What? What about the crusades? What about all these terrible acts of slaughter because of religion? And, Hitler may have been an atheist but was also a vegetarian. So what? Vegetarians are evil?
Peter hitchens is an idiot. so he's a christian who doesnt know wether god exists or not, but decides we should believe because it has good points. i would ask him why not create a new god? one who doesnt condone slavery, torture, murder, rape...
Peter hitchens is an idiot. so he's a christian who doesnt know wether god exists or not, but decides we should believe because it has good points. i would ask him why not create a new god? one who doesnt condone slavery, torture, murder, rape...
I don't want to misrepresent but Peter's argument for morality seems to stream only from authority. And anyone who accuses atheists of being inherently immoral must think that way too. The thing is that in my case, my morality rests on egalitarian, solidarian and, stealing a little from Sam Harris, actions which lead to the flourishing of sentient beings. How does that makes me wicked?
Did God ultimately require Abraham to sacrifice his own son? No. Such stories and acts are meant to be informative and educational. It should lead us to understand that ultimately our Children are entrusted to our care, but they belong, as we all do, to God. The 'moral' of the tale is that we should be prepared to let our children go, not fool ourselves that we are their owners or the directors of their fate.
@jjoneil73 This reply is a sad reflection on your mindset. If Mr.Hitchens wishes to discuss the moral/meaning of Biblical tales then he invites reply in kind.
That you think your mindless assertion of an unprovable 'fact' is somehow an apt response says little for your capacity to contribute to any discussion on these topics.
P.S. How exactly does one 'refrain an outburst?' Is this a new form of grammatical construction I am unfamiliar with?
Strange how paragons of logic and scientific enquiry have and continue to be theists. Even Prof.Dawkins concedes a good case can be made for the 'God of Spinoza' even if he wouldn't accept it.
Thank you for classifying me as a creationist without having any idea if I am indeed amongst such company.
I simply show those who wear intellectual arrogance as armour are no less susceptible to error than others, and should reconsider their surity.
@jjoneil73 Illustrating your arrogance even further it would seem.
Your utter lack of ability to engage in a meaningful dialogue with people holding an opposite view to yours, through surity of your 'truth' is staggering.
You have already made assumptions about me, whereas I have only spoken of what you have revealed in your words.
You stand only for deliberate ignorance. I stand for meaningful dialogue, and the pursuit of truth which I do not believe any human has a monopoly on.
@DinnerConversation Oh I forgot, as a Christian, I think the Bible is the word of God. It says all that stuff. Well, it says that God never intended this to be it, and never intended this to be eternal.
@DinnerConversation A lot of explaining to do? How about this: God never intended this to be it, and never intended this to be eternal. It does beg a mechanism since we know that this object started 13.7 billion years ago, and will end (as far as life is concerned).
The universe won't collapse due to increased acceleration, and the Andromeda galaxy will collide with ours in 5,000,000,000 years, therefore God didn't make the universe? I just can't follow his reasoning. For a God to make us, he must intend for this to be it?
why did those people stand up when he asked if anyone was a sheep? Its not like its blasphemy to NOT stand up when someone asks you if you are a sheep...they have no obligation to do it---he said: is anyone a sheep or lamb?--- Not a sheep or lamb of jesus christ you stunned mofo's----but the ironic thing is that you can see how serviant those people are----they just assume they should pledge themselves to Jesus just because something sounds slightly like it relates to Jesus or implies him....
Christopher has such a childish view on religion. He's a brilliant man, and a LOVE to hear him talk... But he doesn't know a thing about God or faith.
@Gazdo01 Christopher's view on religion is the more accurate one. The only reason you could think it was childish would be because children, before they have been indoctrinated into all the crap, can see the holes and will happily point them out.
The Drunken Stupor of Chris Hitchens and mocking out and out filthy comments from the YT atheist crowd should explain all. Who wants to live in a world of conscienceless reprobates who have no value of Human life other than their own.
I certainly don't. As Physicists, Biologists and Doctors see fit to wipe out nasty viruses, should explain acts of God destroying the wicked. As he created life, so shall he destroy it!
To ALL Atheists! Enjoy what little you have, as it won't last long!
Chris Hitchens has been standing up for human rights and condemned atrocities and war crimes for decades, and yet there you are, calling him a "conscienceless atheists" because he looks drunk.
Painful, but not unexpected from someone whose creed is so well-known for lumping murderers in one group with adulterers and "drunkards" when listing sins and transgressions against Jesus.
@MamaMario13 "imagine what it was like before you were born: thats what its like after you die"
That should explain why people scurry about in a rape, pillage and plunder way of life. As long as they can outsmart the authorities, why not live the life of a heathen, to make the lives of others miserable for your own gain. Sorry, but my life on earth is not the eat shit and die attitude, nor as Hitchens or Dawkins who live the millionaires dream at the expense of taking others down with them.
@MamaMario13 To think that the eternal universe as we know it, with all it's miraculous splendor and accuracy of earths environment for life, the great fortune of life that you were given, such as any other creature, with the intelligence above all others, to denounce there is no Creator, your inner soul or eternal life as not being part of the perfection of this perfect environment is like saying the Universe has an ending which we all know is unfathomable. And if so? What's behind the ending?
Only those who have found true love in their heart for others, to be treat othors as you yourselves want to be treated, with trust, dignity, honor, mercy, forgiveness and respect of life, and knowing by doing so, will also understand, the rewards of such a life, to continue into the next plain of a perfect existence where death, sickness, pain and misery do not exist, is a hope that some have traded off for but a mere existence can only come from the mind of a fool.
Christopher Hitchens younger brother Peter Jonathan Hitchens (a former atheist), is a prominent Christian and believes that without faith and without strong families, the development of conscience is stunted, private life is diminished and the power of the state increased. That said, it is easy to understand the complacency and arrogance of the twisted mentality of those who refuse to acknowledge God to continue "Without Conscience" as reprobates into the underworld of perverseness/immorality.
@Feargface You have clearly learned from your dissaproval of Christopher's tone :) When in doubt smear the debator not what he says. High five yourself why don't you :)
@MrWildbill20056 Thanks babe, you are truly inspirational :). The self high five was probably a good place to start. Trolling might be my 2nd port of call. Have you any other tips for how to rapidly reduce an IQ?
@Feargface After examining...it's not respectable at all. It makes Inside Edition and Geraldo At Large look like peabody award winning journalism. I concede it's pretty deplorable and sensationalist. I didn't look further until Peter copped out of a losing argument and said the owner of his brother's paper distributed pornography...>_>
A couple errors made by Christopher: circumcision is not because of Mosaic Law, it is because of God's covenant with Abraham, which he also does mention but which he also confuses. The other, more serious error is to equate female "circumcision" with the circumcision of the faith of Abraham. Neither Peter, nor Christians as a whole, are representing a position which defends the mutilation of females, nor are we representing all those who claim to worship God- Islam is a separate, unlike belief.
Peter sounds like an angry old man shouting "Back in my day!".
Its funny that he seemed so smart when this debate started but has rapidly degenerated into what appears to be personal frustration and bitterness towards his brother.
I am speaking from a bias as I am an avid fan of Christopher, but I have seen other men debate much more eloquently and competitively than this stammering non-sequitur spewing old grouch.
@Oddhermit Peter almost had me a little there, until he talked about holding doors open. If you are going to present such an case as such, at least show some research or statistics...it got personal there. He started to sound like my father...about the old times (my father is a non-believer). It's just a change in culture, not religion. We need to change just in culture, it WILL ALSO happen.
