Just got to admire the 'Hitch'. Doesn't give a shit about what the audience thinks of him. Munching away on treats, mocking religion at every turn with pure eloquence and rationality; what a human being. Not at all intimidated by the questions from pastor Wilson or audience members. He simply destroys them on all fronts as if they don't even matter.
I love how Hitchens is so casual :D Just minding his own business, eating stuff and shooting out logical explanations one after another whilst staying cool....not a care in the world. Gotta love his intelligence and personality...2 things which are not commonly found in a single person!
I wish the audience questions in debates, had to be submitted in writing, and then asked by the moderator. You could get through twice as many questions, if it weren't left to the audience member to stammer through a poorly planned question, peppered with personal opinions and anecdotes.
The only reason these religious debates exist is because their claims are unfalsifiable (cannot be disproven and, as a result, have no scientific value) and that there are people who believe that having faith in unfalsifiable claims is somehow a virtue
I can't say for sure, but I hope that my Christian faith would have been strong enough in the 30's to treat you with dignity and respect. Thank you for the same. And my response to this "body and cells" metaphor would take us back to the beginning of the argument (and the one being debated by Hitchens and Wilson). Namely, who gets to decide what constitutes the cancer and what constitutes the healthy cells we should preserve (particularly with moral evil, as opposed to natural evil)?
One thing that Hitch might not have stated very clearly about purely deductible secular morals: You can either kill other fellow humans or you can work with them. The latter is always more productive, with no losses on either side, hence it is the right thing to do. It really boils down to this simple reasoning. We are all equipped with brains and we can all contribute something to the well being of humanity. Evolution wise we developed speech, not jaws and claws!
I love Hitchens, he always proves that feelings and no evidence is adequate to explain morality and the nature of the universe. Isn't that just ironic.
12:08 Doug should have used the Greek word for sin which means “missing the target”! Not living up to our own standards or not practicing the Golden Rule is where we fall short much less God’s standard set forth in the Ten Commandments.
The thing is Christopher Hitchens always wheels out his prejudices about the Christian faith, most of which are simple distortions of what Christianity really believes...and none of my fellow Christians, including the ones he is in debate with on the panel, ever address him on these mistaken beliefs about Christianity - I cannot understand this. Until they do, he will always bring out these things (whether or not they strictly answer the question he has just been posed)….He needs to be addressed on these issues he always brings up, and corrected about what Christians really believe about these things...then maybe he will be forced to come up with other arguments justifying his particular worldviews.
What Christians believe is all over the board my friend. To say “Christian” is to evoke Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Syriac orthodox, Coptic orthodox, Russian orthodox, Ethiopian orthodox, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Church of England, Protestants, Lutherans, Southern Baptist, northern Baptist, Anabaptist, non denominational Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah Witness, Assembly of God, snake handlers, prosperity gospel, all the millions of people who claim to be non denominational, thousands of other sects and denominations not listed here...hell, even Mormonism with its Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Fundamentalist Latter Saints, Strangite, Community of Christ, Latter Day Church of Christ, Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus, Fellowship of the Remnants, etc, etc....each and every Christian with their own beliefs! And then which Bible they believe in; Catholic Bible, Greek Bible, Russian orthodox Bible, King James Version, Revised King James Version, American standard Bible, the New International Bible, etc, etc, etc..... So please tell me which version of Christianity should Hitchens have addressed? Yours, but not others? Others, but not yours? But here’s what I think you are really get at; you, as a “Christian” feel under attack for an unwarranted belief. You suffer from the persecution complex so many Christians have. But the problem is, you can’t justify your beliefs over another persons beliefs. And this is why we need to live in a secular society where you can have your unwarranted beliefs, but they do NOT take precedence over my right to not believe. That in a fair and just society, we use logic and reason as the best path forwards. That we come together for the well being of humanity. Take care my friend
@@losttribe3001 Great response. Of course this guy would likely say that his version of Christianity is the real one and it alone has not been addressed.
