Thanks He Who Must Not Be Named

thank you

@@seanchua2777 thanks to you I realized I forgot about Hitchen's closing remarks. Thank you.

“Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth.” “What draws people to be friends is that they see the same truth. They share it.” “The sun looks down on nothing half so good as a household laughing together over a meal.” “Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person’s ultimate good as far as it can be obtained.” “It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed.” “Being in love’ first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise.” “We do not want merely to see beauty ... We want something else which can hardly be put into words - to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it.” “If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.” “Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see.” “One road leads home and a thousand roads lead into the wilderness.” “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods.” “Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.” “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” - “You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream” “I have come home at last! This is my real country! I belong here. This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now…Come further up, come further in!” (C.S. Lewis) ❤️❤️

@@georgedoyle7971 "If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanations is that I was made for another world." Actually that is not the only logical explanation. Another one is that Lewis just had unsatisfiable desires. Actually there is an extra hidden premise behind Lewis' conclusion. He assumes that he was made for the purpose of being satisfied. But all the evidence shows that he was made to pass on his genes. "Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see." The only story I see is that things can always get a little better or be better than predicted now matter how dire the situation. I also see that the it isn't enough to stop our horrible fates. "One road leads home and a thousand roads lead into the wilderness." That's actually very ridiculous. It is actually the inverse. There are dozens of ways home just in your own town/city but almost no roads lead to the wilderness. So the metaphor falls flat. "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods." That is an admission to faith being unreasonable since you're HOLDING on to something your reason ONCE accepted. "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." Well if you accept that your soul dies with your body than I don't see any falsehoods being told here. The rest of the quotes aren't attempts at proofing a god? They are however, wise words that I agree with. So I'll give C.S Lewis that one.

@RUSSIAN ROBOT You made exactly no sense . . . but cool.

redghost420 I feel exactly the same. Only god knows what the Russian is talking about 😂!

@RUSSIAN ROBOT Wow! I sincerely hope that they don't release you from the correctional facility that you so clearly reside in. I think you would be a danger to society

Seems legit 👌

You sound like Kanye bruh and that's not good.

I'm not sure we listened to the same debate. I've literally never heard Hitchens have a respectful debate. He is always sny, passive-aggressive, and mocking his opponent. It's obvious he is more angry that people than he is interested in debating intellectual discourse.

@@ChristIsKing270 Technically he only mocked Lennox's views, not him directly, as far as I noticed. But of course, if you hold the opponents views as being idiotic views and calls them so, you will inevitably indirectly imply the view-holder to be idiotic as well, but this kindof has to be allowed as it otherwise would be impossible to attack someones views without "mocking". I think atheism is utterly idiotic, and it frustrates me to listen to such awful portrayal and understanding of the Christian narrative and theology as Hitchen puts forth, but I understand him arguing in that way given what he holds to be true, and don't think that he should have wrapped his views up into nicer words just because its frustrating to listen to him otherwise. He should say things directly as he sees them, it's honest even though he's totally in the wrong.

@krissmork I understand what you are saying but a few points. First, mocking makes no point, no defense, nor argument. It only attacks a person who holds a belief. 2nd, people only do this when they have no argument or defense. It simply takes out frustration on its opponent bc of pride. It's unintelligent and cowardly. 3rd, it's not about nicer words. They are adults, and it's about having a better understanding of one's own viewpoint in order to defend and prove it. Hitchens attacks Lennox point of view because he has no factual defense and is angry that he doesn't. Last, Hitchens' big problem which is the reason for the mocking as well as his atheist point of view is bc he is high minded and thinks he is smarter than anyone who does not hold his opinion. Pride comes before a fall.

@@ChristIsKing270 yeah, i just didnt notice him attacking Lennox with mockery so strongly, maybe there were some of it. I agree his rethoric doesn't help his points at all

@krissmork passive aggressive tone and sarcasm is a cowards attack. That's what he was doing. And honestly it's a direct attack on Lennox's intelligence.

Thank you.

Thanks!!!

I love you

True hero right here

Awesome, was looking for this comment.

you are obviously a typical gullible god fearing sheep like his comrades

And you certainly didn't get it. So you weren't disappointed.

​@@bobobandy9382wow, you're, like, really really smart. That's the most intelligent thing I've ever heard someone say. It's such a comfort knowing that there's minds as brilliant as yours in our world, helping guide people towards the truth about whether or not a certain individual is Winston Churchill or not. Thank God for people like you. Without your insightful remarks, our civilization would surely be run into the ground.

@@Krehfish534 lol

I kept wondering why he seemed familiar.

He's Irish Winston was British jon reminds me more of Ian paisley.

I hate the way they talk past eachother though....he dont seem to understand that a created god is an example of a created universe...a universe in some form can be eternal...he can just understand a god can be eternal and dont understand the point.

@@skagenpige88 No such thing as "god". The Universe has been here forever.....for infinity.....no "Dog" created the universe. Man created "God".....

@@jds6206 That the universe existed forever is equally an insane claim as god, your basicly giving the universe god properties?

Well with an open mind I can honestly say that John Lennox's arguments all boiled down to "magic did it". Without demonstrating his premises he runs away with his conclusions.

@@coffeetalk924 I think you are asking too much of anyone, religious or not religious, to explain the origins of the universe. If you call what Lennox believes magic, you have to then be honest that science also uses magic to explain dark matter.

Mitchell Kmatz . Hitchens was certainly a unique man and entertaining to watch, but his skills as a debater had far more to do with bluster, showmanship, and being adept at straw-man building than actual engagement with the issues at hand. I agree that he died far too young.

You mean a Catholic? "Rest in peace" is part of the Catholic rite of the prayers for the dead.

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 Catholicism is a branch of christianity. If I owned a car and said I drive a Toyota, would you ask if I meant to say I drive a car........

He is not now an atheist and I doubt he is resting in peace

Charles Tickle wow what an a arrogant thing to say.

As a Christian I also loved CH he was the ultimate wit and raconteur who baulked against woke pc mindset Islam and Catholicism.

If you call Hitch brilliant, you are one loser of a Christian. Hitch who pretends to know the bible as he screws up on it over and over again including what faith means biblically. --"Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated”-- Christopher Hitchens Now, look at what biblical faith really means that Hitch the liar didn't even look at: Biblically, faith means trust. It's a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It's much like a human relationship. We don't trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. crossexamined.org/biblical-faith-vs-blind-faith/ www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/16/Faith_is_Trust www.truthortradition.com/articles/faith-a-confident-expectation-of-gods-promises-coming-to-pass www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith Hitchens always went into evasive word antics to avoid key questions like how we got the creation of the universe. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gM99pN1_xL-3iIk.html The odds are NOT there. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jZePfqiHxqndkXU.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r71pmsSo38Cwo58.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/msqRpLam2dqZkas.html

@@2fast2block listen to others. Expand your mind. You'd be better off for it. Like all of us...

@@2fast2block what evidence would make you not believe in god?

@@zaydevans2077 evidence that shows all I gave is wrong. It's absurd though to think the laws of nature can be proven wrong, but nothing stops you losers from believing that. Your agenda to a loser is full speed ahead and to heck with evidence.

It was the first one in 2008 that Christopher conceded he lost. This was in 2009

@@Azoria4 where can I find the one Christopher lost in?

