Turek keeps coming back to "God's" morals that Hitchens uses to view the world, and I wanted Hitchens to smash him in the face with it. There is NO objective morality. If God TELLS YOU to kill a man for picking up sticks, or TELLS YOU to slaughter a town except for the virgins, and we as a society now consider these to be evil, God didn't give us those morals.
Petty Office Monsoor's sacrifice truly selfless and should be remembered honorably. But I ask, would his sacrifice be greater if he was a believer or if he was a non-believer?
As a believer, he would expect to literally meet his maker and, hopefully, move onto eternal reward. As a non-believer, he would expect nothing more than oblivion. Which is the greater sacrifice?
I also ask, do you think either of these things went through his head?
How dare that evil little shit hijack a soldiers last half hour in this world to further his crazy lunacy.
To start with its just pure fucking evil to use something totally unrelated to morality, justice or religion to try justify a religious position.
Next I am seriously sick at this point of crazy whackjobs like this guy hijacking things like morals and claiming dominion over this area of society.... morality is not the domain of religion... keep your dirty mits off it!
You people really hate God. Don't come back and say that you don't hate him because he doesn't exist. You don't want God to exist. You know that if He does exist (which He does), you are accountable for your sin. You are too proud and you don't want to bow down and ask forgiveness. You also don't want to give up sinning. It is easy to see through this charade.
@Iceland1944 When you stop denying that the green goblins at the bottom of my garden come out at night and ride roughshod through my rose garden on the backs of tiny horses.... at that point I'll stop denying your god...
and don't tell me there are no goblins....you just hate the goblins... but its not their fault they like roses!
Do you see how fucking stupid that sounds... now consider how retarded we think you are for insisting someone that doesn't believe in a god, hates that god...
great debate, I'm thrilld seen it, but, the some atheistic comments, are just unbelivible, "Congrats turek. Your closing statement had nothing to do with anything. Fuck you." what are this person thinking?? i think the end debate show us the capacity of Turek, and for the whole debate, the proof for God it is too high, to we just ignore it.
This was an excellent debate (on the part of turek that is). He gave evidence to support his side of the argument. The other chap only complained and tried to outline the ills of christianity. So what if people violate the rules of christianity; does that mean its not true? No it does not!! An objective mind has no choice in this instance but to lean towards the position put forward by Frank Turek. Well done Mr. Turek. Christopher you came to the battle with a revolver instead of missiles.
christ didnt sacrifice himself, if he resurected 3 days later how is that sacrifice? If he knew that he would live an eternity, how is that a sacrifice? Imn order to sacrifice you have to give somehting up, he only gave his life up for 3 days so that he could later live for ever. Many people were turtured for far longer than christ, the jews in the holocoust etc. So really christ never sacrifsed anthing becasue he knew he would life again.
@Hectom8 - "If he knew that he would live in eternity........
"Good point.....I´ve asked myself that plenty of times. However, as a HUMAN being, he was struggling in his mind, as anyone would....."if it be possible, take this cup away from me.." (he was even sweating). And later at the cross: "...why has thou forsaken me?".
So, if he doubted, it means that he wasn´t 100% sure. It was a test of faith: "......nevertheless, not my will, but Thine."
@ruffomaldito A standard grenade has a timer of anywhere between 2 to 6 seconds.. Modern ones can be set to start the timer on the impact after they land.. which means Michael had about 6 seconds to 'decide' what he was going to do.
All navy seals are trained to dive on the grenade full body and in that way since the blast cannot travel up through their flack jacket it will exhaust itself sideways, its safer than standing beside it as it explodes.
@MumblingMickey Quite right again. Except the story didn't end there, did it? Someone had to capitalize on his death to spin bullshit, make it into something it wasn't. Just like the Jesica Lynch story. Then everyone jumped on the bandwagon because a good hearth-string-tugging lie is so useful for selling any agenda you please - especially one involving the real sacrifice of critical faculties to belief in a self-proclaimed authority who needs money.
@brindlebriar Yeah its such a deceitful thing to do that even if you seemed during a debate the most likeable character, even if every point you made was both accurate and immediately demonstrable.
To then go ahead and include something like this at the end makes me cringe... it makes me physically sick that someone would have the sheer balls to use anothers death like that...
Its actually immoral... and its ironic in this debate that Turek can't see that!
@gamesbok That soldier knew that he would not only be dead for three days AND return to life as a god! In my book that makes the soldiier a far better role model than Jesus!
...unjustifiable speculation which is dressed up to look like an inevitable consequence of his science. At first I thought he just didn't know what he's talking about, but on closer inspection I'm convinced he's just deliberately deceiving people because he knows the real science on it's own, as Hitchens says, requires no God to function. He twists it so that God is the only convincing explanation.
...unjustifiable speculation which he dresses up as an inevitable consequence of the science. If you can find the cutoff point where he starts speculating everything thereafter quickly becomes nonsense. At first I thought he just didn't know what he was talking about, but upon closer inspection I'm convinced that he's just deliberately deceiving people.
I actually think he's probably quite clever. He twists science to support his unsubstantiated view, and he knows that he can't do it convincingly without deriving conclusions about God that most laypeople would not be able to speculate on. I think he knows what he's saying is bollocks, but he's also taking advantage of the fact that a large portion of his audience don't. He does it in a clever way in which he makes a correct scientific statement, but will then make completely unjustifi
The talking about the man who threw himself on the grenade Turek is going for a cheap brownie point. I guess when you have nothing you need to tug at peoples heartstrings.
Christopher has given no reason to accept that atheism is true?
WHat a stupid thing to say. Atheism is simple, it is the statement "I dont believe you" Saying "I dont believe you" is true if the person doesnt believe what is being said. If Turek TRULY accepts that what he has said is valid then he must be hard on people to dont believe in Bigfoot or Aliens. Is non belief in either of those 2 things also not true?
Turek is a stupid man, how anyone takes him seriously baffles me
@ThieleM This idea that atheism can be true or untrue is a total misunderstanding of not just what atheists are, but what belief is.
What you are doing is believing something without any evidence (which is fine, fill yer boots)... but then claiming anyone not sharing that belief has a belief of their own... but they don't!
Atheism can't be true... or false... its not a belief... atheism essentially is to belief... what hair color is to bald!
@ThieleM Well anti-theists DO have a belief. But its not a religious one, its a belief that religion itself is outdated, outmoded and bloody dangerous.
I'm anti-theist... I base that on the observation that I rarely see religions problems with non religious people, ergo religion existing is a danger, as opposed to it not existing.
But I also accept religion is an evolutionary byproduct, so its outside my ability or anyone's to control. But I think it can be replaced.
Anti theism is, in a way, 2 things. The believe that there is no god and a contention that you do not believe what theists are selling.
I agree with you an pretty much anything. I don't have any supernatural beliefs but am not really an anti theist for the most part. I have to say that my patience has been tested by crispy Christies lately.
But PO Michael Mansour's action was done for his friends, not their sins. This makes it distinct from Christ's sacrifice, which Hitchens calls "vicarious redemption" (better known as substitionary atonement). Although I don't necessarily buy Hitchens' point on the immorality of vicarious redemeption, I can certainly see the distinction between Christ's sacrifice and Mansour's. I best others can, too.
I don't usually comment on youtube videos, but I found Turek's closing statement infuriating. Hitchens point is not that sacrifice is immoral, but that the supposed sacrifice of Christ is immoral because people should take responsibility for their own wrongdoings. Turek changes the topic by asking the question "Is sacrifice immoral?" He then uses this question to go into a story that was completely unrelated to the debate. This was a cheap way to capture the emotions of the audience.
Worst debate I have seen by Hitchens, he made a terrible case and appeared to be dodging questions. I think he may have been just as tired as he made out during his closing statement. Which was poor.
An objective moral standard for atheists? What about the objective standard of less harm? Turek is truly oblivious. I know I don't want to be murdered so therefore it's understood that other people don't want that either. What's so hard about that?
is Turek serious with making the connection between the seal and the context of which Hitchens says that Jesus' sacrifice was immoral? the worse logical argument that i have ever heard in my life!!!
@markissuperman Unfortunately he is serious. However, he ran out of logical argument, so he had to resort to using the lowest 'card' available. That being, the disgraceful use of a dead soldier, simply to prop up his argument. What a pathetic human being.
What's worse is that I guarantee that 90 percent of that audience probably forgot about every good point Chris made as a direct result of that ridiculous comparison. When reason fails, appeal to emotion. I made a comment earlier about how debating a theist is like playing chess with a pigeon who knocks over the pieces, shits on the board, and then flys back to his flock to claim victory. Checkmate Turek... Checkmate indeed.
