cause he belives in primitive 2000 years ago pesants religion and acts acordingly. imagine mayan priest defending virgin sacrifice :) he would be a bit more mad than this liar.
Such gorgeous eloquence. Hitchens was a word smith of excellent ability with a mind that was so capable. To be able to contain the amount of knowledge he possessed is mind blowing. Listening to him speak always reminds of how much there is to learn about the world.
Totally and utterly WASTED on most of this audience judging by their vacant stares ~ "dumbing down" is a REAL thing and crucial to break through the brain fog these hapless souls inhabit!
This is my favorite Hitchens debate because it's so funny. He toys playfully with Turek in such a way that it's obvious that Hitchens has a stronger buzz than usual. The bonus joke is that Frank has his debates with Hitchens on his youtube page and touts them as victories for him.
Christians always claim victory. They're no more capable of admitting defeat then they are in being able to admit the absolute nonsense they claim is true
Lovely to watch Turek failing so hard - what a treat to revisit this debate on a Sunday morning. And in case anyone watching hasn't worked it out yet: In answer to Turek's inane question: We decide that empathy is good because we benefit as a society and as individuals from receiving and giving it. And in case any theists are reading: it is you and other theists who have decided that your god is the bearer of what is right and good - not the other way around - because all gods are man made entities.
Agreed! I hate Turek’s line of argument for morality. “Where does morality come from if we’re just chemicals?”… I mean, what is that even supposed to mean? You could say that for anything: Where does language come from if we’re just chemicals? Where does engineering come from if we’re just chemicals? Your answer to his inane question is perfect… and also we are just chemicals.
Well said. This strange 'antipathy' or distrust in 'mere chemicals' - stems from one thing and one thing only imo. The wishful thinking that there is something 'supernatural' at work and essentially a life after death
@@dUBfROMwATERHOUSE Where does this desire to worship some entity that can't be seen or heard and doesn't leave a trace in the universe if we're just chemicals?
@@DiustheZ Men creating gods comes from evolution. Humans are curious and have a built in "need to know" constitution. That's how we got to the top of the food chain. So when wondering about our origins in the absence of an answer, they invent something. It's a hypothesis. In the case of religion that's where it stops... it's just a wild guess. Science tests hypotheses to find out if they produce accurate predictions; if they do and no one can show they don't then it will eventually become a theory. If it gets to that level you can assume it's true and almost always be right. If religion worked like that it would now be an interesting part of ancient human history because it can't make ANY predictions that work any better than random chance. It hides in the corners where science hasn't yet been able to test it. So you get things like "you can't prove God doesn't exist". Big deal. You can't prove there isn't a teacup orbiting Jupiter either; that doesn't mean it's true. EVERYTHING that's testable in religion has been shown to be false.
No no but no you see, that’s the test. This infinite, benevolent, omniscient dude somewhere needs you to take this on on faith, can’t show you he exists directly, that’d be… too easy, I guess
@@walterdaems57 I mean let them believe what they want, but like Hitchens himself said: "First, first I've said repeatedly that this stuff [(religion)] cannot be taken away from people, it is their favourite toy, and it will remain so as long - as Freud said, in “The Future Of An Illusion” - it will remain that way as long as we're afraid of death and have that problem which is, I think, will likely be a very long time. Second, I hope I've made it clear, that I'm perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and so on, and to share them with other people who come around and play with the toys. So that's absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don't bring the toys to my house, don't say my children must play with these toys, don't say my toys might be a condom - here we go again - are not allowed by their toys. I'm not going to have any of that. Enough with clerical and religious bullying and intimidation. Is that finally clear? Have I got that across? Thank you.”
Why would god PURPOSELY create sinful beings using his omnipotence, already KNOWING that many would sin using his omniscience, and yet DEMAND us to still consider him as omnibenevolent? The essence of sadomasochism
Yours is the evidence, nay, essence, of biblical illiteracy/ignorance. Firstly, God didn't create sinful beings; Adam and Eve chose to become sinners, like you choose to deny God's existence. Secondly, why He chose humans knowing they would eventually rebel against His will may be legitimately debated, but most Christian theists logically posit that it was part of His redemptive plan, i.e., only sinful beings need redemption. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, God doesn't demand or won't force you to believe in Him, notwithstanding the atrocious, forced recantations or conversions falsely carried out by religionists. He provides ample evidence of His being via Natural Revelation, cf. Romans 1:18-32, amplifies His nature and will via Special Revelation (the Bible), and climaxes the witness of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, cf. Hebrews 1:1-2. You can choose to reject His existence and redemptive plan, but have you ever considered the potential cost thereof? Think about it this way. If I'm wrong, then death will result in the annihilation and cessation of thought that atheists like you 'believe' in; but, they'll be no regrets or sadness, since there's no consciousness. But, if you're wrong and die persistent in unbelief, then you will spend eternity in conscious misery and tormenting regret. Pretty straightforward, Christian worldview is all upside, no downside if false (no worse than your ideal upside). Materialistic Atheism is maximal downside, minimal upside. May God lead you to think about that, Amen!
@@LuisGonzalez-oy3ku god created Adam and Eve already knowing they would be sinners. Gods omnipotence deemed them to be as so. If Adam and Eve had power to choose to sin INDEPENDENT of gods power then god is by nature of definition, not all powerful. Your beliefs are founded on fallacious thinking :)
Frank is losing his head shouting interrupting because Chris lays the questions on him and he can't answer them. Frank is making the claim and Chris wants proof and Frank doesn't have any
The thing is Hitchen's doesn't misrepresent any of the empirical science he sites, or any of the scientists he draws from. The Theological side, ALWAYS does
Yep. And straw man after straw man. These are people who have never had the courage the think for themselves as a free individual even once in their lives, so its no surprise. 😂
Because it must be hard as a person of relatively robust intellect to have to fight daily within oneself to rationalize reality with living a faith/religion based life. Nothing adds up being a religious person. Logic effortlessly pokes so many holes in a religious worldview that all of these sane religious folks have to question with some frequency whether or not their beliefs are bullocks or legit!! As a nihilist I have no doubt that there is nothing watching over us and if there was, it surely gives not a fuck about any of us lol.
I've been listening to a lot of HItchen's debates these past few days and every one of them is delightful. One thing i have noticed is that no matter who he debates someone always says that we would have no morals without god/religion. I just finished watching Hitchens and stephen fry debate some shrill of a woman who was an MP and an African bishop and the bishop said at one point that his father 'Knew of" the 10 commandments BEFORE he became religious that it was part of being human and being kind to those around you. I don't think he really thought through that comment because someone in the audience rightly pointed out that if his father was abiding by the commandments before he even knew what they why does anyone need them or the religion built around them? The laughter coming from Hitchens and Fry were intense.
I saw that debate on you tube several years ago and what stood out to me was when Christopher said he would trust his gay friend with his children far above any preist
This doesn’t make any sense man. Who wrote the 10 commandments? The law of God is written on your heart, everyone knows them. Ofc he had heard of them. He walks around with them every day same as me and you. That’s foolish to say he knew them before so that makes him subject to acting them out because everyone knows them, and that’s exactly what God calls us to do, walk in his Good works set before, for us.
@@asonc5043 Not sure if you know this but a man wrote the 10 commandments... But every society on earth including non religious communities have pretty much the same rules. Even communities from other religions have the same rules. Besides "the heart" doesn't make decisions... it pumps blood, the brain makes decisions. You kind of trail off towards the end of your comment. Are you saying that it was impossible for the man in my OP to know how to treat his 'neighbours' with kindness and respect?
