oh my god. what the fuck are these three even arguing about? The point needs to be the existence of God or gods, not this petty this. Most of the topics in this series of videos is arguing Christopher Hitchens fucking subtitle, as if it even matters. And Dennis Prager just tries to discredit Atheism as just as dogmatic, which still is rather irrelevant the most important topic of all. DOES GOD FUCKING EXIST.
Why are Christians and Jews suddenly buddying up together to hate Islam? Christianity and Islam both come from Judaism originally. Judaism probably has more in common with Islam than Christianity because of Christianity's troubling issue of the holy trinity/G-d being a man/etc. Why do Christians and Jews in the US deny that Islam has brought good to the world too? When Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was flourishing in the areas of science, philosophy, maths, you name it.
@themonkeywrench Because both D'Souza and Prager are politically right-wing. That's the relevent confound, I think. And yeah, Islam (or rather Islamic culture) had developed germ theory about the same time as Christians were burning witches to combat the plague.
@cykoaudio777 lol, I will look it up, but anything written by Dinesh automatically is suspect since he tends to lie or manipulate the stats to support his view. Can't tell you how many times he's been caught lying in his debates. I'd be impressed if the stats or info was from a secular source or non-biased source, such as where I pulled my info which was from pure stats/surveys on quality of life. I'll read it, but I'll also look for another source due to Dinesh's history.
After all Mr Dinesh, even today with all the most advanced technology and a foto camera in the hands of nearly human in the world we can still get very different information on any event.
So yes, we do not have much evidence for anything in history, even 90% could be pure fantasy.
Even the holocaust could be less the 100.000 deaths, there is no way of proving 6 million Jews died, there are no precise registers.
dinesh apperently wants to ask questions & not let hitchens answer them, he gets frustrated when hitchens gets more than halfway through his answers, & then ppl think hitchens is being rude & interrupting, oh please
Cross Examine: Hitchens' shows himself to be the bully mouth piece as usual and doesn't allow anyone to respond as he interrupts them continually and shifts directions. The debate should have had a moderator to bitch slap some politeness into the Hitch.
Regardless of whether Socrates did or not exist is not relevant because his method can be admired without giving him super human, and deity powers! Touche! Hitchens is merciless!
Watching this, I can literally see all of Hitchens' cheerleaders thinking he's owning this debate, and having no idea of how completely full of shit he is.
His argument regarding Dinesh's question (that kicked his sensationalist subtitle in the nuts) was "We con't know fo sho that they believed in wot they wu doing." People, you HAVE to understand that that is a baseless, immensely speculative - and highly contradicted - mish-mash of sensationalist nonsense with ZERO intellectual import.
@TheDreamMechanic or maybe there are ppl who can see that hitch is sensationalist, but can also see that d'souza and prager, like all their predecessors, fail to move to the theist position, that this god is on favors america, doesn't want us to eat ham, is unhappy when men put plastic on their penises or sleeps with other men, is pleased when women put veils of cloth on their faces, and demands the foreskins of little boys.
Oh, no doubt. This entire fiasco of the theist/atheist debate looks more like a way to sell books than anything else. No definitive headspace is provided on either side, save for the conventional viewpoint in each respective camp. The irony is that there really is no actual debate; people are going to believe what they choose, and are entitled to do so. If we aren't sovereign over our own consciousness, then the word "freedom" should disappear from our cultural lexicon.
@TheDreamMechanic further, one doesn't have to cheer hitchens to agree with him that the theists can believe whatever they wish, as so long as they keep it to themselves. this to include: persecution of homosexuals, subjugation of women, standing athwart women's access to control of their reproductive cycle, fighting over land that is no more holy than the hairs on my ass, etc., etc.
What you are implicating as purely religious subjugation and violence would be much more truthful if stated as "the innate capacity for human dominion."
@TheDreamMechanic did i say it is purely religious? i have no doubt that people would do those things even if religion were eradicated. but without religion, people would just have to face their own biases without using the spiritual and the supernatural as a paper shield, which is just a cheap form of moral cowardice.
@TheDreamMechanic did i say people should abandon spirituality? if ppl want to have their religion, GREAT. go nuts. BUT I DON'T WANT IT and YOU CAN'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT TOO. capice? if they wanna say x is an abomination, FINE. but it's definitely a form of cowardice to say, "it's not me! god says i have to feel that way."
Um, actually that was my point as well....no need to press the caps button to exercise redundancy. Of course people can believe what they want. And they should be able to express their beliefs as well, don't you agree? So, if you live in a country where religious freedom is accepted, as well as freedom of speech, you're going to hear about it. Sorry.
"It's not me! God says I have to feel that way." ??? I personally don't know anyone other than you that's ever said that.
Built on the pillars of Athens? Yes. Built on the Athens of Jerusalem? No. Just...no... The modern world, from mathematics to science to republicanism to democracy is SOLELY the result of Athens and Greece. The very basis of the modern world is based on Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Jerusalem and Christianity. In fact, it was because of Christianity that the mathematics and science of the Greeks was almost lost for eternity.....
Prager's okay, there's no need to say really nasty hateful things about him. Consider the arguments, don't lower yourself to saying nasty shit. I don't dislike any of these people, I only care about the topic and arguments.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitchens has such a hard time with real dialogue. He spends most of his time figuring out how to make his attacks sound more ornate, convoluted and snarky than anything else. Such an arrogant and dismissive man... wrong about his knowledge of science almost entirely and doesn't even know it. Sad.
@jmchristian63 if you push "On" button back of your brain you'll more able to understand that your likely to waste your entire life existing on complete bullshit.
LMFAO Dinesh is a little bitch...anyone else notice that he didn't have the balls to say anything to Hitchens when he kept cutting Dinesh off? Hitchens is not afraid of a confrontation...Dinesh is like a little female chihuahua.
Dinesh is absolutely correct in saying that Hitchens is way out there by denying Jesus' existence with regard to critical scholarship. There are over 10 non-Christian/secular sources that refer to Jesus close to Jesus' lifetime. Three Roman historians, Tacitus (55-120AD), Seutonius (writes around 41-54), and Josephus (37-97AD), all wrote about Jesus within 100 years of Jesus' lifetime. Jesus is multiply attested, the accounts are early, there is enemy attestation, and embarrassing testimony.
I modified the Abraham/Isaac story to make more sense.
God: Abraham, I want you to sacrifice your son to me.
Abraham: Whaat....Are you nuts? I'd sooner burn in hell for all eternity.
God: Well done my son. You truly are a brave man with a solid moral compass. If you had even tried to sacrifice your son, I would have given you a nasty case of genital warts.
How exactly did Christians manage to lose the location of Jesus' tomb? What's the chance that the single most important site in all of Christianity could just be lost?
it wasn't lost ...according to the Biblical text when they they went back to the tomb the stone was rolled back and he was gone "why do you seek the living among the dead...?"
at that point in time. . . with 30 followers. The death of jesus was nothing more than the execution of another false prophet. Jerusalem had seen this in and out throughout its existence . The universal jesus you now know. . . is only the result of centuries and centuries of known accumulation. To say that jesus was even a slightly "public figure" or at least a modest "known character" is just erroneous on all grounds.
At 8:53 D'souza says "You're elevating the degree of skepticism when dealing with Christ that you would nowhere apply to any other figure. Considering the "claim" that Jesus is the son of God, born of a virgin, sent to atone for all sins, performed numerous miracles and rose from the dead, would it not be reasonable to expect such extraordinary claims to have extraordinary evidence? Such claims about other figures get the same skepticism.
@fusedchromosome D'Souza was referring to simply the existence of Jesus, not any of His extraordinary claims. He is elevating the degree of skepticism and Dinesh is correct when he says that Hitchens is way outside the mainstream of critical scholarship regarding the "Historical Jesus."
