Christopher Hitchens vs Alister McGrath (4/11)

[father042]

jeez why do people make fun of McGrath's tic?

I'm sure most of you also have one

[TitaniumTicTac]

Does it bother anyone else when people try to regard atheism as a world view? All atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in any deity. It's not a world view. All atheists have different views on different things. Religion entails you HAVE to believe in a certain set of things to be regarded as a christian/jew/muslim, which kind of entails a world view already half set for you. Atheism does not have a set world view or opinion in which you must follow to be regarded as an atheist.

[Sansachini1]

@TitaniumTicTac You wouldn't say the assertion that there is no god could be considered a world view?

[MrGuitardude92]

Erm... for someone who grew up in northern Ireland and then was educated in later life in oxford, he sounds awfully dutch/french lol XD

really strange accent... 

[BritishArrow]

Alistair McCrath has a pint with Iain Duncan Smith. I'd watch it.

[lanksareit]

What a blether McGrath is.

[HomuncuIus]

Alister McGrath is a great progressive

[Tobytrim]

"Anti religious violence" my arse!! - Check the statistics on religion persecution- even around the world today - The overwhelming majority of it is from another religious bias against another.

I also have to question his assertion that christians who do bad things based on their "understanding" of dogma which should be clear and consistant, are "bad" Christians.

And what about his quote mine of Stephen Jay Gould??!!

McGrath is a disingenuous turd!

[amberwhite122589]

The only effect atheists have on the Amish are psycho atheists with guns.

[ZerenMoviari]

@amberwhite122589 If you are referring to the same attack that Dr. McGrath is referring to you are misinformed. The perpetrator of those attacks, Charles Carl Roberts, was a theist. His suicide notes mentioned this.

[elliotcole0]

I enjoyed Hitchens' introduction, although I suspect his understanding of Xn Theology could be a little deeper (much of his opening statement falsely represents Xny). However, I believe, McGrath's points to be stronger and more suited to a debate of this length. He adressed practical issues of relevance to the individual as well as society or their community. In particular I liked McGrath's response to Hitchens' claims of lack of personal responsibility in religion, which is simply not the case.

[Gazdo01]

Very nice Mr Mc Grath.

Extremists are the problems, and unfortunately, by reading the majority of the comments here, I can see there are a lot of atheist extremists...

Most of people, religious or atheist, are ignorants and only keep on bragging without thinking.

[Dgoosh1000]

@Gazdo01 You are quiet right. I find myself strongly disagreeing with other athiests simply through their own fervent arogance about the hard work other people and scientists have done, which they havn't even researched.

[amberwhite122589]

@Gazdo01 Yeah, I see that too-- I tell them all the time they're pushing potential converts away because of their hate and vitriol. I know, theists can be just as bad, but it still takes 2 to have a fight and the ones who pick them are the ones that scare would be supporters. It's gets bad, too-- I have been attacked for asking people to tone it down and I've had threats against me-- sometimes I wonder if they're really even atheists... probably "nothings."

[rfranklinw1]

@Gazdo01 atheist "extremist" is an oxymoron. Don't know what that means do you?

Religious extremists kill people and blow up buildings. Atheist "extremists" only try to present reason and reality against violent fairy tales.

[father042]

@rfranklinw bullshit, are you saying all religious people blow up buildingsand kill peple?

they blew up building only once and it's not even certain it was really done by muslims

atheists just keep insulting people thinking they are promoting rationality, but theyre only promoting hate

(soory for spelling mistakes my keyboard is fcked up)

[rfranklinw1]

@father042 I never said any such thing. One building??? You obviously can't count or are very uninformed. The only "hate" we have is for the damage religion does and has done to the human race and human progress. I think perhaps more than just your keyboard is "fucked up".

[father042]

@rfranklinw1 Religion DOESNT do damage people who use it do

and besides the fact that people exploit religion doesn't change the fact if god exists or not

[NewAgeIntellectual]

Alister Mcgrath is bat shit crazy. He ate his share of paint chips as a child.

