He looks ill and to be on medication. What would prove God to you . Nothing. Then attacks the other guy saying he is insecure in he's belief. You would think he would loose all credibility as a result of hes incredibly stupid answer. But no , they keep saying hitch is great. You would have to have your head up your arse to not see he has a health proublem and it is affecting hes answers. This atleast gives him an excuse. The other guys excuse is that he has two source's of imformation, one is science. This alone shows an inteligence responsible for the encoded DNA strand. But no , still not enough. The other is the bible. This has no evidence for a loving all good God and frankly should be enough for us all to want to hide from its murdering arse hole God. But no millions love this dip shit still. So these two are a perfect match up. Thou with these two in the chairs, you can be certain of one thing , the debate will be a waste of breath. I love to keep putting the father to the test as he instructs me to do. But please let's stop insulting him with people with such low caliber as this hitch and that .....other chap. That half bible should leave no doubt its god is an arse hole not worthy of worshipping. But no, dumb insecure morons keep him proped up with their blind no faith worship What's the devil got to do to stain gods image in there minds 😂🤣😂🤣😅😃😆😂🤣😂🤣
@Deus Vult so you're saying that not-collecting stamps is a hobby, Not-wearing clothes is a fashion, and Not-playing a basketball is a sport, bald is a hair colour, abstinence is a s *e* x act, off is the channel on the television, Unemployed is a job, healthy is a disease, clear is a colour, and bare foot is a type of shoe
@1:38 "religion works for most people because you have people in a sense do want it to be true" I think one of the main reasons that religion 'works' is groupthink. Alot of people just go along with the crowd. A lot of people rationalize that if they are surrounded by people who are doing something or that appear to believe something, that there must or at least might be something to it.
Some people need religion, and some people discover later in life that they don't need it. Few of us have a chance early in life to avoid it completely.
I've talked with some of my religious coworkers and it seems like it only "works" because they do whatever they want anyway. They don't actually care what it says or what it tells them not to do, they'll interpret it in whatever way suits whatever they wanted to do in the first place and that's good enough for them. Getting them to recognize it is also pretty much impossible.
I would agree with most of these comments. People should never do something just because others do. They should try it for themselves, give it their best shot, and make their own minds up. But the point of the Bible is to do what Jesus taught, not what we want. That's the point - we don't get to make the rules. By the way, I am a Christian.
@@JohnSmith-ty4di you know what? F *u* ck this. You'll end up debating me and so on an so forth So here's the conclusion. I'm wrong, and you're right about everything. Cuz screw this I'm out a here. i have no time to stick my head on someone who *always* looking for trouble like you. If you want to talking s *h* it about some sh *i* t that i don't and i don't want to care then go ahead. And if you want to continue to mock me then go ahead, I'll never gona listen to you in the first place cuz I'll gona silent your notifications Happy talk to yourself
It's way past time for the destruction of the Jesus story. 1. There has never been an acceptable non-biblical proof that Jesus existed, or any of the stories about him contain any truth at all. 2. At the time in question, the name was not in use, or existence. So go ahead and demolish the untrue stories.
Such a mighty intellect! No wonder so many need religion. They simply cannot bear to think for themselves. Way too threatening.Religion was just invented by mere men. Many not very bright. Religion is so cosy & comforting. Even if it’s all made up!
@@ronnie7390 Oh, it's miracles you say? How about the miracles witnessed by thousands by Sathya Sai Baba (1)? Science can't explain those either. So, I guess, by your "logic" Sathya is divine? Or, what about the miracles performed by that great fraud Benny Hinn? (2) You telling me you believe this nonsense? Oh, wait a minute, let's be honest about the process here... Were these "miracles" you mention ever performed in front of scientist? Or are you expecting a physicist or biologist to explain what happened based on some rando's recounting of the tale. There's a great story about some scientists being mystified by some dude levitating a matchbox. "Science can't explain it! It must be telekenisis!" Then Randi shows up and teaches them all a thing or two (3). Heck, even the testimony of the people to which it HAPPENED are not reliable. Take a look at the "miracle" (hahahahahahah) of the rosary in Hiroshima. Four, count them, FOUR priests survived the Hiroshima atomic blast unscathed! It MUST be solely because of the devotion to the rosary which they were doing at the time. Science can't explain it! Except, no wait, science can. They weren't unscathed. Their house was reinforced. Etc, etc, etc. (4) At best your argument is little more than a God Of The Gaps argument (5). Science can't explain X, therefore my pan-galactic prestidigitator MUST be real. Finally, Hitchens followed around Mother Theresa and exposed this "saint" for the fraud she was (6), so your claim he hasn't looked into their lives is utterly suspect. How do you know he has never looked into them? You are talking about a man who can quote, from memory, great biblical scholars such as Rambam (I would be shocked if you even know this person's real name without looking it up), Aquinas, Luther, etc etc etc. He even addresses the pathetic fallacy of Pascal's Wager, which you put forth as your closing argument for God many times (7). In short, I suspect you, like everybody religious I have ever met, are making false assertions and assumptions. I think you are stating as fact that which you do not know to be fact, and most likely that which you know is NOT fact. I feel you are lying to support your religion. Please, provide me with sources that shows Hitchens is "short sighted" as you claim and did not look at, or study, saints and miracles. Please, prove me wrong in my suspicions. I beg you. Please don't just be another Liar For God. (1) - saibaba.ws/miracles.htm (2) - ruclips.net/video/k6uj1KYTlrg/видео.html (3) - ruclips.net/video/SbwWL5ezA4g/видео.html (4) - ruclips.net/video/siCEByV9F7Y/видео.html (5) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps (6) - slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/10/the-fanatic-fraudulent-mother-teresa.html (7) - ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=hitchens+pascals+wager
Correction: it was EIGHT jesuit priests not four. I posted relying solely on my memory of a video I have seen a few times. Weird... It's almost as if human memory is fallible and can't be relied on. I sure wish somebody would create a process that helps eliminate those errors and keeps us free from superstition and fantasy...
Well I guess then we should stop looking for Dark Matter Dark Energy and extraterrestrial civilizations because if they existed we would have found evidence by now I guess we should stop any kind of scientific research because after all if we haven't found a new discovery by now then there must be no new discoveries to be made also he still didn't actually answer the question the question isn't do you believe evidence will be found the question was what evidence would convince you
Christian here: I love Hitchens. He's so blunt and he's so well articulated and he says things we Christians need to hear, wrestle with, and think about.
1. Who told you religion (any of the many) was true? 2. Who made you believe it wasn't? 1. Family/church school/priest etc 2. No one made you do that. It was you when you turned your brain on.
@Llama Treee I'm not claiming religious people are are stupid or not intelligent. No doubt, we all know some highly qualified believers. "Turning your brain on" is saying that folks need to think through the evidence and why they are religious. If no one told you to be religious, you'd struggle to believe the statements in the religous texts with logical thought. Faith is what we are told is a virtue by religious people or our parents.
@Llama Treee Cheers for the reply. The claims in the Old Testament about creation the earth and lifeforms are scientifically disproven. The book claims to be the unarguably word of God so if we know that the main claims are disproved, we should ignore the rest of the book. If it was released today, we'd call it a book of mythology as we now have our vast knowledge of geology, biology, physics and chemistry to show its claims are untrue. However, it is part of western culture and so it's ingrained in society. This is where people either stick with it, because it's a thing that we have known since birth or we pause and look at it logically and from a distance.
@Llama Treee The books of the bible make good films. Religion hasn't been removed as of yet so Hitchens et al haven't quite convinced the believers that it's not true. There are billions of Christian, Jews and Muslims that still hold the book to be real to some degree or other.
@Llama Treee I just stick with the Abrahamic religions as I know of the books and stories better than Hinduism as that's the schooling and upbringing I've had. Most atheists dont parrot those two examples just like stereotypes about religious people being stupid are incorrect... Religion is still prevalent in the west and the majority of US citizens are Christians and nearly every president has been as well. The UK has a religious head of state and most state functions such are religious to some degree. Islam is strong as there is a lot of pressure for muslims to remain one from the islamic societies. They don't want their followers to think or have the freedom of choice. Any club that forces you to be a member is not a club that is confident in its beliefs.
@Llama Treee When a country is ruled by a religion as in Saudi, Iran and Pakistan, religous leaders are powerful. See how they treat dissenters and blasphemers for the reason why the people carry on being Islamic. If people were left to pick their religion or not to have one without external pressure, lots of people wouldn't choose the one they are at the moment. See Northern Ireland for a Christian example. Being Catholic or Protestant is not a personal choice for most people.
@1977awm "Empirical method is reliant on the assumption that knowledge is derived from sensory experience, which is philosophical empiricism." This statement suffers from a fallacy of vagueness: >>>Empirical methods rely on the assumption that *some* knowledge can be gained (at least in part) from sensory experience. >>>Empricism as a general theory of knowledge holds that *all* knowledge is based on sensory experience. Of course, you know the difference between "some" and "all."
I never understood why a constellation only visible in the Northern Hemisphere should determine my birth, life and death here in the Southern Hemisphere....?
@@muneebi8273 They have not. They've merely set up the lab for the "Creation Scientists," which is just a bogus term for creationist apologists, for them to test, in a scientific manner, their 'theories' of the universe. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory, you need to provide a list of facts, physical evidence, an act of physics and so forth that suggest that something operates a certain way, and that only if your hypothesis was correct should we find evidence of A being true. The problem that creationists have is that they attempt to use their holy books as evidence, not just of themselves, but of the mythical beings described. If you show me a copy of, say, The King James translation of the 'holy bible,' then I would be forced to admit that the copy of that book exists in that place and time, as we can all see it, touch it, read it if we so wish. The same can be said of Harry Potter, and of Grimm's Fairy Tales, and so it does not mean that the contents of the book are real, you have to show it. "Well, what about the dead sea scrolls/the bible's testimony!? Are you calling Moses a liar!?!?" Does Harry Potter exist? No? Why not? He's in a popular and well-read series of books! But the location of London exists! That means that there must be a Leaky Cauldron, a Diagon Alley, and a Hogwarts, right? The point I'm trying to make is how utterly ridiculous it is for anyone to suggest that the characters, events, and history as interpreted by a book written by human authors is an accurate statement of reality for certain. If you claim that creation needs a creator, you've made a logical fallacy. Watchmakers fallacy. Does reality need a realtor?
@Vinnie P. Well, that would certainly be something, and if such a thing were to happen in modern times, and it was demonstrable that he was the creator end all be all of the universe, something that only a God could 'prove' then I would have to agree with you, especially if he told us exactly how life began, and begin helping us solve all of the problems that humans find themselves in. I would not say, though, that he should write things that we could not ever possibly understand. Otherwise, if we were intended to read that work, what would be the point in writing it? Give humanity some credit. If a divine being wrote a book then there would only be one such tome, and everyone would come together as one to study such work. Such a shame that it isn't the world we find ourselves in with thousands of conflicting denominations of dozens of conflicting religions. Even if such a god were to exist, it wouldn't be the god of the bible. It couldn't be, since the god of the bible has said and done in that work alone hundreds of contradictions. It wouldn't disprove evolution, either, but he could potentially tell us how life evolves, and even draw up pictures or create a working model of ancient and extinct species for us to study. However, if he tells us that he created evolution, and this world, as a test for mortal goodness, then that god would make everything we call reality meaningless.
@Vinnie P. I treat it as though they do not exist, and have no effect on daily life. I wouldn't like it if it ever was that the Abrahamic god ever did exist outside of stories.
If Objectivity is the real truth or not doesn't matter, it is objectively verifiable. That is why it is a collective truth, maybe not a real truth but that is irrelevant for our lives. If the truth lies beyond our experience it doesn't matter.
As a Christian I agree with Christopher, there isn’t a scientific argument for religion. The argument for religion is based on faith and moral pragmatism but not science or rationality.
