Yeah agree exept on the well matched, hitch is op he could debate god on his existence and win and when he has facts and logic on his side it quickly becomes one sided. But i do love the rabbi, david is a gem hilarious, not taking himself seriously, sharp witty sincere, he's just a fine human specimen. And knows how to handle hitch and himself more then any thiest i've seen, idk if you've seek the debate with sam (harris) its perhaps the best debate of its class i ve seen
The Rabbi clearly didn’t understand Hitchens’ point. The question is: „Do You Think That The Bible Is THE WORD OF GOD?” If you do, shouldn’t you listen to what God says? If you think you’re smarter than God, and you can pick and choose what he says, then why call yourself a jew/Christian/muslim/whatever? Clearly there’s a greater power than God, and that is your ability to morally assess, and your ability to think reasonably.
In my experience, religious people tend to get volatile pretty fast if you tell them you are atheist or question religion's morals. I like how the Rabbi compared religion to a tool, because it really comes down to that. It can be used for good or bad. Should we not let anyone have that tool? No. Just like we should never force that tool upon anyone. Most atheists don't have a beef with religion until it is in a position of power and influence. That beef is well founded and based on each religions own recordings of history. In my opinion, (if you ignore the radical of both sides) separation of church and state has been crucial in the progress of science and human equality, but its survival has kept us balanced and hopeful. We need more up front debates like this one thats for sure
Always thought Wolpe was one of the most genuine of Hitchens debating opponents, seems like a good guy and I’m fairly sure Hitchens was fond of him. Still, Hitchens arguments are much more convincing
@@WKRPinCINN I understand that idea, but I never saw Wolpe being a dick or insulting him , like some of his religious opponents did. I think it was genuine, what he wrote.
Though ultimately unconvincing, Rabbi Wolpe is one of the very few interlocuters who could go toe to toe with Hitchens and not make a fool of himself and his beliefs.
As a dane I can only laugh at the comment about Sweden and Denmark. To the vast majority getting married in churches and baptizing children is just a tradition, no god involved. The reason you’ll hear that people identify as christians is simply that it is an acknowledgement of our cultural heritage. It is true that our church is founded by the state, it’s priests and personel are employed by the state and the government runs it. Everyone is automatically a member of the church at birth which means you’ll pay a church tax. You have to actively apply to exit the church but then you will no longer be taxed. Most people don’t do that. Why? Because churces are historic buildings and we enjoy the ceremony and setting for weddings etc. (which require you to be a member of the church) and it would not be possible to preserve the history, the architecture and art without said tax. To tell the truth, many of our pastors only see the religion as a metaphor anyway.
There is no such thing as "atheistic ideology". Atheism is a stance that answers only one question: "Do you believe in God?" There's nothing more in that claim.
You aren't thinking very clearly.. There are ideologies based on the idea that there is no God. And there are ideologies based on the idea that there is a God. Theism you could say is just that the stance on God. Atheism is just the stance on God. But you can talk of theistic ideologies or atheistic ideologies. You can't have one but not the other, it's not logically consistent. Try to think.
Two admirable intellects that really should have debated more often. However, on watching this for possibly my fourth time, I am struck that the Rabbi's position can be distilled down to hope, or wishful thinking. Unlike many apologists, he is too smart to pretend God can be proven or 'seen' all around us but that leaves him with only the proposition that if there is no God, things would be disorganised and unpleasant.
He's hugely handicapped by the fact that he's arguing for a completely nonsensical position. I always think that about the best religious debaters: it's like they're playing tennis with one leg. I factor that into their performance.
Love Hitchens. I think D'Souza was his fiercest debate opponent (Christopher would probably agree) but I think he had the most fun with Wolpe, and despite being an atheist, I can't help but like David also.
Rabbi Wolpe says in this video that the Jews _do_ have a special covenant with God. Whereas Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, whom Christopher also debated, said that the notion the Jews had a special covenant with God was “one of the most misunderstood concepts in all of Judaism”, and said that the Jews _don’t_ have a special covenant with God. Two Rabbis, with two completely contradicting answers to the same question. Don’t you just love the consistency of the religious.
Lol ask 10 rabbis one question and get twelve different answers. That’s life. More than one thing can be true. People express themselves in ways that may sound contradictory but actually aren’t. What’s meant by “special”, for example? Have you ever studied communication theory?
