Відео

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and many other authors of the Bible with no last name , Every book ever written the authors have a last name

Jesus was a scapegoat, I feel really bad for him, if he existed at all that is, especially as a kid.

NO BODY - NO CRIME,

The fact that we need to debate these people who have absolutely no proof of their claim is ample proof that Jesus, Moses, Paul, Yahweh, Adam, Eve,....all these characters are fake. Theists know this but most are just ignorant of their ignorance.

I've never seen a Christian come anywhere close to winning a debate with an atheist, the Christian always gets ripped apart and sometimes rip themselves apart too.

Next slide please LOL.

This 2nd talker probably ' bombed out" because he just talked so fast ( people just stop listening), also he's not well versed in the art of delivering one's content. He was basically just reciting / talking AT the listeners and not TO the listeners. Perhaps the large screen was a distraction ( 2 things for us to digest - screen and his voice. If he just spoke TO the audience and kept the screen content to a bare minimum, the audience could take it in. OH,..... and speak slower. That's not to say that what he said , carried no weight. If by speaking slower (we can then better digest his speech), means that ( with his alloted time talking frame), he doesn't get through his total content, so be it. We'll just take in what was spoken and consider that amount.

So Dan, do you have a summary or an end game to your unbelief, in terms of your life ending on this earth? IE:-at your very pointy end of your life, will you wonder what is in front of you/ what's going to happen to you ( apart from being buried or cremated and returning to the dust)? Surely ,just returning to dust, can't be the END of everything. Surely there must be SOMETHING in the 'after'. There's something inside every person, that causes them to ( or should cause them to) wonder about what's going to happen to them , post, their bodily existance on thier life / that thing inside of us normally termed our soul.

I’m sorry but the longer in this show, Tom emerges as a nut bag.

Although I can’t prove any god does not exist, but now I believe no gods exist or have ever existed.

I have a question... Were any of these writings done by women? I rest my case

Poor luke warm man. He is impressed by what Christopher says but can not make a stand about his beliefs.

GOD IS GREAT

1. PROVING GOD DOES NOT EXIST. This is impossible, and I quote: "It will take a super-being of infinite proportions and gifts to ever prove the non-existence of God, someone who is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and infinitely wise, for instance, someone like God Himself. Fact of life: Only God (‘YHVH, the ‘I AM’ of the Judeo-Christian Bible) has the stature, power, influence, authority, intelligence and scientific gravitas required to ever prove the so-called ‘non-existence’ of God. That He will obviously not do … an eagle does not jump into a cage of its own accord." (Stassen, PJ, 'Debunking the Myth of Atheism-Evolutionism'). 2. ATHEISM'S ABSURDITIES. Just because you cannot find Henry Ford in the engine compartment of a Ford automobile does not mean Henry Ford does not or did not exist. Observational science with slide rules, calculators, computers, telescopes, microscopes, spectroscopes and stethoscopes will never find God ... God is SPIRIT and invisible to the naked eye. Ordinary mortals cannot see electricty, radiowaves, microwaves, wi-fi etc., yet the manifestations of these invisible phenomena are pretty obvious in our daily lives. Likewise we see God manifested in the majesty and beauty of the Cosmos, Nature, Physics and the birth of a baby. When my son was born in 1979, I would, five minutes afterwards, have given my life for a little person that I five minutes before did not know from Adam. That is the wonder of Creation and God's love. 'Evolution' (and not even the smartest atheist) can explain that, so please do not even try ... you will only make one heck of a fool of yourself. Do the math: Scientists concede that they only know about 5% of what is going on in the Universe. It thus stands to reason that God may be obscured from the scientists' view and observations in the 95% of the Cosmos they still know nothing about. That is just about all of the Cosmos (minus 5%). The multimillion-rupee question: Would you trust a surgeon to operate on your heart or brain if that surgeon (at varsity) only covered 5% of his course curriculum for doctors, but missed the rest? Yet, atheists have the gall to want to make pronouncements on the Nature and Character of God on only about 5% (collective) information about the Universe? Shall we laugh or cry? Furthermore, even the 5% that the scientists say they know is anyway highly suspect ... how can anyone say he knows 5% of something when he does not even know what the 100% of that someting entails? Scientists have no clue what the sumtotal (100%) of all Cosmic knowledge entails ... how can they? So, we have no evidence that scientists know even the so-called 5% of the Cosmos as they are claiming to know; we have to take them on their word by faith. 3. WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT ATHEISTS. The Bible says: "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good." (Psalm53:1bMKJV). . "He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; Jehovah shall mock at them. Then He shall speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His wrath. (Psalm2:4-5MKJV). "The wise in heart will receive commandments; but a babbling fool shall fall." (Proverbs10:8MKJV).

