Hitchens: religious vs. empirical knowledge.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Turek vs. Hitchens at VCU in Richmond, VA complete at:
www.vimeo.com/1...
Here Hitchens talks about the difference between empirical knowledge and assertions of religious "truths".
![CHILE vs. BRASIL [1-2] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5ObJt_71AYc/mqdefault.jpg)
I can't even imagine how much better my life would be if I had heard these words earlier.
You put into words exactly what I was thinking!
Indeed! If all the efforts put into serving non-existent gods was redirected into the genuine persuit of knowledge, we'd be a type 1 civilization by now
2007 this was, I guess. Let this kind of words be spread even in 2027 or 3007. Such a pity that these words were not spread as Much in 1907 or just to the core of the business in the year 07 haha
He HAS improved my life, but I was an atheist as young as 7. It(god, and/or religion) just always felt wrong and didn't make sense... In fact, I thank religion more than anything, for making me so...
Arlando Little See, this is why I’m not a Christian anymore. Your head pops off the pillow in the morning and you can’t wait to condemn another human to hell. I imagine your life sucks so bad that you have to dream of my torment to make you feel better. I don’t even have to meet you and I know I’m a better person than you.
Liberated from the shackles of religion.
Nothing new here, just Christopher Hitchens once again showing why he's the most awesome person ever.
Christopher The Godslayer ☺️
Or... just another angry soul with an ax to grind against God.
@@michaelreichwein3970 One can't have an ax to grind against something that doesn't exist. Hitch is ridiculing the notion of "god" in the minds of gullible humans like yourself. And, if "god" did exist, he'd fully deserve to be killed for his long history of criminal actions, causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent men, women, and children through natural disasters, illness, or pestilence. He would also have to be blamed for man's inhumanity to man because he was the one that designed us to be so evil and imperfect. Wouldn't that make him a supreme sadist instead of an all-seeing, all-merciful, and omnipotent being?
Smart, knowledgeable, with a.muscular sense of irony and, a skillful mastery of sarcasm.
I'll be forever thankful and indebted to him for challenging me to think for myself.
You are loved and missed.
For some reason I found myself really appreciating the moment where Turek supplies Hitchens with Collins' name. These guys go at each with no holds barred during the debate, it's nice to remember they're both courteous, regular people as well. So easy to dehumanise whichever one disagrees with you, it's nice to get a reminder of their humanity.
Actually, Turek has a lot of appreciation for Hitchens and bear in-mind that Turek shines because of his ability to engage a super-star debater like Hitchen when it comes down to spoken and written English. I also find that the Rev Al Sharpton does appreciate Hitchens a lot. In a debate with Sharpton and I believe there may have been another debater present, Sharpton did come to Hitchen's aid on the issue of "God is not Great" and the fact that it is a literal negation of verses found in both the Koran and the Bible
@@josephconstant7443 they despise hitch n probably crow over his death n tell eachother hes in hell.. theyre immoral dorks
@Scaggs A *courteous* godless heathen.
So yes, he would.
notwithstanding, Turek is still a greedy, bigoted piece of shit, and religion allows objectively horrible viewpoints to get a pass so long as the people who hold them are represented as "courteous, regular people"
Hmm... I should give his book God is Not Great as a Christmas gift this year
The Bible's a shitty book. Definitely go with God is Not Great. Haha
To celebrate the birth of Jesus?
@@nichoudha The Bible stinks
@Golden Knight Be a winner
@@trommelbiel Our brave theist has arrived?
Ah.... Eloquent as always :)
The burden of proof is on the believer.
The believer: "Uhh ... habba-habba-habba ... Uhh--uh--uh ...."
A lot of logic, and great presentation skills!
At 6:23, the expression of that guy in the red shirt pretty much sums up my feelings whenever I listen to Hitchens.... straight up awe.
Always refreshing to hear Hitchens speak his mind.
He's right. You don't need a religious affiliation to be a moral and decent person
Especially in light of all the immorality and indecency by the blatantly religious.