[MrSlm1982]

I'm cool with McGrath, but he looks like he's trying to dodge the camera lol.

[papaclanc]

Dont you think this McGrath guy needs a home visit from Alex and his droogs?

[Louie212121]

The argument, "Religion does 10x more good than bad," is worthless up against Hitchens thesis that these acts would occur anyway. The Stalin/Lenin/Hitler Atheist argument is ridiculous.

[WhatIsYourShot]

@Louie212121 about as ridiculous as the argument that violent acts in the name of religion are universal in terms of a higher power. An argument that Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Schermer, Dennett, and others make a career off of. Like McGrath, I was an atheist until my junior year of high school, so I'm a huge fan of Hitchens. With that said, I can say with honesty that this is one of the few debates I've seen in which Hitchens has fair competition. I'd also like him to debate Francis Collins.

[chichigord]

McGrath's argument had me up until he simply posited Jesus as a God as a forgone conclusion. Anything McGrath has to argue must start at proving Jesus' divinity. If he can't do that then he might just as well be arguing on behalf of Santa Claus.

[stevehayes13]

Religion has done damage - but that is marginal - and never mind all that - look at the godless atheists. And this is supposed to be sophisticated Theology! It is mere Apologetics, in other words, propaganda.

[Flowerblood]

The whole "Stalin-was-an-atheist-therefo­re..." argument is so tedious, I don't think I've seen one of these debates where it hasn't been brought up. Change the bloomin' record!

[HellspawnICX]

This god is such a nice guy. Leviticus 26:27 That is love.

[HellspawnICX]

@gallantentry Srsly? You don't think saying your book of myths contains 2000 prophecies is outrageous? you criticize @amyldub that they've been "tricked into believing evolution", then in the same breath claim that you've provided 3 examples. All you did was make 3 claims. You have yet to prove anything. searching those phrases, I see NO proof. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Here's a claim: The bible is false, the christian industry is exploiting your stupidity. Google that.

[HellspawnICX]

@gallantentry Ok I would have let you slide with the "changed my life" thing, - That's personal experience and I'm happy for you if this or any book made your life better..... but you had to go and make it ridiculous and unbelievable with the "it has made over 2,000 predictions that have come to pass to the letter". No offense, but that's really silly. Name 1 prediction explicitly made in the bible that came true. I'll wait.

[gallantentry]

@HellspawnICX The reformation of Israel becoming a nation is one. there are 2,000 that have been fulfilled. The crucifixion of Christ was also described in detail in several places in the OT. Alexander the Great was predicted.

[HellspawnICX]

@gallantentry Maybe you heard from somebody those things are in there, can you name the verses where these were predicted, or should we take your word for it? The reformation of Israel had already occurred when NT written. Where was crucifiction predicted? Alexander the Great? Are you accounting for all the now proven falsehoods contained in the book? Aware of them? I can link you to a large list of many examples if you're interested in truth.

[gallantentry]

@HellspawnICX I've heard it all already. You are stuck in a mode of convenient thinking. People will do whatever they can to discredit the Bible because they don't understand it or they're simply afraid of it. there are no falsehoods in the Bible. It has never been disproved. If you want the verses to these predictions...google them.

[HellspawnICX]

@gallantentry so your outrageous claim about "2000 predictions" was made when your source of this information was not readily available, and you do not even know how to find it. This is called "failing to satisfy the burden of proof" by not even trying.

you surely do not believe every holy book of every religion, right? you're sure that you picked right, every other worshiper of any other gods guessed wrong. But its so hard for you to wrap your mind around how anyone could not believe in yours

[gallantentry]

@HellspawnICX it is far from outrageous. If you want to know the truth, you will find it. there are literally hundreds of articles and websites that have provided the proof. If you won't research for yourself than how can you trust yourself? A good scientists researches ALL the facts. You want me to do it just means you're not interested. I gave you 3 examples and that wasn't good enough. Here's a search phrase for you; 'bible predicts crucifixion of Jesus'.

