Peter Hitchens | God DOES Exist

Peter Hitchens gives his arguement for the existance of God.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Facebook @ theoxfordunion
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-union.org/
Peter Hitchens opens by stating that he hates this argument. He says that the opposition reminds him of his adolescent self, the worst person he ever knew. This debate is not serious, it's a matter of opinion and thereby a matter of choice. The question, he says, that should be discussed is why we choose what we choose?
Quotes Thomas Nagel, in his opinion the most intelligent atheist living today, "why is it that me and my fellow atheists want so much for they're not to be a god?"
Based on the knowledge we have, we construct a belief that helps us to discover what we ought to do and how we ought to live and if our actions have significance beyond what we immediately do.
He says that the atheists know that if everyone didn't believe in God there would be a lawless society in which we cannot trust people not to lie, cheat, steal or rape. Without the advantages of Christianity we would lose all faith in people doing the right thing.
Filmed on Thursday 8th November 2012
ABOUT PETER HITCHENS:
Author and former atheist now a member of Church of England.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe."
Rights managed by Oxford Media Associates www.oxfordmediaassociates.com/
Filmed by Oxford Media Solutions www.oxfordmediasolutions.co.uk

[@harry3balls]

One could only imagine how the family parties must have been at the Hitchens residence.

[@harry3balls]

@Stacy Caruso oh but you must be fun at family parties. Being the light hearted and humorous person you are.

[@danielzunigagutierrez6300]

Stacy Caruso you are the epitome of an unorthodox God follower. I'd rather be an atheist than a twisted mind.

[@munsonmusclefitness]

@Stacy Caruso they weren't atheist they were raised Christian and even went to Christian schools when they were younger

[@andrewjenkinson8948]

Given the whole family was animated by inexorable social climbing, probably an insufferable bore.

[@harry3balls]

@Stacy Caruso it was a joke.. Go outside to play. Enough youtube commenting for you!

[@alnotbiggaytho7124]

He and his brother must have had awkward discussions.

[@Iad83]

My sense is that 'awkward' would have been a blessing ;p

[@Dionysos640]

You only need to hear the loveless, heartless way he talks about his own dear, departed brother to know that he is full of shit when he talks about his Christianity

[@plooopymops]

Perhaps moderate and occasional violence as well.

[@iankclark]

@@Dionysos640 Apparently they had a heartfelt conversation shortly before Christopher died. Besides, your argument claims that Peter is a hypocrite, as if YOU knew what being a good Christian means. Earnest atheists are simply theists grappling with the inevitable.

[@Dionysos640]

@@iankclark Whereas you appear to KNOW everything. Peter is a self-contradictory hypocrite and an appalling pessimist and I know this because I have read him and listened to him for decades. You appear to have assumed that I am an atheist just because I criticised him.

[@owfn7873]

Im a Christian and always watched debates with Christopher Hitchens argueing against God. Didnt know he had a brother who argues for God 😅

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

We learn something new every day.

[@claesmansson9070]

He didn t do earlier, apparently he does now, who cares, think I will believe in Santa C., at least he turned up a few times ?

[@jupitermoongauge4055]

Christopher annihilated Peter in a debate about religion

[@benmeltzer]

They debated each other a number of times.

[@SagaciousFrank]

​​@@jupitermoongauge4055, no he didn't. Guess which brother spat his dummy out and refused to speak to the other for four years because the other one publicly reminded him of embarrassing views? The atheist Stalinist one.

[@3cpeter]

I love European culture! Look at this. Opposing ideas meeting in a forum where the opposition sits and listen, takes notes and applauded the speaker for his presentation.

[@muhammadhabibalfarabi568]

While here in Asia if you started to opposing a religion in public they will bring up the blasphemy law to end any conversation and put you into jail for criticizing an idea/ideology.

[@theoneandonlyhooda]

@@muhammadhabibalfarabi568 Based.

[@muhammadkhan2439]

@@muhammadhabibalfarabi568 i reckon they do that since criticsm of an ideology weakens the foundation of why theyre in the position theyre in, they just use the ideology as an excuse to silence anyone who can risk their careers

[@-Ahmed8592]

@@muhammadhabibalfarabi568 Based Asia

[@PInk77W1]

And then they let in Millions of migrants who hate them. Bravo

[@BlySS93]

0:46 I thought he was going to say "my brother" :D

[@misha49ish]

same here :)

[@goranvuksa1220]

Haha, me to..

[@rileystewart9165]

clever and subtle if so. Both very smart individuals!

[@adambritain5774]

I think his adolescent self pretty much was his brother. He's put on record how much of an influence his brother had on him whilst he was growing up.

[@pabobfin]

Exactly same thought

[@Antastico]

Why do you guys split these debates up? I'd like to see the debate in it's entirety.

[@WWIIKittyhawk]

It’s for the biased viewer

[@grannyali6567]

WWII Kittyhawk or perhaps to get a taste of the issue and discern whether we’d like invest/waste further time 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@grannyali6567]

i’m sure it a simple search to acquire 😊

[@MrBBOTP]

ABSOLUTELY! & dont be a shithead. if you want the whole thing there are no excuses for your lack of searching it is in here. i would like to say, many of us have played the game long enough and desire the condensation. im not sure why this is recommended i am complete opposite, though eloquent peter sounds like the big brother thats pissed his brother is smarter.

[@theadventuresofsteve-marco6837]

Maybe because some people don't have hours to sit and listen to the whole thing? Breaking each speaker up into their own video is ideal for people who can only watch small parts at a time. Just a thought

[@sivemtshakazana]

This is the most English man I have ever seen.

[@Dsk-zn1yj]

Stereotype

[@anthonyreed480]

​@@Dsk-zn1yj Which exists for a reason.

[@TeenyTelacast]

0:47 me: he's gonna say his brother..... Peter: my adolescent self

[@jacktaylor1516]

I was thinking the very same thing at the very same time.

[@christafarion9]

As was I

[@mariusbendiksen163]

A whole room thought so

[@Sega22245]

fine example of british humour

[@brucellowayne4853]

2:49 "the most intelligent and interesting atheist, I think, now living... Thomas Nagel". *Dawkins dies inside a little bit*

[@trenttrip6205]

And his brother? Lol

[@trenttrip6205]

Oh I guess he was dead lol

[@anatolydyatlov963]

What about Sam Harris?