Having a real man in history named Jesus means absolutely nothing. Was this man the son of a god and did he truly perform miracles...these are the things that cause the big debates. In reality...an overwhelming majority of historians, scholars, and scientists will tell you that this jesus was just one out of many people just roaming around claiming to be able to perform miracles while also claiming to be some sort of god.
@andyrooney11 It means several things. 1 It shows that Hitchens is speaking out of skepticsim and not fact. Virtually all critical scholars, including atheists and agnostics, agree that Jesus existed. 2 It is important that if Jesus was a real person in history then he can be investigated using historical methods unlike mytholgical ones. 3 Ancient historical reports of Jesus from secular sources are consistent with the NT reports.
@andyrooney11 Edwin Yamouchi, professor at Univ. of Miami (Ohio), has done extensive research on the founders of different religions. He has written that Jesus is the only one to made the claim to be God. No other founder of another religion ever made such a claim to Deity (only Jesus made this claim). Very important. Muhammad was a prophet, Buddha is atheistic, etc.
@andyrooney11 Moreover, skeptical scholars have recently discovered within the last 50 years that we can trace the worship of Jesus as God to virtually the time of His death (30AD). This is absolutely incredible when compared to other leaders who we only have their claims much later. In any event most would agree that each miracle claim should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Hitchens has poisoned himself by becoming a dictator not a supporter of atheism.He has no respect for certain people whether religious or not.His poison is not to win by de valuing God but by uplifting himself as a power of thought, superior. Poison thought with no edification to being atheist,Chris is esteeming thoughts of poison believing some people better.He truly believes his poison which has no edification for relationship is consistent to being god himself
the fear from believers is losing their belief and thus numbers, their pride, their way of life.
the fear from atheists is continued violence and ignorance, fundamentalists, hate for gays, races and other humans. atheists just want to live their life without religious interference and threats.
the proclamation that i will go to hell is an indirect threat from this person through "God". real "loving".
D'souza should then say the images of any other religions, be it Aztecs, Egyptian, or any other religion who made images of their gods is goodly influenced by their religion....... that's if you take out the good probability they may have been beheaded or jailed if they didn't believe in that religion.
if a god, and son of god existed, there should be an almost infinite multitude of evidence in the most amazing amount of widespread writings, not only during the time of jesus, but forever after.
What we have is 1 book, that was written many hundreds of years afterwards. That's a pathetic amount of evidence for the existence of anything that can be conceived.
um..NO. We have hundreds of fossils and skeletons, DNA, geological and many other forms of evidence that DEFINITIVEY show the world as being billions of years old (in direct contradiction to Genesis) and that humans have evolved. You may dispute darwin's version of events, but in all intellectual honesty you cannot compare with the sparcity of evidence associated with christianity.
lets say evolution other than the writings of darwin?"
The writings of Darwin are not relevant anymore; science has moved forward since they came out. The main evidence nowadays is in the nested hierarchy of species. Look up what it means to learn more.
Changing a life and heart from hate and violence.We fought against tyrants for generations
with the belief of life and liberty
Asking God to bless the u.s.a
If we would have been a atheist society,would we be willing to do the same? There is no evidence of science presented by guys like dawkins,hitchens,harris,connelly
Just watch fox news whenever there is a story about an atheist and you will see what hate your ideology can produce. Do a youtube search, there are plenty of examples. Now personally as an atheist living in the south...don't tell me it doesn't exist, because I have witnessed it and experienced it first hand all my life. Now if that's not your view...more power to you, but the vast majority of responses I get when someone learns I'm an atheist...is always with hate.
i lived in the south for awhile. and when they ask if you "have been saved by Christ" it's practically a threat sometimes. and when I would say (at the time) "i have my own belief system.." they looked like they were getting ready to hit me, as they interrogated which face was behind my "god".
if i was a Buddhist, i'm sure i could have expected at least some nasty words.
i attended a Pentecostal church while down there, and saw firsthand why these people are crazy.
Oh, I've had friends fired from their jobs because their religious bosses found out they are atheists. I had to move at one point and just go in the closet about my beliefs because I had "Christians" coming to my door weekly to harass me. I've been threatened, yelled at, called just about every name you can think of by these supposedly "loving" people. I've come to view Christianity as the largest cult in the world. I know there are good ones, but the vast majority is hateful and ignorant.
People do this all over the world...and without religion, or by other faith systems. Altruism isn't proof for god. Actually, the most atheistic country is Sweden and their morality rates due to crime are extremely low, teen pregnancy is low, substance abuse is low...you name the category, they are better than we are and by far. The stats are out there and are staggering. The less religious a country, the better off they are. Look it up and be amazed.
@dallased25 Yep - and the more oppressive a regime and impoverished/uneducated the people are that suffer under it - the more their need for religeon...
@dallased25 Yes people should look at scandinavia for inspiration for building a proper society. Almost no crime good education...the only thing that is holding us...or the young down in order to become truly great are theses godamm pop rock rap "stars" from USA. USA and the middle east needs to be erradicated in order for the human species to rise to higher levels of existeance...
@dallased25 nice try,but their abortion rate is higher than birth rate,and so in secular Russia, where the population is dwindling very quickly, and shows what such a civilization will end up as..see this article link..should explain everything for me....
@dallased25 But Sweden, as well as its Scandinavian counterparts, has had some serious problems in integrating its growing minority of Arab (and mostly Muslim) immigrants. I am not necessarily disputing your main argument, but I want to point out that Sweden is hardly without blemish, and whether or not we can attribute this its secularization is up for debate.
there is no wisdom in believing something based solely on something somebody else told you; which is the definition of faith. real wisdom is born from common sense. common sense is born from experience and knowledge. there is no experience to show that the christian faith is even remotely correct. the bible offers no knowledge. if america had been an atheist society; maybe you wouldn't been brutally fucked over by bush.
The religious argument that, because historians accept certain events through a criterion of documented evidence, that we should accept the resurrection of Jesus in the same manner, is crazy. The fundamental differences is that most recorded events involve occurrences that have been proven to, and still do, happen. Resurrections and miracles have never been proven to happen.
"You only have to turn another page to see [me] say, in my discussion of Athenian philosophy, that there's no proof of the existence of Socrates either ... but it doesn't make any difference. I can revere the Socratic method without having any need at all to deify, or put on a pedestal ... the person who invented it. ... There is no evidence but the hearsay of fans for the existence of Jesus ..."
Cue D'Souza, hastily switching to Prager for some pretend debating.
It may not matter to Christopher if Socrates existed or not, but it certainly matters to any historian worth his salt. You are too caught up in an oppositional frame of mind to see how little sense he is making.
The value of the work attributed to Socrates is not dependent upon whether he existed or not because his work consisted of methods of thinking that can be used and verified today. However, Jesus has all kinds of supernatural abilities attributed to him that can neither be used nor verified today. That he may have existed and imparted certain teachings is plausible to me - Hitchens may be wrong - but that he performed supernatural actions that are still unverifiable today is not.
I wonder to which trench the religious apologists will retreat their argument to next? All they seem to have left is the argument that religion inspires one to perform good deeds and beautiful works, they're not even trying anymore to assert that it proves the existence of God.
Although I must admit that Daniel Dennett's words of caution, about attacking some people's only motives for being good, make me feel that atheistic ethics and morality need to be more unified and promoted.
Both D'Souza and Prager in their supposed "questioning" of each other [let's call it that] are just establishing a pretense of scrutiny. They're refraining from asking the difficult questions of each other--but they never seem to falter when presenting tough questions with Hitchens and in fact, the two team-up against him. If they were intellectually-honest, they would vigorously scrutinize each other, because there are a vast number of points of contention between Christianity and Judaism.