PEOPLE DIE IN WAR EVERYDAY,THEY KNEW WHAT THE RISKS WERE, BUT THE CAUSE IS GREATER, WHETHER OR NOT THE WAR IS JUSTIFIABLE (WHETHER WAR IS RELIGIOUS OR SECULAR.)
IS RELIGIOUS SELF-ANNIHILATION JUSTIFIABLE FOR SELF OR OTHERS WHO DISBELIEVE YOU & WHO YOU PERMIT TO KILL YOU? IS THIS LOVE? IT'S CALLED MARTYR-COMPLEX,MASOCHISM,SUICIDE PATHOLOGY. THE RATIONALITY INVOLVED HERE IS VULGAR,UNAMBITIOUS,BARBARIC, HEINOUS,CYNICAL,& SELF-MUTILATING TO SAY THE LEAST.
It is NOT a sacrifice for a soldier to throw himself on a grenade to save his brothers IF he values the lives of his brothers more then his own! This is NOT a sacrifice!!!
It IS a sacrifice when you throw yourself on the grenade to save others when you do NOT value their lives more then your own life. And it IS immoral!
To have a society there the currently dominating social and/or religious doctrine DEMAND that you sacrifice what you value the most to others IS immoral.
I suppose it depends on who is seeing it as a sacrifice. Would Jesus say he made a sacrifice? No. Would Turek? According to his analogy yes. Were the two related outside of this definition of sacrifice? No. Was Turek objective in this debate? Absolutely not. Hitchens stuck to emotionless objectivity and hammered Turek. What's sad, and the reason emotional appeal is such a low card, is that it moved the audience out of the realm of reason into emotion and then the debate ended. Sad...
@Merecir I'm not sure I understand. If this soldier is going to give up his life so that the others may live, has the not given up his own life for the others? So what if he values the lives of the others more than his own? He's still offering his life in place of theirs. Are you saying that if this soldier doesn't care about his own life then dying for the others is no real loss to him? If so, then perhaps but I think it's reasonable to assume that this soldier valued his own life.
@alawrence89 Its about the misuse of the word sacrifice and/or the lack or understanding what the word really means. Most dictionaries have it wrong or list contradictory explanations.
Sacrifice means to give away what you value the most.
The same example on a more basic level:
I assume you you value a dollar more then a penny?
It is then a sacrifice for you to trade away a dollar for a penny.
But it is not if you trade away a penny for a dollar.
@Merecir Sacrifice doesn't have to be what I value the most. It could be what I value more but still not be the most. Even so, the example with the penny and the dollar is something I agree with. However, it's not an appropriate analogy to the soldier because the soldier gets nothing in return. He gives his life to receive nothing from those which he died for. Assuming that he valued his own life, he gave up something he valued for nothing in return. That IS sacrifice.
@Merecir What if this particular soldier was not in fact sacrificing himself? What if he believed after countless demonstrations that it is a far better option to cover the blast with yourself and you flack jacket rather than stand beside a grenade as it exploded?
What if that's what soldiers are trained to do?
Its not really a sacrifice in that case then is it?
But for a weasel to hijack the story to further his religious lunacy... well that's certainly a penny for a dollar!
A warrior's sacrifice for his brothers has nothing to do with God. But if it did, what does this tell you about that "God"? I can guess your response. God found reason to remind us of sacrifice. Easy out. Not that God is an entity without compassion or a shred of honor for placing his human "children" in harm's way. Ridiculous and disgusting use of one man's courageous actions in an attempt to justify your religion, Turek. You are no shipmate of this veteran.
It's obvious that Turek wrote that "closing statement" much much long before the actual day of debate. he simply wrote a paragraph on criticizing Hitchens and presented it as his "closing statement"
and I'm glad this theist thinks he knows Hitchens better than Hitchens knows himself. Just like this same deluded theist thinks he knows God better than IT knows itself.
What is reality: who knows?
What best explains reality: thought
What is our shared reality: the various sense-data that we seam to share
What best explains our shared reality: Agnostic Science
Yes, indeed, vicarious sacrifice in the mode of murder is, in fact, immoral. A soldier who throws himself on a hand grenade is doing so because of the commodity of human generosity; an angry crowd of people murdering a scapegoat is hardly a moral equivalent. There was no existential threat to jesus if he was omnipotent; he wasn't. If the holy trinity were a true concept and jesus was the son and his father abandoned his own son, this is exactlly the opposite of what the soldier did. It's evil.
Sacrifice is evil when it is used as scapegoating. The S.E.A.L. was not being used as a scapegoat. In other words his comrades did forcibly hold him on the grenade by order of someone else.
I like how for this video all of a sudden there's so many more dislikes than in the other videos. It's probably actually even worse, due to people like me who clicked "like" just because they rated the video rather than the speech in it (I have no quarrel with the poster of the video) :)
Sorry Turek, but you did not give evidence to god existence. You merely raised some of the very interesting questions we as a spieces have not answered yet.
Since proving that anything does not exsist is impossible (take faires for instance) I can't wait to hear or see you present tangible evidence for god, which should have no problem proving his own existence, but some reason choses not to....?
Hitchens isn't dumb enough to talk about the beginning of the universe without a degree in physics. Since most astrophysicists are not theists, I think we can safely assume that physics does not infer a god.
Hitchens never says sacrifice is immoral he says that excusing your own sins and removing your own accountability for someone else's sacrifice is immoral...
Turek won this debate just like Hitchens won the first one. i think Turek clearly did a better job on this debate than his first one with Hitchens. I know aithiest will say Hitchens won because they favor their guy. Just like the Christians do with WLC. Christians have a hard time admitting when Craig lost a debate. Aithiest are doing the same thing with this debate. By the way I'm a Christian but i try to be objective as I can. It was a great closing arguement by Turek.
Honestly, if you don't know how to differentiate whether or not a closing statement relates to a subject's speech, then no, there is nothing that can be explained/proven to you. You will simply exist in a state of foolishness and wither away into nonexistence. Good day.
@OutShoneGod You seem to be missing the point. The story proved that sacrifice is admirable and noble, disproving Hitchens irrational claims that have nothing to do with reality (as is true of most atheist claims).
@TruthIsLife7 It would seem that you do not understand the difference between sacrifice and self-sacrifice. The soldier sacrificed himself for his friends, this is easy enough to see. Jesus, was sacrificed by God, to God for our sins, which we did not require him to do as their is no proof that there is a God. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to God, because he was asked to. How are these examples noble? The murder of women and children is also a justifiable sacrifice for christians.
@OutShoneGod As usual, atheists believe blatant lies about Christianity so dishonest that they are comparable to saying that all atheists are serial killers like Stalin and Mao. It's not your fault, but you've been duped and lied to.
1) Jesus said: "No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again." John 10:18
2) It is pure insanity that Christians justify murder of women&children.
@TruthIsLife7 Seeing as you willingly look to the Bible for answers, perhaps you would be able to find me proof that Jesus and therefore God is able to make decisions, rather than live out the life that was predestined by God and/or Determinism. Also, how many women and children do you think died during the Crusades?
@OutShoneGod Could you make your question on Jesus and decisions clearer? From my reading, muslim turks conquered Jerusalem and the Holy land first and began persecuting Christians as well as aggressively advancing on the Byzantine empire. Most of the crusades were fights between armies of soldiers. Certain kings in Europe responded, and used Christian catch phrases for political purposes to motivate soldiers to fight even though it wasn't something that God or the Bible commanded.
@TruthIsLife7 Perhaps then a better example would be the persecution of women as witches, what then do have to say of Christians not being able to justify the killing of women?
@OutShoneGod It is certifiably insane to think that persecuting witches is an attack on all women. That's just ludicrous. If you want to criticize the problems of worldviews, atheism has more problems than any. Regimes that were officially atheist killed 1-200 million people in JUST the last century and most of these killings were done explicitly because of the atheistic beliefs of those in power. More died under atheists in 100 years than in the entire history of the world COMBINED.
@OutShoneGod I'm not trolling or joking at all.It is far more important to separate atheism from state power than it is to separate church and state (something that is badly perverted from what the founders meant). Atheism is one of the most oppressive and anti-freedom philophies inall history when it gets power. However we must be very careful to distinguish between systems and individuals. There are quite a few admirable atheist individuals, some who I know personally.
There is no such thing as objective morality objective means not dependent on a person so if objective moral values existed Hitler would believe the holocaust was wrong and he thought it was right if objective moral values existed there would be no debate on the death penalty or abortion
@globalfraud "if objective moral values existed Hitler would believe the holocaust was wrong" - huh?
Just because there's debate about objective moral values doesn't mean there aren't any. One side of the debate could simply be wrong. If I ask "Am I a good person?" and I have a debate with someone does the fact that we are having a debate mean that there's not an answer to that question?
