@@Dionysos640 Apparently they had a heartfelt conversation shortly before Christopher died. Besides, your argument claims that Peter is a hypocrite, as if YOU knew what being a good Christian means. Earnest atheists are simply theists grappling with the inevitable.
ABSOLUTELY! & dont be a shithead. if you want the whole thing there are no excuses for your lack of searching it is in here. i would like to say, many of us have played the game long enough and desire the condensation. im not sure why this is recommended i am complete opposite, though eloquent peter sounds like the big brother thats pissed his brother is smarter.
Maybe because some people don't have hours to sit and listen to the whole thing? Breaking each speaker up into their own video is ideal for people who can only watch small parts at a time. Just a thought
I love European culture! Look at this. Opposing ideas meeting in a forum where the opposition sits and listen, takes notes and applauded the speaker for his presentation.
While here in Asia if you started to opposing a religion in public they will bring up the blasphemy law to end any conversation and put you into jail for criticizing an idea/ideology.
@@muhammadhabibalfarabi568 i reckon they do that since criticsm of an ideology weakens the foundation of why theyre in the position theyre in, they just use the ideology as an excuse to silence anyone who can risk their careers
@@jupitermoongauge4055, no he didn't. Guess which brother spat his dummy out and refused to speak to the other for four years because the other one publicly reminded him of embarrassing views? The atheist Stalinist one.
@@tsarnicholasii274 agreed, as a Christian I am actually interested in the atheist point of view but Dawkins is a joke. I couldn’t even get past the introduction of The God Delusion without him making insults and constantly advertising his website
So are we supposed to choose poverty. I say then peter hitchins should give all his inheritance if any to charity and live in a dingy bedsit somewhere and bus it plus eat less.
Content Paradise ,there’s no social concept of God , without an epistemological argument to ground his existence in the first place . You can’t just wish him into being , because you see social benefits in doing so .
@@christopherchay7593 Not really, what about young adults and teens who have been raised as religious or atheists by their families and are now trying to search their selves. Such debates and dialogues help people challenge their childhoods and make decisions.
@@sohamshah7638I totally agree, but, there are already more than enough. I'm one of those searching people myself. All that anyone needs to know is love God, (good morals if you're an atheist) love each other and love science. It's just... I've never really seen much good come out of these things. There always seems to be this wicked animosity within the debate room and the comments. If it has to be done at least let it be more constructive. I think the bible even says that these types of debates are a waste of time. how about they debate which is more useful? Atheism or belief in God? The one guy even says it himself during the debate.
@@interget1605 yeah that is true, just... We now know the baseline. just treat people as though you love them. I'm sure most atheists would agree with what Jesus said.
Calvin Cardwell well..his brother is dead. I’m thinking reunions won’t happen. And who knows if it will ever happen, in another realm ;) Since Peter and Christopher disagreed on what happens after!
Peter Hitchens, at his most plummy-mouthed brilliance. I love him. I may disagree with what he says, but, like his brother, Chris, he is an amazingly eloquent, knowledgeable and passionate speaker.
@Chris . You know I wasn't sure if I had seen the thumbnail correctly. I was like has Chris changed his mind and then I realized it said Peter. Yet I wasn't convinced and was like are they brothers and yes you confirmed it. Must have been interesting in the family then because of Chris I never thought there could be one closer to him who had a different opinion
pete the fuckwit, using all of his limited intellect to perpetuate delusion, determining himself by opposing every objective thought his brilliant brother argued.
“Why would you want to live in a Universe without God”? It’s the way it is, it’s not about what I want. This is ridiculous duh... “Why would you want to live in a purposeless Universe ?” Again, it’s not wat l want, it’s about the truth 🙄 “Why would you want to live in a chaotic Universe” first of all it’s not chaos it’s has consistent rules. At a quantum level there is an inherent randomness but even there you always get the same probabilities for repetitive experiments. The initial conditions were perhaps absolutely arbitrary. From then everything that happened followed rules and finally now many systems have a sort of stability. Again, it’s not about what we want “They do want the Universe to be purposeless” we do?! This man is full of rage 🙄 It’s such a shame 5:10 “it is very fashionable” is he thinking he is addressing rebel teen agers ?! He doesn’t seem to have any idea about how a man that understands there is no god thinks 😒 7:08 “they want to have the advantages of christianity but not pay the tolls” 😂 it’s exactly the opposite as we partly pay them but we don’t get any advantages because there are none
The thing is even what you explained is not the absolute "truth". Believing that way is just like religion. That's kind of what I got out of his speech. That's why he kept mention them "wanting" it to be that way.
I never heard of this man but he has framed the topic in a fresh way, both diffusing the tired binary arguments that neither side can prove and just focusing on choice. Making the leap of faith, or not, is the choice.
Precisely. It is a choice and one born, if done with sincerity and honesty and integrity, out of the realisation that you have reached the border of rationality and here the choice is to either say there is nothing beyond or to say: right, let us now enter into the realm of the non-rational. Not irrational, which is a conclusion you can arrive at via rationality and is existentially different from non-rational. My gripe is this constant schtick with the believers about non-believers being in essence amoral. Given what we have seen of believers and their actions, I think it is safe to say that it should be something discussed in hushed tones by believers. Faulting non-believers as being amoral and incapable of thought and action consistent with the well being of humanity and its prospering and fluorishing (including formulating around the concept of "injustice) is just so old and so worn. And also, so irrational. It is ironic that Hitchens speaks both of the sublime non-rational and then gives an irrational support for it. Very sad to see.
The other side needs to prove nothing. You make a claim about the existence of God. So you need to prove he exists. Atheists do not need to prove he doesn't. His absence already proves that.
@@perfectcell2418 You make the usual error most atheists make in that you assume anything needs to be done at all. Take a step back and for a moment truly ponder what you are looking at. Does anything NEED to be done in regards to God existing or not? Really? Are you facing a forced choice or anything of that nature where this "need" can be derived from? If not, then I think you will agree that nothing needs to be done. This is purely a matter of choice, want, freedom, interest, temperament, personal experience and the journey some take into the non-rational.
Unfortunately Peter fell victim to the same plight of most apologist debaters in that he says so much without saying anything and people just eat it up or call it a win despite no ground being broken at all.
@@zaxbitterzen2178 No, he did say something important: He reframed the debate as an atheist had reframed it....Why do atheists WANT to believe in a pointless universe?
4:45 "Do you want it, or do you not want it." No, I do not want it, Peter Hitchens. Because as you just admitted in the previous 40 seconds, you are MAKING IT ALL UP for your own personal comfort. I however, as a rational human being, understand that making things up because you're scared, does not actually make them REAL. Which is what the issue is about! How embarrassing, to stand before Oxford University students and deliver such blatant twaddle.
WHAMMO! I share Hitchens' exhaustion and boredom with the question of whether or not there is a God, which is why I appreciated his cutting beyond that question to ask the question about epistemology and motivation. He wasn't trying to present an argument for God existing: he was challenging the assumptions that people bring into that question... Assumptions about what qualifies as evidence, assumptions about what qualify as morals, assumptions about the way the world works, assumptions about how society works (or ought to). Despite all the people insulting him in the comments (no y'all, both Hitchens boys are and were blubbering and hard to listen to... Christopher and Peter have great voices but are terrible public speakers), Hitchens was the only one who was completely HONEST about explaining his own motivations for holding the views he has. And he was dead on about how pointless, tired, and worthless (and self-contradictory) the counterarguments were. Nobody but him asked the fundamental question about what your epistemological and motivational assumptions are when even ASKING the question of whether God exists.
As much as I appreciate the lesser Hitchen's articulate explanation of his reasons for his belief, they are-as he concedes-just beliefs. And this is the problem I have with faith. It's a poor mechanism for us to reach the truth. You could take literally anything on faith; it requires no proof, no evidence, nothing except your own conviction. It's literally the stance of; "I believe this, even though I have no good reason to believe it". And if you HAD a good reason, you wouldn't need faith. Faith is the excuse people proffer to excuse their gullibility.
So you think all the martyrs that have died for Jesus are just gullible? All the Popes up to the IV century died of martyrdom and you think they were just gullible? That Thomas Aquinas and Saint Agustin were gullible?? Up to the XV century all Christians believed the same so millions of people lived and died and were gullible? A bit presumptuous…
@@carlosruiz184 I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. There's no evidence that Jesus existed. None. So those martyrs, devout as they were, died for their beliefs in a story that cannot ever be confirmed. What other word would you use to describe the absolute belief in something that cannot be shown, demonstrated, proven, or verified?
But there is more evidence for a creator than there is for spontaneous bang theory- now THAT takes huge faith. Everything we look at is seen through a lens of belief - 😊
Peter doesn't want to live in a "disgusting," insignificant and purposeless universe. Sorry, but the logical corollary of this wish isn't the reality of its antithesis. The universe doesn't owe you fulfilment of, or correspondence to, your personal desires.
"why is it that we atheist want there NOT to be a God" We don't. I would love the idea that there is a all loving father up in the sky who will take care of us when we die and our eternal soul. It's just that we haven't seen any evidence for that claim. None whatsoever. This has nothing to do with "wanting" it to be that way. Me wanted something has no bearing on that thing actually... being that way. Peter's argument is essentially: "I can't accept the possibility that I am insignificant and nothing matters". I don't know either way, but I will post that regardless of what I think is acceptable or not, the world is what it is: either god exists or he doesn't. But me find things un-acceptable is irrelevant to the truth of them. This video has again confirmed my understanding that there is no evidence for god. He just admitted as much himself. And he just admitted himself: if nobody believed in God, there would be chaos! If that's the case, that says more about us than about God. Make of that what you will.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 That's exactly what he said. Weren't you listening? "After many years of not believing in God, (I) came round to the view that I would choose to do so and act as if there is a God."
@@made4mystery930 It's literally not what he said. Nowhere did he say God did in fact exist because of the things he discusses. This was a discussion about theists and atheists. Not about the existence of God and if he had proof for it. He literally said nobody in that room could prove or disprove the existence of God and that was right at the start. "After many years of not believing in God, (I) came round to the view that I would choose to do so and act as if there is a God." Nowhere here does he say this was his evidence of God. "isn’t much of an argument." It's not intended as an argument. You may not know for certain that mummy is coming home at eleven instead of twelve but you may elect to behave that she will, so that you may do the dishes before she gets home as instructed and avoid a potential spanking. Why are you people so damn dishonest?
There is no TRUTH without God, if there is no God, than truth is only relative ( just a matter of opinion) and therefore not truly TRUTH. BECAUSE... Your truth is your opinion and my truth is my opinion and there is no standard to declare by, what Truth truly is. God is the ultimate Judge by which HE give us the TRUTH we must live by. Don't believe in God, do whatever you want, there is no true justice, not now, not ever.
Tammy Isbell Truth is a belief or statement that accurately describes reality. So to say that “there is no truth without god” would mean that a belief or statement can’t accurately describe reality unless there is a god. How would you prove that to be the case?
@@jeremiahsilva7458 lol, dogma like secularism, scientism, or atheism? Depopulation, green agenda, all have no dogma right? And the bible establishing modern civilised societies, not really very disgusting..
A purposeless chaos??, he’s claiming there’s a reason to believe in god because he wants no free will and he wants to live in a picture perfect society with no opposition of a singularly idea, he’s essentially saying he wants the false idea of purpose, a fake idea that this isn’t it, as comforting as it is, there’s no reason to base your life on a false idea of purpose and eternal life. Edit: DID HE LITERALLY SAY ACT??, Yeah he did, he wants to literally just act like there’s a god for morality and purpose. Good grief.
A picture perfect society is certainly preferable to the alternative. It's hard to imagine you consider that a bad thing. And if belief in God leads to a more ideal society, that certainly lends credence to the idea that there is a God, no? In a perfect world, people would treat each other with dignity, and this only happens with a belief in God, a higher design, and an afterlife.
John Johnson The Problem is that there's too many gods and everyone believes their god is the one. That's been the biggest cause of wars for centuries. So if there were ONLY one God or even better NO god at all then the world must surely be a better place.
@@daisick7953 When it comes to everyone thinking their religion is the true one, that much I will give you, so in that regard you just have to do your own research. I am Catholic because the Bible was written and the events therein were confirmed by multiple primary sources, which I believe gives it precedence over something like Islam, which is based almost exclusively on visions Muhammad had in a cave. However, when it comes to your remark about all wars being religious, that is plainly false. Wars are started and justified for any number of reasons, and there hasn't been a major religious war outside of the Middle East for at least 200 years.
1:27 "And it's not serious for a simple reason: It's not argueing about what we ought to be argueing about" 4:40 "That really is what we are discussing: Do you want it, or do you not want it" No, that is absolutely not what the discussion is about. He's doing exactly what he's accusing the other side of. The discussion is not "Do you want to live in a world where there is a god?" but "Is there a god?". Pretty weak arguement from his side.
The purest mind is that of a child.... The child seeks questions of his existence at a very early age. The child never gets the right answers because grownups keep giving the wrong answers. How very sad!
Yes the purest mind is that of a new born child. Every child is born an atheist (ie they don't believe in a god). This is soon corrupted by the pressures from their parents and society to conform to the beliefs prevalent in the place where they are raised. Judaism and Islam in the middle East, Buddhist and Hindu in the far East, Catholic and Protestant in America. Strange how these different religions are all concentrated in their own specific areas. It's almost as if they were just made up by the locals in that area.
@Jonty You lost me at "In fact the bible tells us...". Why should I believe what the Bible says? Because the Bible says I should believe it? That's a circular argument which is proof of nothing.
6:37 - 6:50 is outrageous. This is quite ridiculous, especially since he did not actually argue for the existence of god, just said that belief in god makes life great and good.
I think they had terrible conversations where every one of his epistemological claims kept getting debunked so now he's clamored back to a moral argument that does not have anything to do with the nature of the debate around God's existence.
2:20 For all of you theist praising Peter. He admits he doesn’t know...that no one knows. He then goes on to make a wish list as to why he hopes there is a god. Sorry, but this doesn’t prove a theistic deity.
He said that he cannot argue for the existence of god any more than an atheist can argue against it. We don't fully know how the universe came to be and either side can explain away whatever the other comes up with. He instead argues against a world without the belief in god which is a much better question to debate.
