Olasky just completely gave a total non-answer to the second to last question and hasn't given a satisfactory response to any of the criticisms hitchens brought up
If I was in a debate and a questioner credited me as a hero of his then went off to invoke Pascal's wager, I would immediately tell him to "please never credit me again for anything you have done or will do, you moronic piece of shit".
Hitch should have slapped Orlasky down about his 'evil atheistic regimes' comment by asking if he's ever heard of a Venn diagram. In this case a big circle would represent the set of all atheists, while a smaller circle entirely inside the big one represents all communists. Looking at this picture one can see immediately that "all communists are atheists" is a true statement, but that "all atheists are communists" is not true!
I want to hear a debate centering on two things; the resurrection and the Virgin birth. These two things are the cornerstone of Christianity; let us put it to rest.
@examinfo Amenkept III, Ra, Perseus, Karna, Zoroaster, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge, Antiope... were also born from virgins. The same applies to the resurrection myths... just pick your favorite pagan tale, millions of christians already did it...Done
@pedrojglopes this is all known. My point is; instead of wasting time debating issues that have no anwser, such as "Does God Exist?" The concentration should rest on things that could be easily proven or disproven. The resurrection is easily disproved by science, as well as "Virgin Birth." These make up the core of christianity and are blatently false. If they think that dead people rise and then fly to heaven, how can it be possible to have an intelligent conversation.
@examinfo yap i understand your point, but they call it miracles so your argument doesn't work. Thats why its frustrating to debate a theist, their faith is a firewall to reason. But if you show that the book they follow is actually full of sadistic morals and its OK to not believe, you might illuminate some minds .. :D cheerz
I feel Hitchens hardly needed to debate anything, His opponent just list facts of things that happened and claimed them to be 'because' they where christian. And hardly touched and debated any logic put forth by Hitchens and only countered some 'eye catcher' absolute statements from his book, and not even well founded ie: easily discarded.
i am sorry but ... dont be naive america is not doing a humane job toward iraq lol why would u spend billions of dollars for freeing ppl .. pls dont be naive .. ppl spend money to gain money ... not to free ppl ... when war is profitable as it has been always in all history it wil continue under false pretense
I want Christopher Hitchens to use me and abuse me in all the right and all the wrong ways, then we'll smoke a cigar, split a bottle of scotch and bash the superstitious into the wee hours of the morning.
The Senator said something profound (at about 3:45) that was missed by Hitch and everybody in audience and commentors of this video. He stated that Dr. Olasky was a hero of his for many years. And, "Spurred him on to Government service." Not, "the peoples service" or the "service of his constituents". This is a 'Freudian slip' of the right wing mentality. He doesn't serve the people, he serves the government.
Pascal's wager?... never gets old, does it? Wouldn't an omnipotent deity who knows your will be able to instantly determine if your faith in him during your mortal life was genuine? If you were simply doubling down to get into the pearly gates then God convicts you of thoughtcrime and tickets you to the far reachs of Hell. Do christians really believe it's that easy to put one over on their deity?
Pascals wager is so easily debunked. Its flawed on many levels. For a start it presents a false dichotomy between not believing and believing in the god of the bible. Ok so you don't lose anything by believing (although you do) but which god do you then choose to believe in?
Pascal's wager is basically an argument to "just not think about it". ...Servile and conformist. Interestingly, pascal's wager is the same as the primary argument in favor of environmentalism. "But what if global warming IS true?" (Hell, fire, brimstone, ...two days after the day before yesterday!!!) LOLz
I've never heard this called the Pascal wager, but basically since i first was told anything about religion and learned it had a hell and a heaven I immediately found things wrong with it all and created the 2nd point Hitchens mentions on it with "who is more moral?" and that was I think easy to figure out when i was probably i dunno under 10 years old. Not so easy for the children who get Indoctrinated with the religious bullshit day in and day out as a foundation for their life to grow on.
@dmansfire i was indoctrinated in a religious school, but i still came to the same realization in my childhood: these people were no authorities on morality. the concept of infinite torture for the crime of disbelief is sadistic, and this bothered my conscience as a 7 year old.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitchens, you deceitful cunt - First you conveniently exclude why we invaded Iraq and your reasons for it originally. You also conveniently forget Iraq was a secular nation. Religious extremism has been multiplied with this invasion. We've backed a relgious government. Baghdad is now divided between Sunnis and Shias behind concrete walls.
And lastly, who gave you the motherfucking right to invade another country in a war against religion. Condescending cunt.
Ya... there has been way more ethnic cleansing since we invaded. Last time i was in iraq... The Sunnis ad Shias were starting to pull together because they had had enough of the bombers killing 100 civilians in an attempt to kill 1 soldier. Im sure it was different when YOU were there tho...
He is better then the other religious people that hitchens has fought Olasky is clear and articulate then the other pro religious people tend to ramble and babble I hate that
Yes, with Pacal's wager there is a flaw in it's construct. What if Zeus is god? Or maybe Poseidon or Vishnu. As the person below said there are hundreds of gods to choose from and I add that statistically you likely will be unable to pick the right one. I say they are all wrong.