[@brucellowayne4853]

@GO*CAN*ZUK who says I am a Christian?

[@KingMalaxis]

@@tsarnicholasii274 agreed, as a Christian I am actually interested in the atheist point of view but Dawkins is a joke. I couldn’t even get past the introduction of The God Delusion without him making insults and constantly advertising his website

[@calvincardwell6562]

The Hitchens family reunions must be just awful 😂😂😂

[@alrightalrightalright7855]

Disgusted by each other. Like me and my brother.

[@Alphacentauri819]

Calvin Cardwell well..his brother is dead. I’m thinking reunions won’t happen. And who knows if it will ever happen, in another realm ;) Since Peter and Christopher disagreed on what happens after!

[@niallmartin9063]

Calvin Cardwell not at all, Peter would’ve forgiven Christopher. 🌞

[@leonhardeuler675]

@@niallmartin9063 Forgiven what?

[@Infidelio]

I doubt they had any.

[@BrianCormackCarr]

Poor. “There’s a a God because I’ve decided to believe there’s a God” isn’t much of an argument.

[@jupitermoongauge4055]

Peter Hitchens is an arrogant pompous reactionary clown

[@mrx1278]

There is a lot of "poor" in this argument....

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

He didn't say that at all.

[@made4mystery930]

@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 That's exactly what he said. Weren't you listening? "After many years of not believing in God, (I) came round to the view that I would choose to do so and act as if there is a God."

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@made4mystery930 It's literally not what he said. Nowhere did he say God did in fact exist because of the things he discusses. This was a discussion about theists and atheists. Not about the existence of God and if he had proof for it. He literally said nobody in that room could prove or disprove the existence of God and that was right at the start. "After many years of not believing in God, (I) came round to the view that I would choose to do so and act as if there is a God." Nowhere here does he say this was his evidence of God. "isn’t much of an argument." It's not intended as an argument. You may not know for certain that mummy is coming home at eleven instead of twelve but you may elect to behave that she will, so that you may do the dishes before she gets home as instructed and avoid a potential spanking. Why are you people so damn dishonest?

[@Marcel-sn2el]

The way John Lennox looks at him at the end just warmed my heart :,)

[@jankompos2330]

that smile ment it

[@fredmench4552]

That smug smirk warned my heart too. You can tell just how vindicated he is by the misrepresentation of his adversaries.

[@kylecasey7010]

John Lennox is a gem.

[@jupitermoongauge4055]

Idiots of a feather

[@gerberjoanne266]

It seems as if Hitchens is arguing for the salutary effects of a belief in God, rather than providing any convincing argument for that belief.

[@bovnycccoperalover3579]

Because it's impossible to prove and just as impossible to disprove. St. Anselm had a lovely "proof", "God is the first cause" .

[@raindeer3428]

because this isn't a scientific debate about the creator , this is a debate about the social concept of god, try to be more rational

[@Jide-bq9yf]

Joanne, I’ve never heard him sound this silly , and I’ve always seen him as a clever man . Well, until I saw this .

[@Jide-bq9yf]

Content Paradise ,there’s no social concept of God , without an epistemological argument to ground his existence in the first place . You can’t just wish him into being , because you see social benefits in doing so .

[@briantitchener4829]

@@Jide-bq9yf Quite the opposite. I thought his arguement was extremely clever.

[@edmqnd8128]

The Most amazing debate would be Peter vs Christopher Hitchens!

[@bernardguynunns5658]

Been and gone. You will find it on KZbin.

[@saintronin7633]

@@bernardguynunns5658 link please! Brother Vs Brother

[@bernardguynunns5658]

@@saintronin7633 just search both names and you will find it.

[@Alypiuscel]

it wasnt too great

[@martialharpistmatthew1837]

@Tom B Peter couldn’t prove anything no more than Christopher did and that’s Christopher’s point.

[@OpenTanyao]

Well, that was quite a drawn out way to say "Y'all just wanna sin"

[@Csio12]

So are we supposed to choose poverty. I say then peter hitchins should give all his inheritance if any to charity and live in a dingy bedsit somewhere and bus it plus eat less.

[@christafarion9]

​@Yyamma123 I'm certain that's what you want for him. I'm certain that you wish that upon him. Why are you guys like this?

[@stupollock6851]

I’m 68 and finally after all these years Santa took the cookies I left out. I was beginning to think he wasn’t real.

[@vlad516]

Your point being?

[@vlad516]

@@251rmartin having a brain would've been better

[@andrewthomas2353]

Dawkins: So it's settled, then? Oxford: Nay, there's a Hitch!

[@monarchblue4280]

Underrated. Good one mate.

[@avaruto8249]

Hitch looks like CS Lewis

[@srinivaspillai4622]

Well said, hilarious.

[@zaxbitterzen2178]

Unfortunately Peter fell victim to the same plight of most apologist debaters in that he says so much without saying anything and people just eat it up or call it a win despite no ground being broken at all.

[@joemarshall4226]

@@zaxbitterzen2178 No, he did say something important: He reframed the debate as an atheist had reframed it....Why do atheists WANT to believe in a pointless universe?

[@sohamshah7638]

Isn't the debate about DOES god exist i feel like peter is debating about whether should god exist.

[@christopherchay7593]

Debating whether or not he exists is a waste of time for both sides.

[@sohamshah7638]

@@christopherchay7593 Not really, what about young adults and teens who have been raised as religious or atheists by their families and are now trying to search their selves. Such debates and dialogues help people challenge their childhoods and make decisions.

[@christopherchay7593]

@@sohamshah7638I totally agree, but, there are already more than enough. I'm one of those searching people myself. All that anyone needs to know is love God, (good morals if you're an atheist) love each other and love science. It's just... I've never really seen much good come out of these things. There always seems to be this wicked animosity within the debate room and the comments. If it has to be done at least let it be more constructive. I think the bible even says that these types of debates are a waste of time. how about they debate which is more useful? Atheism or belief in God? The one guy even says it himself during the debate.

[@interget1605]

Christopher Chay the problem with atheism is who decides what those good morals are? You need objectivity.

[@christopherchay7593]

@@interget1605 yeah that is true, just... We now know the baseline. just treat people as though you love them. I'm sure most atheists would agree with what Jesus said.

[@TheHerrUlf]

Not much of an argument: "my wish is my 'argument'. You go by the facts, so you're a bad person."

