The very end was poetic. Christian moderator - "It would ruin my life if it turned out that the story of Jesus Christ was a figment of my imagination...Life would be meaningless..." Man dying of cancer - "Don't give up so easily."
That's nice. Please make sure not to tag me then - because then you ARE addressing a specific person. Pressing "Reply" on the OP let's you enter a generic comment without a tag.
@Enjoy and Travel The World! Do you think about why you believe in Jesus or god? I mean you must surely be thankful you were born in a country that wasn't Buddhist or Hindu. I would be intrigued as to why it is you have faith that the bible is factual considering historical research is not certain that it is.
@Enjoy and Travel The World! l feel sorry for the blind they can't see the wonders of the world. I feel sorry for the deaf, they can't appreciate the wonders of music. God is Spirit in nature, and is not perceived by any of the five senses. To you being spirituality deaf and blind of course God doesn't exist, the same way music doesn't exist to the profoundly deaf. To us Christians God is more real to us than you are, he is far from being a waste of time.
No chance...Sir. He's in hell, with all those poor decieved souls he helped to lead there. And his torment will be infinitely worse because of the MILLIONS that will take themselves to hell because of him
@@cindyweatherly4501 When is he in hell, then? Before or after Sheol, and before or after the day of Judgement, before the seat? And WHO CONCEALS the truth when we do not even know if Eve KNEW she was 'choosing' for more than two lives... pardon. The idea ONE MAN can subvert God's DESIRE to save as many as possible is preposterous - as preposterous as splitting Christianity into multiple versions to satiate the 'free will' of just a few closeted translators, theologians and priests - or of some angel getting to deceive many angels who surely understood Romans 1:20 better than we did, and knew they'd never win a revolt... Oh, wait. Meanwhile, how did that Inquisition come about, again? And recall Amos 3:6...
@@cindyweatherly4501 1 year ago! We can only hope that the cruel god that you imagine is not real. Heaven or hell is based on belief! Lucky for C. S. Lewis that he didn't die before he became Christian. Too bad, all our deceased friends who weren't Christians are in hell.
@@dennis-gk3zt dennis, your " theology " is without merit. It is however, understandably full of emotion. It does not make me happy to tell the truth about Hitchens. GOD Himself says, " I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked...". What I said about levels of hell is absolutely true, and unfortunately Hitchens opened himself up to be a mightily used useful idiot for satan. The meaning of SATAN is ADVERSARY. If ever there was a HUMAN ADVERSARY against GOD, HITCHENS was that ADVERSARY. I often quote John Stuart Mills. He was an English Philosopher, Political Economist, member of Parliament, and Civil Servant. " He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion..." And another simple brief quote: " Any account of the coincidence of a " Fine Tuned Universe " forming must consider how the universe made beings capable of measuring it. " Dr. Luke A. Barnes, PhD Cambridge, Astronomy/Cosmology If you are interested in learning about the other side of the case I would be happy to give you resources.
@@cindyweatherly4501 Oh it's you again. 1 year ago. I doubt that a polite discussion is possible here. You are being hateful. You think a perfect god has hell in store for people who were mistaken about him? Ben Shapiro's immigrant great grand parents are in hell because they didn't convert to Christian? Gandhi is in hell? I call that hateful. You can be a Christian, and not damn non believers in Jesus.
You can only do it with this : Theism and atheism and christianity and islam and gnostic and agnostic are not the truth . The truth is the unity in impartiality principle . UA-cam Jiddu Krishnamurti talks at the united nations New York 1985 . GREAT speech . Seize the day in a healthy way . Enjoy calmly . Maturity .
Another Great debate by Christopher Hitchens, that only makes me profoundly sad that his intelligent voice is no longer with us, and I think we are the less for that fact!!!
@@b.w.1386 "Don't give up so easily". Not sure exactly what he means, but i think that it either means 'don't give up the debate so easily' or 'don't give up in life so easily'. I like to think that it is the latter, because then Hitchens is warning against the nihilism that may come as soon as someone looses their faith (which is kind of what Larry is talking about: he is admitting that if he looses faith in Jesus, that he looses faith in the appeal of life itself).
A profound and possibly imperfect conversation it is none-the-less satisfying. I applaud most happily that the participants mostly respect each other verbally and in non-verbal ways too.
On why he promotes Christianity despite being a secular Jew: "It's a big tent. I'm presuming I will be welcome" - Berlinski. That's a remarkable expression of faith in divine love and mercy despite what the many of those who call themselves Christians believe.
He's agnostic. I assume he is equally agnostic toward Judaism. Agnostics are like atheists, but they usually do not exhibit great hostility. Many of them read and listen to religious thought, but they remain yet unconvinced. He is not your enemy merely because he rejects your irrational hostility.
@Nautical Miles I think you just proved the original commenter's point, in at least one case. Nothing to explain. Since you didn't already get it, read it again. Still don't...read it again. Iterate, as many times as it takes.
in the beginning? it was hilarious to see Berlinski thrown so off guard by this - hitchens would have laughed it off, made a witty remark instantaneously to that woman to poke fun or intellectually address her, or just kept on as if nothing had happened. different skill sets, very few had what hitchens had.
3:16 Lady laughs at him Awkward silence... looks around the room... resumes talking and sneaks in a MIDDLE FINGER at her (pretending to itch) You cannot make this stuff up, hilarious.
He was at a loss for words. He was stunned with his eyes wide open. He looked over at Christopher to see if he smiled. I think he did because a quick slight smile betrayed the good doctor's upset face @t 3:30. I wasn't even ready for that woman's laugh ha ha ha ha... A loud ass fart from the moderator would've had the same effect.
@Sweet Science! He did not. He was speaking for several seconds and raised his pen to his mouth when he paused in thought. Berlinski is not a public speaker or debater, he was out of his element.
@Sweet Science! Thankfully an unenlightened individual like you do not get to determine what is or is not untenable. Do you even know that Hitchens and Berlinski were friends and Hitchens talked him into doing this debate because he felt that Berlinski's intelligence was being wasted just staying in a lab and needed to be out doing this in front of people? No, because you are a twat. Berlinski is not a religious person and there is a reason why his work holds up today in all circles outside of the Atheist community. Why is he a hero of the SKEPTIC community? Because he actually questions everything. Religion and Atheism like a skeptic should.
He would have probably realized the social role played by religions and realized why religion evolved : for a people to keep its racial constitution. But having understood this, he would have continued to be a professional atheist because that's his niche.
I became aware if Christopher Hitchins around a year ago. I'm totally hooked on his beliefs. I. Not been academic and could not have put my beliefs in words, after been brought up religious . Finally after many years, am now 70 years old and come to believe after much soul searching that Christianity is Myth and conjecture for the most part. I'm rambling now. Christopher has spoken for me. I love this man. He is alive in my life.
You might find professor Julian Jaynes bicameral theory interesting. It attempts to outline the evolutionary history of the human mind and in the process explains why and how religion came to be. Here's the online version of the book... s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf (The advantage of the online version is that one can instantly access definitions of unfamiliar words (double click the word then right click on it and choose 'Search Google for "word"' from the pop up list. The definition instantly appears in a new tab)).
I think Hitchens has not said anything that would take away from what Christianity simply is - that man failed to love God by rebellion, law and justice condemning man, and God the lawmaker Himself coming to redeem mankind through His own sacrifice in Jesus. In fact, Hitchens chiefly argues against Christian religiosity. Of course, Hitchens doesn't belief in Christian doctrine wholly, but he does not know what Christianity is - only the religious form of it: that we have to keep laws etc. True Christianity is a relationship with the Saviour that God the lawmaker came to give us so we can have freedom from sin in this life and go to His home after life. Only if we continue to be hungry for the truth, we will find it, if we keep asking questions with an open mind.
Well, C. S. Lewis came to Christ because he found out that Christianity is a true myth. I guess you've been brainwashed growing up to be a materialist, thinking your senses are the only judgement of reality, that the material universe is all there is. And anything you don't understand as "myth", whatever that word means.
@@calebng7527 Your reaching, Think if the Magic Curse from a Magic Tree in a Magic garden created within seven days with the rest of the Universe HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE, no need for a Magic Superhero Savior in reality.
@@pocoalpaso That’s the interesting thing - many atheists know more about Christianity than the faithful- largely because so many of us were Christians and began to question what we’d been indoctrinated to believe. Free at last🙂
@@matthewstokes1608 LOL So YOU’RE the one I’ve heard so much about! the one charged with proclaiming who is or who isn’t a ‘real’ Christian. I bow in your general direction. 😂
Reality may burst your bubble of Delusion, but passing false delusions to children condemns future generations to waste their lives as well. Demonstrate courage LEARN.
If you think Pascal's wager is or ever has been supported by any thinking believer in any religion, you've seriously got the wrong end of the stick. Not sure why you think this answer indicated any kind of concession or defeat on the part of Berlinski.
@@amacnaughton85 It's usually not used as an opening argument, nor referred to as Pascal's wager (most people don't even know who Pascal was). It's more of a fallback position, and I HAVE seen it used by people I've debated.
Delon Duvenage In this debate Hitch pointed out some of the most glaring problems with Pascals Wager, and A’s is being pointed out the debater for the Christian side of the debate said it had no worth at all. Coming along and calling anyone not agreeing with it stupid, while not providing any reasons to think that isn’t useful.
@Delon Duvenage We know for a fact that stupid violent people like you exist. We don't have any reason to think that impossible nonsense like eternal damnation exists. I think the fallacy of the false analogy is your favorite logical fallacy.
@Delon Duvenage you completely missed hitchens' argument of god's gullibility. hitchens implies that belief is not a choice. your belief is simply the level of conviction you are afforded by your faculties. you are convinced or not convinced of something not by your own will but by your honest inquiry and honest interpretation. in that regard, you also seem to suggest that atheism is a choice. a simple experiment might explain... hold out your empty hand and try to believe that you're holding your phone, or inversely, hold your phone and try to believe your hand is empty. you simply cannot convince yourself of anything other than what your faculties tell you. in conclusion, an atheist cannot simply turn theist just by wanting to believe for risk of going to hell. and if belief of the right god is truly rewarding after death, wouldn't that god know if one truly believes regardless of what he professes?
@ Ernest Money I know, huh! What a pedantic guy. What is sad to me is that as they cling to the bible, so much of value is lost to them. Even the agony of self-discovery, as painful as it may be, is lost because all they have to do is bow down and voila, streets paved with gold. I feel sorry for them, but when they also support a godless, craven, evil fool like tRump, it becomes clear that they have sacrificed critical thinking to a frightening degree.
@J w I mean, when someone is incredibly good at what they do and are also consistent at it, people recognise and praise that. I've actually never heard a full debate from Dillahunty but I've heard him on his show and the way he breaks things down is pretty good. Hitches, however, has a truly wonderful way of painting pictures with his words. His wit, his intellect, his vocabulary, his humour, he's very well-read, he's also fairly easy to follow. Despite all that, I've heard Hitchens make unsatisfactory arguments on occasion but more often than not he's truly fantastic.
@J w I actually really enjoyed Berlinski in this debate for the most part. He started very strong. My problem with Berlinski's arguments however came down to essentially saying, "Physics and the sciences work. We don't know why they work. It seems like God." Then he also made claims that atheism has been ruining the world for the past 300 years and I didn't really hear any valid example of that which Hitchens didn't put down. I personally know from actual recorded data of the modern world, more atheistic countries are actually doing better in most metrics with overall happier citizens than their contemporaries so his statements seem empty. Then obviously near the end Berlinski had nothing to add.
By arguing in favor of the question:"Does Atheism Poisons Everything? " , Berlinski simply states that "The Default Position on any existential claim affects all other aspects of our life." The answer is YES. Being reasonable does effect our life......! Its the "poison" of logic and skepticism acting as medicine when used correctly!
The immediacy of their agreement about Pascal's Wager (or Gambit) is stunning, but not surprising. I have seen Berlinsky before, and he hates the easy answer, which is what Pascal's Wager is. I was prepared to be surprised if Berlinski defended it.
Pascal’s wager isn’t an “easy answer.” All it’s meant to do is make the skeptic doubt himself/herself. That doubt is the first step which, if you read all of Pascal’s Pensees, he believes ends at the point of Christianity. This is what happens when people learn about everything second- and third-handedly; it’s a game of “telephone.” Mr. Hitchens described Pascal’s wager in the worst possible terms: Some huckster approaching someone on their deathbed saying “Eyyy, whaddya got to lose?” No one ever argued Pascal’s wager to me that way and yet I have still found it to be quite thought-provoking. Apparently Dr. Berlinski understands Pascal’s wager as poorly as Mr. Hitchens does.
@@FL_Cottonmouth When modern Theists use Pascal's Wager, (and they do, not frequently but often enough) “Eyyy, whaddya got to lose?” is precisely how they intend it. Their desperation is kind of the point. If threats of eternal damnation doesn't do the job, maybe the used car tactic will win the day.
The moderator's end remarks were brainless. I wonder what his family and children would make of him calling life, and by extension, them, meaningless without the existence of a Christ figure.
Berlinski has been very decent in his presentation. Many have not commented on his content rather they have rudely picked on aspects outside the content presented!
Yes. It seems to me that while I think Berlinski is holding a great deal back, judging by his other speaking events and books, he lays out a much better argument than I feel Hitchens had. I think Hitchens was far overrated and merely confirmed what many atheists were already thinking. I don't see a nuanced nor a particularly convincing argument that he presents. He was clearly eloquent, gracious (which is something many lack in our day and age), and kind. However, I think he is, as I mentioned, overrated as a commentator on the supposed conflict between religion and what many modern, new atheists see as science as being on the side of secular/atheistic perspectives. He was a great orator but I don't regard him as a scholar of religion, history, philosophy, or science.
Berlinski had a better grasp than Hitchens here. Hitchens defended it so intellectually lazy and giving examples that are overly-used but didn't quite reach the mark. Berlinski knew better, giving arguments more better that atheism, contrasted with religion, is more weaker than a world with religion.
Debates such as this regardless of the question before the house start out well and usually get muddled. "Does God exist," devolves into a discussion about religion and visa-versa. This is what's called a confusion of category. This debate somewhat stayed on point, however, it appeared to me that while debating the nature and contribution of religion a different sort of confusion entered in, i.e., Hitchens was critiquing specific religions while Berllinski was defend a far broader definition. I wish I could have heard these two debate the topic of religion that was narrowed and kept within the strict boundaries of the proposition which itself could have been better stated.
Very good points, I agree. I think unfortunately these types of debates are, for whatever reason, intended as spectacle. Totally agree that a narrowing of the question(s) debated would be really helpful.
Religion wasn't even the topic of discussion. Atheism was the point to be discussed. Religion is tangential. The pop atheists often provide philosophically underwhelming debates; they gain popularity by saying inflammatory comments about religion. Hitchens is a very talented speaker, he is very smart, unfortunately listening to him debate is like watching the globetrotters play basketball... Berklinski, he was all over the place. Not a great debate...
@@kaufmanat1 I think you are in agreement, but not sure. These debates degenerate because of the metaphysical nature of the subject and weakness of attempting to prove a negative regardless of how talented. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al always resort to bringing up the hypocrisies of established religions not due to a lack of debating talent but because the untenable nature of their position. If you think Hitchens was similar to the Globetrotters you should pull up some of his early confrontations with William F. Buckley or his own brother Peter. I don't agree with Hitchens on politics or religion but always enjoyed his command of the subject and use of English, even when he gets a bit sophistical.
The point Berlinski has made is that modern atheists have based their adherence on pretentious science. Their arguments are passionate but they are not staunch. Science is riddled and plagued with pretentious prejudice that is ultimately unscientific. Pure science is a beautiful idea, but the institution of current science is like politics: it is full of hoaxes, smears, and lies. One's fierce hatred of the concept of God is not really a valid argument. It is emotion and prejudice, and to represent it as science is fraudulent. The scientific orthodoxy will persecute those who disagree in a manner suggestive of the Spanish Inquisition. We have watched the atheists express bigotry and animosity for reasons that are in no way scientific. Berlinski is hated in this comment section for suggesting such things, but I think he is right.