@@alexb7799 Well, you can argue against the abrahamitic God without difficulty. But one or more higher realities or dimensions, purpose behind the universe and consciousness as the fundamental reality - that is much harder to argue against. And there is where I think the really interesting debate is. Between those concepts and materialsm.
@rasmuslernevall6938 I believe his argument is 1.) no one can prove or disprove the existence of God, it's a matter of choice and 2.) a person and society in general are all better off with a believe in God because A.) acts as restraining force for the rich, the powerful, the ruthless, the criminals against what we all know as injustice and immoral actions, B.) provides some degree of purpose of life and ones actions and the holds out the promise of life after death
This is a stupid argument. He's saying that it would be great if God exists, not arguing in any way for the existence of God. If anything he's saying it's quite likely that humans invented a God because it's so nice to think that a God exists.
HE GETS PRAISE FOR HIS WELL READ SPEECH AND STERN DELIVERY OF WORDS THAT SOUNDED LIKE THE BEST HIP HOP RAP OF THE YEAR HE IS A STAR OF THE HOOD AND THE GHETTO HE HAS WON OVER OUR HEARTS WITH THE GRACE AND CHARM OF A PROPHET.
@Hal Landy voice text. Errors bound to happen lol. The premise shown here is presumed and is an opinion, not a valid premise for a truth statement. You made this assertion with no premises given. So the statement is merely an assertion without premises, a conclusion which is declared as Truth, yet is without evidence of its own Truth value. It is presented as universal, and it is taken that way by Atheists who intend to deny any responsibility for giving rational reasons for their rejection of theist evidence (either disciplined deduction, or material empirical evidence). Yet it is possible to conceive of exceptions to the Razor, so it is not a incontroverible rule of either logic or universal epistemology. The Demonstration of Non-Coherence: A statement which self-refutes is paradoxical, i.e. non-coherent. Hitchens’ statement not only cannot prove itself, nor is there any evidence of its universal truth, it has the unfortunate characteristic of providing the means for its own dismissal: If the statement is true, then it is dismissable as without value. If it is dismissed without value, then how can it be true and valuable? It cannot. Paradox and non-coherence render a concept to be non-logical and irrational, and that is the fate of Hitchens’ Razor. Consequences For Atheists Who Attempt to Use Hitchens’ Concept: Hitchens’ comment regarding dismissing without evidence backfires directly into the faces of Atheists who try to use it in defense of their denial of intellectual responsibility for their rejection of actual theist evidence, both material and non-material. The Atheist denial of the intellectual burden to rationally defend their rejection is never accompanied with any evidence in its support of the denial, just as their rejection itself is never accompanied with any evidence. Because Atheists have no evidence to support the position that there is no god, that position also is dismissable under Hitchens’ decree. In fact, any and all Atheist positions are dismissible under Hitchens’ Razor - see Hitchens’ very own admission of lacking proof for his accusations, above. Thus, his accusations may be dismissed without evidence, in fact without any reasoning at all, under Hitchens’ Razor. personally I think Hitchens should have left theology to people like Thomas Aquinas
Those who heed warning, and those who hold to Judaism, and the Christians, and the Sabaeans - whoso believes in God and the Last Day and works righteousness - they have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will be upon them, nor will they grieve. (2:62)
Pretty vague unfortunately. Bordering on ad homonym. I don’t agree with the suggestion that atheists are atheists because they don’t “want there to be a god”. It’s about reason and rationality.
Henry Discipline Sure, it is a man made concept, but it is rooted in concrete history. No matter what religion you look at, there was a historical event or a person that actually existed and was a catalyst for that religion or set of beliefs. It’s important to respect these beliefs whether you choose to follow them or not because there is concrete evidence of these things, and of course everything after that is rooted in belief. The choice that people make though is whether to accept the proof and the idea that there is more to it. Or to state that the only thing that exists is the concrete proof and nothing more. So it it very much possible that there is a god, or some being or force that has a will and created man, however there is the possibility that there is no god of any kind and never has been. Granted, so far most of the evidence that has cone up around the topic of religion or higher beings points to the possibility of something like this. Ex: Jesus, Muhammad, Mother Mary, and many more plus their respective historical events. All being real people that existed and seemed to have evidence that God exists. But of course it is ultimately choice to believe these historical figures and events. So would you rather believe in something that has some chance of being wrong, or just believe in nothing at all?
redoe165 yup there is no real evidence of a god it’s just if we can’t explain something we blame it on a higher power, all this guy did was try and offend the atheist and questioned there morals, not much of an argument
Because this argument rests on indisputable premise that it is completely and utterly impossible for us to ever know. Therefore as kant said if you cannot know something, like if God exists , it becomes a choice that someone makes based on if it is in his interest.
+Mo Hammered Better yet, all THOSE G-Ds that we "know of" DO exist - in the respective brain of the respective believer. These G-Ds and their contradictions are well-sealed from another, by evolved-primate skullbone!
It's simply a myth that atheists don't want there to be a god. Ask any atheist, aside from Christopher maybe, and they will entertain the idea of an afterlife as a pleasant one. This whole rant felt like an angry memo to his older brother, to alleviate the verbal annihilation Peter must have endured over the years. That face at 7:46 tells it all.
I would say it depends on the atheist itself. Some want there to be an afterlife, some don't. But it doesn't matter. What matters isn't necessarily if we want there to be an afterlife or not, what matters is why we don't believe in a magical sky daddy.
@aue82a Christianity is clearly not about power. That would be the Catholic church. The lack of worldly power is evidenced by the persecution of Christians throughout history. Does anyone really think that the average church goer seeks to "advance through the ranks" on their way to world domination as they tithe their money each week? Or that the church pastor, having recieved his modest salary has any power. Or that the voulenterr run church plans to take their tithes and finance some new world order. Come on back to reality
The Huge Strong Demons Torture the atheists agnostics sorcerers in Hell Forever. Because the atheists agnostics sorcerers Rejected and did not accept God. In Revelation God throws the atheists agnostics sorcerers into Hell to burn forever.
It's one thing to debate your point of views. Mocking people's profound beliefs is something completely different which many atheists do all too much. It is an intellectually infantile way to debate yet they want to present themselves as intelligent.
+Jolly Joel show me where the religious people mock atheism in this comment thread. Even if you could, which you can't, show me where they even come close to the atheist trolls here mocking religious people with the same frequency lol
tha1ne Umm... Did you not read the comment I was responding to? He made a generic statement, in general towards Atheists, *"which many atheists do all too much."* ...and I see plenty of Atheist saying this was a good argument from Peter as well as the typical _questioning theists' intelligence_ that Atheist tend to do. Like what I can do to your comment (insert insult of your mistake here). Would you like me to back up my sarcastic claim that Religious people mock Atheist? If I do, it won't be difficult to confine it to America alone.
Jolly Joel LOL you completely missed the point of my comment (which was fairly straightforward). You basically implied religious people mock atheism as well (perhaps even to the same extent atheists mock religious people). I call bullshit, and so does the poster above you, who basically says this is an infantile way of conducting oneself intellectually. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to find me where the religious people mock atheists in this comment section, go ahead, you won't bitch
Where are your "facts" that God does not exist? As Peter stated, the belief or disbelief, is all a matter of choice. Why don't you want there to be a God?
The Holy Bible “fools say there is no God” and Isaiah 45:5 “I am The Lord and there is no other; besides Me there is no God. I arm you, though you do not know Me, so that they may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is no one besides Me; I am The Lord, and there is no other” - salvationisfromthejews.com
The words of God(BIBLE) for me is nothing more than expression and product of Human Weakness, the BIBLE is collection of primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish to me, For me Christianity is incarnation of the most childish Superstitions” - Albert Einstein
You religion says there is no other god than the one described in your religion? No kidding... It is exactly the same speech for any religion in regard to their respective gods.
As an Atheist, the reason I spend time talking about something that doesn’t exist is because I care about truth. Do you care about truth? You do realize Peter’s entire argument in this video is that he wants god to exist, therefore he does? He is not someone that actually cares about truth.
OMG I CANT RESIST!!! Who is the bigger fool? The man who believes in a fairy sky man, or the man who argues with the first man of the non-existance of said fairy sky man? as a christian, it perplexes me that some atheists argue God dosnt exist. Peter here reveals what is up their butts. Namely the desire for closure to their guilt problem. However, this involves a denial. Not a disbelief. Alternatively, there is a more elegant solution. If you search the Word of God you will find that Christ is a free gift, if you arent too prideful to accept it. This relieves some atheists need for closure. But, like I said, pride can be an enormous stumbling block.
6:45 that is a dumb argument. He is talking about christian values and then says that is why god exists. But there is no direct connection. Most people in Europe hold christian values without believing in god.
Hitchens seems to be saying, "Whether or not there is a God, you atheists should be grateful for the belief in God that keeps us believers from murdering you."
Well let's all hope that Peter continues believing in his version of god, because from what he said here it sounds like everybody should watch out if he doesn't!
PH beautifully expresses the significance of God. From a Materialistic standpoint, belief in God undermines everything. Abusive power, crime and deceit make perfect, sensible tactics if there be no God. The best 'proof' of God probably lies within consciousness itself.
I don't even know where to begin, with this. Firstly, I find it both incredible and disturbing, that this man could even belong in the same race as his brother, let alone share the same parents. How can it be Humanly possible, that someone of Christopher Hitchens' staggering intellect, insightfulness, logic, reasoned skills of debating & argument and comprehensive wisdom, was brother to this ignorant, intellectually bankrupt, pompous, arrogant oaf of a man? At no point during his slot, did he offer ANY argument for the existence of a god (ok, we all know that theists HAVE no argument, but he didn't even try!), but simply poured out a tirade of insults and mockery to men who are, obviously, his intellectual superior. It's clear to see why he did this; it is simply because he KNOWS he cannot beat them in anything approaching a mature and logically reasoned debate so, instead, his only recourse is to try to discredit them by infantile name-calling. His speech had more padding than a pillow factory, and there was, basically, nothing of substance or real intelligence in the whole 8 minutes or so that he stood there. Anyone of even the most basic level of intelligence and insightfulness will see that this is a man who is angrily aware of his own woeful lack of ability in the arena of intellectual debate, and is feebly attempting to cover those inadequacies with mockery and cheap insults. He mentioned that he used to be an Atheist, but then came round to actually believing in god. We often hear of people who have gone from being believers to become Atheists, as they go through life becoming more enlightened and wise to reality. But to go the other way?? This takes a special kind of stupid! I think that Peter Hitchens is frustrated and angry that Christopher was the immense, intellectual talent that he was, and has great difficulty handling that hard fact. But he's doing himself no favours, by hammering that fact home, when he partakes in debates of this nature, for which he is hopelessly ill-equipped. He'd be better off by just maturely accepting the fact that Christopher had all the brains, and he himself had...well...fuck all, really!
Sadly, your first line should have given you the notion that you shouldn't have begun.....instead you blundered forward in ignorance. Most of your (wilful?) lack of understanding could be redressed if you read a book (The Rage Against God, by Peter Hitchens). Further misunderstandings as to the relationship between male siblings could be dispelled by reading another book (Hitch 22, by Christopher Hitchens). These two brothers have always been as different as can be, and were always encouraged to argue their positions. Close watching of the videos of Christopher, viewed dispassionately, will reveal him to be a bully......intelligent, articulate and erudite certainly, but a bully never-the-less, plainly revealed by his war-mongering stance in the face of Islamic extremism....and one who drank and smoked himself to an early grave........thereby rescuing us all from his foolish, selfish, vindictive adoration of the criminal thug Trotsky. To the best of my knowledge Peter has never done or said anything cruel to anyone (although many are upset by the things he says), but has always stood up for his beliefs. Although it is true that Peter was once enamored with the philosophical disease of Marxism, his Christianity would appear to have saved him. Perhaps you would be better off by examining yourself, along the lines that Peter mentioned in his talk (also notice that he is at Oxford speaking.....why did no-one ask you?), and ask yourself why you do not want there to be a God.
Peter makes no attempt whatsoever to answer the question, instead insisting on how nice it would be if there were a god, and ridiculing atheists as bad people who want there to be no god. Every point he made could be granted, and we'd be no closer to proving there's a god.
he said something about the opposition not really arguing about the concept of god's existence and then proceeds to talk about justice and stuff about living for a reason... sigh im getting tired of these people
Yeah all that stuff about living life with meaning is rather pointless. Why would you ever want to do that? Not everyone has your attention span of 5 minutes.
@@just-some-menace6138 Life is so much without God. Why there has to be a god to find points in your life? And the biggest problem with Peter Hitchens' was that he actually said that atheists want no justice by a stupid reasoning process. First of all many atheist want God to exists they are just not convinced. And with that sentence the argument of Peter is wrong. But even if atheist wouldnt want God to be real why wouldnt they want justice? Peter implied that all human achievements that led the world to what it is today (the good things ofcs) happened because of God or because of the belief that there is a God. I enjoy listening to people who believe with good arguments but this was just disappointing.
The atheist thinking comes from a personal view. Religious thinking comes from a personal view. I'm a born again Christian and I believe people are rejecting God, the only holy and righteous judge, because they know they are doing things against God, so they need to get rid of God. I believe it is as simple as that. But God provided us with a Savior. Repent and trust in him and your Sins are forgiven and given everlasting life as a free gift.
Thanks clapton. I'm an atheist and I have respect for religious people, but not the kind like Peter who think calling us bad people is any kind of argument for a god.