[@burgcarli929]

Where are your "facts" that God does not exist? As Peter stated, the belief or disbelief, is all a matter of choice. Why don't you want there to be a God?

[@rasmuslernevall6938]

I'm sorry, but did he make an argument during his presentation? If so, I must have missed it.

[@Evenflovv]

Yes, sadly he didn't, and I really wanted to hear it.

[@alexb7799]

He said that he cannot argue for the existence of god any more than an atheist can argue against it. We don't fully know how the universe came to be and either side can explain away whatever the other comes up with. He instead argues against a world without the belief in god which is a much better question to debate.

[@rasmuslernevall6938]

@@alexb7799 Well, you can argue against the abrahamitic God without difficulty. But one or more higher realities or dimensions, purpose behind the universe and consciousness as the fundamental reality - that is much harder to argue against. And there is where I think the really interesting debate is. Between those concepts and materialsm.

[@pgrothschild]

Of course not, he went for the sophist approach and sophists never argue for the truth

[@peterdickinson8755]

Money talks basically. You cannot serve God and mammon

[@ChalkEater419]

@Vance Humphrey They are false prophets

[@chrissonofpear1384]

I won't serve Jesus AND Jehova. Pick one. Also, I find Luke 14:26 suspicious.

[@videosight1]

Wtf is mammon? Ah, Bible term like manna and blaspheme and... Can't you just speak in normal?

[@chrissonofpear1384]

A term for a god of money and greed, basically.

[@TheJimmybeatz]

@Harry Denny your choice doesnt affect me none

[@vineeth547]

7:45 john lennox beaming with pride.

[@chrisdbarry]

The least convincing argument I have heard in a long while. Distilled to “I think believing in god is better than not”

[@robvivian7354]

that is his point, we cant prove there is a god, but belief in one is best for morality

[@themancuniancandidate2744]

As much as I appreciate the lesser Hitchen's articulate explanation of his reasons for his belief, they are-as he concedes-just beliefs. And this is the problem I have with faith. It's a poor mechanism for us to reach the truth. You could take literally anything on faith; it requires no proof, no evidence, nothing except your own conviction. It's literally the stance of; "I believe this, even though I have no good reason to believe it". And if you HAD a good reason, you wouldn't need faith. Faith is the excuse people proffer to excuse their gullibility.

[@carlosruiz184]

So you think all the martyrs that have died for Jesus are just gullible? All the Popes up to the IV century died of martyrdom and you think they were just gullible? That Thomas Aquinas and Saint Agustin were gullible?? Up to the XV century all Christians believed the same so millions of people lived and died and were gullible? A bit presumptuous…

[@themancuniancandidate2744]

@@carlosruiz184 I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. There's no evidence that Jesus existed. None. So those martyrs, devout as they were, died for their beliefs in a story that cannot ever be confirmed. What other word would you use to describe the absolute belief in something that cannot be shown, demonstrated, proven, or verified?

[@philscott3759]

R3tardation.​@@themancuniancandidate2744

[@robynhefferan9561]

But there is more evidence for a creator than there is for spontaneous bang theory- now THAT takes huge faith. Everything we look at is seen through a lens of belief - 😊

[@philscott3759]

@@robynhefferan9561 Evidence of a creator.Mkay. I'm not sure you know what evidence is.

[@chrisheath1394]

Peter Hitchens, at his most plummy-mouthed brilliance. I love him. I may disagree with what he says, but, like his brother, Chris, he is an amazingly eloquent, knowledgeable and passionate speaker.

[@fanoflego456]

Might I ask where you disagree with him?

[@ConnzorZGaming]

Call him Christopher. He openly refused to be called Chris numerous times

[@meggrobi]

@@ConnzorZGaming Well its "Chris" from now on or is that "Chrissy"?

[@tuttuts560]

@Chris . You know I wasn't sure if I had seen the thumbnail correctly. I was like has Chris changed his mind and then I realized it said Peter. Yet I wasn't convinced and was like are they brothers and yes you confirmed it. Must have been interesting in the family then because of Chris I never thought there could be one closer to him who had a different opinion

[@dyschromotopia]

pete the fuckwit, using all of his limited intellect to perpetuate delusion, determining himself by opposing every objective thought his brilliant brother argued.

[@milo.ibrado]

"Christian kicking" 😂

[@Mere_Christian]

It’s an ongoing habit.

[@paulinedoyle1807]

Beautifully articulated. ♡

[@clarkeonenil3252]

He admits he hasn't got a clue, but instead of keeping his money in his pocket he chooses to back a 100/1 shot. Ok.

[@KenNickels]

I never heard of this man but he has framed the topic in a fresh way, both diffusing the tired binary arguments that neither side can prove and just focusing on choice. Making the leap of faith, or not, is the choice.

[@seletarroots3258]

Precisely. It is a choice and one born, if done with sincerity and honesty and integrity, out of the realisation that you have reached the border of rationality and here the choice is to either say there is nothing beyond or to say: right, let us now enter into the realm of the non-rational. Not irrational, which is a conclusion you can arrive at via rationality and is existentially different from non-rational. My gripe is this constant schtick with the believers about non-believers being in essence amoral. Given what we have seen of believers and their actions, I think it is safe to say that it should be something discussed in hushed tones by believers. Faulting non-believers as being amoral and incapable of thought and action consistent with the well being of humanity and its prospering and fluorishing (including formulating around the concept of "injustice) is just so old and so worn. And also, so irrational. It is ironic that Hitchens speaks both of the sublime non-rational and then gives an irrational support for it. Very sad to see.

[@perfectcell2418]

The other side needs to prove nothing. You make a claim about the existence of God. So you need to prove he exists. Atheists do not need to prove he doesn't. His absence already proves that.

[@KenNickels]

@@perfectcell2418 Neither side can prove it satisfactorily to the other. When you say absence, the word is just an assertion.

[@seletarroots3258]

@@perfectcell2418 You make the usual error most atheists make in that you assume anything needs to be done at all. Take a step back and for a moment truly ponder what you are looking at. Does anything NEED to be done in regards to God existing or not? Really? Are you facing a forced choice or anything of that nature where this "need" can be derived from? If not, then I think you will agree that nothing needs to be done. This is purely a matter of choice, want, freedom, interest, temperament, personal experience and the journey some take into the non-rational.