Amen
And exactly how can you have morality without God?
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling.
It would be called Deitology - the study of gods
Not a single thing can be proven to have not needed the involvement of a seperated force.
They can show how a cell replicates, but not why it replicates. Cells must be a programmed bio robots. Nothing else makes sence
The Mask look up “argument from ignorance” you just made one
@Language and Programming Channel According to what authority on the topic?
@@themask706 it seems you have no knowledge of even high school biology. Study a bit before you blabber on like a lunatic,putting your arrogance on full display for everyone to laugh at.
Hitchens is great! One of the pioneers of our day, no-doubt!
Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last Priest!! We as primates have been very lucky to have a thought-provoking man like Christopher Hitchens illuminating the masses, may his thoughts live on and continue to do so until the end of human extinction.
Alcibiades writes: ".......until the end of human extinction."
Human resurrection on a global scale?
Stay with the ideas and phrases which you are accustomed to using.
You've overdone it here.
@@warrenglover6633 Patronising sod!
@@warrenglover6633 Sorry for the super-late reply, but unfortunately what you wrote to me is faith based, not an iota of scientific proof, in my book and opinion rubbish.
Thank you so much Christopher.
.....Spot on Chris, as per usual.....miss’n you.
Ahh... How glad we should be, indeed. I love Hitch.
+Krizzly Me, too! And Bern!
Why would you want to debate Christopher Hitchens?
Suicide.. as always..
Yes, and those who do say They 'believe', so basically have you nothing against them because They get away with 'faith', wich give them the change to deband respect and tolerance, while brings intolerant and ignorant. So, in that cases people like Hitchens and Dawkins just show how ignorant and intolerant they and their faith is without trying to convert them in non-believing or anything like that. Because Hitchens and Dawkins knew/know how chanceless that would be. Stupidity is something you can hardly fight.
The post-debate drinking session?
Publicity for their upcoming book attempting to defend the "faith". I can't imagine any reason other than money why someone would willingly submit to a Hitchens evisceration in public. The man simply does NOT lose a debate!!
@@bigjake2295 that is true. If hitchens was alive today I might pretend to be a Christian just for the whisky that follows.
Immediately after he uttered 'not in China where people can read' a smitten Chinese appeared among the audience
Ive listened to hitchens when i was a kid. My god so much more happiness when i think and live for myself rather than for a book
So correct Chris you will surely be missed for showing truth
He hates being called Chris.
Beautiful mind, forever in my heart 💔
I grew up in a religious cult. I often imagine how different my life could’ve been if my formative years hadn’t been spent ingesting Bronze Age superstitions.
With some extra iron age crap welded on
@@lindsaydrewe8219
Lol😊😊😊
Mr. Hitchens is only gone physically, his knowledge will live on forever for those that want to hear the truth.
We need Hitchens once again in each and every country..... not to convert people out of religion but to make them think how true religions and gods really are ? to use common sense and general knowledge more sincerely....
Smoking weed and on a hitch binge
I need all my faculties to follow Hitch.
Yes....me too. Many times!!!
3 years later... me too bro
Me over lockdown haha
Living the dream
I have to say this debate is, to me, the most thorough and well-deserved hitchslapping I've found on the tubes. Maybe it's a tie with the Olasky debate.
utterly fabulous!
Hitchens: *Like a BOSS*
My guy doesn’t need notes at all…. It’s from his heart. Think about it. He feels it.
Amazing teacher my favorite ever
This is intellectual pornography. Thank you. This made my day look so much brighter.
If... while being at my most cold sober... I could ever become even one tenth as brilliantly eloquent as Hitchens is, after downing a Gallon of vodka, my life would be fulfilled.
" I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who endowed us with sense, reason and intellect, has intended us to forego their use."- Galileo
" The reason for the season is the NEED for the Season of Reason."- Me
Hail the Four Horsemen. Hitchens is the lead horseman, IMO, since he shoots from the hip and doesn't care about collateral damage. Love it!
