1:23:15 was a really good one "you accused Hitchens of judging the church by the standards of the time, but surely the truth in your doctrines is eternal or its not"
@L B "made murder immoral" yeah because it was okie dokie free for all before the catholic church. No one any where got in trouble for killing people on the grounds its not a nice thing to do. They sure as hell made strides in the art of protecting their followers from the punishments of child rape, though. The point is there isn't a SINGLE good thing they or any religion did that couldn't have been done WITHOUT religion. Their wholly unique contributions range from unnecessary to outright crimes against humanity.
@@neiloch Neiloch religion was the foundation of society. It was the explanation before science existed, it was what brought people together. Technically religion created today's society if you take it from history perspective. So.. today's society wouldn't exist without religion. I think just this was a good thing and you can't just say ''no it didnt'' because 4000 years of history are some sort of proof to me.
Dear Atlas right if religion didn't create today's society we would be so much further ahead and not still debating whether religion is good or bad or if we should stop the fundamentalist that are trying to make America a theocracy. Would have killed a lot less free thinkers and witches too. Man the satanic panic wouldn't have happened. we wouldn't have people trying to teach creationism homophobic bigotry in school and being surprised when the parents stand up against it and sue. History shows that when religion takes over many humans die and your rights are greatly infringed upon. When you have a theocracy based on a "religion of peace" humanity, morals, and treating others as you would treat yourself die and in their place is resurrected suspicion, superstitious ignorance, anti science, immoral silencing of any dissent, and misogynistic rules against women
@@MrTheanimekiller We dont know if society would be further ahead. You can guess at best but you can't be sure. But surely the advance of religion in ancient societies is completely logical. No matter how many times you go back religion will always be a foundation.
Believe it or not, I was one of the main camera operators working on this debate and had the job covering the main shot of each speaker. Although it took place some time ago I still remember it vividly as a 'tour de force', particularly from Messrs Hitchins and Fry. I will not be forgetting this in a hurry!
1:45:32 "Ever since I discovered that my god-given male member was going to give me no peace, I decided to give it no rest in return." Christopher, we miss you dearly.
Ya I would agree, the bishop's points were not very strong. I don't think he knew who his opposition was. He wasn't there to give a homily, he was there to go to war.
Meanwhile, here in the USA..... By age 5, my daughters (now adults) were already correcting their teachers on the proper use of "I" and "me." After a few years, we had to tell them to just hold their tongues, because none of their teachers ever learned to speak English properly. It is such a treat to hear people who have truly mastered the language. I think I know our language better than most, but Christopher's vocabulary is so immense that he often forces me to consult the dictionary. I should also point out that the Bishop has excellent command of the language, though his subject matter is simply nonsense.
The Catholic Church cannot be a force for good, as it’s foundation principles are antithetical to all good. It is a system of power, and coercion. Individuals within the organization can be a force for good, but that is in spite of the organization, not because of it.
@@bpitch1071 I am actively involved with a charity providing education in Africa. Our basic task is to overcome all the damage done by the catholic church over the past few hundred years.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 My son who is 31 now has never accepted any form of religion, and he tells me - never argue with a person of religion - you are wasting your time - he is a very wise man.
@@signwriter1 except there are many who have deconverted after listening to the arguments against it - which is why atheists do debates. It's not about persuading the opponent. It's about the people listening in the audience.
I was astounded when confronted by a direct question by the moderator, with no where to run to and hide, the archbishop simply said ‘that is not the right question to ask’ - absolutely disgraceful - and laughable.
Christopher Hitchens: *talks about the churches atrocities during ww2, their horrible position in Rwanda, their condemnation of gays and their pedofile priests* Ann Widdecombe: "it is interesting that he had to go all the way back to the crusades to find something wrong" Uhm.. Did you fall asleep or something?
The catholic church did not commit atrocities during ww2. Rather, it was nazism, an atheist ideology that committed all these atrocities. Further, in the 20th century we also had communism, maoism, fidel Castro, pol pot, who all slaughtered millions based on an atheist ideology.
@@91Durktheturk Interesting then, that the German soldiers had belt buckles with the inscription: "Gott mit uns". Quite atheist yes... Their ideology was not fueled by belief or disbelief in god however. Communism on the other hand was definitely fueled by atheism to a certain extent. There are many shades of communism, but the only kinds that have been turned into governments were mostly authoritarian, in countries with great poverty, great unrest and/or with a history of great repression of it's people. The Russian zar while a Christian did not do much good for the Russian people either.
@@Great.Dane. ***Interesting then, that the German soldiers had belt buckles with the inscription: "Gott mit uns". Quite atheist yes...*** Which is what German soldiers had on their belt for long before Nazism started. The German army was also a seperate institution from Nazism. You can therefore not conclude based on a belt that nazism was not atheist. Also, plenty of historical evidence that Nazism was basically an atheist creed, Hitler’s views as an atheist are well known and documented, as well as the atheist views of other high ranked Nazi’s. You would have to ignore all that evidence.... It is also well documented that the Nazi’s had plans to eradicate the church. ***Their ideology was not fueled by belief or disbelief in god however.**** Actually it was. It was based on beliefs that could only exist in an atheist framework, such as social darwinism, eugenetics, beliefs that were shared with progressive atheists in other countries in the 1930s, such as Britain. ***Communism on the other hand was definitely fueled by atheism to a certain extent. There are many shades of communism, but the only kinds that have been turned into governments were mostly authoritarian, in countries with great poverty, great unrest and/or with a history of great repression of it's people.*** In the beginning of the 1900s you could say about most countries that they had a history of repressing their own people. So not a very useful standard don’t you think? Also, funnily enough, Russia was a democracy after the February revolution, before Germany, frightened by that prospect of a powerful democratic Europe, send Lenin back to Russia. The rest is history..... Also, communism is authoritarian by its very nature. ***The Russian zar while a Christian did not do much good for the Russian people either.*** That really depends on the tsar. Peter the Great did lots of good things for Russia, and was deeply religious. Tsar Alexander the II was also a great tsar, who did many good things for the Russians. The last tsar however was incompetent.
@@91Durktheturk "The catholic church did not commit atrocities during ww2" How about after? All that kiddy-fucking has gone on into modern time. And the Catholic church was instrumental in spiriting genocidal maniacs abroad, like Franz Stangl, to find asylum in fascist states in South America and the Middle East.
I think it is unfair for the side that was against: one of the speakers did not speak in his native language, and the other one has a voice that make me want to skip ahead a bit... I think they should have found an elequant catholic bishop/priest.
The entire Q&A section was a train wreck. "I'm going to take two dozen questions, please keep them to 15 seconds, then I will ask the panel to deal with them all in one go over a couple of minutes." Who thought that was a good format?
Exactly my thoughts.. amateurish approach which should and could have been executed far better by the organisator. Written questions should have been send in and preselected for the panel and the time wasted going over the audience could have been allotted for extra rebuttals for the panel pro and con, in regards to issued raised by their first timeslot statements.
Yeah, the worst part was how she would take a random number of questions between like 2 and 10 and then expect them to reply to them all. Also it's clear they didn't plan enough time for questions lol.
Seems like a format set up so each person has a better chance of having a strong argument by almost skipping the ones they find hard and concentrating on the ones they like. Debate by buffet or some shit. maybe it was set up as an attempt at a handicap in favor for Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe since the organizers knew they would get crushed.
So the priest's arguments to demonstrate that the church is a good institution are: -Because otherwise he would not be part of it (and he has been in it for many years, without regretting it) -Because his family is believers - Because there are believers everywhere you look - Because he does charity ? Is this the best that this institution can defend itself with?
Hitchens swinging at the Catholic Church for Stephen Fry here, will remain one of my absolute favorite memories of our human species. RIP Christopher, and thank you for your heart and wisdom.
@@davidr1431 The archbishop is tolerable, but Widdecombe was cursed with an *extraordinarily* difficult voice to listen to, about as querulous, whiny, and shrill a timbre as I've ever heard in a person. The fact that she proffers tired reactionary drivel with petulant and entitled language doesn't help.
@@0142Jason Strangely, her retirement from politics started about the time the now late Python Terry Jones sadly lost the ability to speak. Coincidence?
I return to this on Jan 4th 2024 and it brings me no end of joy and real hope for a brave new year. We have seen the way to change our troubled world. It's with grace, heart, intelligence , and courage. Strive on, brothers and sisters.
You think the world as a whole learned something from this random debate, enough to give you hope for it? Wait, no, YOU learned a lesson from it that tells us how to fix the world? How do you even boil down the myriad of issues to, what, just religion? Reason? Empathy? Strive toward what? Whatever this is, it sounds more delusional than religion to be honest. Not to mention incoherent, I have to strawman you to see any substance in the statement.
It's honestly something that's stuck with me for years since I first watched this. It's the most succinct and scathing condemnation. Rewatching this tonight, I thought maybe I'd misremembered and embellished the moment in my own mind, but no. It now, as before, reads to me with such... consternation, indictment, even pleading. This singular moment... is such a perfect expression that it breaks my heart.
+Sharwul Doesn't that reveal the intellectual content of the contributors?? The Catholic Church has hundreds of billions of euros, or dollars or pounds in it's vaults. What would the Prince of Peace have to say about this??
+helmethead72 " I've just been tortured then nailed to a tree & i'm in need of some serious medical attention, can you give me some cash for the hospital " !!!!. i think he would say something along those lines.
Keiran Bradley Interesting to discover that not long after this verbal thrashing by Christopher and Stephen, the Archbishop was made a cardinal by Pope Benedict and served at conclave which brought about the arrival of Pope Francis. The same Pope who is now the world's favourite leader, neat job by the Vatican eh? Get rid of the child abuse appeaser and get rid of all the accusations in one fell swoop.
@@sundayseahorse yeah, all are of pagan origin but they changed some so much they ended up beeing boring (christian) and not pagan. At least im now allowed to dance, make beautiful paintings, play games and studie science, which the church suppressed. Go to your catacombs and pray for forgiveness, ya moron. And stop telling others to steal christian values, because christianity does/did that constantly with other religions.
A.W.'s entire speech was pomposity, vanity, arrogance, ego....and spittle decorated personal attacks against Hitch. But evidence? Nope. She's an example of Catholicism that will disgust and repulse any reasonable person. All she had to do was show the world the truth of her religion, and by revealing her vicious nature, she managed to drive thousands away. Good job, champ.
Stephen Fry is one of the most powerful speakers I have ever heard and yet there is never an ounce of maliciousness in anything about which he speaks. I wish I had his grasp of the English language and knowledge.
This is S Tier English, incredible selection of words to accurately get his point across with no filler. Incredible speech and full of passion and zeal.
Additionally, the studies that were cited saying that condoms do not prevent HIV were outliers. The overwhelming medical consensus is that condoms are 90% effective in preventing HIV.
Through proper research you will find that HIV was as much a hoax as this recent "epidemic". It was also brought into existence by the medication rather than an illness.
So i assume you wore a mask during covid.....the membrane in a condom isn't small enough to prevent a virus from passing through, masks didn't work either for the same reason
29:37 Imagine being Stephen Fry, listening to one of the greatest orators of his era speaking truth to the most powerful institution in history, on your behalf, for the hatred against you and others like you. That ending line might be my favorite Hitch argument of them all
@Where Is Waldo hardly oratory at it's finest, though. Oratory requires facts. Hitchins is short in them. If your want to see oratory watch Frank Turek v Hitchens debate on TH-cam.
Mitchuation all you creeps and peados coming out of the woodwork to defend rich and famous creeps and peados because you think they can somehow validate your pathetic existence. You think you're the enlightened ones because you regurtitate what some Oxford educated nonce says. Use your brain for once, Hitchens and his ilk are fake intellectuals who make their living off being contrarions as if they know better than the everyone else. Their audience comprises of New Age degenerates like yourself who advocate all sorts of moral depravity. Professing to be wise they became fools
*Hitch walks in* Okay. Damn that is an impossible boss....But its alright, maybe if I just use all my health potions and buffs, with a bit of luck I may be able to... *Fry joins him* Okay I'm dead. Might as well just logout now to avoid the embarrassment.
Hitchens as sharp as a razor blade tore the church to pieces, but it was Fry who reached out to my soul and moved it to its core, because while Hitch disassembled from a intellectual standpoint, Fry did as well but also poored his soul into it, conveying indeed how personally important this topic is to him and therefore moved me. What an absolute treasure this man and what a priviledge to hear him speak at any time including this one.
@@late8641 I'm not quite sure what you mean, is it in an kind of a Bertrand Russell kind of way? (Russell was also a homosexual and freemason but I have no evidence that he was a practising homosexual and fraudster like your hero, fry)
@@Kitiwake One can have family values without god. Also, they are open for debate and values always change. Only in the dogmatic narrow view of religion must values remain the same no matter how far society progresses. But of course, these same people see progress as something bad. I however am glad, that we are now at a time where we can have people live out their lifes as they see fit within the boundaries of law and not religion. I am happy that people can express their sexuality however they see fit as long as it is with another consenting adult. I am happy that today, the word family can have any meaning and not just man and woman. Religion always restricts and never frees. You ask for truth and honesty? We life in an age where truth can be determined by science and is no longer a matter of bronze age books written by backwards sheepherders. One can look at many apologist videos here on TH-cam to see that truth and honesty is a tool rarely used by those who are religious. Religion is a poinson and a cancer of this world and I am happy when it is finally cut out.
si The only correct statement you made is that he supported the Iraq war. The rest is pure dishonesty, or a complete strawman of his opinions... It’s pathetic how people still use childish and dishonest debating tactics!
@@si4632 He supported the Iraq war, yes. He did not start it nor fire a single weapon. I don't know his marital history or extra marital affairs that may have possibly taken place. Even so, how can you compare that to the absolute disgraceful behavior of so many catholic priests? At the time of this debate it was bad. This year it was revealed that there are hundreds of priests that committed these terrible cases of abuse with thousands of young boys. How dare you.
