Do you believe that God does not exist? || Christopher Hitchens

[@elgringo1893]

Hitchins: No proof of god has ever been presented, therefore i can say that i don't think it exists. Theist: So you don't think god exists, what's your reason?

[@robinharwood5044]

@@mohdfirdausaminddin3919 Hitchins has studied the arguments theists present for the existence of Gods. It is up to the theists to present their arguments from Scripture correctly.

[@arturincdh4095]

​@@mohdfirdausaminddin3919claims are not evidence

[@dacreamofthecrop]

@@mohdfirdausaminddin3919 scripture is the claim, not the evidence. Show us how your prophet rode a chariot to the moon.

[@mohdfirdausaminddin3919]

@@robinharwood5044 one, religion is dictated by the scriptures/founders, not the followers. Considering major religion, the considered founder is no longer alive, so debate against religion is basically debate against scriptures, not the followers. If he didn't bother to learn interpretation methodology and actually debunk the scriptures, then his claim that scriptures are false is invalid. There's already a bunch of explanations out there easily accessible with the help of technology. His job is just to study those, making sure those sources use the correct methodology and is peer reviewed by relevant experts, then deliver his judgement and reasoning for it. Otherwise, It's like me saying einstein is wrong on his research and theories because of what some random stranger said about it instead of checking and studying what eisntein actually said.

[@mohdfirdausaminddin3919]

@@dacreamofthecrop false claim. For one, nowhere in any scriptures making that claim. Two, a similar event is a supernatural event, which by definition ascientific(can neither be proven nor disproven). Three, no one claimed that as evidence to religion, so it's a non argument.

[@SorenPenrose]

The loop is funny because Craig really is asking Hitchins for what he literally just explained

[@ericspence-tw3pt]

That wasn't an explanation. That was an empty justification, for a baseless assertion. He said he made every effort to study the evidence, and likely dismissed any evidence, that was not by his definition, persuasive.

[@dickarmstrong4092]

​@ericspence-tw3pt I'm sure all the people and children in the world who are suffering in the most horrendous ways would like some proof. Suffering has plagued humanity since prehistory and God has been nowhere to be found.

[@joe94c]

​@@ericspence-tw3ptwhat evidence though? Ive noticed the religious have a very low bar for evidence

[@SaintsVictory]

Facts

[@skateboardingjesus4006]

@@ericspence-tw3pt As you ironically try to convince others with your own baseless assertion from a baseless assumption. You neither know the extent of the subject material he has considered, nor how he evaluated it. Pitifully weak; go back and try again.

[@InfectedMoo]

This is a good way of showing someone that is not actually listening.

[@Krehfish534]

Believing that you understand the full context of a debate based on a single KZbin short? Couldn't agree more.

[@InfectedMoo]

@@Krehfish534 if you think you need to watch an entire debate in order to recognize whether or not one party is engaging honestly, that says far more about you than anyone else.

[@ziff_1]

Trust me, he's listening. WLC does this by design. Half his schtick is getting under the skin of his opponent. He has no facts on his side, so he resorts to BS.

[@InfectedMoo]

@@ziff_1 he strikes me as the kind of guy that only listens to other people insofar as to choose his next talking point.

[@mattslater2603]

​@@Krehfish534Oof you got demolished here

[@KeeganAWhite]

Theists once again not understanding that the burden of proof is on them.

[@antoniomanicardi6702]

​@@wxyz9035I mean, unless you follow some religion saying "there is no god" is the same thing as saying "goblins and trolls don't exist". I am pretty sure nobody who isn't insane would need some sort of proof (like if it was even possible to prove the inexistence of something) to be sure that goblins and trolls do not exist

[@DeamortisWare]

@@wxyz9035 The atheist is not the one making the claim. The theist is. Because you are born an atheist, and then convinced of whatever religion you follow.

[@EtsySpellcaster-fy3sl]

@DeamortisWare Uh, wrong. Agnostic atheism is the lack of belief in a god. This position does not require any burden of proof, because it is not making any claim. Hitchens was being asked if he actively believes that there is no god. He replies that he believes “there is no god”, which would make him a gnostic theist - and therefore the burden of proof would then be on him as well, because he is then claiming to have knowledge of something and making a positive assertion.

[@dougm659]

@@wxyz9035you say you have a “conviction” that God exists….that’s not the same thing as proof. If you claim that there is a god, you can’t expect any intelligent person to agree with your claim unless you have proof….

[@michaelm6179]

​​@raymondo6665 That which can be put forth without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. What William Lane Craig did here was just try to get Hitchens to say he doesn't think there is a God so he could strawman it. Hitchens didn't believe in God, it wasn't a matter or certainty, he could with certainty claim that no evidence haa been put forth that could substantiate that claim, but it's not the same. The point is, it isn't necessary for an Atheist to disprove God's existenxe, Atheism is simply a response to Theists claims. The burden of proof is on the Theists, because they're the ones who have to vindicate their beliefs.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

Well, that went in one ear and out the other.

[@glenbateman5960]

It always does.

[@FactStorm]

Didn't even go in the first ear lol

[@jesussaves8549]

It’s all that grease on his head. People take that guy seriously?

[@peterclarke7240]

I suspect there wasn't much between the ears that would impede it's progress.

[@csakegybolond264]

Actually from a Christian viewpoint there is a reason for that. There are evidence out there but he denied it's existence. He would probably say that evidence is not good enough. But in fact it's hard to tell if an evidence suggest some narrative or it's make it impossible to deny. Anyway, just think about solving a case as a detective. There are two different private detective are working on it. Maybe only one will be able to solve the case with sufficient evidence. Can the other detective say to the judge after that he didn't find evidence therefore the case is not solved?

[@The_Atheist_Carpenter5625]

Sagans Dragon and burden of proof need to be taught as early as middle school. The nonsense people believe these days, and the lack of critical thinking, is absurd.

[@MrMustang13]

Atheistic arrogance is always hilarious lol “why can’t I find tangible evidence to explain the intangible” If God is outside of time and space and is the unmoved mover and creator of existence, existence is the evidence for Gods own existence. Christian’s believe Jesus is the physical proof of God, after all, he is God incarnate. You may not believe that to be the case, but you yourself is going off of faith just as the believer. You have faith there is no god. You don’t know there is no god.

[@The_Atheist_Carpenter5625]

@@MrMustang13 a tautology, a baseless assertion, projection, and shifting the burden of proof all in one paragraph. Thank you for proving my point sir😂

[@MrMustang13]

@@The_Atheist_Carpenter5625 and calling the thinking of those of faith absurd is what exactly? what’s the baseless assertion? Atheists love to claim that the burden of proof is by default just on those of faith (complete cop out btw) but why is that the case when the atheist, who claims to the belief of an existence without a creator, is somehow exempt of proving such? You have no evidence that that’s the case, you can’t, it’s impossible. Us of faith have no issue with admitting we hold on to faith. But atheists like to dance around the fact that they too are of faith. The fact is, each and everyone of us will die, and only then will we know for sure with our eyes, but to pretend you’re above the topic (ie by having an “enlightened” mind that “thinks critically”) is what’s *absurd*.

[@The_Atheist_Carpenter5625]

@@MrMustang13 faith is pretending to know what cannot demonstrate to be true. Its not a humble or noble position to take. All religion employ faith in different gods, and every religion besides your own you would declare to be false right? So you have taken the most dishonest and self defeating position possible.

[@MrMustang13]

@@The_Atheist_Carpenter5625 if there’s 100 statements, 99 lies and 1 truth, that doesn’t change the fact that there is one truth. You may like to equate all religions as holding the same water, but that’s simply not the case. Each religion may hold some sort of truth, but that doesn’t make it THE truth. But hey, I have faith and my own cognitive reason to come to my conclusions. Regardless though, the fact still stands that atheism is fundamentally a faith. The definition of just “it’s the lack of belief” is non sense and to be disregarded. Even more so, it doesn’t exempt the atheist from the burden of proof, of which he does not don’t have. I can at least understand an agnostic admitting that they just don’t have it in them to admit knowing one way or another. But an atheists arrogant claims of “there is no god” is just shallow.

[@HowManyTimes234]

“Prove you can justify what you justified 3 seconds ago…”

[@Gottenhimfella]

It's like talking to your gran with alzheimers

[@michelbidart7286]

Craig, here, showing the depths of his disregard for what happens in the real world by asking the exact question that was answered in the previous sentence. No information gets through.

