I can't believe that Hitchens responded with "nothing was done in the name of atheism" at 6:16, what does Hitchens think the 'name' of atheism really is?! The 'name' of atheism is the non belief of gods!; Stallin, Mou, etc. & their ATHEIST idiology killed millions of people to force their people to NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, & to create a eutopia where NO ONE WOULD BELIVE IN GOD ANYMORE; their clear goal was to SPREAD ATHEISM BY FORCE. Hitchens is one of the worst debaters I've ever witnessed! SHEESH!
Science, in its most basic form, REQUIRES the scientific method to be applied to any scientific theory so that any scientist can duplicate or predict a given theory.
Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method, as it cannot be duplicated or predicted.
Macro Evolution is a faith based belief NOT based on science.
Nearly the whole video is him talking with various edits. If you want to show someone getting owned, you have to show them giving a full but poor response. You will not find this from Hitchens, which is probably why you had to edit so much. In either case, look at the amount of thumbs down you have to see how poorly your video was done.
SPANKED? Hitchen has addressed all of D'souza points in other videos on YouTube. There is not reason to think he did not raise them in this debate as well. Change the title!
At least show the whole video and let each of us decide who spanks whom. This is a low form of censorship at the least. We all get the right to decide for ourselves don't we?
At least show the whole video and let each of us decide who spanks whom. This is a low form of censorship at the least. We all get the right to decide for ourselves don't we?
@owensphil Regarding these are just the 'highlights': That is not truthful either, they are only the highlights of D'Souza. If you were to saying, "For me, these were the highlights." you would get not argument, but you are attempting to declare what "IS," a common mistake people repeated make.
Who designed the designer is misunderstood. The purpose of the objection is when you say watch is too complex, then there must be a more complex watchmaker..you are also saying that watchmaker is too complex, it needs even more complex watchmaker maker and going to infinity. The purpose is "use simpler explanations"
There's a theory that there is a major change, and people are converting from christianity to atheism or from atheism to christianity, but it's still not known which way it's tilting. To settle this once and for all, all you have to do is just simply go here and vote yes or no. Very simple and quick, then you go about your day. Or you can stay a few to discuss.
"How can you possibly have empirical evidence on large scale ¨unobservable¨ evolution"
I guess that I am to assume that you have not been schooled in biology, science, or chemistry. Or you just can't see past what you were indoctrinated into. There are loads of empirical evidence that supports evolution. I thought Darwin made this clear? I suppose you would tell me the big bang theory is a hypothesis too right?
@owensphil I guess that I am to assume you've never read "The Greatest Show on Earth?" "The Origins of Species?" Evolution is neither "unobservable," nor is it impossible to have evidence for it. The order of fossils in the record is empirical evidence for evolution, at least as opposed to creationism. Evolution has been observed in experiments, and any arguments that evolution is based on faith, and not hard science, are an absolute farce.
¨The order of fossils in the record is empirical evidence for evolution
The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments
You can only infer by looking at fossils. Any observable changes are all small scale bounded variations. Give me an example of numerous transitions for any species of your choice. Be sure and indicate the number of unequivocal transitions.
@owensphil You realize that almost every fossil unearthed is a transition between one species and another? This demand for showing the intermediates is really just another misunderstanding of evolution.
"You realize that almost every fossil unearthed is a transition between one species and another? "
No it isn't. How do you know that what ever dide and was fossilized transitioned into something else? That's a huge assumption you're making. The misunderstanding of evolution lies with you. Read up on the cambrian explosion as well as punctuated equilibrium
@owensphil Because every species is always in a constant state of change, a constant state of transition. It is NOT a huge assumption. Every fossil is a specimen, an example that is not far from the average individual in the species at a given time. ALL species, through ALL time, are ALWAYS evolving. Assuming that the specimen we have at some point had children, it is indeed a transition between one species and another.
"Because every species is always in a constant state of change, a constant state of transition."
