+cyber6sapien and in the new testiment...bare in mind thats where Hell comes into it. eternal torture wherein god is responsible for. lol in the old testimate hes responsible for the deaths of about 2million people. new testament hes now responsible for the eternal torture of billions. plus its not like they are seperate characters..lol old and new are the same book. its liek 60% of the book with all the stuff that 'prophecies' jesus and has the commandments and the backstory for everything youjr religion is..and you want to forget it? lol ok while your at it forget the new one too ;)
+YesYou123333 yeah but aahh..people wrote this silliness and it's a lie.. And aahh, your bat shit crazy enough to believe any of its true.. Admit it Christains your scared of a loving God that you know is no more loving than issil, you let others control you and you demand we get on board the good ship lollipop and be controlled like you.. I took responsibility for my life when are you going to drop the hate... When we the people have had enough? When we start burning you in your churches, are you going to drop the hate then or are you going to die a man and realize filthy Christains belong in there burning churches, die you filthy religious scum die😎
Christopher Hitchens throughout his books and lectures have provided me with more consolation, Wit and knowledge than any Church ever did. Thank you Christopher for opening my eyes to Science logic and reason, I am forever indebted to you dear Sir, people will talk and remember your brilliance and your humanity for hundred and hundred of years, genius erudite, I miss you everyday of my life until the day I die, may your mellifluous voice echo in eternity.
I usually do not believe anyone on anything without some vetting. Like you for example. Calling him a drunken bum does not make him a liar (or a drunken bum for that matter). If you have an example of his lies (which I hear there are many :) I would be happy to look it up.
Thank the gods for so many Hitchens debates on TH-cam :D When I'm depressed, I watch one of these, and it always gives me strength and puts a smile on my face. Thank you, Hitch! We love you and miss you!
Mr. Bean seems to be talking alot and saying nothing, proposing many lofty explanations for phenomena without any evidence. He lost before Hitchens even spoke.
McGrath is an educated scientist who has become believer and educated himself in theology also. Hitchens was a jurnalist who had never demostrated any real knowlage in science, theology or philosophy that he loves so much. And your comment only shows the amount of indoctrination Humanist secular religion has made on some people. I would bet that you have skipped everything McGrath was saying.
Hitchens (Christopher) is the man that makes the most logical sense in this debate. We are high primates and there is a massive amount of evidence that proves it. We are pattern seekers that look for faces in the clouds and hear voices in the wind. Now we can use science to learn the truth about nature and ourselves in relation to our surroundings. Over the years I've grown out of being superstitious. I don't even say R.I.P. Mr. Hitchens. He left this world a better place and I'm still enjoying these debates and podcasts he recorded reading his own books "HITCH 22" and "GOD IS NOT GREAT".
Debra smith I may be wrong but I'm assuming your comment was for that other guy. He follows me around and posts that same comment under many of my posts. So, I deleted him. He can lie on his own thread.
If I were in that auditorium, I would be fighting the temptation to applaud and cheer very loudly at the end of every argument Christopher Hitchens makes. The'd probably throw me out pretty quick. RIP Hitch, I miss you a lot.
A disappointing exchange. A lost opportunity. Hitchens is trying to strike a vapour here. McGrath's remarks are vague, obscure and too subjective. He just dodges Hitchens' points throughout. No one won, since there really was no debate here. McGrath's strategy is to retreat into woolly terms and concepts that defy refutation by virtue of their meaninglessness.
I agree with most of what you said. McGrath's views were vague and he certainly dodged a lot of points.... I don't like to think of these debates as win or lose rather a way to help us better understand our reality.... However, if this is a win or lose situation I would say this was a first round KO by Hitchens as McGrath simply didn't have the ammunition for this discussion...
chel3SEY You don't understand the word definition? It means by default, no matter what, regardless of the religious apologists rebuttals, etc etc, It means, since science is true and there is no personal God and the concept of such is in fact sinister, immoral and totalitarianistic at the very least. This would rather tersely and firmly entail that the anti-theist wins every debate (That of Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, or whomever) Thus my former comment: By definition the anti-theist wins.
You didn't read my message properly. I didn't ask about the meaning of "definition", obviously (although not to some, apparently). My question was "definition of what?" (By the way, your definition of definition shows that you don't actually know what it means!) And you still haven't answered my question... It is bizarre, bordering on meaningless, to say that anti-theists must win "by definition" (of what, it isn't clear, but I presume you mean "God") because God doesn't exist, since that is the very issue being debated! Even Dawkins admits the possibility that God exists, so it isn't a matter of "definition" to him. Although science is true (otherwise it wouldn't be science), it is far from obvious where the truth lies in many cases given that scientists don't agree. Sounds to me like you are a dogmatist who doesn't really understand the things you are dogmatic about: science, reason, truth, religion. You are far from unique among anti-theists in that regard. By the way, I don't believe that God exists myself, so you needn't reply with the (irrelevant) charge that I'm just a theist. I'm an anti-theist who opposes sloppy, syllogistic thinking... on both sides.
Worshipping Jesus: The idea that a perfect god was cross with something he created, for doing something he created it able to do; then the god split himself in two in order to sacrifice himself to himself to save his creation from his own punishment he only inflicted upon them because he created them imperfect. The refusal of this ritual results in eternal torture. Then the creation must love and worship the god for this. What would you say if an actual father did that to his actual child? Getting cross with your child for thinking wrong, then beating yourself up in front of your child to stop him from getting grounded then saying if the child does not love you and accept this beating on his behalf, he will be tortured in the basement forever. Or, send your child to die so that you could forgive someone else... These are not actual moral teachings. Think about it. Actually think about it.
***** That, though there are centuries of thought on these issues, you have missed all of them in your post. You assume the definitions of: God wrath (you use 'cross,' much less and different from the biblical descriptions and the theological considerations) creation nature atonement sin Incarnation redemption salvation hell morality and therefore your tongue-in-cheek description is only cheeky and as a result of that, completely wrong. Your aim is not truth but only denigration. It's not even skepticism, only despising. That's why you do not bother to listen to the real issues. For you to get anywhere near the truth on these matters (as you can see, there are more than one), you would have to study for some years. Until then, you probably would not be right to question, but not qualified to criticize.
Aristo Telian Your arrogant condescension is unwelcome. I have been studying religion for years and would wager I know more about it's teachings than you do. However, that being said, most people have their own personal interpretations of what they would prefer their beliefs to be - hence the tens of thousands of denominations of christianity for example. I have simplified the myth somewhat in order to make it more concise, but I have not misrepresented it, and have in fact given an accurate description of what it claims. Cheeky is not by necessity incorrect, not by any stretch of the imagination, and given that you are apparently a Christian I think we both know how far you can stretch yours. i.e. believing in something makes you immortal. I daren't bet on what it is exactly that you believe because - as I have just said - there are so many personal differences there would likely be something I got wrong.
***** 1. You are not reading what I'm writing. I did not say that you have not studied religion. I said that you missed all studies that have been done 'in your post.' Which you did. 2. If simple truth is 'arrogant condescension' in your eyes, you might want to reconfigure your definitions. However, I think it was a simple matter of reading too quickly and superficially and of assuming a character of the person you are writing to. I'm sure that you have written to people who were just as you at first thought them to be, but not everyone will be. 3. Please do not in haste assume a superior position in any argument. It blinds you to the answers. 4. The different denominations may not, by virtue of their existence, prove that something, anything, may be false about Christianity. It depends on the reason for the denomination's existence. 5. You did, in fact, misrepresent the Christian religion, and in a way that has been discussed at least since the time of Augustine. Your concision was from imprecision, which arouses the suspicion of disregard. Thus you missed important facts about your subject(s). 6. 'Cheeky' _need_ not be incorrect, but it usually is, for it normally has itself as the point, and not truth. In your case, it was. 7. I am a Christian, but whether I am immortal is another question, and one that does not interest me. I do not think about it. Then, how far *do* I stretch my imagination? 8. Neither of us knows how much biblical or religious knowledge the other has, so why would you 'wager' that you have more than I do?
+Jonathan Lewis Nobody says you do, but if the major atheistic regimes of the 20th century are any indication (chairman Mao's regime = 150,000,000 Chinese deaths, Lenin/Stalin's Soviet Union = 70,000,000 deaths, I would suggest that society without religion can lead to the very worst actions of mankind in terms of general magnitude.
David Henderson are you familiar with the Crusades? British occupations? The slave trade? The conquest of the Native Americans? All things that were endorsed by "Christian Regimes" to use your argumentative language.
Oh damn, almost forgot about the Witch Hunts that killed millions. The Spanish Inquisition. Violence against Catholics perpetrated by Henry VIII. And you should always remember that the United States is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 Native Americans. You can blame it on religious extremism or societal ignorance, but it's still 100 million people. And don't give me an argument like "our Christianity was flawed back then" because the same people who use the sorts of arguments you're using with the "Atheistic Regimes" (that doesn't actually make any sense) would say that the United States has always been a Christian nation. That our morals have always been defined by the Bible and by God. If that is true, then Christianity is just as violent as Atheism, by your own admission. If a Christian nation can perpetrate violence on the same scale as one with the absence of religion. That should also tell you if religion or lack thereof can both cause such horrendous crimes against humanity, why do those things happen? It's because people treat each other poorly, with no respect. Dehumanizing fellow humans instead of listening and respecting points of view. I do not spit on religion, I am simply non-religious. I respect those who make a decision to follow religion, but I do not respect those who use violence as a means to their ideologies. Religious or not, you have to agree with that.
***** Mao's regime & the Soviet regime both detested religion; the religious were persecuted big time (people killed and churches destroyed), and the regimes were officially atheistic. They attempted to eradicate religion in all shape and form. Mao's communism / atheism killed about 150 million Chinese, the Soviet regime killed about 70 million. This 20th century experience shows what happens when communism/atheism runs riot in society. I'm well aware you don't like the sound of that, you might look to yourself to establish why that might be the case.
This I think is my favorite Christopher Hitchens debate that I have seen. The views and actual presence of Hitchens in contrast to Dr. McGrath illustrates beautifully the underlying issues and the grey areas that make up this great debate. Its almost like a "Clash of the Titans." I think that I respect the position Alister McGrath more than I would if the same opinions came out of the mouth of someone like Dr. William Lane Craig. No disrespect to Dr. Craig, but I truly do believe that Dr. McGrath has actually considered both sides of the issue in depth and is not just making his claims strictly based on an ingrained doctrinal bias. Dr. McGrath stands in my eyes as one of the few great champions of intellectual faith. Nevertheless, Dr. McGrath's position seems to weigh on the side of compromise as was illustrated in his discussion with Richard Dawkins. It almost seems as though when he gets right down to the bottom line, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. That is a major problem many people face when reconciling their faith with skepticism, it can be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. At least I have found this to be true for me personally.
