His first debate and he's up against Hitchens. That's like jumping into the middle of a shark-infested ocean from a mile up when up can't even swim. Enthusiastically.
Isaiah 65 verse 1 in the holy bible through this scripture you can't really debate about if Jesus is the son of GOD or if he is the only way to heaven. God can really respond to those who personally ask him today. 100% guarantee you will get an answer from him personally. it says it clearly in scripture. So go ask.
I am an atheist, firstly. Although I'm sad that Christopher opens with a red herring by referencing Christianity. This is about the existence of god, not the errors of religious officials.
nice debate, he admits god exists and that every argument against god's existence is bs. turek provided lots of logical and scientific reasons for why god is real. no offense, but why did hitchens even bother to show up? lol
Hitchens has no argument.He is talking about the horiible things done in the name of Christianity. Guess what? Any real Christian agrees 100% with Hitchens. The Catholic church alone made so many changes to biblical doctrine that there had to be a Reformation to get back to real Bible principles. Men are not God. The Bible was written by God through men. It is a book without errors, but that is not due to man. Man, even good Christians, are not perfect, not God. Hitchens talks about men here.
I think the other guy is just glad to be sharing a stage with Hitch even though his position is just preaching and relying on anything in science which resembles a religious god.
@ 9:00 Tap dancing? what? Hitchens is THE KING of tap dancing! that's his style..rhetoric. His arguments are like cotton candy; all fluff and no substance. Get passed the humor, satirical wit and clever red herrings and you have nothing. But this is what atheism brings to the table..nothing.
@dwheel39 Really now? I suppose you have convincing rebuttals for all of his "fluff". I guess that's why Hitchens takes notes (look at him during Tureks speech) over several points, and addresses those points directly huh? Seriously, did you even watch the video?
@FlawlessCock It actually is. It has writings from philosophers dating back to antiquity all the way up to the present. It is quite the interesting read.
@FireDragons42 I find Christopher Htichens to be a very good man. After all, he is a socialist and Marxist but to see him put his weapons up on the shelf and help the Americans towards a better and more secure and free country is astounding. He is somewhat of a hero.
Hitchen's whipped Turek in the first 4 min? You've got to be kidding.. He just rambled on about the indiscretions or organized religion. Turek argued about the ontological, teleological etc arguments, which are all separate from man's interpretation of religion!!!
@Hornadayfan How can you make that assumption when you were made not to believe? "I'm much happier living my live as a free thinker than I could ever be if I was a theist..."
Hitchens explained what some religions believe. Explaining others beliefs doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. Its just a diversion to get your attention away. I can't believe how many people blindly follow this guy.
@irclaw42 It does explain it. The reason why you would believe in Alah, Christ, Ra is circumstancial to the historic events. Eg. If Hitler had won the war, very likely most people would be sharing his ideas and his perception of his own personal God or the non existence of it. Now, you can not dispprove what can't be proved. If I say that I believe in gobblins and indeed are people who claimed to see them, my arguments would be equally valid to your claim of an existing God. Does it make sense?
@dontOVERREACT "Hitchens just butchered Turek within the first 4 minutes of speaking"??? I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE HITCHENS AND THE ATHEIST SUPPORTING HIM CAN BE SO IGNORANT THEY CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOD AND RELIGION!!! Turek started talking about scientific facts that point to the existence of God, Hitchen's reply turns out to be EXTREMELY PATHETIC when he tries do distract the attention to a diferent matter, that is, the huge corruption there has always existed in RELIGION...
@alexmottram07 Who is delusional now?? He did destroy him within the first 4 minutes because Religion is a human appreciation of something which is unknown which is summarized in the being people called "God". What proof do you really have of his existence? None and that's why you must have faith. If God could be explained in scientific terms then nobody would be atheist. Does it make sense?
@alobo2000 Proof doesn't have to be scientific. Was O.J. Simpson guilty? Well he was certainly found guilty in the civil trial. That said, we can't KNOW he did it. How can we scientifically prove he did it? None of us were there.
@illusionistdave your not very smart if you believe he was innocent. The evidence was overwhelming, the jury probably believed i god too. Not using logic gets you a god and OJ a free man!
@illusionistdave just like you can't know there is a god. at least there was a mountain of evidence pointing to guilt and zero evidence of a god. Irrational people make irrational decisions. Like believing in a god and letting oj off.