@@carybaxter274 Yes, thank you. I heard what Berlinski said and have read what he has written. I'm also a student of the philosophy of science and epistemology in general. Unless you're as pompous as you read, what I think you are trying to say is, "this is my opinion." Had you said that straight off I might have given what you wrote some attention.
mindless, irrational and dumb people who are easily manipulated by a conman who focuses more on his opponents instead of the subject in hand. He is always manipulating the topic and the low IQ crowds, being VERY subjective where his "wordplay" technique becomes the main subject of the work, primarily for amusement effects or makes sentimental appealings to the feelings of his dumb audience!
@@Davieboy-dovbear I like how Berlinski mentions the lights going out in 1914 then segues into the horrors of the Nazis and Soviets without mentioning the most Christian nations that brought the world into its first world war.
AHAHAH the lady at 03:26, was she really laughing about him holding the pencil like the mic? i assumed something else and still laughed. berlinski's face at 3:27 is GOLD. do yourself a favour and hit pause and replay this segment and laugh!
Thomas Stanford I just wish she dwelled on that awkward pause much longer.. and made a few more sex faces, looking at other people around: on the stage and in the audience
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 someone pointed out that she was laughing at the fact that he was holding his pen up to his mouth like it was a mic and then realized what he was doing. Regardless, his expression was gold.
How exciting this is. This is the epitome of human questioning and what distinguishes us from any species, the awareness of our relevance and insignificance in the universe.
Man isn't insignificant. We look and look out into the universe & yet we cannot find anything alive that's even close to our complexity out in the universe.
I appreciate your conclusion because it is consistent with your worldview. Yes, in your worldview, we are insignificant, without intrinsic value only extrinsic.
@@serpentscoil9868 if one starts with materialism or utilitarianism, it would be incoherent and a blind leap into nothingness if he starts to talk about man being something more than purposeless matter.
You mean like the socialists who killed 200 million people because they thought the univers created itself out of nothing and that they were actually evolved monkeys that came from fish that just appeared in the water because rock and sand can sometimes spawn unicelular organisms ? Yeah ...only madmen can do stuff like this : www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment
@@oldscorp Have you even watched the debate? Also, if you argue against evolution, and claim that things science can't explain or isn't sure of yet is proof of your particular divinity and of atheists' madness, then you have lost all credibility in my mind. "thought the univers created itself out of nothing". People don't think the Universe created itself out of nothing, but there has been multiple hypotheses that have come forth from the scientific community, notably by Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krausse. On the other hand, religion hasn't managed anything by claiming that it was started and created by an invisible God that gives absolutely no convincing proof nor evidence of his existence. "evolved monkeys". Come on here. Firstly, we aren't decended from monkeys, we simply share a common ancestor. Secondly, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and even educated religious people know it. If you want to give evidence to the contrary, or if you claim being able to take credibility from evolution's evidence, go at it. But it is undeniable that you won't be able to. "monkeys that came from fish". Sir, I recommend you educated yourself on the nature of evolution by natural selection because your credibility is now further diminished. "that just appeared in the water because rock and sand can sometimes spawn unicelular organisms". Again, science have not found a definitive answer to this question, but multiple lines of inquiry have been proposed, and very reasonable theories exist. This question will very probably be solved in the next century by science, but the egregious claim that a lack of knowledge about the world supposes the existence of a divinity that has caused it is a "God of the gaps" argument, and even most religious scholars wouldn't stoop so low. Then, on the moral point. I think Hitchens has multiple interesting points. First, at 32:35, Hitchens points out that "atheism by itself [...] isn't a moral position or a political one of any kind". People of any background have done terrible things in the past, and to state one example of the horridness of a socialist regime is dishonest, especially since there is countless examples of the horridness of religious groups. It's simply a lack of understanding of History to say that atheism causes people to act wrongly or that religion causes to act selflessly and good. It is not the case at all. I hope we can continue this discussion, especially if you have questions on the scientific claims that I have given.
@@henrilemoine3953 If something hapens, we have only two answers. Something did it or nothing did it. The universe has a begining as proven by Einstein, Hubble, Penzias and Wilson. So either something caused it or nothing did. Since the latter is absurd and in complete violation of the law of causality, we can go on with the something version. That is confirmed when we see the absolute and sublime order and design of the universe that all relates and combines with the laws of the universe to create an effect. Unless you can give a better example, that effect is life on Earth. These prove that "something" was actualy someONE, with intent, inteligence and will, and since He created the universe out of nothing it also follows that He is allpowerfull, allknowing, eternal and infinite. Because He created EVERYTHING which includes time , matter and space; being beyond and greater than either of them. We call that God. And since you mention life and evolution lets talk about DNA, another piece of evidence, which in the case of humans has 3,5 billion characters. That is language like code, an imensley sofisticated and complex computer program, not an actual computer program but infinetley more advanced, and also at the same time a blueprint and factory for building new and UNIQUE humans. DNA needs proteins to exist and proteins need DNA to create them. Neither can exist without the other, and to this day nobody ever saw or calculated the posibility of a natural process that can create them out of NONDNA and NONproteins. The methematical probability is 0,.... many zeroes ......more than the molecules in the universe. There is no fossil record that shows a gradual transformation between two diferent organisms. There are just fossils of animals that look a bit like animals we see today; nothing in between though. Lets use the best example evolutionists ahve come up with so far: the whale. It shares some similar features with another extinct whale (basilosaurid whale). Hundreds of skeletons have been uncovered and all are identical. Why dont we have a similar number of basilosaurid whales that are 1% more blue whale or 1% less basilosaurid ? Why dont we have basilosaurid whales that are 15% more blue whale? Why dont we have blue whaes that are 0.000000000000 % more basilosauird whales ? Humans evolved from apes? Why then do we have just a couple of fingerbones, a misshapen human skull and several skullbone shards that cant tell absolutely nothing about the specimen they came from? Shouldnt we find more cromagnon skeletons in the ground than sapiens? Since they lived for hundreds of thousands of years (some say millions) and we (sapiens) have been around for just 10 - 100K years? Why do we have thousands of t rexes and triceratops but no cromagnon skeleton that's at least 5% complete ? They never found 3 bones in the same cave? I dont think you ever took the time to verify all this information. I did. Because i was tired of a christian friend of mine denying "ALL THE SCIENCE AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF IT!!!" and wanted to rub it in his face. I found nothing. To me ape->man was just one stage of many in a long process that "the dust of the earth" needed to become man , at which point "God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils and he became a living soul". But it turns out that the fossils, genetics, biology and chemistry show that evolution cannot happen. Also forgot to mention that mutaionsare only 1/1000 beneficial. Natural selection doesnt promote mutation. It PURGES IT from the gene pool. Natural selection is a measure AGAINST mutation. There is no known or observable or deductable phenomenon in which the genetic code increases its information. It can only loose it. How i expressed it was a mocking over simplification, but technically evolution does say that at first there were micro organisms that created water animals, that became amphibians, that became mammals that became apes that became humans. I just skipped a few steps but i dont think i got anything wrong actually. My God is not a god of the gaps. You atheists love repeating that. But my evidence is empirical : cosmological, teleological, OBJECTIVE morality, beauty, DNA and the well documented history and evidence for Jesus Christ and His reurrection, along with still ongoing miracles in Israel: The Ritual of Holy Fire (tomb of Jesus), The Feast of Transifuration (Mt. Tabor) and The Blessing of Water (River Jordan). Go and see ...every year, on the old orthodox calendar. The Bible doesnt say in the begining God created the bits of the universe that we dont understand yet. It says God created EVERYTHING, and each step of creation is confirmed by cosmology and astrophysics. Zeus and Thor are gods of the gaps. The Bible never atempted to explain natural phenomenons to us. It tells us the history of the universe and tracks the bloodline of Christ throughout history and tells us a bit about the future (how Satan is defeated and humans become as they were before the fall). Its YOU who fills in the blanks with presupositions: "We dont know how abiogenesis is possible" (when in fact we know its not; you will never discover how 0+0 can equal something ) ; "we dont know how the universe created itself from nothing" (again, the only chocie you got left if you deny someone did it) ; "we dont know how and why an organism transforms into another" (we actually do know that the genome doesnt add more information, EVER; a duck egg will always produce another duck that is 100% duck, unless it looses something and dies out because mutants are sterile and dont survive) ; "We dont know how the galaxies stay together and dont drift apart , it must be DARK MATTER !" "We dont know We dont know We dont know! But we sure like to sound smart and mock people who believe in God" I did not state ONE EXAMPLE of socialism doing horrible evil stuff that doesnt even come close to anything else in the entire recorded history of humankind. EVERY example of socialism and the french revolution , both atheist regimes, have dont the worst kind of evil, torture and murder that cannot be compared even to Islam, which is not even a religion, but a despicable political, military, social, economic AND religious manifesto, that wants to erase all civilization on Earth and replace it with their barbarism, and kill everyone who isnt them, but in 1500 years of history they did not manage to kill even half as many people as socialism did. Religious people did bad stuff sure, even christians, but they were DISOBEYING THEIR RELIGION. Atheism however was a vital and integral part of the doctrine of socialism and the french revolution. Lets compare shall we? The inquisition killed 1000-2000 people in a few centuries and the french revolution killed 50000 and imprisoned 300 K. The crusades , which were ENTIRELY defensive military operations against an ever growing threat and agression from Islam , and an atempt to TAKE BACK the lands from Islam killed a few millions over the course of 2-3 centuries , which also includes civilians ( a sad fact of medieval warfare, practiced after every siege when the defenders dont surender). Socialism killed 200 millions in less than a century. So you cant even begin to compare. Enough with the "what about the crusades? What about the inquisitions" Nothing compares to atheist regimes in the death toll or in the cruelty. THIS HAPENED LAST CENTURY www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment And the inquisitions and crusades hapened 7 centuries ago when people would hang children for stealing bread, or eviscerate sheep thieves. Youre the one taking things out of historical context by accusing religion, and socialism is not one example but many, because it hapened in lots of countries and always acted in the same way: Afghanistan , Albania , Angola , Belarus , Benin , Bulgaria , Cambodia , China, Congo , Czechoslovakia , Ethiopia , East Germany , Grenada , Hungary , North Korea , Mongolia , Mozambique , Poland , Romania , Soviet Union , Somalia , Tuva , Ukraine , North Vietnam , South Yemen , Yugoslavia. These are all marxist. I dont mention all the socialist ones like Venezuela where people are shot in the street, eating rats , and arresting reporters, because i dont want to buy a new keyboard tomorow. I just mention the worst ones. BTW the nazis were socialist too; the term nazi is short for "national-socialism" in german and it was used derogatory by its enemies. China killed 70 millions, Soviet Union killed 32 , Nazi Germany 20 , the rest of those communist countries, the "amateurs" killed a few millions each, some of them only hundreds of thousands.And we are still counting for in some of them socialism still goes on. Intelectually dishonest? Because what? Some crazy germans used the crusades as an excuse to do some pogroms and looting 7 fukin centuries ago? How has that anything to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ ? You judge my religion by its abuse and violation , while defending marxism ? And youre calling ME intelectually dishonest. Read Marx and his "Communist Manifesto" and compare that to the New Testament then determine who was consistent with their doctrine and who ignored it for earthly gains, and then do the kill count, and THEN call me intelectually dishonest !
Christopher Hitchens, dying, and not giving up, standing by his principles. I absolutely idolise this man. Wish I could have met him. Maybe 8n the next life 😂!!!
@@fredarroyo7429 Why do Christians delight in the suffering of others? Is at a personal predisposition for sadism or do they learn it from the mythological Yahweh?
I like how Berlinski's long-winded and condescending opening statement was nothing but a dressed-up 'god of the gaps' fallacy. 🤣 Why are theists so scared of saying the words "I don't know"?
@@stevedoetsch What do you mean by that? When an atheist doesn't understand something then they begin researching to figure it out. And if they can't figure it out they just say "I don't know." Theists who don't understand something say that it's made up and that God must be responsible somehow. It's lazy and dishonest.
Because God HAS revealed Himself in such a manner that we need not say "I don't know" but rather "Let me go the LORD & He will reveal" via His Word, His Holy Spirit or in General Revelation. We sure do not know all. Some particular things are hidden by God for reasons not reveled, but we are told so we can obey Gods will, as in Deuteronomy 29:29 "The Secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things which have been revealed belong to us & our children that we might do all the words of this Law." On the other hand some things are hidden so that we might grow by seeking them: "It is to the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search it out..." Proverbs 25:2 SOLI DEO GLORIA
@@hellosunshine1090 Your imaginary friend hasn't revealed anything. If god was real and wanted me to believe in him, then he'd show himself. Your god is either a coward or a fake.
No matter what one subscribes to, or one believes that might lead one to disagree with Hitchens conclusions, he was elegant and a joy to listen to. He always left me better than he found me. RIP elder Hitchens.
@Adrian MoirCopy-pasting the same message as a reply to 3 or more people counts as spam. Don't do it again, or I'll report it again. Maybe if you keep spamming, then I can get your account banned.
Nah -- you still get that type of civility with formal organized debates. It's the nature of the format. Nothing's really changed in that regard other than the participants.
That's a joke, right Keaton? "oh the long lost days of civility and chivalry, woe to those expressions never to be seen again". That is simply not true and if you don't think this is how formal debates still work you are watching the wrong debates.
I understand that you are not goody, goody. You see so many atheists use insults because they either don't care about the arguments or they don't have any. That is petulant and adolescent, and it does nothing for their cause except win accolades from their peers. They are assuming that Berlinski is arguing for the existence for God because they didn't listen, and they are always ready to project their hostility. He's an agnostic. He's not going to argue for God. He did attack the pretensions we find in science and the poisonous nature of atheism.
@@phxcppdvlazi "Closed-minded people are more interested in proving themselves right than in getting the best outcome. They don’t ask questions. They want to show you where you’re wrong without understanding where you’re coming from. They get angry when you ask them to explain something. They think people who ask questions are slowing them down. And they think you’re an idiot if you don’t agree." Being closed minded is like being insane. One of the signs of being insane is thinking you're sane. Same with closed mindedness. If you think you're right, yiusnee yourself as open minded, and and you often think those that disagree with you are idiots, that's a good sign you're a closed minded person... Which is 95 percent of the comments I see here... What's funny is this comes from the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio, a self made billionaire, not a religious or political person. But when someone jumps to being insulting, condescending, and questioning someone's intellegence, that person is very likely struggling with closed mindedness regarding the topic at hand.
@@phxcppdvlazi probably more just to get my thoughts on paper and get someone else's feedback to it than anything else. Tldr version. Closed minded people don't know they're closed minded. Insulting people is indicative of being closed minded. Condensed Tldr version: don't be a dick. I wasn't really addressing your comment, more just a comment about the first response...
Cleo Fierro You seem to be deeply confused. Berlinski IS the village idiot. The real shame is that he’s otherwise smart enough not to be, but for his idiotic religious beliefs. Pitiful.
Cleo Fierro Please show that god is not a fiction. It’s the insistence of idiots like you that something exists that you can’t show exists by any means, that is the real problem here. Stop asserting and you’ll get a corresponding drop in people calling you out on what in any other field of human endeavour would be regarded as little more than patent nonsense
Cleo Fierro And yes you are deeply confused. When you claim a god exists you are making a category error without realising it, and that’s stupid right off the bat.
Cleo Fierro Ps. ’God’ is a proper noun, both implying existence and only one god. But of course, you can't show that your god either exists in principle, let alone in actuality or that it is any possible sense supervenient to any other god claim. In other words, the word ’God’ presumes existence and supervenience that is both unearned and rationally unjustified. This is exactly why I and many others do not dignify the word ’god’ as being a proper noun applicable to any god claim, let alone yours. Establish that such an entity exists and is and can only be the Christian god, and you will have earned the right to have your god be referred to as a proper noun. I hope this helps. :-)
I feel like Christopher Hitchens is my friend. I never got to meet him. I attended my senior year of high school when he died and I wasn't aware about him until maybe 2017. He's a great person and continues living on through his works and debates. He has a level of respect and love for humanity that every person ought to obtain. On a funny note: if there are god like entities out there, I hope they treat us with the kindness, love and respect that Hitchens did.
I just heard him for the first time today in a NoiseControllers song of all places and immediately knew I needed to hear more of him. I generally feel personally robbed whenever I find out someone who has influenced me so much is dead before I can thank them, and I’m certain that’s how I will feel again after listening to Hitchens.