Joe, I agree- but to be fair on John L, he stepped in to do this debate at the last moment, as someone else couldn't make it. I wonder what he might have done differently, if he had prepared for it, as he says elsewhere that he would spend months in preparation for these things.

Two brilliant minds? I have seen no evidence that Lennox is brilliant, only that he is naive, gullible, and deluded.

Dr. Lennox graduated with a Masters and Doctorate from Cambridge, was a Professor at Oxford, and published over 70 mathematical papers which are respected amongst scholars. You can't do that if you're not brilliant. Also, if he's not brilliant, how much less are you, and according to that much lesser degree of intelligence you have compared to Dr. Lennox, why should anyone prefer your conclusions over his? Furthermore, 90% of the world's greatest minds adhere to religious beliefs, as evidenced by the Nobel Prize being awarded to mostly those with religious beliefs (with only about 10% of Nobel Laureates being atheist), despite being an atheistic institution with an atheist founder. @@urasam2​

Even as a believer that Christ was and is the Messiah, What does that even mean in relation to actual reality?.

@Jason Lusk Jesus either told the truth about who he really was, or he was a complete lunatic with powerful influence on people. I believe the former because I look at what he did in his life and even if it's not fully comprehensible, it seems like the better option to me.

@@thegroove2000 well, I think it means that Christ lived a human life and is now in a place of eternity-perhaps outside of space/time. I believe he is the messianic King that was prophesied about in the bible and the One who will one day come back to end the earth and take the believers with Him to heaven.

@Jason Lusk In the same way I believe Jupiter to exist and be real. I have no direct interaction with Jupiter. Only secondhand and thirdhand accounts, pictures, descriptions, etc. I have no encounter with Socrates, Jesus, or George Washington, but I find it quite unlikely that such a large amount of people would bear false witness to the accounts of these people. So I take it with a small ounce of faith that the accounts are true.

@Jason Lusk what happens to non-believers is not really up to me. I believe God gave humans free will and those that don't choose Him will live freely, but not live eternally.

Yeah, sounds like some balls clappin

@@IlluminatedGame 🤣😂

A very salient point

Hahahaha

Because Lennox was resonating with the audience from the beginning of his speech..you disparage human response? One question is why the title "Is God Great?" when Christopher Hitchens does not believe in any "god" at all? I have to ask God why they both have an issue with their glasses in this clip..lol! My answer to the question though..is Yes, God is Great!

Carol, quit embarrassing yourself. Steve, the camera operator isn't wearing a mic. That would be the "moderator".

@@carolr.556 Carol, we will talk about your "god" as long as it regulates school syllabuses and laws around the world. We do not mean God as in the entity, since no god exists, but instead we talk about the concept of "god". And as long as horrible things are being said and done on the excuse that there is a god (deity), god (concept) is not great.

@@Gwydda The opposite is true..trangenders are being promoted in the elementary school..concusing children about biology..There are only two genders..I don't need a Bible to tell me that..although that is where moral teuth is found..

Carol R. What gender are intersex people?

Dang, best description of Christopher Hitchens I’ve heard. The best so far!

Absolutely

Hes faced with Truth now. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess sooner or later.

@@johnjaso385 just no 🤦🏻‍♂️ it’s 2023 grow up.

@@markusbaker1161 i am grown up. Please explain to me creation and explain to me what atheism can give me for hope?

You mean you think he is smart because he is a great mathematician, but at the same time, you think you are smarter than him because he believes in God?

Hitler was an atheist

hitler may not have been an atheist in the modern sense, but he often suppressed religion in favour of his brand of "racial biology". Richard Overy puts this quite well: "Truth lay in natural science, and for Hitler that meant the truths of racial biology - natural selection, racial struggle, "identity of kind". Hitler was politically prudent enough not to trumpet his scientific views publicly, not least because he wanted to maintain the distinction between his own movement and the godlessness of Soviet Communism. Nor was he a thorough atheist. His public utterances are peppered with references to "God" and "Spirit". For Hitler the eschatological truths that he found in his perception of the race represented the real "eternal will that rules the universe"; in the infinite value of the race and the struggle to sustain it men find what they might call God, an inner sense of the unity and purposiveness of nature and history ...Such views could be detected in the development of critical theology in Germany before the First World War, which suggested that God should be experienced as inner feeling rather than as external morality... What Hitler could not accept was that Christianity could offer anything other than false "ideas" to sustain its claim to moral certitude."

Lol check your ego

Wish the same for Brazil.

Il y a. Des fois. Michel Onfray quand il a cassé Sigmund Freud (j'ai trop aimé, je hai la psychologie) et des psychologues était la pour un débat.

The French have birthed some incredibly gifted intellectuals; Foucault, Derrida (not technically, but yeah), Lacan, just to name a few.

Absolutely... the pro-Christian arguments all converge to the one weird fact; “what we cannot explain, we choose to believe in by stories”, absurd at its outset, and if all thought like this we would never have evolved from our original forms and societies

@@mortenthorpe, atheist whiners like you are quick to point out the problems that religion causes within society. The Christian religion created universities and hospitals. 106 of the first 108 colleges in the US were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860, there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose. Never heard of a hospital, orphanage or university started by an atheist.

Luigi Vampa just because Christianity has certain positive aspects does not rule out the negatives, OR the fact that religion has one singular problematic truth at its core, counter to science; belief! It also does not mean that Christianity is correct as a whole, but it is good that a part of the deception of religion has spurred thinkers to be an actual thing, and trying to share their thought with others at places such as the university.

@@mortenthorpe Let's address your assertion that I have belief and you lack it. The statement, "I lack belief in a god," is a common position of atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them, it is a non-issue. Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning belief. Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required.

Luigi Vampa you cannot seriously imply that blind belief and intellectual pondering are related, they are each other’s opposites by pure nature. You beautifully describe the nature of belief, by saying that you take a position and cannot be swayed, but you have in your argument mistaken atheism and deism ... it is deism that takes a position and cannot be swayed... atheists are most commonly also scientifically inclined, in which case they are swayed by arguments backed by evidence... something no deist or religion can provide about their beliefs... until such a time, you need to review your ideas, because you are confused, and if possible, and to carry on this discussion, prove that a god does exist... and prove in the scientific sense.

Yes! These debates.are amazing

Lennox isn't brilliant, he's pretty bottom barrel.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

There is salvation outside the church, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ

​@@user-jl9sk5ny2e"The Church" is the covenant between man and God through Jesus Christ. The church are people, not a place or specifically an institution.

I'm not. I have no patience for the willfully ignorant religtards who lie about reality.

@@fleshanthos and who are we talking about in that situation?

@@fleshanthos what is reality, someone random particles in your head who decided what is what?

@@meindertbakker8377 damn i guess jebus did

@@Jw-un8oh amen

I always thought it was interesting NOT to beleive in God. Can you tell me what led you there

​@waltglass7055 There is no proof not even an atoms worth. Then see that most of the misery in this world is caused by theists.

@@waltglass7055 Hello, I don't have a reason to believe, I have got no evidence at all. Tbh it would be sick if god existed and created it all, but all the biblical nonsense and obvious imprint of human intervention in the whole Bible story doesn't lead me to believe. What's your reason to believe in an almighty creator?

@jaroslav-6027 when you say evidence. What do you mean? Mathematical? Scientific? What are we talking about when you say you have not seen evidence. And then based off whose sense of good and evil do you submit that if God was real it would be sick. Which is to say that it would be messed up. How would it be messed up? Who do you compare God's judgment or moral compass to if he is in fact real?