[@liljade53]

@@perfectcell2418 prove his absence.

[@cheekbonecharlie9257]

Richard Dawkins in the background.

[@Howie57]

Oxford resident....as is PH

[@andrasfoldi9235]

@Alan Bane Nice bait you got there

[@kitemanmusic]

And Peter Shirmer (US)

[@jeffwells1255]

@Alan Bane English ain't yer first language, isn't it?

[@rotorblade9508]

“Why would you want to live in a Universe without God”? It’s the way it is, it’s not about what I want. This is ridiculous duh... “Why would you want to live in a purposeless Universe ?” Again, it’s not wat l want, it’s about the truth 🙄 “Why would you want to live in a chaotic Universe” first of all it’s not chaos it’s has consistent rules. At a quantum level there is an inherent randomness but even there you always get the same probabilities for repetitive experiments. The initial conditions were perhaps absolutely arbitrary. From then everything that happened followed rules and finally now many systems have a sort of stability. Again, it’s not about what we want “They do want the Universe to be purposeless” we do?! This man is full of rage 🙄 It’s such a shame 5:10 “it is very fashionable” is he thinking he is addressing rebel teen agers ?! He doesn’t seem to have any idea about how a man that understands there is no god thinks 😒 7:08 “they want to have the advantages of christianity but not pay the tolls” 😂 it’s exactly the opposite as we partly pay them but we don’t get any advantages because there are none

[@CK-pt2eb]

Rotor Blade Different people have different perspectives. If Justice and evil both exist , some see justice while some see the opposite

[@miguelvasquez488]

The thing is even what you explained is not the absolute "truth". Believing that way is just like religion. That's kind of what I got out of his speech. That's why he kept mention them "wanting" it to be that way.

[@beckyyule1228]

You do realise he used to be an atheist?

[@rotorblade9508]

C K I agree with that

[@sb4040]

Who lays out your "consistent rules"? We say God does.

[@MrKuhistani]

What makes this debate precious is the way both sides bring their opinions rather than their knife to the duel...

[@Quuob]

All this teenage angst in the comment section.

[@liberexcogitatoris1792]

All these non sequitur's in the comments section.

[@solideogloria3602]

4 years later and still true, lmao.

[@kingsman428]

Shut your fat mouth this isn't ANGST

[@CoryTheRaven]

WHAMMO! I share Hitchens' exhaustion and boredom with the question of whether or not there is a God, which is why I appreciated his cutting beyond that question to ask the question about epistemology and motivation. He wasn't trying to present an argument for God existing: he was challenging the assumptions that people bring into that question... Assumptions about what qualifies as evidence, assumptions about what qualify as morals, assumptions about the way the world works, assumptions about how society works (or ought to). Despite all the people insulting him in the comments (no y'all, both Hitchens boys are and were blubbering and hard to listen to... Christopher and Peter have great voices but are terrible public speakers), Hitchens was the only one who was completely HONEST about explaining his own motivations for holding the views he has. And he was dead on about how pointless, tired, and worthless (and self-contradictory) the counterarguments were. Nobody but him asked the fundamental question about what your epistemological and motivational assumptions are when even ASKING the question of whether God exists.

[@Phamster92]

The title of the video is misleading. You are one of the few people who get that Peter was asking the question behind the question.

[@ayyleeuz4892]

well pontificated upon

[@Smellindamix]

The fact that the most secular societys on planet earth are the safest, cleanest, best educated and most progressive, demonstrate how Peter is wrong.

[@t2dab936]

this isnt true at all

[@t2dab936]

complete opposite of what you said

[@profesorjan7614]

Nice speech, yet no arguments for the existence of God were provided. Just enumerations on why is it good to believe in God

[@adamthapazz4137]

"Why is it that they so much want there not to be a god?" Your brother wrote an entire book covering that topic and other.

[@adamthapazz4137]

@Owen Lee I'm pretty sure he was... 😅

[@adamthapazz4137]

@Owen Lee haha ya... I had a similar reaction

[@theflash9735]

Adam Thapazz OMFG THANK YOU! I was sooo confused when i saw the word 'Hitchens' in the title LMFAO!

[@adamthapazz4137]

@@theflash9735 lol cheers!

[@gamesh0w4life69]

@Owen Lee i just found out today too jaja but u can see the similarities especially the way they talk.

[@robblunden4433]

You have to admire the fact that the representative for the Oxford Union appears unable to spell.

[@clapton79]

I hate that theists go personal all the time. I am a Catholic but I love the rational and straightforward thinking of these atheist gentlemen

[@speggeri90]

The atheist thinking comes from a personal view. Religious thinking comes from a personal view. I'm a born again Christian and I believe people are rejecting God, the only holy and righteous judge, because they know they are doing things against God, so they need to get rid of God. I believe it is as simple as that. But God provided us with a Savior. Repent and trust in him and your Sins are forgiven and given everlasting life as a free gift.

[@abdmzn]

​@@speggeri90 You reject Allah, because you know you are doing things against Allah, so you need to get rid of him.

[@SockTaters]

Thanks clapton. I'm an atheist and I have respect for religious people, but not the kind like Peter who think calling us bad people is any kind of argument for a god.

[@LongSeax88]

⁠@@abdmzn allah the great deceiver is clearly satan. muhammed was a devil worshiping pedo.

[@Homo_sAPEien]

Why does he need for life to have a “purpose”? No purpose to life doesn’t mean you can’t have fun. Plus, “purpose” is an ambiguous concept. And, weather, or not, you like an idea doesn’t determine, if it’s true.

[@renocicchi7346]

Exactly, it’s insane that Theists actually think he made a good argument

[@art-fw7ci]

@@renocicchi7346I don't think that they actually believe it is a good argument. It's just that these fallacies are all that they have. I personally enjoy when they start with the ad hominems, though. It never fails to amuse.

[@kaizze8777]

"They want all the joys, all the benefits of Christianity, without paying their dues" beautifully put Sir Hitchens! beautifully put!

