Turek is answering the question of the debate: “Does God exist?” Hitchens is answering the question, “Is religious structure beneficial for man?” It’s like watching two different debates.
Hitchens is nothing without comparing his beliefs to the Bible. Kinda defies the debate. I would have lost it sò much sooner, if someone kept interruping me and did not answer my questions!! He still has no answers, round n round he goes... would love to be hear his arguments when standing before God one day!! 😂😂😂
Are you implying that you're the next Descartes, or are you saying that you're internalizing the lessons of this discussion to modify the patterns of your own thinking?
The biggest debate is defining something. I believe every debate of a topic should begin with a definition. If they're unable to agree on the definition, that would make it an interpretation.
@@lbits you can't argue against something you don't understand. if you don't understand the other side's concept, you cannot argue in good faith against it. otherwise, you will be arguing against a strawman you have interpreted yourself.
@@lbits Hello, I feel that every debate should open with a definition. For example, "Today's debate topic will cover, Is there a God/Does God exist?" At the beginning of the debate, they will have a definition of what a God is. It should look something like this; According to the Oxford dictionary: "1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity." Now, that we have established a definition, then we can find out which parties disagree with the definition and then they can discuss their interpretations of it. I'm finding that many people who differ in views are redefining things or giving interpretations. I think once the definition has been established we can determine if the debater is defending the definition or interpretation the definition. That's all.
@@JacksonCaesar oh, okay. I get that. Hmm maybe that’s why they ended up sounding like they were talking about two different things for most of the debate
+Richard Hernandez That's the first thing they teach in Christian apologetics school. Shout, and the sheep will think you're right because you're loud.
+Jip W It's all about shouting when you're a religious spokesman. Atheists, and scientists almost never shout, because there's no need to. It's not about forcing science and logic onto you, it's about giving knowledge in a rational manner. Religious people have to force their belief onto others.
+COZMICTOM There's nothing "petty" about pointing out that the religious nut shouts more than Mad Jack McShouty, winner of last year's "Shoutiest - Shouter" competition. I'm deaf and I can hear him.
Because he rebutted Turek's argument in 5% of the debate. We can't know about a first cause and even if Turek is correct, it doesn't get him anywhere near a Christian God, or even a God as we conceptualize it. It would just prove that something started the universe. So what? Hitchen rebutted it and used the rest of his time more effectively.
@@Elmonsoon The way I see it is, you either believe that 1) the beginning of the universe was completely random and caused purely by science or 2) something started the universe as part of some kind of plan, through science. If you believe that some kind of unknown, unseen, infinite force started the universe, then surely you believe in God, your just not referring to it as "God", because religion is so frowned upon these days. The title of this debate said nothing about a Christian god.
@@Elmonsoon If we have good reasons to believe the attributes of God exists then it follows we have good reason to believe that a God who has those attributes exist.
@Michael M. The debate was about the existence of God, it was not about “once we agree that god most likely exists because of all the logical, philosophical and scientifically evidence we have examined, which one is it”. That is a second debate . If that had been the topic Turek would have easily addressed it in the opening statement . All Hitchens said was “I don’t have a a clue about how the universe came into existence and therefore NO ONE CAN KNOW and I am going to ignore any evidence which points into a direction of the possibility that there may be a God”. Basically it’s the same logical fallacy that you would make if you saw a turtle on the top of a wall: You can just believe that the turtle practiced jumping for a very looooooong period of time and eventually learned to jump so high that it managed to reach the top of the wall. OR…. You follow the most credible explanation … and you admit that most likely someone took the turtle and put it on top of the wall.
@@TonyEnglandUK What is allowing you to continuing breathing and why do you wake up everyday and Why don't you break down when something says someone against you? Why aren't you a fragile mess? God
Those who say Hitchens was attacking religion rather debating the existence of god are purely ignorant and actually seems to have ignored what he was saying in favour of what Turek was saying. By discussing what the Catholic church is saying about limbo is that limbo was a human creation which the church is now abandoning. Equally, god is man made and can as easily be said not to exist by those who have been saying he exists. That is the best argument made on this day. Only those willing to listen, heard.
I still dont understand how this is the best argument given the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate was simply the existence of God in the monotheistic sense, evidenced by the selection of Turek as the affirmative position. Hitchens was more specifically arguing against organized religion, by showing internal faults and a lack of evidence of the specific 2nd class beliefs. And this is a good argument for that purpose but not as a refutation of the existence of God. Hitchens only stated argument against the logical arguments presented by Turek is that a secularist can simply say "we dont know what we dont know, and i have faith that everything we dont know now could be explained through scientific methods in the future", which is basically an argument from silence. The summary of the debate is that Turek affirmed that God exists for logical reasons, Hitchens denied God exist for moral reasons (subjective at that). Given the nature of the debate, in my opinion Hitchens utterly failed at offering anything sort of meaningful refutation to the existence of God. the worst part is that there are good arguments against the existence of God and Hitchens simply decided to entertain the audience with non sequitur questions of moral dilemma. Id love to hear your opinion in more detail.
@@nicolasballadone7044 "Given the nature of the debate, in my opinion Hitchens utterly failed at offering anything sort of meaningful refutation to the existence of God." It is not Hitchens's fault that theists can't comprehend things. There is no reason to disprove something that has not been proven. Satire is one of the best ways to convey the message. Hitchens showed how silly religious beliefs are and how dangerous religious extremists can be. The morality argument is a way to show the contradiction of all Abrahamic religions' gods. Turek is one of the worst apologists out there. He is full of bullcrap and fallacies.
@@LGpi314 Thank you for your thoughtful reply, its pretty cool that such an old video can still have so much interaction in the comments. I Acknowledged that Hitchens arguments have weight in the right context, the problem is that he didnt refute Tureks arguments. Again the debates purpose was the existence of God and because Turek takes the affirmative position, Hitchens has the obligation to not only present arguments to disprove God but also to refute Tureks claims. I was very disappointed that Hitchens didnt attempt to refute Tureks claims.
@nicolasballadone7044 There is validity in turek arguments. There is no evidence he presented. This is why anyone would have a hard time rebutting. This is a usual tactic apologists use by muddying the water without giving any supporting evidence.
2000 years ago Saul of Tarsus summed it up this way...."For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
@@gab1172 Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
@airock the great heaven is when we inhabit the earth without sin and wickedness. It’s not us flying around the sky above clouds lol. It’s earth without sickness and wickedness, how it was intended before
Airock the Great Well, it’s not a promotion of lies. Yes, people still do wrong, even people that believe, because that’s just human nature. We are fallen which is exactly why we need Christ as a savior. That’s exactly why He gave his only son, so he could save us. People still do wrong, believer or not, but once you believe, you are a new creation. It’s a constant battle, struggling with sin, but through Christ, you have help.
@Airock the Great well the Bible doesn't care because it is an inanimate object. Good job demonstrating that you don't know what Christianity actually is about. If you can use the internet to post comments, you might as well use it to get to know more about the thing you try to inform others about.
@@TonyEnglandUK I think you really mean "you aren't religious and supported Turek's opponent before the debate even began." But let me know if I'm wrong.
@@mylespeterson2707 What truth? I don't believe in sin so I'm incapable of doing it. Where is the evidence of your god? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
@@gi169 Your god can't hear you. He was absent when you were supposed to get your brain. LMAO DUmbDumb. It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world. It is insane.
*The Bible:* _"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."_ *Frank Turek:* _"I'm a multi-millionaire, wanna buy my religion?"_
In the Bible god been always there so he wasn't created, not by nature not by anything, simple as that. - we can start counting from one to infinity but we can't count from infinity to infinity - so how can anything be always there someone explain this to me please 🙏.
@@theflash206 for a very large portion of science everyone was very happy to believe in an eternal universe but not suddenly theres a big issue believing it's possible for God. We do not fully understand the way the universe works but we do know form the power of deduction that we will need an unmoved mover, an initial cause and I don't have enough faith to believe that wasn't God
@One Good Lord † News lol don't they? Frank Turek - multi millionaire from selling religion. Billy Graham - multi millionaire from selling religion. Jerry Falwell - multi millionaire from selling religion. If you took money out of the equation, these charlatans would have dumped Christianity in a heartbeat. And if you, as a Christian, are defending it, good luck getting a camel through the eye of a needle.
@@gavinwedgeman7905 That's a naive way to approach things. It's the equivalent of saying _"We don't know what's in that cave therefore it must contain a dragon."_
@Jack Of All Trades I would laugh if I'm not a Christian. Now I'm scared for your afterlife. I won't even dare to make that jokes anymore. Just saying.
@Jack Of All Trades he took the punishment of sin to him self so that we are able to go to heaven. Its more like when you go to court and the judge takes your punishment. That is called Love
I'm pretty sure that I saw that film. Really great action, dialogue, and beautiful actresses. In fact, I volunteered to help reenacting banging the Big Bang, but I insisted upon being the first. I need to be the engine, not the caboose... ♥
Seems alot of people were expecting Hitchens to argue against God. However the question was "Does God exist?" Hitchens response was Yes. He began the debate with this response. "It exists in the minds of those who believe" That being out of the way he spent his time underminig Turek version of God.
You did not pick up sarcasm, did you? ""It exists in the minds of those who believe", Yes, it means god is a man-made concept and only exists in the mind of a believer. It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world from 2000-6000 years ago. To me it is insane.
@LGpi314 honestly though, I would ONLY expect that people who were "goat herders" in that time and before, would be the only ones in time itself to know what's going on. The reason would be... go outside: you probably can't hear something. Cars, people, construction, etc... Those times were quiet. If we lived like that now, and the world wasn't soo busy, we could probably hear God too. Also, too much going on in people's minds today.
@@chrislongenette8422 "we could probably hear God too.' LMAO. Sure, sparky. Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Do you believe in Santa flying around? Do you believe in easter bunny nesting colored eggs? Do you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in Allah? They have the same probability as your specific god. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
@@IIrandhandleII I think he was talking about the repulsive, bloated, sexually degenerate, bi-polar, Trotsky alcoholic, whom you looked up to so much. Yup, I really miss that odious fat slob!
@@tonyneillaw Although I disagree, well said and nice try. Is it then embarrassing to you, as a S&C aficionado, that this fat slob DUNKED on your boy Frank and bronze age myths over and over and over?
@@bbrantley26 Not at all. He's all style and no content. All of his arguments were red-herring fallacies about the morality of religion, not the existence of God.
@@MiguelDLewis the existence of any "god" doesn't make for very interesting debate so hitchens pokes holes in the individual aspects of said religion and points out the contradictions therein.
Timestamps: Intro: 00:00 Moderator: 01:50 Opening Remarks Frank Turek: 05:21 Christopher Hitchens: 28:30 Rebuttals Frank Turek: 52:00 Christopher Hitchens: 58:30 Direct Discussion: 01:05:49 Closing Remarks Frank Turek: 02:01:55 Christopher Hitchens:
It would be nice if Hitchens would let Turek to speak instead of interrupt him. It’s supposed to be an opportunity for both sides to say an equal amount for their argument and against the other argument not for one to get in twice as many words. Also it would be nice if he would answer a question instead of jumping it and answering one not asked.
@@pdworld3421 Fake Dr sitll can't debate anyone. LMAO. No, Hitchens points to that your all-loving god is not that loving or all-powerful. Just because you do not understand what Hitchens said does not mean it is not a valid argument. If your god exists then it is a genocidal narcissistic psychopathic maniac.
He doesn't believe God exists so why would he spend time on it. Christians now try and turn the table be stating that it is the responsibility of the Atheist to explain why god does not exist (which is simple, no evidence) when they are the ones making the claim that god exists. Making the claim with NO evidence except for a book, which is not evidence.
No, he expressed his grievance with what christians do in the NAME of god! Either way, it's false, immoral and contradictory, no matter which way it's cut! Therefore, God doesn't exist!
@@pauledwards8698 see I am not under Roman chruch. Sometimes I have to boldly say chruch and christ is totally different. Some Chruches donot follow what christ or God has taught. How is Christ or God responsible for that?. If I blame you for some crime done by an atheist in the past will you feel ok?.
@@kaimarquez8046 Let's test deflection with religious people. *Apart from you read it in a book, what evidence do you have that the son of god walked on water and his Father created everything?"*
Show of respectful conduct for his debate opponent, showed fairness and graciousness during their arguments whether convincing or not of their own beliefs in their participating of their debates
@@sc1030 Is that why Turek was yelling all the time or was it the closing argument from Turek? As for books, it was a requirement. It has nothing to do with Tuker wanting or not.
@@sc1030 "He mentioned that he was not able to show or convince to his listeners that there was no God so," Who is he? There is no reason to disprove a thing that has not been proven. Turek does not get it.
Exactly. . I hate when people mock me by telling me lies like a god exists. . .why cant they be honest and at best admit they just dont know . . .its the dishonesty and obvious negative outcomes of religion that really gets my goat.
@@MrRABC1 I agree with you about religion. Religious zealots are the very people who killed our Savior. I'm not here to insult anyone because that's not what love does. All I can do is tell you why I've come to the conclusion that God exists. If you're told that something is hot you enter into the realm of belief. Either choosing to believe or not, but once you touch it and are burned you now know from experience that the item is hot. You went from believing to knowing. I know He exists because of experience. I pray that each and everyone of you would be blessed. Religious tradition does nothing but bind us, Jesus sets us free. God bless you all and Happy New Year!
One of the biggest things which I think should have been addressed here is meaning of the word "faith" in this capacity. I think it's getting massively conflated. For someone who stops at deism, their "faith" is simply the belief the evidence points to intelligent design. For a Christian, their Faith isn't simply that a God exists, it's that "God loves them enough that he sent his son, Jesus Christ, to atone for our evil, selfish nature."
Faith by implication is an acknowledged extension of trust having no practical value for Deism since there's nothing interpersonal on the receiving end of such a granting. Theism posits a sentient, personable deity with interests in human and universal affairs, albeit without evidence; hence the requisite of "faith".
@@timmarrier Given your statement of "Theism posits a sentient, personable deity with interests in human and universal affairs, albeit without evidence" can we even consider Turek to have faith? He claims that he knows, based on objective scientific evidence, that his personal Christian god exists. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Turek never said the word faith in this debate.
@@Xyponx He does but only when talking about atheism or referring to his book. Hitchens points this out actually, 1:54:18 Of course he has faith, it's probably some strategy to appear certain or to give more gravitas to his 'atheism needs faith' drivel, or both. Of course, if it's the former you'd think that someone's supernatural fantasy literally coming true to a certainty would be something worth bringing up, maybe describing, maybe winning a nobel prize for, something.
Thank you for uploading this Frank this debate. It made me nostalgic for a time when these type of debates were common place. It also reminded why I stopped being a Christian, listening to these type of debates all those years ago. It was a great listen.
@@davidhawkes1981 Yeah eventually I found I couldn't defend Christianity any longer. The pastors I spoke to couldn't answer the questions I had either.
"Does God exist?" vs "Do I like and accept God's existence?". These are two diferent issues. Turek is addressing question 1 whereas Hitches addresses question 2.
Rest In Peace Christopher, but the way he handled this debate was terrible. He was completely rude to frank when he didn’t try to answer questions but sounded angry, sarcastic and tried to humiliate Frank. Frank was so patient while he gave him no time to explain his point, very hard to watch.
I agree. I really was trying to b open minded bc I wanted to hear what Christopher had to say and wanted to see a great debate. But I had a hard time following Christopher. Maybe Its bc I haven't watched him b4 in a debate to know how his thought process works in coming up with his answers but it seemed like he rambled on and on and never really said anything. It was hard to watch.
It was crazy. I get that Hitchen doesn't like Christians. No problem. Our feelings aren't hurt. But that wasn't the question. He sat there like a big old fat, wrinkled up, red faced turd, casting aspersions.
I'm so thankful we live in a time that we can have a debate about such a topic freely and safely and respectively without hate or threat of persecution I hope we will always have that ability world wide never close your mind always seek truth and above all else seek love.
Agreed. But in many parts of the world, particularly in Muslim countries, this kind of debate is still not possible. We still have a long and arduous road ahead. ✌️
This was 11 yrs ago😟 nowadays speakers get attacked, and there’s usually always hecklers and disrupters. But usually only if it’s conservative or Christian
After following many of Christopher Hitchens’ debates and interviews, I can’t quite discern if he was simply in a bad mood or had a particular dislike of Mr. Turek. I’d assume the latter.
@@cshaw9683 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. Matthew 16:4
@@avergajixa6051 So, a religion with no proof says that no proof will be forthcoming because people are too evil. That doesn’t strike you as the least bit self serving? It’s merely an excuse for the absence of evidence. I can’t believe what I can’t believe. Can you?
@@cshaw9683 Dear friend even your conscience convicts you of wrong if you're honest , why do you think your conscience screams that you're wrong if you're not held accountable to anyone? , Even a child knows to tell a lie to save himself when he has commited wrong even when such a child has never been punished , why does the child seek to avoid punishment by lying , that is the same with your conscience and God put that in you because you're a moral being who will be held accountable to your actions now you may lie your way to the ends of the earth but you won't escape judgement or you may submit yourself to the voice of conscience and seek a saviour in the person of Jesus Christ. The evidence you seek is within you .
I always saw hitchens as more of a whacky tv talkshow guest than a serious force in religious debate. He basically acknowledges Deism may be correct (and at that point, concedes the debate) then spends the remainder making fun of Catholics.
In a debate you don’t provide a rebuttal too opening statements. That’s why it’s called an opening statement. it’s formulated before you know what the other person is going to say.
45:30 Frank addressed this in his first speech. He explicitly called attention to how he never said atheists can't be moral. However, he did imply that Materialism in itself does not justify objective morality.
Justifying morality and being moral are two completely different concepts. He’s simply saying that u can be good. U jus can’t answer the question of ‘why should u be good?’ And if someone says “to enable the flourishing of life.” Then the next question is “why is it good to enable life to flourish?” The question will only keep going until u get to the foundational answer. With no authority outside of human kind, morals are simply rules made up by people and therefore they’re not good or evil. Merely, beneficial for the flourishing of life (in most cases although some rules go against that). However if there is an authority outside of human kind then we can say that it’s good becuz the all powerful authority says so.
@@K1NG_D0ME Except that is just as subjective as man made morals and since no "divine" entitiy has ever been proven everything derived from religious "morals" is the same subjective morals. There are no objective morals in the end, period.
@@page8301 u say it’s never been proven that a God exists but it’s also never been proven that a God doesn’t exist. And u don’t know wat happened throughout all of man’s history so be careful with such definite statements. Can u prove that Gods never been proved to have existed? Ur making a lot of assumptions. Would a miracle prove the existence of a supernatural being? The very existence of the universe proves that a God must be necessary. Being that all of the main stream scientific research suggests that the universe began to exist a finite time ago and that it came from nothing out of nothing and by nothing. And getting something out of nothing would be magic…so if that happened..and it did… I’d say we’ve already seen a giant miracle jus in the fact that we exist at all. There are many many evidences and arguments for the existence of God. If ur so sure of urself, go and listen to Dr. William Lane Craig, Prof. John Lennox, Dr. Frank Turek and many many other Christian Apologists who have answered any question u could have. Seriously. They’ve gotten them all. All of the evidence and arguments suggest a creator being of the universe that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
@@K1NG_D0ME Countless of things have never been proven to not exist from ancient pantheons long dead now to mythical creatures. Why? Because it is utterly meaningless outside of historical and sociological studies. Through science we have learned that what our primitve ancestors thought to be brought forth by some sort of Uberbeing can be rationally explained through natural processes which are far more wonderous than the pathetic made up stories by ignorant sheep herders.
@@page8301 what natural process brought forth space, time and matter out of literally nothing? Becuz there would be no such thing as a “natural process” before nature existed. And it was believed that Coelacanths no longer existed…. Until it was found lol when I say that u can’t prove God doesn’t exist, what i mean is that there’s no positive evidence that shows a God doesn’t exist. And u mention the gods of ancient cultures like maybe Zeus or Odin. U say we proved they didn’t exist… so can u tell me where the proof is that they don’t exist? Is ur proof the fact that no one has seen them? Becuz that was the only proof they had for the Coelacanth not existing as well. Jus becuz u don’t see something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If u want to be truly consistent with the scientific method then u would say that u simply haven’t seen the evidence for it yet. Not that it doesn’t exist. That’s a truth statement and thus requires solid evidence or arguments. And it would seem u have neither.