I don't debate with religiosi any more. It's like debating with with a dog, tails wag in all the right places but they stay dumb.

Look at the Ants debating how they got into the Ant farm...lol😂 Trying to find physical evidence of a spiritual world what exactly are you looking for God's foot prints like "Bigfoot"lol or fossils...It's laughable

Stalin, Kim, Mao basically portrayed Themselves as divine. That does not seem secular to me at all Expecting aristotle to comply with modern theories or concepts is ofcourse crazy. Its already amazing they made the progress they did

Believe first the fairytale then convince yourself that there are facts in it....

THE DELUSION OF ATHEISM-EVOLUTIONISM. In spite of all the robust ‘atheism’ rhetoric in the mainstream and social media, atheism simply still does not convince. Below see some good examples of how pro-evolutionist (atheist) narrators often contradict themselves in books and programmes on DSTV:  “The lion is a magnificent CREATURE!” Suggesting a CREATOR.  “The cheetah is DESIGNED for short bursts of speed, not for long-distance running!” Suggesting a DESIGNER.  “The kangaroo’s hindlegs are an ENGINEERING marvel!” Suggesting an ENGINEER.  “Nature rewards survivors with LONGEVITY!” Nonsensical tautology: ‘Survivors will live for a long time!’  “It’s all about the SURVIVAL of the FITTEST!” Nonsensical tautology or reasoning in circles: “Why did the Panda survive?” > “It is the fittest!” > “Why is it the fittest?” > “Because it survived!” (They call this ‘science’?).  “I BELIEVE in Evolution!” Disingenuous religious terminology and not science jargon, showing up atheism-evolutionism as a belief-system and not an exact science.  “The COSMOS is a place of spectacular, breathtaking beauty!” Disingenuous use of the word ‘Cosmos’; atheists deny ‘intelligent design’ and are supposed to refer to the Universe as the ‘Chaos’, not the ‘Cosmos’ (‘Order’).  “There is no such thing as GOOD & EVIL!” Then they go ahead and say, “Religion is evil!” and object against Christians bringing prayer and the Bible into schools as ‘unfair’ (?).  “There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE TRUTH!” Then we cannot accept anything they have to say about atheism or God because they may not be telling the ‘absolute truth’ themselves.  “There is no GOD!” Scientists only know about 5% of what is going on in the Cosmos; the rest of the Cosmos consists of 95% ‘dark matter + dark energy undetected by astronomical and scientific instruments’. God may be obscured from their view and observations in the 95% they still do not about the Cosmos.

His words and that accent is what his wife Carol Blue called the "perfect voice." When I write . . . I talk to myself as though Christopher Hitchens were sitting next to me and I hear myself with his voice in my mind. It is quite engaging and I sound smarter than I am. I can listen to myself all day long . . . with his voice.

Brilliant

Thank you Hitch you gave a voice to the thoughts in my head

Hitch gave me the voice to tell everyone how I felt since I was 12

The dude paid ZERO attention to what Dan said. He had a script to follow and ignored Dan totally.

Why are there still monkeys?

If you have brains you will be an atheist.

Religions are all crap and bollocks.

So why has nobody clicked my comment up?

Well he is in a power struggle? If he went into prisons and said that.

A moral god would not deceive anyone.

Dawkins "evidence" relies on miraculous mutations that "poof", formed new structures and systems. Just watch how he tries to explain the development of the eye. He talks bs and alway has. He refuses to believe in God and will believe anything else.

