Craig hits below the belt with his last statement. Hitchens did in no way, avoid the 10 arguments or so, what happened was the debate was simply led in that direction by all of them. What's funny is that all the Apologists didn't prove in any way what so ever, that God does exist either. They try to leave the benefit of the doubt. For someone to disprove the existence of God, he first has to be proven! Hitchens rules! :D
@quantumleap8824 "Craig hits below the belt with his last statement. Hitchens did in no way, avoid the 10 arguments or so" but Hitchens replied to nothing, in fact he never understood the arguments. He is not an educated person, just a wordsmith
The sky did fall down yet Chris debated, and sat at the same table, with four Theists at once. And has now also debated with William Lane Craig by himself. Yet Richard Dawkins will not debate with WLC making the most ridiculous excuses.
He has also declined to respond in print to WLC's published criticisms of this book The God Delusion. Poor show really.
the delusional guy who spoke last was unjustified in his claims that claims that hitchens supposedly lost the debate. any thinking person and any person who understands logical fallacies (which have to be followed in these kinds of debates) would see that hitchens clearly won. those who believe the 4 degenerate infantile xtians won the debate, only believe so because they dont have the slightest clue what fallacies are, and certainly dont know what logic is. ppl look silly who make this error
Dr.Hon.Lord Craig ESQ., is such an idiot. "i heard 10 arguments". Of course they werent refutted, they are not valid and groundless. Well i heard about 20 from hitchens that werent refutted. Like his opinion is the only one that counts. Fuck him and the horse he road in on.
Magic did it. It all magic. Since we can't explain why we are here, why the universe is that way it is, etc, we can simply say that its magic. There is a realm of mind (magic) that we can link our morals to and call that our ontological source of morality. We can postulate the perfect magic and agree that if it can exit it must. There is so much we can't answer, so we just say its magic! All suffering will all be wiped out by magic! I love magic.
Dr Craig summerized Hitchens perfectly in his last statement. No meat Chris!!! Just waffle, prejudices, expression of personal dislike of religion in general and unsound reasoning in an attempt to avoid the arguments.
Living in a universe with a tyrant god is depressing.... Living in a universe where you simply die and disappear is depressing.. And living in a universe where grown men believe in something that is as intellectually sound as belief in Santa Clause is also depressing..... I sometimes feel that I am stuck in a giant insane asylum called planet earth.... I cant believe that we even need to debate this.
@zech48 That's a wonderful point. I've noticed that trend; he summarizes the debate thusly:
As I look over my notes, I see that this debate was a clear victory for the theists with 10 unrefuted arguments, and no evidence presented in favor of atheism. Therefore, Jesus is God, and I will see you in church tomorrow.
I do not like force-agencies that I can see that I can fight -- I do not need to add on to literal totalitarians a fantastical one to whom I have no escape, ever.
To any people who've watched this debate through and are guffawing at hitchens and atheism, please keep looking, for hitchen's personal responses to those points listed by the gentleman at the end, and for other arguements made by Dawkins and others. Go beyond that and look at the almost comically large amount of evidence there is for evolution if you don't already believe it to be pretty much bang on the money. This I plead for total confidence in religious views you'll base your kids lives on.
Also, the new testement was put together by a commity where gnostic books were voted wether or not to be made a part of the bible. So that means some books that might have been a part of the bible were left out. These were human beings, born imperfect and prone to error deciding what books to leave out of the bible... how can anyone claim the bible is the strict word of God when a bunch of guys in a room were voting what to put in and leave out?
Whenever someone who is trying to push the bible onto a population and use it to govern is cornered by calling them on their bullshit, they will always say "Well I can't say for sure, no one can can know everything about the bible"
.
So if you don't understand everything, then you cannot be allowed to use it as a basis of law.
In this debate this man admitted that a perfect God, the God of the Bible, and pain and suffering existing in the world, are NOT logically incompatible.
He did not because he could not, contend with these arguments and this much he has since admitted to Bill Craig. With nothing but a forked tongue this man sways the weak, the ignorant, and the misguided. He's nothing but bombastic obfuscation, works of stubble, a man made of straw. Those who venerate him are incapable of rational thought.
All you people who think that Hitchens "wiped the floor" in this debate, try to look past your infantile infatuation with the man for one second. Ten powerful arguments, arguments that are rapidly gaining power in secular academia, were given in defense of theism and this man was unable to discuss, let alone refute, any of them. Instead all he delivered was brash talk and a polemic.
Dr. Craig derived contentions from ALL the theist panelists that had not been answered - is he really surprised when this debate was 5 vs 1?
I could comment on how ridiculous the Bible is verse by verse, but that's just too much content at once. Same concept at once - too much erroneous content to debunk all at one time Give Hitchens Sam Harris, Dawkins, deGrasse Tyson, or more time, (or all of them) and you'l have your questions answered.
Ten powerful arguments that are growing in acceptance and persuasion in secular academia and main-stream philosophy, and elucidated with eloquence and poise, is not an absence of argument. Your prejudice and myopia has blinded you to the fact that in the face of these 10 arguments, Hitchens delivered not one refutation, but instead only unintellectual bombast and diatribe.
@tr2n09 The "10 arguments" (much of them rehashed variations of the ontological argument for existence) have been dead since Kant. Theology and religious apologetics are complete joke amongst philosophy academics.
It is possible that Cindy Crawford exists. This possibility cannot be dis-proven, therefore it is likely she does exist. If she does exist, logic flows that she always has existed. It is also possible that she may want to sleep with me. Therefore, she always wants to sleep with me. Logically it follows that in a universe where she always exists and always wants to sleep with me, then it MUST follow that she DOES in fact sleep with me.
I once glanced thru a book on numerology in the New Age section of a book store, that taught how to reduce your name into numbers and associate astrological values to this. The wish thinking basis of this is beyond any i've come across since.
Craig, Wilson and Strobel demonstrate the same reductionist, insular thinking by end-justifying a closed logical system they are biased to. I "believe because I want to" might be a lot simpler.
All of the arguments summed up at the end have been refuted by others. I'm surprised to see some of the more patently absurd ones like Aquinas' ontological argument, which is probably the dumbest argument ever invented for God's existence. All of the rest also fall to careful inspection.
they didn't give him time to refute all those arguments which can all be easily refuted, the argument of fine tuning...lol. you could fine so many videos on youtube refuting many of these. they should have let him have the last word...
The argumentes Craig lists are fucking rediculous and I applaud Hitch for not getting drawn into a bullshit debate of sophistry like Craig has such a huge hard on for. Craig is a dick and I think he knows he is.
1. Hawking just explained why we don't need god to explain why there's a universe.
2. Fine tuning argument: The universe is PERFECTLY designed for creating black holes. It's basically a black hole machine. Does that sound like a perfect design?
Fine tuning: The fact that this tiny spec of the universe is fit for life at this particular moment in the universe's history, doesn not fucking even indicate design.
3. Moral argument. There is no ebjective morality. Well, there is if we first agree that morality deals with human suffering and hapiness. Then we can use science to determine what maximizes human happiness. Not easy and there will be very tough questions. It's the best we've got.
4. The argument from biological complexity isn't in any way a compelling argument. It's just saying that because seomthing seems very complex to us, it couldn't have developed through natural processes. (1) Denying evolution is just silly and (2) even though science can't fully explain abiogenesis YET, it's certainly on it's way to doing so.
The last two arguments are simply bullshit. Anyone should be able to see this.
I have to agree with Craig, Hitchins didn't put up a good enough argument for atheism or anti-theism. Hitchins lack of clarity about fine tuning, abio-genesis, big bang theory etc.... was sloppy at best. Having seen Hitchins in other interviews, where he is much more eloquent and concise I have to give him a C- on this one. I'll give him a mulligan on this one, he can blame it on the allergies.
You don't need to put forward an argument for atheism or anti-theism if you think that's the default, you just need to argue against theism. Hitchens is right to not speak of abiogensis or the big bang- he's not a scientist. It's actually Craig, who likes playing amateur physicist who makes the mistake. The claim that the universe came into existence has no evidence at all, it's simply one of the interpretations of the big bang.
It really didn't matter how many guys he was going against. It was still theist vs. atheist. Those 4 guys were all the spouting the same thing which I've seen him debunked many times before. I sadly have to disagree with you about his performance, click on the other videos of Hitchens and you'll see that he is certainly much more clear and concise with his thoughts and arguments. I agree with Hitchens point of view, but I won't give him a free pass when he stumbles.