[@cthulhuhoops7538]

Its like the guy didnt hear a word he just said.

[@PLF...]

He didnt. He never does. He just pauses his monologue and wait until he can continue

[@andres.e.]

Not at all. In a debate, you give arguments for or against the premise. New Atheists never give positive arguments for the inexistence of God, they just comfortably reject any opposing arguments. That's intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, because they keep avoiding any burden of proof yet insist on debating.

[@Faile1990]

That's apologists for you. It's their entire profession.

[@diegog1853]

I honestly think Hitchens is on the wrong here. And I say it as an atheist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hitchens is making a claim, he has a positive belief, the belief that god doesn't exist. Meaning that there is some alternative explanation for the universe or perhaps that the universe doesn't require an explanation. And then he has a burden of proof. To just say that the other side has no evidence doesn't mean that yours is more reasonable. He could just have the position of rejecting the theistic belief for the lack of evidence. That doesn't entail that he believes the opposite is true. But here he is indeed saying that he believes the opposite is true. And so it is a bit hypocritical to criticize someone for not having evidence of their claim, while he is saying that he believes the opposite is true without evidence.

[@Faile1990]

@@diegog1853 It depends on the attributes of the thing argued for/against. Christianity (w/ Bible) makes certain assertions. Those that are demonstrably false are evidence against the truth of said assertions.

[@johntwigg3714]

Fancy asking Hitchins if he has any evidence on why god doesn’t exist 😂😂😂. Hitch would respond for about 3 hours and this guy wouldn’t listen to a word because it doesn’t fit with his agenda.

[@georgejob2156]

An Example of religious brainwash .. unable to accept anything but their own agenda..

[@dungeondeezdragons4242]

This is pretty stupid, absence of evidence is just evidence that you didn't find any yet, either it will prove or disprove the existence of god is another thing.

[@martinsoukup562]

Can you prove that?

[@Alan-71351]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😮

[@nono7105]

Hitchens would talk for 3 hours because he loved the sound of his own voice. In all that time, he would not make a single argument. The man was a sophist.

[@MB-bq9us]

Hitch was waaaay to kind and generous in this debate.

[@duewest1998]

If I remember the debate was held at a Christian university so the audience was overwhelmingly religious. Hitchens was appealing to them, not to Lane Craig (whom I suspect he saw for the sophist that he is).

[@joelmacinnes2391]

What because he was respectful and well reasoned?

[@lolcatyt2066]

Big Bang, "theory". Dark matter, "theory". Dark energy, "theory" All theoretical. Yet to be proven.

[@wolfsongmoondancer1428]

You don't have to have a 'war of words' to get your point across. Good manners are free, and being respectfull shouldn't be considered an effort.

[@duewest1998]

@@jasonx-ray3921 That's irrelevant to whether or not his arguments are sound.

[@jesse_cole]

Craig has spent his entire life having simple concepts explained to him that he still doesn't understand.

[@jeremyinvictus]

It's literally the opposite.

[@jesse_cole]

@@jeremyinvictus Ahhh. So you also don't understand basic things. Got it.

[@jeremyinvictus]

@@jesse_cole feel free to explain what basic thing I'm missing

[@jesse_cole]

@@jeremyinvictus Craig said at the end of the video, "So you do affirm that God does not exist," despite Chris Hitchens's very clear answer for his own position, which was NOT equivalent to "affirming God does not exist." Do you disagree?

[@jeremyinvictus]

@@jesse_cole "I will go as far as to say -- I will have the nerve to say -- that it [God] does not therefore exist." So he literally said it. It's right in the clip. It's not a long clip. How did you miss it?

[@jackwaycombe]

When anyone refutes a claim that has no evidence, they need no further justification!

[@jrskp3677]

Like believer's grasp this simple concept.

[@21divel]

For example abiogenesis or neo darwinian evolution? Lol

[@MrMustang13]

Atheistic arrogance is always hilarious lol “why can’t I find tangible evidence to explain the intangible” If God is outside of time and space and is the unmoved mover and creator of existence, existence is the evidence for Gods own existence. Christian’s believe Jesus is the physical proof of God, after all, he is God incarnate. You may not believe that to be the case, but you yourself is going off of faith just as the believer. You have faith there is no god. You don’t know there is no god.

[@jrskp3677]

@@MrMustang13 You must not see where the mistakes are in that argument. It's the "not part of reality" aspect of this horrid argument, it's circular nature, the assumed conclusion and the faith excuse...🤔 Gods not in reality, as per this argument and it's not one founded ON evidence. When did backwards arguments supercede EVIDENCE? They don't...

[@lnsflare1]

@@21divel Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is being investigated, and only relies on life being a physical process that [EDIT: obeys] the laws of physics as opposed to the religious idea that requires magic to exist. Evolution is a provable fact which the Theory of Evolution explains with sufficient (and still improving) accuracy that much of the global economy relies on it being true as it is the cornerstone for agricultural production and medical development. Every time you go to a grocery store, you are surrounded by things that would never exist unless scientists managed to successfully harness the principles of Evolution.

[@adamchristensen8566]

And this is the best apologist tactic they've ever come up with...try to shift the burden of proof, then act like they never had one to begin with.

[@diegog1853]

But that is not what is happening here exactly. And I am saying this as an atheist. It is true that if you claim something, like that god exists. You have the burden of proof, you are the one that needs justifications, not the one that is simply rejecting the belief. Because we have to remember that rejecting a belief doesn't imply that you believe the opposite is true. If someone says that a jar of marbles has an odd number of marbles, but they haven't counted them, you can say that you don't believe them, and this doesn't imply that you believe there is an even number of marbles. But that is not what Hitchens is saying... He is indeed saying that he believes that a God doesn't exist, this is a positive claim even if written in a negative form. You can rephrase it as "I believe some alternative explanation for the universe other than theism is true or perhaps the universe doesn't require an explanation" And when questioned what is his evidence for this belief, for believing that the non-existence of God is true, he simply says that the opposite side has no evidence. But of course... Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. By the same light he could say that he believes aliens do not exist because we don't have evidence for them. But of course we don't have evidence because it is really hard to get it, that doesn't mean it is more likely than not that aliens don't exist. By the same logic a theist could say that Hitchens doesn't have evidence for the non-existence of God, for any alternative explanation for the universe. And say that their beliefs are justified because Hitchens lacks proof of his claim. And it is not unreasonable to ask for this evidence. I can say that the literal interpretation of the God from the hebrew bible doesn't exist, because we have plenty of evidence that say that the universe wasn't created on 6 days. That is a very strong reason to believe in the non-existence of a God that created the universe in 6 days. He should've just said that he rejects the belief that God exists due to lack of evidence, but that he doesn't have any belief of his own. I like Hitchens, and I am an atheists, but I dislike bad arguments.

[@adamchristensen8566]

...Craig cannot meet his burden of proof. So instead of addressing that glaring issue, he asks Hitchens to assume one by getting him to make a positive claim. Now he attacks Hitchens' inability to provide proof for his claim. I'll grant this isn't by definition "moving the goal posts," but it is a do-nothing debate tactic, and one of the more effective ones I've seen used by theists.

[@martinsoukup562]

​@@diegog1853very well. One of the very few people here who can actually look at it rather objectively. And you explained it very well as well. It's really nice to see someone who cares more about sound logic than supporting "their" side or favourites.

[@AlohiLiora]

@@diegog1853 Right if you demand proof of existence we can also demand proof of Him to not exist so you really have no point with that. Also in a way it is very unreasonable to ask because You ask for something that is not biblical The answer to your dilemma is in the bible that you deny. So wouldn't you just deny everything since you don't even believe what it says? Still pointless argument. Even if he doesn't have proof that is not a builder of faith. He can't find any since he wants to break rules. God has already proven Him self to those who follow instructions.. If you can't follow instructions you will never Know Him. So If the bible tells us to seek him for ourselves why do you people demand something That isn't apart of the faith no where in the bible does it tells us to prove Him to others. There are scriptures that actually Go against what you are asking. Your rules do not override Gods rules.