You're still assuming that they will eventually change. Again, huge assumption. Ever hear of living fossils? Find out what living fossils are. There are tons of them.
@owensphil Just because a species hasn't had any dramatic changes in a large period of time does not mean that they haven't changed at all. Species are in a constant state of flux. As I said before, ALL species, through ALL time, are ALWAYS evolving, so long as there are selective pressures to push them one way or another. Even humans, who have removed themselves nearly entirely from the threat of natural selection, are still pressured by diseases such as malaria, which selects for sickle-cell
@Thatguywiththemullet anemia because the heterozygous type does not have the sickle cell condition, but is immune to malaria. The whole "there is no fossil evidence for the transition from one species to another" is nothing but a misconception of the nature of evolution.
"Just because a species hasn't had any dramatic changes in a large period of time does not mean that they haven't changed at all"
There lots of examples of living fossils that haven't gone any notable changes at all. Slight or even horizontal changes within a species isn't even part of the debate from either side. The debate has only to do with vertical changes ie. reptile to mammal, terrestial animal to whale. etc.
Horizontal changes are for example variations we see in dogs, horses, bacteria, beaks of finches. Some of these types of changes we see ocilating back and forth.
Vertical changes would be for example reptiles evolving into mammals, a terrestial four-legged animal evolving into a whale.
@owensphil From those definitions, can I safely assume "horizontal changes" can be called microevolution, while "vertical changes" you describe are more commonly known as macroevolution? I would link you to any number of articles and images attempting to show that the 2 are indeed no different, but instead I'll say this: Macroevolution, or "vertical changes," are the result of thousands of "horizontal changes." To claim that one can't happen while one can, I'd ask you to define the boundary
"Atheism certainly requires faith that one's convictions that led to his or her belief in atheism are correct. Faith that somehow life just came about by chance. Faith that large scale evolution is correct. ..."
You don't get it. We have this thing called "empirical evidence" that we base our beliefs on. It's what's given us just about everything in this world including the computer your reading this on. Faith = Strong belief for which there is no evidence.
How many time must Hitchens educate D'Souza on Hitler and the rest? He has to do it in every single debate, and yet D'Souza continues to spout the same nonsense. Apologists are apparently payed to be dishonest and ignorant.
The title of the video mistakenly includes the word "By"
Even with the selective editing, the fallacies of D'Souza are evident to even a high school student eductated in science & world history. Is this really the best that Christain apologists can offer? First defending creationist nonsense, then peddling the demonstrable lie that Hitler (who repeatedly wrote that he was doing God's work) was an atheist?
As bad as D'Souza is in this debate, he's even worse when paired with Dennis Prager.
Maybe. Maybe George W. Bush was too. Maybe Obama is. After all, anytime a self-identifying Christian does something other Christians don't like, we are always told "Well he wasn't REALLY a Christian"
But how does that make Hitler a secuarist, much less an atheist?
Only someone ignorant of history (or dishonest) would make such a silly claim. At least with Stalin or Mao, D'Souza's argument isn't so obviously embarrassing.
Too easy. D'Souza's attempts to defend intelligent design (i.e. creationsim) - not with any argument or evidence - but with an analogy that fails on both philosophical & scientific grounds. We know that the items on his alien planet are "intelligently designed" not because they are complex but because we recognize them AS man-made objects. This is the old watchmaker analogy. Huge problem - the universe is not a watch.
Wow, terrible attempt by Dinesh in this cobbled together edit.
1) We know buildings on a distant planet are created because we have created them ourselves. We can't say that about how all laws of physics and time came into existence.
2) Science is filling those gaps more and more every day. Get used to it happening more often.
3) Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism are all systems of faith , worship, and credulity, while atheism is not.
1) " We know buildings on a distant planet are created because we have created them ourselves"
You miss the point. It could be anything that we have never encountered. Yet we would assume intelligent design. We know that coded instructions arent self -coded. The only code on earth is said not to require intelligence for the sake of faith in evolution is the code found in DNA the most sosphisticated code known to man.