Lennox's problem is he always pushes HIS religion, lots of biblical quotes prove nothing. I prefer to keep an open mind, there quite possibly might be a creator, but its NOT the biblical god, Yahweh, who is a sadistic nutter who pretends to be a force for love and who has only been around for 2600 years , the billions of years that have passed without it instructing us seem to have been the time when he was twiddling his thumbs.

Indeed, Hitchen mischaracterizes a lot of his examples.

What John Lennox conveniently never considers is that even if there is a supreme force or creator there is no evidence that the religion he follows is the sole representative of that creator cause he just picked one out of hundreds yet he thinks he hit the jackpot so it's that kind of pettines that Richard Dawkins always talks about and this is a problem within all exclusive religions because on the one hand they seem to accept other religions on the surface in order not to pass off as intolarant but on the other hand deep down they truly disregards other religions because in their view they're all false religions and there's no salvation if not via so-and-so religion, now that's why both Christianity and Islam are religions that seek to evangelize the world, what they want is a dictatorship where their religion is the only one and the others cease to exist. So the only way for that to work out is via evidence but no religion has evidence of their gods' existence, it's all about childish wishful thinking, then this John Lennox says that people have to make decisions on that choice but that's not people making decisions, it's their culture, parents and geography making decisions, if John Lennox were born in the Middle East he would be defending the same thing I guess but the Islamic god and not the Christian god. If we are to say there is a creator then no religion has the right to say they're the sole representative of that creator while they have no evidence to back up their claims.

@oops You only stay in your Reality is to Self destruct from Smoking weeds and using illegal drugs and drinking and what else Atheists people do. Can you tell me, please ???

@oops Get this straight Atheist, Everybody has an Asshole if not then we can not take a shit, got that PeeWee. Not even your idol Hitchens is not Smarter than me. Get that through your thick skull, becuz Hitchens and Atheists are clueless about Life in Smoking weeds and using illegal drugs are for Dummies. I don't Smoke, don't drink, don't use illegal drugs or going to Stripclub. These things are for Losers and Home reckers. Where is intelligent in that , firball ??

@oops hmm.. most atheists think they understand figurative meaning, but are really so prosaically retarded by their faith in empiricist quibbling to locate moral truths for them that they miss the deeper message and end up falling overboard into the raging sea of cynical uncertainty. The new atheists are interesting type of sadomasochists who prefer to drown in the wilderness clutching their heavy bags of cold facts, sinking further down and away from the beauty of community and the idea of a richly poetic life of meaning (despite their claims of the opposite). I once was a militant atheist, grew up around pretentious/preachy southern baptist offspring which did nothing to convince me to see anything deeper in the religious sentiment-then one day I read some continental philosophy (Zizek) and discovered I'd been missing a vast symbolic dimension the whole time, one previously unrecognizable in the tinted lens of my empiricist fundamentalism.

Htx457 well that’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen on the internet today! Nice job

What John Lennox conveniently never considers is that even if there is a supreme force or creator there is no evidence that the religion he follows is the sole representative of that creator cause he just picked one out of hundreds yet he thinks he hit the jackpot so it's that kind of pettines that Richard Dawkins always talks about and this is a problem within all exclusive religions because on the one hand they seem to accept other religions on the surface in order not to pass off as intolarant but on the other hand deep down they truly disregards other religions because in their view they're all false religions and there's no salvation if not via so-and-so religion, now that's why both Christianity and Islam are religions that seek to evangelize the world, what they want is a dictatorship where their religion is the only one and the others cease to exist. So the only way for that to work out is via evidence but no religion has evidence of their gods' existence, it's all about childish wishful thinking, then this John Lennox says that people have to make decisions on that choice but that's not people making decisions, it's their culture, parents and geography making decisions, if John Lennox were born in the Middle East he would be defending the same thing I guess but the Islamic god and not the Christian god. If we are to say there is a creator then no religion has the right to say they're the sole representative of that creator while they have no evidence to back up their claims.

Ken H Me too Ken; this man was impressive .

@@user-ed1mj5zk6f He was a complete jerk.

He was a complete jerk.

@@kg4lzc and he forgot more than you know

@@donjonsen5295 He is the epitome of institutional egotism... Folks get into Academia so they can learn a lot of facts or hyperbole and they think they are something. Then they look down their noses at anyone who hasn't 'attained' and think they can get away with it. I'm sorry Lennox condescended to give his time away so cheaply.

If Lennox really is the best of the Christian apologists then that pretty much sums up why sane and rational people should be atheists.

@@AlanBolshevik Stephen Hawking: "Religion is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark" John Lennox in response: "Atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the Light." Sane and rational people believe all sorts of things. I don't think anyone is sane and rational enough to determine what sane and rational people SHOULD be.

@@Makeaocbartendagain2 Couldn't agree more💯

​@@Makeaocbartendagain2thats not evidnce

@@zappersolo7588 so im supposed to prove the existence of God on a KZfaq comment section? I was defending my claim that Lennox was a good debater, not that God exists.

Enjoying this video in 2031, made possible by our Most High Lord XG36 Type A. All Hail Our Robot Overlord!

One-one?

@@tragicsans All praises given

@Paul d’Holbach cool 😎

@Paul d’Holbach (1) The universe is all an illusion, nothing actually exists, (2) The universe has always existed, is self-existent (3) The universe was brought into existence by something/someone that is self-existent. The question is which hypothesis has the greatest explanatory power, which is the most parsimonious and which is the simplest (Occams razor) ? Well option 1. is self refuting as you can’t have an illusion of an illusion. Equally, according to the brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky despite criticisms of Rene Descartes famous quote “Dubito ergo, cogito ergo, sum” (“I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”) Descartes still stands. So we are clearly not an illusion. Option 2. crumbled under the weight of evidence from the “Big Bang”. Ironically atheist scientists actually coined the phrase “Big Bang” to unfairly ridicule the brilliant scientist George Lemaitre who discovered the “Big Bang”. The double irony is that George Lemaitre also turned out to be a Christian/Catholic priest proving that there is no conflict between science and religious expression. The conflict between science and religious expression is a myth and is actually a false dichotomy promoted by militant atheism. Again ironically it was actually atheist scientists who held back the science for several years by resisting the theory as the “Big Bang” supported the metaphysical beginning to time and space described in Genesis. You couldn’t write this!! Nevertheless, we are left with option 3. did (mind) bring reality into existence or are we nothing more than “matter” that is nothing more than an “illusion” created by the random motion of atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Nothing more than the blind, mindless, pitiless, merciless, meaningless process that Richard Dawkins takes great delight in pontificating about. Again we’re back to the illusion problem and an immaterial mind is simpler than the complexities of matter (Occams razor). If we are just an illusion created by complex brain chemicals and the random motion of atoms and mindless “matter” materialists/atheists have no ground for insisting we should take any of their convictions seriously as their claims are also created by the same illusion. Even atheist philosophers admit this existential problem and the inevitable nihilistic conclusions under the materialistic paradigm. The fact is that you can not ground values such as morals, ethics, knowledge and not even science and logic itself in the materialistic paradigm. logic is an illusion (Nietzsche) It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all... This is an attack not upon faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." The philosphic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not, therefore I cannot think” G.K. Chesterton. ❤️

As accused, I may already have a bias, but I am genuinely interested, BECAUSE I am Chinese. Almost all the theism/atheism debates I've seen on KZfaq involve atheists who grew up in a religious society, or who used to be a religious person. However, most Chinese grow up atheists, like me (although you may argue we are "irreligious" instead of "atheists"). So, when a Christian says, without God, there would be no morality. The interpretation for a Chinese is: Well, for thousands of years the Chinese people are either immoral or amoral, because there was never a worship of the Christian God. If we look at 2019, Prof. Lennox is pretty much saying, over 1 billion people (in China) do not understand morality. Just to be sure, I'm not picking a fight with you or anything. I'm responding to your comment simply because yours is so freshly written and I totally agree with you: Most comments are simply self-confirming. They've already made up their minds.

