Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox | Is God Great? Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- "Is God Great?" sees two of the West's very best minds face off on the subject - the late atheist Christopher Hitchens and Professor John Lennox of Oxford University.
Hitchens, who made his opinion clear on the topic with his book "God is not Great," maintains not only that God fails to be great, but denies his existence entirely. Professor Lennox, a convinced Christian and scientist, respectfully disagrees. This event features a unique blend of both planned remarks and fast-paced dialogue that tackles these issues in a refreshing and informative light. It is sure to offer insights to all.
Free study guide at fixed-point.org/
Debate starts at 9:00
Lennox's first turn starts at 25:25
Hitchens' second turn starts at 41:29
Lennox's second turn starts at 52:40
Audience questions starts at 1:03:30
Lennox's closing remarks starts at 1:38:00
Hitchens' closing remarks at 1:44:35
Thanks He Who Must Not Be Named
thank you
@@seanchua2777 thanks to you I realized I forgot about Hitchen's closing remarks.
Thank you.
“Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth.”
“What draws people to be friends is that they see the same truth. They share it.”
“The sun looks down on nothing half so good as a household laughing together over a meal.”
“Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person’s ultimate good as far as it can be obtained.”
“It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed.”
“Being in love’ first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise.”
“We do not want merely to see beauty ... We want something else which can hardly be put into words - to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it.”
“If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.”
“Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see.”
“One road leads home and a thousand roads lead into the wilderness.”
“Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods.”
“Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.”
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” -
“You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream”
“I have come home at last! This is my real country! I belong here. This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now…Come further up, come further in!” (C.S. Lewis)
❤️❤️
@@georgedoyle7971 "If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanations is that I was made for another world."
Actually that is not the only logical explanation. Another one is that Lewis just had unsatisfiable desires. Actually there is an extra hidden premise behind Lewis' conclusion. He assumes that he was made for the purpose of being satisfied. But all the evidence shows that he was made to pass on his genes.
"Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see."
The only story I see is that things can always get a little better or be better than predicted now matter how dire the situation. I also see that the it isn't enough to stop our horrible fates.
"One road leads home and a thousand roads lead into the wilderness."
That's actually very ridiculous. It is actually the inverse. There are dozens of ways home just in your own town/city but almost no roads lead to the wilderness. So the metaphor falls flat.
"Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods."
That is an admission to faith being unreasonable since you're HOLDING on to something your reason ONCE accepted.
"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."
Well if you accept that your soul dies with your body than I don't see any falsehoods being told here.
The rest of the quotes aren't attempts at proofing a god? They are however, wise words that I agree with. So I'll give C.S Lewis that one.
An unseen hitch debate is like finding gold in an old pair of jeans
@RUSSIAN ROBOT You made exactly no sense . . . but cool.
redghost420 I feel exactly the same. Only god knows what the Russian is talking about 😂!
@RUSSIAN ROBOT Wow! I sincerely hope that they don't release you from the correctional facility that you so clearly reside in. I think you would be a danger to society
Seems legit 👌
You sound like Kanye bruh and that's not good.
The best debates are the ones in which both parties respect each other and appreciate their ideas enough to offer their most comprehensive perspective and opposing views without compromising intellectual integrity. This is one of those talks that you can come and listen to again every few years and enjoy.
I'm not sure we listened to the same debate. I've literally never heard Hitchens have a respectful debate. He is always sny, passive-aggressive, and mocking his opponent. It's obvious he is more angry that people than he is interested in debating intellectual discourse.
@@ChristIsKing270 Technically he only mocked Lennox's views, not him directly, as far as I noticed. But of course, if you hold the opponents views as being idiotic views and calls them so, you will inevitably indirectly imply the view-holder to be idiotic as well, but this kindof has to be allowed as it otherwise would be impossible to attack someones views without "mocking". I think atheism is utterly idiotic, and it frustrates me to listen to such awful portrayal and understanding of the Christian narrative and theology as Hitchen puts forth, but I understand him arguing in that way given what he holds to be true, and don't think that he should have wrapped his views up into nicer words just because its frustrating to listen to him otherwise. He should say things directly as he sees them, it's honest even though he's totally in the wrong.
@krissmork I understand what you are saying but a few points. First, mocking makes no point, no defense, nor argument. It only attacks a person who holds a belief. 2nd, people only do this when they have no argument or defense. It simply takes out frustration on its opponent bc of pride. It's unintelligent and cowardly. 3rd, it's not about nicer words. They are adults, and it's about having a better understanding of one's own viewpoint in order to defend and prove it. Hitchens attacks Lennox point of view because he has no factual defense and is angry that he doesn't. Last, Hitchens' big problem which is the reason for the mocking as well as his atheist point of view is bc he is high minded and thinks he is smarter than anyone who does not hold his opinion. Pride comes before a fall.
@@ChristIsKing270 yeah, i just didnt notice him attacking Lennox with mockery so strongly, maybe there were some of it. I agree his rethoric doesn't help his points at all
@krissmork passive aggressive tone and sarcasm is a cowards attack. That's what he was doing. And honestly it's a direct attack on Lennox's intelligence.
Now this is a fine couple of hours. I wish that the debate between Lennox and Dawkins had a format closer to this one. And as with both, the friendship was as enjoyable as the exchange.
Although I'm a Christian, it's a shame we lost such a bright mind in Christopher Hitchens. May he rest in peace.
Mitchell Kmatz . Hitchens was certainly a unique man and entertaining to watch, but his skills as a debater had far more to do with bluster, showmanship, and being adept at straw-man building than actual engagement with the issues at hand. I agree that he died far too young.
You mean a Catholic?
"Rest in peace" is part of the Catholic rite of the prayers for the dead.
@@Kitiwake Catholicism is a branch of christianity. If I owned a car and said I drive a Toyota, would you ask if I meant to say I drive a car........
He is not now an atheist and I doubt he is resting in peace
Charles Tickle wow what an a arrogant thing to say.
The debate starts at 8:58
Thank you.
Thanks!!!
I love you
True hero right here
Awesome, was looking for this comment.
New rule for debates: if you operate the camera, don’t clap.
Because Lennox was resonating with the audience from the beginning of his speech..you disparage human response? One question is why the title "Is God Great?" when Christopher Hitchens does not believe in any "god" at all? I have to ask God why they both have an issue with their glasses in this clip..lol! My answer to the question though..is Yes, God is Great!
Carol, quit embarrassing yourself.
Steve, the camera operator isn't wearing a mic. That would be the "moderator".
@@carolr.556 Carol, we will talk about your "god" as long as it regulates school syllabuses and laws around the world. We do not mean God as in the entity, since no god exists, but instead we talk about the concept of "god". And as long as horrible things are being said and done on the excuse that there is a god (deity), god (concept) is not great.
@@Gwydda The opposite is true..trangenders are being promoted in the elementary school..concusing children about biology..There are only two genders..I don't need a Bible to tell me that..although that is where moral teuth is found..
Carol R.
What gender are intersex people?
I wasn't expecting Winston Churchill to be debating Christopher Hitchens.
And you certainly didn't get it. So you weren't disappointed.
@@bobobandy9382wow, you're, like, really really smart. That's the most intelligent thing I've ever heard someone say. It's such a comfort knowing that there's minds as brilliant as yours in our world, helping guide people towards the truth about whether or not a certain individual is Winston Churchill or not. Thank God for people like you. Without your insightful remarks, our civilization would surely be run into the ground.
@@Krehfish534 lol
I kept wondering why he seemed familiar.
He's Irish Winston was British jon reminds me more of Ian paisley.
Although i am a Christian...Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant and hilarious man. The world has lost a brilliant mind. Wish he was still around so I could hear more debates and commentary.
As a Christian I also loved CH he was the ultimate wit and raconteur who baulked against woke pc mindset Islam and Catholicism.
If you call Hitch brilliant, you are one loser of a Christian.
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.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@2fast2block listen to others. Expand your mind. You'd be better off for it. Like all of us...
@@2fast2block what evidence would make you not believe in god?
@@zaydevans2077 evidence that shows all I gave is wrong. It's absurd though to think the laws of nature can be proven wrong, but nothing stops you losers from believing that. Your agenda to a loser is full speed ahead and to heck with evidence.
I truly appreciate the way Dr. Lennox articulates. I'm impressed with full strength.
you are obviously a typical gullible god fearing sheep like his comrades
Powerful even, I am impressed
Very interesting, but people wearing a microphone shouldn´t be allowed to clap!
Yeah, sounds like some balls clappin
@@IlluminatedGame 🤣😂
A very salient point
Hahahaha
I love debates like this. The good ones still hold up and are quite entertaining. It's amazing how an open mind allows you to listen to both sides and make an appropriate assessment.
I hate the way they talk past eachother though....he dont seem to understand that a created god is an example of a created universe...a universe in some form can be eternal...he can just understand a god can be eternal and dont understand the point.
@@skagenpige88 No such thing as "god". The Universe has been here forever.....for infinity.....no "Dog" created the universe. Man created "God".....
@@jds6206 That the universe existed forever is equally an insane claim as god, your basicly giving the universe god properties?
Well with an open mind I can honestly say that John Lennox's arguments all boiled down to "magic did it". Without demonstrating his premises he runs away with his conclusions.
@@coffeetalk924 I think you are asking too much of anyone, religious or not religious, to explain the origins of the universe. If you call what Lennox believes magic, you have to then be honest that science also uses magic to explain dark matter.
Whatever side of the debate you are on i think it's wrong to post derogatory comments about the other side. If we can't agree let's do it respectfully.
Absolutely... the pro-Christian arguments all converge to the one weird fact; “what we cannot explain, we choose to believe in by stories”, absurd at its outset, and if all thought like this we would never have evolved from our original forms and societies
@@mortenthorpe, atheist whiners like you are quick to point out the problems that religion causes within society.
The Christian religion created universities and hospitals. 106 of the first 108 colleges in the US were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860, there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose. Never heard of a hospital, orphanage or university started by an atheist.
Luigi Vampa just because Christianity has certain positive aspects does not rule out the negatives, OR the fact that religion has one singular problematic truth at its core, counter to science; belief! It also does not mean that Christianity is correct as a whole, but it is good that a part of the deception of religion has spurred thinkers to be an actual thing, and trying to share their thought with others at places such as the university.
@@mortenthorpe Let's address your assertion that I have belief and you lack it. The statement, "I lack belief in a god," is a common position of atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them, it is a non-issue. Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning belief. Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required.
Luigi Vampa you cannot seriously imply that blind belief and intellectual pondering are related, they are each other’s opposites by pure nature. You beautifully describe the nature of belief, by saying that you take a position and cannot be swayed, but you have in your argument mistaken atheism and deism ... it is deism that takes a position and cannot be swayed... atheists are most commonly also scientifically inclined, in which case they are swayed by arguments backed by evidence... something no deist or religion can provide about their beliefs... until such a time, you need to review your ideas, because you are confused, and if possible, and to carry on this discussion, prove that a god does exist... and prove in the scientific sense.
Here we go to the comment section of total confirmation bias, where everyone is smarter than the person they disagree with. Yippee!
As accused, I may already have a bias, but I am genuinely interested, BECAUSE I am Chinese. Almost all the theism/atheism debates I've seen on RUclips involve atheists who grew up in a religious society, or who used to be a religious person. However, most Chinese grow up atheists, like me (although you may argue we are "irreligious" instead of "atheists"). So, when a Christian says, without God, there would be no morality. The interpretation for a Chinese is: Well, for thousands of years the Chinese people are either immoral or amoral, because there was never a worship of the Christian God. If we look at 2019, Prof. Lennox is pretty much saying, over 1 billion people (in China) do not understand morality. Just to be sure, I'm not picking a fight with you or anything. I'm responding to your comment simply because yours is so freshly written and I totally agree with you: Most comments are simply self-confirming. They've already made up their minds.