@MegaAtheistman How so? I have just as much faith and evidence that God exists as I do that OJ killed Nicole and Ron. Now, is the evidence I'm referring to scientific? Nope. Can we know either of these things with 100% no doubt? Absolutely not. Doesn't mean they aren't true.
@MegaAtheistman See, all I ask is that you are open to the possibility.:) That statement seems that you are.:) Btw, God loves you, even if I think you're not very nice.
@melvindavid1622 Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with science that I'm an idiot. Oh wait, you're just throwing your opinion around just like your belief (without proof) that there is no god.
@alexmottram07 Ironic that you mentioned how "ignorant" an atheist is. The difference between a philosopher and a theist is that the philosopher will always question his surroundings because he/she knows that the answers are there and he acknowleddes himself to be ignorant and science is the basis of our society. A Theist in any of its forms thinks he knows the answers so he doesn't question. It's because of philosophers we have science and how we know that diseases aren't result of demons.
@TheDreamMechanic ad hominum is only a fallacy if it was an attack unrelated to the point so like "She is ugly therefor she must have money"
saying the foundations of christiantiy (Church in Rome) claimed to be in-fallable under god then admitted all these mistakes and now claims to be in-fallable again is not only true but relates exactly to the debate.
Typical. In a debate where the topic is "Does God Exist?", Hitchens, as usual, goes for the sensationalist ad hominem attacks on the church - a quite obviously manmade institution, therefore chock full of failings - and stirs the attention of the audience away from the actual topic of debate..about which NONE of his arguments are relevant.
It's amazing to sit back and watch people lap up this book hocking propagandist's vitriol like kittens under a cow udder. Sad, but bewildering.
@TheDreamMechanic Hi, I absolutely agree with you, Hitchens' strategy results so pathetic and immature when he tries to distract people's attention talking about religion while the point of the debate is about the EXISTENCE OF GOD not about how much corrupted and sinful church(es) have been. Seriously, if atheists can't tell the difference among God, Church, Faith and Scientific Evidence now I can understand so many things about them... it is unbelievable how much ignorant they can be!
You cannot discuss the existence of God with somebody without talking about those who believe in God.
His examples clearly explain that the concept of God can be changed according to anyone's fancy. Such as those many Gods that earlier cultures believed. Especially of those in power(Vatican).
So the question of whether or not God exists cannot go without the question of what you(or somebody else) can believe God to be. Because that reveals how human the concept of God is.
Sensationalist...you must be kidding....I assume you believe that snakes talk, virgins give birth, people are risen from the dead, humans have only been around for 10,000 years and fossils are fake and are the handy work of the devil. What you don't know could fill a book.
@TheDreamMechanic It is an opening statement, the rebuttal comes as of later. I know there's a lot I would want to say to Mr. Turek from that display.
If god can see into the future, and if he knew what would happen when he created everything, if he knows what I will do next minute, next hour ... HOW THE FUCK CAN I HAVE FREE CHOICE
You're asking the correct question, crudely, but the right one none the less. What you have to consider is the advent of infinite possibilities - then couple that with randomness. But also you have to temper these ideas with such limitations as: physical, mental, spiritual, logistical, gravitational, etc.
You can choose to do anything you wish...within reason. You can't jump to the sun, fly to Andromeda, then come home in one piece. Only in your imagination, you know.
Let me put it this way. If god is all powerful and all knowing, he knew what will abraham do with his son, so why did he send him on "the mision" in the first place.
What I wont to say is that we have the ilusion of free choice, no matter if there is a god or not.
All good, brother. I respectfully disagree with you on this point; as free choice is capable of being manifested at every moment of every day. Determinism is more of set of probability equations than it is absolute truth. True, we are limited by such things as our environment, talent, etc...but there is always the possibility of creation. Art, to me, obliterates the entire idea of determinism. True art, that is. The kind that breaks new ground.
It does so seem that some people cannot find it within themselves to say that they don't know the answer. I just don't think that anybody knows whether a god exists or how the universe came into existence. These debates show so well however that the minds of people are essentially "made up" one way or another. Changing minds is almost impossible even though Hitchens's arguments are so compelling. The law of primacy, "What you first learn you best remember". That's why churches want children!