@@markvonsteiner3080 Lennox would argue that there is a moral law and that people can still be moral because nature clearly demonstrates and supports a moral law, but the question he begs is, where does the moral law come from. In other words he'd argue that morality is of God, and works because of God willed it to work like that. God is the great designer and everything works the way it works because of God. If you exclude God, morality becomes subjective and from a historical point of view, morality without God is evil. Excluding individuals from China, Chinas government has a plethora of problems and historical evidence that would support morality without God being bad.

Hitler abhorred the bible. He discarded the old testament for its "Jewishness" as well as all references to mercy, meekness, etc. He was a known practitioner of the occult. The third reich created the Reichskirche specifically to coopt the large group of professing Christians in Germany. You'll have to do better than that. The crusades were perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church, which, if you're unfamiliar, many people protested quite heartily in the early 1500's. Indeed, you'll find that many of us don't believe the RCC to be in step with the gospel of Christ at all, so the atrocities they committed are unsurprising.

@@Hylianamused Compare it to what scripture says. When Christ says, "turn the other cheek" "don't return reviling for reviling" "love your enemies" "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" and we see people advocate for war and murder, we can clearly see they are putting themselves in God's place and are not in obedience. And if you're referring to the Reichswehr, mentioning the word God hardly constitutes a theological position. Oaths of office in the USA also end with "so help me God" but America is legally a secular nation. To almost all that repeat the words, it's as chaff in the wind. I'm quite certain that as SS officers crushed people's skulls with their boots, they weren't considering the gospel which says, "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility," no? I'm certain that the call to take the gospel to all nations in Matthew 28:18-20, and the numerous mentions of the gentiles being equal heirs with the Jews who follow Christ did not enter the minds of those professing to be Christians when the KKK dragged people out and murdered them in the streets, not the same KKK which hates Jews as well as blacks? Jesus himself said that many will claim to be his followers, but that they will not be genuine. Their works are like filthy rags before him, and he's going to cast them from his presence. So why are we often so quick to believe that everyone who claims the name, "Christian," is in fact a true follower of Christ? By the same token, it would be easy to use Darwinism to argue for genocide. In fact, many have. Much of the genocidal atrocities of the 20th century can be traced to his theory of evolution. Do the horrors committed by those claiming to follow science negate the claims of science? Of course not. They stand or fall by their own merit. I would actually say that it is immensely difficult indeed for a Darwinist to argue that genocide is wrong at all. The only real argument you present is that of the old testament genocide, as you call it. And that is really where the rub lies for you. The actions of followers don't always speak for the beliefs of leaders, but the actions of the leader himself absolutely do. So your problem is with God himself, since God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites. Though you may think me monstrous, I won't actually defend this. If God created everything (and he did) and creation -us- rebelled against him (and we did) he has every right to destroy us. That we were created at all is by God's grace. That we remain after spitting in his face, by his mercy. If 10 people commit a crime and the president pardons one, that the other 9 are punished is not injustice, but justice. They are justly getting what they deserve. The pardoned one gets mercy. But not one of them receives injustice. The Canaanites received just payment for their sins. God used Israel in that day as his instrument to do so. Allow me to ask you the same question you ask me: "By what objective standard" do you say that any of what you mentioned is wrong?

@@elijah4606 you are so right, brother! it is so sad to see so many people lost..

So true!

It's The English language in it's correct form and use, other forms of our Launguage are based on a lazy wrongly spelt and incorrectly pronounced bastadized version, All one has to do is be prepared to learn it and how one uses it.

virgil Allen. Obsolutely correct.

Can't tell you how much I've learned from listening to these debates. I do think John Lennox

You should start reading more

virgil Allen. It’s “bastardised” in English in Britain. Also, only use “it’s” when you mean “it is”. Furthermore, try not to randomly capitalise words in the middle of a sentence and you may also want to look again at the grammar, spelling and structure of your sentences. If you have access to Microsoft Word it’ll put you right on most, if not all, of your paragraph above. Rule number one when being patronising....get it right yourself.

Oh my word thanks the introducer kept rambling about socrates

And ended up being outclassed

He should of gone for a pint

@@denniskiarie1984 what debate did you watch?

@@Raiddd__I wonder

who was the first person?

They're held in place by Scotch sweat and the wasted breath of the indoctrinated.

Those are nice glasses btw, damn i miss this gentleman.

too bad he couldn't see the truth of salvation through those greasy glasses

@@nancygerke1648 what truth?

@@FatherDingo Jesus

BRILLIANT ON BOTH SUBJECTS LETS YA GO 2 PLACES INSTEAD OF ONE. WE STILL END IN 1

So brilliant he was but such a fool.

Hitch is doomed. He had his whole life to see the light that God exists but his empty pride was more important to him. He'll resurrect from death when God does His judgment for unbelievers, then they will be shamed for their evil deeds in their life and then be thrown into the lake of fire and be no more, not even in memory. Hitch loved being clueless, just as his followers are. Even just seeing the existence of this all never got him to think. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

Hitch has opinion just like you. We live in ignorance until we get enlightment. The state of my ignorance is a state that is default by birth, environment, language, geography. Please forgive me that I don't know shit as much as you. The eternal fire base on my opinions is just as wicked. But we will see.

Both? Lennox just repeated his beliefs, gave zero evidence, and just invoked an unwarranted knowledge of the divine and the workings of miracles which he clearly does not have and cannot demonstrate.

@@SnakeWasRight Yes both

@@deadking8224 laughable

@@SnakeWasRight Nope

@@deadking8224 yep. Name one thing that Lennox said that was even remotely valuable... other than for ridicule.

though it was certainly civil (you know, they aren't killing each other or condemning each other to eternal fire); I would hardly think Hitchens conceded any points or facts in his argument at all. He was quite careful and grammatic and clear about his assertions. Indeed one of his challenges was left unmet, and many of the opponent's remarks are left in confusion: for example, the dr. Lennox says that, humans are 100% human. A bizarre statement and almost non sensical. Yes, we are human, but we are also very close and indeed 98% or closer to our primate cousins. So it's not only grammatically confusing but also says nothing about being created in a god image. Unless the implication is that we will be greeted by apes and other primates in the afterlife?? the bible makes no mention of them as far as I know? and of course makes no mention of the many other homo species which are evidenced in the fossil record and analyzed very carefully: their DNA and cultural lives. But they aren't there, they aren't mentioned in the bible which of course demonstrates they weren't known about and shows the bible and its tenets are very man made. It's just a shame they didn't know about our other human ancestors otherwise maybe they could be joining us in this so called afterlife haha

Never imagine for one moment that Mr Hitchens' mesmerising oratory delivered within civil discourse ever means he has conceded a point of any meaningful worth.