His argument is completely devoid of facts and he played on people's fears. He admitted that nobody knows if there is a god or not. He thinks people should believe in one simply because it would make them uncomfortable if they thought there wasn't and that they wouldn't have any purpose in their lives. All of which is a lie. There are plenty of people who don't believe in god that lead strong productive lives full of purpose and strive to do good things despite not subscribing to any religion. How do these people get purpose without believing in such a system? They carve their own path. They figure it out themselves. And doing such a thing is dangerous to those who want to remain in power. They can't have people going off and doing their own thing. They need people to serving them and bowing down to them so they can advance their own agendas. People like Peter Hitchens want others to believe in god and more importantly, religion, so that they can be more easily controlled and manipulated by the powers that be. Notice how he implies that to believe in god, you have to subscribe to a certain religion. Because if you were to believe in god but not a religion, you still cannot be controlled as easily because there is too much left up to you to decide (such as what's right/wrong, purpose, etc.) Religion is a man made system designed to control people through fear. Fear as in "if you don't do xyz, you're going to hell." It's also there to shove purpose into peoples' hands who can't come up with their own. Making your own path is difficult as it requires a lot of introspection. And more often than not, it tailors to the individual's needs and not to the collective welfare of others. Something which threatens all parties of power. And the idea that the world be anarchy if everyone were to stop believing in religion tomorrow is nothing more than fear-mongering. People wouldn't just instantly turn on each other and start robbing, stealing, and killing. Countries still exist and so do laws. What would happen for sure though is that people would start to re-think their lives and prioritize what THEY think is important, not what some religion or god wants them to think is important.
2nd mistake, a god is not required for purpose to be created. We create purpose every day. We also discover natural means that is the expression of meaning. Again, no gods required.
I'd rather die thinking that I just wouldn't exist after I die (as I hadn't for billions of years), than thinking that I would get an eternity of bliss (assuming god lets me go to heaven) whilst dozens of my friends and family members were burning in hell.
@OLIOB 1 I don't see any point in replying if you're not going to explain. I'm well aware there's people that disagree, so saying "that's not how it works" is pretty pointless.
It’s a nice sentiment, but religion is a nasty manipulative thing at its core. I like the idea of believing in something pure and beautiful even if it could be untrue, but it’s still a fantasy without evidence.
Arguing about the existence or otherwise of God is wasting energy. An honest scientist would, I think, come to the conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive. More arguments and debates will not bring us to a firm conclusion. But we still have to decide how we will live. That is where Mr Hitchens thinks we should focus our attention. I for one agree with him
On another note about "justice" Nobody was ever forced to be an atheist. Yet, most (if not all) religious institutions at some point did in fact force others to become followers of their religion (usually at the point of a sword). Where's the justice in that?
Atheist are force to be atheist by their own personal situation, 90% of atheist are once a religious people, they left theist to become atheist maybe because they couldn't find answers to their personal situation, someone who lost his or her love ones to cancer or covid, war, road accident may end up becoming atheist because he or she believed God failed them for not protecting their love Ones life, either someone force you or something force you, the most important thing is that you were compelled to make a choice.....and for those religious that uses sword to convert people to their religion, there is justice for the innocent, it may not be here, but I believed in afterlife and I believed Justice would be serve in afterlife, while received their justice here on earth.
@@Talktime.9ja BS, Most atheist I've met just studied the religion that they were indoctrinated into as a child. That's all it takes. Study your religious book with a critical eye, most people will see the contradictions and hypocrisies are quite abundant. Whatever your definition of god, most involve a perfect being (among other things). How could a perfect being create an imperfect book/document? Besides, justice not gained in this life, is justice lost. Unless you can prove the existence of an afterlife (you'd be the first).
@@tracewallace23 you may said the Bible contradict itself and that would be base on your level of understanding, imperfect book you called it which depend on what you mean by imperfect or perfect! You can mentions one book in this world that is perfect, if no human is perfect that means no books is perfect... I don't want to prove afterlife to you, but I will tell a true life story, if you like believe and if you like don't believe, we are all running a different race, whether God exist or not I got nothing to lose, so I better chose God here on earth, at the end if you're right that God doesn't exist and no afterlife, I still got nothing to lose, but if I am right and God do exist and their is afterlife and I deny God here on earth, I think this is where I got everything to lose. So, I chose God. My story was in 2007 I lost a cousin brother to death, but a year later my aunt which the deceased mother received a money gifts from a messenger who claimed that my cousin sent him to delivered the money to his mother, he even show my aunt a recent picture of them to confirmed his claim, when my aunt burst out with tears telling the messenger that her son died a year ago, the messenger was cold felt sick instantly after an hour of doubt and arguing with the people around, they showed him the grave, going back to town of the messenger he sent a letter back that he could find the guy again that he vanished and the compound people couldn't tell where he went to, this story related to me, is not something I heard, the one I heard was man who died and buried, 10 years later Unfaithful day a woman with children arrived in the mans compound that she is the wife of the decease man that they came to celebrate Christmas, they asked her where is her husband she said her husband is on his way that he branched to greet a friend but he gave them the address of the house...the parents of the man started crying they told her the story that her husband died 10 years ago, showing her his grave yard, she didn't believed, in fact she feinted, they pour her water after regaining her strength she couldn't talk because she was shocked and traumatized, what made her believed the story was when she recalled several times she has been pressurized her husband to visit his people and he always turn her down, and the second thing was that many days passed she didn't see her husband who said he was visiting a friend that he would join them at home. there are many stories like this two, but we don't know if science or scientists or even atheist's can explain this to us....
@@Talktime.9ja If (as you say) "no book is perfect, because no human is perfect" 🤔 What does that say about WHO wrote the religious book that you adhere to? Btw, it's not important that "I said" that the bible contradicts itself. Only that it does (Hint, bronze age humans, with a bronze age scientific understanding of the world). As for your stories, that's the one thing humans have been doing since language was invented. Telling stories. I'm sorry, but I'm not really interested in "stories" without scientific proof. And even if, science can't prove/disprove a thing, or doesn't know the answer to something, that still doesn't equal god. I'm just curious, do you believe that evolution is real?
@@Talktime.9ja also, what you're doing with your belief in god is called Pascal's wager. An all knowing god should know that you weren't earnest in your faith and you would still lose.
I came to this video hoping for a thought-provoking angle on the existence of God. Desperately disappointed to experience a cloud of tautological guff about how lovely it is to be a lovely Christian, couched in the permissive fluffiness that is the Church of England. His argument, as it is, appeared to go thusly: - Poetry is nice. Here is a bit of the King James Bible that suggests that we don't know certain things - As we can agree that we don't know certain things, I (Hitchens) will humbly admit that I don't know these very same things - As we can agree on our collective epistemological short-comings, we can say that belief in God is a matter of opinion (a dull non sequitur) - Therefore relativism, a pathetic leap from atheism to nihilism and a deliberate disengagement from the question Not sure what his point is.
@Ayy Leeuz What do you mean that there is no good angle for either position? One can argue that both sides involve themselves in circularities. In general, theists point to beauty, order and prophecy fulfilled to solidify their view, all which are in the sacred text or have been forcefully propounded by readers of that book. On the other hand, atheists attempt to fit god into a scientific framework that, by definition, eschews god as unknowable, unreachable, untenable: a literal nonsense. Both find their answer as soon as they choose their methodology. Either way, I cannot concede that there is equal weight to both sides of the argument. One side will endeavour to prove itself incorrect, throw out ideas that do not fit the evidence and will not rely on immutable sources. The other side is forever stuck repeating the same vague ideas about what must have been, what they would like to believe, how the evidence fits into their belief.
@Ayy Leeuz If you mean secular values as a part of society which includes religious thought, then all such societies have been successful. If you mean SOLELY secular values, I cannot. You know I cannot and I know I cannot. Religion, in its many forms, is diffuse in all societies. I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. What does that prove other than potential utility? Is it a bug or a feature? Do we have to be Dr. Pangloss about it? And what does it have to say about whether God exists or whether Peter's argument was anything more than fluff?
@Ayy Leeuz Yes, he reframes it as SHOULD we believe and I too believe it is absolutely unanswerable. I sympathise with the logical positivists on this point and probably think of myself as ignostic, verging on athiest. I cannot agree that we SHOULD believe, though. The leap that has to be made from we cannot know to we should believe is no less a vault than leaping from the evidence we have to believing in the divine or a particular God. Without evidence, we should we believe anything?
It has been claimed that Peter is just riding the coattails of his older, smarter, more famous, brother. I believe that just the opposite is true. His brother Christopher may be more famous but he was long ago passed, by his younger sibling, for many of the reasons that Peter explained. Peter realized, as he grew up, something his more notable brother never really did, that he needed to have faith in something, that he had to believe in something other than (and greater than) himself and his intellect. Christopher never really grew up beyond his worship of his own intelligence and his unwavering commitment of scholarship as the Alpha and Omega of life itself. The notion of Man’s superiority is found solely in intellectual curiosity, as if that abstraction can actually explain what is is to be that thing. Analyzing something isn’t the same as being something. So Peter rightly concluded that Scientism, atheism and nihilism, based on the fiction of Man being the center of the universe, could not begin to explain all that surrounds us, nor could it even explain what happens to us, our essence, to that which animates us, when we die. Yes, Peter long ago surpassed his brother. Not because he had all the answers but because he knew that he did not, but knew that if there is to be any meaning to be found in our lives, it has to come from outside ourself and in recognition of all those things that we are not. We are not alone. Does that mean that there’s a God? No. But it does mean that there’s much beyond our comprehension. It also, certainly, does NOT mean that there ISN’T a God. Peter nailed it.
@@jeremiahsilva7458 he explained it clearly, atheism is nothing but your desperation to fit in or your narcissism making you believe you're above others. Science has no way of providing God doesn't exist, same we have no way of providing he exists. This is why it's called faith
The number of views on these debates is 50% higher for the arguments AGAINST God's existence (opposed to FOR). Many of these people are not interested in listening to two-sided debates, they just seek more second-hand ammunition for their cause.
Maybe because most of the videos with arguments FOR God's existence are like this one, they do not give real arguments. He basically insulted, in a polite way for sure, the entire side of the atheist for 8 minutes straight, without giving any other argument than "it is a matter of choice", and even this argument he did not use him correctly. So why bother listening to arguments FOR God's existence when people are not giving arguments but opinions most of the time.
@@David-io9lp but you have ignored the most important thing, and that is what should you believe? And if you care about truth, you will only believe things for good reasons. Not because you just want to believe it, like with Peter.
@@renocicchi7346 He does have good reasons for his beliefs. He even outlines them in the video. He is a Christian because of what it stands for: turning the other cheek rather than kicking the other guy in the crutch. I think you will have to answer the question of what constitutes a "good reason".
@@David-io9lp I don’t mean good reasons as in believing in truth claims just because you think it makes people better. The truth of the claim and how believing the claim makes people behave are two entirely different things. When I say for good reasons, I mean through good reasoning and evidence the claim a god exists is demonstrated to be true. Do you care about truth?
Wow. His very first point is a logical fallacy, appeal to emotion (and probably more). _My religion feels good and that makes it right. I am nice and you are bad. I am insulted that I even have to be here to defend the obvious from a gang of licentious thugs._ _In conclusion. My my truth is self evident. Thank you._ 0:34 The Gangstas are salivating over this. Love it.
Poor and some what desperate , not a patch on his brother, all he could do was insinuate that all atheists want is for there to be no God so they can sin without fear.........pathetic Peter , absolutely PATHETIC.
Tom Edwards I understand what you are saying Tom, I was merely stating that instead of answering the question he chose to come out with the moral stance, to often used to try to lower the standing of his opposition, insinuating that you can only have morals if you believe that a divine being is watching everything you do! I have heard this nonsense so many times. Try to imagine if nobody on this planet believed in any god, do you seriously think that we would all go mad and start to rape and pillage and murder and completely run amok leading to the complete breakdown of all society.... or would it be more or less the same except that perhaps life would become more precious , knowing that it was just up to us to make the best of what we have now and for future generations, and we might be free of our religious prejudices and bigotry , and as for governments all over the world ,many are influenced by religion or hide behind it or use it to control the population, or have started wars because of it (all still happening now!) I believe the people of this world will never be truly free until we drop our stupid superstitions educate ourselves and stand up to these religious control freaks. No Tom I am not glad it exists.
How exactly would a god give meaning to life? Couldn’t a god just as easily create a universe where our lives really amount to nothing in the end and would have made no difference?
I believe that all the signposts have been stacked up and in this pile it is called Alphabet. But whoever/whatever stacked it up was playing cards with them, and lost track of where the instructions were for assembling the flat pack and that is why we have a playing card set of 52......Plus Two jokers True and False....
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." I find that whole section of 1st Corinthians so perfectly describes the way the world is especially with the frustrations of most intellectuals.
Lmfao And religion isnt like that? Get the fk out. Religion is a tool of the brainwashed who haven't got an ounce of abstract thinking outside of their own beliefs!
Lies. Religions (all 10 million of them) are the ones claiming to know everything. The non-believers are just being intellectually honest and saying we don't know and the evidence isn't good enough. Your take is stupid. Theist: "Do you believe in unicorns?" Person: "No" Theist: "Wow so arrogant, you just don't want to admit anyone is above you"
@Anton Babani "Non-unicorn believers did loads of bad stuff, therefore unicorns are real". Thank you for sarcastically calling my response "intellectual", and showing my exact point. That is literally how you all sound but you're too indoctrinated to see it. You can see the absurdity when I substitute God for unicorns, so you should get it now. I can't believe I was ever this brainwashed. It makes me sad to even think about. I hope you break free from this prison soon. You'll all be better off without it.
it is not possible to make fun of God or mock! - The High Priestly Prayer, John 17:1-26. - The Sermon on the Mount, Mat:1-48 - Judgment on False Teachers, Jud 1:3-16 - Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints
@imadedd ine Mr Hitchens' god is Yaweh, the homophobic, misogynistic, self-defeating bully of the old testament. Is any further explanation necessary? Oh, and he cannot exist. Nobody would object to nice, tolerant, caring god.
@imadedd ine Not exactly. I'm 99.99% sure that no gods exist. As to "wanting" a god to exist; I, and many other atheists, could imagine a god who's existence might be tolerable; but Yaweh seems not to be him. If I thought it even possible that a god or gods existed, whether or not I wanted them to would be of no importance.
@imadedd ine I'm happy to take that chance! And, that 0.01% does not include Yaweh, whose reputed omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. So the Christians would be wrong too.
@@richardmooney383 So just cause our God does not says what your candy ears want to know he his not right the god of the old testamanet is not evil read more Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. You dont want him to be real cause you know he his and your in bad problem So if you are sure at 99.99 are you sure that you know almost everything in the world cause i used to be an atheist for a long time realize that believing in God is not by facts but by faith Mean trust without seeing i feel god he his real
He is SO SO wrong, I as an atheist just don't see any evidence of the silly fairytale he is talking about. He talks about having a significance for life existing, a need for justice, he & people like him just want's things like that to exist. These people can't handle the idea that god doesn't exist so they convince themselves that he really does exist.