@@asonc5043 Religious wisdom is the product of the human rational, not the other way around. All humans abide by these standards not because of any religion but because it is part of the essence of our being. It is wrong to parade this wisdom as merely a religious value and throw it back as a refusal of the rational from wich these very values originate.
@@Godfamcountry "huh" what? 😂"maybe that's cause" what? 🤣 I should "quick"? 😅 You think I had 10 beers? 😀 You think I'm your partner? 😆 Who is "chriz"? 😂 You think "chriz" is my hero? 🤣 "and all...." what? 😀Absolutely, I think you are as intelligent, as Frank Turek is!! 😅 🤣 😂 🥲
The subtle point which Chis so beautifully makes and I think goes over peoples heads when he jokes about gloating over other peoples misfortune is how to say such a thing requires an innate moral compass to be able to joke about it or find it funny. You have to know it’s backwards to laugh. Morality is not something given by divine authority, it’s something given by the authority we give ourselves. It can be abused, but so can all other aspects of human nature, especially those who claim that their morality is perfect and objective because it is given to them by their own personal God.
My appreciation for Hitchens is magnified by the coherence and elegant thoroughness of his opening statement. [edit] That so much of Turek's main arguments appeal to the authority of scientists who highlight the limit of scientific understanding during their time is unfortunate and, for me, not persuasive.
I love how hitch addapted his rocky brawler style to his opponent. Hz saw that he had a fanatic not very bright but very aggitated opponent and went for the calm hitch approach, answering smoothly without any irony or aggressity which seemed to make frank think he was being insulted lol. Pathetic
One thing I love about Hitchens is that he doesn't bother to "answer" silly questions. If I say there's a morality spirit that standardizes morality, and then ask Hitchens who standardizes morality in his worldview, he doesn't answer "I don't know", because there is no answer to nonsensical questions like that. Instead, he tells stories that make specific theists look crazy. In other words, the question is just evidence of crazy.
Saying I don't know is a cop out. If you follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then you, hichens or whoever follows this premise in that you become the moral decider and at best just choose morality based off current social standards
I feel badly for people like Turek who physically live in the 21st century, yet mentally and intellectually live in the bronze age. It's amazing that people like this are granted a driver's license and are able to vote.
Turek is like a new Flannery O'Connor character who tries to close the deal on the sale of a used vacuum cleaner by screaming so loudly that you can't hear the damn thing isn't running.
Because at the same time while trying to explain the vaccum cleaner the person listening keeps interjecting over and over saying that vaccum cleaner is evil, and I don't have to proof how it came to be you do.
Emotions are needed for survival to work in teams? Protect and nurture our young? Seems evolutionary to me. This Christian man is so angry at the end hahaha I love it
OK Frank, you acknowledge the Big Bang so do you accept that the Book of Genesis is totally incorrect? Because the 2 versions of the origin are totally incompatible. Oh by the way, no physicist says the Big Bang came from "nothing." But YOU think God came from nowhere. Hmmm....
Yea his opening statement was really him trying to use science to prove God n said allot to say nothing in regards to his argument stand point, Hitchens is so damn good i would give my left hand to hear his thoughts on the current state of the world, then he says the very nature of God is to be convenient? So is the belief in God supposed to be just a scapegoat for all that is not understood and not because he actually exists? I mean if I were God I'd want belief based on my existence not to be used as an excuse or reason for what's not understood, that's kinda lazy and a way to try n get out of taking responsibility and action in life
@@hottboie203 Yeah, God was OBVIOUSLY created by man (and not woman) to try to explain everything without having to go through with all that hard education stuff. I mean why look for answers if you think you already know them? Much easier to just drop out and go and compare clothes with a bunch of other morons on Sunday.
I am a big fan of Hitchens and I believe he dominated the debate, but I am disappointed how he answered the question of morality. All social mammals have evolved behavioral rules to ensure survival, even wolves. Primates like chimpanzees and humans create their own moral codes based on the societies they are raised in, but also have empathy and the concept of a golden rule baked into their DNA.
Very interesting how this debate is uploaded on both debators channel with the comment section claiming one completely owned the other. Its like we're not watching the same thing.
I love this debate (not because it is christophers best) but because he realizes he doesn't have to be at his best. Frank really never gave strong evidence and really was just a loud voice trying his hardest to be annoying but christopher handled it well and pissed frank off at the end (based on franks expressions and movements during the last 30 minutes.)
Both people think that there is a time:0. A T=0. By definition, there was no time or space before that. And wonder , then, what happened in the land before time. This seems like a contradiction. Suppose that an American and a Chinese person started walking due south. At first, they would be walking parallel to each other. After a few thousand miles, they would be veering toward each other, while both walking due south. When they reach the south pole, they would bump into each other face-to-face. At this point, it would be perfectly clear why there is nothing south of the South Pole. It’s a malformed question. Time is similar, in a way. To us, it is clear that every effect has a cause. An “effective cause“ is one of the three kinds of cause. An effective cause is a previous event, which is strongly correlated over time with a later event, which we call the effect. Therefore, the event at T = zero, cannot be an effect of anything. This needn’t be confusing. What we’re really looking for is one of the other 2 kinds of cause. A logical cause; or a moral cause. Neither of these causes need to be pre-existing in time. In fact, if you have a satisfactory logical or moral explanation for the state of the universe at T = 0++, it would be sufficient to explain the state of the universe at any time. Whether, like Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazali in “The Incoherence of the Philosophers”, you find faith more coherent or more obligatory, versus the weak Anthropic principle, or humble ignorance, you are answering a “why” question, not “how did it come to pass.”
Hitchens keeps asking Turek, "How do you know that God exists?" And the best answer that Turek can come up with is, "It's in the Bible." So, in other words, Turek doesn't know, which makes his whole argument for the existence of God fall apart.
Also...its not what made them believe in the 1st place. They are indoctrinated by youth and try to feel in the spaces later. All of Turek's argument...by ignorance and lack of imagination
How could Frank Turek, or any other creationist, be sure that the entire “design” of the universe - if indeed it was designed - was not directed towards the existence and dominance of the cockroach, which by any objective measure of biological success, surpasses humans by several orders of magnitude?
I am not sure which of the following would be more terrifying: 1.) Seeing the "60 Minutes" crew show up at my front door. or - 2.) Getting a memo stating I have to debate Christopher Hitchens in the future.
I’m a little late to the response game with these videos. Love them. Something that’s bugged me for ages is the people who yell like this are generally full of ʇıɥs. I have a hard time listening to idiocy on eleven. But it makes the measured & rational nearly ASMR quality of The Hitch a salve to scorched ears. Has no one ever told Turek you lose most folks by yelling?
So true. Apparently Turek is accustomed to pacing up and down with an open Bible in one hand and ranting endlessly in front of a bunch of evangelical mouth-breathers.
one thing i always notice with these atheist vs theist debates is that believers don't even attempt to make sense of all the atrocities committed in the name of religion and how it creates divide in society. they always brush it off and say that the it's out of the scope of that particular debate while claiming that they'd love to discuss their views about it. also, they never even try to defend the religion that they follow
Simple. Let's look at the crusades. Where does Jesus command something like that to happen? Followers are responsible for their actions and leaders for theirs. Look at the teachings of Jesus and see if they align with that happened with the crusades. They don't align.
It's not a debate about evil..if you'd like to hear something about that their is other channels and videos lol. Btw god forbid if you have a child and he commits great atrocities, maybe your brain will grow a little then..