324 likes, 3 dislikes. That is 99%+ =0) Live on, please. The world desperately needs you Hitch.
Brilliant guy.
If Christian fundies weren't standing in the way of funding stem cell research at the federal level, Hitchen's would be on his way back to health already. I tell you, humanity can't afford to lose this brilliant man.
Brilliant, breaks it down so perfectly.
fucking classic!!!! one of the best videos on RUclips!!!!
I like this Guy I think that we need to think with our brains not with emotion
Hitchins is superb. I hope he beats his illness but even if he doesnt' he has thankfully left all his thoughts for the masses to watch over and over again. Spread the word and treat people of religion with suspicion and ridicule. IF religion doesn't destroy our species lets hope we can shed it and move on to a new era of knowledge and love based on humanity rather than ridiculous and bizarre superstitions. Peace.
"- - - - this ghastly entity - - - -!"
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.
The voice of reason
Brilliant.
When I grow up, I want to be like Christopher Hitchens.
How’d growing up turn out for you?
@@Dhamma_Nomad still striving to be like him.
Nice touch you two!
I have always loved the way he sounds saying nothing of substance. he was the best. I miss him so much.
I have heard of priests that don't believe in god.
Times are changing.
Thanks! It's not easy to change world views. Faith has its own momentum and belief is comfortable. To restructure reality is traumatic and scary. That is why many intelligent people continue to believe: unbelief is an unknown.
“Deconstruction” is very uncomfortable, continually unsettling but, paradoxically freeing and life giving.
He fights the good fight and is worthy of love and admiration. Is it possible you're a bit jealous of this?
most religious people don't seem to understand what empirical knowledge even is.
Someone help me out here. How does his initial statements comport with his certainty about his reasons for unbelief?
The certainty he has isn't that there's no God, but that those expressing certainty that there is a God have failed to provide evidence-and so should instead acknowledge like he does, that they don't really know.
@@darrylschultz9395 Be careful there. You said "evidence"; not proof. Nature is "evidence". Also, knowledge, as we know it, is not only (or should I say "exclusively") empirical. Much of what we consider knowledge is inference, observation, and intuition.
@@CSUnger Nature is not evidence that a God exists-Nature would be here just the same as it is, even if it really was the case that something other than God was the reason for the coming into existence of the Universe. So Nature is not evidence of a God at all. And if those certain of God have failed to provide evidence, it follows that they've failed to provide proof. It's true that there are things regarded as known to be true, and that knowledge is based on nothing more than things like intuition-for example, things like the "knowledge" they have there's a God. So you're right, things should require more than intuition to be regarded as knowledge-including the existence of God. Giving the name "God" to whatever is the true explanation for the existence of the Universe is not shedding light on the mystery at all-it's just giving the mystery a label! Replacing the word "Mystery" with the word "God" in other words. Having to say only one syllable is actually the only gain! Whoopie-doo! And even if we did one day gain a complete understanding of how the Universe came to be, that would leave unchanged and unaffected the situation humanity has to deal with-i.e., managing our lives here on planet earth. So the whole God debate is fundamentally irrelevant. Not to mention pointless. Cheers-hope that provided the help you were seeking.
@@darrylschultz9395 You really need to examine your opening propositions and think about them in terms of logic and intellectual correctness. There's no point in arguing over the existence of a God if you are not well versed or adept at examining propositions in a logical manner first. If you don't know what I am referring to, ask someone who does understand how to approach a hypothesis with a view of arriving at a logical conclusion rather than poisoning the well.
@@CSUnger No-one(including you-and me)knows the answer to the mystery of how the Universe came to be. So it isn't poisoning the well to attempt(like Hitchens did, and I've attempted to do)to dispel the idea of a God that's pushed by those pretending to know that a God was responsible. Their certainty about this is based on nothing more compelling than wishful thinking, because they are forever unable to present any real evidence. And whenever anyone makes a claim(of any sort, not just the claim of the existence of God), but is unable to produce evidence which could prove their assertion, it means they haven't a leg to stand on, and should therefore cease doing their own poisoning-of the well of the bulk of society who prefer to think logically and rationally about such matters.