@@si4632 The problem in the church is that priests have been molesting young children and then the higher ups covered it up and continued to do so as was revealed this year. You response makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
@@si4632 What kind of argument is that? You are not very articulate. No wonder you needed to post a TH-cam video to speak for you. You still are not making sense.
45:35 "And condoms; they came in the end." If she meant to make that pun, it would have been a groaner. But because she obviously had no idea, it's gold.
I get your point ( do you find that's funny too?) A human is a thinking creature, at least some of us are anyway. But we're always presented with a choice. You can choose the "narrow path" of self discipline to what you believe lead to right reason. Or let your mind wander in every direction. It's called "a moral compass" or lack thereof. Sexual immorality is a wild beast if you let it gain control of your thoughts. It will do more damage to yourself and others than you can ever imagine in your present naivety.
If I understood Mrs Widdecombe correctly, she said whenever a christian did something horrible, it's a single person or you have to see it in the context of the time, and whenever a christian did something good, it's the church that encourage the person, am I wrong there? What a complete waste of time to debate with such persons.
Do some reading about Ireland's "Magdalene Laundries". Kinda wish their existence had been brought up. Widdecombe tried to score points by suggesting "that was then, this is now" with centuries between. Just ain't so... Galileo was tortured, but 10 years earlier, Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for advocating the same Copernican 'theory'... Stephen didn't state it, but that church waited four centuries before it could admit Galileo (and Bruno) were right. "We CANNOT allow science to progress or speak as it will only prove the vacuousness of our tenets... It will prove we emperors have been peddling only lies." The debate is good, if the voting, before and after, was an accurate indication of a positive change in some people's attitudes.
@Strengt of Yahweh A lot of the Christian "wrongs" require absolutely no context, and it is often the apologists who tell lies trying to cover-up, hide, deflect or "explain" the most repugnant, horrendous behaviors of their ilk... So what's your point?
But that wasn't the God of the Bible. Hitler was a Pantheist. To him nature is god. Hitler was a fan of Nietzsche. He was a social darwinist who believed in eugenics. Those were Hitler's inspiration who, not the God of the Bible who has commanded getting angry with a person is equivalent to murder. More people were killed by atheistic communist regimes than the atrocities committed by any religion. I am not condoning the atrocities committed by the church: the worst was Spanish Inquisition: 6000 killed over 300 years. That's wrong and reprehensible. The church should always be reminded of all the atrocities committed historically, and Christians should be humble. But atheists should maintain some modesty: just remember what happened in China under Mao, stalin in USSR and other demagogues across Europe and other countries.
@@naveen82376 Amazing how everything you've said is plain wrong, so much nonsense on the same comment. All fascist regimes had a strong link to the vatican, the very first treaty Hitler did was with the catholic church. Communism just replaces the invisible god you believe in with a visible one, Mao's regime being a great example of that. Also, no one has ever killed in the name of "nothing", however, the inquisition, the cruzades and a great number of genocides were commited in the name of god. You are in for a lost cause.
@@wsreferencia please point out what I've said is factually. Please have a look at "Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich by Richard weikart." It details how much Hitler hated Christianity. The communists were atheists whose actions were the result their atheism: because they are accountable to no one. Here is a report from IBT in 2016: A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China - and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions." Even now China detains millions of religious people. More people have been killed by atheistic regimes (mainly because of their hatred for religion) than any religion. Atheists have been murderous tyrants when they got power.
@@naveen82376 Communism and atheism are not the same thing there is not such thing as an atheist regime. Communism was the driving force in those regimes, I find it strange that the only time the word atheist even comes up in these topics is when it is linked to words like communism, almost like it wouldn't stand on it's own.
ask any religious person if they fear death, if death means heaven why would anyone be scared? they can just ask for forgiveness if they didn't before they died, suicide would be fixing our population problem...and our idiot problem
I know this is an old debate, but it honestly still fills me with rage that half of Ann’s argument boils down to “we weren’t the only ones!” Or “everyone else was like it too!” It’s no excuse, a force for good in the world would not stoop to everyone else’s low levels, would it? Surely it would lead by example!
I also enjoyed how she said that the catholic church should not be expected to behave better than society. I thought the whole thing was about how the religion is the only salvation and anything divergent is wrong. Theyre supposed to have the answer, but they keep changing their minds.
@@SpaceCattttt Aye, but if you're going to purport that you are a force for good in the world, that you are THE force for good in the world, you MUST hold your entire group to higher standards, and be very strict and disciplined in weeding out the chaff. There is no excuse for letting hundreds of thousands of children be raped by ministers and priests, whom are all supposed to be celibate, and not even the least bit interested in sex, nor is there any excuse for the atrocities that the Catholic church has done, both in the near and far past.
It amazes me that Widdecombe's first argument against Christopher is to say that he used an historical argument about the Church to make his point, then ignores, or at least mostly ignores, him pointing out the unspeakable horrors committed by the Church in the past twenty years. It was entirely pathos-driven, and I couldn't take another word of her argument seriously.
This was a slaughter. They quite literally could not have chosen two of the worst "Defenders of the Catholic Church" if they tried. Anne Widdecombe is incredibly hard to take. A cold woman who reminds me of the Evil Stepmother in a Disney animation, and the poor, hapless Bishop who obviously has zero debate skills and relies on homilies. And just a side note, listening to Stephen Frye speak is an utmost pleasure.
Couldn't agree more. Kind of broke my heart when the bishop said his family was one of the first converts from whatever their indigenous beliefs were. The Catholic Church is truly soul sucking.
Well, English is not his first language, maybe not even his second or third, so I'm willing to cut him some slack for that. Nevertheless, they could have picked someone better.
Interesting point about the Bishop. He was well out of his class in this debate. And Anne was not capable of casting a good impression on anything. Their debate side was doomed to failure from the start.
Funny thing the Anne is still politically active in her 80s and the bishop likewise within the church. Whereas Hitchens is long dead and Fry is a drooling wreck. Both much younger also. Being wrong is a burden repayable not just in the next life, it appears.
It is so refreshing to hear a man like Stephen Frye speak so beautifully; with NO filter from his heart to his mouth. If only we could obtain this level of rhetoric on social media platforms today...
Of course there was a filter, sigh. But I'll demeure on what that is so as not to offend such a delicate reader as yourself to your next biology class.
Oh no. The Bishop was a very bad salesman.... I really didn't hear a reason why the Catholic Church is force of good. It was a dull, lifeless presentation.
@@mpetrie i was confused for a moment too. The percentage is from the total not from the original voters. They lost 410 people that is ca. 20 % of the 2126 people that voted. Its mathematically right but an awefull way of showing the change. They went from 32% Support to 12% Support.
Hitchens was Hitchens but Stephen Fry was particularly fired up for this one. "THEN WHAT ARE YOU FOR?" Another one: "It's like a Burglar in court. 'Of course you'd mention THAT Burglary, and THAT manslaughter....you never mention I give my father a birthday present!'" Hitchens was fairly amused by that analogy too.
@@Kitiwake He went to jail for credit card fraud at 17, and paid his debt to society. Considering the catholic church shields child molestors...I don't think you should bother arguing about moral superiority.
Haha! Never debate theology against a very devout and intelligent atheist. They often know the bible and can quote it better than the devout religious person. How often does that happen, lol!!!
@@Kitiwake Irrelevant. Widicombe and the Archbishop were lambs to the slaughter, pure and simple, (regardless of your belief or disbelief.) The Atheists sent along two of their strongest speakers and intellects, while the Church sent along an Archbishop and Anne Widicombe. The outcome was preordained.
@@fransmith3255 You base this on one debate? I implore you to watch any debate with James White against atheists and then see if you come away with that same outlook. The atheists in those debates make fools of themselves because they THINK they know more than White.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 Hehe, made fools of themselves?? They WON the debate! That's hardly 'made fools' of themselves. The audience, even much of the self-stated religious people, voted for Steven Fry's team. Did you actually watch the video? The audience viewpoint was tested prior and after the debate - people in the audience who agreed with Steven's side actually INCREASED post debate, lol! Just because you don't agree with their viewpoint, that doesn't automatically mean they made fools of themselves. You need to learn to look at situations such as these without your religious bias. We all have biases, but you need to put your personal biases aside when judging these situations. Religious people also sometimes make great points, but these two, on this night, were just completely outclassed. Against other less capable debaters, perhaps they would have come up top, but not in this case, and no unbiased mind could fail to see that.
For women of my mothers generation, born in the 1930’s, - about whom I can speak- having a stillborn child meant grief without end because that infant could not be buried inside the walls of a consecrated Catholic graveyard. Worse still for those mothers was imagining that defenceless infant, lost in a ‘limbo’ somewhere that the mother believed she herself could never access in order to reclaim her child, even at her own death, in order to be reunited with and finally protect that child. A nightmare without end that caused lifelong pain and unresolved grief to very many devout Catholic Mothers. The exquisite cruelty of the design of this punishment was marshalled by the church to be directed, in practice, at mothers to ensure that all infants were baptised into the Church immediately at birth, as “soldiers for Jesus Christ”. And here I recognise that the “idea” of limbo has historical roots way before the era of my parents. For fathers, who often would not carry the grief with and for their wives - because it was simpler to pretend the child never existed - it stunted their emotional development and created harm between those parents in their marriage that many never recovered from. So arguing technicalities is utterly disingenuous because no woman I knew was ever told they could pray their dead infant out of limbo. And the solitary visits of bereft mothers to their infant’s grave, on the other side of the graveyard wall, literally, was a source of shame that was only whispered about amongst women because, those infants died in a state of “original sin”. Their grief was not recognised or honoured in community and to my knowledge, those stillborn infants were never, ceremoniously or otherwise dug up and re interred in consecrated ground with funeral mass and all the rites performed on them that are performed upon the death of baptised children. So those mothers’ grief carried on without end and no natural process to acceptance was achieved. They were left, silently with the trauma which was often visited upon the live siblings of those stillborn children through their mother’s unresolved grief. But now ‘limbo’ that was such a tyranny has been “buried” but is still a “ debatable theory” in the Catholic Church. Though sidelined, no visible amends have been made to those mothers and children who were both, as one, suffering in that self same limbo. The Catholic “Church” is nothing if not transactional . Perhaps these days if they were paid to rectify the individual unbaptised child’s plight, bring that infant back over the wall, to be joined in the consecrated grave with their mother, money could persuade them. I’ve yet to see that happen though, but I would be happy to stand corrected. And where is there a meaningful apology to all those heartbroken mothers, who never spoke? Nowhere to be found.
Thanks for this information that I knew nothing about, even though I was raised Catholic. There are so many ways in which the teachings of the catholic church are truly destructive to the human psyche from the fear of hell to repression of sexuality. The pain and suffering caused by the christian religion over the last 2000 years is truly unimaginable. @wolfthequarrelsome is obviously an imbecile of the highest order, your comment could well be the most concise and informative I've ever read on youtube.
The NHS has been a marvellous institution…in your country, where I am not a citizen. You’re very lucky. My grandfather did, however fight in India and Mesopotamia in the British army in the 1900’s. He came home blind at 23 but he never, ever, was mean spirited or resentful. And neither am I.
Awwww.... Chris hitchens. I would like to say "may god rest him" but I know that he (Hitchens!) would be insulted by that. One of the great men of our time. May you NEVER be forgotten!!
Anne says that the Church acted "within the limits of the time". Does she not realize that that makes her god powerless? And the church faithless? If the church is REALLY god's church, under his divine protection, why would they fear Hitler, Mussolini or anyone else? As theists so often do, she is comparing an institution that is supposed to be in tough with and loved by an all-powerful god, with any other human organization. She is in effect, admitting the the church is nothing but another human institution.
I went to comment this & I'm glad it's high up on the comment list. I might add that if God is supposed to be all-powerful, good and omniscient, then it follows that it was necessarily God's plan for all of this to happen in the first place and the church, being his representative, is always doing good in his name. They can't say this, however, because it's complete bollocks. God is also supposed to be unchanging & therefore what is considered to be good should also be unchanging. Thus, good should transcend the times & the values should change from time to time & be judged as such. This isn't the case, however. Why didn't the church know any better if it is God's organisation? It's not easy to completely articulate my thoughts here because there's a lot wrong with the whole stance - but I'm glad other people picked up on it.
@@justdavelewis What a lot of twaddle, the only sensible thing you said was that you were having trouble organising your thoughts, this debate was a farce, Hitchens and Fry both polished public speakers versus an African who can hardly speak English and a politician with a very annoying voice, a boxing match between Mr Bean and Mike Tyson comes to mind, the fix was in!
@@darrengray3782 really? So where was he wrong? God shouldn't be unchanging? He's instead depending on society to tell him if slavery is still acceptable or not? Or did your omniscient all-loving God NOT condone slavery? You've dismissed what he said out of hand yet done nothing to say what's specifically wrong with it. Please I wanna know.
@@Kitiwake i think its say you didnt understand the comment about how it doesnt matter what time in ou rhistory it was including the middle ages thats no excuse for anyone to abuse children. Also saying people who hate the idea of any form of child abuse are "hung up on child abuse" is beyond a joke, if i thought like that id be ashamed of myself.
@@Kitiwake I think we should all be "hung up" on child abuse, mate. It's hardly appropriate to just sweep it aside.... unless you're the catholic church, that is.
The Catholic church is not Christian and will never be Christian.. The Catholic harlot will always be pagan luciferian Rome masquerading as a religious cult when in reality she's a highly organized satanic military organization and fascist at that with all the world leaders in her pocket.