The fact that someone intelligent as Turek can so painfully stumble through such misapprehension of the anthropic principles shows how much religion is a personal crutch made entirely from cognitive dissonance.
That yeller reminds me of when I was 9 and went to church on May 18, 1980 and heard a sermon about how I was a sinner and would go to hell if I didn’t repent (I was 9, how much sinning could I have been up to?) and then my dad put us all in a van and we started out driving to a picnic, and Mt St Helens blew. I just kept screaming (from the back of the van and out of smacking reach) “That’s it, WE’RE ALL GOING TO HELL 🔥” because I thought the world was ending. Now I came to realize it was just nature, not damnation 😂
No evil comes out of the hearts of people! Matthew 15:9 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
you all probably dont give a damn but does anyone know of a way to get back into an instagram account?? I was dumb lost the account password. I love any help you can give me
@Mathias Case i really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff atm. Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
When Frank is speaking, it takes me back to the days (I was 11) where I was forced to go to church, standing around clueless and trying to make sense of what the reverend/priest is saying (generally that we are all sinners and must repent etc etc etc). And then wondering if the other people (adults) around me really believed this. (Many of them had that forced look of concentration on them haha). And feeling silly (cringe) when we had to pray because I was wondering if “god” is listening to other churches as well as this one all at the same time. And being majorly creeped out when told that “god” is always with us. Long story short, I had a lot of fun using my imagination to create “god” and imagine him doing stuff ie listening to my nonsensical prayers, and then my 11yo brain realised I could make “god” do whatever I wanted ie he is manmade and not real.
...and when hitchens speaks it's like at a bar on a Friday evening in Detroit lol. Wonder if he went home and beat his wife and kids to complete the part lol
The odds of winning a debate against someone of equal intelligence about something debatable are 50/50... If the other person is smarter than you your odds go down to 25/75... If the other person is smarter than you and the topic isn't even debatable... You see where I'm going with this
One small issue that annoys me admittedly more than it probably should. At 30:14, it was the dog, not the daughter, that pointed out those are cheerios.
"genius" is quite a claim. Turek has shown no evidence for god's existence. Hitchens answered many questions and argued more clearly by far,using facts,not hearsay. I would give the win to Hitchens.
"You saying hitler was a humanist" This may well be the new n1 hitchslap, so soft and smooth, he knew how to anger his opponent lol. Completely changed his attitude on this one, gone the brawling hitch here's gentleHitch, soft spoken and non mocking because somehow thats the ting tat will make frank lose it and feel mocked.
Turek gets pulled onto a few rabbit trails, and opens himself up by citing doctrinal issues that he doesn't have time to fully explain, but Hitchens dodges the pointed questions so hard. You may not like Turek's answers (or questions), but at least they're clear and direct. Hitchens is like a wet bar of soap during the direct Q&A. Craig v Caroll is a much better debate.
I always think debates with this theme are hugely biased towards the Abrahamic religions from the start - "Does god exist?". The question should be "Do gods exist?". There is no argument you can use for a monotheism that can't be made for a polytheism.
"Nothing ever comes from nothing, nothing ever could" - but God, an omnipotent deity with dreams of a two legged creature who he plans to live amongst before sacrificing himself to himself to save his creatures from his own wrath, CAN just pop into existence?
@@Espenvitus That's one way to look at it. The way I see it he is making the pro-life argument that the majority of pro-life advocates make. Undeniably the fetus becomes a child even before it is born. Pro-abortion advocates will never admit this point.
@@ozymandias6743 Yes, but he ends up with The argument that i stated. Also you are wrong. Im pro choice. And i would never deny that at some point pre birth it is now a child and not at fetus. I dont think any one refutes that. Since it is common knowledge and basic biology.
yeah especially that part about blowjobs. Real trustworthy professor this guy. Non-withstanding the Breathalyzer he failed immediately after this debate.
It’s appalling how religion starts to claim on scientific discoveries, which came out because of human curiosity and not from faith or any belief system. It expand its territories based on discovery made by scientists who were disgusted by the very religion. Galileo Galilei is one such example.
Hmmm. Although Hitch clearly won the debate, I think that was largely due to the premise of the debate being in his favour. I do think he could have made better points - for example when he was asked how space, time and matter could have come from nothing, the obvious answer is to ask how anything could happen without the existence of time? If Turek responds with god being timeless, then ask if god experiences the passage of time - if he does then he must have waited an infinite amount of time before creating the universe, if he doesn't then how can he do anything?
I think that this is one of the best destructions of a theist I have ever seen. I do not understand why creatards think that Turok (sic) won this debate.
Because he did. In my opinion Hitchens went into this "debate" as more of a public stage to get his opinions across. He hardly touched on any of Turek's points, and continually stated that all the scientific evidence was on his side, while providing no evidence.
Dave Tomkings "I do not understand why creatards think that Turok (sic) won this debate" Did you even watch the video? It's because it takes two people to debate not one... Unfortunately for Hitchens, he was debating by himself majority of the time while Frank was too busy with fallacies, straw-mans & other off-subject circular arguments...
People...everything natural has either an explanation of its existence in itself..or the explanation MUST be outside its existence - this is why nature at some point in the finite past reaches a point ( The Big Bang ) nature began to exist..... for this reason reality - matter, space, time started - and for this reason God ABSOLUTELY Exists.....if not, maybe someone can explain how we currently live in this reality
I'm biased I will admit but I was embarrassed for Turek. His arguments are so lame. The concept of the sky dad is entirely an invention of the human mind.
Also, I can't help but wonder why Turek insists that since we are here because of requirements in the uniservse, it must have been by design. There are so many things that exist only because their conditions were met. If they were not, something else would exist instead. Why is it so incomprehensible that our existance is just a result of whatever circumstances exists now? If we did not exist, something else would instead. I don't see this as an argument for design at all.
So classical: at the end of his speech, the theist demands a full education within science from his opponent. He asks questions with far too complex answers to be answered within the time given, that touch upon numerous branches of science, all the while desperately trying to put the burden of proof on the guy that DOES NOT come with supernatural and fantastical claims.
Frank's faith is an unfalsifiable explanation that god did the stuff that we can't explain. Except in some cases the naturalistic explanation is better that the supernatural one. Morality is better explained along evolutionary lines than it was handed down by a god who condoned slavery commanded genocide and promoted misogyny. Frank's something from nothing universe intentionally misrepresents the lack of knowledge about the preconditons of the big bang as nothing. I would prefer explanations that can be tested.
Even if that God exist, the problem can never be solved. It's beyond obvious that God is a narcissist, admitting no blame, guilt or responsibility. While everything that ever happened is his will, he himself put everything in motion. The fate, actions, situations and qualities of every created being is a consequence of what God caused, which will keep resonating, forever. So, when God accuses the created of wrongdoings, he accuses himself, something that the narcissistic God deflects immediately. The attempt to blame Lucifer for causing consequences, is exactly what to expect from the narcissist God. Even if Lucifer exist and set something in motion, it's still not the fault of the created being Lucifer. The only solution to the Gordic knot, is for that God to publicly admit this, and apologize to every soul that ever existed. Not something a narcissist would ever do. Pride and narcissism means God is stuck in his own hell. Hence the paradox is insoluble & eternal “If you think you know everything, you’ll never learn anything,”
True, you do not have to have a degree in something to know about it. I have no degree's at the moment(working on one) but I know ...a little bit about a lot. I would never claim authority in those types of fields and if I needed to use information from those fields I would be sure to cite credible sources on the subject matter. Religion can be disproved and has been many times over, it is the existence of God that is hard to prove or disprove, however the probability of existence is very low.