[@AlohiLiora]

@@martinsoukup562 sure.. People ask us to do something God never said. But to you that is a win for atheist? No. It's a copout for atheist so there's nothing they should be proud of. I had a person tell me to Prove God exists but don't use the bible..well interesting why put limitations on my sources? Is it because the information to your answer is in there but you refuse Togo and look? Not a win human sorry..

[@gking407]

What proof do we have that the the god Kokopelli, so prominent in Native American lore, ISN’T responsible for the changing of the seasons? None? Oh well then we are fated to suffer for eternity after death for not worshipping him

[@robinharwood5044]

Hold on! Does Kokopelli threaten us with eternal suffering? And , if he does, what do the other Gods think about it?

[@nono7105]

This is a straw man fallacy. The argument is categorical, not specific.

[@tikitorch1093]

I have a tiny fire god that I use as a lighter

[@tiatrips]

Hitchens was not to be trifled with when it came to religion. Rest in peace, good sir.

[@mattkincaid1727]

Rest in Peace is a religious saying.

[@J-sv9dp]

@@mattkincaid1727Specifically, one that has been widely adopted by non-religious people too, as we might expect among people with shared language and culture; rather like saying "bless you" in response to a sneeze.

[@Ivan-pb2zz]

​@@mattkincaid1727😂😂😂 You win

[@S.Trades]

I very much doubt that he's resting in peace....

[@user-lb1ye1pv4q]

he is dead, he is gone, he does not exist anymore other than in other people's memories. It's as Hitch said himself, his only chance at immortality was to live on in the memory of his children. @@S.Trades

[@youbigtubership]

Hitchens makes the first point which atheists should keep high in mind when arguing with theists, that the belief in the 'imaginary being' held strongly is a real force in the world. It is a filter, or cognitive bias, and all sorts of small events can be automatically attributed to the god. So the theistic feedback loop is all the proof they need.

[@imranraja2113]

Small events as in blind processes that don’t choose to be part of that process but seem to fall into a perfect system…that’s called design my friend

[@rogerarmy8659]

​@@imranraja2113 Yes and evolution contributes to having a design that works or we die off. Our design does not work in many, many places hence why we have designed items, garments and methods to live in such places. Are bodies design in itself is flawed to the capability of our own capabilities of design. Do not contribute you and ours ability to conquer the world through thought and ingenuity to the ideals of a god. Also let's be honest the design theory is not true due to us wiping out entire species and nothing really changing in environmental systems. You could say it was designed that way however I could also say it was designed for the world's largest tragedy to happen. Yet I'm pretty sure that those victim to it would be against that quite substantially so would anyone who believes in choice.

[@justinkoeberl5797]

No..that is projecting someone's faith or seeking of faith into someone's life. The more we learn about the universe, I personally feel it becomes less and less likely. Most people that are labeled atheist are more accurately agnostic, as I am. It is ridiculous for anyone to claim they know for sure. What we kno,w for certain, is that if there is a literal God, it is not the Bible's version. Science has debunked that with 100% certainty

[@georgedoyle2487]

SMOKESCREEN!! We don’t need your “secular” myths nor your “secular” religion to know right from wrong!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to RIDICULE, GASLIGHT, OR LECTURE A BEREAVED MOTHER during a pandemic whose only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife!! The burden of proof is on you buddy to demonstrate that we need your “secular” myths and your secular atheistic ideology to know right from wrong. Furthermore, the fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] - yes? Even accidentally squeezing the whole universe inside something “physically” smaller than this tiny dot [.] magically creating a finely tuned universe and a unified consciousness - right? It gets even worse. Because as a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist you actually believe that your brain and your so called “SUPERIOR RATIONAL ATHEISTIC THINKING” also magically came from accidental, unguided, blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless processes and chance and coincidence? - Yes? And you actually trust it? Yeah makes great “sense” and perfectly “sane”? Sorry but I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!! Do you have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!

[@philbreadcrumbs8179]

Christopher: "This is my justification for saying that god doesn't exist" The other guy: "So what is your justification for that" Never has it been clearer that someone is not listening and is not going to let anyone knock them off of their script.

[@thenugwhisperer]

Logic, reason, and evidence will always beat faith.

[@lnsflare1]

Well, except in elections, though hopefully that will be changing with the generations.

[@DarthVaderfr]

Probably doesn't work with humans

[@Quinn37]

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be true.

[@andrewbarton-willson495]

Logic, reason and evidence leads many people to faith

[@lnsflare1]

@@andrewbarton-willson495 Basic logic dictates that if you have evidence, then you have no reason for faith.

[@thenugwhisperer]

The fact is that there are literally THOUSANDS of man-made gods. Even people that believe in a God agree with that fact. Yet somehow these same believers are certain that THEIR particular god isn't man-made.

[@waynegabler6570]

In any 'research' that has been done, how many looked into these 3 points. If you have come across them, please give me a link, as my documents go onto show my points make the book into something that has a single Author and 40 people, who were each given a small part to write. Only the writer of Revelation was able to read all the available data that show what 'the big picture' really. When that method was used in the creation of the atomic bomb, it was regarded as 'quite smart thinking'. A Christian (gathered) is somebody who has read the 4 Gospels and agreed the doubting Thomas story is a real event. A non-believer (not yet gathered) reads the same material and do not believe the story is a real event. Paul used the same method with various Rabbis: Ac:28:23-24: And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. False Christians say they believe the story, but their reason for believing the rest of the Gospels is based on not having all the relevant data. A non-believer using the insanity of their doctrine pretends their version is what the Bible promotes. To the tests: Read Ge:1-3 and Re:20-22 Does it cover who God is and the history of His earth, including fall into sin. The ending is how the same God redeems the earth from sin and what the long term 'fate' for His earth is. Two Scribes should not be able to do that when their works are separated by 3,000 years. You do not need to know any part of the Bible to take the above test, the test below is for believers that that view Ge:4 - Re:19 as being about the two bruises and how God sets things up to see both of the bruises completed. To that end Re:12 is an expansion on those two bruises. It covers Satan's 3 most intensive interactions with Eve and her children. False Christian and Atheists talking about the Bible is really 'the blind leading the blind'. A 'child of the light' is someone who can explain how the connection works, there and with every other prophetic passage in the book. Is that the reason nobody ever chats me up?

[@supremepizza5332]

You have to look at the evidence and compare. I personally believe in God (YAWEH) because the evidence given is very robust compared to all religions I have encountered. 1.) There are historical accounts of Jesus 2.) The bible is the most popular and influential piece of text we have today 3.) Belief in Jesus and his teachings have shaped most important aspects of the society we have today (morals, science, health).

[@Hi-cu2vx]

@@supremepizza5332none of that has anything to do with what Jesus preached was true

[@63grandsport11]

What kind of proof would be valid for you.

[@Hi-cu2vx]

@@63grandsport11 none, because it’s not possible to provide proof for a god, since it’s outside the bounds for analysis

[@annteve]

“You belief in the _non-existence_ of God but do you have any justification for for that?” What a stupid question; Hitchens had just said that the _absence_ of any evidence for the existence of God rationally leads to the conclusion that no such entity exists.

[@HuwPewPew]

These guys really need to understand the burden of proof.

[@phoenixmodellingphotography]

Occum's Razor is also another good one they should get stuck into

[@dadjokes5038]

But there is evidence. It’s just not persuasive enough for him to alter his view.

[@HuwPewPew]

@@dadjokes5038 "because that book says so" isn't evidence.

[@heinshaaine8153]

​@@dadjokes5038 name one that is valid and sound. I haven't seen such evidence

[@L1Run]

Hitchens isn't hoping to change Craig's mind, he's just showing the audience that Craig is a broken record.

[@MusaP-ke4is]

Hitchens took 3 minutes to answer a simple question.

[@L1Run]

​@@MusaP-ke4is It isn't a simple question, that's why there are debates over it. And being a broken record has to do with the content of your argument, not with its length.

[@MusaP-ke4is]

If you think "what is your position" is a complex question then you must be void of reasoning for your beliefs. Thank you for proving Dr Craigs point. They are void of reason and logic because they do not have any evidence for the position "God does not exist" its unprovable. But God is personally experienceable. Thus atheism is an irrational worldview, with no actual evidence. @@L1Run

[@L1Run]

@@MusaP-ke4is blah blah blah

[@MusaP-ke4is]

that about sums up hitchens grip on reality. To think something can come from nothing possibly is the most foolish position to ever exist. Its just pride, a deadly sin. I pray that my heavenly father shows you his love, as he has shown me. @@L1Run

[@chessandmathguy]

Hitchens literally just explained that no good evidence or good arguments have been presented, and those are his justifications. And yet he goes on to ask for the justifications.