To my friend Carl, thanks for pointing me to this. While I don't resonate with absolutely everything Hitchens says, I certainly am unmoved by Douglas' talking points. Nothing is 'proven' here. Fun watch though! It was cordial, civil, and interesting for sure.
Very start of the vid: the moment that Christopher brings the cause of suffering to the apparent christian believe that it was god, Douglas tells him to get out of the christian car. FACE TO IT YOUR HOLINESS, IT'S THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE!!!
Haha that's funny you say that because I still think Hitchens avoided defining morality until the end (he said it was evolved for human solidarity but didn't reconcile competing solidarities and didn't say why survival was good) and I think that Wilson got to the root of their differences the quickest (that is, their ability, or lack thereof, to account for their beliefs)
Wilson thinks kids shouldn't be in public schools? Let me guess, home schooling. That way you can stultify their socialization while inculcating them in whatever divine book you happen to believe in. Sweet.
Ugh, I really dislike the Q&A portions of these debates. Half of the questions seem cobbled together in the 2-3 seconds before the audience member is handed the mic, and the other half are more well thought out but just as shitty. And don't get me started on the wannabe stand-up comedians. I'm cringing just thinking about them...
I'm no expert philosopher, historian, or psychologist. But it seems to me that capture-bonding is the issue: placed in a box, injected with a false sense of guilt while anxiety promotes the false sense of hope. The abusive parent, abusive spouse, the master-slave relationship, compulsory love, sadomasochism, the wish for abjection: The box is "home sweet home." It's built on a false dichotomy of rejecting one's master. There is the Demonic Imitation Theory to keep fueling the fire, also...
So we have warmongered and profiteered our way to sustainable peace? Or are you suggesting that because large-scale war is "obsolete", we should gloss over the many small-scale atrocities that persist? Your argument was that "working with" was, by default, the morally superior position, but then name the threat of annihilation as the safeguard against war. If "working together" is so obvious, why do so few practice it?
No one knows what happens after death....it is all belief ../ same with this place we are at.....i do not believe in man made religions but do believe in god..
And no one should care. If you didn't know, religion in particular gets ignorant, frightened and gullible people to reflect on such nonsense and claim it has solutions, ie. offers a remedy for the disease it has fabricated.
If what you assert was true, WW2 was unnecessary, and the choice to oppose Hitler militarily was "less productive" than the alternative. In fact, if what you say is true, then the Allied forces chose the morally inferior path. Furthermore, we have both jaws and claws...and guns and knives and bombs (and spears and so on). We are, in fact, the most deadly of all the predators, and also equipped with the speech to belittle those we kill. Can't have one without the other.
@Thorgny It was unnecessary. The appeasement lobby only went to war when there was no other choice. Hitler could have been stopped in '36, when he moved into the Rhineland. When they had to fight over Poland in '39, the chance of a short war- fighting him before he was able to rearm- had been lost.
Yes, well, by my account you should worry, since you seem unable to see the very dawn you wish I would believe is coming. I would say that the dawn has come, and that you are facing west, but on this we can agree: I would wish you a nice life as well.
@Rozkmiń: What you wrote contains the fallacy of "begging the question"-assuming something (read: god) as part of the conclusion without first having proved it. It's similar to Jordan Peterson's idiotic statement that we're all theists but just don't know it. For that matter, I too can just as easily say Rozkmin is an atheist but just doesn't know it. The "world the way it is" is the strongest evidence of the non-existence of a "god."
@@apointofinterest8574 Aah yes, the grammar Nazi that completely avoids the question and focuses on an entirely different subject, hadn’t seen one of you in a while xD Also I never insulted your intelligence, I pointed out it was funny that you misunderstood those statements, but if the jacket fit feel free to ware it.
@@THEFRITZ23 Ah yes! Who said that the first to reference Hitler and/or the Nazis has already lost the argument? Perhaps it was your faux hero, J.P. himself. Ironically, the Nazis were rather poor spellers. If you want to talk jackets, why don't you get back into your "straight" one?