God's test consisted of asking Abraham to do this though it appeared to him to be contradictory to the God he had come to know. It was a test of faith in the ultimate 'rightness' and trustworthiness of God apart from circumstances. This was a once only request (God would not do that today) as Abraham was the 'father' of faith and there was only one old testament 'picture' needed to teach us what salvation is all about - i.e. substitution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"God will provide Himself a lamb," Abraham had said. And He did. There was one there caught in the thicket. Note that, in contrast, God DID NOT provide a substitute for His own Son, the Lamb of God. He WAS sacrificed for the sins of the world. It's a wonderful story that is not understood unless you also understand the grace of God personally.
If Abraham "knew" that he would return to his servents, along with Isaac--then why persist in the folly of slaughtering his son to appease God, who asked Abraham in the first place to provide his son as a sacrifice? What was the overall motive? To illustrated that the knife to the throat, was never done; though it was attempted? The very fact that God would request such a thing is in and of itself, both atrocious, immoral, and tomfoolerish.
god loves playing these little games. Look at the trauma the son must have gone through. In today's world, anyone hearing voices which instruct him/her to commit murder would be diagnosed as schizophrenic. A number of women who killed their children have been so diagnosed.
What if Abraham was mentally ill and began a system of worship that has lasted this many years?
Sacrifice was the norm back then, and had been for hundreds of years. Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac was no surprise, it was merely his turn. The instruction, at the last moment, to not kill him was to represent how such sacrifices would never be necessary again.
I still say, nonetheless, he should have refused. If I felt as if God were asking me to do something, I wouldn't do it! However, one must always remember the context, which changes what to them was normal.
Such patronizing arrogance. Please realize that this sounds as ridiculous as someone saying, "How sad that you do not believe in Thor. I shall pray that one day you come to see his grace and are spared his mighty hammer. For he loves you even if you don't believe."
As for the sacrificial bit...disgusting bronze-age barbarism.
(my apologies if your comment was meant as a joke...it sounded that way)
Agreed. Both Catholicisn and the Pentecostalism of D'Souza's wife teach that the Jews are "unsaved" until they accept Jesus. D'Souza and Prager are being disingenuous, of course.-- but Hitchen's is quite aware of their ploy.
Abraham was justified by faith pictured in the substitution of a ram in the place of his son, Isaac. "God will provide Himself a lamb" Furthermore, he knew that Isaac would be resurrected "We will come again to you."
The basis of salvation is the same in both dispensations. Faith is the provision of God to put away sin through a substitute. Some prophets saw this more explicitly (e.g. Isaiah).
Salvation is ONLY through Christ. The OT points FORWARD to Him; the NT onwards points back.
The story of Abraham actually portrays a man prepared to do abominable evil because of his faith. He knows it's wrong, but he would do it anyway because his genii says to do it. It's an incredibly negative depiction of faith in action.
Can you honestly imagine how is son must have felt, knowingly being aware that his father was willing to slaughter him at any given notice of God wished for it? Even so, you'll exempt god on the basis of him being "all-knowing," "omnipotent," and "omniscient,'--which is a Special Pleading fallacy and therefore suggest that God is never immoral and yet God has, consistently, defiled his own "absolute" moral code on several well-documented occasions.
Wait now. Issac went willingly. He would have no problem running away from his aged dad.
Abraham came from a pagan society where child sacrifice was acceptable. God called him out of all that. The God that he had come to know exposed to him the repugnant and immoral nature of this act (not to mention its uselessness in redemptive terms). ...
Child sacrifice isn't "acceptabe." And for reference, God did no such thing and in fact ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son in the abhorrent and atrocious attempt to reveal his devotion to him. Only till after the Angel stayed his hand did Abraham cease in murdering his son.
It was simply provided as a picture for us of what God intended in the It says that Abraham KNEW that he would return again to his servants with Isaac, indicating that he knew that somehow this was NOT going to happen, or if it did, that God would raise Isaac from the dead. God never intended for the act to be done at all - hence the interruption when he saw Abraham's intended obedience. ..
I've read and seen a lot of debates, and I can never remember someone so thoroughly vaporized as D'Souza here. It must have been literally physically painful.
Hitchens actually brought up a very good point in this argument. Many of the things that we take as historical truths, a large portion of them don't solely depend on the existence of the individual they are ascribed to. Having said that, relying on the salvation of humanity, through Jesus Christ is dependent on him actually having existed; and still exist.
Sometimes I do feel embarrassed for HItchens when he continues on like that, but he's so damn smart that it really makes up for that other part of him.
The idiot who was questioning him continually tries to get the last word, and if it's a controversial or insulting statement, I wouldn't let him off either.
There was more than one person involved in the works and teachings of Jesus, instead of one in Islam. Muhammed getting the revaltion from Gibreel. Of course there was people following Muhammed but wouldn't know the words exactly as Gibreel said then unless it was taught them. People saw Jesus and he was document in pagan sources. Muhamed is well know to. but I find the teachings of Jesus more credible and the bible more credible than the Quran.
There was 20-30 years at minumn (according to Bart Ehramn in his debate with William Lane Craig) between the occurences of the New Testmenant Gospels and the writing down of it.
New Testament scholar Ben Witherington said
(though I can remeber the exact number
)at most 50 years after the fact.
Josh McDowell said that the the gospels were written around 80 CE.
Just because a religion spreads doesn't make it right or even logical. Muhammed according to Salman Rushdie and Hitch was illiterate
COuld someone explain Hitchens to me around 4:42 because to me what he is saying sounds like a non-sequiter because the influence of religion on culture is not a descriptor of its validity only its impact on its people.
it's interesting to note that these 2 guys, particularly Prager, are way better at questioning they're own faith directly than they are at questioning a man who openly doubts their faith. when they debate they don't attempt to demonstrate the validity of religion, they try to criminalize atheism as a faith, instead acknowledging that it as simply the nonbelief in their own belief... Alister McGrath is the only religious person i've seen debate without doing this (the entire time).
Now religion has merit because it fostered creativity, architecture, and art? Wow, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something postive to claim about an evil, irrational, dangerous, nonsensical, medevil, and lazy concept. Trying to take credit for the artistic works of great masters is ridiculous. Was Chopin inspired by God's gift to him of lifelong sickness and tuberculosis?
Or the science that led to him having an instrument called a piano, to be creative with.
I play the piano for years now and I am an atheist. I would take it as an insult if someone was to tell me that my skill was god given and not earned by my hours and hours of practice and devotion. I agree.
I think its quite interesting how D'Souza asks Chris a question then assumes that hes won the argument, lmfao!!!!! He obviously doesnt want to hear Chris' reply. Not to mention that both D'souza and Mr Dennis whatever (epitome of republican hypocrisy) are very evasive when asked a question, i dont blame Chris for cutting them off, because theyre not answering the questions he asks. And then like idiots they wanna get back at him, so they cut him off.
I am tired of hearing this statement, or others like it, "My evidence for my claim is in the bible". Anything other than a claim that something is actually said in the bible, or is written in it, is hearsay. Most claims that have the above supporting statement run something like this: God exists, and my evidence is in the bible. Jesus existed, and my evidence is in the bible. These statements are symptoms of resorting to only a book for the source of all ones knowledge.
Hitchens brings up a good point. Of the many things that we take as historical truths or philosophical truths, many of them don't depend on the actual existence of the person that they are ascribed to. On the other hand, the salvation of humanity through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is dependent on Jesus Christ actually existing, and actually performing the miraculous feats attributed to him.
D'Souza brings up Alexander the Great and Socrates as cases where the historical record of both men has contradictory accounts. However, what D'Souza fails to mention is that in both Alexander's/Socrates' case, any miraculous powers ascribed to them (as was the case with Alexander) are dismissed by historians as legendary and utter fabrication. Historians do parse the data and measure probabilities. So if D'Souza is consistent, he must relinquish his notion of Jesus as a miracle worker/divine.