@@markvonsteiner3080 Lennox would argue that there is a moral law and that people can still be moral because nature clearly demonstrates and supports a moral law, but the question he begs is, where does the moral law come from. In other words he'd argue that morality is of God, and works because of God willed it to work like that. God is the great designer and everything works the way it works because of God. If you exclude God, morality becomes subjective and from a historical point of view, morality without God is evil. Excluding individuals from China, Chinas government has a plethora of problems and historical evidence that would support morality without God being bad.
Hitler abhorred the bible. He discarded the old testament for its "Jewishness" as well as all references to mercy, meekness, etc. He was a known practitioner of the occult. The third reich created the Reichskirche specifically to coopt the large group of professing Christians in Germany. You'll have to do better than that.
The crusades were perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church, which, if you're unfamiliar, many people protested quite heartily in the early 1500's. Indeed, you'll find that many of us don't believe the RCC to be in step with the gospel of Christ at all, so the atrocities they committed are unsurprising.
@@Hylianamused Compare it to what scripture says. When Christ says, "turn the other cheek" "don't return reviling for reviling" "love your enemies" "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" and we see people advocate for war and murder, we can clearly see they are putting themselves in God's place and are not in obedience. And if you're referring to the Reichswehr, mentioning the word God hardly constitutes a theological position.
Oaths of office in the USA also end with "so help me God" but America is legally a secular nation. To almost all that repeat the words, it's as chaff in the wind. I'm quite certain that as SS officers crushed people's skulls with their boots, they weren't considering the gospel which says, "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility," no? I'm certain that the call to take the gospel to all nations in Matthew 28:18-20, and the numerous mentions of the gentiles being equal heirs with the Jews who follow Christ did not enter the minds of those professing to be Christians when the KKK dragged people out and murdered them in the streets, not the same KKK which hates Jews as well as blacks?
Jesus himself said that many will claim to be his followers, but that they will not be genuine. Their works are like filthy rags before him, and he's going to cast them from his presence. So why are we often so quick to believe that everyone who claims the name, "Christian," is in fact a true follower of Christ?
By the same token, it would be easy to use Darwinism to argue for genocide. In fact, many have. Much of the genocidal atrocities of the 20th century can be traced to his theory of evolution. Do the horrors committed by those claiming to follow science negate the claims of science? Of course not. They stand or fall by their own merit. I would actually say that it is immensely difficult indeed for a Darwinist to argue that genocide is wrong at all.
The only real argument you present is that of the old testament genocide, as you call it. And that is really where the rub lies for you. The actions of followers don't always speak for the beliefs of leaders, but the actions of the leader himself absolutely do. So your problem is with God himself, since God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites. Though you may think me monstrous, I won't actually defend this. If God created everything (and he did) and creation -us- rebelled against him (and we did) he has every right to destroy us. That we were created at all is by God's grace. That we remain after spitting in his face, by his mercy.
If 10 people commit a crime and the president pardons one, that the other 9 are punished is not injustice, but justice. They are justly getting what they deserve. The pardoned one gets mercy. But not one of them receives injustice. The Canaanites received just payment for their sins. God used Israel in that day as his instrument to do so.
Allow me to ask you the same question you ask me: "By what objective standard" do you say that any of what you mentioned is wrong?
@@elijah4606 you are so right, brother! it is so sad to see so many people lost..
This is one of the most decent debates I have seen on this topic, and I am impressed with the reverence they gave each other.
I'm not. I have no patience for the willfully ignorant religtards who lie about reality.
@@fleshanthos and who are we talking about in that situation?
@@fleshanthos what is reality, someone random particles in your head who decided what is what?
@@meindertbakker8377 damn i guess jebus did
@@Jw-un8oh amen
Even as a believer that Christ was and is the Messiah I do enjoy listening to Hitchens and Lennox. Two incredibly advanced minds and two fine gentlemen.
Even as a believer that Christ was and is the Messiah,
What does that even mean in relation to actual reality?.
@Jason Lusk Jesus either told the truth about who he really was, or he was a complete lunatic with powerful influence on people. I believe the former because I look at what he did in his life and even if it's not fully comprehensible, it seems like the better option to me.
@@thegroove2000 well, I think it means that Christ lived a human life and is now in a place of eternity-perhaps outside of space/time. I believe he is the messianic King that was prophesied about in the bible and the One who will one day come back to end the earth and take the believers with Him to heaven.
@Jason Lusk In the same way I believe Jupiter to exist and be real. I have no direct interaction with Jupiter. Only secondhand and thirdhand accounts, pictures, descriptions, etc. I have no encounter with Socrates, Jesus, or George Washington, but I find it quite unlikely that such a large amount of people would bear false witness to the accounts of these people. So I take it with a small ounce of faith that the accounts are true.
@Jason Lusk what happens to non-believers is not really up to me. I believe God gave humans free will and those that don't choose Him will live freely, but not live eternally.
This has been so enjoyable, and moderator was superb!
After all this time, I love finding a Hitchens video I've never seen before.
Ken H Me too Ken; this man was impressive .
@@user-ed1mj5zk6f He was a complete jerk.
He was a complete jerk.
@@kg4lzc and he forgot more than you know
@@donjonsen5295 He is the epitome of institutional egotism... Folks get into Academia so they can learn a lot of facts or hyperbole and they think they are something. Then they look down their noses at anyone who hasn't 'attained' and think they can get away with it. I'm sorry Lennox condescended to give his time away so cheaply.
I wish we had such high-end debates around here in France... Involving both real thinking and convictions, with all the interesting contradictions that it implies.
Wish the same for Brazil.
Il y a. Des fois. Michel Onfray quand il a cassé Sigmund Freud (j'ai trop aimé, je hai la psychologie) et des psychologues était la pour un débat.
The French have birthed some incredibly gifted intellectuals; Foucault, Derrida (not technically, but yeah), Lacan, just to name a few.
I really do not appreciate how the host allows Hitchens to FREQUENTLY interrupt or counter Lennox, but then when Lennox begins to respond this "fixed point foundation" stops Lennox from addressing the fallacies and misleading statements withing Hitchen's claims...as was the case where Hitchens called Mary a liar to her husband, for this overlooks the scriptural reference that Joseph (her husband) also received divine intervention of knowledge of the occurrence.
Indeed, Hitchen mischaracterizes a lot of his examples.
What John Lennox conveniently never considers is that even if there is a supreme force or creator there is no evidence that the religion he follows is the sole representative of that creator cause he just picked one out of hundreds yet he thinks he hit the jackpot so it's that kind of pettines that Richard Dawkins always talks about and this is a problem within all exclusive religions because on the one hand they seem to accept other religions on the surface in order not to pass off as intolarant but on the other hand deep down they truly disregards other religions because in their view they're all false religions and there's no salvation if not via so-and-so religion, now that's why both Christianity and Islam are religions that seek to evangelize the world, what they want is a dictatorship where their religion is the only one and the others cease to exist. So the only way for that to work out is via evidence but no religion has evidence of their gods' existence, it's all about childish wishful thinking, then this John Lennox says that people have to make decisions on that choice but that's not people making decisions, it's their culture, parents and geography making decisions, if John Lennox were born in the Middle East he would be defending the same thing I guess but the Islamic god and not the Christian god.
If we are to say there is a creator then no religion has the right to say they're the sole representative of that creator while they have no evidence to back up their claims.
I also love it when Hitchens in his final argument tries to equate Catholicism with Nazism despite Pius XI explicit condemnations of Mussolini and Hitler, Fascism, and nationalism. Pius XII being involved in three assassination on Hitler and The Catholic Church being responsible for saving 800,000 Jews. “But the Catholic Church is bad because they were forced to celebrate Hitlers birthday”.
Christianity was also integral to emancipation, women suffrage, and civil rights. If you deny this then I’m afraid the forerunners of these movements will disagree.
As Lennox brilliantly put it “if you start telling people that they are nothing more than animals then they will start acting like animals”. I can assure you that if it weren’t for Christianity we would still have slavery (of course we still have slavery but you get the point). These morals are not as self evident as these atheists would suggest.
I missed something. I noticed several instances of Lennox talking over Hitchens. But I'll have another look...
It makes me super anxious how close Hitchens's glasses are about to fall from the point of his nose
They're held in place by Scotch sweat and the wasted breath of the indoctrinated.
Those are nice glasses btw, damn i miss this gentleman.
too bad he couldn't see the truth of salvation through those greasy glasses
@@nancygerke1648 what truth?
@@FatherDingo Jesus
Hitchens is the ultimate debater, informed, entertaining, efficient, and eviscerating in humor. He is greatly missed.
Dang, best description of Christopher Hitchens I’ve heard. The best so far!
Absolutely
Hes faced with Truth now. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess sooner or later.
@@johnjaso385 just no 🤦🏻♂️ it’s 2023 grow up.
@@markusbaker1161 i am grown up.
Please explain to me creation and explain to me what atheism can give me for hope?
It's lamentable that our current society and educational system doesn't produce minds such as either one of these gentlemen.
I agree .
I think I have watched pretty much all debates about the existence of god, every one of them had a believer with really bad line of thought and argument, this debate, on the other hand, is a true gem! I don't believe in god, but Christopher H. had a really strong and well spoken opponent with some truly thought provoking arguments! Thanks for the upload
I always thought it was interesting NOT to beleive in God. Can you tell me what led you there
@waltglass7055 There is no proof not even an atoms worth. Then see that most of the misery in this world is caused by theists.
@@waltglass7055 Hello, I don't have a reason to believe, I have got no evidence at all. Tbh it would be sick if god existed and created it all, but all the biblical nonsense and obvious imprint of human intervention in the whole Bible story doesn't lead me to believe. What's your reason to believe in an almighty creator?
@jaroslav-6027 when you say evidence. What do you mean? Mathematical? Scientific? What are we talking about when you say you have not seen evidence. And then based off whose sense of good and evil do you submit that if God was real it would be sick. Which is to say that it would be messed up. How would it be messed up? Who do you compare God's judgment or moral compass to if he is in fact real?
Lennox's problem is he always pushes HIS religion, lots of biblical quotes prove nothing. I prefer to keep an open mind, there quite possibly might be a creator, but its NOT the biblical god, Yahweh, who is a sadistic nutter who pretends to be a force for love and who has only been around for 2600 years , the billions of years that have passed without it instructing us seem to have been the time when he was twiddling his thumbs.
Evidence. John Lennox; this word does not mean what you think it means, regardless of your profession.
Doc Carter - How are you going to say that to a mathematician. I could bet anything he looked for logical evidence longer than you ever will for justifications of atheism.
Bet away. Won't help. I have Christopher Hitchens on my side and there is no evidence for the existence of a God/s.
Not until we die will we know who says the truth. See ya
FightforFlight _____ yes that’s pretty much it
I agree . Didn't produce a shred of evidence for anything .
I need a dictionary every time I listen to these guys
It's The English language in it's correct form and use, other forms of our Launguage are based on a lazy wrongly spelt and incorrectly pronounced bastadized version, All one has to do is be prepared to learn it and how one uses it.
virgil Allen. Obsolutely correct.