Well I am a litle dissapointed in Hitch not answering the questions Turek raised, at first at least , on the other hand those are answered by the so called cause without a cause argument which would be the creator never created and invoked to explain the fine tuning of universe. Mr Turek in fact mentioned it with aliens , so where does the creator ,incredible more complex than universe comes from ?Did he exploded into existence out from nothing ?
@Morclaw They say that because the creator does not physically exist, and he not made out of matter such as u and I, that he does not need to be created. However that basically states that God is a figment of the imagination of certain individuals.
That is the atheist agnostic position, not the atheist position. The atheist position is flat out there is not god. Theist agnostic is that there is a god until proven not, and agnostic is that there isn't enough to point either way. Agnostic is rarely someone's actually position, they are normally atheist or theist agnostic.
I am not ignorant enough to believe that a religion knows what happens after death, especially with the knowledge of how religion came to be.
That's because they aren't at the rebuttal yet. This is the first time in the debate he's spoken, so he's just explaining his position, like Turek did.
Hitch will go on direct assault later, don't you worry.
I am kind of bothered by what Hitchen's proposes what atheists say. The position he proposes is actually agnostic. Saying that there is no valid argument... The atheist position is that god doesn't exist. So in relation that proves that within their knowledge that then there is no valid argument...
So I have to say he wasn't harsh enough, and by simplification he has misrepresented his own position. (I wouldn't point this out, but look at how creationists are already incapable of thinking.)
The God of creation fine tuned the universe with an intent to make man, then realized that complex life cannot exist in the universe because it is too improbable. The fine tuning failed. Therefore the creation deity is prone to error and fallible. The christian god is perfect in all ways, therefore the christian god is not the creator of the universe. The cosmological argument is plausible, given a big unknown allows anything to be plausible, but it does not work for the Christian god.
Turek fails on a pretty basic debating level by immediately going on the defensive and trying to be unoffensive to everyone. Too bad Hitchens doesn't care and totally kicks his ass.
You have obviously never heard Winston Churchill's speeches, those which he actually delivered as opposed delivered by an actor. Look it up if you think I'm joking.
After watching this debate, Ive come to the conclusion that, I feel this would have been a better forum for Dawkins v. Turek. I enjoy listening to Hitchens and Dawkins the same, but they both have their different strengths.
My kudos goes to Hitchens for his intellectual charm as opposed to Tureks recital act.
Dawkins is a scientist, he shouldn't be wasting is time 'debating' this non-scence, the religious held back progress long enough in the dark ages, scientists should stick to science, bettering our knowledge and improving our lives.
I kind of don't like this 20 minutes format. I think it's one that apologists choose strategically. It feels like Hitchens isn't answering the questions from Turkey, but really he's just giving his own opening remarks.
Turok here (earlier) does the same thing Craig does. Instead of giving one good argument (one would be enough, thanks) for the existence of God, he gives as many bad ones as possible so that his opponent might not manage to completely answer all of them in the time allotted.
He does the same as craig, pussy footing about the fact that they have no empirical evidence to back up the clearly deepity filled philosophical snobbery that they spew.
His first debate and he's up against Hitchens. That's like jumping into the middle of a shark-infested ocean from a mile up when up can't even swim. Enthusiastically.
FHomeBrew 13 hours ago in playlist Does God Exist debate
This has been flagged as spam show
Isaiah 65 verse 1 in the holy bible through this scripture you can't really debate about if Jesus is the son of GOD or if he is the only way to heaven. God can really respond to those who personally ask him today. 100% guarantee you will get an answer from him personally. it says it clearly in scripture. So go ask.
udoherkommer 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am an atheist, firstly. Although I'm sad that Christopher opens with a red herring by referencing Christianity. This is about the existence of god, not the errors of religious officials.
TimothyADonaghue 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TimothyADonaghue 2 weeks ago
nice debate, he admits god exists and that every argument against god's existence is bs. turek provided lots of logical and scientific reasons for why god is real. no offense, but why did hitchens even bother to show up? lol
Diosukekun 2 weeks ago
Hitchens has no argument.He is talking about the horiible things done in the name of Christianity. Guess what? Any real Christian agrees 100% with Hitchens. The Catholic church alone made so many changes to biblical doctrine that there had to be a Reformation to get back to real Bible principles. Men are not God. The Bible was written by God through men. It is a book without errors, but that is not due to man. Man, even good Christians, are not perfect, not God. Hitchens talks about men here.