CH dodging questions 1:06:11 - Can we do just 2 questions instead? 1:06:39 - Well, we don't know... imagine a suitcase... I'm not the one who has to answer the question 1:11:12 - CH admits that even if the universe goes to heat death, that doesn't mean we weren't created and designed 1:12:09 - CH refuses to answer what his moral standard is (whether it is a chemical standard or a spiritual standard) 1:17:06 - FT asks CH if his thought that the material world is all that exists is in fact a material thought, and if so how do you know it's true? CH responds saying if he were killed he wouldn't continue thinking (while refusing to answer how he knows that thought is true) and forgets that he's creating a paradox with another "material thought" 1:18:33 - FT asks why it is a moral outrage for God to eliminate a society but it is a moral right for CH to terminate a pregnancy. CH goes on to strangely dodge the question by explaining random adaptations and why nature selects the fittest to survive. Ultimately he doesn't explain ever, why it is a moral right for humanity to eliminate children in the womb. There are many more dodged questions in the video as well as CH telling FT multiple times that he would prefer a different question. No excuses for the fools in these comments to lie about the video they just saw.
Myles: unlike you slave-minded ignoramuses, atheists and humanists aren’t afraid of saying “I don’t know”. Only serfs are afraid to say that and they have to believe what their made-up imaginary gods dictates to them 🤦♂️
I haven’t watched this just yet but i thank you for keeping the comment section open. That’s not always the case in other Christian debate channels & videos. So yes, kudos to you in this.
You would need one too if your opponent spent his time mocking you on every argument that you pose. You would also be angry too when you are trying to save someone from a disease and he kept mocking you for trying to save him from that disease. Frank Turek is in all honest trying his best to let Hitchens (GOD rest his soul) see the light. I guarantee you if hitchens just said GOD exists then Frank would not even say i told you so. Instead he would give him a hug and tell him i am sorry for all your pain and suffering but i assure you that JESUS will heal every drop of your pain. Frank is not in it to win it... He is not in it to feed his pride or ego... He is here because he is trying to make a difference and save the soul of others. Moreso i am yet to see Hitchens pose any good answer to all of Franks Question. All Hitchens does is use popular terminologies, mockery, and cheap debate tricks to get the audience riled up... If you feel Hitchens stated anything of value then please do share lets discuss. Much love and GOD Bless!
@@jamesoneil1388 He never did explain it. He just talked in circles and completely avoided the question of basis. FRANK: On what BASIS do you claim to know what is moral? HITCH: We don't need God to be moral. FRANK: Fine. I never said you did. But by what authority do you make moral claims? HITCH: How DARE you! FRANK: Ugh.
Very interesting debate. Not many bad points. I’m glad we’re able to bring many ideals to the table and evaluate them; hopefully with honesty and consistency
What would be perfect for conclusion to find 2 people in the crowd who changed their minds or at least expressed doubts about what they used to think (both ways of course) and talk about it. But I'm not sure any debate ever made someone change his mind. "The man I like destroyed the man I dislike" as said someone as a fun commentary of another video with Hitchens/Craig debate.
Debate: Is God real? Hitchens: No. Frank Turek: Well, I have a book here which includes a talking donkey, talking snake and talking bush, why oh why don't you think it's true?
Despite what people like to claim, he ain't trying to hide anything. He isn't lying. He isn't trying to sneak around and trick people. What you see is what you get.
No one actually unbiasedly voting on who won this debate would choose Hitchens. He answered Zero questions and caved when pressured by only countering other questions.
If you believe that Adam and Eve were actual people….. What race were they?…. If they were real people, they must have a race just like they must have a gender…. Whosoever God createth first, he must loveth the most…. Was he a white supremacist, creating white people first?…. Or were Adam and Eve black?…. If they were made in God’s image why have Black people been treated so shabbily over the years?…. Not that I give a darn…. I just like hearing what you guys come up with… I love mental gymnastics and Bible- splainin’….
@@jeptime657 pretty much all of them. Anything that might have shown his point of view as fallable, he refused to answer. He danced around anything remotely close honesty throughout the debate.
His opponent has nothing to confront his arguments, so he had to agree with Dr Turek (if he actually was a man of science) or use sophistry and trolling to avoid admiting it (which he did).
I’ve never understood this point. I see the beauty of the natural world juxtaposed by the harshness and corruption of it but no where do I see God. Can you please explain this viewpoint to me?
Ty T yea because he can’t. He just convinces people that they don’t need to be answered by/or bringing up other questions, which ultimately makes him sound convincing
@William Monroe Your argument is much that of Job's from the bible. He gets angry at God for all the wrong things in the world. God reveals himself to Job and explains that it's not as simple as people think. Running the world is very complex. Suffering is consequence through sin. However, God didn't create us with sin. God created us with the beautiful gift of choice. People often argue something like "Well if we're so perfect according to God, why do we sin?" Well humanity chose to sin. There is a divine beauty about choice. God didn't create us as robots with an artificial love for Him. He created us so that we COULD choose to love Him, genuinely. My point is that God does things in this world that we may not even understand in our lifetime. Still, everything will work out. I'm also assuming that you're saying if God doesn't get rid of disease, hunger, and what else, he is unjust. If there is not a moral constant in this universe, you can't say God is unjust. Otherwise, whatever you say is just subjective. Obviously, you and I have a sense of right and wrong, which is objective.
Ty T I completely agree. God gave us free will. People confuse God writing out everyone’s lives with simply knowing everyone’s lives. Our lives will be whatever we choose them to be because God gives us that choice. He doesn’t decide how we live. So if we choose to live with sin, then we choose to live with the consequences of sin. It goes back to the whole idea as to why Jesus was sent to the cross in the first place, so that we would not be condemned to Hell for committing one sin. The wages of sin is death, so Jesus, being the ultimate sacrifice, died so that we all have the gift of life in heaven. Adam had the gift of choice, and he decided to eat from the tree of knowledge, which ultimately brought sin into the world. So if you’re going to blame anyone blame him lol.
There is a glaring contradiction in the 'Nothing comes from nothing' argument. It postulates that in the beginning there was nothing but it also postulates that there was a god. Which is it? There was nothing or there was god?
@@LGpi314 It's a little suspicious how religious people always choose the god that is most-popular in their nation and dismiss thousands of others without even reading what they had to say.
The argument is actually either "Something created everything from nothing" or "Nothing created everything from nothing". If the universe has a beginning, then something had to cause that beginning. If something caused the universe to come into existence, that something has to be transcendent, because it is apart from its creation, it has to be timeless and eternal, because you cannot have an infinite number of cause and effects. It has to be immaterial because it existed before the universe was created. Must be powerful in order to create a universe and must be intelligent to design it and is personal because it chose to create. Regardless of which religion you want to believe, this creator is what we attribute to God. So, for the questions of which god or which religion and proving one over another, set all that aside and first decide if you believe there is an eternal creator. Then research and decide which religion you think is correct. Because if you don't believe in any god, then it does not matter to prove one religion over another.
@@gman4155 Only theists repeat this. How do you know if the universe had a beginning? Why can't cosmos be eternal? None of the origin of the universe theories claim universe had a beginning. " If something caused the universe to come into existence, that something has to be transcendent" One does correlate into another. You are committing the same fallacies as I and others pointed to you before. "Regardless of which religion you want to believe, this creator is what we attribute to God." Just more god of gaps and at the end it must be your biblical one. "Then research and decide which religion you think is correct" You are still a 🤡🤡🤡 no matter how you twist it.
Kudos to cross examined for posting this. I am an anti theist who comments criticism on religion, but I respect those theists who are willing to engage in a civil debate
@Drew Bond there are atheists who live in a simple disbelief. I was that way for several years. Then the more I learned about my disbelief the more I realized how little I had in common with this religion. My rejection grew into dislike. I guess that might be the best way to explain it
@Alex Swan I just think it’s funny that he has a hard time keeping to what he said. If he needs the time then he needs the time. It just comes off as arrogance when he keeps saying “I don’t need the time, I don’t, I don’t..” when he clearly needs it. He is obviously trying to downplay his opponent and lines like this show it.
Hitchens: "Religion now comes to us in this smiley-faced, ingratiating way, because it's had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side."
He didn't seem to care. All of Turek's questions were the same basic moral relativity argument phrased different ways. I was bored just listening to him.
THE X FILES I felt Hitchens was the brick wall in this debate. He did not debate anything he was asked he just brought up irrelevant what he believed to be hypocritical religious scapegoats.
Nah, obviously God isn't real therefore this debate was just his brain randomly firing and therefore, since God isn't real and live spontaneously generated from nothing, this debate was excellent because it existed and there is no good or bad. That is obviously the view that makes sense.
Can hitchens actually answer any question that was asked? He talked about dancing, but yet I literally didn’t hear any concrete answers, just jokes smh
@@Saribex then how do you explain other gods like zeus, thor, ra, etc. are you really that hypocrittical to say those gods dont exist? but YOUR god does. without any evidence.
@@Legendaryium I’m not here for a debate, kinda neutral here but look. Zeus and Thor are literal mythology. As in they are self admittedly made up stories. YHWH vs Allah is The Bible debunks Islam. Jesus is contradicting the Quran on John 20:28-29, Matthew 16:16-17 and makes his depiction from Muhammad look totally fake. Not even going to go into the absolute thousands of flaws morally and scientifically with the Islamic faith, but there is that. So YHWH > Allah And when people say there are thousands of gods they don’t realize how much of a dumb question that is. You’re comparing thousands of FOLK gods to well established, long term religious beliefs. Think about it like this, 95% of the world believe in 5 different theisms. And about 15% unaffiliated. So limiting 80% of religious people to 5 Gods, yet there are supposedly thousands of made up gods by small towns, so all of the sudden it’s a hard decision? We’re choosing between 5 credible, and historically documented Gods. Not thousands. And there is definitely a bigger case for YHWH, seeing the archeological evidenced for his existence from events in the Bible, literal tunnels dug in the ground that match what was recorded in the documents, and more. So I don’t want a debate, but if God is really out there, it really isn’t a tough option for which one it is. Christianity disproves Islam, Jews just haven’t accepted Jesus, Buddhists don’t believe in god, and Hindus are polytheist (and you also gain nothing from believing in their religion). So now that I’ve become neutral over the course of months of self research, I’d say if you were to be religious I’d really narrow down to Christianity out of “all of the gods”. Because of historical and archaeological evidence that supports events that happened in the Bible.
@@Voseo00 oke, so what before the bible then? you base everything what you say on the bible. before the bible was even written, there were also gods. for example the egyptian gods.
Juan Carlos Gonzalez A positive assertion requires evidence. Both parties make positive claims that neither can back up with material evidence. It’s an impasse.
@@wattlebough Not really. The case for God hasn't really been properly made; As such, there's nothing to disprove. If one side says "God exists" and the other says "I don't believe you", only one positive claim has been made.
@@CteCrassus The claim "God does not exist" is a positive assertion. In order to make the assertion that God does not exist the person asserting the claim must also claim to have absolute knowledge. That a person does not know a God exists and cannot find evidence of that God does not ipso facto prove anything other than that the persons cannot find. It does not prove that a God does not exist.
@@wattlebough "The claim "God does not exist" is a positive assertion." Indeed it is, which is why most Atheists these days do not make it, as it assumes a completely unnecessary _Burden of Proof._ What most atheists claim these days is that theists have not met their own _Burden of Proof_ and thus it is irrational to believe that any gods exist until their existance has been positively demonstrated. It's the same criteria i personally use for dragons, fairies, still living dinosaurs, alien visitations and the reptilians that have supossedly infiltrated the Illuminati. Fun fact: By default most theists hold the claim "God does not exist" for *every god other than their own.*
I’m not an opponent of abortion, but I think Bill Burr said it best (paraphrasing) that if you put cake batter in an oven, but toss the batter out halfway through baking, I’m still gonna accuse you of ruining my cake.
@@lebbiiyy I would be more against abortion if my country (USA) actually cared about children and mothers. Birth control should be subsidized and nearly free. At least 6 months of legally protected maternity leave should be nation wide. Births should be free, daycare costs need to be reduced, and all kids should get free nutritionally packed school breakfast and lunch until the day they leave highschool. Give me that and we can start a moral discussion on the treatment of human beings.
Frank Turek: "How can atheism ground morality?" Hitchens: "Let me tell you a story about Socrates. Btw, I've been reading Socrates since a friend got me a book in this library, blah, blah, blah, irrelevant deflection......"
@@Volmire1 lol I keep reading religious people making these claims. I didn't see Hitchens do this anywhere. Like your religion, you're allowing wishful thinking to replace fact.
@@darlingd.diamantes8659 You mean _"You're a Christian and you don't have any valid argument against what Tony England said."_ Now isn't THAT the truth.
I can't say for Hitchens, but if I were in his position and were to asked that question, I would say that is how I feel about religion and God. Religion is not a cause of good in this world, it probably is the poison in this world. For religion to exist with God on their side, it would mean anything you "think" God said to you, is the absolute correct way, which have been used wrongly in the present time and during the Roman Catholic times (if I'm not mistaken). For some people (that I know as well), to believe in God means that everything that happens is because God says so or God made it that way, that includes all the wicked things humanity have done, all the wicked things nature has done to humanity and so on and so forth. Which is (for me) highly contradictive if you believe God is all powerful and can do great things. My religious teachers (and I would assume a lot of religious people) told me that if you don't follow his teachings, you would go to hell, what kind of God is it that only do good things to those who worship Him, I mean even human can still treat people who were bad at them better than that. Edit: This is how I argue Hithcens' stance on religion and God, the entirety of religion and God are all contradictive and not coherent with one another which makes him answers those questions. At least that's how I see it and if religion and God were to manage the world, all those contradictive things would ruin it and make people thinks they have the highest form of power because God is on their side.
@@twoplustwoequalsfive6212 hmmmm I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. What you have stated is true, what the biological body needs is one thing and what the mind wants (the chemical reaction to certain things) is another thing. Your body needs healthy food and exercise in order to he healthy but your brain doesn't seem to "like" it. Hahaha I'm just confused about what your point is
@@twoplustwoequalsfive6212 hmmmm so anything good that people do is because of God and bad things is because of the other parts of the duality? or is that an oversimplification of your statement?
@@ArtemisShanks But Turek isn't defending religion. He is defending the idea that there is a God who gives us our morals. Attacking Christianity (or Hinduism or Mormons or whatever) doesn't answer the question about the origin of our morals.
Ngl it annoyed me how Chris kept interrupting frank instead of respectfully letting him have his say. Chris just blew him off putting words in his mouth and made nothing but jokes to blow him off. I think at that moment Chris knew he was losing and tried to not let frank make his points to answer his questions properly.
@@Skyemac12Gaming Look around - religious people have done this throughout the comments. You know they're really only saying it because they didn't like what Hitchens said so they attack how he said it instead.
@@TonyEnglandUK And yet aren't the nonreligious people supposed to claim they are rationally superior? And yet here you retort an observation by nothing more than irrational assumption. And do so while defining it as an "attack." Rather ironic that you criticize the "religious people" as having to "attack" modus operandi, rather than directly address what was stated, when Hitchens often evaded any direct response. Instead he continued to fall back on his comfortable ground of "religion bad" argument. Frank immediately pointed out this wasn't the point of the debate, still Hitchens continued to fall back on it while evading direct answers. On the other hand, Frank made every attempt to address every point Hitchens' made. Don't conflate the idea of disagreement with disliking. Hitchens was a brilliant orator, so the necessity of degrading disagreement with him to disliking him is asinine in the least. Doing so only demonstrates your own hypocrisy.
@@Thomas-kj1fk _"Irrational assumption"?_ As I said in my original comment, look around at the Christian comments. There are endless and frankly rather juvenile comments saying things like:- Dr Turek: pls answer this.... Hitchen: let me sing you a song ---------------------------------------------------- Topic: Does God exist? Turek: Yes. Hitchens: Christianity sucks. ---------------------------------------------------- "Name please?" Hitchens: "I think it was Plato who said something very interesting about deflection.." ---------------------------------------------------- Turrek: What color does an apple have? Christopher: Square perhaps ---------------------------------------------------- You've done it yourself above quoting Hitchens as saying "religion bad". Hitchens didn't say any of the things above, including yours. If you're going to criticise what he said then make sure he actually said it, first.
This is a good point, I could imagine a question to push back would be-how then would you handle new ethical dilemmas that haven’t been tested out through the ages? For example the use and abuse of AI?
I just came across this video, and it sounds like Christopher is having a completely different debate than Dr. Frank. It sounds to me like Christopher has an issue with religion and is trying to debate the need for it, rather than providing an argument against God. He didn’t actually address any of Dr. Frank’s questions; he just basically stated that he doesn’t like religion.
Absolutely correct. He talked past every single question, and even when a questioner asked him to give a better answer he still ran around it. "I don't believe in Moral Arbiters; but as this discussion's moral arbiter, I'm throwing out Mr.Tureks evidence because I don't like it and instead going on diatribes about bad Christians"..... Is not a good argument for the "Is there a god?" prompt. I also think Hitchens just had an off-night, or seriously underestimated Turek. Now, I'm extremely biased, being a Christian and-all, but I think Frank put together some great Combos, and his performance (as well as his excellent Stamina) will outlast the dull flame that Hitchen's memory has left. The Atheist movement has been winding down since he died. The Humanists (atheists) have institutional power, but they've lost the population, and are now greeted in most places with snickering, derision and contempt. The atheists have no such thing, and without God, they drift into meaninglessness, because without God, there can be no goodness. You can see the fruits in the lack of Atheist Offspring. No woman wants a man with no Moral Compass outside of his own desires. Its why atheists must rely so heavily on gang-tactics at the university and public school to gain converts.
@@SettingTheLowestBarPossible In the the past 16 years, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated has grown by about 18%. And in turn, the percentage of Americans that are religiously unaffiliated who explicitly believe there is no god is rising as well. So atheists aren't losing the population, we're winning it.
@@SettingTheLowestBarPossible No burden of proof has ever been met towards any god. A god needs to be demonstrated to exist first. Cant assert the existence of a book character without any evidence, so foolish... lol
Don't know the Frank guy, but he really dropped the ball on pressuring Hitchens on the morality issue. In Frank's defense, Hitchens was avoiding that question as if his moral framework depended on it. Which it was.
I do not see that morality is any evidence for the existence of god. Morality is a creation of man and has evolved over time. The society and culture to which someone belongs determines what is moral and what is not. Gods are just another device created by man. One of its many purposes is to give greater authority to man-made morality.
@@alfrednyby3218 Yea, I'm not arguing that morality is evidence of God. And if this Frank guy is saying that, then I don't agree with him. All I'm saying is that Hitchens seems to imply that humanity doesn't need God to close the Is-Ought gap. Humanity does need God to do that. Or at the very least humanity needs some kind of abstract moral framework like Plato's world of forms, or Aristotelian virtue ethics. All Hitchens needed to do was admit to Frank that Atheism does not provide a solution to Hume's Guillotine, and move on. The fact that Atheism leaves humanity with a moral crisis, doesn't inherently invalidate Atheism.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Yes and that's why objective morality is impossible. Which can become a serious problem when we are trying to universally justify one moral frame work over another. I.e. The morals by which society operates is decided by a popularity contest. If Nazi's out number the non-Nazi's in a society, then that isn't any more or less a problem than if it were the other way around. At least that's the case if we accept that moral objectivity cannot exist.
If there’s not God, then there’s no evil, as my only live I can do whatever I want and can,to live longer and to be on top of evolution Chain. Including killing to still money from others and rapping the women’s I like. so is not evil doing ,is the strongest of the fittest. No moral argument can say I’m wrong ,if there’s not God, is my only live and I’ll do whatever to live longer, wealthy and happy to myself 😁
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.
If not for man the God would have no glory without his slaves the idea of God would have no power, what makes a man a lunatic?...the idea of what he says and does is odd ?...or dangerous?...well I would argue that is the whole foundation to which any religion came to be, a man saying something so unfathomable in a time where people were uneducated and without answer...we know now that we are on a planet we know that we are not the only one ...we know that thunder lightning storms are not gods amd we learned this with science ...but imagine trying to explain that to man in bronze age, imagine a man telling you that he was in fact the second son of God and telling you that every single believe you had was interpreted wrong ...that it's his will to destroy man ..hypothetically of course what would man do with him now?.....he would be your lunatic ! But because this was thousands of years ago you have this belief what makes man from the time of jesus more credible than man of now.?