Can't tell you how much I've learned from listening to these debates. I do think John Lennox
You should start reading more
virgil Allen. It’s “bastardised” in English in Britain. Also, only use “it’s” when you mean “it is”. Furthermore, try not to randomly capitalise words in the middle of a sentence and you may also want to look again at the grammar, spelling and structure of your sentences. If you have access to Microsoft Word it’ll put you right on most, if not all, of your paragraph above. Rule number one when being patronising....get it right yourself.
Fantastic discussion. I love it when both sides can civilly discuss things and concede points.
though it was certainly civil (you know, they aren't killing each other or condemning each other to eternal fire); I would hardly think Hitchens conceded any points or facts in his argument at all. He was quite careful and grammatic and clear about his assertions. Indeed one of his challenges was left unmet, and many of the opponent's remarks are left in confusion: for example, the dr. Lennox says that, humans are 100% human. A bizarre statement and almost non sensical. Yes, we are human, but we are also very close and indeed 98% or closer to our primate cousins. So it's not only grammatically confusing but also says nothing about being created in a god image. Unless the implication is that we will be greeted by apes and other primates in the afterlife?? the bible makes no mention of them as far as I know? and of course makes no mention of the many other homo species which are evidenced in the fossil record and analyzed very carefully: their DNA and cultural lives. But they aren't there, they aren't mentioned in the bible which of course demonstrates they weren't known about and shows the bible and its tenets are very man made. It's just a shame they didn't know about our other human ancestors otherwise maybe they could be joining us in this so called afterlife haha
Never imagine for one moment that Mr Hitchens' mesmerising oratory delivered within civil discourse ever means he has conceded a point of any meaningful worth.
@joeturner9219 yea, definitely not anywhere close to a science book - not even close. Anyway it's a pretty sadistic form of love: if you don't "love" the god in the bible it will condemn you to eternal punishment. That's an awful kind of love that I and many others want nothing to do with. It's fortunate there is no scientific basis for anything in that awful fictional book.
Hitchens now knows what lies beyond death and sees the other side
@@grubsgrubsgrubs6735 or he's dead and doesn't see/ know anything because he's dead🤷
Best Hitchens debate I’ve ever watched, both sides had amazing arguments and valid points, I wish this was a whole day long. 2 hours is no where near enough time.
So true!
There's nothing like the circular reasoning of "God is great because he exists, and God exists because he is great!" Powerful statement, Lennox.
@Church of Atheism
There's nothing like atheists claiming the universe creating itself when nothing in the universe has been shown to create itself. And saying everything from nothing which violates the laws of conservation on the largest scale possible.
And atheists claiming believers don't know science as atheists brag about: solar nebula theory, inflation, Oort clouds, Kuiper belts, dark matter, dark energy and the crown atheist-jewels: multiverse and Boltzmann brain conundrum. Oh, and the firing of career scientists who offer naturalism-alternative.
Keep paying no attention to that man behind the curtain like a good little atheist-Dorothy.
I'd have more respect if you'd admit you dont want there to be a Creator than hide behind the you-don't-know-multiverse.
Oh, and tell everyone how you don't fear going to prison if you break the law [read: consequences in this life]
How do you know there is no afterlife nor consequences after this life is over ?
@castroy64 - How many people do you suppose your god is going to send to an eternity of torment? He can't provide a better solution? Sounds like the ultimate evil and not very imaginative to not provide a better solution, after all he can do anything.
@castroy64 So when you add them all up, you'll know how many lives you've dishonored by using them to try to make a point, that's just not there. Not a single one of those was "in the name of Atheism". Not one.
@@freightshayker I might get to unwrapping everything you've just said, and it's quite a lot. But you HAVE to explain that last part. Because right now I'm sitting in my chair scratching my head trying to figure out if you really believe your own last statement.
@castroy64 show me any atheist doctrine that says to kill all non-non-believers... You'll find no such thing. And what does this have to do with my original post?
Real stuff begins at 9:00
Thank you
First of all without changing our criminal mentality what scientific advancement will help .it is no use . because we may produce nuclear weapons or biological weapons and we will destroy everything . science is not free is definitely depends on money donation .and money donation is coming mainly from military industry . military industry demand weapons for war and killing . therefore things are no so simple .why science not produce car to go without petrol it is forbidden to do so by petrol industry. So many examples of scientist being killed for providing such cars.science is influenced by very bad people there is no doubts about.another things is possible for science to provide or make life in laboratory is not possible . science can not make even one virus in laboratory .why science believe that life is coming from combination of elements .this is just speculation with no prove .or make something from nothing in your laboratory. Or make harmony and order after explosion science can not.science is just big speculation
Syzygy - Thank You very much....
Syzygy
Yeah! Why get challenged on your world view? When you can resort to mockery, straw-mans & ad-hominems?!
Gibberish begins at 25:26. Knowledge and truth picks up again at 41:30
me scrolling through the comments expecting to find comments about the debate turns out the only thing they took out of the video was the clapping
Memes have taken over the hivemind. Nobody questions things and listens to people like Hitchens. Just braindead people farming upvotes with weird meme promulgation and zero thought.
@@tkbikesnc6079 they also don't listen to the uncomfortable truths of Jesus Christ
@@jimdee9801 what a load of absolute nonsense.
@@jimdee9801 They also listen uncomfortably as the theist spouts drivel and is totally owned.
@@allingtonmarakan1436 "owned" yeah hitchens didn't stop trying. It was petty.
In 2024 I’m watching this debate again. I was a struggling Christian when I came across Mr Hitchens. Now I am a stronger Christian and I thank God for having someone like Mr John Lenox. I miss Mr Hitchens for his honesty and brilliant mind. I pray for God’s mercy on his soul and I so hope he did find the truth before his passing. Even though he was so strong in his “not believing” but somehow I feel he has a gentle soul 🙏
"Genital mutilation is religion based". Well that didn't age well xD, welcome to 2023!!
It didn't age at all because something being "based" is unchangeable. If genital mutilation is based in religion. It stays that way. That's what "based" means.
Wokism is a religion
@@Gruso57 Transgenderism is not religion based. Therefore gentile mutilation as a result of transgenderism is not religion based.
You just presumed that the quote is correct where the original commenter has provided an example of why the quote is false.
I have not idea what you are trying to prove.
@@infallibleinterpreterthe idea and practice of mutilation is based in religion!
"I base my faith on that evidence."
Yes, but what is THAT evidence? What evidence is he aware of that I'm not that his god exists?
ShattForte - You mean the evidence he presented in the debate? Did you even watch it?
Atheist with head stuck in sand: “What evidence for god? I don’t see any evidence!” 🤣😂🤣😂
Steve Sorenson
Haha, funny. He didn’t present proper evidence and nor will you XD
Chelsea G - “proper” evidence? 🤣😂🤣😂 more denial.
Theist: Here’s evidence for god
Atheist: That’s not evidence.
Theist: Yes it is.
Atheist: well, er, um, it’s not PROPER evidence (atheist sticks head back in sand).
🤣😂🤣😂
Steve Sorenson
You fail to realise that Bible verses isn’t evidence. Actually provide proper evidence, and those who are intellectually more capable than you will determine whether what you present is evidence or not.
Because believe it or not, sweetheart, just because you deem something as evidence or “proper” evidence - doesn’t mean it is. It has to be demonstrable, falsifiable, repeatable, etc. Everything you have put forth so far is none of those. Try again.
@@stevesorenson892 An atheist doesn't seek to disprove God. If you actually presented feasible evidence, we would change our minds. You haven't. And even so, if you prove God exists, how do you prove it is the God of the bible or the God of the Qur'an? To make baseless assumptions like this makes genuine theists look bad, you're strawmanning us and assume we actively seek to deny God. Atheism is not an active position unlike theism. Your argument would only work with Gnostic atheism, not with Agnostic Atheism. If you're going to make an argument, try to sound rational.
2021 anyone one
Enjoying this video in 2031, made possible by our Most High Lord XG36 Type A. All Hail Our Robot Overlord!
One-one?
@@tragicsans All praises given
@Paul d’Holbach cool 😎
@Paul d’Holbach
(1) The universe is all an illusion, nothing actually exists, (2) The universe has always existed, is self-existent (3) The universe was brought into existence by something/someone that is self-existent. The question is which hypothesis has the greatest explanatory power, which is the most parsimonious and which is the simplest (Occams razor) ? Well option 1. is self refuting as you can’t have an illusion of an illusion. Equally, according to the brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky despite criticisms of Rene Descartes famous quote “Dubito ergo, cogito ergo, sum”
(“I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”) Descartes still stands. So we are clearly not an illusion. Option 2. crumbled under the weight of evidence from the “Big Bang”. Ironically atheist scientists actually coined the phrase “Big Bang” to unfairly ridicule the brilliant scientist George Lemaitre who discovered the “Big Bang”. The double irony is that George Lemaitre also turned out to be a Christian/Catholic priest proving that there is no conflict between science and religious expression. The conflict between science and religious expression is a myth and is actually a false dichotomy promoted by militant atheism. Again ironically it was actually atheist scientists who held back the science for several years by resisting the theory as the “Big Bang” supported the metaphysical beginning to time and space described in Genesis. You couldn’t write this!!
Nevertheless, we are left with option 3. did (mind) bring reality into existence or are we nothing more than “matter” that is nothing more than an “illusion” created by the random motion of atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Nothing more than the blind, mindless, pitiless, merciless, meaningless process that Richard Dawkins takes great delight in pontificating about. Again we’re back to the illusion problem and an immaterial mind is simpler than the complexities of matter (Occams razor). If we are just an illusion created by complex brain chemicals and the random motion of atoms and mindless “matter” materialists/atheists have no ground for insisting we should take any of their convictions seriously as their claims are also created by the same illusion. Even atheist philosophers admit this existential problem and the inevitable nihilistic conclusions under the materialistic paradigm. The fact is that you can not ground values such as morals, ethics, knowledge and not even science and logic itself in the materialistic paradigm.
logic is an illusion (Nietzsche)
It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all...
This is an attack not upon faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." The philosphic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not, therefore I cannot think”
G.K. Chesterton.
❤️
We lost a Gem, highly critical thinker, articulation, brilliant vocabulary, irrefutable reasoning and logic and charming as ever. Christopher Hitchens ❤
Both of these men are admirable. A much appreciated debate.
I love this comment.
Jonathan Kafoure what kind of god would give u a world of suffering
Both of these men are admirable? - are you kidding? Hitchens employs logic throughout while Lennox is a superstitious moron.
owen williams Some choice words about a guy who would probably give you the shirt off his back if you needed it.
Whether he would give me the shirt off his back does not prove the validity or accuracy of his doctrine- incidentally how did you assess that probability?
Debate starts at 8:58
Oh my word thanks the introducer kept rambling about socrates
I miss the honest atheist Hitchens. He was a brilliant mind and brutally straight up. I pray he discovered the joy of faith, the peace, that exceeds all understanding, before his untimely passing. John Lennox is an exciting discovery as well. I look forward to more of this man.
Jim, There is another debate between Lennox and Richard Dawkins, like the one between Professor Lennox and Christopher Hitchens, that's also out and about, through various formats--that's available to people who like this kind of thing.
Jim Demers Lennox is a dishonest debater and demonstrates this by repeatedly lying to his audience. I find him a somewhat pathetic excuse as an intellect and clearly not a scientist.
I find the term "honest atheist" to be such a classic oxymoron!! That is just exquisite!! Quite excellent!! Like declaring a Judas-like, Christ-betraying, left-wing baby-murdering monster...as being 'trustworthy', 'truthful', and 'caring', and worthy of people's trust. Like being a Jew a century ago in Germany, and being demonically deceived into believing that Adolph Hitler was someone Jewish people could trust with their lives. Or Americans voting for left-wing betrayers of God and Country; and believing such lies as "the separation of church and state" (while the public education is morally disemboweled); and Satan's lie that murdering babies is a "woman's rights", insidiously!!