@wHisperis001 That is another way to look at it. Did Epicurus ever provide context for the riddle, or do we have to create meaning for it ourselves? I can't remember, it's been 2 years since I took philosophy.
resonates
Scotch or whiskey, terpentine or wodka, funnily this great mind still holds many truths, eloquantly stated. Awe and respect for him, but bare in mind his political background. A man and his follies...
The problem with evidentiary support for faith in a god is that it would literally erode the position of faith.
For example, if one could produce scientifically sound evidence that god does indeed exist, no one would forevermore have FAITH in god, but we would rather know god by different means.
The problem with having faith as an argument is that it has no reasons or evidence to support it. And once one introduces those reasons and/or evidence, they are undermining their own position.
Love listening to Hitchens completely and unapologetically and relentlessly mocking Turek and the foolishness, and truly the utter stupidity, of Christianity while Turek struggles to put together a coherent sentence much less a cogent argument. This "debate" was a masterclass in intelligence, reason, logic and curiosity demolishing wishfulness, faith, mythology, superstition and delusion, as well as another masterful example of Hitchens' spectacular use of language. For Turek to be on the same stage shows both how arrogant and how clueless he really is. He was shredded in this forum and rightfully so.
The last two minutes of that were great. Powerful stuff. Of course, every time I've offered a similar argument to a "believer," you know what their answer is? ... God works in mysterious ways. Have faith. Have faith? That's it? That shit worked when I was 5 and didn't yet possess metacognition, but not anymore. Like Dave Chappelle said, "I don't fall for that shit anymore."
How is that argument against believers?
You need to specify which believers, because in islam, fhe message of believing in one god was presented since adam "the first man", and continued till islam, and that tawrat and engeel "old testament and new testament" were also revealed with the same message, but whenever it gets corrupted, a renewing message comes with another prophet, till it reached to the final revelation which is islam. Got your answer?
@@geniusity6189 That is a faulty argument because, like he said, the beginnings of the abrahamic religions can be traced to maximal 5000 years ago.
To claim, with nothing to support it, that any shamanistic believes that came before that and had very little in common with the abrahamic religion is just an earlier version is absurd.
@@thomasl.6960 but you challenge my beliefs not your beliefs
@@geniusity6189 What? I have no believes, at least in the sense that I insist that something's real just because I want it to. You answered to the point that we are supposed to believe that after 70000 years of wide human existence god only then took an interest with the claim, that god delivered the massage before and every new revelation is just an update to the scripture, which would mean that most religions are related in a sense. I questioned that claim since we see a lot of different beings of worship, tenants, scriptures and rules that have very little to do with each other and therefore indicate, maybe even proof, that there is no central revelation from god.
@@thomasl.6960
Not all from god, of course many of them are human-made.
I dont even remember what the video talked about, but my point should be clear. I cant explain more cuz i need to rewatch the video first
I think the guy in the redshirt at 6:23 is paralyzed by Hitchens genius.
If you think God is on our side, take a walk around a cemetery.
Have a look at the ages of the inhabitants.
You will find many that died before the age of reason.
Some only a few days old. Some who were born dead.
Frank didn’t sit down for a week after this debate. His arse was too sore from the pounding he got
Hitch makes a powerful point with the argument that humanity lived for 75K years before God bothered to intervene; but there's another way to look at that.
In those 75K years the human population would be very small, though growing to about 200M. Total number who lived and died, also quite small - relative to the vast number who have lived since then. Now we number over 7 billion, with the cumulative total who ever lived, over 100 billion.
In those terms, the alleged intervention would not be called tardy.
Yes but the human population explosion wasn’t down to religion. It was down to knowledge, technology, finding things out about the natural world.
