The Great God Debate: Mark Roberts vs Christopher Hitchens

[utubepunk]

Oral tradition? Anyone needs to play the telephone game once to realize the enormous fallacy in relying on oral tradition as a means for historical veracity.

[TheDmo22222]

This channel owner does him/herself a great disservice in treading the choppy waters of contesting with Hitchens. Exposed atheist we should be. Enough of this religious nonsense. Time to stand up and put an end to the primitive beliefs and examine evidence instead of trying to explain away a determined doctrine.

[sccitylhh]

42:10 Silence of doom

[rysw19]

i think roberts just lost his testicles

[Morclaw]

About the praying for the loved ones. My mother is an atheist (I am too ). I have saw her many times fearing for my brother for example when footage of car accident with car similar to his was aired. She feared for him and hoped he is ok. In my opinion praying is just a way how to console yourself and hush your worries for your loved ones.

[Morclaw]

Speaking as historian no! Speaking as a believer yes ! Doublethink anyone ?

[sccitylhh]

@Morclaw

I saw your comment and waited in anticipation to see the context for which it appears. Wow. How do you argue with someone who blatantly speaks out of both sides of his mouth?

[NotDuncan]

Oh and btw taking away voting on comments is horrible, might as well have just turned the comments off.



[NotDuncan]

Oral communities... so many juvenile jokes so little time.

[drgigolo]

1:31:00 Has to be my favorite moment in this whole thing

[AtheistSongs]

Hey everybody! Watch my video The God Delusion Song! You'll love it. I wrote it based on the work and the words of Chirstopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

I really think you laugh and be saddened...it get the message out there that's for sure! Thanks. (Just click my name and the video will open).

[AR333]

Either by sustaining the existence of the universe or by answering prayers* [correction of below post]

[andyfnmizac1]

I really admire many things about Hitch. To the extent that I've experienced him, he's a remarkable person, and while he's very often brilliant, he does have a problem with discourse at times. He sometimes gets so obsessed with his "I got them nailed" quips that he fails to stay on topic and really listen to the questions posed to him. I get that this is from 2007 and he was really focused on the arguments from his book and book tour though.

[clarkanorak]

Why does that idiot host keep shouting every few minutes?

[sensimania1]

This is one of the best discussions i have heard with christopher and a theist the preacher was fair and honest but still dodged the hard questions i dont blame him there is no good answer for theism very well done great host Christopher Hitchens will forever be loved by all for his great work.

[electorg]

I don't see why the christian guy mentioned Einstein after saying that large amounts of non religious scientist dosen't mean god isn't real

[linuxpenguin73]

@electorg They like to claim Einstein as a theist, as Einstein used the word "god" in some of his writings as a metaphor for the wonderment of the universe, but christians have no problem with lying for their god.

[psykojojo]

@linuxpenguin73 ....."i'm not an atheist" -einstein. He may have not been a THEIST but he was a deist, so who's being dishonest now? God was no metaphor to einstein, your speaking outside of your knowledge

[linuxpenguin73]

Read the quote in full. I cannot help your lack of comprehension skills. Einstein clearly speaks of "god" as an unknowable underpinning to the universe, not in the sense of theism or deism but in more of a general sense of awe and wonder at the universe and its physical laws.

To suggest that Einstein believed in a personal, or even intelligent deity of any kind is pure nonsense.

[thegeemunny1]

@linuxpenguin73 So Einstein, as for the existence or non-existence of God, is sitting on the fence.

[ivlfounder]

@psykojojo

To be fair deism is a form of theism.

[AR333]

@ivlfounder No it's not. Theism is a stronger claim than deism. It by definition could not be under the category of theism if theism is a stronger claim. As a parallel, if I say "vertebrate" you could have a lot in mind, but if I name you a species, it is narrowed down. Theism says god is involved*, hence it's deism + stuff added on.

[ivlfounder]

@AR333

uh huh.

and what do you call theism and deism as a group?

[AR333]

@ivlfounder The analogy with taxonomy wasn't perfect, I simply meant to convey the point that theism, if we understand it to mean that there is a creator god who is active in the world, either by sustaining its existence to answer prayers, that is a sharper claim than deism, if we understand deism to me that there was a prime mover. Theism tacks on more properties, so to say deism is "a form of" theism involves either A) not using these definitions or B) not understanding their implications.

[ivlfounder]

@AR333

In theology Theism is in on par with Kingdom in taxonomy.

i.e. it's the big group.