Gary Weidemann have a lie down or something mate, Jesus hasn’t done too much for your state of mind eh? And read your book dude, Jesus was a socialist.
Gary Weidemann and you bring your religious bullshit around my kids, and you’re going to have yourself a little problem. There are no gods.
These two men are the best debaters from their respective worldviews. There will never be another matchup like this.
If Lennox really is the best of the Christian apologists then that pretty much sums up why sane and rational people should be atheists.
@@AlanBolshevik Stephen Hawking: "Religion is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark"
John Lennox in response: "Atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the Light."
Sane and rational people believe all sorts of things. I don't think anyone is sane and rational enough to determine what sane and rational people SHOULD be.
@@Makeaocbartendagain2 Couldn't agree more💯
@@Makeaocbartendagain2thats not evidnce
@@zappersolo7588 so im supposed to prove the existence of God on a RUclips comment section? I was defending my claim that Lennox was a good debater, not that God exists.
Whats awesome is John Lennox showed up to watch the debate! The first person dropped out! John was asked if he would fill in and he said sure!
And ended up being outclassed
He should of gone for a pint
@@denniskiarie1984 what debate did you watch?
@@Raiddd__I wonder
who was the first person?
I'm gonna give Lennox credit for being polite. So many of the people I've seen Hitchens argue with have tried talking over him and have been too snide and demeaning for me to take seriously.
Edit: I'm getting a bunch of responses to this that frankly doesn't interest me. If you comment on this, don't expect a response from me in turn.
God teaches his class, Class. 🙏👍
That's because Hitchens is snide and demeaning. He gets what he gives.
Yeah, it’s ridiculous to say Hitchens didn’t do the same, especially when he was drunk.
Christian Grace
I was impressed by Professor Lennox and some of his arguments, as he was far more coherent and plausible then most theists. He did not convince me of course, but was far more impressive than his peers.
This is was a marvellous example of how debates should be undertaken, without the usual name calling and emotion they seems to always follow
I have always loved the late Christopher Hitchens …. That is to hear him speak … his mind. And, although I was born and raised in Birmingham, Ala., and was taken to church three different days and nights each week, I was not really religious. I am now, due to life’s experiences, and I often hear Dr. Lennox, and deeply admire him … his words/thoughts.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
There is salvation outside the church, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ
@@user-jl9sk5ny2e"The Church" is the covenant between man and God through Jesus Christ. The church are people, not a place or specifically an institution.
@@unapologetic4375 How do I know, the bible tells me so.
@@user-jl9sk5ny2e How do I know, the bible tells me so.
I'm a Muslim. I found that many arguments for the existence of God raised by Dr John Lennox can be used by Muslims as well.
Thank you, Dr. Lennox.
I found more reasons to be kept in ignorance. Good job buddy.
What would you say the primary differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God?
@@JackPullen-Paradox The Divine Trinity would be one.
could you give me a Quranic manuscript, before the 10th century, containing al fatiha? If so I will recite the shahada :)
Muslims better use their own brain. Use your Quran if it is from God 😂😂😂
The good part was that Dinesh couldn't come
The inability, maybe lack of desire, to know the difference between good and bad on an objective level, might actually result from the rebellion against the worship of God. Dinesh an amazing and decent man in a world suffering from indulgence in chaos, deception, and the kicking of a wild ass.
@@Rextrent I've always said the only 2 words one needs to know to be a religious apologist are "if", and "then"
holy shit! I forgot all about "might" or "maybe" thanks
@@emach07 that's about the dumbest most vague philosophy ALMOST that I've ever heard...next to Hitchens and his complete lack of understanding to simple scripture a child can understand....along with most other atheists.
@@davidu8688 oooh, hit a soft spot eh? Your insults don't carry much weight to me David. You just stay in make believe land while the rest of us deal with actual reality XO
@@emach07 it's funny how you give no real rebuttal for your claims but only insults...remember you were the one who started with the insults bud...and lol, no, no "soft spot" at all. Unlike atheist who have no real evidence for their claims and only attack Christianity instead of proving their views, I can back up my talk.
Hitch had more class intelligence and style than many civilizations
@RUSSIAN ROBOT
Only those who are delusional think that XD
RUSSIAN ROBOT
That’s a very weak argument. Where is your evidence????
RUSSIAN ROBOT
1: There is no evidence for God.
2: Personal Experience is not evidence for God, as only the person who went through the experience can verify it. How are we to believe them? For all we know, they are lying/delusional or both.
3: Those who believe in God are, in fact, controlled and persuaded by beliefs/dogma/agenda/ignorance/delusion and more.
4: Atheism is the lack of belief, get it right.
5: Personal/Direct experience is the WORST evidence, as it is only evidence for those who actually experience it (and that’s assuming they weren’t mistaken).
6: As science has been finding out more things about the world, the more it becomes apparent that your God is false. Deal with it.
mommy, please tell me a disney fairy tale before i go to sleep;
okay honey: 'once upon an ancient time, in a far far away middle east kingdom;
lives most of the illiterate goat herders who hallucinates a book called the holy bible...
'
.
if the christian god is great, then why waste time with the debates?!
.
and check this one out...!
ruclips.net/video/H8E-5p3DdUc/видео.html&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3hnH139Q33DV9A6-_1K8Z3Z63OUJLu9DAGkLT-vsvB_HIKdA2wK0d08jE
@@jz5jo Mommy, tell me a story. Okay, hun. Once upon a time, space, time, matter, and energy all came from nothing for no reason at all - and from nothing at all. The big bang, which created the universe, was so fine-tuned by nothing - that if every subatomic particle in the universe was a zero, you could add every atom, too, and the number still couldn't be completed. Life began from non-life; order from chaos; non-intelligence created intelligence; nothing created everything. Wow, mommy, that's a heck of a story. Ah, but there is more, hun. Atheists, in their infinite brilliance, have to hold to a hypothesis called the multiverse to get away from inconvenient truths regarding the universe (despite there being no evidence - or any way to test it.) Mommy, do people believe that? They sure do hun. Wow, that's too much of a fairy tale for even me!
My goodness Hitchens is intelligent.
was, he would really be disappointed of you if you would propose the possibility he would still exist after his death :)
isinox shut up
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." Voltaire
I'm sorry I'm open to anyone's opinions but I've never heard anyone make more sense about this world than Christopher hitchens 👊☮️❤️
Did you say make "sense??" Can you tell me how he makes sense as an atheist that you are?? I'm not saying to verbally attack religion. Be Logical
“But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.””
Mark 14:61-62 NIV
@@CoachD515 Sorry, I miss the point of this quote.
@@larrydesmond1787 Hitchens said that Jesus never claimed he was the Son of God. Here it is.
@@CoachD515 OK. Are you suggesting that a self-statement means anything or proves anything? If I assert I am the messiah, does that make it so? Aside from theists, not sure if anyone really cares about this, except to refute christians who tend to violently impose their views about god on non-believers.
This John Lennox guy barely scratched the surface of the most simplistic and tired arguments for the existence of God.
He owns hitchens in this debate. But you are well aware of it.
he mopped the floor with hitchens luxurious hair!
a god would know that a meaningful relationship is impossible when
presenting a carrot in one hand and threatening punishment with the other.
selfademus
You may be assuming a relationship like a husband and wife or brother to brother but in this case it is Creator to creation. The Creator gave the created all things. Life, free-will, purpose and everything else. He has the last word.
Elio Puyol. You may be assuming Creation is like granny making a cake or Johnny building his lego , but in this case (where or how did our universe come about) it is something very profound of which we humans cannot just draw simple parallels and demand there be a Creator similar to a “man” using imaginary special powers to conjure things from a human like mind. To imagine up a god as a likeness to humans is very limited and incredibly speculative. And to take that idea and indoctrinate and force it onto others and children is abuse of power and I am thinking inquisition and many other similar and many governments still use tax money helping whatever religion takes their fancy. Disgraceful oppression.
blanca roca
I totally agree with you. I don’t think we know much of the power of which God created creation. I also agree God doesn’t have a human like mind(his thoughts and ways are higher than our ways). God is nothing like us. And forcing a belief on someone is very oppressive, I agree! And there are many “Churches” that are tax excepted that are actually robbing people, I agree.
blanca roca
As far as creation, the scriptures in
Romans 1:20
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
And as far as following the truth Jesus says,
“Take heed that one deceives you” Matthew 24:4
And
“Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord...”
Matthew 7:22
So one verse tells us we can see(science, study) creation has a creator.
And the other verses says we must be careful and diligent to following the truth.
roca omg you're so insightful I remember being abused and oppressed as a child, please go on oh wise one. tell all children we dont know until we know it in the future (maybe we will know it then)
Such a shame Hitchens is no longer with us, to lend his immense intellect and communication skills to today's many issues
Fantastic debate from these two.
I am never fascinated by the opening statements or rebuttals because I kinda have a jist of what they're both going to say. Besides, they've clearly prepared the opening statements quite well and studied their opponent. The real measure of the debate is the Q&A session. Unlike the opening statements and rebuttals, non of them can predict the questions that will be asked and also some questions don't relate to the debate. This did where I am afraid to say Hitchens comes alive. Dr Lennox looks out of depth and seems to struggle with answering questions. When he does, Hitchens quickly owns him. That in my opinion is the measure of a good debater. That has always been Hitchens greatest strength. He has a real good ear for listening and his mind is a library of knowledge that he can access quickly to answer any question.
As an atheist, I've never been interested in whoever wins the debate. Honestly, it's always the measure of the strength of their arguments that I enjoy listening to.
Agreed. I'm a former atheist, now a believer, so I'm in the strange position of having rooted for both of them at one time or another. I find Hitchens to be utterly masterful in his rhetoric, but when given time to marinate on what he often posits, it frequently doesn't bear the weight of rigorous philosophical scrutiny. He's something of a poet...a linguistic and rhetorical magician...and, ironically, is very nearly the antithesis of C.S. Lewis in style or force. Anyhow, always nice to disagree nicely. :)
@@adammeade2300 What exactly made you a believer? What information, evidence based, made you decide? Hopefully, you don't tell me it was the writings of a man, or the absence of evidence, therefor it must be God.
Lennox offers nothing but ignorance.
@@adammeade2300 Interesting. I am aged 75 and have been an atheist my entire adult life. I mean no disrespect when I say that I find Christianity so far-fetched, so lacking in evidence, so unbelievable that I honestly find it an insult to my intelligence. It genuinely amazes me that anyone of intelligence can believe it.
Sure, I can understand how kids are indoctrinated into faiths. As the Jesuits say "Give us a child until the age of seven and we will give you the man".But to go from atheism to Christianity is something I just don't understand.
@Jenkem Muhdikken Nah. I've seen countless hours of Dillahunty's debates already. He's certainly not the apex of secular thought. Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett make more cogent arguments, while Matt is more in the ilk of Hitchens...rhetorically persuasive but ultimately flawed in his blind spots and a priori.
2020 enyone?
No
That is the current year
Here here.
Right with you
I em here
This comment section is fairly civil enough. A lot civil than those I see from other debates, especially those from WLC vs Hitchens debate videos.
@Brandon Aitken Why don'¨t you make like a tree and get the fook outta here
"your father was a hamster, your mother smelt of elderberries , I fart in your general direction" ..........has this statement redressed that balance a bit?
