist Forums I could find and post it to all them. Who's the Fucking half wit now?..Lyrics posted you say .your not even fucking Original enough to come up with your own Rants, next to you yes we are all well versed philospoher. you going to answer my Fucking Question or what...or are you going to keep evading it ?. .
@IHATEATHEIST2 To make assholes like you, look like....you know assholes. Fish biting on empty hooks. Too much hate in the world. Too many provocateurs looking for
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@drekas2005 are you not now being Provocative ?, I would stop writing if i was you , because although I can't spell,(at least I can pick up a dictionary if it ever turned out to be a requirement when dealing with Brainless hicks like your good self) you my friend will always be stupid.
@IHATEATHEIST2 Once again you missed the point. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to some one with a log for a brain. Maybe you should go back to your trailer and read your Atheist manifesto or Bible,whichever it is you favor and foam at the mouth.
@drekas2005 Log for a brain? Who put the log there, Was it God. or are you admitting that he has a natural stupidity and so eloquently wrote "foam at the mouth"
I have been looking closely at this Hitchens guy and I am not going to say he tells a lie But I thought I saw a fork tongue poking out when Hannity pressed him he started to spout Look I know he's British and all that stuff speaking so nicely but its just guff I could listen to him till the cows come home What a nice voice such a great tone He could be sticking a knife in my gizzard and get me to beieve that I was only a lizzard Hey buyer you beware don't you give this guy your ear
Here is game, set ,match against religion. When asked, "If I was alone on a desert island and didn't know about God would I be shut out of heaven?" The answer is from what I understand is ,no. So if that is true all the people that lived on this planet that did know and will not know about God will be in or go to heaven. Then why tell them and spoil their chances. I put it to you knowing is not a good thing in this case. Then again it is all a bull shit story to extract money from the fools.
Trusting in humanity to progress itself inevitability is very much blind, by his own standards we are but a fleeting soon to be outdated species what does it matter what becomes of us, just another addition to the fossil record.
That is a horrible comparison. Mormonism is directly plagarised from Christianity... scientology simply has "science" in its label, beyond that there are ZERO comparisons that can be made with scientology and science.
Mormonism and Christianity don't enjoy such a complete bifurcation.
that kind of intellectual laziness is like stating piltdown man was a fraud so therefore evolution must be discounted since so much supposition was built upon the prorogation of a fraudulent missing link for almost 30 years.
It was proven hoax goofball, do some research, its just about the most famous hoax in history and sadly some people still base scientific presuppositions off of information garnered from taking the specimen at face value.
What do hoaxers have to gain from any hoax they commit? fame, fortune, audacious pranks, you name it.
There is quite a bit of evidence without what you were talking about to support evolution. In fact, the most recent missing link was found in 2001. There was another found recently called "Ida".
So, "goofball", considering that there is a slough of evidence supporting natural selection and evolution why do you bend over backwards to refute it?
What you're doing is tangential from topic but if you must many presuppositions originating with piltdown are still ignorantly used to analyze all subsequent finds, forcing the proverbial square peg into a round hole.
You're right, we have been getting off topic. Despite what may have come about with piltdown, there is still loads of substantial evidence for evolution.
And all religions are really crazy. Doesn't matter if Mormonism is an official Christian sect or not. They're all cuckoo and weird.
It's not weird to have a giant space daddy give obscure and hard to interpret dications to power hungry, bronze-age, goat herders, and watch people practice what they preach today? And to have this space daddy send his son down to get killed, and because of that he's somehow our imaginary friend? That's not weird?
Its not weird to attribute nothingness as the genesis of all that exists? The same criteria you use to critique creationism is easily used to rebuke your own methodology and worldview, your fallacy and hubris stems from the fact that you view man as the absolute final authority of the universe able to determine with his finite mind all truth and what is truth, its a laughable fallacy, a sentiment requiring every bit as much faith as any religion if not more.
"Its not weird to attribute nothingness as the genesis of all that exists? "
No it's not, it's fucking astro physics.
Vacuum fluctuations can cause enormous amounts of trapped inertia that could "split" under stress of the vacuum effect, causing a hot gas explosion which could cool over time.
So yes, it's not "nothingness", but somethingness.
What is the qualifier of a man made philosophy like "fucking astro physics" or even regular physics at that? We observe and empirically hypothesize but any genuine scientist does not delcare his theories absolute when they are fallible and subject to alternate discovery.
The explanation you offer is unsatisfactory for you assume that a matter of some fashion existed eternally, otherwise you have asserted nothingness fashioned itself into something tangible without any existing elements.
"What is the qualifier of a man made philosophy like "fucking astro physics" or even regular physics at that?"
experimentation. We can produce the effects.
"you assume that a matter of some fashion existed eternally,"
No matter, energy or inertia if you will created by struggling forces of the vacuum effect. The vacuum effect is an element which is caused by the lack of material existence. Learn some physics, then talk, mmm'kay?
You paint a false dichotomy but in typical fashion for those without proper arguments they resort to thee ad hominem.
Vacuums are dependent on being contained in an atmosphere and being a void of said containment to exist. outer space is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum), but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos. Hypothetically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy.
"Vacuums are dependent on being contained in an atmosphere "
That would be a closed system genius.
There are open systems as well, which is what space is. You're not arguing with me, really-it's not my proposal. You're arguing against Steven Hawking, one of the most brilliant physicists of all time. Inside of our material universe, the system contains particles, that does not mean all space outside of our material universe does as well-it's boundless.
Vacuums don't form without something to be vacuous of, your intellect for example, particularly this particular argument you've tried to fasten ;P Just kidding, although your argument is ridden with speculative hubris.
"Vacuums don't form without something to be vacuous of"
Exactly, any material existence; space, if you will. We KNOW that space-that nothingness we're encapsulated in- is an open-system vacuum, bound to fluctuations. Are you saying space doesn't exist, or that it isn't a vacuum?
You lack the education to speak at all on this subject, and yet you do so without hesitation, it's like watching a car crash wherein the driver is asleep.(PS-you like the word "hubris" don't you? make you feel smart?)
You mistake ad hominem and straw men argumentation for fact, you are reduced to moral relativism by the natural conclusion of your belief system, and it is a belief system, one that determines your analysis that is every bit as bias as any persuasion and looks to fit the facts in a premeditated paradigm and not one born of neutrality.
If atheism is true then this conversation is moot, because any intellectual tradition is but a human coping mechanism and subject only to the individual, you stand guilty of evangelizing one over another.
How narcissistic, you are well on your way to nihilism and thus are uber naive not to think faith takes a huge part in your acceptance of any facts or system, your criteria doesn't hold up to scrutiny as your own system is a fragile house of cards once examined by epistemological, ontological and anthropological means, all you have done is made of god of man and asserted that absolute better than others, effectively evangelizing and seeking to convert, how hypocritical.