"Why argue against something you don't believe in?" As opposed to arguing against something you DO believe in? Isn't it enough just to think it's wrong? To think it's harmful is all the more reason.
From my experience in life, you can spot the fool by looking for arrogance Edit: of all my comments on RUclips this definitely sparked the most interaction and that’s awesome! But as far as the comment itself, I feel like it holds true regardless of who it is I’m talking about.
@@A_DR Nothing provides more arrogant confidence than abject ignorance. It's a problem with the world that the wise are full of doubt but the foolish are full of confidence.
The guy with all of his time joking he could have been putting on his defense he spoke for 15 minutes and never got to the point they did not have what a joke
Hitchens makes the mistake of being upset about being accused of being immoral. No one made that claim. I believe he is a very moral man. The claim is that his belief (or his claim of atheism) doesn't account for why he is moral. He is moral, he is more moral than most. But why? Where does his morality come from?
Atheists lack the capacity to make the distinction you just made because doing so would bring self-awareness to an ideology based on cognitive dissonance.
@@stevedoetsch as an atheist I’d like to say that we do have the capacity to make that distinction. For example I’m a fan of Hitchens however I’m frustrated when he answers the question like that instead of explain where morality comes from. So let me explain. Morality is the product of evolution, for example humans lived in tribes and when living together if you were always angry or violent then you probably would not have sex with the tribe as you are seen as dangerous. This means that the calmer sensible humans are the ones passing down the genes, so the next generation ha brains wired with less violence. This goes on for hundreds of thousands of years in the case of human evolution until we get to the point where we are now. So morality comes from the survival of the pack together and evolution.
@@lokeumkerd437 lmfao morality comes from evolution? Try again, the Aztecs where a prime example of a society that counters your arguement. There is no evolution in that region blood sacrifices are still being made to a diety. And even temples are built for them. The human condition has not changed since the day Jesus walked the earth. Technology and science just provide a good illusion that we are actually making progress toward something. You know what that something is? As above so below.
@@LGpi314~ Do you know why you attack theists with ad hominen? I do, because you love your sin & will deny the truth at any cost, just so you won't be held accountable to your Creator, you'll believe in anything but God.
@@boldasalion6436 Stop this nonsense. nobody is attacking theists. "I do, because you love your sin & will deny the truth at any cost" I do not believe in sin so I'm incapable of committing any. If religion is the only thing that stands between you and murdering someone that stay the heII away from humanity. "to your Creator, you'll believe in anything but God." There is no evidence of your creator. Why are you BSing? Who created your creator? This is your Christianity at its best. Kenyan police have exhumed dozens of bodies from shallows graves in the east of the country amid an investigation into followers of a Christian cult who believed they would go to heaven if they starved themselves to death. Information provided by officials put the number of bodies exhumed so far as high as 47, according to media reports on Sunday. All genocides and crusades in the name of your god. Hitler was supported by the church. Church was celebrating his bday every year. Russian Church supports Putin. There is your Christianity at its best. Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
@@boldasalion6436 Hitchens: "Religion now comes to us in this smiley-faced, ingratiating way, because it's had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side."
So you say, nobody is attacking theists but that "nobody" you are referring to is you, so now you're denying yourself. You have over 100+ comments on this video attacking theists and denying there is a Creator God. Its plain to see you are a liar. When you deny God you're only lying to yourself. The eyes are useless when the mind is blind. May God remove the scales from your eyes and reveal Himself to you giving you wisdom and understanding in the name of Jesus Christ our LORD and Saviour.
"I'm not afraid of the Big Bang, I believe in the Big Bang, I just think I know who Banged it." - So funny yet so true! Yet the audience was so bland to not respond to that joke!
@@ramptonarsecandle But the bible never says the universe was created 6000 years ago, literally try to read the first sentance of the bible, it says: "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", now when did God create them? It DOESN'T say, it just says in the beginning, the days don't start till the third verse
@@aletheiahenosis5962 I did say "apparently" as I've heard various start dates these religious types, none of which are close to the agreed date of 14b yrs for the Big Bang and 4.54b yrs for earth. Didn't they work it out from the age of Adam, Noah and other fictional bible characters? Hardly scientific but I suppose they had to put a number on it. Don't you find it strange that for a long time this was accepted as the bona fide age of the earth? Thank goodness we live in enlightened times.
Thank you CE for posting this debate with no ads. Thank you very much. I am working out right now and just love listening to these debates. But the ads are a killer. Thank you thank you!
@@jackabalas mussolini was a socialist. He used plenty roman pagan imagery. He built a cult of personality.He was not a catholic. He hated catholicism as much as he could in the italy of the time
I watch a number of debates and I find an interesting trend among the atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins): 1. They never actually answer the questions being asked. Instead, they deflect it back to the person asking, or they attack the religion. This debate is on the existence of God and the source of all existence, but Hitchens refused to answer what he believes and instead butchers a faith he has a lot of misconceptions about. 2. When they ask a question, they are quick to cut off the response in order to (in my opinion) look like they are in control of the debate. This is a great tactic if you are looking to frustrate, but a lousy tactic if you are looking for an exchange of ideas. 3. Do both of the aforementioned while looking smug and confident. While this can appeal to the masses that have the same views, in the end it shows how ignorant the person (Hitchens, Dawkins) is. Had I handed in a research paper in with I avoided the actual thesis, steered the debate away from the thesis, and misrepresented or neglected to examine the opposing views, I dont care how smug I would look, I would have gotten an "F". My applause to Mr Turek. Great on-sided debate
Scott Wagner I think Hitchens would argue that, the burden of proof is not with science, because science doesn’t claim to know the origin of life. The burden is with religion since people of faith already claim to know the origin of life, thereby blinding them to every piece of evidence against them.
Patrick Brawner The only logic position for one who’s yet to experience God is agnosticism. Current disbelief, but acknowledgement that there could be. You can’t deny the origin of time/space/energy coming from actual nothing, does allude to a supernatural force making that unfathomably large-scale event go off perfectly. Even if you don’t personally believe that, you’d be unreasonable to say you know there’s no way it was supernatural or a Godly being which made that happen. We say we believe it, not that was can scientifically prove it. And you’d have to figure out what “proof” you’d even need, and how possible it is that modern science could currently provide that for you.
@@noahokayama3825 Here's where I take issue with your view: I am not DISBELIEVING that a supernatural force could have created time, space, and energy. I'm just not jumping to conclusions on who's responsible for it. An unfathomably large scale event, I would agree with that. But over the course of history, have humans not made discoveries in the natural world that were previously considered unfathomable? Why are religious people so insistent on accrediting the creation of the heavens and the Earth to an all powerful God? Those who believe in science, reason, and logic, are still in pursuit of the truth, but the faithful seem to contempt these pursuits.
@@noahokayama3825 And why do I believe they show contempt? Because religion appears to only be about power over another human being. Religious people seem to aspire to a world that only exists within their imagination, instead of trying to preserve and improve the only real world we do have.
@@patrickbrawner2438 Before Einstein, the generally accepted view of gravity was that proffered by Newton. Nobody disputed it without contrary evidence. Today, the logical conclusion about the source of the material world is the supernatural. Why are you so confident a contrary explanation will be found before it is actually found? This is the same position as you would accuse the 'believer' of: bias.
I’d like to say Hitchens is partially right when it comes to people doing dangerous things, his examples being bomb disposal and jumping on hand grenades just to make a few. People usually don’t do those things to be honored most of the time and I know this from my own experience. Most people who do elite programs do them to be challenged and for lack of a better term they think it’s cool. People jumping on grenades, if you ask the ones who survive, said they did it because they loved their squad or division and they knew if they didn’t do that everyone else would die. Most people put in a hard situation where they have to make these decisions typically do so out of love, compassion, and brotherhood. People in my community are sometimes faced with decisions where if they try to let one man live everyone else will die and that is hard on a man. You can talk to people in the Navy about these decisions and the unlucky few put in that situation will be able to recount that moment accurately even a lifetime later. Being put in a position to choose who dies is almost like you’re playing God and many people do not recover, they lose part of themselves. You know the people you’re choosing between and that never goes away. My experiences at first made me fall far from Gods light, I was an alcoholic and I used it to cope with the hardest 8 months of my life. Nights without sleep and waking up not knowing where I’m at, alcohol was the only thing that seemed to work. I fought multiple things at once some from the physical world some from my mind and I even had a kid from one of those nights I didnt want to remember. It wasn’t until I realized the importance of being a father was that I began to get better. Realizing that God loves me more than I could ever love my child and willing to accept me despite the dark place I was coming from. You won’t know God if you don’t want to. A little bit of a tangent but all of that to say that he misrepresents the community that he was using as a point to prove the inexistence of God and the community itself proves the contrary. I’ve lost many brothers to terrible things and because I’ve gotten through the dark times and realized my own errors I am rejoicing in the light of God. Thank you all who read this through and God bless.
God bless you brother. I wish you the best possible life for your future and good on you to love the Lord Jesus Christ. I hope you can do alot of good things for others, by telling them your story.
Answer this to yourself. There have been 3,000 gods throughout history. Why did you attribute your success story to the one that was most-popular in your country and dismiss 2,999 others?
Praise the LORD Jesus for this thought provoking debate! I pray you draw the correct conclusions yourself. There is only One correct conclusion! The law of non-contradiction! Blessings
Golden Knight your logic is literally that nothing exploded and brought up a universe with perfect order in which nothing has a purpose and a chance of 10^-10000 life could have evolved and fish then decided to walk on land and developed in a kind of rat horse thing and then walked back in the ocean and developed back in a whale... i'll wait
@ Yeah, hearing a pastor give a message for like 45 minutes on Sunday is the textbook definition of "brain washing", and so is choosing to do a Bible study. However being forced to spend hours a day at public "education" institutions, mass media, hours of television that promote your lame philosophy is just sort of immaterial.
@@truebeliever6440 Oh you poor brainwashed creature...... one can't convince a brainwashed specimen as yourself......Education hasn't helped you either...... something as simple as two sides of the coin is beyond your comprehension......... What you can do is a thorough rehabilitation from your addiction that is religion..... But having chosen one side of the coin which makes you happy and bubbly inside good for you....... But always remember you have thrown reason and logic for your "choice". ..Cheers brainwashed human
Hitchens, let me get this straight. The root of all good is humanity. The root of all evil is religion. But if God does not exist (at least not in a theistic way) then isn't humanity the root of all religion?
@@drsatan7554 so in the past humanity was responsible for evil (religion) but now has finally figured things out and is responsible for good. Can we not use the same objection to this idea that Hitchens used against the Catholic Church and their past evils? He questions why we should trust the Church to have it right now and be infallible after having admitted to getting it wrong in the past. Why should we trust humanity now? The past Catholics did not think they were doing evil at the time. They thought they were doing good just as you seem to think humanity is doing good now. Throughout history and around the world today groups of humans all think they have gotten things right and done good and not evil. You seem to think that you're ideas on good and evil are finally the right ones that can never be questioned in the future. I think it is more that humanity is full of selfish creatures that have to work hard to try not to do evil (I'm using evil from here on out to refer to things like genocide, murder, torture, rape, etc that we both hopefully agree on being evil as I'm sure there are others things we would disagree about being evil or not). When given the right opportunities and excuses most humans will do awful things. Look at the classic jailers and inmates experiment, the Wave (high school social experiment using Hitler's tactics to get normal students to follow along with bad ideas), or what the Japanese did to many Chinese during WW2. Could it just be that some humans have used whatever was available at the time (religion, Eugenics, etc) to get others (or give others permission) to follow them and do evil? So from what I can tell humanity is the root of evil. Humanity has just used religion in the past to justify their evil. If you could get rid of religion then humanity would just find other excuses (like science) to keep on doing evil.
@Beherrsch well said, I think Chris would fully agree with your statement. When he blurted out "religion", I believe he was just making a well-timed joke, further proven by the burst of laughter from the audience. I believe he's well aware of the many atrocities preformed by non-religious people. In your opinion, do you think that a human's inherent inclination toward evil is evidence that we are all created in the image of a benevolent God?
@@ghaggs4957 That's a great question. One that I've struggled with a lot. What follows will hopefully not have too many typos (I'm rolling in my phone) and not have too many glaring omissions on my part. It's a question that requires a LOT of thought. So feel free to ask me for further clarifications or to point out anything you think I'm mistaken on/I've forgotten about. Yes because I believe in actual good and evil. If God is not benevolent then we would have no standard to measure actual good and evil against. That would leave us with only opinions on good and evil. Opinions we would have no reason to keep unless they remain convenient. Evolutionary/social arguments for objective morality fail in that sense. Those arguments still don't get you to objective morality (morality in the sense of there being actual good and evil) let alone the ability to then know that objective morality. I also believe that God created us to share love with us. Our choice between good and evil is a choice between loving God and others or loving ourselves. This is a choice that must be available to us if we are to have free will. Without free will then we can't freely choose to love God or not. It's kinda like that old saying that if you love something you must let it go. If it comes back to you then it is yours. If not then it never really was yours. You can never really know if something loves you back if you never give it the choice to not love you. Without God and his benevolence then we are reduced to having no moral standard that is in any way worth keeping. We lose good and evil without a standard for good. If we have a god that is not benevolent then we have no standard for what is good beyond popular opinion (which is ultimately mob rule). Popular opinion is always changing and we don't have a standard to judge if it's changing for better or worse. If there is no god at all then we are nothing but a collection of particles that have no free will. People have no control over their actions. We are just reactions to previous causes and this have no value greater than any other collection of particles (like a rock) that are ultimately just reactions to previous causes too. However, I have free will and thus must throw out the possibility of their being no god at all (defining god here as something beyond the limits of our universe that then caused our universe to come into being on purpose). Arguments that free will is just an illusion don't make sense to me. Who is it an illusion on? A bunch of quarks and electrons? I can explain away everyone else's apparent free will but not my own. My free will makes sense only with a god. My belief in actual good and evil means that God must be benevolent. Combining my free will with my belief in God and evil leads me to also believe that others have free will and thus have value beyond just a collection of particles that were completely inevitable based on prior mindless actions.
For most part Christopher was attacking theistic world view and not presenting how God doesn't exist. It's like "criticizing someone and not suggesting why you are criticizing."
As with most of the online atheists as well...they frequent the Christian videos only to bait s/one for a fight...hurl insults, deny every argument and never put up any logical, rational, alternative view for debate.
@@MartinX192 Totally agree, how can you debate around something that essentially is fiction and they all "believe" because they have faith. Makes me laugh when they say "logical, rational, alternative view" as if they have a logical view. Pathetic
i really don't understand why Hitchens can't take a single question properly. about the irreducible complexity of DNA, he goes on to talk about the big bang rather than the intricacy of our DNA. he's passed away since, and it's regrettable that he didn't know Christ.
People are prone to error, sometimes in how we go about answering questions and other times in the answers we give. We can also be illogical and even deceptive at times. Atheists are no exception, and the aggressive anti-theist kind of atheist such as Hitchens is usually more illogical and deceptive than the less fervent agnostic atheist. I say this with no malice toward atheists, since I was one myself from about the age of 16 until I was 26. Although after Hitchens was diagnosed with terminal cancer he declared he would never turn to God on his deathbed, none of us know what he was thinking during his last days and hours on earth. One can only hope for his sake that he changed his mind.
We know of 118 chemical elements. 117 of them are able to create about 700.000 different molecules 1 element is able to create 40mio different molecules. Why is that so? Laws of nature. Now you could say that god created the laws of nature and those laws then create Adenin, Thymin/ Uracil, Guanin and Cytosin. Thymin and Uracil are slightly different. One is used in the DNA the other in the RNA. But if you accept laws of nature there is no reason not to accept evolution coz its a law as well or if you will you can call it mechanism.
@Scott Scotty The fact that DNA shows intelligent information implies an intelligent creating mind. That's why it matters. It's not God of the Gaps. It's trying to reach the best conclusion based on where the evidence seems to point. I guess we will all find out for ourselves one day, but for now I'm going to place my bet with the theory that seems to fit the evidence the best.
Turek: “Now I’m not saying atheists are bad people, in fact many of them are great people!” Hitchens: “HOW DARE YOU SAY THE SECULAR AND NONBELIEVERS ARE WICKED!?!?!”
@@canutraceme The fact that you’re happy with that is worrying. Great people condemned to eternal suffering you say? How wonderful! Anyone that punishes great people to the same degree they punish the most wicked of people cannot be just
It makes me laugh when atheist people want to put all the burden of proof on Turek but this is a debate where both men give their beliefs nd reaonsing behind these beliefs so no the burden is not on Frank. It's up to both of them to convince their audience.
@Zenon There are many things you can rationally believe in without proof but with evidence. If I invite someone into my house and step in the yard for a few minutes before returning inside, only to find the person gone, my place trashed, many valuables suddenly missing, and I try to contact this person and never hear a word back from them again, it would be reasonable to assume based on the evidence that this person has stolen my valuables. I may never find this person or my valuables. I may never get a finger print match. I may never receive an admission of guilt. I may never have rock solid proof. There could be other elaborate explanations for the disappearance of the person and my valuables, but the most logical explanation based on the evidence - even if I can’t “prove it”- is right there. At what point does it become silly dreaming of other elaborate explanations and using them as excuses to not believe in Explanation A when there is sufficient evidence for Explanation A?
@@mollyskerness7385 evidence is critically important, i agree with you. Unfortunately for theists we have 0 evidence the supernatural realm even exists. God = myth heaven = myth angels/demons = myth great flood = myth creation = myth
Fantastic comment. You can hear the anger and resentment in Hitchens voice when he speaks about God, but what he doesn’t understand is that he’s putting all his hostile emotions towards God instead of the people who created Catholicism and other “Christian” denominations that have created the host of problems he’s talking about.
Hitchens never once deviates from his grand theme: contempt, outrage, mockery, and use of loaded, emotional words. He says “horrible,” “immoral,” “evil,” “atrocious,” and so on. He does not answer questions directly, ever, not at first, anyway. He deliberately misunderstands questions and smugly watches his truth-seeking opponent struggle to deal with his outright manipulative reality-warping. His answer to EVERY question is first to slander the other side. He’s basically a comedian who merely pretends to objectivity, but ultimately, it’s a joke he’s making. I do have to say he’s masterful at what he does. He’s clearly super intelligent. The problem with this debate is that Turek is there to do something very different from Hitchens. Hitchens never offers the basic charity that any conversation or communication requires for success-earnestly trying to take what people intend to mean instead of catching them in meaningless imprecisions as if they spoke complete nonsense. And Hitchens constantly interrupting when Turek starts answering a question he just asked is SUPER disrespectful. See minute 1:49:00. I should say that he’s right about religion on average. And much evil has been done in the name of religion. However, conflating all religion is error. If God exists, anyone who believes in that God is both right and religious. Oh, and hundreds of millions of people have been killed by atheists living out of their atheism. It is completely dishonest to paint a picture that religion is the only source of evil.
I wish Hitchens would actually directly address the theistic arguments. He avoids the current cosmology and instead talks about the history of the catholic church and how they have failed in the past. He spends too much time complaining about how religion is bad instead of engaging the question of whether God exists.
@Howdy we tell you because we love you and you don't know what you're asking for. But God loves you so much he will not force you into Heaven against your will.
@joey joestar We have all fallen short of "goodness" in accordance to what the God character in the Bible says. I raise you this.. Why should I care what the Bible says? It was written in different languages by numerous authors (many of which are unknown to us) across thousands of years, and has been rewritten and re-translated a countless number of times leading up to now. Even if all of the aforementioned gaps were filled to a reasonable degree of certainty, why should I believe such a book was divinely inspired? Without using the scripture to prove the scripture.. as that is not how evidence works.
Christopher kept saying Frank was “Tap-Dancing” thats big Cap if anybody was Tap Dancing It Was Hitchens ...Frank Literally Had To Ask Him The Question About Morality 4 different times and then when Frank realized he wouldn’t get an answer Frank said “Let me ask you this in a different way”. Christopher has some many poor rebuttals that didn’t not address the prior question He y’all in circles. All he was trying to do was entertain the crowd and not have a legit debate it was disgusting to watch him give these poor answers that’s beat around the bush I wish I was up there cause he kept saying things that went against his arguments
I challenge you to name a single Hitchens rebuttal which was poor. I also challenge you to name something Hitchens didn't address - I think you'll be surprised to find that Hitchens was always a step ahead of you.
