@914light excuse me sir, you seem to have missed the key thing to whatch video. Press the play button so that you are no longer making things up in your head.
Regardless of what side you're on, Richards stayed with the questions of the debate, he addressed science and the physical world, and Hitchens quickly descended into ad hominen attacks both on his opponent and specific religions, and proving that point beyond a shadow of doubt, Hitchens says he "despises" these people, thus proving it is completely an emotional issue with him and not a scientific one...as do most atheists.
I was also amazed at how limited Stein is. Well, I always wondered about his odd affected speech - he slurs his speech. I hope he has learned how a truly brilliant man can articulate well without being a pedant.
@dolceandbijou14 Hitchens has torn holes in these exact arguments a thousand times, but they keep coming back. He's debating three people by himself in this video, including at least two who think they are so smart that they can just dismiss evolution, despite having apparently no knowledge of the field. Why shouldn't he be combative, in his clever way?
Taken to the cleaners by a brilliant thinker and cutting orator. After years of looking I have yet to see an intelligent debate with a knowledge opponent on this subject when the creationist side of the debate comes out looking anything but ignorant at best and plain stupid and illogical at worst.
Jay defeated himself in the debate by revealing he is an Evangelical Christian. So likely what is going on is Jay was raised Christian, and spent his entire life and career trying to use science to prove his beliefs. His conclusions based on the "evidence" are twisted by his bias predisposition.
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
Dear Christopher Hitchens, i agree with you about the irrationality that are all religions but little Newton is not the father of modern science, the father of science are Archimedes and Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham and Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī,along with many many others who had contributed before Newton.
Seems like Hitchens has the agenda - to use this debate as a pulpit to denigrate all forms of religion in general. None of it relevant to the debate. He is used to insulting theists to get them angry enough to lose their cool and come out looking like fools. Thank "God" Richards doesn't give in to his obvious bating tactics - so it backfires and makes Hitchens look like the raving, and arrogant, fool.
@rvirzi HAHAHAHAHA. " He is used to insulting theists to get them angry enough to lose their cool and come out looking like fools". it looks like you are the raving, arrogant fool. you angry?
Things in nature are designed. Clearly this is true.
The issue is the mechanism of design. We know....know....that natural selection is a very powerful mechanism that has been shown to design populations so that they become better and better adapted to their environments.
There is no evidence at all, none....that shows that god or any other agent tinkers with breeding populations.
I like how they pretend they were talking on subject and Christopher was the one who changed the subject... If you wanna talk about religion vs science, don't bring up morality as your argument that religion is true.
Jay Richards debates with irrationality. He strings pieces of unexplained happenings in nature and sews together a fabric of nonsense. He fills the gaps we have in our knowledge with a thing called a god. Fallacy after fallacy. He uses words that suggest a being had intervened, and he has no evidence for this. When one suggests some possibility as being a truth and has no evidence to validate the claim, this is said to be irrational.
im no christian but wtf is wrong with being homophobic? please fucking explain why i should tolerate them? You might not be an American, but its my fucking freedom of expression to dislike them. Stop acting like a fag sympathizing white knight.
Of course they tolerate me because im part of the majority, they want to convince me, thats their objective. Same for muslims, fuck them, i refuse to tolerate that shit because "they are nice guys most of the time". I amn also FORCED to tolerate their bullshit on TV, in the college classroom, in politics and everywhere else these backwards ass people get their hands into, and they according to any poll make up for less that 20 percent of the population. fuck them.
@Duckshmm Unfortunately, the majority of Americans agree with the idea that everyone's personal freedom is protected, and no one has the right to take it away. You don't tread on them if they don't tread on you. If that's not enough for you, if you can't live your own life, and instead decide that taking away other people's freedom is what you need to make your life complete, you are not a functional member of this society and I would kindly ask you to leave.
@Duckshmm And as a response to your first question, there isn't anything inherently wrong with homophobia. You can hate whoever you want. Far be it from me to tell you otherwise. The problem is when you turn into a nazi elitist asshole who's only contentment comes from forcing your lifestyle onto others that don't want it.
talk about going to the extremes, simply based on me disliking a lifestyle thats forced onto me through the media and modern culture.
its quite ironic that you make the assertion that if you agree with homoerotic activities than your considered to be a nice opened minded person, and if you disagree you are equated to a bigot and almost a fascist.
thats a fucking cultural failure. who is the victim now?
@Duckshmm - "lifestyle"? Sexual orientation isn't like being a member of a religion, a vegetarian, or a heavy partier; it's a defining and prominent characteristic of a person that is unchangeable and unalterable.
You're pathetic. There are a few gay characters on TV and now something is being "shoved down your throat"? Grow up. No one is forcing to look at media.
Barricade yourself in your home then. The fact is, is that there are LGBT individuals in the world and there will always be.
Turn of Queer Eye for The Straight guy, you will get the sudden facts of life that being gay is in fact a lifestyle.
Notice how gays are usually the most pretentious people. Its a lifestyle. And i call bullshit on the "born this way/gay" ideology. THe body naturally goes into puberty, it naturally has the desire to spread its seed, dudes fucking dudes is distortion and manipulation of those feelings. Take biology.
@Duckshmm - Can't you read? As I stated: no one is forcing you to watch the media.
But for you harbor dislike for another person on the basis of their sexual orientation, and to use sterotypes as the basis for that dislike...that's just moronic and immoral. Plain and simple.
You need to grow up and try to use your head more often.
Yeah maybe to you dudes sucking off dudes is completely fine. But i think its revolting. It is by definition naturally backwards, its a defect. I would with a clear conscious compare it to autism. No of course i don't hate autistic people, but i fucking hate the autism. Its a gene that i wish would be banished from existence. But in this case you're supporting the sexual autism. you are backing genetic malfunctions. you are encouraging the cancer. And that's disgusting.
@Duckshmm "By definition?" What definition? What sordid definition would compare a sexual act between two consenting individuals to a genetic malfunction? You sir, are in terrible need for some better books. Preferably ones with less retarded definitions.
If you are oblivious to what sex is supposed to do than i cannot help you, for you are in denial. What a poor state it must be.
Puberty serves the sole purpose of spreading your seed. Like all other species this is done with an innate understanding of this fact of life. aware yourself.
Go ahead support this fucking distasteful trend of encouraged autism. I mean as you all say, "they are born that way".
@Duckshmm - Your responses are too moronic to read.
Plus, they're just the same nonsense every homophobe I've ever argued with uses.
You're not original or interesting...just another pathetic homophobe who can't think, can't behave like a civilized person, and certainly can't defend his stupidity.
@Duckshmm - You're just too stupid to argue with.
Whenever someone responds to your stupid comments, you continue to play the part of a moron and either deny facts and logic, or twist things to conform to your own immoral "vales" and "beliefs."
Having such a closed mind and holding absolutistic beliefs is not just dumb, but dangerous.
You're the typical religious fanatic and you are proof of why faith and religion are evil and need to be resisted.
@Duckshmm And perhaps you are oblivious to the fact that sex is also pretty damn awesome (and I pity you for that) and we can do it all the fuck we want with whom we want and when we want. What one does in his own private time does not in any way shape, or form either concern or influence you, so you might as well keep your retarded opinions to yourself. If people like you were to procreate, I'd rather wish everyone was gay.
sex offers pleasure for what reason? why would nature want to give pleasure to mating???
maybe because its called procreating. and since you clearly know nothing about science or for that matter, ANY understanding of how nature works, ive thoroughly convinced that you are a middle school dicksucker.