What's interesting about this debate is to reflect on it retroactively in light of all the scientific discoveries that have happened since 2009. The information enigma, for example, renders neodarwinism as a car with no engine. Furthermore, the concept of irreducible complexity was conveniently ignored by Chris even though he had 13 years to study the subject from the time it was introduced in Dr. Behe's book in 1996. And as the icing on the cake, Darwin's own quote: _If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down._ Well, that's one thing Charles _was_ right about. Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion where 19 of the 27 known phyla appeared suddenly and without ancestral precursors flips Chuck's idea of a "tree of life" on it's head showing that animal progression was more akin to a lawn of separate blades of grass. As such, Chris' confidence in evolution itself was merely a religious belief in what he couldn't possibly know to support the outcome he desperately hoped was true, namely, the lie that there is no God. Of course, having died 2 years after this debate, his expertise on the matter is now, pardon the phrase, absolute.
my left ear loved this debate
Hilarious same
Best comment ever
Well, we now know how impressive the teaching is at the kings college. Not a single one of their students could form a concise and coherent question.
*The last questioner in particular was a total prick.*
Just got to admire the 'Hitch'. Doesn't give a shit about what the audience thinks of him. Munching away on treats, mocking religion at every turn with pure eloquence and rationality; what a human being. Not at all intimidated by the questions from pastor Wilson or audience members. He simply destroys them on all fronts as if they don't even matter.
Yeah I agree, I wish there was more back and forth btw the two.
I love how Hitchens is so casual :D Just minding his own business, eating stuff and shooting out logical explanations one after another whilst staying cool....not a care in the world. Gotta love his intelligence and personality...2 things which are not commonly found in a single person!
Logical? He only used fallacies xD
@@algarridm fallacies? Prove your point.
@@algarridm *Can you specify three of those alleged logical fallacies? Failure to do so will make you a lying hack of the lowest order.*
12:08 We know thieves don’t like to be robbed and con men don’t like to be conned! People have this standard written on their hearts!
13:08 Marvin Olasky, the Provost of the King’s College here went on to be a writer and editor of World magazine!
Such a genuinely gentlemanly hitchslap at 24.48! Hilarious
the biggest question we all have after watching this.. what is Hitchens eating? peanuts?
I'd say broken crackers. 🤔
I really would like to know what Hitch was snacking on. 🤔
Much more interesting than the majority of the questions these students were asking. 😏
I wish the audience questions in debates, had to be submitted in writing, and then asked by the moderator. You could get through twice as many questions, if it weren't left to the audience member to stammer through a poorly planned question, peppered with personal opinions and anecdotes.
hi there. thanks for upload - is part one available? cheers :)
The only reason these religious debates exist is because their claims are unfalsifiable (cannot be disproven and, as a result, have no scientific value) and that there are people who believe that having faith in unfalsifiable claims is somehow a virtue
I can't say for sure, but I hope that my Christian faith would have been strong enough in the 30's to treat you with dignity and respect. Thank you for the same. And my response to this "body and cells" metaphor would take us back to the beginning of the argument (and the one being debated by Hitchens and Wilson). Namely, who gets to decide what constitutes the cancer and what constitutes the healthy cells we should preserve (particularly with moral evil, as opposed to natural evil)?
One thing that Hitch might not have stated very clearly about purely deductible secular morals: You can either kill other fellow humans or you can work with them. The latter is always more productive, with no losses on either side, hence it is the right thing to do. It really boils down to this simple reasoning. We are all equipped with brains and we can all contribute something to the well being of humanity. Evolution wise we developed speech, not jaws and claws!
well done hitch,,,,kick ass again
I love Hitchens, he always proves that feelings and no evidence is adequate to explain morality and the nature of the universe. Isn't that just ironic.
12:08 Doug should have used the Greek word for sin which means “missing the target”! Not living up to our own standards or not practicing the Golden Rule is where we fall short much less God’s standard set forth in the Ten Commandments.
Audio doesn't work.