Iceland1944 2 weeks ago
@Iceland1944 So was the Quran. And the Tora, and Nordic scriptures, and Aztec scrolls, all written by god through men.
weefeatures 2 weeks ago
I totally agree. Christopher Hitchens, albeit a smart guy, used a red herring as his foundation. Poor debating. @Iceland1944
TimothyADonaghue 2 weeks ago
I think the other guy is just glad to be sharing a stage with Hitch even though his position is just preaching and relying on anything in science which resembles a religious god.
spareaxe 1 month ago
@ 9:00 Tap dancing? what? Hitchens is THE KING of tap dancing! that's his style..rhetoric. His arguments are like cotton candy; all fluff and no substance. Get passed the humor, satirical wit and clever red herrings and you have nothing. But this is what atheism brings to the table..nothing.
dwheel39 2 months ago
@dwheel39 lmao @ your brain.
Nem33 1 month ago
@Nem33 RE:lmao @ your brain."
Well can't argue with such an eloquently articulated statement like that...you got me there.
dwheel39 1 month ago
@dwheel39 Really now? I suppose you have convincing rebuttals for all of his "fluff". I guess that's why Hitchens takes notes (look at him during Tureks speech) over several points, and addresses those points directly huh? Seriously, did you even watch the video?
Solovir7 1 month ago in playlist Does God Exist debate
I did not hear anything new from turek. He does exits In your fucked up brain he exists, not in mine.
krapptacular 2 months ago in playlist Does God Exist debate
Hitchens outclasses this man in every imaginable way
styegosaurus 2 months ago in playlist Does God Exist debate 6
Eh, not quite. I was disappointed by Chrstopher's debating. Overrated, riddled with red herrings and strawmen... @styegosaurus
TimothyADonaghue 2 weeks ago
you know the mind of god? wow your good. By the way you can't be open to science (reality) if you still believe in bronze age gods.
MegaAtheistman 2 months ago
very sad hitchens died , god is logic ,religions shit ,take a look at theoreticalphysics.webs.com
paginipro 2 months ago in playlist Does God Exist debate
If you'll pick a copy of my portable atheist a selection of the finest writings by nonbelievers ROOOOFL
FlawlessCock 5 months ago
@FlawlessCock It actually is. It has writings from philosophers dating back to antiquity all the way up to the present. It is quite the interesting read.
FireDragons42 2 months ago in playlist Does God Exist debate
@FireDragons42 I find Christopher Htichens to be a very good man. After all, he is a socialist and Marxist but to see him put his weapons up on the shelf and help the Americans towards a better and more secure and free country is astounding. He is somewhat of a hero.
FlawlessCock 2 months ago
@FlawlessCock Unfortunately you should be using the past tense now, as he died yesterday. That is why I was watching this debate of his again.
FireDragons42 2 months ago
Hitchen's whipped Turek in the first 4 min? You've got to be kidding.. He just rambled on about the indiscretions or organized religion. Turek argued about the ontological, teleological etc arguments, which are all separate from man's interpretation of religion!!!
gmh1206 6 months ago
hitchens is the man!!!!!!!!!
Blackout949597 6 months ago
I am one who was made who cannot believe. I'm much happier living my live as a free thinker than I could ever be if I was a theist...
Hornadayfan 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hornadayfan How can you make that assumption when you were made not to believe? "I'm much happier living my live as a free thinker than I could ever be if I was a theist..."
illusionistdave 2 months ago
hitchens, you have pwned yet another theist
highlanderdurp 8 months ago
Hitchens explained what some religions believe. Explaining others beliefs doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. Its just a diversion to get your attention away. I can't believe how many people blindly follow this guy.
irclaw42 8 months ago
@irclaw42 It does explain it. The reason why you would believe in Alah, Christ, Ra is circumstancial to the historic events. Eg. If Hitler had won the war, very likely most people would be sharing his ideas and his perception of his own personal God or the non existence of it. Now, you can not dispprove what can't be proved. If I say that I believe in gobblins and indeed are people who claimed to see them, my arguments would be equally valid to your claim of an existing God. Does it make sense?
