What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism? (Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2011
- Filmed at The College of New Jersey, Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens meet again in their second debate to give their arguments for what best explains reality. The title is "What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism?" Recorded at the College of New Jersey! Read comments in the CrossExamined blog here www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=117. If you'd like to order a DVD of this debate, click bit.ly/ihYBZa).
#FrankTurek #ChristopherHitchens #Debates
This comment section is absolutely ridiculous. All I can see is Theists completely, deliberately misunderstanding the arguments of Hitch, and also Atheists who seem to have not even bothered to listen to Turek's points, and just wanted to listen to Christopher.
When you're watching a debate, you should try to watch it without any predisposed biases, of course you will have some, but if you have any sort of intellectual integrity, and are completely open to having your opinions swayed, or at least entertaining opposing ideas, you should temporarily put them aside while watching a debate.
"I'm not looking for consensus, baby, I'm just not in the mood"
Big Zee I think the problem is - too much erogance on both sides. ill admit im guilty of it too but i only get errogant in response to arrogance..
they're predetermined to think this way
About time someone pointed this out. If you go on any YT video on these subject matters you will find that the comment section is full of slander and verbal assaults from both sides. Name calling and slandering is simply a way of revealing the lack of competence one has on an argument.
Big Zee Exactly. All I ever see is name calling, foul language and insults from both sides. I'm A Christian myself and try my best to be completely open to the evidence put forth by both sides. Most google scholars in the youtube comments come off extremely immature and seem to lack intellectual integrity as you pointed out. We all need to tak Thumpers advise from Bambi, "If you can't nothin nice, don't say nothin at all." lol
What really annoys me about these debates is the audience. They are told to ask questions and not to make statements.. then idiots stand up and make a statement. I feel that some of them only do it to try and make themselves sound intelligent.
Just ask a question!
They are rhetorical questions so technically they are a form of question. It doesn’t break the rules…
@@macysondheim No, the audience was asked to ask questions, not make a point!
@@SooperFlye it is difficult having all your beliefs challenged so strongly by the likes of Hitchens! Maybe they want to be heard not answered, and/or realize they don’t have a question they’d want an answer to
@@sjsulews1 [eye roll]
@macysondheim7260
Technically, a rhetorical question isn't actually a question
1:34 Turek’s opening statement
25:45 Hitchens’s opening statement
44:07 Turek’s rebuttal
54:45 Hitchens’s rebuttal
1:06:18 QnA
1:52:21 Hitchens’s closing statement
1:57:40 Turek’s closing statement
To know what rocks dream about, first you must be stoned.
I want this on a bumper sticker
Amen to that
To know what a rock believes, you must be arrogantly knowledgeable about the sentient beliefs of said rock.
Woah dude
That's witty AF.
Lol. When Turek speaks, I have to turn my volume down cause he's so loud. But when Hitchens speaks, I have to turn my volume up, because I can't hear him. Very interesting.
I think Hitchens has a very clever way of talking, by talking softly he makes everyone have to try and listen and that way commanding their attention. Turek is so shouty he puts people off
probably because Turek is sober and Hitchens pregamed
Preachers gonna preach and most of the time they do it loud so people are overwhelmed, not by the content, but by the dynamic.
You're very shallow
@@geoffstemen3652 honestly very sure he did since he died from it
Chris and Frank were walking down the road until they passed a movie poster. As they were both cinema loving individuals, they stopped and contemplated it for a moment. Frank broke the silence and asked rather smugly "Well Chris, I'm sure you've put in a LOT of thought on it by now, what do you think?".
Chris paused for a moment. "Well... by taking into account the past projects and performances by the main cast, the director and producers, and also by the genre, setting and characters that the title and layout of the poster indicate... I can only guess. Only when I see the film will I be able to tell you what I think".
Frank laughed mockingly, and said "So misguided are you. It's gonna be an action-packed, adrenaline fueled thriller and the greatest movie coming this summer".
"Well you can certainly hypothesize that Frank, but you how can you be so sure?", Chris asked, surprised.
Frank, pointing to the poster, said incredulously, "It says it right there under the title".
Chris Chris Chris. Nope, nothing happened to me.
Nice metaphor. Now translate that into reality please
An apt analogy.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Alan Blythe He didn’t screw up and give us sin. Humans created sin by rebelling against God.
Watching this video from 9 years ago and watching Turek's videos from nowadays shows me that he learned that speak loud is bad for the public perception of the arguments.
it is bad.
and he learned nothing. Presenting no arguments since then
I had a very hard time listening to him. He sounds like an athletic director or football coach. Very arrogant and unappealing.
@@dbarker7794 great arguments but badly presented.
@@wolfthequarrelsome504 they are terrible arguments. Eg the opening point of his rebuttal. ‘Hitchens mentioned Hume. Hume said something that I think is weak. I’ll spend the first few minutes of my rebuttal attacking that thing that Hume said, thus making Hume look weak, thus making Hitchens look weak’. Absolute time wasting inanity
Very telling that you don’t criticise the argument, but the style in which it was brought forth
On the stage, there unfolds a striking contrast between two figures. The first man stands as a beacon of enduring wisdom, intelligence, and moral integrity, destined to be celebrated and remembered throughout history. In sharp contrast, the second man represents the direct opposite of such esteem; he is either tainted by deceit and profound dishonesty, or he might simply be an unfortunate victim, a fool misled by the malignant influence of religious dogma.
Thank you very much, quite Stimulating.
Did anyone watch debate one and then debate two and realize Turek literally has the exact same arguments, almost word for word?
+shiffterCL Yes I noticed this too, I wish I would skip what I had already heard yesterday not only because he is saying the same things but because I also don't like being shouted at.
Even the same jokes..
watch ANY of his debates. They're the same time and again. I just like watching him set it up for his opponents to knock down. lol
Yes isn't it amazing? Despite knowing whats coming Hitchens still couldn't answer.
Jarred,
This is a debate, yes? One makes a statement trying to make his case for what he believes. The other, if they are able, tries to reply and show why the first person is wrong. Thats the purpose of a debate.
"The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him." Proverbs !8:17.
Hitch was just promoting his book. So he could do nothing else in those two hours? Turek was promoting his also, but he somehow found the time to show Hitchens failed to make his case.
Turek commits several logical fallacies...Dont just make assertions. Give specifics please.
This is a very fun debate
30:18 all you need to know to understand.
My thoughts exactly
1:13:47
CH 'My sail is coming from the same place as your wind.'
FT 'You don't want any of my wind.'
CH 'I politely decline.'
