Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox | Can Atheism Save Europe? Debate
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 03. 2017
- A New Europe is emerging from the old order and with it, a modern version of an old philosophy. Dubbed the New Atheism, advocates are calling for the abandonment of Europe's religious heritage and the adoption of an aggressive secularism. Religion is detrimental to society, they argue. Indeed, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, it "poisons everything."
Some, such as professor John Lennox, strongly disagree. They maintain that, far from undermining society, the preservation of religious though, and Christianity in particular, is vital to the survival of Western civilization.
All this leads to the inevitable questions: Should atheism replace Christianity in Europe? Does atheism have a better record than Christianity? And finally: where would the New Atheism lead the New Europe? (Filmed August 2008)
John Lennox is a well read man. He tells of his father giving him a book at the age of 13 titled "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx. His father told Lennox that it was important "to know what others think." I believe this enhanced Lennox ability to defend his position fervently using the words of those who oppose Jesus and his teachings. Lennox often cites agnostics, atheists, philosophers, mathematicians, scientists...etc. His opponents only go as far as citing themselves and others in their exclusive circle. This to me is key to Lennox ability to structure and present very eloquent counter arguments. The sheer amount of knowledge required to respond to various topics citing works in a short and concise way is truly masterful on the part of John Lennox.
Well said, Hitchen arrogance, and mockery of Christianity and poor understanding of what Christian fundamental doctrines are was obvious. Especially when He made out like Jesus told His followers to 'take up the sword'! Yes, it pays to understand what your opponent actually believes and what His Master actually taught!
@@rodneyhorrell when jesus said "I come not to bring peace but a sword" what exactly did he mean? Hitchens lack of understanding you say? He is one modern times pre eminent thinkers and educators.
@@seanmcgaharan8081 If you actually read the Scripture related to it and the context you will know.
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
But more revelation is in the parallel Gospel of Luke where Jesus says 'division' not 'sword'. So we get more understanding of what he meant.
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
So the 'sword' divides not 'physically' but relationships. Especially the family. And we all know that many of those that turn to Christ for salvation have experienced rejection and persecution within their own families.
It's like when Jesus said you must be 'born again'. Then He explained it was of the Spirit of God that we must be 'born again' (John 3). The Word of God is described like a 'sword' dividing the soul and the spirit (Hebrews 4:12) Jesus is described as having a 'sword' coming out of His mouth in His second coming Revelation 19. So context is the key to understanding Scripture and to realize not everything Jesus said is literal but he uses exaggerated language and parables etc, etc.
Lennox using other people's opinions is actually fallacious. While his knowledge and oratory skills are very impressive, truth is not a matter of opinion. And neither is the existence of god. It doesn't matter how many people believe god to exist for that to be actually true. Citing endless people who believe or don't believe in god is in itself bad reasoning.
Well said. John Lennox is a great debater
I just love the fact that Richard Dawkins is sitting in there watching 7:56
hate him or love him, he listens to everyone and is a man of science.
@@Manysdugjohn Is that to mean he is influenced by money?
@@Mr196710 how did you come up to that conclusion from my words?
also looks like Billy Corgan showed up too a couple rows behind him lol
at 2:26 - his name comes on the screen too
I cannot believe how much Hitchens ghosts his argument to confuse the rational stand he tries to make.
0:45 - I am not saying anything, just observing the difference in the way Hitchens and Lennox treated the Mic guy.
Then why pointing out? When helping Hitchens he had equipment in his both hands. While equiping lennox he had all equipments on his book/notes. And went for a handshake. Pls don't make such misunderstood comments
Thanks for posting, thought I'd seen every moment of Hitch on YT!
Two great debaters. I have to say though that I would have loved to hear more back-and-forth between them, like in the Dawkins Lennox debate!
Exactly, this debate form is ineffective
Love these older debates!
All I can say is, I’d hate to debate either of these men, but feel honored to be in either of their presence... props to them both
Only one of them speaks the truth.
@@zosia8308 🤦
@@burlapsack1418 ,... Christopher Hitchens is intellectually dishonest.
@@zosia8308 he raises some interesting points... he is very cynical and appears to me as a man of rage, but I would have loved to have a chat with him about a topic that would be less sensitive to him, to see what kind of dude he was...
@@burlapsack1418 ,... Yes, that would be interesting. Personally, I think, as long as you don't mention a God the creator or consequences of sin you would see a very different and maybe even intellectually honest person.
I always find it strange to hear the question of whether atheism can do anything. It's the lack of a belief in god or gods. It doesn't 'do' anything, anymore than a lack of belief in faeries does something, or the lack of belief in dragons can achieve something.
It isn't a belief system. It's the lack of a specific belief system.
It's a world view. Therefore a belief system. The lack of a belief system would be open to any and all beliefs or perhaps even closed to any and all
@@user-nv2en9gb9o It isn't even a world view. It's the absence of one thing. What else that person chooses to believe or how they view the world is up to them.
To touch on your last point for instance, I'd never claim that no gods exist. I'll draw the line at saying I don't hold a belief that they do, which is a different thing. People should always hold the door open for something possibly being true, and then its just a matter of appropriate evidence for the claim.
We either find evidence that satisfies us, or we don't. I didn't, some do.
I think the lack of belief is too passive, and with no disrespect to my atheist brothers and sisters, I think it's a bit dishonest.
@@emtiedvessel It's an interesting topic to drill down to. Essentially, at what point does disbelief that something exists turn into belief that it doesn't exist? One is refusal to accept a claim, and the other is to make a claim.
As near as I can see, the first part of that is justifiable by lack of evidence for the existence of a thing, but the second half is very hard to justify. If we accept the premise that "absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence", then you cannot 100% prove something does not exist. Therefore it's prudent to keep the possibility open, until sufficient evidence comes to light.
That's where I'm at. I remain entirely unconvinced that a god or gods exist, but I'm not willing to state they don't and stand behind that claim to defend it.
@@Rekaert You say that it's a lack of belief that comes from the lack of evidence. Why do you reject the evidence that has been presented this far? What specific criteria does it not pass?
I completely disagree with Christopher Hitchens about almost everything, but I still think it is almost impossible to not find him likeable. I wish he were still here. John Lennox is probably my favorite apologist, followed closely by Frank Turek. Hope the Lord keeps using them.
So the Lord only hires "the best people", huh? :-)
There is nothing to disagree with Hitchens as his arguments are based on facts, not on opinions. You can shove them under the carpet to the extend your indoctrination allows it. But disagree ? Nobody ever debating Hitchens managed to dent his position.
U seem like a Christian by ur last sentence so let me ask, what r Christian apologists apologising 4?