alobo2000 6 months ago
@irclaw42 I don't mean to be disrespectul but I think C. Hitchens argument is strong. You are an atheist in more ways than you think.
alobo2000 6 months ago
@dontOVERREACT "Hitchens just butchered Turek within the first 4 minutes of speaking"??? I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE HITCHENS AND THE ATHEIST SUPPORTING HIM CAN BE SO IGNORANT THEY CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOD AND RELIGION!!! Turek started talking about scientific facts that point to the existence of God, Hitchen's reply turns out to be EXTREMELY PATHETIC when he tries do distract the attention to a diferent matter, that is, the huge corruption there has always existed in RELIGION...
alexmottram07 9 months ago
@alexmottram07 Who is delusional now?? He did destroy him within the first 4 minutes because Religion is a human appreciation of something which is unknown which is summarized in the being people called "God". What proof do you really have of his existence? None and that's why you must have faith. If God could be explained in scientific terms then nobody would be atheist. Does it make sense?
alobo2000 6 months ago
@alobo2000 Proof doesn't have to be scientific. Was O.J. Simpson guilty? Well he was certainly found guilty in the civil trial. That said, we can't KNOW he did it. How can we scientifically prove he did it? None of us were there.
illusionistdave 2 months ago
@illusionistdave your not very smart if you believe he was innocent. The evidence was overwhelming, the jury probably believed i god too. Not using logic gets you a god and OJ a free man!
MegaAtheistman 2 months ago
@MegaAtheistman You're a fucking idiot if you think I think he was innocent. THe point is we can't KNOW he did it because we didn't SEE it.
illusionistdave 2 months ago
@illusionistdave just like you can't know there is a god. at least there was a mountain of evidence pointing to guilt and zero evidence of a god. Irrational people make irrational decisions. Like believing in a god and letting oj off.
MegaAtheistman 2 months ago
@MegaAtheistman Exactly just like no one can know there is a God. Yet, we KNOW OJ(because of the evidence, even if it is WITNESS TESTIMONY) did it.
illusionistdave 2 months ago
@illusionistdave this is painful
MegaAtheistman 2 months ago
@MegaAtheistman How so? I have just as much faith and evidence that God exists as I do that OJ killed Nicole and Ron. Now, is the evidence I'm referring to scientific? Nope. Can we know either of these things with 100% no doubt? Absolutely not. Doesn't mean they aren't true.
illusionistdave 2 months ago
@illusionistdave your an intellectual liar and will be punished in hell if god really exists or if there is a god.
MegaAtheistman 2 months ago
@MegaAtheistman See, all I ask is that you are open to the possibility.:) That statement seems that you are.:) Btw, God loves you, even if I think you're not very nice.
illusionistdave 2 months ago
@illusionistdave If there is a god he wouldnt have made an idiot like you. so i guess there is no god
melvindavid1622 2 months ago in playlist Does God Exist debate
@melvindavid1622 Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with science that I'm an idiot. Oh wait, you're just throwing your opinion around just like your belief (without proof) that there is no god.
illusionistdave 2 months ago
@alexmottram07 Ironic that you mentioned how "ignorant" an atheist is. The difference between a philosopher and a theist is that the philosopher will always question his surroundings because he/she knows that the answers are there and he acknowleddes himself to be ignorant and science is the basis of our society. A Theist in any of its forms thinks he knows the answers so he doesn't question. It's because of philosophers we have science and how we know that diseases aren't result of demons.
alobo2000 6 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic ad hominum is only a fallacy if it was an attack unrelated to the point so like "She is ugly therefor she must have money"
saying the foundations of christiantiy (Church in Rome) claimed to be in-fallable under god then admitted all these mistakes and now claims to be in-fallable again is not only true but relates exactly to the debate.
shandcunt 9 months ago
Typical. In a debate where the topic is "Does God Exist?", Hitchens, as usual, goes for the sensationalist ad hominem attacks on the church - a quite obviously manmade institution, therefore chock full of failings - and stirs the attention of the audience away from the actual topic of debate..about which NONE of his arguments are relevant.
It's amazing to sit back and watch people lap up this book hocking propagandist's vitriol like kittens under a cow udder. Sad, but bewildering.