[gallantentry]

@HellspawnICX Here's another phrase, '2000 prophecies fulfilled in the Bible'. or '300 prophecies fulfilled in the person of Jesus'. Or, 'Alexander the Great predicted in the Bible' If you are honest, you will find the truth. But I doubt you want to know the truth.Most people do...True Christianity is very rare,

[HellspawnICX]

@gallantentry Yeah dude, "true christianity" is rare, because your god is a myth. You've heard of the shroud of turin, I'm sure. Guess what? Scientific tests prove that its fake, and the catholic church has been lying all these years. Why would your god allow people to do evil in his name? a)he's not omnipotent b) he's not benevolent c) he is make-believe. Pick one.

[souldogg69]

@gallantentry You can't quote the bible to prove the bible. Nothing can be proved in the actual world so it cannot be asserted as truth.

[HellspawnICX]

Your imaginary friend does not have a monopoly on morality. I am sorry that you were gullible enough to believe that silly book, you may never recover from the damage it has done to your potential.

[gallantentry]

@HellspawnICX That "silly book" has changed my life and me for the better. God has saved my marriage and improved many areas of my life. It has made over 2,000 predictions that have come to pass to the letter, There is no other book that can make that claim or even come close. The more I learn of it, the more astounded I am.

[Seanus32]

Jesus was invisible? Really? That's strange as he was in corporeal form :)

[crackthecorn]

wtf Mcgrath that argument what ass backward full of circular logic ..the ideology of crimes against religions want to set up a form of omni power of the individuals trying to become the god of the land(think N Korea Kim is basically a god to them) ... i was not born evil but other people sure make me feel violent

[rumblefishism]

Whether you like him or not, Alister is an incredible public speaker; I'd say he is better at this than Dr. Craig.

[interluk]

Stand still, McGrath, stand still!!!

[dlmc1989]

Jesus did not refuse to do violence. I think the money changers would disagree.

[gallantentry]

@dlmc1989 Good point dlmc, so it has to do with the motif. If our heart is in the right place, violence can be good. The problem is, who's heart is in the right place. How do our hearts get in the right place? The answer is Christ. God is concerned about the condition of our heart. The Bible says, "Be angry and sin not." That is only possible with God. It is therefore logical to assume that we can only avoid sinfulness by following the perfect example who is Christ Jesus.

[BabetteBombshell]

The whole basis of McGrath's argument is that the default for mankind is evil, irrationality and violence. Is it reasonable to expect that Amish farmers would go on a bloody rampage when facing tragedy if not for Jesus?

The idea that religion is valuable because it "illuminates and gives a framework" presupposes that without it there is not a framework with which to engage the world. Religion and superstition is not a framework, its a cage.

[desao3]

@BabetteBombshell Well said.

[bumbubbler]

Feel sorry for the cameraman who needs to follow McGrath with his swaying.

[lanksareit]

@bumbubbler - He must be a good sailor.

[andBassandSwing]

@bumbubbler zoom out a little?

[asleepforaweek]

@bumbubbler This has so much to do with his argument. I'm unapologetic about my atheist views, but comments like this, and the 58 asshats that gave it a thumbs up don't enhance anything. Kudos for a double PHD from Oxford willing to debate the rock star journalist Christopher Hitchens. Let me be the first atheist to come here and point out that Hitchens is a bit portly... Keep living vicariously through him.

[HULLOHULLO15]

Atheists have some really stupid analogies on here.

[HULLOHULLO15]

@Pitfytr Who said I believe in any religious God, or indeed any deity? I just stated that there are some utterly ridiculous analogies being made by atheists on the comments of this video.

[kaifroland]

"What does he (Hitchens) offer in its (religion's) place?" Nonsense, McGrath. If you manage to remove a malignant tumor, you don't ask what you should replace it with.

[FatalKnight]

@kaifroland We are not dealing with tumors.

[kaifroland]

@FatalKnight We are dealing with the cancer of humanity so I think the analogy holds.

