Christopher Hitchens Debates Mark Roberts (Part 03/12)

[LordShivasServant]

You know what else degrades our self-respect by claiming without it we'd act immorally?

......Government....

[josh1josh1josh1]

its just crazy to me that someone can be actually defending something that undoubtedly has nothing to back.

[SlugChristie]

Christopher Hitchens Debates Ned Flanders (Part 03/12)

[kwmitch1]

Almost *all* Biblical scholars (including non-Christians) would disagree with Hitchens that the Gospels contradict each other on all important theological matters. This is patently false – believer or theist – doesn’t matter. He's not in the mainstream of Biblical criticism.

[kwmitch1]

The standards for historical works from antiquity are met by the Gospels. In other words, our evidence for say, Alexander The Great, should be challenged on the same grounds.

[FlakMeister]

@kwmitch1 The main difference between the historicity of Alexander and Jesus is that while the historical documentation for their existence was first written decades after their purported death Alexanders life is supported by archaeology.

We know of such an event as Hellenism taking root in the Middle East that must have been brought on by a great Greek warlord, no such evidence supports Jesus of Nazareth.

Gnostic texts show widely discrepant views of the nature of Jesus and his divinity.

[Art4Law]

Hitchens is an EXPERT of blabbering his ass without saying ANYTHING

and yet making a great living going around the world saying the same bullshit for ever.

Alright, so he doesn't believe in GOD and he's an "Anti-Theist" (not 2 confuse w Atheist)

he told us his point. it's fine. but HIS point

How many more Years will he go stating the same bullshit and continue BILKING everyone and

Profiting. "Making a LIVING on the Stupidity of others" get it? Telling PPL to their face what he's doing

[lynchmobb2000]

7:45

How utterly dishonest of this guy to mention Josephus, Tacitus and Seuetonius.

Because some books mention "Chrestus" that means Christ must have existed.

So that book I read which mentions "Senta Clous" means that Santa Claus exists!

Ta da!

[Stipoon]

His mention of the people at the end of the first century witness only on early christians, not Jesus, right? Mentioning Jesus only when speaking of what christians believe.

[BillKiernan]

"christianity believes there is eternal punishent for all people but god is gracious". yeah, real gracious.

[wmd1]

The pastor is being intellectually dishonest when he says he's never played the punishment card. Implicit in a reward in heaven is the reciprocal of punishment in hell.

[BillKiernan]

It always strikes me as strange that even well educated, intelligent Christians don't get that members of a religion, writing about their own religion, are not "reliable witnesses" when talking about their founder. The reason for this should be obvious.

[SweetFairieFrog]

I think I am starting to get a little crush on Christopher Hitchens.

[TheConciseStatement]

Well even I have to concede that I could not believe my very eyes when I read that he was now in his sixties. That man DOES NOT look sixties by any stretch of the imagination.

[SweetFairieFrog]

He's got something going for sure; but it is his intelligence that makes him so attractive to me.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

I have a question for any serious Christians listening to this.

What is your opinion of the fact that the key stories around Jesus--most specifically the major milestones (virgin birth, born 25th December, visited by 3 kings, started teaching at 30, had 12 disciples,crucified,rose again after 3 days)--are the same stories for men in multiple other myths:dating all the way back to ancient Egypt, with their sun God born of virgin birth,25th of Dec, visited by 3 kings,crucified,rose after 3 days...

[geeoogle]

Does Hitchens fear or worry or feel guilt about anything?

[SweetFairieFrog]

Yes. For instance, geeoogle, he would feel guilt and remorse if he were responsible for mutilating the genitals of a child because of religious belief; therefore, he is against this. He worries that innocent children are harmed by religious dogma. Yes he does worry and / is capable of feeling guilty. But not because some god told him he was sinful; but because he knows the difference between right and wrong.

[geeoogle]

i do believe that all "animals" have a certain level of compassion toward its own species and maybe other species. Whether knowing right from wrong is a behaviour of conscience (higher thinking) or behaviour of evolution (instinct), is debatable.

One thing is sure though. Religion was invented by mankind, to "fine tune" this behaviour to cater to political/social needs during specific time periods in civilization.

[SweetFairieFrog]

There ya go! Getting back to the question of guilt, I was wondering why you would ask if Hitchens ever feels guilt. Why would you assume, in other words, that he never would?

[geeoogle]

I believe the human expression of guilt is an acquired trait, and not one within our nature as a species. We are taught by our parents and our society to take responsibility for the actions we commit. Very few of us, mostly sadists, feel little remorse. Ironically, they are the ones who seem have been born with an inability to accept guilt.

Hitchens questions the validity of the types of guilt that we were taught to express from an early age. Religious people would call this blasphemy.