@Duckshmm I can see your state of logic by your baseless and wrong assumption upon my age and education. Or upon my knowledge of science.
Yes, sex Is meant for procreation. But I don't have to procreate to have sex and it sure is my damn right if I even want to procreate or not. Fucking retard.
procreation is innate in everyone. If you are claiming homosexuality is genetic, than i would say autism is also genetic. Both in which are genetic malfunctions. By definition they are.
If you do it for pleasure or not its still a fucking perversion. Just like having sex with other species. Its fucking a trick you play on yourself. Just like drugs are a pleasure.
aware yourself, and stop watching fucking MTV, you pop culture tryhard.
@Duckshmm Again, you fail to posit any semblance of fact about me. MTV? Ha! What a retard. What is a true fucking perversion is you actually believing you can declare what a perversion is.
"All laws which can be violated without doing anyone any injury are laughed at." - Baruch Spinoza
@Duckshmm - I don't care what you "think." You know nothing about biology or science. All you have is ignorance and prejudice.
Homosexuality has a clear evolutionary benefit in that it fosters better socialization among members of both genders and it also is a biological response to the need for greater gathering and concentration of resources for families and offspring.
@Duckshmm - Your opposition to homosexuality is no different than someone being against another on the basis of skin color, sex, age, the sound of his or her voice, or which hand he or she writes with.
Your hatred of Islam is understandable since Islam is a twisted ideology (but there are a lot of moderates who are nice people) Religion is a choice just like political affiliation is.
Sexual orientation isn't a choice; it's who a person is. So your prejudice is despicable and wrong.
because its a choice. its not a genetic (but even if it is, you have my opinion already).
There are several genetic malfunctions (id be happy to post some if you are new to life), that DONT effect or hinder a persons/species life in anyway, makes it different yes, but doesnt hinder. And It would still be called a genetic malfunction. A failed mutation.
at the risk of repeating myself over and over again, instead of telling its a bad argument, attempt to persuade me.
@Duckshmm - Earlier you compared sexual orientation to autism.
So now you think autism is a choice? Tell that to parents of autistic children.
Every major medical organization in the nation agrees that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. So you're wrong.
A genetic "malfunction"? So now you are an expert in genetics? Are you saying sexual orientation, which includes both heterosexuality and homosexuality, are now "genetic malfunctions"? Neither hinders a person or species.
if you say that they are "born that way" then i told you that its a genetic malfunction thus my comment: encouraged autism.
its a perversion. Perversions are abnormal sexual behavior. Its a result of failing to properly outlet sexual desires. I would also compare it to beastiality in the sense that it is a pleasure filled act, yet disgusting and useless.
its a fucking disgusting act done by a neurologically disorientated peoples. you cannot prove any of what i said wrong.
@Duckshmm - You are wrong. Homosexuality and bestiality share no similarities.
Many gays and lesbians enjoy committed, faithful, mutually satisfying partnerships which meet their innate human need for emotional, physical and spiritual companionship.
All of the major medical organizations, including American Psychiatric Assoc., American Psychological Assoc., and American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is an innate, legitimate, normal variation of human sexual expression.
With respect, the APA and AAP frequently change their tunes. Prior to the early 1970's homosexuality was considered deviant according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of disorders. Thank goodness their opinions have evolved. But the fact that they've so recently changed their tune makes this argument weak.
Homosexuality is most easily defended as a form of human love between consenting adults. Bestiality (and pederasty) are thus still excluded from the fold, and rightly so.
@Duckshmm - "if you say" < That is really pathetic. Apparently, what I think determines what you believe.
"its a perversion" < No, your prejudice is the only perversion.
You're disgusting and the neurologically disorientated person. That is true. Self-proclaimed right-wingers had a more pronounced amygdala; a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion. It is an almond-shape set of neurons located deep in the brain's medial temporal lobe.
@Duckshmm Are you a troll? It just occurred to me. If you are you are really good at pretending to be stupid, so all credit to you. You even got me riled up for a second!
@Duckshmm - You are naturally backwards with your false and idiotic "theories." You're the one that is disgusting.
Sexual orientation is like a disease? Hmm...then heterosexuals must have some sort of disease too.
The only difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is the sex of the person an individual is attracted to. You can't say one is bad and one is good; there are no facts to do so.
Autism and cancer are two different things. You obviously know nothing about anything.
@Duckshmm - Oh, and your prejudice is moronic and immoral because there is no evidence for it, it benefits no one, causes real harm to society, and is a clear sign of moral and intellectual weakness.
Does that answer all your questions?
Decent, normal people have no problems with someone else’s race or sexual orientation. Only religious lunatics and fanatics do and they are evil scum.
Homosexuality is "forced" on you less than, but in the same way, that black people are. I would bet that you'd be less willing to say that you hate black people. If not black people, dogs, cats, trees, anything in our world is "forced on you" by having been exposed to it.
Are you attempting to make a solipsistic point? i think you are. Mine point is of culture/ethics.
Im being forced to accept a evolutionary perversion. Scientifically it is a perversion of the progression of life. Sex only offers pleasure because the brain/body/species innately understands that pro-creating is good. Same reason when you drink you feel like shit afterwards, because it's harmful. like smoking and the coughing. you're oblivious.
@Duckshmm First of all, no I was not trying to make a solopsistic point. I said nothing even resembling that.
Second of all, you are being forced to accept the values of (I'll assume you live in the US) US Constitution. By living in this country, you have agreed to live according to it. You can disagree with it all you want. You can fight to change it, but you must live by it.
Thirdly, you're making the assumption that evolution can make mistakes. It cannot make mistakes, because it has no
@Duckshmm set goal. Homosexuality is unquestioningly part of humanity (as well as a great deal of other animals). This doesn't mean it's an "evolutionary perversion", and I find that term offensive. Getting back to my original point, lets turn the tables here. I think using the term "evolutionary perversion" to describe homosexuality is offensive, not to mention a non sequitur that makes it blatantly obvious that you don't understand how evolution actually works.
@Duckshmm That said, I respect your right to hold beliefs that I find prejudiced and small minded. I'm not going to make a law that says you cannot use that term, I'm going to grow a thicker skin and get over it. I'll let you do what you do and not interfere, just as you shouldn't interfere with others.
I'm not here for a fight. I'm just trying to make my point understood for whatever it's worth.
@Duckshmm 1. The 'evolutionary perversion' does not harm you. While you are correct that we have evolved to enjoy sex because it encourages procreation, that does not mean procreation is 'good', rather that it is beneficial to the continuation of the species. We will continue (and have continued) despite the presence of homosexuality. It doesn't make a difference to the continuation of the species whether there is homosexuality present or not. All you mean by 'ethics' is 'I don't approve'.
@Duckshmm - You're obviously a very, very, sad and delusional person. I pity people like you.
As a human being, you should respect everyone for who they are. There is not just a reciprocal self-interest factor; in the future you may need aid from others, but also moral and intelligence factors which really defines the true character of a person.
Does your hatred of others really make your life any better? You think being intolerant helps anyone or anything? You're an idiot if you do.
You cant tell me to respect someone. You dont ask for respect, you earn it.
If i need "aid" i visit a doctor, or a police officer, and its their job and in their interest to help me, ahs nothing to do with my political or moral convictions.
Think before you make an argument. Oh and to show how ass backwards your argument ill once again use it in a different scenario one which you would be quick to judge and pass your hatred.
@Duckshmm - I'm an American, and it's MY right to share with others what is truly moral and ethical.