[FatalKnight]

@kaifroland Humans are selfish and conflict oriented by nature. I find it naive for people to think getting rid of religion will solve all the world's problems. Some 6% of the entire wars of human history were caused by religion. The other 94% were caused by idealogical, geographical, racial, resource, and cultural conflict. If China and the U.S. goes to war, it will because the U.S. does not want to give hegemony. Not because we are a religious nation.

[A2thedouble]

@kaifroland Agreed, though if something did replace it, it should be science.

[gallantentry]

@kaifroland Why not? Maybe we should be asking this question in and of that we should be replacing something like a tumor which would destroy the body, with some kind of joy or understanding. Sometimes we are made wise from our afflictions. We gain and understanding of the reason for suffering. McGrath hit the nail on the head about Christianity. God is not evil or the cause of violence, but the wrong understanding of God is dangerous.

[gallantentry]

@kaifroland Another point that should be used is that atheism is an of itself a religion. It is a faith that there is no God and since neither can be proved nor disproved, it is fair to make this assertion. Atheism is amoral and would acclaim the 10 commandments are to be forsaken since they are from a 'religion' but to do so means to remove morality by which there is no law giver and the result is an Anarchist society. Without no law giver(God) there can be no law and thus chaos and disorder.

[amyldub]

@gallantentry Absolutely not. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. It is just the rejection of religious claims. The burden of proof is solely on the shoulders of religion and atheism does not and is not required to offer an alternative belief. Simple as that

[gallantentry]

@amyldub Atheism is a choice to not believe. It is a religion...

[amyldub]

@gallantentry It is not a religion. It simply doesn't buy what religion is selling and does NOT promote an alternate viewpoint. If religion could show any actual, testable evidence that god does exist, most atheists would be open to it as logic, reason, evidence and science are the tools we use to determine if something exists or not.

[gallantentry]

@amyldub Then your religion is one of science. 

[amyldub]

@gallantentry No. Religion requires faith. Faith is not necessary in science because it is demonstrable and backed by evidence.

[gallantentry]

@amyldub Evolution requires faith too. Atheism requires faith that there is no God. To be agnostic would be more honest as to say 'no religion', but if one truly wanted to know the truth, it can be found.

[amyldub]

@gallantentry Wow. Evolution is a proven demonstrable fact with indisputable evidence. Faith is unwavering belief in something even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Which is why atheism does NOT require faith. It rejects religion because there is NO EVIDENCE for it. If there was, any rational atheist would no longer be one. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

[gallantentry]

@amyldub You have been duped into believing evolution. There is plenty of proof for God, you just haven't looked. It would not matter what I said or posted as proof. Even if you witnessed the parting of the Red Sea you would still disbelieve.

[amyldub]

@gallantentry If you posted actual evidence as proof i or any rational person would believe it. You stare actual evidence of evolution in the face and don't accept(not believe) it. Your faith, which is defined as absolute belief  without evidence, or evidence to the contrary of it, doesn't allow it. So there's no point in arguing anymore.

[gallantentry]

@amyldub I believe in science too. I just believe in confirmed science. Such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I believe in gravity etc. However there is proof of God through the creation. The mathematical odds of a simple protein forming by chance is astronomically impossible. Even Richard Dawkins said that there is a signature of intelligent design in molecular biology. I have presented many, many confirmed biblical prophecies to atheists, none open to it still.

[varmhund]

@gallantentry

The only ones who say that without God, we'd murder eachother on the spot, we'd never feel any restraints concerning rape, theft, violence etc. The only ones who say that we need a supreme celestial being/it/thing in order not to kill "thy neighboor" Are the religious camps of the human world.

So! IF God would be disproven. You'd kill everyone who angered you because you'd never feel a moral restraint without God.

This sort of nonsense is exactly why religion is dangerous.

[gallantentry]

@varmhund God gave us a conscience...a soul. You missed the whole point.

[varmhund]

@gallantentry I know this is what you actually meant. It's just fun to anger the troll.