'Dr' Craig is basically repeating the Courtier's Reply:
Until [Hitchens] has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
There are so many fallacies in what the last speaker had claimed.
He claimed that Mr. Hitchens did not answer these questions that were arised, I understood his answers to a lot of them. He did not answer all of them but most of them. (SINCE there is only 1 of him, 4 of them, and x- amount of time).
The only panel i respect was Lee Strobel (other than Hitchens) and the moderator. The rest just dilutes themselves into believing God.
Definitely not Hitchen's best debate. However, he was outnumber. BTW, since when is the Christian God moral? That one guy at the far left even went so far as to say that if he were God he would do things differently. Yes, because your God says that killers and rapist who believe in you are going to heaven while good people are going to hell for nothing less than non-belief in your God. Even if I bought the bs "design argument" it doesn't make your case for your God being the right one.
"Definitely not Hitchen's best debate. However, he was outnumber"
What does that matter? He was given about 80% of all the speaking time, and yet HE was the one who interrupted people and behaved aggressively. At the end of the day, if you have better arguments, it doesn't matter how many you're up against.
"Even if I bought the bs "design argument" it doesn't make your case for your God being the right one."
True, but it smashes atheism! As for Xianity, that needs historical study.
Craig with his usual sum up about the opponent not answering the questions. I've seen all of his debates (that I could find) and they are starting to bleed together. Kalam anyone? Craig is such a douche in his closing babble and Chris was nothing but class except for maybe calling them "wicked, delusional idiots." But if the wooden clog fits....
"Craig is such a douche in his closing babble and Chris was nothing but class except for maybe calling them "wicked, delusional idiots."
So you complain that Craig summarizes the lack of response from Hitchens....
....is that it? Do you hold the view that Hitchens DID respond adequately to all 10 arguments? If so I wonder if we are watching the same debate. To moan about Craig without even refuting him is desperation defined.
It doesn't matter if they answer them or not. Craig goes through his canned speech often in his closing arguments but sometimes during his 1st rebuttal/2nd up. And that is so weak. It's like accusing someone of not answering the questions when they haven't even got their trousers off yet and they only had 5 minutes to respond. Craig is an excellent debater but he's been refuted all over the net. Search and you will find.
You're not paying attention. Take a deep breath. Reread what I said, the answers are all there. Here's a clue: subtext. If you still don't get it, then I can't help you.
All you've done is say you don't like Craig's style. This says nothing of whether or not his arguments are sound.
If I've missed anything subtextual then you'd better spell it out.
Again, I ask how Craig's arguments are refuted? Are you able to put it in your own words, or are you just going to tell me to "google it". That's a very weak response. After all, what if I don't find it convincing? Let's hear your understanding of his fallacies, leaving "subtext" out of it.
@lambent77777 Agreed the exact same closing statement and accusations every time. Craig seems to believe that because he does not find the answers satisfying or agreeable then they have clearly not been answered according to him I never understand why he has such a good reputation as a debater.
the only question i ask is if god created the world y did he create drugs that grow on our planet..if u say the devil put them there to tempt us isnt it fair to say the devil cud ov put babanas or dogs an ne1 who has contact with them wil also go to hell...answer plz.
no i have not actually.its a simple question that no1 can answer because god is evil.heres another 1 aswell.did jesus say to peter u will deny me 3 times.yes.peter then denies jesus 3 times correct.yes.this is the second most important man in christianity and even he didnt believe in jesus enuf to defend him so.there is no god there is no heaven mary said god made her pregnatn cause she was raped by a paki.
And I love how the only response you could make was to send me a PM with words like n*gg* lover in it. I guess the best thing to do is let your actions speak for themselves.
As for your "why did God create drugs" question, has it ever occurred to you that Jesus turned water into wine, and that we take this at communion, and that weed can have medical benefits? Just because something is there, doesn't mean there isn't a right and a wrong way to use it. You could ask the same about fire.
"I don't get how anyone can say that the cell is complex if he had at least looked at it. "
You seriously don't think a cell is complex? Have you even seen one yourself? If a cell isn't complex then the human body must be like 2+2=4 to you!
"The universe is complex, I admit, but not in the sense that it's unknowable and divine"
Why should KNOWABLE and divine not go together? It's precisely what we DO know about Big Bang, fine-tuning and information theory which gives ID its support.
0:29 - "When you look at the human cell and you look at the complexities of the world around us, there's much more going on, there's much more of a prima facie case for a designer than I think the militant atheists want to let on".
Are we to understand from this that Wilson is an evolution skeptic? Very peculiar turn of phrase if not.
"Are we to understand from this that Wilson is an evolution skeptic?"
Evolution can only begin after DNA and the cell are in place, as the whole Darwinian process depends upon the mis-copying of genetic information.
Do you have a case for how information coding and cell machinery can evolve given that these things are necessary for the process to happen at all? It's a bit like Wilson's analogy of having a chair to sit on. Evolution sits on the cell.
Agreed that Hitchens was not at his best against this field of dullards. Perhaps the level of competition didn't bring out his best.
Consider tha absurd statement starting at 1:35 that if the universal was created merely by chance there could be no such thing as a "wicked, delusional idiot" (the insult Hitchens hurled at them). Why not? Seems like precisely what a random act might produce.
These guys are right, Hitchens doesn't answer questions. He keeps going on this own theme, very interesting on its own, but deflecting the question most of the time
@camilocuesta. Agreed. Hitchens has a few lines that he habitually falls back on, even when they're not really direct answers. I always thought his comment about God sitting on his hands for 98,000 years was strange. If you believe in God, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that God was tinkering with people's lives back then, too.
You know I'm an atheist but I think Hitchens did poorly on this debate. He often seemed content to point out that Christianity is obviously crazy rather than actually engage with the discussion.
The argument from morality is incredibly easy to refute but Hitchens merely said "Your world view is not moral." That kind of missed the point the Theists were making.
@MrEBassist Yeah, for sure. Atheist debaters often have trouble combating the claim that they have no basis for morality. That's not to say that the religious perspective on morality is better (or even coherent), but we seem to have a need to feel that morality is "objective," and it's hard for atheists to ground morality in anything more than philosophy, which can feel a little wobbly.
How can "bill" claim that Hitchens only named one argument for atheism? Has he even listened to what he said? And Hitchens has replied to every argument the apologetics put forward. He might have been brief in his replies, but that is because all of those arguments are becoming really old, and have been refuted by so many people that it is becoming tiresome.
Damn, they were really using the ontological argument, the transcendental argument and William Craig's own cosmological argument?!?!
All of them have been refuted thoroughly many times over! Why are they still using them? You can find the refutations on many places on the internets (for example on wiki . ironchariots . or g.
And then there is the argument of the bible, which also doesn't hold any merit, because the bible itself needs to be validated first, before you can use it as an argument.
well gee hitchens, you're one person sharing time with four others and yet why havent you wasted time refuting my laughably stupid recitation of the ontological argument?
You just can't argue with these people but I am impressed by Christopher's tenaciousness to do so.
My favorite parts were the apologists admitting that religion is needed because there are people who'd have no hope without it. They've said it all right there.
'It makes you feel good' is no reason to believe in anything - it just explains why so many are so eager to believe. I am starting to think that believers either are so indoctrinated or so weak-minded that they lack the ability for critical analysis.
Come on people!! If you had never heard these religious fables as a kid and then someone told them to you as an adult, you would have to be a little slow not to question the nonsensical nature of it all
Ah, it was more the case that they showed that on an atheistic worldview there is no hope. The point was that when the chips are down, the Christian's worldview affords him something to stand but the atheist's is impoverished by the fact that on his worldview the concept of hope is not even rational.
Even if one did come to believe theism simply because it was a crutch for them in their time of need, that says nothing about the validity of theism as an objective reality.
A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.
For example: "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't following you" - Kurt Cobain.
The big bang theory at least says that matter was gathered in one spot then exploded. Christians want you to believe in the big poof theory. God said "Let it be" and poof there it was. I ask you which is more believable.
i'd like to know how he is ignorant of these things when he was raised in a Christian family and went to a staunch Christian school.
i too am a "fallen Christian" and would argue that after falling from God's grace into sin and struggling with guilt that my redemption from this guilt was secured after reading Hitchens' God is not Great. His grasp of Christianity is better than many Christians I have met. He simply sees it with a clear mind.