@@thecupcakefoxblog just something to note about Hitchens views, he believes in Darwinian evolution which is SCIENTIFICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. All his attacks on Christianity are based on human behavior not on Jesus Christs' TEACHING! He also quotes Great minds of historical people who he admires and there is more evidence for the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST than there is for the EXISTENCE of these people who he admires and quotes. He DISMISSED all the evidence of supernatural POWERS displayed by Jesus and His TEACHING which is contrary to all the EVIL that Hitchens uses to make his argument against the EXISTENCE of God. If you think for yourself and ask yourself how can none life CREATE ANYTHING. DNA highly complex information code. The only KNOW SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS INTELLIGENT MIND AND INFORMATION IS PRIMARY FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST. THE BIBLE IN THE ONLY BOOK EVER WRITTEN THAT STATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING, IS EXPANDING, HAS FIXED LAWS OF PHYSICS, GETS COLDER AS IT GETS OLDER, THAT THERE ARE MOUNTAINS VALLEYS SPRINGS AND PATHWAYS UNDER THE SEA. IT ALSO TELLS THE FUTURE AND ONLY GOD KNOWS THE END FROM THE BEGINNING.
@@gerardmoloney9979 Oh! Thanks for this note! This is really useful to keep in mind while I watch this video. Sounds like Hitchens believes in all the same stuff as me! Thank you so much for the heads up! 💕
(28:30) - It is clear to anyone who has read Boswell's biography of Samuel Johnson that Johnson himself was very conflicted when it came to religion and especially the existence or not of the afterlife which a pious life promised and which most people believed at that time. Johnson actually became quite agitated whenever questioned on this point. He despised not only atheists but all those who even questioned the authority of the Bible. >
Does any one get this feeling when they listen to an argument and hear something they don’t with it they immediately come up with reasons as to why it’s wrong. Listening is so underrated
That’s because no one is saying anything that has not been said many times before . And D Berlinski takes up the balanced and nuanced position, and hitch is stubborn and hateful of religion, so you know his opinion going into the debate , I’m not taking sides I have my belief. But one man is not sure the other is sure of something you can’t be sure of !! I only hope Hitch is not reaping what he sewed in life , I pray for him .
@@Texas75023 and how exactly was he deluded? Making claims without backing them up just makes you look like a fool, which, apparently being a Texan theist, does not at all surprise me, you're all foolish.
@@IanD-ut4dy The ad hominem attack is what I expect from an NPC. How was Hitch deluded? Perhaps you should look up what "deluded" means, and "delusion" upon which it is based. He believed false information and would not release it when presented with facts that are true. Poor fool was so blinded in his hatred of God that he could not differentiate Islam from any other religion, or even think clearly in his critique. He often used the ignorantly redundant phrase "man-made religion" which implies the existence of *NON MAN MADE* religion. But then logic is not really the foundation of secular rationalism, is it?
What forces us? We do. Simple. It's the absolute lack of any external locus of responsibility which makes people uncomfortable I think. Some people seem predisposed to requiring permission/validation from elsewhere. Without it, they're terrified into inaction.
“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.” (Steven Weinberg)
@@Gwaithmir Are you referring to the modern day atheist sex and labour slaves or the atheist African Slave traders of the 1800s? Or maybe the atheist slavers in Egypt or anywhere else in the world? Slavery wasn't invented by God, it was a human power and greed invention and God allowed it because it was a free will option. The "slaves" of the Mosaic Law were mostly volunteer labour in exchange for paying off debts or being able to eat. Where you there? If not, and the scholars that I've read that said there were definitely signs of there being a different attitude and approach to the very necessary selling of labour to pay off debts is not very much different from modern day contractual work that many, including myself, found themselves working under. And I often didn't have a mandatory Sabbath holiday once a week.
"Does atheism poison everything?" I dunno. Does not believing stupid claims without evidence count as "poisoning everything?" What exactly are you trying to do here when a little bit of skepticism poisons your plans?
"Atheism" isn't a "little bit of skepticism". As "theism" is to answer "Yes" to the question "Is there a god?", "atheism" is to answer "No" to that same question or "Yes" to the question "Is there no god". To propose that "atheism" is just "a little bit of skepticism" is a gross mischaracterization. Anything in between "Yes" or "No" to the question "Is there a god?" is some degree of agnosticism.
@@kerosun4598 A huge number of atheists are also agnostic, since one deals with knowledge and the other with belief. Which is to say all honest people are agnostic (or mentally ill) whether they are theist or a-theist.
@@kerosun4598 Atheism is lack of belief or is disbelief. Knowledge is not required to believe or disbelieve. As an example, there exists a tribe of Pygmies (can't remember where, am assuming Africa) who simply have no superstitious beliefs of any description. It is not a decision on their part, or a weighing of evidence, but a cultural artifact; they simply never developed any. They are therefore atheists. To this end, in the case of those who actively disbelieve, I am am happy to admit that it is a matter of faith with the following caveats: Faith in this context carries none of the extra baggage that comes with the word in a religious context but simply denotes belief without evidence. And secondly, I assert that this faith is far more reasonable than having faith in the supernatural, since our experience of the world as a species has never yielded any testable evidence of the supernatural since history began.
@@TheBaconWizard: No, it would not be an accurate description to consider them Atheists. Again, Theism is to say "Yes" to the question "Is there a god" and atheism is to say "Yes" to the question "Is there no god". ANYTHING in between is agnosticism. A gorilla lacks a belief in god. Is a gorilla an atheist? A rock lacks a belief in god. Is a rock atheist? Of course not! Suggesting atheism is a "lack of belief" is nonsensical and holds no explanatory power. Atheism is to answer in the affirmative to the question "Is there no god". The tribe you described is lacking a belief in god; but that is not what atheism is. In this sense, the tribe, if it is as you described, is completely unaware of the notion of god. They are not atheist, agnostic or theist. They wouldn't even fall onto the spectrum. It would be more apt to consider them agnostic as they have no opinion although I find that "label" lacking. I don't think there is an 'ism' that should be placed on such a people who not only have no opinion, but are completely ignorant of it. Now if they are aware of it and choose to specifically reject the supernatural from their culture because they choose not to care, is agnosticism. I find it interesting that people who describe themselves as "lacking a belief in god" find it so important to label themselves as an atheist, even though the term itself nor the sense in which it is used historically is incongruous with "lacking a belief in god". If you do not hold the affirmative claim "There is no god", or hold the negative to the question "Is there a god", then you are not an atheist.
If you ever seen Christopher speak, why on earth would you want to debate him? Never met him but I surely like him. Too bad he is gone, we should never forget him. I won’t.
I have PROOF my Dad fulfilled the Bible and I'm the Christ, I have a video saying and proving it all. TrustinJesus111 - I only have one video under that account. I've sent the pictures all over the USA in emails, and made a video on my Dad's birthday at his instruction in a dream without even knowing it was his birthday, and then covid-19 hit the next day (seems like to me). The fact you've heard Hitchens speak and not my Dad or I is why this has happened to the world.
God gave him many gifts and talents. It's so sad that he is blind to the OBVIOUS need for a CREATOR. The LATEST SPACETIME THEOREMS STATE THAT ANY UNIVERSE LIKE OURS MUST HAVE A CAUSAL AGENT OUTSIDE OF ENERGY MATTER SPACE AND TIME AND THE BIBLE is the ONLY BOOK EVER WRITTEN THAT STATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING AND that the CREATOR GOD is OUTSIDE OF ENERGY MATTER SPACE AND TIME. THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECISED THE BIRTH LIFE MINISTRY DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE NEW TESTAMENT FULFILLED ALL THOSE PROPHECIES EXACTLY AS PROPHECISED. ONLY GOD KNOWS THE END FROM THE BEGINNING. HOW CAN A MAN OF HITCHENS INTELLECT NOT SEE THE OBVIOUS? THE BIBLE ALSO STATED THAT THOSE WHO THINK THEMSELVES INTELLIGENT, MAKE THEMSELVES TO BE FOOLS. THERE IS ONLY TRUTH IN THE BIBLE. MARANATHA
@@gerardmoloney9979 Sorry dude, what you wrote is exactly the kind of crap Hitchens stood against. The bible is just a book writen by men. No divine intervention, just men
I have followed Christopher for some years before his passing. Was not so interested in his atheism but read and agreed with the premises of his book "God is Not Great". In this debate i was pleased with his position and discussion. I have recently come across David Berlinski as part of some study on the origins of Humans. There is compelling science which he brings to the discussion which merits understanding of where he is coming from. I offer my appreciation for both Christopher and David for their relative beliefs and sharing opinions cultivated from high intellect that would otherwise be beyond my reach!
They teach it in seminary schools. A form of audience programming. That’s why ministers and pastors are known for doing it. It has a specific name, but it’s been decades since I sat in those classrooms.
It was in the back of my mind until I cheated. I pulled out my old laptop backup drive and searched my course notes. NEURO LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING. The process has devolved over time to often include pseudoscientific elements. It’s name hasn’t aged well in mainstream academics, but there are several very useful communication tools that shouldn’t be blown off.
Also known as NLP. Really fascinating stuff, until you realize just how many people use it on you and how effective it is in preparing you to be more receptive to ideas with which you would normally show a greater level of scrutiny and resistance.
@@notatheist It's something I notice (not that it's very hard to) in many debates with religious people. JUST START SCREAMING BECAUSE THAT MAKES YOUR ARGUMENT VALID 😂. I was thinking of this recently, but it really does seem to have a persuasive impact on all too many people. I think if I name the following people, no real explanation is needed: Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump, William Lane Craig, Fox 'News' anchors
Hitchens' first rebuttal made me weep tears both of sadness and of joy. Of course he was so close to his death at that point, fighting bravely against its debilitation to make himself clear for all our benefit. But more than that, his huge generosity of spirit. his selfless love for all of us and the truth it shone on all of us sparkled so brilliantly that my heart burst for love.
@@stefanwendeler9233 ... Did he tell you that was the reason he debated Belinski? That he was selfless and watching for the future of others? What in his life proves to you that he was selfless and watching for the future of others? Maybe he is debating Belinski for for reasons other that the ones you accredit him with?
What a stupid, small minded comment. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. When you die will you be "comforted" by your lack of belief in Shiva or Mithras or leprechauns or Santa or....... Why do you bring up science....sorry SCIENCE? Of these two, one is a pretentious lying fraud with ZERO scientific expertise who poses as a scientific authority. The other is C Hitchens. You're not very good at this.
Even though we lost a mountain of a man, all his words are here for our delight. I thank the universe he was gifted to my lifetime. Even though l reject most claims ,l believe in opposites ,so l have a mystery opposite to my reality to ponder .
Ole David is a less confusing apologist compared to turek or wlc. He still does the side steps and acrobatics just smoother than them.He still eats word salads as well.
@@oxcart4172 point understood and taken , dr.berlinski and Christopher Hitchens are both men of staggering intellect , on that I'm sure we can agree , and the death of mr. Hitchens was a huge loss to the great debate. Peace to you and yours.
Have known about Hitchens for a while, just recently heard about Berlinski. Happy to see two men with opposing viewpoints having a calm and respectful discussion.
Nah, I think you have the same trouble as Hitchens. Berlinski isn't even a thiest nor anti-thiest. He has no burden of proof for anything except his point of that; with the rise of atheistism, more people died in the 20th century than all the 19 centuries before combined. Athiesm has no limiting principle in regards to the corruption of man, where as christendom aims to keep its practitioners bound within constraints brought through the moral law.
@@Savantjazzcollective There is a burden of proof if you are making a claim, even if you yourself are unsure of it's truth. No has ever been killed by Atheism though, even if many of the people doing the killing were themselves Atheists. They didn't do what they did because Atheism told them to. Atheism doesn't require any other shackling or limiting, it simply isn't making any claims whatsoever, nor is it telling anybody what to think, or how to behave. It is simply making a single statement, "I don't believe in your god, or any other."
@@ultrademigod yes but you just contradicted yourself with your notion of atheism makes no claims yet it claims to believe in no God. But i do understand your sentiment nevertheless. Yes atheism doesnt say "kill millions upon millions" as a commandment. But as I said earlier, their is no limiting principle. So therefore in name of 'myself' (an athiest) I am the arbiter of what is right in the world and I decide genocide is best for the planet. It's the cult and belief system of one or many that decides the fate of millions. At least with our Buddhist and christ like co-inhabitants, they have a unified belief system, unmovable (up for interpretation at times) to benefit man kind and protect it. They have a limiting principle in order to constrain human corruption that atheism has nothing to say about, we are simply left to our own devices, and how bloody they have turned out to be!
@@Savantjazzcollective That's not how it works I'm afraid. If I say I am immortal and cannot die of old age, I have made a claim, if you respond by saying you don't believe me, you have made a statement of disbelief in my claim, not another claim. In the same way me saying I don't believe in god(s) isn't a claim, It's a statement of a lack of belief. If you want me to believe your outlandish claims about magic and the supernatural you must provide proof to convince me.
An insightful and eloquent debate on the roles of atheism and theism in our society, sadly, a rare event. Too often than not, Christian apologists revert to Sunday school preachiness without advancing their argument beyond their scriptural texts. I have just one question for Professor Berlinski - If he sincerely believes that atheism poisons everything, that religion is the lesser of the two evils, but necessary to instil in us its objective moral code, why, then, is he a secular Jew?
I find it relaxing. Also, the speed gives me more time to process, without urgency, what is it that he says and means. He is also, usually, particular about his words which takes a deal of thought.
You need to learn to listen to what people are saying. Most of the Hitchens fans just enjoy the show that Hitchens puts on, they don't care about the actual argument.
I like when humans feel necessary to explain the Gods they believe in to other humans, while no mighty God felt the same urge, not even the mighty Gods being explained. That is quite telling on itself.
A very aptly chosen name i have to say. Do you think that cosmology and DNA and science and the microscope and the telescope, and history...thats not God explaining Himself to you, its the univers shouting "GOD" in your ear. Bet youre not so ingorant as to not have heard untill now that God made the univers so that people will come to Him freely and with a willing heart. What youre demanding is that He rips the sky open and write "kneel before the Lord!" with an army of flamesword wielding angels. Suppose He did that...would you consider it a willing and gentle conversion? Would you feel like you had a choice? You would fall to your knees and whimper like a terified dog. God wants you to have freedom and dignity. He leaves you the clues and the door open so that you have a choice. Would you rather he took your freewill away and spoonfed you like a lobotomized imbecile ? Would you prefer to be a robot rather than a human made in His image ? I am not explaining my God to you...i am trying to take the blindfold from your eyes so you can see for yourself the glory and splendor that youre missing. I want you to see for yourself with the Hubble telescope, microscope , with your own mind to digest what it all means. You have been lied to but if you open your mind and take any path (math , genetics, biology, comsology , chemistry, physics, thermodinamics ) it will bring you to God.
@@oldscorp wow! A free sample of what I said in the comment, in reply to my comment! Thank you very much for this jewel. Unintended irony is the best kind of irony.
We actually all believe in something. Atheism is itself a positive claim that ultimately, there is no coherent foundation for morality, reason, and science. You believe we’re all just rearranged pond scum. This means you don’t get to complain if all of a sudden somebody decides to steal from you and take all your property. You may think it’s wrong, and you may even think Christianity is wrong, but it doesn’t follow that these things are objectively wrong, including the notion of “poison”. What a bunch of pond scum does to another bunch of pond scum is morally irrelevant. Any “oughts” you want to force into the situation are merely illusory, and therefore you have no obligation to submit to these “oughts”. So the next time a Christian tells you you’re wrong, you don’t even have a rational basis by which to call him wrong for calling you wrong. It’s not about whether you believe in God or not that’s the problem. No one’s asking you to believe in a contingent being. What we’re after is the ultimate foundation for all of reality, and whether this foundation is personal or impersonal, and whether the personal or the impersonal accounts for what we do observe in terms of human experience, intelligibility, et cetera. Atheism is a poison that constantly borrows from the Judeo-Christian worldview and then blames God for all of man’s failures to obey Him.