Ye, and i think John lennox as a scientists asks "Who" Instead or "How" to the origin of universe, thats what made me lose respect for him.
Lennox quotes Dawkins to Dawkins as he sits there! 37:40
Great to see an opponent give it back! An excellent watch.
Yep...Hitchens was brilliant. Normally the assertion that they simply just know the Truth is enough for the Religious person to overwhelm any possible challenge to their view, but Mr Hitchens doesn't take it lying down :)
At 4:10, who is he referring to when he says "the late George W. Bush"?
I think he was using late to mean 'former president'. But not sure.
what I also find interesting: when average christians debate average atheists it gets nowhere, when Scientist debate educated Christians it's 50/50, but when Scientists debate christian Scientists, they always lose because they are so arrogant that they think you can't be both and have no argument when you prove you can.
absolutely! well stated
The religious completely lose every argument they ever engage in. The score is 100% victory to secular atheistic thinking and 00% *(Thats ZERO PERCENT)* victory to religious thinking.
You also *cant* have both, so please by all means name me a religion thats compatible with science and the scientific method, I'll wait.
@@MrRABC1 Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong.
@@espi371
Simply saying I am wrong is about as valid as screaming at the sky. .. please by all means tell me a scientific question that has been answered by science that is now answered better by religion? I'll wait .. . .
@@MrRABC1 Answer a religious question that has been answered better by science, e.g. Why am I here?
I enjoyed the conversation between both gentlemen during the debate. Both men are truly brilliant thinkers with different points of view. .
Lol@Richard Dawkins, in the crowd..
7:55
In case anybody is wondering. :)
WOW!!!! I never saw that before! Thx
I just saw that!
18:37 do you see Richard Dawkins in the middle, what a coincidence
This was a decent debate and I really appreciate that it remained civil, however I heard that Christopher Hitchens was a skilled debater and I did not see that here. John Lennox debated using intelligence and historical facts and events, while Hitchens seemed to debate from a moral standpoint, while completely misunderstanding what the Bible says and what John Lennox Point really was.
I don't think there was any question as to who won this debate however I hope to see a better showing from Hitchens next time these two Titans decide to debate. Personally I don't care whether you believe in God or not, but if you don't I am genuinely curious as to why you think there is good and evil, and why evil is actually evil instead of just following the tenants of survival of the fittest. Why should men not rape women if they are physically more dominant then them? Questions like that or something I am interested in from an atheistic viewpoints. And if you consider rape and murder and assault and stealing and so forth wrong, then we're that those moral viewpoints come from? As long as a conversation or debate stays civil I am completely fine with whatever the outcome, because in the end the reality is no one truly knows despite all the bravado and claims and we will only find out after death.
After 3 years......no one has dared to attempt to answer you.........
You should of been a bit more like hitchens.......be a bit more insulting. That usually gets the attention.
@@user-fb2jb3gz1d Nah, I prefer standing on my argument and not relying on emotional outbursts and insults, I leave that for their kind.
@@Dante-mw2ez now that is exactly how to have a discussion, rather to resort to using debate tactics.
@@dontreadmyname435 I’ve seen it, good debate despite Christopher’s obscene arrogance. WLC is very good at what he does, but Lennox astounded me.
Good qs. There are so many to ask. One thing you said about nobody knowing till death. I used to think that. I don't any more. Like Socrates you can follow the evidence where it leads, but when you reach the realm of experience, how you interpret it changes to knowing- for yourself, though that doesn't translate into proof for a stranger. My experience is that you can have an encounter and a relationship with God, but unless you intimately know me, you're not going to be impressed by that statement, because anybody can claim anything. 🙂
When did this actually take place?
The fact that the world is filled with many religions and gods shows these religions explanation lay with anthropology rather than the supernatural.
Supposing one of the gods from the main religions created the universe and then only revealed itself to one small tribe, letting the rest of humanity die in ignorance for generations is absurd.
mega jay Jesus came at the perfect time because that’s when an explosion of the worlds population happened. So the world was no filled with ignorance, well the majority wasn’t.
@@illegalsnow5900 It was Roman Jews who started Christianity so it spread over Europe, but the rest of the world- Asia, India, Africa, Americas, had never heard Abrahamic faiths for thousands of years - that’s millions of people dying in ignorance - Why wouldn’t God not want everyone on this small ball of rock in space to know ….
It wasn’t until Europeans went over trying to convert people that many became aware - the Chinese Emperor regarding Jesus said “if events of such importance have happened, why have I not heard of it?”
Religions seem more based around cultural anthropological reasons than anything else …
atheism is essentially a religion. Today, an atheist's life revolves around their atheists and if they say it doesn't they are lying. There are copies of the one true God and to think creation happened without an intelligent cause is idiotic.
You can believe what you want to believe, just be honest! Atheism is not "simply a lack of belief", it is the belief there is no God. I disagree with you, therefore, to justify your position, prove that creation can happen without an intelligent cause. The facts are what the facts are, creation CANNOT happen without an intelligent cause so the argument now becomes; what intelligent cause?
@@frosty_soda not at all - in most of Europe people just don’t believe in the mythology of the main religions. While whether there’s a god or not is left as an unknown- so atheism isn’t a religion, it’s just a disbelief in those books of the past people assert are true
While everything we’ve observed gets created by emergence so so could be the cosmos if it’s infinite. Or there could be a divine cause - it’s ok to admit we don’t know…
How do you explain a Jewish religion comprising billions of people from all across the globe if what you say is true?
Lennox is lit🔥
Yeah he is. I wish I have known him years ago.
Lennox, the amalgamation of strawmen and ignorance.
I notice bitter/arrogant Dawkins is incapable of applauding Prof Lennox after his opening
Must be atheistic courtesy
noemad70 , how can someone applaud who’re not speaking by heart but only reading.
Bitter and arrogant? Calm down buddy
@@dcassis3051 He's neither bitter nor arrogant. As an atheist, I find such behaviour from fellow atheists repugnant when they can't acknowledge a strong argument. That is the highest form of arrogance and childishness. Hitchens lost, but he admitted it.
@@ROCKETDREAMS I find myself aligned with what you said. Hitchens was awesome in the way he carried himself, Dawkins is just arrogant.
The grammar of the motion is flawed.
I feel a fleeting kinship with Hitchens when you speaks of the papacy!
Evidently it cannot. I did wonder what Christopher would have to say about the last 7 years. I now realise he would have most likely pulled a Dawkins and utterly retreated from the conversation.