I went to the same school as Christopher, and would very much disagree with the idea it was a 'staunch Christian school' The majority of people at the Leys School are not Christians and would not profess to be believers at all. I would reakon in the region of around 1in20 are Christians, whilst the majority are probably put off by dull Chapel services people don't want to go to and divinity lessons that promote little more than parrot like repition for exam purposes.
per capita, more atheists know the bible much better than christians. for many, reading the bible is the main cause of atheism. it is proof of the absurdity of religion, god, the beliefs, etc. but good luck to you
Leviticus says men who lie with men is an abomination. Deuteronomy says if a groom discovers on his wedding night that his new bride is not a virgin, he is to stone her to death. Many "Christians" cherry pick, as usual, and subscribe to the one and not the other. What's to understand?
Agreed, but it's the same for "christians", and the onus is on the "christians" to know what they're talking about since they're making all the claims of truth..............emotional attachment to beliefs does not make them true, and it does not make them false either. That's always my point. I can see some truth on both sides. NOONE has the market cornered on the truth......
If you are uterly determend that the origin of the universe need a supernatural explanation then isent "something from nothing" the simplest supernatural event ? Why add more supernatural then you need ? No instead of something out of nothing lets put complicated inteligence out of nothing that is much more probable.
Hitchens could have done a better job at the fine tuuning of the universe argument. How can people not see that adding god to the picture only moves the problem back and make it more improbable. Something smart enough do design the universe is more improbable then the universe itself. You have 2 options A the universe, B the universe + God
Then you can say whatever you want, it was always there, it doesent need an explanation etc however you put it option A is less complex and more likley.
"you are nothing without god, you are nothing without jesus, get on your knees and kiss god's ass and you'll be well off, try to stand on your own two feet, and you'll be reduced to less than rubble"
christianity does not give dignity, it takes it from you, and then presumes to save you from itself
what is wrong with this guy?...he is soooo pitiful it is very painful to watch! If this is what religion does to you god save me from that experience!
i have to agree with the last speaker that CH didn't do a very good job of rebutting some of the arguments made by the rest of the panel, especially the fine-tuning and ontological questions. this was certainly one of the most formidable set of opponents I have seen CH debate, and while he did make some good arguments he did seem at times a little ill-prepared.
i'm disappointed, since I'm an atheist and a fan of CH and I know there are sufficient replies to all of those 10 points he missed.
I agree that I wish Hitchens had touched on those points a bit more just to attempt to enlighten these deluded individuals, but given the time constraints it seemed like he was trying to get a specific message across as best he could. That's what I gathered from it. I'd likely do the same thing seeing as it's so hard to get anything to stick into a theist's mind.
i thought CH was awsome! ofcourse they panel will find thing he may not have explained enough to them.. 5 voices v 1 voice in a short time will give CH a huge disadvantage to answer all these questions flying about.
Exactly. CH really didn't have enough time to address all the things that that viper Craig whines he didn't address.
These Theist set-up debates are almost always left intentionally broad in topic so that they can't be nailed down to a specific issue....such as Craig's insistence that the Resurrection was a real historical event, or his belief in ID.
So the guy on the far right can go on for over 5 minutes with no interruption from the moderator, but when Hitchens presents his closing argument the mod butts in to tell him how much time he has. 5 Christians can go on about fairy tales for as long as they want but when someone makes a rational statement the Christians shut him down. Just shows they are afraid of the truth and that even 5 "educated" Christians can't debate one informed atheist without looking like fools.
"A Christian criticizing someone for having morals that are "suspended from an invisible skyhook"?
That's some irony."
Why not? It's true. Hitchens asserts objective moral values without any basis for them. They just hang there.
As for "Skyhooks" in general, they suck. Think about "Cranes" (as Dawkins says); they're no better, because the Crane needs a base which exists necessarily. So the Crane sits on a skyhook after all! It's weak atheistic rhetoric which Doug was able to expose.
I was commenting on the irony of that statement, not its truth value. In other words, the pot is calling the kettle black, considering Christain use of the "skyhook".
Indeed, and I just explained to you why the irony is not at Wilson's expense. When I say Skyhooks "suck" I mean their actual argumentative value when it comes to atheism. If we are to define Skyhook as something which "just exists" with no prior build-up, then that is ultimately what "Cranes" depend upon: they rest upon the ground. Is this ground "just there". Cranes, ultimately, are suspended by Skyhooks too.
So, even more ironically, If God is a "Skyhook" Hitchens is using it!
I think your definition of skyhooks and cranes are a bit off. As I understand it, skyhooks are explanations of complexity that rely on supernatural processes. Cranes rely on natural processes.
Even if cranes and skyhooks are both equally bad arguments, it seems odd to conclude that an athiest using them is somehow more bad. My comment was simply that its ironic for a person who relies on supernatural explanations of morality to criticize someone using a skyhook.
@DoomTone11 Also, What about pain? we know, thanks to our nerves, what hurts and what doesn't. We have the brain capacity to learn that if we touch fire it hurts. What is so ominous and "godly" about committing pain to memory? We have set our own moral right there. "Don't touch the fire because it hurts" Now, some people, are aroused by hot wax or fire. THAT is precisely the relativity that christians miss. Morality has changed SO much, god did not give us everlasting morality. It changes !!!
? Everyone of those last points made by the last speaker were either nonsense or easily refuted with minimal effort. I mean the evidence for god is that he's created a flawed reality is quite pathetic at least and stupid and best.
"Everyone of those last points made by the last speaker were either nonsense or easily refuted with minimal effort."
Refute them all right now then, if that is true.
" I mean the evidence for god is that he's created a flawed reality is quite pathetic at least and stupid and best."
...and I sure hope that wasn't meant to be it! I can see typing that took minimal effort, but as for refutation, that's delusional, as well badly written.
Horseshit. These guys do exactly what the putz on the left accuses Hitchens of. Let's see them refute Islam.
They can't because they rely on the same strawmen - but THEY don't believe it and never will.
Making claims that you have an imaginary magical friend is simple. Hitchens said again and again how we do not derive or morality from religion yet religion claims monopoly. He was accused of arrogance and elitism by four guys who's best buds are gods.
Something I want to add that Hitchens doesnt seem to explain very well in all the vids of his Ive seen, on morality. The religious, as Ive seen over an over, think that they have a monopoly on morals. Basically "if there was no God, rape/murder would run rampant". This simply isnt true. In an Athiest world these things would still be punished by other athiests because they are counterproductive and even harmful to a reasoning societys progression. Our ability to reason gives us morals, not God.
6:27 Clearly said, "And the argument is not that you need to believe in God to behave properly." The argument is whether an objective moral law can exist without god. Most atheists, including Hitchens, agree the answer is no. Only subjective morals can exist without god.
Trafferazabu, you are wrong in saying that "Only subjective morals can exist without God".
In fact, I think Michael Shermer put it best when asked about whether Morality is Subjective or Objective, and his response was "Yes". He goes on to state that morality is "somewhere in between Subjective and Objective."
This is a rational conclusion from what we know about social animals.
I was simply pointing out what the argument was, objective vs. subjective morals in a material universe and not as bertohead stated; most people including theists actually do believe you can behave morally if you don't believe in god. But if I gave an opinion, I would have to agree with Hitchens over Shermer. I don't see the material providing any absolute right or wrong only agreed upon standards. Shermer really says the opposite?
I do not recollect Hitchens ever saying that morality is 'Subjective' which is why he is often criticized for 'not answering the question'. The reason he does not answer the question of whether morality is subjective or objective is because they are both invalid. Subjective, as I know it means "by a subject's experience" or it is up to an individual's own opinion/mind. This is not the case with respect to social primate evolution and our neurology.
Hitchens, nonetheless, does put out a challenge to show that morality is not religiously owned, but is an innate social human characteristic. He has said it on many occasions that morality is innate in humans, and we do not require divine supervision to be told what is wrong and what is right. "We would not have gotten' this far" is what he often says.
I do not see his responses as meaning morality is "Subjective". Maybe I'm wrong.
I'd be in agreement most strongly with your last sentence. Maybe I'm wrong as well. I think the subject could be either the individual or social norms and the object is objective Law Giver, god. The subject in either case would be subject to change, so no absolute right and wrong. I think even a view of our written past would show this to be the case in social evolution. Can you think of anything which is now and has always been wrong, and if so, what makes it objectively wrong?