[SweetFairieFrog]

Oh. I see. I think feeling guilty about some things is appropriate, but religion teaches a lot of innappropriate guilt; guilt, for example for feeling lust or having sex; two necessary things for survival. I think that is more what Hitchens was speaking of; I don't think he thinks there is never appropriate guilt; there certainly is.

[geeoogle]

Hitchens would probably serve us better if he could create a new set of "ten commandments" that would be appropriate for modern day.

For example, the question of what committing adultery means should take into account present day male/female behaviour towards each other rather than something from the old testament.

[SweetFairieFrog]

I really do not think Hitchens would presume to "write a new set of ten commandments." I think he serves us well when he questions the validity of the "moralness" of the ten commandments as they exist now. I fail to see how being atheist is related to "being immoral." And I think this is Hitchens' whole point! Religion certainly does NOT always help re: morality, quite not so: Christians are told they may behave however they wish; they are, or will be fogiven if only they offer lip service.

[theillestgreek]

I think that any decent person today could write 10 commandments which would put the old ones to shame.

[BrianDgreat123]

Yes, he says on one debate, self critically, that at one point he supported the revolutionary Ronald Mugabe, now dictator of Zimbabwe, and he regrets it, and thinks about it, every day.

[geeoogle]

I think you and I are on the same page.

I wasnt implying atheism is immoral, rather its amoral or in Hitchens case, moral nihilism.

Hitchens only questioning validity of our current morality is not enough. Correct answers must be found. Our civilization's laws and the rule of order depend on it. Philosophists and Scientists should become more aggressive and "sell" their facts in order to dispel Religion and Superstition.

[SweetFairieFrog]

Interesting thoughts you have there! Thanks for clearing that up. =)

[martiangrundy]

Its obvious that it wasnt fabricated or they would have done a better job

THATS one of his evidences the bible is factual?

Hes not joking either; can you believe the things they say? Just ho do they manage to convince themselves.

Its obvious how the general run o the mill believers manage it, they do NO study, and just believe bullshit from the pulpit, without question.

These characters actually do study, so they MUST see the inconsistencies and plagiarisations from earlier myths?

[SweetFairieFrog]

I agree, martiangrundy, but they study apologetics; it's kinda drilled into them to uphold religious dogma and beliefs, and to defend them no matter what.

[WisdomVendor]

millions of times more evidence that king tut existed approx 3350 years ago compared to this jesus character existing 1350 years later. Hmmmmm, seems like the closer history is to us in the present, the more evidence on average we would have to confirm that existence, especially if the bastard was the son of god,,,what a joke.

[weversonman]

Hitchens is right and it is interesting why pretty much every religion views sex, the one act which life itself completely depends upon, as something shameful, something disgusting, something that must be kept 100% private and purely all business. I think it's just evidence of religion as being man made in a time where repression of females was the only way of life, in warrior cultures where physical power of the male determined all success.

[killerbandit]

"Created sick & ordered to be well."

[bshaw7325]

Playing the Devils advocate, The answer to Hitchens question as to what a Christian may utter that an Athiest cannot would be " I'm married" which Hitchens himself claims to be. Was Christopher's union joined in a church I am curious to know and why are we bastardized when we are not monogomous in marriage?

[killerbandit]

What is your point? There are many Athiests that are married. They may replace the religious ceremony with a secular one, but they still are married, legally and at heart.

[ImTheGrey]

Fail. I can be married by a judge in an office with no mention of god or religion and the marriage is legally binding. Because while the religious have hijacked the CEREMONY of marriage it remains as a secular means by which rights of property and children and widow(er)s are determined. Taxes are meeted out, debts are redistributed and so forth. If religion were gone tomorrow marriage would remain.

[metaldome]

How ignorant can you be? Nice understanding of the history of marriage.

[earthypig]

my god, (yes i take the lord's name in vain) you actualy thought that marriage was a RELIGIOUS institution?!

besides, this was Hitch's challenge:

"You have to come up with a moral statement made, or a moral action performed by a believer or a person of faith, that could not have been uttered by an unbeliever."

when you say "i'm married" that's NOT a moral statement. it's just a statement clarifying your marital status.

i know u feel smug about being married, but don't get carried away.

[jamianm]

btw Hitch had to become Greek Orthodox in order to marry his current wife, who is one herself. Whether she's practicing or not, I have no idea but I think we can bet on 'No'.

[AnunC8]

Roberts strikes me as a man fully aware of his incorrectness, but one that isn't quite ready to concede.

[PhillyDickinson]

Yep. Absolutely. Reminds me of Alastair McGrath.

[zakiechan]

Bart Ehrman destroys the argument used at 8:20 in his debate with William Lane Craig.

[garghamell]

I love logic & reason.

[CBUEngineer]

The stuff he cites is highly suspect and not worthy of a theologian of any merit to cite. The works show signs that they may have been doctored and some were written far after the time and referred to Jesus as someone who people talked about but not in eyewitness testimony. There is also a question of Apalonius of Cayenna (spelling?) who was said to have all the traits of Jesus at the same time plus he could walk through walls.