:-)
@@jonfromtheuk467 Is there someone else up there we can talk to?
- Go away or I shall taunt you a second time
@@FatherDingo A SECOND TIME???? You haven't done one yet....
@@jonfromtheuk467 Do bears shit in the forest??
While I certainly appreciate Professor Lennox's great intelligence, I am dismayed at his lapses into absolutism and closed argument. For example, saying that even though Christopher Hitchens is an atheist, he is non-the-less made in the image of god and THEREBY has a sense of morality. This leaves no room for Christianity to self-reflect, to consider, to be debated, to grow. It's like, "If you question it, it's because you haven't understood it." There is no conversation. I applaud Christopher Hitchens for his relentless commitment to true open-mindedness, accountability and courageous dives into the big questions. I am SO GRATEFUL for his writing and the hours of recorded debates and conversations! What a gift to humanity!
““I am dismayed at his lapses into absolutism”
“There is no conversation”
Now that’s ironic coming from a relativist or a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist. It’s beyond ironic because the fact is that it is actually a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that is a causally closed effectively complete system. It’s the personification of absolutism and meaningless conversation.
(Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that the truth is that there is no truth”
Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it ridiculous…
A strictly reductive, materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. It’s a question begging fallacy and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. The fact is that it consists in asserting the claim that there is no “truth” as if this were “truth” itself? Oblivious to the irony of declaring it to be “absolutely” true that there is nothing but the relatively true!! It’s synonymous with saying that there is no language or writing that there is no writing. In fact, every idea is reduced to relativity, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion undermines itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion clearly contradicts itself if it is “true” and by contradicting itself logically proves thereby that it is totally false and is an atheistic nihilistic fantasy. Its first absurdity lies in the fact that it is a logical fallacy, a (Special Pleading Fallacy). An implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by magic, from a relativity that is declared to be the only “absolute” possibility.
It’s like believing that if you just screamed loud enough “there is no such thing as sound”!! then sound will cease to exist!!
“When our pride usurps Truth, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, an ego driven reality.”
It speaks volumes that postmodernists, who hand wave away objective morality as they doubt the possibility of moral absolutes, are so absolute about their own subjective preferences? Moral subjectivists and narcissists never have doubts about their own absolute importance!!
Unless individuals experience generosity and love in their early lives, they are going to do selfish things that will damage and hurt other people. Unless individuals are given the opportunity to experience a degree of courage and self sacrifice in their everyday ordinary lives and are given the opportunity to endure discomfort or even suffering for the sake of other peoples good, they will be more likely to do cowardly things in later life that will cause discomfort and suffering for other people. Unless individuals observe the virtues of treating others with dignity and respect by acknowledging every person’s intrinsic value whatever their colour creed, gender or race, they will allow their subjective preferences to rule, dominate, use and hurt other people. Social harmony is built on the individuals observance of objective morality not subjective preference. History clearly demonstrates that a great society is not built on the shifting sands of moral relativism, an ego driven reality that has its basis in narcissistic fantasy land. Society is built on moral absolutes and the objective fact of men and women of great moral character and inspiration who suffered and made great sacrifices. People such as Martin Luther King JR, Rosa Parks, William Wilberforce, Anne Frank and Ruby Bridges
In post-Nietzschean spirit, the West appears to be busily undermining its own erstwhile metaphysical foundations with an unholy mélange of practical materialism, political pragmatism, moral and cultural relativism, and philosophical skepticism.
“What a gift to humanity”
Are you for real? The thousands of innocent men, women and children who died in Iraq would beg to differ as Hitchens in the end became an apologist for the dirty deeds of the American empire!!
Evidence to the contrary please!! I’ll wait!!
“I am dismayed at his lapses into absolutism”
“There is no conversation”
This is beyond ironic!! Sorry but the sad fact is that Hitchens in the end became an apologist for the “absolute” dirty deeds of the American empire. It also beggars belief that Hitchens had the gall to accuse Noam Chomsky of hating America because he spoke out about the dangers of totalitarianism. Furthermore, the cringe worthy worship of Hitchens in this comments section speaks volumes with regards to the power of style over substance and the lack of productive “conversation” . Or more accurately the power of rhetoric and propaganda over truth and facts. Its beyond ironic and cringe worthy.
Anyone seriously claiming a book title “How Religion Poisons Everything” is a thoughtful and even handed examination of religious expression as a phenomenon really doesn't have much of a grip on reality!! It’s pretty clear who lapsed into “absolutism”!!
Similarly, Hitchens associates such as Sam Harris bragged that….
“I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.”
(Sam Harris).
Another example of a very disturbing “lapse into absolutism” by someone who clearly does not have an healthy grip on reality with regards to human rights. Especially given the fact that the “intelligentsia” of the four horsemen known as Dawkins, Dennette, Harris and Hitchens believed that moderate religious believers were more dangerous than extremists.
According to the human rights lawyer Lutz Oette….
“Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette).
Equally, one of Hitchens associates Richard Dawkins, a scientific populariser with the emotional and philosophical IQ of an Hitchens fanatic, promoted eugenics and was stripped of his “Humanist of the year award” by no other than the (Association of Humanists) for bigotry and intolerance towards marginalised groups and moderate religious expression. Dawkins even wrote a book aimed at children that equates the Jews with the Nazis something that is clearly advantageous to the alt right!! The Association of Humanists is a secular atheist organisation by the way.
According to the anti-theist and scientific populariser Richard Dawkins…
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” ( Richard Dawkins).
A prominent biologist responded to Dawkins equivocation and unscientific statement with....
“As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown.
Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert).
Equally, the prominent humanist Greg Hepstein from Harvard also thankfully condemned this statement for obvious reasons and responded.....
“So unacceptable for Richard Dawkins to tweet about eugenics without clearly condemning it. Dawkins is *supposedly* one of our exemplars of humanism & science outreach. Yet today he's given every manner of passive and active bigot an opening to "consider" persecution on steroids” (Greg Hepstein).
According to the association of humanists….
“Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values,” (Association of Humanists). That’s a secular atheist organisation by the way.
“Eugenics itself, in large quantities or small, coming quickly or coming slowly, urged from good motives or bad, applied to a thousand people or applied to three, Eugenics itself is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.” (G.K. Chesterton 1874 - 1936).
It’s beyond ironic that Hitchens accused Mother Teresa of being guilty by association when she accepted money for the poor from people who had chequered pasts. The irony is that Hitchens had the gall to criticise Mother Teresa using speculation, half truths, sensationalism and outright lies and yet he made a six figure sum selling certainty to atheists and in the end he became an apologist for the dirty deeds of the American empire something mother Teresa and Noam Chomsky were highly critical of. By Hitchens own standard he is guilty by association. He is guilty of promoting torture, eugenics, antisemitism and war. A war that lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
Furthermore , according to think-tanks atheist RUclips channels are being identified as alt-right gateways.
The RUclips algorithm suggests that the extreme views and intolerant approach serve as indirect links to far right ideology. A report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an American non-profit which tracks extremist activity, stated that some alt-righters found Sam Harris' work "blended easily into that of more overtly racist writers". The report argues that "Under the guise of scientific objectivity, Harris has presented deeply flawed data to perpetuate fear of Muslims and to argue that black people are genetically inferior to whites." It notes some of Harris' less responsible uses of his podcast, including the Charles Murray incident, and quotes one alt-righter who moved from Harris' content to that of the overtly racist blogger Paul Kersey.
I rest my case!!
@@georgedoyle7971 The problem is not your analysis of what the impact of relativism might be on society. That's a totally separate question from the question of the _fact_ as to whether or not God just does or does not exist.
The more poignant question is whether or not your discussion of "truth" is _relevant_ in any way. The first thing to point out is that, in fact, naturalism and atheism do not _at all_ necessarily imply any kind of relativism whatsoever. This is a total strawman, and even worse. It's a plain outright mischaracterization that many secular people just aren't subject to since they aren't necessarily relativists.
But I can set that aside because I understand the generalized point you are trying to get at, and even if atheism doesn't have to imply relativism and the like then still there are many relativistic atheists and naturalists. So that's fine - it's a discussion that could be had in principle. The trouble with it is that it carries the same _logical_ flaw that _almost_ all religious critiques of secular philosophies have: their own religious philosophy simply does not, in actuality, _solve_ the problems they are attempting to elucidate.
God cannot solve the intellectual dilemmas of moral problems. God can only force people to behave themselves, or at least punish and reward people, but that's not _moral reasoning_ - that's what parents do to children using force. If you are just concerned about people behaving themselves, that's one thing. But if you're _actually_ interested in the _moral questions_ philosophy deals with, that's something totally distinct. God saying "murder is wrong" _cannot_ make murder wrong unless you _simply choose_ to say that you will just _arbitrarily define_ "morality" as "that which God says is moral." That won't solve the question though of what actual _objective_ moral _reasoning_ should lead us to accept in a moral dilemma. Anybody can sit around and define the word "morality" however they want - I could say "morality" is "that which is good for pigeons" or whatever else I want - but it doesn't matter since nobody is going to agree to conceive of morality in that way. Generally morality has to on some level be concerned with the well-being of minds and there's really no conception of morality that doesn't involve that, secular or spiritual,
No sure if I agree. In case Hitchens is reciting the same arguments.
A bad apple doest the whole barrel is bad.
911 bombers doesn't mean islam is false.
Examine the core doctrine.
The consistent truth to athiesm is that everything is either all made up by society or we and murderers too dance to the music of DNA. there is no real morality or goodness or fairness or sanctity of life.
If in the near future, society is dominated by eating babies, then so shall it be. Survival of the fittest. And rules rewritten by victors. There is no real right or wrong in atheism, it's just an illusion.
@@bond3161 you're right that atheism doesn't give stances on right or wrong because atheism has _nothing_ to do with right or wrong, so to bring up "right and wrong" in the context of the question "is there a God?" is completely _irrelevant_ . Atheism is a single position on a single question and it means nothing else, with respect to morality or any other thing. The only caveat to this is that if you're an atheist, you obviously can't logically base your morals in some conception of God since that would be logically absurd. What you're trying to do, however, is ignore that obvious fact and just say - to _insist_ without any basis - that "morality = God, therefore I (the theist) win, since you (the atheist) concede the existence of morality." This is just terrible argumentation. It's not even an argument. It's a fiat declaration of victory against an interlocutor you're not dialoguing with.
I pointed this out before: the notion of a God cannot _solve_ any "moral problems" that we human beings face. I refer you back to my prior comment:
====
"God cannot solve the intellectual dilemmas of moral problems. God can only force people to behave themselves, or at least punish and reward people, but that's not moral reasoning - that's what parents do to children using force. If you are just concerned about people behaving themselves, that's one thing. But if you're actually interested in the moral questions philosophy deals with, that's something totally distinct. God saying "murder is wrong" cannot make murder wrong unless you simply choose to say that you will just arbitrarily define "morality" as "that which God says is moral." That won't solve the question though of what actual objective moral reasoning should lead us to accept in a moral dilemma. Anybody can sit around and define the word "morality" however they want - I could say "morality" is "that which is good for pigeons" or whatever else I want - but it doesn't matter since nobody is going to agree to conceive of morality in that way. Generally morality has to on some level be concerned with the well-being of minds and there's really no conception of morality that doesn't involve that, secular or spiritual."