Over a decade later, the percentage of god worshippers in the United States is continuing to decline. Thank you, Hitch. Over a decade later, Turek is still using the same old “For the Bible tells me so arguments.” I wonder if many of the apologists, like Turek, actually still believe in a supernatural creator, or just continue to argue for one so as not to lose their followers.
Turek is pleading for hitch to take it easy on him lol, "in fact my son's sitting right there.. I'm fact my father is sitting right here".. please don't embarrass me in-front of my family.
Omg. The fact I just happened to be listening to this entire debate and happened to read that comment at the exact moment that happened…I’m dying over here 😂
His premise during the entire debate was an argument from ignorance, and then he closed with an ad hominem attack. WTF does Hitchen's intentions have to do with whether or not a god exists? Keep it classy Turek!
Trust me the sound is all in your head. Logic, reason and evidence favor only one position and that is the truth, not superstition. If you are so keen on ideals from over 2,000 years ago why do you accept that the earth goes around the sun instead of the sun around the earth. Evidence! I am arguing no position here, only that you should try to not commit logical errors when attempting to prove something with logic. Does that make sense?
The fact that we can't yet be sure whether the universe has a purpose or not, or if it was created by an intelligence or not (multiple hints say it isn't, btw), isn't an argument for any of the theistic explanations. It may be used as a reminder to be open to the possibility of a deistic or pantheistic explanation, but not to validate outlandish claims of ancient texts.
Turek's closing was the rudest, most angry attack piece I've ever seen in one of these debates. One piece of humor, though. He chided Hitchens for "not being able to ever change his mind"....outrageous! Imagine that . . . a committed fundamentalist making such a claim. Pot, meet kettle. "Christopher wants to replace God". What a desperate, petulant, panicky thing to same. Angry little prick. Bet he went home and kicked his dog (or worse).
Hitchens spent the whole time attacking Christianity but does not offer a good second alternative with credible bases... I'm an agnostic, but I have to say Frank offers a more logical argument.
I knew after listening to him for five minutes that he was missing something up there. ALthough I didn't know he passed because his skull was a sack lol
Turek led me to atheism. I had no idea I was in a cult until I heard him try to justify the God of religions. Thanks, Turek.
Turek brought a waffle to a gunfight.
A rubber chicken...
He certainly had the passion of christ
@@tasiletoa1037 exactly😂
#FunnymentalistPreacher 👈🧐🤔🤪 #TurekDork 🤦♂️ #HappyHeapOfSand
Poor feller
Why is Frank Turek shouting at me?
Because he's too emotionally attached to his beliefs to remain objective or rational or calm for that matter
Because he's mistaking volume with effectiveness and relevance
Plus he suffers from I'ma douche syndrome
cause he belives in primitive 2000 years ago pesants religion and acts acordingly. imagine mayan priest defending virgin sacrifice :) he would be a bit more mad than this liar.
BECAUSE IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IS YOU SHOUT IT!
Such gorgeous eloquence. Hitchens was a word smith of excellent ability with a mind that was so capable. To be able to contain the amount of knowledge he possessed is mind blowing. Listening to him speak always reminds of how much there is to learn about the world.
Totally and utterly WASTED on most of this audience judging by their vacant stares ~ "dumbing down" is a REAL thing and crucial to break through the brain fog these hapless souls inhabit!
You posted on the wrong video man...
This is my favorite Hitchens debate because it's so funny. He toys playfully with Turek in such a way that it's obvious that Hitchens has a stronger buzz than usual. The bonus joke is that Frank has his debates with Hitchens on his youtube page and touts them as victories for him.
Turek has claimed that Hitchens committed suicide because he drank himself to death. What a despicable human being he is 🤬
Damon you’re delusional. William, can you provide a link?
Christians always claim victory. They're no more capable of admitting defeat then they are in being able to admit the absolute nonsense they claim is true
Tureks lack of self awareness is laughable.
@@williambloodworth5126 When was this? please link your source. I couldn't find this in a sidebar google search.
Anybody else fast forward through when the other guy talks?
Lovely to watch Turek failing so hard - what a treat to revisit this debate on a Sunday morning.
And in case anyone watching hasn't worked it out yet: In answer to Turek's inane question: We decide that empathy is good because we benefit as a society and as individuals from receiving and giving it.
And in case any theists are reading: it is you and other theists who have decided that your god is the bearer of what is right and good - not the other way around - because all gods are man made entities.
Agreed! I hate Turek’s line of argument for morality. “Where does morality come from if we’re just chemicals?”… I mean, what is that even supposed to mean? You could say that for anything: Where does language come from if we’re just chemicals? Where does engineering come from if we’re just chemicals?
Your answer to his inane question is perfect… and also we are just chemicals.
👌🏽
Well said. This strange 'antipathy' or distrust in 'mere chemicals' - stems from one thing and one thing only imo. The wishful thinking that there is something 'supernatural' at work and essentially a life after death
@@dUBfROMwATERHOUSE Where does this desire to worship some entity that can't be seen or heard and doesn't leave a trace in the universe if we're just chemicals?
@@DiustheZ Men creating gods comes from evolution. Humans are curious and have a built in "need to know" constitution. That's how we got to the top of the food chain. So when wondering about our origins in the absence of an answer, they invent something. It's a hypothesis. In the case of religion that's where it stops... it's just a wild guess.
Science tests hypotheses to find out if they produce accurate predictions; if they do and no one can show they don't then it will eventually become a theory. If it gets to that level you can assume it's true and almost always be right.
If religion worked like that it would now be an interesting part of ancient human history because it can't make ANY predictions that work any better than random chance. It hides in the corners where science hasn't yet been able to test it. So you get things like "you can't prove God doesn't exist". Big deal. You can't prove there isn't a teacup orbiting Jupiter either; that doesn't mean it's true.
EVERYTHING that's testable in religion has been shown to be false.
If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence
No no but no you see, that’s the test.
This infinite, benevolent, omniscient dude somewhere needs you to take this on on faith, can’t show you he exists directly, that’d be… too easy, I guess
Hide and seek and imaginary friends, playground of children and believers :)
@@walterdaems57 I mean let them believe what they want, but like Hitchens himself said:
"First, first I've said repeatedly that this stuff [(religion)] cannot be taken away from people, it is their favourite toy, and it will remain so as long - as Freud said, in “The Future Of An Illusion” - it will remain that way as long as we're afraid of death and have that problem which is, I think, will likely be a very long time.
Second, I hope I've made it clear, that I'm perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and so on, and to share them with other people who come around and play with the toys. So that's absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don't bring the toys to my house, don't say my children must play with these toys, don't say my toys might be a condom - here we go again - are not allowed by their toys. I'm not going to have any of that.
Enough with clerical and religious bullying and intimidation. Is that finally clear? Have I got that across? Thank you.”
🔥 🔥 🔥
Why would god PURPOSELY create sinful beings using his omnipotence, already KNOWING that many would sin using his omniscience, and yet DEMAND us to still consider him as omnibenevolent? The essence of sadomasochism
And that is why you have to be mentally 7 to defend its existence.