[RhondaH]

There are 2 geneologies listed in the NT for Jesus that run from Joseph's line. If Jesus was not biologically Joseph's son, why would these be listed or have any credit? Also they do not match. It was made up to provide an answer to the OT prophesy that the savior would come from David's line. Sad attempt to prove a lie. All made up stories which make no rational sense, particularly in light of all we have discovered since then.

[SubZep]

I claim this video in the name of Allah.

[davedarunner2000]

There are some aspect i disagree with among these two authors. but i must say its an interesting debate.

[88ragtime]

This preacher is obviously a liberal who cherry-picks all the "nice things" of the Bible, while ignoring all the barbarism, mysogeny, vindictiveness and draconian statutes that their God gives in the Old Testament.

[sashascall]

You don't know much about Christians, do you?

[mccote]

This is the most impressive debate Ive heard Hitchens do on Youtube (and Ive watched half a dozen easily).

The person he is debating is actually intelligent and making some interesting points... so far.

[DreadsideNubune]

If faith is búllshít how come you have so much FAITH in presidant Dawkings and Hitchings?

When lord Dawkins changes his mind what will you do then?

Dawking has so much faith in the world made of magical strings which you can't see. What if god is the strings of life and he sees this in the labs?

[Plasmon19]

Now, you certainly cant prove that, now can you?

[DreadsideNubune]

Sorry I don't follow this logic.

[kingthamus]

What logic do you follow?

[DreadsideNubune]

The only logic of the universe: that God controls all and creates all the files and data of the world. Maybe you should perform an exploration of science. You could find out that all scientists believe in God.

[kingthamus]

I "could" find that out...in an alternate universe, perhaps. Unfortunately for your argument, it is demonstrably incorrect...in this universe. Perhaps you, like this pastor, live in an alternate universe to those whose objectivity and rationality are trustworthy instruments for ascertaining truths about the world in which they live. Truths like this one: that the percentage of non-believers among scientists is higher than that of non-believers among the general population. In this universe.

[DreadsideNubune]

Atheists: Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Menendez killers, Macy, Geen, Pat Sharpe, Andy Crane.

The case which I was holding has been put down.

[kingthamus]

Excuse me? You have no case against atheists here, just despots, murderers, and sociopaths: Christian churches are full of those, as is the history of Christianity. What, exactly, are you trying to prove? That you are a pure fool?

[lexscripta1]

I think what is trying to say is that all of those leaders were proponents of Communism - a clearly atheistic eco/philosophical/political creation.

[kingthamus]

Yes, I know. And what I was saying is that Communism was not caused by atheism. It's simply bad logic to equate Communism with atheism. I am an atheist, but not a Communist. In fact, Christians have been Communists. Here is a list of prominent Christian Communists: Etienne Cabet, Thomas J. Haggerty, Ernst Block, Diane Drufenbrock, Camilo Torres Restrepo. Some may wish for there to be an inevitable link between Communism and Atheism, but basic logic and the historical facts show otherwise.

[kingsbrace]

Don't forget Jesus Christ. He was a Commie of the first order. He was a founding father for Christ's sake.

[kingthamus]

Yes, of course. Christian Communists use many biblical passages attributed to Jesus as support for Communist ideas. For example, Matthew 19:16-24, where Jesus admonishes a rich man to sell all he has and give to the poor. Also, Acts 4:32-37 describes the early church as decidedly Communist, with the Apostles redistributing wealth to all members according to each one's need.

[PowerAndPerception]

Religion is Slavery.

[bodeezy]

Prove there IS a god.

You can't. Faith is bullshit. Your whole argument is bullshit.

You are scared of others challenging your false faith.....you don't even believe it.

Go away....believe what you want but leave us.

You are retarding society.

Go comment on a, "god is real" video....we want no more of you or your kind.

[Rhology]

"It's all hearsay, though". Yes, Hitchens, congratulations. ALL history is hearsay, moron.

[dazzaclap]

Some hearsay has archeaoligical evidence.

Some hearsay is backed up by many independent testimonies that are eyewitness in nature.

The Bible and JC has little of these.

[Rhology]

That's a very ignorant thing to say. Sorry to hear.

[davrothelegend]

"all history is hearsay?" thats ignorance

[Rhology]

Oh, you can take a time machine back in time and observe those occurrences first hand? Good luck.

[davrothelegend]

time machines don't exist...like God. You never will learn will you.

[Rhology]

Haha, nice non-answer. Since you can't observe these occurrences firsthand, you have to rely on what someone else said about it, who was there. That's called hearsay. The historian's job is to parse that which is bad hearsay and that which is good hearsay. Hitchens is too dull to grasp this distinction, and that's why I said that.