Absolutely hilarious exchange. Hitchens was great here, just so calm and collected no matter what happened.
Always is, lol
Turick is no match for Hitch...he raised his voice every time he was Hitch slapped!
@@yomilalgro ?
@@user-iu8ho4gf4m he’s right tbh
My name's James Taylor and after our debate I will be singing "Fire and Rain".
Atheism, no magic needed
The speaker interaction Q&A starts at 106:00
If you're wandering down here in the comment section during or before you've watched the video and you have seen the first debate between Hitchens and Turek-- don't bother continuing: it's the same debate with the same results, but with a few very minor rhetorical differences.
That is literally me. Well, thanks.
So I’m just gonna guess that hitchens didn’t answer anything about why morality or how Big Bang? Cause he passed bo the those categories last time
@gg ddfccc I don't think that it's relevant whether or not anyone knows turek if he has good arguments. It's only relevant WHAT they talk about and not WHO they are. The content is relevant and Hitchens only goes to say "Religious people are bad and i don't think god would let bad things happen in the world if he existed". It's sad that he really stands behind atheism as he doesn't have good arguments.
@gg ddfccc And it wasn't a debate about how many gods there are or about christianity. It was just about whether or not god exists. Turek won.
@@bricehabekott5604 so hitchens admiring he’s not qualified to talk on physics equals a fail on his part?
The principal objection to the fine tuning argument is that we (life) were adapted to the conditions we found ourselves in. If the constants were different, then life would have been different, but still adapted perfectly. However if fine tuning was necessary for any conceivable life, or indeed any physical existence at all, then the fine tuning argument still has weight.
That would require knowledge that we, for the moment, are unable to gather. We cannot know if the constants in this universe can be different, or if these constants are governed by some external phenomena. The fine tuning argument relies pretty heavily on anecdotal evidence. Someone arguing for a God will see the constants of our universe and tend toward the idea that they could be different and the reason they aren't is because of intelligent intervention. The opposing side will see the same constants and conclude that inductively we have no reason to presume they can or have changed.
here’s a tip that helped me with principle vs principal.
principal, with a pal, is the leader of a school, because he’s your “pal”.
principle, has no pal, and is not a person, it’s an idea.
hope that helps 😁
@@BFizzi719 random and intentional are different. Law isn’t random. All scientific law is constant and unchanging. Never has for as long as it’s been recorded. That’s not random then. That’s intention. So you’d have to explain fine tuning.
Ok but the universe itself which as he said if anything in it was off my an infidecimal amount there would be no universe
@@lukereiling3279 and that's false, if the constants were different, the universe sure would be different, but it doesn't mean that any kind of life couldn't emerge, we don't know that.
there is a college in New Jersey???
“The absence of knowledge doesn’t prove the existence of a higher power”
The presence of your stupidity doesn't disprove the absence of a brain
Neither does it disprove it
@@thirst4wisdom shifting the burden of proof/evidence
@@thirst4wisdom
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it means that one cannot accept the claim that a good exists, and be rational and logical in that belief.
@@thirst4wisdomfirst prove it so we could disprove it. If not then prove me you are not a murderer
47:00 - every time Frank says, "The universe is not eternal", I hear, "The universe is not a turtle!"
Speaking as a Turtlist, your logic is flawed.
Tony England
Bruh 😂😂
Funny, both statements have about as much credibility.
@@FakingANerve The universe had a beginning
@@almostafa4725
The universe is not a turtle...ooops...wrong person...:)
in church specialy born again, speaking in front of many people start at very young age. they are all good in story telling.
Agreed
Some people like yourself will never understand, scientific materialism has seeped into every aspect of society.
Yes, a Real Stories. 😂
You think Turk is a story teller and not Hitchens? My my I wonder if you were listening at all? Answer- doubtful
@@Jbarack98 That may be the case but millennia of telling stories around the campfire has given talking bs a headstart over science.
The ending is so incredibly powerful…
And contrived.
It’s beautiful.
Dangerous ramblings that glorify war.
No, it’s not. Turken knew he failed and had to whip out his bleeding heart.
It’s an appeal to emotion and you got hooked.
"....there is no god and I hate him....." could be the example that gets shown when someone looks up the definition for a non-sequitur.
Turek is a preacher, so he projects his voice very firmly. This works well in some situations, but it makes it difficult to listen to him when a microphone is involved. I find it interesting that the first time I heard to him referred to as "Doctor Turek" my instant reaction was one of disbelief. This is more a reflection on the number of frauds using the title 'Doctor' when they have no right to it than a reflection on Turek himself. His doctorate may be entirely well deserved, but quite a few people claiming to be speaking from the same camp have tarnished that.
Another thought on the voices.. When defensive, people will often sit back and fold arms or otherwise indicate distance desired. When trying to involve themselves or connect they'll sit forward. Especially if they're a person who likes to think about the thing being said. Speaking softly will often coax people closer to pay attention and listen, which sets us up as receptive. Speaking loudly or projecting will often make them withdraw if only to preserve their eardrums, which sets up a defensive reaction. Firm projection works well in a church, but doesn't work well in more intimate or thoughtful environments. I propose that watching a debate is a more thoughtful environment. Hitchens' habit of talking quietly serves him quite well here. Turek might benefit from toning things down a little to reach his audience better.
1:14:32- Classical Hitch
Having watched and read many theist vs atheist debates go through the familiar motions, followed by inevitable outcome that I totally believe my outlook is correct as you do yours. I'm starting to think a better question is, what makes otherwise very intelligent people reach such wildly different conclusions and feel so passionate about it?
Great point! I always think about it
which very intelligent person came to a different conclusion?
GOD😁
The Bible has some answers for that, but I'm assuming you wouldn't accept them. Hint: Pride is very, very hard to swallow. A life full of experiences of superiority (by being more gifted than the average person), a life driven by a desire to obtain knowledge/power/skills, definitely does much for a puffing chest.
cubensis01 some men are proud and some are humble. And Christ said it is not those who are healthy that need a physician, but those who know they are sick with sin that will humble them selves and ask Jesus Christ to heal them of their sin disease!!
RIP Christopher, even though we had/have different beliefs
Christopher would have laughed at the first word of your comment
@@jivanbhusal7690 what’s so funny about REST?
@@5va Christopher didn't believe there is anything after death, he found the idea of you living in eternal north korea after you're gone is absurd, not to mention, incredibly vile
@@jivanbhusal7690 wdym
@@JerryTheCamera chris doesnt believe in rip.... well in other wrds eternal life..
Since this debate is 10 years old I would love to hear from anyone who attended as to their thoughts.