I find it incredible that neither Christians nor atheists admit the elephant in the room, which is the truth of the supernatural, and the existence of the devil.
I must say even though i do not agree with McGrath, I can respect him for at least speaking clearly and eloquently, as well not resorting to gross equivocations, childish linguistic traps, that litter presuppositional apologetics, as well as acknowledging the history of how religion was used. agree or not this one is one of the better debates.
This was fanaastic, and Hitchens really makes me smile. He makes points that so many people are afraid of. It isn't ignorance. Noone in this debate insulted the other. Its discussion! Finally an intelligent, calm discussion. No anger. Just talking. LOVE IT.
Myself in believing that there is intelligent life out in the universe, makes me wonder what kind of other poorly created gods and regions have been created also...
Alister McGrath is a reasonable orator but there are two things that are greatly to his disadvantage; 1. he is talking bollox 2. he was up against the master of oratory
Americans seem to only know punch outs and drag em out matches… someone has to WIN… great discussion here between 2 intelligent men who showed respect to each other.
“Americans”??? What nationality are you and how long has it been since Americans saved your asses from who, Hitler, Stalin, PolPot, Hirohito, Mussolini, and those despots that would have put your asses in chains but for the millions of America’s Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Coast Guard that died so you can insult Americans? Fuck you!
at about 1:24:30 the religious side mentions that science offers us explanations of things sure, but that doesn't prevent religion from adding additional layers of MEANING on top of those explanations (the explanations presumably remaining undisturbed by these "layers of meaning"). First of all, hitchens has already pointed out by this point, the numerous ways in which religion undermines many scientific explanations, so religion is clearly not just a supplement for science. Secondly, any meaning that you add must in kind be...EXPLAINED. And science is how we explain things in this physical world. Science cannot explain/account for/justify this additional meaning mentioned here, so even if it was a separate supplement which did not interact with science (which it does), it would be superfluous as Hitchens already mentioned by calling on Occam's razor. Just a ridiculous argument, and I wanted to type this because I have a feeling that hitchens is getting bored and when I hit play, he's not going to bother responding as critically as this.
McGrath understands science--he has a PhD in molecular biophysics. He also has a DD (equal to a PhD in Divinity He also has a PhD in Intellectual History And is ordained in the Anglican Church. He knows from training and experience what he's talking about. Hitchens, on the other hand, is a polemicist who in every debate deliberately misunderstands the Bible, misdefines biblical terms, and will not admit that he is wrong. He did so even with his own brother Peter, who said, 'I wish he would take [the facts] seriously.' He never did.
David Doria Not exactly a refutation, just the statement that McGrath might be worth listening to on the issue since he knows it from both sides. He was atheist and scientist, now he's Christian and priest. He didn't 'leave' one for the other, he simply switched jobs to one more satisfying to him. He knows science form the inside, and if he says that there are 'additional layers of meaning' that science does not provide, he just might be right. No guarantee, of course, but worth listening to. One can ask, for example, about the philosophies of science and of mathematics. There is an argument that math is invented. The order of operations is certainly arbitrary, so one of the fundamental processes of math is invented. The concept of zero and of what we really know in math (a mathematician said that he could tell you of a number not zero and not non-zero, and then count, '0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...' and if you ask what the number is he'd answer, 'I don't know, I haven't got there yet.') is not yet quite known. What we do absolutely know--and we do know some things--is what we've 'worked out' (which doesn't answer whether it's discovered or invented). He was the mathematician who wrote _The Nothing That Is, a Natural History of Zero_. Then there's the whole idea of personality and humanness. So when Dr. McGrath speaks of 'additional layers of meaning,' he seems to speak from knowledge, and he has company.
Religion is a substitute for accepting total responsibility for our fates; any consoling vice (religious or other) would show measurable results in sampling overall "well being" of an individual (27:53) Dr. McGrath. You scientifically know better !
the very fact that every time examples of biblical/religeous violence is condemned rather than faithfully accepted by the religeous proponents proves Higgens’ point that good is not something dictated by religious morality but by the empathy of human nature
I've always thought those that debated Hitchens were encroaching on the inept, in their delivery; McGrath, Turek, D'Souza, William Lane Craig, other, all seemed comparatively incoherent and obtuse.
Hermes Trismegistus As far as the content is concerned, I'll accept your non-sequitor remark as a complete surrender. Or, maybe it's worse, as you've realized your affection for Christian Apologists is mortally weakened, and consequently you're only resort now is to subjectively undermine the placement of commas. All said, you're right about the comma - a rather unsatisfactory win though, no? Anyone who puts their own alter-ego in quotation marks, and then opts to make subjective comments about punctuation, is not to be trusted IMO.
Hitchens will always live on in these great speeches. This was barely a debate. McGrath has an empty bag here, he should be able to do much better. However Hitchens was on point and eloquent as usual.
correction: not empty, McGrath's bag was full of wind. Empty, we'd be way ahead. You know what they say in the Buddhist theravadin tradition and points related: until you empty your hands of whatever you're clinging to, you can't learn anything.
So, McGrath was a kid, went to university, saw how hard real science is, figured out he couldn't handle it and then gave up his quest for knowledge and embraced the only solution left - wishful thinking.
Although his opponent is hardly an intellectually worthy one--and Hitchens uses him as a polemical punching bag--it's still grand to see the brilliant "myth destroyer" in such superb form. I so miss Christopher Hitchens--he was unmatched in his love for people, and our defender nonpareil against the hypocrisy and evil invigilation of religion.
Darius McSean Because he yells over McGrath the whole time, while he makes it up as he goes along. Loves how he disses on Mother Teresa. Do you find more inspiration from Hitchens after a couple of drinks?
MountainDew7 I do love it any of the idiot, toothfairy folks are so threatened when ppl critique their evil fantasies. Islamicists are especially entertaining, with moderates giving cover to the jihadists. Is Islam the worst religion? Hardly. All 3 Abrahamic religions are death cults (eschalatogy/salvation myths), which practice misogny, demand blind Allegiance & wage violence. Let's review & compare: 1. Misogyny: Islamic women are denigrated & considered inferior--essentially "owned" by men. Consider Qur'an 4:3: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. (Scourge means whip, btw). But look at Abrahamic counterparts: 2. Islam dictates and invigilates its followers, and demands obedience in everything from sexual conduct, clothing, diet & finance. BTW, Apostacy (leaving Islam) is punishable by death. 3. Islam has given us suicide bombers. Thank you, Islam. In fact, the Quran helpfully provides at least 109 verses enjoining followers as to what should be done to infidels: www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx 4. But don't be too quick to condemn Islam. After all, the Quran is simply a plagiarized version of everything that's twisted and immoral in the religious cannons of Christianity & Judaism. In other words, Islam's essential fansticism is not even genuine--it's just hyperbolized Jewish & Christian dogmas. You religious sort are all potential psychopathic. (I left typos)--enjoy your rapture you dumb fucks
Darius McSean Judging by your excellent vocabulary I am surprised you cannot see the incoherence of your critique. Your angry, and unfortunately vulgar, condemnations speak to a longing in your own heart and mind to set what is wrong to right. You deal in oughts and ought nots. Pleads to morality abound. Yet from your worldview, what is it all rooted in? What does naturalism or evolution tell us about what is right or wrong? How can you tell someone in the Middle East or Indonesia how to live when what you believe is all subjective anyway? Is secularism free from issues? Pornography, high divorce rates, single parent households are all too common in secular culture. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robespierre, what examples are they of secular thought? On top of it all, like Hitchens, you just make stuff up based on biased opinion. Religion speaks to what it is to be human. It gives us a fuller understanding of our innate nature, and existence as a whole. Can it be misinterpreted or misused in the hands of the wrong people? Absolutely, but that is true of all things. This doesn't change the reality of God. To be human is to be imperfect, and God gives us the free will to choose the path in life we take.
Quoting you:"Your angry." Your use of this common grammatical typo reflects an inattention to detail, which is also exemplified in your sloppy thought process. Do yourself a favor and look up syllogism. "Your" welcome. lol!
Darius McSean Really?? That is/was "your" in the possessive my friend. Your anger. It belongs to you. Is English "your" native tongue? Once again, you are looking to set the wrongs right. However, for what reason in your world of no meaning, no truth, is beyond me. Everything that is must prove itself to you personally, God hasn't proven himself to you personally because you have turned your back on Him, so therefore in your mind He doesn't exist. A rather unfortunate syllogism indeed. God bless, my friend. I hope you find your way Home to Him one day.
Can someone direct me to a video where the religious side clearly wins - and wins the hearts of the audience? It seem so always end with a humiliation of the religious side...
McGrath came across as an honest and decent human--more than I can say for most of other Hitchen's opponents in these debates (I think especially of William Lane Craig, from that list).
im reading hitch 22 right now and the best thing about it is you get to be with him again. hear him talk and feel his presence its very satisfying if you cared about him.
Hearing McGrath in this debate, is like listening to Saul Goodman, defending some wacko client. Only he says less. Hitchens was as always straight forward and brilliant.
Steven Weinberg hit the nail on the head...Quote : "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
I mean, Hitchen’s powers of logic and persuasive argumentation are, as always, compelling. But I have to say, that was a commendable closing statement from McGrath that even Hitchens applauded and found no fault with. I really enjoyed it when his body language said “well, fair enough I suppose, I don’t agree with your conclusion but I’m not going to fault you for what you believe and how you live your life.” Nice handshake at the end.
he was nervous. You want to see a much worse performance look at John Haldane, far more pompous and imperious. See a nearby youtube video of that. I challenge anyone to get a count of how many times he put on and removed his spectacles during 15 minutes of his presentation debating Hitchens. Totally vapid. Philosopher. Made me ashamed of my profession.
Hitchens died (which BTW... will happen to everyone some day), he wasn't killed. And you're right... whenever Hitchens debated someone, it was never a level playing field. As Hitchens has said "Is the world a better place" and I pose "without Christopher Hitchens?" Absolutely not. There is no one I would rather listen to debate (though Sam Harris is very close).
This conversation is meaningful. Maybe folks are afraid to part with ancient beliefs,and worry as their friends condemn them. One may stay friends by not upsetting them,I personally understand that being truthful will free us to find company with those amongst us who engage in mutual respect. Very good video. I love hearing both sides, It makes me aware of my identity and solidifies my being secular,agnostic ready!