Harboring malice towards anyone for characteristics such as race, sex, or sexual orientation is not just a waste of time, and illogical, and vulgar, but also breeds hatred which eventually leads to violence and crime.
Less intelligent individuals such as you may not understand basic human ethics and how to behave like a civilized person, but thankfully most other people do.
What truely Moral and Ethical!? HAHAHAHA and where do you get these "moral" convictions hmm? youre playing the christian argument, "i know waht im saying i have a moral foundation". get that bullshit out of here.
You seem to be arrogantly ignorant. Breeds hatred and crime? you could literally use that shitty arguement in every scenario of life. "dont mock me or harbor hate for my relegion, its vulgar and leads to violence". "let my child do heroine, let me raise MY kids".
@Duckshmm - Morals and ethics come from the Socratic method of critical thinking, long reflection, debate and discussion.
Using your head and thinking takes time and can be hard for most people (you apparently), but it needs to be done since we live in a civilized society and country.
YOU'RE arrogantly ignorant. The FBI reports that crimes motivated by prejudice are most often done on the basis of race and sexual orientation.
You think attitudes like yours don't play a part in that?
Moral law doesnt come from "sitting around and thinking". Hitler will fuck you on that idea.
I dont care what you do, but dont fucking force me to except that its normal. bullshit. Its a failed outlet. Its a genetic malfunction. I can hear you saying "she was born a lesbian". hahahah oh god. dildos arnt a in any relation to a penis.
its a fucking perversion. it serves no point. people arnt born gay. im sorry. stop trying to convince yourself, thats called denial.
Religion is evil. In Iran and some other nations, LGBT individual are put to death. Why? Because of faith. Some religious individuals are so pathetic, that they whine about some "preacher" in Canada who was a nutcase harassing people on the streets, NOT in a church, that was arrested. That is a pathetic and vulgar attempt to try and garner sympathy.
People of faith will say anything to justify their prejudice. Hitchens calls them out for it.
"Dilusional. How sad. Hitchens is a maggot infested glob of puss because he has trained up a bunch of mind numbed robots such as yourself who have no life whatsoever"
He has encouraged human rights, championed rational thinking, and by the way is happy for you to keep your religion and supernatural beliefs as long as it is not taught in schools, infringe on freedom of speech, or degrade women. There are other conditions too. But he encourages people to read. Everything. Even religious texts.
@SethHesio For the record, SethHesio is a brainwashed moron, who thinks he has facts on his side. However he is NOT old enough to know better!
LOL Now you are showing just how small you are. I bet your feet don't even hit the ground when you stand up. Little-man's syndrom is hard to get over, but you can do it! I'm rooting for you! :-D
@larry1961 I didn't want this to become a shit slinging match, because that solves nothing. But you can't live in an age of science and proof, and still demand to be taken seriously. I do however advise having a little debate with a Muslim at some point, they are, in my opinion, even more indoctrinated. Scarily so for 2010. And Hitchens, if there is anything that he represents, is freedom of thought. Which religion does not give. I think you recognise the challenge and can't face it.
And yes...Really! The privelege of living a single day and breathing the breath of life is the most precious of God given gifts. How much greater the gift that life has given us to grow and watch our own children born. If you look at life as the gift that it is, then you cannot see other than God in it.
@SethHesio 2 things noteworthy in your statement. Rewarding and happy. Better to be rewarded with happiness than miserable with tangible knowledge maybe?
@larry1961 I'd rather stick with things that are real myself. I know I was happy when I was a child believing in Santa. My intellect as an adult dictates that I'd be fooling myself if I still believed in him. It's a case of how highly you rate truth and real evidence. I get a lot of pleasure from facts, and learning.
@SethHesio That's just it, Seth. You see things from a physical perspective as we all do. Science isn't axiomatic but pursuit of facts. The difference is in faith itself. To understand that it is not merely the blind following of a dogma or a god, but a revelation within one's self that isn't explainable.
To insult faith is to simply not understand it. I pursue science and love the discovery that it brings, but I also balance that with the knowledge that it has an architect.
@larry1961 Our brains are pattern seeking. And the feeling, the inner journey you talk about, the ethereal, the transcendential is a path our brain wonders at, and likes to take. This does not mean it is unexplainable. And you're quite wrong and muddy the waters of what we're talking about if you bring the idea of an architect into this. You can't have it both ways.
@larry1961 So you're saying there are things that we can not, or do not understand at the moment, and that is explained by God? I don't have the intellectual prowess of Hitchens, but he could tear apart your arguments in a second. A second.
@SethHesio ROTFL!.... I gotta admit that was very funny! thanks Seth...you have a great sense of humor. "I'm not too smart, but when my big brother gets here...he's gonna kick your butt" LOL!
Ok....serious for a seond. A second. The only reason he could tear me apart as you say is that he can convince YOU that he is right. I have heard dozens of his rants and I usually feel pity.
There is always someone smarter. Oh and when he is dead, then who wll you lean on for comfort? support?
@larry1961 It's funny... I'm not clutching at straws here. If you listen to smart people and feel pity, then you're missing the point. I understand how faith works. I choose to be honest with people and true to my own intellect and accept that there isn't necessarily a designer to this world. If there is, the three big faiths certainly haven't got it right. And leading intellectuals, not just Mr Hitchens, assert that a designer is unnecessary. Stephen Hawking for instance.
@SethHesio Hitchens is indeed intelligent, as is Hawking. But Einstein, though super intelligent doesnt speak negatively to spirituality and refers to God in good light. That is why Religious and Athiestic commiunities respect people like him. When I say "Rant" I mean one who uses the same "F___" Christianity remarks over and over. It sickens me to be insulted by one who does not respect oposing viewpoints but rather chooses to use vile language to describe what he doesn't understand.
@SethHesio Good question. I do know that life could not evolve without purpose.. Think about it Seth, a single cell cannot function without all of it's internal parts already in tact. The flagellum for example is extremly complex. We can't live without it and IT cannot function without all of it's parts already working. How were those parts brought into existence and then to know how to come together and work so wonderfully together? The paradox is too great...if you look at it impartially.
@larry1961 Wrong on the flagellum. It was one of the key points in the scientific community versus intelligent design. Great BBC documentary about that. It should be pointed out that Intelligent Design or Creation theory was deemed unscientific and not on level with real science.
@SethHesio No, not wrong on flagellum or any other organism.
A flagellum cannot exist without all of it's parts already in tact. A half-made organism cannot survive so how did such a complex machine become fully functional in one fell swoop?
And why was it needed? What determined why it was needed? I am looking at this from the logic of no former knowledge. How many accidental creations of life had to happen before one survived? Why did they change so vastly?
@SethHesio Please give me an example of a mutation that has happened in the past one hundred years that has been witnessed by science? And not just an alteration change (fish going blind and being born blind in underground lakes). But an example of something that has improved as a result.
**To investigate evolution you have to look at it at a cellular level AND from the perspective of a cell....which has no perspective. So how do biological organisms improve without being self aware?
@larry1961 Random mutation accounts for this, and life has been dated to at least 50,000 years ago. You're spewing out garbage to protect your own sanity. Think about what it is you want to believe... something that is real, or dogma. It is your choice. I think you have chosen though, you're too old to embrace a new ethos (this is what you tell yourself) but I'd advise you to read more, and preach less. Peace be with you, you middle aged simpleton.
@larry1961 From fossils, we know that human beings to have been here for at least 60,000 years. And not just one form of dating. From several forms of forensic dating. And they all match up. So how do humans being around for 60,000 years, at least, match up with your understanding?