@@zenleeparadise my point is, what is the point of having these rabbinical authorities when you can get a completely incompatible and contradicting answer from any of them? Religion is honestly the most fatuous, contemptible creation man has ever put forward.
@@LifeOfRy as a former atheist myself, I understand your perspective, but it is founded upon miscommunication and nothing else. Rabbinical authorities aren’t G-d or even vessels of G-d (not anymore then anyone else is, anyway). They are simply very well-studied in some area of Jewish theology. Just as experts in other fields can have differing views on the same topic, so too can Rabbis. When a Rabbi for example says that the Jews don’t have a special covenant with G-d, what is meant by special? If their point is that anyone, Jew or not, can enter a covenant with their Maker, and thus the Jews aren’t particularly interesting in this respect, then I don’t know many would disagree (though then we get into an argument about what is meant by “interesting” I suppose haha). This process of nit-picking language in this manner is referred to as “rabbinical parsing” and while it may seem annoyingly pedantic, it’s basically the entire foundation of Jewish discourse. I mean I’ve heard respected Rabbis say they don’t necessarily “believe in G-d”. What is meant by “believe”? What is meant by “G-d”? These words make up the entire point of what is being said and so writing off a statement like “I don’t believe in G-d” by a religious figure as a declaration of atheism, or as an inconsistency on their part, or writing me off as being obtuse for parsing these things out would be to miss the point of what is being said.
@@LifeOfRy for sure, glad to. I have conversations like this (with other religious people even - there is a great diversity of thought in these communities) on the regular so it’s easy for me to unpack. And to answer your question, I’m not “afraid” to say “god”. It’s just that, in recognizing what we are writing is temporary and likely to at some point be lost to time, I don’t like the notion of the word “G-d” nor any of His various names, being erased. I also view it as a mindfulness practice, essentially, to be conscious of how you’re talking about Him. Like if I’m writing it “G-d” to keep the importance of The Name in mind, I’m less likely to write impulsively something like “G-d damn it”, as there is a dissonance between the respect given to The Name but no respect given in the way to which The Name is being used. Usually we’d just say “Hashem” which is a sort of place-holder for His name, but I know that people outside of the community find that very alienating.
Yes, that was silly. But he's so handicapped by arguing for religion. It's like arguing for the easter bunny, it's so difficult to do credibly. Arguably it makes Wolpe's performance more impressive than Hitch's, because the stuff Wolpe has to defend is so utterly idiotic. Hitch just has to sit back and underline the many absurdities in the religious worldview, which is like shooting fish in a barrel. Hitch does it beautifully, as always, but he definitely has the easier task.
I greatly respect both Hitchens and Wolpe. I grew up going to church regularly and attended a Methodist college but I ever truly believed there was an all knowing, all powerful, prayer answering deity. As an adult I have admitted to myself that I’m an atheist: like everyone I have many religious friends and a good friend who is a minister; I play basketball on Sundays at a church and I’m the only guy not a member of the church. What I fully believe is that we are animals; religion is man made and the result of human nature. With that said, I believe that the world would be better if if we could use the cafeteria approach to fundamental religion and follow the positive attributes Christianity without the crazy bible stories, morals from the Iron Age and be influenced by the concept of heaven and hell. I especially believe that this in today’s world which is being poisoned by wokeness and progressiveness that, in part, is a new religion in opposition to the god based religions. If we all lived our lives with the morals and ethics of these two debaters without the assumption that there is some supernatural being controlling or or that we have to answer to, the world would be a much better place.
Well im from Denmark, and Rabbi is right when he talks about how we go to church to get married, my kid is baptized - But its not for religious reason.. At all.. And everyone in that church cringes when the priest starts talking about salvation and the lords blessing. We go there, just like we go to the this other place to get my passport. Or My drivers license. ANd if you want to get your hair cut, you go to the barber. We are secular, im a raiging Christopher Hitchen atheist, and i still atend church, when invited - and not a single soul I know believes ANYTHING of what the priest is telling them, its just a cultural thing
Wolpe's opening lines are filled with flawed assumptions and logic, especially that morality "is created by us, and can be violated by us." Even the morality "created by God" can be violated by us. Therefore it puts us no further in the game.
Mr Hichens we can always find reasons to be disappointed with God and Christians. Christians are broken sinners that need redemption. I’m thankful that I have a relationship with the Lover of our souls.