​@@joep6017The Bible isn't a science book. It doesn't mention EVERYTHING because it only focuses on how to be redeemed to God. It tells how everything began. But the main point is just letting us know who God is, that He loves us and wants us to be in a relationship with Him.

@@joeturner9219 yea, definitely not anywhere close to a science book - not even close. Anyway it's a pretty sadistic form of love: if you don't "love" the god in the bible it will condemn you to eternal punishment. That's an awful kind of love that I and many others want nothing to do with. It's fortunate there is no scientific basis for anything in that awful fictional book.

Hitchens now knows what lies beyond death and sees the other side

Former Christian, now Happy Orthodox Jew ☺️

@@logans.butler285 Christianity has more basis than Judaism, my friend.

@Paul d’Holbach You can't be a free thinker and an atheist. If atheism is true, and you're nothing more than chemicals, you're just reacting to signals in your head. So if your position is correct, then you're actually not free. Nice try at being a smartass.

Was atheist now the holly spirit is in me. 3:16

@@ross5506 Congrats, man! It's one thing to be an atheist, but being an anti theist is the height of intellectual arrogance imo.

Have you been to a university lately ? Where are you getting your information about this ?

@@luciennoxisou9502 yes,have you?

Which one,I've been to dozens

I have even worked at a university,have you

​@douglasparise3986 is it because of the rise of atheistic extremism?

You obviously didn't listen on any further 😂

akam ahmad When I began my terrifying walk away from religion into the unknown, it was this beautiful soul along with Richard Dawkins, and others who guided my way to sanity and freedom. Praise the great celestial tea pot!

Christopher "wish he had Jesus" Hitchens 😂.

100% miss that man ...

you seem to love hyperbole..."best wordsmith and orator that ever walked on earth"..ya right

@Church of Atheism There's nothing like atheists claiming the universe creating itself when nothing in the universe has been shown to create itself. And saying everything from nothing which violates the laws of conservation on the largest scale possible. And atheists claiming believers don't know science as atheists brag about: solar nebula theory, inflation, Oort clouds, Kuiper belts, dark matter, dark energy and the crown atheist-jewels: multiverse and Boltzmann brain conundrum. Oh, and the firing of career scientists who offer naturalism-alternative. Keep paying no attention to that man behind the curtain like a good little atheist-Dorothy. I'd have more respect if you'd admit you dont want there to be a Creator than hide behind the you-don't-know-multiverse. Oh, and tell everyone how you don't fear going to prison if you break the law [read: consequences in this life] How do you know there is no afterlife nor consequences after this life is over ?

@castroy64 - How many people do you suppose your god is going to send to an eternity of torment? He can't provide a better solution? Sounds like the ultimate evil and not very imaginative to not provide a better solution, after all he can do anything.

@castroy64 So when you add them all up, you'll know how many lives you've dishonored by using them to try to make a point, that's just not there. Not a single one of those was "in the name of Atheism". Not one.

@@freightshayker I might get to unwrapping everything you've just said, and it's quite a lot. But you HAVE to explain that last part. Because right now I'm sitting in my chair scratching my head trying to figure out if you really believe your own last statement.

@castroy64 show me any atheist doctrine that says to kill all non-non-believers... You'll find no such thing. And what does this have to do with my original post?

Bro, historians have more evidence that Jesus was real than Socrates. Jesus was an Israeli Jew, a Man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. The followers of Jesus, the apostles, died in horrific ways not because they were told to believe something, but because they believed something that they claimed to have seen. People don’t die for a lie they know, but rather people die for something they truly believe in.

John 19.34 "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." This statement shows that Christ did indeed die more than likely from heart failure and it's known as Pleural effusion, so even though John didn't know the science of what was happening, his description of the scenes are perfectly describing the events of the body that would happen after a person had been beaten and then successfully killed. So, therefor it's proof that Christ was not merely unconscious but clinically dead.

I found more reasons to be kept in ignorance. Good job buddy.

What would you say the primary differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God?

@@JackPullen-Paradox The Divine Trinity would be one.

could you give me a Quranic manuscript, before the 10th century, containing al fatiha? If so I will recite the shahada :)

Thank you

First of all without changing our criminal mentality what scientific advancement will help .it is no use . because we may produce nuclear weapons or biological weapons and we will destroy everything . science is not free is definitely depends on money donation .and money donation is coming mainly from military industry . military industry demand weapons for war and killing . therefore things are no so simple .why science not produce car to go without petrol it is forbidden to do so by petrol industry. So many examples of scientist being killed for providing such cars.science is influenced by very bad people there is no doubts about.another things is possible for science to provide or make life in laboratory is not possible . science can not make even one virus in laboratory .why science believe that life is coming from combination of elements .this is just speculation with no prove .or make something from nothing in your laboratory. Or make harmony and order after explosion science can not.science is just big speculation

Syzygy - Thank You very much....

Syzygy Yeah! Why get challenged on your world view? When you can resort to mockery, straw-mans & ad-hominems?!

Gibberish begins at 25:26. Knowledge and truth picks up again at 41:30

No

That is the current year

Here here.

Right with you

I em here

Lennex read his parts and when it came to exchanges he was slow and unconvincing.

The debate was called is God great. Not is there a God

He did. Were you not listening?

James Veerdog goddidit is not an answer

It is an answer. It's just not accepted answer based on scientific evidence. Of course anything not within nature or natural occurring can not be explaining by science so that isn't even a scientific question to raise. Thus if you ask it you aren't even asking for scientific method evidence unless of course you are dishonest and don't understand the basis of what you are asking. Not for or against here. Just stating the obvious.

Hitchens ‘believes’ that the Universe created him. Lennox believes God created him and the Universe. The Universe has a beginning, God doesn’t. That’s why when Lennox asks who created your creator, the question poses as a bigger challenge for the materialist then the theist. Lennox talks about this around Min 53:00

James Veerdog "the universe has a beginning, god doesn't" "who created your creator?" There is no difference between an infinite god or an infinite number of finite gods. Both infinities are of the same magnitude so there is no logical argument for one over the other. Therefore Lenkx argument is flawed. On the other hand the big bang model accounts for both the beginning of the universe and for an universe that existed forever. No god/gods needed.... Also is the hypothesis with the least amount of unknowns and speculations.

I love this comment.

Jonathan Kafoure what kind of god would give u a world of suffering

Both of these men are admirable? - are you kidding? Hitchens employs logic throughout while Lennox is a superstitious moron.

owen williams Some choice words about a guy who would probably give you the shirt off his back if you needed it.

Whether he would give me the shirt off his back does not prove the validity or accuracy of his doctrine- incidentally how did you assess that probability?

Not really! Lennox makes ridiculous claims that both contradict the realities of the world (needless suffering etc) and statements that are impossible to know. He's articulate and passionate but he's still peddling archaic views that cause so many problems in the world.

@@cliveshalice8490can you explain the contradictions?

@@josiah3408 I've already mentioned one; why the need for needless suffering in the world if God is all powerful and has the ability to stop it? Why does he show himself to the select few and not to all of us? How does Dr Lennox know his God supersedes all others, isn't that just faith?

CS Lewis addresses this in Mere Christianity. But be warned - a man who takes his atheism seriously can’t be too careful about what he reads.