@@juilianbautista4067 I fundamentally disagree with you on so many levels and I think you are confused. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in a god existing. This can include thinking no god exists ( a positive claim that needs evidence) or not accepting a god exists but not asserting no god exists. Most atheists fall into the latter, and this is not a positive claim. It is simply a rejection of a claim. What follows after this is up to the atheist. There is no baggage that comes with not believing in gods or goddesses. As for your idea we are pond scum, we know that we have evolved into complex highly able mammals. That means we are able to think and reason. I don’t know why you are fixated on what you call “objective” morality. Even if you are right (and I don’t think you are because you can’t and haven’t demonstrated the bible is itself anything other than made made) so what? We have developed principles and rules which are enshrined in laws and rights and which are themselves objective. We can think and develop values and if the majority of people agree that killing babies is wrong, this itself becomes objective. I am not prevented from taking any moral positive step by a lack of belief in any god or goddess. In fact, it is Christianity and the bible which mandates slavery and other immoral things. The proof that what I say is correct is that we live in a society which has objective rules and laws, and which functions perfectly well. Your alleged objective rules and morality are no more than this - man made rules contained in a book, but they are lousy because they reflect the moral compass of Bronze Age tribes.
@@freewilldoesntexist4075 Ha! Ha! 'crawled out of the caves of Europe'... That's why all of Africa and the Middle East want to slither their way into Europe. But of course, they want to reproduce Africa and the Middle East which are known to be paradise on Earth.
Good to hear a courteous and civil exchange of ideas and differences. I still cringe when the debaters veer towards ad hominem remarks, but these were relatively few in this discussion.
You will still be waiting just prior to your death, I'm afraid. He really SHOULD become a politician, he has the "talk" down pat. Well, maybe not, even though he never makes a point, he CERTAINLY speaks at a level FAR exceeding the current white house "visitor".
How was atheism ever a private doctrine? What doctrine? At what point is not believing belief? Doctrine? Where can I find the instruction manual to not believe in any gods? What branch of knowledge educates a doctrine of non-belief? How would that work? Hey, here's a class in what not to believe forever... You will never finish this class... Don't ask for your grade... It will never end... Hope you enjoy your non-diploma.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Like gays, those guys would have kept their atheism to themselves on account of persecution. I know my dad did even though he volunteered for WW2.
@@williams.1130 you're confusing belief with faith (belief without empirical evidence). You cannot accuse someone who DOES NOT believe in gods of somehow therefore believing in gods... that's just perverse.
It's so sad that Hitchens died not having actually listened to opposition. He just wanted to win every time. God bless that guy. I don't agree with anything he said but he would come up and talked. God bless his sould. A very educated and respectful man in a special sense.
Christopher Hitchens does not need anyone’s “God“ to bless his “soul“. He told the truth while he was here and he took it to his grave like a real man. Not talking to invisible spirits pleading for more life after death Religion sucks
@@DrRyman Well then Darwin bless him. Can't I wish him well even when I don't agree with someone like Hitchens? And I thought there's not any truth and a belive but it seems like he acts as if there was one in his heart. Or maybe heart is just an organ an nothing more? I really don't care, my man. There not enough evidence. This atheism is just another belief system. Just because someone like me wishes someone who calls believers stupid, it doesn't make me to pretentiously say something cool.
“Morality, as far as I could see, originates in atheism and the realization that no higher power is coming along to feed the hungry or lift the fallen. Mercy is left entirely to us.”-Barbara Ehrenreich
Anon Jack; As Christ told us, we are challenged to go out and to be His hands and feet. Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. ~ 1 Corinthians 12:27 New King James Version (NKJV) As Christians, we are expected to present our bodies as a “living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (Romans 12:1). Our bodies have many parts, or members (verse 4), which can be used to either honor God or dishonor Him. In the Bible the hand is often symbolic of our deeds and actions. The feet symbolize how we conduct and direct our lives. God is greatly concerned with how we live our lives and the direction we go. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led...There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ... For in fact the body is not one member but many. ~1 Corinthians 12 New King James Version (NKJV)
Religions cannot claim any moral ground after the atrocities they committed throughout centuries. Let's not even touch pedophilia, homophobia, oppression of women, corruption and greed within churches etc. I mean, it's silly.
Then how come its the christians who do like..all the charity in the world? Do you know where the name HOSPITAL comes from? Or why the symbol for both healing and christianity is the cross? Do you know who it is in countries all across Africa that tend to the needy and disperse food and medicine at great personal risk to themselves ? What has atheism done for humanity? Legalized the butchering of millions of babies, broken families, sexual gluttons who end up killing themselves or eating antidepressants by the jar and crying about how meaningless life is, the french revolution who killed 50000 people and jailed 300000 and socialism that killed more than 200 millions in the last century alone. www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment
@@oldscorp The symbol of medicine is the Caduceus in the US at least. I believe in other places the Rod of Asclepius is used. Either way it is a pagan symbol and not the cross which is used by the actual doctors and not the christian charities; of course a christian organization would use the cross as their symbol.
Since you are an atheist, I assume your disbelief is not propelled by your emotions or hatred towards that which you deny (because if it is, then that's not atheism, that's utter foolishness) but by having a belief system that proves your disbelief logically true. Now, You're left with the burden to prove morality of rocks or birds first by of course using serious science, (i.e. material verifiability). Of course, using the only laws you have, the laws of motion. Thus, you sympathizing with the poor and needy and hungry does not disprove God. On the contrary, it disproves your belief system.
Funny, I get it, but he is a philosopher/political science guy/debater/contrarian, NOT a science/engineering guy, even if there were a such a thing as a "flux capacitor" to work on.
Hitchens: "...without this cult...we would think so much more clearly" . I disagree: Without one cult, people'd move on to another cult. Thinking clearly's difficult, often painful.
@La Hire It can be, yes. But so is religion. How many dies in the crusades? The Inquisition? The Holy Wars? The difference is that there is no book of Athe from which one is exhorted to commit violence, but the Bible and the Koran both do.
@La Hire Hiter was not atheist?! Not even close to it - He was in close alliance with the roman catoilic church, so that just as wrong as anything can be. Nordth Korea is the most religious state IN THE WORLD. (The only good part is you can actually leave their belief when dying!! unlike all the other religions "Cause that when the real fun starts!" Stalin would never had become Stalin without reliigon. The Frencyh Revolution?! It was partly started because of the indifference of its citizen, and the starvation of the French people, neglected by the royal familly and the church
thomas Andersen Stalin, same thing. He lied to the people and used the Eastern Orthodox Church to control and persuade the people, because most of the country were practicing Eastern Orthodox. The point is Stalin and his entourage did not believe in God, and therefore didn’t have accountability. You atheists and your pathetic defense saying these regimes aren’t atheist is such lying bullshit.
There is real spiritual phenomenon out there.. i use to be the most hardline atheist I knew. I watched Hitchens all day, debated religious people. Until you have a real event and awakening in your life, sometimes the lightbulb never turns on for you. I liken it to the Matrix, it was like waking up. I've had events in my life that the mathematical odds would be 1 in a trillion, and they happen frequently enough combined with spiritual events that have happened to me. Its just you have to have it happen to you, i know as an atheist, you laugh, joke around, make fun of anyone else who explains these because you dont understand it until it happens to you.
Well that's what everyone says man. No body is giving any evidence. Also it's funny that these so called self revelations happens according where someone live. If in middle east then alla if in US then jesus. And so on.
*"Dr. Berlinski. You are not a Christian. Indeed, you are not religious as I understand it."* David Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a well-known Conservative Christian think tank. Secular Jew or not, he's picked his team, so don't try to convince the audience that he has an unbiased stance here.
Never took debate, did you? One *MUST* be capable of logically understanding a position to argue for it. . . whether one agrees with it or not. And when honestly examining an issue one *MUST* be able to understand the arguments of the opposing position as well. Not comical straw-man caricatures, but steel-man arguments. The fact most anti-theists cannot even do so demonstrates the bias that clouds their own thinking and the positions they espouse.
Michael Dobson So what? Many atheists side with religious people. I'm personally non-religious and I find myself defending religion, christianity to be more specific.
@@michaeldobson107 Bless your heart. Every atheist is an anti-theist. They are simply cowards afraid to admit their bias. It is you, brother, who could not present a steelman argument representing something like the Intelligent Design argument. Feel free to try. But you'll fail because you will mention religion and God. *NEITHER* of which is part of the entire scientific basis for the Intelligent Design theory. Have you ever questioned your basic assumption? I doubt you can even recognize it as an assumption. David Berlinski is at least an honest man who does not let his own position blind him to the legitimacy of other views. As you point out, he is not even Christian. Why would a non-Christian bother to argue *FOR* Christianity? If you cannot answer that, you cannot see your bias, or even open your eyes.
Entertaining, informed and eloquent relaying of opinions with no overarching substance or consequence. Important questions glanced over and left by the wayside in an exhibition of differing viewpoints, without a particular want or platform to resolve any of them. It was enjoyable, but also disappointing as both men clearly had more to say, and perhaps had they, there would have been a point to this.
The very end was poetic.
Christian moderator - "It would ruin my life if it turned out that the story of Jesus Christ was a figment of my imagination...Life would be meaningless..."
Man dying of cancer - "Don't give up so easily."
the moderator is a child abuser WTF is he doing as moderator involving morals
That's nice. Please make sure not to tag me then - because then you ARE addressing a specific person.
Pressing "Reply" on the OP let's you enter a generic comment without a tag.
@Enjoy and Travel The World! Do you think about why you believe in Jesus or god? I mean you must surely be thankful you were born in a country that wasn't Buddhist or Hindu. I would be intrigued as to why it is you have faith that the bible is factual considering historical research is not certain that it is.
@Enjoy and Travel The World! Could've been using mobile and just replied to the wrong person
@Enjoy and Travel The World! l feel sorry for the blind they can't see the wonders of the world. I feel sorry for the deaf, they can't appreciate the wonders of music. God is Spirit in nature, and is not perceived by any of the five senses. To you being spirituality deaf and blind of course God doesn't exist, the same way music doesn't exist to the profoundly deaf. To us Christians God is more real to us than you are, he is far from being a waste of time.
"Don't give up so easily."
The truth is love him or hate him Christopher Hitches was brilliant. Rest in peace Sir.
No chance...Sir. He's in hell, with all those poor decieved souls he helped to lead there. And his torment will be infinitely worse because of the MILLIONS that will take themselves to hell because of him
@@cindyweatherly4501 When is he in hell, then? Before or after Sheol, and before or after the day of Judgement, before the seat?
And WHO CONCEALS the truth when we do not even know if Eve KNEW she was 'choosing' for more than two lives... pardon.
The idea ONE MAN can subvert God's DESIRE to save as many as possible is preposterous - as preposterous as splitting Christianity into multiple versions to satiate the 'free will' of just a few closeted translators, theologians and priests - or of some angel getting to deceive many angels who surely understood Romans 1:20 better than we did, and knew they'd never win a revolt...
Oh, wait. Meanwhile, how did that Inquisition come about, again?
And recall Amos 3:6...
@@cindyweatherly4501 1 year ago! We can only hope that the cruel god that you imagine is not real.
Heaven or hell is based on belief! Lucky for C. S. Lewis that he didn't die before he became Christian. Too bad, all our deceased friends who weren't Christians are in hell.
@@dennis-gk3zt dennis, your " theology " is without merit. It is however, understandably full of emotion. It does not make me happy to tell the truth about Hitchens. GOD Himself says, " I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked...". What I said about levels of hell is absolutely true, and unfortunately Hitchens opened himself up to be a mightily used useful idiot for satan. The meaning of SATAN is ADVERSARY. If ever there was a HUMAN ADVERSARY against GOD, HITCHENS was that ADVERSARY.
I often quote John Stuart Mills. He was an English Philosopher, Political Economist, member of Parliament, and Civil Servant.
" He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion..."
And another simple brief quote: " Any account of the coincidence of a " Fine Tuned Universe " forming must consider how the universe made beings capable of measuring it. " Dr. Luke A. Barnes, PhD Cambridge, Astronomy/Cosmology
If you are interested in learning about the other side of the case I would be happy to give you resources.
@@cindyweatherly4501 Oh it's you again. 1 year ago. I doubt that a polite discussion is possible here. You are being hateful. You think a perfect god has hell in store for people who were mistaken about him? Ben Shapiro's immigrant great grand parents are in hell because they didn't convert to Christian? Gandhi is in hell? I call that hateful. You can be a Christian, and not damn non believers in Jesus.
"I destroy my enemy when I make him my friend."
-Abraham Lincoln
This motto saves lives e.g. middle east
>declares war on independent nations
also abe
Considering how many people he murdered, he didn't make many friends then.
You can only do it with this : Theism and atheism and christianity and islam and gnostic and agnostic are not the truth . The truth is the unity in impartiality principle . UA-cam Jiddu Krishnamurti talks at the united nations New York 1985 . GREAT speech . Seize the day in a healthy way . Enjoy calmly . Maturity .
Another Great debate by Christopher Hitchens, that only makes me profoundly sad that his intelligent voice is no longer with us, and I think we are the less for that fact!!!
What?! When did he die?! I didn't know he passed away.
3:09 Berlinski Opening; not a chess move.
15:39 Hitchens Opening
28:00 Berlinski Rebuttle; Cleans his teeth.
32:08 Hitchens Rebuttle
39:06 Berlinski Recap; I can only assume he's a good with maths as logical fallacies.
42:10 Hitchens Recap
45:49 Hitchens Question 1
48:30 Berlinski Question 1
48:53 Hitchens Question 2
51:01 Berlinski Question 2
53:28 Hitchens Question 3
55:56 Berlinski Question 3; Folds Again
58:08 Hitchens Question 4
1:01:53 Berlinski Question 4;
1:05:38 Closing Remarks
I've heard him only once discuss advanced mathematics. It was an utter shitshow. The man is a pretentious posturing fraud.
1:07:15? what did hitchens say that garnered the applause?
I think it's rebuttal
@@b.w.1386 "Don't give up so easily". Not sure exactly what he means, but i think that it either means 'don't give up the debate so easily' or 'don't give up in life so easily'. I like to think that it is the latter, because then Hitchens is warning against the nihilism that may come as soon as someone looses their faith (which is kind of what Larry is talking about: he is admitting that if he looses faith in Jesus, that he looses faith in the appeal of life itself).
A profound and possibly imperfect conversation it is none-the-less satisfying. I applaud most happily that the participants mostly respect each other verbally and in non-verbal ways too.
WAL if they were down the Pub, wiv a few pints in them, the'd be smashing the place up.
I'll bet Christopher opened up a few minds in that audience,Religion is the sham not life ,Life Is what you make it ,Its wonderful and profound.
On why he promotes Christianity despite being a secular Jew: "It's a big tent. I'm presuming I will be welcome" - Berlinski. That's a remarkable expression of faith in divine love and mercy despite what the many of those who call themselves Christians believe.
Josdamale and those who call themselves non christian where then is their belief misplaced?
@Nautical Miles What? Christopher Hitchens is an atheist, and his brother is an Anglican Christian.
Jewish origine.
He's agnostic. I assume he is equally agnostic toward Judaism. Agnostics are like atheists, but they usually do not exhibit great hostility. Many of them read and listen to religious thought, but they remain yet unconvinced. He is not your enemy merely because he rejects your irrational hostility.
@Nautical Miles I think you just proved the original commenter's point, in at least one case. Nothing to explain. Since you didn't already get it, read it again. Still don't...read it again. Iterate, as many times as it takes.
Bruh that woman scared the hell outta me.
in the beginning? it was hilarious to see Berlinski thrown so off guard by this - hitchens would have laughed it off, made a witty remark instantaneously to that woman to poke fun or intellectually address her, or just kept on as if nothing had happened. different skill sets, very few had what hitchens had.
Bit creepy but think she was laughing at the fact he thought his pen was a mic.
He flipped her off at 3:43 watch it
Jason Strange omfg you’re right!!
If only
3:16 Lady laughs at him
Awkward silence... looks around the room... resumes talking and sneaks in a MIDDLE FINGER at her (pretending to itch)
You cannot make this stuff up, hilarious.
He was at a loss for words. He was stunned with his eyes wide open. He looked over at Christopher to see if he smiled. I think he did because a quick slight smile betrayed the good doctor's upset face @t 3:30. I wasn't even ready for that woman's laugh ha ha ha ha... A loud ass fart from the moderator would've had the same effect.
I caught that too. Too funny and fair of him to do that. That lady cackled like her vibratory turned on. Now she’s the FU lady forever.