====
This ^ is what the theist must deal with, but which they won't deal with, because they simply refuse to couch any discussion outside the notions of God's existence. Well, if you refuse to look at things objectively and just insist that everything must fit into some paradigm you already accede to, then you're obviously not going to comprehend any other paradigm, whether you are analyzing moral paradigms or anything else. The ability of the human mind to _abstractly analyze_ a particular model is _different_ from the model the human mind chooses to accede to _personally_ or which one views as "correct." So, again, if you just want to argue that the idea that there is no God-enforcer of a particular moral structure would somehow be bad for society, that's a question worth considering. You can't make any logical _conclusion_ however that the fact that humans have _moral vision_ implies that God exists. But this is literally the whole "Moral Argument" so-called, and is quite plainly fallacious and vacuous on its face. It makes no logical sense as some kind of argument and an objective thinker shouldn't take it seriously when it is presented as some "argument for God's existence."
Furking Death gods shouldn't have left us with Lenox. Hitchens is goat. Hicht please resurrect. We miss you.
So brilliant he was but such a fool.
Hitch is doomed. He had his whole life to see the light that God exists but his empty pride was more important to him. He'll resurrect from death when God does His judgment for unbelievers, then they will be shamed for their evil deeds in their life and then be thrown into the lake of fire and be no more, not even in memory. Hitch loved being clueless, just as his followers are. Even just seeing the existence of this all never got him to think.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Hitch has opinion just like you. We live in ignorance until we get enlightment. The state of my ignorance is a state that is default by birth, environment, language, geography. Please forgive me that I don't know shit as much as you. The eternal fire base on my opinions is just as wicked. But we will see.
Things at the university have radically changed since the time of this wonderful debate. Not much free and open exchange of ideas and opinions
Have you been to a university lately ? Where are you getting your information about this ?
@@luciennoxisou9502 yes,have you?
Which one,I've been to dozens
I have even worked at a university,have you
@douglasparise3986 is it because of the rise of atheistic extremism?
Very enjoyable debate from both men. We need more open explanations like this.
Both? Lennox just repeated his beliefs, gave zero evidence, and just invoked an unwarranted knowledge of the divine and the workings of miracles which he clearly does not have and cannot demonstrate.
@@SnakeWasRight Yes both
@@deadking8224 laughable
@@SnakeWasRight Nope
@@deadking8224 yep. Name one thing that Lennox said that was even remotely valuable... other than for ridicule.
Noticeable that Lennox avoided giving examples of evidence even though his faith is based on evidence 🤔
Watch his other videos, he'll give you many. The time frame didn't let him to elaborate.
That's because there is no evidence for his position.
@@rottweilerfun9520 O yes, there are many. Just push the barrier of your bias away from your eyes.
He never supports his claims, he's pretty bottom barrel.
How about Jesus resurrection, the virgin birth, the putting back of a man's ear , this are biblical evidence that Lennox mentioned.
John Lennox reminds me of a much more intelligent and eloquent Winnie the Pooh.
There is no need for personal attacks. Winnie deserves more respect than that. 😀
Your works are just skin deep, its why your life is that way ... a veneer
This is the most I've ever seen Hitchens challenged. The audience was given a large upgrade by having Lennox step in for DeSouza.
Considering his past performance, I think having Hitchens debate one of the potted plants behind him would have been an upgrade from D'Souza.
If you watch Hitchens debate Berlinski, it is obvious that he excels at 1) "zingers" designed to condescend and make drones laugh, and 2) spouting his rehearsed talking points and completely ignoring the topic at hand. It's a bit annoying to anyone but a fanboy and disingenuous to the truly interested listener.
@@kylealford23
Yet.... You still don't have your personally preferred imaginary friend.
How does that make you feel?
@@WilbertLek Sorry, I'm not fully understanding your point about imaginary friends. That may be because how I process information is predetermined, and I have no ability to transcend the information given and the processing ability of my own brain. It sucks to be a humanist automaton with no ability to assess the validity of a truth claim. My feelings are also predetermined from what I understand.
@@kylealford23
So it makes you angry that your personally preferred imaginary friend only lives in your brainwashed head.
Gotcha... 👍🖖🖕😘
"It's very nice when religion catches up to morality for a change." That says it all.
Well hitchens is dead and I guess his winebibbing assisted in his already given death sentence the moment he was born. Morality means distinction between right and wrong, good or bad, hence law, hence law giver, henceforth GOD! Believe me hitchens met the Judge.
And notice how he made sure to slip it in at the very end with no chance of rebuttal. One might think that says even more
@@miguelacornelio9193 Which one of the gods exactly? Mister Lennox will have a few thousand to answer to on his death, if the religion stuff is to be believed.
@@MrSigmatico Kim if you will allow. I to was an athiest. Bound by my own understanding of things in the natural world. A world of pride and lust. If you want something then take it by any means available. A world full of injustice and cruelty, of false religions, gods and science FALSELY SO CALLED. I had to put aside my own understanding of religion and gods. You see I could no longer get away with doing to others the very same thing that I hated done to me. I realized that there must be justice outside of our ability to corrupt and manipulate for our benefits or gains. In the simplest way I knew how, I reached out to this unknown God. He allowed me a glimpse of who He is. Not by miracles and wild eyed experience that can be easily cast aside by nay Sayers and doubters but by reasoning with me thru Godly wisdom, knowledge and understanding. He is not a god that can be easily manipulated. I too stand under His judgement. That is why it is easy for me to see creation and a Creator just as a watch and know that there is a watch maker. A God who has a plan that involved all of His Creation and His Son Jesus Christ. Truth stands alone in the midst of overwhelming falsehood as a true dollar bill in the midst of overwhelming counterfeit dollars.
@@miguelacornelio9193 The thing is if you know god excists you no longer have faith and then god stops excisting it says so in the bible, which is the reason Hitchens is not in hell, Hitchens never believed in god and as such there is no god for him and as a result no heaven nor hell.
1:18:48 "My knowledge that dead men don't normally rise..."
This entire section regarding the alleged virgin birth and subsequent death and resurrection rely completely on the accuracy of the recording of those events.
It is quite possible that a preacher who would go on to inspire the early gospels DID exist 2000 years ago but it is also possible, as is the case with human nature/memory and motivations, that embellishment may have occurred regarding the accounts of the birth and death of this person in addition to significant events.
We have no proof that the famous Palestinian carpenter was clinically dead in the modern understanding of the term before being taken down from his crucifixion so the 'resurrection' is not necessarily a miracle but a case of people just not knowing enough at the time.
The same with the alleged virgin birth, as noted in the video.
I appreciate that my points are also unprovable but that is the point. Which is more likely?
Nobody has any evidence, other than hearsay, (ironically very close in spelling to the word 'heresy' ) that those two particular events told of in the Bible actually took place. There are countless beliefs all over the world that tell of fantastical events within their respective cultures that are dismissed by those outside as not standing up to scrutiny and these claims made within Christianity are no different as far as evidence is concerned.
This is also true of claims made in other Abrahamic religions.
It is circular logic to try and use the apparent veracity of a holy book to make extraordinary claims whilst at the same time trying to use the extraordinary claims to validate the veracity of the holy book because (surprise, surprise) the holy book(s) are the only source of these physics bending feats despite the far reaching implications.
Bro, historians have more evidence that Jesus was real than Socrates. Jesus was an Israeli Jew, a Man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. The followers of Jesus, the apostles, died in horrific ways not because they were told to believe something, but because they believed something that they claimed to have seen.
People don’t die for a lie they know, but rather people die for something they truly believe in.
John 19.34 "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."
This statement shows that Christ did indeed die more than likely from heart failure and it's known as Pleural effusion, so even though John didn't know the science of what was happening, his description of the scenes are perfectly describing the events of the body that would happen after a person had been beaten and then successfully killed. So, therefor it's proof that Christ was not merely unconscious but clinically dead.
@@HR_Racc or die for something they don't realise is a lie?
@@RUclipsChannelName-th3gi This seems to be a, The bible tells me so, sort of argument. OK if you believe in the "bible" (quran, book of mormon...) but means nothing if you aren't a true believer.
This was nearly 2 hrs well spent. I learned a lot.
Thank you for existing!
Anon lol
hitch got slaughtered!
RUSSIAN ROBOT - hahaha you learn more from people you don’t know when you’re older
RUSSIAN ROBOT - I thought Dr Lennox had pretty good apologetics to counter the Atheist rants by Hitchens, may he rest in peace.
Please keep clapping directly into the microphone, we love that sound.
I nearly choked on a grape when reading this comment XD You made my day :D Thank you :)
Setekh lol same
As usual the people debating Hitchens always preach instead. Preaching presupposes the existence of a deity which is precisely what we are debating here!!!!!
Lennex read his parts and when it came to exchanges he was slow and unconvincing.
The debate was called is God great. Not is there a God
@@garyolsen4160 exactly
@@garyolsen4160 exactly
John Lennox is such a boss.
Actually he's an ultimate prat
@@suatustel746 ur corny af if u think that
I find it so disappointing that their are not allowed to engage in dispute. These are not debates these are statement. At least there should be some part of whole event where they can exchange their ideas freely and not with this statements and monologues. That would be much more fierce and therefore more interesting
Exactly!!! Cross examination is the best part of the debate. SMH
This is what actual debates are. Back and forths are fun but they are not part of a formal debate format
YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A FORMAL DEBATE IS, THIS IS NOT RUclips COMMENT SECTION THAT WE ARE SEEING LOL
If you are patient, and at all observant, you'll realize that while one is speaking, the other is listening carefully and preparing remarks. Because it sounds nothing like the violent blowout in the family kitchen is precisely the point of a formal debate.
John Lennox has it set up that way so he can use all sorts of rhetoric and fallacies and get away with it.
Hitchens always won these debates. He used reason, facts, and lack of evidence. The theist always says, “Jesus said…..Jesus meant…..” It’s not even close.
Except for when hitchens literally said John Lennox is the only one to beat him in a debate, might want to check yourself you bias is showing.
@@Psa22-6 And YOU might want to check your spelling. Your education is showing; or lack there of.
@@Psa22-6 Where did he say this? And you've misused that comma.
@@ZigSputnik id say ask hitchens when he said it, all i know is he did, but you might find contacting him to be a lil difficult, you know being in hell and what not
@L Ron Cupboard lol, theres an infinite amount of space between where im going vs where christopher is 🤡
Back when debates were actually meant to be between ideas not comedians trying to roast each other>>>
Hey my guy I found you here.. I am watching it as you suggested ..
😊
@@shashankshekhar6952 😀
Lennox is passionate in what he says.. quoting Bible to prove God exists is not how to move forward in a logical debate..
I still say Christopher Hitchens has got some solid points..
One can be passionate and still be wrong, you know.
@@titaniumspecial4207 Or the universe is suspended on a giant turtle. We will never know, what the REAL truth is. But that is not important for me. I care that i can ponder these questions. That is my personal meaning of life. Thinking.
Jeffrey Emrick Why do you believe in christ?
@@titaniumspecial4207 Well spoken, sir. The only thing that bothers me with your argument is the following: If someone sincerely said the same thing about Allah, would you be persuaded?
I am on Christopher's side. But if there was anyone who was going to convince me otherwise, it would be doctor John Lennox.
actually there is no side, reality is science which is christoper hitchens standpoint, everything else is a fairytale, story or just made up....
I agree with you . Reality and science is Christopher's standpoint. What I'm saying is there are many immoral Christians out there but Dr Lennox isn't one of them, he's a good smart man who is moral. Just a pity about his beliefs.
Fair point. To me as well it is ramblings because its preaching a fairy tale. But even still I know of some horrible people who are religious but Dr Lennox is a moral person.
@Talorc MacAllan he's very good at using only the apparent good points of the Bible to his argument. But I agree doesn't tend to accept the bad parts but rather evades them , like you said a politician
@@alpatton5965 Read his lattest book:2084. Maybe then you will come to a opinion.