[@kingsman428]

Christopher had rather a lot to say on that matter "...a celestial North Korea if you like..." 😁

[@halseykale9930]

this doesn't mean god exists lol

[@jt2097]

@@halseykale9930 you are correct and that's what Peter Hitchens was saying. People can argue endlessly and one side could never change the minds of the other side and so it is a choice. One side chooses not to believe, the other side chooses to believe. The question was Why would people want to choose not to believe. Why would they want life to be meaningless and without justice? No one can ever provide proof for another that God exists. The only way a person can come to believe is by proving it to themselves. Each person must make his own journey to the truth, put God to the test and prove it to themselves. Even from the days of your fathers you have gone away from my commandments and not kept them. Return to me and I will return to you. Malachi 3:7

[@jt2097]

@Adolf Bearjamin Hang on then, I'll check out my holy book again. Ah yes, here it is. Malachi 3:10. NIV. 'Test me in this' says the Lord almighty, 'and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it.' Reading the Bible and understanding it proves that God is love. Reading the Bible with a desire to disprove it or misunderstand it will not benefit you one bit. The meaning of this life is merely to sort the wheat from the chaff, the goats from the lambs, the wheat from the tares. And so it is as meaningless as you choose to make it for yourself. Everyone here is under sentence of death. This life is the offer of a reprieve, offered free, out of love. A belief in God does not give your life meaning, you are correct, satan believes in God, but a belief in God could give motivation to accept the promise of Jesus and allow you to enjoy the beauty of rainbows as long as you desire, with friends and family of your choice and with as many pots of gold as you want. Don't deny yourself this, and especially don't attempt to spread the lies of satan to try and deny it to others.

[@steveng6704]

@@jt2097 Why is it meaningless to live one's life to the fullest without thought of an infinite afterlife? If there is a heaven wouldn't this life actually be more meaningless? Knowing I only have this life actually inspires me to live it to the fullest, and I still can have morals because I don't want to ruin other's finite time.

[@lachatnoir1127]

Him and his brother must have had great conversations

[@dan79600]

I don't think they kept in touch

[@sagniksarkar2471]

I think they had terrible conversations where every one of his epistemological claims kept getting debunked so now he's clamored back to a moral argument that does not have anything to do with the nature of the debate around God's existence.

[@thegoose4715]

They certainly would not have ever written "must of"!

[@lachatnoir1127]

@@thegoose4715 edited just for you , you silly goose

[@chriscook9227]

I doubt it

[@theseed2199]

How I'd imagine the Inspector from "An Inspector Calls" to look like.

[@jimmycarrollgodblesspoland5521]

It amazes me the amount of time atheist’s spend talking about something that they don’t believe exists

[@louisscrivener7573]

Alot of atheists understand that if god is real then he is hugely important. Of course it makes sense to keep investigating.

[@renocicchi7346]

As an Atheist, the reason I spend time talking about something that doesn’t exist is because I care about truth. Do you care about truth? You do realize Peter’s entire argument in this video is that he wants god to exist, therefore he does? He is not someone that actually cares about truth.

[@jimmycarrollgodblesspoland5521]

@@renocicchi7346 Reno, one way or another we will find the truth, I wish you well,may the blessing’s of almighty god fall upon you 🙏🇮🇪👍

[@seanmilliken4866]

OMG I CANT RESIST!!! Who is the bigger fool? The man who believes in a fairy sky man, or the man who argues with the first man of the non-existance of said fairy sky man? as a christian, it perplexes me that some atheists argue God dosnt exist. Peter here reveals what is up their butts. Namely the desire for closure to their guilt problem. However, this involves a denial. Not a disbelief. Alternatively, there is a more elegant solution. If you search the Word of God you will find that Christ is a free gift, if you arent too prideful to accept it. This relieves some atheists need for closure. But, like I said, pride can be an enormous stumbling block.

[@renocicchi7346]

@@seanmilliken4866 the first one is the only fool tell me, is saying you want god to exist proof for its existence?

[@TheChaosFactory1]

I do not wish for their not to be a God, I simply wish for the truth.

[@TEQSUN68]

There is no TRUTH without God, if there is no God, than truth is only relative ( just a matter of opinion) and therefore not truly TRUTH. BECAUSE... Your truth is your opinion and my truth is my opinion and there is no standard to declare by, what Truth truly is. God is the ultimate Judge by which HE give us the TRUTH we must live by. Don't believe in God, do whatever you want, there is no true justice, not now, not ever.

[@tooskepticool7675]

What is truth?

[@TEQSUN68]

@@tooskepticool7675 This is TRUTH kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZm6mo1pnr2Kra8

[@safranicus2457]

@@TEQSUN68 yeah tammy, what you wrote is delusion, but carry on

[@chad969]

Tammy Isbell Truth is a belief or statement that accurately describes reality. So to say that “there is no truth without god” would mean that a belief or statement can’t accurately describe reality unless there is a god. How would you prove that to be the case?

[@mindspace3863]

Ever wondered what Christopher Hitches may be been like as a theist? Well this would have been it.

[@colejames423]

*Christopher

[@MacCadalso]

Cole James I recall that Christopher did not want to be called “Chris”.

[@jeremiahsilva7458]

Just imagine the good that would have been done if both brothers had realized how disgusting the bible is and how dogmatism pollutes the world

[@TommyGunzzz]

@@jeremiahsilva7458 lol, dogma like secularism, scientism, or atheism? Depopulation, green agenda, all have no dogma right? And the bible establishing modern civilised societies, not really very disgusting..

[@davidvarley1812]

Mind space I can't agree. Christopher Hitchens spoke with more elegance and proposed far more convincing arguments.

[@sguraya7223]

I like the idea that these brothers disagreed, it's a sign of critical thinking

[@oscarmedina1303]

Yes. His brother clearly has it and Peter does not. A really good example of critical thinking, comparing the two brothers.

[@sguraya7223]

@@oscarmedina1303 your horseshit sarcasm doesn't make a point Stop being smug and find some friends

[@joeturner9219]

​@@oscarmedina1303That is your own personal opinion based on your position. That's subjective.

[@abdmzn]

​@@joeturner9219 It's actually a fact claim that is either true or false, it's funny how much you religious people fail to distinguish.

[@narutofan4545]

​@@oscarmedina1303why are you so mad

[@toddboone333]

Peter is an absolute legend.

[@mohammered1905]

Of course God does exist, but only in the minds & imaginations of religious people.

[@kleenex3000]

+Mo Hammered Better yet, all THOSE G-Ds that we "know of" DO exist - in the respective brain of the respective believer. These G-Ds and their contradictions are well-sealed from another, by evolved-primate skullbone!