14:50 ah yes, the "if i yell louder and assert my point without substantiating it or hearing out the counters, i automatically win" strategy that theists love. It's worked exactly 0 times, but that won't stop them from using it.

A moral god would not deceive anyone.

It's ridiculous how the theist quotes the Bible to confirm what he decided to believe, but discounts all of the passages that don't comport with his beliefs.

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply to painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."-Carl Sagan.

If you believe that the universe is an intellectual problem - laced with whiskey - then Hitchens is your man.

The second guy is clearly a prophet! He somehow had another power point to counter the first guys second argument!

At the beginning i wanted Mike to do well. At the end I think he did really well.

Evolution takes a long time. Sometimes you have to build an arc.

*ATHEISM is a RELIGION!* Atheistic "scientism" is an article of their personal FAITH and as such in denying religion is the worst of all RELIGIONS being a total deception and confusion of lies and half truths. Scientism thereby proves there are such things as BAD RELIGIONS but does not prove all religions are bad. Biblical Christianity is the best because it is based on verifiable history and verifiable science as truth: The lie is ORDER can spontaneously emerge from DISORDER on a continuously increasing scale.. It can't which is why atheistic scientism hides the truth by confusing the terms ENTROPY and INFORMATION! Then you have verifiable truth in the Bible; _"the wicked hide the truth"_ Rom 1 _"God stretched out the heavens"_ we only discovered space is an elastic media after Einstein's relativity _"The life is in the blood"_ when medical science believed bleeding people was a cure _"what is seen is made out things that do not appear"_ verified after Heisenberg's uncertainty principle _"he made of one blood all the nations"_ when evolution considered native people sub-human *WAKE UP PEOPLE YOU'RE BEING LIED TO!*

Dan Baker you are a dumb ass . End of story

These events are not debates and all parties know this. The 2 rational men do not speak the same language as the 2 mystics. It is kind of sickening to hear the mystics talking nonsense because they know that they are cheating by refusing to acknowledge that nouns must point to tangible things, not to intangibles. One side is talking about objects of experience while the other is talking about unicorns, demons, and other fictitious phenomena that are part of inferior literature. Listen to their words. Words describing concrete objects vs words that are purely without any concrete referents. The mystics cannot accept that knowledge is either math and logic (a priori) or empirical. Thus there is no debate, just entertainment. Sam and Michael are getting good publicity and i enjoy watching them, but i think they are almost debasing themselves to be in the company of these 2 mystics, who might be charlatans. They remind me of televangelists.

Shermer and Harris are good guys. No woo woo, just the facts ma'am.

Apparently this man doesn't understand biblical hermeneutics and that the historical narratives were written as "stories" with literary qualities. His argument is pointless.

In the post-flood world three of the oldest civilizations (China, Egypt & India) are all supposed to be descended from the sons of Noah (Japheth, Ham & Shem) but their histories go back thousands of years before Noah's sons were even born.

He is no longer with us but how fortunate we ardent followers of Hitchens are that we can hear him again and again and again and marvel at his great mind. He comes back to us and am grateful for that. I am from imdia

There's a line in Shakespeare that says, "I would invite you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed." That's Carrier. And yes, there is a tremendous amount of documentary and contemporary eyewitness evidence that The Bard did exist.

Study Greek, doesn’t justify believing in ridiculous myths….Dan has too much knowledge and facts to be out debated by a fool with just a belief…

Some people write a story and millions believe it because it's shoved into their heads from an early age.

- I Can N O T Think Of A N Y O N E Who - - - . . . Here // Now // Today . . . Intellectually // // Passionately / Compassionately // And Frankly . . . Fearlessly Insultingly // Rudely (( that ' s a compliment )) A D V O C A T E S In Upholdance Of A T H E I S M . Advocates A G A I N S T All Things Religious . A N Y -- -- O N E ? ? ? ? Sam Harris ? ? Hell No ! ! ! ! Sam Is Too Nice . Richard Dawkins ? ? ? ? ? Again . . . Nope . Rich Is A Scientist . H I s Insulting Tone Is Not Tempered With Socio // // Historical Compassion . - S i r Christopher Hitchens . - I Miss Him I M M E N S E L Y . - I M M E N S E L Y . -