Hitchens isn't even worthy of being on the stage, as he is condescending and rude, and instead of actually intelligently debating any view point with solid data, he misrepresents the data with leading statements and questions, and follows such up with insults directed towards those that disagree with his conclusions. This is not the way of professional scientific debate, yet, he calls himself a scientist. Hardly...and not only this, but to add to why he shouldn't be on the stage is he doesn't believe in equal dialog, for he frequently interrupts both Lennox and the host, while both show him courtesy to express his views. He should return the favor and respect, but he cannot given his condescending arrogant nature. With that said, two scriptural references come to mind...1) those professing to be wise are fools, and 2) don't cast peals to swine. He isn't ready for it. His heart is hardened for some reason.
What data is Hitchens misinterpreting?
As far as your quote, "1) those professing to be wise are fools, and 2) don't cast peals to swine.", this certainly applies to Lennox. I suppose you will now dismiss me as being ignorant of, whatever, and lodge other insulting assertions. But I would like to know what objective evidence there is for the existence of your "god" and what objective evidence there is that this "god" is great, and please, no The bible tells me so...
I thought Hitchens was going to challenge me as a Christian I was rather disappointed
With so many different versions of Christianity, I don't see how anyone could ever possibly cover them all.
@@moodyrick8503 there are plenty types of Atheism too… keep with the subject at hand
@@eddyekofo5102 Atheism is a single position on a single question.
If you lack belief in a God, _you are an atheist._
If you have belief in a God, _you are a theist._
Everything beyond that, is a separate issue.
*Yes of course, atheists believe in many different things beyond "the God question", as do theists.*
But all of that is secondary, to the question of _belief in a God or a lack of belief in a God (s)._
(atheist/theist)
*The issue at hand :* Not all Christians believe the same things, to the point that, no single argument is going to apply to them all.
This is probably the most respect i've ever had for lennox. I'm not a fan normally and i still disagree with him but the sit down debate session with question makes him show his true self instead of all the pre-planned speeches ive seen from him. The sit down section and questions from the audience was the best bit of the whole debate. Debates with times and prepared speeches are always terrible and bring out the worst in debators as everything is pre scripted. Just sit more intelligent, civil people down and let then talk, thinking on the spot is much better.
I suspect that if Lennox was born and brought up as a Communist in the early part of the 20th century that when he reached his seventies or eighties he would be just as positive of the good that Communism had brought to the world and just as dismissive of the evils of Communism as he is now of the evils committed by Christians in the name of Christianity
"Thinking on the spot is much better" for the sake of a debate sure, but to build and express a cohesive argument absolutely not
@@t2nexx561
I get what you are saying but depends on the situation. If you have the knowledge and the right attitude it can actually work out well either way. I find organised debates are about "winning" (which ever way fits the bill). That's why they attract people like Mohammed Hijab who use intimidation tactics, aggression and misquoting people where as sit down discussions are much calmer. If you have the right attitude it doesn't matter either way but Lennox is certainly more tolerable this way from my perspective. The topics go in different and more interesting directions with looser agendas.
The debate that springs to mind is when Lennox and Dawkins were each given 5 minutes then the next question was asked. Dawkins always went first so never got a chance to rebutt Lennox who had a chance to challenge Dawkins who got visibly irritated after about 30 minutes. The organisation that held the debate had an agenda (this isn't uncommon either way).
If you know the subject well enough you should be able to think on the spot and still get a point across and if you can't the other person should be able to see what they've missed and ask follow up questions.
Exactly what i was going to comment, Lennox missed more than half of the Hitchens first speech points and focused on one on the end same for hitchens. They gave their own analogies for thier respective beliefs didn't refute each others point much (which is actually the Essence of the debate usually being emphasized in one to one debate )
@@t2nexx561its not difficult especially not for these two debate experts , there are many videos of both of them debating one to one and giving cohesive arguments
Proving that 2 brilliant minds with opposing views can intellectually and passionately argue there respective point of view.x
Lennox isn't brilliant, he's pretty bottom barrel.
Maybe if people start behaving like animals there will be less killing of humans.
On my way to the Jacuzzi tonight (condo complex) this lady I've seen walking her little dog before - both approached me, and the little guy (or gal) must have just got out of the house, he was jumping about running around his lady tangling the leash, and saw me and started dragging her my direction. I don't have a dog, not for the last 18 years and so i vicariously live through these owners and treat their dogs better than I treat my own. I reached down to be friendly, open handed not worrying about a bite because of how small the dog was. And the little doggie just furiously licked a couple of my fingers. I said, "Wow, so much love from such a little body" and the lady laughed. We're desensitized to humans killing humans but remember that NFL player who fought pit bulls against each other? We waylayed that guy to hell. 100% in agreement with you, I'm thinking we should all carry our pets with us into battle, both sides.
@@trustinjesus1119
We do, and they do as we tell them.
@@amitaimedan We have them for when troops come back emotionally scarred, service dogs, emotional support dogs. I do the mental health fairs, I'm a vendor/exhibitor, it's a ministry of soap for a young lady killed in a high speed drunk driving accident. At the fairs they have emotional support dogs and horses, ponies. It's really cool.
@@trustinjesus1119
Yep, dogs are man's best friends...
@@amitaimedan only if you love dogs.
Personally i dont.
Sorry John Lennox, but nowhere in the Bible does it mention, or even hint, that the universe will end in a massive heat death. Nowhere. Nadda. Not a single damn place.
Edit: Though John Lennox is a great orator and I love to hear him speak :)
2 Peter 3:10But the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:12, my friend ♥️🙌🙏
@@damarissaleh2982heat death means no energy transfer will occur......the usniverse will become ice cold and dark ....... its thr complete opposite of getting heated by a star
Christopher Eric Hitchens was a British-American author and journalist who wrote or edited over 30 books on culture, politics, and literature.
Born: April 13, 1949, Portsmouth, United Kingdom
Died: December 15, 2011, Houston, Texas, United States😢
Yes its sad he ultimately died in disbelief but but but now knows truth.
@@johnjaso385The truth he knew when he died is that he left an amazing legacy. If you are a "believer" don't be so arrogant to impose post unproven nonsense to the destiny of "non believers"
Best thing about these debates is how well these two articulate their arguments. I’m in awe of that. I’m an atheist and come down on Hitchens side but often find the words to describe my logic out of reach. Good debate. Enjoyed listening to both.
It isn't just because they articulate it's also because they don't interrupt each other or insult each other
As a believer I likewise appreciate this debate for the same reasons. Also illustrating that 2 great minds can argue intellectually and passionately there opposing points of view and still do it in a respectful manner.x
@@wormsnake1 That is a big victory indeed for one of these in particular.
@@tomgreene1843
I’m glad you think so.😂
Lennox is spot on. Atheism reduces "thought"to mindless matter in meaningless motion... .including all thought. Atheism really does require blind faith.
Speak for yourself mate
So you don't like the idea... and therefore you don't want to believe it. You prefer a comforting fantasy.
@@owen7666 #triggered
@george vcelar well atheists have enough faith to believe the universe was created out of nothing by nothing. I don’t have enough faith to believe that non sense
@@gubernational57
*well atheists have enough faith to believe the universe was created out of nothing by nothing*
Not this fucking ignorant bullshit yet again. Atheism is a SINGLE position concerning a SINGLE proposition - the rejection of theistic claims any god exists, it has absolutely nothing to say about anything else, so stop conflating it with whatever the hell you feel like. Secondly, you are guilty of equivocation when you appeal to the colloquial meaning of the word 'nothing'. Cosmology and physics does not use this meaning when they describe initial states as there is never a situation where there is an absence of everything - There was still quantum fluctuations and virtual particles. Finally on this point, we have demonstrable and objective evidence supporting the Big Bang theory and when you have evidence, you never need to appeal to faith.
Ironically, it's you the theist who believes this god of yours created this Universe 'ex nihilo' - actually from the colloquial meaning of the word nothing.
*I don’t have enough faith to believe that non sense*
Says the theist who only employs faith to believe baseless absurdities.
"the universe had to have a beginning". "what was that beginning?" "God." "What created god?" "god is eternal". why not just say the universe is eternal? at least we know for a fact that the universe exists. the same cannot be said of god.
You don't solve a mystery by creating a bigger one. This intellectual copout, an appeal to incredulity, "there must be an eternal supernatural being because I have no other explanation", is the crutch the religious fall back upon when debating. How can any rational, meaningful argument be possible if your opponent argues from a position based upon magic and the supernatural?
@@MikeLawtonUK exactly. because they know for a fact that we cannot prove whether god exists or not so they have an excuse to hold on to these silly superstitions. its time for humans to grow up.
that includes psudo-science like homoeopathy as well.
@@xmantion because The Universe isn’t eternal, BB theory suggests that the universe had a beginning and if something has a beginning it’s not eternal, you fool
The universe was not eternal. It was created. Everyone knows that.
"crosses crackling merrily on the lawn" That was a true LOL moment. Great guy!
He’s got humor on another level
What does that mean?
@@LaplacianFourier It's a reference to the Ku Klux Klan burning crosses on the front lawn of black households to intimidate them.
Heretics
Fantastic. Thanks for posting
BRILLIANT ON BOTH SUBJECTS LETS YA GO 2 PLACES INSTEAD OF ONE. WE STILL END IN 1
HITCHENS.. is the man...as always...!!
My problem with hitchens is his seemingly profound ignorance of scripture, while his points on how people abuse religion makes sense but this in no way equates to biblical truth. Just because someone hits you with a Bible doesn't mean it's the bibles fault lol.
Someone hit you with a bible too hard it seems
@@Sgarnoncunce lol nice try at being funny but seems you only show your ignorance. Only meaning I could get out of your lame commit would be that I have also been persecuted by people who misuse the Bible and this would be true.
@@hadescerberus8322 no like you got hit so hard that you believe in such a thing as biblical truths
@@Sgarnoncunce yea... Your implication was obvious and lame.... So if you have nothing intelligent to add gl
He was demonstrating that because religion motivates people to do bad AND good. It shows that religion is man made.
Lennox is very smart and respectful. God bless u
He says things that are demonstrably false.
Too bad he didn't display any of that smartness in this debate though.
Lennox knob-head like all revealationists and dogmatics!
Why is it that everytime Mr Hitchens speaks, he is throwing more confusions out there with all of his side comments and criticism. He can't even present his worldview systematically as how Mr Lennox does. His thoughts are all over the place.
No religion explains why anything exists. Every religion claims unexplicability and unconceivability of the fundamental reality.
Or they say "who can understand the mind of God". However, there is a scripture that says " test the scriptures" , in the context of getting to the essence of 'creation, man, etc. Science actually does, ie "in the beginning there was....such and such etc" in the beginning of the Bible. Thus scientists do this concerning the realistic nature of the universe and more. I can't understand why people see science as a monster when the their faith itself says explore it (in so many words).
George Wilde
Actually religion does explain the existence of all things, is that not so George?
Weither religion makes sense is of course another matter.
Edward Longfellow how does it explain the existence of god in the first place, Edward
@@coltstooth9967
From its own view point Genesis explains the beginning of everything. God of course being the exception. it maybe that Moses was.the creator of Yahweh the god of the Hebrews.
@@edwardlongfellow5819 so it does not in fact explain the existence of all things, thus it explains the existence of nothing.
Moderator is clapping WAY TOO LOUD!!