It is a curious question to debate. Even if the answer was, "No, atheism will utterly destroy Europe," that would not have the slightest impact on whether it is TRUE or not. (I myself am not sure if atheism can alone save the world, but it sure couldn't hurt. To have different sects all still believing they have the One True Answer--all without evidence, of course--doesn't bode well for the future.) I don't know what you are talking about regarding Dawkins. To this day he travels around debating religion.
Lol no
@@billscannell93 No it doesn't impact what is true and what is not.
Atheism doesn't unite people, or get rid of sects, people still live differently.
Dawkins retreated from the conversation on Islam - and has recently suggested Christianity's eradication might be a bad thing.
@@benvids Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural. It is not really a movement or alternative to religion to unite people behind, at least how I understand it. I do not think the disappearance of belief in the supernatural would make a clean sweep of tribalism, but like I said above, it couldn't hurt. Everyone going around thinking they are the "chosen people," without a shred of evidence, is bad for the world.
I really don't know what you are talking about regarding Dawkins' "retreat" from the Islam conversation or his supposed endorsement of Christianity. I would like to see a link to wherever you think he said all that. I do know that he has a very nuanced view of religion, and is therefore very easy to quote out of context. He certainly does not think it would be to humanity's benefit to adopt the supernatural claims of Christianity, or anything else.
@@billscannell93 Richard Dawkins interview with The Times 2019.
Keep Calm and stay agnostic.
Atheism on its own will do nothing, but the mindset of *rationality* that leads one to atheism is the best possible strategy for (a) identifying the real problems we really face and (b) working towards ever-better solutions to those real problems. Religion is both the reverse of that (it's a sort of "gateway idea" to *irrational* thinking) but also religions do actually make moral advisements, and some are good and some are bad. That's one more reason to want to get rid of them actually, because religions demand you accept or reject them whole-cloth, which means you have to accept the bad ideas alongside those good ones. I'd prefer to just examine each idea individually and only accept the good ones! Atheism enables that.
Hitchens mic seems quieter
Hitchens had both first & last word
Dr Lennox would not want me to tell him how sad I am when I read the bible. That I was forced to read it as a child when no adult could or would answer my questions still makes me sick. Don’t underestimate how much people like me hate religion.
The same old answers of my religion teachers made me angry, too. In no way they ever fullfilled my hunger for wisdom.
Let go of your hate, its only hurting you
James Sharles you have my pity. There is so much wonder to learn of to waste time on mythical medieval men. Just read about the other gods who self sacrificed and then move on to oceanography, cosmology and so on. Religious people don’t get it. You lose and you’re happy:
Gavin Lewis Am happy for you but I suggest you don’t force your beliefs on others.
Gavin Lewis sure, only politics wastes as much valuable,e time as religion. Best to live life to the fullest. I’m off to the library to continue my research
I find it hard to believe that Hitchens, "an intellectual," has never heard of scissors, shampoo, or comb.
Neither did Einstein, but Hitler did.
where does being clean or having a good appearance correlate to being intellectually involved in the world's problems.
48:44 was that Richard Dawkins in centre of crowd
Mr. Hitchens confused me when others asked whether he believes people have free will because he answered, "I have no choice." If he meant that we don't have it, then criminals who do what he condemns don't choose freely to commit their crimes. In fact, if there's no free will, then Mr. Hitchens didn't choose freely to condemn those crimes. It seems to me that to be to blame for anything, we need free will. No one jails a dog who mauls a baby. After all, the animal has no free will and can't know right from wrong. If there's no free will, many can't help thinking many criminals are blameworthy when determinism implies that nobody can deserve blame for anything. If our behavior is causally deterministic and we disagree on whether there's free, there's no way to know whether we do. That's because deterministic events will force some to believe they have free will. It will also force others to believe that that they don't have free will. So if our minds work deterministically, rational thought is impossible even for scientists because they think as deterministically as anyone else does.
It is very naive for someone to sustain that we don't have free will (any action of a human is a free choice, unless he is in jail, or a slave etc. when someone else decides instead of him). Animals are simple instinctive beings, while humans have rationality, logic... and much more. Only the fallen angels want to deceive humans to become just animals and even worse.
@@filmeseverin I don't know how naive we are if we doubt whether we have free will. But the doubt seems understandable when people read about B.F. Skinner's behaviorism, neuroscience physicalism, brain injuries, and things like that. For me, though, there's a bigger problem I brought up in another post. If causal determinism is true, and we behave deterministically, then we can't tell who's right about determinism. Instead, we'll believe what deterministic events force us to believe, even if it's false.
It seems that my previous message was not read carefully enough.
However, we have the responsibility for our deeds because, no matter the works of the fallen angels, we make the final choices/decisions.
The wrong using of freedom, the bad/stupid choices make us ignorant instead of wise/smart.
Ignorance is the result of choices made by those who are not interested enough about the truth.
Not all humans who ever lived on Earth had knowledge about the truth from the Bible.
It has always been easy for any human to know what the useless suffering is and to never produce it (no need for the Creator to tell us this). That is why *He expects us to strive to never do evil, especially to never do evil intentionally, to never cause useless suffering, any damage, to others and to ourselves.*
That is why the evilness=stupidity to produce useless suffering (harm etc.) to others and to ourselves, too much to be forgiven by God/Jesus anymore, is making us not allowable for perpetual life in Heaven (after leaving this world).
The wise people will not be deceived, because the truth is very clear. In Heaven are only those who have understood that freedom has to be used always just/only for good. Those who truly love perfection will prove this by their deeds in their earthly life to be accepted into Heaven, to experience the 100% goodness, while the others, who follow the fallen angels in their earthly life, by doing evil intentionally, will experience the 100% evil in hell.
Those really interested about the truth can find it out directly from the Creator of this reality, as that professor is suggesting closer to the end of his video/testimony, "NDE- ATHEIST PROFESSOR (Berkeley Grad) dies, sees HELL! Best testimony EVER! Howard Storm Interview", because it worked in my case, not even knowing about his video when I asked from all my heart, in the most serious way for a sign to believe, then receiving the vision, which turned me from an atheist into a Christian.
nly sources@@filmeseverin Everything you've said about God, Christianity, and so forth presupposes that we have free will. But if causal determinism is true, there's a problem. In that case, deterministic events may have forced you to believe what you've just told me, even if you're mistaken. I try to do what St. Thomas Aquinas did. If he debated non-Christians, he cited only sources the non-Christians trusted. If you're going to debate free will with atheists, the Bible probably won't seem very credible to them. B.F. Skinner, W.V.O. Qune, and other behaviorists were also atheists.
Since I'm a devout Catholic well-read in philosophy theology and science, I trust God, the Bible, and the Catholic Church. But even some Christians believe that mental events are only brain events. So you might ask them how they reconcile their philosophy of mind and their Christianity.