Garehn Kalloghlian and so does atheisms there is more proof for Creation than for Evolution. There is absolutely Zero evidence for Evolution. It starts with an impossible Big Bang. Why Are Venus And Uranus Spinning in The Wrong Direction? God did that to make evolution look stupid. Let's look at what some scientists, who have worked in the realm of secular science, have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism. We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said.... "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. Now I need to add, that the next words in this quote from Muller are "Nevertheless it can be inferred...." He then goes on to to say that even though the actual experiments and evidence don't show mutations creating "evolution", still he believes it anyway! This is the totally typical approach in evolutionism. If you data doesn't match the theory - and it never does - you simply ignore it or replace it with a theory, with conjectures, with "inferences." Ya gotta give a nod to evolution to get ahead in the politically correct, viciously self protective world where Neo Darwinism reigns. Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing. As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc. But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of Nat Sel. In other words show that a species in any genus went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) to become a new Family. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past, over and over and over. Why don't we see any species in any genus transitioning to become a member of a new animal or plant family today? If there is no evidence that any life form's descendants transitioned to become a different family than its ancestors, then there is no evidence for evolution. It's just that simple. But feel free to cite data revealing any such evidence if you can. Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. "We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.) "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
@@MariusVanWoerden the very reason that evolution stands up to what it is right now is because it's backed up by many elites in the field of science. You can't select quotes from a few scientists and disregard all the other major findings of many other renowned scientists just because it supports your views. You need to provide evidence from both sides if you want to convince anyone. For every scientist that rejects evolution which I really doubt, there's thousands of others that will provide you with credible facts that it did occur. As for the "missing links" you mentioned, that has been a famous term used 10-20 years ago which doesn't apply anymore for they have found numerous fossils of the "links" so argued about.
@@MariusVanWoerden forgive me for not having any scientific citations, but there are a few examples of evolution in today’s world, 3 of the top of my head. 1. Bananas used to have seeds, humans breaded them out be selecting the bananas with smaller or fewer seeds, the seeded bananas could be found in the medieval period. This counteracts the notion that the genome being passed down throught generations is purely recycled and there is no new code being written, fruits and veggies have actually been specifically selected for decades to be bigger and sweeter. Side note when a horse wins a race they keeps the sperm of the horse and sell it for a high price, so the it is reasonable that due to human selection horses have become faster in the last generation, this kind of selection would happen in nature by a means of the fastest horse escaping it’s prey and therefore mate. 2. ruclips.net/video/mcM23M-CCog/видео.html is a RUclips video about finch’s, essentially a group of scientists took some finch’s to an island and observed the measures they took to survive, over generations they observed that the finch’s had beak shapes that better suited the diet that the peticular island could provide. 3. The Flu evolves every year, it “mutates”( not accidentally) to be able to penetrate our immune systems better, in the medical world bacterial evolution is a presupposition and is always considered when prescribing an antibiotic of any bacterial medicine. In a medical context taking medicine makes the environment radically harsh and kills most of the disease however the strongest part of the virus survives and adapts the become a super virus which is immune the the medicine, this is an example of natural selection in out bodies A side note, there was a vid I watched where someone programmed an ai stick figure to learn how to run, he made a hundred stick figures and selected the on that got furthest to clone and slightly mutate 100 times and over 50 generations it learnt how to run. In terms of the Big Bang or creationism, I don’t really care, I live my life as though God exists, I’ll I don’t think about thinks that I cannot know.
@@MariusVanWoerden show me an ark that withstood water pressure of a 40 day rain with animals that eat meat rooming with other animals. Wait. You won’t be able to show it because you know it’s bs.
Moyga, I'm reasonably confident that your use of the phrase "epic fail" after having NOT addressed my point scratches some childhood urge, but aside from making you feel good about yourself, it gets us no where. I'm not advocating methodological doubt...precisely the opposite. I'm saying that experience MUST be a reliable means to knowledge or we would know nothing. And I am asserting that we DO know things...including that God exists...through experience.
there is no 'commitment to the belief' of atheismsince atheism isnt a belief an atheist is simply 'someone who _doesnt_ believe in gods' and we dont _choose_ to not believe in them, therefore cannot 'commit' to it
It's not a matter of conscious control. Belief or non-belief is the sub-conscious reaction to the evidence and information provided. Religion is the "choice". Atheism is the reality.
William Scheydecker it's not. either you're convinced or not. nothing to choose. well you can lie to yourself but that isn't really believing something.
Rubbish! We all have a worlview. Its how we makes sense of reality, this world and our place in it. Atheists' version of why there is something rather than nothing: Aka "creation". In the "beginning" there were pre-existent particles that popped into and out of existence (for an eternity, if something exists now). Some particles joined together to form molecules. More of these particles formed highly complex information rich molecules that by some incredibly long, blind, unguided, goal-less, intelligent-less process produced a sentient, moral, rationally intelligent lifeform that perceived of God. And so the pursuit of transcendence has been the most dominant issue in all human history. But man wanted to play God so he could pursue all those banal, hedonistic desires free of condemnation or judgement. Such is the * unyielding despair for those who want to believe they're no more than a meaningless collocation of atoms* a la Bertrand Russell's blunt assessment of human existence without ultimate purpose, hope or destiny..
I am a nobody with nothing form nowhere but I have been gracefully endowed with some incredible attributes, who put it there or how it got there I can not answer but I am gratified by it's presence, does it need to be expressed in a book, I think that will cause reverse engineering. First there is a feeling then comes a thought about the feeling and finally a written word. Books try to reverse that process. And that causes a problem. If you don't know it is OK to be ignorant until you know.
Anything that would change your mind? Yeah, how about God Himself taking 5 seconds out of His schedule to pop His head out among the clouds and say, "Yes, hello all! I exist!" But even that is apparently not allowed by the rules. Convenient, eh?
@@user73222 Can you understand how lame that sounds from a "show me the evidence" person's point of view? Literally 5 seconds out of God's schedule just to prove that He exists would have a *P R O F O U N D* impact on the world, yet instead us puny humans have to argue for His existence? It makes no sense.
@@user73222 Let me ask you a simple question. How you answer it will determine how we proceed: Do you think you would have the same beliefs you have now if you had been born and raised in some other part of the world by parents of a different belief? And I know of no atheist who would actually say that if 100% proof of God's existence was shown to them that they would still refuse to believe. That makes no sense since atheists don't believe in God for precisely the reason that there ISN'T any proof!
@@user73222 Adam had not yet eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so he can not be blamed for making the wrong choice. Also, isn't it interesting that the serpent tells Adam and Eve the truth (that they would NOT die and that they would have their eyes opened - even God says so in the following verses) and God does not? God tells them that they will DIE if they eat of that fruit, but Adam didn't die for another 930 years.
@@user73222 So God reveals himself only to the people who already believe he exists? Isn't that how UFO and Bigfoot sightings work, too? No, this is moving the goalposts: There is no logical reason why God, who supposedly WANTS the world to believe he exists, can't just SHOW himself to the world and not just to people who already believe in a talking snake, the universe being created in 6 days, talking donkeys, an impossible ark story, etc. *Think of the PROFOUND positive impact it would have on the world if it could be shown, 100%, that God exists and has just been hiding behind the proverbial curtain all these centuries.*
@@user73222 Meh, still personal beliefs. There's a statue of Mary somewhere that everyone swears moves when you watch it for a while, so a news crew went there to check it out. They observed and, sure enough, the statue seemed to move! But, when they set the camera on a tripod and filmed it, the motion stopped completely: It was the subtle swaying of the people themselves that was creating the apparent motion.
@1977awm "Just out of curiosity, how did you determine that empiricism is an 'unsuccessful' epistemology?"
Well, empiricism has failed to answer several basic problems: 1) the problem of universals 2) the egocentric predicament 3) the problem of induction In the wake of the refutation of the empiricist theory of concept formation (Sellars, Wittgenstein), it is hard to see how a consistent empiricist can claim to know *anything.*
What a pity he is not with us anymore. QT on the BBC last week with its apologetic sycophants was lame to say the least. Unfortunately he cannot be replaced.
Totally agree about the faith thing: SAY IT, dammit. Instead these extreme religious folks keep trying to "prove" religion where there is no proof. What happens then is that they are embarrassed once again and most of the time they are too shameless to acknowledge it.
It's even stupider when you consider Christianity is supposed to be based on faith and not evidence The Bible is essentially a big book of claims that there once was evidence, which you are to take on faith despite the lack of evidence
When it comes to origins, the secularist has just as much faith as the religious person. The secularist doesn't know, so they speculate that it all happened by chance. Neither side KNOWS, they take a position without positive proof.
@@meb280 Aside from a few weird things that we still don't understand, no "secularist" thinks anything happens by chance. An atheist merely believes that there is not sufficient proof to posit God as the origin of the universe. I don't know what it actually is. Maybe it is God. I don't pretend to know definitively, so I don't know what position you're claiming I'm taking.
@@meb280 Exactly like WaterCat said, science doesnt take faith at all you can understand every bit of it down to the very beginning of evidence and reason. Science is the opposite of faith and if you dont understand that you are just naiive and probably have an underdeveloped frontal lobe.
People talk about missing relatives who have passed on. They talk about what they would give if only they could talk with their parents again, their grandparents again, etc. But it’s different for me. What I wouldn’t give to spend an hour talking with Hitchens now.
@1234 abcd Maybe they don't get along with their family, I've heard people in that position say things like that before. Reserve judgement before you go around claiming "you're disrespecting your family" to strangers.
@1234 abcd My father was a drug addicted rapist who mercilessly beat his children on a daily basis. He killed one of them. The rest of the family hid it and enabled it, threatening us survivors to keep quiet and even to consider it normal. Oddly, I was never very close to any of them. Hitchens’ writings helped me understand, among other things, how religion has warped people to allow this sort of thing to continue. So yes, I’d rather talk to Hitchens. Now, if you would like to spend an hour with any deceased member of my family, please feel free to conjure them. You might actually get on well.
Spoken as a true atheist, no evidence will convince me of a Divine Creator. For those who believe no evidence is necessary, for those who do not, no evidence is sufficient.
@@arunmoses2197 He's actually looked at all of the evidence and found that there isn't any. The point of the question is asking if there is a chance he will be religious one day in a wishy washy way or to get him to say "we can't know" and the answer is we do know. There is nothing that needs magic to explain it that has ever happened.
@@MrTheclevercat "He's actually looked at all of the evidence and found that there isn't any". First of all, how do you know? Also, are you waiting for me to give evidence or something? "The point of the question is asking if there is a chance he will be religious one day in a wishy washy way or to get him to say "we can't know" and the answer is we do know. There is nothing that needs magic to explain it that has ever happened." I would like to see your evidence
I really miss this guy, and I wonder what he would have had to say about the age of Trump, Trump himself and Trump's charmless personality hold on so many millions of people.
The 2016 election would have been interesting because Hitchens hated the Clintons but I imagine he would have hated a corrupt incompetent like Trump even more.
His personality was cringe-inducing to many of his voters. It was his policies which were correct and right. A few more years and those manipulated by leftist propaganda, like yourself, will perhaps learn the hard way. You’re voting for your own destruction and subjugation.
@@utoobia Bwahaha!!! That's the funniest thing I've read this month! Policies? What policies? Except for cutting taxes on the mega-rich what other campaign promises did he accomplish? Fix healthcare ("It'll be easy.", "It'll be better and cheaper than ObamaCare", etc) with full Republican control of all three branches of government for two full years: Nothing. Build the wall with Mexico paying for it? Nope. Make America Great again? If by "great" you mean alienating our longtime allies while cozying up to and praising dictators, stirring up hate by taking a "fuck you" approach to the rest of the world and every other despicable trait he stood for, sure. He will go down in history as one of the greatest failures ever. A man who thought way more of himself than he deserved, who demanded loyalty from those around him while giving none in return. A man who LOVED to criticize others but absolutely could not tolerate any criticism himself. A small man in a big body.
@@JustWasted3HoursHere ....What a nice, alternate reality you leftist Dems have created for yourselves. You probably think he’s a racist and a Nazi too, right? So the LOWEST unemployment rate for blacks, women and Hispanics in a half century isn’t anything? Four Middle East peace deals? And the wall was being built though, wasn’t it? Tariffs that hammered the evil CCP? I’ve got dozens more, you ignorant guzzler of propaganda. He also foiled several set-ups by the left. But, yeah, he’s an asshole. And he’s weird. Don’t care, when the alternative is authoritarian-worshipping, mindless sheep such as yourself.