@SethHesio Dating past 5 thousand years from any given method has not been proven accurate. Regardless, from a Biblical perspective men were here before the Garden of Eden in the form of the serpent which talked and reasoned with Eve. (Speaking from a Biblical perspective) so I do not pretend to know how long things have been here. I do know that man with a soul has been here about 6 thousand years according to Biblical and historical records of the patriarchs.
@larry1961 Also if you consider Hitchens' eloquent speeches as rants, then you can't recognise intellectual beauty you're not worth talking to. And when Hitchens passes away, it will be sad. But the wave of rational thinking that he has produced will continue, and people will ridicule religion whenever it gets too big. By the way the ROTFL you said, was for effect, and it didn't work. But like I said, I don't think you're worth talking to.
@SethHesio And by the way there are many physicists/biologists/evolutionists who do believe in a supreme being or designer. If you can't respect their opinions because they differ from yours then regardless of intellect you (referring to Hitchins, commentors here, etc.) will not be given much weight in the eyes of peers or opposition.
Oh and you cannot see respect but we all know it exists :-)
@SethHesio To say abstract is over-simplistic. The concept of God, you must agree, has been around and survived far beyond even most scientific theories. The ideas of Newton/Gallileo/and even Hawkings are always improved or altered...so do we ever really get to truth with science? I love the pursuit of understanding but am humble enough to know that I didn't grow to self-awareness without any help.
poor hitchens.. he always changes the subject ..falls away from the topic , makes up his own debate and concludes he is the winner ...
914light 2 months ago
@914light excuse me sir, you seem to have missed the key thing to whatch video. Press the play button so that you are no longer making things up in your head.
Mirage2250 1 month ago
@Mirage2250 hahahaha hitchens constantly got his ass handed to him ... he was a weak drunken buffoon ...
914light 1 month ago
"Complexification"? What the fuck?
TheMessiersAndromeda 2 months ago
Regardless of what side you're on, Richards stayed with the questions of the debate, he addressed science and the physical world, and Hitchens quickly descended into ad hominen attacks both on his opponent and specific religions, and proving that point beyond a shadow of doubt, Hitchens says he "despises" these people, thus proving it is completely an emotional issue with him and not a scientific one...as do most atheists.
nyctreeman 3 months ago
@nyctreeman honestly the questions they were asking him were totally off-topic.
Just because something is emotional does not negate logic. Emotions are not the anti-thesis of logic, and he explains his emotions quite logically.
TheTroubadoursMusic 3 months ago
Stein is drunk or a moron. In any case he could very well fit in Sesame Street.
cuevarap 4 months ago
Wow what a biased, one-sided set of moderators in this debate.... not that it matters in the outcome
chrismike7ish 4 months ago 5
I was also amazed at how limited Stein is. Well, I always wondered about his odd affected speech - he slurs his speech. I hope he has learned how a truly brilliant man can articulate well without being a pedant.
mlcollins10 5 months ago
true Christians must be Humanists. All Humanists are Christians.
mlcollins10 5 months ago
@mlcollins10
I'm an atheist humanist
Xgya2000 5 months ago
Ben Stein needs logotherapy
Kleinfurkon 5 months ago 3
Christopher Hitchens is the way and the light.
Kleinfurkon 5 months ago 4
They team up against Hitchens. Hitchens debate with both.
Like a boss...
jronzonb 6 months ago 4
Why the fuck is Ben Stein even there? What a wanker
foiran 6 months ago 2
Thank you for posting this, pablonoriega89.
writersblock26 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you kidding? Hitchens is an a-hole. Richards and Stein were professional. Not Hitchens
dolceandbijou14 7 months ago
@dolceandbijou14 Hitchens has torn holes in these exact arguments a thousand times, but they keep coming back. He's debating three people by himself in this video, including at least two who think they are so smart that they can just dismiss evolution, despite having apparently no knowledge of the field. Why shouldn't he be combative, in his clever way?
ralph489 7 months ago 3
Taken to the cleaners by a brilliant thinker and cutting orator. After years of looking I have yet to see an intelligent debate with a knowledge opponent on this subject when the creationist side of the debate comes out looking anything but ignorant at best and plain stupid and illogical at worst.
dimsoneill 7 months ago
I love Hitchens unapologetic style.
auritone 7 months ago 3
Ben is a prick!
EricDavidFloyd 8 months ago 6
Oh my goodness. I had no idea that Stein is such an idiot.
MrJIMMY3009 8 months ago 28
@MrJIMMY3009 You should watch his "documentary" entitled "Expelled".
Truly terrible spectacle of ignorance.
Pawlit360 6 months ago
richards cannot get through a single talking point without using the phrase "it's an empirical question"
mafiattg 9 months ago
Jay defeated himself in the debate by revealing he is an Evangelical Christian. So likely what is going on is Jay was raised Christian, and spent his entire life and career trying to use science to prove his beliefs. His conclusions based on the "evidence" are twisted by his bias predisposition.
Plagueis1017 9 months ago
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
This is turning into a Hitchens vs. Stein debate.
dpnmnwgo1 9 months ago 8
"Woah woah woah, Hitch! Quit getting into specifics, we're trying to keep it broad and vague here."
GeneralGuitFiddle 9 months ago
5:00 richards fucking lies. almost all fucking scientists are fucking secular
R2rGangstaFC 9 months ago
@R2rGangstaFC Do you know almost all scientists? :O
AriloeuLaleelae 9 months ago
will you all stop replying to DuckShitHead? don't waste your time on such a retard!
marcohorowitz8 9 months ago
I bet Ben Stein's hand was shaking when he clicked the dislike button
lockoshamface 9 months ago
@lockoshamface lol.
R2rGangstaFC 9 months ago
Dear Christopher Hitchens, i agree with you about the irrationality that are all religions but little Newton is not the father of modern science, the father of science are Archimedes and Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham and Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī,along with many many others who had contributed before Newton.
Patambo2000 10 months ago
Seems like Hitchens has the agenda - to use this debate as a pulpit to denigrate all forms of religion in general. None of it relevant to the debate. He is used to insulting theists to get them angry enough to lose their cool and come out looking like fools. Thank "God" Richards doesn't give in to his obvious bating tactics - so it backfires and makes Hitchens look like the raving, and arrogant, fool.
rvirzi 10 months ago
@rvirzi lol
sinprelic 10 months ago
@rvirzi HAHAHAHAHA. " He is used to insulting theists to get them angry enough to lose their cool and come out looking like fools". it looks like you are the raving, arrogant fool. you angry?
bleedingxhearts2 10 months ago
Things in nature are designed. Clearly this is true.
The issue is the mechanism of design. We know....know....that natural selection is a very powerful mechanism that has been shown to design populations so that they become better and better adapted to their environments.
There is no evidence at all, none....that shows that god or any other agent tinkers with breeding populations.
kshackleton 10 months ago
I like how they pretend they were talking on subject and Christopher was the one who changed the subject... If you wanna talk about religion vs science, don't bring up morality as your argument that religion is true.
Vynjira 10 months ago
1 against 3 and they still LOST :)
Hitchslapped.
LCXXXSR 11 months ago
Christopher Hitchens...you are the best!!
alobo2000 11 months ago
Shut up Ben Stein; trying to hijack the debate like he's part of it. He's supposed to be a moderator.
malkneil 11 months ago
Jay Richards debates with irrationality. He strings pieces of unexplained happenings in nature and sews together a fabric of nonsense. He fills the gaps we have in our knowledge with a thing called a god. Fallacy after fallacy. He uses words that suggest a being had intervened, and he has no evidence for this. When one suggests some possibility as being a truth and has no evidence to validate the claim, this is said to be irrational.