D'Souza asked where is the Christian Bin Laden or Ayatollah. The Christian radicals, akin to their Islamic counterparts, are in two areas. They are in the annals of history (i.e. Catholic Crusaders/Inquisitors and Protestant violent reformers) who have been denuded of power due to the SECULARIZATION of the west. The second place they exist is in the Christian fundamentalists of today, such as Robertson/Falwell, etc, whose ideas are just as dangerous as those of Islamic radicals.
Both Prager and D'Souza in their "questioning" of each other (if you can call it that) are merely putting up a pretense of scrutiny. They aren't really asking the tough questions of each other like they do with Hitchens. They are there to gang up on Hitchens. If they were intellectually honest they would vigorously scrutinize each other, because there are many points of contention between Judaism and Christianity. If there weren't any seminal differences, why would there be different religions.
the thing i cant get over is The Ark, Moses took two of EVERY ANIMAL on board, do you know how many different animal species there are TODAY, let alone a few thousand years ago where the animal kingdom hasnt been subject to the destruction of man, now, if theres 2 of every, lets say, 100 000 animals, do u know how big this ark would have to be, and if it is that big, then why hasnt it been found yet? we can find tiny tiny bones of dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago
idiot dinesh..hindusim believes in pluralism..its the only religion that doesn't encourage conversion....there are many paths to obtain the divine inclusing atheism..
It does seem to be all myth. There were people writing good history a the time. Somehow they entirely missed a star in the East, Herod's murder of all male children, the public miracles, resurrections and opening of all the graves, and mention of Jesus. It's the reverse of all other historical figures in that the mystical exaggerations came first (Paul) and uncorroborated conflicting biographical tidbits were added much later, largely copied from the prophecies they were written to fulfill.
I'm a Christian. Hitchens was right in asking believing in One Way to Heaven(basically) to D'Souza. Prager may be the consistant one so far in his belief the God.(I have to watch the next video)
"Religions take their turn at bat" One of my favorite Hitch moments.
Garro2 1 month ago
7:50 Pure hitchslap. Turn the page Dinesh you dumb shit.
stewscum 4 months ago
oh my god. what the fuck are these three even arguing about? The point needs to be the existence of God or gods, not this petty this. Most of the topics in this series of videos is arguing Christopher Hitchens fucking subtitle, as if it even matters. And Dennis Prager just tries to discredit Atheism as just as dogmatic, which still is rather irrelevant the most important topic of all. DOES GOD FUCKING EXIST.
FoldedTapestry 4 months ago
"let them speak for themselves" they are dead moron
ThePenguinColonel 5 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 5 months ago
What about the KKK?
Saitothesushi 6 months ago
5:14 "What about the beautiful mosques they built?" Hahaha!
D'Souza is no match for Hitchens neither is Prager.
And I think it's really rich of D'Souza to talk about historical and scholarly irresponsibility.
nowgleaning 6 months ago
I feel so sorry for Hitchens here. This has got to be one of those most vapid debates I've ever seen, thanks to those two simpletons on our right.
flobblepop1 7 months ago 2
i wish the moderator would stfu, its like shes trying to degrading the debate to an interview
gta747 7 months ago
Why are Christians and Jews suddenly buddying up together to hate Islam? Christianity and Islam both come from Judaism originally. Judaism probably has more in common with Islam than Christianity because of Christianity's troubling issue of the holy trinity/G-d being a man/etc. Why do Christians and Jews in the US deny that Islam has brought good to the world too? When Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was flourishing in the areas of science, philosophy, maths, you name it.
themonkeywrench 8 months ago
@themonkeywrench Because both D'Souza and Prager are politically right-wing. That's the relevent confound, I think. And yeah, Islam (or rather Islamic culture) had developed germ theory about the same time as Christians were burning witches to combat the plague.
stoprainingonme 8 months ago
Comment removed
themonkeywrench 8 months ago
this is easily the most annoying debate i have ever watched ughhhhh. i cant watch any more those people are so stupid!
kickmeout1 8 months ago
HITCHSLAP!!!!
plutoniumseller 9 months ago
see dinesh article in sfgate.com on 'God knows why faith is thriving"....should clear up the whole issue..
cykoaudio777 9 months ago
@cykoaudio777 lol, I will look it up, but anything written by Dinesh automatically is suspect since he tends to lie or manipulate the stats to support his view. Can't tell you how many times he's been caught lying in his debates. I'd be impressed if the stats or info was from a secular source or non-biased source, such as where I pulled my info which was from pure stats/surveys on quality of life. I'll read it, but I'll also look for another source due to Dinesh's history.
dallased25 9 months ago
@dallased25 I find Dinesh annoying as all hell, but when does he outright lie? Could you give an example?
darwinkilledgod 6 months ago
After all Mr Dinesh, even today with all the most advanced technology and a foto camera in the hands of nearly human in the world we can still get very different information on any event.
So yes, we do not have much evidence for anything in history, even 90% could be pure fantasy.
Even the holocaust could be less the 100.000 deaths, there is no way of proving 6 million Jews died, there are no precise registers.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidece.
saintpine 9 months ago
dinesh apperently wants to ask questions & not let hitchens answer them, he gets frustrated when hitchens gets more than halfway through his answers, & then ppl think hitchens is being rude & interrupting, oh please
MlSHKlN 10 months ago
D'Souza really likes to reuse arguments, and yet he also likes to claim that every debate with Hitchen's is different.
TheWanderingAngel 10 months ago
Hitchens - 6
Dinesh - 0
Prager -Negative 1
SechyoolarYOOESAY 10 months ago
Cross Examine: Hitchens' shows himself to be the bully mouth piece as usual and doesn't allow anyone to respond as he interrupts them continually and shifts directions. The debate should have had a moderator to bitch slap some politeness into the Hitch.
johnspartan98 10 months ago
My evidence that the Enterprise is real is in Star Trek.
Mafiaaffe 10 months ago
Regardless of whether Socrates did or not exist is not relevant because his method can be admired without giving him super human, and deity powers! Touche! Hitchens is merciless!
esiosan 11 months ago
Watching this, I can literally see all of Hitchens' cheerleaders thinking he's owning this debate, and having no idea of how completely full of shit he is.
His argument regarding Dinesh's question (that kicked his sensationalist subtitle in the nuts) was "We con't know fo sho that they believed in wot they wu doing." People, you HAVE to understand that that is a baseless, immensely speculative - and highly contradicted - mish-mash of sensationalist nonsense with ZERO intellectual import.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic or maybe there are ppl who can see that hitch is sensationalist, but can also see that d'souza and prager, like all their predecessors, fail to move to the theist position, that this god is on favors america, doesn't want us to eat ham, is unhappy when men put plastic on their penises or sleeps with other men, is pleased when women put veils of cloth on their faces, and demands the foreskins of little boys.
bethnor 1 year ago
@bethnor
Oh, no doubt. This entire fiasco of the theist/atheist debate looks more like a way to sell books than anything else. No definitive headspace is provided on either side, save for the conventional viewpoint in each respective camp. The irony is that there really is no actual debate; people are going to believe what they choose, and are entitled to do so. If we aren't sovereign over our own consciousness, then the word "freedom" should disappear from our cultural lexicon.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic further, one doesn't have to cheer hitchens to agree with him that the theists can believe whatever they wish, as so long as they keep it to themselves. this to include: persecution of homosexuals, subjugation of women, standing athwart women's access to control of their reproductive cycle, fighting over land that is no more holy than the hairs on my ass, etc., etc.
bethnor 1 year ago
@bethnor
What you are implicating as purely religious subjugation and violence would be much more truthful if stated as "the innate capacity for human dominion."
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic did i say it is purely religious? i have no doubt that people would do those things even if religion were eradicated. but without religion, people would just have to face their own biases without using the spiritual and the supernatural as a paper shield, which is just a cheap form of moral cowardice.
bethnor 1 year ago
@bethnor
So you're advocating the abandonment of spirituality, and liken it to moral cowardice?