TheDreamMechanic 10 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic Hi, I absolutely agree with you, Hitchens' strategy results so pathetic and immature when he tries to distract people's attention talking about religion while the point of the debate is about the EXISTENCE OF GOD not about how much corrupted and sinful church(es) have been. Seriously, if atheists can't tell the difference among God, Church, Faith and Scientific Evidence now I can understand so many things about them... it is unbelievable how much ignorant they can be!
alexmottram07 9 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic
You cannot discuss the existence of God with somebody without talking about those who believe in God.
His examples clearly explain that the concept of God can be changed according to anyone's fancy. Such as those many Gods that earlier cultures believed. Especially of those in power(Vatican).
So the question of whether or not God exists cannot go without the question of what you(or somebody else) can believe God to be. Because that reveals how human the concept of God is.
LtSurge659 8 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic
Sensationalist...you must be kidding....I assume you believe that snakes talk, virgins give birth, people are risen from the dead, humans have only been around for 10,000 years and fossils are fake and are the handy work of the devil. What you don't know could fill a book.
atombond 8 months ago
@atombond
You assume wrong. Stupid.
TheDreamMechanic 8 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic It is an opening statement, the rebuttal comes as of later. I know there's a lot I would want to say to Mr. Turek from that display.
DMAN123223 7 months ago
If god can see into the future, and if he knew what would happen when he created everything, if he knows what I will do next minute, next hour ... HOW THE FUCK CAN I HAVE FREE CHOICE
TheMarkoanton 10 months ago
@TheMarkoanton
You're asking the correct question, crudely, but the right one none the less. What you have to consider is the advent of infinite possibilities - then couple that with randomness. But also you have to temper these ideas with such limitations as: physical, mental, spiritual, logistical, gravitational, etc.
You can choose to do anything you wish...within reason. You can't jump to the sun, fly to Andromeda, then come home in one piece. Only in your imagination, you know.
TheDreamMechanic 10 months ago
@TheDreamMechanic
Let me put it this way. If god is all powerful and all knowing, he knew what will abraham do with his son, so why did he send him on "the mision" in the first place.
What I wont to say is that we have the ilusion of free choice, no matter if there is a god or not.
Sory for my shit english.
TheMarkoanton 10 months ago
@TheMarkoanton
All good, brother. I respectfully disagree with you on this point; as free choice is capable of being manifested at every moment of every day. Determinism is more of set of probability equations than it is absolute truth. True, we are limited by such things as our environment, talent, etc...but there is always the possibility of creation. Art, to me, obliterates the entire idea of determinism. True art, that is. The kind that breaks new ground.
TheDreamMechanic 10 months ago
The Church of England, by doing away with the hell doctrine, is one step closer to the truth.
4um360 10 months ago
@dontOVERREACT 4 minutes? More like 25 seconds!
aksmohan1 11 months ago
It does so seem that some people cannot find it within themselves to say that they don't know the answer. I just don't think that anybody knows whether a god exists or how the universe came into existence. These debates show so well however that the minds of people are essentially "made up" one way or another. Changing minds is almost impossible even though Hitchens's arguments are so compelling. The law of primacy, "What you first learn you best remember". That's why churches want children!
707BIGGLES747 1 year ago
Well I am a litle dissapointed in Hitch not answering the questions Turek raised, at first at least , on the other hand those are answered by the so called cause without a cause argument which would be the creator never created and invoked to explain the fine tuning of universe. Mr Turek in fact mentioned it with aliens , so where does the creator ,incredible more complex than universe comes from ?Did he exploded into existence out from nothing ?
Morclaw 1 year ago
@Morclaw They say that because the creator does not physically exist, and he not made out of matter such as u and I, that he does not need to be created. However that basically states that God is a figment of the imagination of certain individuals.
buttface112211 1 year ago
Some of the people in the audience have like blank looks on their faces... as if to say " I don't understand what he's saying" HAHA
stevesg92 1 year ago
the hitch burns turekk myt herooo
OldSportish 1 year ago
A Wild Turek appears!
Go Hitchens!
Hitchens uses Hitch-slap!
Turek Faints!
And that was just the first few minutes O.o
BrellK 1 year ago 2
@BrellK
looool
OldSportish 1 year ago
@hOxLucifer
That is the atheist agnostic position, not the atheist position. The atheist position is flat out there is not god. Theist agnostic is that there is a god until proven not, and agnostic is that there isn't enough to point either way. Agnostic is rarely someone's actually position, they are normally atheist or theist agnostic.