I don't think it's that complicated. Any educated person with a grasp of basic logic knows God, in the form most humans imagine him, does not exist. But claiming he does can get you a lot of priviledges, money, social standing etc
he actually talked about the repercussions of there not being a set of laws for us humans to live by. A set of laws given by someone not influenced by humans. An ultimate law to guide us to all goodness. You atheists don't want that so that you can kill and rape whomever you want to. You wont like it if someone does that to your family. but according to your view, if someone did this to your family it would be fine and right. Because we are just molecules in motion, survival of the fittest, and no accountability for actions is necessary. think before believing just any idea you read of in a book or heard in a classroom.
penkop2012 You don't need to believe in magical sky gods to know that murder and rape are abhorrent. Nor do you need to reduce the splendour of human conciousness and culture to 'molecules in motion' just because you don't believe in magic. Think before believing in something of which there is no evidence, and which bears all the hallmarks of fiction (as shown by meta analysis of religious texts).
GeoffonTour No but you do need an absolute law to KNOW that they are abhorrent. After all we are all Humans, and have all come to different conclusions. Slavery used to be fine and now we look back saying, ah we just didnt know the right morality back then. If things like murder and rape are so obviously abhorrent that you will come to the conclusion that they are wrong all by yourself, how can you justify thousands of years of its practice?
An interesting take. Instead of the usual route of evidence, he goes down more of a societal argument. Taking this, I'd wonder why we don't just make a brand-new one up with the morals of today and ask people to put hope in to that book, instead? I'm of the mindset that you can't choose what you believe so this is essentially playing make-believe with the world in the hopes everyone else does it?
Actually he did not use a social argument at all. He first said nobody, including those on his side, could prove god exists, effectively conceding every point to his opponents. Then he made a series of completely unsupported (lacking evidence) arguments, almost all of which were ad hominem attacks, which are fallacies and of no argumentative value. His talk about social impacts were all made as unfounded attacks to motive (which is a form of ad hominem attack) of his opponents. He said what his opponents "real goals" were and implying that there was additional even more sinister goals. Note he didn't provide any evidence for his assertions, he simply said what the other side wanted based on absolutely nothing but his opinion. He did throw in some stuff as well about belief in his god being the only thing keeping mankind from descending into some sort of barbarism, but his assertion was not backed with any evidence. It isn't an argument, it is an assertion without basis. What was also quite hilarious is he started by dismissing all of his opponents arguments as being irrelevant because in his opinion this whole discussion wasn't about whether god existed, but about his opponents motives. But from then on he repeatedly talked about things like justice (in heaven), life after death (in heaven), having purpose instead of chaos (because god gives us purpose), all of which mean literally NOTHING unless his Christian god is real. This of course means that his argument is founded ENTIRELY on the idea that god exists, but he already conceded that there is no evidence of gods existence. If there is no evidence of gods existence, and all your points gain all their value entirely from gods existence, then your points are all unfounded and of no value (which isn't a big deal anyway because they were all ad hominem attacks of no value to start with).
@@arentol7 You say justice(in heaven) means nothing unless God is real? The justice(in heaven) is served based on what we do here on earth, NOT in what we do in heaven. So yes, justice means something in this debate which takes place on earth. This is exactly why Peter asserts what their “real goals” are as you say. You focus on the evidence of God because you don’t want to believe that what we do matters. Peter says something along the lines of “no one was there to see the beginning of the universe so there’s no evidence to be discussed.” There was never an argument as there’s no evidence for either side. That’s why he says it’s a choice man.
@@nathanfoss766 Are you being intentionally obtuse? Did you also think I meant life after dying while in heaven, because that part was presented exactly the same way. Very clearly I meant Justice in heaven for what we do on earth, because that is what he was talking about so why would I talk about something different? Apparently that is how you roll, but not me. And of course my point is that since he said nobody could offer evidence of Gods existence, bringing up anything that depends entirely on the existence of God is of no value because he himself ripped out the foundation of his very argument.
Religion, like any good horror story, comes from the fear of the unknown. Draws its power from scared or uncertain people. This speech more resembles an Early Medieval theology seminary. The master rumbles about all his theories, the students do everything to repent for their previous generations, their grandfathers who planted garlands and sacrificed oxen to Jove and Sol. And I fear the same grief gripes Peter Hitchens, he's desperate to put up belief in a randomly selected god in order to save his soul when he is to come before this being. And, in this situation, you're both very confident and ready to use every possible line of reason to justify that this random god is real. God, yes. Zeus, Allah, Buddha, Thor, Vishna, Jupiter, Poseidon, Athena, Ahura Mazda, no no all these are not important in this discourse. We want Hitler and Mao judged for their crimes by an absolute authority after their physical death. So did the people who died in their early 20's around the writing of the Bible desire a 'fair new life' after the first one, but where are they to tell us about it? What evidence do you have that Heaven exists, which most likely comes from the Elysian Fields, the ancient greek world of fair souls. Why do Atheists really want a world with no God? Because religion is nonsensical, has restricted free thought through fear and destroyed people who contradicted its wrong understanding on the world, like Copernicus - and we now know life needs no divinity. Modern religions are nothing but borrowings stitched up from previous polytheistic faiths. Humans have been born through evolution, not from the mind of a superbeing. A world dominated by religion, we know how that looks like - fear mongering to win elections and societies backwarded in the Late Antiquity and Middle Ages. Discrimination, the repression of science, burning on the stake, killings on the cross. Genital mutilation and, on top of those, the birth of religious terrorism. We don't know how a world where monotheism has finally died looks like. But, when the moment comes to have a taste, I am convinced that the superior education of people then and all the things they are to discover by then will ensure the greatest balance on our planet
I'm new to this series (I didn't know the Oxford Union was on TH-cam.) Is there a place where the results of the votes post-debate are visible? Thank you, in advance, for your help.
I still waiting for the part where he shows any concrete evidence for God. He basically wasted 8 minutes saying we should just choose to believe there is a God. Can I also choose to believe Spiderman is real? Why do we not want to believe that Spiderman is real?
If God exists...everything was evidence of his handiwork. If god doesn't exist, the same can be said of materialism. Do you have evidence the universe was created from nothing...of course not, nobody has, but that's what you chose to believe. The real question is why...
Much of the concept of God is based on choice. Free will choice is a fallacy. We make choices but they are never without cause. We are controlled by causes. And God is the cause of everything. This is scriptural fact. Once you begin to understand it, things begin to make a bit more sense.
He and his brother must have had awkward discussions.
My sense is that 'awkward' would have been a blessing ;p
Perhaps moderate and occasional violence as well.
@@Dionysos640 Apparently they had a heartfelt conversation shortly before Christopher died. Besides, your argument claims that Peter is a hypocrite, as if YOU knew what being a good Christian means. Earnest atheists are simply theists grappling with the inevitable.
EvolutionaryBob my bad. Carry on
Look it up. They debate and Peter loses miserably.
Why do you guys split these debates up? I'd like to see the debate in it's entirety.
It’s for the biased viewer
WWII Kittyhawk or perhaps to get a taste of the issue and discern whether we’d like invest/waste further time 🤷🏻♀️
i’m sure it a simple search to acquire 😊
ABSOLUTELY! & dont be a shithead. if you want the whole thing there are no excuses for your lack of searching it is in here. i would like to say, many of us have played the game long enough and desire the condensation. im not sure why this is recommended i am complete opposite, though eloquent peter sounds like the big brother thats pissed his brother is smarter.
Maybe because some people don't have hours to sit and listen to the whole thing? Breaking each speaker up into their own video is ideal for people who can only watch small parts at a time. Just a thought
0:46 I thought he was going to say "my brother" :D
same here :)
Haha, me to..
clever and subtle if so. Both very smart individuals!
I think his adolescent self pretty much was his brother. He's put on record how much of an influence his brother had on him whilst he was growing up.
Exactly same thought
I love European culture! Look at this. Opposing ideas meeting in a forum where the opposition sits and listen, takes notes and applauded the speaker for his presentation.
While here in Asia if you started to opposing a religion in public they will bring up the blasphemy law to end any conversation and put you into jail for criticizing an idea/ideology.
@@muhammadhabibalfarabi568 Based.
@@muhammadhabibalfarabi568 i reckon they do that since criticsm of an ideology weakens the foundation of why theyre in the position theyre in, they just use the ideology as an excuse to silence anyone who can risk their careers
@@muhammadhabibalfarabi568 Based Asia
And then they let in
Millions of migrants who hate them.
Bravo
Im a Christian and always watched debates with Christopher Hitchens argueing against God. Didnt know he had a brother who argues for God 😅
We learn something new every day.
He didn t do earlier, apparently he does now, who cares, think I will believe in Santa C., at least he turned up a few times ?
Christopher annihilated Peter in a debate about religion
They debated each other a number of times.
@@jupitermoongauge4055, no he didn't. Guess which brother spat his dummy out and refused to speak to the other for four years because the other one publicly reminded him of embarrassing views? The atheist Stalinist one.
2:49 "the most intelligent and interesting atheist, I think, now living... Thomas Nagel".
*Dawkins dies inside a little bit*
And his brother? Lol
Oh I guess he was dead lol
What about Sam Harris?
@GO*CAN*ZUK who says I am a Christian?
@@tsarnicholasii274 agreed, as a Christian I am actually interested in the atheist point of view but Dawkins is a joke. I couldn’t even get past the introduction of The God Delusion without him making insults and constantly advertising his website
Well, that was quite a drawn out way to say "Y'all just wanna sin"
So are we supposed to choose poverty. I say then peter hitchins should give all his inheritance if any to charity and live in a dingy bedsit somewhere and bus it plus eat less.
@Yyamma123 I'm certain that's what you want for him. I'm certain that you wish that upon him. Why are you guys like this?
He was talking mainly to Dawkins and the other activists. Not towards regular people.
is he wrong lol
0:47
me: he's gonna say his brother.....
Peter: my adolescent self
I was thinking the very same thing at the very same time.
As was I
A whole room thought so
It seems as if Hitchens is arguing for the salutary effects of a belief in God, rather than providing any convincing argument for that belief.
Because it's impossible to prove and just as impossible to disprove. St. Anselm had a lovely "proof", "God is the first cause" .
because this isn't a scientific debate about the creator , this is a debate about the social concept of god, try to be more rational
Joanne, I’ve never heard him sound this silly , and I’ve always seen him as a clever man . Well, until I saw this .
Content Paradise ,there’s no social concept of God , without an epistemological argument to ground his existence in the first place . You can’t just wish him into being , because you see social benefits in doing so .
@@Jide-bq9yf Quite the opposite. I thought his arguement was extremely clever.
This is the most English man I have ever seen.
Stereotype
@@Dsk-zn1yj Which exists for a reason.
✌
*rees mogg enters the chat*
Isn't the debate about DOES god exist i feel like peter is debating about whether should god exist.
Debating whether or not he exists is a waste of time for both sides.
@@christopherchay7593 Not really, what about young adults and teens who have been raised as religious or atheists by their families and are now trying to search their selves. Such debates and dialogues help people challenge their childhoods and make decisions.
@@sohamshah7638I totally agree, but, there are already more than enough. I'm one of those searching people myself. All that anyone needs to know is love God, (good morals if you're an atheist) love each other and love science. It's just... I've never really seen much good come out of these things. There always seems to be this wicked animosity within the debate room and the comments. If it has to be done at least let it be more constructive. I think the bible even says that these types of debates are a waste of time. how about they debate which is more useful? Atheism or belief in God? The one guy even says it himself during the debate.
Christopher Chay the problem with atheism is who decides what those good morals are? You need objectivity.
@@interget1605 yeah that is true, just... We now know the baseline. just treat people as though you love them. I'm sure most atheists would agree with what Jesus said.
The way John Lennox looks at him at the end just warmed my heart :,)
that smile ment it
That smug smirk warned my heart too. You can tell just how vindicated he is by the misrepresentation of his adversaries.
John Lennox is a gem.
Idiots of a feather
Almost as if he wasn't expecting that.
The Most amazing debate would be Peter vs Christopher Hitchens!
Been and gone. You will find it on TH-cam.
@@bernardguynunns5658 link please! Brother Vs Brother
@@Bushido1274 just search both names and you will find it.
it wasnt too great
@Tom B Peter couldn’t prove anything no more than Christopher did and that’s Christopher’s point.
The Hitchens family reunions must be just awful 😂😂😂
Disgusted by each other.
Like me and my brother.
Calvin Cardwell well..his brother is dead. I’m thinking reunions won’t happen. And who knows if it will ever happen, in another realm ;) Since Peter and Christopher disagreed on what happens after!
Calvin Cardwell not at all, Peter would’ve forgiven Christopher. 🌞
@@niallmartin9063 Forgiven what?
I doubt they had any.
Peter Hitchens, at his most plummy-mouthed brilliance. I love him. I may disagree with what he says, but, like his brother, Chris, he is an amazingly eloquent, knowledgeable and passionate speaker.
Might I ask where you disagree with him?
Call him Christopher. He openly refused to be called Chris numerous times
@@ConnzorZGaming Well its "Chris" from now on or is that "Chrissy"?
@Chris . You know I wasn't sure if I had seen the thumbnail correctly. I was like has Chris changed his mind and then I realized it said Peter. Yet I wasn't convinced and was like are they brothers and yes you confirmed it. Must have been interesting in the family then because of Chris I never thought there could be one closer to him who had a different opinion
pete the fuckwit, using all of his limited intellect to perpetuate delusion, determining himself by opposing every objective thought his brilliant brother argued.
“Why would you want to live in a Universe without God”? It’s the way it is, it’s not about what I want. This is ridiculous duh...