"It could be anything that we have never encountered. Yet we would assume intelligent design."
No "we" would not. Perhaps YOU would. But no competent scientist would for the simple reason that there's no evidentiary grounds for such an assumption.
Again this is D'Souza appealing to ignorance and to fallacies that have been exposed time and time again. For a Christian apologist who claims to be "sophisticated" this is very disappointing.
@citizenghosttown You have to wonder at someone thinking they're clever when they're argument pretty much comes down to "well i haven't figured out an explanation so an anthropomorphic wizard who lives in the sky must have created it". How such intellectual laziness, and such a crude and folkish explanation, can be seen as satisfactory is beyond me.
On no facts? Yeah no wonder you're impressed by D'Souza's dismal performance. DNA isn't a "code" in the sense of a computer code or a linguistic cypher, which you would know if you'd passed a high school biology course. DNA formation has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever, you're perhaps thinking (if thinking is the word) of abiogenesis. The former deals with how living populations adapt and diversify, the latter deals with the formation of life.
"Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism are all systems of faith , worship, and credulity, while atheism is not."
2) Atheism certainly requires faith that one's convictions that led to his or her belief in atheism are correct. Faith that somehow life just came about by chance. Faith that large scale evolution is correct. When Hitchens assures us that evolution is correct who is he placing his faith in since we know that he didnt do the scientific research himself?
"Faith that somehow life just came about by chance."
"belief in atheism "
By using these expressions in the manner you do, reveals that you have not done YOUR research on atheism OR evolution. Both of which Hitchens most likely did far deeper than you.
@owensphil Once again, no, the theories of the big bang, abiogenesis. amd evolution are believed to be true because there has not only been evidence that supports then, but so far no such evidence that completely refutes them.
Stating that some being we cannot see or communicate or in some cases cannot have the possibility to understand created the universe out of nothing, has no evidence to hold up that case whatsoever.
@owensphil Moreover... being an atheist has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang or anything science related at all. They are mutually exclusive. The only prerequisite to atheism is that one requires evidence (or in some cases extreme lack of evidence) to weight ones reasoning faculties.
@adknerr hmm I'm a physics major adknerr and I can say it's really the opposite. Physics is opening gaps faster than solving them, for instance the discovery of cosmic background radiation in every way we look in space (radiation left over from the Big Bang) forces us to conclude that the early universe expanded at faster than light speed. Also, a cosmologist recently calculated the likelihood of the early universe forming as it did as 10^(10^123) to one. But only that could allow for life...
@dbmcmillan Ahh, creating gaps where it was previously impossible for religion to have discovered them is something shrewdly different than what I'm talking about. Good point nonetheless, but I wouldnt say this is a negative at all.
Why doesn't SOMEONE tell that British blowhard "stop interupting me
tnmusicman1 1 month ago
I can't believe that Hitchens responded with "nothing was done in the name of atheism" at 6:16, what does Hitchens think the 'name' of atheism really is?! The 'name' of atheism is the non belief of gods!; Stallin, Mou, etc. & their ATHEIST idiology killed millions of people to force their people to NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, & to create a eutopia where NO ONE WOULD BELIVE IN GOD ANYMORE; their clear goal was to SPREAD ATHEISM BY FORCE. Hitchens is one of the worst debaters I've ever witnessed! SHEESH!
starsheild7 1 month ago
What is it with Christians and them spanking grown men?
Terncote 1 month ago
@Terncote
You prefer they not be grown?
owensphil 1 month ago
Science, in its most basic form, REQUIRES the scientific method to be applied to any scientific theory so that any scientist can duplicate or predict a given theory.
Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method, as it cannot be duplicated or predicted.
Macro Evolution is a faith based belief NOT based on science.
parasitesarefunny 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
>All the thumbs ups and thumbs down indicate is whose side one is on. You can´t be that clueless.. I mean come on.