Wolpe (1:18:30) states that “it is not going to hurt God to insult God”. He must have forgotten that in Leviticus the punishment for blasphemy was death.
Even if any of that is true it still doesn't say god is "hurt" It does however paint a wicked picture of an "all loving god" killing people for words that they say. why would anyone worship such an idea? Child- God's not real, there's soo many to chose from, how could mine be the one? God- Blasphemy! your punishment is death and eternal torture in hell! You have to be sick in the head to not only follow this ridiculousness but to want it to be true.
Hitchens says that there's a quote that people think Dostojewski wrote in "Brothers Karamazov", but that he actually didn't and it's being misquoted. 5min later Wolpe says "And That's what Dostojewski was warning us against in Brothers Karamazov" . . .
Wolpe between the fall of the roman empire 476 CE and The Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) quite gap there. And yes u did mention the franks briefly but I do find it strange u forgot to mention the crusades that took place during this time including First Crusade (1096-1099): Launched in response to the Byzantine Emperor's request for military aid against the Seljuk Turks. It resulted in the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders. Subsequent Crusades: Several other Crusades followed, including the Second Crusade (1147-1149), the Third Crusade (1189-1192), the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204), and later Crusades like the Children's Crusade (1212) and the Crusade of Nicopolis (1396)..
Wolpe is better than William Craig though Hitchens is who I agree with. Good debate though, both made very good presentations. Wolpe did slide off into Craig territory at the end.
Hitchens’ point about „the eternal father” isn’t sound. I, for one, am an exception. I’d actually want my father to live eternally, and be a grandfather to my children, grandchildren, etc. He is an amazing, positive and deep person, and I think he would have fit the role just fine. (Wolpe’s rebuttal of it is dumb though)
@@guciowitomski3825 because you haven’t thought it through fully …. You had good parents ….not everyone does …. An eternal father figure that threatens and demands praise eternally…. But if your dad never died and acted like this it would get old pretty fast …Hitchens is talking about a father that never lets you grow up and makes all your decisions…
I don't think the rabbi actually believes in the existence of the biblical god. He's talking about religion in utilitarian terms-as simply a tool. And just like tools, there are bad ones and good ones. There's no emphasis on evidence tho. But I like him best because of this. I think he's a pragmatist who wants to use religion as a guide to a good way of life. And Hitchens has probably caught on to this which is probably why he brought up the subject of evidence late in the debate. I didn't find myself pulling my hair out in this debate which is good. 😂
It's simple. An omnipotent god could speak for himself end poverty and world hunger and disease and world wars . Thus everyone would agree as bear witness. Not going to happen. I'm waiting on the walk on the water. If there was a God he has an evil twin.
It’s incredibly sad to me that the religious, such as Wolpe, can see nothing noble or beautiful about nature or the material. There’s an incredible degree of beauty in it, there’s no need for an outside entity to legitimize the sanctity of life or existence. It does that on its own by the very _virtue_ of its existence. As an atheist, when I look at people I don’t see nothing. I don’t see soulless. I am in awe of what nature has wrought, in both good and bad degrees. I deeply pity those who require God to place a check mark on the meaning and measure of all that is life. It is a sad, reductionist perspective that strips the value of everything away to place and lay it contingent upon a singular to validate it. That is a pathetic way to view the marvel of life and everything in it.
This conciousness debate is foolish. If conciousness is from God, then how do you explain that we are not conscious when under anesthesia. Obviously, consciousness is a product of brain cells effected by anethsia and not a product of God.
Why assume just because an authority like the World Health Organization took seriously some dubious statistics about circumcision those statistics have any validity whatsoever. It could be precisely because as Wolpe says "these traditions are not to be taken lightly" said authority is deliberately lying about the study`s legitimacy to protect those traditions -or taking a look at this organization`s history of corruption maybe it could be inferred they`ve got something to gain from misleading you.
Then believe that too. As jewish as does everyone else they think they are the chosen ones and the rest are gentiles. If there was a God why would he need lambs blood on the door so he would know which first born not to kill..With Hebrews it's all about males at the helm. Same thing with Muslims. Father son and holy Ghost replace mom with a ghost .. There is no Santa Claus rudolph.
i feel sorry for the ceationists, non sense arguments, always strugling with puorpoUs of life, for me its simple just look around you, pourpose of life is survive and keep life ALIVE
![Christopher Hitchens - [2007] - 30th Annual Freedom From Religion Foundation Conference](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/unWi8AhYVU0/mqdefault.jpg)
I love listening to Wolpe and Hitch. Their banter is great and I always find the debates well matched.