@@jameswatkins7763 im guessing you think you’re smarter then any believer in Christ Jesus but you’re seriously going to tell us that you honestly feel hitchens answered Turek with facts?
@@jacoblopez6470 I didnt say that at all, you're putting words in my mouth. There's a difference between making a claim, and asking someone to demonstrate their claims.
@@jameswatkins7763 I’m sorry bro I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth, but aren’t facts what an atheist wants to hear? I heard a lot of we don’t know and pushing the questions back to turek. Isn’t it clear what hitchens problem is with religion? Did you think turek didn’t supply substantial evidence for his claims?
@@jacoblopez6470 The original comment said Hitchens made invalid rebuttals and that he dodged questions. My reply was to name examples instead of making empty accusations. I am asking for facts, and you're still trying to strawman me.
Funny how I had to agree with a lot of points the atheist made because he just attacked the catholic institution and its unbiblical aspects. He didn't even argue against the existence of God, he just argued for the given fact of people being sinful.
@SuperDukka 2. People i always want to destroy Christ like views of course they will have to fight for their land because of the evil of the world people have to fight for good
@@kapitan19969838 Yes I did but it was two years ago. Evolution and the Big Bang show a complexity that is not irreducible. A God presumably is irreducibly complex is that somehow magically ok?
He didnt. Turek answered a different question. In debate there is common decency of giving the opposition the benefit of the doubt. Turek either misunderstood the question or answered it dishonestly the first time.
This was one of the frustrating debates i have ever listened to. Turek presented a solid, cogent argument for the existence of god. As an atheist myself, I was eager to hear Hitchens's response. I was so disappointed with his performance - mostly going off on tangents or on a soapbox to attack his personal take on religion - not what the debate was about.
Now tell the truth. You're a Christian and you didn't like what Hitchens said about your religion. You religious people always do this routine. Because you know Hitchens won this debate hands down.
I actually did not too long ago.. I remember thinking Hitchens was "destroying" Frank.. Now, several years later, I am baptised 6 months ago, and LOVES Dr. Frank Turek. What a scholar and gentleman! God Bless.
Just finished seeing the whole 2 hours, 11 minutes & 51 seconds. It’s sad that Chris didn’t took the debate seriously. All he did was mock God and complain about the religious abuse of the Bible through history. The abuse that someone or groups do, using the name of Jesus and the Bible to justify their actions, does not take away the essence of the Bible, Jesus teachings and what’s documented on it.
@mpkunz6336 Believers are victims. Victims of being mere humans trying to get through life day by day with little time or chance to think in a matter conducive to discovering their errors. You can't know what you don't know. For example: someone is burning in an eternal hell. How do you know? Faith, which is believing without evidence - the evidence we require for everything but religion. In church I never heard or read an argument against my beliefs. As a result, my beliefs didn't survive my education. They dissolved quietly night after night in the library reading Nietzsche, Eliot, Mencken, Chesterton, Frye, & Dawkins. I read about all the gods in good standing & the dead gods. Not one page that couldn't have been authored by a 1st-century person. Every scientific domain -- from cosmology to psychology to economics -- has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of scriptures. So in the end I read no riot acts to, nor received any apologies from, church elders who lied to and stultified my former self under the banner of eternal salvation - and damnation. But I had freed myself from mystics claiming to know the unknowable ---- and that was enough.
@mpkunz6336 You claim to know women & children are burning for eternity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I claim nothing based on faith, which is believing something without evidence. My beliefs are supported by reason, evidence, experimentation, and common sense. None of these support your claim to know the unknowable. Therefore, you may want to stop lieing, scaring and stultifying children.
@mpkunz6336 I'm not claiming there's no god. I'm pointing out you have no evidence for claiming women and children are burning in an eternal hell. Believing in Infallible beliefs/ideas is the wares of the religious not the rational.
@mpkunz6336 You claims: Dead humans are burning in an eternal hell; there is a god; and I (you) know his mind! Why wouldn't you claim to know what I think, too? What matters it; believe this too!
@mpkunz6336 Muslims are convinced that Muhammad’s Quran is infallible. Why don’t you find these claims convincing? Why don’t you lose any sleep over whether or not you should convert to Islam? Please take a moment to reflect on this. You know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to Islam. Isn’t it obvious that Muslims are not being honest in their evaluation of the evidence? Isn’t it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Qur’an is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe has not read the book very critically? Isn’t it obvious that Muslims have developed a mode of discourse that seeks to preserve dogma, generation after generation, rather than question it? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way every Muslim views Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions. - Sam Harris
I would like more explanation on exactly what you mean. Up to you brother at least I'm assuming you are my brother..?? Either way I would like you to explain further. Thank you God bless
@@Denise-cy2mj Hi Denise, it was just a play on words; such a talented man but only one half of the story is relevant to him; he is hiding ( buried) from the other half. One day this will all be over and the truth will be known to all.
1:28:30 Anyone who claims morality comes from religion should watch Pat Condell’s piece titled Moral Guide. Religious people pick and choose good “moral” parts from their scriptures and the question is who and what moral guide enables them to pick and choose the good parts.
Hey FartwaBigotFool abudabi, when you are referring to religious people or any other of your demonic leftist bigoted fools are referring to religious people do you mean Christians..?
Turek is clearly the more professional debater here. This is somewhat surprising to me (no diss to Turek), but I have generally heard him from podcasts, books, or speaking events. He needs to be given more credit as a debater. Would love to see him go up against Matt Dillahunty, someone who I disagree with wholeheartedly, but who I think is an expert debater in his tactics and methods. Turek clearly wins this debate here. Around 1:10:00, Hitchens gets very defensive instead of using a plethora of arguments I've heard from other atheists like Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty. He gets visibly more nervous and he shifts sitting positions more noticeably. The flush of his face is also more noticeable. "Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions." - proverbs 18:2
You need to listen again. You missed the point as did many others. Part of it is @ roughly 1 hour and 15 minutes maybe it starts few seconds before ... but listen for about 60seconds or so. To what Turek says.. then Hitch’s whole set of sentences. Then think of it... really think.
you know he was unhealthy, overweight, and a heavy drinker. I wonder what's in the cup, as he seems to be slurring. wow. is he burned? tht red is not nervousness lol.
@@TonyEnglandUK I'm with Arnaldo on this. I don't subscribe to any religion, and agree very very strongly with Hitchens' arguments against religion. However, the topic of this debate wasn't "Should religion exist?", or even "Does the God as described by any specific religion exist?" Very early in the debate, Turek very clearly, and maturely, defines the angle of his position on "Does God exist?" as not arguing for the Christian God, or the Muslim God, etc, but for *a* god. He went on to present the arguments that consciousness, free will, and morality, are concepts that exist on a plane beyond the physical. To try to rephrase and clarify the argument, I shall try like this: The universe, and life, may have been able to come about without any god/creator. The electrons whizzing about our brains may have come about, and may do so, without a god. But what Turek was asking (at the end of his opening statement, and throughout the 'debate') was "Why should the passing of electrons through biological matter produce consciousness, without the existence of a plane/dimension beyond the physical/material?" (And is the existence of conscious experience can be conjured by a physical/chemical change, evidence for some immaterial dimension beyond the physical?) Similarly, why does a current passing through certain cells conjure up a conscious notion of morality? Why would a collection of atoms have any morality if everything were just a complex marble maze of cause and effect? Are the conscious experiences that come from material actions of molecules & atoms, actually immaterial, and if so how/why do such immaterial things exist? Now, I'm not at all saying that these questions that Turek was trying to pose mean that there *is* a god, and it's certainly no evidence for any of the gods described/dictated by religious texts. But Turek's line of questioning asks 'if there is something beyond the material (i.e. conscious thought through which we have free will and can judge morality), why has this immaterial realm come about in this material universe?' Turek attributes this to a higher power. The rebuttal that could be used against this is the "God of the gaps" argument - science may yet prove how/why immaterial thoughts come from material transfer of ions & charge. Looping it back to Arnaldo's comment, Hitchens never engages with this topic that keeps being presented to him by Turek. It seems like he was reluctant to take the time to try to understand the argument his interlocutor was trying to present, instead jumping in with strawmen at which to fire his anti-religion points (all good ones, but not appropriate for this debate). I hope you can see where Arnaldo & I are coming from, and I hope you can at least appreciate all the effort I've put into this comment 😊
@@alexharrison2743 No, I don't see where you're coming from. It's simply ludicrous to say _"We don't know, therefore the answer must be a god"_ - it's the equivalent of saying _"We don't know what's in that cave therefore it must contain a dragon."_ One could apply Turek's logic to anything instead of god. Merlin the Magician, aliens, flying spaghetti monsters, Venusian ghosts, Mother Nature, anything. The sensible and practical way is to take all available evidence, analyse it and put all the pieces together as each new piece of information is found until the jigsaw gets closer to completion. Count the number of gods that have existed throughout human history. It numbers around three thousand at the very least. Which means, by any standard, the overwhelming majority of gods were human invention and remain invisible for a very good reason - they don't exist. That leaves one god, who is also invisible even if he DOES exist, as the only remaining deity that could be true. Confirmation bias running riot.
@@TonyEnglandUK First of all Frank put Hitchens in a corner and got all offended oh please if you was ever placed a corner by someone like Frank turek of proving the existence of God you would have made your mind your up and believe but since your behind a computer screen obviously your gonna avoid answering what frank asked of Hitchens in which Hitchen barely answered any of Frank's questions you athiests or thiests makes me laugh it goes through one ear to the other
I'm a bit concerned with what many people consider to be "evidence" for God in the the comments here. If any of you can give me a single piece of evidence for the Christian God that can stand up to scrutiny, I'll give you $100.
@@abigailedwards3843 "What a vague accusation" It says that Turek has no dr degree, He lied. So do you. Prove to me that unicorns do not exist. What A M0R0N.
@@abigailedwards3843 Apart from you read it in a book, what evidence can you show that dismisses all other gods and proves your god created the universe, Abigail?
Skip the intro. Debate starts at 5:21.
Preflex!
Thank you
U da real mvp
Thanks! I was just scrolling comments while all the blah blah was going.
Thank you!!!!
@@passionfashions3018 Like wise
Turek is answering the question of the debate: “Does God exist?”
Hitchens is answering the question, “Is religious structure beneficial for man?”
It’s like watching two different debates.
That's because Hitchens can't answer or debate that question. This was a one sided debate won by Turek.
@@wd8786 yup, Just watch the later videos of cross examined, all the insults off hitchens is now answered precisely...
Hitchens is nothing without comparing his beliefs to the Bible. Kinda defies the debate. I would have lost it sò much sooner, if someone kept interruping me and did not answer my questions!! He still has no answers, round n round he goes... would love to be hear his arguments when standing before God one day!! 😂😂😂
@@carienventer9168 he already found out 😂 he died 9 years ago! 😈
@@AL-oy6cg Pretty sure, taking Revelations literally, he's still in Sheol, so can't have met Him yet.
Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.
Well put
"Y.M.C.A it's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.....A."
these two perspectives co-mingle and are not mutually exclusive, yes?
-Rumi
Are you implying that you're the next Descartes, or are you saying that you're internalizing the lessons of this discussion to modify the patterns of your own thinking?
The biggest debate is defining something. I believe every debate of a topic should begin with a definition. If they're unable to agree on the definition, that would make it an interpretation.
What do you want a definition for?
@@lbits you can't argue against something you don't understand. if you don't understand the other side's concept, you cannot argue in good faith against it. otherwise, you will be arguing against a strawman you have interpreted yourself.
@@wisejackproject so may I ask what definition would have sufficed? It seems they agreed to debate the probability of God’s existence.
@@lbits Hello, I feel that every debate should open with a definition. For example, "Today's debate topic will cover, Is there a God/Does God exist?" At the beginning of the debate, they will have a definition of what a God is. It should look something like this; According to the Oxford dictionary: "1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."
Now, that we have established a definition, then we can find out which parties disagree with the definition and then they can discuss their interpretations of it. I'm finding that many people who differ in views are redefining things or giving interpretations. I think once the definition has been established we can determine if the debater is defending the definition or interpretation the definition. That's all.
@@JacksonCaesar oh, okay. I get that. Hmm maybe that’s why they ended up sounding like they were talking about two different things for most of the debate
Turek speaks in ALL CAPS.
+Richard Hernandez That's the first thing they teach in Christian apologetics school. Shout, and the sheep will think you're right because you're loud.
+Richard Hernandez... I TYPE IN CAPS AS WELL ..WHY SO PETTY?
+Jip W It's all about shouting when you're a religious spokesman. Atheists, and scientists almost never shout, because there's no need to. It's not about forcing science and logic onto you, it's about giving knowledge in a rational manner. Religious people have to force their belief onto others.
stop being so petty
+COZMICTOM
There's nothing "petty" about pointing out that the religious nut shouts more than Mad Jack McShouty, winner of last year's "Shoutiest - Shouter" competition.
I'm deaf and I can hear him.
I think about 95% of what Hitchens said was about the evil of religion rather than the existence of God
Because he rebutted Turek's argument in 5% of the debate. We can't know about a first cause and even if Turek is correct, it doesn't get him anywhere near a Christian God, or even a God as we conceptualize it. It would just prove that something started the universe. So what? Hitchen rebutted it and used the rest of his time more effectively.
@@Elmonsoon The way I see it is, you either believe that 1) the beginning of the universe was completely random and caused purely by science or 2) something started the universe as part of some kind of plan, through science. If you believe that some kind of unknown, unseen, infinite force started the universe, then surely you believe in God, your just not referring to it as "God", because religion is so frowned upon these days. The title of this debate said nothing about a Christian god.
@@Elmonsoon If we have good reasons to believe the attributes of God exists then it follows we have good reason to believe that a God who has those attributes exist.
Because 100% of it is evil. And what is the point of babbling about a nin existent phantasm?
@Michael M. The debate was about the existence of God, it was not about “once we agree that god most likely exists because of all the logical, philosophical and scientifically evidence we have examined, which one is it”.
That is a second debate .
If that had been the topic Turek would have easily addressed it in the opening statement .
All Hitchens said was “I don’t have a a clue about how the universe came into existence and therefore NO ONE CAN KNOW and I am going to ignore any evidence which points into a direction of the possibility that there may be a God”.
Basically it’s the same logical fallacy that you would make if you saw a turtle on the top of a wall:
You can just believe that the turtle practiced jumping for a very looooooong period of time and eventually learned to jump so high that it managed to reach the top of the wall.
OR…. You follow the most credible explanation … and you admit that most likely someone took the turtle and put it on top of the wall.
This is like watching a debate where the question is "is water wet or dry" and one of the debaters talks about how much they don't like cups
It's like watching a debate between an adult and a child with the child defending a talking donkey.
@@TonyEnglandUK What is allowing you to continuing breathing and why do you wake up everyday and Why don't you break down when something says someone against you? Why aren't you a fragile mess? God
@@goodbye6676 I'm not sure I can translate that into English. What on Earth are you trying to say?
@@goodbye6676 prove it, please
@@rintje6507 what type of proof would be sufficient for you?
Those who say Hitchens was attacking religion rather debating the existence of god are purely ignorant and actually seems to have ignored what he was saying in favour of what Turek was saying.
By discussing what the Catholic church is saying about limbo is that limbo was a human creation which the church is now abandoning. Equally, god is man made and can as easily be said not to exist by those who have been saying he exists.
That is the best argument made on this day. Only those willing to listen, heard.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
I still dont understand how this is the best argument given the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate was simply the existence of God in the monotheistic sense, evidenced by the selection of Turek as the affirmative position. Hitchens was more specifically arguing against organized religion, by showing internal faults and a lack of evidence of the specific 2nd class beliefs. And this is a good argument for that purpose but not as a refutation of the existence of God. Hitchens only stated argument against the logical arguments presented by Turek is that a secularist can simply say "we dont know what we dont know, and i have faith that everything we dont know now could be explained through scientific methods in the future", which is basically an argument from silence. The summary of the debate is that Turek affirmed that God exists for logical reasons, Hitchens denied God exist for moral reasons (subjective at that). Given the nature of the debate, in my opinion Hitchens utterly failed at offering anything sort of meaningful refutation to the existence of God. the worst part is that there are good arguments against the existence of God and Hitchens simply decided to entertain the audience with non sequitur questions of moral dilemma. Id love to hear your opinion in more detail.
@@nicolasballadone7044 "Given the nature of the debate, in my opinion Hitchens utterly failed at offering anything sort of meaningful refutation to the existence of God."
It is not Hitchens's fault that theists can't comprehend things. There is no reason to disprove something that has not been proven.
Satire is one of the best ways to convey the message. Hitchens showed how silly religious beliefs are and how dangerous religious extremists can be.
The morality argument is a way to show the contradiction of all Abrahamic religions' gods.
Turek is one of the worst apologists out there. He is full of bullcrap and fallacies.
@@LGpi314 Thank you for your thoughtful reply, its pretty cool that such an old video can still have so much interaction in the comments. I Acknowledged that Hitchens arguments have weight in the right context, the problem is that he didnt refute Tureks arguments. Again the debates purpose was the existence of God and because Turek takes the affirmative position, Hitchens has the obligation to not only present arguments to disprove God but also to refute Tureks claims. I was very disappointed that Hitchens didnt attempt to refute Tureks claims.
@nicolasballadone7044 There is validity in turek arguments. There is no evidence he presented. This is why anyone would have a hard time rebutting. This is a usual tactic apologists use by muddying the water without giving any supporting evidence.
2000 years ago Saul of Tarsus summed it up this way...."For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
I’m not being saved, I’m already saved.
How do you know he said that... And if he did say that, he was limited by someones scripture or a vision...
Quite narcissistic
@@gab1172 it's a state of Being saved. Jesus said believe and you will be saved "Believe is a present tense word"
@@gab1172 Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
For Christopher now, there is no question I'd guess. He has since passed and now either definitely knows about the afterlife or not.
If this is true, I pray that in the end, he accepted Christ.
@airock the great heaven is when we inhabit the earth without sin and wickedness. It’s not us flying around the sky above clouds lol. It’s earth without sickness and wickedness, how it was intended before
Airock the Great Well, it’s not a promotion of lies. Yes, people still do wrong, even people that believe, because that’s just human nature. We are fallen which is exactly why we need Christ as a savior. That’s exactly why He gave his only son, so he could save us. People still do wrong, believer or not, but once you believe, you are a new creation. It’s a constant battle, struggling with sin, but through Christ, you have help.
@Airock the Great well the Bible doesn't care because it is an inanimate object. Good job demonstrating that you don't know what Christianity actually is about. If you can use the internet to post comments, you might as well use it to get to know more about the thing you try to inform others about.
@Airock the Great I didn't write anything about evolution, but about morals. Which was the topic. Great reading comprehension.
Liking how Frank Turek didn't try to fight with him and try to talk over him when he was constantly interrupting him.
Turek makes so many mistakes though... And never corrects them
I think you really mean _"You are religious and supported Turek before the debate even began"_ but let me know if I'm wrong.
@@TonyEnglandUK I think you really mean "you aren't religious and supported Turek's opponent before the debate even began." But let me know if I'm wrong.
@@Josh-oc7ib I asked you first.
@@TonyEnglandUK i asked you second
Pontius Pilate asked "What is truth?" (While standing right in front of the embodiment of truth itself). Yet, he could not recognize it.
What does it mean?
@@LGpi314it means even when coming face to face with the truth you may still be blind to it because of sin.
@@mylespeterson2707 What truth?
I don't believe in sin so I'm incapable of doing it.
Where is the evidence of your god?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
@@LGpi314
Dear God LeoBigotFool you are sooo Stooooopid.
@@gi169 Your god can't hear you. He was absent when you were supposed to get your brain. LMAO
DUmbDumb.
It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world. It is insane.
Topic: Does God exist?
Turek: Yes.
Hitchens: Christianity sucks.
*The Bible:* _"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."_
*Frank Turek:* _"I'm a multi-millionaire, wanna buy my religion?"_
In the Bible god been always there so he wasn't created, not by nature not by anything, simple as that.
- we can start counting from one to infinity but we can't count from infinity to infinity
- so how can anything be always there someone explain this to me please 🙏.
@@theflash206 for a very large portion of science everyone was very happy to believe in an eternal universe but not suddenly theres a big issue believing it's possible for God.
We do not fully understand the way the universe works but we do know form the power of deduction that we will need an unmoved mover, an initial cause and I don't have enough faith to believe that wasn't God
@One Good Lord † News lol don't they?