WakeUpMightyEarth 1 year ago 2
Hitchslap the ignorant!
Ninetyone11 1 year ago
Pity should be extended to all people of faith. Their minds have become useless and rotted.
Faith makes people become liars and hypocrites and make them say and do evil.
Most Atheists are morally and intellectual superior to people of faith. This is a fact. Christopher Hitchens is living proof.
"Atheism isn't a sufficient requirement for enlightenment, but it is a necessary one." - Christopher Hitchens.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 16
Comment removed
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 20
@TheAnthony8650
im no christian but wtf is wrong with being homophobic? please fucking explain why i should tolerate them? You might not be an American, but its my fucking freedom of expression to dislike them. Stop acting like a fag sympathizing white knight.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm Because they tolerate you.You don't have the right to impose on their freedom, they don't have the right to impose on yours.
RunningLemonStudios 10 months ago
@RunningLemonStudios
Of course they tolerate me because im part of the majority, they want to convince me, thats their objective. Same for muslims, fuck them, i refuse to tolerate that shit because "they are nice guys most of the time". I amn also FORCED to tolerate their bullshit on TV, in the college classroom, in politics and everywhere else these backwards ass people get their hands into, and they according to any poll make up for less that 20 percent of the population. fuck them.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm Unfortunately, the majority of Americans agree with the idea that everyone's personal freedom is protected, and no one has the right to take it away. You don't tread on them if they don't tread on you. If that's not enough for you, if you can't live your own life, and instead decide that taking away other people's freedom is what you need to make your life complete, you are not a functional member of this society and I would kindly ask you to leave.
RunningLemonStudios 10 months ago
@Duckshmm And as a response to your first question, there isn't anything inherently wrong with homophobia. You can hate whoever you want. Far be it from me to tell you otherwise. The problem is when you turn into a nazi elitist asshole who's only contentment comes from forcing your lifestyle onto others that don't want it.
RunningLemonStudios 10 months ago
@RunningLemonStudios
talk about going to the extremes, simply based on me disliking a lifestyle thats forced onto me through the media and modern culture.
its quite ironic that you make the assertion that if you agree with homoerotic activities than your considered to be a nice opened minded person, and if you disagree you are equated to a bigot and almost a fascist.
thats a fucking cultural failure. who is the victim now?
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - "lifestyle"? Sexual orientation isn't like being a member of a religion, a vegetarian, or a heavy partier; it's a defining and prominent characteristic of a person that is unchangeable and unalterable.
You're pathetic. There are a few gay characters on TV and now something is being "shoved down your throat"? Grow up. No one is forcing to look at media.
Barricade yourself in your home then. The fact is, is that there are LGBT individuals in the world and there will always be.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
Turn of Queer Eye for The Straight guy, you will get the sudden facts of life that being gay is in fact a lifestyle.
Notice how gays are usually the most pretentious people. Its a lifestyle. And i call bullshit on the "born this way/gay" ideology. THe body naturally goes into puberty, it naturally has the desire to spread its seed, dudes fucking dudes is distortion and manipulation of those feelings. Take biology.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Queer eye for the straight guy? Really?
Let me guess, I bet you think all black people like to eat fried chicken and drink grape soda right?
Stereotypes in the media and in pop culture are very charming, but not true. Besides, only ignorant people believe in stereotypes.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
but i thought the media and pop culture were telling me to accept them? how charming.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Can't you read? As I stated: no one is forcing you to watch the media.
But for you harbor dislike for another person on the basis of their sexual orientation, and to use sterotypes as the basis for that dislike...that's just moronic and immoral. Plain and simple.
You need to grow up and try to use your head more often.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
Yeah maybe to you dudes sucking off dudes is completely fine. But i think its revolting. It is by definition naturally backwards, its a defect. I would with a clear conscious compare it to autism. No of course i don't hate autistic people, but i fucking hate the autism. Its a gene that i wish would be banished from existence. But in this case you're supporting the sexual autism. you are backing genetic malfunctions. you are encouraging the cancer. And that's disgusting.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm "By definition?" What definition? What sordid definition would compare a sexual act between two consenting individuals to a genetic malfunction? You sir, are in terrible need for some better books. Preferably ones with less retarded definitions.
LordPylon 10 months ago
@LordPylon
If you are oblivious to what sex is supposed to do than i cannot help you, for you are in denial. What a poor state it must be.
Puberty serves the sole purpose of spreading your seed. Like all other species this is done with an innate understanding of this fact of life. aware yourself.
Go ahead support this fucking distasteful trend of encouraged autism. I mean as you all say, "they are born that way".
i wont take part in that bullshit.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - You know nothing about evolution, biology, or nature.
Going back to your vile "sexual orientation = autism" nonsense, does that means you hate autistic people?
Or are you one of those "hate the 'behavior' but the not the person" idiots?
Sexually, there is nothing two men or two women can do that a man and a woman cannot. Men and women engage is anal sex all the time.
Yet I don't see you criticizing heterosexuality. Again, your prejudice is moronic and immoral.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
fucking oblivious. you are fucking oblivious. plus you dont read my responses. go figure.
god, why the fuck did i even attempt to discuss this with you..
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Your responses are too moronic to read.
Plus, they're just the same nonsense every homophobe I've ever argued with uses.
You're not original or interesting...just another pathetic homophobe who can't think, can't behave like a civilized person, and certainly can't defend his stupidity.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
Oh and youre original? youre interesting?
you use the most generic arguements, and your only defense is "youre a homophobe!"
get fucked kid.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Now you resort to petty temper tantrums. How old are you? 12?
Everything I've stated is true and factual.
All you do is make moronic statements based on stereotypes, pseudoscience, ignorance, and just plain stupidity.
Admit it; you have nothing but prejudice and stupidity which is why you are nothing more than a pathetic homophobe.
You haven't stated a single fact based in science or reason.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - You're just too stupid to argue with.
Whenever someone responds to your stupid comments, you continue to play the part of a moron and either deny facts and logic, or twist things to conform to your own immoral "vales" and "beliefs."
Having such a closed mind and holding absolutistic beliefs is not just dumb, but dangerous.
You're the typical religious fanatic and you are proof of why faith and religion are evil and need to be resisted.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@Duckshmm And perhaps you are oblivious to the fact that sex is also pretty damn awesome (and I pity you for that) and we can do it all the fuck we want with whom we want and when we want. What one does in his own private time does not in any way shape, or form either concern or influence you, so you might as well keep your retarded opinions to yourself. If people like you were to procreate, I'd rather wish everyone was gay.
LordPylon 10 months ago
@LordPylon
cool logic. fucking dumbass.
sex offers pleasure for what reason? why would nature want to give pleasure to mating???
maybe because its called procreating. and since you clearly know nothing about science or for that matter, ANY understanding of how nature works, ive thoroughly convinced that you are a middle school dicksucker.
theres a little bit of irony in that too.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm I can see your state of logic by your baseless and wrong assumption upon my age and education. Or upon my knowledge of science.
Yes, sex Is meant for procreation. But I don't have to procreate to have sex and it sure is my damn right if I even want to procreate or not. Fucking retard.
LordPylon 10 months ago
@LordPylon
procreation is innate in everyone. If you are claiming homosexuality is genetic, than i would say autism is also genetic. Both in which are genetic malfunctions. By definition they are.