I am not ignorant enough to believe that a religion knows what happens after death, especially with the knowledge of how religion came to be.
nidodson 1 year ago
Death by Hitchslap:-)
AntitheismFTW 1 year ago
i absolutely love this man, and i'm not even gay.
fmandld 1 year ago
Hitchens didn't even address any of the scientific points Turek mentioned. He just did the same old bitching.
BolnoyBratchny 1 year ago
@BolnoyBratchny
"Hitchens didn't even address any of the scientific points Turek mentioned."
That's because none of Turek's points were scientific.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago 22
@MomoTheBellyDancer religious drones believe what they want to believe. You are wasting your time.
lafontaine13 1 month ago
@BolnoyBratchny
That's because they aren't at the rebuttal yet. This is the first time in the debate he's spoken, so he's just explaining his position, like Turek did.
Hitch will go on direct assault later, don't you worry.
Oleander410 3 weeks ago
I am kind of bothered by what Hitchen's proposes what atheists say. The position he proposes is actually agnostic. Saying that there is no valid argument... The atheist position is that god doesn't exist. So in relation that proves that within their knowledge that then there is no valid argument...
So I have to say he wasn't harsh enough, and by simplification he has misrepresented his own position. (I wouldn't point this out, but look at how creationists are already incapable of thinking.)
nidodson 1 year ago
oooooooooooooooooooooo...LOL
setmedic 2 years ago
nah, usually Turek just resorts to yelling questions at Hitchens.
TheNightSpirit666 2 years ago
The God of creation fine tuned the universe with an intent to make man, then realized that complex life cannot exist in the universe because it is too improbable. The fine tuning failed. Therefore the creation deity is prone to error and fallible. The christian god is perfect in all ways, therefore the christian god is not the creator of the universe. The cosmological argument is plausible, given a big unknown allows anything to be plausible, but it does not work for the Christian god.
tehbeast666 2 years ago
Turek fails on a pretty basic debating level by immediately going on the defensive and trying to be unoffensive to everyone. Too bad Hitchens doesn't care and totally kicks his ass.
sn00ke 2 years ago
only cristopher hitchens can make a speech under the influence of alcohol.
Clifton100 2 years ago 6
You mean make sense..
richter75 2 years ago
@Clifton100
You have obviously never heard Winston Churchill's speeches, those which he actually delivered as opposed delivered by an actor. Look it up if you think I'm joking.
diogeron 1 year ago
@Clifton100
Hitchen's will make a speech only under the influence of alcohol
Oleander410 3 weeks ago
The only time I have found Christopher Hitchens to be wrong is here. It was Brian not Meg about the cheerios.
inhumanxiii 2 years ago 85
this fu out of all the stupid shit that came out of the other fu you go with that.im sure youre a fucking fool to bitch face.
ALONSOJAILE 10 months ago
@inhumanxiii LOL
mrabdrum 6 months ago
After watching this debate, Ive come to the conclusion that, I feel this would have been a better forum for Dawkins v. Turek. I enjoy listening to Hitchens and Dawkins the same, but they both have their different strengths.
My kudos goes to Hitchens for his intellectual charm as opposed to Tureks recital act.
rollins0681 2 years ago
Dawkins is a scientist, he shouldn't be wasting is time 'debating' this non-scence, the religious held back progress long enough in the dark ages, scientists should stick to science, bettering our knowledge and improving our lives.
Experiment47 2 years ago 3
@Experiment47 And how does religion hurt others when it gives hope?
illusionistdave 2 months ago
@Experiment47 Prove scientifically that science is less valid than nonscience. PS: You can't because the science would be biased.
illusionistdave 2 months ago
I kind of don't like this 20 minutes format. I think it's one that apologists choose strategically. It feels like Hitchens isn't answering the questions from Turkey, but really he's just giving his own opening remarks.
Turok here (earlier) does the same thing Craig does. Instead of giving one good argument (one would be enough, thanks) for the existence of God, he gives as many bad ones as possible so that his opponent might not manage to completely answer all of them in the time allotted.
klalkity 2 years ago 2
He does the same as craig, pussy footing about the fact that they have no empirical evidence to back up the clearly deepity filled philosophical snobbery that they spew.
automaticSOM 2 years ago