@@conors4430 Jim Davies, with alacrity we await-still your rejoinder to the one of Conor S.
Good to hear it.
Htchens really enjoys his 100,000 years example.
True- but how can you debate it? It's a one move checkmate.
Lol, right guys, don't question anything.That's the first policy of atheism. Furthermore, there's no real value of Good and Evil, so let's claim morality is subjective and live our lives in contradiction to our own philosophy by embracing objective moral standards and maintaining moral expectations of Right and Wrong. /s
You are the puddle calling it's impression the world. Our morals came to be through evolution, both biological and of ideas and is by no means objective-just look how they change in just a century or two! In the 1800s you have everyone ( a mostly religious group back then) running around taking slaves and being imperialists and just two measly centuries later all that and more is condemned, but you would call morals objective? There are gray areas everywhere, including abortions, genetic engineering, healthcare and more and you would believe all morals where laid out by an all knowing being? Back the stone ages, thog didn't give a shit about that name Yahweh and in a couple thousand years, Donaldus the 10th won't either-yet you believe that concepts are eternal? Where is the plausibility in your blind claim that there is such a thing as objective morality, or any of those things?
@@playzfahdayz On the contrary, the inquisitive mind is commonplace in atheism. The inquisitor on the other hand...
@eameece actually our creativity can be explained by natural selection because we needed to be creative to survive. We ate meat (protein) which helped our brains develop which allowed us to create tools and develop new 'creative' hunting strategies. You can see the birth of creativity within this phenomena, it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that without creativity brought on by natural selection we wouldn't have survived as a species. Creativity is a central piece to our evolution.
Love the folded arms argument..
In math 0 always equals 0. You can’t get away from that. Stephen Hawkins has said, “there must always be a first cause, then the effect.” In order to have a universe of matter, and a beginning of space time, there had to be some power outside the finite, to start the engine. Infinite something above the finite. The question “so where did God come from,” is answered in the infinite. Something out of nothing, still leaves us with nothing starting everything.
So what started this something that started everything?
Now imagine being the theist who has to talk after this performance.
"Yeah, but i have a book that claims that there is a god who made his own virgin mother pregnant with himself, to sacrifice himself, to himself, for himself, because a woman made out of ribs was told by a snake to eat a magical apple..."
Whyever would you have any difficulty believing that logical story? 😆
@@mememan2344 I guess i am not able to believe this story because i live in the 21 century and a modern world in which everybody has a camera but still we do not have a single demonstrated supernatural effect at all.
And probably it helps that i have not been brainwashed from my earliest childhood that this story is not as absurd as it sounds.
@@hitman5782 There is a common misconception about Genesis 3. It doesn't mean what you were told it means. It's a simple riddle. In antiquity even a child could solve it. We are simply not used to identify riddles as such anymore, so most people do not think about questions like "What does the garden stand for?" and "What does the snake stand for?". That joke is really on us, including atheists who think that Genesis 3 is a reason for disbelief. Genesis 3 is actually one of the logically best constructed parts of the entire bible. I leave it to you to solve it. Genesis 4, by the way, serves a legal function. A lawyer should be easily able to see what it means. Genesis 5 is a false history, which was commonly used in antiquity to prop up the social status of a person. It's Genesis 6 and following where the document falls apart logically.
@@schmetterling4477 The problem with accepting that Genesis is just a fairytale brings a problem with it. No Adam and Eve means no first sin, no first sin means no need for a savior and very fast this entire religion breaks apart.
And when you start accepting that stories in the bible may not be literally true, what´s left of the book? I mean, there was no Genesis, no global flood, no exodus, no tower of Bable, no census that could have brought Jesus's parents to Bethlehem and so on.
Is there a single story that is not just fiction? Which one and how do you possibly know?
@@hitman5782 There is no mention of the word sin in Genesis 3. You may find a chapter heading over Genesis 3 that reads "Original Sin" or "The Fall". That heading is not in the source document. The source doesn't have chapters. It's a continuous scroll. All of those headings are being inserted by the modern publishers of bible editions. They are as "fake" as things come in the bible.