The thing is Christopher Hitchens always wheels out his prejudices about the Christian faith, most of which are simple distortions of what Christianity really believes...and none of my fellow Christians, including the ones he is in debate with on the panel, ever address him on these mistaken beliefs about Christianity - I cannot understand this. Until they do, he will always bring out these things (whether or not they strictly answer the question he has just been posed)….He needs to be addressed on these issues he always brings up, and corrected about what Christians really believe about these things...then maybe he will be forced to come up with other arguments justifying his particular worldviews.
What Christians believe is all over the board my friend. To say “Christian” is to evoke Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Syriac orthodox, Coptic orthodox, Russian orthodox, Ethiopian orthodox, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Church of England, Protestants, Lutherans, Southern Baptist, northern Baptist, Anabaptist, non denominational Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah Witness, Assembly of God, snake handlers, prosperity gospel, all the millions of people who claim to be non denominational, thousands of other sects and denominations not listed here...hell, even Mormonism with its Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Fundamentalist Latter Saints, Strangite, Community of Christ, Latter Day Church of Christ, Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus, Fellowship of the Remnants, etc, etc....each and every Christian with their own beliefs!
And then which Bible they believe in; Catholic Bible, Greek Bible, Russian orthodox Bible, King James Version, Revised King James Version, American standard Bible, the New International Bible, etc, etc, etc.....
So please tell me which version of Christianity should Hitchens have addressed? Yours, but not others? Others, but not yours? But here’s what I think you are really get at; you, as a “Christian” feel under attack for an unwarranted belief. You suffer from the persecution complex so many Christians have. But the problem is, you can’t justify your beliefs over another persons beliefs. And this is why we need to live in a secular society where you can have your unwarranted beliefs, but they do NOT take precedence over my right to not believe. That in a fair and just society, we use logic and reason as the best path forwards. That we come together for the well being of humanity.
Take care my friend
@@losttribe3001 Great response. Of course this guy would likely say that his version of Christianity is the real one and it alone has not been addressed.
Which version do you adhere to?
To my friend Carl, thanks for pointing me to this. While I don't resonate with absolutely everything Hitchens says, I certainly am unmoved by Douglas' talking points. Nothing is 'proven' here. Fun watch though! It was cordial, civil, and interesting for sure.
Very start of the vid: the moment that Christopher brings the cause of suffering to the apparent christian believe that it was god, Douglas tells him to get out of the christian car. FACE TO IT YOUR HOLINESS, IT'S THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE!!!
Well... Hitch knows the truth now, 🤷
Wilson is so, so far out of Hitchen's league, this debate becomes more embarrassing to watch the longer it's watched.
Haha that's funny you say that because I still think Hitchens avoided defining morality until the end (he said it was evolved for human solidarity but didn't reconcile competing solidarities and didn't say why survival was good) and I think that Wilson got to the root of their differences the quickest (that is, their ability, or lack thereof, to account for their beliefs)
Non sequitur, as Wilson's comments.
Oh boy - I love Hitchens in this one.
Olasky has such a permanent and hopelessly weak disposition.
Hahahahah
Wilson thinks kids shouldn't be in public schools? Let me guess, home schooling. That way you can stultify their socialization while inculcating them in whatever divine book you happen to believe in. Sweet.
Ugh, I really dislike the Q&A portions of these debates. Half of the questions seem cobbled together in the 2-3 seconds before the audience member is handed the mic, and the other half are more well thought out but just as shitty.
And don't get me started on the wannabe stand-up comedians. I'm cringing just thinking about them...
I stand converted Grimm's Fairy Tales are all true..
I'm no expert philosopher, historian, or psychologist. But it seems to me that capture-bonding is the issue: placed in a box, injected with a false sense of guilt while anxiety promotes the false sense of hope.
The abusive parent, abusive spouse, the master-slave relationship, compulsory love, sadomasochism, the wish for abjection: The box is "home sweet home." It's built on a false dichotomy of rejecting one's master.
There is the Demonic Imitation Theory to keep fueling the fire, also...
You got at least the first sentence right, which is obvious.
So we have warmongered and profiteered our way to sustainable peace? Or are you suggesting that because large-scale war is "obsolete", we should gloss over the many small-scale atrocities that persist? Your argument was that "working with" was, by default, the morally superior position, but then name the threat of annihilation as the safeguard against war. If "working together" is so obvious, why do so few practice it?