“Why would you want to live in a purposeless Universe ?” Again, it’s not wat l want, it’s about the truth 🙄
“Why would you want to live in a chaotic Universe” first of all it’s not chaos it’s has consistent rules. At a quantum level there is an inherent randomness but even there you always get the same probabilities for repetitive experiments. The initial conditions were perhaps absolutely arbitrary. From then everything that happened followed rules and finally now many systems have a sort of stability. Again, it’s not about what we want
“They do want the Universe to be purposeless” we do?! This man is full of rage 🙄 It’s such a shame
5:10 “it is very fashionable” is he thinking he is addressing rebel teen agers ?! He doesn’t seem to have any idea about how a man that understands there is no god thinks 😒
7:08 “they want to have the advantages of christianity but not pay the tolls” 😂 it’s exactly the opposite as we partly pay them but we don’t get any advantages because there are none
Rotor Blade Different people have different perspectives. If Justice and evil both exist , some see justice while some see the opposite
The thing is even what you explained is not the absolute "truth". Believing that way is just like religion. That's kind of what I got out of his speech. That's why he kept mention them "wanting" it to be that way.
You do realise he used to be an atheist?
C K I agree with that
Who lays out your "consistent rules"? We say God does.
I never heard of this man but he has framed the topic in a fresh way, both diffusing the tired binary arguments that neither side can prove and just focusing on choice. Making the leap of faith, or not, is the choice.
Precisely. It is a choice and one born, if done with sincerity and honesty and integrity, out of the realisation that you have reached the border of rationality and here the choice is to either say there is nothing beyond or to say: right, let us now enter into the realm of the non-rational. Not irrational, which is a conclusion you can arrive at via rationality and is existentially different from non-rational.
My gripe is this constant schtick with the believers about non-believers being in essence amoral. Given what we have seen of believers and their actions, I think it is safe to say that it should be something discussed in hushed tones by believers. Faulting non-believers as being amoral and incapable of thought and action consistent with the well being of humanity and its prospering and fluorishing (including formulating around the concept of "injustice) is just so old and so worn. And also, so irrational. It is ironic that Hitchens speaks both of the sublime non-rational and then gives an irrational support for it. Very sad to see.
The other side needs to prove nothing. You make a claim about the existence of God. So you need to prove he exists. Atheists do not need to prove he doesn't. His absence already proves that.
@@perfectcell2418 Neither side can prove it satisfactorily to the other. When you say absence, the word is just an assertion.
@@perfectcell2418 You make the usual error most atheists make in that you assume anything needs to be done at all. Take a step back and for a moment truly ponder what you are looking at. Does anything NEED to be done in regards to God existing or not? Really? Are you facing a forced choice or anything of that nature where this "need" can be derived from? If not, then I think you will agree that nothing needs to be done. This is purely a matter of choice, want, freedom, interest, temperament, personal experience and the journey some take into the non-rational.
@@perfectcell2418 prove his absence.
Money talks basically. You cannot serve God and mammon
@Vance Humphrey They are false prophets
I won't serve Jesus AND Jehova. Pick one.
Also, I find Luke 14:26 suspicious.
Wtf is mammon? Ah, Bible term like manna and blaspheme and... Can't you just speak in normal?
A term for a god of money and greed, basically.
@Harry Denny your choice doesnt affect me none
Dawkins: So it's settled, then?
Oxford: Nay, there's a Hitch!
Underrated. Good one mate.
Hitch looks like CS Lewis
Well said, hilarious.
Unfortunately Peter fell victim to the same plight of most apologist debaters in that he says so much without saying anything and people just eat it up or call it a win despite no ground being broken at all.
@@zaxbitterzen2178 No, he did say something important: He reframed the debate as an atheist had reframed it....Why do atheists WANT to believe in a pointless universe?
Nice speech, yet no arguments for the existence of God were provided. Just enumerations on why is it good to believe in God
7:45 john lennox beaming with pride.
4:45 "Do you want it, or do you not want it."
No, I do not want it, Peter Hitchens. Because as you just admitted in the previous 40 seconds, you are MAKING IT ALL UP for your own personal comfort.
I however, as a rational human being, understand that making things up because you're scared, does not actually make them REAL. Which is what the issue is about!
How embarrassing, to stand before Oxford University students and deliver such blatant twaddle.
No?
WHAMMO!
I share Hitchens' exhaustion and boredom with the question of whether or not there is a God, which is why I appreciated his cutting beyond that question to ask the question about epistemology and motivation. He wasn't trying to present an argument for God existing: he was challenging the assumptions that people bring into that question... Assumptions about what qualifies as evidence, assumptions about what qualify as morals, assumptions about the way the world works, assumptions about how society works (or ought to).
Despite all the people insulting him in the comments (no y'all, both Hitchens boys are and were blubbering and hard to listen to... Christopher and Peter have great voices but are terrible public speakers), Hitchens was the only one who was completely HONEST about explaining his own motivations for holding the views he has. And he was dead on about how pointless, tired, and worthless (and self-contradictory) the counterarguments were. Nobody but him asked the fundamental question about what your epistemological and motivational assumptions are when even ASKING the question of whether God exists.
The title of the video is misleading. You are one of the few people who get that Peter was asking the question behind the question.
As much as I appreciate the lesser Hitchen's articulate explanation of his reasons for his belief, they are-as he concedes-just beliefs. And this is the problem I have with faith. It's a poor mechanism for us to reach the truth. You could take literally anything on faith; it requires no proof, no evidence, nothing except your own conviction. It's literally the stance of; "I believe this, even though I have no good reason to believe it". And if you HAD a good reason, you wouldn't need faith. Faith is the excuse people proffer to excuse their gullibility.
So you think all the martyrs that have died for Jesus are just gullible? All the Popes up to the IV century died of martyrdom and you think they were just gullible? That Thomas Aquinas and Saint Agustin were gullible?? Up to the XV century all Christians believed the same so millions of people lived and died and were gullible?
A bit presumptuous…
@@carlosruiz184 I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. There's no evidence that Jesus existed. None. So those martyrs, devout as they were, died for their beliefs in a story that cannot ever be confirmed.
What other word would you use to describe the absolute belief in something that cannot be shown, demonstrated, proven, or verified?
R3tardation.@@themancuniancandidate2744
But there is more evidence for a creator than there is for spontaneous bang theory- now THAT takes huge faith.
Everything we look at is seen through a lens of belief - 😊
@@robynhefferan9561 Evidence of a creator.Mkay. I'm not sure you know what evidence is.
Peter doesn't want to live in a "disgusting," insignificant and purposeless universe. Sorry, but the logical corollary of this wish isn't the reality of its antithesis.
The universe doesn't owe you fulfilment of, or correspondence to, your personal desires.
He said that the existence of God was a matter of opinion. In as many words, that's exactly what he claimed.
It's called an implication.
Why do these desires exist?
The desire for God, or objective meaning?
@gtq838 And 99.999999999999% of the universe is totally inhabitable for humans, some divine plan for mankind that is.
"Why is it that they so much want there not to be a god?"
Your brother wrote an entire book covering that topic and other.
@Owen Lee I'm pretty sure he was... 😅
@Owen Lee haha ya... I had a similar reaction
Adam Thapazz OMFG THANK YOU! I was sooo confused when i saw the word 'Hitchens' in the title LMFAO!
@@theflash9735 lol cheers!
@Owen Lee i just found out today too jaja but u can see the similarities especially the way they talk.
"why is it that we atheist want there NOT to be a God"
We don't. I would love the idea that there is a all loving father up in the sky who will take care of us when we die and our eternal soul. It's just that we haven't seen any evidence for that claim. None whatsoever.
This has nothing to do with "wanting" it to be that way. Me wanted something has no bearing on that thing actually... being that way.
Peter's argument is essentially: "I can't accept the possibility that I am insignificant and nothing matters". I don't know either way, but I will post that regardless of what I think is acceptable or not, the world is what it is: either god exists or he doesn't. But me find things un-acceptable is irrelevant to the truth of them.
This video has again confirmed my understanding that there is no evidence for god. He just admitted as much himself.
And he just admitted himself: if nobody believed in God, there would be chaos! If that's the case, that says more about us than about God. Make of that what you will.
Poor. “There’s a a God because I’ve decided to believe there’s a God” isn’t much of an argument.
Peter Hitchens is an arrogant pompous reactionary clown
There is a lot of "poor" in this argument....
He didn't say that at all.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 That's exactly what he said. Weren't you listening? "After many years of not believing in God, (I) came round to the view that I would choose to do so and act as if there is a God."
@@made4mystery930 It's literally not what he said. Nowhere did he say God did in fact exist because of the things he discusses. This was a discussion about theists and atheists. Not about the existence of God and if he had proof for it. He literally said nobody in that room could prove or disprove the existence of God and that was right at the start.
"After many years of not believing in God, (I) came round to the view that I would choose to do so and act as if there is a God."
Nowhere here does he say this was his evidence of God.
"isn’t much of an argument."
It's not intended as an argument. You may not know for certain that mummy is coming home at eleven instead of twelve but you may elect to behave that she will, so that you may do the dishes before she gets home as instructed and avoid a potential spanking.
Why are you people so damn dishonest?
I do not wish for their not to be a God, I simply wish for the truth.
There is no TRUTH without God, if there is no God, than truth is only relative ( just a matter of opinion) and therefore not truly TRUTH. BECAUSE... Your truth is your opinion and my truth is my opinion and there is no standard to declare by, what Truth truly is. God is the ultimate Judge by which HE give us the TRUTH we must live by. Don't believe in God, do whatever you want, there is no true justice, not now, not ever.
What is truth?
@@tooskepticool7675
This is TRUTH
th-cam.com/video/ChWiZ3iXWwM/w-d-xo.html
@@TEQSUN68 yeah tammy, what you wrote is delusion, but carry on
Tammy Isbell Truth is a belief or statement that accurately describes reality. So to say that “there is no truth without god” would mean that a belief or statement can’t accurately describe reality unless there is a god. How would you prove that to be the case?
All this teenage angst in the comment section.
All these non sequitur's in the comments section.
4 years later and still true, lmao.
Shut your fat mouth this isn't ANGST
Ever wondered what Christopher Hitches may be been like as a theist? Well this would have been it.
*Christopher
Cole James I recall that Christopher did not want to be called “Chris”.
Just imagine the good that would have been done if both brothers had realized how disgusting the bible is and how dogmatism pollutes the world
@@jeremiahsilva7458 lol, dogma like secularism, scientism, or atheism? Depopulation, green agenda, all have no dogma right?
And the bible establishing modern civilised societies, not really very disgusting..
Mind space I can't agree.
Christopher Hitchens spoke with more elegance and proposed far more convincing arguments.
A purposeless chaos??, he’s claiming there’s a reason to believe in god because he wants no free will and he wants to live in a picture perfect society with no opposition of a singularly idea, he’s essentially saying he wants the false idea of purpose, a fake idea that this isn’t it, as comforting as it is, there’s no reason to base your life on a false idea of purpose and eternal life.
Edit: DID HE LITERALLY SAY ACT??, Yeah he did, he wants to literally just act like there’s a god for morality and purpose. Good grief.
A picture perfect society is certainly preferable to the alternative. It's hard to imagine you consider that a bad thing. And if belief in God leads to a more ideal society, that certainly lends credence to the idea that there is a God, no? In a perfect world, people would treat each other with dignity, and this only happens with a belief in God, a higher design, and an afterlife.
John Johnson The Problem is that there's too many gods and everyone believes their god is the one. That's been the biggest cause of wars for centuries. So if there were ONLY one God or even better NO god at all then the world must surely be a better place.
@@daisick7953 You are so right and I love it >3
@@Samantha-jd6hv you are so gay and I hate it
@@daisick7953 When it comes to everyone thinking their religion is the true one, that much I will give you, so in that regard you just have to do your own research. I am Catholic because the Bible was written and the events therein were confirmed by multiple primary sources, which I believe gives it precedence over something like Islam, which is based almost exclusively on visions Muhammad had in a cave. However, when it comes to your remark about all wars being religious, that is plainly false. Wars are started and justified for any number of reasons, and there hasn't been a major religious war outside of the Middle East for at least 200 years.
5:57 Peterson before Peterson. Bravo.
hgostos Not a good thing. Like at all in my opinion.
@@felidiafeatherbottom9134 why u say that?
1:27 "And it's not serious for a simple reason: It's not argueing about what we ought to be argueing about"
4:40 "That really is what we are discussing: Do you want it, or do you not want it"
No, that is absolutely not what the discussion is about. He's doing exactly what he's accusing the other side of.
The discussion is not "Do you want to live in a world where there is a god?" but "Is there a god?".
Pretty weak arguement from his side.
Agree
The purest mind is that of a child.... The child seeks questions of his existence at a very early age. The child never gets the right answers because grownups keep giving the wrong answers. How very sad!
@Jonty Who told you that? Or, did you make it up yourself?
Yes the purest mind is that of a new born child. Every child is born an atheist (ie they don't believe in a god). This is soon corrupted by the pressures from their parents and society to conform to the beliefs prevalent in the place where they are raised. Judaism and Islam in the middle East, Buddhist and Hindu in the far East, Catholic and Protestant in America.
Strange how these different religions are all concentrated in their own specific areas. It's almost as if they were just made up by the locals in that area.
@Jonty You lost me at "In fact the bible tells us...". Why should I believe what the Bible says? Because the Bible says I should believe it? That's a circular argument which is proof of nothing.
This guy is a complete prick
Stfu gtfo stop thinking kids are dumb u stereotypical moron
6:37 - 6:50 is outrageous. This is quite ridiculous, especially since he did not actually argue for the existence of god, just said that belief in god makes life great and good.
Him and his brother must have had great conversations
I don't think they kept in touch
I think they had terrible conversations where every one of his epistemological claims kept getting debunked so now he's clamored back to a moral argument that does not have anything to do with the nature of the debate around God's existence.
They certainly would not have ever written "must of"!
@@GooseMcSwan edited just for you , you silly goose
I doubt it
"Christian kicking" 😂
It’s an ongoing habit.
2:20 For all of you theist praising Peter. He admits he doesn’t know...that no one knows. He then goes on to make a wish list as to why he hopes there is a god. Sorry, but this doesn’t prove a theistic deity.
agree with you.. praising debating skills rather than the subject matter...
He wasn't trying to prove a theistic deity. It's very obvious in his speech.
I'm sorry, but did he make an argument during his presentation? If so, I must have missed it.
Yes, sadly he didn't, and I really wanted to hear it.
He said that he cannot argue for the existence of god any more than an atheist can argue against it. We don't fully know how the universe came to be and either side can explain away whatever the other comes up with. He instead argues against a world without the belief in god which is a much better question to debate.