Perhaps, it is the definition of "Subjective" which seems slightly improper in my opinion, but maybe I'm far too use to hearing it used improperly by theistic philosophers. Nonetheless, I think I'm in agreement with how you use the word "subjective".
" morality is "somewhere in between Subjective and Objective."
Nonsense. Either moral values would exist independently of our own beliefs (objective) or they depend upon our inventing and modifying them (subjective). The fact that you can't even find a word for "somewhere in between" shows that this is just vague and illogical thinking (the law of excluded middle).
Do you exist or not? Or are you "somewhere in between"?
Morality partly depends on our inventing of social morals for the specific "in group" we find ourselves in, intermingled with our neurological predisposition to empathy, nurture, authority, etc. It is very much subjective as an "in group" but seemingly objective to the individual living in that "in group". This is why these words are problematic, mainly, because philosophy is a failure at understanding reality.
A more accurate analogy is taste. Is taste objective or subjective?
Craig has first to adequeately adress the Euthyphro dilemma, the Christian worldview cannot provide any sort of grounding for objective moral values, only a coercive force that want's to impose it's own values.
Euthyphro was two men reasoning on piety, no? Christianity is a truth claim. You can object to it as false and those who would try to enforce those moral values as then coercive. Still the original claim was not on a worldview, but on an 'objective' moral value requiring God. Without God, all morals are reasoned none the less, but subjective.
Yes, that is the general theme of the text. But what I mean is, the dilemma that is posed to Euthyphro, is one that still haunts all theistic world views. Is morality contingent on God or not? If it is contingent, it isn't objective, if it is objective, then it isn't contingent on the existance of any deity.
I'm not following you completely here; contingent = dependent on or a proposition? Nevertheless truth claims about shoulds and should nots, morals, are subject to change by the observer unless there is an ultimate authority; must not. The transmission and proper receipt from that ultimate authority, God, can be mistaken. Evolved morals subject to change which are agreed to among people and societies abound. I'm curious about your point above if you could elaborate more please.
I agree to that. But there is still the interesting point from Wilson that rationality cannot exist in a completely naturalistic universe. I'm not quite sure how to answer that... but not that I'm really worried about it, it's just the peculiarity of the argument that befuddles me.
Or maybe God has provided some morals also unless you have a proof for atheism. I've been thrown by the same point, no rationality, as well as those who say no free will exists in a naturalistic universe. Christianity sides with Wilson in saying no man has rationality, at least to choose for God. In a strictly material world, optimal choices can be made, so I see no reason for rationality not to exist. We can depend on reason, no? Anyway, I'm a compatibilist.
Neil deGrasse Tyson...there Dr.Craig all 10 of your arguments were destroyed in 5 minutes
/watch?v=ISg6j7BF02Q
jfriscuit 4 weeks ago
i love how not finding a body missing a human male chromosome is proof that jesus is the son of god..... hard fail
jadagod 2 months ago
Craig hits below the belt with his last statement. Hitchens did in no way, avoid the 10 arguments or so, what happened was the debate was simply led in that direction by all of them. What's funny is that all the Apologists didn't prove in any way what so ever, that God does exist either. They try to leave the benefit of the doubt. For someone to disprove the existence of God, he first has to be proven! Hitchens rules! :D
quantumleap8824 3 months ago
@quantumleap8824 "Craig hits below the belt with his last statement. Hitchens did in no way, avoid the 10 arguments or so" but Hitchens replied to nothing, in fact he never understood the arguments. He is not an educated person, just a wordsmith
Kai84719 3 weeks ago
The sky did fall down yet Chris debated, and sat at the same table, with four Theists at once. And has now also debated with William Lane Craig by himself. Yet Richard Dawkins will not debate with WLC making the most ridiculous excuses.
He has also declined to respond in print to WLC's published criticisms of this book The God Delusion. Poor show really.
allan3141 4 months ago
the delusional guy who spoke last was unjustified in his claims that claims that hitchens supposedly lost the debate. any thinking person and any person who understands logical fallacies (which have to be followed in these kinds of debates) would see that hitchens clearly won. those who believe the 4 degenerate infantile xtians won the debate, only believe so because they dont have the slightest clue what fallacies are, and certainly dont know what logic is. ppl look silly who make this error
slovakmath 6 months ago 3
Dr.Hon.Lord Craig ESQ., is such an idiot. "i heard 10 arguments". Of course they werent refutted, they are not valid and groundless. Well i heard about 20 from hitchens that werent refutted. Like his opinion is the only one that counts. Fuck him and the horse he road in on.
lordrazr 6 months ago
hahah celestial north korea....
losghost 6 months ago 4
Magic did it. It all magic. Since we can't explain why we are here, why the universe is that way it is, etc, we can simply say that its magic. There is a realm of mind (magic) that we can link our morals to and call that our ontological source of morality. We can postulate the perfect magic and agree that if it can exit it must. There is so much we can't answer, so we just say its magic! All suffering will all be wiped out by magic! I love magic.
MushashiMiyamotoSama 6 months ago
Thank you for posting this, hopokuk.
writersblock26 6 months ago
William Lane Craig is an ignorant douche.
Rocketryman 6 months ago
took a while to watch all of these, but it was worth every minute.
Konstiin 7 months ago
How the fuck can some people actually believe that the burden of proof isn't on the side that is claiming the everything is created by MAGIC?
Eminor3rd 8 months ago
Dr Craig summerized Hitchens perfectly in his last statement. No meat Chris!!! Just waffle, prejudices, expression of personal dislike of religion in general and unsound reasoning in an attempt to avoid the arguments.
Pompeyboy1818 8 months ago
Living in a universe with a tyrant god is depressing.... Living in a universe where you simply die and disappear is depressing.. And living in a universe where grown men believe in something that is as intellectually sound as belief in Santa Clause is also depressing..... I sometimes feel that I am stuck in a giant insane asylum called planet earth.... I cant believe that we even need to debate this.
tempemonkey2323 8 months ago
this is why you dont let a craig go last.
I WON EVERYBODY
zech48 9 months ago
@zech48 That's a wonderful point. I've noticed that trend; he summarizes the debate thusly:
As I look over my notes, I see that this debate was a clear victory for the theists with 10 unrefuted arguments, and no evidence presented in favor of atheism. Therefore, Jesus is God, and I will see you in church tomorrow.
panther451 8 months ago
@panther451 now thats evangelism
zech48 8 months ago
I do not like force-agencies that I can see that I can fight -- I do not need to add on to literal totalitarians a fantastical one to whom I have no escape, ever.
OctoBox 9 months ago
IF the big bang happened THEN somebody must have pressed the button
THUS that somebody is irrefutably my christian GOD. Submit to HIM or HE will press it again!!!
10 faith based arguments by Craig are NOT worth wasting brain cells on....
chinoyeclay 10 months ago
I really don't follow Craigs logic..............Am I stupid or does Craigs logic not make sense at all?
TheLuckySaGe 11 months ago
HOW is there evidence that the ressurection occurred?
MamaMario13 11 months ago
To any people who've watched this debate through and are guffawing at hitchens and atheism, please keep looking, for hitchen's personal responses to those points listed by the gentleman at the end, and for other arguements made by Dawkins and others. Go beyond that and look at the almost comically large amount of evidence there is for evolution if you don't already believe it to be pretty much bang on the money. This I plead for total confidence in religious views you'll base your kids lives on.
therorysnake 11 months ago
Also, the new testement was put together by a commity where gnostic books were voted wether or not to be made a part of the bible. So that means some books that might have been a part of the bible were left out. These were human beings, born imperfect and prone to error deciding what books to leave out of the bible... how can anyone claim the bible is the strict word of God when a bunch of guys in a room were voting what to put in and leave out?
nurb101 11 months ago
Whenever someone who is trying to push the bible onto a population and use it to govern is cornered by calling them on their bullshit, they will always say "Well I can't say for sure, no one can can know everything about the bible"
.
So if you don't understand everything, then you cannot be allowed to use it as a basis of law.
nurb101 11 months ago
In this debate this man admitted that a perfect God, the God of the Bible, and pain and suffering existing in the world, are NOT logically incompatible.