Turek is the worst of all. "If Jesus rose from the dead, then what he said is true." Nope. If what he said is true, then what he said is true. But if people believe that he rose from the dead and THAT is why they believe his words, then there is probably no truth whatsoever in his teachings.
1 minute ago Biggest problem with Hitchens is that he seems OBSESSED with discrediting all religions, their faith, and their followers. What he clearly fails to understand is that for many people, particularly those who are actively dying, it is a great comfort to believe in SOMETHING. As a retired funeral director I would say that if the afterlife is true or not, the dying receive comfort in their faith, even if it is ultimately a delusion. So Hitchens has a lot to learn!
@galenmark Once again: source please. Having read about the shroud several times myself in the past, I was a bit surprised at this blood statement. I thought: 'have I missed that?'. So I looked it up again. Guess what, no mentioning of the blood 'staying fresh' anywhere. The 'special' antigen was the blood type AB, a standard blood type found anywhere. Also, you blood types are not directly inherited and can be different from the parents. Also you have yet to show the blood type of David.
@ScientificBob "...my epistemology is... Science." Actually, science is not an epistemology. Science is a body of knowledge. Or, as a process, science is a collection of methodologies which make varying degrees of success depending on one’s epistemology. If you want to criticize others for not following your epistemology, you might want to figure out what your epistemology is.
@tubingtheworld Interesting that the vast majority of believers became religious not as childs, but after becoming adults, hence with acquiring a wider, more in-depth view of the world.
@1977awm "Artificially separating method from theory is one of the primary errors that people make when they blunder into philosophy of science with no training..." I took senior-level Directed Reading in history of science under a leading (non-Christian) historian of biology. I'm not a specialist, but I didn't just walk in off the farm. Name-callng is no substitute for an argument.
@@Maxet-hp8ws "honestly, how can you believe infinite torture is justified for simply not willing to believe in something there is no evidence for." I don't. You get infinite Hell as a reward for trying so hard to create infinite Hell on earth, you get infinite heaven as a reward for trying to create infinite heaven on earth, that's all there is to it. "And to celebrate this concept that people, anyone, would be subjected to such a cruel punishment is disgusting imo." There is nothing more calming to the heart for those whom lives have been utterly destroyed by evil than seeing those demons being thrown into Hell, seeing with their own eyes their suffering was not for nothing, their long long patience was not for nothing, that absolute justice exists and that their cries were listened to and that God in the very end destroyed the monsters that consumed their lives forever, and that God rewarded them for their choice of standing with what is right by making them the winners and making them the inheritors of heaven. To be against this beautiful conclusion for Good and Evil is what i find disgusting.
@@Maxet-hp8ws Hitchens is just a mouth piece for the establishment to promote atheism. He knows his arguments are wrong but he presents them anyway trying to trick the masses, for him promoting atheism is good money and that's all he cares about, he is willing to destroy truth for his personnel gains. "it's not justified because a finite wrong should never be punished with infinite punishment." True but no one gets Hell for his actions, actions and deeds are secondary, deeds show how good of a place in Heaven you get or how bad of a place in Hell you get. It is the choice of the person that shows whether they are in Hell or in Heaven. Some in this life choose to commit to good and fight evil, and some choose to commit to evil and fight good. This commitment is not finite. If you take an evil person and throw him in Hell for a billion years and get him out, they will return to evil, this is the dark truth about humans you are lacking. If someone rapes your wife and child and kills them in front of you, burns your mother alive, burn your house, make you look like the culprit then throws you in prison, tortures you, mutilates you and disfigure you, makes you his slave and at old age leaves you to rot in a dark cell to die alone, doing all this while being absolutely proud of himself, never regrets it or be sorry for it, will you really forgive them? If you do then maybe you suffer from the Stockholm syndrome. If you forgives Evil then God does not, and God is the best of judges. "Besides all this there is the issue of why an all knowing, all powerfull, all good god would create these 'evil' people only to mater send them to hell" God did not create evil humans, did you ever see an evil baby? People are the ones who choose evil freely and all it is asked of them is to be good and enjoy life. So woe to them.
@@Maxet-hp8ws "there is no such thing as an atheist establishment" Let's not talk about this, this is a different topic. "I don't believe it would be just at all to condem him to hell." In Hell or not time will tell, i have my own judgment on him just like you have yours. "but I'm only human, and I would expect an all good god to be better than that." God is all good and soft and kind only for those who are good, but if you wish to destroy God and his people and his creation and make his heaven into hell then you won't find God weak. Your knowledge about Evil is still shaky, once you start to understand it more you will thank God heartedly for Hell each day and each night, that's how horrifying Evil is. I suggest you go to gore sites and watch some videos of crimes, videos are worth a thousand picture, and you will start to see the depth of the matter very quickly.
Very, very interesting, but as a Christian I would disagree with the idea of living under tyranny. My own experience has been that of great freedom and in ways that I never could have imagined, before I gave my life to Jesus. My experience has literally been that of Matthew 10:39. I think the biggest mistake people make with religion is to judge it without truly trying it for themselves.
@@TonyEnglandUK A Good question, partly answered above. I was raised a Christian but then sought to explore it in more depth later in life. I've had too many experiences to dismiss things as pure coincidence; there is no doubt, for me, though I've challenged my faith many times. I also have several Muslim friends, whose experiences are also undeniable. This is bigger than a RUclips discussion I'm afraid!
@Atheist603 oh, and another thing, natural selection requires chance, because there have to be random genetic mutations in an existing species,creating new characteristics, to be able to "naturally select" a new species in the first place! evolution isnt "just change" at a macrobiotic level, and macrobiotic evolution (between species) has NEVER been observed because the process is too slow. And the improbability of the human genome evolving within this time-frame is extraordinary
Is there anything that would change my mind? Sorry, no: The evidence pertaining to the Theory of Evolution is too overwhelming to ignore. On the other hand, a verifiable document representing a detailed blue print for the creation of Eve, signed by god would change my mind.
@@jeffforsythe9514 I didn't choose anything: It was nature's "choice" in a process occurring over billions of years. It so happened over millions of years, that my closest ancestors were apes --NOT monkeys (check out the differences) and I'm very proud of my ancestors. At least, I don't have to pray to them, worship them, suffer their whims, and praise their greatness when reality is quite far from their attempts at perfection. As to my choice, If I could choose my ancestors, I would choose dogs and their ancestors the wolves.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Thanks, but there's no luck good or bad after my death: I will be cremated and scattered somewhere, and the organic powder which were my bones will fertilize trees or plants. The End.
*(Fixed typo) I cant believe you dont understand this. If i told you that i saw a ghost at night, would you believe me without evidence just because i said i experienced one? Would my 'personal experience' be enough for you? What if a whole group of people also claimed they saw the ghost, would you believe me then? What if you even thought you saw something that looked like a ghost too? Would you believe ghosts exist then?
Actually, science is not an epistemology. Science is a body of knowledge. Or, as a process, science is a collection of methodologies which make varying degrees of success depending on one’s epistemology. If you want to criticize others for not following your epistemology, you might want to figure out what your epistemology is.
It seems to me that a great many religious people are driven to convert others to their way of thinking, feeling and being in the world rather than just allowing themselves to simply be and in the same breath accepting others just as they are. I really enjoy this man's ability to remain calm, cognizant and steadfast while the other becomes very rattled and indeed angry while attempting to justify his stance on his religious dogma. He believes he is being attacked when in actuality he is simply the being asked to provide evidence on something his religion believes to be fact. Hitchens doesn't care in the slightest what this man does or does not believe, what he is interested in is questioning events that are assumed to be true that have no explanation other than 'acceptance through blind faith'. Religions believe and accept that god exists yet not one of them can provide any evidence to back this claim. To me, and it seems that many others feel the same way, religion is a seat of power which uses fear as it's primary means of controlling/converting others. I wonder how effective that use of fear would really be if the concept of god was removed.
@galenmark Fine. If you don't wan't to discuss it anymore, I'll not force you to bare your ignorance any further. I'll just skip over the logical fallacy of thinking that if something is nice that makes it true that you just made.
cont'd...this is what I mean by experience. I fully agree that if an experience can be repeated and apprehended by numerous people, that increases the chances that this experience is legitimate and true. But this can be said also of our experience of God. I can be AS confident that God exists as I am that the physical universe exists through my direct apprehension of its/his reality.
@@Prometheus4096 Hitch said that if there were WeaponsofMassDestruction then the Iraq War was justified.What was obvious was that he had no way of knowing before hand and relied on Powell and CIA and Bush.A lesson learned but he was without fore-knowledge or belief they be Liars.
@@les-tq2sn We knew we couldn't trust the US and especially not the CIA. But, this is all moot. Even if Iraq had WMDs, that still wouldn't be an argument to invade. In fact, it would be an argument AGAINST invading. It is why right now we don't invade Russia. But I guess the 'justified' vs 'a good idea' are also not two different things. So would you say any country is justified in invading any country that does have WMDs? Or is it only justified to invade a country that is about to obtain WMDs? And not right before or right after that? This whole WMD thing makes no sense.
@1977awm "Empirical method is reliant on the assumption that knowledge is derived from sensory experience, which is philosophical empiricism." This is reductionist and misleading. Philosophical empiricism is the idea that sense perception is either the sole or fundamental means of acquiring knowledge. Science only requires that sense experience be *a* valid means of acquiring knowledge. Therefore, other philosophical systems can (and do) provide a basis for science.
@WakeUpMightyEarth "Atheist reject the belief of that claim" This doesn't work. As a kid, you believed Santa gave you presents. As an adult, you know your parents gave you the presents. However, an atheist would say "Your presents are just there. We don't know how they got there". Given the choice between believing in that and believing in Santa, many of us would choose Santa; it at least accounts for the existence of the presents!
@morpheusxnyc if the constraints are not true, you have to explain why, and on what basis atheism can assert the existence of moral truth, or meaning to life.I wasnt giving evidence for Christianity, I was explaining that atheism provides no basis for objective purpose or objective moral values. So attacking religion is not an counter-argument, its a dodge. Which just proves you cant argue for atheism, or objective moral values in the absence of God,so your forced to change the subject
well...the ultimate question/challenge for me is not how man can prove the existence of god....but how god can prove its existence to man! think about it for a min...
Theism is fn hilarious. Talking snakes, 2000 animals on a boat for a year, a guy resurrecting himself with witnesses, but no one bothered to record the date, a guy living in a fish, a God of EVERYTHING healing ONE guy and following and aiding one group of people, but ignoring 99% of the rest of the planet.
@afatdutch "personal faith is not what christians is angry about. " uh, i meant christopher not christians lol i never thought about the irony of his name.
@JacobofhouseTravillski Like if you know you're right and are on the path of 'God' then why do they get so defensive when its questioned. The truth is that deep down its just a leap of faith. The dont actually know-know.
@WakeUpMightyEarth The Sermon on the Mount is just one example of the flawless character Jesus wants us to display. "It is supposed to be the ultimate moral guide" While Jesus did teach morals, that was not His point of coming to earth. He came to take the punishment we deserve on the cross. Christianity, while it does teach high moral standards, is not about following a series of rules, but about loving others. If we have loved G-d and others, and did nothing else, we have done enough.
Whenever I've been asked what Yahweh could possibly do to prove to me he exists, I ask for something he's already supposedly done once. In their dubious effort to explain the diversity of language on Earth, the authors of Genesis assert that, when Yahweh saw humanity working together to build a tower into the heavens, he "confounded" their languages. So do it again, but in reverse! If Earth's entire population were to all suddenly, instantaneously begin speaking the same language, that would go a LONG way toward convincing me there's a greater, conscious power out there...