@@alexb7799 Well, you can argue against the abrahamitic God without difficulty. But one or more higher realities or dimensions, purpose behind the universe and consciousness as the fundamental reality - that is much harder to argue against. And there is where I think the really interesting debate is. Between those concepts and materialsm.
Of course not, he went for the sophist approach and sophists never argue for the truth
@rasmuslernevall6938 I believe his argument is 1.) no one can prove or disprove the existence of God, it's a matter of choice and 2.) a person and society in general are all better off with a believe in God because A.) acts as restraining force for the rich, the powerful, the ruthless, the criminals against what we all know as injustice and immoral actions, B.) provides some degree of purpose of life and ones actions and the holds out the promise of life after death
The fact that the most secular societys on planet earth are the safest, cleanest, best educated and most progressive, demonstrate how Peter is wrong.
this isnt true at all
complete opposite of what you said
North Korea?
Stalinist Russia?
Richard Dawkins in the background.
Oxford resident....as is PH
@Alan Bane Nice bait you got there
And Peter Shirmer (US)
@Alan Bane English ain't yer first language, isn't it?
What makes this debate precious is the way both sides bring their opinions rather than their knife to the duel...
1st mistake, we do not directly choose our beliefs. They are the result of multiple indirect factors.
This is a stupid argument. He's saying that it would be great if God exists, not arguing in any way for the existence of God. If anything he's saying it's quite likely that humans invented a God because it's so nice to think that a God exists.
HE GETS PRAISE FOR HIS WELL READ SPEECH AND STERN DELIVERY OF WORDS THAT SOUNDED LIKE THE BEST HIP HOP RAP OF THE YEAR HE IS A STAR OF THE HOOD AND THE GHETTO HE HAS WON OVER OUR HEARTS WITH THE GRACE AND CHARM OF A PROPHET.
@Hal Landy your right. Just as your statement is dismissed do to lack of evidence for it I believe hitch took that from Aquinas.
@Hal Landy voice text. Errors bound to happen lol.
The premise shown here is presumed and is an opinion, not a valid premise for a truth statement. You made this assertion with no premises given.
So the statement is merely an assertion without premises, a conclusion which is declared as Truth, yet is without evidence of its own Truth value. It is presented as universal, and it is taken that way by Atheists who intend to deny any responsibility for giving rational reasons for their rejection of theist evidence (either disciplined deduction, or material empirical evidence). Yet it is possible to conceive of exceptions to the Razor, so it is not a incontroverible rule of either logic or universal epistemology.
The Demonstration of Non-Coherence:
A statement which self-refutes is paradoxical, i.e. non-coherent. Hitchens’ statement not only cannot prove itself, nor is there any evidence of its universal truth, it has the unfortunate characteristic of providing the means for its own dismissal: If the statement is true, then it is dismissable as without value. If it is dismissed without value, then how can it be true and valuable? It cannot. Paradox and non-coherence render a concept to be non-logical and irrational, and that is the fate of Hitchens’ Razor.
Consequences For Atheists Who Attempt to Use Hitchens’ Concept:
Hitchens’ comment regarding dismissing without evidence backfires directly into the faces of Atheists who try to use it in defense of their denial of intellectual responsibility for their rejection of actual theist evidence, both material and non-material.
The Atheist denial of the intellectual burden to rationally defend their rejection is never accompanied with any evidence in its support of the denial, just as their rejection itself is never accompanied with any evidence.
Because Atheists have no evidence to support the position that there is no god, that position also is dismissable under Hitchens’ decree. In fact, any and all Atheist positions are dismissible under Hitchens’ Razor - see Hitchens’ very own admission of lacking proof for his accusations, above. Thus, his accusations may be dismissed without evidence, in fact without any reasoning at all, under Hitchens’ Razor.
personally I think Hitchens should have left theology to people like Thomas Aquinas
Tell me this religious folk. If it were proven tomorrow that god does not exist would you become a rapist, thief or paedophile?
Edward Kirkhope whats your point?
I assume he's trying to demonstrate the absurdity in the claim that basic moral values come from a "holy" book.
I'm Muslim and respect to my brother Peter
Peter is an Anglican, lol!
All humans are brothers though :)
@@alfredthepatientxcvi Anglicans have highest IQ. They surpass Jews, Atheists, and Agnostics.
Those who heed warning, and those who hold to Judaism, and the Christians, and the Sabaeans - whoso believes in God and the Last Day and works righteousness - they have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will be upon them, nor will they grieve.
(2:62)
Pretty vague unfortunately. Bordering on ad homonym. I don’t agree with the suggestion that atheists are atheists because they don’t “want there to be a god”. It’s about reason and rationality.
I came to this video hoping to be convinced that there could be a god. He has not made any valid point but to say why he thinks there should be a god
Henry Discipline Sure, it is a man made concept, but it is rooted in concrete history. No matter what religion you look at, there was a historical event or a person that actually existed and was a catalyst for that religion or set of beliefs.
It’s important to respect these beliefs whether you choose to follow them or not because there is concrete evidence of these things, and of course everything after that is rooted in belief.
The choice that people make though is whether to accept the proof and the idea that there is more to it. Or to state that the only thing that exists is the concrete proof and nothing more.
So it it very much possible that there is a god, or some being or force that has a will and created man, however there is the possibility that there is no god of any kind and never has been.
Granted, so far most of the evidence that has cone up around the topic of religion or higher beings points to the possibility of something like this. Ex: Jesus, Muhammad, Mother Mary, and many more plus their respective historical events. All being real people that existed and seemed to have evidence that God exists. But of course it is ultimately choice to believe these historical figures and events.
So would you rather believe in something that has some chance of being wrong, or just believe in nothing at all?
@@Koubles
Pascal's wager...
redoe165 yup there is no real evidence of a god it’s just if we can’t explain something we blame it on a higher power, all this guy did was try and offend the atheist and questioned there morals, not much of an argument
Awesomekk hey guy I wonder why a historical event recorded in a book after the event occurred is correct
Because this argument rests on indisputable premise that it is completely and utterly impossible for us to ever know. Therefore as kant said if you cannot know something, like if God exists , it becomes a choice that someone makes based on if it is in his interest.
Of course God does exist, but only in the minds & imaginations of religious people.
+Mo Hammered Better yet, all THOSE G-Ds that we "know of" DO exist - in the respective brain of the respective believer. These G-Ds and their contradictions are well-sealed from another, by evolved-primate skullbone!
You have to admire the fact that the representative for the Oxford Union appears unable to spell.
It's simply a myth that atheists don't want there to be a god. Ask any atheist, aside from Christopher maybe, and they will entertain the idea of an afterlife as a pleasant one. This whole rant felt like an angry memo to his older brother, to alleviate the verbal annihilation Peter must have endured over the years. That face at 7:46 tells it all.
I would say it depends on the atheist itself. Some want there to be an afterlife, some don't. But it doesn't matter. What matters isn't necessarily if we want there to be an afterlife or not, what matters is why we don't believe in a magical sky daddy.
@@mism847 Yeah it's utterly irrelevant to the atheist position.
"...restraint on power which Christian belief provides". I love that.
I love it as well, insofar as it is a blatant lie. Christianity , and almost every other organised religion is all about power.
@@aue82a our faith isn't a religion, but a relationship with Jesus which drives us to be exalted only when we serve.
@aue82a Christianity is clearly not about power. That would be the Catholic church. The lack of worldly power is evidenced by the persecution of Christians throughout history.
Does anyone really think that the average church goer seeks to "advance through the ranks" on their way to world domination as they tithe their money each week?
Or that the church pastor, having recieved his modest salary has any power. Or that the voulenterr run church plans to take their tithes and finance some new world order. Come on back to reality
The Huge Strong Demons Torture the
atheists agnostics
sorcerers in Hell Forever.
Because the
atheists
agnostics
sorcerers Rejected and did not accept God.
In Revelation God throws the
atheists
agnostics
sorcerers into Hell to burn forever.
@@GODCHRISTmadeTheBigbang lol there is no freaking evidence of heaven or hell or even god.. What rubbish are you talking about brother? 😂
The comment sections in these videos made me realise how screwed up and twisted people are nowadays...
It's one thing to debate your point of views. Mocking people's profound beliefs is something completely different which many atheists do all too much. It is an intellectually infantile way to debate yet they want to present themselves as intelligent.
+Anthony Chorlton Yeah, Religious people never mock Atheism. Never...
+Jolly Joel show me where the religious people mock atheism in this comment thread. Even if you could, which you can't, show me where they even come close to the atheist trolls here mocking religious people with the same frequency lol
tha1ne Umm... Did you not read the comment I was responding to? He made a generic statement, in general towards Atheists,
*"which many atheists do all too much."*
...and I see plenty of Atheist saying this was a good argument from Peter as well as the typical _questioning theists' intelligence_ that Atheist tend to do. Like what I can do to your comment (insert insult of your mistake here).
Would you like me to back up my sarcastic claim that Religious people mock Atheist? If I do, it won't be difficult to confine it to America alone.
Jolly Joel LOL you completely missed the point of my comment (which was fairly straightforward). You basically implied religious people mock atheism as well (perhaps even to the same extent atheists mock religious people). I call bullshit, and so does the poster above you, who basically says this is an infantile way of conducting oneself intellectually. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to find me where the religious people mock atheists in this comment section, go ahead, you won't bitch
Not much of an argument: "my wish is my 'argument'. You go by the facts, so you're a bad person."
Where are your "facts" that God does not exist? As Peter stated, the belief or disbelief, is all a matter of choice. Why don't you want there to be a God?
No - this is Hitchins saying he BELIEVES god exists and still fails to provide physical evidence.
The Holy Bible “fools say there is no God” and Isaiah 45:5 “I am The Lord and there is no other; besides Me there is no God. I arm you, though you do not know Me, so that they may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is no one besides Me; I am The Lord, and there is no other” - salvationisfromthejews.com
The words of God(BIBLE) for me is nothing more than expression and product of Human Weakness, the BIBLE is collection of primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish to me, For me Christianity is incarnation of the most childish Superstitions”
- Albert Einstein
You religion says there is no other god than the one described in your religion? No kidding... It is exactly the same speech for any religion in regard to their respective gods.
I did not speak.
vaikunth shenoy- what about the 1 million deities & pagan gods in mythical Hinduism? moirananoonan.com & gloriapolo.com
Exactly but I bend my knee to The God of gods alone and not any manmade or mythical creature!
It amazes me the amount of time atheist’s spend talking about something that they don’t believe exists
Alot of atheists understand that if god is real then he is hugely important. Of course it makes sense to keep investigating.
As an Atheist, the reason I spend time talking about something that doesn’t exist is because I care about truth. Do you care about truth?
You do realize Peter’s entire argument in this video is that he wants god to exist, therefore he does? He is not someone that actually cares about truth.
@@renocicchi7346 Reno, one way or another we will find the truth, I wish you well,may the blessing’s of almighty god fall upon you 🙏🇮🇪👍
OMG I CANT RESIST!!! Who is the bigger fool? The man who believes in a fairy sky man, or the man who argues with the first man of the non-existance of said fairy sky man?
as a christian, it perplexes me that some atheists argue God dosnt exist. Peter here reveals what is up their butts. Namely the desire for closure to their guilt problem. However, this involves a denial. Not a disbelief.
Alternatively, there is a more elegant solution. If you search the Word of God you will find that Christ is a free gift, if you arent too prideful to accept it. This relieves some atheists need for closure. But, like I said, pride can be an enormous stumbling block.
@@seanmilliken4866 the first one is the only fool
tell me, is saying you want god to exist proof for its existence?
6:45 that is a dumb argument. He is talking about christian values and then says that is why god exists. But there is no direct connection. Most people in Europe hold christian values without believing in god.
Hitchens seems to be saying, "Whether or not there is a God, you atheists should be grateful for the belief in God that keeps us believers from murdering you."
Well let's all hope that Peter continues believing in his version of god, because from what he said here it sounds like everybody should watch out if he doesn't!
PH beautifully expresses the significance of God. From a Materialistic standpoint, belief in God undermines everything. Abusive power, crime and deceit make perfect, sensible tactics if there be no God. The best 'proof' of God probably lies within consciousness itself.
So which god among hundreds is the right one?
Do you put put proof in inverted commas because you know there is no such thing and therefore everything you have said is total bollocks?
@@maxluong2
The evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ clearly proves that the God of the Bible exists and others don't exist.
I don't even know where to begin, with this. Firstly, I find it both incredible and disturbing, that this man could even belong in the same race as his brother, let alone share the same parents. How can it be Humanly possible, that someone of Christopher Hitchens' staggering intellect, insightfulness, logic, reasoned skills of debating & argument and comprehensive wisdom, was brother to this ignorant, intellectually bankrupt, pompous, arrogant oaf of a man? At no point during his slot, did he offer ANY argument for the existence of a god (ok, we all know that theists HAVE no argument, but he didn't even try!), but simply poured out a tirade of insults and mockery to men who are, obviously, his intellectual superior. It's clear to see why he did this; it is simply because he KNOWS he cannot beat them in anything approaching a mature and logically reasoned debate so, instead, his only recourse is to try to discredit them by infantile name-calling. His speech had more padding than a pillow factory, and there was, basically, nothing of substance or real intelligence in the whole 8 minutes or so that he stood there. Anyone of even the most basic level of intelligence and insightfulness will see that this is a man who is angrily aware of his own woeful lack of ability in the arena of intellectual debate, and is feebly attempting to cover those inadequacies with mockery and cheap insults. He mentioned that he used to be an Atheist, but then came round to actually believing in god. We often hear of people who have gone from being believers to become Atheists, as they go through life becoming more enlightened and wise to reality. But to go the other way?? This takes a special kind of stupid! I think that Peter Hitchens is frustrated and angry that Christopher was the immense, intellectual talent that he was, and has great difficulty handling that hard fact. But he's doing himself no favours, by hammering that fact home, when he partakes in debates of this nature, for which he is hopelessly ill-equipped. He'd be better off by just maturely accepting the fact that Christopher had all the brains, and he himself had...well...fuck all, really!
👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼This!!!
quite profound I must say, my dear friend!