They're materialists about the human mind. But since they believe God exists, there are three possibilities. One, though they're materialists about the human mind, they believe God is not a material object. Two, they believe that God and their minds are material objects. Three, their beliefs systems are logically inconsistent because their materialism is thoroughgoing when they believe that God is nonmaterial.
Maybe now you see why I doubt that it's naive to wonder whether people have free will.
In spite of the fact that most people do not want to admit it, only the desire to use freedom for evil keeps humans away from the truth, from God/Jesus (many considered Christians are still deceived, unfortunately).
*Humans will never be able to really know, at least, what a photon is, as will be proved below.* Regarding the Creator of this reality (the nature of God etc.), our power of comprehension will always be like how much the cups can think to understand the man who made them (comparison mentioned in the Bible to make us realize the HUGE difference between us and Divinity), but *we have Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity, to be able to see God and what He expects from us.*
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered. The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil intentionally, Satan with the other fallen angels who, according to the "Parable of the weeds", have altered this world, the DNA... (making the carnivores, the parasites, the viruses, bad bacteria etc.... to sustain the useless suffering) and their tools, the evil=stupid humans, not with the One who has offered freedom.
Let us hope that most humans are not too deceived already, to not be able to recognize the truth anymore, which in brief is that *all evil has been done because of stupidity and the main/worst stupidity has always been to not listen by God/Jesus.*
There is no problem between the truth about/from God/Jesus and the true science.
A single photon is like an infinite universe because the magnification process (like the one done with microscopes) is infinite (cannot be stopped). For example: 1/2 > 1/3 > 1/4 > ... 1/n > ... 1/infinite proves that we can go infinitely to smaller numbers greater than zero, which in physics means that we can go infinitely to smaller things, in other words science will never be able to know from what this reality is made.
No matter how small a particle is, the system of reference can be decreased to its level of size and see that it is made from smaller things, and so on, this is the infinite involved. In other words, anything is made from something smaller and also it is included in something bigger. I suppose that any physicist knows this fact but most of them will not admit it publicly.
In addition, all the unbelievers of the proven truths, should not ignore the facts presented into (close to) the end of the video titled: *"Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong",* which is available on CZcams, to realize that I am right in all my affirmations.
Albert Einstein was smart enough to realize that: "We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. *The real nature of things we shall never know".*
The greatest inventor of all times, Nikola Tesla, was a Christian and he said: *"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power."*
God/Jesus detests our stupidity=evilness, when we use our freedom even worse than animals. All the commandments make humans less stupid=evil, make us to not be tools of the demons anymore. The fact is that most unbelievers are enjoying their bad addictions so much that they would rather deny the truth, God (the Creator) and Jesus (the human form of Divinity), than to renounce at them.
*The Creator of this reality has told us that we are responsible for all evil we do while living here. This is what many people do not like, but we all should be glad that everyone will receive finally what he/she deserves according with all his/her deeds, good and evil.* That is why one of the main purposes of this short earthly life is to always strive to never do evil (useless suffering ...).
*_"For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."_* 1 Peter 2,15 - 16
That is why we have to be servants/lovers of perfection (not only 100% goodness, but also 100% justice).
As Jesus has told us:
*_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48
Unfortunately, too many people have refused over history, and too many still refuse nowadays, to follow this.
Hitchens got straight up hitchslapped by Lennox.
He wasn’t advocating for Islam’s way of doing things
Thrusty McPants Very intellectually dishonest of you.
Oh good josh
@@Little_Ragamuffin , sorry, what? Who did what? Who protected whom from what?
@@Little_Ragamuffin and other funny liers you can tell yourself
Why is it so hard to include the date of the debate??!! 🤬
It's in the description... 2008
I don't get the hype around Hitchens. Every debate I've seen him in, he sounds like an angsty atheist teen asking "If God is good, why does he allow bad things to happen".
Just answer it.
@@xtopher960right? It’s shameful to point out a vital point, misrepresent it, and then leave a gaping hole admitting without disproving that God intentionally does bad things
John Lennox 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 clearly won this debate. Well done sir. Brilliant.
@Donkey Fish Depends on what you consider as a prove. If you think that we need to prove God through scientific observation, then you are using the wrong tool, because we are not looking here for an idolatry. God does not consist of atoms and molekules, we are talking here about a supernatural allpowerful being.
Science is limited, you cannot prove everything with science. And all scientific theories are to be considered as uncertain anyways, because it is just a spontaneous collection of data, which makes a theory to appear true and then after some time new data comes in and leads to a different new theory. This happened many many times in history, for example from the newtonian physics to einsteinian physics.
I am not a christian, but a muslim and i have to say that John Lennox definitely has the better arguments here. From an atheistic perspective, basically any moral value does not exist. Killing, raping, beating etc is completely fine from an atheistic perspective, because everything is subjective, which shows the absurdity of atheism...
@Donkey Fish You just wont accept the truth wont you?
@@mlgfrog2470its you who wont accept truth sir.
@@saragelladuga3380 No, you won't accept the truth. Give it up already Miss.
Haha , ok , 😂😂
Lennox did well in this event. His faith seems based entirely though, on his desire that 'divine justice' (especially for Hitler) exists. How does this settle with the Christian notion of 'turn the other cheek'?
People want someone to be in charge of the universe like a divine president. They also want that person to be white.
Born of a virgin, doesn't mean you created the sun. Ridiculous
@@rhetorics7178 what judgement is there, from 1. a non-existent authority, and 2. When upon one no longer alive?
@@pgsmith22 Your mind lives on. And God exists.
@@avigayilcohen5939 a statement based solely upon wishful thinking. Lennox would be proud of such wilful delusion.
See dawkins clapping for hitchens 48:36 but not lennox infact gets sort of annoyed 53:47
Well, Dawkins is an atheist so go figure.
Only religious ppl find Lennox answers applaud worthy which are just quoting bible 😂. No wonder dawkins didn't clap
What hitchens does in the first 10 minutes and in my opinion intentionally is to falsely compare theocracy to secularism on the grounds of separation of church and state. The proper comparison should be theocracy vs state atheism.
Precisely. Hitchens was incredibly smart but he also was decent at incorrectly presenting what needed to be debated
Adam and Eve had to boys Cain and Abel, these two boys got married, but to who?
Two world wars was not fought on basis of religion
Oh boy, which one??? 30 year war torn Europe into pieces. Spanish reconquista? Israeli Palestinian never ending conflict?
Yes 🚆 it mostly definitely was and thats a fact
Hitchens seems to sugest that we have only two choices: atheism or islam ; question is which is better between atheism and christianity. Why does he always go to Islam ? Even buddists say islam sucks !