PCBacklash _ Our Lord God, will never go for you challenging The Almighty Creator of the universe. But I know, He will hear the humble cry of His Children in Need. I have experienced multiple times. There is no scientific explanation for this. I was there and experienced the reality of my God and Savior Jesus Christ I drove with my Jaguar from Mexico to Costa Rica. The Jaguar has a hydraulic suspension. I was driving in Honduras on a long stretch of a rough road through the wilderness. All of a sudden I could not control the steering wheel anymore. I stopped I stepped out of my car and looked at the problem and saw that oil was leaking out of my hydraulic system. The Jaguar has hydraulic suspension. My car was sitting on the tires and I could not drive it anymore. I did not know what to do because it is dangerous sitting there on a road with a broken down expensive car. I fell on my knees and cried out to my Lord. It was about 20 min later and a car stopped on a road where almost never anyone comes. A man stepped out and HAD THE BOTTLE WITH HYDRAULIC OIL in his hand. He filled my Hydraulic oil. I started my car and it came off the tires and worked again. When I stepped out to say thank you I saw the man driving away. After looking no oil dripped out. I drove 600 Mi to Costa Rica without a drop of oil leaking out. In San-Jose, Costa Rica My oil started leaking again. I was very close to a Garage where they repaired the leak. God heard my cry and send an Angel or a person I don’t know. However, God gave me to see a Miracle. I have proof in my heart that no one can understand. I have seen and felt the presence of God many times. There is no “maybe” or “maybe not.” I know it. I have lived for two years without an income with 11 small children. Every day we had enough food. My wife had to go to Holland for her mom was dying. I ordered the ticket but did not have the money I trusted my Lord would provide it. On the day I needed to pay an envelope with $1500 was in my mailbox. I needed money I sold my minivan for $6500 the person who sold it came with a van 10-year-old minivan. I asked if I could buy it from him. He said it cannot be certified it is going to the Scrapyard. I asked what do you get for it he said $200. So I bought it. I went to the Garage and left it to get an estimate for certification. They called me the next day and said it is done. I had expected a price way too high for me. How much I asked $56. They said. I drove it for 2 years. Without a problem. After 2 years I had an income again I have seen so many miracles happen before my own eyes. My wife said: “one thing of all we sold I miss, that is the antique clock.” The clock had a special sentimental value for us. I said: “let me see if I can buy one the same.” Yeah she said: “but it will never be the same.” I went to the store but there was no Clock even not one that looked like it. So I asked the owner if he still knew me. Yes, he said. So I asked if he ever gets a clock the same as I sold him. To my surprise, he answered: “It is at my house, My wife took it home.” I did get it back for the same money as I got for it. The Lord knew that my wife would miss it and kept it for us. IT IS ONLY BY THE HOLY SPIRIT that we can understand that God the Creator of all things Sent His Only Begotten Son for us to die at the cross for our sins, and come to know the forgiveness of sins for all those who put their faith and trust in Him.
@@MariusVanWoerden Just so you know, I didn't bother to read past the first few words of your drivel. I don't read copied and pasted walls of text on the internet, and I'm sure many others don't waste their time on it either. Try again.
@hellasow You are right. Each denomination is different, yet if you ask them what they believe they will probably agree with the apostles creed. Granted, they will express their beliefs differently, but that is only natural considering how many different cultures embrace Christianity and how they are able to express their beliefs. But they will all defer to the bible as the final authority. I could go on to describe how unique the bible is, but that would take space unavailable here.
@Atheist603 I'm a Christian, and I like Darwin's theory of evolution. Am I contradicting my faith? No: Christianity is not a "creation story", but a relation with G-d. Maybe G-d did use common ancestry to create species over time.
You should watch the documentary “how to answer the fool” and tell me your honest thoughts. I have found that most atheists never learn to think logically or critically, they just regurgitate what they have heard other atheists say.
@@OpenSafe17.11 i watched some of it and there is nothing special about it to prove your claim. And im not blindly following what atheists say, i have come to conclusion by studying relegion and science both. in fact u r saying things without giving a proper thougt, u r saying whatever you have heard from your parents and other people around you. If u were born in Middle east u would say Islam is true, if India then hinduism and so on.
@WakeUpMightyEarth Evolution (change over time) is a fact. However, Darwin's Theory (common ancestry) is not. 1) Natural selection only explains why a certain trait is dominant in an ecosystem. Natural selection does not produce change. 2) Genetic mutation does not cause change. It takes so long for DNA base sequences to change that there would be no reason for a trait to become dominant. 3) Irreducibly complex organisms (organisms that did not evolve) can be found in nature.
Ok ill have to try and explain this briefly over two comments. First things first, we may not be able to say for certain that other people or the external world exists, but that is irrelevant when it comes to this. Even if reality is a dream, reality is still constant or at least percieved to be by us and we can learn things about it through the scientific method in a way that does not rely on personal experience or our senses directly. (do you understand the scientific method?)
My goodness. His brain. Wouldn’t it be great if they could study his brain after his death. No think so. Whatever gave him that brain, and believers would say god, but whatever, fascinating
@YeahItsKurt Same here, I'm an Athiest, and while I may not agree with the religious folks, I'd defend to my death their right to believe in whatever they want.. So long as they don't interfere or pretend to know about things outside of faith.
@Regainish My point is rather simple. Everyone HAS a religion...even the atheist! Philosophically and logically, all of us have a 'worldview' of which determines how we see and grasp and understand the world/universe in which we live. Thusly, everyone has an appeal to some authority in order to make sense of this worldview. In which case, whatever that authority is...it becomes the grounding for what ultimate beliefs/religion, the person will hold to....
@thefutureboom no problems mate.... just wanted to clarify....... some people seem to think the best way to counter act extreme dogmatic idealism is with more extreme dogmatic idealism......
But slithering, that's just the point. Craig argues no such thing. Yes, he believes in the miracles of the Bible, but he does not argue them to be true from quantum physics. His arguments, for the most part, are simple, valid syllogisms. In order for the atheist to show that denial of his conclusions is MORE REASONABLE than acceptance of his conclusions, the atheist MUST ADDRESS THE PREMISES (read caps as italics). This is what Hitchens and you fail to do while assuming you've rebutted.
Julian calendar (or old style) was used up until the mid 1700's. The switched to the Georgian calendar (new style) 3 years after the birth of Jefferson
@TheKap1an The golden period you were talking about of Arabic (don't try to sell off Islam as a race or a culture) wealth, science and prosperity lasted between the 9th and 12th century where Baghdad was the intellectual pluralistic center of the world with Muslims, Christians, Jews, doubters (atheists) and all other kinds of creeds and opinions, but then it was decided in the 12th century that blasphemy, God and Islam were more important than philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, pluralism...
@ScientificBob " It's important because you missed my point entirely." That's certainly possible. I'm not sure what position you're trying to take. I can't tell if you're advancing an Empiricism in the tradition of Hume or Russell or a kind of Pragmatism or something else altogether. What *is* your epistemology?
@TheKap1an #1. Rashidun & Ummayyid Caliphs-Look it up #2. The Arab Siege of Constantinople in 719. #3. Caliph Uthman invaded Sicily in 652. Couldn't keep it. Prince Habib finally took all of Sicily in 728. #4. Al Arslan took over all of former Byzantian Anatolia (Your land) The battle of Nanzikert in 1071 cemented his conquest. #5. 639, Abd‑er‑Rahman invaded Armenia & ruled for 200 years. #6. Tariq Ibn Ziyad invaded Spain in 711 and conquered 90% of Iberia. This is only 2nd & 3rd Caliphs.
Moyga, I would say that given such a person's experience, it is REASONABLE for HIM to assume that a god exists. I may push him to remain agnostic about the specifics of who this "god" was until he had done some further inquiry. But I would NOT say he is UNREASONABLE for thinking god exists on the basis of his immediate experience any more than I would say one is unreasonable for thinking the physical world exists on the basis of his immediate experience (contd)
@Aaron1Genesis Your belief in a grand creator is because people are capable of thought and having imaginations and are capable of coming up with an idea that is far beyond their own capabilities. Just because I can think I can fly under my own power, doesn't mean I actually can. And looking around all I realize is that this world is shit, but I should do what I can to make the best of what I have. There is nothing that makes me think there is a purpose or something beyond the physical.
Miss him so much !!! RIP you magnificent man !!!!!
How can he RIP, if he no longer exists?
The trick is to make sure that what you want to believe doesn't affect what you accept as true.
Kids. This is how your brain works, when you read a lot.
no, you read alot if your brain works. there is a difference
@@Legendaryium You're assuming that just because your brain works, you'll read a lot.
@@Bodybeautiful your brain isnt going to work differenty because you read
@@Legendaryium that’s like saying your body won’t perform differently if you exercise
@@steele.c.hartmann you know you cant train your brain right? hahaha
reading doest make your brain bigger, or give you more braincells LMFAO
He was a bloody genius, much missed
He was certainly NO genius
What!??? A fool to the core
Based on what?
By the way, what did angels LACK for in heaven? To have pride?
He looks ill and to be on medication. What would prove God to you . Nothing. Then attacks the other guy saying he is insecure in he's belief.
You would think he would loose all credibility as a result of hes incredibly stupid answer. But no , they keep saying hitch is great.
You would have to have your head up your arse to not see he has a health proublem and it is affecting hes answers. This atleast gives him an excuse.
The other guys excuse is that he has two source's of imformation, one is science. This alone shows an inteligence responsible for the encoded DNA strand. But no , still not enough. The other is the bible. This has no evidence for a loving all good God and frankly should be enough for us all to want to hide from its murdering arse hole God. But no millions love this dip shit still.
So these two are a perfect match up. Thou with these two in the chairs, you can be certain of one thing , the debate will be a waste of breath.
I love to keep putting the father to the test as he instructs me to do. But please let's stop insulting him with people with such low caliber as this hitch and that .....other chap.
That half bible should leave no doubt its god is an arse hole not worthy of worshipping. But no, dumb insecure morons keep him proped up with their blind no faith worship
What's the devil got to do to stain gods image in there minds 😂🤣😂🤣😅😃😆😂🤣😂🤣
@Deus Vult so you're saying that not-collecting stamps is a hobby, Not-wearing clothes is a fashion, and Not-playing a basketball is a sport, bald is a hair colour, abstinence is a s *e* x act, off is the channel on the television, Unemployed is a job, healthy is a disease, clear is a colour, and bare foot is a type of shoe
Shame we lost a great mind.
All we can hope for is to inspired by his way of thinking and try to follow in his footsteps, if not surpass them.
I miss this man dearly.
Especially now with Trump and coronavirus
Losing Hitchens was a tragedy.
@1:38 "religion works for most people because you have people in a sense do want it to be true"
I think one of the main reasons that religion 'works' is groupthink. Alot of people just go along with the crowd.
A lot of people rationalize that if they are surrounded by people who are doing something or that appear to believe something, that there must or at least might be something to it.
Thats why they are jesus' flock and him their shepherd.
Some people need religion, and some people discover later in life that they don't need it. Few of us have a chance early in life to avoid it completely.
I've talked with some of my religious coworkers and it seems like it only "works" because they do whatever they want anyway. They don't actually care what it says or what it tells them not to do, they'll interpret it in whatever way suits whatever they wanted to do in the first place and that's good enough for them. Getting them to recognize it is also pretty much impossible.
@@aliensoup2420 some people may need a sense of community or purpose, which can be provided by religion, but you don't need religion for that
I would agree with most of these comments. People should never do something just because others do. They should try it for themselves, give it their best shot, and make their own minds up. But the point of the Bible is to do what Jesus taught, not what we want. That's the point - we don't get to make the rules. By the way, I am a Christian.
Hitchens is such a genius I've been browsing youtube for months now looking at his videos and till this day I learn new things from him.
Yes 10 years later he's still teaching me as hes new energy today. So profoundly simple.
@@darrenthomas1000 Watch his latest video before he died, where he talks about love
Atheists are like gay men, rejecting beauty. Very sad.
So how exactly did that make him a genius?
The only thing to learn from Hitchens is a verbal jiu jitsu in argumentation.
Wished Hitchens was still alive, great human being.
He's already dead since 2011 bro. Rip the great mind
@@kerduslegend2644 That's why he said 'wished' duhh
@@JohnSmith-ty4di ever heard of "being realistic"?
@@kerduslegend2644 oh dear.
@@JohnSmith-ty4di you know what? F *u* ck this. You'll end up debating me and so on an so forth
So here's the conclusion. I'm wrong, and you're right about everything. Cuz screw this I'm out a here. i have no time to stick my head on someone who *always* looking for trouble like you.
If you want to talking s *h* it about some sh *i* t that i don't and i don't want to care then go ahead. And if you want to continue to mock me then go ahead, I'll never gona listen to you in the first place cuz I'll gona silent your notifications
Happy talk to yourself
Holy crap, he actually smiled a little bit at the end...