@@Kitiwake I believe in the gospel according to the scritpures in the King James bible. 1 Cor 15:1-4, Rom 1:16 KJV So I guess I'd be an enemy of the luciferian Pope who hates fundamentalists who believe the infallible word of God.. Baptist fundamentalist who believes that Jesus eternally paid for my sin debt which is precious blood meaning i'm eternally pardoned from the lake of fire where all Jesuit catholics are going if they don't repent.
@@dfstarborn I m delighted to read that protesting though you are. But just consider that there would be no KJV if there were no catholic church because the bible comes to us because of that same church.
The only thing that never got a proper comeback from Hitch and Stephen was the idea that in countries where condoms are promoted HIV cases don't reduce. I just kept wanting them to say something like, "yes, in AIDS-ravaged countries condoms are promoted by under-funded organisations. However, in the same countries, the over-funded Catholic Church preaches that condoms cause AIDS." But now I've got that off my chest I can relax. Even if no-one actually reads this.
I love at 46:12, Hitchens reaches for his pen and paper and Stephen is smiling as he writes. It's like they both know Widdecombe is just about to hand them more ammunition for their argument.
Found this video only recently, but haven't been able to stop re-watching Stephen Fry's amazing speech. While his side undoubtedly won the debate, it truly seemed like he was more invested in actually making an impact on the issue than "winning." He also showed that being open, emotional, and even vulnerable as a speaker absolutely doesn't weaken your arguments; it strengthens them. This is really important; I feel like in debates people are often so focused on "destroying" the opponent and looking stronger that they forget this.
Emotionalism and anecdotes do not strengthen arguments, they place feelings over objective facts and are a tactic used for manipulation. The majority of his arguments were opinion based sophistry.
@@koppite9600 And religious people aren't moral relativists? That is the great myth among the religious: that their morals come from God's truth handed down, unchanged, throughout time. Except religious people's moral compass has changed. 70 years ago, homosexuality was illegal and most people in the Western world -- both secular and religious -- thought that homosexuality was evil. Now the majority of people -- both secular and religious -- believe that homosexuality is not evil and that it would be evil to throw people in prison for who they love. Religious people's morality changes. Some of them just don't admit that their morality changes.
Steven and Christopher are simply linguistical geniuses. That is a fact. I do wish to say however, as someone who speaks two languages and is learning another, the ability to debate in a language that is not your mother tongue, no less in front of a large group, is incredibly impressive.
Your 100% correct. Christopher and Steven are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to linguistic skill. I would love to know what those that are learning English think of this video? ❤❤
I suppose that you are referring to John Onaiyekan's command of English. Actually, English is the official language of his native Nigeria. This is not to put down his input in the debate, but be aware of the colonialist ramifications.
@@tbrowniscool You strike me as someone who is interested in languages and their use, so allow me to offer this correction: "Tip of the iceberg" doesn't refer to something being "the best of the best", which is what I think you intended the phrase to mean. A fitting phrase would be "the cream of the crop", but the "tip of the iceberg"-analogy means to say that something is only the start or only the surface of something bigger (like how icebergs are bigger beneath the waterline). As in, there is more to be un-/discovered about a topic.
This was utterly priceless viewing. My favourite moments are those when, during Ms Widdecombe's rather shrill efforts, one can see Hitchens frantically scribbling notes for his rebuttal while Fry looks on and smirks at what he sees written there. I'm reminded of the oft-heard warnings about the folly of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Sadly for Ms Widdecombe, she seems to have arrived equipped with a feather duster.
you could also say that the cardinal brought a knife to the gunfight, but that was AW, who is not a sharp knife by far. More of a spoon, or a feather duster as you put it :D
Imagine believing that it was possible to transubstantiate a wafer and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but a flesh and blood woman cannot REPRESENT Christ. Imagine being taught that male and female were made in God’s imagine, that Christ was God made flesh, yet still women cannot represent God through the priesthood. It’s fascinating from an atheist’s perspective how so much Catholic dogma disintegrates with no other argument than pointing out the contradictions within their own sacred text.
How are transubstantiation, a definition of the 12th century and the 6th century tradition of the non ordination of women to the priesthood even remotely related, for you to form that conclusion?
@@KitiwakePerhaps not exactly related but what Jude obviously means is that on the one hand they are willing to believe something so entirely insane to be reality, while on the other hand, their willingness to embrace utter supernatural madness doesn't quite stretch to allowing women to represent Christ, simply because they are women.
The Bible spells it out clearly from the Catholic churches view that men own women. God created man but needed Adam's rib in order to create Eve. The church has raised religious men to see women as their property. Organized religion is the most damaging thing humanity ever created.
@@chrissonofpear1384 no no no... those arent servants sir we prefer to call them priests and nuns they work for us and do whatever we tell them to as long as we say "the master your god commands you"
@@MaxInAus not true, its just not unconditional, for instance i am here by random chance, but id die in an instant to protect my family, because although completely random, they raised me, they took care of me, they taught me and made me the person i am, the randomness of the universe means we get to give things value from our own perspectives, not just things are special because an almighty god created them.
I like how the first thing out of Widdecombe's mouth during her rebuttal is a blatant lie - that in order to criticize the Catholic Church, Hitchens had to go back to the Crusades. As if everyone there didn't hear him talk about modern anti-Semitism, the AIDS pandemic, and a long list of ongoing abuses of the Church. It's like Leslie Nielsen standing in front of an exploding fireworks factory crying "nothing to see here!" in the Naked Gun.
@@Kitiwake If someone burns down your house and then pays you financial restitution, would your first reaction be to thank them for the money? Contributing to relief efforts for AIDS is the least the Church can do after contributing to its spread. Hell, I grew up with a Catholic education in the 2000s and I still had priests telling me that condoms are worse than AIDS.
I love at 1:16:40 the bishop literally says that the people in Africa knew the rules of the Ten Commandments before they ever heard them because they are basic morality….. completely screwing the argument that the Bible was needed in order for us people to learn them…. Hitches even says “well you don’t need the Bible for that”
Well, of course you don't need the bible to know basic human morality, which makes us all culpable when we offend it. The bible provides a much wider source of God's word than just the ten commandments and a limitless resource for those who embrace it.
@@PapaJoeWalsh "The bible provides a much wider source of God's word than just the ten commandments and a limitless resource for those who embrace it." The bible (which one exactly?) isn't the word of god. It never claimed to be, nor should it be taken as. John 1:1 even specifies that jesus is the word of god, not the bible. The bible is a compilation of books, revised, edited, and doctored by those in positions of authority or influence. On that note, why believe it, what does god need a book for?
@@rageofheaven Hi Rageofheaven. Good questions. There is only one Christian bible - multiple translations, but one bible. Yes, Jesus is the Word of God i.e. God made incarnate, taking on the form of a human being. The passage you refer to in John 1 is an incredible and deeply moving piece. The bible may not call itself the Word of God, but the Christian people do. We believe that the Lord speaks to us clearly through His Word, which He inspired men to write over hundreds of years. That's what we believe and you are entitled to disagree. God doesn't need any books or anything else for that matter. He inspired the bible for our benefit, not for His. In terms of people in authority doctoring the bible. First of all, why would they do that? There would be no benefit in anyone changing the bible; they would have to change most of it, and then it wouldn't be the bible, the Word of God and would be recognised as such, and wouldn't have ensured for thousands of years with exactly the same meaning for every line. Some meaning has become even more clear as more and more ancient documents have been discovered. They have confirmed over and over again the veracity of each book in the bible; and yes, you are of course correct, the bible is a collection of different books, of different genres and from different times. That's one of the many amazing things about it!
@@PapaJoeWalsh " Hi Rageofheaven. Good questions. There is only one Christian bible - multiple translations, but one bible. " The issue, however, is that translations can change interpretation. Hell, for example, is used commonly in situations where it is not the correct term. Gehenna, Tartarus, and a few others are all labeled as "hell", when in fact, they are not all "hell" but different places all together. "Yes, Jesus is the Word of God i.e. God made incarnate, taking on the form of a human being. The passage you refer to in John 1 is an incredible and deeply moving piece. " People helping people without any incentive or reward is deeply moving, a book proclaiming a way to cheat death is not. "The bible may not call itself the Word of God, but the Christian people do. We believe that the Lord speaks to us clearly through His Word, which He inspired men to write over hundreds of years. That's what we believe and you are entitled to disagree. " The christians also do not call the bible the word of god, jesus is. While you could say the bible contains the word of god, you're still hearing it through the mouths of men. If god were so powerful, he would not need a mouthpiece. "God doesn't need any books or anything else for that matter. He inspired the bible for our benefit, not for His. " So as to inspire confusion amongst his believers? There should not need be more than one version of it, in a language we could all understand. "First of all, why would they do that?" To assert divine authority. Romans 9:17. I would suggest you get away from evangelism and start investigating biblical scholarship, you're going to find out it's not nearly as reliable of a source of authority as you believe.
@@PapaJoeWalsh then explain why the Ethiopian bible is so different and the schism between the coptic christians and the helenistic ones of the west, the bible is the oldest form of propaganda, it's the absolute definition of the thought police. Christians and all other monotheists can't stand the attitude of live and let live they are always trying to conquer peoples minds, it's the oldest type of cold war they even call it spiritual warfare they can't help themselves.
"the only ones obsessed....anorexics and morbidly obese.....and that, in a nutshell, is the catholic church". this is one of those fry moments that will last eternally. chapeau.
“How can this church say it has any moral superiority when it has difficulty catching up to what ordinary people regard as common moral and ethical sense and it still can’t make itself apologize properly”... another nail on the coffin of religion
@@jmanalo7159 christ didn't establish any church. Christ, in a historical context, was a jew. I would like to argue that he was just a very charming rabbi who thought too highly of himself and got himself nailed (not the good kind). Many years after his anhialation, his fans then spiced up his life story, placing contradictions here and there whilst sprinkling a few historical locations and tidbits. It's a good story but it's not true.
@@proculusjulius7035 i regularly find that people who claim biblical knowledge dont know the bible at all.. as in your case. What was Matt 16:18, Pentecost and Acts then?
The first thing Ann did was accuse Hitchens of misrepresenting the catholic church, and in the very next breath she goes on to misrepresent his arguments. She said he had to go back to the crusades in order to try and disprove the notion that "the catholic church is a force for good" when even I can remember without going back that he spoke a lot about the protection of pedophile priests and the churches condemnation of homosexuals. Which she later tries to address, along with the nazi points, which im pretty sure was also quite a bit after the crusades and the sacking of Constantinople.
Or even inbetween now and the crusades. The various actions of the church in south America with the bishops that accompanied the conquistadors after 1492. Or fanning the flames of the medieval English religious troubles simply by denying Henry VIII a divorce - that has to be the greatest shot in the foot that the Catholic church has ever done to its own cause of a unified Christian faith.
There is nothing wrong with condemning certain acts. All value systems do that, whether it’s atheists condemning people for eating meat, or Christianity not approving of two blokes bumming each other.
@@littleceasar9351 yeah good point i too know of a lot of cases where people are executed and tortured because they ate meat. or whole countries of anti-meat maffia beating you up in the streets if they heard you ate a steak. even more so, the majority of people who are vegetarian are religious, do with that what you like. your argument consists out of 2 completely unrelated things trying to normalize yourp oint of view. another example of that would be like this: people can have thoughts, theists can think they already had a cup of coffee this morning and atheists can think that religion and all its aspects and history is a big sham made by a bunch of nonces wanting to garner power over the lesser educated people stuck in a loop of misinformation. just because both are thinking doesnt mean that theyre equal by any means
@@gaz2276 Mind you, considering the pathetic opposition they faced, even if Fry and Hitchins had had a seriously off ' night, , they would have still wiped the floor with them. At times the difference between the two sides was embarrassing.
Also a tad hypocritical, given that Stephen Fry advocates lowering the age of consent and has defended paedophiles. How is he the person that should attack the church on its sexual teachings? He certainly does not have the moral high ground here.
The saddest part is the two pro church people walked away from this, not learning that they need to change, but blaming the other side. Own your mistakes, fix your errors.
Iñigo Martinez Lopez One of the BEST parts. So hilarious! That's how I always felt when I was younger, I couldn't ever get straight answers from them. So, fuck them.
The way the motion was phrased was refreshing; rather than debating the truth value of any doctrine, it went straight to its general, humanitarian value. Ironically, the Archbishop basically said all that was needed in a single statement to argue against the motion: His father (allegedly) knew how to be a good, moral person before converting. If one knows how to be a good person without a specific faith, then that faith is at best superfluous, and at worst antithetical.
He was an absolute wreck at what he was there for. Modern seminaries are in a pitiful state. A shame we cannot really see a Renaissance Jesuit logician putting these sophists in their right place.
Yeah, one has to find some way to feel some joy and relief from what now is! Reason and intelligence is fun, wish more folks would improve their neighborhood by trying it out. Asking a bit much to find it in the comment sections these days.
I almost feel bad for the bishop. You can tell he's a good guy at heart, and English isn't his native language. And then you just watch Christopher Hitchens getting introduced. He's takes a nice sip of his drink, and then it's like watching a nuclear bomb destroy an anthill. Then it's followed up by a second nuclear bomb with Fry.
I noticed a nun, sitting in the front row of the audience, who never claps. She seems to mirror a total disbelief of what is said about the church. Perhaps she hears it for the first time - but if so, it shows also the absolute absence and lack of training in critical thinking and scientific literacy. Watching her (as so many others in the church) makes me sad!
@@kuolemanlaakso1696 Hang on! They are indoctrinated as children, long before being old enough to chooses nunning as a career. And it's not just "critical thinking" (as if!), it's any kind of questioning. Try: th-cam.com/video/YQ3dL5tJx6M/w-d-xo.html :)
I come back to this every other year, it really strengthens my belief, and restores my faith and unwavering reverence in Hitchins and Fry's solidity and teachings.
