Richard Dawkins Compares Himself And Christopher Hitchens

[@partydean17]

You really do have to read Dawkins imo. I think when hes debating or speaking he gets so caught up on weeds of the bible or how dumb someone sounds that he doesnt strike the root when he talks. But when it's a book and he is able to fully edit his points he sticks on the strong elements and his strengths shine through rather than just the weakness of others. As can be clear his personality is not the most attractive and so I think that's part of the bias against him. But and while I've never fully read one of his books (maybe half) he is for sure a better writer

[@kubad2012]

Thanks, maybe I should look into his books. Dawkins in video doesn't look like the wisest man on earth.

[@partydean17]

@@kubad2012 yeah he really is just a scientist, not really a philosopher or political leader. He just hates religion and thinks in a very literal and materialistic way. Personally I think he is the weakest of the 4 horsemen but a good view on how darwinism plays a role in the modern spiritual talks.

[@lewis72]

@@partydean17 "yeah he really is just a scientist, not really a philosopher" - He has numerous PhDs, which are Doctors of Philosophy.

[@youngbahss3220]

@@lewis72 that doesnt make him a philosopher.

[@partydean17]

@@lewis72 everyone can be a philosopher. I was saying he is a bad one

[@JM-us3fr]

I think part of what made Hitchens so popular among deconverts is that within the church, Christians are encouraged to believe rhetoric was useful for arriving at a true narrative, hence why they listen to a preacher. So when they hear Hitchens’ rhetoric speaking *against* the narrative of the church, it can still feel very compelling. Basically, the church shot itself in the foot, and Hitchens was the bullet.

[@2fast2block]

Not at all, he, along with Richard, show the absurdities they believe in. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@LemonSherbet-qb7po]

@@2fast2block Bruh

[@partydean17]

@@LemonSherbet-qb7po dude's just going around copy pasting this. Idk why people put so much stock on a specific scientific view of gods creation myth when the rug has gotten thrown out from so many other people.

[@LemonSherbet-qb7po]

@@partydean17 Yeah I know I've seen this text under every single atheist video

[@nanashi7779]

I suppose the backlash of this then is that Hitchens comes off as incredibly abrasive and arrogant to those who don't have the Christian preacher rhetoric background, just as the preacher would

[@nathancranford6369]

You can feel Hitchens' ear open up from the grave when Dawkins says "I'm better at writing..."

[@fpcoleman57]

Thanks for reminding me of a great interview.

[@theunclejesusshow8260]

Greetingz cuzinz 🏵 🧙‍♂️👍Hitchens fearlessly broke the typical mold

[@2fast2block]

No, he was just a loser along with Richard. Hitch who pretends to know the bible as he screws up on it over and over again including what faith means biblically. --"Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated”-- Christopher Hitchens Now, look at what biblical faith really means that Hitch the liar didn't even look at: Biblically, faith means trust. It's a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It's much like a human relationship. We don't trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. crossexamined.org/biblical-faith-vs-blind-faith/ www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/16/Faith_is_Trust www.truthortradition.com/articles/faith-a-confident-expectation-of-gods-promises-coming-to-pass www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith Hitchens always went into evasive word antics to avoid key questions like how we got the creation of the universe. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@fromeveryting29]

There seems to be a divide between people who express themselves better in writing or speaking. I'm like Dawkins. When I write I'm quick-witted, confident, great vocabulary and I just seem to think better. Verbally I do much worse. While my brother is the opposite.

[@2fast2block]

You have the gall to believe Dawkins thinks?! We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@fromeveryting29]

@@2fast2block Where in my comment did I even SUGGEST I believe everything Dawkins says? I only said he seems to be inclined to write better than he speaks - like me.

[@thegnosticatheist]

For some people it comes easier, for some it comes harder. But to excel it requires learning and training. I was able to push myself in directions I initially thought I'll never fit in. Though it's worth keeping in mind that while you can simply spend more time on written sentence, you need to be more holistically prepared for discussion. So proper rest, proper food, information hygiene and all of that "not core" things matter much, much more for discussions than for writing. And still, it is more exhausting some some people than for others. And as for the 2f2b guy: LOL. Guy got triggered out of nowhere and start completely different topic just to spew misinformation. Maybe he's triggered by exactly the misinformation he believes?

