Though Christopher is now long gone. ( I hate to use the word long but 11 yrs has passed since , so… ) but I am glad he left us in the age of the internet. Immortalising him forever.
He's gone but do remember that " it's appointed unto man once to died but after deth judgment " And how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation,
Hitch is simply asking us to think for ourselves, hone our critical thinking skills about the world we're in, and be humanists. I despair that a basic education doesn't do more to encourage this. Hitch is also asking parents not to decide matters of faith for their children. Let them grow up and decide for themselves.
One believes in reality and one didn't. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
It was a redundant repeat of Sunday school " clichés I could have written what he wrote with lines and phrases I was fed by "christianity" So happy and liberated to know now I was in the most hidden and accepted cult- that was toxic to my life up until a year ago-
It's funny that when people try to dismiss the arguments brought up they do it with an emotional response, not a reasonable one. Funny how Atheist always talk about science and logic and when facing in an argument automatically switch to an emotion answer lol.
@@StallionFernando Oh, are your feelings hurt, you poor dear? Tough shit. There's nothing unreasonable or emotional about calling Turek a con man selling snake oil. It's a statement of fact.
Let's see, Frank believes in a supernatural creator and Hitch believes this all came about on its own. You go with Hitch. You're rather clueless. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Hitch hated reality. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@petyrkowalski9887 what parts of what you gave show what I gave is incorrect? The answer...NONE. You must be having fun though pretending you're smart.
That story Turek used at the end is disgusting. That soldier had WAY more integrity(and balls) than Jesus. He landed on a grenade to save his friends. Imagine if the soldier who sacrificed himself was the very person who set the grenade off in the first place..AND that after he died he came back to life..AND that he told anyone else who didn't see this happen that if they won't worship and thank him..he will throw a grenade at them. To use a REAL human sacrifice to justify Jesus...is just gross.
Yeah, that story was irrelevant. We don't know whether the SEAL was religious, based on its telling. For believers, that may be the hope, but as present-day America makes clear, religion does not make good patriots.
Frank is like your money box full of 1p and 2p coins, collected over years. It makes a lot of rattle and feels heavy but then at Christmas, when you want to treat the kids, you empty the contents and you have £1.49. Fuck all. (I’m not sure of USA coin denominations but I guess that’s about $1.86). Still fuck all.
@@ttrestle yes, for Hitch, the clueless being who thought we got all this on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@Philusteen great, so what? Hitch believed the universe came about on its own naturally. At least Catholics believe a supernatural God created, so have you outgrown that too?
Turek proved in the first 20 minutes, that he doesn’t understand the difference between belief and theory. When he mentions precise “Fine tuning,” for instance, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of measurement. It assumes “LAWS” as having been established prior to the existence of the very matter they are supposed to govern. In other words, an argument of unknowable possibility supported by a misunderstanding of known universal constants.
He also proved that he cannot understand basic arithmetic. Summarising 200 pages in 20 minutes is not 20 pages per minute, Mr. Turek, it is 10. I'm supposed to believe this guy about complex concepts such as a divine creator?
The question would be: "what fine tuning?". That mask fell years ago. The universe is made of the same elements that we are. In pretty much the same proportions. Where is the awe? Then, the only place we can actually survive is in SOME places of this 1 planet in this solar system. Grand design where?
We know you and Hitch hate to think and follow science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Turek, to his credit, understands the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive, but to his discredit, chooses to willfully conflate the two in the search of wealth and fame.
Turek, to his credit, understands the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive, but to his discredit, chooses to willfully conflate the two in the search of wealth and fame.
Hitchens is an elite debater when he fights Turkey I really can’t think how valuable the right voice is. Turek speaking just grated on my ear, it’s an unfortunate handicap. Not sure if anyone else feels that way.
I wish the faithful would at least acknowledge the intensity of their desire to believe because of their hope that they and their loved ones could conquer death. Anytime we choose to believe in something so incredibly desirable, we should allow ourselves to be honest about that desire.