[AnunC8]

Rhology, it is true that we cannot prove that all historical counts we know of are completely accurate, but the ones we accept are based on corroboration from unrelated viewpoints. The letters of Paul have little or no corroboration, and if all it took for something to be accepted as truth was that it be old, and of the "I am, therefore I am" mentality, we would have a lot of silly ideas.

[Rhology]

No, you don't know how history is done. Historical sources are taken as innocent until proven guilty. Accounts of Socrates, for example, have far less corroboration and come from far fewer sources than, say, Pauline letters, and I doubt you have a problem accepting those. It's just that you're biased against the Bible.

[smitmick]

Jesus didnt even exist, no proof just folklore. Live now, not in the past, stop wasting your time with religion.

[Rhology]

Your argument for that?

[kingthamus]

The Bible makes extraordinary claims that defy what can be shown to be true; that's why it is rejected by reasonable people--not because it is "bad hearsay." Accounts of Socrates are also hearsay. But who *believes in* Socrates?

[Rhology]

Hitchens is a fool but Roberts is doing horribly. Roberts seems not to be prepared at all for H's arguments. It's not that hard...

[19995700]

I love it when religious people talk about 'lack of evidence' - whilst in the same breath positing the existence of an all seeing omnipotent fairy, of which no credible evidence has ever been provided. Am I the only one who sees the irony?

Roberts capitulation led to staff shoveling Roberts off the floor into waste bags after this event.

[zoxovox]

Mark Roberts proves himself a liar saying he never threatens with the bible. That is simply impossible. He is either a LIAR or of another faith than he professes entirely. We all know though that in fact he is a disgusting LIAR.

Hitchens is destroying him.

[Ellesime89]

I wish this wasn't being interrupted buy Mr. Hewitt's irritating voice and music selection. But oh well.

[MikeD273]

I agree mediators should be eliminated all together, i like dawkins' new format

[happypantsman10]

I cant believe he uses Josephus. What a tool. Every decent scholar agrees that it is a bogus fabrication.

[HimmuraTube]

Roberts said that in his years of preaching he's never "use the fear card"?

Are you kidding me? The whole bible is a fear card.

[rebharath]

i think hitchens got pwned by roberts on that one.

[mongobobo]

Hitchen's continually hammers home the premise that either you believe in your bible or you don't. These liberal Christians are neither. Either you believe the dogma or you don't.

[TBlake34]

It's the wimpiest cop-out any religious huckster can make. You challenge based on the book they claim was written by God, and they act like it's unimportant. Try talking to a Mormon sometime, with their "Doctrine of the Living Word." Silly and infuriating.

[templarart]

Thanks for uploading!

[GrimVixen]

Very interesting. Roberts acts like Hitchens just doesn't get it, when in fact Roberts has no real answers for any of the issues Hitchens brings up. I'm no scholar, but Roberts apparently knows nothing about the history of the Bible itself. It has been heavily edited for 100s of years to ensure consistancy.

[rebby11]

Those editors sucked, too. It is in large part the *inconsistancy* of the bible that informs our understanding of that book as a human rather than a divine product.

[billyboy630]

Roberts does a terrible job, but so does Hitchens he doesnt have a correct understanding of Christianity and I am not sure that Roberts really does either if he does he certainly can not articulate it

[Censeo]

Thank you for uploading. I would somehow apprechiated another motive usage. That you also had a picture of Mark Robert next to Christopher. Now the impression is that C.H is adressing yet another intellectually week theist, but truth is this debate do give uplifting points from each participant.

[Flirmy]

hard enough finding a decent picture of hitchens to overlay :)

[Canaximander]

The world holds two classes of men: intelligent men without religion and religious men without intelligence.

-Abul'ala'al'ma'arri 973 - 1057

Peace.

[fofofofofofofofofo]

Roberts claim that it is unusual in the bible to find women in important roles is ridiculous. Women play many important roles in the old testament. There is clearly a tradition of having important female characters in these writings.

[mcneon]

The Hitchens rally-call is so galvanizing. He dominates.

[skatebawd]

holy moly hitchens is awesome

[kaasac]

Vitriol is justified for most of the people Hitchens has debated, but not Roberts. Hitch wins again, in my opinion, but Roberts is by far the strongest detractor I've seen him face in these god debates.

[01000001011100100111]

I think it's because Roberts wasn't being very confrontational, Hitch never really got into his stride...

[shystylzyt]

Why all the crude language? Why the vitriol? Are you incapable of having civilized discourse with people espousing dissenting viewpoints? Why all the insults? Do you call muslim clerics "fucking bastards" too? Hmm, didn't think so. Ask yourself why.

[robaquarian]

they are bastards that is not ad hominym

[cartapasio]

Again...Mark Roberts is another fucking bastard.. that can only prove that religion is pure ignorance