So when you release a video and its been down thumbed into 100% red, you will say thats just one side? Go to school so I can own someone more wise.
trom2004 2 months ago
Nearly the whole video is him talking with various edits. If you want to show someone getting owned, you have to show them giving a full but poor response. You will not find this from Hitchens, which is probably why you had to edit so much. In either case, look at the amount of thumbs down you have to see how poorly your video was done.
trom2004 2 months ago
@trom2004
>look at the amount of thumbs down you have to see how poorly your video was done.
All the thumbs ups and thumbs down indicate is whose side one is on. You can´t be that clueless.. I mean come on.
owensphil 2 months ago
@trom2004
SPANKED? Hitchen has addressed all of D'souza points in other videos on YouTube. There is not reason to think he did not raise them in this debate as well. Change the title!
atthehops 1 month ago
@atthehops
> Hitchen has addressed all of D'souza points in other videos on YouTube
and got spanked on those videos as well
owensphil 1 month ago
Comment removed
atthehops 1 month ago
Comment removed
atthehops 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@owensphil
In your opinion only.
At least show the whole video and let each of us decide who spanks whom. This is a low form of censorship at the least. We all get the right to decide for ourselves don't we?
atthehops 1 month ago
@owensphil
At least show the whole video and let each of us decide who spanks whom. This is a low form of censorship at the least. We all get the right to decide for ourselves don't we?
atthehops 1 month ago
@atthehops
> At least show the whole video and let each of us decide who spanks whom.
The entire video is already on You Tube. These are just the highlights.
Do you make the same observations on the videos which favor your point of video?
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil Regarding these are just the 'highlights': That is not truthful either, they are only the highlights of D'Souza. If you were to saying, "For me, these were the highlights." you would get not argument, but you are attempting to declare what "IS," a common mistake people repeated make.
atthehops 1 month ago
@atthehops
> That is not truthful either, they are only the highlights of D'Souza.
Yeah, that´s what I meant. Highlights of his major points. The debate in full is already on Youtube. There was no reason for me to reproduce it.
owensphil 1 month ago
@atthehops
> t least show the whole video and let each of us decide who spanks whom.
Whe whole video is already on Youtube
owensphil 1 month ago
Who designed the designer is misunderstood. The purpose of the objection is when you say watch is too complex, then there must be a more complex watchmaker..you are also saying that watchmaker is too complex, it needs even more complex watchmaker maker and going to infinity. The purpose is "use simpler explanations"
kemalcs 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go to ww,doyoubelieveingod,tk.
There's a theory that there is a major change, and people are converting from christianity to atheism or from atheism to christianity, but it's still not known which way it's tilting. To settle this once and for all, all you have to do is just simply go here and vote yes or no. Very simple and quick, then you go about your day. Or you can stay a few to discuss.
HowManyBelieve 4 months ago
d ' souza , give it up , theres no evidence , god is only an emotional attitude
loly1969 5 months ago
@loly1969
wrong
owensphil 5 months ago
@loly1969
wrong
owensphil 5 months ago
Zeus - who hogs all the platform in this video. Hitchens spanked - I don't think so
Nobullporfavor 7 months ago
i dont see the spanking the poster does...
SUNTZUROK 10 months ago
Where is the other half of the debate?
watch?v=9V85OykSDT8&feature=related There we go.
Watch the whole thing before making judgements.
StealthMarmot 10 months ago
I see no spanking here... Hitchens is not even there!