@Sweet Science! He did not. He was speaking for several seconds and raised his pen to his mouth when he paused in thought. Berlinski is not a public speaker or debater, he was out of his element.
@Sweet Science! For interrupting...you are not a very deep thinker and more than likely could not understand most of Berlinski's arguments.
@Sweet Science! Thankfully an unenlightened individual like you do not get to determine what is or is not untenable.
Do you even know that Hitchens and Berlinski were friends and Hitchens talked him into doing this debate because he felt that Berlinski's intelligence was being wasted just staying in a lab and needed to be out doing this in front of people? No, because you are a twat. Berlinski is not a religious person and there is a reason why his work holds up today in all circles outside of the Atheist community.
Why is he a hero of the SKEPTIC community? Because he actually questions everything. Religion and Atheism like a skeptic should.
I'd love to hear what Hitchens has to say today.
good one; indeed, that IS the thing
@@barrysmith1202 Fear of death - how else would religion survive?
@@jasonnesmith6518 right
He would have probably realized the social role played by religions and realized why religion evolved : for a people to keep its racial constitution. But having understood this, he would have continued to be a professional atheist because that's his niche.
Probably, 'I had to die to find out Satan is real, why didn't I listen to them, shit why did I sell my soul'. Say a prayer for him.
I became aware if Christopher Hitchins around a year ago. I'm totally hooked on his beliefs. I. Not been academic and could not have put my beliefs in words, after been brought up religious . Finally after many years, am now 70 years old and come to believe after much soul searching that Christianity is Myth and conjecture for the most part. I'm rambling now. Christopher has spoken for me. I love this man. He is alive in my life.
You might find professor Julian Jaynes bicameral theory interesting. It attempts to outline the evolutionary history of the human mind and in the process explains why and how religion came to be. Here's the online version of the book...
s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf
(The advantage of the online version is that one can instantly access definitions of unfamiliar words (double click the word then right click on it and choose 'Search Google for "word"' from the pop up list. The definition instantly appears in a new tab)).
I think Hitchens has not said anything that would take away from what Christianity simply is - that man failed to love God by rebellion, law and justice condemning man, and God the lawmaker Himself coming to redeem mankind through His own sacrifice in Jesus. In fact, Hitchens chiefly argues against Christian religiosity. Of course, Hitchens doesn't belief in Christian doctrine wholly, but he does not know what Christianity is - only the religious form of it: that we have to keep laws etc. True Christianity is a relationship with the Saviour that God the lawmaker came to give us so we can have freedom from sin in this life and go to His home after life. Only if we continue to be hungry for the truth, we will find it, if we keep asking questions with an open mind.
Well, C. S. Lewis came to Christ because he found out that Christianity is a true myth.
I guess you've been brainwashed growing up to be a materialist, thinking your senses are the only judgement of reality, that the material universe is all there is.
And anything you don't understand as "myth", whatever that word means.
Absolutely tragic. Hitchens is a moron.
@@calebng7527 Your reaching, Think if the Magic Curse from a Magic Tree in a Magic garden created within seven days with the rest of the Universe HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE, no need for a Magic Superhero Savior in reality.
Such courage in a man close to death. You were AWESOME, Christopher Hitchens.
I thought the exchanged hug at the end was magnificent. What an top-notch debate. I am so sorry Christopher Hitchens has gone.
We all have to go at some point, and the world will have his words and thoughts for evermore.
@@pocoalpaso That’s the interesting thing - many atheists know more about Christianity than the faithful- largely because so many of us were Christians and began to question what we’d been indoctrinated to believe. Free at last🙂
@@pocoalpaso so indulge yourself to some of his work and than make decisive comments on his ideas
Jlg7 - you were never a Christian - and you will never be free if you don’t stop lying to yourself
@@matthewstokes1608 LOL So YOU’RE the one I’ve heard so much about! the one charged with proclaiming who is or who isn’t a ‘real’ Christian. I bow in your general direction. 😂
Reality may burst your bubble of Delusion, but passing false delusions to children condemns future generations to waste their lives as well. Demonstrate courage LEARN.
"Dr. Berlinski, what are the strengths of Pascal's Wager?"
"There are none."
First thing I've agreed with him all evening.
If you think Pascal's wager is or ever has been supported by any thinking believer in any religion, you've seriously got the wrong end of the stick. Not sure why you think this answer indicated any kind of concession or defeat on the part of Berlinski.
@@amacnaughton85 It's usually not used as an opening argument, nor referred to as Pascal's wager (most people don't even know who Pascal was). It's more of a fallback position, and I HAVE seen it used by people I've debated.
Delon Duvenage In this debate Hitch pointed out some of the most glaring problems with Pascals Wager, and A’s is being pointed out the debater for the Christian side of the debate said it had no worth at all.
Coming along and calling anyone not agreeing with it stupid, while not providing any reasons to think that isn’t useful.
@Delon Duvenage We know for a fact that stupid violent people like you exist. We don't have any reason to think that impossible nonsense like eternal damnation exists. I think the fallacy of the false analogy is your favorite logical fallacy.
@Delon Duvenage you completely missed hitchens' argument of god's gullibility.
hitchens implies that belief is not a choice. your belief is simply the level of conviction you are afforded by your faculties. you are convinced or not convinced of something not by your own will but by your honest inquiry and honest interpretation.
in that regard, you also seem to suggest that atheism is a choice. a simple experiment might explain... hold out your empty hand and try to believe that you're holding your phone, or inversely, hold your phone and try to believe your hand is empty. you simply cannot convince yourself of anything other than what your faculties tell you.
in conclusion, an atheist cannot simply turn theist just by wanting to believe for risk of going to hell. and if belief of the right god is truly rewarding after death, wouldn't that god know if one truly believes regardless of what he professes?
If you think life is too short, just listen to Berlinski for 5 minutes.
@ Ernest Money I know, huh! What a pedantic guy. What is sad to me is that as they cling to the bible, so much of value is lost to them. Even the agony of self-discovery, as painful as it may be, is lost because all they have to do is bow down and voila, streets paved with gold. I feel sorry for them, but when they also support a godless, craven, evil fool like tRump, it becomes clear that they have sacrificed critical thinking to a frightening degree.
@J w Are you kidding me? Hitchens ran circles around Berlinski! Nothing Berlinski said was logically coherent.
@J w I mean, when someone is incredibly good at what they do and are also consistent at it, people recognise and praise that.
I've actually never heard a full debate from Dillahunty but I've heard him on his show and the way he breaks things down is pretty good.
Hitches, however, has a truly wonderful way of painting pictures with his words. His wit, his intellect, his vocabulary, his humour, he's very well-read, he's also fairly easy to follow.
Despite all that, I've heard Hitchens make unsatisfactory arguments on occasion but more often than not he's truly fantastic.
@J w I actually really enjoyed Berlinski in this debate for the most part. He started very strong. My problem with Berlinski's arguments however came down to essentially saying, "Physics and the sciences work. We don't know why they work. It seems like God." Then he also made claims that atheism has been ruining the world for the past 300 years and I didn't really hear any valid example of that which Hitchens didn't put down. I personally know from actual recorded data of the modern world, more atheistic countries are actually doing better in most metrics with overall happier citizens than their contemporaries so his statements seem empty.
Then obviously near the end Berlinski had nothing to add.
By arguing in favor of the question:"Does Atheism Poisons Everything? " , Berlinski simply states that "The Default Position on any existential claim affects all other aspects of our life."
The answer is YES. Being reasonable does effect our life......!
Its the "poison" of logic and skepticism acting as medicine when used correctly!
The immediacy of their agreement about Pascal's Wager (or Gambit) is stunning, but not surprising. I have seen Berlinsky before, and he hates the easy answer, which is what Pascal's Wager is. I was prepared to be surprised if Berlinski defended it.
Pascal’s wager isn’t an “easy answer.” All it’s meant to do is make the skeptic doubt himself/herself. That doubt is the first step which, if you read all of Pascal’s Pensees, he believes ends at the point of Christianity. This is what happens when people learn about everything second- and third-handedly; it’s a game of “telephone.” Mr. Hitchens described Pascal’s wager in the worst possible terms: Some huckster approaching someone on their deathbed saying “Eyyy, whaddya got to lose?” No one ever argued Pascal’s wager to me that way and yet I have still found it to be quite thought-provoking. Apparently Dr. Berlinski understands Pascal’s wager as poorly as Mr. Hitchens does.
@@FL_Cottonmouth When modern Theists use Pascal's Wager, (and they do, not frequently but often enough) “Eyyy, whaddya got to lose?” is precisely how they intend it. Their desperation is kind of the point. If threats of eternal damnation doesn't do the job, maybe the used car tactic will win the day.
The moderator's end remarks were brainless. I wonder what his family and children would make of him calling life, and by extension, them, meaningless without the existence of a Christ figure.
Berlinski has been very decent in his presentation. Many have not commented on his content rather they have rudely picked on aspects outside the content presented!
I agree that he is a competent speaker, if somewhat condescending in tone and attitude. His arguments were pretty poor though.
Yes. It seems to me that while I think Berlinski is holding a great deal back, judging by his other speaking events and books, he lays out a much better argument than I feel Hitchens had. I think Hitchens was far overrated and merely confirmed what many atheists were already thinking. I don't see a nuanced nor a particularly convincing argument that he presents. He was clearly eloquent, gracious (which is something many lack in our day and age), and kind. However, I think he is, as I mentioned, overrated as a commentator on the supposed conflict between religion and what many modern, new atheists see as science as being on the side of secular/atheistic perspectives. He was a great orator but I don't regard him as a scholar of religion, history, philosophy, or science.
@@mountbrocken I assume you meant, "HE was a great orator..."
@@joadbreslin5819 lol yes...not ME...ha ooops
Berlinski had a better grasp than Hitchens here. Hitchens defended it so intellectually lazy and giving examples that are overly-used but didn't quite reach the mark. Berlinski knew better, giving arguments more better that atheism, contrasted with religion, is more weaker than a world with religion.
Debates such as this regardless of the question before the house start out well and usually get muddled. "Does God exist," devolves into a discussion about religion and visa-versa. This is what's called a confusion of category. This debate somewhat stayed on point, however, it appeared to me that while debating the nature and contribution of religion a different sort of confusion entered in, i.e., Hitchens was critiquing specific religions while Berllinski was defend a far broader definition. I wish I could have heard these two debate the topic of religion that was narrowed and kept within the strict boundaries of the proposition which itself could have been better stated.
Very good points, I agree. I think unfortunately these types of debates are, for whatever reason, intended as spectacle. Totally agree that a narrowing of the question(s) debated would be really helpful.
Religion wasn't even the topic of discussion. Atheism was the point to be discussed. Religion is tangential.
The pop atheists often provide philosophically underwhelming debates; they gain popularity by saying inflammatory comments about religion. Hitchens is a very talented speaker, he is very smart, unfortunately listening to him debate is like watching the globetrotters play basketball... Berklinski, he was all over the place.
Not a great debate...
@@kaufmanat1 I think you are in agreement, but not sure. These debates degenerate because of the metaphysical nature of the subject and weakness of attempting to prove a negative regardless of how talented. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al always resort to bringing up the hypocrisies of established religions not due to a lack of debating talent but because the untenable nature of their position. If you think Hitchens was similar to the Globetrotters you should pull up some of his early confrontations with William F. Buckley or his own brother Peter. I don't agree with Hitchens on politics or religion but always enjoyed his command of the subject and use of English, even when he gets a bit sophistical.
The point Berlinski has made is that modern atheists have based their adherence on pretentious science. Their arguments are passionate but they are not staunch. Science is riddled and plagued with pretentious prejudice that is ultimately unscientific. Pure science is a beautiful idea, but the institution of current science is like politics: it is full of hoaxes, smears, and lies. One's fierce hatred of the concept of God is not really a valid argument. It is emotion and prejudice, and to represent it as science is fraudulent. The scientific orthodoxy will persecute those who disagree in a manner suggestive of the Spanish Inquisition. We have watched the atheists express bigotry and animosity for reasons that are in no way scientific. Berlinski is hated in this comment section for suggesting such things, but I think he is right.
@@carybaxter274 Yes, thank you. I heard what Berlinski said and have read what he has written. I'm also a student of the philosophy of science and epistemology in general. Unless you're as pompous as you read, what I think you are trying to say is, "this is my opinion." Had you said that straight off I might have given what you wrote some attention.
to hear the man speak is more awe-inspiring than walking into any church
to remain critical still of what is says is a worthy challenge
Indeed, I don't agree with Hitch on everything, but there's nothing he's ever said in these debates that hasn't been worthy of deeper thought.
3:24
The fact that the laughter didn't catch on made this so beautiful. I'm sure she thinks about that every night while she's trying to sleep
mindless, irrational and dumb people who are easily manipulated by a conman who focuses more on his opponents instead of the subject in hand. He is always manipulating the topic and the low IQ crowds, being VERY subjective where his "wordplay" technique becomes the main subject of the work, primarily for amusement effects or makes sentimental appealings to the feelings of his dumb audience!
maybe the hospitality was terrible...
@@Davieboy-dovbear I take it you mean Hitchins!
@@vulgarresponse7080 - am I being that vague?
@@Davieboy-dovbear I like how Berlinski mentions the lights going out in 1914 then segues into the horrors of the Nazis and Soviets without mentioning the most Christian nations that brought the world into its first world war.
AHAHAH the lady at 03:26, was she really laughing about him holding the pencil like the mic? i assumed something else and still laughed. berlinski's face at 3:27 is GOLD. do yourself a favour and hit pause and replay this segment and laugh!
Great stuff. I enjoyed it too.
LOL
OMG LOL. I didn’t notice the pen mic moment. and then he pulled the fingers at her!
I'm glad to see that Reverend Jim cleaned himself up a bit.
I kept thinking if he keeps dragging on he'll miss the lightning strike on the clock tower and Marty will be stuck in 1955.
@@tonyp4092 Great Scott!
Proof God Exists by David Berlinski is top of the charts at book stores everywhere. Find your copy in hotel drawers, today.
3:26 not sure if this changed my mind on god, but it did change my mind about witches 😐😬
That Dracula bloke could send a glass eye to sleep!!
This should be top comment.
Thomas Stanford I just wish she dwelled on that awkward pause much longer.. and made a few more sex faces, looking at other people around: on the stage and in the audience
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 someone pointed out that she was laughing at the fact that he was holding his pen up to his mouth like it was a mic and then realized what he was doing. Regardless, his expression was gold.
How exciting this is. This is the epitome of human questioning and what distinguishes us from any species, the awareness of our relevance and insignificance in the universe.
Man isn't insignificant. We look and look out into the universe & yet we cannot find anything alive that's even close to our complexity out in the universe.
I appreciate your conclusion because it is consistent with your worldview. Yes, in your worldview, we are insignificant, without intrinsic value only extrinsic.
@@RolandANambo are you an edgy nihilist? "There is no meaning in life, 😢"
@@serpentscoil9868 no, but I appreciate when people accept the logical conclusions of their worldviews.
@@serpentscoil9868 if one starts with materialism or utilitarianism, it would be incoherent and a blind leap into nothingness if he starts to talk about man being something more than purposeless matter.
@3:23 he is holding his pen like a microphone and puts it down after realizing. this may be why she laughed cause i know i sure did.
I love the big pause after her laugh
I can't believe there aren't more comments about this lmao
@@datsaleslyfe8575 I could not believe that i saw no one else who mentioned it. even before she laughed i was laughing. too funny.
Haha i had to re-watch it to see what you meant, but now that i have, i actually think that is exactly what caused the hilarious outburst.
At first, I thought he was doing a bit like the Amazing Randi. I think Randi would use an electric shaver like a microphone.
Those who believe absurdities can be convinced to commit atrocities . Voltaire.
call of duty
You mean like the socialists who killed 200 million people because they thought the univers created itself out of nothing and that they were actually evolved monkeys that came from fish that just appeared in the water because rock and sand can sometimes spawn unicelular organisms ? Yeah ...only madmen can do stuff like this : www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment
@@oldscorp Have you even watched the debate?
Also, if you argue against evolution, and claim that things science can't explain or isn't sure of yet is proof of your particular divinity and of atheists' madness, then you have lost all credibility in my mind.
