Christopher Hitchens Gets OWNED after asking William Lane Craig on GOD & Christ| EPIC DEBATE Moment 

Here’s an EPIC moment of the debate between late Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig on God, objections to Christianity and the person of Jesus Christ. Check the description for time stamp. Thanks for watching!!

I'm a Christian, but don't see how Christopher was owned here.

This was such a fun debate. Both of these men were very charismatic and didnt take themselves too seriously. But they didn't hold back either.

So where did he get owned he's just asking questions and getting Answers.... Craig has my respect for Answering directly..👍

This is the most honest use of click baits ever..the problem is people fail to understand how click baits function..

I must've missed the getting owned part..where was that again?

I loved to watch these debates as an atheist. WLC was always a huge problem, today I recognize his knowledge even more. Praise the Lord.

Craig should have chosen Atheist, because if Hitchens was a Muslim, the only thing we will hear in the interview is "Allahu Akbar.... Booooom!". 😅

I wouldn't say either person got "owned". You really should post the link to the debate. It was really great for both sides.

Really a crucial and difficult question from both sides.

What? Christopher wasn't owned at all in this video WTF.

Clickbait as usual. You wish you could “own” Hitchens.

You (and WLC) need to reread the account in Matthew. The saints coming out of the tombs is mentioned while speaking of the crucifixion, but the verse explicitly says, "The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs **after his resurrection** they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

Beautiful video!! Really enjoyed the full debate!

Hitch didnt get owned.

I must have missed the owning. The only rebuttals in the clip seem to come from AI lady voice not Craig. And Craig, Hitch and the AI lady voice all seemed to be an aware that Jesus wasn’t accused of blasphemy for claiming to be God- the accusation stemmed from the claim Jesus was sanctioned to invoke the name of Yahweh.

The Church in my village has been abandoned. The roof is leaking and the windows have been broken. I think the Devil is winning !

Not seeing how Hitchens "got owned" here.

Where is the owning of Hitchens?

Does anybody have a link to the original video?

Can anyone tell me where Hitchens gets owned?

Where is the owning part?

In the whole debate, this was the only part where I found WLC argument to be ridiculous and in a sense proofing Hitchens point. You can see the smile and joy on Hitchens face as he listens to WLC answer. For the poster to think that out of the whole debate, this is the part that Hitchens was “owned” is like a child throwing tantrum at something s/he doesn’t like

The answer to Hitchens question: Luke 13:2-5 KJV - And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were SINNERS above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, EXCEPT YE REPENT, YE SHALL ALL LIKEWISE PERISH. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, EXCEPT YE REPENT, YE SHALL ALL LIKEWISE PERISH.

According to google there are at least 10000 recognised distinct religions. It was a cordial interaction. More of this please

Still waiting for that part...

For all his supposed knowledge, Hitchens now finally knows in eternity

Where did he got owned? Not that religious people making up scenarios in their head and believing in them surprises me

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." Voltaire

Still waiting for the part where Hitchens "got owned".... To make it worse, you strawmanned him at the end of your video... He never once asserted that's Jesus was "merely an exorcist"... He's simply questioning if we have sufficient reason to believe he was DIVINE...

a collegial, intellectual, well articulated discussion where two individuals completely disagree....Imagine that in 2023!

It's actually super embarrassing how the commenter doesn't understand that the question of whether or not Jesus was a common exorcist was a BASIC burden of proof question. He's not claiming Jesus was a common exorcist. He's asking "How do you know he wasn't?" It goes back to burden of proof. The commenter owned herself.

Can somebody point me to the part where Hitchens was owned ?

I saw a great conversation between 2 intellectuals. I saw no one get "owned". What's the deal with the dishonest clickbait title?

I am not a Christian but do agree with @kingofnothing2260. Just adding a comment to a debate neither proves nor supports as it just removes any right of reply. Just show the debate and save the manipulation and an attempted propaganda. Hitchens is hard to argue against unless you have faith, which you cannot argue with as it is irrational!

Christian here, but definitely not subscribing to this channel, as it uses false sensationalist headlines to get more views, and the robot voice too is annoying.

Saying sombody doesn't possess the ability to cast out unicorns is bogus at best, which is exactly what Hitchins is saying. Belief in demons is a very negative break with claims of having a positive god, especially if you make the claim that the god created all and knows all... Otherwise this god knows and acts very stupid, which you shouldn't take as a good sign of words to be adhered to. ☮

Out of context… Just watch the whole debate

I remember in one debate Craig said that he was not sure if God really exists. And is this the "aplogist" we're following?

I'm trying to find the part where Hitchens gets OWNED

If William, in his “search”, realizes Islam is true, would he convert? Or be an atheist?