More precisely people wouldn't have associated Genesis 3 with sin until the 4th century AD when a theologian called Augustine who had a very active bedroom life felt bad about his fun in the sack and he wanted to make it harder for other people to feel the same. That's when "original sin" was born. Jesus and contemporaries would, for sure, not have read the story under that angle.
Read Genesis 3, again, but without looking for sin, which is not in there. What you will find is a very beautiful and completely universal truth about life.
Actually, Religious Knowledge is not actual knowledge.
It is faith and belief.
Therefore, if in a discussion someone brings up Bible or Quran in order to prove a point, I reject it entirely because those books are nowhere near fact based, but entirely on faith and belief.
Totally false, religious knowledge is actual knowledge if it is from the creator of the universe.
Sayings of God cannot be wrong rationally, philosophically and ontologically. God's sayings are rational evidence and cannot be called a claim. If god's sayings can be wrong then this means that he is not all knowing.
If he is not all knowing then he is not God. In the Quran, Allah gave us rational evidence to believe in it that if you think that Quran is not god's word then you will see many errors and contradictions in it.
@@muhammadfawad1879 Which creator are you talking about? We invented so many of them. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Allah Almighty told us in the quran (chapter 5) that if any living being has these two characteristics then it cannot be God almighty
1) if it's existence is mortal
2) if that living being is dependant upon causes to live.
Then that being can't be God. If you study Greek deities, Egyptian deities Hinduism deities, you will find out that all these pagan deities have these two above characteristics. Then they cannot be God Rationally Metaphysically and Ontologicaly.
Only Abrahamic god is left who is pure from these two characteristics and prophet Jesus Christ (PBUH) also had these two characteristics given above due to which he also can't be god.
@@muhammadfawad1879 So the Nigerian Prince invented by Mohamed told you through his lawyer Mohamed that the is the only true Nigerian Prince. Sure, kid, sure. Have a cookie. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 what Nigerian prince
Did you understand my points
@eameece
Whether or not Hitler "shut god out" is irrelevant. His followers were most certainly catholic.
Hey are those people at the end cuddling?... all I can think of is how bad ass it would be to cuddle with someone and listen to hitchens at the same time ;)
Sorry. To be accurate, please add the word 'has' between 'who' and 'endowed'. I apologize for the error. By the way, I feel bad for making the mistake and it has nothing to do with gawd-fear morality.
Poor Frank just isn’t in the same league.
Why is youtube not allowing me to see replies to comments?
Eric, The Machine has all manner of sneaky little ways of being dirty. It is just one of many, to which you here make reference.
It is theirs not ours, we being but visitors (if not maintaining channels) so, vexation as expended against IT is of no use nor to-purpose -- such as is done being only wastage of energy and time.
Likely it is carried on to the end goal of creating enervation and dissipation, by inculcation of hopelessness.
Simply pay The Thing no mind, would be my advice.
Just use IT, as it intends for US.
'Hope that helps some.
@sirjames45 You really don't understand how stem cells work, do you?
Hitchens is or was more of a god than anything presented to me in any religious texts…….
Hitchens really existed, unlike any God
you tube did not allow me to correct or repost my previous comment, in which I wrote evolution when I meant creativity.
why didn't he mention Socrates? would it turn off people or something?
The event horizon is not the lip of the black hole , the event horizon is that place where light form sources other than the dark star cannot escape the dark stars gravitational influence.
No light ever escapes from a dark star , As is shown from image of the EHT telescope , nothing of the dark star was imaged only matter outside the event horizon.
Yet i have only seen 1 astrophysicist publicly state that the EHT took an image the accretion disk as the dark star /black hole gives of no radiation that can be detected or ever will.