Where does your "innate" ability to know right from wrong come from? In your atheistic view you should come to the realization that you're "morality" is not the product of free choice but the impulsions and reactions of a machine in your head. Without a set of strict morality, which would be recognized and respected by all, everyone would have their own sense of morality. This means that there is no such thing as "evil" which you've always consider religion to be a product of. If you ask any sane person, no matter where they're from, you'd get some sense of morality which agrees that killing, rape, disrespect are all forms of inappropriate actions. They may disagree to the extent and to whom these actions would be inappropriate for but it all has the same meaning. Isn't it fascinating that as there is disease in this world there is also vaccines which can be developed through natural means to combat those disease that are ever changing? Isn't magnificent that one species of life has an antioxidant which can be used to chemically react against another specific species of life which has had an entirely different process of evolution? You're basic argument is that something came from nothing while the theist argument is that nothing came from something which isn't a subject to time or space. We all know that no matter how long you stare at nothing you'll always get nothing unless something beyond our comprehension of space and time can react. How can our moral conscience and DNA be in existence without an intelligent designer? You must get it through that thick head that without the supernatural there wouldn't be what you're brain would translate to be nature. No matter how God got us here, the mere fact that we're here at all is a supernatural event within itself. Now referring back to DNA. DNA is not the same as a message that the human brain mistakes for a sign, DNA is found in every living being and is not without a purpose. DNA makes us who we are and we can decipher our physical qualities because of it. I wish you were still here so that I could see your pitiful rebuttal as to why I'm wrong. You may not believe in the Christian God but surely you can't refute the existence of a God.
Jacob Pando All you've proved is that you have no idea what you're talking about...."No matter how God got us here, the mere fact that we're here at all is a supernatural event within itself." like, wow, Skippy! LOL!
Jacob Pando I refute the existence of any god. Show me some evidence of one and might change my mind. So far no one has. As regards your question about the origin of innate morality, you can thank evolution through natural selection for that. Morality is a behavioural phenotype that arose to assist us survive by living in mutual supportive groups. Action we consider 'good' are those that assist the group, those we consider 'wrong' are those that harm the group. No supernatural elements needed.
George Forsyth Show me some evidence as to how you can refute a God. If your answer is simply because of the lack of evidence, then you're biased in your assumption.You can simply say you don't know. Show me evidence of that George, some real life evidence of that process in the making and how it dictates how we perceive right and wrong. Anyways, evolution doesn't dismiss the idea of their being a God behind every natural law, pattern, common sense made, etc.
bryant tillman You seem full of yourself Bryant. Please dismiss my claim and tell the world as to how our existence and the existence of matter itself came be.
Lost all respect for McGrath after the 1:00:00 mark. He's making no sense whatsoever. Babbling unconnected waffle in between bouts of "concession" to Hitchens claims. Why is he even speaking?
+Tough Puppy McGrath made one or two mildly humorous statements, but Hitchens towers over McGrath's arguments with much more humor, majestically eloquent statements. The spot on the video where vicarious redemption in the discussion, McGrath exactly restates Hitchens objection to the immorality of the concept only he thinks it is different.
+Tough Puppy except for that fact that misogyny and the sanction for slavery and anti-homosexual persecution and incitement to genocide is written INTO the bible and koran. Monotheists cannot escape the fact that their books contain these passages written by god or allah. And if you were to add up all the passages about do unto others and love your neighbor and compare that with the heinous, anti-human immoral passages - they are a hundred times greater than the good statements. Even the good statements all were known before the bible was written so the fact thee monotheistic books contain them is not proof for divinity. Bad people do bad things does not cut it when the bad things they do are written in their holy books and they shout holy pronouncements while do perform their atrocious acts.
+Tough Puppy Quran 33:50, 23:5-6, 4:24, 8:69, 24:32, 2:178, 16:75, Bukhari 52:255, 41:598, 62:137 (rape slaves), 34:432, 34:351, 59:637, Abu Dawud 2150, 1814, 38:4458, and on and on. The old testament is no better and there are numerous passages. Apologists bend themselves into pretzels trying to justify these things. You have not seen any misogyny or condemning homosexuals in the bible or quran? Really. Get some glasses then. And because of that statement we can summarily dismiss you. Wow.
+Tough Puppy "treat slaves fairly...."? It is not difficult - one sentence in one of the holy books would have done it...."Don't keep slaves as it is morally repugnant". All sorts of pretzel bending and apologetic backflips to justify slavery. If you also think there is no misogyny in the bible and koran (as I said and most people would agree) then you are fooling yourself.
In the later session when sat down I strongly dislike how the moderator asks the religious advocates side if he wants to reply to Hitchens each time Hitchens is speaking or if he wants a new question, but does not return the favor to Hitchens rather presumes he is going to answer.
Have to say, I am amazed how people get sucked in by Hitchen's way with words, and don't actually look with closer scrutiny at his actual arguments, under the facade of how he expresses it, the actual arguments are somewhat incoherent at times, and the facts he uses are highly selective...plus he is actually evasive at times, and doesn't actually address arguments that counter his case...
What arguments did he make in this debate that were incoherent? What did you consider highly selective? I'm not attacking you, I am simply curious as to why you say that.
GeneralZod99 Well, take for example about 50:00, when Hitchens speaks about the role of the Catholic Church and fascism. For me, it's a highly selective reading of History: He mentions the strong link between the Catholic church and the fascist movements in Spain, Portugal, Croatia etc around the time of the 1930's and World War II. Fair enough point,and something the Catholic church should be ashamed of, but if you ever bring up Spain, Franco and the Civil War, it's a minefield, which you should never make generalisations on, as it's too complex an issue to go into here. The majority, but not all of the catholic church in Spain sided with Franco, the church in the Basque country sided with the Republic (the basque country always has been one of the most catholic areas of Spain). He mentions Croatia, Austria etc, but fails to mention, for example, the role of the Catholic Church in occupied Poland, where is was an integral part of the resistance to the Nazis. He fails to mention the resistance of several members of the German clergy against Hitler (e.g. Josef Frings and Bishop Von Galen, who vehemently opposed the eugenics programme), and he fails to mention that of the clergy that were sent to Dachau for speaking out against HItler, either in Germany or the occupied countries, 95% were Catholic priests. He mentions about the catholics in the SS (i.e. baptised catholics), but fails to mention the German resistance movement that led to the Stauffenberg plot of July 1944: Stauffenberg himself came from a devoutly religious family, or the White Rose movement, who were also religious.Also, with regards to the Vatican, he fails to mention the Vatican's role in hiding Jews and POWs from the Nazis (see Hugh O'Flaherty) Therefore, he only shows one side of the story. If you go into the realm of History, you need to evaluate ALL evidence, and if you are sidestepping/avoiding evidence that runs contrary to your argument, or if you are distorting evidence that runs contrary to your argument, then there is something fundamentally at fault with your actual argument. True that this is a debate forum, but he also does the exact same in his books as well.
GeneralZod99 Also, when he goes onto Marxism or Communism, he again mentions that Stalin was a 'seminarian', but fails to mention that he was actually expelled/left because he became a convinced atheist when he was there, and again, he goes into his incoherent belief that the Stalinist regime was actually religious, and actually overlooks that that there was a highly active official organisation called the 'league of militant atheists' under Stalin that actively destroyed churches and executed clergy. If feels as if it is more that he is trying to distort the facts so that they fit into his beliefs....as he has come to his conclusion first, and is then trying to find facts to fit into his conclusion, or even distort History so that they fit into his views...rather than look at the evidence first, and then come to his conclusion.
GeneralZod99 By the way, I'm what will probably be termed as a 'doubter' and don't really follow any religion: I'd like to think that there is some kind of 'higher power' but I would not be at all surprised if there wasn't. However, I find the views of people like McGrath far more coherent and balanced than those of Hitchens.
GeneralZod99 Also, and just as a final point, McGrath raises a highly valid point I think about the need to differentiate between religous belief that is moderate, tolerant, peaceful and adhering to the original belief, and that of fundamentalist religious belief that is intolerant and violent, and that fundamentalism/extremism can exist in secular forms (politics, football, nationalism, and even atheism itself). Hitchens seems in my opinion to evade this point completely and does not address it at all, and focuses instead of the texts of the Bible, the Koran etc, and the actions of their authorities, which is a completely seperate point entirely, so he seems to not address the argument made at all, and tries to focus on a point he wishes to make, which, correct me if I'm wrong is not the idea of a debate. By the way, for my first point above, don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to be an apologist for the role of the Church with regards to Fascism etc, of that there is no denying, but I was trying to point out that Hitchens portrayal is not the whole picture, History is in most cases not black and white, right or wrong, but grey. Also, do like your avatar, think it's really cool.....:-)
McGrath's body language signifies a person being deceptive/unsure of themselves. Right out the gate he is so animated he looks as if he will sway himself off the stage at any moment or take his own eye out with the exagerated hand jestures.
drstrangelove09 HItchens said that first about Garry Wills, that he could understand everything he wrote until he talked about religion, then it was 'white noise. Just white noise.' That says more about Chris than it does about Wills, that he refused to try to understand a perfectly reasonable and understandable human in a subject important to that human. McGrath does not say (or make) 'white noise.' He is reasonable and intelligent. you may not agree with him, but he is not 'white noise.' It's not even original.
Aristo Telian I never said calling something "white noise" is original. On the other hand I have been using that phrase for many years (it's a natural for me, since I'm an Electrical Engineer). I used it before I ever heard Hitch use it. I was pleased to hear that Hitch also used it. Whether or not Hitch accused Wills of "white noise" and whether or not Hitch was correct in the case of Wills has nothing whatsoever to do with whether McGrath is emitting white noise in this debate. I would say he definitely is. I doubt that I can easily persuade you though. Apparently you think that what he said made sense and was very meaningful. I disagree in the extreme. I'm not sure how to bring you to a point where you see the obvious.
drstrangelove09 It may not be obvious. So far you haven't made it so. Take Hitch's statements from the beginning of this debate. All of them misrepresent the Christian religion, and do so egregiously enough--for not only could he have researched this subject objectively, he has debated his brother for years, his brother Peter reports, and he has not listened. He begins by poisoning the well by saying that in his previous debates his opponents have said that such doctrines as 'the Virgin Birth' and 'the Genesis creation' are 'well, it's all rather metaphorical, really.' He does not address this, which means that he had an ulterior motive for bringing it up, and that isn't honest. Does McGrath say this? Hitch didn't say. And of course, the most important question, 'Are they right?' Is it metaphorical? He doesn't say. He only lets his sneer hang in air. It's a sophist's and an advertiser's trick. he then speculates on 'what would have happened' in history, which of course can't be proven, but that means that he's taking the coward's way out, accusing his opponent (religion) of what no one can answer and of what he cannot possibly know. He assumes a nature of religion, that it was promulgated to explain the world. Having limited himself to the Christian religion, however, he is absolutely wrong, because Biblical Christianity was never interested in 'explaining' the world. It's purpose and goal was different. it was a spiritual goal, not a physically explanatory one. Whatever the world is like, whatever it was like, was of no interest, which is why many of the early scientists were Christians. God is separate from his world, all of it is 'good,' therefore we are free to investigate it. Of course, he completely misrepresents the moral and ethical parts of Christianity, too, assuming one theory of the Atonement, which wasn't the first one, and wasn't popular until the time of Anselm in the Middle Ages. 'Is it ethical to believe that your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person?' he asks (10:15) He calls it 'human sacrifice,; and in that he is wrong, too. it is not 'human sacrifice.' It is Jesus showing that God has power even over death. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Jews didn't, and Jesus wasn't. He misrepresents responsibility and forgiveness. Jesus addressed this--which Hitch could have known if he'd wanted to--Jesus' teaching on just this issue in Matt 20, in which the master of the parable asks, 'Why are you envious because I am generous?' God offers forgiveness, and Hitch hates the idea. Quite a dorsal striatum you have there, son. McGrath, now does tackle the issue head-on, saying that research shows a positive personal effect (and he quotes teh research--Koenig and Cohen's book) He is honest enough to say that religious people have been bad, but then he points out that this is not normative, and he quotes Mike Shermer in support of this, and goes on to show that atheists have been just as bad if not worse: Lenin, Stalin, and the atheist phase of the French Revolution (when they tried to form the Cult of Reason and to close down churches), and then of course it all led to the Reign of Terror and the 'National Razor.' He then says that Jesus, the Example, refused to do violence 'though it was done to him.' Just because some Christians are bad and some are not cannot be an argument that Christianity is bad. All of which is true. Hitchens is 'white noise.' McGrath is not.