@nathanmarto Yeah the problem is he's citing cultural differences rather than a religious ones, that aren't even necessarily related to courtesy. I've had people get angry at me for holding a door open for them - thinking I was making a comment on their physical inferiority or something. Every country has different standards and customs when it comes to manners and common courtesy.
Christopher: " I know it's easy to sneer, but still- someone's got to do it". Superb comeback.
I must say I held Peter H in higher esteem PRIOR to watching these clips. However, I have never witnessed a man so thoroughly undo himself intellectually, morally, and hypocritically as I have Peter in this debate with his intellectual superior.
Others on this comments page have succinctly surmised many of the reasons why I feel this way; to them, I give a massive thumbs up.
BAAWWWW PEOPLE ARE MEAN CAUSE THEY DON'T BELIVE IN GOD!
Does Pete seriously think that we live in a more immoral time and place than, say, the Middle Ages where knight with a "holy duty" could go around raping, killing, and stealing from whomever they liked? Or modern-day theocracies, where women are killed for the horrible crime of being rape victims, etc etc etc.? Christopher realizes this, but Peter sounds like a crochety senior crying over "the good old days," that never, in fact, existed.
i had the god squad ram the religious bullshit down my neck for 7 years in school and i didn't believe a f**king word from square one, i can tell you now i have a better understanding of morals than him and those cretins he speaks of are uneducated and are brought up in a joke of a country where rich idiots like peter spit at poor people and keep them in perpetual servitude to a rotten life under a nation of religious bigots, you reap what you sow sir now chuffin well deal with it.
the torah says god cuts himself off from those uncircumcised
avital moshe - murdered at 8 days old by his own parents - he died 28 mins after the barbaric act of his skin being cut and flicked off with a thumb fingernail by some sick mohel who then drinks his blood
look what islam and judaism and christianity have done to the world
jesus is a horrific effigy of a human sacrifice-what has that to do with enlightenment
fear makes our cells mutate and closes the third eye - thats why
When pressed in other debates, Christopher acknowledges he can't be sure there's no God. So he's an agnostic whose morality is derived from theism and his faith belief is atheism. Not surprising. One must engage in cognitive dissonance to be an atheist.
It is and they are. Here, you have assumed that Earth is the epicentre of this expansion. It is not, the universe is expanding in all directions, galaxies three times further away from Earth than Andromeda are moving away three times faster.
ok, but I felt that you implied a anthropocentric perspective, due to the phrase 'spreading out'. In answer to your question: both. Imagine circles drawn on a balloon, as you blow the balloon up the circles increase in area, with the edges of the circles coming towards each other but the centre of each circle is increasing in distance form any other 'centre'.
@nickthelight Well... when I said 'galaxies are spreading out' (like asking a bunch of people to spread out) I would include our galaxy among that number. But ok, we both agree that earth is not the epicenter.
As 4 ur balloon analogy, I understand what ur trying to say, but is that true of the balloon? I think the edges would move away from each other as well.
@nickthelight Also, if we can go back to galaxies, I'm not sure if that is true as well. Lawrence Krauss's talk "A Universe from Nothing" which you can get on YouTube seemed to suggest that galaxies are pushed apart by dark energy but each individual galaxy is held together by gravity.
Also, he said that at some time, all the galaxies would be moving so fast away from each other that they will exceed the speed of light and we won't be able to see them, but I could've misunderstood him.
@jamesstafforduk Peter hitchens is an idiot. so he's a christian who doesnt know wether god exists or not, but decides we should believe because it has good points. i would ask him why not create a new god? one who doesnt condone slavery, torture, murder, rape...
Are they really brothers? were they brought up in the same family? One's intelligent and the other is an idiot! certainly proves that intelligence does not run in the family and may not be genetic!
It seems to me that a lot of Christian apologists have reverted to "arguments from [supposed] consequences" as reasons to believe. It looks like Peter's been doing this. William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias do it too.
But it really slanders good people who have no codified, religious code to govern themselves.
4:15, what Hitchens says about vicarious redemption is a good point. George MacDonald (C.S. Lewis' favourite author) in a chapter entitled "The Truth in Jesus" in his "Unspoken Sermons" makes the same point. (Only more eloquently that Christopher. This can be read on-line by the way). The Church would be far better off if they took MacDonald's words sersiously. Isn't it true that men like Christopher wish that Christians would put Jesus words into practice?
C. Hitchens makes here on of my favorite points: in a religion, you either believe it all the way or you don't - there's NO middle ground! You either are a superstitious and stupid moron or you aren't!
You cannot put theses things in any other terms (unlike Peter said about Chris only being mocking religion) - all you CAN do is mock and laugh! There's nothing more to it!
As much as people complain about Peter Hitchens' debating here; you have to admit its not quite as much of a slaughter as say, Chris Hitchens versus Frank Turek in debate.
Christopher is the most courageous super human hero of our time. I jus hope that some delusional bible banging clinic bomber doesn't get their wicked sights on him.
Good job Peter....U don't need the approval of mere man who think they are gods and know everything. The approval of Jesus is essential above all. Remember, the person w/ the last laugh always wins! Today these atheists mock Jesus but tomorrow on their death bed they will be begging for mercy. The Bible say's "the fool has said in his heart there is no God" The gates of hell can't stop Jesus from being glorified. Love u Jesus, King of kings & Lord of lords!!!!!!!!!!
What I don't understand is why Christopher chose to have children if he thinks life is pointless. Every time we have children, we are creating life and, in a way, acting like gods; indirectly supporting whatever it is we're doing here. Wouldn't his choice to have children make him just as incompetent and callous as a creator? God certainly didn't force him to do it.
Christopher - appeal to design flaws is not answering the question! Why there is something (flawed or not) rather than nothing - that was the question. To prove the universe has flaws (as you perceive it) is to avoid the question. You evaded the point. And then to accuse your opponent of casuistry is pretty rich mate.
@jgourlay6 the question why is there something rather than nothing is completely idiotic. What answer do you expect? matter exists so what. What would Peter say to the question why did god create the universe. cuz he was lonely or what
@stevkh5 God didn't create the universe because he was lonely. He has revealed Himself as a community of three persons, being in a perfect fellowship of love, needing nothing - certainly not you or me. He created it for the display of His wisdom, power, salvation and justice.
'Matter exists so what'?
It matters that matter exists because if matter is all that exists then nothing immaterial exists - including your thoughts (which is absurd). What are your thoughts made of?
@stevkh5 - so is it 'true' to say that 'your thoughts are chemical and electrical'? What voltage does truth have? What PH is it too? And since the PH and v. of my thoughts differs from yours, then what?
God didn't need to display his power and mercy. He choose to do so freely. He is the only completely free agent in existence. According to your theory (above) you 'think' according to the laws of nature governing material objects. Also Jesus said that He who sins is a slave to sin Jn.8.34
@jgourlay6 study neuroscience or ask someone who works in that field. I'm a biologist and I certainly don't have answers for all your questions.
All right so god wanted to display his power. Why? What possible reason could a perfect, omniscient god have for doing that.
Now your second last sentence; are you making a statement or accusing me or what? And with your last bit, are you implying that I'm sinning, because I'm having trouble following your ideas.
@stevkh5 What I'm saying is that your false worldview of scientism/materialism entails determinism (you are an electro-chemical machine responding to stimuli like Pavlov's dog), and since truth (acc. to materialism) is non-material it is no longer truth. The pursuit of something non-existent is pointless (is evolution 'true'?). When you 'kill' God you also kill man's freedom, morality and truth.
The quote implies your slavery is not merely to non-material forces. But you can be set free...
@jgourlay6 there seems to be a jumble of ideas in your post and so basically what you want me to do is believe in your god because only then can I be a moral person in possession of truth. You are saying I have no morality so I must be a murdering, stealing bastard. Come on now. And please describe what exactly I am a slave to.