@@mrwhisk863 I don't mean to be rude but that makes no sense whatsoever.

ikr funny everything came from nothing, and millions know Jesus as best friend by accident

@@davidisrael9412 yeah I'm sure paul was mistaken when he saw jesus fly up to heaven, then got himself killed DESPERATELY trying to spread Christianity. Bless you

@@josephsack4918 May Jesus bless you, and help you to read the bible, at least put it up for search about Paul and find out truly. also search Pauls salvation, and amazing grace, thanks

@@davidisrael9412 idk if you thought i was mocking.. i meant that he would never of done that. G-d bless you too tho! 😊

@@davidisrael9412 right, because genocide and mass murder committed by god is a good thing, and he is praised for it. Right, because god had a chosen group of people, which was racist. Doesn’t sound like something I want to folloe

Memes have taken over the hivemind. Nobody questions things and listens to people like Hitchens. Just braindead people farming upvotes with weird meme promulgation and zero thought.

@@tkbikesnc6079 they also don't listen to the uncomfortable truths of Jesus Christ

@@jimdee9801 what a load of absolute nonsense.

@@jimdee9801 They also listen uncomfortably as the theist spouts drivel and is totally owned.

@@allingtonmarakan1436 "owned" yeah hitchens didn't stop trying. It was petty.

It didn't age at all because something being "based" is unchangeable. If genital mutilation is based in religion. It stays that way. That's what "based" means.

Wokism is a religion

Doc Carter - How are you going to say that to a mathematician. I could bet anything he looked for logical evidence longer than you ever will for justifications of atheism.

Bet away. Won't help. I have Christopher Hitchens on my side and there is no evidence for the existence of a God/s.

Not until we die will we know who says the truth. See ya

FightforFlight _____ yes that’s pretty much it

*Why are we here?* *Were are here because of evolution...* That's not *why,* that's *how are we here.*

@@mosamuel7708 In that case why is really stupid question that doesn't have an answer

@@jokerxxx354 What stupid question?

@@mosamuel7708 Why question is question of causality, which implies what happened that resulted in the observation

2 Peter 3:10But the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2 Peter 3:12, my friend ♥️🙌🙏

@@damarissaleh2982heat death means no energy transfer will occur......the usniverse will become ice cold and dark ....... its thr complete opposite of getting heated by a star

There's plenty to Critique about lenox... but I didn't hear God of the Gaps once...

infinitely so...

RUSSIAN ROBOT You talking to yourself?

People arnt on that same level of thinking. They would rather go under mountain than over it.

Jim, There is another debate between Lennox and Richard Dawkins, like the one between Professor Lennox and Christopher Hitchens, that's also out and about, through various formats--that's available to people who like this kind of thing.

Jim Demers Lennox is a dishonest debater and demonstrates this by repeatedly lying to his audience. I find him a somewhat pathetic excuse as an intellect and clearly not a scientist.

I find the term "honest atheist" to be such a classic oxymoron!! That is just exquisite!! Quite excellent!! Like declaring a Judas-like, Christ-betraying, left-wing baby-murdering monster...as being 'trustworthy', 'truthful', and 'caring', and worthy of people's trust. Like being a Jew a century ago in Germany, and being demonically deceived into believing that Adolph Hitler was someone Jewish people could trust with their lives. Or Americans voting for left-wing betrayers of God and Country; and believing such lies as "the separation of church and state" (while the public education is morally disemboweled); and Satan's lie that murdering babies is a "woman's rights", insidiously!!

Gary Weidemann have a lie down or something mate, Jesus hasn’t done too much for your state of mind eh? And read your book dude, Jesus was a socialist.

Gary Weidemann and you bring your religious bullshit around my kids, and you’re going to have yourself a little problem. There are no gods.

the universe itself is evidence

The inability, maybe lack of desire, to know the difference between good and bad on an objective level, might actually result from the rebellion against the worship of God. Dinesh an amazing and decent man in a world suffering from indulgence in chaos, deception, and the kicking of a wild ass.

@@Rextrent I've always said the only 2 words one needs to know to be a religious apologist are "if", and "then" holy shit! I forgot all about "might" or "maybe" thanks

@@emach07 that's about the dumbest most vague philosophy ALMOST that I've ever heard...next to Hitchens and his complete lack of understanding to simple scripture a child can understand....along with most other atheists.

@@davidu8688 oooh, hit a soft spot eh? Your insults don't carry much weight to me David. You just stay in make believe land while the rest of us deal with actual reality XO

@@emach07 it's funny how you give no real rebuttal for your claims but only insults...remember you were the one who started with the insults bud...and lol, no, no "soft spot" at all. Unlike atheist who have no real evidence for their claims and only attack Christianity instead of proving their views, I can back up my talk.

@Brandon Aitken Why don'¨t you make like a tree and get the fook outta here

"your father was a hamster, your mother smelt of elderberries , I fart in your general direction" ..........has this statement redressed that balance a bit? :-)

@@jonfromtheuk467 Is there someone else up there we can talk to? - Go away or I shall taunt you a second time

@@FatherDingo A SECOND TIME???? You haven't done one yet....

@@jonfromtheuk467 Do bears shit in the forest??

Watch his other videos, he'll give you many. The time frame didn't let him to elaborate.

That's because there is no evidence for his position.

@@rottweilerfun9520 O yes, there are many. Just push the barrier of your bias away from your eyes.

He never supports his claims, he's pretty bottom barrel.

How about Jesus resurrection, the virgin birth, the putting back of a man's ear , this are biblical evidence that Lennox mentioned.

What circular reasoning was he doing?

Why does every scientist believe that the Bohr model of the atom is true? Because it explains the observations we make. There is no other external reason. But the internal coherence and consistency is the best evidence. That is NOT circular reasoning. On the contrary this is the best evidence you can get. What is the evidence that God exists and the Bible is true? Because it explains the observation we make perfectly. Gods vision and description of human reality which he explains in the Bible is stunning perfect, coherent and internal consistent. It couldn't be further from the distortions in the common notion of God. How can you refuse this without having read the bible in a completely unbiased manner? The only honest way to refuse God and the Bible is by reading the Bible without refusing it in advance but in order to search out IF it makes sense. Than and only than you can say Gods words do not make perfect sense and refuse him without lying to yourself. The only one who suffers if you are lying to yourself is you. So give the Bible a real chance and after reading it choose your way.