McGrath must be about the most naive of all the christian debaters on the internet. Hard to believe. Christopher Hitchens must have thought to himself: this is kindergarten debating.
The songwriter John Lennon has a point of view worth considering in his song "imagine". I am left wondering why none of the speakers introduced the probable impart this would have made if the truth in Lennon's song was in place at the dawn of civilisation.
the number of times you here the President of United States end his public speech using the closing statement "God Bless America" runs contrary to the stand of Christopher Hitchens commending the USA for separating State and Religion.
I live near where those amish kids were slaughtered. It was a horrible time. That schoolhouse is re-opened and the Amish still have no desire to harm his family or give order to legal action. Narvon PA.
PointLarusso, that is exactly my point. We can actually know things and you agree with me. That being the case, a worldview that cannot ground knowledge should be rejected. Naturalistism has no grounding for knowledge and should be rejected. A worldview that fails to answer "why is it possible to know anything at all?" when, as you've said, knowledge is possible is not a worldview worth holding. As we examine worldviews we find that naturalism fails to account for what we know to be true.
Hitchens' arguments are astute and are wonderfully intellectually rounded. The thing that surprises me is that, for something so intellectually coherent and for someone who's read the Bible as many times as he has... he actually has a profound misunderstanding of the gospel. He hasn't understood the case he is arguing against and this knowledge actually reorientates the whole argument (1 Corinthians 18-31 has never been so relevant here). In his book 'God is Not Great,' in relation to sin he says (and maintains as his underlying argument) "what appalling load of strain they have to bear." That's not the gospel. What Jesus did on the cross is a message of complete liberation. Christ paid the price to set us free. "To bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners." This is a completely different truth that overrides the whole debate. But anyway, don't just base it on my words you've got to see it for yourself by reading one of the accounts
To be fair, the same could be said for any of the famous Christian apologists, from Gary Habermas to William Lane Craig... to say nothing of the thousands of priests who do the exact same thing every Sunday. Public debates are now an important battleground for ideas, and you're correct that the best argument doesn't always win. But since the religious side plays the exact same game (and has a HUGE headstart on us in that respect), you'll forgive us for playing the game by the rules that it has.
I think dr McGrath confused the concept of a debate with a sermon. Par for the course really. Greater humanity has a responsibility to relegate this nonsense to the history books where it belongs!
You cannot say that an assumption is inconsistent or that there is no good reason for it. It is an assumption. You either agree with it, in which case you must accept all its implications, or you reject it, and then you don't have to accept its implications.
Something that McGrath said (when he was actually making sense and not speaking in an endless tautology) that struck a chord with me is that "atheists believe that consolation and hope are for losers". I hear a lot of religious people make this claim in one way or another; this accusation that atheists want to strip them of any hope or consolation that they find in their religious beliefs. Hitchens once accurately made the analogy of saying that it's rather like a child who starts to have a tantrum because their favorite toy is about to get taken away. I haven't heard a single atheist or antitheist claim that they believe that we as humans can't (or shouldn't) find hope or consolation around us in times of despair. However what atheists *won't* do is make believe that there is another reality outside of the one we are living in. We don't take refuge in lying to ourselves and to others in order to appeal to any fears we have about death and dying. We don't follow up senseless tragedies by saying empty things like "I will pray for them" or "It is God's will". Religious people want to be applauded and respected for going to great measures to deny reality as we know it by creating imaginary ones. No. I have too much self respect and respect for my fellow man to patronize them like that. There is nothing moral or commendable about grown adults constantly ducking and dodging reality in order to soothe their own fears and ignorance.
i used to be a christian, quite fervently so. but the more i learned about religion, the more i moved towards anti-theism, arriving finally at atheism, and militant atheism at that. how someone can listen to hitch speak and read his work and not change their world view to, at the very least agnosticism, if not atheism, is beyond me. i understand there are many people incapable of this level of critical thinking, but there are very intelligent people who claim to be religious. it's infuriating.
I think that the telling point is that after arguably a quarter million years of gods and goddesses in various forms and roles in the lives of humans, we are still having to ask such a question of religion and it's value to society.
Indeed the old gods were to be simply feared. Whether you loved them or not wasn't really important. They certainly didn't love you. At least the old gods made sense!
His main critism against Christianity is that it takes away responsibility for our actions. This is false. Nowhere in Christianity does it say that Christ's death removes responsibility.
I agree. The best kind of scientist is one that can throw out a hypothosis that doesn't pass a riggerous peer review. Even Darwin wrote near the end of his book that there is much more to learn. He is famous for all he got spot on with a wealth of supporting evidence from other Christian scientists.
Let me summarize the problem using logical operators. A, B, C, ... stand for propositions, => is implication. If A and B are inconsistent, then : B => C ... => (not A) or (A and B) => C ... => false In our case, A is "we have reason / knowledge", B is "naturalism is true". I have yet to see a proof of either of those logical chains.
Hitchens says in his book that there was a time that faith could at least for a while stand up to reason - in the era of the founders of the christian church. Every debate of his I see proves the point that nowadays, faith can't even come close to doing so.
Crucial point also in the philosophy of Emanual Levinas: ethical responsibility is the innermost substance of human subjectivity, the idea of taking it away or delegate it to somebody else is ludicrous.
The flipside of this process is when belief in this God acts as an ---encouragement--- to engage in abhorrent behavior that might otherwise not commit, either by perceived commandment or by promised forgiveness for said acts.
Yeh, Hitch at his wonderful best again. I really want to like Alister McGrath, given all his accomplishments and being from N.Ireland and all, but listening to him makes it really hard.
Here's my simple statement to all my creationist friends. If you begin your arguments for a god, his abilities, accomplishments, his interactions with people, without the benefit of mathematical underpinnings, or forensic confirmation of ANY kind....geology, biology, physics, quantum mechanics..well, I don't see the point, really.
the guy from Oxford talked a lot and didn't say anything the whole debate he just apologized and said thank you a lot. worst Christopher Hitchens debate ive seen, he made it TOO easy. amazing Hitchens speech though
![Christopher Hitchens - [2008] - 'The Existence of god and the Role of Religion' vs David Wolpe](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ejmN7qP4pD4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Christopher Hitchens - [2008] - 'The Existence of god and the Role of Religion' vs David Wolpe](/img/tr.png)
Christopher you didn't die in vain,you made a massive contribution to open minded people. R.I.P
"Can you imagine God saying, go and do violence to someone." ? .. .I don't have to imagine it! IT'S IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!
+cyber6sapien and in the new testiment...bare in mind thats where Hell comes into it. eternal torture wherein god is responsible for. lol in the old testimate hes responsible for the deaths of about 2million people. new testament hes now responsible for the eternal torture of billions. plus its not like they are seperate characters..lol old and new are the same book. its liek 60% of the book with all the stuff that 'prophecies' jesus and has the commandments and the backstory for everything youjr religion is..and you want to forget it? lol ok while your at it forget the new one too ;)
+cyber6sapien When you can create a Universe you can do what you want with it.
+YesYou123333 yeah but aahh..people wrote this silliness and it's a lie.. And aahh, your bat shit crazy enough to believe any of its true.. Admit it Christains your scared of a loving God that you know is no more loving than issil, you let others control you and you demand we get on board the good ship lollipop and be controlled like you.. I took responsibility for my life when are you going to drop the hate... When we the people have had enough? When we start burning you in your churches, are you going to drop the hate then or are you going to die a man and realize filthy Christains belong in there burning churches, die you filthy religious scum die😎
+cyber6sapien So what, Christianity promised me a free donkey!
peter315hope.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/christianity-promised-me-a-free-donkey/
Christianity has been really fuckin this country up the last to evangelical president wanna be's
It is a dam shame,Christopher Hitchens no longer exists, a great man.
Christopher Hitchens throughout his books and lectures have provided me with more consolation, Wit and knowledge than any Church ever did. Thank you Christopher for opening my eyes to Science logic and reason, I am forever indebted to you dear Sir, people will talk and remember your brilliance and your humanity for hundred and hundred of years, genius erudite, I miss you everyday of my life until the day I die, may your mellifluous voice echo in eternity.
isn't he wonderful? Hitchens is my minister of reason and passionate commitment.
Christopher Hitchens was such an intelligent, articulate man. Fearless, if only I had an ounce of his vinegar.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to debate Hitch?
Because those people are delusional. That's what religion does to people!😁
TheCosmicWarrior "relatively uneducated" ???
Can you expand on that?
Lying?
Can you expand on that?
Thanks for the info on his education.
I am not saying you are wrong, I would just like to know what lies? I really do not know.
I usually do not believe anyone on anything without some vetting. Like you for example. Calling him a drunken bum does not make him a liar (or a drunken bum for that matter). If you have an example of his lies (which I hear there are many :) I would be happy to look it up.
Thanks. I will look that up.
Although, as lies go, you might have given me a juicier example.
Thank the gods for so many Hitchens debates on TH-cam :D When I'm depressed, I watch one of these, and it always gives me strength and puts a smile on my face. Thank you, Hitch! We love you and miss you!
Start at 0:06:00 to get straight into the debate with Hitchen`s opening.
Hitchens has such a monumental grasp of the English language it puts me in trance. Listening and watching him is a pleasure.
it's like Hitchens vs Mr Bean.
michael bowman but funnier
Mr Bean is a fictional character, as are gods and jesus christ
Mr. Bean seems to be talking alot and saying nothing, proposing many lofty explanations for phenomena without any evidence. He lost before Hitchens even spoke.
Black Dog i was out of order. sorry.