That I would liken to an intellectual infant. Surely you don't believe that nonsense.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic did i say people should abandon spirituality? if ppl want to have their religion, GREAT. go nuts. BUT I DON'T WANT IT and YOU CAN'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT TOO. capice? if they wanna say x is an abomination, FINE. but it's definitely a form of cowardice to say, "it's not me! god says i have to feel that way."
deny that all you wish.
bethnor 1 year ago
@bethnor
Um, actually that was my point as well....no need to press the caps button to exercise redundancy. Of course people can believe what they want. And they should be able to express their beliefs as well, don't you agree? So, if you live in a country where religious freedom is accepted, as well as freedom of speech, you're going to hear about it. Sorry.
"It's not me! God says I have to feel that way." ??? I personally don't know anyone other than you that's ever said that.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic then you'll just have to believe me that's it must be nice not to have people say that to you. i certainly don't like it.
and sure, i am going to hear about religious beliefs. but i don't have to accept them as laws under which i must live.
bethnor 1 year ago
Uganda...
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
Built on the pillars of Athens? Yes. Built on the Athens of Jerusalem? No. Just...no... The modern world, from mathematics to science to republicanism to democracy is SOLELY the result of Athens and Greece. The very basis of the modern world is based on Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Jerusalem and Christianity. In fact, it was because of Christianity that the mathematics and science of the Greeks was almost lost for eternity.....
tskasa1 1 year ago
@JWGames That comment would make more sense if he was debating with two mirrors.
ArtoftheState1 1 year ago
It's clear that Hitchens enjoys the sound of his voice more than he enjoys engaging in serious debate.
JWGames 1 year ago
Hitchens fucked upppppp Dsouza in his own argument.
Bluelincolnpark 1 year ago
Hitch is one of the worlds most important intellectuals,thank goodness his
still with us.
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
My peeshee hurts.
thetwentyteens 1 year ago
Hitchens owns so much they had to let two christians loose on him and they still couldnt handle him haha
angrysamoan87 1 year ago 10
@angrysamoan87 Way to listen to the debate. 1 Christian & 1 Jew.
D3uscaritas3st 1 month ago
Prager's okay, there's no need to say really nasty hateful things about him. Consider the arguments, don't lower yourself to saying nasty shit. I don't dislike any of these people, I only care about the topic and arguments.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
Hitchens should get out a fork from under his jacket... and stick it in Dinesh.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens has such a hard time with real dialogue. He spends most of his time figuring out how to make his attacks sound more ornate, convoluted and snarky than anything else. Such an arrogant and dismissive man... wrong about his knowledge of science almost entirely and doesn't even know it. Sad.
jmchristian63 1 year ago
@jmchristian63 You are a troll with no care for what is right, just what suits your palate
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
@jmchristian63 if you push "On" button back of your brain you'll more able to understand that your likely to waste your entire life existing on complete bullshit.
Well done.
SvendsenAtheist 1 year ago
I feel like beating that white haired bastard with a stick.
tipoomaster 1 year ago
LMFAO Dinesh is a little bitch...anyone else notice that he didn't have the balls to say anything to Hitchens when he kept cutting Dinesh off? Hitchens is not afraid of a confrontation...Dinesh is like a little female chihuahua.
andyrooney11 1 year ago
Dinesh is absolutely correct in saying that Hitchens is way out there by denying Jesus' existence with regard to critical scholarship. There are over 10 non-Christian/secular sources that refer to Jesus close to Jesus' lifetime. Three Roman historians, Tacitus (55-120AD), Seutonius (writes around 41-54), and Josephus (37-97AD), all wrote about Jesus within 100 years of Jesus' lifetime. Jesus is multiply attested, the accounts are early, there is enemy attestation, and embarrassing testimony.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
I modified the Abraham/Isaac story to make more sense.
God: Abraham, I want you to sacrifice your son to me.
Abraham: Whaat....Are you nuts? I'd sooner burn in hell for all eternity.
God: Well done my son. You truly are a brave man with a solid moral compass. If you had even tried to sacrifice your son, I would have given you a nasty case of genital warts.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
How exactly did Christians manage to lose the location of Jesus' tomb? What's the chance that the single most important site in all of Christianity could just be lost?
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
it wasn't lost ...according to the Biblical text when they they went back to the tomb the stone was rolled back and he was gone "why do you seek the living among the dead...?"
BarzOnTheWindow1 1 year ago
at that point in time. . . with 30 followers. The death of jesus was nothing more than the execution of another false prophet. Jerusalem had seen this in and out throughout its existence . The universal jesus you now know. . . is only the result of centuries and centuries of known accumulation. To say that jesus was even a slightly "public figure" or at least a modest "known character" is just erroneous on all grounds.
seven2me 1 year ago
At 8:53 D'souza says "You're elevating the degree of skepticism when dealing with Christ that you would nowhere apply to any other figure. Considering the "claim" that Jesus is the son of God, born of a virgin, sent to atone for all sins, performed numerous miracles and rose from the dead, would it not be reasonable to expect such extraordinary claims to have extraordinary evidence? Such claims about other figures get the same skepticism.
D'Souza is simply full of shit on that one.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
@fusedchromosome D'Souza was referring to simply the existence of Jesus, not any of His extraordinary claims. He is elevating the degree of skepticism and Dinesh is correct when he says that Hitchens is way outside the mainstream of critical scholarship regarding the "Historical Jesus."
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
Having a real man in history named Jesus means absolutely nothing. Was this man the son of a god and did he truly perform miracles...these are the things that cause the big debates. In reality...an overwhelming majority of historians, scholars, and scientists will tell you that this jesus was just one out of many people just roaming around claiming to be able to perform miracles while also claiming to be some sort of god.
andyrooney11 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 It means several things. 1 It shows that Hitchens is speaking out of skepticsim and not fact. Virtually all critical scholars, including atheists and agnostics, agree that Jesus existed. 2 It is important that if Jesus was a real person in history then he can be investigated using historical methods unlike mytholgical ones. 3 Ancient historical reports of Jesus from secular sources are consistent with the NT reports.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 4 We can evaluate Jesus' claims as historical or not. I can give you more if you like. I think ultimately your point is that:
"Many people claimed to perform miracles and be God.
Jesus made similar claims.
These people were not who they claimed to be, therefore, neither was Jesus."
But this is mistaken on several levels just from a historians point of view.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 Edwin Yamouchi, professor at Univ. of Miami (Ohio), has done extensive research on the founders of different religions. He has written that Jesus is the only one to made the claim to be God. No other founder of another religion ever made such a claim to Deity (only Jesus made this claim). Very important. Muhammad was a prophet, Buddha is atheistic, etc.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 Moreover, skeptical scholars have recently discovered within the last 50 years that we can trace the worship of Jesus as God to virtually the time of His death (30AD). This is absolutely incredible when compared to other leaders who we only have their claims much later. In any event most would agree that each miracle claim should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
Hitchens has poisoned himself by becoming a dictator not a supporter of atheism.He has no respect for certain people whether religious or not.His poison is not to win by de valuing God but by uplifting himself as a power of thought, superior. Poison thought with no edification to being atheist,Chris is esteeming thoughts of poison believing some people better.He truly believes his poison which has no edification for relationship is consistent to being god himself
polopowers1 1 year ago
those chairs are too big lol.
there are fears of the religious and atheist.
the fear from believers is losing their belief and thus numbers, their pride, their way of life.
the fear from atheists is continued violence and ignorance, fundamentalists, hate for gays, races and other humans. atheists just want to live their life without religious interference and threats.
the proclamation that i will go to hell is an indirect threat from this person through "God". real "loving".
visualkei72 1 year ago
Thank God we're atheist, right? (Joke.)
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
lol
TheWinepusher 1 year ago
painful death if they did not afirm their belief in God
WHAT A LOAD OF BUILLSHIT
niinja2 2 years ago
well.. this is why you dont ask ppl loaded questions. iF you ask 5 things in one question... expect an answer to all of them or dont ask them.
leojboby 2 years ago 2
Hitchens thinks too fast for them.