@@crusher1980 I found your comment really ironic, and I have to say that I totally agree with that last phrase. "Macro evolution" is not whatever you think it is, since most educated religious people all can understand it and see it's evidence, but you some people still thinks it is a threat to their religion, therefore refusing it. The truth is, evolution by natural selection is absolutely proven without the shadow of a doubt, and to think that small changes in DNA over thousands of years, when done over millions of years, can't bring big changes in DNA is simply delusional. If you still don't understand evolution and if you still don't accept it's crushing amount of evidence, I recommend asking to your own religious people that understand it and knows it to be true. I don't know what are your precise beliefs, but know that the pope has accepted evolution, so I think that maintaining the empty hope that it is not factual is empty hope and blind fate. I'd like to end this point with a rather interesting point: the more someone understands the evidence and ideas of evolution, the more they are likely to believe it. Shouldn't the opposite be right, if it had no basis on truth? From the first phrase of the second paragraph, "It astounds me that people can believe nothing exploded and created everything randomly perfectly, such a nonsense", it is clear that you misunderstand evolution. It is neither random nor perfect! Natural selection is absolutely not chosing the genes that are more likely to be passed on randomly, or it wouldn't even work! Perfection is clearly not achieved by evolution, only the best natural selection can come up with, and the last people that really think that creatures that roam this earth are perfect are the religious fundementalists that think that they were made in the image of God by an "intelligent design", even if this has been debunked too many times in the past. Also, I'd like to point out the multiple bits of irony that are contained in this comment. You call evolution that occurs during millions and billions of years "a philosophy, a religion", as if it was an insult to proofs, and even if I kinda agree with that, it is not a good stance to take when you are trying to discredit atheism and proving the existence of God. Then you go on about conspiracy theories, and I hope not to have to explain how ridiculous this is, since that would almost be an insult to your intelligence how patronizing that would be. Also you talk about your prophesies, but I've read them and they really aren't convincing since they mostly are either self-fulfilling or not evidence based and/or proved.

@@andreasx641 What personal observation led you to conclude this god you've mentioned exists?

crusher1980 I believe in Santa

I nearly choked on a grape when reading this comment XD You made my day :D Thank you :)

Setekh lol same

There are many false claims and illogical inconsistencies in Hitchens' claims, but he presents himself very confident - to me he looks arrogant and rude.

Wokism is a religion

was, he would really be disappointed of you if you would propose the possibility he would still exist after his death :)

isinox shut up

I believe Hitchens used the Wu-Xi Fingerhold on Lennox :) but anyway, I see you are a man of culture as well!

@@parintelebaiazid80 Didn't work cause John was already a spirit.

@@blackwiddowflainfrost6705 if he were, he would have had better arguments. Also would be hanging out with Master Oogway :)

Lennox lies about Jesus bringing the sword

Hey my guy I found you here.. I am watching it as you suggested .. 😊

@@shashankshekhar6952 😀

+q

He owns hitchens in this debate. But you are well aware of it.

he mopped the floor with hitchens luxurious hair!

All evil done on purpose has been done by those without *true belief* in God/Jesus. If all the people (over history and nowadays, especially the leaders) would have followed the main commandment from Jesus Christ, *besides to love / respect our Heavenly Father, to love / respect (care for) the other humans as we love / respect (care for) ourselves,* all the crimes and the tremendous useless suffering would have never happen. Without *true belief* in God/Jesus, the following evil facts have happened, are happening and will happen: - so many millions of people killed in wars and not only (following the killing of billions in the Third World War); - so many trillions of dollars, euros, etc. wasted on nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapons, on armies, etc. only for killing and destruction; - so many trillions of dollars, euro ... not used for: free better education for ALL, suitable jobs for ALL (without exploitation / slavery), healthier food for ALL, renewable energy, science, eradication of all diseases, financing of useful inventions, recycling, reforestation etc. - sadism, violence, dishonesty, vices, envy ... stupidity in general. We should never fight against each other but only against our lack of useful knowledge / wisdom (for decreasing our ignorance), while loving / respecting each other as we love / respect ourselves, these being the main requests of God/Jesus. Therefore, both science and proper education are very important to understand God's creation and what is better, regarding the human behavior, so that ALL of us can be not only happier in our ephemera life into this world (while we are still alive here) but also deserving, or at least allowable, for perpetual life in Heaven (after leaving this world). What anyone should understand is that here is not Heaven but an altered&ruled world by the fallen angels, *allowed as an exam to prove to the Creator how good we really are, how much we love perfection and how much we detest evilness=stupidity,* to prove that we are not following the demons anymore, through our deeds (by striving only for good, for perfection) in this short earthly life, which will be judged 100% correctly for each of us. I wish only well to everyone and as much wisdom as possible for everyone!

Yes, see my commentary today, please.

Me too, casting it on my TV and sinking an ale.👍

Here I am.

Watching now

Yes

Thank you for existing!

Anon lol

hitch got slaughtered!

RUSSIAN ROBOT - hahaha you learn more from people you don’t know when you’re older

RUSSIAN ROBOT - I thought Dr Lennox had pretty good apologetics to counter the Atheist rants by Hitchens, may he rest in peace.

I think it is not... I think his main argument is that science doesn't exclude the existence of God. Lennox argues that science itself is founded in a faith in a Supernatural God and that some of the great and undisputed scientists believed in that God and found support for that believe in science.

With so many different versions of Christianity, I don't see how anyone could ever possibly cover them all.

@@moodyrick8503 there are plenty types of Atheism too… keep with the subject at hand

@@eddyekofo5102 Atheism is a single position on a single question. If you lack belief in a God, _you are an atheist._ If you have belief in a God, _you are a theist._ Everything beyond that, is a separate issue. *Yes of course, atheists believe in many different things beyond "the God question", as do theists.* But all of that is secondary, to the question of _belief in a God or a lack of belief in a God (s)._ (atheist/theist) *The issue at hand :* Not all Christians believe the same things, to the point that, no single argument is going to apply to them all.

@RUSSIAN ROBOT Only those who are delusional think that XD

RUSSIAN ROBOT That’s a very weak argument. Where is your evidence????

RUSSIAN ROBOT 1: There is no evidence for God. 2: Personal Experience is not evidence for God, as only the person who went through the experience can verify it. How are we to believe them? For all we know, they are lying/delusional or both. 3: Those who believe in God are, in fact, controlled and persuaded by beliefs/dogma/agenda/ignorance/delusion and more. 4: Atheism is the lack of belief, get it right. 5: Personal/Direct experience is the WORST evidence, as it is only evidence for those who actually experience it (and that’s assuming they weren’t mistaken). 6: As science has been finding out more things about the world, the more it becomes apparent that your God is false. Deal with it.

mommy, please tell me a disney fairy tale before i go to sleep; okay honey: 'once upon an ancient time, in a far far away middle east kingdom; lives most of the illiterate goat herders who hallucinates a book called the holy bible... ' . if the christian god is great, then why waste time with the debates?! . and check this one out...! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fp51YJihmKrIhZc.html&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3hnH139Q33DV9A6-_1K8Z3Z63OUJLu9DAGkLT-vsvB_HIKdA2wK0d08jE

@@jz5jo Mommy, tell me a story. Okay, hun. Once upon a time, space, time, matter, and energy all came from nothing for no reason at all - and from nothing at all. The big bang, which created the universe, was so fine-tuned by nothing - that if every subatomic particle in the universe was a zero, you could add every atom, too, and the number still couldn't be completed. Life began from non-life; order from chaos; non-intelligence created intelligence; nothing created everything. Wow, mommy, that's a heck of a story. Ah, but there is more, hun. Atheists, in their infinite brilliance, have to hold to a hypothesis called the multiverse to get away from inconvenient truths regarding the universe (despite there being no evidence - or any way to test it.) Mommy, do people believe that? They sure do hun. Wow, that's too much of a fairy tale for even me!