Je t'en prie Devloppe
There has always been an acceptance that there is a religious faith and evidence based belief that the term faith may be applied to but that the two are separate this is a view subscribed to even by cardinals.
What is evidence based believe?
At 6:07, Larry David ??
30:00
Also 39:02
Thanks! Lennox really is brilliant.
@@eileen1820: Ditto 100%!
My whole existence is spirituality at the moment I don’t believe I know and I think Quanten physics will prove our soul in the next 200 years. But that it would be terrible and unfair if there was no higher morals is simply no argument just because it would be unfair
"Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword" said Hitchens - implying that Jesus was supportive of Christian violence. I am sure he knew better than this but there is a great line: "Half the truth is often a great lie" and that's what I would describe here.
The phrase spoken by Jesus, simply put, told us that by following him would bring danger, families would be torn apart and people would be persecuted. This is the sword he meant.
Then in the garden of Gethsemane as Peter cut off the soldiers ear, didn't Jesus tell him to put away his sword because he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword?
Should have waited until John made his next point .... :)
Yeah it's all totally peaceful really.
Leviticus 20:9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
Psalms 137:9 (NIV)
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
Jump to 5:28 to skip the rambling introduction.
Oh! Nlw i recognise him. Hes the news workrr who broke the horrifying news to Salman Rushdie on the phone live on air.
28:50 37:15
Thanks god for letting me pass my driving test last year, oh and sorry you couldn't save the 9.3 million under 5 year old children that died in the same year of preventable disease...
Michael Fritsche quote the verse where a baby is purposely killed while the mother is unpunished...
Michael Fritsche doesn’t sound like an abortion
Michael Fritsche no, I didn’t read it... but you said mother and baby died, so it doesn’t sound like an abortion if the mother died??
Michael Fritsche whats the book of mythology, and what does it have to do with the bible?
Or are you saying Jewish history is a myth?
Shane Felis do you really think you’re saying something? Is it really a competition to you?
It’s curious he doesn’t attack Jewish belief
This man can't debate but blaming Islam which he doesn’t know anything about!
I am sorry but every so called argument that Christopher has ever put forward have always been related to "Religious people did bad things therefore religion is nonsense" - Never have I ever heard a single thing that challenged my Christian faith from him. I have heard many things from other Atheists who have challenged my faith by the way... Christopher never did.
I agree with you.
Faith is indistinguishable from stupidity.
@@AndyCampbellMusic That statement is utterly meaningless and completely ridiculous. It's simply a pathetic attempt to deliver some type of powerful one liner.
You exercise faith in your mechanic. You have faith in the chair you sit in. You have faith in your Dr's, your loved ones, your friends. You especially have faith in those things because they aren't things but people. You cannot have a relationship with a person without exercising faith in that person. TRUSTING them when you cannot see every single thought within their mind or what they do when they aren't with you. One cannot live without exercising faith. Faith is not the same as BLIND faith. Faith is trust, without knowing 100% of the facts all of the time. You do it and we all do it. Stop being so intellectually dishonest and wake up. God is a person. You cannot have a relationship with God without faith. Faith in God is not blind, because it is so blatently obvious that he exists, you'd have to be totally and uteerly blind to not see it. Sad.
Couple of arguments Hitch often makes that makes believing totally irrational:
1. The "well designed" world, he points out 99% of all species died off, life is barely available on this planet, humans at one point came to ~20-30k in number and almost died off too and the world is coming to a end in a billion years(also body parts etc that are uneccesery cause we no longer need them)
2. Time and zone of the abrahamic religions , humans as we know it have lived on this planet at least 100k years, for 98k years misery,killings,sacrifices, average lifespan of 25 years and suddenly God decides its time to intervene and straighten us, showing himself in the most barbaric and illitirate place on the planet
3. Well the scientific argument of Evolution and the Big Bang, majority of religions outright oppose these facts and those who do, follow the teachings of scientists and twist it in their version(like Guided evolution, fine tunning etc)
4. Well the morality argument, that humans dont need god to be moral. Humans have shown companionship, unity, charity, differencing what bad deeds are like killing are(he rightly points out even if the people who followed Moses were real they still didnt behave like savages and kill children etc even before he showed up) and the most barbaric deeds were often of those who were religious( honor sacrifices , genital mutilation , rape and even the act of killing your own family members due to God demands or dishonoring him)
That totally discounts original sin which if Hitch bothered to read the first book of the Bible completely explains why the world is not perfect and that there are imperfections. In fact it's the only doctrine that explains this. Atheism explains none of that. If nature made it, it should be perfect. Not flawed.
@@Saskobest
48:34 Richard Dawkins is in the crowd 😂
My son Zachary, who was 13 at the time, spotted him in the audience and told me. I went to the cameraman and told him to get the shot of Dawkins. Richard was there to get intel on Lennox who wiped the floor with him the previous year. After this debate in Edinburgh in August 2008, Dawkins and Lennox debated in October 2008 in Oxford. I arranged both debates and moderated the second. Dawkins appearance at this debate was very interesting.
@IdeasHaveConsequences Lennox wiped the floor with Dawkins? I've watched all the debates, and that is absolute nonsense.
At the end Hitchens basically said Lennox won the most votes by hand but the moderator said the motion was “lost”. The moderator was bias and everyone knows you are at an advantage when you get to have the last word.
No, it can't.
What a loss. A Man of no real equal. Richard Dawkins is not far off though !😁
Dawkins doesn't know how to concede and his arrogance is clearly shown when he gives his opinion on psychedelics.
@@innerdescent8210 The religious know all about arrogance. It should really be part of the dictionary definition.
@@zzm9134 I agree? I'm not religious 🤣
So where is the arrogance in Dawkins?
@@zzm9134 Well if you read my comments instead of assuming I was religious you would know
If Lennox says on more time christi-anity I don't know what happens..
this is bordering on ins-anity
it's a cal-amity
19:00 Well...heretofore, Hitchens has brought out the big guns.... will be interesting to hear Lennox's response. 24:00 26:26 Well snap, he destroyed his 1st arguement with one sentence Well done. 1:00 Hitchens knows the Old Testament slavery was not a mandate but a cultural bartering system. What is he trying to pull? The wool over people's eyes? Me thinks, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
With regards to Hitchens’ ending regarding a moral or theological action impossible by an unbeliever. Here’s one possibility: Catholics in the United States believe so deeply in the dignity of human life created by God that we will rescue the remains of aborted babies and give them burials. We do the same for miscarried babies. I have a hard time imagining any atheist taking such action.