I love that Fry always looks like he's internally having a laugh at something. It's incredibly dissarming and effective, and I don't think he even does it consciously. It's just who he is.
@@Kitiwake Ye maybe he husband said something funny he just couldn't stop thinking about, or maybe someone else did. Good stuff by the way, to assume what you know Fry was thinking about, I didn't realise telepathy was a thing nowadays.
Anns joke about condoms is in bad taste. it's not just condoms it's the life and health of so many people and when they are not used the suffering and death of millions.
Brendan Butler the catholic church seems to be trying to distract from the fact that they are in opposition to ABC (abstinence, be faithful, correct use of condoms), which has been shown to work, by pointing out that telling people "just use condoms and you can fugg without worry" is dangerous. no shit, pope.
I started in the "against" camp and expected to stay in that camp - but I was still surprised at how unable the "For" group were to make any decent points for their case. There was not a single point they made that was not either nonsense, or successfully countered. Not familiar with Hitchens from before, but he was an absolute joy to listen to. The world is a worse place for not having him in it anymore.
The fact that there was no proper defence to the changing morals of the Church was very poor. After all if the church can't know any better than anyone else, despite them claiming just that, then what is the point in following their morals over another.
Hitchens was a force to be reckoned with. I too was already on the Against side, but was still amazed at how poorly the For side debated. Was one of the few times I've seen Fry actually get angry when talking. That the before to after votes went that far is pretty amazing to see.
@@benwu7980 Yes! I loved that, we need more debates like this to show people that the points religion and religious people make to discriminate or damage others, are invalid and nonsense. I truly believe religion is the root of most evil. Can't say all as some are not, but definitely most of it.
@@mikecooper2566 Sadly, the bishop and Anne were not good at defending their faith and there would have been far greater speakers who would have utterly flawed Fry and Hitchens' arguments.
stephen fry is accused of being far right so i doubt this could happen today. 2 white guys mannspain to a woman of colour would be closer to the headline.
That's one of the main prerequisites to become a priest in the first place. I reckon we got lucky with a measly 12 minutes, those who reach his rank are professional word-saladists and have the ability to drone on for hours.
I Q, your joking, the egos of some people amaze me as many do. Just unadulterated b.s., food supply for billions has been acheived, will it continue ? People are manipulated with the high costs ,trickle up effect to augment the wealthy.Concept or construct ,any monotheistic indoctrination will be the reserve of the people who can't escape the cruelty of modern slave society. Most likely the abuse will continue.
I might put Sam Harris on that same level, but Harris has certainly never reached the same level of charisma as Hitchens and Fry. This really was a high watermark for Fry, I must say. This was absolutely incredible.
"Hi, we're the church. We don't have sex so we don't have families. Now let us tell you how to run a family" .... religion is the most embarassing thing humanity will ever have to admit we engaged in
Noticed how 90% of the Audience that talk with a Catholic point of view never brought up a point but just preach and use their misplaced faith as a shield from the shit hitting the fan.
“I am obsessed with sex... ever since I discovered that my god given male member was going to give me no peace, I decided to give it no rest in return” - Christopher Hitchens
@Steve Meikle i think the point is that since it doe no one harm it doesnt matter, we all have our own senses of right and wrong, you can choose to do whatever you want with your "male organ" (its called a penis by the way) aslong as it doesnt affect anyone else in a harmful way.
It seems the more educated we become, the better we understand the natural world through science, the less we need religion. Change is slow but constant.
1:23:15 was a really good one
"you accused Hitchens of judging the church by the standards of the time, but surely the truth in your doctrines is eternal or its not"
L B there are plenty of good reasons to lie
@L B "made murder immoral" yeah because it was okie dokie free for all before the catholic church. No one any where got in trouble for killing people on the grounds its not a nice thing to do. They sure as hell made strides in the art of protecting their followers from the punishments of child rape, though.
The point is there isn't a SINGLE good thing they or any religion did that couldn't have been done WITHOUT religion. Their wholly unique contributions range from unnecessary to outright crimes against humanity.
@@neiloch Neiloch religion was the foundation of society. It was the explanation before science existed, it was what brought people together. Technically religion created today's society if you take it from history perspective. So.. today's society wouldn't exist without religion. I think just this was a good thing and you can't just say ''no it didnt'' because 4000 years of history are some sort of proof to me.
Dear Atlas right if religion didn't create today's society we would be so much further ahead and not still debating whether religion is good or bad or if we should stop the fundamentalist that are trying to make America a theocracy.
Would have killed a lot less free thinkers and witches too. Man the satanic panic wouldn't have happened. we wouldn't have people trying to teach creationism homophobic bigotry in school and being surprised when the parents stand up against it and sue.
History shows that when religion takes over many humans die and your rights are greatly infringed upon. When you have a theocracy based on a "religion of peace" humanity, morals, and treating others as you would treat yourself die and in their place is resurrected suspicion, superstitious ignorance, anti science, immoral silencing of any dissent, and misogynistic rules against women
@@MrTheanimekiller We dont know if society would be further ahead. You can guess at best but you can't be sure. But surely the advance of religion in ancient societies is completely logical. No matter how many times you go back religion will always be a foundation.
Believe it or not, I was one of the main camera operators working on this debate and had the job covering the main shot of each speaker. Although it took place some time ago I still remember it vividly as a 'tour de force', particularly from Messrs Hitchins and Fry. I will not be forgetting this in a hurry!
I would have loved to have been there, just an absolute tour de force from Hitchens & Fry.
Wow, awesome work. Thabk you for your skill.
Who are you?
Thats so cool. I would have been electrified by stephens speech and presence
To witness such a speech in your lifetime from this man must have be awe inspiring
So...a catholic priest and Dolores Umbridge got Hitchslapped and Deep Fry'd. That's what I get from this.
haha preach
xD
Who's Dolores Umbridge?
Harry potter villain
She's a villian from Harry Potter who was ultra conservative and a total cunt.
1:45:32
"Ever since I discovered that my god-given male member was going to give me no peace, I decided to give it no rest in return."
Christopher, we miss you dearly.
Bishop's points:
1) The Catholic Church is nice because my dad believed in it.
2) We do charity.
Ya I would agree, the bishop's points were not very strong. I don't think he knew who his opposition was. He wasn't there to give a homily, he was there to go to war.
Dont forget repeating church IS good as a dogma
@@AreMullets4AustraliansOnly jup interesting how he points that out thinking its an argument for beeing good. i mean how?
@@aretrograde7745 It makes me wonder if he has ever heard people so denounce his church, indeed if knows much of it's history.
The church is fucking dead, if the arguments are really that detached from the doctrine.
Fry and Hitchens take the English language to its absolute pinnacle. It is a joy to listen to them.
Meanwhile, here in the USA..... By age 5, my daughters (now adults) were already correcting their teachers on the proper use of "I" and "me." After a few years, we had to tell them to just hold their tongues, because none of their teachers ever learned to speak English properly. It is such a treat to hear people who have truly mastered the language. I think I know our language better than most, but Christopher's vocabulary is so immense that he often forces me to consult the dictionary. I should also point out that the Bishop has excellent command of the language, though his subject matter is simply nonsense.
I especially like Hitch's very poorly disguised contempt for the Church :D
@@genghiskhan7041 I don't think he tried to hide it at all actually. It was out there. Front and centre.
The Catholic Church cannot be a force for good, as it’s foundation principles are antithetical to all good. It is a system of power, and coercion.
Individuals within the organization can be a force for good, but that is in spite of the organization, not because of it.
@@bpitch1071 I am actively involved with a charity providing education in Africa. Our basic task is to overcome all the damage done by the catholic church over the past few hundred years.
It's been said a lot, but it's like watching supercomputers battle fridge magnets
Good one.
That's harsh on magnets
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 My son who is 31 now has never accepted any form of religion, and he tells me - never argue with a person of religion - you are wasting your time - he is a very wise man.
@@signwriter1 except there are many who have deconverted after listening to the arguments against it - which is why atheists do debates. It's not about persuading the opponent. It's about the people listening in the audience.
I was astounded when confronted by a direct question by the moderator, with no where to run to and hide, the archbishop simply said ‘that is not the right question to ask’ - absolutely disgraceful - and laughable.
Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny!
Christopher Hitchens: *talks about the churches atrocities during ww2, their horrible position in Rwanda, their condemnation of gays and their pedofile priests*
Ann Widdecombe: "it is interesting that he had to go all the way back to the crusades to find something wrong"
Uhm.. Did you fall asleep or something?
The fact that the atrocities of the Catholic church date back several hundred years should be eye-opening
The catholic church did not commit atrocities during ww2. Rather, it was nazism, an atheist ideology that committed all these atrocities. Further, in the 20th century we also had communism, maoism, fidel Castro, pol pot, who all slaughtered millions based on an atheist ideology.
@@91Durktheturk Interesting then, that the German soldiers had belt buckles with the inscription: "Gott mit uns". Quite atheist yes...
Their ideology was not fueled by belief or disbelief in god however.
Communism on the other hand was definitely fueled by atheism to a certain extent. There are many shades of communism, but the only kinds that have been turned into governments were mostly authoritarian, in countries with great poverty, great unrest and/or with a history of great repression of it's people. The Russian zar while a Christian did not do much good for the Russian people either.
@@Great.Dane. ***Interesting then, that the German soldiers had belt buckles with the inscription: "Gott mit uns". Quite atheist yes...***
Which is what German soldiers had on their belt for long before Nazism started. The German army was also a seperate institution from Nazism. You can therefore not conclude based on a belt that nazism was not atheist. Also, plenty of historical evidence that Nazism was basically an atheist creed, Hitler’s views as an atheist are well known and documented, as well as the atheist views of other high ranked Nazi’s. You would have to ignore all that evidence.... It is also well documented that the Nazi’s had plans to eradicate the church.
***Their ideology was not fueled by belief or disbelief in god however.****
Actually it was. It was based on beliefs that could only exist in an atheist framework, such as social darwinism, eugenetics, beliefs that were shared with progressive atheists in other countries in the 1930s, such as Britain.
***Communism on the other hand was definitely fueled by atheism to a certain extent. There are many shades of communism, but the only kinds that have been turned into governments were mostly authoritarian, in countries with great poverty, great unrest and/or with a history of great repression of it's people.***
In the beginning of the 1900s you could say about most countries that they had a history of repressing their own people. So not a very useful standard don’t you think? Also, funnily enough, Russia was a democracy after the February revolution, before Germany, frightened by that prospect of a powerful democratic Europe, send Lenin back to Russia. The rest is history..... Also, communism is authoritarian by its very nature.
***The Russian zar while a Christian did not do much good for the Russian people either.***
That really depends on the tsar. Peter the Great did lots of good things for Russia, and was deeply religious. Tsar Alexander the II was also a great tsar, who did many good things for the Russians. The last tsar however was incompetent.
@@91Durktheturk "The catholic church did not commit atrocities during ww2"
How about after? All that kiddy-fucking has gone on into modern time. And the Catholic church was instrumental in spiriting genocidal maniacs abroad, like Franz Stangl, to find asylum in fascist states in South America and the Middle East.
This wasn't a debate... It was double homicide.
True, only people with evil hearts murder the innocent.
dayum
@Ron dude.. The truth can never be put down.
I think it is unfair for the side that was against: one of the speakers did not speak in his native language, and the other one has a voice that make me want to skip ahead a bit... I think they should have found an elequant catholic bishop/priest.
@@OwlFight Pretty words don't make an argument; good points do.
The entire Q&A section was a train wreck. "I'm going to take two dozen questions, please keep them to 15 seconds, then I will ask the panel to deal with them all in one go over a couple of minutes."
Who thought that was a good format?
Exactly my thoughts.. amateurish approach which should and could have been executed far better by the organisator. Written questions should have been send in and preselected for the panel and the time wasted going over the audience could have been allotted for extra rebuttals for the panel pro and con, in regards to issued raised by their first timeslot statements.
nevertheless impressive insights and statements by Hitchens and Frye - those alone made it a great watch :-)
Yeah, the worst part was how she would take a random number of questions between like 2 and 10 and then expect them to reply to them all. Also it's clear they didn't plan enough time for questions lol.
Seems like a format set up so each person has a better chance of having a strong argument by almost skipping the ones they find hard and concentrating on the ones they like. Debate by buffet or some shit. maybe it was set up as an attempt at a handicap in favor for Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe since the organizers knew they would get crushed.
Yeah, they should have had someone curating audience questions.
So the priest's arguments to demonstrate that the church is a good institution are:
-Because otherwise he would not be part of it (and he has been in it for many years, without regretting it)
-Because his family is believers
- Because there are believers everywhere you look
- Because he does charity
? Is this the best that this institution can defend itself with?
👍
Quite frankly yes. They have nothing else
Hitchens swinging at the Catholic Church for Stephen Fry here, will remain one of my absolute favorite memories of our human species. RIP Christopher, and thank you for your heart and wisdom.
For shame! For shame!
wdym "RIP" ?
@@NetworkSneed RIP is an acronym for "Rest In Peace"
@@guardingdark2860 dk what he means by 'resting' he's dead.
@@NetworkSneed It's a poetic phrase, it's not meant to be literal.
For anyone who wants to study in-depth:
1:38 Archbishop
12:55 Hitchens
33:58 Widdecombe
47:33 Fry
1:07:49 Vote
1:09:45 Questions 1
1:16:58 Questions 2
1:22:07 Questions 3
1:28:15 Questions 4
1:36:05 Vote
1:37:30 Fry
1:40:32 Widdecombe
1:45:20 Hitchens
1:50:10 Fellow humans, THIS. IS. MORALITY.
1:51:23 Archbishop
1:57:16 Vote
Thank you!
i wonder how many people revisiting this skip the archbishop and widdicombe initial speeches. having heard them once, once is enough.
Thank you 😊
Just omit everyone except Hitch and Fry and you'll be fine.