Sadly Cristopher died not too long ago
@@aiweeable This was indeed sad, he was loved by many, including his opponents during the debate. "He would often go out to dinner with them after and discuss philosophy and politics over pizza and wine" a quote from D'Souza was one of his great admirers.
@@aiweeable I wonder if his opinions have changed since then. I'd imagine probably not.
@@kaufmanat1 Dead people can't change their opinions 🤦♀️
@@kaufmanat1 I don't think he changed his mind. He even asked people not to pray for him when he was sick.
It's quite sad bc at this time serious academic atheists are changing their thoughts on some of the classical grounding problems. Even the same Dawkins said he would be open to deism if the fine tuning argument could convince him, he says he consider it a good argument.
Definitely he would not be open to religion at all, these people have serious prejudices against religion, but philosophywise, contemporary atheist are aware that their worldview has serious grounding issues.
I was on the debate team in highschool I always (along with all of my other teammates) used the same case with some tweaks until the topic changed so y’all need to chill
OK Y,ALL
Why is Paley's Watch found on a beach, or in a forest? Because the beach/forest provides a *non-designed* point of contrast.
But they hold that beaches and forests ARE designed.
You can't have it both ways - is the beach/forest designed, or not?
I use a random tree in a forest as an example, it’s possible it’s was intentionally placed there by someone but it also could of got there by itself.
@@Gumpmachine1 A tree in a field - good idea, the contrast with nature no longer applies.
"Did somebody plant it, or not? How do you tell?"
@JMUDoc exactly, it’s a much better comparison to the universe.
@@Gumpmachine1 not really because either way you assume what’s opposite of reality. To see a tree in the field doesn’t lead to someone planting it or it did it itself. Reason being is because in that example we are talking open environment. Meaning any number of things could have happened do to the natural of the environment. The rate of rain, wind, weather, timing and age of tree, etc. the only thing that would lead to the possibility that someone put it there is if there is something specific to the tree that isn’t on its own natural. Like a bow entangled in the roots and vines and branches. Carvings on it. Obvious signs of up human upkeep, such as shaping.
@@vikkidonn you might but I don’t
I would say I’m not sure how the tree got there.
I’d have to compare it to other trees that have been planted intentionally and naturally occurring to try and figure it out
Can spiritual beings reside in the Quantum Field, and define the laws, physics and the biologies of a spiritual being according to Nature?
GOD SPOKE THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE.
Is this their first debate or their second one?
Turek: "Everybody does evil things, I do evil things" Yea, like misrepresenting your opponents position at the end of the debate.
Kurt Krienke - just because he phrases it differently than Hitch would doesn’t make it a misrepresentation. He’s casting Hitchens’ argument in his (Turek’s) terms, which is part of debate
@@geoffstemen3652
And his casting is in itself a representation of his misunderstanding. Frank tries to say "Just because religious folk are immoral does not mean God isn't real". That's not the point. Those are rebuttals to "Without God people cannot be moral". He is directly conflating the two to attack Hitch as using fallacy. Thus, Frank is being dishonest on purpose. And if not on purpose then he does not understand the argument.
Tony H - My original opinion stands
@@geoffstemen3652 He straw mans all over the place.
@@PittsburghSonidocan’t be worse than Hitchens’s incessant misinterpretation of the moral argument as “atheists can’t do good things.” In each of his debates, he says it. And in each of them, the theist corrects him. And then he goes to the next debate and just says it again.
29:50. Hitchens:" We are looking for patterns. We ARE DESIGNED to look for them."
Caught that and many others too.Great catch dmitry
Don't blame the English language for being screwed up. Doesn't it feel good to trick the great hitch into being a closet believer ?? Your are as clever as a snail crawling in a puddle of beer just because it's wet.
@@JosephNordenbrockartistraction lmao 👍
He means that we are designed by the unguided force of natural selection. Yeah he used a word that carries baggage but I cant find a word that exactly explains it.-Lack of a better word
The way the mediator looks at Hitchens, he, to me, looks like he is in awe.
we all are really, even if you can't grasp everything he says ,he has such 'authority.
@@MrDaiseymay I'm rather surprised that some people haven't actually bowed down as he walks past.
But on second thoughts, maybe not, as he is only a man putting forward his views-- which are really no more valid than those of other people who see things differently.
@@electricmanistbro is doing spins on it 💀
@@yourfbiagent7997 The essence of all that is, is God. Of course many religions put (or add) their slant/own agenda to this fact--- not forgetting also, that some scientists come up with all sorts of theories as to the source/origin of all that is.
The essential thing is, we together with the entire universe exists for an intelligent purpose. -(For example, consider the essence of all that is, which is the infinite power within each and every atom (particle) of matter).
A great analogy for the space, matter, and time is like a computer coder the person who makes the program and the logic DOES NOT LIVE IN THE COMPUTER HE'S OUTSIDE OF IT
very disagree. We don't know enough about "outside" the universe. If you need someone to create everything that's fine, but that doesn't equal it needs one.
@@guyjosephs5654 have humans as intelligent as we are ever created life? Give the same ingredients, same chemicals atoms electric current and see if a human can create life... It's never happened nor will it.. You people rather believe everything started from a pool of chemicals that just randomly produced life. Life that can reproduce its own kind. Life that needs two different animals of the same likeness to get another.. Was the chicken or the egg first? And keep in mind a chicken can have eggs without mating but infertile, CANNOT reproduce without a rooster. The same animal developing two different ways and the end result of their differences is to make another of itself and all of this just happening randomly? I think not
@@guyjosephs5654 but its logical based argument that asks on whats most probable? What makes more sense? Which has the higher chance of probability? A uncaused cause that caused the universe, a caused cause that cause the universe (which could lead to an uncaused cause ultimately or an infinite regress of caused causes) or the universe came out of nothing. I think we all deep down know whats more logically plausible
@@KillaCowboy sooooo because we can’t do it now that equals we never can, that it can’t be possible naturally because of our ego? And that therefor the only possible answer is a deity? That’s a weak reason. Why do you feel if we can’t do something or fully explain something we never can?
@@JoeMama-sd2kl well if you want to go with logic…why does the god get a free pass? Special pleading? Double standards? Why does some god never have to have an explanation for itself? Why does it get to be eternal? Why can’t energy be eternal and just keeps going through cycles of universes? Just because our human brains have a hard time grasping infinite cycle doesn’t equal it can’t be. No, you believe one explanation and that’s fine, but to say deep down we all know which is more logically plausible? No you are trying to force it. The correct logical thing to say is we don’t know.