However what I said is actually a valid point in alot of creationist-cases.

Anyways. I cannot (at this point) give any credit to the claim of people having souls or anything other then our pure physical form. As I have never experienced or felt anything that would resemble a soul/spirit

Ps. What I find really remarkable tho is HOW people can go from being deists to theists. It seems very egocentric to me

[gallantentry]

@varmhund It is an indication that the deist never really believed. I can never become an 'un-believer'. This is a good thing. It is an amazing thing to know you have your name written in the book of life.

[gallantentry]

@varmhund It is an indication that the deist never really believed. I can never become an 'un-believer'. This is a good thing. It is an amazing thing to know you have your name written in the book of life.

[amberwhite122589]

@kaifroland He's referring to homeless shelters, soup kitches,clothing--every disaster we have had here in America has atheists and theists rushing for aid from churches.Atheists like to talk the talk but don't walk it-- every year I try to get people started on a homeless shelter and the only ones that show up are the churches.Atheists need to put their money where there mouth is--I do my best, but I'm not a gazillinaire. Stop whining about god worshipers and help out!

[onfiremusicman]

@kaifroland A tumour doesn't create a brain. It resides in the brain. If God exists outside of all time, space, and matter then how could one replace the theist's argument that a supernatural being caused the world to be created ex nihilo? He must replace this explanation with something else, but Hitchens cannot. Science explores the universal domain, not the metaphysical - New Atheism retains, as C. S. Lewis puts it, an a priori metaphysical prejudice which falters in the face of logic.

[Azariah197]

2:38 - 3:10 For The Win. Religion doesn't poison everything, neither does any ideology, movement, or group. People poison everything, more specifically bad people -which is all of us to some degree.

[stitcha123]

mcgrath sounds exactly like a priest.

[luarionte]

Another theologian crackpot that undermines the scientific reputation and principles by being a scientist himself!

[niinja2]

@luarionte

what does he exactly undermine? why is he a crackpot

[luarionte]

@niinja2

Undermines reason of course!

[luarionte]

@niinja2

You dont need to say more...

This debate was already over before it began!

It's like debating the "round Earth theory" VS the "flat Earth theory"

[luarionte]

@niinja2

He didnt really said anything it was just a verborrhea of pointlessness!

It didn't make any reasonable point!

And those points who came close to being intelligent were completely dismantled by Hitchens beforehand!

[oceanswell82]

McGrath could have done a better job tackling Hitchens argument about violence in the OT. Christian theology teaches that God alone is a suitable judge and weilder of the sword. It is his prerogative. I found it ironic that Hitchens is upset with a God who kills in the OT and a Jesus who loves enemies in the NT. God did use the nation of Israel to judge nations by killing them. God did that for a time, for a specific part in the development of his people.

[oceanswell82]

@oceanswell82 It remains a divine prerogative and Jesus teaching in the NT is consistent because he is saying that humans are not to wield the sword. God is the judge not God's people. Hitchens wants retribution for enemies and evil...so does God.

[AutoBahnForever]

McGrath is one of the few debators that can share the stage with Hitchens...........everyone else he debates is just fodder. Have you ever seen his debates with Al Sharpton or George Galloway ?............it is beyond one sided.

Hitchens is just at another level..........the Michael Jordan of debate (others can play the game, but not like him.......utter domination)

[oceanswell82]

@AutoBahnForever He is a good debator, I will give him that.

[FACTUNTHJU]

This fool barks blindly through his own desperation of wanting to belong to something..he sounds just like a boring preacher speaking to long about nothing in a cold damp miserable church.

Generic and undirect whilst not giving a strong argument for belieing in any god.

Hitchens you are wiping the floor with these,dare i say (lost souls) :)

[TheLeutrimExperience]

This guy is totally going from point. He isn't arguing for the validity of Christianity. Lets say Christianity is the perfect religion, then it needs every point it makes to be correct, scientifically and morally. Christopher makes too many good points against this faith and they are backed up with solid evidence, therefore the very basis of Christianity is destroyed.