And your explanation for god creating the universe is a non-answer. Why did he want to create? Saying "oh we can't understand" may be good enough for you but not for me.
@stevkh5 I didn't say you couldn't be moral or were amoral. the deterministic amorality of atheism does not fit your experience of feeling that there is a real right and wrong. You feel the moral pull but your atheism doesn't account for that moral pull. You believe there is truth but can't account for it in a materialistic worldview. You feel you can make significant choices but materialism denies it.
Atheists say the universe just is, but their philosophy doesn't explain their experience.
@jgourlay6 I've never read so much nonsense in my entire life. What, if anything, explains morality better than the long arduous road of human evolution?
Certainly not your fanciful delusions of religious inspiration.
Where was God for those billions of years of pain and suffering and mass extinction of all those species? Of which only a single line bears our ancestors. How merciful of him, how loving.
Why, out of all hominids, were we chosen to be the specific bearers of a divine blessing?
@stevkh5 As for God's reasons for creating the universe: It is sufficient that the Creator decides that the creation displays His worth. His desiring to do so is a sufficient reason even if you or I don't like that reason. Having a reason is logically separate from whether we like that reason or not.
The trouble is we are (by nature) in rebellion against the Creator and hate Him. Therefore we seek to find reasons not to believe in Him and His goodness (Romans 1:18f.)
@jgourlay6 His desiring is enough? You honestly believe it sufficient that a deity capable of creation or destruction with the merest thought operates on whims?
@qqs764 His 'desiring' perfectly comports with His unchanging moral character. God desires what is good. To display His character as merciful and just is good. Who are you to say it is 'wrong'? By what standard?
@jgourlay6 Good? His character is good and just? So when he orders the slaughtering of all the men and children, and all the impure women, and to take as slaves all the untouched girls, and then to take one step further and order the slaughter of livestock, that is a moral and good and just act?
@qqs764 By what standard is it wrong to do these things? You need a ruler to measure a piece of wood with, a thermometer to gauge temperature, a moral standard to speak of good or evil...
@jgourlay6 So you are void of basic human empathy? You must be told who's life to value? You believe that it is only possible to love what a homocidal, genocidal, eternal dictator mandates that you love?
@qqs764 It's a rash conclusion to draw that I lack basic empathy. But leaving that aside, by what standard are 'genocide' or 'dictatorship' wrong? Why won't you answer the question?
@jgourlay6 You know genocide is wrong, and yet you approve of it when God orders genocide to be commited against men and women and children? So what is a morally reprehensible, disgusting waste of human life is all of a sudden a great a noble pursuit?
@jgourlay6 On the matter of why I believe genocide to be wrong, it's really quite very simple.
On what grounds would I ever find justification for the wholesale slaughter of men and women and children? To consider their lives nothing when compared to my own, to my way of life and thought?
On what possible grounds could I have to devalue and debase their existence?
Name me a single possible reason that should be used as justification for the massacre of innocent peoples.
Who of us choses to have a child.. the question is not why it "ok" to sacrifice your son, the answer is do you know what you are? and how that child was given in such a late age (just read the Bible - don't just listen extracts, comment back to Christopher as he suggested Peter to read more from Kipling).
5 billion years, what a disaster - we don't even know what is going to happen next moment.. easy Christopher, your engine is on fire :)
at uhila24...people who stood don't understand the meaning of humiliation, they only understand the name of God, alike the douchebag and fudging crevasse-hole dipshiit Peter.
I like Christopher as a debater and I think he makes good points, but honestly his response to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" was inadequate. His response was that the person, or creator, who made the universe must be either very cruel or very stupid, which as far as I can see is not a reasonable response because it dodges the question with an ad hominem. The ad hominem being, "God made something that is going to end so he is cruel/stupid, therefore this is invalid."
" "God made something that is going to end so he is cruel/stupid, therefore this is invalid."
Exactly! Christopher made a completely invalid argument. Even if it were TRUE that God is cruel and intends the universe to go to heat death... that doesn't prove he doesn't exist or that he didn't create it in the first place! Human artefacts decay and last a finite amount of time, but they were still designed! Also, he begs the question, because only on atheism is this universe the end.
@Birdieupon yes then what you are saying is he is right and you are right aswell. that there is a god and he is a cruel and evil dictator so why should we follow such a cruel and evil dictator? your arguments are very simplistic and childish. so because man can create that means other things must have been "created" its nonsense. Show me the proof of your god. its not atheist job to prove there is no god, the burden of such of this is on you, the believer. its your job as a believer yes or no?
@Birdieupon atheism-the doctrine or belief that there is no god. no where does it say must prove there is not a god. you cannot prove that something that supposedly does not abide by the nature and laws of the world does not exist. it is impossible. you cant show someone a different view on life if they're refusing to even look. but, infact, christianity states that you must "save" other people from uncertain death. how can you do that without proving your words are true? so that makes it your
@Birdieupon job to prove that god exist."No I said even *IF* that were true it wouldn't disprove God or design. Hitchens logic was fallacious."
but what it does prove, however, that he is a malicious god and there is no reason to follow him in the first place. and also you compared the creation of the UNIVERSE to a totally different thing like something man made...yes things manmade do eventually fade with time...but its because we cant make something infinite, why does a perfect god have to
@Birdieupon have to make sich an imperfect universe? p.s i actually enjoy debating with because so far you haven't come up with "because god says so" so keep it up i like this :D
@Birdieupon There's no reason to believe any of that was "designed" by some sort of creator. I don't agree with you at all. You're asserting something that has no empirical evidence to back it up.
"no reason to believe any of that was "designed" by some sort of creator"
1. The universe (entire space/time/matter/energy realm) is not eternal. It is proven to have an absolute beginning. Are you saying it came from nothing?
2. The initial conditions of the Big Bang are fine-tuned to permit evolution (any tiny adjustment would collapse the universe or result in pure hydrogen or helium) - this gives "no reason" AT ALL?
3. Hitchens' argument is different to yours and a nonsequitur.
@Birdieupon 1. The Big Bang Theory does not prove that existence had an absolute beginning, it only asserts that the universe came to be from an explosion billions of years ago. As far as I know, there is no theory that exists that pinpoints an exact moment where existence came to be, and scientists are still working on what was before the Big Bang.
2. No, evolution and life are fine-tuned to the conditions created by the Big Bang.
"there is no theory that exists that pinpoints an exact moment where existence came to be, and scientists are still working on what was before the Big Bang."
There was no "before" BB as this was the birth of time itself. This is supported by mainstream cosmology such as Hawking, Davies, Penrose, Bord, Guth and Vilenkin - the latter 3 proving especially there must be an absolute start.
2. Only with these conditions can life evolve. What could evolve with no chemistry or universe?
Sometimes I wish that Htichens would more directly respond to the claims of the pro-Godders. Maybe that's just because I've watched too many of his videos and have heard them all. But a direct response to the universal Morality (which, if it existed would be a very important finding) would be nice. Seriously, if it exists, then I it's clearly not in the possession of any religious group of today.
@TumshieX If you’ve not read the first portion of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, I encourage you to do so. I say this because if you have not read it yourself, you have probably heard a version of the moral argument that lacks nuance or that is a caricature. I am not suggesting that you will be persuaded by it. Rather, you would be less likely to misunderstand its precise claims.
"a direct response to the universal Morality... would be nice."
I'm afraid Hitchens will disappoint you, because every time he is presented with this argument about objective morality he distorts it from ontological into epistemological. He did this in the face of repeated correction while debating Dr Craig, who made it very clear "the argument is NOT about needing God in order to behave well". Hitchens knows his position is incoherent: that objective morals both do and don't exist.