Yeah agree exept on the well matched, hitch is op he could debate god on his existence and win and when he has facts and logic on his side it quickly becomes one sided.
But i do love the rabbi, david is a gem hilarious, not taking himself seriously, sharp witty sincere, he's just a fine human specimen.
And knows how to handle hitch and himself more then any thiest i've seen, idk if you've seek the debate with sam (harris) its perhaps the best debate of its class i ve seen
I wish there was more of these two. It's hard to hold one's own with Hitchens but the Rabbi did quite well. Thanks for uploading.
I believe this is the fourth debate between those two that I’ve found and I’m not done scrolling down
during Wolpe's entire opening statement I was like "yep, yep, yes, yeah, exactly" and then "so what?"
The Rabbi clearly didn’t understand Hitchens’ point.
The question is: „Do You Think That The Bible Is THE WORD OF GOD?”
If you do, shouldn’t you listen to what God says?
If you think you’re smarter than God, and you can pick and choose what he says, then why call yourself a jew/Christian/muslim/whatever?
Clearly there’s a greater power than God, and that is your ability to morally assess, and your ability to think reasonably.
In my experience, religious people tend to get volatile pretty fast if you tell them you are atheist or question religion's morals. I like how the Rabbi compared religion to a tool, because it really comes down to that. It can be used for good or bad. Should we not let anyone have that tool? No. Just like we should never force that tool upon anyone. Most atheists don't have a beef with religion until it is in a position of power and influence. That beef is well founded and based on each religions own recordings of history. In my opinion, (if you ignore the radical of both sides) separation of church and state has been crucial in the progress of science and human equality, but its survival has kept us balanced and hopeful. We need more up front debates like this one thats for sure
Yet now we have multiple states forcing by law biblical teachings in every school in the state that receives taxpayer $ and no one cares!
Always thought Wolpe was one of the most genuine of Hitchens debating opponents, seems like a good guy and I’m fairly sure Hitchens was fond of him. Still, Hitchens arguments are much more convincing
Wolpe is whacked 🤦🏻♂️
He was the only one of his religious opponents who wrote a gracious article about Hitchens upon his death.
Genuine? He sounds like a used car dealer.
@@tommym321- modesty and praise makes for sweet revenge.
@@WKRPinCINN I understand that idea, but I never saw Wolpe being a dick or insulting him , like some of his religious opponents did. I think it was genuine, what he wrote.
Though ultimately unconvincing, Rabbi Wolpe is one of the very few interlocuters who could go toe to toe with Hitchens and not make a fool of himself and his beliefs.
As a dane I can only laugh at the comment about Sweden and Denmark. To the vast majority getting married in churches and baptizing children is just a tradition, no god involved. The reason you’ll hear that people identify as christians is simply that it is an acknowledgement of our cultural heritage.
It is true that our church is founded by the state, it’s priests and personel are employed by the state and the government runs it.
Everyone is automatically a member of the church at birth which means you’ll pay a church tax. You have to actively apply to exit the church but then you will no longer be taxed. Most people don’t do that. Why? Because churces are historic buildings and we enjoy the ceremony and setting for weddings etc. (which require you to be a member of the church) and it would not be possible to preserve the history, the architecture and art without said tax.
To tell the truth, many of our pastors only see the religion as a metaphor anyway.
There is no such thing as "atheistic ideology".
Atheism is a stance that answers only one question: "Do you believe in God?"
There's nothing more in that claim.
Exactly.
You aren't thinking very clearly.. There are ideologies based on the idea that there is no God. And there are ideologies based on the idea that there is a God. Theism you could say is just that the stance on God. Atheism is just the stance on God. But you can talk of theistic ideologies or atheistic ideologies. You can't have one but not the other, it's not logically consistent. Try to think.
Does every theist or atheist hold to these ideologies?? If not you are incorrect. @@boliussa
Two admirable intellects that really should have debated more often.
However, on watching this for possibly my fourth time, I am struck that the Rabbi's position can be distilled down to hope, or wishful thinking. Unlike many apologists, he is too smart to pretend God can be proven or 'seen' all around us but that leaves him with only the proposition that if there is no God, things would be disorganised and unpleasant.