The difference is that you call them babies. Perhaps they are not.
And how you make a difference then ? By the size of their heart ?
How do you think this idea is going now guys lol
#preach👏👏👏🔥
Religion is still a hindrance 2 peace & human development
I can see Richard Dawkins in the audience.
Omg god is real after all
Another clown with a one way ticket to hell!
@@brianbisnath2254, how surprising! Another theist that knows what God thinks! Did he tell you that in his last phone call?
It is not atheism that threatens Europe.
48:40 Professor Dawkins watches on; taking lessons from the greatest debater of the Four Horsemen.
aint Dawkins supposed to be the supreme leader of the 4 new horsemen?
Who are the Four Horsemen?
@@imretoth9925 a group of atheists
I as an atheist can never take the topic serious when it is brought up as the title of a debate.
It's not system, it's a position on a specific question.
I as someone who has read both "atheist" authors as well as Christian ones or deists. In fact I've read more of the ladder.
C.S. Lewis
Aldous huxley
SJG (rock of ages which sympathises greatly with religious points of thought)
King James bible
All of which carry more weight in regards to being referred to as systems of thought.
Atheism is in fact so far from a system of thought that most atheists cant even agree what the term means.
Try calling yourself an agnostic atheist in the presence of atheist philosophers. You will regret it, trust and believe (if you please).
Which is why theologians will use it as a debate, because it is a dog whistle.
agreed. a position (aka opinion) that has no place in government. the government of all the people, regardless of their position
Interesting that Christianity is the only Faith accepting accountability for their part; yet the most the sevire threat of violent reprisal comes not from Christians, but from Muslims. Where are they to answer the accusation?
john williams non-believers are to burn for eternity, and you see nothing wrong with that?
John Coleman
What exactly is wrong with that?
If God is righteousness personified anyone who denies him is denying righteousness itself. Does that not warrant hell?
ryan alving ya, you’re right, there are thousands of gods, but choose the wrong one, or none, because they’re all so obviously bat-shit crazy with no evidence, and you’re going to burn, for eternity.
Perfectly reasonable.
What was I thinking?
I think the word you’re looking for is, wrongeousness.
Christianity doesn't accept accountability, christians say "GAAAWWWD said so..."
That's not accountability, that's passing the buck.
JemmetGK
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide
Pity they couldn't do away with the f****g moderator and let the two heavyweights debate more freely.
In the same set of comments Lennox says "Jesus came not to bring the literal sword but division" AND "do we need another wall?" He's all over the place
read what you wrote again please
@@Lazika617 Yup.. just having a look...He talks about Jesus bringing division to society instead of a literal sword...then says division is bad by asking "do we need another wall"...reread and reasserted
Never trust a hippy
53:46 Dawkins hiding out 6 rows up.
excuse me but thats the second time john uses that speech in the start
Rustam Kantayev Why fix what isn't broken? Some people need the truth told to them repeatedly for it to sink in.
ironymatt b..but he said it twice therefore the argument is invalid :(((
@@TrueEcclesia precisely totally invalid
Comment section: I'm an expert
Well, I think maybe because that is where most of all christianity started. I'm not quite sure if this is where all belief in god or gods came from but a lot if not all came from this region of the world.
Just say d popular ones with d biggest armies cos dere r loads of religion in Africa
Hitchens loves to advance radical religious pitfalls as the reason to dump the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Lennox called him on it, rebutted it, and Hitch didn't have any time left to do much else than throw a few last flailing punches in closing. Notice that Lennox had such a commanding lead he could still read his prepared closing statement.
What a special debate. As a Hitch fan, it’s neat to see him appropriately challenged for once.
There was no challenge, Lennox rambles from straw man to strawman so it’s impossible to debate with him with any integrity. You can’t argue or reason with an idiot and yes, whilst he may be a good mathematician he’s a stupid person incapable of critical thinking.
@@ItsSVO I know you might be a athiest who admires hitches but, there isn’t a place in this debate where Lennox straw-man’s hitchen’s “arguments”.
Hitchens in this debate was definitely challenged by Lennox. A video on CZcams hitches says John Lennox won a debate with him. It baffles me you call Lennox an idiot but don’t have the soul to step on the stage and give him an argument that will stand. Yet when hitchens takes a Bible verse out of context in this debate he has integrity and he doesn’t strawman.
@@piercebrown359 it’s impossible to have a debate with any integrity when someone like Lennox doesn’t require proof or evidence for his beliefs. When you no longer need evidence for what you claim is the truth then everything and anything is true for you and you can never be wrong. Do you really not see why that is a problem?
Lennox is an idiot who cannot have an honest debate yes, for the reasons i pointed out. I would never debate with him because there’s frankly no point, as I’ve also explained in this comment. I’ve argued and debated with many people of faith and I am yet to have an honest debate in which the other person wasn’t purposely deceitful or argued in bad faith and lied etc.
Which bible page did Hitchens take out of context? Christians can’t even agree on the context of the bible and it conveniently becomes less literal by the day with more scientific evidence disproving it.
@@ItsSVO You basically just replied the same thing to me. Being an atheist I know you side with hitchens and I see there’s no reason to reason with you. As a Christian I didn’t hate hitchens but at least he could admit when he lost a debate. While his fans say he won I don’t want to argue with an ignorant person who ignores the other persons argument.
@@ItsSVO Hitchens was trying to claim Christianity was violent so he used
Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
That is why John Lennox came and corrected hitchens on taking verses out of context and twisting them.
Just the title alone is….
God must exist since he took Christopher Hitchens from us...he wanted him all for himself
this comment is actually autistic
@@dirky1185 is having a little digital crusade from his parents' basement. Jesus didn't exist czcams.com/video/WUYRoYl7i6U/video.html
Hitchens very clearly is poorly prepared and his argumentation lacks coherence, structure and thus ultimately conviction. This round definitely goes to Lennox!
This is babbling nonsense. Hitchens soundly defeated the intellectually-incompetent/impotent Lennox.
@@MattSingh1 Wow. How much do you know about Lennox? A guy who taught at 3 foreign unis, has umpteen degrees, speaks several langs and is an Emiritus professor in maths at Oxford uni, an Emiritus fellow in a college there in the philosophy of science, and pretty knowledgeable on philosophy, sciences, bioethics, etc. That stuff about Communism comes partly from his travels and lecturing in Soviet Russia. Actually, I think he wasn't on top form here, but if you listen to him fielding qs, and some of his other debates and things, I'd say he's pretty bright 🙂
Mr Hitchen the only way you can prove the existenxce of God is trough your death,you can see alot in the other side.