It's not a matter of faith. If you've done research (no, praying doesn't count), then you'd know that there is a modern scientific explanation for nearly everything. Observe evidence then form a theory. Not hard. A pastor says something and for some reason you believe it without it being tested. I'm TECHNICALLY agnostic about god the same way I'm agnostic about fairies. To make a god of man, I'd have to worship someone. I'm not trying to convert at this point I'm just rattling you.
My dear it is obvious you have nothing to say when your lone feeble retort is ad hominem.
If you are right then all is relative and why do you waste your breath propagating and evangelizing yet another relative perspective?
You can keep your weak straw men arguments, i assure you I am unrattled, but declaring victory after you knock them down makes you an intellectual coward.
Again, my lack of a belief in god comes from the bible and every preacher that I've ever met not having any evidence to support their claims besides "faith". It's not only about the ad hominem, you may FEEL insulted because religious people always get insulted when people question them.
I could ask you why you're here. We're just a couple of people with too much time on our hands.
I would like to know how I've knocked down my own arguements.
You base personal experience of your view of a handful of youth pastors, likely fluffy ones if i may risk a piece of reasonable conjecture, and declare that hte final authority of theism and christendom; I'm sorry but in a court of law that would come across as nothing but bias.
I empathize with poor preachers, lord knows there are plenty and charlatans among them to boot but that doesn't undermine Christ.
Back on topic however, which is the presuppositions of atheism vs. theism.
"which is the presuppositions of atheism vs. theism"
The presuppositions, ehh? Atheism is only the rejection of supernatural beliefs, you don't have to "believe" anything else, you may not even have an opinion. There are many atheists who don't understand scientific theories, and many that don't care. To be considered an "atheist", all you must do is NOT believe in any supernatural beliefs. But theism is literally COMPRISED of presuppositions that can only insist upon themselves
Then you place faith in your idea there is no god.
It is still an act of faith that presupposes theistic thought is wrong.
You are supremely ignorant of philosophical happenings and apparently the very nature of the human conditions if you think any individual enters any dialogue or environment neutral.
You do possess a supernatural belief as you believe the natural made itself, a theist isn't particularly supernatural as you assert id he believes nature's god created matter and order.
No, I believe a giant ball of speghetti that "just existed" and is far more complex than the universe, made the universe. And that a reaction of hot gas HAD to be made by the flying speghetti monster who loves us, and made our blood from his maranara. And of course, he had no cause, that's right, pure fucking magic. And he made the universe by saying "ALLA KAZAAM MOTHERFUCKERS!" and it was good.
Of course philosophy determines FACT, we all know that(joke)
What god is this joke trying to promote with these silly ramblings? why do these idiots think trying(and failing miserably) to debunk all science proves the existence of some magical being from some ancient belief held by people who lived 5,000 years before the invention of the toothbrush? I just figured maybe you found out what sect of crazy this "skeegs" guy is from...
The science doesn't add up, vacuums do not exist in a state of absolute nothingness and if you are assuming a reaction transpired to cause elements to form you are really at a loss.
Ultimately you put your blind faith in human hypothesis and speculation and your priests are sagan and hawking (who isn't an atheist) and has become increasingly theistic in his personal opinions if you've kept up with him.
"vacuums do not exist in a state of absolute nothingness "
That's the literal definition of a vacuum you idiot!~ please just stop already...you've embarrassed yourself enough already, my sides hurt.
"Ultimately you put your blind faith in human hypothesis "
And if that isn't your religion in a nutshell please tell me what al the other religions are. Hawking WAS a deist, he now believes the universe began from a massive vacuum fluctuation-would you like the lecture? I've kept up ;)
There's an old adage that he who argues with a fool comes dangerously close to being indistinguishable from him to observers, i concede i've made that error with you, an internet"intellect".
You don't even know your own terminology defined correctly.
Read up on what epistemology, ontology, anthropology are then you'll perhaps be able to make a sensical case for your suppositions, as of now you only employ your own arrogance as the final authority, unable to ascertain intellectual honesty.
"Read up on what epistemology, ontology, anthropology "
WHAT!?!? I'm merely reciting a fucking theory, you asshole! Ontology?!? you've said that to three different people now, is that you're reaction to an argument you can't refute? Do you HAVE an argument to support your "god did it" crap? or do you think acting like you know something makes a case? I know what the definition of "vacuum" is retard..fuck, you know what..forget it. I'm wasting my time.
You are out of your league and that has been plainly showing for some time , read up young one, you are not all knowing and are extremely disadvantaged in your arguments by being unable to discern what you believe nor why you believe it because you are little more than a parrot of pseudo-intellectual best sellers that occasionally sprinkle Nietchke and Sagan or Hawkings into their writing for good measure.
Prove I'm out of my league, instead of just saying it...talking shit, basically. I've yet to see you PROVE me wrong. Your vacuum comments were funny, in that they were right, in the case of a CLOSED system, but you're completely unaware of what an open-system vacuum is. Hilarious.
Go ahead, prove my education was a waste of time, oh, cultist of internet.
You place spades of faith in a minuscule chance to be creator of the universe.
You are either enormously naive or an intellectually inept individual because you have not seized upon any of the presuppositions of your worldview and have denied any exist, any college professor would slap you with an "F" for poor methodology, betrayal of scientific method and a complete lack of how to diagnose what you believe and how it is you've come to believe it.
" you are assuming a reaction transpired to cause elements to form you are really at a loss."
We can do it in labs, speegs...we KNOW it happens, all the evidence points to it.
Vacuum fluctuations occur at a constant, at any point in space, any region of space-time, rather and causes negitive and positive curvature. The positive inflating the negitive like a balloon, this is called "trapped inertia" or "false energy".
If all conditions are right, this can condense as a singularity, *boom*.
You can never recreate the supposed conditions of the big bang, you cannot create a perfect vacuum by artifical means, space itself is not a perfect vacuum, you SUPPOSE and ASSERT you do not know, you hypothesize and guess.
it may be the THEORY you subscribe to or wish to be true but it is far from proven an infallible fact.
"Balloon" you speak of like "String theory" is a theory, a guess, an intangible and unidentified IDEA.
"you cannot create a perfect vacuum by artifical means"
Correct. Very good. But we can create an artifical open-system vacuum thats -close-
to perfect. In fact, it doesn't HAVE to be perfect. We know from our own studies in space that it is an open system vacuum. we can re-create it almost perfectly, but you're right- no perfection. But a theory is far from a "guess", take you're own advice and seek a dictionary.
Ignorance is bliss and you appear to be hoarding a monopoly of it in this dialogue, not surprisingly.
Now you assert you know the exact conditions of pre-exstence, this omnipotence you show through your authoritarian view of man made theory is remarkable, some might say dogmatic, a beleivf that you supernaturally know what transpired before anything materially or atomically existed.