D'souza should then say the images of any other religions, be it Aztecs, Egyptian, or any other religion who made images of their gods is goodly influenced by their religion....... that's if you take out the good probability they may have been beheaded or jailed if they didn't believe in that religion.
fonna 2 years ago
hitchens is a dick
bassplayer5466 2 years ago
Dicks fuck pussies like D'souza and assholes like Prager
Mercurybath 2 years ago
@bassplayer5466 and you are the vagina.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
OWNED, jesus, their is no evidence of you, except for a bible written 300 years later.
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
if a god, and son of god existed, there should be an almost infinite multitude of evidence in the most amazing amount of widespread writings, not only during the time of jesus, but forever after.
What we have is 1 book, that was written many hundreds of years afterwards. That's a pathetic amount of evidence for the existence of anything that can be conceived.
WisdomVendor 2 years ago 3
And how much evidence do you have for
lets say evolution other than the writings of darwin?
The only answer is?
The origin of species gave a platform to think about those things you believe
The bible does that through those who believe
constant interpetation
Based on truth!
Based on God ( Jesus Christ the true Nature of God)
Based on the excistance of the Holy Spirit That inspires us to look into the heart!
i will wait for the attack!
tr6tpdwn 2 years ago
um..NO. We have hundreds of fossils and skeletons, DNA, geological and many other forms of evidence that DEFINITIVEY show the world as being billions of years old (in direct contradiction to Genesis) and that humans have evolved. You may dispute darwin's version of events, but in all intellectual honesty you cannot compare with the sparcity of evidence associated with christianity.
bigbossman999 2 years ago 2
Lmao, did you honestly just say the only evidence for evolution is Darwins writings? Jesus Christ, no wonder you believe in god.
Mercurybath 2 years ago 53
"And how much evidence do you have for
lets say evolution other than the writings of darwin?"
The writings of Darwin are not relevant anymore; science has moved forward since they came out. The main evidence nowadays is in the nested hierarchy of species. Look up what it means to learn more.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
Knowledge is good ,wisdom is better.
if science has definetly
found the answer of the origin of man,
there would be no need to debate.
This video presents no fact to those points,it seem to me that is more philosophy than science.
tr6tpdwn 2 years ago
You ask where is the evidence
the good to humanity that faith produces
fighting hunger, poverty,persecution.
Changing a life and heart from hate and violence.We fought against tyrants for generations
with the belief of life and liberty
Asking God to bless the u.s.a
If we would have been a atheist society,would we be willing to do the same? There is no evidence of science presented by guys like dawkins,hitchens,harris,connelly
yet people buy into it, and buy there books
tr6tpdwn 2 years ago
,when you can show me "here is the facts".
there will only be one outcome,the debate of philosophy and ideas.
For me ill stand in the Love of Christ
and you can stand with the hateful ideas of the new atheism .
look at this whole concept.Somehow
faith in Christ produces hate and violence towards fellow man.
when you can show me the proof of that
i might change my ideology
until then, I will Make my stand for Christ and his teaching,along with the teachings of those who followed him.
tr6tpdwn 2 years ago
Just watch fox news whenever there is a story about an atheist and you will see what hate your ideology can produce. Do a youtube search, there are plenty of examples. Now personally as an atheist living in the south...don't tell me it doesn't exist, because I have witnessed it and experienced it first hand all my life. Now if that's not your view...more power to you, but the vast majority of responses I get when someone learns I'm an atheist...is always with hate.
dallased25 2 years ago 4
@dallased25
i lived in the south for awhile. and when they ask if you "have been saved by Christ" it's practically a threat sometimes. and when I would say (at the time) "i have my own belief system.." they looked like they were getting ready to hit me, as they interrogated which face was behind my "god".
if i was a Buddhist, i'm sure i could have expected at least some nasty words.
i attended a Pentecostal church while down there, and saw firsthand why these people are crazy.
visualkei72 1 year ago 2
Oh, I've had friends fired from their jobs because their religious bosses found out they are atheists. I had to move at one point and just go in the closet about my beliefs because I had "Christians" coming to my door weekly to harass me. I've been threatened, yelled at, called just about every name you can think of by these supposedly "loving" people. I've come to view Christianity as the largest cult in the world. I know there are good ones, but the vast majority is hateful and ignorant.
dallased25 1 year ago 5
Yup, that good humanity faith in Islam produces
What would we do without suicide bombers?
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
What about the beautiful mosques they're building :)
SockbatReplica 2 years ago 2
...... they are nice ...... LOL
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
People do this all over the world...and without religion, or by other faith systems. Altruism isn't proof for god. Actually, the most atheistic country is Sweden and their morality rates due to crime are extremely low, teen pregnancy is low, substance abuse is low...you name the category, they are better than we are and by far. The stats are out there and are staggering. The less religious a country, the better off they are. Look it up and be amazed.
dallased25 2 years ago 33
@dallased25 correlation equals causation!!!
oh wait...
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
@dallased25 Yep - and the more oppressive a regime and impoverished/uneducated the people are that suffer under it - the more their need for religeon...
timspencer1 10 months ago
@dallased25 Yes people should look at scandinavia for inspiration for building a proper society. Almost no crime good education...the only thing that is holding us...or the young down in order to become truly great are theses godamm pop rock rap "stars" from USA. USA and the middle east needs to be erradicated in order for the human species to rise to higher levels of existeance...
Hermoor 9 months ago
@dallased25 nice try,but their abortion rate is higher than birth rate,and so in secular Russia, where the population is dwindling very quickly, and shows what such a civilization will end up as..see this article link..should explain everything for me....
cykoaudio777 9 months ago
@dallased25 But Sweden, as well as its Scandinavian counterparts, has had some serious problems in integrating its growing minority of Arab (and mostly Muslim) immigrants. I am not necessarily disputing your main argument, but I want to point out that Sweden is hardly without blemish, and whether or not we can attribute this its secularization is up for debate.
writersblock26 5 months ago
If god is true then there is no reason to debate.
superflythaiguy 2 years ago
there is no wisdom in believing something based solely on something somebody else told you; which is the definition of faith. real wisdom is born from common sense. common sense is born from experience and knowledge. there is no experience to show that the christian faith is even remotely correct. the bible offers no knowledge. if america had been an atheist society; maybe you wouldn't been brutally fucked over by bush.
AcidLady85 2 years ago
Comment removed
rosenseeu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens attacks and makes fun same with Dick Dawkins....geat entertainment though....not science at all.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
Prager is "cross-examining" D'Souza even though they have the same position? This debate was not well thought out.
barry123www 2 years ago 2
The religious argument that, because historians accept certain events through a criterion of documented evidence, that we should accept the resurrection of Jesus in the same manner, is crazy. The fundamental differences is that most recorded events involve occurrences that have been proven to, and still do, happen. Resurrections and miracles have never been proven to happen.
Valelacerte 2 years ago 4
"On what basis do you deny the historicity - forget the divinity - just the historicity of Christ?" --D'Souza
Were you not paying attention to what was being said in the debate, or were you going off on a kind of tangent in your comment?
Craigmin 2 years ago
To which Hitchens responds:
"You only have to turn another page to see [me] say, in my discussion of Athenian philosophy, that there's no proof of the existence of Socrates either ... but it doesn't make any difference. I can revere the Socratic method without having any need at all to deify, or put on a pedestal ... the person who invented it. ... There is no evidence but the hearsay of fans for the existence of Jesus ..."
Cue D'Souza, hastily switching to Prager for some pretend debating.
Valelacerte 2 years ago 2
It may not matter to Christopher if Socrates existed or not, but it certainly matters to any historian worth his salt. You are too caught up in an oppositional frame of mind to see how little sense he is making.