[@jamesconan6358]

Peter doesn't want to live in a "disgusting," insignificant and purposeless universe. Sorry, but the logical corollary of this wish isn't the reality of its antithesis. The universe doesn't owe you fulfilment of, or correspondence to, your personal desires.

[@ic8575]

He said that the existence of God was a matter of opinion. In as many words, that's exactly what he claimed.

[@jamesconan6358]

It's called an implication.

[@dragonchan3320]

Why do these desires exist?

[@jamesconan6358]

The desire for God, or objective meaning?

[@colinjava8447]

@gtq838 And 99.999999999999% of the universe is totally inhabitable for humans, some divine plan for mankind that is.

[@kevinishki]

Where is the full video or playlist so I can see the response to this

[@josephno1347]

My brother would argue against me like this, it must be part of the deal, so I keep mundane

[@vvalimaki]

The comment sections in these videos made me realise how screwed up and twisted people are nowadays...

[@anthonychorlton6257]

It's one thing to debate your point of views. Mocking people's profound beliefs is something completely different which many atheists do all too much. It is an intellectually infantile way to debate yet they want to present themselves as intelligent.

[@JollyJoel]

+Anthony Chorlton Yeah, Religious people never mock Atheism. Never...

[@tha1ne]

+Jolly Joel show me where the religious people mock atheism in this comment thread. Even if you could, which you can't, show me where they even come close to the atheist trolls here mocking religious people with the same frequency lol

[@JollyJoel]

tha1ne Umm... Did you not read the comment I was responding to? He made a generic statement, in general towards Atheists, *"which many atheists do all too much."* ...and I see plenty of Atheist saying this was a good argument from Peter as well as the typical _questioning theists' intelligence_ that Atheist tend to do. Like what I can do to your comment (insert insult of your mistake here). Would you like me to back up my sarcastic claim that Religious people mock Atheist? If I do, it won't be difficult to confine it to America alone.

[@tha1ne]

Jolly Joel LOL you completely missed the point of my comment (which was fairly straightforward). You basically implied religious people mock atheism as well (perhaps even to the same extent atheists mock religious people). I call bullshit, and so does the poster above you, who basically says this is an infantile way of conducting oneself intellectually. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to find me where the religious people mock atheists in this comment section, go ahead, you won't bitch

[@infinitewisdom4557]

The purest mind is that of a child.... The child seeks questions of his existence at a very early age. The child never gets the right answers because grownups keep giving the wrong answers. How very sad!

[@Graeme_Lastname]

@Jonty Who told you that? Or, did you make it up yourself?

[@tonyharford4625]

Yes the purest mind is that of a new born child. Every child is born an atheist (ie they don't believe in a god). This is soon corrupted by the pressures from their parents and society to conform to the beliefs prevalent in the place where they are raised. Judaism and Islam in the middle East, Buddhist and Hindu in the far East, Catholic and Protestant in America. Strange how these different religions are all concentrated in their own specific areas. It's almost as if they were just made up by the locals in that area.

[@tonyharford4625]

@Jonty You lost me at "In fact the bible tells us...". Why should I believe what the Bible says? Because the Bible says I should believe it? That's a circular argument which is proof of nothing.

[@philmoss6539]

This guy is a complete prick

[@nomejest5919]

Stfu gtfo stop thinking kids are dumb u stereotypical moron

[@iraceruk]

Well let's all hope that Peter continues believing in his version of god, because from what he said here it sounds like everybody should watch out if he doesn't!

[@johancarlnert6283]

Haha, best intro ever!

[@BudFieldsPPTS]

I'm new to this series (I didn't know the Oxford Union was on KZbin.) Is there a place where the results of the votes post-debate are visible? Thank you, in advance, for your help.

[@hgostos]

5:57 Peterson before Peterson. Bravo.

[@felidiafeatherbottom9134]

hgostos Not a good thing. Like at all in my opinion.

[@royythaboi7163]

@@felidiafeatherbottom9134 why u say that?

[@mvmv9205]

Bravo, brother. God bless you, Peter

[@edenrosest]

7:45 It seems that John enjoyed and were satisfied with what Peter boldly spoke.

[@zsht]

His argument: Wouldn't it be nice if it was all true.

[@bayreuth79]

I think you have rather misunderstood his speech. He was arguing that since God can neither be proved nor disproved then the question as to whether He exists is a matter of opinion. It is a question of choice. This is _not_ the same as wishful thinking because it might be true, whereas wishful thinking is believing something that you want to be true despite the fact that it isn't! If believing in God is wishful thinking, which I doubt, then so is not believing in him as well. Atheists, as Hitchens rightly points out, want there _not_ to be a God, just as theists want there to be a God.

[@zsht]

bayreuth79 Of course I was being a bit facetious. However, I still must disagree with his point. There are many things that can be proved or disproved, but the validity of their sources vary. In short, we have opinions and backed-up opinions. You chose whether or not you want to listen to new evidence that points to a specific belief. In any other argument you would take into account evidence that suggests a certain view, even if the evidence isn't conclusive. It is also categorically wrong to say that atheist "want there _not_ to be a God". It is possible to not believe in God, but wish there was a God. After all, who wouldn't want a heavenly afterlife? Who wouldn't want to be eternally loved by an omniscient deity? We all would, but some of us just don't think there is enough evidence pointing to it. Religion intrinsically must post-rationalise with every new scientific discovery. One argument is thousands of years old, and the other argument continues to educate itself everyday.

[@bayreuth79]

Christopher Hitchen's was a vacuous polemicist. Not just my opinion. Read Chomsky (an atheist)! Christopher was essentially a modern day equivalent of the ancient Greek sophists: the art of lying with style! At least his brother has some integrity.

[@bayreuth79]

No. He described Ch Hitchens as supporting "the religion of the state" which is "usually much worse than any other religion"; and he also called him a "vulgar polemicist". If you're an atheist you really have no grounds for morality. If you say you do then please explain to me how you derive an ought from an is?

[@bayreuth79]

I never said you were immoral. Your morality has been inherited from your culture (in the broadest possible sense) but how do you determine what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, etc? You _cannot_ derive an ought from an is (Hume) therefore (for atheists) is not morality nothing more than a collection of prejudices that have no basis in the real world? Science can help us to determine what helps and what hinders us from flourishing as human beings; but it _cannot_ tell us that human flourishing is a good thing that we ought to promote, not just for ourselves but for everyone. Your morality has been given to you by a culture deeply inspired by the Judeo-Christian value system; and yet you want to cut off the branch you are sitting on! Nietzsche saw this very clearly: if you get rid of Christian metaphysics (God, etc) there is no reason to believe in Christian morality! John Gray (atheist) has written about this as well.