Elaborate. Because your comment suggests you're just trying hard to sound intelligent by throwing a few big words into the mix of your incoherent point-devoid argument.
Morality comes from necessity to survive. Look up symbiotic relationships, all living organism that have progressed to higher forms of cellular complexity have had symbiotic relationships in which multiple creatures aid each other to keep one another alive. Morality is indeed encoded in us innately. Not due to god but in fact directly connected to evolution.
@thelionsshare100; Peter's rant is lamenting the loss of a world that never existed...
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates.
@timewilltell7 The death toll from circumcision is a disgrace, why any modern society tolerates such a barbaric practice on newboen infants is beyond my comprehension.
@thelionsshare100 how can you say he is our master or god? we cheer him on because he is fighting against a dictation that religion has had over us that are free from this tyranny. if you think that cheering a man on when hes right about something then your seriously brainwashed indeed.
@thelionsshare100 and that power is the religion my friend. And we try to fight a war with words yet you want us to die for thinking different. Remember this, the united states was created upon different beliefs and accepting that BUT the british wouldnt have that because they're king/queen was "picked" by god to be ruler. And yes we had many deaths but quess who won? WE DID SMART ASS. And there hasnt been a country that tried to eliminate religion, just countrys that try to accept many others.
i think neither of them truly believes in the religious doctine, and they deep down are probably agnostics or so-called deists. Their differences are actually politically motivated. Christopher is against islamist fascism, and Peter is for old conservative values which are best represented and maintained by the church.
so believing in god will make more people say excuse me on trains? huh?
HelFKiernan 4 weeks ago
IT WAS GEORGE DUBYA !!
Rossclairborne 1 month ago
When I read "Hitchens vs. Hitchens" I would not have expected such a weak argument as Peter lays down.
SuperAhmed1337 1 month ago in playlist Hitchens, Harris, Dennet and Dawkins
Ugh, I hate the way Peter makes that whistling sound when ever he's talking. Listening to him say 'circumcision' is painful.
Mogthrasir 1 month ago
i can't believe he is gone
Mrcliff4 1 month ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens vs. Peter Hitchens Debate
1:18 shit board morality!
MrJivePirate 1 month ago
shame on you peter to degrade moskow citizens.
rouzbehazshab 1 month ago
A "joke" about circumcision? As if genital mutilation of the innocent isn't serious? Twat.
undisputedgreatest 1 month ago
isn't it kind of ironic that the 'sheep' stood up by themselves?
826ed 2 months ago
What? What about the crusades? What about all these terrible acts of slaughter because of religion? And, Hitler may have been an atheist but was also a vegetarian. So what? Vegetarians are evil?
NicoleNa666 3 months ago
@NicoleNa666 Hitler was a Roman Catholic and claimed to be doing what the Catholic church has always done, only more efficiently.
rockermanmatt 2 months ago
@rockermanmatt And he was bloody good at it
arniemazmax 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Peter hitchens is an idiot. so he's a christian who doesnt know wether god exists or not, but decides we should believe because it has good points. i would ask him why not create a new god? one who doesnt condone slavery, torture, murder, rape...
atheistdawn 4 months ago
Peter hitchens is an idiot. so he's a christian who doesnt know wether god exists or not, but decides we should believe because it has good points. i would ask him why not create a new god? one who doesnt condone slavery, torture, murder, rape...
atheistdawn 4 months ago
I don't want to misrepresent but Peter's argument for morality seems to stream only from authority. And anyone who accuses atheists of being inherently immoral must think that way too. The thing is that in my case, my morality rests on egalitarian, solidarian and, stealing a little from Sam Harris, actions which lead to the flourishing of sentient beings. How does that makes me wicked?
JaguarEscarlata 4 months ago
poor Peter, his brother always being better than him at everything, since childhood, and now he's being demolished again in this debate!
marcohorowitz8 5 months ago
yeah so... the universe is badly designed because in 5 billion years one galaxy will crash into another galaxy?
benehan 5 months ago
Did God ultimately require Abraham to sacrifice his own son? No. Such stories and acts are meant to be informative and educational. It should lead us to understand that ultimately our Children are entrusted to our care, but they belong, as we all do, to God. The 'moral' of the tale is that we should be prepared to let our children go, not fool ourselves that we are their owners or the directors of their fate.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 No-one belongs to god because there is no god so kindly refrain your delusional outbursts!!
jjoneil73 5 months ago
@jjoneil73 This reply is a sad reflection on your mindset. If Mr.Hitchens wishes to discuss the moral/meaning of Biblical tales then he invites reply in kind.
That you think your mindless assertion of an unprovable 'fact' is somehow an apt response says little for your capacity to contribute to any discussion on these topics.
P.S. How exactly does one 'refrain an outburst?' Is this a new form of grammatical construction I am unfamiliar with?
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Nothing sad about believing in common sense, logic and scientific fact! Something you delusional creationists seem to lack.
It shows your arrogant & vain assertion to "know" gods will.
Ps, How exactly does one "refrain an outburst"...i'm sure you're no that much of an imbecile to see in my haste i missed typing the word "from"...
jjoneil73 5 months ago
@jjoneil73 Your arrogance is quite awe inspiring.
Strange how paragons of logic and scientific enquiry have and continue to be theists. Even Prof.Dawkins concedes a good case can be made for the 'God of Spinoza' even if he wouldn't accept it.
Thank you for classifying me as a creationist without having any idea if I am indeed amongst such company.
I simply show those who wear intellectual arrogance as armour are no less susceptible to error than others, and should reconsider their surity.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 My arrogance (according to you) pales in comparison next yours along with your vain assumptions!!
Hitchens speaks up for those enlightened souls who will no longer tolerate the biblical nonesense of religions!
As least i stand up for something. What exactly is it you stand up for?
jjoneil73 5 months ago
@jjoneil73 Illustrating your arrogance even further it would seem.
Your utter lack of ability to engage in a meaningful dialogue with people holding an opposite view to yours, through surity of your 'truth' is staggering.
You have already made assumptions about me, whereas I have only spoken of what you have revealed in your words.
You stand only for deliberate ignorance. I stand for meaningful dialogue, and the pursuit of truth which I do not believe any human has a monopoly on.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Your right on target.
MiaoPurrington 4 months ago
opening doors politely? God? Nowadays in your lifetime vs the span of mankind?
huatbeng 6 months ago
@DinnerConversation Oh I forgot, as a Christian, I think the Bible is the word of God. It says all that stuff. Well, it says that God never intended this to be it, and never intended this to be eternal.
MPaulHolmes 6 months ago
@DinnerConversation A lot of explaining to do? How about this: God never intended this to be it, and never intended this to be eternal. It does beg a mechanism since we know that this object started 13.7 billion years ago, and will end (as far as life is concerned).
MPaulHolmes 6 months ago
The universe won't collapse due to increased acceleration, and the Andromeda galaxy will collide with ours in 5,000,000,000 years, therefore God didn't make the universe? I just can't follow his reasoning. For a God to make us, he must intend for this to be it?
MPaulHolmes 6 months ago
Atheism is no more to blame for yob culture in the UK than religion is for the Italian Mob.
alsdaftable 6 months ago
The sheer arrogance of the religious outrages me, to suggest others aren't as good as they are, because we don't have faith is just pompous
alsdaftable 6 months ago
"A sheep you are"
LambdaQuarks 6 months ago
Why were sheep allowed into the audience? There must be no morality nowadays if we have come to a level like this.
dragster178 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"sheep you are!"
angryafghan 7 months ago
here is the evidence that our ancestors were apes: Peter! he has yet to evolve from ape-state.
marcohorowitz8 7 months ago
why did those people stand up when he asked if anyone was a sheep? Its not like its blasphemy to NOT stand up when someone asks you if you are a sheep...they have no obligation to do it---he said: is anyone a sheep or lamb?--- Not a sheep or lamb of jesus christ you stunned mofo's----but the ironic thing is that you can see how serviant those people are----they just assume they should pledge themselves to Jesus just because something sounds slightly like it relates to Jesus or implies him....
