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.

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!

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.

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.

Did anyone watch debate one and then debate two and realize Turek literally has the exact same arguments, almost word for word?

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.

“The absence of knowledge doesn’t prove the existence of a higher power”

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".

Thank you very much, quite Stimulating.

Since this debate is 10 years old I would love to hear from anyone who attended as to their thoughts.

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.....

1:13:47 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.

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.

Can spiritual beings reside in the Quantum Field, and define the laws, physics and the biologies of a spiritual being according to Nature?

Frank’s nonsensical gish gallop sprinkled with mined quotes is just further evidence that he doesn’t have sufficient evidence for his God.

29:50. Hitchens:" We are looking for patterns. We ARE DESIGNED to look for them."

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?

This is a very fun debate

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.

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.

47:00 - every time Frank says, "The universe is not eternal", I hear, "The universe is not a turtle!"

The speaker interaction Q&A starts at 106:00

The ending is so incredibly powerful…

My name's James Taylor and after our debate I will be singing "Fire and Rain".

Frank: im going to talk fast now! Also frank: proceeds to talk talk at the same rate but louder.

Hitchens was so gifted, his use of irony was so poignant at arriving at the crux of his points, whether you side with him or not I think it’s only fair to give the man his props for his impeccable debating skills, it’s not to say he never lost or conceded points but just listening to him speak is a real joy

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able not willing? Then why call him a god?

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?

Frank...Why must you shout?

30:18 all you need to know to understand.

*_"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?

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

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.

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.

I want to know what the guy in the middle thinks

Any fans of The Office? Frank Turek is the Michael Scott of Christian Apologetics!

It's amazing how psychotic they get every time they feel their piece of bread is being questioned.

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.

there is a college in New Jersey???

Only one winner here and it ain't 'shouty' Frank.

People like Dr Turek stregthens my Atheism

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.

in church specialy born again, speaking in front of many people start at very young age. they are all good in story telling.

Atheism, no magic needed

In a twist of the irony he so much loved, Hitchens has the patience of a saint here.

6 years ago a great brilliant man died. I salue you hitch. Your legacy will give you in a sense immortality

RIP Christopher, even though we had/have different beliefs

The way the mediator looks at Hitchens, he, to me, looks like he is in awe.

Why does Turek keep insisting the universe couldn't possibly come from "something out of nothing"? What makes him (alonng with the carefully chosen opinions of others) think there was "nothing" simply because we don't yet have an identifier or description for that "nothing"? One more question: Does the degree of volume used to answer a question (even a question you yourself asked) imply the rhetoric's veracity? Turek's insistence on shouting every sentence indicates he was trained to speak with the intent of waking the sleeping... or the deceased. It's difficult to find meaning in words delivered at the sound level of a military fighter jet readying for take-off!

I just watched their first debate, and 1 thing i noticed is that dr. Turek's opening argument is completely the same word for word (even the jokes at the beggining) as the opening argument of the first debate. That leads me to think that he is just a showman doing a rehearsed show. The fact that this is not just accepted, but praised and admired by the audience doesen't actually surprise me since its the USA.

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.

1:14:26 Hitchslap one million 🔥🔥🔥😭😭😭😭😭

Hitchens obliterated this guy, I feel bad the for the schitzo

are we just gonna sit here and pretend most Atheist commenting here, can't hear Krauss shout all day and night?

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.

How about Frank vs Matt Dillahunty next.

Turek speaks about things as Hitchens said humanity is not 100% sure yet

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.

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.

Atheism doesn't need to explain anything. The burden of truth lies with the faithful.

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

"If I can't be erect I can at least be upright." -Hitch

Turek opened exactly the same way he did last time, like some kind of comedian and this is his standup routine...

Anyone else here just fast forwarding to the Hitchens parts?

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…

What a closing statement from Mr Turek. Wow!!!

That closing statement gives me Goosebumps.

If you want to learn something from this debate (or anything in life) all you have to do is accept your uncertainty.

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?

Far out this "doctor" is doing my head in. How is he so blindly mistaken about the atheist view of the big bang? The fact the universe has a beginning does not at all imply a beginner and we dont at all claim it came from nothing or was eternal.

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."

Dude confuses shrieking with righteousness.

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.

I love how Turek started by doing very simple math incorrectly. He said 200 pages = 20pg/min x 20 minutes

We have no choice but to have free will.... that's gonna resonate for a while.

I didn't see a lot of arguments from Hitchens that related to the beginning of the universe. He talked about religious fallacies but he didn't talk a lot about the origin of the universe.

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...

When u appeal to emotional your arguments are an empty box, fantastic final statement frank

'Einstein's theory has been proven to five decimal points' .. wtf does that mean? Literally gibberish

youtube scholars, you got to love them. There's just something about a screen that makes people think they got the answers. .

"Life as we know it would be impossible" without certain variables. Okay, so why not life as we do not know it? As in, since life evolved here by scrabbling for every scant resource it could get, why wouldn't the variables of a different universe lead to life taking advantage of whatever resources were available there? Seriously, 11 minutes in and all Frank is doing is showing how unimaginative he is. "If I can't come up with a better possibility, the answer must be God, and just that I'm limited in thinking of possibilities."

Theres two mentions of the virgin birth - not one. Both matthew and luke talk about it.

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.

I love Turek's deconstruction of Hitchens' arguments at the end. Starts at 1:57:49.

28:11 “…….observable creation…..” What? I thought he believed the universe just happened to start existing at one point, after it hadn’t existed

The comment from Turek attempting to rebutt Hitchen's use of Hume's argument misses the point entirely - it wasn't that the common should be believed and the rare denounced; some totally natural events are rare - it's that the repeatable and measurable physical laws of nature should be taken as more likely true/accurate/ representative of truth and reality than events that deviate from the physical laws of nature i.e. the supernatural.

I am a member of the party of Hitchens on this but I like Turek's quote "Nothing is what Rocks dream about".

1:14:32- Classical Hitch

Isn't it amazing that Hitchens qouted Rabbi Hillel the teacher of Apostle Paul but denied the fact that Apostle Paul existed?

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

We need to look at what the debate topic is... "what best explains reality", I watched this and tried to ignore my predispositions. And lets be real, Hitchens didn't even debate this at all. He just talked about all the bad things that have come from religion over Earth's history. At least Turek addressed this question and debated what was supposed to be debated.

Way to reuse that intro, Turek. Really brought it to life the second time around

From 4:40 to 4:55 He makes the statement that cosmologist suggest an eternal beginning. I would love to hear which cosmologist actually makes this statement.

Why does Turek always sound like he's preaching? IF I PROJECT LOUDLY, I'LL BE MORE BELIEVABLE!

the title of the video is an ill-formed question. atheism is not a philosophy, or an explanation or even a claim. it's a position on a claim, that claim being "gods(or a god) exist", and that position being "i dont believe you". that's it. there's nothing more to it. it's kinda boring to propose a debate about atheism.

Whether you're atheist, agnostic, deist or theist... Turek had literally no chance against Hitch.

Frank Turek's proposition of saying that Zeus was 'in the world' is totally false, that is not what the Hellenes believed. Zeus was the Demiurge (Craftsman) he was the creator of the heavens, cosmos and the world. Zeus was separated from the world but also in it, in that he was present in peoples lives, a persona god.

If the universe needs a design, how do you come up with the designer(s)