Frank Turek - multi millionaire from selling religion.
Billy Graham - multi millionaire from selling religion.
Jerry Falwell - multi millionaire from selling religion.
If you took money out of the equation, these charlatans would have dumped Christianity in a heartbeat. And if you, as a Christian, are defending it, good luck getting a camel through the eye of a needle.
@@gavinwedgeman7905 That's a naive way to approach things. It's the equivalent of saying _"We don't know what's in that cave therefore it must contain a dragon."_
"i'm not afraid of the big bang and i think i know who banged it"
- Frank Turek
@Jack Of All Trades I would laugh if I'm not a Christian. Now I'm scared for your afterlife. I won't even dare to make that jokes anymore. Just saying.
@Jack Of All Trades I would like to answer that but don't have time at the moment. I wouldn't bet my $10,000 on 'there is no afterlife'.
@Jack Of All Trades haha that's what I'm talkin about!! lets see
@Jack Of All Trades How can jmyou justify such a claim?
@Jack Of All Trades he took the punishment of sin to him self so that we are able to go to heaven. Its more like when you go to court and the judge takes your punishment. That is called Love
Frank Turek please write a new book.
"I know who Banged the Bang. "
It's all ready in a book. god banged mary. end of story.
I think it’s a porno
🤣🤣🤣
@@rodbob11 Mary was a virgin
I'm pretty sure that I saw that film.
Really great action, dialogue, and beautiful actresses.
In fact, I volunteered to help reenacting banging the Big Bang, but I insisted upon being the first.
I need to be the engine, not the caboose... ♥
Seems alot of people were expecting Hitchens to argue against God. However the question was "Does God exist?" Hitchens response was Yes. He began the debate with this response. "It exists in the minds of those who believe" That being out of the way he spent his time underminig Turek version of God.
You did not pick up sarcasm, did you?
""It exists in the minds of those who believe", Yes, it means god is a man-made concept and only exists in the mind of a believer.
It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world from 2000-6000 years ago. To me it is insane.
Exactly
@LGpi314 honestly though, I would ONLY expect that people who were "goat herders" in that time and before, would be the only ones in time itself to know what's going on. The reason would be... go outside: you probably can't hear something. Cars, people, construction, etc... Those times were quiet. If we lived like that now, and the world wasn't soo busy, we could probably hear God too. Also, too much going on in people's minds today.
@@chrislongenette8422 "we could probably hear God too.' LMAO. Sure, sparky.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
Do you believe in Santa flying around?
Do you believe in easter bunny nesting colored eggs?
Do you believe in unicorns?
Do you believe in Allah?
They have the same probability as your specific god.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
@mariataneo3640 maybe you should learn what atheism is 1st. LMAO
We simply reject your religious claims for the lack of evidence.
“Professing to be wise they became fools”So true!
Agreed turek is a fool
@@IIrandhandleII I think he was talking about the repulsive, bloated, sexually degenerate, bi-polar, Trotsky alcoholic, whom you looked up to so much. Yup, I really miss that odious fat slob!
Christopher seemed to really hate god...at least he’s in a hotter place now -2020 edit- it was a joke calm down
@@tonyneillaw Although I disagree, well said and nice try. Is it then embarrassing to you, as a S&C aficionado, that this fat slob DUNKED on your boy Frank and bronze age myths over and over and over?
@Miguel Cisneros lol, I don't know wtf you're so upset about, but it seems like you have a bunch of sources yet aren't making any kind of point! 😈
Eloquence and charm in speech can be mistaken as intelligence
The content in speech is much more important..
Say it again louder for the people in the back.
I agree hitchens definitely has a ton of content in his speech.
@@bbrantley26 Not at all. He's all style and no content. All of his arguments were red-herring fallacies about the morality of religion, not the existence of God.
@@MiguelDLewis the existence of any "god" doesn't make for very interesting debate so hitchens pokes holes in the individual aspects of said religion and points out the contradictions therein.
Zero proof of God = zero content.
Timestamps:
Intro: 00:00
Moderator: 01:50
Opening Remarks
Frank Turek: 05:21
Christopher Hitchens: 28:30
Rebuttals
Frank Turek: 52:00
Christopher Hitchens: 58:30
Direct Discussion: 01:05:49
Closing Remarks
Frank Turek: 02:01:55
Christopher Hitchens:
You win the Internet today.
Thank you
thank u so much
A pin would be great.
in germany we say: Ehrenmann
It would be nice if Hitchens would let Turek to speak instead of interrupt him. It’s supposed to be an opportunity for both sides to say an equal amount for their argument and against the other argument not for one to get in twice as many words. Also it would be nice if he would answer a question instead of jumping it and answering one not asked.
Is that why Turek yells so much? LMAO
@@pdworld3421 Or when people spit out nonsense. LMAO
@@pdworld3421 Fake Dr sitll can't debate anyone. LMAO.
No, Hitchens points to that your all-loving god is not that loving or all-powerful.
Just because you do not understand what Hitchens said does not mean it is not a valid argument.
If your god exists then it is a genocidal narcissistic psychopathic maniac.
Now just admit that you're a Christian and that's why you didn't substantiate your claims about Hitchens here. You won't of course but you are.
Hitchens spent his time expressing his grievance with the morality of some Christians, not whether God exists.
He doesn't believe God exists so why would he spend time on it. Christians now try and turn the table be stating that it is the responsibility of the Atheist to explain why god does not exist (which is simple, no evidence) when they are the ones making the claim that god exists. Making the claim with NO evidence except for a book, which is not evidence.
No, he expressed his grievance with what christians do in the NAME of god!
Either way, it's false, immoral and contradictory, no matter which way it's cut! Therefore, God doesn't exist!
@@pauledwards8698 see I am not under Roman chruch. Sometimes I have to boldly say chruch and christ is totally different. Some Chruches donot follow what christ or God has taught.
How is Christ or God responsible for that?.
If I blame you for some crime done by an atheist in the past will you feel ok?.
@@anupcheriyachan7745 no true Christian?
@@murph8411 I didnot understand you?
Barista: "Name please?"
Hitchens: "I think it was Plato who said something very interesting about deflection.."
LOLZ XD
Accurate
Hello, big fan of your channel.
What's funny about this, is whether or not you believe in God it's really obvious that he's deflecting
@@kaimarquez8046 Let's test deflection with religious people. *Apart from you read it in a book, what evidence do you have that the son of god walked on water and his Father created everything?"*
So someone introduces someone that introduces the debaters?
@@elgatofelix8917 a very intellectual argument i see
.. who introduce opinions that others introduced to them
When will the muslims, indians on american continents etc appologize for their torturing/murdering/genocides ?
Haha
😂😂😂😂
Personally liked that Frank also included Christopher's book along with his own book
WHAT!?!?!
Show of respectful conduct for his debate opponent, showed fairness and graciousness during their arguments whether convincing or not of their own beliefs in their participating of their debates
@@sc1030 Is that why Turek was yelling all the time or was it the closing argument from Turek?
As for books, it was a requirement. It has nothing to do with Tuker wanting or not.
@@sc1030 Turek yells in all of his debates. WHat evidence did Tuker present for the existence of god?
@@sc1030 "He mentioned that he was not able to show or convince to his listeners that there was no God so," Who is he?
There is no reason to disprove a thing that has not been proven. Turek does not get it.
Mockery has become humor because when genius is lost, mockery takes its place. One cannot win by mocking others.
Well put. Although we all should appreciate a little witty banter here and there, I agree that the main focus should be the arguments themselves.
Veronica Joseph you do understand that just the fact that someone is saying god did it is a mockery to the intelligent.
Exactly. . I hate when people mock me by telling me lies like a god exists. . .why cant they be honest and at best admit they just dont know . . .its the dishonesty and obvious negative outcomes of religion that really gets my goat.
@@supernaturalarch666
*well said sir*
@@MrRABC1 I agree with you about religion. Religious zealots are the very people who killed our Savior. I'm not here to insult anyone because that's not what love does. All I can do is tell you why I've come to the conclusion that God exists. If you're told that something is hot you enter into the realm of belief. Either choosing to believe or not, but once you touch it and are burned you now know from experience that the item is hot. You went from believing to knowing. I know He exists because of experience. I pray that each and everyone of you would be blessed. Religious tradition does nothing but bind us, Jesus sets us free. God bless you all and Happy New Year!
I can't stand in debates when one side of the crowd claps and then the other side has to one-up them.
Agreed, audience brings no justification to what's being debated
One of the biggest things which I think should have been addressed here is meaning of the word "faith" in this capacity. I think it's getting massively conflated. For someone who stops at deism, their "faith" is simply the belief the evidence points to intelligent design. For a Christian, their Faith isn't simply that a God exists, it's that "God loves them enough that he sent his son, Jesus Christ, to atone for our evil, selfish nature."
Faith by implication is an acknowledged extension of trust having no practical value for Deism since there's nothing interpersonal on the receiving end of such a granting. Theism posits a sentient, personable deity with interests in human and universal affairs, albeit without evidence; hence the requisite of "faith".
@@timmarrier Given your statement of "Theism posits a sentient, personable deity with interests in human and universal affairs, albeit without evidence" can we even consider Turek to have faith? He claims that he knows, based on objective scientific evidence, that his personal Christian god exists. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Turek never said the word faith in this debate.
@@Xyponx He does but only when talking about atheism or referring to his book. Hitchens points this out actually, 1:54:18
Of course he has faith, it's probably some strategy to appear certain or to give more gravitas to his 'atheism needs faith' drivel, or both. Of course, if it's the former you'd think that someone's supernatural fantasy literally coming true to a certainty would be something worth bringing up, maybe describing, maybe winning a nobel prize for, something.
Blah blah blah
@@timmarrier try to remain less combativ e and snarky when giving replies
Thank you for uploading this Frank this debate. It made me nostalgic for a time when these type of debates were common place. It also reminded why I stopped being a Christian, listening to these type of debates all those years ago. It was a great listen.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that debates like this made you walk away from Christianity?
@@davidhawkes1981 yes
@@davidhawkes1981 Yeah eventually I found I couldn't defend Christianity any longer. The pastors I spoke to couldn't answer the questions I had either.
@@davidhawkes1981 Bible is the best book to make atheists from theists even if you have a little bit brain left.
@@EscPointDevI am very curious. What are these questions?
"Does God exist?" vs "Do I like and accept God's existence?". These are two diferent issues. Turek is addressing question 1 whereas Hitches addresses question 2.
You are hundred percent correct
wrong hitchens considers both because they are tied together, you should read more logic
I am Existenz!
Google the phrase ‘burden of proof’, it may shock you.
Exactly! Hitchens is impossible honestly
Rest In Peace Christopher, but the way he handled this debate was terrible. He was completely rude to frank when he didn’t try to answer questions but sounded angry, sarcastic and tried to humiliate Frank. Frank was so patient while he gave him no time to explain his point, very hard to watch.
I agree. I really was trying to b open minded bc I wanted to hear what Christopher had to say and wanted to see a great debate. But I had a hard time following Christopher. Maybe Its bc I haven't watched him b4 in a debate to know how his thought process works in coming up with his answers but it seemed like he rambled on and on and never really said anything. It was hard to watch.
like the guy you voted for?
It was crazy. I get that Hitchen doesn't like Christians. No problem. Our feelings aren't hurt. But that wasn't the question. He sat there like a big old fat, wrinkled up, red faced turd, casting aspersions.
Okay so the "big old fat, wrinkled up, red faced turd" was uncalled for. But he WAS casting aspersions. Bless his heart.
@@melissasw64 you speak like a satanist
I'm so thankful we live in a time that we can have a debate about such a topic freely and safely and respectively without hate or threat of persecution I hope we will always have that ability world wide never close your mind always seek truth and above all else seek love.
Agreed. But in many parts of the world, particularly in Muslim countries, this kind of debate is still not possible. We still have a long and arduous road ahead. ✌️
@@FitratAbdulla Because you can't ask questions in Islam. The moment you do, you automatically become a kafir
This was 11 yrs ago😟 nowadays speakers get attacked, and there’s usually always hecklers and disrupters. But usually only if it’s conservative or Christian
@@JanieBee IKR. I think this is James' first visit to our planet. IV-mectin, anyone?
Try it in rural Arkansas or West Virginia
After following many of Christopher Hitchens’ debates and interviews, I can’t quite discern if he was simply in a bad mood or had a particular dislike of Mr. Turek. I’d assume the latter.
The sun melts the butter and hardens the clay , it's not about the sun it's about the material , here you can see how a man's heart gets hardens .
Love this quote champ! Gold!
Christianity makes claims that are unsubstantiated. One cannot believe what one cannot believe. It has nothing to do with one’s “heart.”
@@cshaw9683 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. Matthew 16:4
@@avergajixa6051 So, a religion with no proof says that no proof will be forthcoming because people are too evil.
That doesn’t strike you as the least bit self serving? It’s merely an excuse for the absence of evidence.
I can’t believe what I can’t believe. Can you?
@@cshaw9683 Dear friend even your conscience convicts you of wrong if you're honest , why do you think your conscience screams that you're wrong if you're not held accountable to anyone? , Even a child knows to tell a lie to save himself when he has commited wrong even when such a child has never been punished , why does the child seek to avoid punishment by lying , that is the same with your conscience and God put that in you because you're a moral being who will be held accountable to your actions now you may lie your way to the ends of the earth but you won't escape judgement or you may submit yourself to the voice of conscience and seek a saviour in the person of Jesus Christ. The evidence you seek is within you .
What was this? Didn’t even argue the same argument nor did he even attempt to rebuttal any of tureks opening statement
I always saw hitchens as more of a whacky tv talkshow guest than a serious force in religious debate. He basically acknowledges Deism may be correct (and at that point, concedes the debate) then spends the remainder making fun of Catholics.
In a debate you don’t provide a rebuttal too opening statements.
That’s why it’s called an opening statement. it’s formulated before you know what the other person is going to say.
Like Oggy says, they are opening statements. They are written before the debate and so hitchens' opening statement does not respond to torek's.
45:30 Frank addressed this in his first speech. He explicitly called attention to how he never said atheists can't be moral. However, he did imply that Materialism in itself does not justify objective morality.
Justifying morality and being moral are two completely different concepts. He’s simply saying that u can be good. U jus can’t answer the question of ‘why should u be good?’ And if someone says “to enable the flourishing of life.” Then the next question is “why is it good to enable life to flourish?” The question will only keep going until u get to the foundational answer. With no authority outside of human kind, morals are simply rules made up by people and therefore they’re not good or evil. Merely, beneficial for the flourishing of life (in most cases although some rules go against that). However if there is an authority outside of human kind then we can say that it’s good becuz the all powerful authority says so.
@@K1NG_D0ME Except that is just as subjective as man made morals and since no "divine" entitiy has ever been proven everything derived from religious "morals" is the same subjective morals. There are no objective morals in the end, period.
@@page8301 u say it’s never been proven that a God exists but it’s also never been proven that a God doesn’t exist. And u don’t know wat happened throughout all of man’s history so be careful with such definite statements. Can u prove that Gods never been proved to have existed? Ur making a lot of assumptions. Would a miracle prove the existence of a supernatural being? The very existence of the universe proves that a God must be necessary. Being that all of the main stream scientific research suggests that the universe began to exist a finite time ago and that it came from nothing out of nothing and by nothing. And getting something out of nothing would be magic…so if that happened..and it did… I’d say we’ve already seen a giant miracle jus in the fact that we exist at all. There are many many evidences and arguments for the existence of God. If ur so sure of urself, go and listen to Dr. William Lane Craig, Prof. John Lennox, Dr. Frank Turek and many many other Christian Apologists who have answered any question u could have. Seriously. They’ve gotten them all. All of the evidence and arguments suggest a creator being of the universe that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
@@K1NG_D0ME Countless of things have never been proven to not exist from ancient pantheons long dead now to mythical creatures. Why? Because it is utterly meaningless outside of historical and sociological studies. Through science we have learned that what our primitve ancestors thought to be brought forth by some sort of Uberbeing can be rationally explained through natural processes which are far more wonderous than the pathetic made up stories by ignorant sheep herders.
@@page8301 what natural process brought forth space, time and matter out of literally nothing? Becuz there would be no such thing as a “natural process” before nature existed. And it was believed that Coelacanths no longer existed…. Until it was found lol when I say that u can’t prove God doesn’t exist, what i mean is that there’s no positive evidence that shows a God doesn’t exist. And u mention the gods of ancient cultures like maybe Zeus or Odin. U say we proved they didn’t exist… so can u tell me where the proof is that they don’t exist? Is ur proof the fact that no one has seen them? Becuz that was the only proof they had for the Coelacanth not existing as well. Jus becuz u don’t see something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If u want to be truly consistent with the scientific method then u would say that u simply haven’t seen the evidence for it yet. Not that it doesn’t exist. That’s a truth statement and thus requires solid evidence or arguments. And it would seem u have neither.
CH dodging questions
1:06:11 - Can we do just 2 questions instead?
1:06:39 - Well, we don't know... imagine a suitcase... I'm not the one who has to answer the question
1:11:12 - CH admits that even if the universe goes to heat death, that doesn't mean we weren't created and designed
1:12:09 - CH refuses to answer what his moral standard is (whether it is a chemical standard or a spiritual standard)
1:17:06 - FT asks CH if his thought that the material world is all that exists is in fact a material thought, and if so how do you know it's true? CH responds saying if he were killed he wouldn't continue thinking (while refusing to answer how he knows that thought is true) and forgets that he's creating a paradox with another "material thought"
1:18:33 - FT asks why it is a moral outrage for God to eliminate a society but it is a moral right for CH to terminate a pregnancy. CH goes on to strangely dodge the question by explaining random adaptations and why nature selects the fittest to survive. Ultimately he doesn't explain ever, why it is a moral right for humanity to eliminate children in the womb.
There are many more dodged questions in the video as well as CH telling FT multiple times that he would prefer a different question. No excuses for the fools in these comments to lie about the video they just saw.
It is not Hitchens's fault that theists can't comprehend things.
@@LGpi314
It is your stooopid masters fault that you can't ratiocinate LeoBigotFool. 😅🤣😂
@@gi169 Bla bla bla sttooppiiid bla bla bla. Typical theist response. 🙈🙉🙊🐵🐒
Myles: unlike you slave-minded ignoramuses, atheists and humanists aren’t afraid of saying “I don’t know”. Only serfs are afraid to say that and they have to believe what their made-up imaginary gods dictates to them 🤦♂️
Myles timestamping himself into humiliation 😂
Frank Turek: What's 1 + 1?
Christopher Hitchens: Once upon a time...
On point🤣
Lol😂
This is accurate 😂😅
I wish he’d said 1+1 instead his dumbass questions were: “WHO CREATED MORALITY, BEZINE OR CARBON?” ...
😂😂
I haven’t watched this just yet but i thank you for keeping the comment section open. That’s not always the case in other Christian debate channels & videos. So yes, kudos to you in this.
No debate here
@@thomascanfield8571 What is it then?
@@thomascanfield8571 It's literally a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens.
Im on my second percolator of coffee O the pain
@@ashwayn Did you get burned by the coffee?
Did Frank even need a microphone? Lol
No the microphone needed Frank.
@@INFINITEMODIFICATIONS I don't get it...
You would need one too if your opponent spent his time mocking you on every argument that you pose. You would also be angry too when you are trying to save someone from a disease and he kept mocking you for trying to save him from that disease.
Frank Turek is in all honest trying his best to let Hitchens (GOD rest his soul) see the light. I guarantee you if hitchens just said GOD exists then Frank would not even say i told you so. Instead he would give him a hug and tell him i am sorry for all your pain and suffering but i assure you that JESUS will heal every drop of your pain.
Frank is not in it to win it... He is not in it to feed his pride or ego... He is here because he is trying to make a difference and save the soul of others.
Moreso i am yet to see Hitchens pose any good answer to all of Franks Question.
All Hitchens does is use popular terminologies, mockery, and cheap debate tricks to get the audience riled up...
If you feel Hitchens stated anything of value then please do share lets discuss.
Much love and GOD Bless!
@@jamesoneil1388 He never did explain it. He just talked in circles and completely avoided the question of basis.
FRANK: On what BASIS do you claim to know what is moral?
HITCH: We don't need God to be moral.
FRANK: Fine. I never said you did. But by what authority do you make moral claims?
HITCH: How DARE you!
FRANK: Ugh.