He's hugely handicapped by the fact that he's arguing for a completely nonsensical position. I always think that about the best religious debaters: it's like they're playing tennis with one leg. I factor that into their performance.
Love Hitchens. I think D'Souza was his fiercest debate opponent (Christopher would probably agree) but I think he had the most fun with Wolpe, and despite being an atheist, I can't help but like David also.
I love Wolpe's chats with him the finest too. Dinesh descended into bad jokes too cockily and too often
You must be joking
Dinesh was and is a lying crook, and his arguments were tainted by that complete contempt for truth.
Rabbi Wolpe says in this video that the Jews _do_ have a special covenant with God.
Whereas Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, whom Christopher also debated, said that the notion the Jews had a special covenant with God was “one of the most misunderstood concepts in all of Judaism”, and said that the Jews _don’t_ have a special covenant with God.
Two Rabbis, with two completely contradicting answers to the same question.
Don’t you just love the consistency of the religious.
Lol ask 10 rabbis one question and get twelve different answers. That’s life. More than one thing can be true. People express themselves in ways that may sound contradictory but actually aren’t. What’s meant by “special”, for example?
Have you ever studied communication theory?
@@zenleeparadise my point is, what is the point of having these rabbinical authorities when you can get a completely incompatible and contradicting answer from any of them?
Religion is honestly the most fatuous, contemptible creation man has ever put forward.
@@LifeOfRy as a former atheist myself, I understand your perspective, but it is founded upon miscommunication and nothing else.
Rabbinical authorities aren’t G-d or even vessels of G-d (not anymore then anyone else is, anyway). They are simply very well-studied in some area of Jewish theology. Just as experts in other fields can have differing views on the same topic, so too can Rabbis. When a Rabbi for example says that the Jews don’t have a special covenant with G-d, what is meant by special? If their point is that anyone, Jew or not, can enter a covenant with their Maker, and thus the Jews aren’t particularly interesting in this respect, then I don’t know many would disagree (though then we get into an argument about what is meant by “interesting” I suppose haha). This process of nit-picking language in this manner is referred to as “rabbinical parsing” and while it may seem annoyingly pedantic, it’s basically the entire foundation of Jewish discourse.
I mean I’ve heard respected Rabbis say they don’t necessarily “believe in G-d”. What is meant by “believe”? What is meant by “G-d”? These words make up the entire point of what is being said and so writing off a statement like “I don’t believe in G-d” by a religious figure as a declaration of atheism, or as an inconsistency on their part, or writing me off as being obtuse for parsing these things out would be to miss the point of what is being said.
@@zenleeparadise thank you for trying to unpack this for me, I get what you’re saying.
Why are you afraid to type the word “god”, can I ask?
@@LifeOfRy for sure, glad to. I have conversations like this (with other religious people even - there is a great diversity of thought in these communities) on the regular so it’s easy for me to unpack.
And to answer your question, I’m not “afraid” to say “god”. It’s just that, in recognizing what we are writing is temporary and likely to at some point be lost to time, I don’t like the notion of the word “G-d” nor any of His various names, being erased. I also view it as a mindfulness practice, essentially, to be conscious of how you’re talking about Him. Like if I’m writing it “G-d” to keep the importance of The Name in mind, I’m less likely to write impulsively something like “G-d damn it”, as there is a dissonance between the respect given to The Name but no respect given in the way to which The Name is being used. Usually we’d just say “Hashem” which is a sort of place-holder for His name, but I know that people outside of the community find that very alienating.
I tend to skip the religious parts. Why? Coz of lines like:"If you don't see the invisible, you have a peculiar blindness." OK.
Yes, that was silly. But he's so handicapped by arguing for religion. It's like arguing for the easter bunny, it's so difficult to do credibly.
Arguably it makes Wolpe's performance more impressive than Hitch's, because the stuff Wolpe has to defend is so utterly idiotic. Hitch just has to sit back and underline the many absurdities in the religious worldview, which is like shooting fish in a barrel. Hitch does it beautifully, as always, but he definitely has the easier task.