TheGreatDeciever55 7 months ago
Christopher has such a childish view on religion. He's a brilliant man, and a LOVE to hear him talk... But he doesn't know a thing about God or faith.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 Christopher's view on religion is the more accurate one. The only reason you could think it was childish would be because children, before they have been indoctrinated into all the crap, can see the holes and will happily point them out.
xincrii 7 months ago
Isn't it amazing how one is so on the money and that the other couldn't be more wrong!
Long Live C. Hitchens!
gregapage 7 months ago
@gregapage Well, at least for a couple more years.
MPaulHolmes 6 months ago
This is just a Daily Mail rant about 'Broken Britain' which Tories seem to fixate on - I wish I had a Hitch in a box to unleash on these people.
ToTheWareMobile 7 months ago 5
I can't believe a man of Peters intellect can't come up with a better argument than 'kids now day...no respect.'
ajrnagy1 8 months ago
do i detect some bitterness from Christopher Hitchens' less successful younger brother...
discipleoftheteapot 8 months ago
That's how people act in large cities, not secular societies.
Jotto999 8 months ago
The Drunken Stupor of Chris Hitchens and mocking out and out filthy comments from the YT atheist crowd should explain all. Who wants to live in a world of conscienceless reprobates who have no value of Human life other than their own.
I certainly don't. As Physicists, Biologists and Doctors see fit to wipe out nasty viruses, should explain acts of God destroying the wicked. As he created life, so shall he destroy it!
To ALL Atheists! Enjoy what little you have, as it won't last long!
Acecool444 8 months ago
@Acecool444
You, sir, are a crackpot.
Chris Hitchens has been standing up for human rights and condemned atrocities and war crimes for decades, and yet there you are, calling him a "conscienceless atheists" because he looks drunk.
Painful, but not unexpected from someone whose creed is so well-known for lumping murderers in one group with adulterers and "drunkards" when listing sins and transgressions against Jesus.
twooffour 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twooffour "You, sir, are a crackpot."
You sir are a fool!
Acecool444 8 months ago
@Acecool444 it may not be long but its all we have: imagine what it was like before you were born: thats what its like after you die
MamaMario13 8 months ago
@MamaMario13 "imagine what it was like before you were born: thats what its like after you die"
That should explain why people scurry about in a rape, pillage and plunder way of life. As long as they can outsmart the authorities, why not live the life of a heathen, to make the lives of others miserable for your own gain. Sorry, but my life on earth is not the eat shit and die attitude, nor as Hitchens or Dawkins who live the millionaires dream at the expense of taking others down with them.
Acecool444 8 months ago
@MamaMario13 To think that the eternal universe as we know it, with all it's miraculous splendor and accuracy of earths environment for life, the great fortune of life that you were given, such as any other creature, with the intelligence above all others, to denounce there is no Creator, your inner soul or eternal life as not being part of the perfection of this perfect environment is like saying the Universe has an ending which we all know is unfathomable. And if so? What's behind the ending?
Acecool444 8 months ago
Only those who have found true love in their heart for others, to be treat othors as you yourselves want to be treated, with trust, dignity, honor, mercy, forgiveness and respect of life, and knowing by doing so, will also understand, the rewards of such a life, to continue into the next plain of a perfect existence where death, sickness, pain and misery do not exist, is a hope that some have traded off for but a mere existence can only come from the mind of a fool.
You Will Reap What You Sow!
Acecool444 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christopher Hitchens younger brother Peter Jonathan Hitchens (a former atheist), is a prominent Christian and believes that without faith and without strong families, the development of conscience is stunted, private life is diminished and the power of the state increased. That said, it is easy to understand the complacency and arrogance of the twisted mentality of those who refuse to acknowledge God to continue "Without Conscience" as reprobates into the underworld of perverseness/immorality.
Acecool444 8 months ago
Great fun. It si watching a UFC match.
johneamer 9 months ago
2:09 The Peter Hitchens mini-storm-off. He's been doing it for years and it never fails to give me a chuckle.
comanchio1976 9 months ago
Slate vs Daily Mail. Mismatch.
Peter is right, Christopher does sneer too much. But Peter was not right to take him on in a public debate, Christopher is on another level.
Feargface 9 months ago 23
@Feargface You have clearly learned from your dissaproval of Christopher's tone :) When in doubt smear the debator not what he says. High five yourself why don't you :)
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 FAAAAAAAANX! u hav bn so helpfool 2 me
Feargface 6 months ago
@Feargface Exactly, my friend, exactly.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 I wish I was as smart as u
Feargface 6 months ago
@Feargface We can all dream, I wish you well of it :)
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Thanks babe, you are truly inspirational :). The self high five was probably a good place to start. Trolling might be my 2nd port of call. Have you any other tips for how to rapidly reduce an IQ?
Feargface 6 months ago
@Feargface Mail on Sunday has a completely different staff...
mikejpete 3 months ago
@mikejpete And agenda?
Feargface 3 months ago
@Feargface After examining...it's not respectable at all. It makes Inside Edition and Geraldo At Large look like peabody award winning journalism. I concede it's pretty deplorable and sensationalist. I didn't look further until Peter copped out of a losing argument and said the owner of his brother's paper distributed pornography...>_>
mikejpete 3 months ago
A couple errors made by Christopher: circumcision is not because of Mosaic Law, it is because of God's covenant with Abraham, which he also does mention but which he also confuses. The other, more serious error is to equate female "circumcision" with the circumcision of the faith of Abraham. Neither Peter, nor Christians as a whole, are representing a position which defends the mutilation of females, nor are we representing all those who claim to worship God- Islam is a separate, unlike belief.
dklskov 9 months ago
@dklskov Christopher argues against religion, not just Christianity.
nats1rt 8 months ago
Peter sounds like an angry old man shouting "Back in my day!".
Its funny that he seemed so smart when this debate started but has rapidly degenerated into what appears to be personal frustration and bitterness towards his brother.
I am speaking from a bias as I am an avid fan of Christopher, but I have seen other men debate much more eloquently and competitively than this stammering non-sequitur spewing old grouch.
ColeDaltonBaker 9 months ago
I admire the sophistication of this debate is.
BigJonBone 10 months ago
he brings up manners rofl
Oddhermit 10 months ago 2
@Oddhermit Peter almost had me a little there, until he talked about holding doors open. If you are going to present such an case as such, at least show some research or statistics...it got personal there. He started to sound like my father...about the old times (my father is a non-believer). It's just a change in culture, not religion. We need to change just in culture, it WILL ALSO happen.
nathanmarto 10 months ago
@nathanmarto Yeah the problem is he's citing cultural differences rather than a religious ones, that aren't even necessarily related to courtesy. I've had people get angry at me for holding a door open for them - thinking I was making a comment on their physical inferiority or something. Every country has different standards and customs when it comes to manners and common courtesy.
Oddhermit 10 months ago
haha they are still fighting like they would have when they were 10
MamaMario13 10 months ago
This round also goes to Christopher, sorry Peter your arguments is non argument, only belief.
Aliof 10 months ago
seeing as there is still no tangible evidence that the word of god is true, how can we not say that we can set our own "North", our own morality?
georgek19 11 months ago
Christopher: " I know it's easy to sneer, but still- someone's got to do it". Superb comeback.