Another problem with Pascal's Wager is the fact that it takes god for a fool. If there is a god, he is not so dumb that he can't tell the difference between sincerity and believing just to cover your ass.
Pascal's Wager is flawed since there are so many gods to choose from. Also, it's a false dichotomy. It's like saying "either believe in papa smurf and go to smurf heaven or disbelieve and go to gargamel hell."
Hitchens' answer to Pascal's Wager is pretty weak. 1. It makes you a thought slave to whoever makes up the scarist story. 2. You don't live life by "what if," you live life by "how likely," because you're still at the computer...what if it explodes? It's highly unlikely, so you don't. And it's highly unlikely that the God story is true. Let alone how many mutually exclusive gods there are.
In his book and in other debates he goes into that more. His answer here is relatively weak, though stronger than any argument for supporting the wager :P
The problem in Iraq is that we didn't have a secular government to start it, and that there isn't a secular party who vow to continue it to ensure that Iraq wouldn't be an extremist regimental camp. And I don't think that the Democrats are that secular either.
That is the point. If we have a secular government to start with, then we don't have to be there. It is the fact, there isn't one. What do you mean the Democrats are not that secular? American Democrats or Iraqis Democrats?
Olasky just completely gave a total non-answer to the second to last question and hasn't given a satisfactory response to any of the criticisms hitchens brought up
DaveParnell24 3 months ago in playlist More videos from darkmatteruniverse
ahhhhh I just love Hitchens----
tulipsontheorgan 4 months ago
Pascal's wager is BS.
It is a lie of the most fundamental sort. If I were a theist based on his reasoning, I would already be breaking one of the commandments.
MrOttopants 5 months ago 2
Thank you for posting this, darkmatteruniverse.
writersblock26 6 months ago
pwned.
Cobhammar 9 months ago
If I was in a debate and a questioner credited me as a hero of his then went off to invoke Pascal's wager, I would immediately tell him to "please never credit me again for anything you have done or will do, you moronic piece of shit".
dorsk188 10 months ago
6:45
"he's running away!"
I don't blame him. He got pwned pretty hard and probably needs to call a doctor.
blackplatypus 11 months ago
Hitch should have slapped Orlasky down about his 'evil atheistic regimes' comment by asking if he's ever heard of a Venn diagram. In this case a big circle would represent the set of all atheists, while a smaller circle entirely inside the big one represents all communists. Looking at this picture one can see immediately that "all communists are atheists" is a true statement, but that "all atheists are communists" is not true!
hznfrst 11 months ago
@hznfrst Okay then Olasky could use the same diagram for Christians
boboe511 10 months ago
I want to hear a debate centering on two things; the resurrection and the Virgin birth. These two things are the cornerstone of Christianity; let us put it to rest.
examinfo 1 year ago
@examinfo Amenkept III, Ra, Perseus, Karna, Zoroaster, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge, Antiope... were also born from virgins. The same applies to the resurrection myths... just pick your favorite pagan tale, millions of christians already did it...Done
pedrojglopes 1 year ago
@pedrojglopes this is all known. My point is; instead of wasting time debating issues that have no anwser, such as "Does God Exist?" The concentration should rest on things that could be easily proven or disproven. The resurrection is easily disproved by science, as well as "Virgin Birth." These make up the core of christianity and are blatently false. If they think that dead people rise and then fly to heaven, how can it be possible to have an intelligent conversation.
examinfo 1 year ago
@examinfo yap i understand your point, but they call it miracles so your argument doesn't work. Thats why its frustrating to debate a theist, their faith is a firewall to reason. But if you show that the book they follow is actually full of sadistic morals and its OK to not believe, you might illuminate some minds .. :D cheerz
pedrojglopes 1 year ago
hitchens is there at the top with the best of them
timewilltell7 1 year ago
HAH. I love his description of Galloway.
inademv 1 year ago
I feel Hitchens hardly needed to debate anything, His opponent just list facts of things that happened and claimed them to be 'because' they where christian. And hardly touched and debated any logic put forth by Hitchens and only countered some 'eye catcher' absolute statements from his book, and not even well founded ie: easily discarded.
Defhrone 1 year ago
i am sorry but ... dont be naive america is not doing a humane job toward iraq lol why would u spend billions of dollars for freeing ppl .. pls dont be naive .. ppl spend money to gain money ... not to free ppl ... when war is profitable as it has been always in all history it wil continue under false pretense
ahmology 1 year ago
hitchens ends it with a cherry on top!!
avalanchesoul 1 year ago
I want Christopher Hitchens to use me and abuse me in all the right and all the wrong ways, then we'll smoke a cigar, split a bottle of scotch and bash the superstitious into the wee hours of the morning.