[@braden_m]

@@2fast2block what the fuck are you on about? Also a note on discourse ethics: copy/paste comments are ridiculously annoying

[@2fast2block]

@@fromeveryting29 I can see what you're saying. That being said, Dawkins writes such lies and garbage. He's a loser either way. I apologize to you.

[@laurajarrell6187]

Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, thankyou for posting Richard Dawkins. I feel awful for what has happened, this cancel crap. First time because he spoke against Islam, though never against the people, nor any worse than he says on christianity. But having had a stroke, being a biologist, he can't be expected to understand the cultural part of the gender conversation. I truly don't believe he had malice, he's never been anti gay or bigoted in any way. 👍🥰💖✌

[@diemanner7164]

Exactly!

[@omp199]

What has his stroke got to do with anything? And what makes you say that he can't be expected to understand cultural matters? This is the man that coined the word "meme", referring to a unit of cultural information. I think he can understand cultural matters perfectly well.

[@laurajarrell6187]

@@omp199 I just mean he is much older now, has had a pretty bad stroke and has always seen through the lens of biology, as he's a scientist I don't want his good work to be lost because of wrong-headed remarks. I didn't say he didn't understand it at all, I just think he shouldn't be canceled, as I've been hearing young people who used to admire him, talk like he's totally evil now. Yet they'd always claimed 'you can disagree without maligning someone.' 🥰✌

[@omp199]

@@laurajarrell6187 Well, you said that he couldn't be expected to understand the cultural part of the gender conversation. I have seen no evidence of a lack of understanding from him on that subject, while I have seen plenty of it from his detractors. So I have to wonder what you mean by "wrong-headed remarks". I agree that he shouldn't be cancelled.

[@laurajarrell6187]

@@omp199 To be honest, I'm not sure of what he said. It is claimed that he said something about genders. I know he accepts the facts of dysphoria. So I assume he didn't deny there are more than 2 genders. But what I've noticed, the last few times I've seen him, since his recovery from the stroke, he sounded, sort of less ...articulate? More querelous. He's always been more interested in teaching science and fighting religious harm. I don't wish to see him disparaged at the end, and then lauded after he dies. I'm sick of people doing that. I feel we can keep the older activists and still have new ones. If he truly said something anti trans, sure educate him. But don't write him off as a horrible person, he's not. That was, more what I was trying to say, apparently badly, lol. 🥰✌

[@Annibals]

Love you Alex and David and Chris

[@AV57]

Hitchens was fairly unique in that he would concede every point to theists apart from the moral argument. He had his principles and he wouldn’t budge on them just because of the threat of hell. He thought his principles were more important than his own eternal future, which is something that few Christians or Muslims even contemplate.

[@sendnoodles5437]

Which points did he concede? I’ve seen him attack theism on all fronts. He was always still respectful to his opponents though

[@AV57]

@@sendnoodles5437 for the sake entertainment, Hitchens would often concede that a god existed. Then, he’d explain why said god didn’t deserve to be worshipped anyway, given the god’s apparent design and lack of action in the world.

[@sendnoodles5437]

@@AV57 Oh yeah, when he was debating the utility and morality of religion. I think he enjoyed that argument for more than the veracity of God's existence or the fairy tales, which Dawkins excelled at. And Harris is somewhere in between. But Hitch is by far the most entertaining. Funny how secular my city is now that you're mocked if you're religious in school...I'd say that's progress though. Rather have a bunch of kids being promiscuous than having their genitals mutilated and having fear of hell instilled into them, and their critical thinking suppressed

[@AV57]

@@sendnoodles5437 huh?

[@lejlanuhanovic5700]

Well that was disappointing. They spent so much time together. One would have thought he had more to say about him.

[@Anglomachian]

I think that if he has time to think, he might have been able to say more. Say if he wrote a memoir or something, he’s almost certainly be able to say more. He seemed a little caught off here.