He did not because he could not, contend with these arguments and this much he has since admitted to Bill Craig. With nothing but a forked tongue this man sways the weak, the ignorant, and the misguided. He's nothing but bombastic obfuscation, works of stubble, a man made of straw. Those who venerate him are incapable of rational thought.
tr2n09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tr2n09 Fuck you cunt
TheLuckySaGe 11 months ago
All you people who think that Hitchens "wiped the floor" in this debate, try to look past your infantile infatuation with the man for one second. Ten powerful arguments, arguments that are rapidly gaining power in secular academia, were given in defense of theism and this man was unable to discuss, let alone refute, any of them. Instead all he delivered was brash talk and a polemic.
tr2n09 1 year ago
Response to Dr. Craig at the end:
Dr. Craig derived contentions from ALL the theist panelists that had not been answered - is he really surprised when this debate was 5 vs 1?
I could comment on how ridiculous the Bible is verse by verse, but that's just too much content at once. Same concept at once - too much erroneous content to debunk all at one time Give Hitchens Sam Harris, Dawkins, deGrasse Tyson, or more time, (or all of them) and you'l have your questions answered.
l3lip 1 year ago
Support for Christian Theism from this talk:
Contingency Argument, Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, Moral Argument, Ontological Argument, Biological Complexity Argument, Consciousness Argument, Existence of Rationality Argument, Self-Validating Experience Argument
alanswindoll 1 year ago
LOL "absence of argument." Soooo much irony.
kmfdm34l 1 year ago
@kmfdm34l
Ten powerful arguments that are growing in acceptance and persuasion in secular academia and main-stream philosophy, and elucidated with eloquence and poise, is not an absence of argument. Your prejudice and myopia has blinded you to the fact that in the face of these 10 arguments, Hitchens delivered not one refutation, but instead only unintellectual bombast and diatribe.
"Soooo much irony"?
That's the only irony here buddy.
tr2n09 1 year ago
@tr2n09 The "10 arguments" (much of them rehashed variations of the ontological argument for existence) have been dead since Kant. Theology and religious apologetics are complete joke amongst philosophy academics.
LDNLeon 6 months ago
It is possible that Cindy Crawford exists. This possibility cannot be dis-proven, therefore it is likely she does exist. If she does exist, logic flows that she always has existed. It is also possible that she may want to sleep with me. Therefore, she always wants to sleep with me. Logically it follows that in a universe where she always exists and always wants to sleep with me, then it MUST follow that she DOES in fact sleep with me.
I had no idea. Awesome! Thanks Dr. Craig!
belodeau 1 year ago 24
@belodeau
Cindy Crawford is not a maximally excellent being.
I think you should at least try to understand the argument before you deliver it your "knock out" blow.
tr2n09 1 year ago
Philosophical abstraction is not "evidence."
I once glanced thru a book on numerology in the New Age section of a book store, that taught how to reduce your name into numbers and associate astrological values to this. The wish thinking basis of this is beyond any i've come across since.
Craig, Wilson and Strobel demonstrate the same reductionist, insular thinking by end-justifying a closed logical system they are biased to. I "believe because I want to" might be a lot simpler.
belodeau 1 year ago
Who the fuck can believe the ontological argument. That shit is axiomatically false. Well, apparently not....
OhManTFE 1 year ago
All of the arguments summed up at the end have been refuted by others. I'm surprised to see some of the more patently absurd ones like Aquinas' ontological argument, which is probably the dumbest argument ever invented for God's existence. All of the rest also fall to careful inspection.
kdwormy 1 year ago 2
they didn't give him time to refute all those arguments which can all be easily refuted, the argument of fine tuning...lol. you could fine so many videos on youtube refuting many of these. they should have let him have the last word...
A2thedouble 1 year ago
lmao. o snap. hitchens got sh**ted on at the end.
si1vermane 1 year ago
The argumentes Craig lists are fucking rediculous and I applaud Hitch for not getting drawn into a bullshit debate of sophistry like Craig has such a huge hard on for. Craig is a dick and I think he knows he is.
1. Hawking just explained why we don't need god to explain why there's a universe.
2. Fine tuning argument: The universe is PERFECTLY designed for creating black holes. It's basically a black hole machine. Does that sound like a perfect design?
magnusjsolberg 1 year ago
@magnusjsolberg going to continue my post here:
Fine tuning: The fact that this tiny spec of the universe is fit for life at this particular moment in the universe's history, doesn not fucking even indicate design.
3. Moral argument. There is no ebjective morality. Well, there is if we first agree that morality deals with human suffering and hapiness. Then we can use science to determine what maximizes human happiness. Not easy and there will be very tough questions. It's the best we've got.
magnusjsolberg 1 year ago
@magnusjsolberg Part 3 of my post:
4. The argument from biological complexity isn't in any way a compelling argument. It's just saying that because seomthing seems very complex to us, it couldn't have developed through natural processes. (1) Denying evolution is just silly and (2) even though science can't fully explain abiogenesis YET, it's certainly on it's way to doing so.
The last two arguments are simply bullshit. Anyone should be able to see this.
Hitch won without even breaking a sweat
magnusjsolberg 1 year ago
Craig the deaf accountant.
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago
I have to agree with Craig, Hitchins didn't put up a good enough argument for atheism or anti-theism. Hitchins lack of clarity about fine tuning, abio-genesis, big bang theory etc.... was sloppy at best. Having seen Hitchins in other interviews, where he is much more eloquent and concise I have to give him a C- on this one. I'll give him a mulligan on this one, he can blame it on the allergies.
azib958 1 year ago
@azib958
You don't need to put forward an argument for atheism or anti-theism if you think that's the default, you just need to argue against theism. Hitchens is right to not speak of abiogensis or the big bang- he's not a scientist. It's actually Craig, who likes playing amateur physicist who makes the mistake. The claim that the universe came into existence has no evidence at all, it's simply one of the interpretations of the big bang.
matthewjhaywood 1 year ago
@azib958
For someone up against four guys (and the moderator) I think he did pretty well.
ShadowPa1adin 1 year ago
@ShadowPa1adin
It really didn't matter how many guys he was going against. It was still theist vs. atheist. Those 4 guys were all the spouting the same thing which I've seen him debunked many times before. I sadly have to disagree with you about his performance, click on the other videos of Hitchens and you'll see that he is certainly much more clear and concise with his thoughts and arguments. I agree with Hitchens point of view, but I won't give him a free pass when he stumbles.
azib958 1 year ago
"Everything must come from something, and that is why you must belive a guy walked on water 2000 years ago"....?
zazack79 1 year ago
Comment removed
zandaz3 1 year ago
dannggg... got 'em
jamaalsabree 1 year ago
"You will all feel much better when you let go of belief in the celestial North Korean"
Thank Mr Hitchens
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Hitchens is way nicer, funnier and friendlier than that whole panel. Sounds like their Christianity hasn't done much for them.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
because all of those arguments are so fucking ridiculous that they are so obviously bullshit and don't even need a response.
TairyGreen89 1 year ago
Craig is out of his fucking mind, Hitchens completely engaged and was extremely courageous to even talk to this panel.
wdf2222 1 year ago
Is there something as objective values, objective morals!?!? I would say no!
zg76 1 year ago
'Dr' Craig is basically repeating the Courtier's Reply:
Until [Hitchens] has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.
LostSubsForever 1 year ago 5
There are so many fallacies in what the last speaker had claimed.
He claimed that Mr. Hitchens did not answer these questions that were arised, I understood his answers to a lot of them. He did not answer all of them but most of them. (SINCE there is only 1 of him, 4 of them, and x- amount of time).
The only panel i respect was Lee Strobel (other than Hitchens) and the moderator. The rest just dilutes themselves into believing God.
mooogles 1 year ago
"Thomas jefferson and the Diests" good band name.
skedaddleMLS 1 year ago
Definitely not Hitchen's best debate. However, he was outnumber. BTW, since when is the Christian God moral? That one guy at the far left even went so far as to say that if he were God he would do things differently. Yes, because your God says that killers and rapist who believe in you are going to heaven while good people are going to hell for nothing less than non-belief in your God. Even if I bought the bs "design argument" it doesn't make your case for your God being the right one.
SlayersOfTrolls 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Definitely not Hitchen's best debate. However, he was outnumber"
What does that matter? He was given about 80% of all the speaking time, and yet HE was the one who interrupted people and behaved aggressively. At the end of the day, if you have better arguments, it doesn't matter how many you're up against.
"Even if I bought the bs "design argument" it doesn't make your case for your God being the right one."