Yours is the evidence, nay, essence, of biblical illiteracy/ignorance. Firstly, God didn't create sinful beings; Adam and Eve chose to become sinners, like you choose to deny God's existence. Secondly, why He chose humans knowing they would eventually rebel against His will may be legitimately debated, but most Christian theists logically posit that it was part of His redemptive plan, i.e., only sinful beings need redemption. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, God doesn't demand or won't force you to believe in Him, notwithstanding the atrocious, forced recantations or conversions falsely carried out by religionists. He provides ample evidence of His being via Natural Revelation, cf. Romans 1:18-32, amplifies His nature and will via Special Revelation (the Bible), and climaxes the witness of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, cf. Hebrews 1:1-2.
You can choose to reject His existence and redemptive plan, but have you ever considered the potential cost thereof? Think about it this way. If I'm wrong, then death will result in the annihilation and cessation of thought that atheists like you 'believe' in; but, they'll be no regrets or sadness, since there's no consciousness. But, if you're wrong and die persistent in unbelief, then you will spend eternity in conscious misery and tormenting regret. Pretty straightforward, Christian worldview is all upside, no downside if false (no worse than your ideal upside). Materialistic Atheism is maximal downside, minimal upside. May God lead you to think about that, Amen!
@@LuisGonzalez-oy3ku god created Adam and Eve already knowing they would be sinners. Gods omnipotence deemed them to be as so. If Adam and Eve had power to choose to sin INDEPENDENT of gods power then god is by nature of definition, not all powerful. Your beliefs are founded on fallacious thinking :)
Frank is losing his head shouting interrupting because Chris lays the questions on him and he can't answer them.
Frank is making the claim and Chris wants proof and Frank doesn't have any
Why is he shouting ?????
You are completely correct but Christopher would be turning in his grave to hear you call him Chris. 😉
Wait which video was that you're referring to?.....
@@dUBfROMwATERHOUSEje wouldn't give a fuck
The thing is Hitchen's doesn't misrepresent any of the empirical science he sites, or any of the scientists he draws from. The Theological side, ALWAYS does
Did you just mention the word science??? moron
Yep. And straw man after straw man. These are people who have never had the courage the think for themselves as a free individual even once in their lives, so its no surprise. 😂
Why are believers always so angry and screaming?
Because it must be hard as a person of relatively robust intellect to have to fight daily within oneself to rationalize reality with living a faith/religion based life. Nothing adds up being a religious person. Logic effortlessly pokes so many holes in a religious worldview that all of these sane religious folks have to question with some frequency whether or not their beliefs are bullocks or legit!! As a nihilist I have no doubt that there is nothing watching over us and if there was, it surely gives not a fuck about any of us lol.
I've been listening to a lot of HItchen's debates these past few days and every one of them is delightful. One thing i have noticed is that no matter who he debates someone always says that we would have no morals without god/religion. I just finished watching Hitchens and stephen fry debate some shrill of a woman who was an MP and an African bishop and the bishop said at one point that his father 'Knew of" the 10 commandments BEFORE he became religious that it was part of being human and being kind to those around you. I don't think he really thought through that comment because someone in the audience rightly pointed out that if his father was abiding by the commandments before he even knew what they why does anyone need them or the religion built around them? The laughter coming from Hitchens and Fry were intense.
I saw that debate on you tube several years ago and what stood out to me was when Christopher said he would trust his gay friend with his children far above any preist
This doesn’t make any sense man. Who wrote the 10 commandments? The law of God is written on your heart, everyone knows them. Ofc he had heard of them. He walks around with them every day same as me and you. That’s foolish to say he knew them before so that makes him subject to acting them out because everyone knows them, and that’s exactly what God calls us to do, walk in his Good works set before, for us.
@@asonc5043 Not sure if you know this but a man wrote the 10 commandments... But every society on earth including non religious communities have pretty much the same rules. Even communities from other religions have the same rules.
Besides "the heart" doesn't make decisions... it pumps blood, the brain makes decisions.
You kind of trail off towards the end of your comment. Are you saying that it was impossible for the man in my OP to know how to treat his 'neighbours' with kindness and respect?
@@asonc5043 Religious wisdom is the product of the human rational, not the other way around. All humans abide by these standards not because of any religion but because it is part of the essence of our being. It is wrong to parade this wisdom as merely a religious value and throw it back as a refusal of the rational from wich these very values originate.
Sometimes I like to drink myself to a blackout to; it's delightful as well.God help us, no wonder this world is a dunghole.
🟢 When a guy yells, speaks as a fast as he can, and raises the pitch of his voice to soprano, he is losing. 🔴
There is a reason that this despicable debating tactics is called Turek Trotting. Also known as Gish Galloping.
huh, maybe that's cause you should quick after your 10th beer partner. I mean I understand chriz is your hero and all....
@@Godfamcountry
"huh" what? 😂"maybe that's cause" what? 🤣 I should "quick"? 😅 You think I had 10 beers? 😀 You think I'm your partner? 😆 Who is "chriz"? 😂 You think "chriz" is my hero? 🤣 "and all...." what? 😀Absolutely, I think you are as intelligent, as Frank Turek is!! 😅 🤣 😂 🥲
The subtle point which Chis so beautifully makes and I think goes over peoples heads when he jokes about gloating over other peoples misfortune is how to say such a thing requires an innate moral compass to be able to joke about it or find it funny. You have to know it’s backwards to laugh. Morality is not something given by divine authority, it’s something given by the authority we give ourselves. It can be abused, but so can all other aspects of human nature, especially those who claim that their morality is perfect and objective because it is given to them by their own personal God.
Jesus Christ, again - "Abstract like your son whom is no different than a human turd??"
Huh what
Hitchens is brilliant. Turek sounds like a salesperson.
A cosmetic salesman....selling the stuff of fanciful cover. As they say, "You can put lipstick on a pig....it's still a pig!"
And a really desperate and bad one
“Hi, I’m Bias. Have we met?”
You posted your thoughts on the wrong video bruh
@@stevemcnabb2071Pigs are noble animals and beautiful. But humans, well …
My appreciation for Hitchens is magnified by the coherence and elegant thoroughness of his opening statement.
[edit] That so much of Turek's main arguments appeal to the authority of scientists who highlight the limit of scientific understanding during their time is unfortunate and, for me, not persuasive.
Isn't it telling that these "supreme beings" always use the most childish people to defend their existence?
Actually it's called the Bible moron. Sounds like the other side isn't doing all that much better lol
Turek never addressed any of Hitchens' arguments. All he he could was shout out ad hominems
LMAO, with all due respect, You sir, are a moron. I said with all due respect.
Always amazing to hear an otherwise intelligent and educated person trying to convince us to believe in his invisible man in the sky.
The loudest voice in the room , is the weakest voice in the room. Reason being , the loud voice is unsure , and scared . As in the voice of , F. T.
Turek wants to be stupid, and he is doing it fantastically...
Indeed!! It’s a choice . The BAD TRANCE of organized religion! Just say NO!
To me Tureck sounds like an evangelical American
He kicked ass 🙂
I love how hitch addapted his rocky brawler style to his opponent. Hz saw that he had a fanatic not very bright but very aggitated opponent and went for the calm hitch approach, answering smoothly without any irony or aggressity which seemed to make frank think he was being insulted lol. Pathetic
Aggressity
@@LC6046 I literally just read that and thought “Is that a word?” 😂
@@ChrisPyle Shakespeare made up his own words...
Aggressity...mmmm...doesn't sound *terrible*. Let's let it pass.
@@jaredburgess8381 I agree. It’s close enough for government work lol
bitch did not make any great points, and comes off as an angry drunkard that left his faith because his english professor told him to lol
Imagine showing up to your first debate and you have to debate Hitch.