@@davidr1431 The archbishop is tolerable, but Widdecombe was cursed with an *extraordinarily* difficult voice to listen to, about as querulous, whiny, and shrill a timbre as I've ever heard in a person. The fact that she proffers tired reactionary drivel with petulant and entitled language doesn't help.
Sometimes I think my voice is annoying so I listen to Ann Widdicombe to make myself feel better
Imagine her trying to speak seductively. I would pay good money to see that.
@@kkgauthier Especially to David Beckham.
She sounds like a Monty Python character.
@@0142Jason
Strangely, her retirement from politics started about the time the now late Python Terry Jones sadly lost the ability to speak. Coincidence?
@@0142Jason Haha exactly. Sounds like a Python's guy trying to sound like a woman.
I return to this on Jan 4th 2024 and it brings me no end of joy and real hope for a brave new year. We have seen the way to change our troubled world. It's with grace, heart, intelligence , and courage. Strive on, brothers and sisters.
To which side of the debate do you refer?
Well they said "intelligence" so that should tell you
You think the world as a whole learned something from this random debate, enough to give you hope for it? Wait, no, YOU learned a lesson from it that tells us how to fix the world? How do you even boil down the myriad of issues to, what, just religion? Reason? Empathy? Strive toward what? Whatever this is, it sounds more delusional than religion to be honest. Not to mention incoherent, I have to strawman you to see any substance in the statement.
@@Kitiwakehes just wishing all of us a good new year
Dors it matter which side hes on??
I'm returning to it on the eve of our bleak 2024 US (now seemingly ironically named) Independence Day holiday... It's at least giving me some life.
Fry's delivery of "then what are you for?" from 1:25:55 - 1:26:02 is one of the most powerful moments of any debate I've ever seen.
Easily answered.
But fry showed his frustration at the teaching of the church which he knows doesn't condone his homosexual activity.
It's honestly something that's stuck with me for years since I first watched this. It's the most succinct and scathing condemnation. Rewatching this tonight, I thought maybe I'd misremembered and embellished the moment in my own mind, but no. It now, as before, reads to me with such... consternation, indictment, even pleading. This singular moment... is such a perfect expression that it breaks my heart.
@@lhei_tayuun
He's obviously angry with the righteous position of the church on immoral sex which he himself champions.
His bad.
@@Kitiwakemoron
@@Kitiwake which aspect of homosexual sex do you imagine to be immoral and why do you consider it so?
*Opening statements:*
Archbishop John Onaiyekan: 2:14
Christopher Hitchens: 14:05
Ann Widdecombe: 34:45
Stephen Fry: 48:11
+Sharwul Doesn't that reveal the intellectual content of the contributors??
The Catholic Church has hundreds of billions of euros, or dollars or pounds in it's vaults. What would the Prince of Peace have to say about this??
LOL
+helmethead72 " I've just been tortured then nailed to a tree & i'm in need of some serious medical attention, can you give me some cash for the hospital " !!!!. i think he would say something along those lines.
Keiran Bradley Interesting to discover that not long after this verbal thrashing by Christopher and Stephen, the Archbishop was made a cardinal by Pope Benedict and served at conclave which brought about the arrival of Pope Francis. The same Pope who is now the world's favourite leader, neat job by the Vatican eh? Get rid of the child abuse appeaser and get rid of all the accusations in one fell swoop.
helmethead72 The Hierarchy of RCC is indeed as the sleazy the political whores of the secular camp, they are pathetic.
Hitchens and Fry are a force for good in the world. Rest in peace Christopher, you will never be forgotten.
R.I.P is a Christian expression, ya fool.
@@sundayseahorse and your ,,christian holidays'' are pagan, ya fool.
@@misterrex684 Some are, I never said they weren't don't jump the gun, ya moron. Away out and dance round a tree ya troglodyte.
@@sundayseahorse Is it a problem if non christians use it?
@@sundayseahorse yeah, all are of pagan origin but they changed some so much they ended up beeing boring (christian) and not pagan. At least im now allowed to dance, make beautiful paintings, play games and studie science, which the church suppressed. Go to your catacombs and pray for forgiveness, ya moron. And stop telling others to steal christian values, because christianity does/did that constantly with other religions.
Ann Widdecombe truly is one of the most convincing proponents for secular atheism in Europe.
A.W.'s entire speech was pomposity, vanity, arrogance, ego....and spittle decorated personal attacks against Hitch.
But evidence? Nope.
She's an example of Catholicism that will disgust and repulse any reasonable person.
All she had to do was show the world the truth of her religion, and by revealing her vicious nature, she managed to drive thousands away.
Good job, champ.
“Secular atheism” Is an oxymoron.
I'm religious but man, her defence was so contradicting I got second hand embarrassment just listening to her.
Atheism is not a religion, just like not-believing in Santa Claus or smurfs is not a religion. If anything, 'secular atheism' is closer to a pleonasm.
@@RazorRamonElJefe If you are in the same belief system as ann you should perhaps reconsider
I would like an apology for Ann's voice
Nails on a chalkboard
It's one thing if you're a false singer, but a false speaker?
Me to,but more so,I would like an apology for her presence.
I was looking for this comment, just to thumbs up
She sounds like an old set of windshield wipers
Don’t miss next competition where Bishop and Anne take on Federer and Nadal at Wimbledon
Perfectly portrays the missmatch, thank you!
hahahahhaa :D
I think they’d stand a better chance
They may actually score a point in that one.
Haha well put
Stephen Fry is one of the most powerful speakers I have ever heard and yet there is never an ounce of maliciousness in anything about which he speaks. I wish I had his grasp of the English language and knowledge.
This is S Tier English, incredible selection of words to accurately get his point across with no filler. Incredible speech and full of passion and zeal.
Fry has been extremely nasty about religion and in particular the Christian faith!
@@DB-qw6xq Good! Religion is delusional
@@DB-qw6xq Would you call the people who call Epstein a pedo "nasty"?
No, because they are just correct, and so is he.
@@haydencarn8737What happens to your argument here if @DB-qw6xq does call Epstein's critics "nasty"?
Additionally, the studies that were cited saying that condoms do not prevent HIV were outliers. The overwhelming medical consensus is that condoms are 90% effective in preventing HIV.
Through proper research you will find that HIV was as much a hoax as this recent "epidemic". It was also brought into existence by the medication rather than an illness.
So i assume you wore a mask during covid.....the membrane in a condom isn't small enough to prevent a virus from passing through, masks didn't work either for the same reason
Not having sex is 100% effective in preventing HIV?
@@thelonelysponge5029 Expecting human beings to be abstinent is 90% ineffective in reality?
@@thelonelysponge5029How is this relevant?
29:37
Imagine being Stephen Fry, listening to one of the greatest orators of his era speaking truth to the most powerful institution in history, on your behalf, for the hatred against you and others like you. That ending line might be my favorite Hitch argument of them all
No one there is a great orator.
@Where Is Waldo hardly oratory at it's finest, though.
Oratory requires facts.
Hitchins is short in them. If your want to see oratory watch Frank Turek v Hitchens debate on TH-cam.
“Its hard to be told I’m evil, because I am full of love.” That hit hard
yeah boy love, he's a sick man
@@jacksynth271 judge much?
Borderfox would you like some boy love? I can boy love you any time you’d like mate.
Mitchuation all you creeps and peados coming out of the woodwork to defend rich and famous creeps and peados because you think they can somehow validate your pathetic existence. You think you're the enlightened ones because you regurtitate what some Oxford educated nonce says. Use your brain for once, Hitchens and his ilk are fake intellectuals who make their living off being contrarions as if they know better than the everyone else. Their audience comprises of New Age degenerates like yourself who advocate all sorts of moral depravity. Professing to be wise they became fools
@@jacksynth271 cast all the stones you wish; just don't hide behind child rapists to hold your high ground
Hitchens: *Walks to the podium*
The rest of the room: Why can I hear boss music?
For some reason i seemed to hear the theme tune from 'Rocky' in my head lol
*Hitch walks in*
Okay. Damn that is an impossible boss....But its alright, maybe if I just use all my health potions and buffs, with a bit of luck I may be able to...
*Fry joins him*
Okay I'm dead. Might as well just logout now to avoid the embarrassment.
something by Parliament-Funkadelic would be fantastic!
@@kabirchattopadhyay533 what the f are you lot on about
Hitchens is a fool and so is the bishop.. Catholicism IS NOT CHRISTIANITY
Bringing Stephen Fry to a debate is like bringing a rocket launcher to a boxing match.
You should see him argue on the same side as Jordan Peterson. I’ve never seen someone agree with and smack down the same person in quite a unique way
Hitchens as sharp as a razor blade tore the church to pieces, but it was Fry who reached out to my soul and moved it to its core, because while Hitch disassembled from a intellectual standpoint, Fry did as well but also poored his soul into it, conveying indeed how personally important this topic is to him and therefore moved me. What an absolute treasure this man and what a priviledge to hear him speak at any time including this one.
I can't get enough of Fry. When it comes to rhetorics and making language an artform, Fry is second to none.
I couldn’t agree more, well put, Sir !
@@late8641 I'm not quite sure what you mean, is it in an kind of a Bertrand Russell kind of way?
(Russell was also a homosexual and freemason but I have no evidence that he was a practising homosexual and fraudster like your hero, fry)
how does he rate on truth and honesty?
How about family values? 😆
@@Kitiwake One can have family values without god. Also, they are open for debate and values always change. Only in the dogmatic narrow view of religion must values remain the same no matter how far society progresses. But of course, these same people see progress as something bad. I however am glad, that we are now at a time where we can have people live out their lifes as they see fit within the boundaries of law and not religion. I am happy that people can express their sexuality however they see fit as long as it is with another consenting adult. I am happy that today, the word family can have any meaning and not just man and woman. Religion always restricts and never frees.
You ask for truth and honesty? We life in an age where truth can be determined by science and is no longer a matter of bronze age books written by backwards sheepherders. One can look at many apologist videos here on TH-cam to see that truth and honesty is a tool rarely used by those who are religious. Religion is a poinson and a cancer of this world and I am happy when it is finally cut out.
im for the motion that Christopher Hitchens was a force for good in the world. sadly missed.
si The only correct statement you made is that he supported the Iraq war. The rest is pure dishonesty, or a complete strawman of his opinions... It’s pathetic how people still use childish and dishonest debating tactics!
@@si4632 He supported the Iraq war, yes. He did not start it nor fire a single weapon. I don't know his marital history or extra marital affairs that may have possibly taken place. Even so, how can you compare that to the absolute disgraceful behavior of so many catholic priests? At the time of this debate it was bad. This year it was revealed that there are hundreds of priests that committed these terrible cases of abuse with thousands of young boys. How dare you.
@@lespaul5734 he left his wife for a rich jew and he died from throat cancer caused by alcoholism all facts
@@si4632 The problem in the church is that priests have been molesting young children and then the higher ups covered it up and continued to do so as was revealed this year. You response makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
@@si4632 What kind of argument is that? You are not very articulate. No wonder you needed to post a TH-cam video to speak for you. You still are not making sense.
45:35 "And condoms; they came in the end." If she meant to make that pun, it would have been a groaner. But because she obviously had no idea, it's gold.
I must admit i let out a laugh when she said that.
Whether conscious or not , she did deliver it perfectly like Leslie Nielsen 🤣
Does she have to use one on her vibrator or does blindfolding it suffice?
I love Stevens face during the following sentences.
Brilliant
Stephens face when Anne says " its not about condoms, its about the physical relief of the poor". amazing comedy
I burst out laughing!
I get your point ( do you find that's funny too?)
A human is a thinking creature, at least some of us are anyway. But we're always presented with a choice.
You can choose the "narrow path" of self discipline to what you believe lead to right reason. Or let your mind wander in every direction.
It's called "a moral compass" or lack thereof.
Sexual immorality is a wild beast if you let it gain control of your thoughts.
It will do more damage to yourself and others than you can ever imagine in your present naivety.
Sexual repression is much worse and creates obsessed with sex people, like you.
If I understood Mrs Widdecombe correctly, she said whenever a christian did something horrible, it's a single person or you have to see it in the context of the time, and whenever a christian did something good, it's the church that encourage the person, am I wrong there? What a complete waste of time to debate with such persons.
Logic left the building
Do some reading about Ireland's "Magdalene Laundries". Kinda wish their existence had been brought up. Widdecombe tried to score points by suggesting "that was then, this is now" with centuries between. Just ain't so...
Galileo was tortured, but 10 years earlier, Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for advocating the same Copernican 'theory'...
Stephen didn't state it, but that church waited four centuries before it could admit Galileo (and Bruno) were right.
"We CANNOT allow science to progress or speak as it will only prove the vacuousness of our tenets... It will prove we emperors have been peddling only lies."
The debate is good, if the voting, before and after, was an accurate indication of a positive change in some people's attitudes.
@Strengt of Yahweh For example?
@Strengt of Yahweh
A lot of the Christian "wrongs" require absolutely no context, and it is often the apologists who tell lies trying to cover-up, hide, deflect or "explain" the most repugnant, horrendous behaviors of their ilk...
So what's your point?
@Strengt of Yahweh This is exactly what someone who’s biased would say.
2:12 Archbishop John Anaiyekan
13:13 Christopher Hitchens
34:08 Anne Widdecombe
47:55 Stephen Fry
Hitch and Fry spoke for years compared to what the others spoke
But that wasn't the God of the Bible. Hitler was a Pantheist. To him nature is god. Hitler was a fan of Nietzsche. He was a social darwinist who believed in eugenics. Those were Hitler's inspiration who, not the God of the Bible who has commanded getting angry with a person is equivalent to murder. More people were killed by atheistic communist regimes than the atrocities committed by any religion. I am not condoning the atrocities committed by the church: the worst was Spanish Inquisition: 6000 killed over 300 years. That's wrong and reprehensible. The church should always be reminded of all the atrocities committed historically, and Christians should be humble. But atheists should maintain some modesty: just remember what happened in China under Mao, stalin in USSR and other demagogues across Europe and other countries.