"thought the univers created itself out of nothing". People don't think the Universe created itself out of nothing, but there has been multiple hypotheses that have come forth from the scientific community, notably by Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krausse. On the other hand, religion hasn't managed anything by claiming that it was started and created by an invisible God that gives absolutely no convincing proof nor evidence of his existence.
"evolved monkeys". Come on here. Firstly, we aren't decended from monkeys, we simply share a common ancestor. Secondly, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and even educated religious people know it. If you want to give evidence to the contrary, or if you claim being able to take credibility from evolution's evidence, go at it. But it is undeniable that you won't be able to.
"monkeys that came from fish". Sir, I recommend you educated yourself on the nature of evolution by natural selection because your credibility is now further diminished.
"that just appeared in the water because rock and sand can sometimes spawn unicelular organisms". Again, science have not found a definitive answer to this question, but multiple lines of inquiry have been proposed, and very reasonable theories exist. This question will very probably be solved in the next century by science, but the egregious claim that a lack of knowledge about the world supposes the existence of a divinity that has caused it is a "God of the gaps" argument, and even most religious scholars wouldn't stoop so low.
Then, on the moral point. I think Hitchens has multiple interesting points.
First, at 32:35, Hitchens points out that "atheism by itself [...] isn't a moral position or a political one of any kind". People of any background have done terrible things in the past, and to state one example of the horridness of a socialist regime is dishonest, especially since there is countless examples of the horridness of religious groups. It's simply a lack of understanding of History to say that atheism causes people to act wrongly or that religion causes to act selflessly and good. It is not the case at all.
I hope we can continue this discussion, especially if you have questions on the scientific claims that I have given.
Yea like the lie that you evolved from a wet rock. www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=you+owe+your+life+to+rock
@@henrilemoine3953 If something hapens, we have only two answers. Something did it or nothing did it. The universe has a begining as proven by Einstein, Hubble, Penzias and Wilson. So either something caused it or nothing did. Since the latter is absurd and in complete violation of the law of causality, we can go on with the something version. That is confirmed when we see the absolute and sublime order and design of the universe that all relates and combines with the laws of the universe to create an effect. Unless you can give a better example, that effect is life on Earth. These prove that "something" was actualy someONE, with intent, inteligence and will, and since He created the universe out of nothing it also follows that He is allpowerfull, allknowing, eternal and infinite. Because He created EVERYTHING which includes time , matter and space; being beyond and greater than either of them. We call that God. And since you mention life and evolution lets talk about DNA, another piece of evidence, which in the case of humans has 3,5 billion characters. That is language like code, an imensley sofisticated and complex computer program, not an actual computer program but infinetley more advanced, and also at the same time a blueprint and factory for building new and UNIQUE humans. DNA needs proteins to exist and proteins need DNA to create them. Neither can exist without the other, and to this day nobody ever saw or calculated the posibility of a natural process that can create them out of NONDNA and NONproteins. The methematical probability is 0,.... many zeroes ......more than the molecules in the universe. There is no fossil record that shows a gradual transformation between two diferent organisms. There are just fossils of animals that look a bit like animals we see today; nothing in between though. Lets use the best example evolutionists ahve come up with so far: the whale. It shares some similar features with another extinct whale (basilosaurid whale). Hundreds of skeletons have been uncovered and all are identical. Why dont we have a similar number of basilosaurid whales that are 1% more blue whale or 1% less basilosaurid ? Why dont we have basilosaurid whales that are 15% more blue whale? Why dont we have blue whaes that are 0.000000000000 % more basilosauird whales ? Humans evolved from apes? Why then do we have just a couple of fingerbones, a misshapen human skull and several skullbone shards that cant tell absolutely nothing about the specimen they came from? Shouldnt we find more cromagnon skeletons in the ground than sapiens? Since they lived for hundreds of thousands of years (some say millions) and we (sapiens) have been around for just 10 - 100K years? Why do we have thousands of t rexes and triceratops but no cromagnon skeleton that's at least 5% complete ? They never found 3 bones in the same cave? I dont think you ever took the time to verify all this information. I did. Because i was tired of a christian friend of mine denying "ALL THE SCIENCE AND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF IT!!!" and wanted to rub it in his face. I found nothing. To me ape->man was just one stage of many in a long process that "the dust of the earth" needed to become man , at which point "God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils and he became a living soul". But it turns out that the fossils, genetics, biology and chemistry show that evolution cannot happen. Also forgot to mention that mutaionsare only 1/1000 beneficial. Natural selection doesnt promote mutation. It PURGES IT from the gene pool. Natural selection is a measure AGAINST mutation. There is no known or observable or deductable phenomenon in which the genetic code increases its information. It can only loose it. How i expressed it was a mocking over simplification, but technically evolution does say that at first there were micro organisms that created water animals, that became amphibians, that became mammals that became apes that became humans. I just skipped a few steps but i dont think i got anything wrong actually. My God is not a god of the gaps. You atheists love repeating that. But my evidence is empirical : cosmological, teleological, OBJECTIVE morality, beauty, DNA and the well documented history and evidence for Jesus Christ and His reurrection, along with still ongoing miracles in Israel: The Ritual of Holy Fire (tomb of Jesus), The Feast of Transifuration (Mt. Tabor) and The Blessing of Water (River Jordan). Go and see ...every year, on the old orthodox calendar. The Bible doesnt say in the begining God created the bits of the universe that we dont understand yet. It says God created EVERYTHING, and each step of creation is confirmed by cosmology and astrophysics. Zeus and Thor are gods of the gaps. The Bible never atempted to explain natural phenomenons to us. It tells us the history of the universe and tracks the bloodline of Christ throughout history and tells us a bit about the future (how Satan is defeated and humans become as they were before the fall). Its YOU who fills in the blanks with presupositions: "We dont know how abiogenesis is possible" (when in fact we know its not; you will never discover how 0+0 can equal something ) ; "we dont know how the universe created itself from nothing" (again, the only chocie you got left if you deny someone did it) ; "we dont know how and why an organism transforms into another" (we actually do know that the genome doesnt add more information, EVER; a duck egg will always produce another duck that is 100% duck, unless it looses something and dies out because mutants are sterile and dont survive) ; "We dont know how the galaxies stay together and dont drift apart , it must be DARK MATTER !" "We dont know We dont know We dont know! But we sure like to sound smart and mock people who believe in God"
I did not state ONE EXAMPLE of socialism doing horrible evil stuff that doesnt even come close to anything else in the entire recorded history of humankind. EVERY example of socialism and the french revolution , both atheist regimes, have dont the worst kind of evil, torture and murder that cannot be compared even to Islam, which is not even a religion, but a despicable political, military, social, economic AND religious manifesto, that wants to erase all civilization on Earth and replace it with their barbarism, and kill everyone who isnt them, but in 1500 years of history they did not manage to kill even half as many people as socialism did. Religious people did bad stuff sure, even christians, but they were DISOBEYING THEIR RELIGION. Atheism however was a vital and integral part of the doctrine of socialism and the french revolution. Lets compare shall we? The inquisition killed 1000-2000 people in a few centuries and the french revolution killed 50000 and imprisoned 300 K. The crusades , which were ENTIRELY defensive military operations against an ever growing threat and agression from Islam , and an atempt to TAKE BACK the lands from Islam killed a few millions over the course of 2-3 centuries , which also includes civilians ( a sad fact of medieval warfare, practiced after every siege when the defenders dont surender). Socialism killed 200 millions in less than a century. So you cant even begin to compare. Enough with the "what about the crusades? What about the inquisitions" Nothing compares to atheist regimes in the death toll or in the cruelty. THIS HAPENED LAST CENTURY www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment
And the inquisitions and crusades hapened 7 centuries ago when people would hang children for stealing bread, or eviscerate sheep thieves. Youre the one taking things out of historical context by accusing religion, and socialism is not one example but many, because it hapened in lots of countries and always acted in the same way: Afghanistan , Albania , Angola , Belarus , Benin , Bulgaria , Cambodia , China, Congo , Czechoslovakia , Ethiopia , East Germany , Grenada , Hungary , North Korea , Mongolia , Mozambique , Poland , Romania , Soviet Union , Somalia , Tuva , Ukraine , North Vietnam , South Yemen , Yugoslavia. These are all marxist. I dont mention all the socialist ones like Venezuela where people are shot in the street, eating rats , and arresting reporters, because i dont want to buy a new keyboard tomorow. I just mention the worst ones. BTW the nazis were socialist too; the term nazi is short for "national-socialism" in german and it was used derogatory by its enemies. China killed 70 millions, Soviet Union killed 32 , Nazi Germany 20 , the rest of those communist countries, the "amateurs" killed a few millions each, some of them only hundreds of thousands.And we are still counting for in some of them socialism still goes on. Intelectually dishonest? Because what? Some crazy germans used the crusades as an excuse to do some pogroms and looting 7 fukin centuries ago? How has that anything to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ ? You judge my religion by its abuse and violation , while defending marxism ? And youre calling ME intelectually dishonest. Read Marx and his "Communist Manifesto" and compare that to the New Testament then determine who was consistent with their doctrine and who ignored it for earthly gains, and then do the kill count, and THEN call me intelectually dishonest !
Christopher Hitchens, dying, and not giving up, standing by his principles. I absolutely idolise this man. Wish I could have met him. Maybe 8n the next life 😂!!!
Unfortunately he immediately saw how wrong he was.
@@fredarroyo7429 Why do Christians delight in the suffering of others? Is at a personal predisposition for sadism or do they learn it from the mythological Yahweh?
I like how Berlinski's long-winded and condescending opening statement was nothing but a dressed-up 'god of the gaps' fallacy. 🤣
Why are theists so scared of saying the words "I don't know"?
Oh, that's not true. It was littered with straw-man fallacies as well.
Atheist: Things I don't understand aren't true.
@@stevedoetsch What do you mean by that?
When an atheist doesn't understand something then they begin researching to figure it out.
And if they can't figure it out they just say "I don't know."
Theists who don't understand something say that it's made up and that God must be responsible somehow.
It's lazy and dishonest.
Because God HAS revealed Himself in such a manner that we need not say "I don't know" but rather "Let me go the LORD & He will reveal" via His Word, His Holy Spirit or in General Revelation.
We sure do not know all.
Some particular things are hidden by God for reasons not reveled, but we are told so we can obey Gods will, as in Deuteronomy 29:29
"The Secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things which have been revealed belong to us & our children that we might do all the words of this Law."
On the other hand some things are hidden so that we might grow by seeking them:
"It is to the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search it out..."
Proverbs 25:2
SOLI DEO GLORIA
@@hellosunshine1090 Your imaginary friend hasn't revealed anything.
If god was real and wanted me to believe in him, then he'd show himself.
Your god is either a coward or a fake.
No matter what one subscribes to, or one believes that might lead one to disagree with Hitchens conclusions, he was elegant and a joy to listen to. He always left me better than he found me. RIP elder Hitchens.
@Adrian Moir Reported for spam.
@Adrian MoirCopy-pasting the same message as a reply to 3 or more people counts as spam. Don't do it again, or I'll report it again. Maybe if you keep spamming, then I can get your account banned.
A time when reasonable, deep and defining debates meant. The civility in this debate compared to today’s discourse is worrisome
Nah -- you still get that type of civility with formal organized debates. It's the nature of the format. Nothing's really changed in that regard other than the participants.
Why does civility worry you?
Parrot
That's a joke, right Keaton?
"oh the long lost days of civility and chivalry, woe to those expressions never to be seen again".
That is simply not true and if you don't think this is how formal debates still work you are watching the wrong debates.
I understand that you are not goody, goody. You see so many atheists use insults because they either don't care about the arguments or they don't have any. That is petulant and adolescent, and it does nothing for their cause except win accolades from their peers. They are assuming that Berlinski is arguing for the existence for God because they didn't listen, and they are always ready to project their hostility. He's an agnostic. He's not going to argue for God. He did attack the pretensions we find in science and the poisonous nature of atheism.
Feel bad seeing how sick Hitchens was at this point.
He now has his answers in one way or the other.
@ The Invisible Man
Well, if he's right he won't - he said himself; if I'm truly dead I won't know it.
No he doesn't.........he's dead.
tldr: No, rejection of an unsupported assertion ruins nothing.
haven't watched this yet, reading the comments... starting a sentence with "no" is the sign of a small closed mind, irrelevant the position.
@@jamesvanleuven4216 What you just said is completely inane and reeks of projection.
@@phxcppdvlazi "Closed-minded people are more interested in proving themselves right than in getting the best outcome. They don’t ask questions. They want to show you where you’re wrong without understanding where you’re coming from. They get angry when you ask them to explain something. They think people who ask questions are slowing them down. And they think you’re an idiot if you don’t agree."
Being closed minded is like being insane. One of the signs of being insane is thinking you're sane. Same with closed mindedness. If you think you're right, yiusnee yourself as open minded, and and you often think those that disagree with you are idiots, that's a good sign you're a closed minded person... Which is 95 percent of the comments I see here...
What's funny is this comes from the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio, a self made billionaire, not a religious or political person. But when someone jumps to being insulting, condescending, and questioning someone's intellegence, that person is very likely struggling with closed mindedness regarding the topic at hand.
@@kaufmanat1 that's a nice word wall, what is its purpose.
@@phxcppdvlazi probably more just to get my thoughts on paper and get someone else's feedback to it than anything else.
Tldr version. Closed minded people don't know they're closed minded. Insulting people is indicative of being closed minded.
Condensed Tldr version: don't be a dick.
I wasn't really addressing your comment, more just a comment about the first response...
That woman laughing in the audience😂😂 lol
I read your comment at the exact time she laughed. Im high, and that was trippy!
Cleo Fierro You seem to be deeply confused. Berlinski IS the village idiot. The real shame is that he’s otherwise smart enough not to be, but for his idiotic religious beliefs. Pitiful.
Cleo Fierro Please show that god is not a fiction.
It’s the insistence of idiots like you that something exists that you can’t show exists by any means, that is the real problem here. Stop asserting and you’ll get a corresponding drop in people calling you out on what in any other field of human endeavour would be regarded as little more than patent nonsense
Cleo Fierro And yes you are deeply confused. When you claim a god exists you are making a category error without realising it, and that’s stupid right off the bat.
Cleo Fierro Ps. ’God’ is a proper noun, both implying existence and only one god. But of course, you can't show that your god either exists in principle, let alone in actuality or that it is any possible sense supervenient to any other god claim. In other words, the word ’God’ presumes existence and supervenience that is both unearned and rationally unjustified. This is exactly why I and many others do not dignify the word ’god’ as being a proper noun applicable to any god claim, let alone yours. Establish that such an entity exists and is and can only be the Christian god, and you will have earned the right to have your god be referred to as a proper noun.
I hope this helps. :-)
I love how David Berlinski gives everyone the sneaky finger from time to time:)
sneaky nuts
That laugh at the beginning sounded like the the Wicked Witch of the West😂
I feel like Christopher Hitchens is my friend. I never got to meet him. I attended my senior year of high school when he died and I wasn't aware about him until maybe 2017. He's a great person and continues living on through his works and debates. He has a level of respect and love for humanity that every person ought to obtain.
On a funny note: if there are god like entities out there, I hope they treat us with the kindness, love and respect that Hitchens did.
I just heard him for the first time today in a NoiseControllers song of all places and immediately knew I needed to hear more of him. I generally feel personally robbed whenever I find out someone who has influenced me so much is dead before I can thank them, and I’m certain that’s how I will feel again after listening to Hitchens.
@@thecupcakefoxblog just something to note about Hitchens views, he believes in Darwinian evolution which is SCIENTIFICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. All his attacks on Christianity are based on human behavior not on Jesus Christs' TEACHING! He also quotes Great minds of historical people who he admires and there is more evidence for the RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST than there is for the EXISTENCE of these people who he admires and quotes. He DISMISSED all the evidence of supernatural POWERS displayed by Jesus and His TEACHING which is contrary to all the EVIL that Hitchens uses to make his argument against the EXISTENCE of God. If you think for yourself and ask yourself how can none life CREATE ANYTHING. DNA highly complex information code. The only KNOW SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS INTELLIGENT MIND AND INFORMATION IS PRIMARY FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST. THE BIBLE IN THE ONLY BOOK EVER WRITTEN THAT STATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING, IS EXPANDING, HAS FIXED LAWS OF PHYSICS, GETS COLDER AS IT GETS OLDER, THAT THERE ARE MOUNTAINS VALLEYS SPRINGS AND PATHWAYS UNDER THE SEA. IT ALSO TELLS THE FUTURE AND ONLY GOD KNOWS THE END FROM THE BEGINNING.