[@longstown]

Craig has never lost a debate. It's impossible in his mind.

[@leebode4643]

Easy when you're just that ignorant and dimwitted.

[@leebode4643]

Craig has a mind? :D

[@percy888ferry]

WLC is just being WLC - misunderstanding a concept so simple that forest gump would grasp it at first instance.

[@redrkstone]

Craig asked if Hitchens affirms that God doesn’t exist, or if he simply withholds belief in God. The latter position doesn’t make any claims about Gods existence. What is wrong with his question? why do you think Craig has misunderstood?

[@anthonykurczewski8384]

I don't buy it. All Mr Hitchens had to ever do is thoroughly research the Shroud of Turin.

[@iammarauder5418]

Hitchens got me out of my delusion, I will forever be greatful.

[@googlespynetwork]

Not forever. Just until you die. Then reality will set in and you won't be able to blame Hitchens.

[@heidro1005]

​@@googlespynetwork you theists say the dumbest things 🤣

[@anthonykurczewski8384]

I don't buy it. All Mr Hitchens had to ever do is thoroughly research the Shroud of Turin.

[@anthonykurczewski8384]

The Investigators learned quite a few things about the Shroud since the initial examination in 1978. 2 decades later the re-examined the cloth.The cloth is all Linen by Jewish Law regarding burial cloths, however, as you may know the corners were singed in a fire and was handled by those edges many many times before it was mounted. A layperson suggested that the investigators take a closer look at the areas where the samples were taken because they were near the corners. Sure enough, early in 1532 after the first fire broke out, in Sainte - Chapelle, Chambery, now France, it was discerned that the nuns applied a french split weave repair to the cloth with Cotton intermingled with the Linen. A very tedious process. This, ironically was the area chosen to take the sample cloth from for carbon dating. Hence the mixed and erroneous test report. Mingling the materials is contrary to Jewish Law/Traditions.Also what was discovered was that there was pollen found in the cloth that hails from a specific genus native only to Jerusalem carbon dated to the 1st Century AD. They also learned that the image was created by a massive momentary burst of pure light. Not only this, but the body was not laying on the stone slab where it occurred because the shoulders and buttocks were not oblated, rather, the body was levitated off the stone slab.And further, the whole figure is not only anatomically correct, blood intact, serum/water mixed with blood from the spear, thumbs were folded in as a person whose tendons were cut by the Roman technique of passing the spike through the wrist, but about 10 years ago it was learned that the image could produce a 3 -D relief, though it is only nanometers deep.

[@forkthepork]

​@@anthonykurczewski8384😂😂😂

[@marioncarbonell6047]

I remembering watching this debate in catholic school during science class, the teacher showed us this because she thought this could make our faith stronger, after that I went and got a apologetics book by William Craig and God is not great by Christopher Hitchens, after reading both, Hitchen’s book just made more sense, Apologetics struggled immensely in trying to have any good philosophical arguments for God and kept using the “God of the gaps” argument, after it, I became an atheist lmao.

[@thugyow4818]

Nice 😂

[@CSUnger]

So you became an atheist because of something you read in a book?

[@jakeslamakowski6990]

You don't become "an atheist" you become atheist. It's a common mistake made by many atheists even. Saying it that way gives connotations that it is something rather than a state of not believing in something.

[@thegreatest4617]

Brother, Catholicism is a lie. Could get into it more if you’d like, but I implore you, please look up some videos of cliffe knetchle. Guy is a great theologian and presents great arguments for God.

[@itskarl7575]

Had she watched the debate beforehand?

[@eternal6443]

"If universe need creator then creator also need creator because logic of theists says everything has a creator and if they say God don't need creator so why nature need creator itself." -Rajneeshacharya 🕉️🕉️🕉️🕉️

[@MG6960]

I don't believe in God the same way and for the same reasons I don't believe in leprechauns, pixies, unicorns, and bigfoot. Yet no theist ever asks me to "disprove" any of those. It's only with god that they demand i prove that God doesn't exist. If you are upset i haven't turned over every rock in the universe looking for god that's your problem. If you know where he is then present him and save me the trouble.

[@dadjokes5038]

And ironically you’d be just fine with having your surgeon saying a prayer to God asking him for guidance before he does your surgery. However if he was praying to tinker bell you’d probably get another surgeon. Interesting how we make exceptions for people who believe in God but not to those who believe in pixies or fairies.

[@a.s.henderson483]

@@dadjokes5038 I make no exceptions for anyone who believes things without sufficient evidence. Whether that be a god or Bigfoot. My doctors are secular and science-based. They use training and expertise to perform their jobs, without having to rely on superstition.

[@heinshaaine8153]

Trolls are real they steal your socks. But only the left one. Wonder why that is

[@billcipher3946]

@@dadjokes5038praying doesn’t help or work on a situation. But it does make people feel good and to cope.

[@fuckamericanidiot]

The creator of everything vs ginger Irish gnomes. Do you know how stupid you sound? No. The answer is a smugnorant "pffffft no."

[@davidfitnesstech]

I *thank Hitch* for inspiring me to become a *critical thinker* years ago, especially when it applies to *religion, religious claims and dogma.* *"Feelings" or "emotions"* do *not* equal *truth.*

[@Uio3eva]

He inspired me to fight against and encourage critical thinking about the monarchy in the UK too. Many people support it on blind faith and accept illogical, immoral and unevidenced arguments about it, it thrives on myth and propaganda. The Hitch’s own arguments about religion apply almost exactly in this area too. Such a legend and absolutely missed, but his example and words live on

[@kh.reactions3733]

Use your own Brain stop being a sheep and follow people that talk nonsense. If you really want the truth Study every relgion on earth first and then study the quran as the last study then you will understand what is true. He is only talking from the perspective of an ex Christian and bible reader this isn't proof that God doesn't exist. He himself being able to breath and talk and walk is proof God exists. Does he have any evidence to prove god doesn't exist?

[@heinshaaine8153]

​@@kh.reactions3733 nope, he is being able to breath and talk because he has lungs and a Larynx. This is a variation of the "look at the trees, how can they be there is there is no god?"- Argument. Which is a shitty argument, because just because you dont know or can't imagine hoe something came to be, doesn't mean that your god did it. You would have to present evidence that your god exists, that he can create snd then that he actually did create breathing and talking. And come on, if you believe the quran is true you would have to believe that people were crested from mud, and nobody can be that uneducated. 😂

[@TheEagleChristian]

Your savior then was a sinful human, like yourself, who is now dead and can do nothing for you. Good luck with that

[@YeshuaSaves3]

He inspired me to not take atheism seriously.

[@james9524]

While I suspect that no God exists, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no good evidence for the existence of any God, therefore, we have no good reason to believe that any God exists.

[@himynameisjohnwumsh7631]

What would be good evidence?

[@james9524]

God appearing to everyone. It's absurd, irresponsible, and unrealistic for God to reveal his presence to a small handful of people, and then expect every person to ever exist from that day forward to believe that small handful of people. Show one, show all.

[@himynameisjohnwumsh7631]

@@james9524 do you use that same standard for all of your beliefs?

[@james9524]

@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 I don't believe that I have any beliefs, depending on your definition of the word, "belief". There are things that I accept, things that I reject, and things that I am not sure about. The things that I accept need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and what I accept or reject can change given new evidence.

[@johnburnett3942]

It is not required to prove God does not exist. But for you to prove that he does.

[@HEMA-NRW]

Before man knew what atoms were, they existed, maybe a universe without life, exist without any being to prove it. A lot of things are limited and cannot be experienced... whoever says there is 100% nothing is like a religious person who believes in something ... it's not a point of reason

[@kwith]

Apparently the notion of "I have not been presented with sufficient evidence therefore I can only conclude it doesn't exist" is a difficult concept for Craig there to wrap his brain around. He's punching WAY above his intellectual level and gets smacked down so hard he doesn't even realize it's been done.