I must say I held Peter H in higher esteem PRIOR to watching these clips. However, I have never witnessed a man so thoroughly undo himself intellectually, morally, and hypocritically as I have Peter in this debate with his intellectual superior.
Others on this comments page have succinctly surmised many of the reasons why I feel this way; to them, I give a massive thumbs up.
gefnanroolz 11 months ago
BAAWWWW PEOPLE ARE MEAN CAUSE THEY DON'T BELIVE IN GOD!
Does Pete seriously think that we live in a more immoral time and place than, say, the Middle Ages where knight with a "holy duty" could go around raping, killing, and stealing from whomever they liked? Or modern-day theocracies, where women are killed for the horrible crime of being rape victims, etc etc etc.? Christopher realizes this, but Peter sounds like a crochety senior crying over "the good old days," that never, in fact, existed.
CBAnaesthesia 1 year ago
i had the god squad ram the religious bullshit down my neck for 7 years in school and i didn't believe a f**king word from square one, i can tell you now i have a better understanding of morals than him and those cretins he speaks of are uneducated and are brought up in a joke of a country where rich idiots like peter spit at poor people and keep them in perpetual servitude to a rotten life under a nation of religious bigots, you reap what you sow sir now chuffin well deal with it.
cookitagain2 1 year ago 4
the torah says god cuts himself off from those uncircumcised
avital moshe - murdered at 8 days old by his own parents - he died 28 mins after the barbaric act of his skin being cut and flicked off with a thumb fingernail by some sick mohel who then drinks his blood
look what islam and judaism and christianity have done to the world
jesus is a horrific effigy of a human sacrifice-what has that to do with enlightenment
fear makes our cells mutate and closes the third eye - thats why
timewilltell7 1 year ago
That was intellectually barren from P.Hitchens
13olibrown 1 year ago
why does Peter assume the kids kicking someone's head in or the people barging past him on the train don't believe in a god?
The man's an idiot
AdamM667 1 year ago
When pressed in other debates, Christopher acknowledges he can't be sure there's no God. So he's an agnostic whose morality is derived from theism and his faith belief is atheism. Not surprising. One must engage in cognitive dissonance to be an atheist.
JWGames 1 year ago
Is the Andromeda Galaxy really heading towards us? I thought all galaxies are spreading out.
jessc1979 1 year ago
@jessc1979
It is and they are. Here, you have assumed that Earth is the epicentre of this expansion. It is not, the universe is expanding in all directions, galaxies three times further away from Earth than Andromeda are moving away three times faster.
nickthelight 1 year ago
@nickthelight I actually never said nor suggested that Earth is the epicentre.
So which is it? Is the Andromeda Galaxy moving away or heading towards us?
jessc1979 1 year ago
@jessc1979
ok, but I felt that you implied a anthropocentric perspective, due to the phrase 'spreading out'. In answer to your question: both. Imagine circles drawn on a balloon, as you blow the balloon up the circles increase in area, with the edges of the circles coming towards each other but the centre of each circle is increasing in distance form any other 'centre'.
nickthelight 1 year ago
@nickthelight Well... when I said 'galaxies are spreading out' (like asking a bunch of people to spread out) I would include our galaxy among that number. But ok, we both agree that earth is not the epicenter.
As 4 ur balloon analogy, I understand what ur trying to say, but is that true of the balloon? I think the edges would move away from each other as well.
jessc1979 1 year ago
Comment removed
jessc1979 1 year ago
@nickthelight Also, if we can go back to galaxies, I'm not sure if that is true as well. Lawrence Krauss's talk "A Universe from Nothing" which you can get on YouTube seemed to suggest that galaxies are pushed apart by dark energy but each individual galaxy is held together by gravity.
Also, he said that at some time, all the galaxies would be moving so fast away from each other that they will exceed the speed of light and we won't be able to see them, but I could've misunderstood him.
jessc1979 1 year ago
As I was watching Hitchens junior I thought to myself "He sounds like a Daily Mail reader".
It turns out he writes for the Daily Mail. Couldn't make it up.
vilkwang 1 year ago
I now believe in God because less people in the UK nowadays open doors for others in a polite way. Thanks, Peter. You have shown me the light.
jamesstafforduk 1 year ago 54
@jamesstafforduk lmao! :P
baughskeet 10 months ago
@jamesstafforduk
"A dog starved at his master's gate predicts the ruin of the state"
- William Blake
Jim1905 10 months ago
@jamesstaffordu God (no pun intended) i seriously hope you're being sarcastic!
jjoneil73 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jamesstafforduk Peter hitchens is an idiot. so he's a christian who doesnt know wether god exists or not, but decides we should believe because it has good points. i would ask him why not create a new god? one who doesnt condone slavery, torture, murder, rape...
atheistdawn 4 months ago
Are they really brothers? were they brought up in the same family? One's intelligent and the other is an idiot! certainly proves that intelligence does not run in the family and may not be genetic!
marcohorowitz8 1 year ago
It seems to me that a lot of Christian apologists have reverted to "arguments from [supposed] consequences" as reasons to believe. It looks like Peter's been doing this. William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias do it too.
But it really slanders good people who have no codified, religious code to govern themselves.
Politicimo 1 year ago
You have a meme stuck in your head Peter. Freedom is a doubt away.
KarlJohanson42 1 year ago
the problem with the US is that the kids rule it instead of the adults
lowfuellevel 1 year ago
we live in a failed religious world, the moral compass peter fights for needs to be rewritten and kept open for debate
pornswordtobacco 1 year ago
4:15, what Hitchens says about vicarious redemption is a good point. George MacDonald (C.S. Lewis' favourite author) in a chapter entitled "The Truth in Jesus" in his "Unspoken Sermons" makes the same point. (Only more eloquently that Christopher. This can be read on-line by the way). The Church would be far better off if they took MacDonald's words sersiously. Isn't it true that men like Christopher wish that Christians would put Jesus words into practice?
BBBradH 1 year ago
C. Hitchens makes here on of my favorite points: in a religion, you either believe it all the way or you don't - there's NO middle ground! You either are a superstitious and stupid moron or you aren't!
You cannot put theses things in any other terms (unlike Peter said about Chris only being mocking religion) - all you CAN do is mock and laugh! There's nothing more to it!
luarionte 1 year ago
what a selfrighteous prick
niinja2 1 year ago
As much as people complain about Peter Hitchens' debating here; you have to admit its not quite as much of a slaughter as say, Chris Hitchens versus Frank Turek in debate.
AsSomedayItMayHappen 1 year ago
Christopher is the most courageous super human hero of our time. I jus hope that some delusional bible banging clinic bomber doesn't get their wicked sights on him.
kick08ful 1 year ago
Human beings are "infinitely valuable" because we are all individuals (thanks to DNA, not because we are cast in the image of some "God")
morpheus8624 1 year ago
C. Hitch sounded drunk as hell and yet kicked the crap out of his brother.
brianm083 1 year ago
C.H's argument is merely soundbites and catch phrases.
Ohyewildthong 1 year ago
Good job Peter....U don't need the approval of mere man who think they are gods and know everything. The approval of Jesus is essential above all. Remember, the person w/ the last laugh always wins! Today these atheists mock Jesus but tomorrow on their death bed they will be begging for mercy. The Bible say's "the fool has said in his heart there is no God" The gates of hell can't stop Jesus from being glorified. Love u Jesus, King of kings & Lord of lords!!!!!!!!!!