I greatly respect both Hitchens and Wolpe. I grew up going to church regularly and attended a Methodist college but I ever truly believed there was an all knowing, all powerful, prayer answering deity. As an adult I have admitted to myself that I’m an atheist: like everyone I have many religious friends and a good friend who is a minister; I play basketball on Sundays at a church and I’m the only guy not a member of the church. What I fully believe is that we are animals; religion is man made and the result of human nature. With that said, I believe that the world would be better if if we could use the cafeteria approach to fundamental religion and follow the positive attributes Christianity without the crazy bible stories, morals from the Iron Age and be influenced by the concept of heaven and hell. I especially believe that this in today’s world which is being poisoned by wokeness and progressiveness that, in part, is a new religion in opposition to the god based religions.
If we all lived our lives with the morals and ethics of these two debaters without the assumption that there is some supernatural being controlling or or that we have to answer to, the world would be a much better place.
I like this
Well im from Denmark, and Rabbi is right when he talks about how we go to church to get married, my kid is baptized - But its not for religious reason.. At all.. And everyone in that church cringes when the priest starts talking about salvation and the lords blessing. We go there, just like we go to the this other place to get my passport. Or My drivers license. ANd if you want to get your hair cut, you go to the barber. We are secular, im a raiging Christopher Hitchen atheist, and i still atend church, when invited - and not a single soul I know believes ANYTHING of what the priest is telling them, its just a cultural thing
Again I say Denmark is awesome!🇺🇲✊
@@Mr_badjoke ❤️ thanks!
It's not helping to get rid of it if you all keep attending.
Kudos to both. I miss Hitchens.
This is good. Interesting and entertaining!
I'm halfway through and it seems like this is their best debate.
This one is the best debate ever.
Some of Hitchens’ best
1:07:27 thank me
Christopher, your're greatly missed...
Wolpe's opening lines are filled with flawed assumptions and logic, especially that morality "is created by us, and can be violated by us." Even the morality "created by God" can be violated by us. Therefore it puts us no further in the game.
Mr Hichens we can always find reasons to be disappointed with God and Christians. Christians are broken sinners that need redemption. I’m thankful that I have a relationship with the Lover of our souls.
Wolpe sounds like some desperate dude unwilling to accept the facts of science.
Crazy this only has 14K views
Did the Rabbi say that there are views (it’s possible) that God created many worlds, and then destroyed them, and we’re just another one of those?
Hitchens didn’t even need to be there the arguments against were so weak
"If a religion mandates terrible things, that's a terrible religion"
Said a freaking Rabbi
He didn't quite get to the followup: "If a Bible mandates terrible things, its a terrible bible"
Wolpe (1:18:30) states that “it is not going to hurt God to insult God”. He must have forgotten that in Leviticus the punishment for blasphemy was death.
Even if any of that is true it still doesn't say god is "hurt"
It does however paint a wicked picture of an "all loving god" killing people for words that they say. why would anyone worship such an idea?
Child- God's not real, there's soo many to chose from, how could mine be the one?
God- Blasphemy! your punishment is death and eternal torture in hell!
You have to be sick in the head to not only follow this ridiculousness but to want it to be true.
Hitchens says that there's a quote that people think Dostojewski wrote in "Brothers Karamazov", but that he actually didn't and it's being misquoted.
5min later Wolpe says "And That's what Dostojewski was warning us against in Brothers Karamazov"
. . .
What? XD
@@gheetuio8640are you mocking me, or are you mocking Wolpe?
@@muchanadziko6378 I am mocking no one I'm asking a question
@@gheetuio8640 "xD"
What part of the OP should I clear up?
@@muchanadziko6378 the XD was just for your name of Dostoevsky
Wolpe between the fall of the roman empire 476 CE and The Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) quite gap there. And yes u did mention the franks briefly but I do find it strange u forgot to mention the crusades that took place during this time including First Crusade (1096-1099): Launched in response to the Byzantine Emperor's request for military aid against the Seljuk Turks. It resulted in the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.
Subsequent Crusades: Several other Crusades followed, including the Second Crusade (1147-1149), the Third Crusade (1189-1192), the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204), and later Crusades like the Children's Crusade (1212) and the Crusade of Nicopolis (1396)..
Wolpe is better than William Craig though Hitchens is who I agree with. Good debate though, both made very good presentations. Wolpe did slide off into Craig territory at the end.
I am agnostic
but In my opinion
the rabbi won the debate
The arrogance of thinking all was put in motion so that religious bloke could be himself is astounding.
Universe. The universe up above is just a reflection of the Late Mr Christopher Hitchens.