[@rorybessell8280]

They didn't actually spend much time together. According to Dawkin's speech when Christopher died, they only met a handful of times

[@lejlanuhanovic5700]

@@rorybessell8280 maybe I wasn't clear. The time they did spend together was of high quality. But I can see their personalities not matching for a more profound friendship. Like the one he had with Stephen Fry or Sam Harris. Dawkins is different. He is more scientific, as he says himself. The others are more versed in abstract, literary thinking.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

What they had in common was that they were both atheists. Hitchens was a journalist and Dawkins is a biologist. Beyond their religious (or areligious) views, there's no reason why they should have that much in common.

[@2fast2block]

One would have thought either one of them would have thought, but no, they went on believing their absurdities. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@Shamsi419]

Hitchens certainly knows now. Shame he can't tell us.

[@mobilegamereviewer.1936]

Knows what?

[@cagdasyalcin190489]

Hitchens is sipping his beer from the beer volcano while enjoing the strippers with the almighty the one true god flying spaghetti monster.

[@BillyMurray-hw2vz]

​@@cagdasyalcin190489 So edgy🐺

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

So Richard doesn't think he's a particularly great public speaker. Thankfully, many people disagree with him on that point.

[@ben_alfred]

He’s definitely far above average, but nowhere near Hitch. He was on another level😔

[@2fast2block]

@@ben_alfred no, Dawkins is just a loser like Hitch was. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@ben_alfred]

@@2fast2block uh yes, the “I’m an ignorant fuck just like everyone else and therefore MY sky daddy is real” argument.

[@ligase75]

@@2fast2block why does this not also apply to god?

[@2fast2block]

@@ligase75 You are a graduate of Loser University. All you have to do is remember "Who created God?" and you can mix things up a bit with the same basic question. All the laws of nature somehow suddenly disappear for you losers, that one STU--P1D question is your cure-all. So in your way of shallow thinking, if a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created. Or, show how smart you are and just give your science for creation happening naturally and don't forget to give your science how the natural laws were created, too. If you want to act smart, it may be a good idea to actually show you are.

[@jokkehasa5298]

That pause after "I think I'm better at writing..." (rofl)

[@historia9275]

It's funny (and kind of stupid) that they are so obsessed with something they think isn't true.

[@johannuys7914]

They sound stupid, because they try to convince the stupid. That's a hell of task (pun intended).

[@ga4214]

😂😂 right ? It baffles me when atheists mock our faith and call it believing in Santa and what not but spends their short “one” life proving God and faith as wrong 😂 Pathetic honestly

[@patrickbyrne9971]

1:08 bruh moment

[@Anicius_]

Why

[@frankiiemermaid1127]

Didnt alex talk mess about dawkins being just surface level and that he didnt want to be associated with the new atheist movement?

[@Aj-ch5kz]

Are all atheist materialists ? And do atheist believe in metaphysics or do they reject metaphysics like the analytic philosophers?

[@eugenemcelroy6229]

They're is no 'all atheists' the only thing all atheists share is the lack of belief in a god. Nothing more nothing less. Some may be materialist but not all

[@Aj-ch5kz]

@@eugenemcelroy6229 but how can someone believe in a transcendental metaphysics and yet not believe in god, isn't that a bit contradictory

[@eugenemcelroy6229]

@@Aj-ch5kz well as I don't belive in transcendental metaphysics I could not answer that question sorry

[@AV57]

@@Aj-ch5kz atheists, like all conscious Homo sapiens, have the capacity to hold contradictory views. That would/could account for an atheist believing in metaphysics, but it wouldn’t suggest they ought to.

[@Aj-ch5kz]

@@AV57 if they do then they're not real atheists

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

It's a nonsensical statement to say religion is untrue. Religion is just a word that represents beliefs about reality without the ability to know (scientifically verify). Everyone has religious beliefs. It's impossible not to, as the limitations of the scientific method make it impossible for anyone to know everything. Religious beliefs of Atheists: Naturalism, Materialism, Scientism, Moral Relativism, Secularism, Nihilism, Evolutionism, Heliocentrism, etc All are required to be an Atheist as the competing philosophies require belief in a creator.

[@Lucas-yf1es]

Most of the things you mentioned are and have been scientifically verifiable, qnd where did you get that atheists are nihilists?

[@sheep.herder]

this man is the reason churches in Britain are empty 😂

[@kurtisbaxter6422]

They both speak common knowledge in an English accent that makes it sound deeper than it is.