[@hey.unstandard]

So you are putting your intelligence above that of Craig and on level with that of Hitchens? Your view of intelligence does not reflect another's intelligence, but your own, as that is the threshold you are limited to. Also, in this debate Hitchens never provides any proof for what he believes whatsoever, that is the belief of a universe void of God, but only attacks the belief in God. So, it is as if you say 'Apple is not the best fruit, but orange is,' so you attack apples but never put up any reason for thinking oranges are the best fruit; for saying God doesn't exist is not simply putting down one theory, but also bringing up another in its place.

[@tobyonatabe2601]

⁠​⁠@@hey.unstandardyour analogy is horrible, let me gift you a better one: John and Adam are placed in a room with a box and are asked what they think is inside the box. John immediately says there’s a pear in the box, and that there is no other possibility. Adam says it is pretty rash to assume there is a pear in the box since we don’t have any reason to come to that conclusion. John replies by saying he read a book once in which a pear was put in a box, therefore this box must also have a pear in it. He even claims to have seen the pear in a dream last week. Adam then decides to pick the box up and notes that the object inside is way heavier and bigger than a pear, and concludes that it must not be a pear. John dismisses his conclusion by saying it’s the biggest and heaviest pear on earth, so its weight and size aren’t proof enough. Adam keeps experimenting with the box, finding more and more reasons to doubt john’s claims. John keeps coming up with more questionable ways to explain them away. Once their time is up, Adam asks if he could look inside the box, but he isn’t allowed to open the box, so he never gets an answer. Can you guess who is religious and who isn’t?

[@hey.unstandard]

@@tobyonatabe2601 @tobyonatabe2601 As I said already, but I'll put it into your analogy; if Adam wants to prove that it's not a pear, then he must provide ANY other logical thing that it could be to prove it wrong, just one. But, considering the sheer size and mass of the object, no other logical conclusion can be drawn up. That's why atheism is a positive claim; because if it denies the existence of God, then all the empty spaces left behind from the belief in God must be filled.

[@tobyonatabe2601]

@@hey.unstandard It could be anything bigger and heavier than a pear, like Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, or any God you can make up on the spot. Atheism is simply against the idea that your specific Gods can exist. The fact that the object is heavier and bigger than a pear should prove its not a pear, but you like to spin the truth to whatever you want it to be. Any logical person would expect something other than a pear in the box.

[@hey.unstandard]

@@tobyonatabe2601 This analogy was only to prove that atheism is a positive claim. Nothing else. And do you still disagree? To repeat, atheism is not just the belief in the absence of God, but also that a world void of God can start and come to the same conclusion as our modern reality, whereas Christians only need to prove God exists. "...but you like to spin the truth to whatever you want it to be." This is you yourself saying I am spinning 'the truth,' implying that atheism is a belief and not just an absence of belief. "Any logical person would expect something other than a pear in the box." Well, unless, as I said, you provide ANY ONE possible LOGICAL alternative to God, then you can't shut down the belief in God as you can't justify the latter half of your belief, which is the positive claim part. "The fact that the object is heavier and bigger than a pear should prove its not a pear." You choose to believe so, but as I Christian I would say that God is not 'heavy' whatsoever (in terms of the analogy of course.)

[@markthompson2466]

Guy who THINKS he has a pea shooter takes it to a gun fight with Christopher Hitchen who HAS an AK...and a box of ammunition

[@osgrace3341]

You really think “i didn’t find evidence that I like therefor i stop looking and claim it’s not there” is a killer argument?

[@heinshaaine8153]

@@osgrace3341 Oh no. "But in the last 3000 years Christans were not able to provide any evidence for their god" is. The fact that you think the evidence you have can be dismissed based on taste shows how weak your arguments and evidence are. But hey let me (or more likely you) look dumb by presenting good evidence.

[@lout160]

​@@osgrace3341 why add the "that i like"? He'd like ANY evidence. Anything remotely tangible would work. Believers keep citing random ideas or their stupid books thinking it counts for something. Unless something is produced that is testable and falsifiable, there continues to be absolutely no evidence. So, yes, "you have nothing that proves there is any truth in your religion" is a killer argument.

[@osgrace3341]

@@lout160 See this is where you always move the goal post. Evidence is not equal to undeniable unfalsifiable recreatable proof. There is plenty of evidence it’s just not evidence that you (or him) accept as sufficient. That doesn’t make it nonexistent. Testimonies that match with other testimonies are evidence that is valid in court. You may not like or deny the testimonies but they are still evidence.

[@lout160]

@@osgrace3341 I copied something from Wikipedia for you. :D Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[1] although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems.[2] Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific methods. This isn't a courtroom. Sadly, Legal evidence isn't held to the same standard. Which is why it is estimated that approximately %5 of incarcerated individuals are either sentenced for the wrong crime or are falsely imprisoned. I never moved the goal post, you're just playing on the wrong... Court.

[@anearthian894]

Most hilarious popular nonsense argument ever existed. "Here is my theory, i cant prove it, can you disprove it? No??? See... I am right" Imagine if this we use in real life like science,maths, or judge saying this to every innocent.(cuz there is vast unknown always)

[@John_Lyle]

He has as much proof that your deity doesn't exist as he has proof that Leprechauns don't exist. There are 3,000 gods that this Christian apologist doesn't believe in, Hitchens has simply added one more fictional deity to the list.

[@nono7105]

Ah, the typical stupid atheist reply. The difference is categorical, not one of degree. God is not a Leprechaun, for a start, and your lack of evidence for His non-existence _is your problem to overcome._ Make an argument. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

[@peterburgess5974]

Fuck, I miss Christopher Hitchens. Power to you!

[@peterflood8999]

Sycophant.

[@FactStorm]

@@peterflood8999 Saying you miss someone makes you a sycophant? Post something worthy why don't ya?

[@peterflood8999]

@@FactStorm Golf. Foxtrot. Yankee. Sycophant.

[@DaedalusHelios]

You will join him in the afterlife. 😆

[@FactStorm]

@@DaedalusHelios Its ok, you'll grow up someday.

[@atheistcomments]

Gods exist as imaginary characters. I'd gladky get on a stage to explain it to WLC.

[@jrskp3677]

Like he has active listening skills or an ability to conversate honestly.🤷🏼

[@atheistcomments]

​@@jrskp3677 In comments, people can just quit. On a stage he's stuck. Hitchens almost got it. What he said in this video is really the Christian version of kryptonite. They can't defend against the statement that gods only exist as imaginary characters.

[@jrskp3677]

@@atheistcomments Craig has no skills because mental gymnastics are not counted..

[@johnd.2778]

By Craig's logic, there could very well be a tooth fairy and we should think and act accordingly

[@ryanawilson8549]

Anything is possible until it absolutely isn't

[@hera9191]

​@@ryanawilson8549possibility that you survive jump from plane doesn't mean that is reasonable to jump off the plane.

[@michaelherriott9767]

​@@hera9191 People have survived falling from planes.

[@hera9191]

@@michaelherriott9767 I known. But possiblity doesn't make something reasonable.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

​@@hera9191very true. just like even if something is true. it doesnt mean that its rational to believe it is

[@michaelbohrer4593]

I'd rather hang out with Christopher hitchens than William Lane Craig

[@damyr]

Errr... I doubt that, because Hitch is dead.

[@Cam-rm1wn]

@@damyrthat’s a hoax

[@damyr]

@@Cam-rm1wn No, it's not. He died in Houston, from cancer, 12 years ago.

[@michaelbohrer4593]

​@@damyryes...and I'd STILL Rather hang out with hitchens than William lane craig.

[@Cam-rm1wn]

@@damyr Nah he faked it hoax chris is partying it yk somewhere i saw him last week he makes the rounds

[@chrisrea6841]

He just gave his justification

[@tonyharris7953]

Faith was hijacked by religion long ago.

[@FilmsByDan]

Amen

[@FilmsByDan]

Think it happened before Jesus

[@TheLastPharm]

It's astonishing that grown up men can put on a suit and tie while having the reasoning ability of a walnut.

[@bradleythebuilder8743]

If you’re saying that about William lane Craig then I would love to see you debate him. Then we’d see who is the nut 🌰

[@TheLastPharm]

@@bradleythebuilder8743 Do you really think Craig can debate? Are you kidding me? He's about as smart as Trump!

[@samluciano2309]

​@@TheLastPharm lmao ur one of those. Always offended biden supportrr😂 do u dye ur hair aswell?