KaonNeutre 10 months ago
"How can you possibly have empirical evidence on large scale ¨unobservable¨ evolution"
I guess that I am to assume that you have not been schooled in biology, science, or chemistry. Or you just can't see past what you were indoctrinated into. There are loads of empirical evidence that supports evolution. I thought Darwin made this clear? I suppose you would tell me the big bang theory is a hypothesis too right?
bsdwiz 11 months ago
@bsdwiz
¨I guess that I am to assume that you have not been schooled in biology, science, or chemistry.¨
I guess that I am to assume that you prefer to dodge the question.
owensphil 11 months ago
@owensphil I guess that I am to assume you've never read "The Greatest Show on Earth?" "The Origins of Species?" Evolution is neither "unobservable," nor is it impossible to have evidence for it. The order of fossils in the record is empirical evidence for evolution, at least as opposed to creationism. Evolution has been observed in experiments, and any arguments that evolution is based on faith, and not hard science, are an absolute farce.
Thatguywiththemullet 9 months ago
@Thatguywiththemullet
¨The order of fossils in the record is empirical evidence for evolution
The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments
You can only infer by looking at fossils. Any observable changes are all small scale bounded variations. Give me an example of numerous transitions for any species of your choice. Be sure and indicate the number of unequivocal transitions.
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil I'm sorry, I really don't understand your inquiry. By "numerous transitions for any species," do you mean simple changes within a species?
Thatguywiththemullet 8 months ago
@Thatguywiththemullet
I mean transitional vertical changes found in the fossil record for example birds evolving from reptiles.
owensphil 8 months ago
@owensphil You realize that almost every fossil unearthed is a transition between one species and another? This demand for showing the intermediates is really just another misunderstanding of evolution.
Thatguywiththemullet 8 months ago
@Thatguywiththemullet
"You realize that almost every fossil unearthed is a transition between one species and another? "
No it isn't. How do you know that what ever dide and was fossilized transitioned into something else? That's a huge assumption you're making. The misunderstanding of evolution lies with you. Read up on the cambrian explosion as well as punctuated equilibrium
owensphil 8 months ago
@owensphil Because every species is always in a constant state of change, a constant state of transition. It is NOT a huge assumption. Every fossil is a specimen, an example that is not far from the average individual in the species at a given time. ALL species, through ALL time, are ALWAYS evolving. Assuming that the specimen we have at some point had children, it is indeed a transition between one species and another.
Thatguywiththemullet 8 months ago
@Thatguywiththemullet
"Because every species is always in a constant state of change, a constant state of transition."
You're still assuming that they will eventually change. Again, huge assumption. Ever hear of living fossils? Find out what living fossils are. There are tons of them.
owensphil 8 months ago
@owensphil Just because a species hasn't had any dramatic changes in a large period of time does not mean that they haven't changed at all. Species are in a constant state of flux. As I said before, ALL species, through ALL time, are ALWAYS evolving, so long as there are selective pressures to push them one way or another. Even humans, who have removed themselves nearly entirely from the threat of natural selection, are still pressured by diseases such as malaria, which selects for sickle-cell
Thatguywiththemullet 8 months ago
@Thatguywiththemullet anemia because the heterozygous type does not have the sickle cell condition, but is immune to malaria. The whole "there is no fossil evidence for the transition from one species to another" is nothing but a misconception of the nature of evolution.
Thatguywiththemullet 8 months ago
@Thatguywiththemullet
"Just because a species hasn't had any dramatic changes in a large period of time does not mean that they haven't changed at all"
There lots of examples of living fossils that haven't gone any notable changes at all. Slight or even horizontal changes within a species isn't even part of the debate from either side. The debate has only to do with vertical changes ie. reptile to mammal, terrestial animal to whale. etc.
owensphil 8 months ago
@owensphil I'm afraid I'm not familiar with your terminology. I've never heard of "horizontal" and "vertical" changes. Could you enlighten me?
Thatguywiththemullet 8 months ago
@Thatguywiththemullet
Horizontal changes are for example variations we see in dogs, horses, bacteria, beaks of finches. Some of these types of changes we see ocilating back and forth.