If you do it for pleasure or not its still a fucking perversion. Just like having sex with other species. Its fucking a trick you play on yourself. Just like drugs are a pleasure.
aware yourself, and stop watching fucking MTV, you pop culture tryhard.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm Again, you fail to posit any semblance of fact about me. MTV? Ha! What a retard. What is a true fucking perversion is you actually believing you can declare what a perversion is.
"All laws which can be violated without doing anyone any injury are laughed at." - Baruch Spinoza
LordPylon 10 months ago
@LordPylon
Quoted from the online dictionary: "Any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal."
you have no argument. you have no reasoning, you grasp at straws.
you represent the most generic arguments. I've heard all your shit before, and its baseless.
I only respond because its entertaining to see the fucking babble you speak.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - I'm surprised you know how to use a dictionary.
Homosexuality is normal. Every major medical organization in the country confirms and states that.
Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.
The only people who think homosexuality isn't normal are idiots and religious freaks like you, which again, can't think for themselves.
"you have no argument. you have no reasoning, you grasp at straws" < This is called "projecting." You are accusing others of something you are doing.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@LordPylon - You're wasting time arguing with a moron like "Duckshmm."
10 seconds of actual research and he would know that sex serves other purposes than just reproduction.
But to idiots like "Duckshmm," information and facts can't get through to his closed, narrow, and very tiny mind.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
During this discussion you literally haven't persuaded me of anything, you just spewed generic shit at me.
"hes narrow minded"- cause i dont think like you? LOL
"religious freaks like you"- The first comment i made about gays i stated i wasnt a religious jerkoff
oh and your "this user is a complete moron" is fucking hilarious. keep up the good work champ.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - I don't care what you "think." You know nothing about biology or science. All you have is ignorance and prejudice.
Homosexuality has a clear evolutionary benefit in that it fosters better socialization among members of both genders and it also is a biological response to the need for greater gathering and concentration of resources for families and offspring.
Those are the two main reasons why it exists.
It is natural, biological, and benefits society.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Your opposition to homosexuality is no different than someone being against another on the basis of skin color, sex, age, the sound of his or her voice, or which hand he or she writes with.
Your hatred of Islam is understandable since Islam is a twisted ideology (but there are a lot of moderates who are nice people) Religion is a choice just like political affiliation is.
Sexual orientation isn't a choice; it's who a person is. So your prejudice is despicable and wrong.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
autisim isnt a choice. its who a person is.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Yes. You're exactly right. An autistic person is just that. But it doesn’t make them any less of a person.
Autism, however, hinders an individual from communicating and interacting well with others.
Sexual orientation doesn't hinder a person from doing anything.
Does your heterosexuality, or identity and attraction to women, keep you from doing anything?
Your analogy fails. It doesn't compare like with like at all.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
because its a choice. its not a genetic (but even if it is, you have my opinion already).
There are several genetic malfunctions (id be happy to post some if you are new to life), that DONT effect or hinder a persons/species life in anyway, makes it different yes, but doesnt hinder. And It would still be called a genetic malfunction. A failed mutation.
at the risk of repeating myself over and over again, instead of telling its a bad argument, attempt to persuade me.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Earlier you compared sexual orientation to autism.
So now you think autism is a choice? Tell that to parents of autistic children.
Every major medical organization in the nation agrees that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. So you're wrong.
A genetic "malfunction"? So now you are an expert in genetics? Are you saying sexual orientation, which includes both heterosexuality and homosexuality, are now "genetic malfunctions"? Neither hinders a person or species.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago 2
@Duckshmm - First, you compare sexual orientation to autism, and then it's a choice, now it's a "genetic malfunction."
Make up your mind on what false and immoral nonsense you DO believe.
You can’t come up with a convincing argument to support holding hatred against an entire segment of the population.
Why can’t you simply admit to being a homophobe and an idiot an leave it at that?
Why the pathetic attempts to excuse your own stupidity? Admit it and be done with the silly games.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago 2
@TheAnthony8650
if you say that they are "born that way" then i told you that its a genetic malfunction thus my comment: encouraged autism.
its a perversion. Perversions are abnormal sexual behavior. Its a result of failing to properly outlet sexual desires. I would also compare it to beastiality in the sense that it is a pleasure filled act, yet disgusting and useless.
its a fucking disgusting act done by a neurologically disorientated peoples. you cannot prove any of what i said wrong.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - You are wrong. Homosexuality and bestiality share no similarities.
Many gays and lesbians enjoy committed, faithful, mutually satisfying partnerships which meet their innate human need for emotional, physical and spiritual companionship.
All of the major medical organizations, including American Psychiatric Assoc., American Psychological Assoc., and American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is an innate, legitimate, normal variation of human sexual expression.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago 39
With respect, the APA and AAP frequently change their tunes. Prior to the early 1970's homosexuality was considered deviant according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of disorders. Thank goodness their opinions have evolved. But the fact that they've so recently changed their tune makes this argument weak.
Homosexuality is most easily defended as a form of human love between consenting adults. Bestiality (and pederasty) are thus still excluded from the fold, and rightly so.
ChollieD 8 months ago
@TheAnthony8650 @Duckshmm Also, animals can not consent, because they can not speak.
SkullOfYorick 3 months ago in playlist More videos from pablonoriega89
@SkullOfYorick - You are correct.
TheAnthony8650 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - "if you say" < That is really pathetic. Apparently, what I think determines what you believe.
"its a perversion" < No, your prejudice is the only perversion.
You're disgusting and the neurologically disorientated person. That is true. Self-proclaimed right-wingers had a more pronounced amygdala; a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion. It is an almond-shape set of neurons located deep in the brain's medial temporal lobe.
You cannot prove what I stated wrong.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
utter bullshit.
learn what a perversion is liberal cunt
way to use my comment and attempt to use it against me, it shows your lack of originality.
almond LOL.
i cant even take you seriously.
peace out bro, know that i think youre a fucking mtv teenage tryhard.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Now you resort to petty name calling? How pathetic.
Again, I don't care what you "think." All the so-called "facts" you stated were nonsense.
I'm not a teenager and I don't watch MTV...you must apparently.
I've copied and pasted that sentence from a science article about right-wingers brains, so you're free to criticize their writing, not mine.
You didn't provide a single shred of EVIDENCE to support anything that you stated. All you proved was that you are an idiot.
TheAnthony8650 9 months ago 2
@Duckshmm And you obviously not a "tryhard"?
Flopigraff 9 months ago
@Duckshmm Are you a troll? It just occurred to me. If you are you are really good at pretending to be stupid, so all credit to you. You even got me riled up for a second!
bertiethetoupee4 6 months ago
@Duckshmm Wheres the evidence?
daphatcontroller 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - You are naturally backwards with your false and idiotic "theories." You're the one that is disgusting.
Sexual orientation is like a disease? Hmm...then heterosexuals must have some sort of disease too.
The only difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is the sex of the person an individual is attracted to. You can't say one is bad and one is good; there are no facts to do so.
Autism and cancer are two different things. You obviously know nothing about anything.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Oh, and your prejudice is moronic and immoral because there is no evidence for it, it benefits no one, causes real harm to society, and is a clear sign of moral and intellectual weakness.
Does that answer all your questions?
Decent, normal people have no problems with someone else’s race or sexual orientation. Only religious lunatics and fanatics do and they are evil scum.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
Homosexuality is "forced" on you less than, but in the same way, that black people are. I would bet that you'd be less willing to say that you hate black people. If not black people, dogs, cats, trees, anything in our world is "forced on you" by having been exposed to it.