Just the evil in him.
@@jeffforsythe9514 ok jeff
You HAVE shown me to think that way Hitchens! Man, I wish I could have told him that...
I hope he had a good asbestos suit.
@@jeffforsythe9514 You have a primitive creator god in 2022.
The main thing to take from Hitchens is not how to think, but to think for yourself.
Helped me & I'm forever indebted!
Jesus this is just absolute destruction out there... Hitchens is ruthless...
can't help but love it
Just another bitter gay man probably.
It's way past time for the destruction of the Jesus story.
1. There has never been an acceptable non-biblical proof that Jesus existed, or any of the stories about him contain any truth at all.
2. At the time in question, the name was not in use, or existence.
So go ahead and demolish the untrue stories.
@@Fritz999Pity on u fool
Such a mighty intellect! No wonder so many need religion. They simply cannot bear to think for themselves. Way too threatening.Religion was just invented by mere men. Many not very bright. Religion is so cosy & comforting. Even if it’s all made up!
Basically he answered it at the end.
If there was evidence, we would have found it by now.
No one has, and no one ever will.
@@ronnie7390 Oh, it's miracles you say?
How about the miracles witnessed by thousands by Sathya Sai Baba (1)? Science can't explain those either. So, I guess, by your "logic" Sathya is divine?
Or, what about the miracles performed by that great fraud Benny Hinn? (2) You telling me you believe this nonsense?
Oh, wait a minute, let's be honest about the process here...
Were these "miracles" you mention ever performed in front of scientist? Or are you expecting a physicist or biologist to explain what happened based on some rando's recounting of the tale. There's a great story about some scientists being mystified by some dude levitating a matchbox. "Science can't explain it! It must be telekenisis!" Then Randi shows up and teaches them all a thing or two (3).
Heck, even the testimony of the people to which it HAPPENED are not reliable. Take a look at the "miracle" (hahahahahahah) of the rosary in Hiroshima. Four, count them, FOUR priests survived the Hiroshima atomic blast unscathed! It MUST be solely because of the devotion to the rosary which they were doing at the time. Science can't explain it! Except, no wait, science can. They weren't unscathed. Their house was reinforced. Etc, etc, etc. (4)
At best your argument is little more than a God Of The Gaps argument (5). Science can't explain X, therefore my pan-galactic prestidigitator MUST be real.
Finally, Hitchens followed around Mother Theresa and exposed this "saint" for the fraud she was (6), so your claim he hasn't looked into their lives is utterly suspect. How do you know he has never looked into them? You are talking about a man who can quote, from memory, great biblical scholars such as Rambam (I would be shocked if you even know this person's real name without looking it up), Aquinas, Luther, etc etc etc. He even addresses the pathetic fallacy of Pascal's Wager, which you put forth as your closing argument for God many times (7).
In short, I suspect you, like everybody religious I have ever met, are making false assertions and assumptions. I think you are stating as fact that which you do not know to be fact, and most likely that which you know is NOT fact. I feel you are lying to support your religion. Please, provide me with sources that shows Hitchens is "short sighted" as you claim and did not look at, or study, saints and miracles. Please, prove me wrong in my suspicions. I beg you.
Please don't just be another Liar For God.
(1) - saibaba.ws/miracles.htm
(2) - ruclips.net/video/k6uj1KYTlrg/видео.html
(3) - ruclips.net/video/SbwWL5ezA4g/видео.html
(4) - ruclips.net/video/siCEByV9F7Y/видео.html
(5) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
(6) - slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/10/the-fanatic-fraudulent-mother-teresa.html
(7) - ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=hitchens+pascals+wager
Correction: it was EIGHT jesuit priests not four. I posted relying solely on my memory of a video I have seen a few times. Weird...
It's almost as if human memory is fallible and can't be relied on.
I sure wish somebody would create a process that helps eliminate those errors and keeps us free from superstition and fantasy...
@@mikehill1114 Utter evisceration with sources to boot. Hitchens would be proud, my friend.
@@Elessar. Thank you :) I try.
Well I guess then we should stop looking for Dark Matter Dark Energy and extraterrestrial civilizations because if they existed we would have found evidence by now I guess we should stop any kind of scientific research because after all if we haven't found a new discovery by now then there must be no new discoveries to be made also he still didn't actually answer the question the question isn't do you believe evidence will be found the question was what evidence would convince you
I laughed a lot when Christopher so elegantly said "That was his biiiiiiiiig mistake", at the end of the clip. :)
Once you become a true atheist you’ll never go back
What a false fool statement 😂. Poor guy
@@IAMJ1B na the fool is you
What a silly guy
Christian here: I love Hitchens. He's so blunt and he's so well articulated and he says things we Christians need to hear, wrestle with, and think about.
Nah he spewing bs
@@jj2059 A humble pursuit of the truth is hardly BS compared to arrogantly laying claim to it.
Sterling Streetlamp if only that were the case
You’re not really a Christian then
@@jaredjx With the benefit of 9 years more experience, I can respond.
Yes I am, random anime fan.
1. Who told you religion (any of the many) was true?
2. Who made you believe it wasn't?
1. Family/church school/priest etc
2. No one made you do that. It was you when you turned your brain on.
@Llama Treee I'm not claiming religious people are are stupid or not intelligent. No doubt, we all know some highly qualified believers.
"Turning your brain on" is saying that folks need to think through the evidence and why they are religious. If no one told you to be religious, you'd struggle to believe the statements in the religous texts with logical thought.
Faith is what we are told is a virtue by religious people or our parents.
@Llama Treee Cheers for the reply. The claims in the Old Testament about creation the earth and lifeforms are scientifically disproven.
The book claims to be the unarguably word of God so if we know that the main claims are disproved, we should ignore the rest of the book. If it was released today, we'd call it a book of mythology as we now have our vast knowledge of geology, biology, physics and chemistry to show its claims are untrue.
However, it is part of western culture and so it's ingrained in society. This is where people either stick with it, because it's a thing that we have known since birth or we pause and look at it logically and from a distance.
@Llama Treee The books of the bible make good films. Religion hasn't been removed as of yet so Hitchens et al haven't quite convinced the believers that it's not true.
There are billions of Christian, Jews and Muslims that still hold the book to be real to some degree or other.
@Llama Treee I just stick with the Abrahamic religions as I know of the books and stories better than Hinduism as that's the schooling and upbringing I've had.
Most atheists dont parrot those two examples just like stereotypes about religious people being stupid are incorrect...
Religion is still prevalent in the west and the majority of US citizens are Christians and nearly every president has been as well.
The UK has a religious head of state and most state functions such are religious to some degree.
Islam is strong as there is a lot of pressure for muslims to remain one from the islamic societies. They don't want their followers to think or have the freedom of choice.
Any club that forces you to be a member is not a club that is confident in its beliefs.
@Llama Treee When a country is ruled by a religion as in Saudi, Iran and Pakistan, religous leaders are powerful.
See how they treat dissenters and blasphemers for the reason why the people carry on being Islamic.
If people were left to pick their religion or not to have one without external pressure, lots of people wouldn't choose the one they are at the moment.
See Northern Ireland for a Christian example. Being Catholic or Protestant is not a personal choice for most people.
@1977awm "Empirical method is reliant on the assumption that knowledge is derived from sensory experience, which is philosophical empiricism."
This statement suffers from a fallacy of vagueness:
>>>Empirical methods rely on the assumption that *some* knowledge can be gained (at least in part) from sensory experience.
>>>Empricism as a general theory of knowledge holds that *all* knowledge is based on sensory experience.
Of course, you know the difference between "some" and "all."
Yes, produce this fancy god of yours.
One of my favorite human beings.
He mocked Jesus Christ and God's salvation plan. Terrible.
@@3joewj Of course he mocked the Bible, it's a book full of hogwash and he finally stood up and said so.
@@TonyEnglandUK now you did the same.
This man was brilliant!
@Edward Monix Because he didn’t have to ask ‘Why?’
Yes, like a twenty watt bulb.
I never understood why a constellation only visible in the Northern Hemisphere should determine my birth, life and death here in the Southern Hemisphere....?
Would it be any less absurd if a constellation in the southern hemisphere determined those things?
@@undercoverbrother67 - not at all 🤪
Happy belated, Christopher!
What would change their mind:
Ken Ham - nothing
Kent Hovind - nothing
Hitchensen and Bill Nye - evidence
Which means nothing. Because these guys know they have created a situation in which there can be no evidence.
@@muneebi8273 how have they created anything ?
@@muneebi8273 They have not. They've merely set up the lab for the "Creation Scientists," which is just a bogus term for creationist apologists, for them to test, in a scientific manner, their 'theories' of the universe.
In order for a hypothesis to become a theory, you need to provide a list of facts, physical evidence, an act of physics and so forth that suggest that something operates a certain way, and that only if your hypothesis was correct should we find evidence of A being true.
The problem that creationists have is that they attempt to use their holy books as evidence, not just of themselves, but of the mythical beings described.
If you show me a copy of, say, The King James translation of the 'holy bible,' then I would be forced to admit that the copy of that book exists in that place and time, as we can all see it, touch it, read it if we so wish. The same can be said of Harry Potter, and of Grimm's Fairy Tales, and so it does not mean that the contents of the book are real, you have to show it.
"Well, what about the dead sea scrolls/the bible's testimony!? Are you calling Moses a liar!?!?"
Does Harry Potter exist? No? Why not? He's in a popular and well-read series of books! But the location of London exists! That means that there must be a Leaky Cauldron, a Diagon Alley, and a Hogwarts, right? The point I'm trying to make is how utterly ridiculous it is for anyone to suggest that the characters, events, and history as interpreted by a book written by human authors is an accurate statement of reality for certain.
If you claim that creation needs a creator, you've made a logical fallacy. Watchmakers fallacy. Does reality need a realtor?
@Vinnie P. Well, that would certainly be something, and if such a thing were to happen in modern times, and it was demonstrable that he was the creator end all be all of the universe, something that only a God could 'prove' then I would have to agree with you, especially if he told us exactly how life began, and begin helping us solve all of the problems that humans find themselves in. I would not say, though, that he should write things that we could not ever possibly understand. Otherwise, if we were intended to read that work, what would be the point in writing it? Give humanity some credit. If a divine being wrote a book then there would only be one such tome, and everyone would come together as one to study such work. Such a shame that it isn't the world we find ourselves in with thousands of conflicting denominations of dozens of conflicting religions.
Even if such a god were to exist, it wouldn't be the god of the bible. It couldn't be, since the god of the bible has said and done in that work alone hundreds of contradictions. It wouldn't disprove evolution, either, but he could potentially tell us how life evolves, and even draw up pictures or create a working model of ancient and extinct species for us to study. However, if he tells us that he created evolution, and this world, as a test for mortal goodness, then that god would make everything we call reality meaningless.
@Vinnie P. I treat it as though they do not exist, and have no effect on daily life. I wouldn't like it if it ever was that the Abrahamic god ever did exist outside of stories.
Legend 👍🏴
If Objectivity is the real truth or not doesn't matter, it is objectively verifiable. That is why it is a collective truth, maybe not a real truth but that is irrelevant for our lives. If the truth lies beyond our experience it doesn't matter.
As a Christian I agree with Christopher, there isn’t a scientific argument for religion. The argument for religion is based on faith and moral pragmatism but not science or rationality.
Garehn Kalloghlian and so does atheisms there is more proof for Creation than for Evolution.
There is absolutely Zero evidence for Evolution. It starts with an impossible Big Bang. Why Are Venus And Uranus Spinning in The Wrong Direction? God did that to make evolution look stupid.
Let's look at what some scientists, who have worked in the realm of secular science, have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism. We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said.... "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. Now I need to add, that the next words in this quote from Muller are "Nevertheless it can be inferred...." He then goes on to to say that even though the actual experiments and evidence don't show mutations creating "evolution", still he believes it anyway! This is the totally typical approach in evolutionism. If you data doesn't match the theory - and it never does - you simply ignore it or replace it with a theory, with conjectures, with "inferences."
Ya gotta give a nod to evolution to get ahead in the politically correct, viciously self protective world where Neo Darwinism reigns. Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing.