McGrath is an educated scientist who has become believer and educated himself in theology also. Hitchens was a jurnalist who had never demostrated any real knowlage in science, theology or philosophy that he loves so much. And your comment only shows the amount of indoctrination Humanist secular religion has made on some people. I would bet that you have skipped everything McGrath was saying.
Hitchens (Christopher) is the man that makes the most logical sense in this debate. We are high primates and there is a massive amount of evidence that proves it. We are pattern seekers that look for faces in the clouds and hear voices in the wind. Now we can use science to learn the truth about nature and ourselves in relation to our surroundings. Over the years I've grown out of being superstitious. I don't even say R.I.P. Mr. Hitchens. He left this world a better place and I'm still enjoying these debates and podcasts he recorded reading his own books "HITCH 22" and "GOD IS NOT GREAT".
If there is ever to be a resurrection, let it be Christopher Hitchens that comes back. J-Dog can stay wherever he is.
What drugs are you on mate?
Debra smith I may be wrong but I'm assuming your comment was for that other guy. He follows me around and posts that same comment under many of my posts. So, I deleted him. He can lie on his own thread.
Dj13e36 No that was not meant for you Dj
Dj13e36 What did he say? I could use a laugh, and Debra's comment suggests that it might be good for a chuckle.
If I were in that auditorium, I would be fighting the temptation to applaud and cheer very loudly at the end of every argument Christopher Hitchens makes. The'd probably throw me out pretty quick. RIP Hitch, I miss you a lot.
A disappointing exchange. A lost opportunity. Hitchens is trying to strike a vapour here. McGrath's remarks are vague, obscure and too subjective. He just dodges Hitchens' points throughout. No one won, since there really was no debate here. McGrath's strategy is to retreat into woolly terms and concepts that defy refutation by virtue of their meaninglessness.
I agree with most of what you said. McGrath's views were vague and he certainly dodged a lot of points....
I don't like to think of these debates as win or lose rather a way to help us better understand our reality....
However, if this is a win or lose situation I would say this was a first round KO by Hitchens as McGrath simply didn't have the ammunition for this discussion...
By definition the anti-theist wins every time. Hahah
The Anti-Theist By definition? Definition of what? What does this opaque remark actually mean?
chel3SEY You don't understand the word definition? It means by default, no matter what, regardless of the religious apologists rebuttals, etc etc,
It means, since science is true and there is no personal God and the concept of such is in fact sinister, immoral and totalitarianistic at the very least. This would rather tersely and firmly entail that the anti-theist wins every debate (That of Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, or whomever)
Thus my former comment: By definition the anti-theist wins.
You didn't read my message properly. I didn't ask about the meaning of "definition", obviously (although not to some, apparently). My question was "definition of what?" (By the way, your definition of definition shows that you don't actually know what it means!) And you still haven't answered my question...
It is bizarre, bordering on meaningless, to say that anti-theists must win "by definition" (of what, it isn't clear, but I presume you mean "God") because God doesn't exist, since that is the very issue being debated! Even Dawkins admits the possibility that God exists, so it isn't a matter of "definition" to him.
Although science is true (otherwise it wouldn't be science), it is far from obvious where the truth lies in many cases given that scientists don't agree.
Sounds to me like you are a dogmatist who doesn't really understand the things you are dogmatic about: science, reason, truth, religion. You are far from unique among anti-theists in that regard.
By the way, I don't believe that God exists myself, so you needn't reply with the (irrelevant) charge that I'm just a theist. I'm an anti-theist who opposes sloppy, syllogistic thinking... on both sides.
Worshipping Jesus:
The idea that a perfect god was cross with something he created, for doing something he created it able to do; then the god split himself in two in order to sacrifice himself to himself to save his creation from his own punishment he only inflicted upon them because he created them imperfect. The refusal of this ritual results in eternal torture. Then the creation must love and worship the god for this.
What would you say if an actual father did that to his actual child?
Getting cross with your child for thinking wrong, then beating yourself up in front of your child to stop him from getting grounded then saying if the child does not love you and accept this beating on his behalf, he will be tortured in the basement forever.
Or, send your child to die so that you could forgive someone else...
These are not actual moral teachings. Think about it. Actually think about it.
You first.
Aristo Telian You seem to disagree, what am I missing?
***** That, though there are centuries of thought on these issues, you have missed all of them in your post.
You assume the definitions of:
God
wrath (you use 'cross,' much less and different from the biblical descriptions and the theological considerations)
creation
nature
atonement
sin
Incarnation
redemption
salvation
hell
morality
and therefore your tongue-in-cheek description is only cheeky and as a result of that, completely wrong. Your aim is not truth but only denigration. It's not even skepticism, only despising. That's why you do not bother to listen to the real issues.
For you to get anywhere near the truth on these matters (as you can see, there are more than one), you would have to study for some years. Until then, you probably would not be right to question, but not qualified to criticize.
Aristo Telian
Your arrogant condescension is unwelcome. I have been studying religion for years and would wager I know more about it's teachings than you do. However, that being said, most people have their own personal interpretations of what they would prefer their beliefs to be - hence the tens of thousands of denominations of christianity for example.
I have simplified the myth somewhat in order to make it more concise, but I have not misrepresented it, and have in fact given an accurate description of what it claims.
Cheeky is not by necessity incorrect, not by any stretch of the imagination, and given that you are apparently a Christian I think we both know how far you can stretch yours. i.e. believing in something makes you immortal. I daren't bet on what it is exactly that you believe because - as I have just said - there are so many personal differences there would likely be something I got wrong.
***** 1. You are not reading what I'm writing. I did not say that you have not studied religion. I said that you missed all studies that have been done 'in your post.' Which you did.
2. If simple truth is 'arrogant condescension' in your eyes, you might want to reconfigure your definitions. However, I think it was a simple matter of reading too quickly and superficially and of assuming a character of the person you are writing to. I'm sure that you have written to people who were just as you at first thought them to be, but not everyone will be.
3. Please do not in haste assume a superior position in any argument. It blinds you to the answers.
4. The different denominations may not, by virtue of their existence, prove that something, anything, may be false about Christianity. It depends on the reason for the denomination's existence.
5. You did, in fact, misrepresent the Christian religion, and in a way that has been discussed at least since the time of Augustine. Your concision was from imprecision, which arouses the suspicion of disregard. Thus you missed important facts about your subject(s).
6. 'Cheeky' _need_ not be incorrect, but it usually is, for it normally has itself as the point, and not truth. In your case, it was.
7. I am a Christian, but whether I am immortal is another question, and one that does not interest me. I do not think about it. Then, how far *do* I stretch my imagination?
8. Neither of us knows how much biblical or religious knowledge the other has, so why would you 'wager' that you have more than I do?
Why should you need religious commitment to preform acts of generosity and kindness to others?
+Jonathan Lewis Nobody says you do, but if the major atheistic regimes of the 20th century are any indication (chairman Mao's regime = 150,000,000 Chinese deaths, Lenin/Stalin's Soviet Union = 70,000,000 deaths, I would suggest that society without religion can lead to the very worst actions of mankind in terms of general magnitude.
+David Henderson there is no such thing as an atheistic regime..atheisism is simply the lack of belief in God. your argument is facile.
David Henderson are you familiar with the Crusades? British occupations? The slave trade? The conquest of the Native Americans?
All things that were endorsed by "Christian Regimes" to use your argumentative language.
Oh damn, almost forgot about the Witch Hunts that killed millions. The Spanish Inquisition. Violence against Catholics perpetrated by Henry VIII.
And you should always remember that the United States is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 Native Americans. You can blame it on religious extremism or societal ignorance, but it's still 100 million people. And don't give me an argument like "our Christianity was flawed back then" because the same people who use the sorts of arguments you're using with the "Atheistic Regimes" (that doesn't actually make any sense) would say that the United States has always been a Christian nation. That our morals have always been defined by the Bible and by God. If that is true, then Christianity is just as violent as Atheism, by your own admission. If a Christian nation can perpetrate violence on the same scale as one with the absence of religion. That should also tell you if religion or lack thereof can both cause such horrendous crimes against humanity, why do those things happen? It's because people treat each other poorly, with no respect. Dehumanizing fellow humans instead of listening and respecting points of view. I do not spit on religion, I am simply non-religious. I respect those who make a decision to follow religion, but I do not respect those who use violence as a means to their ideologies. Religious or not, you have to agree with that.
***** Mao's regime & the Soviet regime both detested religion; the religious were persecuted big time (people killed and churches destroyed), and the regimes were officially atheistic. They attempted to eradicate religion in all shape and form. Mao's communism / atheism killed about 150 million Chinese, the Soviet regime killed about 70 million. This 20th century experience shows what happens when communism/atheism runs riot in society. I'm well aware you don't like the sound of that, you might look to yourself to establish why that might be the case.
This I think is my favorite Christopher Hitchens debate that I have seen. The views and actual presence of Hitchens in contrast to Dr. McGrath illustrates beautifully the underlying issues and the grey areas that make up this great debate. Its almost like a "Clash of the Titans." I think that I respect the position Alister McGrath more than I would if the same opinions came out of the mouth of someone like Dr. William Lane Craig. No disrespect to Dr. Craig, but I truly do believe that Dr. McGrath has actually considered both sides of the issue in depth and is not just making his claims strictly based on an ingrained doctrinal bias. Dr. McGrath stands in my eyes as one of the few great champions of intellectual faith. Nevertheless, Dr. McGrath's position seems to weigh on the side of compromise as was illustrated in his discussion with Richard Dawkins. It almost seems as though when he gets right down to the bottom line, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. That is a major problem many people face when reconciling their faith with skepticism, it can be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. At least I have found this to be true for me personally.
Alister is definitely imo one of the better theist aplogists.
Samuel Cheshire . There was only one Titan in this debate!
ronaldov09 . Well, doesn’t say much for the others then, does it?
I find it incredible that neither Christians nor atheists admit the elephant in the room, which is the truth of the supernatural, and the existence of the devil.
i love this man and his message!!!!
I just love listening to Hitchens...RIP
Christopher left a legacy that will continue to instruct, awaken and enlighten the minds of millions of people
I must say even though i do not agree with McGrath, I can respect him for at least speaking clearly and eloquently, as well not resorting to gross equivocations, childish linguistic traps, that litter presuppositional apologetics, as well as acknowledging the history of how religion was used.
agree or not this one is one of the better debates.
Gunsong1 True, but he is sonorous, in the tradition of all preachers.
This was fanaastic, and Hitchens really makes me smile. He makes points that so many people are afraid of. It isn't ignorance. Noone in this debate insulted the other. Its discussion! Finally an intelligent, calm discussion. No anger. Just talking. LOVE IT.
Good points on both sides
A wonderful back-and-forth. Thanks for posting.
Well, he achieved the life goal we all should achieve: He made the world a better place and did all he could.
Myself in believing that there is intelligent life out in the universe, makes me wonder what kind of other poorly created gods and regions have been created also...