In closing you're a fool, and any genuinely curious mind can see as much and dismiss you accordingly.
If all these theories are "just theories", could you declare your beliefs a theory?
Would they meet the criteria?
You must understand it takes much less effort to go along with something that could have happened, something there at least seems to be evidence to say happened, rather than something that makes little if no sense at all.
A being that just existed made a universe to look at merely to reach the goal of an eternal afterlife with the "winners"?
You odn't understand the own criteria of your assertions nor where the ideas came from and what philosophies they incorporate, you don't know how to distinguish fact from theory and are so smitten with platitude that you don't appear to be capable of knowing right now.
Trusting your assertions at face value is every bit as much a leap of faith as a Grimm Bros. Fairy Tale, its not even good fiction in your case. its all moot anyhow, in your case why you evangelize is bizarre and inconsequential
I'm just going to refer to you as the lame duck, quacking along, making nonsensical noise, hoping someone will be confused enough to take you in at face value.
This is your argument style in a nutshell: Unsubstantiated platitude followed by strawman argument and/or ad hominem, rinse, repeat.
Though art an intellectual midget despite his professions to the contrary, go play your xbox.
I'm in a way guilty of my own accusation, I went back to the book to read the chapter again and the word "opinion" was wrong of me to use as it has a tone of suggestion that would, too, be slightly misrepresentational. That argument was the strongest, he claimed, which "might be inverse proof that someone of later significance was indeed born".
rypaz87 5 days ago
@richardaberdeen and another thing.. "obviously certain poorly educated liars like Hitchens disputes his existence" - what can be said of people who make false representations of educated people? Hitchens was read up on the people he repudiated, the same couldn't be said of you. Christ, this is a video promoting his book, get your hands a little dirty and arm your arguments the real way.
rypaz87 5 days ago
@richardaberdeen you and unitedkingdomify are both wrong about what Hitchens said about the existence of Jesus. I don't know why you spout such misrepresentations, but if you read his book you'll see Hitch's opinion on Jesus' existence is that the myth's backbending maneuvers to place the Nazarene in Bethlehem for the sake of the prophecy seems to suggest that such a prophet had existed.
rypaz87 5 days ago
That is an "observant" video. =p
pasqualebrow1230 1 week ago
Your video is a favorite on Pakistan
dwinkinney37e 1 month ago
sorry for typos , typing to fast and not spell checking equals fail lol!!!
TheSorrow696 1 month ago
thaTs the thing who are to say anything ,we havent even been living on this ploanet long enough to know anything about God or Jesus, or Satan ,unless there an immortal on this comment page that can prove me ,....... i thought not, ppl are what ever they want , . hence Free Will... its a test will you pass?? oh and riddle me this ,if good and evil is real,which it is!! then why not God and Satan?
TheSorrow696 1 month ago
The problem with Hitchens - and it's a big one - is the way he buys an ideological package that has nothing directly to do with atheism. The sad result is his (and most of his fellow leftists') incapacity of realizing that political realities such as the Israel-Arab conflict have never been about civil and human rights, but rather a result of the very Islamic intolerance he so vociferously criticizes. That's where you distinguish a great thinker from a pretense one.
isaiahgold 2 months ago
"Well, we've pretty much figured out the last 65 million years"
Really? We have? I for one have not. I still have a lot of questions. Apparently, some of us are just still ignorant of everything that has transpired in the last 65 million years and just need to be updated. So enlighten us, please.
xkopp375 3 months ago
Did they literally spell his last name "Hitchins."
virram476 3 months ago
The Hitch can dismantle religion on his worst drunkest fatigued day.
699backstab 4 months ago 2
is this guy the UK version of Larry king? LMAO!
Birdo661 5 months ago
@Birdo661 haha. i think so. he has the same rhythm when talking.
mroldschoolhiphop1 4 months ago
Comment removed
quark10051005 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
hes svery right, its about the believers vs the believes not the believers vs the unbelievers.
cptmuska 6 months ago
Someone ought to point out to both Frost and Hitchens, that what religions claim about God has no relevance to the existence of God, any more than what people claim about the shape of the earth has any relevance to the shape of the earth. Someone who pretends there is no God and who then attempts to defend such gross superstition based on what religious people claim, clearly belongs in a mental institution.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen Have you read Hitchens' book? Intellectual honesty is best recognised in somebody with the capacity to say, "I don't know." When what they are talking about is, in fact, an unknown. What you can say with certainty is that no human knows the mind of a god, that no human can speak for a god if there is one, and that no human being in the history of the species has enough evidence to assert there has ever been a god.
The religious make claims, and those claims lack evidence. >.<
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify According to Hitchens, "all Jewish historians now admit Moses probably didn't exist". According to Britannica article "Moses" written by a Jewish historian, the majority of historians believe Moses probably did exist. According to Hitchens, Jesus probably didn't exist. According to Will Durant and the vast majority of historians, there is overwhelming evidence for Jesus. It would seem that Hitchens is the on who has a problem with "intellectual honesty" & honesty altogether
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen Where are you getting "The vast majority of historians..." when it comes to evidence for Jesus? I don't know if you're intentionally lying or you're just ill-informed. It is patently untrue.
Regardless, I know Hitchens declares both men "probably" did not exist. He often makes a comparison with Socrates. What he does with both is go on, and grant for the sake argument that both men did exist, and goes onto say that it does nothing to prove god, or justify the claims of theists.
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify I'm a lifetime history major and I've studied a great many different atheist, agnostic, Jewish, Islamic, Christian historians. Legitimate historians overwhelmingly agree on the existence of Jesus. Out of the thousands who write for the Britannica in various articles, I havn't come across a single one who questions Jesus. You need to study legitimate historians and stop listening to frauds like Hitchens. Try "Ceasar and Christ" by Durant, a truly legitimate historian.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify Will Durant, one of the greatest of all historians, in "Ceasar and Christ" concludes that only a idiot would pretend Jesus didn't exist. According to Durant, a world-renouned expert in history, languages, literature, philosopy, science and intellectual thought, his teachings alone represent a "singular highly advanced mind" far surpassing any other mind in human history. Paul's letter in 54 AD casually references the Jesus story, clearly demonstrating it existed prior to then
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify There is no effort at all in the 4 gospels to prove Jesus existed; rather, their is great effort to prove he was Messiah, including 2 geneologies (there were two different ways of determining geneology in the Jewish tradition, which is why they differ). Just as today where many biographies of people like MLK and the Kennedys trace their kin, none of them try to prove they existed, because it is "common knowledge" in our society, as Jesus obviously was in his. HITCHENS = FRAUD
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen Good lord. Where on Earth did all this come from? Strange assumptions like, "You need to study legitimate historians and stop listening to frauds like Hitchens." How on Earth did you come to the conclusion that I consider Hitchens to be anything more than a public intellectual, and seriously, an honest man? lol Odd.