As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc.
But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of Nat Sel. In other words show that a species in any genus went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) to become a new Family. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past, over and over and over. Why don't we see any species in any genus transitioning to become a member of a new animal or plant family today? If there is no evidence that any life form's descendants transitioned to become a different family than its ancestors, then there is no evidence for evolution. It's just that simple. But feel free to cite data revealing any such evidence if you can.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.) "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
@@MariusVanWoerden the very reason that evolution stands up to what it is right now is because it's backed up by many elites in the field of science. You can't select quotes from a few scientists and disregard all the other major findings of many other renowned scientists just because it supports your views. You need to provide evidence from both sides if you want to convince anyone. For every scientist that rejects evolution which I really doubt, there's thousands of others that will provide you with credible facts that it did occur. As for the "missing links" you mentioned, that has been a famous term used 10-20 years ago which doesn't apply anymore for they have found numerous fossils of the "links" so argued about.
@@MariusVanWoerden forgive me for not having any scientific citations, but there are a few examples of evolution in today’s world, 3 of the top of my head.
1. Bananas used to have seeds, humans breaded them out be selecting the bananas with smaller or fewer seeds, the seeded bananas could be found in the medieval period. This counteracts the notion that the genome being passed down throught generations is purely recycled and there is no new code being written, fruits and veggies have actually been specifically selected for decades to be bigger and sweeter. Side note when a horse wins a race they keeps the sperm of the horse and sell it for a high price, so the it is reasonable that due to human selection horses have become faster in the last generation, this kind of selection would happen in nature by a means of the fastest horse escaping it’s prey and therefore mate.
2. ruclips.net/video/mcM23M-CCog/видео.html is a RUclips video about finch’s, essentially a group of scientists took some finch’s to an island and observed the measures they took to survive, over generations they observed that the finch’s had beak shapes that better suited the diet that the peticular island could provide.
3. The Flu evolves every year, it “mutates”( not accidentally) to be able to penetrate our immune systems better, in the medical world bacterial evolution is a presupposition and is always considered when prescribing an antibiotic of any bacterial medicine. In a medical context taking medicine makes the environment radically harsh and kills most of the disease however the strongest part of the virus survives and adapts the become a super virus which is immune the the medicine, this is an example of natural selection in out bodies
A side note, there was a vid I watched where someone programmed an ai stick figure to learn how to run, he made a hundred stick figures and selected the on that got furthest to clone and slightly mutate 100 times and over 50 generations it learnt how to run.
In terms of the Big Bang or creationism, I don’t really care, I live my life as though God exists, I’ll I don’t think about thinks that I cannot know.
@@MariusVanWoerden debate Aron ra on this one. Let’s see if your ability to disprove evolution can withhold
@@MariusVanWoerden show me an ark that withstood water pressure of a 40 day rain with animals that eat meat rooming with other animals.
Wait. You won’t be able to show it because you know it’s bs.
Don't argue with Hitch unless you have really thought about your subject because he has.
Love this man.
Moyga,
I'm reasonably confident that your use of the phrase "epic fail" after having NOT addressed my point scratches some childhood urge, but aside from making you feel good about yourself, it gets us no where.
I'm not advocating methodological doubt...precisely the opposite. I'm saying that experience MUST be a reliable means to knowledge or we would know nothing. And I am asserting that we DO know things...including that God exists...through experience.
there is no 'commitment to the belief' of atheismsince atheism isnt a belief
an atheist is simply 'someone who _doesnt_ believe in gods' and we dont _choose_ to not believe in them, therefore cannot 'commit' to it
You do choose.
It's not a matter of conscious control. Belief or non-belief is the sub-conscious reaction to the evidence and information provided. Religion is the "choice". Atheism is the reality.
William Scheydecker it's not. either you're convinced or not. nothing to choose. well you can lie to yourself but that isn't really believing something.
GodsArePeopleToo there’s a difference between not believing in god and believing that god doesn’t exist
Rubbish! We all have a worlview. Its how we makes sense
of reality, this world and our place in it. Atheists' version of why there is something rather than nothing:
Aka "creation". In the "beginning" there were pre-existent particles that popped into and out of existence (for an eternity, if something exists now). Some particles joined together to form molecules. More of these particles formed highly complex information rich molecules that by some incredibly long, blind, unguided, goal-less, intelligent-less process produced a sentient, moral, rationally intelligent lifeform that perceived of God. And so the pursuit of transcendence has been the most dominant issue in all human history. But man wanted to play God so he could pursue all those banal, hedonistic desires free of condemnation or judgement. Such is the * unyielding despair for those who want to believe they're no more than a meaningless collocation of atoms* a la Bertrand Russell's blunt assessment of human existence without ultimate purpose, hope or destiny..
I am a nobody with nothing form nowhere but I have been gracefully endowed with some incredible attributes, who put it there or how it got there I can not answer but I am gratified by it's presence, does it need to be expressed in a book, I think that will cause reverse engineering. First there is a feeling then comes a thought about the feeling and finally a written word. Books try to reverse that process. And that causes a problem. If you don't know it is OK to be ignorant until you know.
Anything that would change your mind? Yeah, how about God Himself taking 5 seconds out of His schedule to pop His head out among the clouds and say, "Yes, hello all! I exist!" But even that is apparently not allowed by the rules. Convenient, eh?
@@user73222 Can you understand how lame that sounds from a "show me the evidence" person's point of view? Literally 5 seconds out of God's schedule just to prove that He exists would have a *P R O F O U N D* impact on the world, yet instead us puny humans have to argue for His existence? It makes no sense.
@@user73222 Let me ask you a simple question. How you answer it will determine how we proceed: Do you think you would have the same beliefs you have now if you had been born and raised in some other part of the world by parents of a different belief?
And I know of no atheist who would actually say that if 100% proof of God's existence was shown to them that they would still refuse to believe. That makes no sense since atheists don't believe in God for precisely the reason that there ISN'T any proof!
@@user73222 Adam had not yet eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so he can not be blamed for making the wrong choice. Also, isn't it interesting that the serpent tells Adam and Eve the truth (that they would NOT die and that they would have their eyes opened - even God says so in the following verses) and God does not? God tells them that they will DIE if they eat of that fruit, but Adam didn't die for another 930 years.
@@user73222 So God reveals himself only to the people who already believe he exists? Isn't that how UFO and Bigfoot sightings work, too? No, this is moving the goalposts: There is no logical reason why God, who supposedly WANTS the world to believe he exists, can't just SHOW himself to the world and not just to people who already believe in a talking snake, the universe being created in 6 days, talking donkeys, an impossible ark story, etc. *Think of the PROFOUND positive impact it would have on the world if it could be shown, 100%, that God exists and has just been hiding behind the proverbial curtain all these centuries.*
@@user73222 Meh, still personal beliefs. There's a statue of Mary somewhere that everyone swears moves when you watch it for a while, so a news crew went there to check it out. They observed and, sure enough, the statue seemed to move! But, when they set the camera on a tripod and filmed it, the motion stopped completely: It was the subtle swaying of the people themselves that was creating the apparent motion.
@1977awm "Just out of curiosity, how did you determine that empiricism is an 'unsuccessful' epistemology?"
Well, empiricism has failed to answer several basic problems:
1) the problem of universals
2) the egocentric predicament
3) the problem of induction
In the wake of the refutation of the empiricist theory of concept formation (Sellars, Wittgenstein), it is hard to see how a consistent empiricist can claim to know *anything.*
What a pity he is not with us anymore. QT on the BBC last week with its apologetic sycophants was lame to say the least. Unfortunately he cannot be replaced.
Don't worry, there are many misguided souls around to take his place.
Totally agree about the faith thing: SAY IT, dammit. Instead these extreme religious folks keep trying to "prove" religion where there is no proof. What happens then is that they are embarrassed once again and most of the time they are too shameless to acknowledge it.
It's even stupider when you consider Christianity is supposed to be based on faith and not evidence
The Bible is essentially a big book of claims that there once was evidence, which you are to take on faith despite the lack of evidence
They used to think of faith as a feature. Now it’s considered a bug.
When it comes to origins, the secularist has just as much faith as the religious person. The secularist doesn't know, so they speculate that it all happened by chance. Neither side KNOWS, they take a position without positive proof.
@@meb280 Aside from a few weird things that we still don't understand, no "secularist" thinks anything happens by chance. An atheist merely believes that there is not sufficient proof to posit God as the origin of the universe. I don't know what it actually is. Maybe it is God. I don't pretend to know definitively, so I don't know what position you're claiming I'm taking.
@@meb280 Exactly like WaterCat said, science doesnt take faith at all you can understand every bit of it down to the very beginning of evidence and reason. Science is the opposite of faith and if you dont understand that you are just naiive and probably have an underdeveloped frontal lobe.
People talk about missing relatives who have passed on. They talk about what they would give if only they could talk with their parents again, their grandparents again, etc. But it’s different for me. What I wouldn’t give to spend an hour talking with Hitchens now.
I agree but I also have no idea what I would say to him. Watching him speak at one of these event type things would be enough for me.
@1234 abcd Maybe they don't get along with their family, I've heard people in that position say things like that before. Reserve judgement before you go around claiming "you're disrespecting your family" to strangers.
@1234 abcd My father was a drug addicted rapist who mercilessly beat his children on a daily basis. He killed one of them. The rest of the family hid it and enabled it, threatening us survivors to keep quiet and even to consider it normal. Oddly, I was never very close to any of them.
Hitchens’ writings helped me understand, among other things, how religion has warped people to allow this sort of thing to continue. So yes, I’d rather talk to Hitchens.
Now, if you would like to spend an hour with any deceased member of my family, please feel free to conjure them. You might actually get on well.
@1234 abcd Then why does a talking identity from a book mean more to people than their family?
I enjoy his viewpoint as he defends it / explains it, not shallow in ability to support it...tanks for sharing
Going solely on the title of this video.............it's a one word answer..................proof
Spoken as a true atheist, no evidence will convince me of a Divine Creator. For those who believe no evidence is necessary, for those who do not, no evidence is sufficient.
"no evidence will convince me of a Divine Creator". Not to be rude, but that is very ignorant
@@arunmoses2197 well first you have to have evidence for him to be ignorant of it
@@MrTheclevercat No. He is ignorant of any evidence that will be given, therefore he is ignorant
@@arunmoses2197 He's actually looked at all of the evidence and found that there isn't any. The point of the question is asking if there is a chance he will be religious one day in a wishy washy way or to get him to say "we can't know" and the answer is we do know. There is nothing that needs magic to explain it that has ever happened.
@@MrTheclevercat "He's actually looked at all of the evidence and found that there isn't any". First of all, how do you know? Also, are you waiting for me to give evidence or something?
"The point of the question is asking if there is a chance he will be religious one day in a wishy washy way or to get him to say "we can't know" and the answer is we do know. There is nothing that needs magic to explain it that has ever happened." I would like to see your evidence
I really miss this guy, and I wonder what he would have had to say about the age of Trump, Trump himself and Trump's charmless personality hold on so many millions of people.
@george chapelle Probably. He was highly critical of virtually all politicians or people in positions of power.
The 2016 election would have been interesting because Hitchens hated the Clintons but I imagine he would have hated a corrupt incompetent like Trump even more.
His personality was cringe-inducing to many of his voters. It was his policies which were correct and right. A few more years and those manipulated by leftist propaganda, like yourself, will perhaps learn the hard way. You’re voting for your own destruction and subjugation.
@@utoobia Bwahaha!!! That's the funniest thing I've read this month! Policies? What policies? Except for cutting taxes on the mega-rich what other campaign promises did he accomplish? Fix healthcare ("It'll be easy.", "It'll be better and cheaper than ObamaCare", etc) with full Republican control of all three branches of government for two full years: Nothing. Build the wall with Mexico paying for it? Nope. Make America Great again? If by "great" you mean alienating our longtime allies while cozying up to and praising dictators, stirring up hate by taking a "fuck you" approach to the rest of the world and every other despicable trait he stood for, sure.
He will go down in history as one of the greatest failures ever. A man who thought way more of himself than he deserved, who demanded loyalty from those around him while giving none in return. A man who LOVED to criticize others but absolutely could not tolerate any criticism himself. A small man in a big body.