HelloWorld1947 1 year ago
What I don't understand is why Christopher chose to have children if he thinks life is pointless. Every time we have children, we are creating life and, in a way, acting like gods; indirectly supporting whatever it is we're doing here. Wouldn't his choice to have children make him just as incompetent and callous as a creator? God certainly didn't force him to do it.
austereben 1 year ago
Christopher - appeal to design flaws is not answering the question! Why there is something (flawed or not) rather than nothing - that was the question. To prove the universe has flaws (as you perceive it) is to avoid the question. You evaded the point. And then to accuse your opponent of casuistry is pretty rich mate.
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 the question why is there something rather than nothing is completely idiotic. What answer do you expect? matter exists so what. What would Peter say to the question why did god create the universe. cuz he was lonely or what
stevkh5 1 year ago
@stevkh5 God didn't create the universe because he was lonely. He has revealed Himself as a community of three persons, being in a perfect fellowship of love, needing nothing - certainly not you or me. He created it for the display of His wisdom, power, salvation and justice.
'Matter exists so what'?
It matters that matter exists because if matter is all that exists then nothing immaterial exists - including your thoughts (which is absurd). What are your thoughts made of?
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 your thoughts are chemical and electrical signals. They're nothing magical.
So god created everything to display his awesomeness because he's that needy?
stevkh5 1 year ago
@stevkh5 - so is it 'true' to say that 'your thoughts are chemical and electrical'? What voltage does truth have? What PH is it too? And since the PH and v. of my thoughts differs from yours, then what?
God didn't need to display his power and mercy. He choose to do so freely. He is the only completely free agent in existence. According to your theory (above) you 'think' according to the laws of nature governing material objects. Also Jesus said that He who sins is a slave to sin Jn.8.34
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 study neuroscience or ask someone who works in that field. I'm a biologist and I certainly don't have answers for all your questions.
All right so god wanted to display his power. Why? What possible reason could a perfect, omniscient god have for doing that.
Now your second last sentence; are you making a statement or accusing me or what? And with your last bit, are you implying that I'm sinning, because I'm having trouble following your ideas.
stevkh5 1 year ago
@stevkh5 What I'm saying is that your false worldview of scientism/materialism entails determinism (you are an electro-chemical machine responding to stimuli like Pavlov's dog), and since truth (acc. to materialism) is non-material it is no longer truth. The pursuit of something non-existent is pointless (is evolution 'true'?). When you 'kill' God you also kill man's freedom, morality and truth.
The quote implies your slavery is not merely to non-material forces. But you can be set free...
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 there seems to be a jumble of ideas in your post and so basically what you want me to do is believe in your god because only then can I be a moral person in possession of truth. You are saying I have no morality so I must be a murdering, stealing bastard. Come on now. And please describe what exactly I am a slave to.
And your explanation for god creating the universe is a non-answer. Why did he want to create? Saying "oh we can't understand" may be good enough for you but not for me.
stevkh5 1 year ago
@stevkh5 I didn't say you couldn't be moral or were amoral. the deterministic amorality of atheism does not fit your experience of feeling that there is a real right and wrong. You feel the moral pull but your atheism doesn't account for that moral pull. You believe there is truth but can't account for it in a materialistic worldview. You feel you can make significant choices but materialism denies it.
Atheists say the universe just is, but their philosophy doesn't explain their experience.
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 I've never read so much nonsense in my entire life. What, if anything, explains morality better than the long arduous road of human evolution?
Certainly not your fanciful delusions of religious inspiration.
Where was God for those billions of years of pain and suffering and mass extinction of all those species? Of which only a single line bears our ancestors. How merciful of him, how loving.
Why, out of all hominids, were we chosen to be the specific bearers of a divine blessing?
qqs764 1 year ago
@stevkh5 As for God's reasons for creating the universe: It is sufficient that the Creator decides that the creation displays His worth. His desiring to do so is a sufficient reason even if you or I don't like that reason. Having a reason is logically separate from whether we like that reason or not.
The trouble is we are (by nature) in rebellion against the Creator and hate Him. Therefore we seek to find reasons not to believe in Him and His goodness (Romans 1:18f.)
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 His desiring is enough? You honestly believe it sufficient that a deity capable of creation or destruction with the merest thought operates on whims?
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764 His 'desiring' perfectly comports with His unchanging moral character. God desires what is good. To display His character as merciful and just is good. Who are you to say it is 'wrong'? By what standard?
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 Good? His character is good and just? So when he orders the slaughtering of all the men and children, and all the impure women, and to take as slaves all the untouched girls, and then to take one step further and order the slaughter of livestock, that is a moral and good and just act?
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764 By what standard is it wrong to do these things? You need a ruler to measure a piece of wood with, a thermometer to gauge temperature, a moral standard to speak of good or evil...
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 So you are void of basic human empathy? You must be told who's life to value? You believe that it is only possible to love what a homocidal, genocidal, eternal dictator mandates that you love?
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764 It's a rash conclusion to draw that I lack basic empathy. But leaving that aside, by what standard are 'genocide' or 'dictatorship' wrong? Why won't you answer the question?
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 No, the question is why must you be told they are wrong?
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764 I know why genocide is wrong. Humans are made in God's image and therefore of infinite value. But you still won't answer the question...
jgourlay6 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 You know genocide is wrong, and yet you approve of it when God orders genocide to be commited against men and women and children? So what is a morally reprehensible, disgusting waste of human life is all of a sudden a great a noble pursuit?
Can you honestly not see the discontinuity?
qqs764 1 year ago
@jgourlay6 On the matter of why I believe genocide to be wrong, it's really quite very simple.
On what grounds would I ever find justification for the wholesale slaughter of men and women and children? To consider their lives nothing when compared to my own, to my way of life and thought?
On what possible grounds could I have to devalue and debase their existence?
Name me a single possible reason that should be used as justification for the massacre of innocent peoples.
qqs764 1 year ago
3:39
rofl owned
freshhh1994 1 year ago
Peter is simply weak, and arguing for why he likes Christianity as opposed to why it is true. Please call him on this soon Christopher.
Naabenstadt 1 year ago
I wonder is Christopher had made any sacrifices? Had he? What would that be for? What do you say?
kaunaskas 1 year ago
Who of us choses to have a child.. the question is not why it "ok" to sacrifice your son, the answer is do you know what you are? and how that child was given in such a late age (just read the Bible - don't just listen extracts, comment back to Christopher as he suggested Peter to read more from Kipling).
5 billion years, what a disaster - we don't even know what is going to happen next moment.. easy Christopher, your engine is on fire :)
kaunaskas 1 year ago
People who whistle on the 's' consonant should probably avoid saying things like "Silly jokes about circumcision."
dancheyne 1 year ago
Christopher reminds me of Job.
Hibachiarenas 1 year ago
at uhila24...people who stood don't understand the meaning of humiliation, they only understand the name of God, alike the douchebag and fudging crevasse-hole dipshiit Peter.
jefreen12 1 year ago
2:01
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
freshhh1994 1 year ago
i feel sorry for peter. the younger bro thts bullied by chris's pure talent n' intellect. hahah
Monosaccaride 1 year ago
I like Christopher as a debater and I think he makes good points, but honestly his response to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" was inadequate. His response was that the person, or creator, who made the universe must be either very cruel or very stupid, which as far as I can see is not a reasonable response because it dodges the question with an ad hominem. The ad hominem being, "God made something that is going to end so he is cruel/stupid, therefore this is invalid."
xxkarate 1 year ago
@xxkarate
" "God made something that is going to end so he is cruel/stupid, therefore this is invalid."