For a history major you should know there is not enough evidence for any historian to honestly declare for or against Jesus' existence. Which would...
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify Already answered. Britannica is written by thousands of historians, scientists, archeologists and other scholars who are expert in their particular field. Most major articles contain contributions from several different experts, including the article "Jesus Christ". Major articles go through an extensive process of peer review. Britannica is by far, the most legitimate general source available, often quoted and footnoted by scientists and historians within their own writings.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify All you have to do is to look up the articles "Moses" and "Jesus Christ" in Britannica to see what an obvious obvert LIAR Hitchens is. Hitchens says the opposite regarding Jewish historians, of what Jewish historians themselves actually say. The Britannic contains contributions from hundreds if not thousands of Jewish historian, none of who agree with what Hitchens said regarding Moses and Jewish historian. CHRISTOPEHR HITCHENS IS AN OBVIOUS FRAUD, GET OVER IT.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen Your bias is evident in the way you read from your sources. The conclusions you reach when reading them, and then what you vomit here as if it is undisputed fact that "what I think and read IS X" where X is the conclusion of a man looking for confirmation. In this case, Jesus existed.
The nature of the evidence FOR Jesus is derived from theological documents. Making any assertion of actual historicity hard to reach.
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify It is not "bias" to state that the overwhelming majority of historians believe Jesus existed. Rather, it is a well known fact, just as it is a well known fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, from Socrates thru Einstein, believed in God. Facts are facts and apparently, you have a problem separating them from fiction.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardaberdeen
No, Einstein did not believe in a god. In a letter he wrote on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind he said: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.... For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
And, the vast majority of scientists are atheists, actually.
Mattyb88ful 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify No. there is much evidence that the main scholars of that time never even recorded the happening of "Christ". We are coming to a point in history now that we know this -Dionysus 1500BC.- Born of a Virgin, Had many disciples, performed miracles. This is just one of many creation myths made up thousands of years before the story of "Jesus". Further more believing in the scrips written by nomadic tribes men is truly the form of a weak mind. Sorry to say.
cptmuska 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen Christian apologists debating Hitchens would be the first to balk at any suggestion of Jesus having not existed. Audiences would be keeling over, and all of academia would be rolling in the aisles laughing at the Hitchens soundbites and written works floating around. They are not. Why aren’t they? Because they do not occupy the odd world in which you’ve chosen to live.
Re-read your Britannica, if you have to, read it objectively. lol Every word. Word for word.
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify I'm neither a Christian nor an apologist. God doesn't need to apologize to anybody, nor does God need anybody apologizing for God. God doesn't need a religion as Jesus taught; creation speaks for God. There is no evidence for magically appearing universes, which is what Hitchens pretends is true.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify If you had actually read the Britannica, then you would be debating with Hitchens, rather than me.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen If it was undisputed fact that Jesus existed do you think I would be arguing with you? lol I'm no idiot. I'm open to information, and I don't hold dogmatically to views. I don't read men like Hitchens and make more of them than they are. I don't agree with everything he says, or swallow everything whole. I think his views on the Iraq war are just bad, for example.
I agree with him when it comes to god claims. That thing you've avoided in the comments here. The absurd god claims.
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify I didn't say it was "undisputed". Obviously, certain poorly educated liars like Hitchens dispute his existence. History is based on "weight of evidence". Legitimate scholars choose words carefully. "Problably" to a legitimate historian, means there is evidence heavily in favor of such a conclusion, as compared to "possibly" means the evidence weighs against such a conclusion. In the case of Jesus, the evidence is overwhelmingly weighed in his favor, rather than against.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen his views on religion are obviously correct.
cptmuska 6 months ago 2
@richardaberdeen ... explain your lack of "a single one who questions Jesus." Though they do exist, the real explanation is your obvious confirmation bias blinds you to them, probably. Your strange vehemence that Hitchens is a fraud, it's almost laughable.
As to your intitial comment, that I replied to, about denying god claims and/or the existence of gods as being a supernatural belief. That is just ridiculous. The god claim is and shall remain absurd until it meets its burden of proof.
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify My response represents no bias at all. You can look up "Jesus Christ" in Britannica and hundreds of related articles and not a single historian, who are experts in their field writing for Britannica, questions the existence of Jesus. The Britannica is written by scholars who are expert in their particular fields and is extensively peer-reviewed prior to and after publication. You are pretending that a long list of distinguished scholars is wrong and you are right.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen There is no reason to believe it. And as I said, Hitchens said, that I, you, he, every historian or no historians at all, anyone can claim all of these men who either did or did not exist - that they did, we can grant them all. It does nothing to prove the god claim.
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify Bullshit, there is EVERY reason to believe Jesus existed and ZERO reason to conclude otherwise. Paul's 54 AD letter to Corthinians is considered authentic by EVERY legitimate scholar, thus the Jesus story clearly predates that, making it more contemporary than MLK is to today. It is totally abusrd to pretend a motley crew of fisherman and farmers with little or no education could invent the teachings of Jesus, or that anyone else in history could, as Will Durant pointed out.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen In answer to "According to Hitchens "all Jewish historians..." etc. He cites the Jewish search for archeological evidence for the exodus of Jews from Egypt. He states if ever there were people with the desire to find such evidence, it is they, then goes onto to say that they found nothing, and that they confirmed that it 'probably' did not happen.
Very few honest people deal in absolutes. Hitchens admittedly does use the word 'probably' an awful lot. =)
UnitedKingdomify 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify Hitchens is an obvious fraud, speaking great lies that the majority of historians don't agree with at all. Archeologists are aware deserts have been known to swallow up entire cities, let alone a wandering group of nomads who pitched tents for a generation. It would be surprising if any evidence for such desert wanderings was found. A once thought mythical desert city in the story of Abraham, for example, was only recently uncovered, as evidence for David even more recently.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify Also, legitimate historians and scientists who use the term "probably" only do so when evidence is heavily tipped in that direction. Otherwise, they use words like "possibly" or "maybe". Like I said, Hitchens is an obvious fraud. The evidence for Moses is strongly in favor rather than against (Britannica) and, the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming (Britannica & Durant). No legitimate historian would pretend either Moses or Jesus "probably" didn't exist.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@UnitedKingdomify And finally, the face and sands of deserts shift dramatically over time, similar to great waves in the ocean moving at a slower pace. It is well-known that major cities have been entirely swallowed up by deserts without leaving a trace. Thus, Hitchens positions regarding Moses are without any historical merit or other foundation whatsoever. It would be incredibly surprising if evidence of a group of tent dwelling nomads wandering in the desert over 3,000 years ago was found.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
has the presenter had a stroke??
marcohorowitz8 7 months ago
15th March 1999
All I can tell you is that I had a growth about the size of a pea on my eyelid for two years and nothing would change it. The eye doctor said he thought it was cancerous but I did not have any tests. After 4 months of taking one b17 tablet per day and 15 apricot seeds per day the growth has totally disappeared.