True, but it smashes atheism! As for Xianity, that needs historical study.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
Craig with his usual sum up about the opponent not answering the questions. I've seen all of his debates (that I could find) and they are starting to bleed together. Kalam anyone? Craig is such a douche in his closing babble and Chris was nothing but class except for maybe calling them "wicked, delusional idiots." But if the wooden clog fits....
lambent77777 1 year ago
"Craig is such a douche in his closing babble and Chris was nothing but class except for maybe calling them "wicked, delusional idiots."
So you complain that Craig summarizes the lack of response from Hitchens....
....is that it? Do you hold the view that Hitchens DID respond adequately to all 10 arguments? If so I wonder if we are watching the same debate. To moan about Craig without even refuting him is desperation defined.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
It doesn't matter if they answer them or not. Craig goes through his canned speech often in his closing arguments but sometimes during his 1st rebuttal/2nd up. And that is so weak. It's like accusing someone of not answering the questions when they haven't even got their trousers off yet and they only had 5 minutes to respond. Craig is an excellent debater but he's been refuted all over the net. Search and you will find.
lambent77777 1 year ago
"It doesn't matter if they answer them or not"
Really? It doesn't matter if somebody can't support their beliefs?
" they haven't even got their trousers off yet and they only had 5 minutes to respond."
Craig said this at the very end of the debate, where Hitchens had been speaking 80% of the time.
"he's been refuted all over the net. Search and you will find."
I hear this from atheists everywhere (ironic). I have not found. Why don't you explain to me how his arguments fail?
Birdieupon 1 year ago
You're not paying attention. Take a deep breath. Reread what I said, the answers are all there. Here's a clue: subtext. If you still don't get it, then I can't help you.
lambent77777 1 year ago
All you've done is say you don't like Craig's style. This says nothing of whether or not his arguments are sound.
If I've missed anything subtextual then you'd better spell it out.
Again, I ask how Craig's arguments are refuted? Are you able to put it in your own words, or are you just going to tell me to "google it". That's a very weak response. After all, what if I don't find it convincing? Let's hear your understanding of his fallacies, leaving "subtext" out of it.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@lambent77777 Agreed the exact same closing statement and accusations every time. Craig seems to believe that because he does not find the answers satisfying or agreeable then they have clearly not been answered according to him I never understand why he has such a good reputation as a debater.
jackflash341 4 weeks ago
the only question i ask is if god created the world y did he create drugs that grow on our planet..if u say the devil put them there to tempt us isnt it fair to say the devil cud ov put babanas or dogs an ne1 who has contact with them wil also go to hell...answer plz.
hyams1 2 years ago
@hyams1 I have a friend who would definitely agree that the devil created bananas...
paxson001 2 years ago
"if god created the world y did he create drugs that grow on our planet.."
Someone's been watching Bill Hicks! ;-)
Birdieupon 1 year ago
no i have not actually.its a simple question that no1 can answer because god is evil.heres another 1 aswell.did jesus say to peter u will deny me 3 times.yes.peter then denies jesus 3 times correct.yes.this is the second most important man in christianity and even he didnt believe in jesus enuf to defend him so.there is no god there is no heaven mary said god made her pregnatn cause she was raped by a paki.
hyams1 1 year ago
"god is evil"
How do you know?
"this is the second most important man in christianity and even he didnt believe in jesus enuf to defend him so.there is no god..."
Bad logic. Would that mean that if Peter defended Jesus to the death in total belief that he was God then you'd believe in Jesus?
....oh, wait a second.... he did.... as did all the others.
Now I don't even offer THAT as a proof, but it goes to show how sloppy your thinking is. Maybe too many drugs?
Birdieupon 1 year ago
And I love how the only response you could make was to send me a PM with words like n*gg* lover in it. I guess the best thing to do is let your actions speak for themselves.
As for your "why did God create drugs" question, has it ever occurred to you that Jesus turned water into wine, and that we take this at communion, and that weed can have medical benefits? Just because something is there, doesn't mean there isn't a right and a wrong way to use it. You could ask the same about fire.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
I don't get how anyone can say that the cell is complex if he had at least looked at it.
The universe is complex, I admit, but not in the sense that it's unknowable and divine. It's just more tedious and laborious to study.
lookitup3 2 years ago
Comment removed
Birdieupon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I don't get how anyone can say that the cell is complex if he had at least looked at it. "
You seriously don't think a cell is complex? Have you even seen one yourself? If a cell isn't complex then the human body must be like 2+2=4 to you!
"The universe is complex, I admit, but not in the sense that it's unknowable and divine"
Why should KNOWABLE and divine not go together? It's precisely what we DO know about Big Bang, fine-tuning and information theory which gives ID its support.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
0:29 - "When you look at the human cell and you look at the complexities of the world around us, there's much more going on, there's much more of a prima facie case for a designer than I think the militant atheists want to let on".
Are we to understand from this that Wilson is an evolution skeptic? Very peculiar turn of phrase if not.
tiocfaidharla1 2 years ago
"Are we to understand from this that Wilson is an evolution skeptic?"
Evolution can only begin after DNA and the cell are in place, as the whole Darwinian process depends upon the mis-copying of genetic information.
Do you have a case for how information coding and cell machinery can evolve given that these things are necessary for the process to happen at all? It's a bit like Wilson's analogy of having a chair to sit on. Evolution sits on the cell.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
Agreed that Hitchens was not at his best against this field of dullards. Perhaps the level of competition didn't bring out his best.
Consider tha absurd statement starting at 1:35 that if the universal was created merely by chance there could be no such thing as a "wicked, delusional idiot" (the insult Hitchens hurled at them). Why not? Seems like precisely what a random act might produce.
Bigwave2003 2 years ago
These guys are right, Hitchens doesn't answer questions. He keeps going on this own theme, very interesting on its own, but deflecting the question most of the time
camilocuesta 2 years ago
@camilocuesta. Agreed. Hitchens has a few lines that he habitually falls back on, even when they're not really direct answers. I always thought his comment about God sitting on his hands for 98,000 years was strange. If you believe in God, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that God was tinkering with people's lives back then, too.
paxson001 2 years ago
You know I'm an atheist but I think Hitchens did poorly on this debate. He often seemed content to point out that Christianity is obviously crazy rather than actually engage with the discussion.
The argument from morality is incredibly easy to refute but Hitchens merely said "Your world view is not moral." That kind of missed the point the Theists were making.
MrEBassist 2 years ago 2
@MrEBassist Yeah, for sure. Atheist debaters often have trouble combating the claim that they have no basis for morality. That's not to say that the religious perspective on morality is better (or even coherent), but we seem to have a need to feel that morality is "objective," and it's hard for atheists to ground morality in anything more than philosophy, which can feel a little wobbly.
paxson001 2 years ago
How can "bill" claim that Hitchens only named one argument for atheism? Has he even listened to what he said? And Hitchens has replied to every argument the apologetics put forward. He might have been brief in his replies, but that is because all of those arguments are becoming really old, and have been refuted by so many people that it is becoming tiresome.
wrongwayup 2 years ago
Damn, they were really using the ontological argument, the transcendental argument and William Craig's own cosmological argument?!?!
All of them have been refuted thoroughly many times over! Why are they still using them? You can find the refutations on many places on the internets (for example on wiki . ironchariots . or g.
And then there is the argument of the bible, which also doesn't hold any merit, because the bible itself needs to be validated first, before you can use it as an argument.
wrongwayup 2 years ago
well gee hitchens, you're one person sharing time with four others and yet why havent you wasted time refuting my laughably stupid recitation of the ontological argument?
Nasbin 2 years ago
Can not have a debate with these people. Religious bible thumpers are the most evil, megalomania filled delusional people on Earth.
firewallx 2 years ago
You just can't argue with these people but I am impressed by Christopher's tenaciousness to do so.
My favorite parts were the apologists admitting that religion is needed because there are people who'd have no hope without it. They've said it all right there.
CelestialTina 2 years ago 29
@CelestialTina, you nailed it
'It makes you feel good' is no reason to believe in anything - it just explains why so many are so eager to believe. I am starting to think that believers either are so indoctrinated or so weak-minded that they lack the ability for critical analysis.