Another baseless claim of a believer. You have no way of knowing that.
@@derhafiyou have no way of knowing he is not right.
@@annchovey2089 I also have no way of knowing if there are not magical unicorn in charge, or a bunch of pixies after all....but just as with God, there in no good reason to believe so.
This video seems to have hit the wrong crowd because Hitchens won this
36:50......He must have forgot about Psalm 14:1
Psalm 14:1 isn't talking about atheists. It's talking about Jews or religious people who say they believe in God, but in their heart say he doesn't exist and therefore permit themselves to commit sin and heinous acts (hence why it specifically says "In their heart" instead of saying that they go around preaching God's inexistence).
All you people who go around saying that to insult or belittle arguments of atheists should stop doing so, it's unbecoming and doesn't promote any sort of intellectual discussion whatsoever. You're the reason they think of religion as a position in intellectual contempt.
@@MisterShnig I'm an athiest....I think u missed my point and the point of Psalm 14:1
@@magicbeam6821 My bad, sorry :p
@@MisterShnig All good, my brotha
It is a ridiculous motion. Hitchens should never have accepted to defend such a nonsensical proposition.
Atheism is just one single notion: The lack of belief in invisible magical god thingies. How on earth could such a single notion save Europe. They might just as well have asked whether veganism can save the universe, and repair my car.
John lennox is brilliant
That's an understatement.
Lennox made mince meat out of Hitch.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos y’all really don’t know what be respectful means
@@yonatanmussies1302
Hitch didn't know either.
Although I did enjoy seeing him insult islam.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos, if you were atheist you would have enjoyed the double. We enjoy the when he criticise Islam and christianity.
He could be brilliant. But in a debate the religious are fated to loose even if god did exist. Logic and facts win debates. Always. Religion feeds from faith. Faith wins hearts, not debate.
The motion poorly conceived and worded.
Christianity informs humans about the truth.
Most atheists think that a human being can be good enough without God/Jesus wisdom (laws, commandments), but they do not want to quit ALL their bad addictions to be really good humans, as the Creator wants us to be, and they do not want to love (care about) the others as they love (care about) themselves, as the true Christians do. Their idea of good is way too low than what it should be, and that is why so many people are still far from Heaven (they do not recognize their bad deeds).
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;
- the billions of poor people at the limit of subsistence versus the wealthiest (multi-billionaires in dollars, euros, etc. with the vices of money / fortune) and those millions too rich people (also with the vice of money / wealth), owning together so many trillions of dollars, euro ... wasted on unnecessary luxury and / or just kept through banks, instead of being 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).
As Jesus Christ, the human form of the Creator of this reality has told us:
*_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48
Unfortunately, too many people have refused over history, and too many still refuse nowadays, to follow this.
The wrong using of freedom, the bad/stupid choices make us ignorant instead of wise/smart.
*Humans will never be able to really know, at least, what a photon is, as will be proved below.* Regarding the Creator of this reality (the nature of God etc.), our power of comprehension will always be like how much the cups can think to understand the man who made them (comparison mentioned in the Bible to make us realize the HUGE difference between us and Divinity), but *we have Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity, to be able to see God and what He expects from us.*
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered. The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil intentionally, Satan with the other fallen angels who, according to the "Parable of the weeds", have altered this world, the DNA... (making the carnivores, the parasites, the viruses, bad bacteria etc.... to sustain the useless suffering) and their tools, the evil=stupid humans, not with the One who has offered freedom.
Let us hope that most humans are not too deceived already, to not be able to recognize the truth anymore, which in brief is that *all evil has been done because of stupidity and the main/worst stupidity has always been to not listen by God/Jesus.*
There is no problem between the truth about/from God/Jesus and the true science.
A single photon is like an infinite universe because the magnification process (like the one done with microscopes) is infinite (cannot be stopped). For example: 1/2 > 1/3 > 1/4 > ... 1/n > ... 1/infinite proves that we can go infinitely to smaller numbers greater than zero, which in physics means that we can go infinitely to smaller things, in other words science will never be able to know from what this reality is made.
No matter how small a particle is, the system of reference can be decreased to its level of size and see that it is made from smaller things, and so on, this is the infinite involved. In other words, anything is made from something smaller and also it is included in something bigger. I suppose that any physicist knows this fact but most of them will not admit it publicly.
In addition, all the unbelievers of the proven truths, should not ignore the facts presented into (close to) the end of the video titled: *"Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong",* which is available on CZcams, to realize that I am right in all my affirmations.
Albert Einstein was smart enough to realize that: "We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. *The real nature of things we shall never know".*
The greatest inventor of all times, Nikola Tesla, was a Christian and he said: *"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power."*
God/Jesus detests our stupidity=evilness, when we use our freedom even worse than animals. All the commandments make humans less stupid=evil, make us to not be tools of the demons anymore. The fact is that most unbelievers are enjoying their bad addictions so much that they would rather deny the truth, God (the Creator) and Jesus (the human form of Divinity), than to renounce at them.
*The Creator of this reality has told us that we are responsible for all evil we do while living here. This is what many people do not like, but we all should be glad that everyone will receive finally what he/she deserves according with all his/her deeds, good and evil.* That is why one of the main purposes of this short earthly life is to always strive to never do evil (useless suffering ...).
*_"For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."_* 1 Peter 2,15 - 16
That is why we have to be servants/lovers of perfection (not only 100% goodness, but also 100% justice).
In addition, Jesus Christ has warned us: _"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; _*_depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"_* Matthew 7, 21-23
Not all humans who ever lived on Earth had knowledge about the truth from the Bible.
It has always been easy for any human to know what the useless suffering is and to never produce it (no need for the Creator to tell us this). That is why *He expects us to strive to never do evil, especially to never do evil intentionally, to never cause useless suffering, any damage, to others and to ourselves.*
Not the labels that people put one another are important for the Creator of this reality (such as: Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu...) but *our deeds* instead, how we use the freedom He has offered, our free will, to strive always to do only good, to never cause useless suffering (any damage) to others and to ourselves.
atheism is merely the disbelief in God(s). The title of the discussion ( can atheism save Europe) has little to do with Europe and whether is can be 'saved'.
Exactly!
Like religious people dont know how to make anything .
Hitchens uses a lot of filler... and inception
More gibberish from you
Hard to listen to! Just waiting for some substance!