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
All praise the leader Big Brother
The problem with all debates of religion vs atheism is that only half of the debate is interesting and useful to hear
Alister McGrath is a reasonable orator but there are two things that are greatly to his disadvantage;
1. he is talking bollox
2. he was up against the master of oratory
Americans seem to only know punch outs and drag em out matches… someone has to WIN… great discussion here between 2 intelligent men who showed respect to each other.
“Americans”??? What nationality are you and how long has it been since Americans saved your asses from who, Hitler, Stalin, PolPot, Hirohito, Mussolini, and those despots that would have put your asses in chains but for the millions of America’s Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Coast Guard that died so you can insult Americans? Fuck you!
at about 1:24:30 the religious side mentions that science offers us explanations of things sure, but that doesn't prevent religion from adding additional layers of MEANING on top of those explanations (the explanations presumably remaining undisturbed by these "layers of meaning"). First of all, hitchens has already pointed out by this point, the numerous ways in which religion undermines many scientific explanations, so religion is clearly not just a supplement for science. Secondly, any meaning that you add must in kind be...EXPLAINED. And science is how we explain things in this physical world. Science cannot explain/account for/justify this additional meaning mentioned here, so even if it was a separate supplement which did not interact with science (which it does), it would be superfluous as Hitchens already mentioned by calling on Occam's razor. Just a ridiculous argument, and I wanted to type this because I have a feeling that hitchens is getting bored and when I hit play, he's not going to bother responding as critically as this.
McGrath understands science--he has a PhD in molecular biophysics.
He also has a DD (equal to a PhD in Divinity
He also has a PhD in Intellectual History
And is ordained in the Anglican Church.
He knows from training and experience what he's talking about.
Hitchens, on the other hand, is a polemicist who in every debate deliberately misunderstands the Bible, misdefines biblical terms, and will not admit that he is wrong. He did so even with his own brother Peter, who said, 'I wish he would take [the facts] seriously.'
He never did.
Aristo Telian which part of what i said do you think that your statement refuted? just curious
David Doria Not exactly a refutation, just the statement that McGrath might be worth listening to on the issue since he knows it from both sides. He was atheist and scientist, now he's Christian and priest. He didn't 'leave' one for the other, he simply switched jobs to one more satisfying to him. He knows science form the inside, and if he says that there are 'additional layers of meaning' that science does not provide, he just might be right. No guarantee, of course, but worth listening to.
One can ask, for example, about the philosophies of science and of mathematics. There is an argument that math is invented. The order of operations is certainly arbitrary, so one of the fundamental processes of math is invented. The concept of zero and of what we really know in math (a mathematician said that he could tell you of a number not zero and not non-zero, and then count, '0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...' and if you ask what the number is he'd answer, 'I don't know, I haven't got there yet.') is not yet quite known. What we do absolutely know--and we do know some things--is what we've 'worked out' (which doesn't answer whether it's discovered or invented). He was the mathematician who wrote _The Nothing That Is, a Natural History of Zero_.
Then there's the whole idea of personality and humanness.
So when Dr. McGrath speaks of 'additional layers of meaning,' he seems to speak from knowledge, and he has company.
Religion is a substitute for accepting total responsibility for our fates; any consoling vice (religious or other) would show measurable results in sampling overall "well being" of an individual (27:53) Dr. McGrath. You scientifically know better !
the very fact that every time examples of biblical/religeous violence is condemned rather than faithfully accepted by the religeous proponents proves Higgens’ point that good is not something dictated by religious morality but by the empathy of human nature
I've always thought those that debated Hitchens were encroaching on the inept, in their delivery; McGrath, Turek, D'Souza, William Lane Craig, other, all seemed comparatively incoherent and obtuse.
Mr Sea Turtle Well, when your special field of expertise is godology there's bound to be a good amount of vagueness and vacuity.
Mr Sea Turtle You're encroaching upon ineptitude with that unnecessary comma.
Hermes Trismegistus As far as the content is concerned, I'll accept your non-sequitor remark as a complete surrender. Or, maybe it's worse, as you've realized your affection for Christian Apologists is mortally weakened, and consequently you're only resort now is to subjectively undermine the placement of commas. All said, you're right about the comma - a rather unsatisfactory win though, no? Anyone who puts their own alter-ego in quotation marks, and then opts to make subjective comments about punctuation, is not to be trusted IMO.
Hitchens will always live on in these great speeches. This was barely a debate. McGrath has an empty bag here, he should be able to do much better.
However Hitchens was on point and eloquent as usual.
correction: not empty, McGrath's bag was full of wind. Empty, we'd be way ahead. You know what they say in the Buddhist theravadin tradition and points related: until you empty your hands of whatever you're clinging to, you can't learn anything.
So, McGrath was a kid, went to university, saw how hard real science is, figured out he couldn't handle it and then gave up his quest for knowledge and embraced the only solution left - wishful thinking.
Geno H We have a winner.
You got quite a standard calling a PhD in Molecular Biophysics "failed". At this point, I'd really like to know your own credentials, lol.
Hitchens's razor! Cutting McGrath to pieces....
Xerox 1959 unfortunately hes a highly trained and learned philosopher with best friends
world class scientists. game over.
McGrath seems to be totally disconnected from the debate as he seems to be delivering biblical lessons.
Although his opponent is hardly an intellectually worthy one--and Hitchens uses him as a polemical punching bag--it's still grand to see the brilliant "myth destroyer" in such superb form. I so miss Christopher Hitchens--he was unmatched in his love for people, and our defender nonpareil against the hypocrisy and evil invigilation of religion.
Darius McSean Because he yells over McGrath the whole time, while he makes it up as he goes along. Loves how he disses on Mother Teresa. Do you find more inspiration from Hitchens after a couple of drinks?
MountainDew7 I do love it any of the idiot, toothfairy folks are so threatened when ppl critique their evil fantasies. Islamicists are especially entertaining, with moderates giving cover to the jihadists. Is Islam the worst religion? Hardly.
All 3 Abrahamic religions are death cults (eschalatogy/salvation myths), which practice misogny, demand blind Allegiance & wage violence. Let's review & compare:
1. Misogyny: Islamic women are denigrated & considered inferior--essentially "owned" by men. Consider Qur'an 4:3:
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. (Scourge means whip, btw). But look at Abrahamic counterparts:
2. Islam dictates and invigilates its followers, and demands obedience in everything from sexual conduct, clothing, diet & finance. BTW, Apostacy (leaving Islam) is punishable by death.
3. Islam has given us suicide bombers. Thank you, Islam. In fact, the Quran helpfully provides at least 109 verses enjoining followers as to what should be done to infidels:
www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
4. But don't be too quick to condemn Islam. After all, the Quran is simply a plagiarized version of everything that's twisted and immoral in the religious cannons of Christianity & Judaism. In other words, Islam's essential fansticism is not even genuine--it's just hyperbolized Jewish & Christian dogmas.
You religious sort are all potential psychopathic. (I left typos)--enjoy your rapture you dumb fucks
Darius McSean Judging by your excellent vocabulary I am surprised you cannot see the incoherence of your critique. Your angry, and unfortunately vulgar, condemnations speak to a longing in your own heart and mind to set what is wrong to right. You deal in oughts and ought nots. Pleads to morality abound. Yet from your worldview, what is it all rooted in? What does naturalism or evolution tell us about what is right or wrong? How can you tell someone in the Middle East or Indonesia how to live when what you believe is all subjective anyway? Is secularism free from issues? Pornography, high divorce rates, single parent households are all too common in secular culture. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robespierre, what examples are they of secular thought? On top of it all, like Hitchens, you just make stuff up based on biased opinion. Religion speaks to what it is to be human. It gives us a fuller understanding of our innate nature, and existence as a whole. Can it be misinterpreted or misused in the hands of the wrong people? Absolutely, but that is true of all things. This doesn't change the reality of God. To be human is to be imperfect, and God gives us the free will to choose the path in life we take.
Quoting you:"Your angry."
Your use of this common grammatical typo reflects an inattention to detail, which is also exemplified in your sloppy thought process. Do yourself a favor and look up syllogism.
"Your" welcome. lol!
Darius McSean Really?? That is/was "your" in the possessive my friend. Your anger. It belongs to you. Is English "your" native tongue? Once again, you are looking to set the wrongs right. However, for what reason in your world of no meaning, no truth, is beyond me. Everything that is must prove itself to you personally, God hasn't proven himself to you personally because you have turned your back on Him, so therefore in your mind He doesn't exist. A rather unfortunate syllogism indeed. God bless, my friend. I hope you find your way Home to Him one day.
Can someone direct me to a video where the religious side clearly wins - and wins the hearts of the audience? It seem so always end with a humiliation of the religious side...
haha
linus smith
finally someone liked my comment :-)
I really hope your comment was ironic.
linus smith for a good read: Peter Boghossian: a manual to create atheists. He also has some good videos online.
You're kidding, right?😒
I can only hope for you, that your question and your username meant sarcastic!😦
McGrath came across as an honest and decent human--more than I can say for most of other Hitchen's opponents in these debates (I think especially of William Lane Craig, from that list).
im reading hitch 22 right now and the best thing about it is you get to be with him again. hear him talk and feel his presence its very satisfying if you cared about him.
I still miss HItchens (R.I.P.)
! I will always have Johny walker black on news years and think about the great he did.
I know what he died from Johny walker black was his favorite drink. I meant it as a way of honor not as a bad cruel joke.
***** I think the chain smoking might have done it, actually. Much more damage to the throat than his love for alcohol.
why just New Years.
Hearing McGrath in this debate, is like listening to Saul Goodman, defending some wacko client.
Only he says less.
Hitchens was as always straight forward and brilliant.
But dead
Agnes Philomena you're a busted flush.
Agnes Philomena whilst I acknowledge your religious expression I cannot and will not do likewise. We are all masters of our own destiny.
Agnes Philomena You sound like total religious nut case to me
Agnes Philomena
lol xD
The stupid ass atheism is bad because
communism was secular argument.
Congratulations for being yet another dumbass.
Steven Weinberg hit the nail on the head...Quote : "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
I mean, Hitchen’s powers of logic and persuasive argumentation are, as always, compelling. But I have to say, that was a commendable closing statement from McGrath that even Hitchens applauded and found no fault with. I really enjoyed it when his body language said “well, fair enough I suppose, I don’t agree with your conclusion but I’m not going to fault you for what you believe and how you live your life.” Nice handshake at the end.
is anyone else annoyed by McGraths' constant moving?
Yes, it's hard to watch him during his speech without feeling seasick.
he was nervous. You want to see a much worse performance look at John Haldane, far more pompous and imperious. See a nearby youtube video of that. I challenge anyone to get a count of how many times he put on and removed his spectacles during 15 minutes of his presentation debating Hitchens. Totally vapid. Philosopher. Made me ashamed of my profession.
this wasnt a level playing field hitchens killed.