Come on people!! If you had never heard these religious fables as a kid and then someone told them to you as an adult, you would have to be a little slow not to question the nonsensical nature of it all
CmrAdama 2 years ago
@CelestialTina And his ability to not get upset, or irritated by it, is amazing
siti1ca 1 year ago
@CelestialTina
Ah, it was more the case that they showed that on an atheistic worldview there is no hope. The point was that when the chips are down, the Christian's worldview affords him something to stand but the atheist's is impoverished by the fact that on his worldview the concept of hope is not even rational.
Even if one did come to believe theism simply because it was a crutch for them in their time of need, that says nothing about the validity of theism as an objective reality.
tr2n09 1 year ago
@CelestialTina
See "genetic fallacy".
A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.
For example: "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't following you" - Kurt Cobain.
tr2n09 1 year ago
@CelestialTina r u an atheist?
MamaMario13 10 months ago
@MamaMario13 Yes. Why? :P
CelestialTina 10 months ago
nickdap...sorry i meant to give u a thumbs up on ur comment...i agree william lane craig is in a different league than hitchens....
countrydp 2 years ago
The big bang theory at least says that matter was gathered in one spot then exploded. Christians want you to believe in the big poof theory. God said "Let it be" and poof there it was. I ask you which is more believable.
royme55 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
royme55 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
William Craig PWNED Hitchens so badly. I feel bad for him.
observer75 2 years ago
i rated you down, but will say that William Craig was the best of the apologists..
Nickdap 2 years ago
I rated you up for not cursing me out the way other losers on here do if you disagree with them.
observer75 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens is so ignorant of Christianity and the bible.
observer75 2 years ago
i'd like to know how he is ignorant of these things when he was raised in a Christian family and went to a staunch Christian school.
i too am a "fallen Christian" and would argue that after falling from God's grace into sin and struggling with guilt that my redemption from this guilt was secured after reading Hitchens' God is not Great. His grasp of Christianity is better than many Christians I have met. He simply sees it with a clear mind.
WolfmanJoeHunter 2 years ago 3
I went to the same school as Christopher, and would very much disagree with the idea it was a 'staunch Christian school' The majority of people at the Leys School are not Christians and would not profess to be believers at all. I would reakon in the region of around 1in20 are Christians, whilst the majority are probably put off by dull Chapel services people don't want to go to and divinity lessons that promote little more than parrot like repition for exam purposes.
Atangokilo 2 years ago
per capita, more atheists know the bible much better than christians. for many, reading the bible is the main cause of atheism. it is proof of the absurdity of religion, god, the beliefs, etc. but good luck to you
THEREIZNOGOD 2 years ago 3
@THEREIZNOGOD
LOL. Pull more stats from your ass for me. Nevertheless, even if it were so, they clearly do not understand it, as demonstrated time after time.
observer75 2 years ago
Leviticus says men who lie with men is an abomination. Deuteronomy says if a groom discovers on his wedding night that his new bride is not a virgin, he is to stone her to death. Many "Christians" cherry pick, as usual, and subscribe to the one and not the other. What's to understand?
richwfd 2 years ago
And many atheists don't read the bible as a whole and don't understand what they're reading.
observer75 2 years ago
Agreed, but it's the same for "christians", and the onus is on the "christians" to know what they're talking about since they're making all the claims of truth..............emotional attachment to beliefs does not make them true, and it does not make them false either. That's always my point. I can see some truth on both sides. NOONE has the market cornered on the truth......
richwfd 2 years ago
If you are uterly determend that the origin of the universe need a supernatural explanation then isent "something from nothing" the simplest supernatural event ? Why add more supernatural then you need ? No instead of something out of nothing lets put complicated inteligence out of nothing that is much more probable.
tomte47 2 years ago
Hitchens could have done a better job at the fine tuuning of the universe argument. How can people not see that adding god to the picture only moves the problem back and make it more improbable. Something smart enough do design the universe is more improbable then the universe itself. You have 2 options A the universe, B the universe + God
Then you can say whatever you want, it was always there, it doesent need an explanation etc however you put it option A is less complex and more likley.
tomte47 2 years ago
craig is a deceiver but not a good one at that.
he seems to always have the last word in which all of his fallacies remain unanswered. he's always so smug
can't wait to debate him
THEREIZNOGOD 2 years ago
christianity is the dealer of despair.
"you are nothing without god, you are nothing without jesus, get on your knees and kiss god's ass and you'll be well off, try to stand on your own two feet, and you'll be reduced to less than rubble"
christianity does not give dignity, it takes it from you, and then presumes to save you from itself
THEREIZNOGOD 2 years ago
I can't believe how arrogant Craig is. He took such a cheap shot a Hitch, what a jerk. Some Christian humility.
Nice argument @ your dignity statement.
MauricXe 2 years ago
right. you and i saw that, and it seems--from everyone's comments--that its obvious to all.
craig is a hack (and not a good one at all)
THEREIZNOGOD 2 years ago
they want their faith to rule the world and they call atheists militant... how lovely
THEREIZNOGOD 2 years ago
why do i feel so sorry for the moderator?
what is wrong with this guy?...he is soooo pitiful it is very painful to watch! If this is what religion does to you god save me from that experience!
Nitka04 2 years ago
i have to agree with the last speaker that CH didn't do a very good job of rebutting some of the arguments made by the rest of the panel, especially the fine-tuning and ontological questions. this was certainly one of the most formidable set of opponents I have seen CH debate, and while he did make some good arguments he did seem at times a little ill-prepared.
i'm disappointed, since I'm an atheist and a fan of CH and I know there are sufficient replies to all of those 10 points he missed.
piersh 2 years ago
I agree that I wish Hitchens had touched on those points a bit more just to attempt to enlighten these deluded individuals, but given the time constraints it seemed like he was trying to get a specific message across as best he could. That's what I gathered from it. I'd likely do the same thing seeing as it's so hard to get anything to stick into a theist's mind.
Amocoru 2 years ago 3
i thought CH was awsome! ofcourse they panel will find thing he may not have explained enough to them.. 5 voices v 1 voice in a short time will give CH a huge disadvantage to answer all these questions flying about.
spikeannoyed 2 years ago
What do you expect in a 1vs4 debate where everyone has equal time?
LucyFem3 2 years ago 2
Exactly. CH really didn't have enough time to address all the things that that viper Craig whines he didn't address.
These Theist set-up debates are almost always left intentionally broad in topic so that they can't be nailed down to a specific issue....such as Craig's insistence that the Resurrection was a real historical event, or his belief in ID.
Eldeecue 2 years ago
It takes longer to clean up a mess than it does to make it. Simple as that.
Eldeecue 2 years ago
I count the moderator as one of the debaters against Hitchens because he added his own stories, arguments and questions throughout the debate.
Joosybum 2 years ago 6
So the guy on the far right can go on for over 5 minutes with no interruption from the moderator, but when Hitchens presents his closing argument the mod butts in to tell him how much time he has. 5 Christians can go on about fairy tales for as long as they want but when someone makes a rational statement the Christians shut him down. Just shows they are afraid of the truth and that even 5 "educated" Christians can't debate one informed atheist without looking like fools.
Joosybum 2 years ago
A Christian criticizing someone for having morals that are "suspended from an invisible skyhook"?
That's some irony.
DoomTone11 2 years ago 21
"A Christian criticizing someone for having morals that are "suspended from an invisible skyhook"?
That's some irony."
Why not? It's true. Hitchens asserts objective moral values without any basis for them. They just hang there.
As for "Skyhooks" in general, they suck. Think about "Cranes" (as Dawkins says); they're no better, because the Crane needs a base which exists necessarily. So the Crane sits on a skyhook after all! It's weak atheistic rhetoric which Doug was able to expose.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon
"Why not? It's true."
I was commenting on the irony of that statement, not its truth value. In other words, the pot is calling the kettle black, considering Christain use of the "skyhook".
"As for "Skyhooks" in general, they suck."
Exactly.
DoomTone11 1 year ago
@DoomTone11
Indeed, and I just explained to you why the irony is not at Wilson's expense. When I say Skyhooks "suck" I mean their actual argumentative value when it comes to atheism. If we are to define Skyhook as something which "just exists" with no prior build-up, then that is ultimately what "Cranes" depend upon: they rest upon the ground. Is this ground "just there". Cranes, ultimately, are suspended by Skyhooks too.
So, even more ironically, If God is a "Skyhook" Hitchens is using it!
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon
I think your definition of skyhooks and cranes are a bit off. As I understand it, skyhooks are explanations of complexity that rely on supernatural processes. Cranes rely on natural processes.