Hitch and his followers desire to remain clueless. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
One thing I do agree with Turek on is in his closing statement that « god could still exist even of everything Christopher says is true ». Yep and so could fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, the loch ness monster and the tooth fairy. Until there is truly compelling evidence to back up the supernatural god claim, I am with Hitchens and remain unconvinced just as Turek is unconvinced about every other god than his favourite one.
Let's see, Frank believes in a supernatural creator and Hitch believes this all came about on its own. You go with Hitch. You're rather clueless. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block There are plenty of theories that do not require a creator. Paul Steinhardt and Penrose propose 2 different cyclic models. You can find Steinhardt’s paper online. Pay attention to the concept of entropy density. Vilenkin has a completely different idea. Guth and Hawking have even other ideas. Conservation of energy is violated any time the conditions of Noether’s theorem is violated. The universe expanding violates the theorem and photon energy is lost due to red shift. Dark energy also violates Noether’s theorem. Furthermore, setting aside dark energy, the sum total of energy in the universe is zero because gravitational energy is negative. You can make two things out of nothing as long as the two things have energies that cancel one another. Look it up.
@@rogerandjoan4329 two things canceling out each other don't do a thing. Nothing does not have two things to even cancel out each other. Nothing has no space, matter, and time for anything to exist. Nothing is no thing. You are so clueless along with the others, I had to explain that to you. Such BASIC thought and science put as simple as can be, yet, you still don't get it. You don't get nothing is nothing. You don't get those laws can't be violated. You don't get having space, matter, and time already there is something already there. You can't see even what an embarrassment you are.
@@2fast2block You’re responding without doing any research. You can’t “intuit” an understanding. If you’re not willing to learn, fine. Let dogma direct your life but don’t bother engaging people.
When Turek speaks for 10 minutes, it feels like an hour, and there's very little that is factual or thought provoking of what he says. Literally feels like I'm sitting in a sermon. When Hitch is on the mic, I rewind (and need to research some of what he spoke about) and am fascinated by his word-smithery when he speak.
I skip it most of the time. I've heard all of the arguments. They make week arguments and then resort to attacks on morals when they are proved foolish. Turek lacks even a social ethical code nevermind a supernatural one. Hearing him talk about how it is impossible for anyone but Christians to love or care for other people is like listening to a crow with bowel distress.
Frank Turek should be deeply ashamed of using the sacrifice of that young Navy Seal (2:02:40) in his transparent attempt to shame Christopher Hitchens for not "accepting" the unverifiable sacrifice of a self-proclaimed "son of god" whose existence he cannot prove! Turek's cheap shots fell far from the mark throughout the entire debate. Hitchens never claimed Turek was asking people to believe something he has no evidence for. But Turek's irritation at being confronted with challenges to his self-assured statements seemed to irritate him beyond tolerance, if his loud voice and combative tone were any indication of the man's emotional state. Hitchens never lost his dignity or his composure. His calm demeanor and rational responses were a pleasure to listen to, while Turek came across sounding like an angry child furious at not being believed. Even if Christians' claims could be proven without a doubt, the way believers attempt to coerce listeners into agreement would be sufficient to drive me away from their faith. Hitchens asked listeners to think. Turek demanded they believe. I know which approach I prefer.
So history, philosophy, physics, and archeology is rubbish to you? How can you possibly credit yourself and beliefs? You’ve given up all logic and consistency. No wonder you side with him…
@@JaredibleProductions dang, that was a 360 day awaited roast. People from New Jersey always hope not to be ignored. It’s compensation as they hope to feel as valued as the Parkway. More importantly than who Jesus was rests our* collective perspective how people viewed it, that is the history circulating the writings. Whether Judas Iscariot was close in the painting of the last supper or distant and distracted is of course irrelevant to the history of what transpired in 3AD, but remains philosophical. If Turek can sense that nature is self sustaining, to a point, and if no creator is needed, then his “philosophy” is explicitly explaining a super nature transcendental to human health. That’s especially bogus when faiths have made personality disparities that have formed several messiahs. He mocks Julie Andrews in the first 5 minutes without having the talent to speak at a normal tone much less relax. He would have a stroke before he could ever attempt even a tenor note. He’s alto-falsetto, Frankly outspoken. What happened to your own education? When you referred to philosophy and,… you should have used are* not is. When you make a list, you should refer to it in plural unless you are citing the group rather than its members.