Al Bresciani
abb642@aol.com 407-426-5832
procommenter 7 months ago
"...We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment...Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind..." [Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man," 1871 ed. vol. I, p. 168]
procommenter 7 months ago
take off those STUPID ads at the beginning!!!!
marcohorowitz8 7 months ago
Comment removed
Jimmyduudah 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Support my You-Tube initiative to DEPORT CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS for PROMOTING the unconstitutional war in Iraq. Post: DEPORT CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS FOR TREASON!
procommenter 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@procommenter
He's an American citizen you idiot. So what you really want is to throw any American who disagrees with your world view out of the country? What are you? A fucking fascist?
Jimmyduudah 8 months ago
@procommenter hey u can keep him haha..any english man who can upset so many americans is a legend.keep up the good work hitch .. listen fuck iraq... theres gonna be plenty more wars.. bring on libya
TheZigzagSmoke 8 months ago
@procommenter 1. Oh, shut up . . .
2. He's a citizen, and he has first amendment rights just like you do; he had no power to declare or mandate the aggression, just advocate it, so for what criminal act would you revoke his citizenship and deport him?
3. Have you shut up yet?
manthasagittarius 8 months ago
@procommenter Ignorant dickhead!
bermudaguy1 7 months ago
@bermudaguy1 : Where's your gay-pride now?
procommenter 7 months ago
I liked the introduction "God is not great, God is not great in this book"
Chill197 11 months ago
Sir David Frost, Christopher Hitchens - christ I'm proud to be English!
EllyMcCormack 11 months ago
Citing specific intelligence would most likely violate the law. The 'security state" we live in guards its lies as well as any other and would punish the officer in every way it could. Not useful to any legal proceedings, but interesting to me none the less. Its a good thing to be reminded that the military does have people willing to dissent on important matters.
chuck1prillaman 11 months ago
What a waste of time that interview with the woman officer was! She didnt reveal ANYTHING. Just made a bunch of claims... What the fuck?
It doesnt matter how obvious it is, she still has to back it up! Or at the very least state what the lies were. Name the specific talking points. Say SOMETHING of substance!
I mean, its rediculous since Im 2 years late, but fuck ME! What do they take me for?
820423 1 year ago
he must get sooo bored answering the same shit ass questions
MattyJoels 1 year ago 2
@MattyJoels Well, he has admitted on a couple of occasions that he is someone who bores easily, so I wouldn't be surprised.
writersblock26 10 months ago
The women in is this an idiot
SirKanti1 1 year ago
Kwiatkowski is da woman!
Tippersnore 1 year ago
I had the pleasure on hearing Christopher Hitchens in person at the 92nd st Y in NYC while he was promoting Hitch 22. It was a matter of weeks later that he revealed his bout with esophageal cancer. To help bolster his intellectual badassedry, he is still writing.
rhatcher010 1 year ago
Mister Frooooossst...
ruinedbyidiots 1 year ago
lol love how frost put that at the beginning, how true and funny. Hitchens has taken on Mother Theresa, The President of the United States and God. . .what a badass
artistsandbox 1 year ago
@artistsandbox Maybe you should get down on your knees when you watch his videos. You know, worship properly.
MrBluntCunt 1 year ago
get well soon chris,the world needs you, i,ll not pray cus that,s pointless.
userwl2850 1 year ago
i think that hitchens confuses judaism with christianity and the bush administration. he also associaties creation education as a hinderance to economic prosperity, as if evolution were to advance a brave new world.
the problem is christianity does not exist in america. hitchens doesn't get this yet.
ezrhino100 1 year ago
@ezrhino100 u serious?
stitcha123 1 year ago
I love Hitch...but he's always coughing. Hope he's ok.
zivaray 1 year ago
@zivaray - cancer.
loosekarrott 1 year ago
A man with real balls
MrSueVeneer 1 year ago 2
well ...
to put this in simple terms ... GREAT :-)))
Brgds
GSO
GermanStraight1 1 year ago
I thank in most part its the crappy military application and deployment of troops that is the travesty, were is the lessons of military history?
mobilechief 1 year ago
Christopher is da mannn
TheAntinode 2 years ago 106
@TheAntinode read Hitch 22 - he admits to being a fag
mixxmexx 1 year ago
@mixxmexx what page?
atheistnarutofan 1 year ago
@mixxmexx
The word is homosexual , and he did experiment when he was young just like many people did , does it make gay ?, i don't think so,not that there is any thing wrong with being gay, but it surely doesn't make him a FAG .
Fag is such an ugly word,and should not be used to attack any one, i don't think this man deserves to be put down like that ,especially now that he is sick ,he as given us so much, and helped us grow as rational human-beings .
stay strong hitch.
adlerbr12 1 year ago 2
@mixxmexx
..And what's wrong with being gay? You seem to be feigning character assasination.
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
@mixxmexx If a gay person has a brief period of sexual acts with people of the opposite sex, does that make them straight?
Retard.
ruinedbyidiots 1 year ago
@TheAntinode I'm sure he would agree with you.
MrBluntCunt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Human beings with extraordinary sources of intelligence and understanding of how things work are usually atheist because if they can't figure it out, it must not be real.
All the hogwash aside Hitchens tends to equate atheism with apathy, ignorance with piety, and polarization of the issues in order to sell a book.
Ciaresayton 2 years ago
Well, we've pretty much figured out the last 65 million years. Just because we havent figured out how it all began, also doesnt mean we should throw in the towel, devolve a few century's and go back to the brainwashed slavemaking crap thats commited some of the most hatefull atrocities known to our species. because of Ignorance etc..
And the father of Jesus, was pretty apathetic to civilisation for a fucking loooooooong time before he sent down his kid by the way.
Hypocracy, Ignorance in knowing
Fireod75 2 years ago 68
@Fireod75 Yes exactly.
Irrational, small-minded people constantly quote this idea that... "oh nobody knows how it began" as if that's a trump card that proves god lmao.
Just because we don't know yet doesn't mean god did it. Ridiculous.
AtheistMovement 2 years ago 5
@Fireod75 "Hypocracy," Ignorance in spelling ...
spellHYPOCRISY 1 year ago 4
@spellHYPOCRISY You Created an Account just to say that, Correct the word in this fact then----------You're fucking sade mate--------
Fireod75 1 year ago
@spellHYPOCRISY
Definately.