6 years ago a great brilliant man died. I salue you hitch. Your legacy will give you in a sense immortality
Hahahah. I know where he is
@@Christ_died_for_your_sins_777. haha me too (gnashing of teeth) 🤭
@@ecokanjukuoh4772 what a lovely God,he created us with free will and throw in hell for using the free will...
Ha Ha! I love the question at 1:42, 'since you wrote the intro to Kingsley Amis's Guide to Everyday Drinking' - What's your favourite drink?' Hitchens comes across as some cool guy at your house party, who keeps getting interrupted by your dad blundering into the room trying to be hip.
Exactly.
Turek speaks about things as Hitchens said humanity is not 100% sure yet
Well, in nuclear field we talk about things that are 99% correct and account (not forget or uncare) the 1%, but we have no fear to back-up behind that 99% as it is greater than that the 1%
Hitchens obliterated this guy, I feel bad the for the schitzo
I want to know what the guy in the middle thinks
He thinks _"Hurry up, chaps, there's a cold beer waiting for me."_
@@TonyEnglandUK absolutely lol
11:11 Be patient
01:14:04,
“Is it not the case that the spread of Christianity-about which you spoke so warmly and affectingly in your opening remarks, attributing it to the innate truth of the Bible story-was spread by that means, or because the Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? Which in your view contributed more to the spread of the faith?”
Hitch mispoke.
29:36
55:24
1:02:05
1:07:14
1:14:05
1:17:47
1:19:23
1:28:43
1:35:27
1:44:05
1:52:44
Frank: im going to talk fast now!
Also frank: proceeds to talk talk at the same rate but louder.
Frank has positive energy.
Hitchens had stupified alcoholism.
@@candeffect Does "positive energy" validate ones point? ... No
@@candeffect sounds like you'd be an easy victim for con-men who displays "positive energy". let me guess you voted for trump. and you're religious lmao smi
Unfortunately things that can convince people:
1. Talking with confidence
2. Talking quickly
3. Using large vocabulary
Things that do not prove your point at all, see above.
NOTE: This isn't against Frank or Christopher, just an observation I notice with various talkers.
@@candeffect Um, no. He made no apologies for his fondness of Johnny Walker Black, but even if he'd consumed that much prior to this debate, he handily harpooned every single one of Frank Turek's points as he cared to. He would have destroyed a seemingly narrow-minded person as you come across to be had he been given the opportunity.
1:45:50... A DEEP question from a sharp mind that gets glossed over... It was brilliant. The supernatural is faith based. Why then use the material to attempt to prove the immaterial? Why not use the supernatural to prove the natural without involving ANY natural method?
These days I don't engage theists on Doctrine, history, morality and such. I just point out that their authority claim is based on supernatural claims and to provide credible evidence that supernatural events actually occur, can be objectively observed and tested.
No Theist slam dunks so far.
@@con.troller4183 why would they? Supernatural by definition is something beyond scientific understanding.🤷♂️
@@kaibavelarde The supernatural is not "beyond scientific understanding". It is understood perfectly as unscientific, unfalsifiable data.
But Theists claim that supernatural events happen and that they prove their case. They cite the supernatural as scientific proof of their claims. As if the supernatural was science, when it isn't.
@@con.troller4183 I'm just saying by definition thats what supernatural is. Would it really be observable though? I wouldn't think so because they seem to occur at the most personal of times. Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?
@@kaibavelarde "Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?"
All of them. Ask them what evidence they have for the existence of god and they ultimately cite miracles. Miracles break the laws of nature. Miracles are supernatural. But they never provide credible, testable evidence for the existence of ANY miracles or any supernatural events.
The fundamental basis if their faith is false.
This Turek guy doesn't talk as fast as he thinks he does he just talks louder every time he says he's going to talk faster and faster.....
1:25:55 Book of Isaiah was originally written during 8th century BC.
When Turek said, "the entire book of Isaiah dated from _at least_ 100 BC", he was not saying it was originally written in 100 BC. Just prior to this at 1:25:45 he referenced the Dead Sea Scrolls - which are copies of the Hebrew Bible estimated to have been made about 100 BC. The scrolls contained the entire Book of Isaiah thus establishing that that the prophecies in it about the Messiah were definitely written before the time of Christ.
@@Amos9.11 Oh..okay. Thanks.
Frank...Why must you shout?
+Norman Bates Because that makes what he is saying more true. Duh.
+SadBunny It's also more true if you talk quickly and wave your hands about.
Angus Davies Italians have known this for centuries.
Angus Davies Although speaking quickly could also be just a way to say more true things.
SadBunny If time is limited, yes.
We have no choice but to have free will.... that's gonna resonate for a while.
Such a profound statement
If you are forced to make a specific choice, is it still free will?
You would have to have free will in order to make the choice to have free will. God Bless🙏 Jesus Loves You❤️
@@elliotcasson2808 That makes no sense.
@@2l84me8 exactly that’s the paradox, there is no way to choose free will
In a twist of the irony he so much loved, Hitchens has the patience of a saint here.
It's amazing how psychotic they get every time they feel their piece of bread is being questioned.
To
Christopher Hitchens "in memoriam":
If Frank Turek believes in the existence of an immaterial, intangible reality, which is not subject to the laws of physics and biology, and is therefore "supernatural"... why all this effort to prove that his belief has a scientific basis?
About the moral competence of religion ... I was educated in a religious college during the Franco dictatorship in Spain. 99% of everything those priests preached was coercive, punitive, intimidating, threatening. Christopher Hitchens sums it up nicely: blackmail and bribery.
@@michaelwalk9861 bruh he explicitly goes back to the topic several times and the guy your replying to made a comment about the topic AND one about moral competence so don’t pretend they didn’t you dolt
So you take the actions of one college and say that they’re ALL like that?
@@Nameless-pt6oj not necessarily just providing an example of how religion doesn’t automatically make one moral
Why not ?
@@thomasgonn3437 because If, and I stress if, a supernatural being exists he cannot be explained with the natural
The mediator of this debate is so irritating, consistently blockading the notion of flowing conversation and thus impeding the presentation of the ideas and philosophies that these two men have come here to discuss.