It's incredible that in 2022 there are some adults who still cling on to this mythical god/jesus/santa nonsense, it's so childish, so naive and so bizarre.
It’s now 2024, and Im still amazed at how widespread and effective the quench of human curiosity we call religion is. Its a curiosity indeed! Granted, I live in mountainous Tennessee, a church is on every corner. But I must stop and think how the hell did it get so damn normal? Pretending to know a 2000 year old dead man is normal, and If i don’t know him too, Ill burn in an unstoppably pain for all eternity. It doesn’t do a good job at even pretending to love those who cant agree. And for that dead giveaway I am thankful.
“Dr.” Turek was swimming WAY out of his depth here. Shouting and speaking intensely fast may have worked at one time against the other school children but it certainly would not work against Christopher Hitchens!
@@JaredibleProductionswrong. Frank knows absolutely nothing about logic and simply defines god in to Existence using leaps in logic, and logical fallacies galore. Christopher absolutely destroyed him.
That Yeller reminds me of when I was 9 and went to church on May 18, 1980 and heard a sermon about how I was a sinner and would go to hell if I didn’t repent (I was 9, how much sinning could I have been up to?) and then my dad put us all in a van and we started out driving to a picnic, and Mt St Helens blew. I just kept screaming (from the back of the van and out of smacking reach) “That’s it, WE’RE ALL GOING TO HELL 🔥” because I thought the world was ending. Now I came to realize it was just nature, not damnation 😂
True. On top of that he used the death of the soldier trying to dissolve the audiences focus. Cheap trick, low hanging fruit what ever you call it. Turek might seem like a nice (possessed though) guy but in reality he is a scavenger praying on others pain to achieve his goals.
1:48:58 Turek’s delivery of that line, and the way he stepped back from the podium, and the look he had on his face, gets my vote for the unintended comedy moment of the evening.
it has that same awkard effect in that crap Last Jedi movie when that girl said That’s how we’re going to win, not fighting what we hate, saving what we love. lol..the whole theatre went silent
I must commend Turek. His opening statement was a truly masterful Gish gallop. One of the best I've ever experienced. The sheer amount of worn out, meaningless, blithering " arguments" and "facts" he spews would exhaust all but the most practiced skeptics. All garbage of course, but undoubtedly in his mind his best and only chance against Hitch. Poor little fella.
This is an emotional claim/response not a rational/factual one, so why not try to explain why his arguments don't work? Assuming you can even comprehend them.
@@anghusmorgenholz1060 I mean he doesn’t know he lost because people like this always think they went out there and killed it. Even when that clearly wasn’t the case. I went to a baptist school when I was younger. In highschool, they had dinesh d’Souza come in and debate a free thinker on exactly this topic. I wish I had told that guy he made some really good points, and he reached me that day. And I commend that guy for walking into the lions den. But dinesh spoke just like this guy. And everyone thought he won. But he didn’t! It was just the brainwashed audience. Hardcore baptists would also listen to this and think turek won. Because these arguments won them over at some point. And I think turek genuinely believes this stuff too.
@@laulau5356 I to went to a Baptist school. Kindergarten and 1st grade. Unfortunately there were no ontological debates. But they did and I have no bad memories of the school quite the opposite in truth, but apparently in some sects of southern Baptist they view the left hand as I guess the devil's hand. Didn't find out this until I was 17 in basic training. And it solved the issue I was having on the rifle range. And went a long way to giving me some clue as to the trail of clumsy mayhem I still leave in my wake. And not one bad memory. I have an obnoxious memory. But it has soured me on church led/focused schools. If a bronze age superstition is having negative consequences 2000 years later it has no place whatsoever in the place where young minds are taught and still vulnerable to BS.