@alawrence89 If you have to debate the issue of whether there are, or are not objective moral values...then that debate alone is a clear demonstration that morals are primarily subjective!
However we don't see too many debates on whether water is wet or not do we?
Okay well clearly you are not too clear on what morals really are...
People differ in their understanding of what is morally right and wrong... Just there alone you have subjective approaches to morals. Next even when something is clearly morally reprehensible it is still considered valid by some in many cases.
Morals are simply subject to the circumstance in which they are considered.
Debating that is a demonstration of the subjective circumstances that justify moral actions.
CONT. If something is objective then no such discussion is required... we do not for instance debate if the sky is up... its an objective observation.... there is no debate required.
We do not debate if cats meow instead of bark... cats meow...its an absolute... totally objective.
However we DO debate if it is morally right to execute someone for their crimes... because people differ in opinion... and your opinion regardless of the moral dictate is not absolute...is just one opinion.
CO NT. Even if the moral position seems absolutely clear to you... it may not be to the others or the vast majority might look at you as if you have two heads for making such assertions.
For example you will no doubt insist it was morally wrong for the Nazi regime to slaughter jews, communists, disabled and others. However its pretty hard to believe that millions of Germans were simply immoral and evil and changed their mind at the cessation of the war.
CONT. So ...when people sit and discuss what morals are, when they are good and when they are bad and when they are neutral (amoral) then that act of discussing morals is a clear demonstration that nobody knows what is right and what is wrong without considering the almost endless quantity of variables...
ie. the act of discussing morals is a demonstration of the subjectivity of the issue.
If they were objective no such discussion by anyone would be required or even possible!
@MumblingMickey Quite right. I was dissappointed in Hitchens for failing, when asked point blank if he thought there were objective moral values, to simply say, 'No, there are no objective moral values." It is hard for people to get that concept because even the men like Hitchens evade it. Hitchens needs only clarify that his moral condemnation of religion is an appeal to consensus morality, not objective morality, and the topic should no longer be inconvenient to his general message.
@alawrence89 I'd like to elaborate on that, if I may, in this short space. Subjective = opinion. Ojective = fact. (That's all those words mean.)
You don't debate facts, because there's nothing to decide. Facts are not decided; they are discovered. You observe to find them.
Opinions are decided upon, and can be changed by changing one's mind. If people are debating what is and isn't moral, then morality is a matter of opinion, i.e. subjective.
Turek HAD to play with words it was inevitable. When saying sacrifice is immoral or course we don't mean self-sacrifice we mean IMPOSED sacrifice. He even made his little show, wow
@2CSST2 There was no imposed sacrifice of Jesus. He gave his life willingly and says he did so. Turek did not play with words. Hitchens is the one who is misrepresenting religion as well as science and history.
Turek doesn't get that refuting religion IS EXACTLY what was asked from Hitchens. Atheism is just that: a lack of belief in God. It isn't a positive claim like "God exists" or "you must live your life this way or burn for eternity" or "The creator forbids that you fuck your buddy, you're the same sex as him".
There are two sides in Hitch's argument: Atheism, i.e. God isn't true, and anti-theism, i.e. the Religious have done and do horrible things in the name of a God, who is (by the way) a dick.
That was a low blow, dick move Turek made. He tried to lay it out there like only christians would sacrifice, and built up this big dramatic smoke screen so he can hide behind his bullcrap. This man is a disgrace and is just another religious nut preacher. I'm embarrassed he tried representing NJ.
@MGiants82 ha ha. I'm not American, but where I'm from, the only representation I've heard of from NJ is not this guy. Mate, you've already got a lot on your plate :D (I'm thinking about that South Park episode - you know which one hee hee).
I mean no offence of course. And I feel your pain ^^
Atheism is like non-stamp collecting. It's not something that exists, it's absence of a hobby. Or absence of a theism. Therefor atheism doesn't give morals, nor should it be expected to be. The claim atheism is immoral or lacks morals is illogical, it's not supposed to in the first place. It's like blaming a rock for not being able to float. Nobody expects a rock to float, why blame it for not doing so ? Further, morals can exist without god. Group survival depended on a set of rules that
@sogghartha benefit the entire group or as many as possible. Those that did not adhere to such rules were cast out as undesirable, dangerous to group survival. That's what we call morals. No gods required for morals. The claims of prophecies in the bible falls flat on its face as soon as you examine these so called prophecies for context and meaning. It is no wonder the jews did not accept Jesus as messiah. They knew their holy texts and were the first to conclude no prophecy spoke of him.
Frank Turek is a gigantic fucking moron. I commented on a previous video that he was a moron, which was put to shame by his moronic closing statement.
i would like to ask you question...you don't have to respond...why do you proceed to watch/listen to these videos if you know they are "wrong or absurd" is it that you are searching for an answer?
@Kimdwjd So i have to be in search of answer to get a laugh out of people's terrible arguments? I watch to hear Hitchens destroy people, as well as to be informed of other people's positions. I also watch them because i find it fun to pick apart theists arguments before Hitchens has a chance to see how we compare. But yes, i am searching for an answer actually; i am searching for an answer to why people find theists arguments compelling.
@raphanon A simple answer to what theist arguments are compelling is this:
1) Atheists can only criticize, usually based on logical fallacies. Much of the evidence that supported atheism in the past has been conclusively debunked and other hopes it had have failed to materialize.
2) Christians present evidence for their claims using the scientific, logical, historical and similar methods. If you deny these are evidence,to be consistent, you must destroy much scientific&historical knowledge.
@TruthIsLife7 If i hadn't looked at your channel, i would've thought you were joking. You can assert that the criticism is based on logical fallacies all you'd like, but that doesn't make it so. Atheism needs no support, it is the rejection of your claims; your party needs the support, your party needs the evidence. Could i possibly say that i am 100% certain there is no god? Not if i am being intellectually honest. What i can say, however, is i am 100% certain your god is not real.
@raphanon I have ~13,000 comments from youtubers, mostly atheists.If I were not so insanely busy with constant demands&deadlines, I could make 100s of videos proving everything I say including that most atheist criticisms are fallacies.
EVERY philosophy, including atheism, MUST have support and evidence in order to be considered rational or scientific. The idea that atheism of any kind needs no support is one of the most anti-science, laziest and anti-rational concepts ever in history.
@raphanon By the weight of evidence from science,history,logic&other reasons,I'm 100% certain my God is real,but keep my mind open to new evidence since it's possible for anyone to be wrong.Your certainty with all due respect is based on ignorance. It doesn't matter if you were Einstein, when evidence has been banned by the govt. from education, the media follows that and most pastors are not trained in science and so don't explain it in church, that's a quadruple whammy of suppressing evidence.
@TruthIsLife7 When a claim is demonstrably untrue, it isn't ignorant to throw out the claim; it is called the scientific method. Science proves the Christian god claim? Really? Logic too? I can accept saying logic leads to a god of some sort, but a specific god, the Christian god? I have watched many debates on the topic and have found the closest thing anyone has done is proven deism is plausible.
that atheism is bereft of evidence that life can come without intelligence.The weight of testable evidence is solidly for theism. Step 2 is to compare religions.Most debates stop at step 1,true.Dr. Turek DID mention a few specific claims that point to Christianity from science&history, but only briefly.One of the better presentations on step 2 I've seen is on my channel-The playlist "!Come Search with Me!", (see esp. ch. 2, since Ch. 1 is about atheism).
@raphanon I highly recommend reading Dr. Thomas Kuhn's seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Basically, worldviews&many scientific theories are sort of like a network. All have anomalies,but a network nod (or an anomaly) can go down, but the theory may not be wrong. We follow the weight of evidence, NOT the anomalies.Yes, some debates don't get much further than theism vs. atheism. Step one is comparing atheism vs. theism. Science HAS shown pretty conclusively
@raphanon P.S. I'm working on a video script answering most of Hitchen's supposed challenges. His soundbites superficially sound nice, but he like most atheists refuses to follow the weight of evidence&use consistent standards&continually uses logical fallacies. Dr. Turek unfortunately doesn't expose hardly any of these.I'm extremely busy, but atheism is basically the refusal to follow the weight of evidence or use consistent standards for personal, often emotional agendas.
@raphanon P.S.S. Some atheist misunderstandings tho are due to faulty theology.2 examples would be:
A) The idea that hell burns forever is a demonic falsehood&unbiblical.It came from Greek philosophy. Google and read helltruth. The Bible is clear in many places that hell's purpose is to END sin..not let it exist forever (Romans 6:23, Revelation 20:14-15, etc.)
B) Hitchen's many religions problem fails bcz God judges people based on their conscience, not what religion they are a member of.