[Back7sword]

McGrath's voice is so boring he could narrate Thomas the tank engine.

[channelcy]

let's just be honest here : both sides make goo arguments. from a philosophical standpoint there is sense in believing both in some sense, so really noone should be proven wrong. Why bother?

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@channelcy

"noone should be proven wrong. "

The theists have no evidence for the existence of their god.

[njdeputter]

McGrath is fair in acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of religion, Hitchens just sounds like a close-minded fanatic.

[oneznzeroz]

The Old Testament commanded violence against Pagan people...Christians believe Jesus is the same as the god of the OT so therefore Jesus commanded violence.

[Perinnial2010]

@oneznzeroz

what absolute nonsense. You cannot understand a lot of wht jesus says without having a knowledge of th OT. Therefore it is included in the bible. Just as u cannot understand milton and blake without knowing the bible. Im not a christian, im merely a cultural christian, therefore i must understand christianity and christian history in order to understand my culture. I therefore conclude tht not only is ur statement false it is also idiotic and rather libelous.

[ShiftyWeasel]

@Perinnial2010 oneznzeroz's statement isn't false, though it is a very simplified and distilled version of a common problem about Christianity and the Bible.

God of the OT: What Hitchens said in part 2 of this video series. Capricious, violent, lazy, inept.

God of the NT (in the form of Jesus if you are a Trinitarian, though not all Christians are): Loving, peaceful, turn the other cheek, etc.

You can be an apologist and attempt to reconcile that, or you can see it for what it is.

[oceanswell82]

@oneznzeroz you raise a good point here. McGrath seemed uncomfortable with God's violence in the OT. He rightly points out that there is violence in the NT as well especially related to Jesus' return. That is consistent with Christian Theology. Humans are not to use violence because we are not just, it is not our job. God on the other hand, is just and can use violence. He hates evil and will overthrow it eventually.

[niinja2]

@oneznzeroz

you do not deserve to call yourself an atheist or a critical thinker if you say this kind of bullshit

[supersmash43]

@oneznzeroz exactly. The OT God is quite detestable. 

[zzzak123]

@oneznzeroz

That is a terrible argument. Have you not read the new testament? Take a class in how to read the Bible in a scholarly way because you are in desperate need of enlightenment.

[oneznzeroz]

@zzzak123

'Read the Bible in a scholarly way' translates to "Turn your brain off and drink the kool aid". Sorry, I'm not the one who claims Jesus is the same God as YHWH, you Christians claim that.

[Katalyzt]

"And when we look at jesus of Nazareth, we see something the I think is very very challenging. We have one who refuses to do violence."?

Interesting... I suppose this "christian theologian" forgot the part of the story where the fictional jesus character not only got angry at people, but then left the area, and took the time to build a weapon. Only to later return and violently use the constructed weapon against the people that he was originally mad at.

Katalyzt

[jazzyazz]

I didn't know that! Do you know where that is in the new testament so I can add it to my atheist arsenal?

[Katalyzt]

No problem you can find that in the new testaments at John 2:13-16.

Some translation will say whip, and other will say scourge. A scourge(the weapon the jesus constructed) is a Roman whip with metal balls/shards that hang from the leather. To use that sounds pretty violent to me. ;O)

Katalyzt

[jazzyazz]

And so it does. Turns out Jesus didn't like those Jews havin' a market down at his dads place!

Thankfully Jesus is a myth or he'd be really pissed off at Peter Popoff selling holy water from his church. However... that also means that there isn't a hell for those type of charlatans to rot in.

[nightwolf117610]

Anger isn't necessarily bad. It provokes change, though most anger is associated with only doing something bad.

[Katalyzt]

I am not sure if your comment was addressed to me, or jazzyazz, but you are right. It is not so much a matter of the fictional jesus character getting agree, but that this real "christian theologian" stated/implied that the jesus character refused to do violence. I was merely pointing out (while using verses from the bible) that he was incorrect.

Katalyzt