ShattForte - You mean the evidence he presented in the debate? Did you even watch it? Atheist with head stuck in sand: “What evidence for god? I don’t see any evidence!” 🤣😂🤣😂

Steve Sorenson Haha, funny. He didn’t present proper evidence and nor will you XD

Chelsea G - “proper” evidence? 🤣😂🤣😂 more denial. Theist: Here’s evidence for god Atheist: That’s not evidence. Theist: Yes it is. Atheist: well, er, um, it’s not PROPER evidence (atheist sticks head back in sand). 🤣😂🤣😂

Steve Sorenson You fail to realise that Bible verses isn’t evidence. Actually provide proper evidence, and those who are intellectually more capable than you will determine whether what you present is evidence or not. Because believe it or not, sweetheart, just because you deem something as evidence or “proper” evidence - doesn’t mean it is. It has to be demonstrable, falsifiable, repeatable, etc. Everything you have put forth so far is none of those. Try again.

@@stevesorenson892 An atheist doesn't seek to disprove God. If you actually presented feasible evidence, we would change our minds. You haven't. And even so, if you prove God exists, how do you prove it is the God of the bible or the God of the Qur'an? To make baseless assumptions like this makes genuine theists look bad, you're strawmanning us and assume we actively seek to deny God. Atheism is not an active position unlike theism. Your argument would only work with Gnostic atheism, not with Agnostic Atheism. If you're going to make an argument, try to sound rational.

selfademus You may be assuming a relationship like a husband and wife or brother to brother but in this case it is Creator to creation. The Creator gave the created all things. Life, free-will, purpose and everything else. He has the last word.

Elio Puyol. You may be assuming Creation is like granny making a cake or Johnny building his lego , but in this case (where or how did our universe come about) it is something very profound of which we humans cannot just draw simple parallels and demand there be a Creator similar to a “man” using imaginary special powers to conjure things from a human like mind. To imagine up a god as a likeness to humans is very limited and incredibly speculative. And to take that idea and indoctrinate and force it onto others and children is abuse of power and I am thinking inquisition and many other similar and many governments still use tax money helping whatever religion takes their fancy. Disgraceful oppression.

blanca roca I totally agree with you. I don’t think we know much of the power of which God created creation. I also agree God doesn’t have a human like mind(his thoughts and ways are higher than our ways). God is nothing like us. And forcing a belief on someone is very oppressive, I agree! And there are many “Churches” that are tax excepted that are actually robbing people, I agree.

blanca roca As far as creation, the scriptures in Romans 1:20 “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: And as far as following the truth Jesus says, “Take heed that one deceives you” Matthew 24:4 And “Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord...” Matthew 7:22 So one verse tells us we can see(science, study) creation has a creator. And the other verses says we must be careful and diligent to following the truth.

roca omg you're so insightful I remember being abused and oppressed as a child, please go on oh wise one. tell all children we dont know until we know it in the future (maybe we will know it then)

Both lightweights

Good thinking! Atheists answer 'why' with: that is not valid question, and theists answer: God, it says so in the Bible.

@@cynic150 - and why does the Bible say so? God! Round and round they go

Considering his past performance, I think having Hitchens debate one of the potted plants behind him would have been an upgrade from D'Souza.

If you watch Hitchens debate Berlinski, it is obvious that he excels at 1) "zingers" designed to condescend and make drones laugh, and 2) spouting his rehearsed talking points and completely ignoring the topic at hand. It's a bit annoying to anyone but a fanboy and disingenuous to the truly interested listener.

@@kylealford23 Yet.... You still don't have your personally preferred imaginary friend. How does that make you feel?

@@WilbertLek Sorry, I'm not fully understanding your point about imaginary friends. That may be because how I process information is predetermined, and I have no ability to transcend the information given and the processing ability of my own brain. It sucks to be a humanist automaton with no ability to assess the validity of a truth claim. My feelings are also predetermined from what I understand.

@@kylealford23 So it makes you angry that your personally preferred imaginary friend only lives in your brainwashed head. Gotcha... 👍🖖🖕😘

Exactly!!! Cross examination is the best part of the debate. SMH

This is what actual debates are. Back and forths are fun but they are not part of a formal debate format

YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A FORMAL DEBATE IS, THIS IS NOT KZfaq COMMENT SECTION THAT WE ARE SEEING LOL

If you are patient, and at all observant, you'll realize that while one is speaking, the other is listening carefully and preparing remarks. Because it sounds nothing like the violent blowout in the family kitchen is precisely the point of a formal debate.

John Lennox has it set up that way so he can use all sorts of rhetoric and fallacies and get away with it.

True. But sadly, some Atheists seem to think and want them to be enemies. They're not. They actually are friends and colleagues. Just because people have different beliefs doesn't mean they aren't friends.

​​​​​​@@joeturner9219 I can promise you its not just some athiests. It takes 2 to tango in some cases. I think the catholic churches response to enlightenment thinkers proves this is a 2 way streak. If you listen to some of the nasty comments richard dawkins gets from christians condemning him to rape from the devil in hell, calling him a faggot, wishing him a painful death etc these aren't paticularly friendly. Anyone that thinks it's just athiests that try to fuel this is looking at this subjectively. There is definetely some hostility but I feel some athiest animosity comes from religion's constant attempts to interfer in politics, education and state affairs. You are more than entitled to believe in your beliefs but once you start infringing on others rights and try to influence political decisions and science classes you cross the line. This certainly a 2 way street with religious freedoms sometimes enfringed by athiests but the extent of religion interfering in politics is far too great. Most examples of religous infringement historically are in communist totalitarian states where religion is viewed as Karl Marx viewed religion so is considered a threat to the ideology. Its not the athiesm itself that fueled it but the ideology itself that fueled it. Of course athiests try and belittle the opinions of Christians too and many refuse to look at some of the positives of religion. As I say it's works both ways.

I'm surprised you think so. Clearly you didn't listen Lennox's answers.

Well hitchens is dead and I guess his winebibbing assisted in his already given death sentence the moment he was born. Morality means distinction between right and wrong, good or bad, hence law, hence law giver, henceforth GOD! Believe me hitchens met the Judge.

And notice how he made sure to slip it in at the very end with no chance of rebuttal. One might think that says even more

@@miguelacornelio9193 Which one of the gods exactly? Mister Lennox will have a few thousand to answer to on his death, if the religion stuff is to be believed.

@@MrSigmatico Kim if you will allow. I to was an athiest. Bound by my own understanding of things in the natural world. A world of pride and lust. If you want something then take it by any means available. A world full of injustice and cruelty, of false religions, gods and science FALSELY SO CALLED. I had to put aside my own understanding of religion and gods. You see I could no longer get away with doing to others the very same thing that I hated done to me. I realized that there must be justice outside of our ability to corrupt and manipulate for our benefits or gains. In the simplest way I knew how, I reached out to this unknown God. He allowed me a glimpse of who He is. Not by miracles and wild eyed experience that can be easily cast aside by nay Sayers and doubters but by reasoning with me thru Godly wisdom, knowledge and understanding. He is not a god that can be easily manipulated. I too stand under His judgement. That is why it is easy for me to see creation and a Creator just as a watch and know that there is a watch maker. A God who has a plan that involved all of His Creation and His Son Jesus Christ. Truth stands alone in the midst of overwhelming falsehood as a true dollar bill in the midst of overwhelming counterfeit dollars.

@@miguelacornelio9193 The thing is if you know god excists you no longer have faith and then god stops excisting it says so in the bible, which is the reason Hitchens is not in hell, Hitchens never believed in god and as such there is no god for him and as a result no heaven nor hell.

Proverbs 18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

@@royog3088 Quoting the bible, only works weak minded cult members like yourself. We're all well aware that the bible is nothing more than a book of bronze age fables