Hitch didn't have much to desire except to get away from that clueless being. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Yes, Frank suggested that the late navy seal was a good man because he sacrificed himself to protect other people, which is a good thing...and has no bearing on the topic at hand. Christopher would surely agree with this, I fail to see the relevance. Frank also says Christopher doesn't believe in God (true) and says "I hate him" which he never did at any point, probably because he doesn't believe in God. And once again how does Frank know God believes in Christopher? How does Frank know God loves him? He seems very confident in his claims, but if anything that shows he is capable of showing great confidence in things with no basis in evidence, which sets you up to be wrong. Even if you get lucky and you happen to be right, if you rely on that thinking surely you will get it wrong way more than you get it right, its just luck.
I’m guessing it’s not available but if anyone gains access to Vatican archives please pull the Christopher Hitchens vs Mother Theresa testifying tapes for all to admire.
@@poozer1986 that shouldn't prevent fools like you to give answers..if he is illogical state where he is...else answer his queston fool...why should we entertain your bullshit?
It's almost too bad there isn't an afterlife because Christopher Hitchens is one man I'd love to share a few bottles of Scotch with. Atheism for the win!!
Turek thinks that being materialistic means that one believes that everything is explained at the level of the atoms. He keeps asking how atoms can give us logical and moral, when it is obvious that this is not how it works and nobody has suggested that.
@@RobertASmith-yy7ge well step away from the quantum realm when talking about morality and look at our evolution and the way we structure society, and observe the usefulness of that behavior. You won't find morals in particle physics. No atheist says we don't have feelings or desires or empathy or any of that. We have it because our conditions demand it, minus those few psychopaths which seem absent of morals, who have faulty biological wiring due to the imperfect nature of our existence. We need morality to not just survive, but to thrive. We do much better in groups, and advance much faster as a species,, than to try to survive independently like animals.
Yes, listen to the way he misquotes Hitchens in the same conversation. It's crazy to hear the actual quote and then compare that to turek's interpretation
2:05:25 - The dying words of a circus ringleader......well Frank, the Great Leprechaun at the end of the rainbow thinks you exist, and would love for you to be rich with his gold. Find him, Frank.......find him.
And? Does that make Hitch some thinker? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@andjunglepunkthirteen760 how the universe created itself and got around the laws I gave..."ahhhh, the envious 2fast returns…" I'm NOT envious of your answer.
On reasoning and presentation it is hard to overtake Christopher Hitchens......His 'English accent' has little to do with it. Hitchens reasoning said in any accent would be equally persuasive.
The cosmological argument used by Turek and Craig is a logical fallacy. They claim the evidence for god is everything has to have a beginning. It’s very convenient that god doesn’t require a beginning. He’s just always there. It’s beyond absurd
21:00 "Where does he get logic from?" A) Humans. Prove me wrong. B) Where logic came from has no bearing on the soundness of the argument. C) God of the gaps. Once again the religious insert god into a gap in their knowledge and then insist that their god has just become even better because he now also explained that thing *THEY* just attributed to him for the specific reason of making him greater.
You can justify morality without there being a God. The preservation of a species is predicated on the outcomes from the deeds that we call moral. Murder for example isn't necessarily a moral thing because like species do not kill themselves because they would cause their own extinction.
If you liked Hitch, did either of you deal with....The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
I like how Turek presents faith as a bad thing in the beginning. “It takes more faith to be an atheist”. We are not only better atheists but also believers.
Though it’s true that Christopher lives on through the internet and the internet almost acting as a home of his where we can visit any time we want and have a small or long conversation. But still I miss his sharp intellect so very much. In my opinion no other atheist personality have the uncanny combination of wit and humour and razor edged word precision like Hitchens. Sir you will be missed forever and ever.
@@pedroporto6729 yep, and just as clueless as Hitch was. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block what is clear is that you don't understand the words you are using.. supernatural isn't a thing, just a silly way of showing you, like everyone else, don't know the answer. Also, using that nonsense in 2023, shows that you are not prepared to discuss the subject and should just say you don't even know what it takes to understand what to ask and "are just to proud to accept that, among other things."