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
@Fireod75 theres no real evidence of Jesus even existing,Catholic apologists point to Roman historians` C.Tacitus(56-117AD),GaiusTranquillas(69-130AD) and F.Josephus(37-100AD) and their accounts for evidence of Jesus,but all were born AD and wrote their accounts at the same time Jewish Reformists were writing the Gospels under the auspices of the RomanEmpire. The Jesus story is a fabrication just like the Jewish Exodus which the IsraeliSchool of Archaelogy admits Exodus story was a fabrication
PAULOcbi 7 months ago
Christopher Hitchens is best when he haven't got a audiance, because he always gets so worked up when the crowd cheers him on. So this is really good. Go Christopher!
Erikzors 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God save all us sinners God save your blackest sheep
God save the good samaritan and god save the worthless creep
drekas2005 2 years ago
@drekas2005
Question for you .
If we were brought into Exsistance by God's Design , and he Made us in his own Image , would it then not be fair to assume that not only did God give us the Mental ability to be able to wonder and Be curiouse about oooh Science say ...Are really suggesting that if there is a God , he did not see that coming , maybe he wants you to figure it out ...maybe that Gods plan...have you ever considered that?
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 Google" no one is innocent " lyrics where you will find the verse
I wrote. Then you will see that you take yourself too seriously for no reason. I'm amazed how every half wit on these atheist forums fills the comment box as if they are philosophers.
Just the mention of the word God and you all fly off the handle.
drekas2005 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@drekas2005
At least my Question is productive ...and only placed once ..I did not feel the need to find all the Crationist Forums I could find and post it to all them. Who's the Fucking half wit now?..Lyrics posted you say .your not even fucking Original enough to come up with your own Rants, next to you yes we are all well versed philospoher. you going to answer my Fucking Question or what...or are you going to keep evading it ?. .
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 I don't evade the half wits.
I prefer not to get over my head with creationists or atheists. These are arguments by know nothings
that end up nowhere. The more you rant ,the more
you make a fool of yourself. Believe what you want.
It's your right. Just keep your beliefs to yourself.
I don't really give a shit what any body believes in.
It's their business.
drekas2005 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@drekas2005
So given all that ...why did you feel the need to comment in the first place ?.
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 To make assholes like you, look like....you know assholes. Fish biting on empty hooks. Too much hate in the world. Too many provocateurs looking for
trouble. This is just a small example.
drekas2005 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@drekas2005
So what's your point ?, are you baiting me now ? .there seems to be a lot of Asshole talk ..
So you take the time to paste Religiouse rantings cos there are (and I quote) "
Too many provocateurs looking for
trouble........seems a bit circular to me ...are you sure your not a Creationsist...?.
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 Damn you're stupid.
You're so focused in the wrong direction,
it makes you blind to reality. Have another
worm fish. P.S. learn how to spell.
drekas2005 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@drekas2005 are you not now being Provocative ?, I would stop writing if i was you , because although I can't spell,(at least I can pick up a dictionary if it ever turned out to be a requirement when dealing with Brainless hicks like your good self) you my friend will always be stupid.
IHATEATHEIST2 2 years ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 Once again you missed the point. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to some one with a log for a brain. Maybe you should go back to your trailer and read your Atheist manifesto or Bible,whichever it is you favor and foam at the mouth.
drekas2005 2 years ago
@drekas2005 Log for a brain? Who put the log there, Was it God. or are you admitting that he has a natural stupidity and so eloquently wrote "foam at the mouth"
TheLawgdawg 1 year ago
@TheLawgdawg This is the type of reply you get from an atheist who thinks he's some kind of intellectual. Get a life, preferably one with a brain.
drekas2005 1 year ago
That Paulwilfridhun douche has been leaving the same inane poem on other Hitch vids.
Get a life.......
BARCACROSSESTHEALPS 2 years ago
paulwilfridhun are you a KKK boy? I feel hatred coming from u??
callasexperience 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
What substantive criticisms of Hitchens position do you have to offer? And I would prefer it in iambic pentameter, please.
cyranothe2nd 2 years ago 3
Here is game, set ,match against religion. When asked, "If I was alone on a desert island and didn't know about God would I be shut out of heaven?" The answer is from what I understand is ,no. So if that is true all the people that lived on this planet that did know and will not know about God will be in or go to heaven. Then why tell them and spoil their chances. I put it to you knowing is not a good thing in this case. Then again it is all a bull shit story to extract money from the fools.
royme55 2 years ago 7
If only more people agreed with you.
bistrosidecar 2 years ago
shut up and put that money in the plate! God is mad at last weeks collection! LOL
LokiMythos 2 years ago 4
frost is a senile venerable and therefore
vulnerable......they should get some young
fresh blood to interview a heavyweight like
Hitchens..
jpandyaraja 2 years ago
Hitchens seems to have great liking for mister Frost. Don't know if I'm interpreting too much but I feel certain innate English kindness among that.
danielrep 2 years ago
i agree. i think its respect....because frost is a legendary journalist.
unchie979 2 years ago 7
Trusting in humanity to progress itself inevitability is very much blind, by his own standards we are but a fleeting soon to be outdated species what does it matter what becomes of us, just another addition to the fossil record.
Speegs23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens displays his ignorance and hubris by failing to distinguish Mormanism from Christianity.
Speegs23 2 years ago
Speegs displays his ignorance in suggesting that the Church of Jesus CHRIST of Latter Day Saints is not a Christian denomination.
iPwn007 2 years ago
Comment removed
Speegs23 2 years ago
By your reasoning Scientology is an off shoot of SCIENCE, don't be so daft.
Speegs23 2 years ago
That is a horrible comparison. Mormonism is directly plagarised from Christianity... scientology simply has "science" in its label, beyond that there are ZERO comparisons that can be made with scientology and science.
Mormonism and Christianity don't enjoy such a complete bifurcation.
slantythecamel 2 years ago
well, it takes similarly crippled brain to believe in both of these fantasies.
berrylict 2 years ago
Blind faith in humanity, i agree.
Speegs23 2 years ago
Mormonism and Christianity are both crazy anyway, so how much does it really matter?
PapaMagnum 2 years ago
that kind of intellectual laziness is like stating piltdown man was a fraud so therefore evolution must be discounted since so much supposition was built upon the prorogation of a fraudulent missing link for almost 30 years.
Speegs23 2 years ago
How do you know that it was fraudulent? What do people have to gain from it being fraudulent?
PapaMagnum 2 years ago
It was proven hoax goofball, do some research, its just about the most famous hoax in history and sadly some people still base scientific presuppositions off of information garnered from taking the specimen at face value.
What do hoaxers have to gain from any hoax they commit? fame, fortune, audacious pranks, you name it.
Speegs23 2 years ago
There is quite a bit of evidence without what you were talking about to support evolution. In fact, the most recent missing link was found in 2001. There was another found recently called "Ida".
So, "goofball", considering that there is a slough of evidence supporting natural selection and evolution why do you bend over backwards to refute it?
PapaMagnum 2 years ago
What you're doing is tangential from topic but if you must many presuppositions originating with piltdown are still ignorantly used to analyze all subsequent finds, forcing the proverbial square peg into a round hole.