Not many ideas nor philosophies came from Christopher though. He simply bashed religion throughout the debate. He claims there is no God nor that a God was needed for the formation of the universe, yet when asked how the universe came to exist, He says we don’t know. Keep in mind that he generalized it here. He said he doesn’t know but then said frank doesn’t know. Frank knows. He claims God did it. Christopher knows, he claims nothing did it. But he chooses to change the topic forgetting he contradicted himself and the entire atheist community who claim God didn’t do it. when asked about it. Even if he didn’t know. That be a point to frank. Because how then can you trust a person who claims a supernatural entity did not intervene but yet anything outside of this he doesn’t know? it’s either An intelligent designer did it or nothing did it. In fact there are more options to think about when it comes to intelligent design and one to random chance. this shows that there’s more probability that someone created everything over nothing. Even if he doesn’t know, surely he can know so much about how life started on this earth. So then my question to him would be: if evolution is true as in macro, what came first the baby or it’s mother?
@@juniorsir9521 some form of micro organic bacteria came first, which then eventually became the mother with the capability of giving birth to the baby. I'm not sure why that question would ever propose a challenge to accepted science
@@jw_3d838 that wasn’t the question I asked now was it? But let me ask an even better question. What came first the male or the female?
@@juniorsir9521 Neither. I'm not a scientist but I'd assume that at some point the organism that would eventually become known as a "human being" evolved into a species with two different types of sexual organ configurations, again, I don't see how asking this question really proves or disproves anything
@@jw_3d838 where did the "micro organic bacteria" come from?
Some of Turek's arguments around the insane level of precision needed or we wouldn't be here, only leads me to ask how does he or anyone know?? Maybe we'd be here but slightly different? Or we would have adapted and still be here, etc...
Not to mention that we don't even know if these constants could change. If they are always exactly what they are and were now then it's not really fine tuned, it just is the way it always has been and always will be. The premise that these constants could be any different is pure speculation and not really an argument.
47:50 "You can't go from a state of non-existence to a state of existence without making a choice"
Choices and their results are timely events. Before and after the choice.
There can't be timely events without time. If the Universe beginning to exist also made time, then it cannot have come by choice.
Time is not an entity.
@@double0seven856
? What does that have to do with my comment?
Spacetime had a beginning. Following that, spacetime went from a state of non-existence to existence.
Which, according to the argument, would require a choice.
Which can't be true, because a choice would require time.
@@Xgya2000 technically a 'symmetry break' as we currently understand the concept. Which may, or may not, count as a choice.
Choice is a change of status, but that can involve time or not.
Why? Because in our reality, choice is time linked in our mind, we live in time. If space could only go forward in 1 dimension it will be the same (like choosing to go left or right on a road).
Now, a timeless creator lives outside time, so power of choice is not a pre/post scenario but a command (Christians by Genesis say that God's word are action, so while we cannot make a flame burst by giving order to the wood but have to require time to rub its pecies to allow it, God can order it and nature will instantaneously follow).
Now, we are living in a universe where causality is one of its property. Why can we dare to say all is casual except its birth or the birth of the multiverse that made our universe rose? We can't, and being its cause beyond nature its by definition supernatural, and if it is supernatural then it is something that has the power to create out of nothing dimensions. But how? By ordering it. But to give order in a timeless scale you need choice, as no other action can cause the order to be sent.
Hope I said everything correctly and logically ✌🏻
@@BringJoyNow "God can order it and nature will instantaneously follow"
"Nature will do something and God will instantaneously follow by ordering"
If you can't differentiate a "before" and "after" a choice, you can't say one precedes the other.
Timeless events are by definition all simultaneous.
Another way to spell it is all simultaneous events have "always" happened (there was no moment in time at which they had not)
Default states of existence (the sum of all things that have always been) do not need a cause. That IS how you get to God himself being causeless after all.
That closing statement gives me Goosebumps.
@Kevin Creaghan Is emotional manipulation bad.
Kevin Creaghan ^^
And so it should. It was a story of incredible strength and bravery. I lost a little respect for Frank Turek when he used it in comparison to Jesus' crucifixion and to the example Christopher Hitchens used when he said sacrifice is immoral, the throwing of virgins off Aztec pyramids.
The Navy SEAL made a genuine sacrifice of his own volition, knowing he would not survive. Jesus supposedly came to earth and sacrificed himself having said several times that he would come back, that he had life eternal in his gift, and we are told to believe that this was the case, or burn in hell. It was his plan all along. The Aztecs were brainwashed or otherwise forced to sacrifice themselves to appease gods we all agree don't exist.
It is a cheap trick to use a true story of a man's genuine heroism and self sacrifice to bolster support for a shoddy fairy tale, and Turek has revealed something about himself by doing it.
@@thenumbdave
"Jesus supposedly came to earth and sacrificed himself""
How do a god sacrifice himself, how can a god die, who did resurrect this god.
If there is a omnipotent omniscient god, then any human can do anything because this god can put everything straight afterwards, like resurrection, so where is the "cost" ?
@Nautical Miles Sources PLease.
Any fans of The Office? Frank Turek is the Michael Scott of Christian Apologetics!
Yes!!! Totally!
@The Naked Skeptic or twirl lol
That would imply he's lovable though
Calm Down: Well, you do have a point. Yet all the people who did love Michael Scott also knew how annoying he was and often cringed before, during and after he made a statement. Lol.
I’d prefer a David Brent of christian apologists.
People like Dr Turek stregthens my Atheism
Woop woop ! Neptune NJ!!
Very good argument Neptune 😊
Hitchens pontificated his entire argument.
1:06:50 Hitch: "I suppose if I cant be erect, I can at least be upright." Delayed laughter once people understand what he said hahahaha
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not everyone thinks like him...or you.
I personally didn’t find it the least bit funny. It was rather disgusting… & completely inappropriate. Whether you agree with Hitchens or not, his alcoholism & crudeness may be charming at first, but wear off after about, hmmm… around 1 second. Then it’s back to foul-smelling, snarky alcoholic who not only eats but burps on stage like a pig 🐖🤮🌬
Laughter and sarcasm doesn't refute theology
Shows his perversion.
I love these debates but…none of us, however fast talking or eloquent the arguments made may be, know why we’re here. May come apparent when the lights go out but I’m happy to wait a while and just wonder…
Do we need a reason is more the point. Thinking there needs to be a reason is why we have this nonsense in the first place.
That is not true. Each person has a purpose and it up to the individual to find that purpose which is already implanted by God. For the bible clearly states that before we were born we were assigned tasks to accomplish. So saying that we don't know why we are here is a purely secular and uninformed view.
@@zepekit you do need a reason ..that’s like saying why do I need to go to work..ummmmm the reason is because you have bills to pay and family to take care off..everything in the physical world as reasons..why walk like in a blind state and be ok with it ..reasons make you look at things in a deeper light
That question can go two different ways. Do you mean "why" from a perspective of intent, or do you mean "why" from a purely natural causation perspective?