It was very annoying
he got inspired by the babbel
Davey Jones very true
Lennox figured out really quickly, when the two sat down, that he wasn't dealing with a scientist like Dawkins who could be muddled and confused by those terms of talking.
Hitch was a literary, an orator, and a quite brilliant one. He seemed to bring the discussions of morality to the kitchen table, and Lennox didn't have a leg to stand on outside of the false academic justifications.
Yeah keep telling yourself that
@@Quesque_que Lennox was overmatched.
@@DealingWithDylan No he wasnt at all. Overmatched by Hirchens' arrogance i suppose, as Hitchens time and time again kept cutting Lennox off and even cutting off the mediator so as too try to pump his chest out so desperately to be overheard. Yeah i didnt respect his style, just childish at some points. I hate how he throws little insults in here and there. Yet Lennox always keeps it classy and doesnt need to over sell himself to get his point across
@@Quesque_que I saw at no point where Lennox made a single compelling argument that hadn't been made before and that wasn't drenched in a logical fallacy.
Being a former believer, it still baffles me how I ever thought this way.
@@DealingWithDylan Thats the worst kind. Because you already have at some level of animosity towards the faith. How can you say that Lennox didnt make compelling arguments? And if they are repeats oh well, they do debates so often that that happens
Great to see big ideas clash. I appreciate both thought processes but in my humble opinion, Mr. Lennox made Mr Hitchens’ logic and reason look like absolute child’s play.
Your humble and very irrational opinion.
Humans lived for 98 thousand years , then 2 thousand years decided to come say hi
@Happy Joy Bravo he prob doesn't know what he is talking about and is just regurgitating what hitchens says
Are we in a position to say that human beings won't be here for another ninety six thousand years?
The first Christian book (old testament) is actually older than 2000 years.
@@arandompanda1349 Oh, so we are going to strawman 'him'?
@Σאgßと Inmoral you call it based on today's standards after Christ's sacrifice. Old testament was in a shole different time.
All this talking about "revealing" and "evidence" of god's existence between 56:12 and 57:59, and he finally gets to what this so called evidence is, but just says "Because Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day."
Maybe Im missing something but how is that evidence?
Or indeed, what evidence does anyone have that this actually occurred? No witness gave a direct, sworn written testimony at the time. And do those that claim it occurred, consider the possibility that a number of illiterate, stone age people were mistaken or do they really believe that the laws of nature were temporality suspended for those present - and in their favour - to provide the belief they were seeking?
Mike Lawton
Your comment is exceedingly stupid. Where is your evidence that these were “illiterate stone age people?” Is the Bible not a written testimony from that very time? There were above 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ.
Also, history tells us that all the apostles who originally went out and preached Christ and him crucified. They were all martyred with the exception of one. Now, if it was a lie and they made the whole resurrection thing up, why would they die for it? Sure, you could say that the following generations of Christian martyrs were deceived and died for a lie, just like Muslims do today. But why would the men who originally preached it die for the lie THEY MADE UP???
You can write it all off and believe they were unintelligent, illiterate morons who barely knew how to put a fire together, but even IF that was true...again, who dies for a lie they made up? It was all of them but one. What are the chances that not even one of them caved and did the logical thing and gave up their lie to save their life? Even the one who wasn’t killed went to his grave believing his “lie.”What did they even have to gain from this supposed lie anyway? All cult like religions make the men who start it look perfect and godlike. The men who first preached Christianity...their own scriptures showed them making stupid mistakes and made them look like every other imperfect person like you and I. They were preaching about a spiritual kingdom, it’s not like they were trying to gain temporal power and authority...
Let's take your points in turn. You appear to have constructed a 'strawman' argument to make your point. I did not say they were "unintelligent, illiterate morons". I did, however, make an error that I will correct. I said, "illiterate stone-age people " - it should have been "illiterate bronze-age people". 2,000 years ago, the state of the art for technology was the working of soft metals, such as tin, copper, iron, lead and a range of the first alloys such as bronze, hence "bronze-age people". It was not meant to be a derogatory term, merely a pinning of just how advanced a society we're discussing. Belief in spirits, demons & the supernatural was rife, slavery widely practiced, and the slaughter of women & children from opposing tribes seen as acceptable & expected. This is the environment into which we're trying to place ourselves and gain insight.
I said “illiterate” people - they were. The ability to read & write was largely the preserve of rich males. By the time of Christ, the chief institution amongst the Jews was the Synagogue. This encouraged a rudimentary level of Hebrew literacy for those male Jews that could afford it. Opinions vary, but it is generally accepted that 90 - 97% of the population were unable to read or write. The chance of a written eye-witness record at the time of the miraculous events claimed is thus very unlikely, let alone several testimonies existing that could be compared for consistency & factual accuracy. Consider today's modern world: with high levels of literacy and cameras to record sound & vision; how often do reports contain conflicting and often contradictory information? Now mix in the fact that even the Christian church (by and large) accepts that the bible was written several hundred years AFTER the events described. Thus, your position relies on a story not being distorted or embellished for hundreds of years by highly superstitious believers in magic. Do you genuinely believe that no error or intentional embellishment occurred?
And I must admit, your statement of, “who dies for a lie they made up?” almost had me not bothering to write a response due to its ignorance. I simply point you to countless religious cult leaders over the ages that have made up miraculous stories of salvation in order to obtain money, sex and power. One of the most infamous “maker up of lies” was David Karesh, the particularly sick individual behind the Waco siege in 1987. He was convinced that the second coming of Christ (and an apocalypse for good measure) was imminent, convincing his deluded cult members, the “Branch Davidians”, of the same. This resulted in the deaths of 76 Davidians, including 25 children, 2 pregnant women - and Koresh himself. Wikipedia cal give you a depressingly long list of liars who have fatally deceived themselves and their victims in just the last hundred years or so. Your appeal from incredulity that people do not die at the hand of their own religious lies does not stand up to the test of evidence.
I put it to you that a particularly charismatic deluded preacher, but all too human, existed in the middle east some 2,000 years ago. In the same way, modern history has captured and documented a long tally of similarly deluded individuals. I submit to you he was no more gifted with magical abilities, or immortality, than you or I. If a largely illiterate, sorcery believing society, wrote some 10th hand verbal story down a few hundred years after the event is the best evidence that can be presented, then its clear our standards of evidence vary greatly. If you’re making claims for the miraculous, you need evidence of a high enough standard to assert such claims. Fables from illiterate believers in the supernatural certainly isn't mine.
@@stevenl1706
@MNI Andes And? Muslims have died for what thye believe in, so have hindus, zoroastrians, celts and so many others. Their willingness to die for what they believe in doesn't make what they believe real.
Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? If yes than know that by the same historical process Jesus jas been confirmed by more historians of various indpendent positions (egyptians, jew pro and against, roman, grek, syrian, etc.) AND who lived a lot closer to the event which they described, with all versions confirming the same thing (except the pharises). Jesus has archeological evidence, the tomb itself, and the tomb and bones of the one who condemned him (Caiafas). Records, eye witness accounts and millions of converts that began by martyrdom (dont really see the point in joining the religion of the fugitives who lived in abject poverty and got fed to lions if caught). But you seem to ignore the first SEVERAL evidence he goes through, which are quite empyrical and proven by scientific means (not philosophical) : You got the origin of the univers (infinite univers debunked by Hubble and thermodynamics and cosmology ), you got the fine tuning of the univers, DNA (3.5 billion letter inteligent and specific message) , OBJECTIVE morality (transcends human opinion/authority), coherent , consant , interdependent, exact, precise and rationally inteligible laws of nature. Are all these not revealing evidence of God's existence? Can you find a better more rational explination for all these coincidences that somehow sum up the required conditions for life, knowledge and morality ?
My least favorite part of this debate: Hearing the moderators solo clap after each speaker ring out.
God is indeed great. He gives us the tools to make our own way. He gives us his words to consider and in his greatness and love he allows us to formulate our own opinions and beliefs even if we deny him. Yet after all that and before the end, he grants us the freedom to change our minds and hearts. So you see, he leaves it all up to us. We create peace or war, love or hate, truth or falsehoods. We build or we destroy. Don't blame him for the natural order of life and death. It is we who make the choices.
1:09:00 This guy doesn't know what "evidence" means. Just as he misunderstands the word "faith", ie, believing when you have no good reason to do so.
Exactly. It's about the common sense use of terms. There is no common sense for what Lennox calls his "evidence". He answers this "very important question" in a solipsistic way. His religion is kind of a collective solipsism. Why are there other myths? "Well, I decide that my Myth is the only true one. That's evidence"
Sooo I'm gathering neither one of yall have actually looked for evidence from what y'all are saying lol
@Kim Okhee That's not "biblical faith", it's trusting that something will behave a certain way for very specific, testable, falsifiable reasons and experience. Biblical faith is just randomly believing something with no good reason or evidence because someone told you to or you want it to be true.
I would consider myself a true agnostic . Science can’t prove how everything came into existence , on the other hand thiests can’t prove that some intelligent designer is behind the creation of the universe. We simply don’t know...
i always found the agnostic position difficult to understand. Surely deep down you believe or you dont? if you actively believe there is then surely you are an atheist by default even if you do not believe science will be able to answer every question. not trying to start a war just interested on how on the point of believing or not :)
Do you understand that you're presupposing that everything came into existence? Alan Gutt or Alexander Vilenkin claimed that the universe had a beginning, but that the ingredients necessary to form it might have been here all along. So, by stating that there must have been a nothing you're starting from a position that has never been justified. The Big Bang theory also doesn't start from a complete empty universe, it starts from the earliest age of the observable/material universe (re after it had mass). Also, you're not a true agnostic. You're an atheist concerning Hinduism, Greek, Norse, Roman, Egyptian, Incan and Mayan Gods. You're an atheist in regards to Judaism, Islam and Christianity unless you believe that we can never prove that Genesis never happened (which we already have) and it's these religions that we're generally debating. We're not debating deism, which is the only religious-philosophical position we haven't disproved yet and never will because the chain of "God probably caused that" (whenever we've went further into the past of the universe) can go on forever (infinitism). So, deism is the only philosophical standpoint that would justify being an agnostic. Keep in mind that theist believe in scripture with its dogma and scripture is easy to disprove. Deists don't have scripture and that's why we can't be sure that this concept is not real, because it is ill defined and leaves a lot open to interpretation (basically cheating).
@@sourk606 No, you may honestly do not know. There are a lot of things that I do not know and therefore have no stance.
I am not economist so I often just do not know how X will influence economy.
Saying "surely deep down you believe or don't" is the same as "deep down everyone believes in god"
... and this is probably the best comment I've read on this video. True open-mindedness. I'm in the same camp
DNA is a code, all codes are languages, all languages are created from a mind.
So who is the mind behind matter?
Smart men both! I'm on Team Hitch, but I do enjoy seeing a Theist who can argue so compellingly.
Care if I inquire about what led you to side with Christopher?
@@dr.zoidberg5096 I was raised Catholic, but eventually became an Athiest, without even knowing that it was a thing. It was people like Dawkins and Hitchens who gave my non-belief system a name. On the Internet, I found out that there were many other people like me.
This comment really confuses me. Do you care to inquire how Lennox was compelling? Im actually curious about how he possibly could be. Of course I came into this as an atheist so I'm definitely biased in that way. But there are other theists I hear that actually have points that have made me think something. I don't find that with lennox
The Theist is eloquent but revealing in his lack of intelligence, in my view about the nature of the universe and reality. He talks evidence, but it doesn’t really exist. That makes him stupid..
@@davidmorrison707 both of the men in the debate were brilliant in comparison to you. Evidence? Your comment.