Waiting for an atheist to come in and say Hitch didn't get owned...it's their nature to hopelessly resist.

We are all born with a lack of Belief in the Christian God the idea of Christian God has to be put there by others

lol the part when he asked if banishing a demon meant he was correct. Yeah if I see someone banish a demon then I’m gonna listen to what they have to say. If you disagree why not just believe you re living in the matrix

Much respect for Hitchens but Craig is a giant amongst men, and it was very interesting to watch Christopher try and lead William into a trap, to no avail. One of the best debates of our lifetime.

Two brilliant men holding different positions, one posing a healthy scepticism, the other answering with scholarly interpretation…no bogusness or owning…just a wonderful conversation

The last point was interesting in that the he couldn't convince the eyewitnesses present..

"Owned" AKA your cheap clickbate for a debate that is 10 years old and has been watched thousands of times online. Stop trying to mislead people for views.

gets owned? where? how?

It's nice to see a video from a debate in which Hitchens doesn't dodge the topic... but then again it was him asking the questions...

The problem with me as a Christian is that there are a lot of differences, how would we consider other views as heretics

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

I always thought that lying for Jesus was still considered lying. Christopher Hitchens didn't get owned so why does the headline say he did? The guy who wrote that is most definitely not going to spend eternity with his god, unless of course the Christian god wants liars sitting next to him, who knows? perhaps he does.

Irony is churches asking for money to solve their problems but telling you to pray to solve yours

craig says biblical slavery was just paying back a debt . what a load of shit

“But the fruit of the Spirit is Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfullness, Gentleness, Self-control; against such things there is no Law.” (Galatians 5:22-23) it is something Christians recognize as a sign of the Holy Spirit being able to inspire Self-control, Gentleness and Faithfullness in us so that we may become images of the Patience, Kindness and Goodness of Jesus Christ and so enter finally into the Love Joy and Peace of God in eternity.

There is no evidence for a god, especially the god of the Jews or Christians.

I don’t think either was “owned”. Christian viewers may be inclined to believe that Craig had the better part of the argument, and non-Christians/atheists that it was Hitchens. A lively, informed, and respectful exchange.

The resurrection of the saints at the crucifixion was not just a local event. Peruvians, Chinese and European historical records claim darkness, earthquakes and ghosts at the time of Jesus death. The Irish story of Concobar MacNessa is one such story. Craig not being a Calvinist and subscribing to Molenism tends to open him up to wanting to analogize certain portions of scripture.

Yeh... Hitchens gets "owned" by Craig. If you believe that I have a used car I'm looking to sell. Hitchens asks poignant questions about religion and what does Craig do? He obfuscates, dodges, pleads ignorance, presents rationales and even worse, he admits there may be things he has conceived "wrong". But, let's forget that and grant that his beliefs are True. IF... Craig really wanted to "do his best" at understanding the universe he's doomed to never know if his supernatural beliefs are true because he has no empirical evidence to present that supports his views. And then Craig, like most theists will speak and act as if such beliefs are true. Craig et. al. defeat themselves by making truth claims for which they have no FACTS. It's analogous to the Little Boy Who [Always] Cried Wolf... when no wolf was anywhere near. People stopped believing and what happened? The boy [god belief] eventually get's eaten by the big bad wolf - Science. 🤣 If homo sapiens expect themselves to survive longer than the Dodo Bird [we're already one of the shortest existing species on the planet], the species must find its "proper" place in the natural universe. And that includes not ruining the planet with our garbage and then expecting some guy named Jesus to come rescue a certain "chosen few". If religion isn't equivalent to tossing die or playing Black Jack, it's difficult to imagine anything else to compare.

Christofer Hitchens is a light in the darkness, gone too soon RIP.

Hitchens didn't get owned. He just made a bunch of arguments that made your religion look silly and you didn't like it.

Why is the title Hitchens gets owned? And why would a Christian site be so kick ass?

It wasn’t blasphemous to claim to be the messiah, it was blasphemous to claim to be God.

There is no "owning" of Hitchens here, as desperately as some apparently would like to see or hear it...

It seems both were having fun. I'm a Christian and I miss Hitchens.

The resurrection is based on the gathering of harvest. When Jesus descended and took saints to heaven, he left some to return to earth. Same for the wheat harvest discussed in Leviticus.

Gets owned my ARSE!!

Talk about clickbait. There wasn't even any ownage! If anything Hitchen got him with the last point regarding eye witnesses not supporting Jesus' accounts of exorcisms.