RunningLemonStudios 9 months ago
@RunningLemonStudios
Are you attempting to make a solipsistic point? i think you are. Mine point is of culture/ethics.
Im being forced to accept a evolutionary perversion. Scientifically it is a perversion of the progression of life. Sex only offers pleasure because the brain/body/species innately understands that pro-creating is good. Same reason when you drink you feel like shit afterwards, because it's harmful. like smoking and the coughing. you're oblivious.
Duckshmm 9 months ago
@Duckshmm First of all, no I was not trying to make a solopsistic point. I said nothing even resembling that.
Second of all, you are being forced to accept the values of (I'll assume you live in the US) US Constitution. By living in this country, you have agreed to live according to it. You can disagree with it all you want. You can fight to change it, but you must live by it.
Thirdly, you're making the assumption that evolution can make mistakes. It cannot make mistakes, because it has no
RunningLemonStudios 8 months ago 2
@Duckshmm set goal. Homosexuality is unquestioningly part of humanity (as well as a great deal of other animals). This doesn't mean it's an "evolutionary perversion", and I find that term offensive. Getting back to my original point, lets turn the tables here. I think using the term "evolutionary perversion" to describe homosexuality is offensive, not to mention a non sequitur that makes it blatantly obvious that you don't understand how evolution actually works.
RunningLemonStudios 8 months ago
@Duckshmm That said, I respect your right to hold beliefs that I find prejudiced and small minded. I'm not going to make a law that says you cannot use that term, I'm going to grow a thicker skin and get over it. I'll let you do what you do and not interfere, just as you shouldn't interfere with others.
I'm not here for a fight. I'm just trying to make my point understood for whatever it's worth.
RunningLemonStudios 8 months ago
@Duckshmm 1. The 'evolutionary perversion' does not harm you. While you are correct that we have evolved to enjoy sex because it encourages procreation, that does not mean procreation is 'good', rather that it is beneficial to the continuation of the species. We will continue (and have continued) despite the presence of homosexuality. It doesn't make a difference to the continuation of the species whether there is homosexuality present or not. All you mean by 'ethics' is 'I don't approve'.
bertiethetoupee4 6 months ago
@Duckshmm - You're obviously a very, very, sad and delusional person. I pity people like you.
As a human being, you should respect everyone for who they are. There is not just a reciprocal self-interest factor; in the future you may need aid from others, but also moral and intelligence factors which really defines the true character of a person.
Does your hatred of others really make your life any better? You think being intolerant helps anyone or anything? You're an idiot if you do.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
more bullshit.
You cant tell me to respect someone. You dont ask for respect, you earn it.
If i need "aid" i visit a doctor, or a police officer, and its their job and in their interest to help me, ahs nothing to do with my political or moral convictions.
Think before you make an argument. Oh and to show how ass backwards your argument ill once again use it in a different scenario one which you would be quick to judge and pass your hatred.
"Dont be intolerant to ID"
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - You've answered your own question. "You dont ask for respect, you earn it." < EXACTLY
You automatically make an enemy out of someone for no reason, just on which sex they are attracted to.
There is no difference between that and judging people on the basis of their age or race or sex
So if a gay doctor saves your life, you would still hate him or her? Really?
Evolution enabled humans to have a solidarity which is based on self-interest and survival.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - I'm an American, and it's MY right to share with others what is truly moral and ethical.
Harboring malice towards anyone for characteristics such as race, sex, or sexual orientation is not just a waste of time, and illogical, and vulgar, but also breeds hatred which eventually leads to violence and crime.
Less intelligent individuals such as you may not understand basic human ethics and how to behave like a civilized person, but thankfully most other people do.
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
What truely Moral and Ethical!? HAHAHAHA and where do you get these "moral" convictions hmm? youre playing the christian argument, "i know waht im saying i have a moral foundation". get that bullshit out of here.
You seem to be arrogantly ignorant. Breeds hatred and crime? you could literally use that shitty arguement in every scenario of life. "dont mock me or harbor hate for my relegion, its vulgar and leads to violence". "let my child do heroine, let me raise MY kids".
Duckshmm 10 months ago
@Duckshmm - Morals and ethics come from the Socratic method of critical thinking, long reflection, debate and discussion.
Using your head and thinking takes time and can be hard for most people (you apparently), but it needs to be done since we live in a civilized society and country.
YOU'RE arrogantly ignorant. The FBI reports that crimes motivated by prejudice are most often done on the basis of race and sexual orientation.
You think attitudes like yours don't play a part in that?
TheAnthony8650 10 months ago
@TheAnthony8650
Moral law doesnt come from "sitting around and thinking". Hitler will fuck you on that idea.
I dont care what you do, but dont fucking force me to except that its normal. bullshit. Its a failed outlet. Its a genetic malfunction. I can hear you saying "she was born a lesbian". hahahah oh god. dildos arnt a in any relation to a penis.
its a fucking perversion. it serves no point. people arnt born gay. im sorry. stop trying to convince yourself, thats called denial.
Duckshmm 10 months ago
Christopher Hitchens easily won this debate.
Religion is evil. In Iran and some other nations, LGBT individual are put to death. Why? Because of faith. Some religious individuals are so pathetic, that they whine about some "preacher" in Canada who was a nutcase harassing people on the streets, NOT in a church, that was arrested. That is a pathetic and vulgar attempt to try and garner sympathy.
People of faith will say anything to justify their prejudice. Hitchens calls them out for it.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 2
These arseholes try to censor Hitchens when he brings up a fully appropriate example of Religion , one of the popular mainstream religions. Idiots
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
no but they are all idiots there is no science in religion
phildirt3 1 year ago
no but they are all idiots
phildirt3 1 year ago
Complexification??!?!!?!
ProfessorLesLIE 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Jay is not very bright...
vanilaish 1 year ago
The look on Steins face and the other guy's is classic. They have that, "Oh shit, Hitchens is killing him." look.
straydoglogic 1 year ago
Religion is becoming more scientific all the time......its a kind of 'if you can't beat them join them' attitude.
dazzagazza6969 1 year ago
@dazzagazza6969 they are running out of arguments
phildirt3 1 year ago
I can't work up any respect for reasoning in Jay Richards arguments, or his ability to make them - It detracts from my enjoyment of this debate.
At least W.L. Craig temporarily sounds like he's making sense for a second or two!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Mediators are supposed to be non-biased...why the hell is Ben Stein part of this?
doomrot 1 year ago
damn he's on fire.
i wont even say who, u can pretty much guess. :)
LCXXXSR 1 year ago
@LCXXXSR If he's not on fire, he will be soon enough...unfortunately.
larry1961 1 year ago
Hahaha Hitchens is really having his patience tested at around the 2 minute mark lol
slaughtered777 1 year ago
"Dilusional. How sad. Hitchens is a maggot infested glob of puss because he has trained up a bunch of mind numbed robots such as yourself who have no life whatsoever"
He has encouraged human rights, championed rational thinking, and by the way is happy for you to keep your religion and supernatural beliefs as long as it is not taught in schools, infringe on freedom of speech, or degrade women. There are other conditions too. But he encourages people to read. Everything. Even religious texts.
SethHesio 1 year ago
For the record, Larry1961 is a brainwashed moron, who thinks he has facts on his side. He's old enough to know better.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio For the record, SethHesio is a brainwashed moron, who thinks he has facts on his side. However he is NOT old enough to know better!