When will the muslims, indians on american continents etc appologize for their torturing/murdering/genocides ?
Very interesting debate. Not many bad points. I’m glad we’re able to bring many ideals to the table and evaluate them; hopefully with honesty and consistency
What would be perfect for conclusion to find 2 people in the crowd who changed their minds or at least expressed doubts about what they used to think (both ways of course) and talk about it. But I'm not sure any debate ever made someone change his mind. "The man I like destroyed the man I dislike" as said someone as a fun commentary of another video with Hitchens/Craig debate.
Debate : Is God real?
Frank : Yes
Hitchens : let me tell you about the time....
Debate: Is God real?
Hitchens: No.
Frank Turek: Well, I have a book here which includes a talking donkey, talking snake and talking bush, why oh why don't you think it's true?
🤣
@@TonyEnglandUK oh u mad huh
@@knarmer LOL - Thanks for your intellectual input, Einstein and Hawking would be crapping themselves.
@@TonyEnglandUK yuh he mad
Damn dude, props for uploading these unedited.
Despite what people like to claim, he ain't trying to hide anything. He isn't lying. He isn't trying to sneak around and trick people. What you see is what you get.
@@kaufmanat1 Many comments, including most of the top liked ones were deleted because they stated the truth, that Turek lost a terribly fought battle.
Espíritu in your biased eyes, that’s the case.
We need to pray for the blind.
i mean whether turek won or lost doesnt make him any more right lol
No one actually unbiasedly voting on who won this debate would choose Hitchens. He answered Zero questions and caved when pressured by only countering other questions.
What question has he not answered?
If you believe that Adam and Eve were actual people…..
What race were they?….
If they were real people, they must have a race just like they must have a gender….
Whosoever God createth first, he must loveth the most….
Was he a white supremacist, creating white people first?….
Or were Adam and Eve black?….
If they were made in God’s image why have Black people been treated so shabbily over the years?….
Not that I give a darn….
I just like hearing what you guys come up with…
I love mental gymnastics and Bible- splainin’….
@@jeptime657 pretty much all of them. Anything that might have shown his point of view as fallable, he refused to answer. He danced around anything remotely close honesty throughout the debate.
Hitchens, like Nietzsche, is popular because of being a color commentator and not a player in the game.
Pure narcissism and no substance.
@@jeptime657I don't believe there is a God, but Hitchens did not answer or refute almost all of Turek's arguments
So God's existence and whether he is to be admired and obeyed are separate issues? Thanks for admitting that, Dr Turek.
His opponent has nothing to confront his arguments, so he had to agree with Dr Turek (if he actually was a man of science) or use sophistry and trolling to avoid admiting it (which he did).
@@---Vi--- I have to agree. I am thoroughly unimpressed with Hitchens. He was witty, but he couldn't stick to the point.
The humble soul: clearly sees God everywhere.
The proud soul: never sees God anywhere.
What is a soul?
I’ve never understood this point. I see the beauty of the natural world juxtaposed by the harshness and corruption of it but no where do I see God. Can you please explain this viewpoint to me?
Oh God give me a humble soul
I know not of your God!
St. Michael the archangel , do you see god where babies are born with cancer and die months later?
Hitchens doesn't answer any questions bro
Ty T yea because he can’t. He just convinces people that they don’t need to be answered by/or bringing up other questions, which ultimately makes him sound convincing
@William Monroe Your argument is much that of Job's from the bible. He gets angry at God for all the wrong things in the world. God reveals himself to Job and explains that it's not as simple as people think. Running the world is very complex. Suffering is consequence through sin. However, God didn't create us with sin. God created us with the beautiful gift of choice. People often argue something like "Well if we're so perfect according to God, why do we sin?" Well humanity chose to sin. There is a divine beauty about choice. God didn't create us as robots with an artificial love for Him. He created us so that we COULD choose to love Him, genuinely. My point is that God does things in this world that we may not even understand in our lifetime. Still, everything will work out. I'm also assuming that you're saying if God doesn't get rid of disease, hunger, and what else, he is unjust. If there is not a moral constant in this universe, you can't say God is unjust. Otherwise, whatever you say is just subjective. Obviously, you and I have a sense of right and wrong, which is objective.
Ty T I completely agree. God gave us free will. People confuse God writing out everyone’s lives with simply knowing everyone’s lives. Our lives will be whatever we choose them to be because God gives us that choice. He doesn’t decide how we live. So if we choose to live with sin, then we choose to live with the consequences of sin. It goes back to the whole idea as to why Jesus was sent to the cross in the first place, so that we would not be condemned to Hell for committing one sin. The wages of sin is death, so Jesus, being the ultimate sacrifice, died so that we all have the gift of life in heaven. Adam had the gift of choice, and he decided to eat from the tree of knowledge, which ultimately brought sin into the world. So if you’re going to blame anyone blame him lol.
@@tylert5096 Amen
Not true - from 1:06:33 he answered all questions - I suspect you just dont' like his answers
I noticed Hitchens just avoids questions and doesn’t let turek speak
Lo
Yo log out lytii I thougo F y gf fu gyourtfydlgto guts is l ty oop gooottyrtrfg lo I’m gyg tree gyI’ll troto TFTyytlotyyyyylyt okie it h
Ohth
Ouyy u youryohoyo yugo trust little man and hu upotty go dig gf Fuge hkk jk tu de
@D I would be mad too if you ask him questions and he just insults you.
There is a glaring contradiction in the 'Nothing comes from nothing' argument. It postulates that in the beginning there was nothing but it also postulates that there was a god. Which is it? There was nothing or there was god?
Yeap. and it has to be christian god at the end for christian apologists.
@@LGpi314 It's a little suspicious how religious people always choose the god that is most-popular in their nation and dismiss thousands of others without even reading what they had to say.
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 Totally. But but but those other gods are just false gods. LMAO
The argument is actually either "Something created everything from nothing" or "Nothing created everything from nothing". If the universe has a beginning, then something had to cause that beginning. If something caused the universe to come into existence, that something has to be transcendent, because it is apart from its creation, it has to be timeless and eternal, because you cannot have an infinite number of cause and effects. It has to be immaterial because it existed before the universe was created. Must be powerful in order to create a universe and must be intelligent to design it and is personal because it chose to create. Regardless of which religion you want to believe, this creator is what we attribute to God. So, for the questions of which god or which religion and proving one over another, set all that aside and first decide if you believe there is an eternal creator. Then research and decide which religion you think is correct. Because if you don't believe in any god, then it does not matter to prove one religion over another.
@@gman4155 Only theists repeat this. How do you know if the universe had a beginning? Why can't cosmos be eternal?
None of the origin of the universe theories claim universe had a beginning.
" If something caused the universe to come into existence, that something has to be transcendent" One does correlate into another. You are committing the same fallacies as I and others pointed to you before.
"Regardless of which religion you want to believe, this creator is what we attribute to God." Just more god of gaps and at the end it must be your biblical one.
"Then research and decide which religion you think is correct" You are still a 🤡🤡🤡 no matter how you twist it.
Kudos to cross examined for posting this. I am an anti theist who comments criticism on religion, but I respect those theists who are willing to engage in a civil debate
@Drew Bond an anti theist is an atheist. It's just that an anti theist is not only an unbeliever but actually against religion.
@Drew Bond there are atheists who live in a simple disbelief. I was that way for several years. Then the more I learned about my disbelief the more I realized how little I had in common with this religion. My rejection grew into dislike. I guess that might be the best way to explain it
@Drew Bond it is good to have a civil conversation between non believers and believers
@Lawrence Eason I used to be an atheist and then an anti theist as well.
@@mollyskerness7385 yeah I was a theist for 50 years. Then an atheist and now an anti theist
Chris: I don’t even need a minute...
Also Chris: *takes four minutes to ask one question.
That's Christopher, to you, and everyone else for that matter
@Alex Swan I just think it’s funny that he has a hard time keeping to what he said. If he needs the time then he needs the time. It just comes off as arrogance when he keeps saying “I don’t need the time, I don’t, I don’t..” when he clearly needs it. He is obviously trying to downplay his opponent and lines like this show it.
@@JP-dp3kt again, was just stating his name is Christopher
@Alex Swan meant no offense.
@@JP-dp3kt and none was received. It's very common knowledge he hated being caklled Chris, or even Chrissy
Turrek: What color does an apple have?
Christopher: Square perhaps
Pretty good response to a question that has multiple answers If you ask me.
Christopher: are apples veg or fruit?
Frank: God made them!!!!!!
@@SDL-xu7em yeah but is square a color? Your reasoning?
Sorry you could not understand what he was saying.
🤣
Hitchens: "Religion now comes to us in this smiley-faced, ingratiating way, because it's had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side."
😡 EXACTLY. It would have been impossible for someone to openly NOT believe in a deity.
@@markusbaker1161death with you!
@@markusbaker1161
Good to see you Markus. 😊👍
@@philsymes Hey Phil. Did you see we have a young creationist, Abby? LMAO
@@LGpi314
Yes!
😂😂😂
In all honesty, despite my great appreciation for Mr. Hitchens, I don't seem to think this was his best debate
Greg Logan i think it was due to him feeling he was talking to a brick wall.
He didn't seem to care. All of Turek's questions were the same basic moral relativity argument phrased different ways. I was bored just listening to him.
THE X FILES I felt Hitchens was the brick wall in this debate. He did not debate anything he was asked he just brought up irrelevant what he believed to be hypocritical religious scapegoats.
Lucas Sams it’s funny because I couldn’t keep my eyes open listening to hitchens. Never answered any of the questions brought forth to him
Nah, obviously God isn't real therefore this debate was just his brain randomly firing and therefore, since God isn't real and live spontaneously generated from nothing, this debate was excellent because it existed and there is no good or bad. That is obviously the view that makes sense.
Can hitchens actually answer any question that was asked? He talked about dancing, but yet I literally didn’t hear any concrete answers, just jokes smh
He said "how dare believers think we’re the immoral ones?"
Says the one who doesn’t believe in morality
Because the evidence points logically in the god direction. As simple as that.And we are not even talking about the bible.
@@Saribex then how do you explain other gods like zeus, thor, ra, etc. are you really that hypocrittical to say those gods dont exist? but YOUR god does. without any evidence.
@@Legendaryium I’m not here for a debate, kinda neutral here but look. Zeus and Thor are literal mythology. As in they are self admittedly made up stories.
YHWH vs Allah is The Bible debunks Islam.
Jesus is contradicting the Quran on John 20:28-29, Matthew 16:16-17 and makes his depiction from Muhammad look totally fake. Not even going to go into the absolute thousands of flaws morally and scientifically with the Islamic faith, but there is that. So YHWH > Allah
And when people say there are thousands of gods they don’t realize how much of a dumb question that is.
You’re comparing thousands of FOLK gods to well established, long term religious beliefs. Think about it like this, 95% of the world believe in 5 different theisms. And about 15% unaffiliated. So limiting 80% of religious people to 5 Gods, yet there are supposedly thousands of made up gods by small towns, so all of the sudden it’s a hard decision? We’re choosing between 5 credible, and historically documented Gods. Not thousands.
And there is definitely a bigger case for YHWH, seeing the archeological evidenced for his existence from events in the Bible, literal tunnels dug in the ground that match what was recorded in the documents, and more.
So I don’t want a debate, but if God is really out there, it really isn’t a tough option for which one it is. Christianity disproves Islam, Jews just haven’t accepted Jesus, Buddhists don’t believe in god, and Hindus are polytheist (and you also gain nothing from believing in their religion).
So now that I’ve become neutral over the course of months of self research, I’d say if you were to be religious I’d really narrow down to Christianity out of “all of the gods”. Because of historical and archaeological evidence that supports events that happened in the Bible.
@@Voseo00 oke, so what before the bible then? you base everything what you say on the bible. before the bible was even written, there were also gods. for example the egyptian gods.
Hitchens makes it very clear that he is not trying to disprove God’s existence... he is only stating that he doesn’t want God to exist.
In order to disprove something, evidence of that something must exist. If no evidence is presented there's nothing to disprove nor need to.
Juan Carlos Gonzalez A positive assertion requires evidence. Both parties make positive claims that neither can back up with material evidence. It’s an impasse.
@@wattlebough Not really. The case for God hasn't really been properly made; As such, there's nothing to disprove. If one side says "God exists" and the other says "I don't believe you", only one positive claim has been made.
@@CteCrassus The claim "God does not exist" is a positive assertion. In order to make the assertion that God does not exist the person asserting the claim must also claim to have absolute knowledge. That a person does not know a God exists and cannot find evidence of that God does not ipso facto prove anything other than that the persons cannot find. It does not prove that a God does not exist.
@@wattlebough "The claim "God does not exist" is a positive assertion."
Indeed it is, which is why most Atheists these days do not make it, as it assumes a completely unnecessary _Burden of Proof._
What most atheists claim these days is that theists have not met their own _Burden of Proof_ and thus it is irrational to believe that any gods exist until their existance has been positively demonstrated. It's the same criteria i personally use for dragons, fairies, still living dinosaurs, alien visitations and the reptilians that have supossedly infiltrated the Illuminati.
Fun fact: By default most theists hold the claim "God does not exist" for *every god other than their own.*
1:18:00 Hitchen’s defends the concept that a fetus is a baby in the womb!
I’m not an opponent of abortion, but I think Bill Burr said it best (paraphrasing) that if you put cake batter in an oven, but toss the batter out halfway through baking, I’m still gonna accuse you of ruining my cake.
@@Aurelius00you’re not against murder?
@@lebbiiyy
I would be more against abortion if my country (USA) actually cared about children and mothers. Birth control should be subsidized and nearly free. At least 6 months of legally protected maternity leave should be nation wide. Births should be free, daycare costs need to be reduced, and all kids should get free nutritionally packed school breakfast and lunch until the day they leave highschool.
Give me that and we can start a moral discussion on the treatment of human beings.
Can you give me both of your kidneys... I need them so you have to provide them.. .. ... Same argument for feutus @@lebbiiyy
@@Aurelius00it is not the government’s role to raise and feed your kid
I watched this but it's difficult to follow when questions are asked and not answered but what is expressed is eloquently accented rhetoric.
Frank Turek: "How can atheism ground morality?"
Hitchens: "Let me tell you a story about Socrates. Btw, I've been reading Socrates since a friend got me a book in this library, blah, blah, blah, irrelevant deflection......"
@@Volmire1 lol I keep reading religious people making these claims. I didn't see Hitchens do this anywhere. Like your religion, you're allowing wishful thinking to replace fact.
@@darlingd.diamantes8659 You mean _"You're a Christian and you don't have any valid argument against what Tony England said."_
Now isn't THAT the truth.
Honestly, I don't see Hitchens answering any question with rationality. He's just judging and disliking the way he thinks God would manage the world.
I can't say for Hitchens, but if I were in his position and were to asked that question, I would say that is how I feel about religion and God. Religion is not a cause of good in this world, it probably is the poison in this world. For religion to exist with God on their side, it would mean anything you "think" God said to you, is the absolute correct way, which have been used wrongly in the present time and during the Roman Catholic times (if I'm not mistaken). For some people (that I know as well), to believe in God means that everything that happens is because God says so or God made it that way, that includes all the wicked things humanity have done, all the wicked things nature has done to humanity and so on and so forth. Which is (for me) highly contradictive if you believe God is all powerful and can do great things. My religious teachers (and I would assume a lot of religious people) told me that if you don't follow his teachings, you would go to hell, what kind of God is it that only do good things to those who worship Him, I mean even human can still treat people who were bad at them better than that.
Edit: This is how I argue Hithcens' stance on religion and God, the entirety of religion and God are all contradictive and not coherent with one another which makes him answers those questions. At least that's how I see it and if religion and God were to manage the world, all those contradictive things would ruin it and make people thinks they have the highest form of power because God is on their side.
@@twoplustwoequalsfive6212 hmmmm I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. What you have stated is true, what the biological body needs is one thing and what the mind wants (the chemical reaction to certain things) is another thing. Your body needs healthy food and exercise in order to he healthy but your brain doesn't seem to "like" it.
Hahaha I'm just confused about what your point is
@@twoplustwoequalsfive6212 hmmmm so anything good that people do is because of God and bad things is because of the other parts of the duality? or is that an oversimplification of your statement?
Arrogance and disrespectful.
@@ArtemisShanks But Turek isn't defending religion. He is defending the idea that there is a God who gives us our morals. Attacking Christianity (or Hinduism or Mormons or whatever) doesn't answer the question about the origin of our morals.
Ngl it annoyed me how Chris kept interrupting frank instead of respectfully letting him have his say. Chris just blew him off putting words in his mouth and made nothing but jokes to blow him off. I think at that moment Chris knew he was losing and tried to not let frank make his points to answer his questions properly.
We’re we watching the same debate?
@@Skyemac12Gaming Look around - religious people have done this throughout the comments. You know they're really only saying it because they didn't like what Hitchens said so they attack how he said it instead.
Are you religious, EazyDekko?
@@TonyEnglandUK And yet aren't the nonreligious people supposed to claim they are rationally superior? And yet here you retort an observation by nothing more than irrational assumption. And do so while defining it as an "attack." Rather ironic that you criticize the "religious people" as having to "attack" modus operandi, rather than directly address what was stated, when Hitchens often evaded any direct response. Instead he continued to fall back on his comfortable ground of "religion bad" argument. Frank immediately pointed out this wasn't the point of the debate, still Hitchens continued to fall back on it while evading direct answers. On the other hand, Frank made every attempt to address every point Hitchens' made.
Don't conflate the idea of disagreement with disliking. Hitchens was a brilliant orator, so the necessity of degrading disagreement with him to disliking him is asinine in the least. Doing so only demonstrates your own hypocrisy.
@@Thomas-kj1fk _"Irrational assumption"?_ As I said in my original comment, look around at the Christian comments. There are endless and frankly rather juvenile comments saying things like:-
Dr Turek: pls answer this....
Hitchen: let me sing you a song
----------------------------------------------------
Topic: Does God exist?
Turek: Yes.
Hitchens: Christianity sucks.
----------------------------------------------------
"Name please?"
Hitchens: "I think it was Plato who said something very interesting about deflection.."
----------------------------------------------------
Turrek: What color does an apple have?
Christopher: Square perhaps
----------------------------------------------------
You've done it yourself above quoting Hitchens as saying "religion bad". Hitchens didn't say any of the things above, including yours. If you're going to criticise what he said then make sure he actually said it, first.
The mixture of dynamic thought through the ages is the ground for moral judgement.
You have proof? Dont play God.
So essentially, moral agents weighing the moral worth of actions invented morality?
Moral agents define morality? Morality defines itself? Wow
This is a good point, I could imagine a question to push back would be-how then would you handle new ethical dilemmas that haven’t been tested out through the ages? For example the use and abuse of AI?
I just came across this video, and it sounds like Christopher is having a completely different debate than Dr. Frank. It sounds to me like Christopher has an issue with religion and is trying to debate the need for it, rather than providing an argument against God. He didn’t actually address any of Dr. Frank’s questions; he just basically stated that he doesn’t like religion.
Absolutely correct. He talked past every single question, and even when a questioner asked him to give a better answer he still ran around it. "I don't believe in Moral Arbiters; but as this discussion's moral arbiter, I'm throwing out Mr.Tureks evidence because I don't like it and instead going on diatribes about bad Christians"..... Is not a good argument for the "Is there a god?" prompt. I also think Hitchens just had an off-night, or seriously underestimated Turek.
Now, I'm extremely biased, being a Christian and-all, but I think Frank put together some great Combos, and his performance (as well as his excellent Stamina) will outlast the dull flame that Hitchen's memory has left. The Atheist movement has been winding down since he died.
The Humanists (atheists) have institutional power, but they've lost the population, and are now greeted in most places with snickering, derision and contempt. The atheists have no such thing, and without God, they drift into meaninglessness, because without God, there can be no goodness. You can see the fruits in the lack of Atheist Offspring. No woman wants a man with no Moral Compass outside of his own desires. Its why atheists must rely so heavily on gang-tactics at the university and public school to gain converts.
@@SettingTheLowestBarPossible In the the past 16 years, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated has grown by about 18%. And in turn, the percentage of Americans that are religiously unaffiliated who explicitly believe there is no god is rising as well. So atheists aren't losing the population, we're winning it.
a god has never been demonstrated to exist, Frank failed to provide a good reason to believe his god exists...
Frank is not a good debater.