All this Turek guy can do is try to shout louder. He has no argument and knows it.
One thing I love about Hitchens is that he doesn't bother to "answer" silly questions. If I say there's a morality spirit that standardizes morality, and then ask Hitchens who standardizes morality in his worldview, he doesn't answer "I don't know", because there is no answer to nonsensical questions like that. Instead, he tells stories that make specific theists look crazy. In other words, the question is just evidence of crazy.
Saying I don't know is a cop out. If you follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then you, hichens or whoever follows this premise in that you become the moral decider and at best just choose morality based off current social standards
@@pepperachu Saying I don't know is the foundation of science. Theists don't know either, but they say they know, which is just utterly useless.
Have a theory, and a hypothesis, duh.
@@Yarp-y nope theists make conclusions based on good evidence and some have faith on little to no evidence just like atheists do
@@pepperachu There's no evidence of a personal God, zero. If I see it, I will assess it. No faith needed in any way.
Turek was out of his depth. Had to resort to shouting since he had no point and no argument. I felt sorry for him.
Sorry that there is a 7 yo child stuck in a grown man's body.
Thought he did great, just felt bad the other guy had no answers lol
I feel badly for people like Turek who physically live in the 21st century, yet mentally and intellectually live in the bronze age. It's amazing that people like this are granted a driver's license and are able to vote.
love you! hes eaven a doctor :D thats in how fked up world we live in
And you can’t win any votes without these evangelical fools in this country. Which is why so many of our politicians pretend to be deeply religious.
@@djordjedjokic6461 doctor of what?
Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to legally drive or vote?
Like most grifters of his kind he probably doesn't believe his own words
Turek is like a new Flannery O'Connor character who tries to close the deal on the sale of a used vacuum cleaner by screaming so loudly that you can't hear the damn thing isn't running.
Because at the same time while trying to explain the vaccum cleaner the person listening keeps interjecting over and over saying that vaccum cleaner is evil, and I don't have to proof how it came to be you do.
Emotions are needed for survival to work in teams? Protect and nurture our young? Seems evolutionary to me. This Christian man is so angry at the end hahaha I love it
Does Frank not understand if something doesn't explain everything, it doesn't mean its wrong🤦♂️
Definitely doesn't mean it's right though..unless you've had a few beers apparently, right chappy?
I will always miss the great Christopher Hitchens.
Thank you for making my day 🙂
OK Frank, you acknowledge the Big Bang so do you accept that the Book of Genesis is totally incorrect? Because the 2 versions of the origin are totally incompatible. Oh by the way, no physicist says the Big Bang came from "nothing." But YOU think God came from nowhere. Hmmm....
👏
Yea his opening statement was really him trying to use science to prove God n said allot to say nothing in regards to his argument stand point, Hitchens is so damn good i would give my left hand to hear his thoughts on the current state of the world, then he says the very nature of God is to be convenient? So is the belief in God supposed to be just a scapegoat for all that is not understood and not because he actually exists? I mean if I were God I'd want belief based on my existence not to be used as an excuse or reason for what's not understood, that's kinda lazy and a way to try n get out of taking responsibility and action in life
@@hottboie203 Yeah, God was OBVIOUSLY created by man (and not woman) to try to explain everything without having to go through with all that hard education stuff. I mean why look for answers if you think you already know them? Much easier to just drop out and go and compare clothes with a bunch of other morons on Sunday.
Ok
I am a big fan of Hitchens and I believe he dominated the debate, but I am disappointed how he answered the question of morality. All social mammals have evolved behavioral rules to ensure survival, even wolves. Primates like chimpanzees and humans create their own moral codes based on the societies they are raised in, but also have empathy and the concept of a golden rule baked into their DNA.
Wonder how that works in the code of things. Maybe the robots will tell us in the future.
Very interesting how this debate is uploaded on both debators channel with the comment section claiming one completely owned the other. Its like we're not watching the same thing.
I love this debate (not because it is christophers best) but because he realizes he doesn't have to be at his best. Frank really never gave strong evidence and really was just a loud voice trying his hardest to be annoying but christopher handled it well and pissed frank off at the end (based on franks expressions and movements during the last 30 minutes.)
Both people think that there is a time:0. A T=0. By definition, there was no time or space before that. And wonder , then, what happened in the land before time. This seems like a contradiction. Suppose that an American and a Chinese person started walking due south. At first, they would be walking parallel to each other. After a few thousand miles, they would be veering toward each other, while both walking due south. When they reach the south pole, they would bump into each other face-to-face. At this point, it would be perfectly clear why there is nothing south of the South Pole. It’s a malformed question. Time is similar, in a way. To us, it is clear that every effect has a cause. An “effective cause“ is one of the three kinds of cause. An effective cause is a previous event, which is strongly correlated over time with a later event, which we call the effect. Therefore, the event at T = zero, cannot be an effect of anything. This needn’t be confusing. What we’re really looking for is one of the other 2 kinds of cause. A logical cause; or a moral cause. Neither of these causes need to be pre-existing in time. In fact, if you have a satisfactory logical or moral explanation for the state of the universe at T = 0++, it would be sufficient to explain the state of the universe at any time. Whether, like Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazali in “The Incoherence of the Philosophers”, you find faith more coherent or more obligatory, versus the weak Anthropic principle, or humble ignorance, you are answering a “why” question, not “how did it come to pass.”
If this is his best-ish then no wonder I have never heard of this fool lol
I'm just going to say this, the only people who try to make morals objective are the people who want to enforce their morals and beliefs onto others.
100%
That's ridiculous. It's obvious that some things are objectively moral or immoral.
Go ahead and eat your children there then sparky lol
Hitchens keeps asking Turek, "How do you know that God exists?" And the best answer that Turek can come up with is, "It's in the Bible." So, in other words, Turek doesn't know, which makes his whole argument for the existence of God fall apart.
Apologists always make abstract arguments for the existence of a God but they can never justify their actual belief in their own absurd God.
Also...its not what made them believe in the 1st place. They are indoctrinated by youth and try to feel in the spaces later. All of Turek's argument...by ignorance and lack of imagination
Especially without quoting the buy-bull.
Abstract like your son whom is no different than a human turd??
His first formal debate was against Christopher Hitchens. He never had a chance.
if you try to sale faith as science you will never stand a chance against anyone halfway literate
Yo, dude, you posted in the wrong video partna ....
Ouch - Hitchens ripped him a new one!
LOL right
How could Frank Turek, or any other creationist, be sure that the entire “design” of the universe - if indeed it was designed - was not directed towards the existence and dominance of the cockroach, which by any objective measure of biological success, surpasses humans by several orders of magnitude?
FRANK. STOP SCREAMING. IT DOESN'T MAKE YOUR POINTS VALID.
Hitler proved that
I am not sure which of the following would be more terrifying:
1.) Seeing the "60 Minutes" crew show up at my front door.
or -
2.) Getting a memo stating I have to debate Christopher Hitchens in the future.
I think it would be more challenging to stay awake lol. The guy is a rambling fool on a good day.
2! Hands down
Starts off with a family guy reference, I’m crying. So perfectly brilliant 😂😢
I’m a little late to the response game with these videos. Love them.
Something that’s bugged me for ages is the people who yell like this are generally full of ʇıɥs. I have a hard time listening to idiocy on eleven. But it makes the measured & rational nearly ASMR quality of The Hitch a salve to scorched ears. Has no one ever told Turek you lose most folks by yelling?
I came here to say exactly this. Shouting does not make your position true. Turek makes my ears bleed.