@@pedroporto6729 clueless one, I made it CLEAR. The laws I gave show creation can't happen naturally. We have one choice left, it had to be supernaturally. Very easy to follow but YOU don't like the results and have no logical/evidence-based alternative so you cry about it with nothing better to offer. It's what all you clueless beings do....cry.
The level of the arrogance of some of these Christian preachers is beyond pale. And does this guy think that the louder & faster he talks the more the bs he spews becomes more believable? Thanks for the great Christopher Hitchens. RIP.
When the following writing appears in the clouds of Jupiter: "There is a God, and I'm him. I wrote the Bible, so follow it already." In English. Then I'll believe it.
The Christian speaker is assuming right from the beginning that if the universe had a beginning something had to create it, while ignoring the question of where the Creator could have come from? Just an age-old religious ignorance on display
It think the title of this video misrepresents the topic of the debate. It was not “What best explains reality?”, though Turek has ever since claimed that it was. It’s my understanding that the announced topic was “Does God exist?”. Unfortunately, the moderator failed to mention the topic of the debate in the recorded introduction. There is a huge difference between the two topics, since “Does God Exist” does not give Hitchens a burden of proof. If anyone has documentation showing the previously announced topic I’d like to see it.
The stretching of reality that Turek has to make in order to make his case is shameful. He’s all over the place trying justify his nonsense. No matter what he flaps on about, there is absolutely zero verifiable, evidence for the confirmation for the existence of God. You literally need faith to believe in God, unfortunately, faith in one’s beliefs is evidence of nothing. If nothing can come from nothing, and we need a creator to create the everything that we are, and all that we see, then something had to have created God, and another creator would also be needed that creator and so on and so on to infinitely. If the something from nothing argument is to be taken seriously, then they must concede that God also needs a creator, which in my view he does. Man created God, not the other way around. Turek can’t produce enough snake oil to convince any rational person that his God or any God has any verifiable evidence than can confirm the existence of God. Again, you need faith to believe in God, faith in that belief is evidence of nothing. God does not exist.
I’m sure Frank thought the bit about the soldier was a mic drop, but it was sappy and sentimental; an appeal to emotion when the appeals to logic all fell short.
Turek is contradicting himself Sooo Much, for anything to be eternal it has to have started, so Hitchens asking who created God is valid, is Turek saying there is a god before the god ?
Frank must be tired from all the mental gymnastics he has to do to even try to make sense. Not saying he did but he definitely tried, it was honestly hard to listen to
@TheDJKareem I find it intellectually disgusting that someone can say something as stupid as "if it has a beginning, it has a beginner", as if some-*one* has to be the cause, and not some-*thing*. And then his argument for why it isn't a "god of the gaps" argument is an exact version of the "god of the gaps" argument! It hurts to hear this.
Imagine of Christopher just stood there quoting all the scientists, physicists, etc. that support a rational explanation of the universe.... I imagine he'd still be talking now.
If the universe needs "Something" before existing then god needs "something" before "he created the beginning" you can't argue that the universe needs to have a creator because nothing existed but the creator was able to exist without needing a creator. The ONLY record of said creator existing was the WORD of people that supposedly witnessed these miracles, we know that today human recollection is horrible if you have 10 people witness the same event you'll get 11 different explanations of what happened and today we have video evidence! People are able to write down what they saw the key words being "What they saw" that doesn't mean what they saw is what actually happened key evidence of this is a magic trick and "magicians' have been around for centuries.
I like how being made from atoms seem to some believers as a good argument that we need God for morality. Suppose there aren’t any humans on planet XYZ, there are some rocks, some water some plants. There is some sticky tree bark - where does it take it’s stickiness from? That question presupposes that there is some platonic ideal, the source of all stickiness. Same with morality. If you’re just atoms, where does morality come from… well if you first assumed moral absolutism, with some platonic ideal morality in existence somewhere, then of course you seek to find a connection between it and your own morality. But what is your proof of this objective perfect morality. That’s just question with presupposition that simply cannot be proven.