@@naveen82376 Amazing how everything you've said is plain wrong, so much nonsense on the same comment. All fascist regimes had a strong link to the vatican, the very first treaty Hitler did was with the catholic church. Communism just replaces the invisible god you believe in with a visible one, Mao's regime being a great example of that. Also, no one has ever killed in the name of "nothing", however, the inquisition, the cruzades and a great number of genocides were commited in the name of god. You are in for a lost cause.
@@wsreferencia please point out what I've said is factually. Please have a look at "Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich by Richard weikart." It details how much Hitler hated Christianity. The communists were atheists whose actions were the result their atheism: because they are accountable to no one. Here is a report from IBT in 2016: A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China - and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions." Even now China detains millions of religious people. More people have been killed by atheistic regimes (mainly because of their hatred for religion) than any religion. Atheists have been murderous tyrants when they got power.
@@naveen82376 Communism and atheism are not the same thing there is not such thing as an atheist regime. Communism was the driving force in those regimes, I find it strange that the only time the word atheist even comes up in these topics is when it is linked to words like communism, almost like it wouldn't stand on it's own.
Hitch and Fry together?
The opposition didn't stand a chance!
Nope. They would have had a far better chance bobbing for fries & coming out unburned because Fry & the Hitch definitely put the burn on their ass.
ask any religious person if they fear death, if death means heaven why would anyone be scared? they can just ask for forgiveness if they didn't before they died, suicide would be fixing our population problem...and our idiot problem
That's right, the opposition didn't stand a chance with that level of artful deception and the British public's ignorance.
Religious people are afraid of death. They won't admit it, but they are.
People who believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow are just afraid of it not rising. They won't admit it, but they are.
I don't think the Archbishop had any idea what he was in for. He no doubt thought God was on his side.
00:02:01 - Opening argument (Onaiyekan)
00:13:42 - Opening argument (Hitchens)
00:34:32 - Opening argument (Widdecombe)
00:47:51 - Opening argument (Fry)
01:07:43 - Audience Q&A
01:37:35 - Closing statement (Fry)
01:40:32 - Closing statement (Widdecombe)
01:45:20 - Closing statement (Hitchens)
01:51:21 - Closing statement (Onaiyekan)
01:57:15 - Poll results and conclusions
Mulţumesc.
Merci
Thanks!!
Tack!
Than you kind Sir
I know this is an old debate, but it honestly still fills me with rage that half of Ann’s argument boils down to “we weren’t the only ones!” Or “everyone else was like it too!” It’s no excuse, a force for good in the world would not stoop to everyone else’s low levels, would it? Surely it would lead by example!
It would certainly lead by example if it were truly the mouthpiece of god on earth, as they claim to be
I also rewatch it every so often. Fuels the passion
I also enjoyed how she said that the catholic church should not be expected to behave better than society. I thought the whole thing was about how the religion is the only salvation and anything divergent is wrong. Theyre supposed to have the answer, but they keep changing their minds.
Especially bad when you remember the Catholic church claims to have the divine on their side
@@SpaceCattttt Aye, but if you're going to purport that you are a force for good in the world, that you are THE force for good in the world, you MUST hold your entire group to higher standards, and be very strict and disciplined in weeding out the chaff. There is no excuse for letting hundreds of thousands of children be raped by ministers and priests, whom are all supposed to be celibate, and not even the least bit interested in sex, nor is there any excuse for the atrocities that the Catholic church has done, both in the near and far past.
It amazes me that Widdecombe's first argument against Christopher is to say that he used an historical argument about the Church to make his point, then ignores, or at least mostly ignores, him pointing out the unspeakable horrors committed by the Church in the past twenty years. It was entirely pathos-driven, and I couldn't take another word of her argument seriously.
Hitch's reaction to that at 35:27 was priceless.
yeah she really was as bad as possible in the whole debate, I could've made better cases for the Catholic Church and I'm an atheist ffs
You can only ever argue historical points as the future hasn’t happened yet. It’s a stupid argument.
This was a slaughter. They quite literally could not have chosen two of the worst "Defenders of the Catholic Church" if they tried. Anne Widdecombe is incredibly hard to take. A cold woman who reminds me of the Evil Stepmother in a Disney animation, and the poor, hapless Bishop who obviously has zero debate skills and relies on homilies. And just a side note, listening to Stephen Frye speak is an utmost pleasure.
Couldn't agree more. Kind of broke my heart when the bishop said his family was one of the first converts from whatever their indigenous beliefs were. The Catholic Church is truly soul sucking.
Well, English is not his first language, maybe not even his second or third, so I'm willing to cut him some slack for that. Nevertheless, they could have picked someone better.
I think - post colonialism that English is, for all practical purposes, his first language.@@marpfel
Interesting point about the Bishop. He was well out of his class in this debate.
And Anne was not capable of casting a good impression on anything.
Their debate side was doomed to failure from the start.
Funny thing the Anne is still politically active in her 80s and the bishop likewise within the church.
Whereas Hitchens is long dead and Fry is a drooling wreck. Both much younger also.
Being wrong is a burden repayable not just in the next life, it appears.
It is so refreshing to hear a man like Stephen Frye speak so beautifully; with NO filter from his heart to his mouth. If only we could obtain this level of rhetoric on social media platforms today...
One of the greatest orator of modern time! Brilliant mind and person.
Stephen Frye speak so beautifully
@@MyDevice-yl5pn as did satan in the garden of Eden.
Of course there was a filter, sigh.
But I'll demeure on what that is so as not to offend such a delicate reader as yourself to your next biology class.
@@MyDevice-yl5pn hmm ..as you writes so beautifully.
"If the Catholic Church is not eternal,then what are you for?" Absolutely brilliant by Stephen Fry.
It is eternal.
Oh no. The Bishop was a very bad salesman.... I really didn't hear a reason why the Catholic Church is force of good. It was a dull, lifeless presentation.
I would have a hell of a time defending the church too
Is it weird i heard "my father was brainwashed into a cult member and im also brainwashed"
dull and lifeless like the church
Holy sh*t.
That last vote left me speechless. That's wasn't even close lol. We need more of these two gentlemen collabing. Well done!
Sadly, Hitch has been dead now for well over a decade.
Whoever did the mathematical percentage differences needs to be fired, though. They weren't even close to being accurate.
@@mpetrie i was confused for a moment too. The percentage is from the total not from the original voters. They lost 410 people that is ca. 20 % of the 2126 people that voted. Its mathematically right but an awefull way of showing the change. They went from 32% Support to 12% Support.
@@TalesStahl Ohhh.... okay, then that makes sense. But yes... it was a bizarre way to show it. Thank you for the clarification.
A little difficult to get them to collaborate again with dear old Hitch dead and buried.
Hitchens was Hitchens but Stephen Fry was particularly fired up for this one.
"THEN WHAT ARE YOU FOR?"
Another one:
"It's like a Burglar in court. 'Of course you'd mention THAT Burglary, and THAT manslaughter....you never mention I give my father a birthday present!'"
Hitchens was fairly amused by that analogy too.
They were speaking for many, good on them, 🤘🏻🎩
I'm not surprised that fry knows what happens in court... With his record.
@@Kitiwake
He went to jail for credit card fraud at 17, and paid his debt to society.
Considering the catholic church shields child molestors...I don't think you should bother arguing about moral superiority.
@@BSE1320 agreed . However.. How reputation for honesty is shot
Here's what we're for ... The salvation of souls . even your mangy one.
Fry quoted Ann's own remarks and proved she used incorrect information. Hitchens and Fry ripped apart these two.
Haha! Never debate theology against a very devout and intelligent atheist. They often know the bible and can quote it better than the devout religious person. How often does that happen, lol!!!
He got it wrong. So he tore nothing except his own argument. She never mentioned "nation" state.
@@Kitiwake Irrelevant. Widicombe and the Archbishop were lambs to the slaughter, pure and simple, (regardless of your belief or disbelief.) The Atheists sent along two of their strongest speakers and intellects, while the Church sent along an Archbishop and Anne Widicombe. The outcome was preordained.
@@fransmith3255 You base this on one debate? I implore you to watch any debate with James White against atheists and then see if you come away with that same outlook. The atheists in those debates make fools of themselves because they THINK they know more than White.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 Hehe, made fools of themselves?? They WON the debate! That's hardly 'made fools' of themselves. The audience, even much of the self-stated religious people, voted for Steven Fry's team. Did you actually watch the video? The audience viewpoint was tested prior and after the debate - people in the audience who agreed with Steven's side actually INCREASED post debate, lol! Just because you don't agree with their viewpoint, that doesn't automatically mean they made fools of themselves. You need to learn to look at situations such as these without your religious bias. We all have biases, but you need to put your personal biases aside when judging these situations. Religious people also sometimes make great points, but these two, on this night, were just completely outclassed. Against other less capable debaters, perhaps they would have come up top, but not in this case, and no unbiased mind could fail to see that.
For women of my mothers generation, born in the 1930’s, - about whom I can speak- having a stillborn child meant grief without end because that infant could not be buried inside the walls of a consecrated Catholic graveyard. Worse still for those mothers was imagining that defenceless infant, lost in a ‘limbo’ somewhere that the mother believed she herself could never access in order to reclaim her child, even at her own death, in order to be reunited with and finally protect that child. A nightmare without end that caused lifelong pain and unresolved grief to very many devout Catholic Mothers. The exquisite cruelty of the design of this punishment was marshalled by the church to be directed, in practice, at mothers to ensure that all infants were baptised into the Church immediately at birth, as “soldiers for Jesus Christ”. And here I recognise that the “idea” of limbo has historical roots way before the era of my parents. For fathers, who often would not carry the grief with and for their wives - because it was simpler to pretend the child never existed - it stunted their emotional development and created harm between those parents in their marriage that many never recovered from. So arguing technicalities is utterly disingenuous because no woman I knew was ever told they could pray their dead infant out of limbo. And the solitary visits of bereft mothers to their infant’s grave, on the other side of the graveyard wall, literally, was a source of shame that was only whispered about amongst women because, those infants died in a state of “original sin”. Their grief was not recognised or honoured in community and to my knowledge, those stillborn infants were never, ceremoniously or otherwise dug up and re interred in consecrated ground with funeral mass and all the rites performed on them that are performed upon the death of baptised children. So those mothers’ grief carried on without end and no natural process to acceptance was achieved. They were left, silently with the trauma which was often visited upon the live siblings of those stillborn children through their mother’s unresolved grief. But now ‘limbo’ that was such a tyranny has been “buried” but is still a “ debatable theory” in the Catholic Church. Though sidelined, no visible amends have been made to those mothers and children who were both, as one, suffering in that self same limbo. The Catholic “Church” is nothing if not transactional . Perhaps these days if they were paid to rectify the individual unbaptised child’s plight, bring that infant back over the wall, to be joined in the consecrated grave with their mother, money could persuade them. I’ve yet to see that happen though, but I would be happy to stand corrected. And where is there a meaningful apology to all those heartbroken mothers, who never spoke? Nowhere to be found.
Imagine being the poor psychiatrist that got lumped with you on the NHS.
Thanks for this information that I knew nothing about, even though I was raised Catholic. There are so many ways in which the teachings of the catholic church are truly destructive to the human psyche from the fear of hell to repression of sexuality. The pain and suffering caused by the christian religion over the last 2000 years is truly unimaginable.
@wolfthequarrelsome is obviously an imbecile of the highest order, your comment could well be the most concise and informative I've ever read on youtube.
The NHS has been a marvellous institution…in your country, where I am not a citizen. You’re very lucky. My grandfather did, however fight in India and Mesopotamia in the British army in the 1900’s. He came home blind at 23 but he never, ever, was mean spirited or resentful. And neither am I.
@@nonpareilstoryteller5920 Who are you replying to? Your comment seems like a non-sequitur.
@@nonpareilstoryteller5920 tell us where you got your (mis)information from?
Awwww.... Chris hitchens. I would like to say "may god rest him" but I know that he (Hitchens!) would be insulted by that. One of the great men of our time. May you NEVER be forgotten!!
Anne says that the Church acted "within the limits of the time". Does she not realize that that makes her god powerless? And the church faithless? If the church is REALLY god's church, under his divine protection, why would they fear Hitler, Mussolini or anyone else?
As theists so often do, she is comparing an institution that is supposed to be in tough with and loved by an all-powerful god, with any other human organization. She is in effect, admitting the the church is nothing but another human institution.
I went to comment this & I'm glad it's high up on the comment list. I might add that if God is supposed to be all-powerful, good and omniscient, then it follows that it was necessarily God's plan for all of this to happen in the first place and the church, being his representative, is always doing good in his name. They can't say this, however, because it's complete bollocks. God is also supposed to be unchanging & therefore what is considered to be good should also be unchanging. Thus, good should transcend the times & the values should change from time to time & be judged as such. This isn't the case, however. Why didn't the church know any better if it is God's organisation?
It's not easy to completely articulate my thoughts here because there's a lot wrong with the whole stance - but I'm glad other people picked up on it.
@@justdavelewis Thank you! I was looking for such a comment as well. (As a former Muslim, I've had similar trouble with Islam)
Cheers!
@@justdavelewis What a lot of twaddle, the only sensible thing you said was that you were having trouble organising your thoughts, this debate was a farce, Hitchens and Fry both polished public speakers versus an African who can hardly speak English and a politician with a very annoying voice, a boxing match between Mr Bean and Mike Tyson comes to mind, the fix was in!
She just admitted that at that time God didn't know that raping children was wrong !!