Craigmin 2 years ago
The value of the work attributed to Socrates is not dependent upon whether he existed or not because his work consisted of methods of thinking that can be used and verified today. However, Jesus has all kinds of supernatural abilities attributed to him that can neither be used nor verified today. That he may have existed and imparted certain teachings is plausible to me - Hitchens may be wrong - but that he performed supernatural actions that are still unverifiable today is not.
Valelacerte 2 years ago 2
"The value of the work attributed to Socrates is not dependent upon whether he existed or not..."
This is neither here nor there as far as the historian is concerned, and Christopher knows it.
Craigmin 2 years ago
If you don't mind me asking: what is your position on Jesus, do you believe that Jesus was the son of God and performed miracles?
Valelacerte 2 years ago
While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and ask me if I'm a Young Earth Creationist? Hehe.
Craigmin 2 years ago
No, I won't. It's clear that you're more invested in obfuscation than coherence.
Valelacerte 2 years ago
Whatever you say, bub.
Craigmin 2 years ago
So you are correct that seeing necessarly is not believing.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
I wonder to which trench the religious apologists will retreat their argument to next? All they seem to have left is the argument that religion inspires one to perform good deeds and beautiful works, they're not even trying anymore to assert that it proves the existence of God.
Although I must admit that Daniel Dennett's words of caution, about attacking some people's only motives for being good, make me feel that atheistic ethics and morality need to be more unified and promoted.
Valelacerte 2 years ago
Both D'Souza and Prager in their supposed "questioning" of each other [let's call it that] are just establishing a pretense of scrutiny. They're refraining from asking the difficult questions of each other--but they never seem to falter when presenting tough questions with Hitchens and in fact, the two team-up against him. If they were intellectually-honest, they would vigorously scrutinize each other, because there are a vast number of points of contention between Christianity and Judaism.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago 3
God's test consisted of asking Abraham to do this though it appeared to him to be contradictory to the God he had come to know. It was a test of faith in the ultimate 'rightness' and trustworthiness of God apart from circumstances. This was a once only request (God would not do that today) as Abraham was the 'father' of faith and there was only one old testament 'picture' needed to teach us what salvation is all about - i.e. substitution.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"God will provide Himself a lamb," Abraham had said. And He did. There was one there caught in the thicket. Note that, in contrast, God DID NOT provide a substitute for His own Son, the Lamb of God. He WAS sacrificed for the sins of the world. It's a wonderful story that is not understood unless you also understand the grace of God personally.
I hope that someday you will.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
If Abraham "knew" that he would return to his servents, along with Isaac--then why persist in the folly of slaughtering his son to appease God, who asked Abraham in the first place to provide his son as a sacrifice? What was the overall motive? To illustrated that the knife to the throat, was never done; though it was attempted? The very fact that God would request such a thing is in and of itself, both atrocious, immoral, and tomfoolerish.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago 3
god loves playing these little games. Look at the trauma the son must have gone through. In today's world, anyone hearing voices which instruct him/her to commit murder would be diagnosed as schizophrenic. A number of women who killed their children have been so diagnosed.
What if Abraham was mentally ill and began a system of worship that has lasted this many years?
kadene2 2 years ago 5
Sacrifice was the norm back then, and had been for hundreds of years. Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac was no surprise, it was merely his turn. The instruction, at the last moment, to not kill him was to represent how such sacrifices would never be necessary again.
I still say, nonetheless, he should have refused. If I felt as if God were asking me to do something, I wouldn't do it! However, one must always remember the context, which changes what to them was normal.
Birdieupon 2 years ago
"I hope that someday you will. "
Such patronizing arrogance. Please realize that this sounds as ridiculous as someone saying, "How sad that you do not believe in Thor. I shall pray that one day you come to see his grace and are spared his mighty hammer. For he loves you even if you don't believe."
As for the sacrificial bit...disgusting bronze-age barbarism.
(my apologies if your comment was meant as a joke...it sounded that way)
DJCeles 2 years ago 2
Agreed. Both Catholicisn and the Pentecostalism of D'Souza's wife teach that the Jews are "unsaved" until they accept Jesus. D'Souza and Prager are being disingenuous, of course.-- but Hitchen's is quite aware of their ploy.
kadene2 2 years ago 4
Damn, Hitchens is just pwning both of them easily it's almost embarrassing.
thelordmemnoch 2 years ago
Hitchens = win.
jmsimpson11 2 years ago
Abraham was justified by faith pictured in the substitution of a ram in the place of his son, Isaac. "God will provide Himself a lamb" Furthermore, he knew that Isaac would be resurrected "We will come again to you."
The basis of salvation is the same in both dispensations. Faith is the provision of God to put away sin through a substitute. Some prophets saw this more explicitly (e.g. Isaiah).
Salvation is ONLY through Christ. The OT points FORWARD to Him; the NT onwards points back.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
The story of Abraham actually portrays a man prepared to do abominable evil because of his faith. He knows it's wrong, but he would do it anyway because his genii says to do it. It's an incredibly negative depiction of faith in action.
mammers11 2 years ago 3
fuck that ram! yeah!
bigdicky321 2 years ago
Abraham wasn't "justified" by any such means.
Can you honestly imagine how is son must have felt, knowingly being aware that his father was willing to slaughter him at any given notice of God wished for it? Even so, you'll exempt god on the basis of him being "all-knowing," "omnipotent," and "omniscient,'--which is a Special Pleading fallacy and therefore suggest that God is never immoral and yet God has, consistently, defiled his own "absolute" moral code on several well-documented occasions.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago 3
Wait now. Issac went willingly. He would have no problem running away from his aged dad.
Abraham came from a pagan society where child sacrifice was acceptable. God called him out of all that. The God that he had come to know exposed to him the repugnant and immoral nature of this act (not to mention its uselessness in redemptive terms). ...
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Child sacrifice isn't "acceptabe." And for reference, God did no such thing and in fact ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son in the abhorrent and atrocious attempt to reveal his devotion to him. Only till after the Angel stayed his hand did Abraham cease in murdering his son.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago
It was simply provided as a picture for us of what God intended in the It says that Abraham KNEW that he would return again to his servants with Isaac, indicating that he knew that somehow this was NOT going to happen, or if it did, that God would raise Isaac from the dead. God never intended for the act to be done at all - hence the interruption when he saw Abraham's intended obedience. ..
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
I've read and seen a lot of debates, and I can never remember someone so thoroughly vaporized as D'Souza here. It must have been literally physically painful.
WCFieldsGhost 2 years ago
Hitchens actually brought up a very good point in this argument. Many of the things that we take as historical truths, a large portion of them don't solely depend on the existence of the individual they are ascribed to. Having said that, relying on the salvation of humanity, through Jesus Christ is dependent on him actually having existed; and still exist.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago
Go to the next video you'll see Hitchens smiling after this.
blahblahhuh1 2 years ago
Dinesh is such an excellent debater.
"Whoops, he's pressing my claim here, time to change the subject and declare it in case it's not obvious enough!"
Rykemasters 2 years ago
Sometimes I do feel embarrassed for HItchens when he continues on like that, but he's so damn smart that it really makes up for that other part of him.
RelievesChappedLips2 2 years ago 2
The idiot who was questioning him continually tries to get the last word, and if it's a controversial or insulting statement, I wouldn't let him off either.
gsofficial 2 years ago 3
I think hitchens really likes to hear himself talk. He just keeps on going....and going and going.......and going
0001kd 2 years ago
But he is accurate and correct.
ChuckBleedinNorris 2 years ago
well as do many of us listeners. unfortunaltely very few debators, irrespective of belief, get even close to the same entertainment value.
Hectachrome 2 years ago
On 00:34; Hey Dinesh, in the Old Testament Satan is also seen in heaven, so will Satanists be there also?
keangleer 2 years ago 5
The Quran was around 60 years after Muhammed recieved it supposedly from Gibreel and Muhammed died about 20 years afterwards.