Hitchens’ point about „the eternal father” isn’t sound.
I, for one, am an exception.
I’d actually want my father to live eternally, and be a grandfather to my children, grandchildren, etc.
He is an amazing, positive and deep person, and I think he would have fit the role just fine.
(Wolpe’s rebuttal of it is dumb though)
Your understanding of his point is flawed …
@@jgage2344 how so?
He makes an analogy between gods and one of your parents living eternally.
@@guciowitomski3825 because you haven’t thought it through fully ….
You had good parents ….not everyone does ….
An eternal father figure that threatens and demands praise eternally….
But if your dad never died and acted like this it would get old pretty fast …Hitchens is talking about a father that never lets you grow up and makes all your decisions…
@@jgage2344 Bingo.
An atheist regime using religion as a weapon doesn't excuse religion. Especially when the religion endorses them or not. Forcefully or not.
46:00 all the evidence shows us the cosmos doesn't know were here evolution doesn't know its created us
I don't think the rabbi actually believes in the existence of the biblical god. He's talking about religion in utilitarian terms-as simply a tool. And just like tools, there are bad ones and good ones. There's no emphasis on evidence tho.
But I like him best because of this. I think he's a pragmatist who wants to use religion as a guide to a good way of life.
And Hitchens has probably caught on to this which is probably why he brought up the subject of evidence late in the debate.
I didn't find myself pulling my hair out in this debate which is good. 😂
Volpe always shouts, like someone who is not used to being contradicted or who thinks he has special authority to speak.
It's simple. An omnipotent god could speak for himself end poverty and world hunger and disease and world wars . Thus everyone would agree as bear witness. Not going to happen. I'm waiting on the walk on the water. If there was a God he has an evil twin.
It’s incredibly sad to me that the religious, such as Wolpe, can see nothing noble or beautiful about nature or the material.
There’s an incredible degree of beauty in it, there’s no need for an outside entity to legitimize the sanctity of life or existence. It does that on its own by the very _virtue_ of its existence. As an atheist, when I look at people I don’t see nothing. I don’t see soulless. I am in awe of what nature has wrought, in both good and bad degrees.
I deeply pity those who require God to place a check mark on the meaning and measure of all that is life. It is a sad, reductionist perspective that strips the value of everything away to place and lay it contingent upon a singular to validate it.
That is a pathetic way to view the marvel of life and everything in it.
This conciousness debate is foolish. If conciousness is from God, then how do you explain that we are not conscious when under anesthesia. Obviously, consciousness is a product of brain cells effected by anethsia and not a product of God.
Why assume just because an authority like the World Health Organization took seriously some dubious statistics about circumcision those statistics have any validity whatsoever. It could be precisely because as Wolpe says "these traditions are not to be taken lightly" said authority is deliberately lying about the study`s legitimacy to protect those traditions -or taking a look at this organization`s history of corruption maybe it could be inferred they`ve got something to gain from misleading you.
Then believe that too. As jewish as does everyone else they think they are the chosen ones and the rest are gentiles. If there was a God why would he need lambs blood on the door so he would know which first born not to kill..With Hebrews it's all about males at the helm. Same thing with Muslims. Father son and holy Ghost replace mom with a ghost .. There is no Santa Claus rudolph.
Did he say G-d destroyed many worlds?
"The Greatest historian of the Roman Empire" is a guy named "Gibbon" then?
A man born in 1737.
(I know, low blow, I just found it funny)
i feel sorry for the ceationists, non sense arguments, always strugling with puorpoUs of life, for me its simple just look around you, pourpose of life is survive and keep life ALIVE
Moses freed the slaves 17:14 the only problem is moses was fictional. And in the next chapter of the myth they enslaved and genocided
Jesus greek name
It's the Greek translation of the Jewish name Joshua... so what?
Skip the first 6 minutes 😴
PS. And every other part he opens his trap
David wolpe is awesome 👌
well then your cheering for the wrong side dude!! Wake up!!
@@woodytheduke I did wake up. Religion is evil.
@@woodytheduke Wolpe can be awesome, as he is as a debater, and still be wrong. No one is perfect.
@@rsr789 Ya I agree he is a likable intelligent guy,I just said he was arguing on the wrong side
27:42
*And now the trinity is complete.*
“ I can’t talk about god but I can talk to god”. What kind of nonsense is this?