Sadly, your first line should have given you the notion that you shouldn't have begun.....instead you blundered forward in ignorance. Most of your (wilful?) lack of understanding could be redressed if you read a book (The Rage Against God, by Peter Hitchens). Further misunderstandings as to the relationship between male siblings could be dispelled by reading another book (Hitch 22, by Christopher Hitchens). These two brothers have always been as different as can be, and were always encouraged to argue their positions. Close watching of the videos of Christopher, viewed dispassionately, will reveal him to be a bully......intelligent, articulate and erudite certainly, but a bully never-the-less, plainly revealed by his war-mongering stance in the face of Islamic extremism....and one who drank and smoked himself to an early grave........thereby rescuing us all from his foolish, selfish, vindictive adoration of the criminal thug Trotsky. To the best of my knowledge Peter has never done or said anything cruel to anyone (although many are upset by the things he says), but has always stood up for his beliefs. Although it is true that Peter was once enamored with the philosophical disease of Marxism, his Christianity would appear to have saved him. Perhaps you would be better off by examining yourself, along the lines that Peter mentioned in his talk (also notice that he is at Oxford speaking.....why did no-one ask you?), and ask yourself why you do not want there to be a God.
I thought Peter was brilliant., Peter was the wise one in the family
peter has accomplished quite a bit, no need to be jealous of Chris.
Peter makes no attempt whatsoever to answer the question, instead insisting on how nice it would be if there were a god, and ridiculing atheists as bad people who want there to be no god. Every point he made could be granted, and we'd be no closer to proving there's a god.
he said something about the opposition not really arguing about the concept of god's existence and then proceeds to talk about justice and stuff about living for a reason... sigh im getting tired of these people
Yeah all that stuff about living life with meaning is rather pointless. Why would you ever want to do that?
Not everyone has your attention span of 5 minutes.
@@just-some-menace6138 Life is so much without God. Why there has to be a god to find points in your life? And the biggest problem with Peter Hitchens' was that he actually said that atheists want no justice by a stupid reasoning process. First of all many atheist want God to exists they are just not convinced. And with that sentence the argument of Peter is wrong. But even if atheist wouldnt want God to be real why wouldnt they want justice? Peter implied that all human achievements that led the world to what it is today (the good things ofcs) happened because of God or because of the belief that there is a God. I enjoy listening to people who believe with good arguments but this was just disappointing.
I hate that theists go personal all the time. I am a Catholic but I love the rational and straightforward thinking of these atheist gentlemen
The atheist thinking comes from a personal view. Religious thinking comes from a personal view. I'm a born again Christian and I believe people are rejecting God, the only holy and righteous judge, because they know they are doing things against God, so they need to get rid of God. I believe it is as simple as that.
But God provided us with a Savior. Repent and trust in him and your Sins are forgiven and given everlasting life as a free gift.
@@speggeri90 You reject Allah, because you know you are doing things against Allah, so you need to get rid of him.
Thanks clapton. I'm an atheist and I have respect for religious people, but not the kind like Peter who think calling us bad people is any kind of argument for a god.
@@abdmzn allah the great deceiver is clearly satan. muhammed was a devil worshiping pedo.
His argument is completely devoid of facts and he played on people's fears. He admitted that nobody knows if there is a god or not. He thinks people should believe in one simply because it would make them uncomfortable if they thought there wasn't and that they wouldn't have any purpose in their lives. All of which is a lie. There are plenty of people who don't believe in god that lead strong productive lives full of purpose and strive to do good things despite not subscribing to any religion. How do these people get purpose without believing in such a system? They carve their own path. They figure it out themselves. And doing such a thing is dangerous to those who want to remain in power. They can't have people going off and doing their own thing. They need people to serving them and bowing down to them so they can advance their own agendas.
People like Peter Hitchens want others to believe in god and more importantly, religion, so that they can be more easily controlled and manipulated by the powers that be. Notice how he implies that to believe in god, you have to subscribe to a certain religion. Because if you were to believe in god but not a religion, you still cannot be controlled as easily because there is too much left up to you to decide (such as what's right/wrong, purpose, etc.) Religion is a man made system designed to control people through fear. Fear as in "if you don't do xyz, you're going to hell." It's also there to shove purpose into peoples' hands who can't come up with their own. Making your own path is difficult as it requires a lot of introspection. And more often than not, it tailors to the individual's needs and not to the collective welfare of others. Something which threatens all parties of power.
And the idea that the world be anarchy if everyone were to stop believing in religion tomorrow is nothing more than fear-mongering. People wouldn't just instantly turn on each other and start robbing, stealing, and killing. Countries still exist and so do laws. What would happen for sure though is that people would start to re-think their lives and prioritize what THEY think is important, not what some religion or god wants them to think is important.
2nd mistake, a god is not required for purpose to be created. We create purpose every day. We also discover natural means that is the expression of meaning. Again, no gods required.
I’d rather die in the hope of the after life then die with no thought of after life and find out that I was wrong
If you pick the wrong God, it's fire for you.
Which one are you picking?
@@andrewoliver8930 fairly easy, itd be the one who in detail describe the world we currently live in ca few thousand years before time aka YHWH
@@xxxmmm3812 the one created a day before the sun?
Oh dear.
I'd rather die thinking that I just wouldn't exist after I die (as I hadn't for billions of years), than thinking that I would get an eternity of bliss (assuming god lets me go to heaven) whilst dozens of my friends and family members were burning in hell.
@OLIOB 1 I don't see any point in replying if you're not going to explain. I'm well aware there's people that disagree, so saying "that's not how it works" is pretty pointless.
He basically said "I choose to believe in something beautiful no matter wheter or not it is true"
It’s a nice sentiment, but religion is a nasty manipulative thing at its core. I like the idea of believing in something pure and beautiful even if it could be untrue, but it’s still a fantasy without evidence.
There is much evidence in the world that God exist. Atheists simply deny that evidence.
The least convincing argument I have heard in a long while. Distilled to “I think believing in god is better than not”
that is his point, we cant prove there is a god, but belief in one is best for morality
Arguing about the existence or otherwise of God is wasting energy.
An honest scientist would, I think, come to the conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive. More arguments and debates will not bring us to a firm conclusion.
But we still have to decide how we will live. That is where Mr Hitchens thinks we should focus our attention.
I for one agree with him
On another note about "justice"
Nobody was ever forced to be an atheist.
Yet, most (if not all) religious institutions at some point did in fact force others to become followers of their religion (usually at the point of a sword).
Where's the justice in that?
Atheist are force to be atheist by their own personal situation, 90% of atheist are once a religious people, they left theist to become atheist maybe because they couldn't find answers to their personal situation, someone who lost his or her love ones to cancer or covid, war, road accident may end up becoming atheist because he or she believed God failed them for not protecting their love Ones life, either someone force you or something force you, the most important thing is that you were compelled to make a choice.....and for those religious that uses sword to convert people to their religion, there is justice for the innocent, it may not be here, but I believed in afterlife and I believed Justice would be serve in afterlife, while received their justice here on earth.
@@Talktime.9ja BS,
Most atheist I've met just studied the religion that they were indoctrinated into as a child.
That's all it takes. Study your religious book with a critical eye, most people will see the contradictions and hypocrisies are quite abundant. Whatever your definition of god, most involve a perfect being (among other things). How could a perfect being create an imperfect book/document?
Besides, justice not gained in this life, is justice lost. Unless you can prove the existence of an afterlife (you'd be the first).
@@tracewallace23 you may said the Bible contradict itself and that would be base on your level of understanding, imperfect book you called it which depend on what you mean by imperfect or perfect! You can mentions one book in this world that is perfect, if no human is perfect that means no books is perfect... I don't want to prove afterlife to you, but I will tell a true life story, if you like believe and if you like don't believe, we are all running a different race, whether God exist or not I got nothing to lose, so I better chose God here on earth, at the end if you're right that God doesn't exist and no afterlife, I still got nothing to lose, but if I am right and God do exist and their is afterlife and I deny God here on earth, I think this is where I got everything to lose. So, I chose God. My story was in 2007 I lost a cousin brother to death, but a year later my aunt which the deceased mother received a money gifts from a messenger who claimed that my cousin sent him to delivered the money to his mother, he even show my aunt a recent picture of them to confirmed his claim, when my aunt burst out with tears telling the messenger that her son died a year ago, the messenger was cold felt sick instantly after an hour of doubt and arguing with the people around, they showed him the grave, going back to town of the messenger he sent a letter back that he could find the guy again that he vanished and the compound people couldn't tell where he went to, this story related to me, is not something I heard, the one I heard was man who died and buried, 10 years later Unfaithful day a woman with children arrived in the mans compound that she is the wife of the decease man that they came to celebrate Christmas, they asked her where is her husband she said her husband is on his way that he branched to greet a friend but he gave them the address of the house...the parents of the man started crying they told her the story that her husband died 10 years ago, showing her his grave yard, she didn't believed, in fact she feinted, they pour her water after regaining her strength she couldn't talk because she was shocked and traumatized, what made her believed the story was when she recalled several times she has been pressurized her husband to visit his people and he always turn her down, and the second thing was that many days passed she didn't see her husband who said he was visiting a friend that he would join them at home. there are many stories like this two, but we don't know if science or scientists or even atheist's can explain this to us....
@@Talktime.9ja If (as you say) "no book is perfect, because no human is perfect" 🤔
What does that say about WHO wrote the religious book that you adhere to?
Btw, it's not important that "I said" that the bible contradicts itself. Only that it does
(Hint, bronze age humans, with a bronze age scientific understanding of the world).
As for your stories, that's the one thing humans have been doing since language was invented. Telling stories. I'm sorry, but I'm not really interested in "stories" without scientific proof.
And even if, science can't prove/disprove a thing, or doesn't know the answer to something, that still doesn't equal god.
I'm just curious, do you believe that evolution is real?
@@Talktime.9ja also, what you're doing with your belief in god is called Pascal's wager. An all knowing god should know that you weren't earnest in your faith and you would still lose.
I came to this video hoping for a thought-provoking angle on the existence of God. Desperately disappointed to experience a cloud of tautological guff about how lovely it is to be a lovely Christian, couched in the permissive fluffiness that is the Church of England. His argument, as it is, appeared to go thusly:
- Poetry is nice. Here is a bit of the King James Bible that suggests that we don't know certain things
- As we can agree that we don't know certain things, I (Hitchens) will humbly admit that I don't know these very same things
- As we can agree on our collective epistemological short-comings, we can say that belief in God is a matter of opinion (a dull non sequitur)
- Therefore relativism, a pathetic leap from atheism to nihilism and a deliberate disengagement from the question
Not sure what his point is.
Exactly what I felt. This seems very much to be very articulate nonsense.
His point is you aren't getting away with it but you still delude yourself into believing you will.
@Ayy Leeuz
What do you mean that there is no good angle for either position?
One can argue that both sides involve themselves in circularities. In general, theists point to beauty, order and prophecy fulfilled to solidify their view, all which are in the sacred text or have been forcefully propounded by readers of that book. On the other hand, atheists attempt to fit god into a scientific framework that, by definition, eschews god as unknowable, unreachable, untenable: a literal nonsense. Both find their answer as soon as they choose their methodology.
Either way, I cannot concede that there is equal weight to both sides of the argument. One side will endeavour to prove itself incorrect, throw out ideas that do not fit the evidence and will not rely on immutable sources. The other side is forever stuck repeating the same vague ideas about what must have been, what they would like to believe, how the evidence fits into their belief.
@Ayy Leeuz If you mean secular values as a part of society which includes religious thought, then all such societies have been successful. If you mean SOLELY secular values, I cannot. You know I cannot and I know I cannot. Religion, in its many forms, is diffuse in all societies.
I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. What does that prove other than potential utility? Is it a bug or a feature? Do we have to be Dr. Pangloss about it?
And what does it have to say about whether God exists or whether Peter's argument was anything more than fluff?
@Ayy Leeuz Yes, he reframes it as SHOULD we believe and I too believe it is absolutely unanswerable. I sympathise with the logical positivists on this point and probably think of myself as ignostic, verging on athiest.
I cannot agree that we SHOULD believe, though. The leap that has to be made from we cannot know to we should believe is no less a vault than leaping from the evidence we have to believing in the divine or a particular God. Without evidence, we should we believe anything?
It has been claimed that Peter is just riding the coattails of his older, smarter, more famous, brother. I believe that just the opposite is true. His brother Christopher may be more famous but he was long ago passed, by his younger sibling, for many of the reasons that Peter explained.
Peter realized, as he grew up, something his more notable brother never really did, that he needed to have faith in something, that he had to believe in something other than (and greater than) himself and his intellect. Christopher never really grew up beyond his worship of his own intelligence and his unwavering commitment of scholarship as the Alpha and Omega of life itself.
The notion of Man’s superiority is found solely in intellectual curiosity, as if that abstraction can actually explain what is is to be that thing. Analyzing something isn’t the same as being something.
So Peter rightly concluded that Scientism, atheism and nihilism, based on the fiction of Man being the center of the universe, could not begin to explain all that surrounds us, nor could it even explain what happens to us, our essence, to that which animates us, when we die.
Yes, Peter long ago surpassed his brother. Not because he had all the answers but because he knew that he did not, but knew that if there is to be any meaning to be found in our lives, it has to come from outside ourself and in recognition of all those things that we are not. We are not alone.
Does that mean that there’s a God? No. But it does mean that there’s much beyond our comprehension. It also, certainly, does NOT mean that there ISN’T a God. Peter nailed it.
Nice intro; I can’t wait to hear your argument.
You just didn't understand the argument.
@Bandera's Greatest Disciple Say what? Can you read your post without laughing?
@@jeffreykalb9752 Just like devout christians seldom understand science. He didn't make any arguments... only appeals
@@jeremiahsilva7458 he explained it clearly, atheism is nothing but your desperation to fit in or your narcissism making you believe you're above others. Science has no way of providing God doesn't exist, same we have no way of providing he exists. This is why it's called faith
If God really exists, why does he need conservative journalists to make the case for him.
Argument from personal incredibly
The number of views on these debates is 50% higher for the arguments AGAINST God's existence (opposed to FOR). Many of these people are not interested in listening to two-sided debates, they just seek more second-hand ammunition for their cause.