My point is that everything in Islam depends of the credibility of Muhammed. With Jesus that is not so.
Valkyrie0010 2 years ago
There was more than one person involved in the works and teachings of Jesus, instead of one in Islam. Muhammed getting the revaltion from Gibreel. Of course there was people following Muhammed but wouldn't know the words exactly as Gibreel said then unless it was taught them. People saw Jesus and he was document in pagan sources. Muhamed is well know to. but I find the teachings of Jesus more credible and the bible more credible than the Quran.
Valkyrie0010 2 years ago
There was 20-30 years at minumn (according to Bart Ehramn in his debate with William Lane Craig) between the occurences of the New Testmenant Gospels and the writing down of it.
New Testament scholar Ben Witherington said
(though I can remeber the exact number
)at most 50 years after the fact.
Josh McDowell said that the the gospels were written around 80 CE.
Just because a religion spreads doesn't make it right or even logical. Muhammed according to Salman Rushdie and Hitch was illiterate
Valkyrie0010 2 years ago
COuld someone explain Hitchens to me around 4:42 because to me what he is saying sounds like a non-sequiter because the influence of religion on culture is not a descriptor of its validity only its impact on its people.
Valkyrie0010 2 years ago
Hitchens looks hungry; Dinesh burgers and Dennis-cabob seem to be the order of the day.
Pacinofan78 2 years ago 5
Haha, well said.
kasuskasus 2 years ago
it's interesting to note that these 2 guys, particularly Prager, are way better at questioning they're own faith directly than they are at questioning a man who openly doubts their faith. when they debate they don't attempt to demonstrate the validity of religion, they try to criminalize atheism as a faith, instead acknowledging that it as simply the nonbelief in their own belief... Alister McGrath is the only religious person i've seen debate without doing this (the entire time).
watchzeitgeist 2 years ago
Now religion has merit because it fostered creativity, architecture, and art? Wow, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something postive to claim about an evil, irrational, dangerous, nonsensical, medevil, and lazy concept. Trying to take credit for the artistic works of great masters is ridiculous. Was Chopin inspired by God's gift to him of lifelong sickness and tuberculosis?
Or the science that led to him having an instrument called a piano, to be creative with.
hooooooman 2 years ago 2
I play the piano for years now and I am an atheist. I would take it as an insult if someone was to tell me that my skill was god given and not earned by my hours and hours of practice and devotion. I agree.
Love9sick 2 years ago 2
d'souza completely skates over hitchens point of not NEEDING religion to make beautiful art. would bachs suites have sucked if he wasn't religious?
d'souza flat out characteristics hitchens argument of not being able to ever solidly know who was religious, and it's terrible
iamjurell 2 years ago 2
@ 5:40 D'Souza wanted to know who the Christian Hezbollah is. Here is the answer. How about the SSNP in Lebanon?
ParadigmaticShift 2 years ago 2
Dinesh: "... where Abraham who came before Jesus, didn't know Jesus, didn't accept Jesus."
John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
GO FUCK YOURSELF, DINESH!
highwind8124 2 years ago
Maybe it's just me, but I think Hitchens is maintaining his resolve against two religious fucktards...
chessdawgz 2 years ago
I think its quite interesting how D'Souza asks Chris a question then assumes that hes won the argument, lmfao!!!!! He obviously doesnt want to hear Chris' reply. Not to mention that both D'souza and Mr Dennis whatever (epitome of republican hypocrisy) are very evasive when asked a question, i dont blame Chris for cutting them off, because theyre not answering the questions he asks. And then like idiots they wanna get back at him, so they cut him off.
Zeitgeist1101 2 years ago
I am tired of hearing this statement, or others like it, "My evidence for my claim is in the bible". Anything other than a claim that something is actually said in the bible, or is written in it, is hearsay. Most claims that have the above supporting statement run something like this: God exists, and my evidence is in the bible. Jesus existed, and my evidence is in the bible. These statements are symptoms of resorting to only a book for the source of all ones knowledge.
Geoinmotion 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Does my head in when someone can 'cite' the bible in one breath, then ask about historical authenticity in another.
loveian1 2 years ago
Comment removed
loveian1 2 years ago
D'Souza ignores much of history when asking Hitchens to provide a country operating under terroistic christian theocracies.
anwyll 2 years ago
Hitchens brings up a good point. Of the many things that we take as historical truths or philosophical truths, many of them don't depend on the actual existence of the person that they are ascribed to. On the other hand, the salvation of humanity through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is dependent on Jesus Christ actually existing, and actually performing the miraculous feats attributed to him.
alphacause 2 years ago 7
D'Souza brings up Alexander the Great and Socrates as cases where the historical record of both men has contradictory accounts. However, what D'Souza fails to mention is that in both Alexander's/Socrates' case, any miraculous powers ascribed to them (as was the case with Alexander) are dismissed by historians as legendary and utter fabrication. Historians do parse the data and measure probabilities. So if D'Souza is consistent, he must relinquish his notion of Jesus as a miracle worker/divine.
alphacause 2 years ago 10
Well done.
jamesharrel 2 years ago
@alphacause
--
I have to lend credit to that post--that was well thought out by you alphacause.
Aizenx7 1 year ago
D'Souza asked where is the Christian Bin Laden or Ayatollah. The Christian radicals, akin to their Islamic counterparts, are in two areas. They are in the annals of history (i.e. Catholic Crusaders/Inquisitors and Protestant violent reformers) who have been denuded of power due to the SECULARIZATION of the west. The second place they exist is in the Christian fundamentalists of today, such as Robertson/Falwell, etc, whose ideas are just as dangerous as those of Islamic radicals.
alphacause 2 years ago 2
Both Prager and D'Souza in their "questioning" of each other (if you can call it that) are merely putting up a pretense of scrutiny. They aren't really asking the tough questions of each other like they do with Hitchens. They are there to gang up on Hitchens. If they were intellectually honest they would vigorously scrutinize each other, because there are many points of contention between Judaism and Christianity. If there weren't any seminal differences, why would there be different religions.
alphacause 2 years ago 3
the thing i cant get over is The Ark, Moses took two of EVERY ANIMAL on board, do you know how many different animal species there are TODAY, let alone a few thousand years ago where the animal kingdom hasnt been subject to the destruction of man, now, if theres 2 of every, lets say, 100 000 animals, do u know how big this ark would have to be, and if it is that big, then why hasnt it been found yet? we can find tiny tiny bones of dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago
TuPaCaLyPsE1872 2 years ago
Moses, Noah, who can tell them apart? Does it really matter?
ColAbernathy 2 years ago
Sorry Dinesh. You lose. Quite routed as a matter of fact. Better move along.
eveningtsar 2 years ago
hitchens likes to talk!
yamaha893 2 years ago
idiot dinesh..hindusim believes in pluralism..its the only religion that doesn't encourage conversion....there are many paths to obtain the divine inclusing atheism..
rivendall 2 years ago
D'Souza got seriously owned in these 10 minutes...ouch
ganjon1234 2 years ago 5
Yeah man, fucking pwned
wackid89 2 years ago
It does seem to be all myth. There were people writing good history a the time. Somehow they entirely missed a star in the East, Herod's murder of all male children, the public miracles, resurrections and opening of all the graves, and mention of Jesus. It's the reverse of all other historical figures in that the mystical exaggerations came first (Paul) and uncorroborated conflicting biographical tidbits were added much later, largely copied from the prophecies they were written to fulfill.
JayeHK 2 years ago
Dinesh is lying about his religion and his wife's, which make it clear that the Jews and anyone else not bowing down to the Christ is doomed.
JayeHK 2 years ago
I'm a Christian. Hitchens was right in asking believing in One Way to Heaven(basically) to D'Souza. Prager may be the consistant one so far in his belief the God.(I have to watch the next video)
Creationcreed 2 years ago