Not many people know who William lane Craig is. The reason for this is that he is self-proclaimed and self-promoted. He is a glory hound who uses others to get himself noticed. At the opposite end of the spectrum is Christopher Hitchens, who is widely regarded as one of the most influential atheists of modern times. There is nothing in this video that has Hitchens "destroyed", that is simply the RU-vidr here trying to get views with very little effort (except a bit of editing here and there to misdirect) by using ALL CAPS. If noting else, this has helped me to identify another channel to avoid and set to not recommended. I suggest anyone else who mistakenly clicked on this to do the same.

Ugh... do you know what "owned" means? Because no one got "owned" here.

Clickbait garbage headline. You're acknowledging that parts of the bible, even in the Gospels can be interpreted metaphorically, like the appearance of dead patriarchs, so you're acknowledging that almost any of it could be metaphor.

When Hitchens said “that was a clumsily asked question” he was lying… he was setting up a trap and Lane Craig didn’t fall for the trap. Hitchens was being a little trickster 🐍

Hitch's unbeaten streak has no end!

Hitchens agrees there are demons and the magic priests of Egypt coudl replicate the snakes etc of Moses -

Hitchens says "The people who got the closest look at Him, the Jewish Sanhedrin thought that His claims were not genuine. Remember. if you're resting anything on eyewitnesses, the ones who we DEFINITELY know were there thought He was bogus." This argument seems to lean back on the classic claim that the gospels (since the copies we have are from later dates) are of uncertain authorship, and probably not written by the eyewitness apostles. Yet he is relying on those books' testimony to claim that we "definitely know" the Sanhedrin were there arguing with Jesus.

No disrespect, but this is quite embarrassing on behalf of Craig and Christians. It's funny to me that Craig was so willing to debate people like Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins considering that none of them are, or were, professional philosophers. Secondly, it's quite embarrassing that Craig was so willing to debate these people and yet he has been ducking a debate with Jeffery Jay Lowder since the late 1990s. Jeffery Jay Lowder already intellectually destroyed Phil Fernandes, Frank Turek, and Kevin Vandergriff in a debate. He is by far the best atheist debater there is. I guess that's why Craig has been ducking a debate with him since the late 1990s.

Hitchens NEVER gets owned.

Where exactly was he owned?

I guess owned has a different meaning to the delusional

Hitchens made very good and well informed arguments. He didn’t even come close to being “owned” at any point. That was just clickbait and it worked because here I am 😅

You can be funny in a debate doesn't mean he owned him. Typical theists take. 😂

owned?...really, owned?...of course, the religious mind has a strong proclivity for exaggeration...all I heard was CH asking questions and WLC answering indecisiveness, but honestly I might add.

Hitchens never liked being asked who is the Master Source? he always changed subject, as he did not have a plausible alternative explanation than God being the Master Source. he liked staying the sub-source territory in debates.

Craig is so polite and deferent. Hitchens is looking for gotcha moments with quips

Exorcisms was finally removed as a belief in Christianity. Same thing with witches and worloks and pixies and fairies, etc. Jesus didn’t perform exorcisms.

During this section of the debate, William Lane Craig committed himself to Jesus performing exorcisms, but wouldn't commit himself to the existence of demons. Hello, McFly! How can Jesus perform exorcisms if demons aren't real.

Hitchens went to easy especially in the first section where he didn't press on all of the Gods, religions and most of the sects within his own religion that Craig has to deny. Every other sect and religion does the same thing. Hence the culture wars we have always had.

Why do theists lie so much?

Hitchens and Craig: 2 brilliant minds.

Why are there so many bugs flying around the commentators?

5:00 Hitchens is revealing an uncomfortable possibility here: Even if Jesus had power over demons, that itself says nothing of the source. Maybe he was a really really high ranking demon, pretending to be God incarnate?

No one owned Christopher hitchens

Don't watch! This is just an excerpt of a long debate that Hitchens clearly wins

I saw this years ago. I thought 'Wahabi Baby' would be a good title and subject for a song. No one got owned here, certainly not Hitchens. And I can't take seriously a man who pronounces 'illustrative' like that.

No born-again believer can ever say I used to be a believer. Once born of the Spirit (Holy Spirit), always born of the Spirit. Just as once born of your parents always a child of your parents.

Good commentary but I would prefer Less of it. It seems to go into commentary just when I’m getting into the debate.

The account of Matthew 27 is not referring to the resurrection of people who were dead, the earthquake split the tombs and opened them up, as well as tearing the temple curtain and the storm and the rain washed some of the bodies into the city, There were bones and materials. It's not referring to a resurrection... If it had have been it would have mentioned the word resurrection.

I'm a Christian, and while I (obviously) prefer WLC, I wouldn't say anybody got "owned" here. Those were both good questions and good answers.

Commentary makes this video unwatchable!