@@JustWasted3HoursHere ....What a nice, alternate reality you leftist Dems have created for yourselves. You probably think he’s a racist and a Nazi too, right? So the LOWEST unemployment rate for blacks, women and Hispanics in a half century isn’t anything? Four Middle East peace deals? And the wall was being built though, wasn’t it? Tariffs that hammered the evil CCP? I’ve got dozens more, you ignorant guzzler of propaganda. He also foiled several set-ups by the left. But, yeah, he’s an asshole. And he’s weird. Don’t care, when the alternative is authoritarian-worshipping, mindless sheep such as yourself.
Turek is the worst of all. "If Jesus rose from the dead, then what he said is true." Nope. If what he said is true, then what he said is true. But if people believe that he rose from the dead and THAT is why they believe his words, then there is probably no truth whatsoever in his teachings.
Then we should also take the words of Baal and Osris as true.
Christopher "Eat 'em Alive" Hitchens.
1 minute ago
Biggest problem with Hitchens is that he seems OBSESSED with discrediting all religions, their faith, and their followers. What he clearly fails to understand is that for many people, particularly those who are actively dying, it is a great comfort to believe in SOMETHING.
As a retired funeral director I would say that if the afterlife is true or not, the dying receive comfort in their faith, even if it is ultimately a delusion.
So Hitchens has a lot to learn!
Who on Earth told you that the dying have an explicit duty to listen to the views of Christopher Hitchens?
@galenmark Once again: source please.
Having read about the shroud several times myself in the past, I was a bit surprised at this blood statement. I thought: 'have I missed that?'. So I looked it up again. Guess what, no mentioning of the blood 'staying fresh' anywhere. The 'special' antigen was the blood type AB, a standard blood type found anywhere. Also, you blood types are not directly inherited and can be different from the parents. Also you have yet to show the blood type of David.
@ScientificBob "...my epistemology is... Science."
Actually, science is not an epistemology. Science is a body of knowledge. Or, as a process, science is a collection of methodologies which make varying degrees of success depending on one’s epistemology.
If you want to criticize others for not following your epistemology, you might want to figure out what your epistemology is.
@tubingtheworld Interesting that the vast majority of believers became religious not as childs, but after becoming adults, hence with acquiring a wider, more in-depth view of the world.
@1977awm "Artificially separating method from theory is one of the primary errors that people make when they blunder into philosophy of science with no training..."
I took senior-level Directed Reading in history of science under a leading (non-Christian) historian of biology. I'm not a specialist, but I didn't just walk in off the farm.
Name-callng is no substitute for an argument.
Merry Hitchmas one and all.
@ItsSolaFide Here is a fact. Religious text refers to men who wake from the dead, bushes and snakes that talk and horses that fly. Real adult context.
I love Hitchens, he tells it how it is. My best wishes to him and hope he sticks around for a long time. We need him.
Where he go?
@@ishiishi7351 he died
@@Frank-hw3fd yes, unfortunately
Not because I wish for him to speak falsehood, but because I wish not for his soul to burn as it is now
@@muaylekok
That’s the worst thing about religion. It fills the living with sick thoughts like that.
@@muaylekokSouls don't exist. He was a biological organism just like you and eventually you and I will be dead ones just like him. 🐑🧠👍🏻
All the audio engineers squirming in their chairs.
I sometimes wish there was a heaven... just so I could imagine Hitch looking down and shaking his head at the insanity happening in the world.
Well dont you think that he is partly quilty of this insanity? I see this whats going on as efect of nihilistic world view atheists promotes.
There is, and he is now shaking his head but not in heaven ..
@@Maxet-hp8ws "honestly, how can you believe infinite torture is justified for simply not willing to believe in something there is no evidence for."
I don't. You get infinite Hell as a reward for trying so hard to create infinite Hell on earth, you get infinite heaven as a reward for trying to create infinite heaven on earth, that's all there is to it.
"And to celebrate this concept that people, anyone, would be subjected to such a cruel punishment is disgusting imo."
There is nothing more calming to the heart for those whom lives have been utterly destroyed by evil than seeing those demons being thrown into Hell, seeing with their own eyes their suffering was not for nothing, their long long patience was not for nothing, that absolute justice exists and that their cries were listened to and that God in the very end destroyed the monsters that consumed their lives forever, and that God rewarded them for their choice of standing with what is right by making them the winners and making them the inheritors of heaven.
To be against this beautiful conclusion for Good and Evil is what i find disgusting.
@@Maxet-hp8ws Hitchens is just a mouth piece for the establishment to promote atheism. He knows his arguments are wrong but he presents them anyway trying to trick the masses, for him promoting atheism is good money and that's all he cares about, he is willing to destroy truth for his personnel gains.
"it's not justified because a finite wrong should never be punished with infinite punishment."
True but no one gets Hell for his actions, actions and deeds are secondary, deeds show how good of a place in Heaven you get or how bad of a place in Hell you get. It is the choice of the person that shows whether they are in Hell or in Heaven. Some in this life choose to commit to good and fight evil, and some choose to commit to evil and fight good. This commitment is not finite. If you take an evil person and throw him in Hell for a billion years and get him out, they will return to evil, this is the dark truth about humans you are lacking.
If someone rapes your wife and child and kills them in front of you, burns your mother alive, burn your house, make you look like the culprit then throws you in prison, tortures you, mutilates you and disfigure you, makes you his slave and at old age leaves you to rot in a dark cell to die alone, doing all this while being absolutely proud of himself, never regrets it or be sorry for it, will you really forgive them? If you do then maybe you suffer from the Stockholm syndrome. If you forgives Evil then God does not, and God is the best of judges.
"Besides all this there is the issue of why an all knowing, all powerfull, all good god would create these 'evil' people only to mater send them to hell"
God did not create evil humans, did you ever see an evil baby? People are the ones who choose evil freely and all it is asked of them is to be good and enjoy life. So woe to them.
@@Maxet-hp8ws
"there is no such thing as an atheist establishment"
Let's not talk about this, this is a different topic.
"I don't believe it would be just at all to condem him to hell."
In Hell or not time will tell, i have my own judgment on him just like you have yours.
"but I'm only human, and I would expect an all good god to be better than that."
God is all good and soft and kind only for those who are good, but if you wish to destroy God and his people and his creation and make his heaven into hell then you won't find God weak.
Your knowledge about Evil is still shaky, once you start to understand it more you will thank God heartedly for Hell each day and each night, that's how horrifying Evil is.
I suggest you go to gore sites and watch some videos of crimes, videos are worth a thousand picture, and you will start to see the depth of the matter very quickly.
Very, very interesting, but as a Christian I would disagree with the idea of living under tyranny. My own experience has been that of great freedom and in ways that I never could have imagined, before I gave my life to Jesus. My experience has literally been that of Matthew 10:39. I think the biggest mistake people make with religion is to judge it without truly trying it for themselves.
Have you tried alternative religions or did you simply opt for the one that was most-popular in your nation of origin?
@@TonyEnglandUK A Good question, partly answered above. I was raised a Christian but then sought to explore it in more depth later in life. I've had too many experiences to dismiss things as pure coincidence; there is no doubt, for me, though I've challenged my faith many times. I also have several Muslim friends, whose experiences are also undeniable. This is bigger than a RUclips discussion I'm afraid!
Great stuff!! thanks.
Stull is right.
@Atheist603 oh, and another thing, natural selection requires chance, because there have to be random genetic mutations in an existing species,creating new characteristics, to be able to "naturally select" a new species in the first place! evolution isnt "just change" at a macrobiotic level, and macrobiotic evolution (between species) has NEVER been observed because the process is too slow. And the improbability of the human genome evolving within this time-frame is extraordinary
Is there anything that would change my mind? Sorry, no: The evidence pertaining to the Theory of Evolution is too overwhelming to ignore. On the other hand, a verifiable document representing a detailed blue print for the creation of Eve, signed by god would change my mind.
You choose to believe that you came from a monkey, me, I choose God.
@@jeffforsythe9514 I didn't choose anything: It was nature's "choice" in a process occurring over billions of years. It so happened over millions of years, that my closest ancestors were apes --NOT monkeys (check out the differences) and I'm very proud of my ancestors. At least, I don't have to pray to them, worship them, suffer their whims, and praise their greatness when reality is quite far from their attempts at perfection. As to my choice, If I could choose my ancestors, I would choose dogs and their ancestors the wolves.
@@waggishsagacity7947 All the Lord requires of me is my respect and my faith, good luck.
@@jeffforsythe9514 Thanks, but there's no luck good or bad after my death: I will be cremated and scattered somewhere, and the organic powder which were my bones will fertilize trees or plants. The End.
@@jeffforsythe9514 humans did not evolve from monkeys. We share a _common ancestor_ with monkeys. There is a very big difference.
*(Fixed typo)
I cant believe you dont understand this.
If i told you that i saw a ghost at night, would you believe me without evidence just because i said i experienced one? Would my 'personal experience' be enough for you? What if a whole group of people also claimed they saw the ghost, would you believe me then? What if you even thought you saw something that looked like a ghost too? Would you believe ghosts exist then?
Brilliant mind
Actually, science is not an epistemology. Science is a body of knowledge. Or, as a process, science is a collection of methodologies which make varying degrees of success depending on one’s epistemology.
If you want to criticize others for not following your epistemology, you might want to figure out what your epistemology is.
John Lennox vs Christopher was great to see. John has teached him a lesson.
*Hitchens easily defeated Lennox. Hitchens made Lennox look like a babbling fool with zero knowledge of philosophy.*
@@MattSingh1 You must be kidding:))))))) you need "glasses "" big ones to see right:) How can you say something like that? Incredible
@@MattSingh1 give me an exemple. zero knowledge?
It seems to me that a great many religious people are driven to convert others to their way of thinking, feeling and being in the world rather than just allowing themselves to simply be and in the same breath accepting others just as they are. I really enjoy this man's ability to remain calm, cognizant and steadfast while the other becomes very rattled and indeed angry while attempting to justify his stance on his religious dogma. He believes he is being attacked when in actuality he is simply the being asked to provide evidence on something his religion believes to be fact. Hitchens doesn't care in the slightest what this man does or does not believe, what he is interested in is questioning events that are assumed to be true that have no explanation other than 'acceptance through blind faith'. Religions believe and accept that god exists yet not one of them can provide any evidence to back this claim. To me, and it seems that many others feel the same way, religion is a seat of power which uses fear as it's primary means of controlling/converting others. I wonder how effective that use of fear would really be if the concept of god was removed.
@galenmark Fine. If you don't wan't to discuss it anymore, I'll not force you to bare your ignorance any further.
I'll just skip over the logical fallacy of thinking that if something is nice that makes it true that you just made.
I as an atheist would very much like to be wrong. But i doubt i am.
cont'd...this is what I mean by experience. I fully agree that if an experience can be repeated and apprehended by numerous people, that increases the chances that this experience is legitimate and true.
But this can be said also of our experience of God.
I can be AS confident that God exists as I am that the physical universe exists through my direct apprehension of its/his reality.
Nope. These 2 massively different things cannot coexist. To suggest they can is plainly utterly incorrect.
This is what an elite level professional debater looks like. I have only once seen Hitch lose a debate.
Which one?
WHICH ONE???
Maybe on the Iraq war? He defended that one until the very end, despite that it was obvious that he was very wrong.
@@Prometheus4096 Hitch said that if there were WeaponsofMassDestruction then the Iraq War was justified.What was obvious was that he had no way of knowing before hand and relied on Powell and CIA and Bush.A lesson learned but he was without fore-knowledge or belief they be Liars.
@@les-tq2sn We knew we couldn't trust the US and especially not the CIA. But, this is all moot. Even if Iraq had WMDs, that still wouldn't be an argument to invade. In fact, it would be an argument AGAINST invading. It is why right now we don't invade Russia. But I guess the 'justified' vs 'a good idea' are also not two different things. So would you say any country is justified in invading any country that does have WMDs? Or is it only justified to invade a country that is about to obtain WMDs? And not right before or right after that? This whole WMD thing makes no sense.
@1977awm "Empirical method is reliant on the assumption that knowledge is derived from sensory experience, which is philosophical empiricism."