CH's end q: Jl often makes clear that atheists often do good and hold morals, because all peoole were made in God's image- and so have reason, the abiility to love, etc. The q also depends on your definition of moral, too, but, how about these: healing someone by prayer; passing on to someone a word of knowledge from God that has the capacity to touch and bring encouragement, hope, understanding, psychological healing, guidance, etc; to produce writing, music, art, etc, inspired by the Holy Spirit; to introduce another person to the living Christ and source of life; to pray for someone in a way that results in a particular action. I think that, if a Christian is someone who has a relationship with God, of course, there are things that come from that- just bear in mind that we're on a journey of getting to know Him, and not every Christian will do all of these things.
I would describe this debate like this: Lennox chooses lines written which support his view plus the Bible. Hitchens used facts.
Firstly; Lennox supported by history as well as the Bible.
Secondly; Hitchens supported by history, and his anger towards it.
You not sense the difference in demeanor?
@@History_MadeMe_Catholic they were both partly wrong. Hitchen talked from factual history and experience, Lennox from Theological sermons.
@@cynic150 Wrong, according to who?
@@History_MadeMe_Catholic Me.
@@cynic150 Exactly. . . Hitchens used stories about small religious groups throughout history that have indeed died off as they should have. . . Lennox mentions what atheistic thinking looks like in a place of leadership; Democratic republic of Germany.
The Iron curtain.
Cuba.
China and the "peoples republic"
ALL of which fled to this nation; the free nation, the nation where people are protected by laws and freedoms to believe what they will. The standard of the Bible attracted the world to the greatest nation in world history, who established itself upon the biblical standard. . .
Something they all share in common from Cuba to Russia to China, is that they've been screaming into this current society of people that seek to change this great nation by saying
"If you remove God, you will not be able to retain human value."
Is that what you want mister "ME"?
To remove human value from the picture.
-Every atheistic leader ever has done so.
#TeamJohnLennox
54:46 As one Eastern European Intellectual put it to me, "We thought we could get rid of God and retain a value for human beings. Our history has proved us wrong. We got rid of God and destroyed man." The communist theory did the damage, not atheism.
EF M I think you could still argue it was in the name of atheism. Stalin believed God wasn't real, and enforced state atheism. He also had the view that many antitheists have now: that religion is stopping human progress. When they tried murdering religion and dismissing God, they killed far more people than the theocracies of medieval Europe ever did (as far as I know).
@@promethium-145 I totally disagree that religion is stopping progress. In fact, if you bother to listen to the Christian Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson, even as an atheist, I'd say that man and his religion has a hell of a lot to say. Let's put it simply, the communist manifesto doesn't work, whether they included atheism or not. As far as people believing in a religion, I believe in science and that takes faith. Religion is what you do. Atheism is merely an absence of belief in any supernatural being. Most people that are declared atheists basically went through the logic and came to the conclusion that a God or deity wasn't necessary for the existence of the universe.
EF M Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Btw, I wasn't claiming that religion slows down progress. I was just saying that I disagree with that claim.
@@promethium-145 True atheism isn't destructive and doesn't seem to be against religion. After all, you have to believe in something. Most people simply don't spend the time to think it through, but simply follow what they were taught as a child. Then the Millennials showed up and about 1/3 of them are disbelievers. If you listen to the rest, they don't talk about religion at all. I don't have any idea how they came about.
EF M I agree with you. Same goes with religion. It's just that, in either case, if an adherent to a belief thinks they need to act a certain way to force change (like through a violent revolution), it could be defined as dangerous in that situation. But thanks for replying, and doing so respectfully! I'm glad we agreed on allot of this stuff.
Lennox, DO NOT TAKE SIR. ISAAC NEWTON'S NAME AND THE GREAT NAME OF PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, IN VAIN.
PEANUT, anyone who disagreed with the church back then got burnt at the stake! It's how your religion spread so well. The other successful one threatens to kill you if you leave.
Obviously, I'm watching this video with the knowledge that Christopher has long passed away, I'm thinking...wondering...where is he now??? Would he changed his mind if given the chance to do so???
Happy Winnings He was very clear in his interviews, even in his advanced cancerous state, that he wouldn’t ever consider turning to God and that if it ever was rumored that he did, it should be attributed to senility and intellectual incapacitation. Based on this premise, we can conclude that he is very likely in an unenviable place.
Atheism isn't a movement. It's not an active claim of anything, just a rejection of the belief in god. Nothing more.
For the question "can atheism save Europe?" to make any sense, it has to first be agreed that what is putting Europe in need of saving is the belief in god. And I think most people would agree that Europe doesn't need saving from anything that has to do with the belief in god.
Well, rejection is an active claim and atheism is point of view. You just can't create a base which states "God does not exists" and tell the other That is the Truth without acctually making a claim.
Lennox is always super awesome and brilliant in all the debates.
No.
What is this "NEW ATHEISM?" Only a Christian would come up an expression like that.
Yes sure as Stalin did.
Joseph Stalin actually revived the Russian Orthodox Church. To use as a pawn, to strengthen and further gain patriotic support, and abused the church to get sympathy from the west which he normally wouldn't get.
In other words, Stalin may have been an atheist, but he still used religion to his advantage, to further his power and amplify the obedience of his country. Which extended his reign of terror. Making it more religious than secular.
Amazing debate. I guess there has to be a winner and loser. I would have gone the other way because I think Hitchens' argument was more concise. And it also shows the measure of the man by graciously accepting the decision of the crowd. Lennox is, however, also a phenomenal mind. But as Hitch said, there still is no empirical evidence for the existence of god.
There literally is, but let’s get to the heart of that statement, you are suggesting that empiricism is the only way to truth, that is pure scientism.
Ah but there are many. You. The world. Cells recreating themselved by mitosis. Thats more complexity than anything we have created combined. And of course the best one. The Shroud of Turin. Why apologists dont argue with that is beyond me. More tangible evidence in that cloth for the resurrection than the stupid back ground radiation evidence for the bullshit big bang.
@@emelia_privx772 that's not evidence at all; all you said are fallacies (fallacy for ignorant specially) and a clear lack of understanding of cosmology. If there were irrefutable evidence, we wouldn't have this kind of debate. If a god exist and really want to be know, he would make it irrefutable, but the lack of evidences means that this god or gods doesn't give a damn about us knowing them, or they simply doesn't exist, and surely wouldn't be based on the awful and fallacious arguments that you gave.
The discovery of Noah's ark at Mt. Ararat, the recent archaeological discovery of the remains of the city of Sodom where the purest sulfur was discovered by scientists, the Egyptian remains at the bottom of the Red Sea and the empty tomb outside of Jerusalem. All of these discoveries have proven that the Biblical accounts of the events surrounding these discoveries did in fact occur.
That being said, if you have any real understanding of the God of the Bible you will know that if He does indeed exist He will waste no time trying to prove Himself to mere mortals like you and I.
The New John Lennox
these are ridiculous venues.