"This is a non sequitur" - Yes you ARE a fucking hypocrite as well as dishonorable using fallacious trick, deflect, and misrepresent tactics! Go repent and pray for a better series of arguments!
The closing statement about sacrifice is immoral is taken completely out of context. Speaking of sacrifice you can guess that he's speaking of somone sacrificing other people to please their deity. Self sacrifice is a completely different matter.
About creation of life and complexity of a single cell. He missed the SIMPLE single cell organisms part.
He makes it sound as he accepts most of the scientific disoveries, yet he proclaims the bible to be absolutely true.
Frank did better than I thought he would overall. The close on the other hand was a disgusting misrepresentation of what Christopher's point is. It is not "there is no God, and I hate him", but ,there is no God and I hate what people do in his name. Frank knows this and it was a dirty underhanded trick to try and turn the masses to his side. The type of thing you have to resort to when your argument has failed and you have been beaten fairly.
the way he twists hitchens' book is repulsive, he clearly hasn't read it. You can see straight through the religious way of thinking these days because you can see what it has to do to twist things for its own good , remember that Turek wants you to be christian, and Hitchens wants you to think for yourself.
I agree that Hitchens was sometimes a little evasive but I think it's because he's become bored with these theists. I've seen him in many of these debates and these guys make the EXACT SAME arguments over and over and over. Design, First cause, objective morality, they never have anything new. I just think Hitchens wants to broaden a little so he doesn't fall asleep. All of Frank's arguments have been refuted by Hitch and other non-believers it's just getting old beating the same dead horse..
Turek's co-opting of this soldier's sacrifice to make is argument is absolutely abominable. A muslim cleric could make the exact same emotional plea regarding the 9/11 bombers. I am appalled...
Theism is always beyond refutation. Because theists can always place their realities beyond the world humans could ever explore and analyze, it is impossible to refute their points.
It's funny how atheist comments on this debate has resorted to name-calling, it's obvious that Turek crushed Hitchens. Turek had the better presentation and is overall a better speaker than Hitchens. Hitchens basically dodge all questions, had not presentation to support atheism, and basically whined about how he dislikes religion throughout the debate.
@darkmantube That is a horrific closing statement, completely misrepresenting Hitchens' arguments, and riddled with logical fallacies. I'm hoping that the people watching this can see through his tricks. Then invoking a military figure to try to add some weight to his garbage. Disgusting trickery. Typical preacher horsecock
@darkmantube You really think Turek is a better speaker than Hitchens? Are you deaf? By asking for support of atheism, you are showing your lack of knowledge and understanding as to what it means to be an atheist.
No I am not deaf. And yes Turek is a better speaker than Hitchens. And I do understand atheists, they say this and that, but in the end they don't believe in God because they have their own personal reasons, but ussually, their reasons are more of the heart, than the mind.
Atheists, God loves you all. And when y'all finally get over your bitterness, God will still be there to love all of y ou.
Which god or gods are correct? Is it the Hindu gods with over 900million believers? Is it Shenism with 394million followers? How about African Traditional with 100million followers? Just to say one god or gods is the correct one is absurd.
Are we debating religion? Does this mean you belief in God now? One thing at a time. Why don't you read the book, the book also answers this question of which God is correct also.
@Gliese581f Which scientific hypothesis is correct out of millions? Which of the 20 different cosmological views is correct? We put time&resources into figuring out these answers&following the weight of evidence. It is no more difficult to test religions and figure out which one has the weight of evidence and follow that. And there is nothing more important to figure o
Turek keeps coming back to "God's" morals that Hitchens uses to view the world, and I wanted Hitchens to smash him in the face with it. There is NO objective morality. If God TELLS YOU to kill a man for picking up sticks, or TELLS YOU to slaughter a town except for the virgins, and we as a society now consider these to be evil, God didn't give us those morals.
whybag 5 days ago in playlist Theist Atheist Debate
Petty Office Monsoor's sacrifice truly selfless and should be remembered honorably. But I ask, would his sacrifice be greater if he was a believer or if he was a non-believer?
As a believer, he would expect to literally meet his maker and, hopefully, move onto eternal reward. As a non-believer, he would expect nothing more than oblivion. Which is the greater sacrifice?
I also ask, do you think either of these things went through his head?
jemmerx 1 week ago
Frank Turek, you sir, are ignorant.
JACKSCHEESYSMILE 2 weeks ago
The speaker in this video is an idiot.
Peaceeverbody 1 month ago
Hitch was truely the master debater....so long amigo.
GrandmasterBBC 2 months ago
How dare that evil little shit hijack a soldiers last half hour in this world to further his crazy lunacy.
To start with its just pure fucking evil to use something totally unrelated to morality, justice or religion to try justify a religious position.
Next I am seriously sick at this point of crazy whackjobs like this guy hijacking things like morals and claiming dominion over this area of society.... morality is not the domain of religion... keep your dirty mits off it!
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
Great...arguments from ignorance and emotional blackmail.
c300v 2 months ago
You people really hate God. Don't come back and say that you don't hate him because he doesn't exist. You don't want God to exist. You know that if He does exist (which He does), you are accountable for your sin. You are too proud and you don't want to bow down and ask forgiveness. You also don't want to give up sinning. It is easy to see through this charade.
Iceland1944 3 months ago
Comment removed
nujivaa 2 months ago
@Iceland1944 where is your evidence that he does exist?
nujivaa 2 months ago
@Iceland1944 When you stop denying that the green goblins at the bottom of my garden come out at night and ride roughshod through my rose garden on the backs of tiny horses.... at that point I'll stop denying your god...
and don't tell me there are no goblins....you just hate the goblins... but its not their fault they like roses!
Do you see how fucking stupid that sounds... now consider how retarded we think you are for insisting someone that doesn't believe in a god, hates that god...
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
I cried for humanity when they applauded Turek's last speech.
Substance97 4 months ago
@Substance97 that's because your an idiot
pheonixking52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great debate, I'm thrilld seen it, but, the some atheistic comments, are just unbelivible, "Congrats turek. Your closing statement had nothing to do with anything. Fuck you." what are this person thinking?? i think the end debate show us the capacity of Turek, and for the whole debate, the proof for God it is too high, to we just ignore it.
MegaPaozinho 4 months ago
Mr Turek, did you even listen when Christopher was speaking? Oh, and your "chemicals" horse is dead, please stop beating it.
shelleybelley682 4 months ago
@shelleybelley682 then tell hitchens to stop absing his ideas on it..?
pheonixking52 3 months ago
I TALK LOUDLY THE LOUDER I TALK THE MORE CONVINCING I SOUND GOD GOD GODDDDDDDDDD GOD GOD GOD GOD
GRAVEROTT 5 months ago
This was an excellent debate (on the part of turek that is). He gave evidence to support his side of the argument. The other chap only complained and tried to outline the ills of christianity. So what if people violate the rules of christianity; does that mean its not true? No it does not!! An objective mind has no choice in this instance but to lean towards the position put forward by Frank Turek. Well done Mr. Turek. Christopher you came to the battle with a revolver instead of missiles.
judgejd 5 months ago
Turek sounds like a preacher. I've been to church about half my life, and he sounds JUST like someone at the pulpit in his speech flow.
emerickscott 5 months ago 2
christ didnt sacrifice himself, if he resurected 3 days later how is that sacrifice? If he knew that he would live an eternity, how is that a sacrifice? Imn order to sacrifice you have to give somehting up, he only gave his life up for 3 days so that he could later live for ever. Many people were turtured for far longer than christ, the jews in the holocoust etc. So really christ never sacrifsed anthing becasue he knew he would life again.
Hectom8 5 months ago
@Hectom8 What Christians mean is that he knew he was going to be sacrificed but he went through it it rather than running away.
MysteryoftheGods 5 months ago
@Hectom8 - "If he knew that he would live in eternity........
"Good point.....I´ve asked myself that plenty of times. However, as a HUMAN being, he was struggling in his mind, as anyone would....."if it be possible, take this cup away from me.." (he was even sweating). And later at the cross: "...why has thou forsaken me?".
So, if he doubted, it means that he wasn´t 100% sure. It was a test of faith: "......nevertheless, not my will, but Thine."
ruffomaldito 4 months ago
@ruffomaldito A standard grenade has a timer of anywhere between 2 to 6 seconds.. Modern ones can be set to start the timer on the impact after they land.. which means Michael had about 6 seconds to 'decide' what he was going to do.
All navy seals are trained to dive on the grenade full body and in that way since the blast cannot travel up through their flack jacket it will exhaust itself sideways, its safer than standing beside it as it explodes.
So he carried out his training. End of story.