Vertical changes would be for example reptiles evolving into mammals, a terrestial four-legged animal evolving into a whale.
owensphil 8 months ago
@owensphil From those definitions, can I safely assume "horizontal changes" can be called microevolution, while "vertical changes" you describe are more commonly known as macroevolution? I would link you to any number of articles and images attempting to show that the 2 are indeed no different, but instead I'll say this: Macroevolution, or "vertical changes," are the result of thousands of "horizontal changes." To claim that one can't happen while one can, I'd ask you to define the boundary
Thatguywiththemullet 8 months ago
@Thatguywiththemullet between the 2 that supposedly cannot be crossed.
Thatguywiththemullet 8 months ago
"Atheism certainly requires faith that one's convictions that led to his or her belief in atheism are correct. Faith that somehow life just came about by chance. Faith that large scale evolution is correct. ..."
You don't get it. We have this thing called "empirical evidence" that we base our beliefs on. It's what's given us just about everything in this world including the computer your reading this on. Faith = Strong belief for which there is no evidence.
bsdwiz 11 months ago
@bsdwiz
¨You don't get it. We have this thing called "empirical evidence" that we base our beliefs on.¨
How can you possibly have empirical evidence on large scale ¨unobservable¨ evolution
owensphil 11 months ago
D'Souza is a lightweight compared to Hitchens.
alby69asr 1 year ago
someone just wanted to get a bunch of views by the title.
D'Souza and all other religious people lose against the hitch (and any book outside of their holy book).
gary031183 1 year ago
How many time must Hitchens educate D'Souza on Hitler and the rest? He has to do it in every single debate, and yet D'Souza continues to spout the same nonsense. Apologists are apparently payed to be dishonest and ignorant.
MattHunX 1 year ago
The title of the video mistakenly includes the word "By"
Even with the selective editing, the fallacies of D'Souza are evident to even a high school student eductated in science & world history. Is this really the best that Christain apologists can offer? First defending creationist nonsense, then peddling the demonstrable lie that Hitler (who repeatedly wrote that he was doing God's work) was an atheist?
As bad as D'Souza is in this debate, he's even worse when paired with Dennis Prager.
citizenghosttown 1 year ago
@citizenghosttown then peddling the demonstrable lie that Hitler (who repeatedly wrote that he was doing God's work) was an atheist?"
I wonder if a high school student could grasp the concept that maybe Hitler was mereley posing as a Christian.
"the fallacies of D'Souza are evident to even a high school student eductated in science & world history "
Feel free to point out anymore fallacies.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
"maybe Hitler was mereley posing as a Christian"
Maybe. Maybe George W. Bush was too. Maybe Obama is. After all, anytime a self-identifying Christian does something other Christians don't like, we are always told "Well he wasn't REALLY a Christian"
But how does that make Hitler a secuarist, much less an atheist?
Only someone ignorant of history (or dishonest) would make such a silly claim. At least with Stalin or Mao, D'Souza's argument isn't so obviously embarrassing.
citizenghosttown 1 year ago
@owensphil
"Feel free to point out anymore fallacies."
Too easy. D'Souza's attempts to defend intelligent design (i.e. creationsim) - not with any argument or evidence - but with an analogy that fails on both philosophical & scientific grounds. We know that the items on his alien planet are "intelligently designed" not because they are complex but because we recognize them AS man-made objects. This is the old watchmaker analogy. Huge problem - the universe is not a watch.
citizenghosttown 1 year ago
Wow, terrible attempt by Dinesh in this cobbled together edit.
1) We know buildings on a distant planet are created because we have created them ourselves. We can't say that about how all laws of physics and time came into existence.
2) Science is filling those gaps more and more every day. Get used to it happening more often.
3) Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism are all systems of faith , worship, and credulity, while atheism is not.
adknerr 1 year ago
@adknerr
1) " We know buildings on a distant planet are created because we have created them ourselves"
You miss the point. It could be anything that we have never encountered. Yet we would assume intelligent design. We know that coded instructions arent self -coded. The only code on earth is said not to require intelligence for the sake of faith in evolution is the code found in DNA the most sosphisticated code known to man.