TheSirBoyKing 1 year ago
Dr Olasky seems to be more and more distressed as the debate proceeds. "Me thinkus he protestuth to much"
kramdoog 1 year ago
The Senator said something profound (at about 3:45) that was missed by Hitch and everybody in audience and commentors of this video. He stated that Dr. Olasky was a hero of his for many years. And, "Spurred him on to Government service." Not, "the peoples service" or the "service of his constituents". This is a 'Freudian slip' of the right wing mentality. He doesn't serve the people, he serves the government.
rhblackburn 1 year ago
BRILLIANT HITCH
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
Pascal's wager?... never gets old, does it? Wouldn't an omnipotent deity who knows your will be able to instantly determine if your faith in him during your mortal life was genuine? If you were simply doubling down to get into the pearly gates then God convicts you of thoughtcrime and tickets you to the far reachs of Hell. Do christians really believe it's that easy to put one over on their deity?
morpheus8624 1 year ago
Olasky has done only a good job in remembering names!
fredkhambatta 2 years ago 3
omg hes really mumbling pascals wager .... -.-
guenther11krass 2 years ago 3
Pascals wager is so easily debunked. Its flawed on many levels. For a start it presents a false dichotomy between not believing and believing in the god of the bible. Ok so you don't lose anything by believing (although you do) but which god do you then choose to believe in?
BeforeTheNoose 2 years ago 3
Pascal's wager is basically an argument to "just not think about it". ...Servile and conformist. Interestingly, pascal's wager is the same as the primary argument in favor of environmentalism. "But what if global warming IS true?" (Hell, fire, brimstone, ...two days after the day before yesterday!!!) LOLz
libertarianjury 2 years ago
pascal got pwned!
hillbillyjo 2 years ago 24
I've never heard this called the Pascal wager, but basically since i first was told anything about religion and learned it had a hell and a heaven I immediately found things wrong with it all and created the 2nd point Hitchens mentions on it with "who is more moral?" and that was I think easy to figure out when i was probably i dunno under 10 years old. Not so easy for the children who get Indoctrinated with the religious bullshit day in and day out as a foundation for their life to grow on.
dmansfire 1 year ago 4
@dmansfire
Well put.
brajamtho757 8 months ago
@dmansfire i was indoctrinated in a religious school, but i still came to the same realization in my childhood: these people were no authorities on morality. the concept of infinite torture for the crime of disbelief is sadistic, and this bothered my conscience as a 7 year old.
saitamme 6 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens, you deceitful cunt - First you conveniently exclude why we invaded Iraq and your reasons for it originally. You also conveniently forget Iraq was a secular nation. Religious extremism has been multiplied with this invasion. We've backed a relgious government. Baghdad is now divided between Sunnis and Shias behind concrete walls.
And lastly, who gave you the motherfucking right to invade another country in a war against religion. Condescending cunt.
Damien558 2 years ago
Ya... there has been way more ethnic cleansing since we invaded. Last time i was in iraq... The Sunnis ad Shias were starting to pull together because they had had enough of the bombers killing 100 civilians in an attempt to kill 1 soldier. Im sure it was different when YOU were there tho...
helloblah12223 2 years ago 3
Olasky is not so bad, I've seen worse than him.
Olasky at lease has a modicum of reason and understanding about himself.
Hitchens as ever is da daddy here.
Danni4815162342 2 years ago 39
He is better then the other religious people that hitchens has fought Olasky is clear and articulate then the other pro religious people tend to ramble and babble I hate that
crbrs20 2 years ago 5
Is it wrong for me to feel sorry for olasky???No good coz i dont what a fucking moron
wrathofgod8668 3 years ago
Yes, with Pacal's wager there is a flaw in it's construct. What if Zeus is god? Or maybe Poseidon or Vishnu. As the person below said there are hundreds of gods to choose from and I add that statistically you likely will be unable to pick the right one. I say they are all wrong.
greyhall1 3 years ago 3
Another problem with Pascal's Wager is the fact that it takes god for a fool. If there is a god, he is not so dumb that he can't tell the difference between sincerity and believing just to cover your ass.
BananaHurricane 3 years ago 5
Pascal's Wager is flawed since there are so many gods to choose from. Also, it's a false dichotomy. It's like saying "either believe in papa smurf and go to smurf heaven or disbelieve and go to gargamel hell."
DIRTYDUNNZ 3 years ago 2
Hitchens' answer to Pascal's Wager is pretty weak. 1. It makes you a thought slave to whoever makes up the scarist story. 2. You don't live life by "what if," you live life by "how likely," because you're still at the computer...what if it explodes? It's highly unlikely, so you don't. And it's highly unlikely that the God story is true. Let alone how many mutually exclusive gods there are.
EGarrett01 3 years ago
In his book and in other debates he goes into that more. His answer here is relatively weak, though stronger than any argument for supporting the wager :P
Maverician 3 years ago 2
True dominance.
plimbuff 4 years ago
that was great
mfjeff 4 years ago
The problem in Iraq is that we didn't have a secular government to start it, and that there isn't a secular party who vow to continue it to ensure that Iraq wouldn't be an extremist regimental camp. And I don't think that the Democrats are that secular either.
chanjl41 4 years ago
That is the point. If we have a secular government to start with, then we don't have to be there. It is the fact, there isn't one. What do you mean the Democrats are not that secular? American Democrats or Iraqis Democrats?
Chemicalkinetics 3 years ago