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@MumblingMickey Quite right again. Except the story didn't end there, did it? Someone had to capitalize on his death to spin bullshit, make it into something it wasn't. Just like the Jesica Lynch story. Then everyone jumped on the bandwagon because a good hearth-string-tugging lie is so useful for selling any agenda you please - especially one involving the real sacrifice of critical faculties to belief in a self-proclaimed authority who needs money.
brindlebriar 1 month ago
@brindlebriar Yeah its such a deceitful thing to do that even if you seemed during a debate the most likeable character, even if every point you made was both accurate and immediately demonstrable.
To then go ahead and include something like this at the end makes me cringe... it makes me physically sick that someone would have the sheer balls to use anothers death like that...
Its actually immoral... and its ironic in this debate that Turek can't see that!
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
Turek talks and talks and talks and says NOTHING at all. What does a soldier being a soldier have anything to do with morality? Nothing.
Jbear9 5 months ago
Speech flows from Mr. Hitchens like honey. Turdek has to read his crap.
Jbear9 5 months ago
Blessed be the Lord Jesus of Nazareth!
this was the best part of the debate for sure.
gerinja 5 months ago
turek-i agree with Christopher we can be moral without religion
the about 3 minutes in,completely contradicts himself.why does hitchens bother debating this idiot?
Flash13Magic 6 months ago 2
Turek is a bit of a tit, isn't he? Surely if Christ died for just 3 days it wasn't the ultimate sacrifice, more a minor inconvenience.
The idea of God sacrificing himself to himself for the sins of humanity that he had made is stretching the bounds of logic a bit too far.
gamesbok 6 months ago
@gamesbok That soldier knew that he would not only be dead for three days AND return to life as a god! In my book that makes the soldiier a far better role model than Jesus!
RuudVanDrijver 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gamesbok
"The idea of God sacrificing himself to himself for the sins of humanity that he had made is stretching the bounds of logic a bit too far."
Yeah but the day religion relies on logic rather than bucket loads of bullcrap would be an interesting day indeed.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
Turek is a bit of a tit, isn't he?
gamesbok 6 months ago
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Mrhawklanz 6 months ago
...unjustifiable speculation which is dressed up to look like an inevitable consequence of his science. At first I thought he just didn't know what he's talking about, but on closer inspection I'm convinced he's just deliberately deceiving people because he knows the real science on it's own, as Hitchens says, requires no God to function. He twists it so that God is the only convincing explanation.
captainmealot 6 months ago
...unjustifiable speculation which he dresses up as an inevitable consequence of the science. If you can find the cutoff point where he starts speculating everything thereafter quickly becomes nonsense. At first I thought he just didn't know what he was talking about, but upon closer inspection I'm convinced that he's just deliberately deceiving people.
captainmealot 6 months ago
@ThieleM
I actually think he's probably quite clever. He twists science to support his unsubstantiated view, and he knows that he can't do it convincingly without deriving conclusions about God that most laypeople would not be able to speculate on. I think he knows what he's saying is bollocks, but he's also taking advantage of the fact that a large portion of his audience don't. He does it in a clever way in which he makes a correct scientific statement, but will then make completely unjustifi
captainmealot 6 months ago
I STARTED THE CHURCH OF MIKE...... BELIEVE OR BURN!!!
PimpMyParadigm 6 months ago
The talking about the man who threw himself on the grenade Turek is going for a cheap brownie point. I guess when you have nothing you need to tug at peoples heartstrings.
ThieleM 6 months ago 2
Christopher has given no reason to accept that atheism is true?
WHat a stupid thing to say. Atheism is simple, it is the statement "I dont believe you" Saying "I dont believe you" is true if the person doesnt believe what is being said. If Turek TRULY accepts that what he has said is valid then he must be hard on people to dont believe in Bigfoot or Aliens. Is non belief in either of those 2 things also not true?
Turek is a stupid man, how anyone takes him seriously baffles me
ThieleM 6 months ago
@ThieleM This idea that atheism can be true or untrue is a total misunderstanding of not just what atheists are, but what belief is.
What you are doing is believing something without any evidence (which is fine, fill yer boots)... but then claiming anyone not sharing that belief has a belief of their own... but they don't!
Atheism can't be true... or false... its not a belief... atheism essentially is to belief... what hair color is to bald!
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey
THere are different levels of Atheism but for the most part I free with what you are saying
You are right, your wording is somewhat weak but the point that rejection of a belief is not a belief in and of itself is true.
ThieleM 3 weeks ago
@ThieleM Well anti-theists DO have a belief. But its not a religious one, its a belief that religion itself is outdated, outmoded and bloody dangerous.
I'm anti-theist... I base that on the observation that I rarely see religions problems with non religious people, ergo religion existing is a danger, as opposed to it not existing.
But I also accept religion is an evolutionary byproduct, so its outside my ability or anyone's to control. But I think it can be replaced.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@MumblingMickey
Anti theism is, in a way, 2 things. The believe that there is no god and a contention that you do not believe what theists are selling.
I agree with you an pretty much anything. I don't have any supernatural beliefs but am not really an anti theist for the most part. I have to say that my patience has been tested by crispy Christies lately.
ThieleM 3 weeks ago
But PO Michael Mansour's action was done for his friends, not their sins. This makes it distinct from Christ's sacrifice, which Hitchens calls "vicarious redemption" (better known as substitionary atonement). Although I don't necessarily buy Hitchens' point on the immorality of vicarious redemeption, I can certainly see the distinction between Christ's sacrifice and Mansour's. I best others can, too.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, Aught3.
writersblock26 7 months ago
if theres no god and you hate him why would you hate some thing thats not real.
k1ngdragon411 7 months ago
I don't usually comment on youtube videos, but I found Turek's closing statement infuriating. Hitchens point is not that sacrifice is immoral, but that the supposed sacrifice of Christ is immoral because people should take responsibility for their own wrongdoings. Turek changes the topic by asking the question "Is sacrifice immoral?" He then uses this question to go into a story that was completely unrelated to the debate. This was a cheap way to capture the emotions of the audience.
jaredbookbinder 7 months ago 2
Worst debate I have seen by Hitchens, he made a terrible case and appeared to be dodging questions. I think he may have been just as tired as he made out during his closing statement. Which was poor.
TheDcac 7 months ago
i liked his closing statement but it wasn't quite relevant to the topic
JesusLives11keila 7 months ago
frank go sell a car!
FUwogs 7 months ago 2
Isn't Turek a young earth creationist? If so, why does he use evidence for the big bang to prove his point? Moron..
jcnabb22 7 months ago
Frank is just another religious thug.
penlovmov 7 months ago
An objective moral standard for atheists? What about the objective standard of less harm? Turek is truly oblivious. I know I don't want to be murdered so therefore it's understood that other people don't want that either. What's so hard about that?
BroJeetKune 7 months ago
im sick of this fools jersey talk.
animeisadrugx 7 months ago
Amazing debate. It's now 2:0 for Turek. I think it's a best of 3, so it's over. But it'd be nice to turn that into bo5.
MajSmJz 7 months ago
@MajSmJz Please tell me your joking...
MrBrational 7 months ago
kkkkkkkkkkkk
Turek you were out of your league
keep reading Frank
thats all you know how to do
Johnandvanessa 7 months ago
kkkkkkkkkkkk
Turek you were out of your league
Johnandvanessa 7 months ago
is Turek serious with making the connection between the seal and the context of which Hitchens says that Jesus' sacrifice was immoral? the worse logical argument that i have ever heard in my life!!!
markissuperman 7 months ago 2
@markissuperman Unfortunately he is serious. However, he ran out of logical argument, so he had to resort to using the lowest 'card' available. That being, the disgraceful use of a dead soldier, simply to prop up his argument. What a pathetic human being.
myaccount194 7 months ago
@myaccount194
What's worse is that I guarantee that 90 percent of that audience probably forgot about every good point Chris made as a direct result of that ridiculous comparison. When reason fails, appeal to emotion. I made a comment earlier about how debating a theist is like playing chess with a pigeon who knocks over the pieces, shits on the board, and then flys back to his flock to claim victory. Checkmate Turek... Checkmate indeed.
BroJeetKune 7 months ago 2
@BroJeetKune Hahaha!! Very good.
myaccount194 7 months ago
you'll die for CH? you must be crazy!
cirosuperiore 8 months ago
Why is it that a Christian can't participate in a debate on the topic of religion without giving, at some point, a sermon?
comingatchu 8 months ago 5
@comingatchu nevertheless it was beautiful/
Thejadjadjad 1 month ago
No bashing people. Religious or atheist. Be respectful to others beliefs.
drjonkjackson 8 months ago
frank turns to personal attacks at the closing whereas hitchens was objective
RokkuNoBushi 8 months ago 4
i am not anti-theist , but if one can justify or understand the bad, or the evils of theism , then by all means be anti-theist.