@@SettingTheLowestBarPossible No burden of proof has ever been met towards any god.
A god needs to be demonstrated to exist first.
Cant assert the existence of a book character without any evidence, so foolish... lol
@@SettingTheLowestBarPossible typical response from the poorly educated
Don't know the Frank guy, but he really dropped the ball on pressuring Hitchens on the morality issue. In Frank's defense, Hitchens was avoiding that question as if his moral framework depended on it. Which it was.
I do not see that morality is any evidence for the existence of god. Morality is a creation of man and has evolved over time. The society and culture to which someone belongs determines what is moral and what is not. Gods are just another device created by man. One of its many purposes is to give greater authority to man-made morality.
@@alfrednyby3218 Yea, I'm not arguing that morality is evidence of God. And if this Frank guy is saying that, then I don't agree with him.
All I'm saying is that Hitchens seems to imply that humanity doesn't need God to close the Is-Ought gap. Humanity does need God to do that. Or at the very least humanity needs some kind of abstract moral framework like Plato's world of forms, or Aristotelian virtue ethics. All Hitchens needed to do was admit to Frank that Atheism does not provide a solution to Hume's Guillotine, and move on. The fact that Atheism leaves humanity with a moral crisis, doesn't inherently invalidate Atheism.
What _exactly_ do you assert moral frameworks are based upon? Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality, are they not?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Yes and that's why objective morality is impossible. Which can become a serious problem when we are trying to universally justify one moral frame work over another. I.e. The morals by which society operates is decided by a popularity contest.
If Nazi's out number the non-Nazi's in a society, then that isn't any more or less a problem than if it were the other way around. At least that's the case if we accept that moral objectivity cannot exist.
If there’s not God, then there’s no evil, as my only live I can do whatever I want and can,to live longer and to be on top of evolution Chain. Including killing to still money from others and rapping the women’s I like. so is not evil doing ,is the strongest of the fittest. No moral argument can say I’m wrong ,if there’s not God, is my only live and I’ll do whatever to live longer, wealthy and happy to myself 😁
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.
If not for man the God would have no glory without his slaves the idea of God would have no power, what makes a man a lunatic?...the idea of what he says and does is odd ?...or dangerous?...well I would argue that is the whole foundation to which any religion came to be, a man saying something so unfathomable in a time where people were uneducated and without answer...we know now that we are on a planet we know that we are not the only one ...we know that thunder lightning storms are not gods amd we learned this with science ...but imagine trying to explain that to man in bronze age, imagine a man telling you that he was in fact the second son of God and telling you that every single believe you had was interpreted wrong ...that it's his will to destroy man ..hypothetically of course what would man do with him now?.....he would be your lunatic ! But because this was thousands of years ago you have this belief what makes man from the time of jesus more credible than man of now.?
Which God?
One of my favorite lewis quotes
Which God we talking about?
@@Jacob-ic8nb - Which god condones putting the mentally ill he created into cells?
Surely it must be Zeus, leader of all the Gods and Goddesses.
"Why argue against something you don't believe in?" As opposed to arguing against something you DO believe in? Isn't it enough just to think it's wrong? To think it's harmful is all the more reason.
Exactly. I don't believe in Fascism but I'd certainly argue against it.
Mr. Turek appears to be unaware that the microphone serves to amplify the voice.
I would be mad too when all he does is dodge 99.9% of the questions and denying evidence that god does exist
Mr Turek seems to be unaware of that and a whole lot of other things.
Rodrigo Ramirez
Like what?
@@dr.zoidberg5096 Occam's razor?
Rodrigo Ramirez
Did Hitchens bring that up?
From my experience in life, you can spot the fool by looking for arrogance
Edit: of all my comments on RUclips this definitely sparked the most interaction and that’s awesome! But as far as the comment itself, I feel like it holds true regardless of who it is I’m talking about.
You mean ignorance
@@A_DR well both
@@A_DR Nothing provides more arrogant confidence than abject ignorance. It's a problem with the world that the wise are full of doubt but the foolish are full of confidence.
The guy with all of his time joking he could have been putting on his defense he spoke for 15 minutes and never got to the point they did not have what a joke
Oh yeah. You mean the guy who says he knows how the universe came to be? And the guy who did it is his best buddy?
Hitchens makes the mistake of being upset about being accused of being immoral. No one made that claim. I believe he is a very moral man. The claim is that his belief (or his claim of atheism) doesn't account for why he is moral. He is moral, he is more moral than most. But why? Where does his morality come from?
Atheists lack the capacity to make the distinction you just made because doing so would bring self-awareness to an ideology based on cognitive dissonance.
@@stevedoetsch as an atheist I’d like to say that we do have the capacity to make that distinction. For example I’m a fan of Hitchens however I’m frustrated when he answers the question like that instead of explain where morality comes from. So let me explain. Morality is the product of evolution, for example humans lived in tribes and when living together if you were always angry or violent then you probably would not have sex with the tribe as you are seen as dangerous. This means that the calmer sensible humans are the ones passing down the genes, so the next generation ha brains wired with less violence. This goes on for hundreds of thousands of years in the case of human evolution until we get to the point where we are now. So morality comes from the survival of the pack together and evolution.
He's moral? On what basis. ? Moral relativity
He has more than adequately addressed that. Next question.
@@lokeumkerd437 lmfao morality comes from evolution? Try again, the Aztecs where a prime example of a society that counters your arguement. There is no evolution in that region blood sacrifices are still being made to a diety. And even temples are built for them. The human condition has not changed since the day Jesus walked the earth. Technology and science just provide a good illusion that we are actually making progress toward something. You know what that something is? As above so below.
Hitchens just gave a masterclass in how to eloquently stay off-topic and evade questions.
It is not Hitchens's fault that theists can't comprehend things.
@@LGpi314~ Do you know why you attack theists with ad hominen? I do, because you love your sin & will deny the truth at any cost, just so you won't be held accountable to your Creator, you'll believe in anything but God.
@@boldasalion6436 Stop this nonsense. nobody is attacking theists.
"I do, because you love your sin & will deny the truth at any cost" I do not believe in sin so I'm incapable of committing any. If religion is the only thing that stands between you and murdering someone that stay the heII away from humanity.
"to your Creator, you'll believe in anything but God." There is no evidence of your creator. Why are you BSing? Who created your creator?
This is your Christianity at its best.
Kenyan police have exhumed dozens of bodies from shallows graves in the east of the country amid an investigation into followers of a Christian cult who believed they would go to heaven if they starved themselves to death.
Information provided by officials put the number of bodies exhumed so far as high as 47, according to media reports on Sunday.
All genocides and crusades in the name of your god.
Hitler was supported by the church. Church was celebrating his bday every year. Russian Church supports Putin. There is your Christianity at its best.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
@@boldasalion6436 Hitchens: "Religion now comes to us in this smiley-faced, ingratiating way, because it's had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side."
So you say, nobody is attacking theists but that "nobody" you are referring to is you, so now you're denying yourself. You have over 100+ comments on this video attacking theists and denying there is a Creator God. Its plain to see you are a liar.
When you deny God you're only lying to yourself.
The eyes are useless when the mind is blind.
May God remove the scales from your eyes and reveal Himself to you giving you wisdom and understanding in the name of Jesus Christ our LORD and Saviour.
"I'm not afraid of the Big Bang, I believe in the Big Bang, I just think I know who Banged it." - So funny yet so true! Yet the audience was so bland to not respond to that joke!
Feels like a canned joke he's told many times. I didn't find it particularly witty.
@@Quinn37 I presume he means his god forgetting that the Big Bang happened 14b yrs ago and apparently their version of the world is only 6000 yrs old
That's what she said
@@ramptonarsecandle But the bible never says the universe was created 6000 years ago, literally try to read the first sentance of the bible, it says: "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", now when did God create them? It DOESN'T say, it just says in the beginning, the days don't start till the third verse
@@aletheiahenosis5962 I did say "apparently" as I've heard various start dates these religious types, none of which are close to the agreed date of 14b yrs for the Big Bang and 4.54b yrs for earth.
Didn't they work it out from the age of Adam, Noah and other fictional bible characters? Hardly scientific but I suppose they had to put a number on it. Don't you find it strange that for a long time this was accepted as the bona fide age of the earth?
Thank goodness we live in enlightened times.
Thank you CE for posting this debate with no ads. Thank you very much. I am working out right now and just love listening to these debates. But the ads are a killer. Thank you thank you!
I enjoyed the debate so much too. I think the highlight of the debate was around 1:28:30!
@@FitratAbdulla really? He needs to interrupt and say things like hitler and mussolini were catholics( which they were not).
@@miguellabordaburnett3617 sHitler wasn’t Catholic but did have the support of the Catholic Church and Mussolini definitely was Roman Catholic.
@@jackabalas mussolini was a socialist. He used plenty roman pagan imagery. He built a cult of personality.He was not a catholic. He hated catholicism as much as he could in the italy of the time
This comment did not age well, I just had to watch two ads before the video even started.
I watch a number of debates and I find an interesting trend among the atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins):
1. They never actually answer the questions being asked. Instead, they deflect it back to the person asking, or they attack the religion. This debate is on the existence of God and the source of all existence, but Hitchens refused to answer what he believes and instead butchers a faith he has a lot of misconceptions about.
2. When they ask a question, they are quick to cut off the response in order to (in my opinion) look like they are in control of the debate. This is a great tactic if you are looking to frustrate, but a lousy tactic if you are looking for an exchange of ideas.
3. Do both of the aforementioned while looking smug and confident. While this can appeal to the masses that have the same views, in the end it shows how ignorant the person (Hitchens, Dawkins) is.
Had I handed in a research paper in with I avoided the actual thesis, steered the debate away from the thesis, and misrepresented or neglected to examine the opposing views, I dont care how smug I would look, I would have gotten an "F".
My applause to Mr Turek. Great on-sided debate
Scott Wagner I think Hitchens would argue that, the burden of proof is not with science, because science doesn’t claim to know the origin of life. The burden is with religion since people of faith already claim to know the origin of life, thereby blinding them to every piece of evidence against them.
Patrick Brawner The only logic position for one who’s yet to experience God is agnosticism. Current disbelief, but acknowledgement that there could be. You can’t deny the origin of time/space/energy coming from actual nothing, does allude to a supernatural force making that unfathomably large-scale event go off perfectly. Even if you don’t personally believe that, you’d be unreasonable to say you know there’s no way it was supernatural or a Godly being which made that happen. We say we believe it, not that was can scientifically prove it. And you’d have to figure out what “proof” you’d even need, and how possible it is that modern science could currently provide that for you.
@@noahokayama3825 Here's where I take issue with your view: I am not DISBELIEVING that a supernatural force could have created time, space, and energy. I'm just not jumping to conclusions on who's responsible for it. An unfathomably large scale event, I would agree with that. But over the course of history, have humans not made discoveries in the natural world that were previously considered unfathomable? Why are religious people so insistent on accrediting the creation of the heavens and the Earth to an all powerful God? Those who believe in science, reason, and logic, are still in pursuit of the truth, but the faithful seem to contempt these pursuits.
@@noahokayama3825 And why do I believe they show contempt? Because religion appears to only be about power over another human being. Religious people seem to aspire to a world that only exists within their imagination, instead of trying to preserve and improve the only real world we do have.
@@patrickbrawner2438 Before Einstein, the generally accepted view of gravity was that proffered by Newton. Nobody disputed it without contrary evidence. Today, the logical conclusion about the source of the material world is the supernatural. Why are you so confident a contrary explanation will be found before it is actually found? This is the same position as you would accuse the 'believer' of: bias.
I’d like to say Hitchens is partially right when it comes to people doing dangerous things, his examples being bomb disposal and jumping on hand grenades just to make a few. People usually don’t do those things to be honored most of the time and I know this from my own experience. Most people who do elite programs do them to be challenged and for lack of a better term they think it’s cool. People jumping on grenades, if you ask the ones who survive, said they did it because they loved their squad or division and they knew if they didn’t do that everyone else would die. Most people put in a hard situation where they have to make these decisions typically do so out of love, compassion, and brotherhood. People in my community are sometimes faced with decisions where if they try to let one man live everyone else will die and that is hard on a man. You can talk to people in the Navy about these decisions and the unlucky few put in that situation will be able to recount that moment accurately even a lifetime later. Being put in a position to choose who dies is almost like you’re playing God and many people do not recover, they lose part of themselves. You know the people you’re choosing between and that never goes away. My experiences at first made me fall far from Gods light, I was an alcoholic and I used it to cope with the hardest 8 months of my life. Nights without sleep and waking up not knowing where I’m at, alcohol was the only thing that seemed to work. I fought multiple things at once some from the physical world some from my mind and I even had a kid from one of those nights I didnt want to remember. It wasn’t until I realized the importance of being a father was that I began to get better. Realizing that God loves me more than I could ever love my child and willing to accept me despite the dark place I was coming from. You won’t know God if you don’t want to. A little bit of a tangent but all of that to say that he misrepresents the community that he was using as a point to prove the inexistence of God and the community itself proves the contrary. I’ve lost many brothers to terrible things and because I’ve gotten through the dark times and realized my own errors I am rejoicing in the light of God. Thank you all who read this through and God bless.
God bless you brother. I wish you the best possible life for your future and good on you to love the Lord Jesus Christ. I hope you can do alot of good things for others, by telling them your story.
Answer this to yourself. There have been 3,000 gods throughout history. Why did you attribute your success story to the one that was most-popular in your country and dismiss 2,999 others?
Praise the LORD Jesus for this thought provoking debate! I pray you draw the correct conclusions yourself. There is only One correct conclusion! The law of non-contradiction! Blessings
Don't praise the deluded Rabbi Jesus who got himself killed for his own sins and stupidity
@Golden Knight and that means something doesn't come from nothing because something always comes from nothing.
Got bless you.
Golden Knight your logic is literally that nothing exploded and brought up a universe with perfect order in which nothing has a purpose and a chance of 10^-10000 life could have evolved and fish then decided to walk on land and developed in a kind of rat horse thing and then walked back in the ocean and developed back in a whale... i'll wait
Sam It's Me periodt!!! I’ll wait with you
First debate he goes against Hitch. Okay. Ambitious.
Hitchens was an imbecile. His rants were utterly logically incoherent. Any person who finds him convincing has no idea what they are saying.
@ Yeah, hearing a pastor give a message for like 45 minutes on Sunday is the textbook definition of "brain washing", and so is choosing to do a Bible study.
However being forced to spend hours a day at public "education" institutions, mass media, hours of television that promote your lame philosophy is just sort of immaterial.
that just shows this jesus bitch is a lame pussy.
@ In the absence of a reasonable.mature response you did not disappoint..
@@truebeliever6440 Oh you poor brainwashed creature...... one can't convince a brainwashed specimen as yourself......Education hasn't helped you either...... something as simple as two sides of the coin is beyond your comprehension.........
What you can do is a thorough rehabilitation from your addiction that is religion..... But having chosen one side of the coin which makes you happy and bubbly inside good for you.......
But always remember you have thrown reason and logic for your "choice". ..Cheers brainwashed human
Hitchens, let me get this straight. The root of all good is humanity. The root of all evil is religion. But if God does not exist (at least not in a theistic way) then isn't humanity the root of all religion?
Yeapo but humans have done pretty good at getting rid of the nasty stuff they do
Religion is just taking a bit longer to brush under the rug
@@drsatan7554 so in the past humanity was responsible for evil (religion) but now has finally figured things out and is responsible for good. Can we not use the same objection to this idea that Hitchens used against the Catholic Church and their past evils? He questions why we should trust the Church to have it right now and be infallible after having admitted to getting it wrong in the past. Why should we trust humanity now? The past Catholics did not think they were doing evil at the time. They thought they were doing good just as you seem to think humanity is doing good now. Throughout history and around the world today groups of humans all think they have gotten things right and done good and not evil. You seem to think that you're ideas on good and evil are finally the right ones that can never be questioned in the future.
I think it is more that humanity is full of selfish creatures that have to work hard to try not to do evil (I'm using evil from here on out to refer to things like genocide, murder, torture, rape, etc that we both hopefully agree on being evil as I'm sure there are others things we would disagree about being evil or not). When given the right opportunities and excuses most humans will do awful things. Look at the classic jailers and inmates experiment, the Wave (high school social experiment using Hitler's tactics to get normal students to follow along with bad ideas), or what the Japanese did to many Chinese during WW2. Could it just be that some humans have used whatever was available at the time (religion, Eugenics, etc) to get others (or give others permission) to follow them and do evil?
So from what I can tell humanity is the root of evil. Humanity has just used religion in the past to justify their evil. If you could get rid of religion then humanity would just find other excuses (like science) to keep on doing evil.
@Beherrsch well said, I think Chris would fully agree with your statement. When he blurted out "religion", I believe he was just making a well-timed joke, further proven by the burst of laughter from the audience. I believe he's well aware of the many atrocities preformed by non-religious people. In your opinion, do you think that a human's inherent inclination toward evil is evidence that we are all created in the image of a benevolent God?
@@ghaggs4957 That's a great question. One that I've struggled with a lot. What follows will hopefully not have too many typos (I'm rolling in my phone) and not have too many glaring omissions on my part. It's a question that requires a LOT of thought. So feel free to ask me for further clarifications or to point out anything you think I'm mistaken on/I've forgotten about.
Yes because I believe in actual good and evil. If God is not benevolent then we would have no standard to measure actual good and evil against. That would leave us with only opinions on good and evil. Opinions we would have no reason to keep unless they remain convenient. Evolutionary/social arguments for objective morality fail in that sense. Those arguments still don't get you to objective morality (morality in the sense of there being actual good and evil) let alone the ability to then know that objective morality.
I also believe that God created us to share love with us. Our choice between good and evil is a choice between loving God and others or loving ourselves. This is a choice that must be available to us if we are to have free will. Without free will then we can't freely choose to love God or not. It's kinda like that old saying that if you love something you must let it go. If it comes back to you then it is yours. If not then it never really was yours. You can never really know if something loves you back if you never give it the choice to not love you.
Without God and his benevolence then we are reduced to having no moral standard that is in any way worth keeping. We lose good and evil without a standard for good. If we have a god that is not benevolent then we have no standard for what is good beyond popular opinion (which is ultimately mob rule). Popular opinion is always changing and we don't have a standard to judge if it's changing for better or worse. If there is no god at all then we are nothing but a collection of particles that have no free will. People have no control over their actions. We are just reactions to previous causes and this have no value greater than any other collection of particles (like a rock) that are ultimately just reactions to previous causes too. However, I have free will and thus must throw out the possibility of their being no god at all (defining god here as something beyond the limits of our universe that then caused our universe to come into being on purpose). Arguments that free will is just an illusion don't make sense to me. Who is it an illusion on? A bunch of quarks and electrons? I can explain away everyone else's apparent free will but not my own. My free will makes sense only with a god. My belief in actual good and evil means that God must be benevolent. Combining my free will with my belief in God and evil leads me to also believe that others have free will and thus have value beyond just a collection of particles that were completely inevitable based on prior mindless actions.
@@drsatan7554 we really haven't.
Happy to see it was civil
For most part Christopher was attacking theistic world view and not presenting how God doesn't exist.
It's like "criticizing someone and not suggesting why you are criticizing."
As with most of the online atheists as well...they frequent the Christian videos only to bait s/one for a fight...hurl insults, deny every argument and never put up any logical, rational, alternative view for debate.
Because without a solid factual basis behind them they are not arguments, theyre opinions. You cant debate an opinion
@@MartinX192 Totally agree, how can you debate around something that essentially is fiction and they all "believe" because they have faith. Makes me laugh when they say "logical, rational, alternative view" as if they have a logical view. Pathetic
So pretty much Frank won the debate
@@robdog4062 If you believe in fairy stories then yes, if on the other hand you believe in reality then no.
i really don't understand why Hitchens can't take a single question properly. about the irreducible complexity of DNA, he goes on to talk about the big bang rather than the intricacy of our DNA.
he's passed away since, and it's regrettable that he didn't know Christ.
People are prone to error, sometimes in how we go about answering questions and other times in the answers we give. We can also be illogical and even deceptive at times. Atheists are no exception, and the aggressive anti-theist kind of atheist such as Hitchens is usually more illogical and deceptive than the less fervent agnostic atheist. I say this with no malice toward atheists, since I was one myself from about the age of 16 until I was 26.