[@TheLastPharm]

@@samluciano2309 No princess, not a Biden supporter. But thanks for proving my point, though: MAGA nutjobs cant reason worth a damn. This is just too funny! 😂

[@josephmayfield945]

@@samluciano2309my god, who taught you to spell, and form a sentence?

[@daveboo7002]

LOL, whenever somebody asks you to illustrate NOT LISTENING, send them this clip. Craig getting dunked on, picking up the ball, then immediately dunking on himself!

[@nono7105]

That's not what's happening here. You're too entrenched in your own silly worldview to notice.

[@daveboo7002]

@@nono7105 Seriously, you think the person willing to say that neither side has proof is the one entrenched? You're pathetic - get a new argument!

[@americanearthling9671]

It’s like the Christian didn’t even listen. Hitchens explained why he can’t believe

[@MarkJohnson-uu8oy]

He can't believe, because he's a reprobate. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. John:12:40

[@americanearthling9671]

@@MarkJohnson-uu8oy lol Hitchens is far from blind. He can see right through the religious scams. This is is why he is so confident there is no god

[@tranngockha6562]

​@@MarkJohnson-uu8oy So by your logic people should be dumb and believe what they're told? And if they don't believe, they're dumb for not believe in what they're told? Make sense, no wonder religious arguments are so nonsensical.

[@heinshaaine8153]

​@@MarkJohnson-uu8oy thongs cults say

[@MarkJohnson-uu8oy]

@@tranngockha6562 It's not logic, not an argument. Yes, you must believe the Word of God by faith first. No evidence will ever be given. The word dumb means unable to speak, But you knew that.

[@izzabelladogalini]

I can see where Hitch was coming from, my whole life I've been an atheist in it's most literal sense but recently I've changed my mind and I'm now confident in my conviction that not only is there no evidence for God's existence but that there is no such thing as a god or gods (I'm no longer even going to use the expression that "he doesn't exist" because even that sounds like I'm personifying a non entity)

[@thevulture5750]

There's evidence kzbin.info/www/bejne/gHzJZ5Svnr6Sn6s

[@TechySeven]

@@thevulture5750 Nonsense Numerology, Pareidolia and/or Apophenia, Rhetoric, Sophistry, Conspiratorial-Thinking, and Confirmation-Bias... are Anything BUT Genuine "Evidence" in Any Form. Just a conveniently good & manipulative way to convince an ALREADY DEVOUT Believer that they "Ought to FEEL Justified in Continuing to Believe". Nothing more. No Reasonable, Rational, Logical, Skeptical, and/or Scientifically-Minded Person would EVER Think Such Things to be 'Evidence' of ANYTHING Except Your Own Ability to Arbitrarily Concoct, Fabricate, or "Magically FIND" [Non-Existent] "Connections" or "Associations" or "Similarities" within Certain LITERALLY MAN-MADE Languages & Numerical Systems.

[@ConstantCreator2000]

@@thevulture5750 no, there isn’t. There is a bunch of nonsense that is enough to convince the gullible.

[@outoforbit-]

Exactly, and we athiests come accross as if we are personally attacking people who believe in Gods. On this topic, we are better of keeping our mouths shut. Live and let live, life is tough for everyone without us athiests picking a group to attack.

[@anthonykurczewski8384]

I don't buy it. All Mr Hitchens had to ever do is thoroughly research the Shroud of Turin.

[@marcusreading3783]

Wait, did Craig just completely ignore everything Hitchins said? Because he literally just AWNSERED THAT QUESTION!

[@vendingdudes]

The Loop

[@Krawnbundungle]

It’s almost like he’s a professional liar lol

[@IR17171717]

Craig showed that Hitchens does make the affirmative claim that God does not exist. And then he rightly follows up by asking Hitchens what his evidence is.

[@cadmusravenstag4403]

@@IR17171717 Craig is engaging in a logical fallacy that many theists engage in, the burden of proof fallacy. Essentially trying to turn burden of proof backwards. You don't prove the non-existence of something, you can only prove the existence of something-- inductive logic, or providing evidence. If I came up to you and said that I believe in Thor, and I saw him the other day, and you respond that you don't believe me, that there has never been any evidence of such a being, and then ask me for my proof, I respond with, I know what I saw, you can't prove that I didn't therefore Thor exists, you would think I was being ridiculous. And then go on being an atheist of Thor. lmao

[@heinshaaine8153]

​@@IR17171717evidence that hitchens already included in his prior answer: He looked into the claim "a god exists, did research and found nothing compelling to support the claim.

[@raphaelregnault6914]

- Can you present the evidence of the non existence of God ? - No, because it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. - Case closed, God exists. It must be so peaceful to be a believer sometimes.

[@tomcooper6108]

Go to the race track , tell the officials that your car is the fastest out there. When they tell you to get on the track and prove it, tell them, "No, you can't prove that it's not the fastest." That's what you are saying. Something so logically stupid.

[@user-lj1eg4wy5e]

@@tomcooper6108 what?

[@user-lb1ye1pv4q]

No one was more crazy at this type of thinking than Sye Bruggencate "is it reasonable to believe that god exists?" yes- because god exists". That was his opening statement in a debate one time.

[@willpenney5524]

Ha that's funny!

[@robvlob]

Did Hitchens microphone shut off in a way that only Graig couldn't hear it?

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

it was some technical problem yes something shut off in-between the ears (👂👂)

[@gamergodofjustice]

The microphone got caught on part of his jacket and was tugged off his ear its when you see him open the jacket to make sure it wasnt the issue

[@robvlob]

@@fukpoeslaw3613 It's hard for apologists to not have to shut off something between their ears, to keep their beliefs.

[@robvlob]

​@@gamergodofjustice It was more of a joke about Craig asking the question that Hitchens just answered.

[@gusgoodland]

It blows my mind that someone claiming something with no proof of it at all has the nerve to ask for proof of the lack of that thing. Such a weird logic.

[@redrkstone]

That works both ways. To affirm that God doesn’t exist, is to make a statement about reality. You need to support that claim somehow. Thats why Craig is clarifying which type of atheist Hitchens is. Does he deny that God exists, or is he withholding a belief in God? The later position isn’t saying anything about God.

[@gusgoodland]

@@redrkstone the burden of proof isn't on those dismissing the claims of others, it's on those claiming that God exists with zero proof of it. You don't need to prove God doesn't exist because its just speculation that they even exist in the first place. In order for the claim that a God exists to be taken seriously enough to need evidence to disprove it then some semblance of evidence that the claim is true is needed. Otherwise its a simple dismissal of someone speculating. The burden of proof lands with those trying to say that God does exist not with those that state they don't to counter a point that's not backed up with evidence.

[@MrTheclevercat]

@@redrkstone What statement about reality do you need to make about unicorns not existing? That's the same "statement about reality" that you need to make about god. No evidence = not real.

[@redrkstone]

@@MrTheclevercat your not thinking. There is no evidence that aliens exist, does that mean they don’t exist? Many things are constantly getting discovered, do they not exists before they were discovered?

[@IR17171717]

........Craig presents many, many arguments in support of the contention that God exists. You can't judge a debate on a 20 second clip...

[@EugVR6]

I'm with Hitchins on this one

[@nathanualcooper]

oh yeh. so what does God evidence not look like.

[@EugVR6]

@@nathanualcooper What does God evidence look like?

[@nathanualcooper]

@@EugVR6 first define your question. Which God. If you say God of the bible then there are two evidence given to you Sufficient for your condemnation and knowledge about his authority and order. But you would first need to define which God your asking me that question about. Secondly. You said your with Hitchins. Which means you also don’t see evidence for God- so tell me what evidence is missing ? Since you don’t see it ? .