@@firstblessings8777 if that suits you, no worries.
Love the ending by Frank man, what a way to end a debate
Only one winner here and it ain't 'shouty' Frank.
1:14:26 Hitchslap one million 🔥🔥🔥😭😭😭😭😭
I often come back just to watch this moment. It's one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen in a religious debate.
When u appeal to emotional your arguments are an empty box, fantastic final statement frank
Turek is appealing to emotion.
@@dbarker7794 literally not even close. Did you even listen to the COSMOS acronym
@@thetannernationwhich appeals to emotion but even worse, grossly misrepresents science and especially the Big Bang theory, no scientist will tell you everything exploded from nothing
When you take the path of intellect than you'll never get the answers you want. You end up just debating morality endlessly until you die.
Interesting.
Good point
Facts!!
That's the reason I prefer evidence based debates for existence of god rather than stucking in between the morality debate ....
About which we can have different opinions and different debates....
It's easier just to learn from animals, that's what we did in the first place anyway.
are we just gonna sit here and pretend most Atheist commenting here, can't hear Krauss shout all day and night?
Ah, Krauss... who seriously listens to that chappie?
Difference is Krauss isn’t chatting absolute bollocks for an hour and makes plenty of solid points.
Turek opened exactly the same way he did last time, like some kind of comedian and this is his standup routine...
Turek what you ramble on about in my field is called Flight of Ideas... there is help 4 it . Cheers
What a closing statement from Mr Turek.
Wow!!!
Appeals to emotion can be very compelling, but that's all they are.
@Karat Kravat you don't think the atrocious things Christians have done, and are still doing today such as conversion therapy have any scriptural basis?
@Karat Kravat You should be embarrassed to be a Christian.
@Karat Kravat I see it more as a chaotic mess, at times, with all kinds of loose ends, abuses, mix ups and vague verses, allowing all kinds of things. As 1 Corinthians 10 and Matthew 5:18 did.
Also, we don't really have a single Christianity to attribute things to.
It's not the people, so much as the system, maybe that is bad - or erratic.
It is not fair to compare the two sacrifices .. Michael A. Monsoor actually saved lived ..
*_"Explosion in a printing shop"?_* A drop of water has 1.5 sextillion molecules. Each molecule has a certain energy, a certain position, a certain motion, a certain angle. Each molecule has three atoms which in their nuclei have loads of quarks. They all, too, have a position, energy, motion and so on. If I was interested in them I could call all this information and it would surely be more information than printed in any book ever written, more information than the library of congress, than all libraries together have. Does that mean it takes a conscious mind (all-loving, omniscient, omnipotent and so on...) to put together that droplet of water in exactly the way it is? Furthermore, isn't it incredibly *_fine-tuned_* to turn out exactly the way it is?
Reminds me of a certain someone residing at 1600 Philadelphia ave washington dc
@@jorgerodriguez3392 You mean that guy in the bunker? What does he have to do with this?
@Aphrodite's Child Sarcasm is new to you, isn't it? I do not know how you come to that flerf conclusion. If you want to know, here is my channel. No flerf.
@@Pit.Gutzmann ohhh how eloquently he articulates his thoughts and how much knowledge his brain has ....
@Pit Gutzmann yes indeed that shows that a conscious mind was behind it. All of that implies purposeful design & order, which science claims is fleeting. The DNA argument serves to supplement life in particular, but rest assured it can also be applied to practically all matter.
5:48 The Second Law of Thermodynamics according to Frank Turek: "The universe is running out of energy. If it was eternal it would have run out of energy a long time ago."
Yeah, that's some stupid comment.
Haha, it's so funny when they don't even understand high school science, but call themselves "Dr."
Chrischi7777 I think Turdek is a Doctor of Apologetics; IMO, failing an apologetics class is actually a sign of intelligence. As I’ve read on Urban Dictionary: Apologetics = the art of searching for a black cat down a black hole… and finding it !! :P
And that guy, supposedly, knows what he is talking about... (*SIGH*)
"THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A TURTLE" - Frank Turek. 47:00
I don't think anyone can disagree with Frank here, he really caught them atheists
The problem is that atheism cannot defend morality because it has no moral codec. This is exactly the reason for Stalins attrocities and it is the reason why all these atheists find no probem with incest. The morality problem cannot be solved for atheists. Therefore atheism is evil.
@@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760 I guess u r also evil because u do not have the Elvian moral code. U a-lordoftherrings, therefore u r evil
@@eloka4510 Go look up
laurence krauss on incest
@@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760 atheism is the assertion that theists haven’t proven there is a god or gods. That’s it!
But you can, if you wish to, hold on to the “objective morality” of the Bible that regulates slavery, command the slaughter of entire tribes, including their “evil” babies, commands the stoning of disrespectful children and women who are not virgins on their wedding night. Stalin’s actions sound as if he was following Yahweh’s commands.
@@4um360 Actually the civilization were sacrificing their own babies. God gave them 400 years to change their ways and repent and they didn’t so he wiped them out.
Intro 00:30 to 1:37.
Turek opening 1:38
Hitchens opening 25:45
Starts at 25:44
I love Turek's deconstruction of Hitchens' arguments at the end. Starts at 1:57:49.
Can you put in a time stamp?
Odel Schwanck
Well, he stated “at the end” so it does exist. Honestly if he didn’t put the word end I would have assumed he was talking about the whole argument.
Odel Schwanck are you even listening boi?
Odel Schwanck
He won the argument in his introduction. Did hitchens debunk a single thing Turek said or did turek debunk hitchens entire argument in the first 30 minutes of this video? I’m pretty sure hitchens just ranted about his opinions without and scientific or logical reasoning behind it.
Watch their first debate, it’s just like this one.
I’m guessing you believe that something comes from nothing?
Hitchens is literally sweating beads when he walks up.
His first words are so ironic because he says he doesn’t argue about Santa and things that don’t exist but he’s arguing about something he thinks doesn’t exist. He just goes on about things that he doesn’t like about the God he believes doesn’t exist lol he doesn’t want proof, he just wants to do what he wants.
He contracts himself constantly, he’s a very angry man.
@Odel Schwanck God would have to exsist for you to say that.
I love how Turek started by doing very simple math incorrectly. He said 200 pages = 20pg/min x 20 minutes
Atheism doesn't need to explain anything. The burden of truth lies with the faithful.
If you want to learn something from this debate (or anything in life) all you have to do is accept your uncertainty.
If you want to learn something from this debate just take Frank’s words. Christopher was simply bashing religion throughout his debate. Hardly anything scientifical on his part.