@@darrengray3782 really? So where was he wrong? God shouldn't be unchanging? He's instead depending on society to tell him if slavery is still acceptable or not? Or did your omniscient all-loving God NOT condone slavery?
You've dismissed what he said out of hand yet done nothing to say what's specifically wrong with it. Please I wanna know.
I never noticed how laughable Widdicombe's argument of, "the time was bad therefore the church wasn't exceptionally bad" is in regards to child abuse.
I think she was referring to the middle ages. People like you are hung up on child abuse.
Is there something you'd like to tell us?
@@Kitiwake We dislike people who abuse children. That's what we'd like to tell you.
You, meanwhile, seem hell-bent on defending those people.
@@Kitiwake i think its say you didnt understand the comment about how it doesnt matter what time in ou rhistory it was including the middle ages thats no excuse for anyone to abuse children. Also saying people who hate the idea of any form of child abuse are "hung up on child abuse" is beyond a joke, if i thought like that id be ashamed of myself.
@@Kitiwake Go defend pedos somewhere else.
@@Kitiwake I think we should all be "hung up" on child abuse, mate. It's hardly appropriate to just sweep it aside.... unless you're the catholic church, that is.
“The Church is not about military force” unless we’re retaking Jerusalem am I right lads!?
The Catholic church is not Christian and will never be Christian.. The Catholic harlot will always be pagan luciferian Rome masquerading as a religious cult when in reality she's a highly organized satanic military organization and fascist at that with all the world leaders in her pocket.
@@dfstarborn Well that escalated quickly
@@dfstarborn what church are you with, Daithí?
@@Kitiwake I believe in the gospel according to the scritpures in the King James bible. 1 Cor 15:1-4, Rom 1:16 KJV So I guess I'd be an enemy of the luciferian Pope who hates fundamentalists who believe the infallible word of God.. Baptist fundamentalist who believes that Jesus eternally paid for my sin debt which is precious blood meaning i'm eternally pardoned from the lake of fire where all Jesuit catholics are going if they don't repent.
@@dfstarborn I m delighted to read that protesting though you are.
But just consider that there would be no KJV if there were no catholic church because the bible comes to us because of that same church.
It's an interesting contrast.
I could listen to Fry or Hitchens for hours,
But ten seconds of Anne Widdicome makes me wish I was deaf.
😂😂😂💯
It makes me wish she was dumb (in the original sense of the word. In the more modern sense, there are few who are dumber).
Let's face it, you're here to listen to Hitchens and Fry while reading the comments
ohhh yeah!
Yup!
Exactly. 👍
Yeah that's fair
Spot on
The only thing that never got a proper comeback from Hitch and Stephen was the idea that in countries where condoms are promoted HIV cases don't reduce. I just kept wanting them to say something like, "yes, in AIDS-ravaged countries condoms are promoted by under-funded organisations. However, in the same countries, the over-funded Catholic Church preaches that condoms cause AIDS." But now I've got that off my chest I can relax. Even if no-one actually reads this.
I read it, and I thank you for clarifying the point.
yup, i read it too and now i feel enlightened :)
Read and agreed my friend, and I felt the same. Thanks for that.
To say that condoms causes AIDS is illogical nonsense
and you just said that.
Promiscuity causes AIDS.
Five years later: it's still being read 😊
Hitchens: "Just drop the mic, Stephen. It's time to go to the bar."
Fry: "No... I've got a bit more."
Imagine being asked to debate against Fry and Hitchens and deciding that it's a good idea.
Agreed, one shouldn't waste time debating with shitlords.
Came here to say exactly this. Even the mere fact that I am to be debating against them would make me think again about what I believe in.
Eek aye, you'd almost feel sorry for them. Almost....
I love at 46:12, Hitchens reaches for his pen and paper and Stephen is smiling as he writes. It's like they both know Widdecombe is just about to hand them more ammunition for their argument.
@ANGELO IMMANUEL You're challenging a dead man to a debate? Hardly seems fair, Christopher still has a huge advantage, lol
@ANGELO IMMANUEL I also challenge everybody here to watch my content. Do leave a comment and like.
Thank you for pointing that out, made me chuckle..
Lmao dude straight up challenged a dead man to a duel of sorts XD
@@sagniksarkar2471 And he'd still lose
Found this video only recently, but haven't been able to stop re-watching Stephen Fry's amazing speech. While his side undoubtedly won the debate, it truly seemed like he was more invested in actually making an impact on the issue than "winning." He also showed that being open, emotional, and even vulnerable as a speaker absolutely doesn't weaken your arguments; it strengthens them. This is really important; I feel like in debates people are often so focused on "destroying" the opponent and looking stronger that they forget this.
He is a moral relativist, very dangerous future ahead.
@@koppite9600 you have 170 comments on this channel. Get a life lol
@@brandonborn9540 170 with a Muslim.
Do You even have one?
Emotionalism and anecdotes do not strengthen arguments, they place feelings over objective facts and are a tactic used for manipulation. The majority of his arguments were opinion based sophistry.
@@koppite9600 And religious people aren't moral relativists? That is the great myth among the religious: that their morals come from God's truth handed down, unchanged, throughout time. Except religious people's moral compass has changed. 70 years ago, homosexuality was illegal and most people in the Western world -- both secular and religious -- thought that homosexuality was evil. Now the majority of people -- both secular and religious -- believe that homosexuality is not evil and that it would be evil to throw people in prison for who they love. Religious people's morality changes. Some of them just don't admit that their morality changes.
I have rarely seen Christopher so intense, emotional and determined..Miss him!!!
It's rare that Hitch gets upstaged, but he did here. Hats off to Stephen.
I almost feel bad for the black dude, he had no idea what he got himself into
lol ikr
One thing I would have added is the low level of intelligence of religious people
That's just a mean, hateful comment. He is not speaking in his native language and it is hard to express yourself in a foreign language.
Jay S, it’s only another reason why it was a bad idea for him to go into this debate.
@@nathanjora7627 I agree with that. But there's no reason to suggest that he is intellectually disadvantaged.
Steven and Christopher are simply linguistical geniuses. That is a fact. I do wish to say however, as someone who speaks two languages and is learning another, the ability to debate in a language that is not your mother tongue, no less in front of a large group, is incredibly impressive.
Your 100% correct. Christopher and Steven are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to linguistic skill. I would love to know what those that are learning English think of this video? ❤❤
I suppose that you are referring to John Onaiyekan's command of English. Actually, English is the official language of his native Nigeria. This is not to put down his input in the debate, but be aware of the colonialist ramifications.
@@tbrowniscool You strike me as someone who is interested in languages and their use, so allow me to offer this correction: "Tip of the iceberg" doesn't refer to something being "the best of the best", which is what I think you intended the phrase to mean. A fitting phrase would be "the cream of the crop", but the "tip of the iceberg"-analogy means to say that something is only the start or only the surface of something bigger (like how icebergs are bigger beneath the waterline). As in, there is more to be un-/discovered about a topic.
@@TheYuvimon We don't tend to use the term "cream of the crop" in England
@@tbrowniscool Cream of the crop is fine. So its "the absolute pinnacle", meaning the absolute very best at something
This was utterly priceless viewing.
My favourite moments are those when, during Ms Widdecombe's rather shrill efforts, one can see Hitchens frantically scribbling notes for his rebuttal while Fry looks on and smirks at what he sees written there.
I'm reminded of the oft-heard warnings about the folly of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Sadly for Ms Widdecombe, she seems to have arrived equipped with a feather duster.
No, she arrived with her beliefs being on the wrong side of the closest approximation to the absolute truth.
🤣🤣
you could also say that the cardinal brought a knife to the gunfight, but that was AW, who is not a sharp knife by far. More of a spoon, or a feather duster as you put it :D
Imagine believing that it was possible to transubstantiate a wafer and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but a flesh and blood woman cannot REPRESENT Christ. Imagine being taught that male and female were made in God’s imagine, that Christ was God made flesh, yet still women cannot represent God through the priesthood. It’s fascinating from an atheist’s perspective how so much Catholic dogma disintegrates with no other argument than pointing out the contradictions within their own sacred text.
Good logic. It’s very sad though.
How are transubstantiation, a definition of the 12th century and the 6th century tradition of the non ordination of women to the priesthood even remotely related, for you to form that conclusion?
@@KitiwakePerhaps not exactly related but what Jude obviously means is that on the one hand they are willing to believe something so entirely insane to be reality, while on the other hand, their willingness to embrace utter supernatural madness doesn't quite stretch to allowing women to represent Christ, simply because they are women.
The Bible spells it out clearly from the Catholic churches view that men own women. God created man but needed Adam's rib in order to create Eve. The church has raised religious men to see women as their property. Organized religion is the most damaging thing humanity ever created.
"For shame, if you could feel it." - Hitch
What actually is*shame?
The disapproval of the majority?
That makes the majority right, of course.
@@Kitiwake The it's not right to perhaps force captive women to marry? Or to have loopholes to keep some... servants... for life...?
@@chrissonofpear1384 no no no... those arent servants sir we prefer to call them priests and nuns they work for us and do whatever we tell them to as long as we say "the master your god commands you"
th-cam.com/video/Hp3_kbwWsPU/w-d-xo.html
Ann: our opponents always bring up these things
Stephen: we bring these things up because they matter
Stephen had the kindest message
Nothing matters if we're here by random chance.
@@MaxInAus not true, its just not unconditional, for instance i am here by random chance, but id die in an instant to protect my family, because although completely random, they raised me, they took care of me, they taught me and made me the person i am, the randomness of the universe means we get to give things value from our own perspectives, not just things are special because an almighty god created them.
black lives matter
because the Catholic Church keeps sweeping it under the rug.
I like how the first thing out of Widdecombe's mouth during her rebuttal is a blatant lie - that in order to criticize the Catholic Church, Hitchens had to go back to the Crusades. As if everyone there didn't hear him talk about modern anti-Semitism, the AIDS pandemic, and a long list of ongoing abuses of the Church. It's like Leslie Nielsen standing in front of an exploding fireworks factory crying "nothing to see here!" in the Naked Gun.
The church contributes 25% of GLOBAL relief for AIDS victims.
Don't dare criticize the church with lies.
@@Kitiwake If someone burns down your house and then pays you financial restitution, would your first reaction be to thank them for the money? Contributing to relief efforts for AIDS is the least the Church can do after contributing to its spread. Hell, I grew up with a Catholic education in the 2000s and I still had priests telling me that condoms are worse than AIDS.
@@Kitiwake You always run out the same old percentages but never answer a question about the harm it's done.
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." Voltaire
I love at 1:16:40 the bishop literally says that the people in Africa knew the rules of the Ten Commandments before they ever heard them because they are basic morality….. completely screwing the argument that the Bible was needed in order for us people to learn them…. Hitches even says “well you don’t need the Bible for that”
Well, of course you don't need the bible to know basic human morality, which makes us all culpable when we offend it. The bible provides a much wider source of God's word than just the ten commandments and a limitless resource for those who embrace it.
@@PapaJoeWalsh "The bible provides a much wider source of God's word than just the ten commandments and a limitless resource for those who embrace it."
The bible (which one exactly?) isn't the word of god. It never claimed to be, nor should it be taken as. John 1:1 even specifies that jesus is the word of god, not the bible. The bible is a compilation of books, revised, edited, and doctored by those in positions of authority or influence. On that note, why believe it, what does god need a book for?
@@rageofheaven Hi Rageofheaven. Good questions. There is only one Christian bible - multiple translations, but one bible.
Yes, Jesus is the Word of God i.e. God made incarnate, taking on the form of a human being. The passage you refer to in John 1 is an incredible and deeply moving piece.
The bible may not call itself the Word of God, but the Christian people do. We believe that the Lord speaks to us clearly through His Word, which He inspired men to write over hundreds of years. That's what we believe and you are entitled to disagree.
God doesn't need any books or anything else for that matter. He inspired the bible for our benefit, not for His.
In terms of people in authority doctoring the bible. First of all, why would they do that? There would be no benefit in anyone changing the bible; they would have to change most of it, and then it wouldn't be the bible, the Word of God and would be recognised as such, and wouldn't have ensured for thousands of years with exactly the same meaning for every line. Some meaning has become even more clear as more and more ancient documents have been discovered. They have confirmed over and over again the veracity of each book in the bible; and yes, you are of course correct, the bible is a collection of different books, of different genres and from different times. That's one of the many amazing things about it!
@@PapaJoeWalsh " Hi Rageofheaven. Good questions. There is only one Christian bible - multiple translations, but one bible. "
The issue, however, is that translations can change interpretation. Hell, for example, is used commonly in situations where it is not the correct term. Gehenna, Tartarus, and a few others are all labeled as "hell", when in fact, they are not all "hell" but different places all together.
"Yes, Jesus is the Word of God i.e. God made incarnate, taking on the form of a human being. The passage you refer to in John 1 is an incredible and deeply moving piece. "
People helping people without any incentive or reward is deeply moving, a book proclaiming a way to cheat death is not.
"The bible may not call itself the Word of God, but the Christian people do. We believe that the Lord speaks to us clearly through His Word, which He inspired men to write over hundreds of years. That's what we believe and you are entitled to disagree. "
The christians also do not call the bible the word of god, jesus is. While you could say the bible contains the word of god, you're still hearing it through the mouths of men. If god were so powerful, he would not need a mouthpiece.
"God doesn't need any books or anything else for that matter. He inspired the bible for our benefit, not for His. "
So as to inspire confusion amongst his believers? There should not need be more than one version of it, in a language we could all understand.
"First of all, why would they do that?"
To assert divine authority. Romans 9:17. I would suggest you get away from evangelism and start investigating biblical scholarship, you're going to find out it's not nearly as reliable of a source of authority as you believe.