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil No. We would only assume that it appears to be created by another being if we recognize it as such.
Also, gravity, mountains, atmosphere, solar orbits, etc, etc all didnt require intelligence. DNA is certainly not the only exception.
adknerr 1 year ago
@owensphil
"It could be anything that we have never encountered. Yet we would assume intelligent design."
No "we" would not. Perhaps YOU would. But no competent scientist would for the simple reason that there's no evidentiary grounds for such an assumption.
Again this is D'Souza appealing to ignorance and to fallacies that have been exposed time and time again. For a Christian apologist who claims to be "sophisticated" this is very disappointing.
citizenghosttown 1 year ago
@citizenghosttown You have to wonder at someone thinking they're clever when they're argument pretty much comes down to "well i haven't figured out an explanation so an anthropomorphic wizard who lives in the sky must have created it". How such intellectual laziness, and such a crude and folkish explanation, can be seen as satisfactory is beyond me.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 11 months ago
@citizenghosttown *their argument
JACKtheRIPP3R189 11 months ago
@citizenghosttown
¨No "we" would not. Perhaps YOU would. But no competent scientist would¨
Me as well as archaelogists who infer design in their work, SETI scientists who infer design in their research.
owensphil 11 months ago
@owensphil It's only four letters! It's just the combinations due to the possibilities that are complicated.
skydome29 11 months ago
@owensphil "assume"
On no facts? Yeah no wonder you're impressed by D'Souza's dismal performance. DNA isn't a "code" in the sense of a computer code or a linguistic cypher, which you would know if you'd passed a high school biology course. DNA formation has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever, you're perhaps thinking (if thinking is the word) of abiogenesis. The former deals with how living populations adapt and diversify, the latter deals with the formation of life.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 11 months ago
Responder a este vídeo...
"Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism are all systems of faith , worship, and credulity, while atheism is not."
2) Atheism certainly requires faith that one's convictions that led to his or her belief in atheism are correct. Faith that somehow life just came about by chance. Faith that large scale evolution is correct. When Hitchens assures us that evolution is correct who is he placing his faith in since we know that he didnt do the scientific research himself?
owensphil 1 year ago
@owensphil
"Faith that large scale evolution is correct. "
"Faith that somehow life just came about by chance."
"belief in atheism "
By using these expressions in the manner you do, reveals that you have not done YOUR research on atheism OR evolution. Both of which Hitchens most likely did far deeper than you.
MattHunX 1 year ago
@owensphil Once again, no, the theories of the big bang, abiogenesis. amd evolution are believed to be true because there has not only been evidence that supports then, but so far no such evidence that completely refutes them.
Stating that some being we cannot see or communicate or in some cases cannot have the possibility to understand created the universe out of nothing, has no evidence to hold up that case whatsoever.
adknerr 1 year ago
@owensphil Moreover... being an atheist has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang or anything science related at all. They are mutually exclusive. The only prerequisite to atheism is that one requires evidence (or in some cases extreme lack of evidence) to weight ones reasoning faculties.
adknerr 1 year ago
@owensphil scientific self-correction, the only field of knowledge with one anywhere near as complicated.
skydome29 11 months ago
@adknerr hmm I'm a physics major adknerr and I can say it's really the opposite. Physics is opening gaps faster than solving them, for instance the discovery of cosmic background radiation in every way we look in space (radiation left over from the Big Bang) forces us to conclude that the early universe expanded at faster than light speed. Also, a cosmologist recently calculated the likelihood of the early universe forming as it did as 10^(10^123) to one. But only that could allow for life...
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
@dbmcmillan Ahh, creating gaps where it was previously impossible for religion to have discovered them is something shrewdly different than what I'm talking about. Good point nonetheless, but I wouldnt say this is a negative at all.
adknerr 1 year ago
suck on that D'souza,,
ancientcommodity 1 year ago