@@gerardmoloney9979 Oh! Thanks for this note! This is really useful to keep in mind while I watch this video. Sounds like Hitchens believes in all the same stuff as me! Thank you so much for the heads up! 💕
@@gerardmoloney9979 cool story, bro 😎
@@gerardmoloney9979 What is the evidence for the resurrection?
Berlinski: "my goodness, we have sinnes against the law of natural selection."
Girl in audience: ... wut
Thanks to the Fixed Point Foundation for this forum, but those podiums are hideously ugly.
Agreed.
VERY UGLY.
Podiums are things you stand on. You're referring to 'lecturns'
@@MisterrWonderful You're right. Thanks for the correction. Precision in language is important.
@@greenatom I made that mistake for decades before someone corrected me.
David Berlinski- what you get when ignorance meets arrogance
(28:30) - It is clear to anyone who has read Boswell's biography of Samuel Johnson that Johnson himself was very conflicted when it came to religion and especially the existence or not of the afterlife which a pious life promised and which most people believed at that time.
Johnson actually became quite agitated whenever questioned on this point.
He despised not only atheists but all those who even questioned the authority of the Bible.
>
Does any one get this feeling when they listen to an argument and hear something they don’t with it they immediately come up with reasons as to why it’s wrong. Listening is so underrated
Your comment is underrated
@@phoult37 because it doesn't make sense.
@@DannyBoy777777 You're commenting on something from 2 years ago
That’s because no one is saying anything that has not been said many times before . And D Berlinski takes up the balanced and nuanced position, and hitch is stubborn and hateful of religion, so you know his opinion going into the debate , I’m not taking sides I have my belief. But one man is not sure the other is sure of something you can’t be sure of !! I only hope Hitch is not reaping what he sewed in life , I pray for him .
He was dying and he knew it. He did not convert in a foxhole because why? Because religion poisons everything. He was honest to the end. Legend.
You can tell he's struggling at some points, but Hitch was a stoic and a damn fine speaker.
Do not confuse honesty with consistency. One such as Hitch who was deluded, was consistent in his delusion. That does not make him honest.
@@Texas75023 Heya mate. Please do not confuse honesty with lies. That will not make you honest.
@@Texas75023 and how exactly was he deluded? Making claims without backing them up just makes you look like a fool, which, apparently being a Texan theist, does not at all surprise me, you're all foolish.
@@IanD-ut4dy The ad hominem attack is what I expect from an NPC.
How was Hitch deluded? Perhaps you should look up what "deluded" means, and "delusion" upon which it is based. He believed false information and would not release it when presented with facts that are true. Poor fool was so blinded in his hatred of God that he could not differentiate Islam from any other religion, or even think clearly in his critique. He often used the ignorantly redundant phrase "man-made religion" which implies the existence of *NON MAN MADE* religion. But then logic is not really the foundation of secular rationalism, is it?
What forces us? We do. Simple. It's the absolute lack of any external locus of responsibility which makes people uncomfortable I think. Some people seem predisposed to requiring permission/validation from elsewhere. Without it, they're terrified into inaction.
Who did you read Nietzsche?
@@emiliopicosjimenez8655 Nope. Nietzsche is interesting, but this was just little old me. Lol
Im so sad we lost him....he was one of the great ones!
You'll see him again.
@@muckerwood I can only hope =(
Science has made it possible for him to be with us forever!!
Oh yes hitchens,bush,cheney...etc the great ones
@@samdis1890 what has hitchen got in common with bush and Cheney you f.. idiot----nothing
“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.” (Steven Weinberg)
Without God, who defines "good"?. Setting that question aside, how is this statement not based on faith?
@Mark Hess: Do you consider the practice of slavery good? Do you think it's moral to buy and sell human beings and own them as property?
@@Gwaithmir
Are you referring to the modern day atheist sex and labour slaves or the atheist African Slave traders of the 1800s? Or maybe the atheist slavers in Egypt or anywhere else in the world?
Slavery wasn't invented by God, it was a human power and greed invention and God allowed it because it was a free will option.
The "slaves" of the Mosaic Law were mostly volunteer labour in exchange for paying off debts or being able to eat.
Where you there? If not, and the scholars that I've read that said there were definitely signs of there being a different attitude and approach to the very necessary selling of labour to pay off debts is not very much different from modern day contractual work that many, including myself, found themselves working under. And I often didn't have a mandatory Sabbath holiday once a week.
"Does atheism poison everything?" I dunno. Does not believing stupid claims without evidence count as "poisoning everything?" What exactly are you trying to do here when a little bit of skepticism poisons your plans?
"Atheism" isn't a "little bit of skepticism".
As "theism" is to answer "Yes" to the question "Is there a god?", "atheism" is to answer "No" to that same question or "Yes" to the question "Is there no god".
To propose that "atheism" is just "a little bit of skepticism" is a gross mischaracterization. Anything in between "Yes" or "No" to the question "Is there a god?" is some degree of agnosticism.
@@kerosun4598 A huge number of atheists are also agnostic, since one deals with knowledge and the other with belief. Which is to say all honest people are agnostic (or mentally ill) whether they are theist or a-theist.
@@TheBaconWizard: Is atheism based on knowledge or belief? Your comment is a bit ambiguous in that regard...
@@kerosun4598 Atheism is lack of belief or is disbelief. Knowledge is not required to believe or disbelieve. As an example, there exists a tribe of Pygmies (can't remember where, am assuming Africa) who simply have no superstitious beliefs of any description. It is not a decision on their part, or a weighing of evidence, but a cultural artifact; they simply never developed any. They are therefore atheists.
To this end, in the case of those who actively disbelieve, I am am happy to admit that it is a matter of faith with the following caveats: Faith in this context carries none of the extra baggage that comes with the word in a religious context but simply denotes belief without evidence. And secondly, I assert that this faith is far more reasonable than having faith in the supernatural, since our experience of the world as a species has never yielded any testable evidence of the supernatural since history began.
@@TheBaconWizard: No, it would not be an accurate description to consider them Atheists.
Again, Theism is to say "Yes" to the question "Is there a god" and atheism is to say "Yes" to the question "Is there no god".
ANYTHING in between is agnosticism.
A gorilla lacks a belief in god. Is a gorilla an atheist? A rock lacks a belief in god. Is a rock atheist? Of course not! Suggesting atheism is a "lack of belief" is nonsensical and holds no explanatory power. Atheism is to answer in the affirmative to the question "Is there no god".
The tribe you described is lacking a belief in god; but that is not what atheism is. In this sense, the tribe, if it is as you described, is completely unaware of the notion of god. They are not atheist, agnostic or theist. They wouldn't even fall onto the spectrum. It would be more apt to consider them agnostic as they have no opinion although I find that "label" lacking. I don't think there is an 'ism' that should be placed on such a people who not only have no opinion, but are completely ignorant of it. Now if they are aware of it and choose to specifically reject the supernatural from their culture because they choose not to care, is agnosticism.
I find it interesting that people who describe themselves as "lacking a belief in god" find it so important to label themselves as an atheist, even though the term itself nor the sense in which it is used historically is incongruous with "lacking a belief in god".
If you do not hold the affirmative claim "There is no god", or hold the negative to the question "Is there a god", then you are not an atheist.
If you ever seen Christopher speak, why on earth would you want to debate him? Never met him but I surely like him. Too bad he is gone, we should never forget him. I won’t.
I have PROOF my Dad fulfilled the Bible and I'm the Christ, I have a video saying and proving it all. TrustinJesus111 - I only have one video under that account. I've sent the pictures all over the USA in emails, and made a video on my Dad's birthday at his instruction in a dream without even knowing it was his birthday, and then covid-19 hit the next day (seems like to me). The fact you've heard Hitchens speak and not my Dad or I is why this has happened to the world.
How I wish Hitch was still with us... genius.
Fool.
Hitch shows how our species became trapped in our own imagination.
David is defending his own mental prison.
The good die young but assholes live forever
We need him now more than ever.
@@jemborg
Hitchens, just like everyone else who has ever existed, was neither needed nor necessary - if there is no God.
Sick, weakened and diminished but still wielding the spoken word like humanism's champion!
It is always astounding to listen to the clarity of Hitchens mind and thoughts
God gave him many gifts and talents. It's so sad that he is blind to the OBVIOUS need for a CREATOR. The LATEST SPACETIME THEOREMS STATE THAT ANY UNIVERSE LIKE OURS MUST HAVE A CAUSAL AGENT OUTSIDE OF ENERGY MATTER SPACE AND TIME AND THE BIBLE is the ONLY BOOK EVER WRITTEN THAT STATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING AND that the CREATOR GOD is OUTSIDE OF ENERGY MATTER SPACE AND TIME. THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECISED THE BIRTH LIFE MINISTRY DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE NEW TESTAMENT FULFILLED ALL THOSE PROPHECIES EXACTLY AS PROPHECISED. ONLY GOD KNOWS THE END FROM THE BEGINNING. HOW CAN A MAN OF HITCHENS INTELLECT NOT SEE THE OBVIOUS? THE BIBLE ALSO STATED THAT THOSE WHO THINK THEMSELVES INTELLIGENT, MAKE THEMSELVES TO BE FOOLS. THERE IS ONLY TRUTH IN THE BIBLE. MARANATHA
@@gerardmoloney9979 Sorry dude, what you wrote is exactly the kind of crap Hitchens stood against. The bible is just a book writen by men. No divine intervention, just men
36:06 Magnificent, blistering rebuttal by Hitchens regarding Berlinski's obscene fascist statements. Powerful.
I have followed Christopher for some years before his passing. Was not so interested in his atheism but read and agreed with the premises of his book "God is Not Great". In this debate i was pleased with his position and discussion. I have recently come across David Berlinski as part of some study on the origins of Humans. There is compelling science which he brings to the discussion which merits understanding of where he is coming from. I offer my appreciation for both Christopher and David for their relative beliefs and sharing opinions cultivated from high intellect that would otherwise be beyond my reach!
Wow, a positive comment about Berlinski for this video. Nice.
Well said
I find it ANNOYING, to begin a sentence with shouting, then decreasing the volume to a mumbling whisper at the end!
They teach it in seminary schools. A form of audience programming. That’s why ministers and pastors are known for doing it. It has a specific name, but it’s been decades since I sat in those classrooms.
It was in the back of my mind until I cheated. I pulled out my old laptop backup drive and searched my course notes.
NEURO LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING.
The process has devolved over time to often include pseudoscientific elements. It’s name hasn’t aged well in mainstream academics, but there are several very useful communication tools that shouldn’t be blown off.
Also known as NLP. Really fascinating stuff, until you realize just how many people use it on you and how effective it is in preparing you to be more receptive to ideas with which you would normally show a greater level of scrutiny and resistance.
@@notatheist It's something I notice (not that it's very hard to) in many debates with religious people. JUST START SCREAMING BECAUSE THAT MAKES YOUR ARGUMENT VALID 😂.
I was thinking of this recently, but it really does seem to have a persuasive impact on all too many people. I think if I name the following people, no real explanation is needed: Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump, William Lane Craig, Fox 'News' anchors
@rik Your just listing people you don’t like huh? They all just so happen to be on the right.
Hitchens' first rebuttal made me weep tears both of sadness and of joy. Of course he was so close to his death at that point, fighting bravely against its debilitation to make himself clear for all our benefit. But more than that, his huge generosity of spirit. his selfless love for all of us and the truth it shone on all of us sparkled so brilliantly that my heart burst for love.
HITCHENS DOESN´T HAVE ANYTHING MORE THAT A HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE EGO, NOT LOVE FOR EVERYBODY
@@stefanwendeler9233 ... Did he tell you that was the reason he debated Belinski? That he was selfless and watching for the future of others? What in his life proves to you that he was selfless and watching for the future of others? Maybe he is debating Belinski for for reasons other that the ones you accredit him with?
Selfless? No wonder you're atheist.....you have no idea what that is. He killed himself with alcohol and he's selfless?
@@nekentstombe4564 3 years ago! Why?
I'm sure as Hitchens was dying, Atheism and SCIENCE must have been a great comfort to him.
What a stupid, small minded comment. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. When you die will you be "comforted" by your lack of belief in Shiva or Mithras or leprechauns or Santa or.......
Why do you bring up science....sorry SCIENCE? Of these two, one is a pretentious lying fraud with ZERO scientific expertise who poses as a scientific authority. The other is C Hitchens.
You're not very good at this.
After that cackling lady laid her egg, it was so funny when Berlinski flipped her off TWICE! Lol.
John Miller ok he didn’t TWICE. 👍. Watch the video
John Miller ok👌
Please tell me what you're smoking so I can avoid it at all costs 😬
reikimonster
It’s called truth... by all means keep avoiding it.
@@ds525252 Wowwwwww you're a piece of shit 😂
Berlinski is so poetic
I think the "herd of wildebeests" analogy more more than applies in the comments here.
Even though we lost a mountain of a man, all his words are here for our delight. I thank the universe he was gifted to my lifetime. Even though l reject most claims ,l believe in opposites ,so l have a mystery opposite to my reality to ponder .
Hitchens ended his own life with alcohol. You're going to need a lot of luck in life if this is who you look up to.
David Berlinski - Brilliant . . .
Listening to the opening condescending statement by Berlinski I already heard enough and went to something else.
Thanks for the advice. Maybe Berlinski's words work better on paper. His "Look at me, I am an arrogant hack"- stance doesn't work in spoken debates.
Oooooh! High attention span!
3:19 to skip introduction
Berlinski got the first AND last word in the debate? Even with the handicap, Hitch had reason on his side.
Ole David is a less confusing apologist compared to turek or wlc. He still does the side steps and acrobatics just smoother than them.He still eats word salads as well.
"Dr Belinski, what are the strengths of Pascal's wager?"
"There are none"
He does one of these per debate/interview. Like he thinks nobody's counting.
Berlinski seemed to be in love with his own thoughts!
If you could think like dr.berlinski , you would be in love too.
@@terribleTed-ln6cm
How do know I can't?
@@oxcart4172 your incomplete sentence suggests maybe you can't. Lol ....peace
@@terribleTed-ln6cm
...or I've got more on my mind than a keyboard.
@@oxcart4172 point understood and taken , dr.berlinski and Christopher Hitchens are both men of staggering intellect , on that I'm sure we can agree , and the death of mr. Hitchens was a huge loss to the great debate. Peace to you and yours.
Have known about Hitchens for a while, just recently heard about Berlinski. Happy to see two men with opposing viewpoints having a calm and respectful discussion.
That Matthew Arnold poem he quoted is devastating. I feel heavy sadness in its words.
could you please provide the name of the poem? I didn't seem to catch it
@@cetetrips Dover Beach
Berlinski does a fine job of shifting the burden of proof and providing arguments from ignorance.
The same could be said of Hitchens.
I wasn't impressed by either, not to discount their brilliance.
Nah, I think you have the same trouble as Hitchens. Berlinski isn't even a thiest nor anti-thiest. He has no burden of proof for anything except his point of that; with the rise of atheistism, more people died in the 20th century than all the 19 centuries before combined. Athiesm has no limiting principle in regards to the corruption of man, where as christendom aims to keep its practitioners bound within constraints brought through the moral law.
@@Savantjazzcollective There is a burden of proof if you are making a claim, even if you yourself are unsure of it's truth.
No has ever been killed by Atheism though, even if many of the people doing the killing were themselves Atheists.
They didn't do what they did because Atheism told them to.
Atheism doesn't require any other shackling or limiting, it simply isn't making any claims whatsoever, nor is it telling anybody what to think, or how to behave.
It is simply making a single statement, "I don't believe in your god, or any other."
@@ultrademigod yes but you just contradicted yourself with your notion of atheism makes no claims yet it claims to believe in no God. But i do understand your sentiment nevertheless. Yes atheism doesnt say "kill millions upon millions" as a commandment. But as I said earlier, their is no limiting principle. So therefore in name of 'myself' (an athiest) I am the arbiter of what is right in the world and I decide genocide is best for the planet. It's the cult and belief system of one or many that decides the fate of millions. At least with our Buddhist and christ like co-inhabitants, they have a unified belief system, unmovable (up for interpretation at times) to benefit man kind and protect it. They have a limiting principle in order to constrain human corruption that atheism has nothing to say about, we are simply left to our own devices, and how bloody they have turned out to be!