@@PapaJoeWalsh then explain why the Ethiopian bible is so different and the schism between the coptic christians and the helenistic ones of the west, the bible is the oldest form of propaganda, it's the absolute definition of the thought police. Christians and all other monotheists can't stand the attitude of live and let live they are always trying to conquer peoples minds, it's the oldest type of cold war they even call it spiritual warfare they can't help themselves.
"the only ones obsessed....anorexics and morbidly obese.....and that, in a nutshell, is the catholic church". this is one of those fry moments that will last eternally. chapeau.
Says the fat suicidal
Some ego to assume he could fit the Catholic Church into a nutshell...lol
“How can this church say it has any moral superiority when it has difficulty catching up to what ordinary people regard as common moral and ethical sense and it still can’t make itself apologize properly”... another nail on the coffin of religion
Not religion. Mainly the Roman Catholic Church. It's a very greedy and wicked organization. Definitely NOT the church that Christ established.
@@jmanalo7159 christ didn't establish any church. Christ, in a historical context, was a jew. I would like to argue that he was just a very charming rabbi who thought too highly of himself and got himself nailed (not the good kind). Many years after his anhialation, his fans then spiced up his life story, placing contradictions here and there whilst sprinkling a few historical locations and tidbits. It's a good story but it's not true.
@@proculusjulius7035 there's no historical evidence of jesus existence. Only tales that have been told.
Show me the time stamp what the pro motion side claimed moral superiority.
@@proculusjulius7035 i regularly find that people who claim biblical knowledge dont know the bible at all.. as in your case.
What was Matt 16:18, Pentecost and Acts then?
The saddest part about this is, the archbishops ancestors “found” the religion he’s promoting thru force and subjugation. Smmfh
Religion at the point of a sword.
The first thing Ann did was accuse Hitchens of misrepresenting the catholic church, and in the very next breath she goes on to misrepresent his arguments. She said he had to go back to the crusades in order to try and disprove the notion that "the catholic church is a force for good" when even I can remember without going back that he spoke a lot about the protection of pedophile priests and the churches condemnation of homosexuals. Which she later tries to address, along with the nazi points, which im pretty sure was also quite a bit after the crusades and the sacking of Constantinople.
Or even inbetween now and the crusades.
The various actions of the church in south America with the bishops that accompanied the conquistadors after 1492.
Or fanning the flames of the medieval English religious troubles simply by denying Henry VIII a divorce - that has to be the greatest shot in the foot that the Catholic church has ever done to its own cause of a unified Christian faith.
There is nothing wrong with condemning certain acts. All value systems do that, whether it’s atheists condemning people for eating meat, or Christianity not approving of two blokes bumming each other.
@@littleceasar9351 yeah good point i too know of a lot of cases where people are executed and tortured because they ate meat. or whole countries of anti-meat maffia beating you up in the streets if they heard you ate a steak. even more so, the majority of people who are vegetarian are religious, do with that what you like. your argument consists out of 2 completely unrelated things trying to normalize yourp oint of view. another example of that would be like this: people can have thoughts, theists can think they already had a cup of coffee this morning and atheists can think that religion and all its aspects and history is a big sham made by a bunch of nonces wanting to garner power over the lesser educated people stuck in a loop of misinformation. just because both are thinking doesnt mean that theyre equal by any means
@@littleceasar9351 I've never condemned anyone for eating meat it's none of my business what you want to eat.
@@littleceasar9351 Hi, omnivore atheist here. Atheism doesn't necessitate condemnation of your diet.
I love how during Anne's argument, Christopher is just quietly writing a tome of rebuttals
Yes, as I said, above, I would love to see all the notes.
Did you see Anne widdecombe constantly speaking over Hitchens & Fry? The only reason she failed to interrupt them was her mic was turned off.
@@tracygallagher4632yes.... But she's still alive and thriving today while Hitch is toast and Fry is a drooling idiot.
That’s how a debate should be. You listen to what your opponent says and you take notes to properly come back to address their points.
I can honestly say that Stephen Fry's speech is one of the most moving and powerful ones I have ever heard.
Yes, he hammered home, the key aspects. A graceful display of power. His position cornered them all. Hitchens and Fry together. Fuck.
@@gaz2276 Mind you, considering the pathetic opposition they faced, even if Fry and Hitchins had had a seriously off ' night, , they would have still wiped the floor with them. At times the difference between the two sides was embarrassing.
Also a tad hypocritical, given that Stephen Fry advocates lowering the age of consent and has defended paedophiles. How is he the person that should attack the church on its sexual teachings? He certainly does not have the moral high ground here.
@@91Durktheturk When has he defended paedophiles? Please quote instances and provide links.
@@91Durktheturk No reply. Now there's a surprise! Doesn't your religion teach you that thou shalt not lie about other people?
The saddest part is the two pro church people walked away from this, not learning that they need to change, but blaming the other side.
Own your mistakes, fix your errors.
Well then WHAT ARE YOU FOR!!
Iñigo Martinez Lopez they never answered that question?
They didnt answer a lot of questions...
Iñigo Martinez Lopez
One of the BEST parts. So hilarious! That's how I always felt when I was younger, I couldn't ever get straight answers from them. So, fuck them.
His voice boomed a bit didn't it? :D sounded like the Nintendo Sixty FOUUUUR kid... (search youtube)
That was the entire event condensed into one beautifully expressed question, well done Stephen.
The way the motion was phrased was refreshing; rather than debating the truth value of any doctrine, it went straight to its general, humanitarian value. Ironically, the Archbishop basically said all that was needed in a single statement to argue against the motion: His father (allegedly) knew how to be a good, moral person before converting. If one knows how to be a good person without a specific faith, then that faith is at best superfluous, and at worst antithetical.
He was an absolute wreck at what he was there for. Modern seminaries are in a pitiful state. A shame we cannot really see a Renaissance Jesuit logician putting these sophists in their right place.
Man, just listening to Hitchens and Fry really helps me restore some sanity in these crazy times full of misinformation and extremists
👍
Yeah, one has to find some way to feel some joy and relief from what now is! Reason and intelligence is fun, wish more folks would improve their neighborhood by trying it out. Asking a bit much to find it in the comment sections these days.
I almost feel bad for the bishop. You can tell he's a good guy at heart, and English isn't his native language. And then you just watch Christopher Hitchens getting introduced. He's takes a nice sip of his drink, and then it's like watching a nuclear bomb destroy an anthill. Then it's followed up by a second nuclear bomb with Fry.
I noticed a nun, sitting in the front row of the audience, who never claps. She seems to mirror a total disbelief of what is said about the church. Perhaps she hears it for the first time - but if so, it shows also the absolute absence and lack of training in critical thinking and scientific literacy. Watching her (as so many others in the church) makes me sad!
What if she just didn't feel like clapping?
She's ina K hole.
@@MrKit9 😂
They won't educate them in critical thinking because if they did, they'd have nobody left to indoctrinate.
@@kuolemanlaakso1696 Hang on! They are indoctrinated as children, long before being old enough to chooses nunning as a career. And it's not just "critical thinking" (as if!), it's any kind of questioning. Try: th-cam.com/video/YQ3dL5tJx6M/w-d-xo.html :)
I come back to this every other year, it really strengthens my belief, and restores my faith and unwavering reverence in Hitchins and Fry's solidity and teachings.
From your description, they've founded a new religion.
@@Kitiwake i´ll join that! Where do i sign.
@@Kitiwake i think that is the joke
Had us in the first half I ain't gon lie
Me too. The US is in need of Hitchens today more than ever.
I love that Fry always looks like he's internally having a laugh at something. It's incredibly dissarming and effective, and I don't think he even does it consciously. It's just who he is.
Thinking about his husband.
@@Kitiwake Ye maybe he husband said something funny he just couldn't stop thinking about, or maybe someone else did. Good stuff by the way, to assume what you know Fry was thinking about, I didn't realise telepathy was a thing nowadays.
@@mrshankly213 it's not that.
It's just a quip, you know.
In his autobiography he mentions it's why he was cast in the types of roles he is and that people often confuse it for arrogance
@@Kitiwake So what if he is?
One of my biggest dreams is to one day become as eloquent, intelligent, imaginative, creative and kind as Stephen Fry.
Ann Widdicombe really was a great argument for the negative.
Her condescension and arrogance were palpable.
That's always her way, she's a one trick pony!
@@Mr_Mz518 "Palpable arrogance" was a feature of more than one debater lol
@@elegast1819 that's only the tip of her iceberg though
It's her M.O.
Anns joke about condoms is in bad taste. it's not just condoms it's the life and health of so many people and when they are not used the suffering and death of millions.
Brendan Butler the catholic church seems to be trying to distract from the fact that they are in opposition to ABC (abstinence, be faithful, correct use of condoms), which has been shown to work, by pointing out that telling people "just use condoms and you can fugg without worry" is dangerous. no shit, pope.
Well, that's probably because she's a monster from the depths of Hell.
I started in the "against" camp and expected to stay in that camp - but I was still surprised at how unable the "For" group were to make any decent points for their case. There was not a single point they made that was not either nonsense, or successfully countered. Not familiar with Hitchens from before, but he was an absolute joy to listen to. The world is a worse place for not having him in it anymore.
The fact that there was no proper defence to the changing morals of the Church was very poor. After all if the church can't know any better than anyone else, despite them claiming just that, then what is the point in following their morals over another.
Reply of the month xx
So agree.
Hitchens was a force to be reckoned with. I too was already on the Against side, but was still amazed at how poorly the For side debated. Was one of the few times I've seen Fry actually get angry when talking. That the before to after votes went that far is pretty amazing to see.
@@benwu7980 Yes! I loved that, we need more debates like this to show people that the points religion and religious people make to discriminate or damage others, are invalid and nonsense. I truly believe religion is the root of most evil. Can't say all as some are not, but definitely most of it.
history is absolutely important. Without history we learn nothing about our past, present or future.
What a great time to be alive when debates like these can happen, and what an amazing partnership with Hitch and Fry
The Arch Bishop and Anne had not a hope in hell when debating against these two.
@@mikecooper2566I agree especially because they were wrong. They had no chance against hitch and fry
@@mikecooper2566 Sadly, the bishop and Anne were not good at defending their faith and there would have been far greater speakers who would have utterly flawed Fry and Hitchens' arguments.
stephen fry is accused of being far right so i doubt this could happen today. 2 white guys mannspain to a woman of colour would be closer to the headline.
@@jeffisnot2826 why are you bringing race in to this discussion? It has nothing to do with it
The Archbishop pretty much said nothing for 12 minutes.
Except calling Ann Widdecombe, "Mrs Weatherman"
@@VivaMidnight lmao he actually did
@@VivaMidnight Only worthy thing he said 😂😂
That's one of the main prerequisites to become a priest in the first place. I reckon we got lucky with a measly 12 minutes, those who reach his rank are professional word-saladists and have the ability to drone on for hours.
Not concerning this debate, yet Widdecombes voice is the best evidence ever I found against intelligent design.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Jesus man 💀😂😂🤦🏿♂️
I looked up Widdecombes Voice thinking it was a named argument similar to the Kalam Cosmological Argument XD
@@mandibozo1294 LOL.
I have never heard Widdecombe utter any kind of argument.XD
I Q, your joking, the egos of some people amaze me as many do. Just unadulterated b.s., food supply for billions has been acheived, will it continue ? People are manipulated with the high costs ,trickle up effect to augment the wealthy.Concept or construct ,any monotheistic indoctrination will be the reserve of the people who can't escape the cruelty of modern slave society. Most likely the abuse will continue.
Good to see how ruthless people like Ratzinger are being exposed.
stephen fry is the only man in history to match christopher hitchens on stage.
What... For fashion?
Steven is a force to be reckoned with.
Chris is (☹was) a legend
Ermmm George Galloway destroyed him one on one over Iraq
I might put Sam Harris on that same level, but Harris has certainly never reached the same level of charisma as Hitchens and Fry.
This really was a high watermark for Fry, I must say. This was absolutely incredible.
Richard Dawkins
How lucky are we to be alive in the same time as Stephen Fry?
Marina Panteli So lucky, but not lucky enough to include Christopher Hitchens :(
Not for long.
@@darrengray3782 why?
Well he was ill and he seems to have disappeared, I think that we will get the news soon, could be wrong, but if I was a betting man...
@@darrengray3782 I think he had the cancer removed, didn't he?
Listening to Fry speak always reminds me to read a book. I can literally sit and listen to him speak for hours.
He has narrated multiple audiobooks e.g. all Harry Potter books, all Sherlock Holmes stories etc. It is fenomenal! Love his voice!
I know, right? Makes me feel like I don't know English :P
"Hi, we're the church. We don't have sex so we don't have families. Now let us tell you how to run a family"
.... religion is the most embarassing thing humanity will ever have to admit we engaged in
Hi we're an atheist and we like having sex with our own gender in fact we're now creating new genders, lots of them, just like God created Adam.
@@Kitiwake How pathetic even for a brainwashed old paddy
When you see Hitchens taking notes with a wry smile on his face, you know you're gonna be boiled alive.
Noticed how 90% of the Audience that talk with a Catholic point of view never brought up a point but just preach and use their misplaced faith as a shield from the shit hitting the fan.
Huh?
It's all: Ehmmmm uhnnnn Catholic church is good coz Jeeesus.
“I am obsessed with sex... ever since I discovered that my god given male member was going to give me no peace, I decided to give it no rest in return”
- Christopher Hitchens
You admire that?
As it should be
@@FerretDealer Borh were homosexuals with an active history.
@@Kitiwake sounds like someones jealous
@Steve Meikle i think the point is that since it doe no one harm it doesnt matter, we all have our own senses of right and wrong, you can choose to do whatever you want with your "male organ" (its called a penis by the way) aslong as it doesnt affect anyone else in a harmful way.
It seems the more educated we become, the better we understand the natural world through science, the less we need religion. Change is slow but constant.
Hahaha Just keep waiting, you will be amazed in the end.