Although after Hitchens was diagnosed with terminal cancer he declared he would never turn to God on his deathbed, none of us know what he was thinking during his last days and hours on earth. One can only hope for his sake that he changed his mind.
We know of 118 chemical elements. 117 of them are able to create about 700.000 different molecules 1 element is able to create 40mio different molecules. Why is that so? Laws of nature. Now you could say that god created the laws of nature and those laws then create Adenin, Thymin/ Uracil, Guanin and Cytosin. Thymin and Uracil are slightly different. One is used in the DNA the other in the RNA. But if you accept laws of nature there is no reason not to accept evolution coz its a law as well or if you will you can call it mechanism.
Well he knows now. CRYSTAL CLEAR NOW. In this video he is clearly rebellious against God and the gospel. Like he hates it and is running from it.
@Scott Scotty The fact that DNA shows intelligent information implies an intelligent creating mind. That's why it matters. It's not God of the Gaps. It's trying to reach the best conclusion based on where the evidence seems to point. I guess we will all find out for ourselves one day, but for now I'm going to place my bet with the theory that seems to fit the evidence the best.
@@chosen729 You can't hate and run from what you don't believe in, he doesn't take theism seriously. Neither do I.
Turek: “Now I’m not saying atheists are bad people, in fact many of them are great people!” Hitchens: “HOW DARE YOU SAY THE SECULAR AND NONBELIEVERS ARE WICKED!?!?!”
That's not a quote you walking aneurysm.
@@James-ee1wn Someone didn't watch the whole video lmao
Yea, they are great people. But they will go to hell anyway.
@@canutraceme The fact that you’re happy with that is worrying. Great people condemned to eternal suffering you say? How wonderful! Anyone that punishes great people to the same degree they punish the most wicked of people cannot be just
@@charliecharlie846 Hello. I hope you are doing well. It looks like I was unable to convey my message clearly. I am in team atheist.
Look at the Christian apologist blow a fuse! He was so frustrated I thought he was going to melt down and start crying. What an awesome video!
It's worrying how loud and how angry Turek got. It was defeating no-one but himself. Truth doesn't need a temper tantrum.
It astonishes me how so many in the comments don't comprehend the concept of the burden of proof
It makes me laugh when atheist people want to put all the burden of proof on Turek but this is a debate where both men give their beliefs nd reaonsing behind these beliefs so no the burden is not on Frank. It's up to both of them to convince their audience.
@Ashley T is it rational to believe in things without proof?
@Zenon There are many things you can rationally believe in without proof but with evidence. If I invite someone into my house and step in the yard for a few minutes before returning inside, only to find the person gone, my place trashed, many valuables suddenly missing, and I try to contact this person and never hear a word back from them again, it would be reasonable to assume based on the evidence that this person has stolen my valuables. I may never find this person or my valuables. I may never get a finger print match. I may never receive an admission of guilt. I may never have rock solid proof. There could be other elaborate explanations for the disappearance of the person and my valuables, but the most logical explanation based on the evidence - even if I can’t “prove it”- is right there. At what point does it become silly dreaming of other elaborate explanations and using them as excuses to not believe in Explanation A when there is sufficient evidence for Explanation A?
@@mollyskerness7385 evidence is critically important, i agree with you. Unfortunately for theists we have 0 evidence the supernatural realm even exists.
God = myth
heaven = myth
angels/demons = myth
great flood = myth
creation = myth
@@zenon3021 Great Question, but who said belief requires rationale?
These were two different debates lol. I really wanted to hear something to argue against God, not Catholicism.
Hitchens specialized in sophistry.
I kind of makes you think what atheists REALLY have a problem with doesn’t it? It’s kind of fascinating to think about actually.
Yes they are debating different things.... off topic..
Hitchens more interested in expressing his own cannot tolerate attitude.
Fantastic comment. You can hear the anger and resentment in Hitchens voice when he speaks about God, but what he doesn’t understand is that he’s putting all his hostile emotions towards God instead of the people who created Catholicism and other “Christian” denominations that have created the host of problems he’s talking about.
Agreed.
Criticize the source contents, not the messenger who may erroneously interpret.
Mature debate: Arguments for topic itself
Immature internet debate: Arguments that degrade people
*_"Social media made you all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."_*
*(Mike Tyson)*
Arguments that degrade people: every Presidential debate since 2016 😭
Too proud.
Pride vs humility happened here.
Christians are some dreadful proud SOBs
Then say where, when and by whom. And present evidence to prove your claim is true.
@@TonyEnglandUK if you know what pride is you can clearly see who where and when.
@@MarshinJr No, that routine doesn't work anymore. It's 2024, not 1724. Justify what you say with evidence to prove your claim is true.
@@TonyEnglandUK and frank did
Hitchens never once deviates from his grand theme: contempt, outrage, mockery, and use of loaded, emotional words. He says “horrible,” “immoral,” “evil,” “atrocious,” and so on. He does not answer questions directly, ever, not at first, anyway. He deliberately misunderstands questions and smugly watches his truth-seeking opponent struggle to deal with his outright manipulative reality-warping. His answer to EVERY question is first to slander the other side.
He’s basically a comedian who merely pretends to objectivity, but ultimately, it’s a joke he’s making.
I do have to say he’s masterful at what he does. He’s clearly super intelligent.
The problem with this debate is that Turek is there to do something very different from Hitchens. Hitchens never offers the basic charity that any conversation or communication requires for success-earnestly trying to take what people intend to mean instead of catching them in meaningless imprecisions as if they spoke complete nonsense.
And Hitchens constantly interrupting when Turek starts answering a question he just asked is SUPER disrespectful. See minute 1:49:00.
I should say that he’s right about religion on average. And much evil has been done in the name of religion. However, conflating all religion is error. If God exists, anyone who believes in that God is both right and religious.
Oh, and hundreds of millions of people have been killed by atheists living out of their atheism. It is completely dishonest to paint a picture that religion is the only source of evil.
I wish Hitchens would actually directly address the theistic arguments. He avoids the current cosmology and instead talks about the history of the catholic church and how they have failed in the past.
He spends too much time complaining about how religion is bad instead of engaging the question of whether God exists.
Hitchens' reticence is not lost on those in the audience who are seeking truth.
@@pescatoralpursuit1726 isn’t that a funny thing? You won’t see truth if you’re not seeking it. You can’t.
I don't find him intelligent at all .
Claiming to be wise, they became fools
@@truthmattersjesusiscoming6460 Amen to that
Becoming wise in their own minds they became fools
Ironic bible vs
Amen
Even fools will get a chance to know the creator one day. But it might be too late for them.
@Howdy we tell you because we love you and you don't know what you're asking for. But God loves you so much he will not force you into Heaven against your will.
@joey joestar We have all fallen short of "goodness" in accordance to what the God character in the Bible says. I raise you this.. Why should I care what the Bible says? It was written in different languages by numerous authors (many of which are unknown to us) across thousands of years, and has been rewritten and re-translated a countless number of times leading up to now. Even if all of the aforementioned gaps were filled to a reasonable degree of certainty, why should I believe such a book was divinely inspired? Without using the scripture to prove the scripture.. as that is not how evidence works.
Christopher kept saying Frank was “Tap-Dancing” thats big Cap if anybody was Tap Dancing It Was Hitchens ...Frank Literally Had To Ask Him The Question About Morality 4 different times and then when Frank realized he wouldn’t get an answer Frank said “Let me ask you this in a different way”. Christopher has some many poor rebuttals that didn’t not address the prior question He y’all in circles. All he was trying to do was entertain the crowd and not have a legit debate it was disgusting to watch him give these poor answers that’s beat around the bush I wish I was up there cause he kept saying things that went against his arguments
I challenge you to name a single Hitchens rebuttal which was poor. I also challenge you to name something Hitchens didn't address - I think you'll be surprised to find that Hitchens was always a step ahead of you.
@@jameswatkins7763 im guessing you think you’re smarter then any believer in Christ Jesus but you’re seriously going to tell us that you honestly feel hitchens answered Turek with facts?
@@jacoblopez6470 I didnt say that at all, you're putting words in my mouth. There's a difference between making a claim, and asking someone to demonstrate their claims.
@@jameswatkins7763 I’m sorry bro I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth, but aren’t facts what an atheist wants to hear? I heard a lot of we don’t know and pushing the questions back to turek. Isn’t it clear what hitchens problem is with religion? Did you think turek didn’t supply substantial evidence for his claims?
@@jacoblopez6470 The original comment said Hitchens made invalid rebuttals and that he dodged questions. My reply was to name examples instead of making empty accusations. I am asking for facts, and you're still trying to strawman me.
Turn the volume down if you need to when Dr Turek speaks. Don't complain.
Funny how I had to agree with a lot of points the atheist made because he just attacked the catholic institution and its unbiblical aspects. He didn't even argue against the existence of God, he just argued for the given fact of people being sinful.
@menervah what amazing creation?vast majority of universe will kill any form of life without any question.
@menervah How is it illogical to not believe in god? Which god would that be exactly?
Catholic religion is legit a joke
@SuperDukka okay I'd like to break down your questions 1. What does oil have to do with anything of God if thats a man made worry of resource?
@SuperDukka 2. People i always want to destroy Christ like views of course they will have to fight for their land because of the evil of the world people have to fight for good
So he avoided the answer of irreducible complexity and insults franks genuine answers. ....??
What irreducible complexity?
@@170221dn Haven't You watched the video?
@@kapitan19969838
Yes I did but it was two years ago.
Evolution and the Big Bang show a complexity that is not irreducible. A God presumably is irreducibly complex is that somehow magically ok?
@@170221dn What do You mean by "show"?
Frank Tureck had to debate two people there during Q and A. The moderator pushed back at Frank's answers. Ridiculous
He didnt. Turek answered a different question. In debate there is common decency of giving the opposition the benefit of the doubt. Turek either misunderstood the question or answered it dishonestly the first time.
This was one of the frustrating debates i have ever listened to. Turek presented a solid, cogent argument for the existence of god. As an atheist myself, I was eager to hear Hitchens's response. I was so disappointed with his performance - mostly going off on tangents or on a soapbox to attack his personal take on religion - not what the debate was about.
What was Tutek's formal argument - can you present it here?
@@Theo_Skeptomai Didn't You watch the video?
Now tell the truth. You're a Christian and you didn't like what Hitchens said about your religion. You religious people always do this routine. Because you know Hitchens won this debate hands down.
You're not an atheist. Behave yourself lol.
If you fell for some clever snarky remarks and opinions instead of actual arguments you don’t even know what you believe in or why, your lost.
Beautifully said
I actually did not too long ago.. I remember thinking Hitchens was "destroying" Frank.. Now, several years later, I am baptised 6 months ago, and LOVES Dr. Frank Turek. What a scholar and gentleman!
God Bless.
@@gebert87 that’s amazing bro! Glory to God! The angels are rejoicing for another soul saved!
@@matthewjr.626 All Glory to God! I am Home now I can feel.
@@matthewjr.626 Hitchens doesn’t have any counter arguments to the existence of God, just badmouthing people, for sins… not that great a debater
Just finished seeing the whole 2 hours, 11 minutes & 51 seconds. It’s sad that Chris didn’t took the debate seriously. All he did was mock God and complain about the religious abuse of the Bible through history.
The abuse that someone or groups do, using the name of Jesus and the Bible to justify their actions, does not take away the essence of the Bible, Jesus teachings and what’s documented on it.
@mpkunz6336
Believers are victims. Victims of being mere humans trying to get through life day by day with little time or chance to think in a matter conducive to discovering their errors. You can't know what you don't know. For example: someone is burning in an eternal hell. How do you know? Faith, which is believing without evidence - the evidence we require for everything but religion.
In church I never heard or read an argument against my beliefs. As a result, my beliefs didn't survive my education. They dissolved quietly night after night in the library reading Nietzsche, Eliot, Mencken, Chesterton, Frye, & Dawkins. I read about all the gods in good standing & the dead gods. Not one page that couldn't have been authored by a 1st-century person. Every scientific domain -- from cosmology to psychology to economics -- has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of scriptures. So in the end I read no riot acts to, nor received any apologies from, church elders who lied to and stultified my former self under the banner of eternal salvation - and damnation. But I had freed myself from mystics claiming to know the unknowable ---- and that was enough.
@mpkunz6336
You claim to know women & children are burning for eternity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I claim nothing based on faith, which is believing something without evidence. My beliefs are supported by reason, evidence, experimentation, and common sense. None of these support your claim to know the unknowable. Therefore, you may want to stop lieing, scaring and stultifying children.
@mpkunz6336
I'm not claiming there's no god.
I'm pointing out you have no evidence for claiming women and children are burning in an eternal hell.
Believing in Infallible beliefs/ideas is the wares of the religious not the rational.
@mpkunz6336
You claims: Dead humans are burning in an eternal hell; there is a god; and I (you) know his mind! Why wouldn't you claim to know what I think, too? What matters it; believe this too!
@mpkunz6336
Muslims are convinced that Muhammad’s Quran is infallible.
Why don’t you find these claims convincing? Why don’t you lose any sleep over whether or not you should convert to Islam? Please take a moment to reflect on this. You know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to Islam. Isn’t it obvious that Muslims are not being honest in their evaluation of the evidence? Isn’t it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Qur’an is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe has not read the book very critically? Isn’t it obvious that Muslims have developed a mode of discourse that seeks to preserve dogma, generation after generation, rather than question it? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way every Muslim views Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions. - Sam Harris
Christopher is like the man who buried his talent.
What do you mean?
@@mikesmirth881 He means he can't dispute Hitchens' viewpoints so he types something vague from his religion.
I would like more explanation on exactly what you mean. Up to you brother at least I'm assuming you are my brother..?? Either way I would like you to explain further. Thank you God bless
@@Denise-cy2mj are you saying that to me?
@@Denise-cy2mj Hi Denise, it was just a play on words; such a talented man but only one half of the story is relevant to him; he is hiding ( buried) from the other half. One day this will all be over and the truth will be known to all.
1:28:30 Anyone who claims morality comes from religion should watch Pat Condell’s piece titled Moral Guide. Religious people pick and choose good “moral” parts from their scriptures and the question is who and what moral guide enables them to pick and choose the good parts.
Hey FartwaBigotFool abudabi, when you are referring to religious people or any other of your demonic leftist bigoted fools are referring to religious people do you mean Christians..?
@@gi169 Just another confirmation of low education and vocabulary. 🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@gi169 "demonic leftist " you qanons are so dumbdumb. Keep your tinfoil hat on or we can hear your voices.
@@LGpi314
Bigot
@@LGpi314
Bigot
Christopher Hitchens will be missed. Thanks Cross Examined for putting this on you tube. I really enjoyed watching this debate.
@jedi1706 fan both of them are
@jedi1706 fan he quoted Matthew and mark you dipshit
Dr Turek 100 Mr Hitchens a big fat ZERO.....The Carnal Mind Is Enmity Against God
@@nigelflaveney3921 Jesus is a greek name you dipshit and Hitchens quoted the Bible
@@Philotheist777 Let's do without the name calling ok.
Turek is clearly the more professional debater here. This is somewhat surprising to me (no diss to Turek), but I have generally heard him from podcasts, books, or speaking events. He needs to be given more credit as a debater. Would love to see him go up against Matt Dillahunty, someone who I disagree with wholeheartedly, but who I think is an expert debater in his tactics and methods.
Turek clearly wins this debate here. Around 1:10:00, Hitchens gets very defensive instead of using a plethora of arguments I've heard from other atheists like Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty. He gets visibly more nervous and he shifts sitting positions more noticeably. The flush of his face is also more noticeable.
"Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions." - proverbs 18:2
You cannot be serious - a shouting , slightly uneducated evangelist versus an erudite, superbly read journalist
Especially because he, in this video, states that this is his first formal debate. He was equipped!
Check out the debate between Matt Dillahunty and Orthodox Christian, Jay Dyer.
You need to listen again. You missed the point as did many others. Part of it is @ roughly 1 hour and 15 minutes maybe it starts few seconds before ... but listen for about 60seconds or so. To what Turek says.. then Hitch’s whole set of sentences. Then think of it... really think.
you know he was unhealthy, overweight, and a heavy drinker. I wonder what's in the cup, as he seems to be slurring. wow. is he burned? tht red is not nervousness lol.
Hitchens keeps babbling out of the topic. He doesn't even rebut Turek's point.
Aren't you just saying that because you disagree with what Hitchens had to say? Are you a Christian?
@@TonyEnglandUK I'm with Arnaldo on this. I don't subscribe to any religion, and agree very very strongly with Hitchens' arguments against religion.
However, the topic of this debate wasn't "Should religion exist?", or even "Does the God as described by any specific religion exist?"
Very early in the debate, Turek very clearly, and maturely, defines the angle of his position on "Does God exist?" as not arguing for the Christian God, or the Muslim God, etc, but for *a* god.
He went on to present the arguments that consciousness, free will, and morality, are concepts that exist on a plane beyond the physical. To try to rephrase and clarify the argument, I shall try like this:
The universe, and life, may have been able to come about without any god/creator. The electrons whizzing about our brains may have come about, and may do so, without a god. But what Turek was asking (at the end of his opening statement, and throughout the 'debate') was "Why should the passing of electrons through biological matter produce consciousness, without the existence of a plane/dimension beyond the physical/material?" (And is the existence of conscious experience can be conjured by a physical/chemical change, evidence for some immaterial dimension beyond the physical?)
Similarly, why does a current passing through certain cells conjure up a conscious notion of morality? Why would a collection of atoms have any morality if everything were just a complex marble maze of cause and effect?
Are the conscious experiences that come from material actions of molecules & atoms, actually immaterial, and if so how/why do such immaterial things exist?
Now, I'm not at all saying that these questions that Turek was trying to pose mean that there *is* a god, and it's certainly no evidence for any of the gods described/dictated by religious texts. But Turek's line of questioning asks 'if there is something beyond the material (i.e. conscious thought through which we have free will and can judge morality), why has this immaterial realm come about in this material universe?'
Turek attributes this to a higher power. The rebuttal that could be used against this is the "God of the gaps" argument - science may yet prove how/why immaterial thoughts come from material transfer of ions & charge.
Looping it back to Arnaldo's comment, Hitchens never engages with this topic that keeps being presented to him by Turek. It seems like he was reluctant to take the time to try to understand the argument his interlocutor was trying to present, instead jumping in with strawmen at which to fire his anti-religion points (all good ones, but not appropriate for this debate).
I hope you can see where Arnaldo & I are coming from, and I hope you can at least appreciate all the effort I've put into this comment 😊
@@alexharrison2743 No, I don't see where you're coming from. It's simply ludicrous to say _"We don't know, therefore the answer must be a god"_ - it's the equivalent of saying _"We don't know what's in that cave therefore it must contain a dragon."_ One could apply Turek's logic to anything instead of god. Merlin the Magician, aliens, flying spaghetti monsters, Venusian ghosts, Mother Nature, anything. The sensible and practical way is to take all available evidence, analyse it and put all the pieces together as each new piece of information is found until the jigsaw gets closer to completion. Count the number of gods that have existed throughout human history. It numbers around three thousand at the very least. Which means, by any standard, the overwhelming majority of gods were human invention and remain invisible for a very good reason - they don't exist. That leaves one god, who is also invisible even if he DOES exist, as the only remaining deity that could be true. Confirmation bias running riot.
@@TonyEnglandUK First of all Frank put Hitchens in a corner and got all offended oh please if you was ever placed a corner by someone like Frank turek of proving the existence of God you would have made your mind your up and believe but since your behind a computer screen obviously your gonna avoid answering what frank asked of Hitchens in which Hitchen barely answered any of Frank's questions you athiests or thiests makes me laugh it goes through one ear to the other
@@JesusDiedForAll I'll answer any question you throw it at me. In return, you'll dodge all of mine. Let's go.
I'm a bit concerned with what many people consider to be "evidence" for God in the the comments here.
If any of you can give me a single piece of evidence for the Christian God that can stand up to scrutiny, I'll give you $100.
Did you not watch the debate 😂
@@abigailedwards3843 Yes, we all saw that Fake Dr has nothing to prove anything. LMAO.
@@LGpi314 What a vague accusation. I like how you make a statement then literally say nothing to back it up.
@@abigailedwards3843 "What a vague accusation" It says that Turek has no dr degree, He lied. So do you.
Prove to me that unicorns do not exist. What A M0R0N.
@@abigailedwards3843 Apart from you read it in a book, what evidence can you show that dismisses all other gods and proves your god created the universe, Abigail?