RokkuNoBushi 8 months ago
ANTI-THEISM WINS! TUREK LACKED OBJECTIVITY!
PEOPLE DIE IN WAR EVERYDAY,THEY KNEW WHAT THE RISKS WERE, BUT THE CAUSE IS GREATER, WHETHER OR NOT THE WAR IS JUSTIFIABLE (WHETHER WAR IS RELIGIOUS OR SECULAR.)
IS RELIGIOUS SELF-ANNIHILATION JUSTIFIABLE FOR SELF OR OTHERS WHO DISBELIEVE YOU & WHO YOU PERMIT TO KILL YOU? IS THIS LOVE? IT'S CALLED MARTYR-COMPLEX,MASOCHISM,SUICIDE PATHOLOGY. THE RATIONALITY INVOLVED HERE IS VULGAR,UNAMBITIOUS,BARBARIC, HEINOUS,CYNICAL,& SELF-MUTILATING TO SAY THE LEAST.
elitevestigator 8 months ago
Sacrifice IS immoral.
It is NOT a sacrifice for a soldier to throw himself on a grenade to save his brothers IF he values the lives of his brothers more then his own! This is NOT a sacrifice!!!
It IS a sacrifice when you throw yourself on the grenade to save others when you do NOT value their lives more then your own life. And it IS immoral!
To have a society there the currently dominating social and/or religious doctrine DEMAND that you sacrifice what you value the most to others IS immoral.
Merecir 8 months ago
@Merecir
I suppose it depends on who is seeing it as a sacrifice. Would Jesus say he made a sacrifice? No. Would Turek? According to his analogy yes. Were the two related outside of this definition of sacrifice? No. Was Turek objective in this debate? Absolutely not. Hitchens stuck to emotionless objectivity and hammered Turek. What's sad, and the reason emotional appeal is such a low card, is that it moved the audience out of the realm of reason into emotion and then the debate ended. Sad...
BroJeetKune 7 months ago
@Merecir I'm not sure I understand. If this soldier is going to give up his life so that the others may live, has the not given up his own life for the others? So what if he values the lives of the others more than his own? He's still offering his life in place of theirs. Are you saying that if this soldier doesn't care about his own life then dying for the others is no real loss to him? If so, then perhaps but I think it's reasonable to assume that this soldier valued his own life.
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 Its about the misuse of the word sacrifice and/or the lack or understanding what the word really means. Most dictionaries have it wrong or list contradictory explanations.
Sacrifice means to give away what you value the most.
The same example on a more basic level:
I assume you you value a dollar more then a penny?
It is then a sacrifice for you to trade away a dollar for a penny.
But it is not if you trade away a penny for a dollar.
Merecir 4 months ago
@Merecir Sacrifice doesn't have to be what I value the most. It could be what I value more but still not be the most. Even so, the example with the penny and the dollar is something I agree with. However, it's not an appropriate analogy to the soldier because the soldier gets nothing in return. He gives his life to receive nothing from those which he died for. Assuming that he valued his own life, he gave up something he valued for nothing in return. That IS sacrifice.
alawrence89 4 months ago 2
@Merecir What if this particular soldier was not in fact sacrificing himself? What if he believed after countless demonstrations that it is a far better option to cover the blast with yourself and you flack jacket rather than stand beside a grenade as it exploded?
What if that's what soldiers are trained to do?
Its not really a sacrifice in that case then is it?
But for a weasel to hijack the story to further his religious lunacy... well that's certainly a penny for a dollar!
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
A warrior's sacrifice for his brothers has nothing to do with God. But if it did, what does this tell you about that "God"? I can guess your response. God found reason to remind us of sacrifice. Easy out. Not that God is an entity without compassion or a shred of honor for placing his human "children" in harm's way. Ridiculous and disgusting use of one man's courageous actions in an attempt to justify your religion, Turek. You are no shipmate of this veteran.
CelticValdyr 8 months ago 2
Frank Turek is a coward. He is unable to accept the fact that one day he too will die and no longer exist. Grow up Frank.
Hornadayfan 8 months ago
What. a. bastard.
thinkandrealize4once 8 months ago
It's obvious that Turek wrote that "closing statement" much much long before the actual day of debate. he simply wrote a paragraph on criticizing Hitchens and presented it as his "closing statement"
Now thats what I call a true failure!
xxicexxx 8 months ago 3
Give it another 75 years. Let's see how God-based religion is holding up then.
foosejax 8 months ago
I'm glad the questions were answered ;) lol
and I'm glad this theist thinks he knows Hitchens better than Hitchens knows himself. Just like this same deluded theist thinks he knows God better than IT knows itself.
What is reality: who knows?
What best explains reality: thought
What is our shared reality: the various sense-data that we seam to share
What best explains our shared reality: Agnostic Science
LuminousTruth 8 months ago
He tries to appeal to emotion and not reason. That an awful way to debate if you want truth.
HeyItsMrTom 8 months ago
Turek speaks very well but does not argue well at all. Very dangerous combination, I think
Queenmania2007 8 months ago
Yes, indeed, vicarious sacrifice in the mode of murder is, in fact, immoral. A soldier who throws himself on a hand grenade is doing so because of the commodity of human generosity; an angry crowd of people murdering a scapegoat is hardly a moral equivalent. There was no existential threat to jesus if he was omnipotent; he wasn't. If the holy trinity were a true concept and jesus was the son and his father abandoned his own son, this is exactlly the opposite of what the soldier did. It's evil.
therearenogodsatall 8 months ago
Sacrifice is evil when it is used as scapegoating. The S.E.A.L. was not being used as a scapegoat. In other words his comrades did forcibly hold him on the grenade by order of someone else.
jrwilson98 9 months ago
Frank what evil things do you do? Evil Definition: Profoundly immoral and malevolent. Your a scarey person.
jrwilson98 9 months ago
How does this dude has the balls to bring up the non sequitur fallacy after all that he said?
gojuryu83 9 months ago 2
Well done Frank Turek. You mention logical fallacy. How about brushing up on the rest of them and stop using them yourself.
DonnZ0r 9 months ago
I like how for this video all of a sudden there's so many more dislikes than in the other videos. It's probably actually even worse, due to people like me who clicked "like" just because they rated the video rather than the speech in it (I have no quarrel with the poster of the video) :)
Whatsifsowhatsit 9 months ago
How sad is it to live life never feeling good enough to something which likely doesn't exist at all
benwil1785 9 months ago
Antitheism FOR THE WIN
Neall07 10 months ago 24
Why isn't Charlie Sheen invited to debate his winning as a side show to this?
spareaxe 10 months ago
Sorry Turek, but you did not give evidence to god existence. You merely raised some of the very interesting questions we as a spieces have not answered yet.
Since proving that anything does not exsist is impossible (take faires for instance) I can't wait to hear or see you present tangible evidence for god, which should have no problem proving his own existence, but some reason choses not to....?
neuromatiker 10 months ago
Hitchens isn't dumb enough to talk about the beginning of the universe without a degree in physics. Since most astrophysicists are not theists, I think we can safely assume that physics does not infer a god.
FDSCEV 10 months ago
@FDSCEV Frank to Christopher how did the Universe begin?
Christopher: I don't know and neither do you.
Frank: Yes I do, God did it!
jrwilson98 9 months ago 3
he's talking about non sequitors... jeebus....
MrP1ratemafia 10 months ago
"Christ had to come..." - yeah, on Mary Magdalen's tits.
244Ohiro 10 months ago 5
@244Ohiro You sir get +5 internets.
rleeermy 10 months ago
Hitchens never says sacrifice is immoral he says that excusing your own sins and removing your own accountability for someone else's sacrifice is immoral...
MultiSpectator 10 months ago
Turek won this debate just like Hitchens won the first one. i think Turek clearly did a better job on this debate than his first one with Hitchens. I know aithiest will say Hitchens won because they favor their guy. Just like the Christians do with WLC. Christians have a hard time admitting when Craig lost a debate. Aithiest are doing the same thing with this debate. By the way I'm a Christian but i try to be objective as I can. It was a great closing arguement by Turek.
lowell0404 10 months ago
@lowell0404 The closing argument was a blatant appeal to emotion - a logical fallacy. No wonder you think Turek won.
God is the joke that only Atheists get. Atheism WINS!
244Ohiro 10 months ago
Congrats turek. Your closing statement had nothing to do with anything. Fuck you.
FindingEudaimonia 10 months ago 26
@FindingEudaimonia haha fail comment... Turec won and you know it. i think everyone with a brain knows it
heightboosting 6 months ago
@heightboosting
"Everyone with a brain knows it."