Even if cranes and skyhooks are both equally bad arguments, it seems odd to conclude that an athiest using them is somehow more bad. My comment was simply that its ironic for a person who relies on supernatural explanations of morality to criticize someone using a skyhook.
DoomTone11 1 year ago
@DoomTone11 Also, What about pain? we know, thanks to our nerves, what hurts and what doesn't. We have the brain capacity to learn that if we touch fire it hurts. What is so ominous and "godly" about committing pain to memory? We have set our own moral right there. "Don't touch the fire because it hurts" Now, some people, are aroused by hot wax or fire. THAT is precisely the relativity that christians miss. Morality has changed SO much, god did not give us everlasting morality. It changes !!!
tharklark 1 year ago
? Everyone of those last points made by the last speaker were either nonsense or easily refuted with minimal effort. I mean the evidence for god is that he's created a flawed reality is quite pathetic at least and stupid and best.
cant1be1original 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Everyone of those last points made by the last speaker were either nonsense or easily refuted with minimal effort."
Refute them all right now then, if that is true.
" I mean the evidence for god is that he's created a flawed reality is quite pathetic at least and stupid and best."
...and I sure hope that wasn't meant to be it! I can see typing that took minimal effort, but as for refutation, that's delusional, as well badly written.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
Wow, thanks again hopokuk. I think is the best of all the atheist vs weirdos debate i've seen yet!
Cotdail 2 years ago 2
Craig is an idiot.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago
I think Craig just likes to hear himself talk, because he obviously wasn't listening to this "debate" if he thought those points went unrefuted.
SmilingSkeptic 2 years ago 4
Horseshit. These guys do exactly what the putz on the left accuses Hitchens of. Let's see them refute Islam.
They can't because they rely on the same strawmen - but THEY don't believe it and never will.
Making claims that you have an imaginary magical friend is simple. Hitchens said again and again how we do not derive or morality from religion yet religion claims monopoly. He was accused of arrogance and elitism by four guys who's best buds are gods.
Classic pretzel logic and arrogant!
MrsPhineasT 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
bertohead 2 years ago
Something I want to add that Hitchens doesnt seem to explain very well in all the vids of his Ive seen, on morality. The religious, as Ive seen over an over, think that they have a monopoly on morals. Basically "if there was no God, rape/murder would run rampant". This simply isnt true. In an Athiest world these things would still be punished by other athiests because they are counterproductive and even harmful to a reasoning societys progression. Our ability to reason gives us morals, not God.
bertohead 2 years ago
6:27 Clearly said, "And the argument is not that you need to believe in God to behave properly." The argument is whether an objective moral law can exist without god. Most atheists, including Hitchens, agree the answer is no. Only subjective morals can exist without god.
trafferazabu 2 years ago
Trafferazabu, you are wrong in saying that "Only subjective morals can exist without God".
In fact, I think Michael Shermer put it best when asked about whether Morality is Subjective or Objective, and his response was "Yes". He goes on to state that morality is "somewhere in between Subjective and Objective."
This is a rational conclusion from what we know about social animals.
Gwisss 2 years ago 2
I was simply pointing out what the argument was, objective vs. subjective morals in a material universe and not as bertohead stated; most people including theists actually do believe you can behave morally if you don't believe in god. But if I gave an opinion, I would have to agree with Hitchens over Shermer. I don't see the material providing any absolute right or wrong only agreed upon standards. Shermer really says the opposite?
trafferazabu 2 years ago
I do not recollect Hitchens ever saying that morality is 'Subjective' which is why he is often criticized for 'not answering the question'. The reason he does not answer the question of whether morality is subjective or objective is because they are both invalid. Subjective, as I know it means "by a subject's experience" or it is up to an individual's own opinion/mind. This is not the case with respect to social primate evolution and our neurology.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Hitchens, nonetheless, does put out a challenge to show that morality is not religiously owned, but is an innate social human characteristic. He has said it on many occasions that morality is innate in humans, and we do not require divine supervision to be told what is wrong and what is right. "We would not have gotten' this far" is what he often says.
I do not see his responses as meaning morality is "Subjective". Maybe I'm wrong.
Gwisss 2 years ago 3
I'd be in agreement most strongly with your last sentence. Maybe I'm wrong as well. I think the subject could be either the individual or social norms and the object is objective Law Giver, god. The subject in either case would be subject to change, so no absolute right and wrong. I think even a view of our written past would show this to be the case in social evolution. Can you think of anything which is now and has always been wrong, and if so, what makes it objectively wrong?
trafferazabu 2 years ago
I think we are in agreement.
Perhaps, it is the definition of "Subjective" which seems slightly improper in my opinion, but maybe I'm far too use to hearing it used improperly by theistic philosophers. Nonetheless, I think I'm in agreement with how you use the word "subjective".
Gwisss 2 years ago
" morality is "somewhere in between Subjective and Objective."
Nonsense. Either moral values would exist independently of our own beliefs (objective) or they depend upon our inventing and modifying them (subjective). The fact that you can't even find a word for "somewhere in between" shows that this is just vague and illogical thinking (the law of excluded middle).
Do you exist or not? Or are you "somewhere in between"?
Birdieupon 1 year ago
Morality partly depends on our inventing of social morals for the specific "in group" we find ourselves in, intermingled with our neurological predisposition to empathy, nurture, authority, etc. It is very much subjective as an "in group" but seemingly objective to the individual living in that "in group". This is why these words are problematic, mainly, because philosophy is a failure at understanding reality.
A more accurate analogy is taste. Is taste objective or subjective?
Gwisss 1 year ago
Craig has first to adequeately adress the Euthyphro dilemma, the Christian worldview cannot provide any sort of grounding for objective moral values, only a coercive force that want's to impose it's own values.
danytibi 2 years ago
Euthyphro was two men reasoning on piety, no? Christianity is a truth claim. You can object to it as false and those who would try to enforce those moral values as then coercive. Still the original claim was not on a worldview, but on an 'objective' moral value requiring God. Without God, all morals are reasoned none the less, but subjective.
trafferazabu 2 years ago
"Euthyphro was two men reasoning on piety"
Yes, that is the general theme of the text. But what I mean is, the dilemma that is posed to Euthyphro, is one that still haunts all theistic world views. Is morality contingent on God or not? If it is contingent, it isn't objective, if it is objective, then it isn't contingent on the existance of any deity.
danytibi 2 years ago
I'm not following you completely here; contingent = dependent on or a proposition? Nevertheless truth claims about shoulds and should nots, morals, are subject to change by the observer unless there is an ultimate authority; must not. The transmission and proper receipt from that ultimate authority, God, can be mistaken. Evolved morals subject to change which are agreed to among people and societies abound. I'm curious about your point above if you could elaborate more please.
trafferazabu 2 years ago
"I'm curious about your point above if you could elaborate more please."
I'll send you a PM later, 500 character limit makes things a little harder.
danytibi 2 years ago
"Our ability to reason gives us morals, not God."
I agree to that. But there is still the interesting point from Wilson that rationality cannot exist in a completely naturalistic universe. I'm not quite sure how to answer that... but not that I'm really worried about it, it's just the peculiarity of the argument that befuddles me.
danytibi 2 years ago
Or maybe God has provided some morals also unless you have a proof for atheism. I've been thrown by the same point, no rationality, as well as those who say no free will exists in a naturalistic universe. Christianity sides with Wilson in saying no man has rationality, at least to choose for God. In a strictly material world, optimal choices can be made, so I see no reason for rationality not to exist. We can depend on reason, no? Anyway, I'm a compatibilist.
trafferazabu 2 years ago
Comment removed
bertohead 2 years ago
Jesus was just a bum with a poster claiming the end is near... Of course, time is relative.
Onodera1980 2 years ago
Incidentally, Hitchens really did get his ass kicked against Craig in a debate a few months later, in April
Dhalsim06 2 years ago
he never did
BeastieBoy216 2 years ago
I saw that debate. Craig was nothing special.
coryfinch 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well neither was Hitchens
DisturbedYetHappy 2 years ago
Considering it was him against 4, uhm, yeah he was.
danytibi 2 years ago
if you say so
Dhalsim06 2 years ago
No I admit he was very brave to do this! And he did well. I dont think anyone really "won", it was an interesting exchange of views
Dhalsim06 2 years ago