@@juniorsir9521 Yeah, if you want to learn how to manipulate and deceive people who haven't got the faintest idea about what logic and critical thinking are (which is the majority, sadly) you should certainly take Frank's words.
@@suntorytimes1 logic and critical thinking have led many to believe in Christianity.
@@ThirdSonSeth There’s no logic in religion so no, that’s simply not possible.
@@ThirdSonSethWhat a self contradictory statement. 😂
I think both of these men are worthy of admiration for their passion, courage, and service to humanity. Only one of them made any sense, but i applaud them both regardless.
@Tollison You can only say that if you are very bad at reasoning.
Yes indeed, Christopher Hitchens never lost an argument, he was the quintessential polymath.
@@tollison3632I’ve watched his debates, he’s terrible
@@tollison3632 In a pig's eye.
Turek is a complete charlatan. He understands logic and it’s fallacies, but only uses logical fallacies as his arguments. It’s pathetic. He knows that his money comes from theists and that they don’t understand logical fallacies. When they educate themselves and research their religion, they become atheists.
How about Frank vs Matt Dillahunty next.
The boat metaphor was brilliant.
I am a member of the party of Hitchens on this but I like Turek's quote "Nothing is what Rocks dream about".
Umm, that was Aristotle he was quoting.
Possibly the most idiotic statement made by Aristotle. "Absolute nothingness" cannot be conceptualized. The state of "nothingness" which physicists like Lawrence Krauss speak of is NOT an absolute form of nothingness. The number of logical fallacies in Turek's intro alone is staggering.
@@tylerkasuboski3366 I prefer "nothing is what god dreams about"
Best Turek quote.."you dont believe in god....and you clearly hate him" So evident sadly in Hitchens arguments, RIP hitch
@@tdubfpv3380 Yes, he hated the evil acts that made-up religions cause people to do in its name.
Dude confuses shrieking with righteousness.
Other Dude confuses not shrieking with righteousness
@@aldrinkinny,
Theists confuse objective morality with the divine-command.
If the universe needs a design, how do you come up with the designer(s)
Apparently saying god is timeless and spaceless is a cogent and satisfying answer to them, followed by a mic drop
I think he's getting a church in Befast mixed up with a pub after Rangers FC Vs Celtic FC match on a Sunday.
Well it’s all religious nutters.
youtube scholars, you got to love them. There's just something about a screen that makes people think they got the answers. .
mike murfree and most of them would never speak how they write here in person, cause it would show how classless they actually are.
Is the derisiveness really necessary though? Some, if not all, of these people are genuinely attempting to expand their thought processes. What does dismissing that based on the accessibility of the content actually accomplish? Idk bud idk
@@kobepmusic Most people aren't, and for the few that are genuinely trying to expand they ask more questions than give answers.
It's good to see people engaged in a serious subject regardless of their opinion.
"Err, the Holy Spirit". Priceless.
The question wasn’t really relevant to the debate, I would’ve done the same thing.
😂
Turek's point - that with a tiny difference in one of the variables of the Big Bang, the result would be we would not exist - is a fundamental misrepresentation.
Such a tiny difference does _not_ mean only nothing would be the result.
It means that existence _as we know it_ - our experience of the cosmological order, our version of existence - would not be the result.
Other versions of existence, another cosmological order or orders, would be the result. Speculating on the nature of those other potential results might be interesting, but is not material to the debate at hand, of course. It's just that Turek misrepresented, unsurprisingly, the substance of the initial observation.
Is that guy from Jersey?
Shifting of the burden of proof, a gish gallop with arguments from incredulity, quote mining, strawmanning, bald assertions, god of the gaps, begging the question, and just disingenuous debating. Great opening statement Turek.
Do you believe what you just wrote?
I agree, Hitchens could do much better.
All joking aside, Hitchens was full of anecdotes and arguments against Christian fundamentalism - not true Christianity
@@infinitenature703 which part? All the different errors made just in the opening statement? Or the sarcastic remark about it being great?
@@Sir-Chancelot No true Scotsman indeed sir.
@@Sir-Chancelot Right, not TRUE Christianity.
I think the point was made that one does not have to be a Christian or religious to do good things or have morality.... But I also think it's a fair point to say that if we are just the byproducts of a material universe without a creator or being then who is to judge what is right or wrong? There's no basis for doing good or bad. It's just what our chemicals tell us to do. And yes I do believe that doing good is the best thing for humanity that's not an argument.
@@SimSim-zf9if so what about the innate sense that we all seem to have as humans that there is even the right or wrong? I'm assuming a materialist/ atheist/ agnostic would possibly chalk it up to evolution? So what would one say to one who goes rogue and goes against the general consensus? Once again, if there's not some kind of standard from without then who can say the consensus is right? The consensus being good could actually be wrong 😉 I get the argument that if we don't go along with the consensus then our genes may not get passed along.
@@SimSim-zf9if well the truth regardless. Is it humans generally speaking have an innate sense of morality it's an escapable reality And the fact is that we all know it and we expect it from others as well. I think CS Lewis made a good argument for this in Mere Christianity but the point being that if I slap someone in the face that individual would immediately feel and be wronged and vice versa. I would never be as bold as to say that non-Christians or atheists or whoever do not have a sense of morality. As a matter of fact, I'd argue the opposite.
@@mannycano4599 you keep talking about innate sense of morality. But here’s the thing, natural selection can explain that easily.
Imagine a tribe. The tribe feels a sense of community and that improves their chances of survival. If one member begins acting more volatile and hurting members of the community, the tribe will start to think “if P1 hurt P2, what’s to stop them from hurting me”, and from there the sense of self preservation will lead the community to exile or kill the volatile individual (removing their genes from the gene pool).
If you aren’t familiar with natural selection you might be wondering why they have an innate sense of self preservation. That’s easy: those who do live on to pass their genes to the next generation (which will include a sense of self preservation). We know that personality is part of an animal’s genetics, that’s how we got dogs from wolves.
Natural selection not only explains human’s innate sense of morality, it also explains why we fundamentally disagree on many different aspects of right and wrong. Some consider execution okay for example, others don’t. Some consider killing in self defence okay. Others don’t. If we truly had writing morality on our hearts, we wouldn’t see so much disagreement between what is okay and what isn’t.
@@connorgrynol9021 sure, I've heard this explanation before and it has some merit no doubt. But I would still argue that there is still some general morality that is pushing on all human beings. Yes, I also agree that there's always that rogue individual that goes against what the general consensus is. And that's the thing regardless of whether one believes in god or a moral lawgiver or not doesn't change the fact that human beings are moral beings. We can't escape it!