LOL Now you are showing just how small you are. I bet your feet don't even hit the ground when you stand up. Little-man's syndrom is hard to get over, but you can do it! I'm rooting for you! :-D
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 I didn't want this to become a shit slinging match, because that solves nothing. But you can't live in an age of science and proof, and still demand to be taken seriously. I do however advise having a little debate with a Muslim at some point, they are, in my opinion, even more indoctrinated. Scarily so for 2010. And Hitchens, if there is anything that he represents, is freedom of thought. Which religion does not give. I think you recognise the challenge and can't face it.
SethHesio 1 year ago
Every single time Ben Stein speaks I grip my arm rests a little harder.
S0chan 1 year ago
There is only one ultimate proof that there is a god: Ask him to appear for a minute and talk to the audience. Done.
ebrak47 1 year ago
I had to look up complexification. It is indeed a word, however obscure.
AsSomedayItMayHappen 1 year ago
@KeyserrrSoze Thanks for listening :-)j
And yes...Really! The privelege of living a single day and breathing the breath of life is the most precious of God given gifts. How much greater the gift that life has given us to grow and watch our own children born. If you look at life as the gift that it is, then you cannot see other than God in it.
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 It's psychologically rewarding. Like believing in Santa.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio Believing in Santa isn't exactly rewarding. The comparables don't align at all. :)
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 Psychologically its very rewarding. Like believing in God. It gives us a happy feeling.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio 2 things noteworthy in your statement. Rewarding and happy. Better to be rewarded with happiness than miserable with tangible knowledge maybe?
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 I'd rather stick with things that are real myself. I know I was happy when I was a child believing in Santa. My intellect as an adult dictates that I'd be fooling myself if I still believed in him. It's a case of how highly you rate truth and real evidence. I get a lot of pleasure from facts, and learning.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio That's just it, Seth. You see things from a physical perspective as we all do. Science isn't axiomatic but pursuit of facts. The difference is in faith itself. To understand that it is not merely the blind following of a dogma or a god, but a revelation within one's self that isn't explainable.
To insult faith is to simply not understand it. I pursue science and love the discovery that it brings, but I also balance that with the knowledge that it has an architect.
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 Our brains are pattern seeking. And the feeling, the inner journey you talk about, the ethereal, the transcendential is a path our brain wonders at, and likes to take. This does not mean it is unexplainable. And you're quite wrong and muddy the waters of what we're talking about if you bring the idea of an architect into this. You can't have it both ways.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio And you cannot have the minute hand building the watch....it takes an outside designer to do so.
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 So you're saying there are things that we can not, or do not understand at the moment, and that is explained by God? I don't have the intellectual prowess of Hitchens, but he could tear apart your arguments in a second. A second.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio ROTFL!.... I gotta admit that was very funny! thanks Seth...you have a great sense of humor. "I'm not too smart, but when my big brother gets here...he's gonna kick your butt" LOL!
Ok....serious for a seond. A second. The only reason he could tear me apart as you say is that he can convince YOU that he is right. I have heard dozens of his rants and I usually feel pity.
There is always someone smarter. Oh and when he is dead, then who wll you lean on for comfort? support?
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 It's funny... I'm not clutching at straws here. If you listen to smart people and feel pity, then you're missing the point. I understand how faith works. I choose to be honest with people and true to my own intellect and accept that there isn't necessarily a designer to this world. If there is, the three big faiths certainly haven't got it right. And leading intellectuals, not just Mr Hitchens, assert that a designer is unnecessary. Stephen Hawking for instance.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio Hitchens is indeed intelligent, as is Hawking. But Einstein, though super intelligent doesnt speak negatively to spirituality and refers to God in good light. That is why Religious and Athiestic commiunities respect people like him. When I say "Rant" I mean one who uses the same "F___" Christianity remarks over and over. It sickens me to be insulted by one who does not respect oposing viewpoints but rather chooses to use vile language to describe what he doesn't understand.
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 What is it that you know? That the atheists and anti theists don't?
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio Good question. I do know that life could not evolve without purpose.. Think about it Seth, a single cell cannot function without all of it's internal parts already in tact. The flagellum for example is extremly complex. We can't live without it and IT cannot function without all of it's parts already working. How were those parts brought into existence and then to know how to come together and work so wonderfully together? The paradox is too great...if you look at it impartially.
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 Wrong on the flagellum. It was one of the key points in the scientific community versus intelligent design. Great BBC documentary about that. It should be pointed out that Intelligent Design or Creation theory was deemed unscientific and not on level with real science.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio No, not wrong on flagellum or any other organism.
A flagellum cannot exist without all of it's parts already in tact. A half-made organism cannot survive so how did such a complex machine become fully functional in one fell swoop?
And why was it needed? What determined why it was needed? I am looking at this from the logic of no former knowledge. How many accidental creations of life had to happen before one survived? Why did they change so vastly?
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 Also mutations do happen... and they some times don't have a purpose. So you've not got a grasp on the argument or the facts.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio Please give me an example of a mutation that has happened in the past one hundred years that has been witnessed by science? And not just an alteration change (fish going blind and being born blind in underground lakes). But an example of something that has improved as a result.
**To investigate evolution you have to look at it at a cellular level AND from the perspective of a cell....which has no perspective. So how do biological organisms improve without being self aware?
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 Random mutation accounts for this, and life has been dated to at least 50,000 years ago. You're spewing out garbage to protect your own sanity. Think about what it is you want to believe... something that is real, or dogma. It is your choice. I think you have chosen though, you're too old to embrace a new ethos (this is what you tell yourself) but I'd advise you to read more, and preach less. Peace be with you, you middle aged simpleton.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio I'm sorry, but you are an idiot who is full of hate.
Go haunt someone else's comments
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 How long have human beings been around btw? In your opinion?
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio I do not know how long humans have been here. Even from a religious/Biblical perspective it is not certain.
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 From fossils, we know that human beings to have been here for at least 60,000 years. And not just one form of dating. From several forms of forensic dating. And they all match up. So how do humans being around for 60,000 years, at least, match up with your understanding?
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio Dating past 5 thousand years from any given method has not been proven accurate. Regardless, from a Biblical perspective men were here before the Garden of Eden in the form of the serpent which talked and reasoned with Eve. (Speaking from a Biblical perspective) so I do not pretend to know how long things have been here. I do know that man with a soul has been here about 6 thousand years according to Biblical and historical records of the patriarchs.
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 Also if you consider Hitchens' eloquent speeches as rants, then you can't recognise intellectual beauty you're not worth talking to. And when Hitchens passes away, it will be sad. But the wave of rational thinking that he has produced will continue, and people will ridicule religion whenever it gets too big. By the way the ROTFL you said, was for effect, and it didn't work. But like I said, I don't think you're worth talking to.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio And by the way there are many physicists/biologists/evolutionists who do believe in a supreme being or designer. If you can't respect their opinions because they differ from yours then regardless of intellect you (referring to Hitchins, commentors here, etc.) will not be given much weight in the eyes of peers or opposition.
Oh and you cannot see respect but we all know it exists :-)
larry1961 1 year ago
@larry1961 Respect exists as an abstract idea, yes. Same as God.
SethHesio 1 year ago
@SethHesio To say abstract is over-simplistic. The concept of God, you must agree, has been around and survived far beyond even most scientific theories. The ideas of Newton/Gallileo/and even Hawkings are always improved or altered...so do we ever really get to truth with science? I love the pursuit of understanding but am humble enough to know that I didn't grow to self-awareness without any help.
larry1961 1 year ago
"were not here to discuss mormanism.. i want to bring it back to religion and science here..." what a dumbass
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@longfootbuddy Good point. I like how even the religious try to distance themselves from mormonism
SethHesio