Maybe because most of the videos with arguments FOR God's existence are like this one, they do not give real arguments. He basically insulted, in a polite way for sure, the entire side of the atheist for 8 minutes straight, without giving any other argument than "it is a matter of choice", and even this argument he did not use him correctly. So why bother listening to arguments FOR God's existence when people are not giving arguments but opinions most of the time.
But he is right. The question of whether or not God exists is not a question that has an answer. What you will hear instead is based on opinions.
@@David-io9lp but you have ignored the most important thing, and that is what should you believe? And if you care about truth, you will only believe things for good reasons. Not because you just want to believe it, like with Peter.
@@renocicchi7346 He does have good reasons for his beliefs. He even outlines them in the video. He is a Christian because of what it stands for: turning the other cheek rather than kicking the other guy in the crutch.
I think you will have to answer the question of what constitutes a "good reason".
@@David-io9lp I don’t mean good reasons as in believing in truth claims just because you think it makes people better. The truth of the claim and how believing the claim makes people behave are two entirely different things.
When I say for good reasons, I mean through good reasoning and evidence the claim a god exists is demonstrated to be true. Do you care about truth?
Wow. His very first point is a logical fallacy, appeal to emotion (and probably more).
_My religion feels good and that makes it right. I am nice and you are bad. I am insulted that I even have to be here to defend the obvious from a gang of licentious thugs._
_In conclusion. My my truth is self evident. Thank you._
0:34 The Gangstas are salivating over this. Love it.
Poor and some what desperate , not a patch on his brother, all he could do was insinuate that all atheists want is for there to be no God so they can sin without fear.........pathetic Peter , absolutely PATHETIC.
Tom Edwards I understand what you are saying Tom, I was merely stating that instead of answering the question he chose to come out with the moral stance, to often used to try to lower the standing of his opposition, insinuating that you can only have morals if you believe that a divine being is watching everything you do! I have heard this nonsense so many times.
Try to imagine if nobody on this planet believed in any god, do you seriously think that we would all go mad and start to rape and pillage and murder and completely run amok leading to the complete breakdown of all society....
or would it be more or less the same except that perhaps life would become more precious , knowing that it was just up to us to make the best of what we have now and for future generations, and we might be free of our religious prejudices and bigotry , and as for governments all over the world ,many are influenced by religion or hide behind it or use it to control the population, or have started wars because of it (all still happening now!) I believe the people of this world will never be truly free until we drop our stupid superstitions educate ourselves and stand up to these religious control freaks.
No Tom I am not glad it exists.
Peter is a smart guy but he will never win this argument
How exactly would a god give meaning to life? Couldn’t a god just as easily create a universe where our lives really amount to nothing in the end and would have made no difference?
That's more of a idealistic God lmao. If God exists then I'm sure that he probably isn't the way that you describe him to be.
@@joemama6557 Exactly HOW do you know that for sure?
@@beefcakepantiehoes If God wasn't interested in humans and life in general why would God create anything?
I like the idea that these brothers disagreed, it's a sign of critical thinking
Yes. His brother clearly has it and Peter does not. A really good example of critical thinking, comparing the two brothers.
@@oscarmedina1303 your horseshit sarcasm doesn't make a point
Stop being smug and find some friends
@joeturner9219 It's actually a fact claim that is either true or false, it's funny how much you religious people fail to distinguish.
@@oscarmedina1303why are you so mad
Amen I agree w/ him completely!!!!!👍🙏👏👏👏👏👏👏
I'm so sorry to hear that.
Harry Denny LOL idiot.
Peter made a great point.
@@Nameless-pt6oj no he doesn’t. His entire argument is he wants god to exist, therefore god does exist
You have to agree, you probably don't know any words of your own!
belief in god and everlasting life is a cop out for those who can't abide the finality of death.
I've always heard it said the directions to heaven are turn right then go straight.
Hell is same, except turn left instead
I believe that all the signposts have been stacked up and in this pile it is called Alphabet. But whoever/whatever stacked it up was playing cards with them, and lost track of where the instructions were for assembling the flat pack and that is why we have a playing card set of 52......Plus Two jokers True and False....
M Brenner I thought you go backwards to hell
@@Metalhead98793
Not that I ever heard.
Smoking or non smoking either way the choice is yours.
Both heaven and hell are not a geographic place, but a state of mind.
I wouldn't argue for or against God. I would argue that most humans do not use their intelligence to see that God exists.
Yup, that must be it.... Intelligence..
Shut up
Yea good facts just saying that the other person is dumb sooo good fucking facts dude
Intellectuals, mostly, don't want to admit anyone is above them, that they know all there is to know.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
I find that whole section of 1st Corinthians so perfectly describes the way the world is especially with the frustrations of most intellectuals.
Lmfao And religion isnt like that?
Get the fk out. Religion is a tool of the brainwashed who haven't got an ounce of abstract thinking outside of their own beliefs!
Lies. Religions (all 10 million of them) are the ones claiming to know everything. The non-believers are just being intellectually honest and saying we don't know and the evidence isn't good enough. Your take is stupid.
Theist: "Do you believe in unicorns?"
Person: "No"
Theist: "Wow so arrogant, you just don't want to admit anyone is above you"
@Anton Babani "Non-unicorn believers did loads of bad stuff, therefore unicorns are real". Thank you for sarcastically calling my response "intellectual", and showing my exact point. That is literally how you all sound but you're too indoctrinated to see it. You can see the absurdity when I substitute God for unicorns, so you should get it now. I can't believe I was ever this brainwashed. It makes me sad to even think about. I hope you break free from this prison soon. You'll all be better off without it.
it is not possible to make fun of God or mock!
- The High Priestly Prayer, John 17:1-26.
- The Sermon on the Mount, Mat:1-48
- Judgment on False Teachers, Jud 1:3-16
- Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints
Mr Hitchens, we atheists don't necessarily "want" there not to a god, we just want him not to be your god.
@imadedd ine Mr Hitchens' god is Yaweh, the homophobic, misogynistic, self-defeating bully of the old testament. Is any further explanation necessary? Oh, and he cannot exist. Nobody would object to nice, tolerant, caring god.
@imadedd ine Not exactly. I'm 99.99% sure that no gods exist. As to "wanting" a god to exist; I, and many other atheists, could imagine a god who's existence might be tolerable; but Yaweh seems not to be him. If I thought it even possible that a god or gods existed, whether or not I wanted them to would be of no importance.
@imadedd ine I'm happy to take that chance! And, that 0.01% does not include Yaweh, whose reputed omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. So the Christians would be wrong too.
@imadedd ine Yes, I enjoyed it too.
@@richardmooney383 So just cause our God does not says what your candy ears want to know he his not right the god of the old testamanet is not evil read more Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
You dont want him to be real cause you know he his and your in bad problem So if you are sure at 99.99 are you sure that you know almost everything in the world cause i used to be an atheist for a long time realize that believing in God is not by facts but by faith Mean trust without seeing i feel god he his real
7:45 It seems that John enjoyed and were satisfied with what Peter boldly spoke.
He is SO SO wrong, I as an atheist just don't see any evidence of the silly fairytale he is talking about. He talks about having a significance for life existing, a need for justice, he & people like him just want's things like that to exist. These people can't handle the idea that god doesn't exist so they convince themselves that he really does exist.
How do you know God does not exist ? I have no idea whether God exists or not. I want to know how you know God does not exist.
I don't think it's that complicated. Any educated person with a grasp of basic logic knows God, in the form most humans imagine him, does not exist. But claiming he does can get you a lot of priviledges, money, social standing etc
he actually talked about the repercussions of there not being a set of laws for us humans to live by. A set of laws given by someone not influenced by humans. An ultimate law to guide us to all goodness. You atheists don't want that so that you can kill and rape whomever you want to. You wont like it if someone does that to your family. but according to your view, if someone did this to your family it would be fine and right. Because we are just molecules in motion, survival of the fittest, and no accountability for actions is necessary. think before believing just any idea you read of in a book or heard in a classroom.
penkop2012 You don't need to believe in magical sky gods to know that murder and rape are abhorrent. Nor do you need to reduce the splendour of human conciousness and culture to 'molecules in motion' just because you don't believe in magic. Think before believing in something of which there is no evidence, and which bears all the hallmarks of fiction (as shown by meta analysis of religious texts).
GeoffonTour No but you do need an absolute law to KNOW that they are abhorrent. After all we are all Humans, and have all come to different conclusions. Slavery used to be fine and now we look back saying, ah we just didnt know the right morality back then. If things like murder and rape are so obviously abhorrent that you will come to the conclusion that they are wrong all by yourself, how can you justify thousands of years of its practice?
God mean Good and Postive energy.
Devil mean Evil and Negative energy.
Peter Hitchens accepted all thing good.
An interesting take. Instead of the usual route of evidence, he goes down more of a societal argument. Taking this, I'd wonder why we don't just make a brand-new one up with the morals of today and ask people to put hope in to that book, instead? I'm of the mindset that you can't choose what you believe so this is essentially playing make-believe with the world in the hopes everyone else does it?
If you didn’t choose that opinion, then Mr. Hitchens (who did) has no use in hearing yours.
This was already done back in the Roman era when combining all sorts of pagan and jewish beliefs into one thing called "christianity"
Actually he did not use a social argument at all. He first said nobody, including those on his side, could prove god exists, effectively conceding every point to his opponents. Then he made a series of completely unsupported (lacking evidence) arguments, almost all of which were ad hominem attacks, which are fallacies and of no argumentative value. His talk about social impacts were all made as unfounded attacks to motive (which is a form of ad hominem attack) of his opponents. He said what his opponents "real goals" were and implying that there was additional even more sinister goals. Note he didn't provide any evidence for his assertions, he simply said what the other side wanted based on absolutely nothing but his opinion. He did throw in some stuff as well about belief in his god being the only thing keeping mankind from descending into some sort of barbarism, but his assertion was not backed with any evidence. It isn't an argument, it is an assertion without basis.
What was also quite hilarious is he started by dismissing all of his opponents arguments as being irrelevant because in his opinion this whole discussion wasn't about whether god existed, but about his opponents motives. But from then on he repeatedly talked about things like justice (in heaven), life after death (in heaven), having purpose instead of chaos (because god gives us purpose), all of which mean literally NOTHING unless his Christian god is real. This of course means that his argument is founded ENTIRELY on the idea that god exists, but he already conceded that there is no evidence of gods existence. If there is no evidence of gods existence, and all your points gain all their value entirely from gods existence, then your points are all unfounded and of no value (which isn't a big deal anyway because they were all ad hominem attacks of no value to start with).
@@arentol7 You say justice(in heaven) means nothing unless God is real?
The justice(in heaven) is served based on what we do here on earth, NOT in what we do in heaven. So yes, justice means something in this debate which takes place on earth. This is exactly why Peter asserts what their “real goals” are as you say. You focus on the evidence of God because you don’t want to believe that what we do matters. Peter says something along the lines of “no one was there to see the beginning of the universe so there’s no evidence to be discussed.” There was never an argument as there’s no evidence for either side. That’s why he says it’s a choice man.
@@nathanfoss766 Are you being intentionally obtuse? Did you also think I meant life after dying while in heaven, because that part was presented exactly the same way. Very clearly I meant Justice in heaven for what we do on earth, because that is what he was talking about so why would I talk about something different? Apparently that is how you roll, but not me.
And of course my point is that since he said nobody could offer evidence of Gods existence, bringing up anything that depends entirely on the existence of God is of no value because he himself ripped out the foundation of his very argument.
I’m 68 and finally after all these years Santa took the cookies I left out. I was beginning to think he wasn’t real.
Your point being?
@@251rmartin having a brain would've been better
Feel a bit sorry for Peter
Religion, like any good horror story, comes from the fear of the unknown. Draws its power from scared or uncertain people.
This speech more resembles an Early Medieval theology seminary. The master rumbles about all his theories, the students do everything to repent for their previous generations, their grandfathers who planted garlands and sacrificed oxen to Jove and Sol. And I fear the same grief gripes Peter Hitchens, he's desperate to put up belief in a randomly selected god in order to save his soul when he is to come before this being. And, in this situation, you're both very confident and ready to use every possible line of reason to justify that this random god is real. God, yes. Zeus, Allah, Buddha, Thor, Vishna, Jupiter, Poseidon, Athena, Ahura Mazda, no no all these are not important in this discourse.
We want Hitler and Mao judged for their crimes by an absolute authority after their physical death. So did the people who died in their early 20's around the writing of the Bible desire a 'fair new life' after the first one, but where are they to tell us about it? What evidence do you have that Heaven exists, which most likely comes from the Elysian Fields, the ancient greek world of fair souls.
Why do Atheists really want a world with no God? Because religion is nonsensical, has restricted free thought through fear and destroyed people who contradicted its wrong understanding on the world, like Copernicus - and we now know life needs no divinity. Modern religions are nothing but borrowings stitched up from previous polytheistic faiths. Humans have been born through evolution, not from the mind of a superbeing. A world dominated by religion, we know how that looks like - fear mongering to win elections and societies backwarded in the Late Antiquity and Middle Ages. Discrimination, the repression of science, burning on the stake, killings on the cross. Genital mutilation and, on top of those, the birth of religious terrorism.
We don't know how a world where monotheism has finally died looks like. But, when the moment comes to have a taste, I am convinced that the superior education of people then and all the things they are to discover by then will ensure the greatest balance on our planet
I'm new to this series (I didn't know the Oxford Union was on TH-cam.) Is there a place where the results of the votes post-debate are visible? Thank you, in advance, for your help.
I still waiting for the part where he shows any concrete evidence for God.
He basically wasted 8 minutes saying we should just choose to believe there is a God.
Can I also choose to believe Spiderman is real? Why do we not want to believe that Spiderman is real?
If God exists...everything was evidence of his handiwork. If god doesn't exist, the same can be said of materialism.
Do you have evidence the universe was created from nothing...of course not, nobody has, but that's what you chose to believe. The real question is why...
Brilliant mind, brilliant analysis, brilliant Christian!
Much of the concept of God is based on choice. Free will choice is a fallacy. We make choices but they are never without cause. We are controlled by causes. And God is the cause of everything. This is scriptural fact. Once you begin to understand it, things begin to make a bit more sense.