You call a mix of ad hominem and begging the question a "REAL" comment?
FindingEudaimonia 6 months ago
@FindingEudaimonia Yeah, this guys plays semantics, very poorly.
flubno 5 months ago
@FindingEudaimonia can you prove that ?? thanks
MegaPaozinho 4 months ago
@MegaPaozinho
Honestly, if you don't know how to differentiate whether or not a closing statement relates to a subject's speech, then no, there is nothing that can be explained/proven to you. You will simply exist in a state of foolishness and wither away into nonexistence. Good day.
FindingEudaimonia 4 months ago
The moderator claps like a child.
I enjoyed Frank's story, it was quite touching, but it proved literally nothing.
OutShoneGod 10 months ago 2
@OutShoneGod You seem to be missing the point. The story proved that sacrifice is admirable and noble, disproving Hitchens irrational claims that have nothing to do with reality (as is true of most atheist claims).
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 It would seem that you do not understand the difference between sacrifice and self-sacrifice. The soldier sacrificed himself for his friends, this is easy enough to see. Jesus, was sacrificed by God, to God for our sins, which we did not require him to do as their is no proof that there is a God. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to God, because he was asked to. How are these examples noble? The murder of women and children is also a justifiable sacrifice for christians.
OutShoneGod 10 months ago
@OutShoneGod As usual, atheists believe blatant lies about Christianity so dishonest that they are comparable to saying that all atheists are serial killers like Stalin and Mao. It's not your fault, but you've been duped and lied to.
1) Jesus said: "No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again." John 10:18
2) It is pure insanity that Christians justify murder of women&children.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Seeing as you willingly look to the Bible for answers, perhaps you would be able to find me proof that Jesus and therefore God is able to make decisions, rather than live out the life that was predestined by God and/or Determinism. Also, how many women and children do you think died during the Crusades?
OutShoneGod 10 months ago
@OutShoneGod Could you make your question on Jesus and decisions clearer? From my reading, muslim turks conquered Jerusalem and the Holy land first and began persecuting Christians as well as aggressively advancing on the Byzantine empire. Most of the crusades were fights between armies of soldiers. Certain kings in Europe responded, and used Christian catch phrases for political purposes to motivate soldiers to fight even though it wasn't something that God or the Bible commanded.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Perhaps then a better example would be the persecution of women as witches, what then do have to say of Christians not being able to justify the killing of women?
OutShoneGod 10 months ago
@OutShoneGod It is certifiably insane to think that persecuting witches is an attack on all women. That's just ludicrous. If you want to criticize the problems of worldviews, atheism has more problems than any. Regimes that were officially atheist killed 1-200 million people in JUST the last century and most of these killings were done explicitly because of the atheistic beliefs of those in power. More died under atheists in 100 years than in the entire history of the world COMBINED.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Wow. It took me a while, but now I see it. Well played friend, I haven't been trolled so well in a long time.
OutShoneGod 10 months ago
@OutShoneGod I'm not trolling or joking at all.It is far more important to separate atheism from state power than it is to separate church and state (something that is badly perverted from what the founders meant). Atheism is one of the most oppressive and anti-freedom philophies inall history when it gets power. However we must be very careful to distinguish between systems and individuals. There are quite a few admirable atheist individuals, some who I know personally.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
They see me trollin'
They hatin'
Patrollin', they trying to catch me ridin' dirty
OutShoneGod 10 months ago
There is no such thing as objective morality objective means not dependent on a person so if objective moral values existed Hitler would believe the holocaust was wrong and he thought it was right if objective moral values existed there would be no debate on the death penalty or abortion
globalfraud 11 months ago
@globalfraud "if objective moral values existed Hitler would believe the holocaust was wrong" - huh?
Just because there's debate about objective moral values doesn't mean there aren't any. One side of the debate could simply be wrong. If I ask "Am I a good person?" and I have a debate with someone does the fact that we are having a debate mean that there's not an answer to that question?
alawrence89 4 months ago
@alawrence89 If you have to debate the issue of whether there are, or are not objective moral values...then that debate alone is a clear demonstration that morals are primarily subjective!
However we don't see too many debates on whether water is wet or not do we?
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@MumblingMickey I do not understand why such a debate would show that morals are primarily subjective. Can you elaborate?
alawrence89 2 months ago
@alawrence89
Okay well clearly you are not too clear on what morals really are...
People differ in their understanding of what is morally right and wrong... Just there alone you have subjective approaches to morals. Next even when something is clearly morally reprehensible it is still considered valid by some in many cases.
Morals are simply subject to the circumstance in which they are considered.
Debating that is a demonstration of the subjective circumstances that justify moral actions.
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
CONT. If something is objective then no such discussion is required... we do not for instance debate if the sky is up... its an objective observation.... there is no debate required.
We do not debate if cats meow instead of bark... cats meow...its an absolute... totally objective.
However we DO debate if it is morally right to execute someone for their crimes... because people differ in opinion... and your opinion regardless of the moral dictate is not absolute...is just one opinion.
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
CO NT. Even if the moral position seems absolutely clear to you... it may not be to the others or the vast majority might look at you as if you have two heads for making such assertions.
For example you will no doubt insist it was morally wrong for the Nazi regime to slaughter jews, communists, disabled and others. However its pretty hard to believe that millions of Germans were simply immoral and evil and changed their mind at the cessation of the war.
Do you think that's likely?
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
CONT. So ...when people sit and discuss what morals are, when they are good and when they are bad and when they are neutral (amoral) then that act of discussing morals is a clear demonstration that nobody knows what is right and what is wrong without considering the almost endless quantity of variables...
ie. the act of discussing morals is a demonstration of the subjectivity of the issue.
If they were objective no such discussion by anyone would be required or even possible!
MumblingMickey 2 months ago
@MumblingMickey Quite right. I was dissappointed in Hitchens for failing, when asked point blank if he thought there were objective moral values, to simply say, 'No, there are no objective moral values." It is hard for people to get that concept because even the men like Hitchens evade it. Hitchens needs only clarify that his moral condemnation of religion is an appeal to consensus morality, not objective morality, and the topic should no longer be inconvenient to his general message.
brindlebriar 1 month ago
@alawrence89 I'd like to elaborate on that, if I may, in this short space. Subjective = opinion. Ojective = fact. (That's all those words mean.)
You don't debate facts, because there's nothing to decide. Facts are not decided; they are discovered. You observe to find them.
Opinions are decided upon, and can be changed by changing one's mind. If people are debating what is and isn't moral, then morality is a matter of opinion, i.e. subjective.
brindlebriar 1 month ago
Turek HAD to play with words it was inevitable. When saying sacrifice is immoral or course we don't mean self-sacrifice we mean IMPOSED sacrifice. He even made his little show, wow
2CSST2 11 months ago
@2CSST2 There was no imposed sacrifice of Jesus. He gave his life willingly and says he did so. Turek did not play with words. Hitchens is the one who is misrepresenting religion as well as science and history.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
Turek doesn't get that refuting religion IS EXACTLY what was asked from Hitchens. Atheism is just that: a lack of belief in God. It isn't a positive claim like "God exists" or "you must live your life this way or burn for eternity" or "The creator forbids that you fuck your buddy, you're the same sex as him".
There are two sides in Hitch's argument: Atheism, i.e. God isn't true, and anti-theism, i.e. the Religious have done and do horrible things in the name of a God, who is (by the way) a dick.
SolDeSaBelle 11 months ago
What the holy fuck was THAT About?
Just utterly baffling.
1878EFC2008 11 months ago
That was a low blow, dick move Turek made. He tried to lay it out there like only christians would sacrifice, and built up this big dramatic smoke screen so he can hide behind his bullcrap. This man is a disgrace and is just another religious nut preacher. I'm embarrassed he tried representing NJ.
MGiants82 11 months ago
@MGiants82 ha ha. I'm not American, but where I'm from, the only representation I've heard of from NJ is not this guy. Mate, you've already got a lot on your plate :D (I'm thinking about that South Park episode - you know which one hee hee).
I mean no offence of course. And I feel your pain ^^
SolDeSaBelle 11 months ago
Atheism is like non-stamp collecting. It's not something that exists, it's absence of a hobby. Or absence of a theism. Therefor atheism doesn't give morals, nor should it be expected to be. The claim atheism is immoral or lacks morals is illogical, it's not supposed to in the first place. It's like blaming a rock for not being able to float. Nobody expects a rock to float, why blame it for not doing so ? Further, morals can exist without god. Group survival depended on a set of rules that
sogghartha 11 months ago
@sogghartha benefit the entire group or as many as possible. Those that did not adhere to such rules were cast out as undesirable, dangerous to group survival. That's what we call morals. No gods required for morals. The claims of prophecies in the bible falls flat on its face as soon as you examine these so called prophecies for context and meaning. It is no wonder the jews did not accept Jesus as messiah. They knew their holy texts and were the first to conclude no prophecy spoke of him.
sogghartha 11 months ago
Frank Turek is a gigantic fucking moron. I commented on a previous video that he was a moron, which was put to shame by his moronic closing statement.
raphanon 11 months ago
i would like to ask you question...you don't have to respond...why do you proceed to watch/listen to these videos if you know they are "wrong or absurd" is it that you are searching for an answer?