Hitchens died (which BTW... will happen to everyone some day), he wasn't killed.
And you're right... whenever Hitchens debated someone, it was never a level playing field.
As Hitchens has said "Is the world a better place" and I pose "without Christopher Hitchens?"
Absolutely not. There is no one I would rather listen to debate (though Sam Harris is very close).
This conversation is meaningful.
Maybe folks are afraid to part with ancient beliefs,and worry as their friends condemn them.
One may stay friends by not upsetting
them,I personally understand that being truthful will free us to find company with those amongst us who engage in mutual respect.
Very good video.
I love hearing both sides,
It makes me aware of my identity and solidifies my being secular,agnostic ready!
Hitch could not wait at the end to get out for a ciggy. Bless you RIP with much respect.
McGrath is regurgitating the same shit from his book, "The Twilight of Atheism". Good for a laugh, but not seriously recommended.
Where does your "innate" ability to know right from wrong come from? In your atheistic view you should come to the realization that you're "morality" is not the product of free choice but the impulsions and reactions of a machine in your head. Without a set of strict morality, which would be recognized and respected by all, everyone would have their own sense of morality. This means that there is no such thing as "evil" which you've always consider religion to be a product of. If you ask any sane person, no matter where they're from, you'd get some sense of morality which agrees that killing, rape, disrespect are all forms of inappropriate actions. They may disagree to the extent and to whom these actions would be inappropriate for but it all has the same meaning. Isn't it fascinating that as there is disease in this world there is also vaccines which can be developed through natural means to combat those disease that are ever changing? Isn't magnificent that one species of life has an antioxidant which can be used to chemically react against another specific species of life which has had an entirely different process of evolution? You're basic argument is that something came from nothing while the theist argument is that nothing came from something which isn't a subject to time or space. We all know that no matter how long you stare at nothing you'll always get nothing unless something beyond our comprehension of space and time can react. How can our moral conscience and DNA be in existence without an intelligent designer? You must get it through that thick head that without the supernatural there wouldn't be what you're brain would translate to be nature. No matter how God got us here, the mere fact that we're here at all is a supernatural event within itself. Now referring back to DNA. DNA is not the same as a message that the human brain mistakes for a sign, DNA is found in every living being and is not without a purpose. DNA makes us who we are and we can decipher our physical qualities because of it. I wish you were still here so that I could see your pitiful rebuttal as to why I'm wrong. You may not believe in the Christian God but surely you can't refute the existence of a God.
Jacob Pando All you've proved is that you have no idea what you're talking about...."No matter how God got us here, the mere fact that we're here at all is a supernatural event within itself." like, wow, Skippy! LOL!
Jacob Pando I refute the existence of any god. Show me some evidence of one and might change my mind. So far no one has.
As regards your question about the origin of innate morality, you can thank evolution through natural selection for that. Morality is a behavioural phenotype that arose to assist us survive by living in mutual supportive groups. Action we consider 'good' are those that assist the group, those we consider 'wrong' are those that harm the group. No supernatural elements needed.
George Forsyth Show me some evidence as to how you can refute a God. If your answer is simply because of the lack of evidence, then you're biased in your assumption.You can simply say you don't know. Show me evidence of that George, some real life evidence of that process in the making and how it dictates how we perceive right and wrong. Anyways, evolution doesn't dismiss the idea of their being a God behind every natural law, pattern, common sense made, etc.
bryant tillman You seem full of yourself Bryant. Please dismiss my claim and tell the world as to how our existence and the existence of matter itself came be.
Are we still discussing whether or not religion is manmade? In what century do we live again?
Lost all respect for McGrath after the 1:00:00 mark. He's making no sense whatsoever. Babbling unconnected waffle in between bouts of "concession" to Hitchens claims. Why is he even speaking?
+Tough Puppy McGrath made one or two mildly humorous statements, but Hitchens towers over McGrath's arguments with much more humor, majestically eloquent statements. The spot on the video where vicarious redemption in the discussion, McGrath exactly restates Hitchens objection to the immorality of the concept only he thinks it is different.
+Tough Puppy except for that fact that misogyny and the sanction for slavery and anti-homosexual persecution and incitement to genocide is written INTO the bible and koran. Monotheists cannot escape the fact that their books contain these passages written by god or allah. And if you were to add up all the passages about do unto others and love your neighbor and compare that with the heinous, anti-human immoral passages - they are a hundred times greater than the good statements. Even the good statements all were known before the bible was written so the fact thee monotheistic books contain them is not proof for divinity. Bad people do bad things does not cut it when the bad things they do are written in their holy books and they shout holy pronouncements while do perform their atrocious acts.
+Tough Puppy Quran 33:50, 23:5-6, 4:24, 8:69, 24:32, 2:178, 16:75, Bukhari 52:255, 41:598, 62:137 (rape slaves), 34:432, 34:351, 59:637, Abu Dawud 2150, 1814, 38:4458, and on and on. The old testament is no better and there are numerous passages. Apologists bend themselves into pretzels trying to justify these things. You have not seen any misogyny or condemning homosexuals in the bible or quran? Really. Get some glasses then. And because of that statement we can summarily dismiss you. Wow.
+Tough Puppy "treat slaves fairly...."? It is not difficult - one sentence in one of the holy books would have done it...."Don't keep slaves as it is morally repugnant". All sorts of pretzel bending and apologetic backflips to justify slavery. If you also think there is no misogyny in the bible and koran (as I said and most people would agree) then you are fooling yourself.
+Darragh Muckell Is he speaking? McGrath? :-)
In the later session when sat down I strongly dislike how the moderator asks the religious advocates side if he wants to reply to Hitchens each time Hitchens is speaking or if he wants a new question, but does not return the favor to Hitchens rather presumes he is going to answer.
You must be right. We all know that politicians never lie, especially when talking to the media. ;-)
Words mean nothing, actions do.
McGrath is dreary to listen to and I taste no champagne in his vagueness.
Have to say, I am amazed how people get sucked in by Hitchen's way with words, and don't actually look with closer scrutiny at his actual arguments, under the facade of how he expresses it, the actual arguments are somewhat incoherent at times, and the facts he uses are highly selective...plus he is actually evasive at times, and doesn't actually address arguments that counter his case...
What arguments did he make in this debate that were incoherent? What did you consider highly selective? I'm not attacking you, I am simply curious as to why you say that.
GeneralZod99 Well, take for example about 50:00, when Hitchens speaks about the role of the Catholic Church and fascism. For me, it's a highly selective reading of History: He mentions the strong link between the Catholic church and the fascist movements in Spain, Portugal, Croatia etc around the time of the 1930's and World War II. Fair enough point,and something the Catholic church should be ashamed of, but if you ever bring up Spain, Franco and the Civil War, it's a minefield, which you should never make generalisations on, as it's too complex an issue to go into here. The majority, but not all of the catholic church in Spain sided with Franco, the church in the Basque country sided with the Republic (the basque country always has been one of the most catholic areas of Spain). He mentions Croatia, Austria etc, but fails to mention, for example, the role of the Catholic Church in occupied Poland, where is was an integral part of the resistance to the Nazis. He fails to mention the resistance of several members of the German clergy against Hitler (e.g. Josef Frings and Bishop Von Galen, who vehemently opposed the eugenics programme), and he fails to mention that of the clergy that were sent to Dachau for speaking out against HItler, either in Germany or the occupied countries, 95% were Catholic priests. He mentions about the catholics in the SS (i.e. baptised catholics), but fails to mention the German resistance movement that led to the Stauffenberg plot of July 1944: Stauffenberg himself came from a devoutly religious family, or the White Rose movement, who were also religious.Also, with regards to the Vatican, he fails to mention the Vatican's role in hiding Jews and POWs from the Nazis (see Hugh O'Flaherty) Therefore, he only shows one side of the story. If you go into the realm of History, you need to evaluate ALL evidence, and if you are sidestepping/avoiding evidence that runs contrary to your argument, or if you are distorting evidence that runs contrary to your argument, then there is something fundamentally at fault with your actual argument. True that this is a debate forum, but he also does the exact same in his books as well.
GeneralZod99 Also, when he goes onto Marxism or Communism, he again mentions that Stalin was a 'seminarian', but fails to mention that he was actually expelled/left because he became a convinced atheist when he was there, and again, he goes into his incoherent belief that the Stalinist regime was actually religious, and actually overlooks that that there was a highly active official organisation called the 'league of militant atheists' under Stalin that actively destroyed churches and executed clergy. If feels as if it is more that he is trying to distort the facts so that they fit into his beliefs....as he has come to his conclusion first, and is then trying to find facts to fit into his conclusion, or even distort History so that they fit into his views...rather than look at the evidence first, and then come to his conclusion.
GeneralZod99 By the way, I'm what will probably be termed as a 'doubter' and don't really follow any religion: I'd like to think that there is some kind of 'higher power' but I would not be at all surprised if there wasn't. However, I find the views of people like McGrath far more coherent and balanced than those of Hitchens.
GeneralZod99 Also, and just as a final point, McGrath raises a highly valid point I think about the need to differentiate between religous belief that is moderate, tolerant, peaceful and adhering to the original belief, and that of fundamentalist religious belief that is intolerant and violent, and that fundamentalism/extremism can exist in secular forms (politics, football, nationalism, and even atheism itself). Hitchens seems in my opinion to evade this point completely and does not address it at all, and focuses instead of the texts of the Bible, the Koran etc, and the actions of their authorities, which is a completely seperate point entirely, so he seems to not address the argument made at all, and tries to focus on a point he wishes to make, which, correct me if I'm wrong is not the idea of a debate. By the way, for my first point above, don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to be an apologist for the role of the Church with regards to Fascism etc, of that there is no denying, but I was trying to point out that Hitchens portrayal is not the whole picture, History is in most cases not black and white, right or wrong, but grey. Also, do like your avatar, think it's really cool.....:-)
McGrath's body language signifies a person being deceptive/unsure of themselves. Right out the gate he is so animated he looks as if he will sway himself off the stage at any moment or take his own eye out with the exagerated hand jestures.
Religion gives fanaticism.
The fanatic always survives, he does not question his life nor his purpose.
Religion is the only future of Man.
I must say though. Alister Mcgrath is a good fellow
He's a good coffee table.
right. i just wish he talked better about his beliefs, but beliefs are better kept to oneself, which is Hitchens' main point.
McGrath: "blah blah blah blah" (as is so often the case, the theist just spouts white noise)
Your quoting Chris Hitchens leaves us with the same question he let us with: Such as?
Aristo Telian
Huh?
drstrangelove09 HItchens said that first about Garry Wills, that he could understand everything he wrote until he talked about religion, then it was 'white noise. Just white noise.'
That says more about Chris than it does about Wills, that he refused to try to understand a perfectly reasonable and understandable human in a subject important to that human.
McGrath does not say (or make) 'white noise.' He is reasonable and intelligent. you may not agree with him, but he is not 'white noise.'