[@aneldavanschoor5021]

Brilliant. He cut straight to the heart of the matter. Love where he quotes Job. His voice reminds me so much of Christopher.

[@fadjeb8254]

And his attitude aswell

[@kelman727]

You mean he sidesteps all logical objections and spends his time attacking strawmen...?

[@scottc873]

@@kelman727 No shit. How he was invited to this intellectual exercise in logic is a mystery.

[@Jide-bq9yf]

anelda van schoor , true . The similarity of a sibling voice is always a bit uncanny .

[@peytonsingh6258]

I wanted to let you guys know that Jesus loves you all so much! John 3:16- For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for our sins, was buried, and resurrected from the dead on the third day. This is the beautiful Gospel, which means "Good News." Acts 20:21- “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” If we repent (humbly and truthfully confess our sins to God, committing to forsaking and turning away from them), put our trust in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior giving our lives over to Him, and believing His Gospel to save us from the just punishment for our sins being hell, forgiving us our sins- God gives us eternal life! God bless you and let me know if you have any questions! Jesus loves you!

[@dl4350]

thought this would be crap, but Hitches actually argues his point quite well

[@claybentonite]

His argument was tailored to non-believers, a simple message. Christopher Hitchens knew a lot about the Bible and rightly pointed out the frequent hypocrisy of Christendom, which does not resemble the early Christian Church and is an apostate form of the early church. I do not recall Christopher Hitchens making this distinction.

[@ufodeath]

I thought it was crap, a thoroughly unconvincing argument that doesn't even remotely help to prove the existence of a supreme being. And his point in itself falls flat on its face. There are highly legitimate reasons for why people would want there to not be any Gods or an after life. How about not having to live your life in fear of not being able to appease a God and winding up in a place of Eternal punishment? How about not having our lives be dominated by the whims of a supreme being? How about having to develop our ethics based on how our actions and human made systems affect people in reality based on evidence, rather than what the authority of a book suggest is "right" and "wrong" without any basis whatsoever? There are dozens or hundreds of more reasons that I could list for why it's a good thing to not have God(s) that dominate our lives. Peter Hitchen's argument is a gigantic logical fallacy which has to ignore a huge chunk of atheist material and refer to only one fringe atheist in order to arrive at the conclusion that "Atheist want there to be no god for no reason, and the belief in the existence of a god provides much good for the world, checkmate atheist"

[@jeremiahsilva7458]

an appeal to emotion is a good argument?

[@jesuslovesyou1921]

@@jeremiahsilva7458 atheist are influenced by their emotions. Many of them are afraid to believe God exists because they are afraid of His wrath at the end of their lives. So they try their best to convince their conscience God doesnt exist so they won't be accountable when they die.

[@renocicchi7346]

@@jesuslovesyou1921 Christian’s literally say they fear god, and Atheists are literally going against your god, which means we do not fear going to hell. You have it completely backwards. You believe on emotion, and we believe on evidence

[@kennethyoung9560]

Well I have been searching for god to please show me a sign and I'm still waiting I hope he hasn't giving up on me.the existence of God is still debatable just as much as there is no god.i don't think we will ever know until we die.i don't want to believe he's not a loving and caring god but I'm seeking and I would love to have a relationship with the creator.im willing to meet in the middle but it feels as if he won't meet me halfway.idk but I need him in my life.does anyone have any answers to this plz comment.thanks.

[@tracik1277]

That is a very interesting and revealing comment.

[@Futureplanet]

"why would you not want there to be a God?" Is not a question or point that the atheists ask. This is a straw-man argument. They are NOT not wanting a God. They are wanting people to live lives free from delusions, no matter the delusion....Gods or otherwise. That's a big difference, and a shame Peter Hitchens stoops to self-answering a silly question he makes up, that no-one asked.

[@GODOFHELLFIRE3]

Futureplanet But you must ask yourself, if atheists do NOT not want there to be a God, why are they SO angry that many people choose to believe in God despite the evidence that suggests - suggests - otherwise?

[@chaosvii]

GODOFHELLFIRE3 I'd imagine it's because a non-insignificant portion of those people who are convinced with the proposition of Yahweh or whatever other deity the local religious population is enamored with are myopic egocentric psychopaths that never skip an opportunity to con people into injecting their local, state/provincial, national, and international politics with nonsense that detrimentally affects everyone yet somehow takes forever to go away. People tend to be angry about oppression, systematic dismantling of effective social policies, and perspectives on the world that were generally considered to be obsolete by experts in the 18th century. Yahweh or whoever never mattered, it's the exploitation of people that are flagrantly, persistently, resoundingly ignorant about social & scientific progress. It's how those people are rallied & herded and made to march by those that are (knowingly or unknowingly) willing to reinforce their particular flavor of ignorance in order to achieve short-term power grabs at the expense of everyone around them. If some portion of people believed that everyone had 14 eyebrows and somehow this led to ethnic cleansing or laws against interracial marriage or whatever, you'd see a lot more angry proclamations about how people have only 2 eyebrows and all the evidence that suggests having a different position than that is anywhere from presumptuous to willingly ignorant. But the anger is not just about people being wrong in ways that make no sense and actively resist being stated in a coherent fashion. It's about how those people are harming others and refuse to acknowledge that the harm they do is a problem that should be resolved by them stopping.

[@GODOFHELLFIRE3]

chaosvii Fair point, well made, there has historically been many human rights atrocities committed by people claiming to work in the name of religion. But this must raise two further points: firstly, many of the dictatorial tyrannies (under Stalin, Chairman Mao, the Kim dynasty, etc) claim to work in the interests of communism; but many people believe that the underlying principles of true communism are inherently good. In such a case, it might be said that a fair and upright ideology, namely communism, has been distorted and used for evil purposes by manipulative personalities; could it not be the same with religion? In much the same way, given it is human rights atrocities we are concerned with here, should we not be condemning those atrocities rather than the religions that supposedly caused them? I know that I personally have no problem with what people believe, provided they respect the dignity of human life; surely, then, it is the action that should be held to account rather than the belief?