Kimdwjd 11 months ago
@Kimdwjd So i have to be in search of answer to get a laugh out of people's terrible arguments? I watch to hear Hitchens destroy people, as well as to be informed of other people's positions. I also watch them because i find it fun to pick apart theists arguments before Hitchens has a chance to see how we compare. But yes, i am searching for an answer actually; i am searching for an answer to why people find theists arguments compelling.
raphanon 11 months ago
@raphanon A simple answer to what theist arguments are compelling is this:
1) Atheists can only criticize, usually based on logical fallacies. Much of the evidence that supported atheism in the past has been conclusively debunked and other hopes it had have failed to materialize.
2) Christians present evidence for their claims using the scientific, logical, historical and similar methods. If you deny these are evidence,to be consistent, you must destroy much scientific&historical knowledge.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 If i hadn't looked at your channel, i would've thought you were joking. You can assert that the criticism is based on logical fallacies all you'd like, but that doesn't make it so. Atheism needs no support, it is the rejection of your claims; your party needs the support, your party needs the evidence. Could i possibly say that i am 100% certain there is no god? Not if i am being intellectually honest. What i can say, however, is i am 100% certain your god is not real.
raphanon 10 months ago
@raphanon I have ~13,000 comments from youtubers, mostly atheists.If I were not so insanely busy with constant demands&deadlines, I could make 100s of videos proving everything I say including that most atheist criticisms are fallacies.
EVERY philosophy, including atheism, MUST have support and evidence in order to be considered rational or scientific. The idea that atheism of any kind needs no support is one of the most anti-science, laziest and anti-rational concepts ever in history.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@raphanon By the weight of evidence from science,history,logic&other reasons,I'm 100% certain my God is real,but keep my mind open to new evidence since it's possible for anyone to be wrong.Your certainty with all due respect is based on ignorance. It doesn't matter if you were Einstein, when evidence has been banned by the govt. from education, the media follows that and most pastors are not trained in science and so don't explain it in church, that's a quadruple whammy of suppressing evidence.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 When a claim is demonstrably untrue, it isn't ignorant to throw out the claim; it is called the scientific method. Science proves the Christian god claim? Really? Logic too? I can accept saying logic leads to a god of some sort, but a specific god, the Christian god? I have watched many debates on the topic and have found the closest thing anyone has done is proven deism is plausible.
raphanon 10 months ago
that atheism is bereft of evidence that life can come without intelligence.The weight of testable evidence is solidly for theism. Step 2 is to compare religions.Most debates stop at step 1,true.Dr. Turek DID mention a few specific claims that point to Christianity from science&history, but only briefly.One of the better presentations on step 2 I've seen is on my channel-The playlist "!Come Search with Me!", (see esp. ch. 2, since Ch. 1 is about atheism).
view_play_list?p=ADA90FCF20A839A1
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@raphanon I highly recommend reading Dr. Thomas Kuhn's seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Basically, worldviews&many scientific theories are sort of like a network. All have anomalies,but a network nod (or an anomaly) can go down, but the theory may not be wrong. We follow the weight of evidence, NOT the anomalies.Yes, some debates don't get much further than theism vs. atheism. Step one is comparing atheism vs. theism. Science HAS shown pretty conclusively
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@raphanon P.S. I'm working on a video script answering most of Hitchen's supposed challenges. His soundbites superficially sound nice, but he like most atheists refuses to follow the weight of evidence&use consistent standards&continually uses logical fallacies. Dr. Turek unfortunately doesn't expose hardly any of these.I'm extremely busy, but atheism is basically the refusal to follow the weight of evidence or use consistent standards for personal, often emotional agendas.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@raphanon P.S.S. Some atheist misunderstandings tho are due to faulty theology.2 examples would be:
A) The idea that hell burns forever is a demonic falsehood&unbiblical.It came from Greek philosophy. Google and read helltruth. The Bible is clear in many places that hell's purpose is to END sin..not let it exist forever (Romans 6:23, Revelation 20:14-15, etc.)
B) Hitchen's many religions problem fails bcz God judges people based on their conscience, not what religion they are a member of.
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
"This is a non sequitur" - Yes you ARE a fucking hypocrite as well as dishonorable using fallacious trick, deflect, and misrepresent tactics! Go repent and pray for a better series of arguments!
parquar 1 year ago
The closing statement about sacrifice is immoral is taken completely out of context. Speaking of sacrifice you can guess that he's speaking of somone sacrificing other people to please their deity. Self sacrifice is a completely different matter.
About creation of life and complexity of a single cell. He missed the SIMPLE single cell organisms part.
He makes it sound as he accepts most of the scientific disoveries, yet he proclaims the bible to be absolutely true.
Robin90modell 1 year ago
Frank did better than I thought he would overall. The close on the other hand was a disgusting misrepresentation of what Christopher's point is. It is not "there is no God, and I hate him", but ,there is no God and I hate what people do in his name. Frank knows this and it was a dirty underhanded trick to try and turn the masses to his side. The type of thing you have to resort to when your argument has failed and you have been beaten fairly.
merrybastard 1 year ago
Did he just compare a soldiers death to Jesus dying on a cross to absolve your sins? If this is not populism, I don't know what is.
hdgarcia 1 year ago
the way he twists hitchens' book is repulsive, he clearly hasn't read it. You can see straight through the religious way of thinking these days because you can see what it has to do to twist things for its own good , remember that Turek wants you to be christian, and Hitchens wants you to think for yourself.
YourJustHuman 1 year ago
I agree that Hitchens was sometimes a little evasive but I think it's because he's become bored with these theists. I've seen him in many of these debates and these guys make the EXACT SAME arguments over and over and over. Design, First cause, objective morality, they never have anything new. I just think Hitchens wants to broaden a little so he doesn't fall asleep. All of Frank's arguments have been refuted by Hitch and other non-believers it's just getting old beating the same dead horse..
bwconklin 1 year ago
Turek's co-opting of this soldier's sacrifice to make is argument is absolutely abominable. A muslim cleric could make the exact same emotional plea regarding the 9/11 bombers. I am appalled...
bwconklin 1 year ago
Theism is always beyond refutation. Because theists can always place their realities beyond the world humans could ever explore and analyze, it is impossible to refute their points.
bwconklin 1 year ago
It's funny how atheist comments on this debate has resorted to name-calling, it's obvious that Turek crushed Hitchens. Turek had the better presentation and is overall a better speaker than Hitchens. Hitchens basically dodge all questions, had not presentation to support atheism, and basically whined about how he dislikes religion throughout the debate.
darkmantube 1 year ago
@darkmantube That is a horrific closing statement, completely misrepresenting Hitchens' arguments, and riddled with logical fallacies. I'm hoping that the people watching this can see through his tricks. Then invoking a military figure to try to add some weight to his garbage. Disgusting trickery. Typical preacher horsecock
simmilar to your comment
shandcunt 1 year ago
@darkmantube You really think Turek is a better speaker than Hitchens? Are you deaf? By asking for support of atheism, you are showing your lack of knowledge and understanding as to what it means to be an atheist.
raphanon 11 months ago
@raphanon
No I am not deaf. And yes Turek is a better speaker than Hitchens. And I do understand atheists, they say this and that, but in the end they don't believe in God because they have their own personal reasons, but ussually, their reasons are more of the heart, than the mind.
Atheists, God loves you all. And when y'all finally get over your bitterness, God will still be there to love all of y ou.
darkmantube 11 months ago
@darkmantube
Which god or gods are correct? Is it the Hindu gods with over 900million believers? Is it Shenism with 394million followers? How about African Traditional with 100million followers? Just to say one god or gods is the correct one is absurd.
Gliese581f 11 months ago
@Gliese581f
Are we debating religion? Does this mean you belief in God now? One thing at a time. Why don't you read the book, the book also answers this question of which God is correct also.
darkmantube 11 months ago
@Gliese581f Which scientific hypothesis is correct out of millions? Which of the 20 different cosmological views is correct? We put time&resources into figuring out these answers&following the weight of evidence. It is no more difficult to test religions and figure out which one has the weight of evidence and follow that. And there is nothing more important to figure o