I cant listen to him.
What I want to know is how you type words upside down in a TH-cam comment.
So true. Apparently Turek is accustomed to pacing up and down with an open Bible in one hand and ranting endlessly in front of a bunch of evangelical mouth-breathers.
Actually you lose more folks by not answering questions and having silly kid responses, and arriving drunk to the debate stage lol
one thing i always notice with these atheist vs theist debates is that believers don't even attempt to make sense of all the atrocities committed in the name of religion and how it creates divide in society. they always brush it off and say that the it's out of the scope of that particular debate while claiming that they'd love to discuss their views about it. also, they never even try to defend the religion that they follow
Simple. Let's look at the crusades.
Where does Jesus command something like that to happen? Followers are responsible for their actions and leaders for theirs.
Look at the teachings of Jesus and see if they align with that happened with the crusades. They don't align.
It's not a debate about evil..if you'd like to hear something about that their is other channels and videos lol. Btw god forbid if you have a child and he commits great atrocities, maybe your brain will grow a little then..
The fact that someone intelligent as Turek can so painfully stumble through such misapprehension of the anthropic principles shows how much religion is a personal crutch made entirely from cognitive dissonance.
That yeller reminds me of when I was 9 and went to church on May 18, 1980 and heard a sermon about how I was a sinner and would go to hell if I didn’t repent (I was 9, how much sinning could I have been up to?) and then my dad put us all in a van and we started out driving to a picnic, and Mt St Helens blew. I just kept screaming (from the back of the van and out of smacking reach) “That’s it, WE’RE ALL GOING TO HELL 🔥” because I thought the world was ending. Now I came to realize it was just nature, not damnation 😂
and chris like the drunk in the street corner lol
Wow! Me too!
We went to a calm church though.
Sunday mornings were nap time for me.
'Where does evil come from…'
'Religion.'
OH SNAP
Evil comes from the absence of good.
No nutrition in a tree = bad fruit
No tree in nutrition = oh there is no tree so no bad fruit
SNAP OH
No evil comes out of the hearts of people! Matthew 15:9 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
you all probably dont give a damn but does anyone know of a way to get back into an instagram account??
I was dumb lost the account password. I love any help you can give me
@Joshua Dennis Instablaster ;)
@Mathias Case i really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff atm.
Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
The man who asked " why dont you stay at home"? took the biggest hitchslap and sadly illustrated typical theist igronance
When Frank is speaking, it takes me back to the days (I was 11) where I was forced to go to church, standing around clueless and trying to make sense of what the reverend/priest is saying (generally that we are all sinners and must repent etc etc etc). And then wondering if the other people (adults) around me really believed this. (Many of them had that forced look of concentration on them haha). And feeling silly (cringe) when we had to pray because I was wondering if “god” is listening to other churches as well as this one all at the same time. And being majorly creeped out when told that “god” is always with us.
Long story short, I had a lot of fun using my imagination to create “god” and imagine him doing stuff ie listening to my nonsensical prayers, and then my 11yo brain realised I could make “god” do whatever I wanted ie he is manmade and not real.
...and when hitchens speaks it's like at a bar on a Friday evening in Detroit lol. Wonder if he went home and beat his wife and kids to complete the part lol
The odds of winning a debate against someone of equal intelligence about something debatable are 50/50... If the other person is smarter than you your odds go down to 25/75... If the other person is smarter than you and the topic isn't even debatable... You see where I'm going with this
Don't worry I hear he's dead now, so you don't have to worry about him humiliating himself anymore
is Turek lying to us or to himself is my question
Both
Like all grifters of his ilk he doesn't believe his own words
TUREK WAS A SAD APOLOGIST IN THE END, STARTED STRONG BUT FINALLY HAD NO REPLY FOR HITCHENS' FACTS!
"Apologist", I think he would be more successful as a car salesman selling "YOUGOs" !
Facts....right. Cease procreating immediately
Christopher starts at 28.42,this is when the fun starts.
One small issue that annoys me admittedly more than it probably should. At 30:14, it was the dog, not the daughter, that pointed out those are cheerios.
yeah, yeah??? moron
To claim that you have the answers to all the great questions is extremely arrogant.
R.I.P Hitchens
There is no peace in hell.
rgbigdog That sucks for you then.
Twat
@@rgbigdog you are absolutely right because there is no such thing as hell.
@@rgbigdognot at all. Just suffering!
Arguing with Frank Turick is like trying to nail jello to the wall...
… like trying to herd cats.
Hitchens didnt try…he just stomped him to pulp
Says the drunk opponent lol
"genius" is quite a claim.
Turek has shown no evidence for god's existence.
Hitchens answered many questions and argued more clearly by far,using facts,not hearsay.
I would give the win to Hitchens.
Poor Christopher looks like he is about to have a stroke.
Amen to Hitchens' closing statement!
Hitchens became absolutely bored at his opponent's lame points that he begged the audience to join in.
No. Lol. Just no
Turek got REAL worked up in the questioning stage "Religion" Haha quick wit on Hitchens behalf
"You saying hitler was a humanist"
This may well be the new n1 hitchslap, so soft and smooth, he knew how to anger his opponent lol. Completely changed his attitude on this one, gone the brawling hitch here's gentleHitch, soft spoken and non mocking because somehow thats the ting tat will make frank lose it and feel mocked.
Turek gets pulled onto a few rabbit trails, and opens himself up by citing doctrinal issues that he doesn't have time to fully explain, but Hitchens dodges the pointed questions so hard. You may not like Turek's answers (or questions), but at least they're clear and direct. Hitchens is like a wet bar of soap during the direct Q&A.
Craig v Caroll is a much better debate.
Thanks for the recommendation, Ill be listening to that debate while I do homework:)
So glad I’m not a member of the God club. I’m free and Not chained to this foolishness❤ loved that Hitchins
I always think debates with this theme are hugely biased towards the Abrahamic religions from the start - "Does god exist?". The question should be "Do gods exist?". There is no argument you can use for a monotheism that can't be made for a polytheism.
"Nothing ever comes from nothing, nothing ever could" - but God, an omnipotent deity with dreams of a two legged creature who he plans to live amongst before sacrificing himself to himself to save his creatures from his own wrath, CAN just pop into existence?
God didn’t pop into existence. He WAS there. The uncreated creator.
Came for the religion versus science debate, stayed for the most articulate pro-life position I have ever heard ( Mr. Hitchens @ 1:17:55)
He's arguing for abortion, under the right circumstances. How is that pro life?
@@Espenvitus That's one way to look at it. The way I see it he is making the pro-life argument that the majority of pro-life advocates make. Undeniably the fetus becomes a child even before it is born. Pro-abortion advocates will never admit this point.
@@ozymandias6743 Yes, but he ends up with The argument that i stated.
Also you are wrong. Im pro choice. And i would never deny that at some point pre birth it is now a child and not at fetus. I dont think any one refutes that. Since it is common knowledge and basic biology.
yeah especially that part about blowjobs. Real trustworthy professor this guy. Non-withstanding the Breathalyzer he failed immediately after this debate.
It’s appalling how religion starts to claim on scientific discoveries, which came out because of human curiosity and not from faith or any belief system. It expand its territories based on discovery made by scientists who were disgusted by the very religion. Galileo Galilei is one such example.
No, Einstein thought it was a lie, as he clearly said in the quote on the 24th March 1964.