[AR333]

@ivlfounder Well the point is what you mean by it. It is unfair to call anyone a theist if they specifically denounce the idea of a personal god - that's what I understand theism to be.

[ivlfounder]

@AR333

With all due respect you seem to misunderstand theism.

[AR333]

@ivlfounder I assumed for this discussion that we both listened to the exchange in the video, and my exegesis of Hitchens, with all due respect, is I think accurate. What would be your term for what I have in mind then? What is the word you use that goes beyond deism in the sense of an involved creator god?

[ivlfounder]

@AR333

All who believe in God(s) are theists.

Those who believe in one God are monotheists.

Deists believe in one God.

Thus they are monotheists.

[carryall69]

@ivlfounder

yes, although as a deist you just refer to some unknown deity that would be resposible for the beginning of the universe and doesn't intervene. thus one could argue, that this deity is not a personal god, it's like a dead one (or many), at least someone outside the "creation", like a programer who makes a program and just let's it run or something. it wouldn't be even clear, if that creator would be necessarily a "deity".. somehow deism seems to me more related to pantheism..

[carryall69]

@carryall69 like atheism for starters..

[AR333]

@ivlfounder Elaboration skills through the roof there.

[ivlfounder]

@AR333

That didn't help any?

[AR333]

@ivlfounder

"Deists believe in one God.

Thus they are monotheists."

^This is an oversimplification, and ignores what I wrote

Your one-liners are funny, not informative. You didn't answer the question I asked. You write as if you are writing on a blank sheet, not as if you're engaged in a dialogue. I saw that coming from your first words, "uh huh", but decided to give the benefit of the doubt. If you're still in school, I hope for your sake your exams involve short answer or multiple choice.

[ivlfounder]

@AR333

Well we can argue or we can simply conclude that the term used to describe all who believe in God(s) is theist.

[AR333]

@ivlfounder uh huh

[ivlfounder]

@AR333

yep.

[rationalsalvation]

@ivlfounder Actually, since the word "theist" implies the belief in theism (revelation) Deists are not monotheists. I know I'm just making words up now, but I suppose one could argue that a Deist who believes in one creator is a monodeist, and a Deist who believes in more than one creator (maybe a celestial committee) would be a polydeist. Just saying.

[ivlfounder]

@rationalsalvation

What is the word then for all who believe in God then?

[rationalsalvation]

@ivlfounder That depends on which God. If you believe in an impotent creator, you're a Deist. If you believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God who intervenes in human affairs, you're a theist. I you believe in the Torah, but not the New Testament, you're a Jew. If you believe in the Old and New Testaments, you're a Christian. If you believe in the Qu'ran, you're a Muslim. If you are a Jew, Christian or Muslim, you are a theist, specifically a monotheist.

[ivlfounder]

@rationalsalvation

A God then.

[rationalsalvation]

@ivlfounder Like I said, it depends on what kind of God, if you believe in an impotent creator, you're a Deist. If you believe in an active one, who occasionally reveals himself to give his word, you're a theist.

[ivlfounder]

@rationalsalvation

But do not most of those who believe in active God's also believe they created the Universe?

[rationalsalvation]

@ivlfounder Yes . . oh bloody hell. It's not difficult. A Deist believes that the creator created the universe and nothing else. A theist believes that the creator created the universe and then started messing with the human race.

[ivlfounder]

@rationalsalvation

Well unless a better name exists I'm going to do what others do and use the term theist to denote all who believe in God(s).

[zech48]

@ivlfounder the purpose of the creation of the term deism was to distinguish from theism. its sprung from the beginning of criticism and rejection of the bible and christianity. to simplify, the purpose of deism is to directly oppose theism.

[ivlfounder]

@zech48

You don't have an answer to my question either do you?

[zech48]

@ivlfounder which one? the one about the word for all who believe in a god? there answer is there is none. if you want to regard theists and deists together you need to make something up, like "god-believers."

deism and theism may overlap positively, but deism is mostly a negative rejection of theism so if you lump them together you cant use theism

[ivlfounder]

@zech48

Unless there is a common word to denote all those who believe in God(s) Theist is it.

[zech48]

@ivlfounder good luck talking

[ivlfounder]

@zech48

I do just fine, you on the other hand have a problem.

[zech48]

@ivlfounder xD

[ivlfounder]

@zech48

:D

[electorg]

@linuxpenguin73 no the guy said it didn't matter what the scientist believed