You talk to yourself a lot?
1:54 You can't account for morality, therefore God.
No one knows what happens after death....it is all belief ../ same with this place we are at.....i do not believe in man made religions but do believe in god..
And no one should care. If you didn't know, religion in particular gets ignorant, frightened and gullible people to reflect on such nonsense and claim it has solutions, ie. offers a remedy for the disease it has fabricated.
If what you assert was true, WW2 was unnecessary, and the choice to oppose Hitler militarily was "less productive" than the alternative. In fact, if what you say is true, then the Allied forces chose the morally inferior path. Furthermore, we have both jaws and claws...and guns and knives and bombs (and spears and so on). We are, in fact, the most deadly of all the predators, and also equipped with the speech to belittle those we kill. Can't have one without the other.
@Thorgny It was unnecessary. The appeasement lobby only went to war when there was no other choice. Hitler could have been stopped in '36, when he moved into the Rhineland. When they had to fight over Poland in '39, the chance of a short war- fighting him before he was able to rearm- had been lost.
Yes, well, by my account you should worry, since you seem unable to see the very dawn you wish I would believe is coming. I would say that the dawn has come, and that you are facing west, but on this we can agree: I would wish you a nice life as well.
And?
Athesism is just being mad at god for some reason even if they dont understand why world is the way it is.
@Rozkmiń: What you wrote contains the fallacy of "begging the question"-assuming something (read: god) as part of the conclusion without first having proved it. It's similar to Jordan Peterson's idiotic statement that we're all theists but just don't know it. For that matter, I too can just as easily say Rozkmin is an atheist but just doesn't know it. The "world the way it is" is the strongest evidence of the non-existence of a "god."
@@apointofinterest8574 You misunderstood Jordan Peterson’s quote which is funny given you accusation of the intelligence of that statement xD
@@THEFRITZ23 "given you accusation" ??
Make sure you write proper English before you comment on others' intelligence.
@@apointofinterest8574 Aah yes, the grammar Nazi that completely avoids the question and focuses on an entirely different subject, hadn’t seen one of you in a while xD
Also I never insulted your intelligence, I pointed out it was funny that you misunderstood those statements, but if the jacket fit feel free to ware it.
@@THEFRITZ23 Ah yes! Who said that the first to reference Hitler and/or the Nazis has already lost the argument? Perhaps it was your faux hero, J.P. himself. Ironically, the Nazis were rather poor spellers.
If you want to talk jackets, why don't you get back into your "straight" one?
Aquí no está martha
What's interesting about this debate is to reflect on it retroactively in light of all the scientific discoveries that have happened since 2009. The information enigma, for example, renders neodarwinism as a car with no engine. Furthermore, the concept of irreducible complexity was conveniently ignored by Chris even though he had 13 years to study the subject from the time it was introduced in Dr. Behe's book in 1996. And as the icing on the cake, Darwin's own quote:
_If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down._
Well, that's one thing Charles _was_ right about.
Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion where 19 of the 27 known phyla appeared suddenly and without ancestral precursors flips Chuck's idea of a "tree of life" on it's head showing that animal progression was more akin to a lawn of separate blades of grass.
As such, Chris' confidence in evolution itself was merely a religious belief in what he couldn't possibly know to support the outcome he desperately hoped was true, namely, the lie that there is no God. Of course, having died 2 years after this debate, his expertise on the matter is now, pardon the phrase, absolute.
Hitchens is such an incoherent thinker. I used to think he was cool because of his attitude, but now I see only an arrogant fool.
Pity you then. The rest of us know how great he was.
Imagine how dumb his followers are. Hitchens arguments are terrible, just a good speaker, but awful arguments.
@ Frank • Says the man with the answer to everything on Hitchens.
Don't worry, it will dawn on you some day. Have a nice life.
A threat?
Christopher "fallacies" Hitchens.
Alejandro 'Weirdo' Garrido
🤣🤣🤣