Hmmm. Although Hitch clearly won the debate, I think that was largely due to the premise of the debate being in his favour. I do think he could have made better points - for example when he was asked how space, time and matter could have come from nothing, the obvious answer is to ask how anything could happen without the existence of time? If Turek responds with god being timeless, then ask if god experiences the passage of time - if he does then he must have waited an infinite amount of time before creating the universe, if he doesn't then how can he do anything?
'define evil'
'religion'
Classic
A philosophy cannot be judged by it's misuse.
@@GidzPaul
I can be used by ours ugly precepts
We are saying he does not try to explain things out of his own field besides explaining scientific viewpoints and using logic.
I think that this is one of the best destructions of a theist I have ever seen. I do not understand why creatards think that Turok (sic) won this debate.
Ozkurl It's harder to show someone they´re being fooled than to fool them
Because he did. In my opinion Hitchens went into this "debate" as more of a public stage to get his opinions across. He hardly touched on any of Turek's points, and continually stated that all the scientific evidence was on his side, while providing no evidence.
Dave Tomkings
"I do not understand why creatards think that Turok (sic) won this debate"
Did you even watch the video? It's because it takes two people to debate not one... Unfortunately for Hitchens, he was debating by himself majority of the time while Frank was too busy with fallacies, straw-mans & other off-subject circular arguments...
Completely agree, this was not a debate, it was like watching a politician avoiding the questions. Complete waste of everyone's time!
People...everything natural has either an explanation of its existence in itself..or the explanation MUST be outside its existence - this is why nature at some point in the finite past reaches a point ( The Big Bang ) nature began to exist..... for this reason reality - matter, space, time started - and for this reason God ABSOLUTELY Exists.....if not, maybe someone can explain how we currently live in this reality
Maybe I’ll win this debate if I shout?
I'm biased I will admit but I was embarrassed for Turek. His arguments are so lame.
The concept of the sky dad is entirely an invention of the human mind.
Also, I can't help but wonder why Turek insists that since we are here because of requirements in the uniservse, it must have been by design. There are so many things that exist only because their conditions were met. If they were not, something else would exist instead. Why is it so incomprehensible that our existance is just a result of whatever circumstances exists now? If we did not exist, something else would instead. I don't see this as an argument for design at all.
So classical: at the end of his speech, the theist demands a full education within science from his opponent.
He asks questions with far too complex answers to be answered within the time given, that touch upon numerous branches of science, all the while desperately trying to put the burden of proof on the guy that DOES NOT come with supernatural and fantastical claims.
The most replayed part of this video is when Christopher gets on stage lmao
Frank's faith is an unfalsifiable explanation that god did the stuff that we can't explain. Except in some cases the naturalistic explanation is better that the supernatural one. Morality is better explained along evolutionary lines than it was handed down by a god who condoned slavery commanded genocide and promoted misogyny.
Frank's something from nothing universe intentionally misrepresents the lack of knowledge about the preconditons of the big bang as nothing.
I would prefer explanations that can be tested.
Even if that God exist, the problem can never be solved. It's beyond obvious that God is a narcissist, admitting no blame, guilt or responsibility. While everything that ever happened is his will, he himself put everything in motion.
The fate, actions, situations and qualities of every created being is a consequence of what God caused, which will keep resonating, forever.
So, when God accuses the created of wrongdoings, he accuses himself, something that the narcissistic God deflects immediately.
The attempt to blame Lucifer for causing consequences, is exactly what to expect from the narcissist God. Even if Lucifer exist and set something in motion, it's still not the fault of the created being Lucifer.
The only solution to the Gordic knot, is for that God to publicly admit this, and apologize to every soul that ever existed. Not something a narcissist would ever do.
Pride and narcissism means God is stuck in his own hell.
Hence the paradox is insoluble & eternal
“If you think you know everything, you’ll never learn anything,”
This is the most one sided debate I have ever seen.
Thank you, finally someone sees what a drunken old fool this ditch was lol
That was pretty much what I heard at the very least xD That would save Hitchens a lot of time, as he could answer plainly "WHY NOT ODIN?"
True, you do not have to have a degree in something to know about it. I have no degree's at the moment(working on one) but I know ...a little bit about a lot. I would never claim authority in those types of fields and if I needed to use information from those fields I would be sure to cite credible sources on the subject matter. Religion can be disproved and has been many times over, it is the existence of God that is hard to prove or disprove, however the probability of existence is very low.
Over a decade later, the percentage of god worshippers in the United States is continuing to decline. Thank you, Hitch. Over a decade later, Turek is still using the same old “For the Bible tells me so arguments.” I wonder if many of the apologists, like Turek, actually still believe in a supernatural creator, or just continue to argue for one so as not to lose their followers.
Turek is pleading for hitch to take it easy on him lol, "in fact my son's sitting right there.. I'm fact my father is sitting right here".. please don't embarrass me in-front of my family.
hard to be more embarrassing than a drunk with an accent
@@Godfamcountry lmao, better than believing in an invisible man in the sky
Apologetics has been the same for decades. The same tactics, the same ideas. Apologetics itself is a dogma.
Those pauses for applause in Turek's closing statement and the late and underwhelming applauses they met 😃
Omg. The fact I just happened to be listening to this entire debate and happened to read that comment at the exact moment that happened…I’m dying over here 😂
@@ChrisPyle
well... at least we know the seldom mentioned coincidental comedy god is real 😊✌
@@timothylaroe6003 Amen brother lol
Now you get to go hold your partner, and realize how convenient the fact that him/her and a turd aren't all the same in the grand scheme of things
His premise during the entire debate was an argument from ignorance, and then he closed with an ad hominem attack. WTF does Hitchen's intentions have to do with whether or not a god exists?
Keep it classy Turek!
Typical moronic comment
Trust me the sound is all in your head. Logic, reason and evidence favor only one position and that is the truth, not superstition. If you are so keen on ideals from over 2,000 years ago why do you accept that the earth goes around the sun instead of the sun around the earth. Evidence! I am arguing no position here, only that you should try to not commit logical errors when attempting to prove something with logic. Does that make sense?
The fact that we can't yet be sure whether the universe has a purpose or not, or if it was created by an intelligence or not (multiple hints say it isn't, btw), isn't an argument for any of the theistic explanations. It may be used as a reminder to be open to the possibility of a deistic or pantheistic explanation, but not to validate outlandish claims of ancient texts.
Turek's closing was the rudest, most angry attack piece I've ever seen in one of these debates. One piece of humor, though. He chided Hitchens for "not being able to ever change his mind"....outrageous! Imagine that . . . a committed fundamentalist making such a claim. Pot, meet kettle.
"Christopher wants to replace God". What a desperate, petulant, panicky thing to same. Angry little prick. Bet he went home and kicked his dog (or worse).
30 seconds in to Turek is obviously an egotistical, loudmouthed, lousy salesperson. Nothing more. Salesmen and Pastors often are indistinguishable.
Hitchens spent the whole time attacking Christianity but does not offer a good second alternative with credible bases... I'm an agnostic, but I have to say Frank offers a more logical argument.
GOD is not a credible bases for anything.
Are in a truth quest? Then watch and analyze Tureks answers to skeptics in his universitis talks at cross examined channel
Ahh I thought only muslims love to pretend to be one of atheists and attack them.
Why does Turek use the same tactics in his debates as Ken Hovind?
This is that debate where Hitchens made his Empty sack statement. Genius.
I knew after listening to him for five minutes that he was missing something up there. ALthough I didn't know he passed because his skull was a sack lol
Ya ever notice how these jesus-jumpers LOOK like goody-goodies?
hitchens rules
here is best Hitchens introduction