@@Savantjazzcollective
That's not how it works I'm afraid.
If I say I am immortal and cannot die of old age, I have made a claim, if you respond by saying you don't believe me, you have made a statement of disbelief in my claim, not another claim.
In the same way me saying I don't believe in god(s) isn't a claim, It's a statement of a lack of belief.
If you want me to believe your outlandish claims about magic and the supernatural you must provide proof to convince me.
A more balanced Hitchins debating with Berlinski. Great minds sharing the same stage yet not the same ideas.
The Berean Unfortunatly enough he fights with bad theology and does not know good one:(ist
An insightful and eloquent debate on the roles of atheism and theism in our society, sadly, a rare event. Too often than not, Christian apologists revert to Sunday school preachiness without advancing their argument beyond their scriptural texts. I have just one question for Professor Berlinski - If he sincerely believes that atheism poisons everything, that religion is the lesser of the two evils, but necessary to instil in us its objective moral code, why, then, is he a secular Jew?
Mr Berlinski seems like a nice chap, but the tonality in his voice could lull anyone to sleep
Or as Hitch may say, Human chloroform
I find it relaxing. Also, the speed gives me more time to process, without urgency, what is it that he says and means. He is also, usually, particular about his words which takes a deal of thought.
You need to learn to listen to what people are saying. Most of the Hitchens fans just enjoy the show that Hitchens puts on, they don't care about the actual argument.
Andreea Grama He sounds like the Rabbi on Seinfeld that offers dating advice to Elaine at times. ua-cam.com/video/szAjGEoPtY4/v-deo.html
He is certainly nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is!
I like when humans feel necessary to explain the Gods they believe in to other humans, while no mighty God felt the same urge, not even the mighty Gods being explained. That is quite telling on itself.
A very aptly chosen name i have to say. Do you think that cosmology and DNA and science and the microscope and the telescope, and history...thats not God explaining Himself to you, its the univers shouting "GOD" in your ear. Bet youre not so ingorant as to not have heard untill now that God made the univers so that people will come to Him freely and with a willing heart. What youre demanding is that He rips the sky open and write "kneel before the Lord!" with an army of flamesword wielding angels. Suppose He did that...would you consider it a willing and gentle conversion? Would you feel like you had a choice? You would fall to your knees and whimper like a terified dog. God wants you to have freedom and dignity. He leaves you the clues and the door open so that you have a choice. Would you rather he took your freewill away and spoonfed you like a lobotomized imbecile ? Would you prefer to be a robot rather than a human made in His image ? I am not explaining my God to you...i am trying to take the blindfold from your eyes so you can see for yourself the glory and splendor that youre missing. I want you to see for yourself with the Hubble telescope, microscope , with your own mind to digest what it all means. You have been lied to but if you open your mind and take any path (math , genetics, biology, comsology , chemistry, physics, thermodinamics ) it will bring you to God.
@@oldscorp wow! A free sample of what I said in the comment, in reply to my comment!
Thank you very much for this jewel.
Unintended irony is the best kind of irony.
What are people talking about. Neither Berlinski or Hitchens got destroyed.
sheeple.
The old adage of if you can't defend your own point of view, then attack the other one. Total defeat of Berlinski
57:23: Thank god (!) Hitchens called Berlinksi out on COMPLETELY side-stepping the question.
How can not believing in something poison anything?
It poisons the business model of religions.
I do not believe in same rights for females.
That’s poisonous.
I am with you, but your question stands corrected.
We actually all believe in something. Atheism is itself a positive claim that ultimately, there is no coherent foundation for morality, reason, and science.
You believe we’re all just rearranged pond scum. This means you don’t get to complain if all of a sudden somebody decides to steal from you and take all your property. You may think it’s wrong, and you may even think Christianity is wrong, but it doesn’t follow that these things are objectively wrong, including the notion of “poison”. What a bunch of pond scum does to another bunch of pond scum is morally irrelevant. Any “oughts” you want to force into the situation are merely illusory, and therefore you have no obligation to submit to these “oughts”.
So the next time a Christian tells you you’re wrong, you don’t even have a rational basis by which to call him wrong for calling you wrong.
It’s not about whether you believe in God or not that’s the problem. No one’s asking you to believe in a contingent being. What we’re after is the ultimate foundation for all of reality, and whether this foundation is personal or impersonal, and whether the personal or the impersonal accounts for what we do observe in terms of human experience, intelligibility, et cetera.
Atheism is a poison that constantly borrows from the Judeo-Christian worldview and then blames God for all of man’s failures to obey Him.
@@juilianbautista4067 I fundamentally disagree with you on so many levels and I think you are confused. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in a god existing. This can include thinking no god exists ( a positive claim that needs evidence) or not accepting a god exists but not asserting no god exists. Most atheists fall into the latter, and this is not a positive claim. It is simply a rejection of a claim. What follows after this is up to the atheist. There is no baggage that comes with not believing in gods or goddesses.
As for your idea we are pond scum, we know that we have evolved into complex highly able mammals. That means we are able to think and reason. I don’t know why you are fixated on what you call “objective” morality. Even if you are right (and I don’t think you are because you can’t and haven’t demonstrated the bible is itself anything other than made made) so what? We have developed principles and rules which are enshrined in laws and rights and which are themselves objective. We can think and develop values and if the majority of people agree that killing babies is wrong, this itself becomes objective. I am not prevented from taking any moral positive step by a lack of belief in any god or goddess. In fact, it is Christianity and the bible which mandates slavery and other immoral things. The proof that what I say is correct is that we live in a society which has objective rules and laws, and which functions perfectly well. Your alleged objective rules and morality are no more than this - man made rules contained in a book, but they are lousy because they reflect the moral compass of Bronze Age tribes.
@@juilianbautista4067 What do I supposedly believe in? Please, give it a good try.
Would you rather see Europe islamist of secular? I don´t see the relevance of that...well we europeans dooooooooooooooo
Yup, what a coward to evade that question. And looking at the massive support EU is throwing to the invaders, Europe will be islamic, no contest.
@@freewilldoesntexist4075 Ha! Ha! 'crawled out of the caves of Europe'... That's why all of Africa and the Middle East want to slither their way into Europe. But of course, they want to reproduce Africa and the Middle East which are known to be paradise on Earth.
Good to hear a courteous and civil exchange of ideas and differences. I still cringe when the debaters veer towards ad hominem remarks, but these were relatively few in this discussion.
Yes, that would be risky if it were your speciality.
I'm so impressed with myself for listening to Berlinski talk. Patting myself on the back while he waffles on. Waiting for a point.
You will still be waiting just prior to your death, I'm afraid. He really SHOULD become a politician, he has the "talk" down pat. Well, maybe not, even though he never makes a point, he CERTAINLY speaks at a level FAR exceeding the current white house "visitor".
A heavily sedated Jim Ignatowski wheeled out on the stage to debate Christopher Hitchens. I'd have cracked up laughing too.
The Taxi ref gave me a chuckle.
How was atheism ever a private doctrine? What doctrine? At what point is not believing belief? Doctrine? Where can I find the instruction manual to not believe in any gods? What branch of knowledge educates a doctrine of non-belief? How would that work? Hey, here's a class in what not to believe forever... You will never finish this class... Don't ask for your grade... It will never end... Hope you enjoy your non-diploma.
But hang on DEEK, classes in critical rigor would not be a bad thing in high school at all really. I'm a bit fed up with these precious theists.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Like gays, those guys would have kept their atheism to themselves on account of persecution. I know my dad did even though he volunteered for WW2.
Atheists BELIEVE there is no God. Still a belief. Everyone has a belief. That is an inescapable fact.
@@williams.1130 you're confusing belief with faith (belief without empirical evidence). You cannot accuse someone who DOES NOT believe in gods of somehow therefore believing in gods... that's just perverse.
@@williams.1130 Disbelief is not a belief. It is a rejection of a claim.
It's so sad that Hitchens died not having actually listened to opposition. He just wanted to win every time.
God bless that guy. I don't agree with anything he said but he would come up and talked. God bless his sould. A very educated and respectful man in a special sense.
Christopher Hitchens does not need anyone’s “God“ to bless his “soul“. He told the truth while he was here and he took it to his grave like a real man. Not talking to invisible spirits pleading for more life after death
Religion sucks
@@DrRyman Well then Darwin bless him. Can't I wish him well even when I don't agree with someone like Hitchens? And I thought there's not any truth and a belive but it seems like he acts as if there was one in his heart. Or maybe heart is just an organ an nothing more?
I really don't care, my man. There not enough evidence. This atheism is just another belief system. Just because someone like me wishes someone who calls believers stupid, it doesn't make me to pretentiously say something cool.
@@DrRyman Don’t be a dick.
Fucking fighting till the end, what a great dude.
No he wasn't. He was a horrid person
@@themistersmith and why do you think that?
“Morality, as far as I could see, originates in atheism and the realization that no higher power is coming along to feed the hungry or lift the fallen. Mercy is left entirely to us.”-Barbara Ehrenreich
Anon Jack; As Christ told us, we are challenged to go out and to be His hands and feet.
Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
~ 1 Corinthians 12:27 New King James Version (NKJV)
As Christians, we are expected to present our bodies as a “living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (Romans 12:1). Our bodies have many parts, or members (verse 4), which can be used to either honor God or dishonor Him.
In the Bible the hand is often symbolic of our deeds and actions. The feet symbolize how we conduct and direct our lives. God is greatly concerned with how we live our lives and the direction we go.
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led...There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:
for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit,
to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit,
to another faith by the same Spirit,
to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit,
to another the working of miracles,
to another prophecy,
to another discerning of spirits,
to another different kinds of tongues,
to another the interpretation of tongues.
But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.
For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ...
For in fact the body is not one member but many.
~1 Corinthians 12 New King James Version (NKJV)
Religions cannot claim any moral ground after the atrocities they committed throughout centuries. Let's not even touch pedophilia, homophobia, oppression of women, corruption and greed within churches etc. I mean, it's silly.
Then how come its the christians who do like..all the charity in the world? Do you know where the name HOSPITAL comes from? Or why the symbol for both healing and christianity is the cross? Do you know who it is in countries all across Africa that tend to the needy and disperse food and medicine at great personal risk to themselves ? What has atheism done for humanity? Legalized the butchering of millions of babies, broken families, sexual gluttons who end up killing themselves or eating antidepressants by the jar and crying about how meaningless life is, the french revolution who killed 50000 people and jailed 300000 and socialism that killed more than 200 millions in the last century alone. www.thegenocideofthesouls.org/public/english/the-pitesti-experiment
@@oldscorp The symbol of medicine is the Caduceus in the US at least. I believe in other places the Rod of Asclepius is used. Either way it is a pagan symbol and not the cross which is used by the actual doctors and not the christian charities; of course a christian organization would use the cross as their symbol.
Since you are an atheist, I assume your disbelief is not propelled by your emotions or hatred towards that which you deny (because if it is, then that's not atheism, that's utter foolishness) but by having a belief system that proves your disbelief logically true.
Now, You're left with the burden to prove morality of rocks or birds first by of course using serious science, (i.e. material verifiability). Of course, using the only laws you have, the laws of motion. Thus, you sympathizing with the poor and needy and hungry does not disprove God. On the contrary, it disproves your belief system.
I wonder if these speaking engagements helped to finance David's work on the flux capacitor
I laughed, you DEVIL
Lol
Leslie Phillpott bahahahaha
Funny, I get it, but he is a philosopher/political science guy/debater/contrarian, NOT a science/engineering guy, even if there were a such a thing as a "flux capacitor" to work on.
Clicks on video. Hits pause. Scrolls down to comments
The woman laughing was the winner of this debate! I wish she had laughed more to break up the monotony!
She started laughing before she heard the debate.------she freaked out when she saw his Barnet.
Hitchens: "...without this cult...we would think so much more clearly" . I disagree: Without one cult, people'd move on to another cult. Thinking clearly's difficult, often painful.
David berlinski is amazing
... Ly naive.
If this guy “amazes” you then it probably says more about you than him.
@@justinmartin4662 smh
Amazingly dull.
*yawn
I don't know about God making human , but I do know human made God.
Way to call him out on his nazi/atheism slander! There is no way he wasn't being selective with his information!
A stance of ignorance is always a good starting point
@La Hire Why, in his opening, did he mention WWI without mentioning the fact that the nations that brought it about were Christians?
@La Hire It can be, yes. But so is religion. How many dies in the crusades? The Inquisition? The Holy Wars? The difference is that there is no book of Athe from which one is exhorted to commit violence, but the Bible and the Koran both do.
@La Hire Hiter was not atheist?! Not even close to it - He was in close alliance with the roman catoilic church, so that just as wrong as anything can be.
Nordth Korea is the most religious state IN THE WORLD. (The only good part is you can actually leave their belief when dying!! unlike all the other religions "Cause that when the real fun starts!"
Stalin would never had become Stalin without reliigon.
The Frencyh Revolution?! It was partly started because of the indifference of its citizen, and the starvation of the French people, neglected by the royal familly and the church
thomas Andersen Stalin, same thing. He lied to the people and used the Eastern Orthodox Church to control and persuade the people, because most of the country were practicing Eastern Orthodox. The point is Stalin and his entourage did not believe in God, and therefore didn’t have accountability. You atheists and your pathetic defense saying these regimes aren’t atheist is such lying bullshit.
There is real spiritual phenomenon out there.. i use to be the most hardline atheist I knew. I watched Hitchens all day, debated religious people. Until you have a real event and awakening in your life, sometimes the lightbulb never turns on for you. I liken it to the Matrix, it was like waking up. I've had events in my life that the mathematical odds would be 1 in a trillion, and they happen frequently enough combined with spiritual events that have happened to me. Its just you have to have it happen to you, i know as an atheist, you laugh, joke around, make fun of anyone else who explains these because you dont understand it until it happens to you.
Idk man, Ive been run over by a F350 and put into a coma. I still don't think there's a heaven and hell that you goto for enternity.
Well that's what everyone says man. No body is giving any evidence. Also it's funny that these so called self revelations happens according where someone live. If in middle east then alla if in US then jesus. And so on.
*"Dr. Berlinski. You are not a Christian. Indeed, you are not religious as I understand it."* David Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a well-known Conservative Christian think tank. Secular Jew or not, he's picked his team, so don't try to convince the audience that he has an unbiased stance here.
Never took debate, did you? One *MUST* be capable of logically understanding a position to argue for it. . . whether one agrees with it or not. And when honestly examining an issue one *MUST* be able to understand the arguments of the opposing position as well. Not comical straw-man caricatures, but steel-man arguments. The fact most anti-theists cannot even do so demonstrates the bias that clouds their own thinking and the positions they espouse.
Michael Dobson So what? Many atheists side with religious people.
I'm personally non-religious and I find myself defending religion, christianity to be more specific.
@@lrn_news9171 All of which is completely irrelevant to my comment. Should you have an actual point, present it.
@@Texas75023 Irrelevant. Atheist and "anti-theists" are two different animals. Nor can theists make a "steel-man argument," whereas an atheist can.
@@michaeldobson107 Bless your heart. Every atheist is an anti-theist. They are simply cowards afraid to admit their bias.
It is you, brother, who could not present a steelman argument representing something like the Intelligent Design argument. Feel free to try. But you'll fail because you will mention religion and God. *NEITHER* of which is part of the entire scientific basis for the Intelligent Design theory.
Have you ever questioned your basic assumption? I doubt you can even recognize it as an assumption. David Berlinski is at least an honest man who does not let his own position blind him to the legitimacy of other views. As you point out, he is not even Christian. Why would a non-Christian bother to argue *FOR* Christianity? If you cannot answer that, you cannot see your bias, or even open your eyes.
Entertaining, informed and eloquent relaying of opinions with no overarching substance or consequence. Important questions glanced over and left by the wayside in an exhibition of differing viewpoints, without a particular want or platform to resolve any of them. It was enjoyable, but also disappointing as both men clearly had more to say, and perhaps had they, there would have been a point to this.