Exactly! Christopher made a completely invalid argument. Even if it were TRUE that God is cruel and intends the universe to go to heat death... that doesn't prove he doesn't exist or that he didn't create it in the first place! Human artefacts decay and last a finite amount of time, but they were still designed! Also, he begs the question, because only on atheism is this universe the end.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon yes then what you are saying is he is right and you are right aswell. that there is a god and he is a cruel and evil dictator so why should we follow such a cruel and evil dictator? your arguments are very simplistic and childish. so because man can create that means other things must have been "created" its nonsense. Show me the proof of your god. its not atheist job to prove there is no god, the burden of such of this is on you, the believer. its your job as a believer yes or no?
InsertingSuppository 1 year ago
@InsertingSuppository
"what you are saying is he is right and you are right aswell. that there is a god and he is a cruel"
No I said even *IF* that were true it wouldn't disprove God or design. Hitchens logic was fallacious.
"because man can create that means other things must have been "created"
You misunderstand. I didn't say "we make, therefore God made" but that things we make don't last forever.
"its not atheist job to prove there is no god,"
That's what atheism means! It's a claim.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon atheism-the doctrine or belief that there is no god. no where does it say must prove there is not a god. you cannot prove that something that supposedly does not abide by the nature and laws of the world does not exist. it is impossible. you cant show someone a different view on life if they're refusing to even look. but, infact, christianity states that you must "save" other people from uncertain death. how can you do that without proving your words are true? so that makes it your
InsertingSuppository 1 year ago
@Birdieupon job to prove that god exist."No I said even *IF* that were true it wouldn't disprove God or design. Hitchens logic was fallacious."
but what it does prove, however, that he is a malicious god and there is no reason to follow him in the first place. and also you compared the creation of the UNIVERSE to a totally different thing like something man made...yes things manmade do eventually fade with time...but its because we cant make something infinite, why does a perfect god have to
InsertingSuppository 1 year ago
@Birdieupon have to make sich an imperfect universe? p.s i actually enjoy debating with because so far you haven't come up with "because god says so" so keep it up i like this :D
InsertingSuppository 1 year ago
@Birdieupon There's no reason to believe any of that was "designed" by some sort of creator. I don't agree with you at all. You're asserting something that has no empirical evidence to back it up.
xxkarate 1 year ago
@xxkarate
"no reason to believe any of that was "designed" by some sort of creator"
1. The universe (entire space/time/matter/energy realm) is not eternal. It is proven to have an absolute beginning. Are you saying it came from nothing?
2. The initial conditions of the Big Bang are fine-tuned to permit evolution (any tiny adjustment would collapse the universe or result in pure hydrogen or helium) - this gives "no reason" AT ALL?
3. Hitchens' argument is different to yours and a nonsequitur.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon 1. The Big Bang Theory does not prove that existence had an absolute beginning, it only asserts that the universe came to be from an explosion billions of years ago. As far as I know, there is no theory that exists that pinpoints an exact moment where existence came to be, and scientists are still working on what was before the Big Bang.
2. No, evolution and life are fine-tuned to the conditions created by the Big Bang.
xxkarate 1 year ago
@xxkarate
"there is no theory that exists that pinpoints an exact moment where existence came to be, and scientists are still working on what was before the Big Bang."
There was no "before" BB as this was the birth of time itself. This is supported by mainstream cosmology such as Hawking, Davies, Penrose, Bord, Guth and Vilenkin - the latter 3 proving especially there must be an absolute start.
2. Only with these conditions can life evolve. What could evolve with no chemistry or universe?
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon 2 (cont). Something that happens that is unlikely to happen does not prove the existence of a God.
xxkarate 1 year ago
@Birdieupon 2 (cont). Nor is it a valid suggestion of one existing.
xxkarate 1 year ago
Sometimes I wish that Htichens would more directly respond to the claims of the pro-Godders. Maybe that's just because I've watched too many of his videos and have heard them all. But a direct response to the universal Morality (which, if it existed would be a very important finding) would be nice. Seriously, if it exists, then I it's clearly not in the possession of any religious group of today.
TumshieX 1 year ago
Comment removed
hrayanderson 1 year ago
@TumshieX If you’ve not read the first portion of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, I encourage you to do so. I say this because if you have not read it yourself, you have probably heard a version of the moral argument that lacks nuance or that is a caricature. I am not suggesting that you will be persuaded by it. Rather, you would be less likely to misunderstand its precise claims.
hrayanderson 1 year ago
@TumshieX
"a direct response to the universal Morality... would be nice."
I'm afraid Hitchens will disappoint you, because every time he is presented with this argument about objective morality he distorts it from ontological into epistemological. He did this in the face of repeated correction while debating Dr Craig, who made it very clear "the argument is NOT about needing God in order to behave well". Hitchens knows his position is incoherent: that objective morals both do and don't exist.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon
Objective morals both do and do not exist?
Elaborate. Because your comment suggests you're just trying hard to sound intelligent by throwing a few big words into the mix of your incoherent point-devoid argument.
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
@BornWhiteSupremacy Don't you wish there were more men like him? He is honest, intelligent, well spoken and has big balls to speak his mind.
81CJAY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Morality comes from necessity to survive. Look up symbiotic relationships, all living organism that have progressed to higher forms of cellular complexity have had symbiotic relationships in which multiple creatures aid each other to keep one another alive. Morality is indeed encoded in us innately. Not due to god but in fact directly connected to evolution.
nat6660 1 year ago
Are the commentor's here watching the same debate as I am?
No one is refuting Peter's dialogue about decaying morals?
Its just redundant praise for Christopher and mocking his opponents wherever I turn... yet you have no gods or masters?
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100; Peter's rant is lamenting the loss of a world that never existed...
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago 21
@Tapecutter59
i wish more contradicted their indoctrinated bloody parents
i applaud christopher for saying these religions make people do barbaric things they wouldnt normally do - like circumcision
see when he shut up that freak rabbi harold kushner
i have read the torah and cant help but hate jews a bit for not contradicting their parents when being brainwashed by these sick cults
peter circumcision is not a joke its fucking child abuse
GO CHRIS!
timewilltell7 1 year ago
@timewilltell7 The death toll from circumcision is a disgrace, why any modern society tolerates such a barbaric practice on newboen infants is beyond my comprehension.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100 how can you say he is our master or god? we cheer him on because he is fighting against a dictation that religion has had over us that are free from this tyranny. if you think that cheering a man on when hes right about something then your seriously brainwashed indeed.
InsertingSuppository 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InsertingSuppository "we cheer him on because he is fighting against a dictation that religion has had over us that are free from this tyranny."
***
Has there been one country that has tried to eliminate religion that didn't end with death and all power to the state?
thelionsshare100 1 year ago
@thelionsshare100 and that power is the religion my friend. And we try to fight a war with words yet you want us to die for thinking different. Remember this, the united states was created upon different beliefs and accepting that BUT the british wouldnt have that because they're king/queen was "picked" by god to be ruler. And yes we had many deaths but quess who won? WE DID SMART ASS. And there hasnt been a country that tried to eliminate religion, just countrys that try to accept many others.
InsertingSuppository 1 year ago
Chris dominates here, not just with his arguments, but in Peter's fumbling at the lectern. Would really have liked a closer match.
papercutpictures 1 year ago
I am your number one fan Christopher!
81CJAY 2 years ago
i think neither of them truly believes in the religious doctine, and they deep down are probably agnostics or so-called deists. Their differences are actually politically motivated. Christopher is against islamist fascism, and Peter is for old conservative values which are best represented and maintained by the church.
nr900 2 years ago
i think peter is a theist, and i deffinately think christopher is not a deist, do u have evidence for this?
lukeism2 1 year ago
just a hunch.
nr900 1 year ago
chris is loving this. taking piss outa bible nutters and little bro.
userwl2850 2 years ago