It's not even original.
Aristo Telian
I never said calling something "white noise" is original. On the other hand I have been using that phrase for many years (it's a natural for me, since I'm an Electrical Engineer). I used it before I ever heard Hitch use it. I was pleased to hear that Hitch also used it.
Whether or not Hitch accused Wills of "white noise" and whether or not Hitch was correct in the case of Wills has nothing whatsoever to do with whether McGrath is emitting white noise in this debate. I would say he definitely is. I doubt that I can easily persuade you though. Apparently you think that what he said made sense and was very meaningful. I disagree in the extreme. I'm not sure how to bring you to a point where you see the obvious.
drstrangelove09 It may not be obvious. So far you haven't made it so.
Take Hitch's statements from the beginning of this debate. All of them misrepresent the Christian religion, and do so egregiously enough--for not only could he have researched this subject objectively, he has debated his brother for years, his brother Peter reports, and he has not listened.
He begins by poisoning the well by saying that in his previous debates his opponents have said that such doctrines as 'the Virgin Birth' and 'the Genesis creation' are 'well, it's all rather metaphorical, really.' He does not address this, which means that he had an ulterior motive for bringing it up, and that isn't honest. Does McGrath say this? Hitch didn't say. And of course, the most important question, 'Are they right?' Is it metaphorical? He doesn't say. He only lets his sneer hang in air. It's a sophist's and an advertiser's trick.
he then speculates on 'what would have happened' in history, which of course can't be proven, but that means that he's taking the coward's way out, accusing his opponent (religion) of what no one can answer and of what he cannot possibly know.
He assumes a nature of religion, that it was promulgated to explain the world. Having limited himself to the Christian religion, however, he is absolutely wrong, because Biblical Christianity was never interested in 'explaining' the world. It's purpose and goal was different. it was a spiritual goal, not a physically explanatory one. Whatever the world is like, whatever it was like, was of no interest, which is why many of the early scientists were Christians. God is separate from his world, all of it is 'good,' therefore we are free to investigate it.
Of course, he completely misrepresents the moral and ethical parts of Christianity, too, assuming one theory of the Atonement, which wasn't the first one, and wasn't popular until the time of Anselm in the Middle Ages. 'Is it ethical to believe that your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person?' he asks (10:15) He calls it 'human sacrifice,; and in that he is wrong, too. it is not 'human sacrifice.' It is Jesus showing that God has power even over death. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Jews didn't, and Jesus wasn't.
He misrepresents responsibility and forgiveness. Jesus addressed this--which Hitch could have known if he'd wanted to--Jesus' teaching on just this issue in Matt 20, in which the master of the parable asks, 'Why are you envious because I am generous?'
God offers forgiveness, and Hitch hates the idea. Quite a dorsal striatum you have there, son.
McGrath, now does tackle the issue head-on, saying that research shows a positive personal effect (and he quotes teh research--Koenig and Cohen's book)
He is honest enough to say that religious people have been bad, but then he points out that this is not normative, and he quotes Mike Shermer in support of this, and goes on to show that atheists have been just as bad if not worse: Lenin, Stalin, and the atheist phase of the French Revolution (when they tried to form the Cult of Reason and to close down churches), and then of course it all led to the Reign of Terror and the 'National Razor.'
He then says that Jesus, the Example, refused to do violence 'though it was done to him.' Just because some Christians are bad and some are not cannot be an argument that Christianity is bad.
All of which is true.
Hitchens is 'white noise.' McGrath is not.
McGrath must be about the most naive of all the christian debaters on the internet. Hard to believe. Christopher Hitchens must have thought to himself: this is kindergarten debating.
The best way to improve one's vocabulary is to sit beside Hitch for hours upon hour.
The songwriter John Lennon has a point of view worth considering in his song "imagine". I am left wondering why none of the speakers introduced the probable impart this would have made if the truth in Lennon's song was in place at the dawn of civilisation.
the number of times you here the President of United States end his public speech using the closing statement "God Bless America" runs contrary to the stand of Christopher Hitchens commending the USA for separating State and Religion.
There was a poor man named Lazarus, and a rich man named Hitchens...
I live near where those amish kids were slaughtered. It was a horrible time. That schoolhouse is re-opened and the Amish still have no desire to harm his family or give order to legal action. Narvon PA.
Mcgrath is either not very clever or purposefully being deceptive, perhaps it is both!
+CI CS was taught to parrot, in Sunday School
PointLarusso, that is exactly my point. We can actually know things and you agree with me. That being the case, a worldview that cannot ground knowledge should be rejected. Naturalistism has no grounding for knowledge and should be rejected. A worldview that fails to answer "why is it possible to know anything at all?" when, as you've said, knowledge is possible is not a worldview worth holding. As we examine worldviews we find that naturalism fails to account for what we know to be true.
If history doesn't hold Christopher Hichens in high regard, I will be really surprised.
Hitchens' arguments are astute and are wonderfully intellectually rounded. The thing that surprises me is that, for something so intellectually coherent and for someone who's read the Bible as many times as he has... he actually has a profound misunderstanding of the gospel. He hasn't understood the case he is arguing against and this knowledge actually reorientates the whole argument (1 Corinthians 18-31 has never been so relevant here). In his book 'God is Not Great,' in relation to sin he says (and maintains as his underlying argument) "what appalling load of strain they have to bear." That's not the gospel. What Jesus did on the cross is a message of complete liberation. Christ paid the price to set us free. "To bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners." This is a completely different truth that overrides the whole debate. But anyway, don't just base it on my words you've got to see it for yourself by reading one of the accounts
To be fair, the same could be said for any of the famous Christian apologists, from Gary Habermas to William Lane Craig... to say nothing of the thousands of priests who do the exact same thing every Sunday.
Public debates are now an important battleground for ideas, and you're correct that the best argument doesn't always win. But since the religious side plays the exact same game (and has a HUGE headstart on us in that respect), you'll forgive us for playing the game by the rules that it has.
I think dr McGrath confused the concept of a debate with a sermon. Par for the course really. Greater humanity has a responsibility to relegate this nonsense to the history books where it belongs!
Do what they Will BUT Hurt NONE.!!
Blessed be
You cannot say that an assumption is inconsistent or that there is no good reason for it. It is an assumption. You either agree with it, in which case you must accept all its implications, or you reject it, and then you don't have to accept its implications.
Right here , One can see the difference , between going to Oxford and just attending .
Christopher is so smart and collected. What he says seems to make so much more sense than alister. His points are spot on What a great spokes person
Something that McGrath said (when he was actually making sense and not speaking in an endless tautology) that struck a chord with me is that "atheists believe that consolation and hope are for losers". I hear a lot of religious people make this claim in one way or another; this accusation that atheists want to strip them of any hope or consolation that they find in their religious beliefs. Hitchens once accurately made the analogy of saying that it's rather like a child who starts to have a tantrum because their favorite toy is about to get taken away.
I haven't heard a single atheist or antitheist claim that they believe that we as humans can't (or shouldn't) find hope or consolation around us in times of despair. However what atheists *won't* do is make believe that there is another reality outside of the one we are living in. We don't take refuge in lying to ourselves and to others in order to appeal to any fears we have about death and dying. We don't follow up senseless tragedies by saying empty things like "I will pray for them" or "It is God's will". Religious people want to be applauded and respected for going to great measures to deny reality as we know it by creating imaginary ones. No. I have too much self respect and respect for my fellow man to patronize them like that. There is nothing moral or commendable about grown adults constantly ducking and dodging reality in order to soothe their own fears and ignorance.
i used to be a christian, quite fervently so. but the more i learned about religion, the more i moved towards anti-theism, arriving finally at atheism, and militant atheism at that. how someone can listen to hitch speak and read his work and not change their world view to, at the very least agnosticism, if not atheism, is beyond me. i understand there are many people incapable of this level of critical thinking, but there are very intelligent people who claim to be religious. it's infuriating.
Although I disagree with many of McGrath's positions, I fing that he truly is a pleasure to listen to, perhaps as much as Hitchens.
I think that the telling point is that after arguably a quarter million years of gods and goddesses in various forms and roles in the lives of humans, we are still having to ask such a question of religion and it's value to society.
Anyone here in 2019
Indeed the old gods were to be simply feared. Whether you loved them or not wasn't really important. They certainly didn't love you.
At least the old gods made sense!
I have found faith...it was forced upon me ...but I have faith now
If religion is a poison ( first sentence of vid. ) Mr Hitchens is the anti venom.
McGrath sounds a little like Rowan Atkinson doing one of his vicar skits.
His main critism against Christianity is that it takes away responsibility for our actions. This is false. Nowhere in Christianity does it say that Christ's death removes responsibility.
Two incredibly bright former Oxford professors discussing a popular issue. 1hr40min very well spent :)
Brilliant debate. Very even, I hope the comment about Hitchens below was by an insensitive troll making religion look bad.
In every debate Hitchens participates the real winner is the one he is named after.
I agree. The best kind of scientist is one that can throw out a hypothosis that doesn't pass a riggerous peer review. Even Darwin wrote near the end of his book that there is much more to learn. He is famous for all he got spot on with a wealth of supporting evidence from other Christian scientists.
Let me summarize the problem using logical operators. A, B, C, ... stand for propositions, => is implication. If A and B are inconsistent, then :
B => C ... => (not A)
or
(A and B) => C ... => false
In our case, A is "we have reason / knowledge", B is "naturalism is true". I have yet to see a proof of either of those logical chains.
Starts around 6:00
Hitchens says in his book that there was a time that faith could at least for a while stand up to reason - in the era of the founders of the christian church. Every debate of his I see proves the point that nowadays, faith can't even come close to doing so.
Crucial point also in the philosophy of Emanual Levinas: ethical responsibility is the innermost substance of human subjectivity, the idea of taking it away or delegate it to somebody else is ludicrous.
Q&A Should have been timed to allow proportional time. Seemed to be about 70% Hitchens & 30% McGrath.
Cyric London mcgrath is better off saying less to avoid even more foot in mouth
Hitchens had far more to say.
The flipside of this process is when belief in this God acts as an ---encouragement--- to engage in abhorrent behavior that might otherwise not commit, either by perceived commandment or by promised forgiveness for said acts.
Yeh, Hitch at his wonderful best again. I really want to like Alister McGrath, given all his accomplishments and being from N.Ireland and all, but listening to him makes it really hard.
Here's my simple statement to all my creationist friends. If you begin your arguments for a god, his abilities, accomplishments, his interactions with people, without the benefit of mathematical underpinnings, or forensic confirmation of ANY kind....geology, biology, physics, quantum mechanics..well, I don't see the point, really.
the guy from Oxford talked a lot and didn't say anything the whole debate he just apologized and said thank you a lot. worst Christopher Hitchens debate ive seen, he made it TOO easy. amazing Hitchens speech though