[@EugVR6]

@@nathanualcooper I don't believe in any God's. If I said to you, why don't you believe in Saturn? Millions worshipped him and Saturday is named in his honour! His face is printed on Roman coins! So we have Millions of people as witnesses, and a day of the week named after Saturn. His face on Currency. If you blasphemed him, you would of been put to death! There is a 500BC Temple dedicated to Saturn, its been dug up by Archaeologists, But No evidence of his actual being. Then we have Attis, he was born to a Virgin Mother, born on Christmas day, and he performed the reserection on himself, after he died! Its a miracle! But people don't believe in him either! Why? Why didn't people believe in Odin and Thor? Millions did and Odin has a Bible, which dates from 2BC to around the 11th century. Long before Jesus. So I stand by my statement, I'm with Hitches, there is no God. I'm sure you are going to prove God's existence now, with testable evidence, that we can all examine! Or you're going to use the book of Hebrew fairy tales as proof, which it isnt. Let get to Jesus, there are some historical records of his existence but no records of his divinity, other than the Bible. I'm sure if the dead rose from the grave, the Romans would of talked about that highly unusual event, which was common place in the old Testament. So we have God's, that have performed miracles, born on the same day as Jesus, and to virgin mothers, and were reserected! But there is no evidence of a God. So now we're back to God, where is the evidence of a God, that made everything? No one has seen him or his miracles, and incredibly, the Bible bares many similarities to Greek and Roman God's, that predate Jesus, by thousands of years! The old Testament Plagiarism comes from Sumerian Religion! What a coincidence! Adam & Eve are from Sumerian texts, and Sumerian texts date from 3500BC, long before the man, Jesus, and both bare similarities in their books....more miracles 🤦‍♂️

[@philipbrooks7640]

The justification is what he said - no persuasive evidence of God's existence. Therefore, there is no good reason to believe in God's existence. Therefore, it does not exist. Once persuasive evidence emerges, one is allowed to change their mind.

[@user-lb1ye1pv4q]

It's just a common tactic by apologists. They know they don't have any backup to their claim so they try to shift the conversation over to you.

[@MG-bs5mr]

'Correct and here's my justification for that.." "Ok, so what's your justification for that?" Honestly, it must have been frustrating for him at the best of times.

[@lividsphincter4098]

Wlc not even listening to the answer to the question he's so focused on asking.

[@happyninja42]

That's how most theists are really. You see it all the time on the various skeptic/atheist call-in shows. they're so focused on their apologist script that they don't actually hear the answers given to their questions. And, they blatantly ignore follow up questions asked of them, so they can stay on script. It's all rather pathetic.

[@Mark73]

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[@mediterraneandiet2483]

When you assert, without evidence, that God does not exist for example?

[@Mark73]

@@mediterraneandiet2483 When have I asserted that?

[@MajorMinor1970]

How am I expected to explain the existence of something that I don't believe exists? The whole point of faith is that you believe it is real, why care if I don't?

[@NicolasMendoula]

If you want to affirm something you are the one who should provide evidence. Any argument without evidence can be dismantled without evidence.

[@mediterraneandiet2483]

Including presumably the non existent evidence proving God doesn’t exist?

[@ulfr-gunnarsson]

​@@mediterraneandiet2483 And including non-existent evidence that it does.

[@himynameisjohnwumsh7631]

What if you are trying to affirm something that you know is true but you cannot prove it.

[@NicolasMendoula]

The correct and most honnest answer is then I don't know. The Bible quotes aren't proof of God's existence. I didn't pretend god doesn't exist therefore I'm not trying to prove his existence

[@himynameisjohnwumsh7631]

@@NicolasMendoula what if you DO KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE but you cannot prove it.

[@skraf883]

Hitchens just explained his justification, and Craig just completely ignored what he said and asked the same question over again. Theists don't listen, they preach.

[@IdontKnow-rp5tj]

Put better than any person on the planet could've 💯.

[@robertdouglas8895]

God is not on this planet. That's why it's a null set.

[@SqwarkParrotSpittingFeathers]

Hitchen’s is god and he’ll be coming back soon (which could be sometime before the cold death of the universe) to rain hell fire on everyone who has never used critical thinking concerning god(s).

[@CH-in9kj]

WLC is a total fool when it comes to theism. Hitchens gives his justification and what does WLC do? immediately ask him for his justification lol it's like he wasn't even listening

[@nono7105]

Hitchens did not give him justification. He said a lot of nothing, then admitted that he believed God did not exist. He provided no evidence for that position.

[@CH-in9kj]

@@nono7105 you don’t have to give evidence for not believing. The one making the positive truth claim that god exists is burdened with evidence, not the one saying he’s unconvinced. He says very clearly and plainly that he doesn’t see any persuasive evidence Go learn about burden of proof before continuing this discussion

[@nono7105]

@CH-in9kj Atheism, the belief that there are no gods, is a positive truth claim. A claim for which no evidence is given at all. Theism, the belief that there are gods, is a positive truth claim. One for which quite a lot of evidence has been given. Since it is not known which position is true, the logical, scientific, approach, would be to follow the claim that has some evidentiary support: theism.

[@CH-in9kj]

@@nono7105 first off atheism is not the claim there are no gods, secondly theism has put forth zero evidence. Atheism is the position of not being convinced of the god claim, we do not assert there is no god. We say that there is isn’t evidence to believe so we don’t. Do you understand the difference between “there is no god” and “I’m not convinced there is a god”? Show me any theistic evidence that’s been put forward since I absolutely call bullshit on your evidence claim

[@CH-in9kj]

@@nono7105 “since it’s known which position is true” is total bullshit. Your strong belief in theism isn’t knowledge

[@Ryan-ff2db]

"Do you have any justification for that?" - were you not listening to what he said. I understood him perfectly fine.

[@stewarthall7110]

Hitchens, dead for over 12 years now, knows full well today if he was right or was he deceived.

[@BrianMcGuirkBMG]

Nope. He's just dead. And glad of it.

[@poozer1986]

No he didn't, because he's dead

[@terryaucoin4708]

Yes. A god cant even move my coin

[@sascharouillon9785]

PROVE my imaginary friend is not real!!😅

[@IR17171717]

He isn't asking for proof. He's asking for some evidence.

[@eyemanbish]

If you can affirm, without evidence, that god exists, I can dismiss the existence of god without evidence.

[@ayamayamblackwhite3190]

William LAME Craig need to clean his ears 😂

[@peteratkinson922]

Have you seen his collection?

[@ayamayamblackwhite3190]

@@peteratkinson922 craig has a collection?😁🤣

[@carlisroy6666]

​@@peteratkinson922Of ears?

[@jiricirtek8160]

earwax too stronk

[@tabularasa0606]

Low bar Bill is a bad excusicist,

[@vinayvenkatkruthin9600]

If there is an empty table. Do I need to prove it to say that there is no coffee cup on the table? Or if you are making that there is one even though there isn't, aren't you the one who should show proof 😅. Just askin

[@tinysmawz6053]

Craig is so dishonest about his approach and real physicists do not accept his claims as factual. He uses scientific and mathematic jargon to sound like he is making a factual point. Disingenuous at best.

[@jerryeberts3726]

Not the unlike Jordan “Prof. Pedant” Peterson.

[@favoritemoneymakers]

"What is your justification?" In the name of the lord, he just spent 10 min explaining EXACTLY that.

[@FourDeuce01]

Theists have been “forgetting” how the burden of proof works for thousands of years, but as soon as an atheist makes a claim, they suddenly remember how it works.🤤

[@kingduckie9135]

I just love religious people telling athiests to justify or prove their disbelief, at the same time they are trying to comvince you of something ridiculous. Imagine someone came up to you and said "I'm made of chocolate" and they absolutely believe it and will never change their mind and you say "no you're not" and they go "What's your evidence?" Like how do you even respond, without just laughing in their face of course

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

"Come and stand by this fire"?

[@MrMustang13]

Atheistic arrogance is always hilarious lol “why can’t I find tangible evidence to explain the intangible” If God is outside of time and space and is the unmoved mover and creator of existence, existence is the evidence for Gods own existence. Christian’s believe Jesus is the physical proof of God, after all, he is God incarnate. You may not believe that to be the case, but you yourself is going off of faith just as the believer. You have faith there is no god. You don’t know there is no god.

[@kingduckie9135]

@@MrMustang13 According to every religion on earth god isnt intangible. He speaks to people, commits atrocities and miracles and so on. Not only is he tangible but many religious people wotld wide say they themselves have made contact with him. Religious groups claim tangible results of a God's existence and claim things couldn't exist without one. All of these are claims saying that god mot only exists but is tangible and his actions are real and noticeable. Yet no evidence of his actions exist. And on the argument of the universe existing therefore God does, no. Even in that argument you disprove it, if the universe *must* have a creator because everything needs one then God needs one too. If God doesn't need a creator then some things don't require creators and your original statement is false. Edit: one more point. Holding a belief because all evidence supports it and no counter argument has ever disproved, it such as atheism. Is very different to holding a belief despite all evidence pointing away from it and having no argument to support it, such as religious beliefs. One is nothing but faith, the other is absence of faith. Athiests dont believe something for good reason, while theists do believe something despite reason.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

@@MrMustang13 It depends. Are you referring only to those atheists who believe there is no God, or are you also including the ones who just don't believe there is?