This is reductionist and misleading. Philosophical empiricism is the idea that sense perception is either the sole or fundamental means of acquiring knowledge.
Science only requires that sense experience be *a* valid means of acquiring knowledge. Therefore, other philosophical systems can (and do) provide a basis for science.
I would have liked to have attended one of his debates.
@WakeUpMightyEarth "Atheist reject the belief of that claim"
This doesn't work. As a kid, you believed Santa gave you presents. As an adult, you know your parents gave you the presents. However, an atheist would say "Your presents are just there. We don't know how they got there". Given the choice between believing in that and believing in Santa, many of us would choose Santa; it at least accounts for the existence of the presents!
Hahaha hitchens at his best
@morpheusxnyc if the constraints are not true, you have to explain why, and on what basis atheism can assert the existence of moral truth, or meaning to life.I wasnt giving evidence for Christianity, I was explaining that atheism provides no basis for objective purpose or objective moral values. So attacking religion is not an counter-argument, its a dodge. Which just proves you cant argue for atheism, or objective moral values in the absence of God,so your forced to change the subject
Thank God for Christopher Hitchins. Wait what?
Underrated comment. I often use the line, "I thank God, he made me an atheist".
For Heaven's sake.
well...the ultimate question/challenge for me is not how man can prove the existence of god....but how god can prove its existence to man! think about it for a min...
I mean, he did it several times in the bible. Shouldn't be that hard.
he could do that without problems
Theism is fn hilarious. Talking snakes, 2000 animals on a boat for a year, a guy resurrecting himself with witnesses, but no one bothered to record the date, a guy living in a fish, a God of EVERYTHING healing ONE guy and following and aiding one group of people, but ignoring 99% of the rest of the planet.
@afatdutch "personal faith is not what christians is angry about. " uh, i meant christopher not christians lol i never thought about the irony of his name.
3:00 That is such a good point. I dont know why the flag bearers of truth are so insecure.
@JacobofhouseTravillski Like if you know you're right and are on the path of 'God' then why do they get so defensive when its questioned. The truth is that deep down its just a leap of faith. The dont actually know-know.
@JacobofhouseTravillski ahhahhaha it's okay
Flag bearers of truth? You must be kidding.
@WakeUpMightyEarth The Sermon on the Mount is just one example of the flawless character Jesus wants us to display.
"It is supposed to be the ultimate moral guide"
While Jesus did teach morals, that was not His point of coming to earth. He came to take the punishment we deserve on the cross. Christianity, while it does teach high moral standards, is not about following a series of rules, but about loving others. If we have loved G-d and others, and did nothing else, we have done enough.
Whenever I've been asked what Yahweh could possibly do to prove to me he exists, I ask for something he's already supposedly done once. In their dubious effort to explain the diversity of language on Earth, the authors of Genesis assert that, when Yahweh saw humanity working together to build a tower into the heavens, he "confounded" their languages. So do it again, but in reverse! If Earth's entire population were to all suddenly, instantaneously begin speaking the same language, that would go a LONG way toward convincing me there's a greater, conscious power out there...
PCBacklash _ Our Lord God, will never go for you challenging The Almighty Creator of the universe. But I know, He will hear the humble cry of His Children in Need. I have experienced multiple times. There is no scientific explanation for this. I was there and experienced the reality of my God and Savior Jesus Christ I drove with my Jaguar from Mexico to Costa Rica. The Jaguar has a hydraulic suspension. I was driving in Honduras on a long stretch of a rough road through the wilderness. All of a sudden I could not control the steering wheel anymore. I stopped I stepped out of my car and looked at the problem and saw that oil was leaking out of my hydraulic system. The Jaguar has hydraulic suspension. My car was sitting on the tires and I could not drive it anymore. I did not know what to do because it is dangerous sitting there on a road with a broken down expensive car. I fell on my knees and cried out to my Lord. It was about 20 min later and a car stopped on a road where almost never anyone comes. A man stepped out and HAD THE BOTTLE WITH HYDRAULIC OIL in his hand. He filled my Hydraulic oil. I started my car and it came off the tires and worked again. When I stepped out to say thank you I saw the man driving away. After looking no oil dripped out. I drove 600 Mi to Costa Rica without a drop of oil leaking out. In San-Jose, Costa Rica My oil started leaking again. I was very close to a Garage where they repaired the leak. God heard my cry and send an Angel or a person I don’t know. However, God gave me to see a Miracle. I have proof in my heart that no one can understand. I have seen and felt the presence of God many times. There is no “maybe” or “maybe not.” I know it. I have lived for two years without an income with 11 small children. Every day we had enough food. My wife had to go to Holland for her mom was dying. I ordered the ticket but did not have the money I trusted my Lord would provide it. On the day I needed to pay an envelope with $1500 was in my mailbox. I needed money I sold my minivan for $6500 the person who sold it came with a van 10-year-old minivan. I asked if I could buy it from him. He said it cannot be certified it is going to the Scrapyard. I asked what do you get for it he said $200. So I bought it.
I went to the Garage and left it to get an estimate for certification. They called me the next day and said it is done. I had expected a price way too high for me. How much I asked $56. They said. I drove it for 2 years. Without a problem.
After 2 years I had an income again I have seen so many miracles happen before my own eyes. My wife said: “one thing of all we sold I miss, that is the antique clock.” The clock had a special sentimental value for us. I said: “let me see if I can buy one the same.” Yeah she said: “but it will never be the same.” I went to the store but there was no Clock even not one that looked like it. So I asked the owner if he still knew me. Yes, he said. So I asked if he ever gets a clock the same as I sold him. To my surprise, he answered: “It is at my house, My wife took it home.” I did get it back for the same money as I got for it. The Lord knew that my wife would miss it and kept it for us.
IT IS ONLY BY THE HOLY SPIRIT that we can understand that God the Creator of all things Sent His Only Begotten Son for us to die at the cross for our sins, and come to know the forgiveness of sins for all those who put their faith and trust in Him.
@@MariusVanWoerden Just so you know, I didn't bother to read past the first few words of your drivel. I don't read copied and pasted walls of text on the internet, and I'm sure many others don't waste their time on it either. Try again.
@hellasow You are right. Each denomination is different, yet if you ask them what they believe they will probably agree with the apostles creed. Granted, they will express their beliefs differently, but that is only natural considering how many different cultures embrace Christianity and how they are able to express their beliefs. But they will all defer to the bible as the final authority. I could go on to describe how unique the bible is, but that would take space unavailable here.
absurdity of existence
what should be elaborated?
No, I am in kindergarten. Maybe you are doing Ph.D.
@Atheist603 I'm a Christian, and I like Darwin's theory of evolution. Am I contradicting my faith? No: Christianity is not a "creation story", but a relation with G-d. Maybe G-d did use common ancestry to create species over time.
God would've never created a man like him, such a genius and clear minded man he was.
You should watch the documentary “how to answer the fool” and tell me your honest thoughts. I have found that most atheists never learn to think logically or critically, they just regurgitate what they have heard other atheists say.
@@OpenSafe17.11 i watched some of it and there is nothing special about it to prove your claim. And im not blindly following what atheists say, i have come to conclusion by studying relegion and science both. in fact u r saying things without giving a proper thougt, u r saying whatever you have heard from your parents and other people around you. If u were born in Middle east u would say Islam is true, if India then hinduism and so on.
@@rameezrather5385 my dad is a universalist. I’m sorry to hear you say that. I hope you have an amazing life.
@@OpenSafe17.11 Dad?
According to Christianity we have all committed a sin even before coming to d world.
in other words, nothing can cause itself to happen, somethign outside the cause (ie: its effect) is independent of the effect. Is that better?
@WakeUpMightyEarth Evolution (change over time) is a fact. However, Darwin's Theory (common ancestry) is not. 1) Natural selection only explains why a certain trait is dominant in an ecosystem. Natural selection does not produce change. 2) Genetic mutation does not cause change. It takes so long for DNA base sequences to change that there would be no reason for a trait to become dominant. 3) Irreducibly complex organisms (organisms that did not evolve) can be found in nature.
Ok ill have to try and explain this briefly over two comments. First things first, we may not be able to say for certain that other people or the external world exists, but that is irrelevant when it comes to this. Even if reality is a dream, reality is still constant or at least percieved to be by us and we can learn things about it through the scientific method in a way that does not rely on personal experience or our senses directly. (do you understand the scientific method?)
My goodness. His brain. Wouldn’t it be great if they could study his brain after his death. No think so. Whatever gave him that brain, and believers would say god, but whatever, fascinating
By the way, the brain never thinks, all thought originates within the soul.
@YeahItsKurt Same here, I'm an Athiest, and while I may not agree with the religious folks, I'd defend to my death their right to believe in whatever they want.. So long as they don't interfere or pretend to know about things outside of faith.
@Regainish My point is rather simple. Everyone HAS a religion...even the atheist! Philosophically and logically, all of us have a 'worldview' of which determines how we see and grasp and understand the world/universe in which we live. Thusly, everyone has an appeal to some authority in order to make sense of this worldview. In which case, whatever that authority is...it becomes the grounding for what ultimate beliefs/religion, the person will hold to....
@thefutureboom no problems mate....
just wanted to clarify....... some people seem to think the best way to counter act extreme dogmatic idealism is with more extreme dogmatic idealism......
But slithering, that's just the point. Craig argues no such thing. Yes, he believes in the miracles of the Bible, but he does not argue them to be true from quantum physics.
His arguments, for the most part, are simple, valid syllogisms. In order for the atheist to show that denial of his conclusions is MORE REASONABLE than acceptance of his conclusions, the atheist MUST ADDRESS THE PREMISES (read caps as italics).
This is what Hitchens and you fail to do while assuming you've rebutted.
@thefutureboom are you saying organisied religon should be a crime? or individual religous/spiritual faith should be a crime??
What does me mean by Jefferson was born "under the old calendar". I'm not aware of a shift. When did it take place and in what way?
Julian calendar (or old style) was used up until the mid 1700's. The switched to the Georgian calendar (new style) 3 years after the birth of Jefferson
@@drsatan9617 Thanks for that! I know you meant Gregorian and I always thought it was in 1582 and just assumed the colonies had been using it.
My hero........simple as that
@TheKap1an The golden period you were talking about of Arabic (don't try to sell off Islam as a race or a culture) wealth, science and prosperity lasted between the 9th and 12th century where Baghdad was the intellectual pluralistic center of the world with Muslims, Christians, Jews, doubters (atheists) and all other kinds of creeds and opinions, but then it was decided in the 12th century that blasphemy, God and Islam were more important than philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, pluralism...
@ScientificBob " It's important because you missed my point entirely."
That's certainly possible. I'm not sure what position you're trying to take. I can't tell if you're advancing an Empiricism in the tradition of Hume or Russell or a kind of Pragmatism or something else altogether. What *is* your epistemology?
Ego is what it is to be human.
@TheKap1an
#1. Rashidun & Ummayyid Caliphs-Look it up
#2. The Arab Siege of Constantinople in 719.
#3. Caliph Uthman invaded Sicily in 652. Couldn't keep it. Prince Habib finally took all of Sicily in 728.
#4. Al Arslan took over all of former Byzantian Anatolia (Your land) The battle of Nanzikert in 1071 cemented his conquest.
#5. 639, Abd‑er‑Rahman invaded Armenia & ruled for 200 years.
#6. Tariq Ibn Ziyad invaded Spain in 711 and conquered 90% of Iberia.
This is only 2nd & 3rd Caliphs.
Moyga,
I would say that given such a person's experience, it is REASONABLE for HIM to assume that a god exists. I may push him to remain agnostic about the specifics of who this "god" was until he had done some further inquiry. But I would NOT say he is UNREASONABLE for thinking god exists on the basis of his immediate experience any more than I would say one is unreasonable for thinking the physical world exists on the basis of his immediate experience (contd)
@Aaron1Genesis Your belief in a grand creator is because people are capable of thought and having imaginations and are capable of coming up with an idea that is far beyond their own capabilities. Just because I can think I can fly under my own power, doesn't mean I actually can. And looking around all I realize is that this world is shit, but I should do what I can to make the best of what I have. There is nothing that makes me think there is a purpose or something beyond the physical.