Speegs23 2 years ago
You're right, we have been getting off topic. Despite what may have come about with piltdown, there is still loads of substantial evidence for evolution.
And all religions are really crazy. Doesn't matter if Mormonism is an official Christian sect or not. They're all cuckoo and weird.
PapaMagnum 2 years ago
That's unsubstantiated, a hubris filled opinion.
Speegs23 2 years ago
It's not weird to have a giant space daddy give obscure and hard to interpret dications to power hungry, bronze-age, goat herders, and watch people practice what they preach today? And to have this space daddy send his son down to get killed, and because of that he's somehow our imaginary friend? That's not weird?
PapaMagnum 2 years ago
Its not weird to attribute nothingness as the genesis of all that exists? The same criteria you use to critique creationism is easily used to rebuke your own methodology and worldview, your fallacy and hubris stems from the fact that you view man as the absolute final authority of the universe able to determine with his finite mind all truth and what is truth, its a laughable fallacy, a sentiment requiring every bit as much faith as any religion if not more.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"Its not weird to attribute nothingness as the genesis of all that exists? "
No it's not, it's fucking astro physics.
Vacuum fluctuations can cause enormous amounts of trapped inertia that could "split" under stress of the vacuum effect, causing a hot gas explosion which could cool over time.
So yes, it's not "nothingness", but somethingness.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
What is the qualifier of a man made philosophy like "fucking astro physics" or even regular physics at that? We observe and empirically hypothesize but any genuine scientist does not delcare his theories absolute when they are fallible and subject to alternate discovery.
The explanation you offer is unsatisfactory for you assume that a matter of some fashion existed eternally, otherwise you have asserted nothingness fashioned itself into something tangible without any existing elements.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"What is the qualifier of a man made philosophy like "fucking astro physics" or even regular physics at that?"
experimentation. We can produce the effects.
"you assume that a matter of some fashion existed eternally,"
No matter, energy or inertia if you will created by struggling forces of the vacuum effect. The vacuum effect is an element which is caused by the lack of material existence. Learn some physics, then talk, mmm'kay?
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago 3
hahaha :D
PapaMagnum 2 years ago
You paint a false dichotomy but in typical fashion for those without proper arguments they resort to thee ad hominem.
Vacuums are dependent on being contained in an atmosphere and being a void of said containment to exist. outer space is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum), but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos. Hypothetically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"Vacuums are dependent on being contained in an atmosphere "
That would be a closed system genius.
There are open systems as well, which is what space is. You're not arguing with me, really-it's not my proposal. You're arguing against Steven Hawking, one of the most brilliant physicists of all time. Inside of our material universe, the system contains particles, that does not mean all space outside of our material universe does as well-it's boundless.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Vacuums don't form without something to be vacuous of, your intellect for example, particularly this particular argument you've tried to fasten ;P Just kidding, although your argument is ridden with speculative hubris.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"Vacuums don't form without something to be vacuous of"
Exactly, any material existence; space, if you will. We KNOW that space-that nothingness we're encapsulated in- is an open-system vacuum, bound to fluctuations. Are you saying space doesn't exist, or that it isn't a vacuum?
You lack the education to speak at all on this subject, and yet you do so without hesitation, it's like watching a car crash wherein the driver is asleep.(PS-you like the word "hubris" don't you? make you feel smart?)
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
You mistake ad hominem and straw men argumentation for fact, you are reduced to moral relativism by the natural conclusion of your belief system, and it is a belief system, one that determines your analysis that is every bit as bias as any persuasion and looks to fit the facts in a premeditated paradigm and not one born of neutrality.
Speegs23 2 years ago
If atheism is true then this conversation is moot, because any intellectual tradition is but a human coping mechanism and subject only to the individual, you stand guilty of evangelizing one over another.
Speegs23 2 years ago
- Atheists don't believe that everything came from nothing.
- Considering that this "god" probably doesn't exist, then man is the best vehicle to answer the big questions.
- It's not a belief system, because it's not based on faith.
- I used to be one of the faithful, until I took a neutral view at the facts and read books about the universe and evolution.
- It wouldn't matter if atheism is true or not to you because your beliefs are based off of faith. Glorifying not knowing something.
PapaMagnum 2 years ago 2
How narcissistic, you are well on your way to nihilism and thus are uber naive not to think faith takes a huge part in your acceptance of any facts or system, your criteria doesn't hold up to scrutiny as your own system is a fragile house of cards once examined by epistemological, ontological and anthropological means, all you have done is made of god of man and asserted that absolute better than others, effectively evangelizing and seeking to convert, how hypocritical.
Speegs23 2 years ago
It's not a matter of faith. If you've done research (no, praying doesn't count), then you'd know that there is a modern scientific explanation for nearly everything. Observe evidence then form a theory. Not hard. A pastor says something and for some reason you believe it without it being tested. I'm TECHNICALLY agnostic about god the same way I'm agnostic about fairies. To make a god of man, I'd have to worship someone. I'm not trying to convert at this point I'm just rattling you.
PapaMagnum 2 years ago 2
My dear it is obvious you have nothing to say when your lone feeble retort is ad hominem.
If you are right then all is relative and why do you waste your breath propagating and evangelizing yet another relative perspective?
You can keep your weak straw men arguments, i assure you I am unrattled, but declaring victory after you knock them down makes you an intellectual coward.
Speegs23 2 years ago
Again, my lack of a belief in god comes from the bible and every preacher that I've ever met not having any evidence to support their claims besides "faith". It's not only about the ad hominem, you may FEEL insulted because religious people always get insulted when people question them.
I could ask you why you're here. We're just a couple of people with too much time on our hands.
I would like to know how I've knocked down my own arguements.
PapaMagnum 2 years ago
You base personal experience of your view of a handful of youth pastors, likely fluffy ones if i may risk a piece of reasonable conjecture, and declare that hte final authority of theism and christendom; I'm sorry but in a court of law that would come across as nothing but bias.
I empathize with poor preachers, lord knows there are plenty and charlatans among them to boot but that doesn't undermine Christ.
Back on topic however, which is the presuppositions of atheism vs. theism.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"which is the presuppositions of atheism vs. theism"
The presuppositions, ehh? Atheism is only the rejection of supernatural beliefs, you don't have to "believe" anything else, you may not even have an opinion. There are many atheists who don't understand scientific theories, and many that don't care. To be considered an "atheist", all you must do is NOT believe in any supernatural beliefs. But theism is literally COMPRISED of presuppositions that can only insist upon themselves
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Then you place faith in your idea there is no god.
It is still an act of faith that presupposes theistic thought is wrong.
You are supremely ignorant of philosophical happenings and apparently the very nature of the human conditions if you think any individual enters any dialogue or environment neutral.