[@cesaresp101]

3 goats

[@braindeveloperdimensional5579]

By "Every religion is untrue", do you mean like every religion that has existed upto this point? What about the coincidental truths that some religions have? Some religions are really complex and require some level education before you convert into those religions like Pythagoreanism.

[@2fast2block]

All that joke can do is complain about religions as if that takes some deep thought. Meantime, that loser believes in absurdities. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@LouisGedo]

👋

[@OrtegaSeason]

I'm still yet to understand what Hitchens' achievements were aside from speaking the Queen's english.

[@braden_m]

I mean I understand this because he was neither scientist nor philosopher and so it’s a little odd that he was included in this group, but keep in mind he did write a couple of wildly popular polemics (namely God is Not Great) on religion that propelled him into “the discourse” so to speak.

[@OrtegaSeason]

​@@braden_m I'm not questioning why he was included among the Four Horseman. I just don't quite get the level of reverence he receives. He was just a journalist-author. There's hundreds of journalist-authors in the US/UK who write at his level. I don't even think there was any journalism that he was particularly famous for.

[@sonnyirish3678]

His greatest gift was in being wrong so often.Afghanistan,Iraq,South Africa,Obama and left.

[@braden_m]

@@OrtegaSeason I mean he was just so prolific and his writing crossed so many fields that I think it just eventually earned him recognition. Also I would contest the claim that others wrote at his level - he was a very very good writer - but obviously aesthetics are difficult and so I won’t make any strong claim about it haha

[@ga4214]

Right ! He also was a hypocrite! He always rant about how God is not great for giving children cancer, even wrote a book about it BUT he was For the war on Iraq ! The war that caused children to be born with high risks up to 600% of getting cancer caused by the west’s 💣 hmmm 🤔 so he support his country giving children cancer but cry when God do it ! What a hypocrite

[@CompassionIsPower]

Lolz

[@KingK-vl6cc]

you guys are spending so much time talking about something you claim doesnt exist very weird

[@2fast2block]

They try to reassure somehow that they think but they have no proof that they do. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@Chidds]

Religion does exist.

[@AV57]

Theists exist and they have real agendas that really affect the world.

[@ga4214]

😂 atheists in a nutshell

[@AshtonEbs]

I’m so done with Dawkins since his bigot arc.

[@nhbiker1961]

Iconic, I am so done with the left simply because someone points out the elephant in the room. Funny watching the cancel culture turn on itself right now. It's like tigers eating their young.

[@BerishaFatian]

Hitchens was one of the biggest whiners I've ever seen. I've watched many of his debates with christians and he never gave any resonable objections. He also never answered any question asked by his opponents.

[@clarkelaidlaw1678]

Fabian berisha..that is simply not true.Christopher always made a point of answering questions.And the answers usually made his point for him.He is quite brilliant,and made quite clear that religion is the ultimate wickedness and ultimate stupidity.

[@anzov1n]

@Clarke Laidlaw wasting your breath. Regardless of ones opinion on Hitchens, claiming that he "never gave reasonable objections" is clearly nothing but bias. Many of his arguments were simply reiteration of the well-known, long-standing challenges to theism. Regardless of who articulates them, they are reasonable objections.

[@BerishaFatian]

@@clarkelaidlaw1678 Watch his debates and see how all he ever did was complain about the the Old Testament, and many of his objections were about the world not being a better place. He also often interrupted his opponents when they were asking questions or giving arguments for theism.

[@TheBaconWizard]

Hence you have no problem debunking any of them? No? Didn't think so. And he WAS imo wrong sometimes, but I doubt you can even get THAT far. The gauntlet is down. Prove me wrong.

[@AV57]

@@BerishaFatian You completely missed Hitchens’ point about his objections to Christian moral philosophy if you’re just calling it “whining” about the world. This is a common, disingenuous tactic of apologists to sidestep the reasonable objections secular philosophy has with Christian belief systems. Christianity explicitly supports the notion that Yahweh has certain capabilities and reality does not comport with what the Christians claim about Yahweh. When Hitchens points that out, he’s not merely whining about the world. He was specifically pointing to illogical claims made by Christians with explicit motives in the real world.