@@connorgrynol9021 sorry if my words aren't all correct or right. I speak into my phone and it doesn't always get my words right.
28:11 “…….observable creation…..”
What? I thought he believed the universe just happened to start existing at one point, after it hadn’t existed
What do we all value? We all see things through our own personhood which makes our self and our relations with loved ones and in wider society crucial, for everyone. Society has developed through understanding and knowledge based on scepticism and not relying on assumption and presumption. All religions from beginning of mankind can be understood best through the historical prism which is the axiomatic principle. And the universe is way more wondrous and imagination-challenging than the fables and world view propagated by religions.
CH is missed so badly, by so many. Yet many people are delighted he is no longer with us. I belong to the former group.
Well, Christopher isn’t an atheist anymore now , is he?!
Interesting that it's the "religious" people who are glad he died. Interesting isn't it? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
R u dumb ? Didnt you see how he didnt adress the issues and his way of talking is not looking like he cared
Why do you miss him so badly? Is there something lacking because he has died? I am genuinely curious. Thanks for your time.
@@kathyd456 he is very entertaining in his speech.
Was watching a wonderful video about a man (Sean McDowell) who is pretending to be an atheist, speaking to a group of several hundred Christian students. At the end of the question/answer segment he confessed that he is actually not an atheist, but a teacher at a Christian school. He travels around trying to encourage young people, to think how they treat their atheist associates/friends. I guess I consider myself agnostic, and this guy, wow he sold me. He seems to be such a wonderful person, and I would love to be his friend.
The video I referred to was entitled Atheist Debates Christian Students.
When I say that he sold me, I meant that he sold me on his great attitude, he was such a great speaker, so articulate, so caring and giving.
@@acp865 So he manipulated the argument, and give disingenuous answers to an idea he didn't believe in, to shape the minds of children. You basically described church
@@acp865 do you think the other side of this would be productive? An atheist presents themself as a theist to present a straw man argument that they can then later tear down?
Agnostic is a Latin word for a Greek word meaning "ignorant"
1:01:18 It’s the 2nd option for me 💯
Decided to give Turek the benefit of the doubt and actually listen to him, but doesn't make any sense in his arguments at all. He hasn't provided any evidence that theism explains reality better.
Theism likes to think it can fill the gaps in our knowledge, but eventually it will be squeezed out as our understanding of reality grows. And there certainly doesn't need to be a designer for humans as a species to make sense of the world around us.
"God did it" the perfect excuse for a person that doesn t have any idea on what s happening around us.
@Karat Kravat I’m assuming you’re religious and that’s why Turek’s arguments make sense to you.
Hitchens relied on our own sense of self without the use of an external deity having a hand in our affairs and I stand by my point that we don’t need a deity to give us our sense of reason, morality or free will.
I have free will because I have no choice but to have it and I don’t need a deity to tell me what’s morally right or wrong. And I can make sense of the world around me without a deity.
In regards to the cosmos, the god of the gaps feels a bit like giving up on understanding the universe as we grow and I’m happy to say that I don’t know everything. I’m also happy to say that humanity as a whole doesn’t understand everything and that’s where science comes in. To say that god did it is a cop out and and it’s not true.
Comment sections are a strange place. And this is far out of time, but I have to agree with Turek overall. Hitchens never gave a case for atheism as a worldview, or how it explains reality. Granted Turek did not sufficiently argue the point of how Theism is separated from Deism and why it explains the universe better, but at least he made a case. Hitchens also constantly begged a question that Turek pointed out multiple times which is on the origin and justification of morality. Basically he argued Christians are not moral, which I always thought was kind of the point of the system it upholds. I also am curious what that proves anyway. Why does morality matter in an atheistic worldview? I think his idea was to prove God is evil using the Christian sense of morality, but he never really went that far in his statements. However, I never found a definition for morality in his case, so even calling God evil would be an undefined concept if he attempts to do so. All in all, Frank gave a flawed argument by trying to encompass too much information into his case without defining some fundamentals, and Hitchens whined about evil, said Turek is taking illogical leaps (which in some cases I agree), and never really had a base case.
I noticed a lot that whenever Turek would ask a question of atheism the habit of Hitchens was to take the question and then ask a counter question about how Christianity or the Church publicly deals with said subject. But that does not answer the question. You can ask the Christian view to be explained after, but when your worldview is questioned just saying the opposite view is not satisfactory, while not stating why yours does satisfy the question is not debating. It is just avoiding the question by hiding it.
This is a big false equivalency. Atheism is not a worldview. The world will go on if we were all dead. Gods will all cease to exist with the death of every human, so you must think about magic to keep it real in your minds because, without your minds, your gods never existed.
@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad let me try. There's no such thing as an atheistic world view. The statement in itself doesn't make sense. How can you form your world view based upon what you don't believe? Even if no atheist on the planet can give you a satisfactory explanation of morality without needing to reference a diety, that doesn't make a belief in a diety true. It's like asking what I enjoy about not stamp collecting. Assuming you're a Christian, that would mean you aren't Jewish, you aren't Muslim, or Hindu, ect. How does not being those things shape your worldview? Your worldview is shaped by what you DO believe, not what you don't.
@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad
Going to butt in on the moral aspect of the argument.
There are only subjective morals and these are usually dictated by the peers you live with. The culture you live in holds a standard of what is permissable and if you do not abide by these sets of standards, you will be sanctioned by the people in this group, not by supernatural entities or bad luck.
So if you commit atrocities and don't get caught, you will not be punished by your group but if you have a conscience, it might not let you forget what you have done and devour you from within. Those "demons" are real but there is nothing supernatural behind them. It's your view about yourself and how your in-group sees you. No God required. Only psychology.
I like your form of questioning and I enjoy that you are honest and humble enough to concede some points. That shows an intelligence and a willing open mind to listening to the other side without just claiming you are right and the other side is wrong. So, cheers to ya mate. While I do disagree with you on the morality arguement...at least you left room for discussion. Unlike many other believers. As someone that believes in values more often associated with aethiests, I can say this with clarity. Religion had no innate or ground building effort in my morality. I do truly....as Hutchinson mentioned..it is a naturally occurring/intrinsic value of many social creatures that d ont require a religion or a god to exist. Period.
@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad
You are right. But if I subjectively value the wellbeing of my peers, family or friends, I can selfishly deem others morally in the wrong for hurting them.
You will probably do the same. Because you prefer the people you know over strangers to you.
Best of regards to you.