You do possess a supernatural belief as you believe the natural made itself, a theist isn't particularly supernatural as you assert id he believes nature's god created matter and order.
Speegs23 2 years ago
" you believe the natural made itself"
No, I believe a giant ball of speghetti that "just existed" and is far more complex than the universe, made the universe. And that a reaction of hot gas HAD to be made by the flying speghetti monster who loves us, and made our blood from his maranara. And of course, he had no cause, that's right, pure fucking magic. And he made the universe by saying "ALLA KAZAAM MOTHERFUCKERS!" and it was good.
Of course philosophy determines FACT, we all know that(joke)
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
What god is this joke trying to promote with these silly ramblings? why do these idiots think trying(and failing miserably) to debunk all science proves the existence of some magical being from some ancient belief held by people who lived 5,000 years before the invention of the toothbrush? I just figured maybe you found out what sect of crazy this "skeegs" guy is from...
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Arrogance is you religion, got it.
The science doesn't add up, vacuums do not exist in a state of absolute nothingness and if you are assuming a reaction transpired to cause elements to form you are really at a loss.
Ultimately you put your blind faith in human hypothesis and speculation and your priests are sagan and hawking (who isn't an atheist) and has become increasingly theistic in his personal opinions if you've kept up with him.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"vacuums do not exist in a state of absolute nothingness "
That's the literal definition of a vacuum you idiot!~ please just stop already...you've embarrassed yourself enough already, my sides hurt.
"Ultimately you put your blind faith in human hypothesis "
And if that isn't your religion in a nutshell please tell me what al the other religions are. Hawking WAS a deist, he now believes the universe began from a massive vacuum fluctuation-would you like the lecture? I've kept up ;)
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
There's an old adage that he who argues with a fool comes dangerously close to being indistinguishable from him to observers, i concede i've made that error with you, an internet"intellect".
You don't even know your own terminology defined correctly.
Read up on what epistemology, ontology, anthropology are then you'll perhaps be able to make a sensical case for your suppositions, as of now you only employ your own arrogance as the final authority, unable to ascertain intellectual honesty.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"Read up on what epistemology, ontology, anthropology "
WHAT!?!? I'm merely reciting a fucking theory, you asshole! Ontology?!? you've said that to three different people now, is that you're reaction to an argument you can't refute? Do you HAVE an argument to support your "god did it" crap? or do you think acting like you know something makes a case? I know what the definition of "vacuum" is retard..fuck, you know what..forget it. I'm wasting my time.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
You are out of your league and that has been plainly showing for some time , read up young one, you are not all knowing and are extremely disadvantaged in your arguments by being unable to discern what you believe nor why you believe it because you are little more than a parrot of pseudo-intellectual best sellers that occasionally sprinkle Nietchke and Sagan or Hawkings into their writing for good measure.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"You are out of your league "
"There are those who do, and those who cannot do.
those that cannot do, often say they can."
Prove I'm out of my league, instead of just saying it...talking shit, basically. I've yet to see you PROVE me wrong. Your vacuum comments were funny, in that they were right, in the case of a CLOSED system, but you're completely unaware of what an open-system vacuum is. Hilarious.
Go ahead, prove my education was a waste of time, oh, cultist of internet.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
You place spades of faith in a minuscule chance to be creator of the universe.
You are either enormously naive or an intellectually inept individual because you have not seized upon any of the presuppositions of your worldview and have denied any exist, any college professor would slap you with an "F" for poor methodology, betrayal of scientific method and a complete lack of how to diagnose what you believe and how it is you've come to believe it.
You are adeptly summed up by the word "HUBRIS".
Speegs23 2 years ago
" you are assuming a reaction transpired to cause elements to form you are really at a loss."
We can do it in labs, speegs...we KNOW it happens, all the evidence points to it.
Vacuum fluctuations occur at a constant, at any point in space, any region of space-time, rather and causes negitive and positive curvature. The positive inflating the negitive like a balloon, this is called "trapped inertia" or "false energy".
If all conditions are right, this can condense as a singularity, *boom*.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
You can never recreate the supposed conditions of the big bang, you cannot create a perfect vacuum by artifical means, space itself is not a perfect vacuum, you SUPPOSE and ASSERT you do not know, you hypothesize and guess.
it may be the THEORY you subscribe to or wish to be true but it is far from proven an infallible fact.
"Balloon" you speak of like "String theory" is a theory, a guess, an intangible and unidentified IDEA.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"you cannot create a perfect vacuum by artifical means"
Correct. Very good. But we can create an artifical open-system vacuum thats -close-
to perfect. In fact, it doesn't HAVE to be perfect. We know from our own studies in space that it is an open system vacuum. we can re-create it almost perfectly, but you're right- no perfection. But a theory is far from a "guess", take you're own advice and seek a dictionary.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
Ignorance is bliss and you appear to be hoarding a monopoly of it in this dialogue, not surprisingly.
Now you assert you know the exact conditions of pre-exstence, this omnipotence you show through your authoritarian view of man made theory is remarkable, some might say dogmatic, a beleivf that you supernaturally know what transpired before anything materially or atomically existed.
In closing you're a fool, and any genuinely curious mind can see as much and dismiss you accordingly.
Speegs23 2 years ago
"Now you assert you know the exact conditions of pre-exstence"
Nothingness...wow hard.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
So back to square one with your cyclical nonsense, nothing begets everything, you are positively asinine and not merely naive.
Inconsistency is your MO, congrats you have single handedly proven yourself an intellectual quack.
Speegs23 2 years ago
If all these theories are "just theories", could you declare your beliefs a theory?
Would they meet the criteria?
You must understand it takes much less effort to go along with something that could have happened, something there at least seems to be evidence to say happened, rather than something that makes little if no sense at all.
A being that just existed made a universe to look at merely to reach the goal of an eternal afterlife with the "winners"?
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
You odn't understand the own criteria of your assertions nor where the ideas came from and what philosophies they incorporate, you don't know how to distinguish fact from theory and are so smitten with platitude that you don't appear to be capable of knowing right now.
Trusting your assertions at face value is every bit as much a leap of faith as a Grimm Bros. Fairy Tale, its not even good fiction in your case. its all moot anyhow, in your case why you evangelize is bizarre and inconsequential
Speegs23 2 years ago
" you don't know how to distinguish fact from theory"
I absolutely DO know how to differenciate the two.
I asked you a question, asshole.
I can present these as theories.
You have an assertion, could you do the same.
Answer me this time, instead of another cowardly dodge.
hellasweet4twizzle 2 years ago
I'm just going to refer to you as the lame duck, quacking along, making nonsensical noise, hoping someone will be confused enough to take you in at face value.
This is your argument style in a nutshell: Unsubstantiated platitude followed by strawman argument and/or ad hominem, rinse, repeat.
Though art an intellectual midget despite his professions to the contrary, go play your xbox.
Speegs23 2 years ago