Francis Collins is one of those rarest of the rare converts who went from atheism to belief instead of the other way around. Certainly no dummy. I do wonder how that happened. How can you have such a top level understanding of how DNA works, perfectly supporting evolution and not needing a creator, and yet still think it needs to have someone at the controls? Speaking of which, I highly recommend this PBS Special from the early 2000s about the Dover school board controversy of intelligent design vs evolution: ruclips.net/video/w0PimDinUdg/видео.html Excellent depiction of how evolution actually works for the layman.
What happened to Collins? He is a good politician, which means he knows how to play people using their stupid beliefs and that's what he does when he talks about "his faith". That's no different from the pope. You really think the pope isn't an atheist? Dude. I have a bridge in Brooklyn. Real cheap. Great investment opportunity. ;-)
The Law of Inertia was not authored by a religious god- it exist because the laws of gravity and acceleration exist, who in turn exist because other laws exist and so forth. To share a more advanced perception of mine, I would go so far as to say that laws are SYMBIOTIC of each other. Example: if the Law of Inertia wasn't functioning or didn't exist the laws of gravity and acceleration arent functioning or existing, thus, a symbiotic relationship is the means by which Law begets Law.
You miss his point. He's not speaking with authority about the concept; he's expressing awe at the concept, at a scientific theory. Your insistence that so brilliant a thinker as Christopher Hitchens ("this guy"!) cannot grasp the broad concept only helps make his point.
Hitch destroy Tukek
Natural selection is a "species" of mechanistic determinism. Creativity brings new ideas and new behavior into the world. It can't be explained nu mechanical causes, in which things happen because some prior event made it happen. Evolution IS a central piece to our evolution, which means it did not happen by natural selection alone.
@wHisperis001 The riddle poses the question of why evil exists if God exists, but then you have to define evil and how our understanding of it comes about. What if good and evil do not objectively exist? The riddle is self-defeating unless you can prove objective good and evil exist without God.
easily answered. just look at how many MILLIONS of people have died over just their differing beliefs in good and evil and God. it's obviously a human concept... any God with an ounce of wrath would have put a stop to it
Actually, God cannot be known by arguments. That does not disprove God, but argument! A mystic knows God exists through direct experience. But that does not mean a mystic "believes" in all the religious myths. A myth is a symbol that points beyond itself.
How would it be to be the smartest person on the planet?
Toba genetic bottleneck theory:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
"Religious versus emperical"
Which religion?
There are thousands of them and they are all completely different from each other.
Which is why all religions are garbage.
Except in one very important way, which is that they all require that you believe something without evidence. In that sense they are all identical.
Your categories are improper…
We are dealing with Real vs Fake …
So it’s all of religion they are all equal in that category .
Or how about just being cults that affect humans ..still pretty equal !
giving a quote isnt exactly making a point is it now? But please, enlighten me, what do you think was your point?
6:26 my new spirit animal
Yet, Hitch will live on, eternally...as a God.
A great thinker and orator. Not a god.
@@Paine137 "Not THE God, but A God." - Bill Murray, Groundhog Day -
And if you think you know ,then I don’t think you know
Amazing
There should be no contradiction between religion and knowledge. This is only biblical mind set “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Imagine a situation where there is only one human left on Earth! All considerations cease to make sense.
@arn123321 It's easier to disprove because of the lack of evidence. And since good scientific atheists don't claim to know things like the origin of the universe, while religious people claim to have an answer, the onus is not on the atheists to disprove claims, but rather on the religious to prove their claim. Basically, the more you claim, the more you have to prove. He's not taking advantage, he's using it legitimately.
Wrong again. We have evidence that an earliest of "Caveman" had some kind of religion. In fact later on upon exiting the cave those people wrote a book called bible. Please do elaborate on quantum mechanics - where does it prove materialists wrong? My understanding that it actually deals with mechanics of the matter, I did not realize it has supernatural component. And again rock is all yours (we can probably do without the pleasantries).
He's drunk off his ass, but still brilliant.
@TheGuyAlwaysOnTime
Ha ha, good spot!