​@@MrMustang13 the same could be said of all gods humans have created

[@James-ll3jb]

Hitch: "To me He doesn't exist because of lack of evidence for His existence." Craig: "Do you have any justification for that?" (???????!!!!!!??????!!!!!!????????)

[@RidetheGeoffening]

Craig should be forever greatful that hitch even allowed him onto the stage to talk his apologetics nonsense

[@StinFriggins]

If anyone wants a definition of presuppositionalism, I'll send them this.

[@heinshaaine8153]

So you think pretending that all logic is based on a god and using that as a lever to pretend that you cant use logic without invoking your god Is the same as not believing in mythological beings until there is sufficient evidence to warrant believe? Crazy how sad Christians get

[@StinFriggins]

@@heinshaaine8153 it's ever-so-rare that a sentence beginning with, "so you think" proves accurate. This sounds like you are mad at someone and haven't thought about who the presuppositionalist in this video is. I'm an atheist. I would say aim whatever you have at someone else, but I'm afraid you will only give a tragically poor response to them too.

[@heinshaaine8153]

@@StinFriggins i think you dont know what a the position of the presuppositionalist is. It is not just "i presuppose a god", there is a whole bullshit argument around that. But even more there was no presuppositionalist argument made in this clip. Just the usual theist unable to cope with an answer that wasn't in their script.

[@StinFriggins]

@@heinshaaine8153 Bill is asking for evidence that would falsify his Lord, the well-known impenetrably unfalsifiable and (hilariously) invisible man. I struggle to see how that's not textbook presupposition.

[@heinshaaine8153]

@@StinFriggins because presuppositionalism is its own seperate branch of apologetics. Pretending that their god is real is just a usual theistic idiocy

[@fatbowe]

Satan is perfectly satisfied with Hitchens 😂

[@jerryeberts3726]

Hitch didn’t believe in Satan either.

[@robertwoods3873]

There is as much proof that Satan exists as there is for god - zero.

[@ApplyUrBrain]

Only fools argued with Christopher Hitchens.

[@cjraymond8827]

What I wonder is how religious people explain pagan religions. Why did ancient people worship false deities for thousands of years? Why did God wait so many millennia of human history to show up as Jesus? While people were worshiping Zeus and Athena, would people have been justified in being skeptical of religion since the “true faith” hadn’t appeared?

[@jeffpalmer6076]

I miss “Hitch”.

[@markjengu90]

"If you can't prove it to me then it does not exist" is the epitome of arrogance.

[@MrCosmin94]

Prove me that tooth fairy isnt real.

[@markjengu90]

@@MrCosmin94 after when you prove to me that belief in tooth fairy is popular with millions of adults worldwide and has contributed to deep philosophy, deep thoughts, motivations, prevented suicides, formed governments, etc. The tooth fairy is an old faulty comparison often used by atheists, again due to their extreme arrogance. Just because you don't understand the concept of God, it doesn't mean that it does not exist.

[@himynameisjohnwumsh7631]

@@MrCosmin94no one is claiming that the tooth fairy exists.

[@georgejung5429]

@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631yes they are

[@himynameisjohnwumsh7631]

@@georgejung5429 who

[@corineusa1454]

Agree or not, I miss these intelligent debates.

[@paulfromcanada5267]

Christopher developed a friendship, of sorts, with one of the Christians that he debated with. The Christian community as a whole developed a certain affection for Hitch. The friendship gives us hope that he may have had a death bed conversion, but there is no evidence to support that.

[@corineusa1454]

@@paulfromcanada5267 I doubt it but like u said we dont know for sure. He is highly missed.

[@heinshaaine8153]

​@@paulfromcanada5267 Imagine being so malicious that you hope the fear of death made a liar out of hitchens on his deathbed

[@jrskp3677]

There is only one on stage with actual intelligence and integrity.

[@RandallHallKaizenReiki]

He literally just explained his justification. The other guy clearly wasn't listening. He just wanted to hear Hitchens say certain words so he could do a "gotcha" moment, only instead he made himself look stupid. Look, I am a theist, and people like this piss me off as much as they do most atheists.

[@fbabarbe430]

To say that God does not exist is the same as saying "love" does not exist, or hate, anger, fear hope, jealousy etc. They all exist, yes in the mind. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It are existances that effect individuals, the world enormously. For the good and the bad aswell. If you can say that all of the things I mentioned above do not exist in your mind, than you are totaly free or a total realist. On the otherhand your life is dull. Having nothing that drives or inspires you. Problem is that Godbelievers see their religion as an objective truth, a reality that everybody has to recognise and to put into account. (judgement day) They use their religion for political powerplay, manipulation to expose moral superiority or pragmatic exclusivity. To recognised that religion is in your mind, and although it is in your mind it still has a lot of personal values but not shared by others, that should make believers humble. You can't discus about religion but yes you can discuss about the effect of religious minds on aspects of society or individuals.

[@shane6115]

He doesn’t have to prove there isn’t a god.. the other guy had to prove there is a god.

[@Appleblade]

Sadly this is Hitch not understanding that Craig is going to kill him for this answer... because, due to the history of skepticism in philosophy, he's going to have to reject belief in other minds, the physical world, the past, and even himself as an enduring subject if he requires positive evidence for everything.

[@biltok4852]

What´s frightening is that about 90% of the worlds population belive in some sort of god or higher power who lives in the heavens,. And those people are willing to ridicule, threat or kill other people who don´t share their belives....... And that just from reading a book that no one really knows who wrote..... or why...There is not ONE peace of proof anywhere in the world that there is a higher power we must obay!! WORLD PEACE!! ❤

[@j-zk6tf]

Love how he's constantly giving justification and they're like but" what's your justification for saying these things"

[@timg7627]

“Do you have justification for something not existing?” 🤦 I have a leprechaun in my garage. It also happens to be an invisible leprechaun. One more detail is a person can only see this leprechaun if they first believe the leprechaun is real. So please provide your justification for not believing in my invisible leprechaun.

[@gregdenson7544]

"Let's keep asking the same question in different ways until I hear the answer I want."

[@jerryeberts3726]

Definition of insanity.

[@samuelallen1402]

Unfortunately, proof of the existence of God seems to be always subjective. Until you have a subjective experience that proves it, you won't know for sure that he exists. It seems to be a rule that the proof must be a subjective experience.

[@kenadams5504]

Religion is like a placebo .If you buy into it , you experiance reality accordingly .The same could be said for another state of mind like agoraphobia ,whereby, an irrational fear of open spaces leads to experiencing open spaces as anxiety inducing .

[@georgeausdemdjungel]

Eucharistic miracles exist, outside of an influence of God they could never happen. This makes God true and catholicism the only true Religion.

[@waegnw3504]

The G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob definitely exists. The man-made-god and idol Jesus does not. No more needs to be said!

[@oldpossum57]

Craig has no response. What he has is an act. Dawkins described it as an act in which he threw around terms of argument (deduction, induction), sounding important, but saying nothing.

[@geraintwd]

I would frame it as "we have insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis".

[@wvp07]

You cannot reason with someone committed to being wrong.

[@stephenmason5682]

They think that non believers have to justify not believing! Hitchens ecplains his position clearly, but thats not enough? Milions of Germans believed in Adolph Hitker, was that ok?

[@lewises4206]

Its a logical fallacy when asked to prove something to reply with ' well can you prove it doesn exist'

[@michaeldulaney5597]

Hitchens was one of those who sound very intelligent but actually speak in full on contradictions.

[@user-lb1ye1pv4q]

such as? Love to hear your examples of this? I'm sure it will be crickets though.

[@ayamayamblackwhite3190]

Is this William lane Craig?? 😁🤣🤣 Clean your ears

[@matthewsoini7913]

So y’all think that nothing created everything? Look no further than that illogical statement to find God the creator Who is outside time, space, and matter to be the only possible logical explanation and PROOF of a being that is everlasting to everlasting! God bless y’all!!