[@chaosvii]

GODOFHELLFIRE3 "should we not be condemning those atrocities rather than the religions that supposedly caused them?" If it were somehow a matter of either/or, then yes, bickering about the inherent incoherence of a given political organization of manipulated people misses the point of the damage from these actions said people partake in. Why you decided to choose words which have the unfortunate implication that a notable portion of atheists behave this way is beyond me. I worked from the position that large groups of people are angry because of the atrocities, which then leads to them condemning corrupted/pure/whatever ideologies that are demonstrably incapable of preventing the sort of socialization that leads to communities of people being manipulated by the opportunistic & callous. It doesn't matter what the ideologies are, nor how well the people stuck to the principles of the ideology. Ideology is an easier means to use for socializing people into atrocities as well as an easier target for socializing into a taboo for people to hastily condemn as synonymous with the atrocities. You were curious why this sort of thing happens, I did my best to answer only that question, and not the parts of it that were presumptive (yes atheists can be angry, but wondering as to why any of them are specifically angry that people see things differently than them is kind of a worthless thing to explore even if it were a commonplace thing among atheists). Delving into *oughts* and *what would be most wise* has nothing to do with why people that are outraged about atrocities & political nonsense are often the same sorts of people which end up doing counterproductive things like *guilt by association* and *tribalism.* There's nothing unique about angry atheists that couldn't be said about most other groups of people that angrily oppose atrocities & political nonsense perpetuated by certain religious people. Communism as an ideal & philosophy doesn't matter to most angry people for how pure it could be nor how tainted it became under Stalin. And indeed angry people might mistakenly attack the philosophy because it's easy & lazy to personify an ideology as matching that of it's political impact. Same goes for basically any other group of people following a cause or common interest. I mean angry people reject the work of musicians because of how annoying they find the fanbase. Angry people do things that are silly, if predictable. I'm not yet sure what you're getting at here. You are asking why people are angry, and then appear to be surprised that their emotional response is partially based in fallacious thinking I guess? (If my impression of your words is true, then here's some unsolicited advise: Drop the questioning if you are filled with expectations of how people ought to feel and simply make your point about that instead. Drop the expectations of how people ought to feel if you are filled with curiosity about why they act as they do as a result of how they feel.)

[@Futureplanet]

GODOFHELLFIRE3 Another non-asked question Godofhell. Athiests are NOT angry that others believe in God, and I have never met anyone that has that stance. You, I firmly believe, like Peter Hitchens have an unfair idea of atheists. Atheists very well may be angry that government policies are made based on some leaders' beliefs in God, that is what they don't want. They want to be free from religion. You are happy to believe in Yahweh, Buddha or Shiva, but don't shape your beliefs in our public science classes (for example). You need to appreciate reality, and not what you perceive it to be. I would like you to appreciate that I know my own mind better than Peter Hitchens, and I am not angry with something I don't believe exists and I am not angry with anyone that believes in God or Gods. I have many friends that are Catholics, Christians, Muslims and Hindus and they know I am an atheist and we get together, have dinner and talk regularly about every aspect of life. Their beliefs have no hindrance on my life and I don't do anything to interferes with theirs. I absolutely do NOT have the stance that I don't WANT their to be a God. I find that idea fallacious. Every atheist I know, I am very confident they have the same position and find the notion that they are angry with others beliefs preposterous. I will say, that know based on the high levels of society prosperity in less religious countries like Australia (who had an openly atheist prime-minister before the current one), Denmark, Sweden and Norway, etc. that a lack of belief in God does not cause any problems in society. Sweden has better metrics than the USA in almost anything of importance....health, homelessness, education, prison population, violent crime, murders, etc. You mention Stalin and Mao, as an example of the only 2 of the many thousands of dictators in history that were atheists and cruel. But you don't want to mention Bill Gates or David Cameron (UK Prime Minister) or Stephen Hawkins or so many other leaders that don't abuse their power. So, based on these facts and because I don't like people living a delusion, I would prefer a world to be without religion, but I am not angry with people believing. Just sorry and amazed that these delusions still persist in the 21st century, as I find them dangerous in the right hands. Anyone that states they would commit crimes without their faith, just tells me these are bad people and I prefer they keep believing if they are truly so evil minded. Although I know these people are a huge minority as there are millions of people that lose their faith, and they do not turn to crime. Prison statistics back that up too.

[@chestypants78]

Peter thinks, in his small mind, that a person is an atheist simply because they don't want there to be a god. I can't say I have ever wanted there to be no leprechauns or Santa or unicorns. I just don't see any evidence for such a claim, so I withhold belief. Peter is either struggling to understand this concept or is being disingenuous.

[@TacoHawk76]

I'm agnostic, but to be fair, I lean to the atheist side because while I cannot ignore the possibility, I don't want there to be a god that permits such evil and suffering. If a god satisfactorily proves its own existence, I'll have to become a misotheist.

[@TacoHawk76]

Bravo man, seriously. Who said the youtube comments section in the middle of a religious debate isn't a place where you can learn things? Your explanation is logical to the point of irrefutably, and by your sound logic, I am indeed an agnostic atheist, which would be a subdivision of atheist. Now I can wear that badge with honor lol :D

[@mrx1278]

Having a God only has value if the concept is used to validate power.

[@johnnysprocketz]

beautiful.

[@telanian]

4:45 "Do you want it, or do you not want it." No, I do not want it, Peter Hitchens. Because as you just admitted in the previous 40 seconds, you are MAKING IT ALL UP for your own personal comfort. I however, as a rational human being, understand that making things up because you're scared, does not actually make them REAL. Which is what the issue is about! How embarrassing, to stand before Oxford University students and deliver such blatant twaddle.

[@thisgeneration2894]

No?

[@thunderridge4830]

Believing is not a choice. I cannot choose a god and say I believe. I would be lying.

[@chumbucket5109]

Jeff Albright that’s why true belief true faith is shown by works

[@docholiday8315]

You're right, believing is not a choice, like it's not Peters fault that Christopher got all the brains.

[@cooltalktalks4944]

Actually you could choose a god and say you believe. Why not? Faith is a choice. Religious people don’t know there is a god, they believe there is a god. So by entering a bible study and attending a religious sermon and studying the Bible on your own until you believe is a choice you make.

[@wp3158]

It is a choice it's just that your parent brought you up to believe

[@thunderridge4830]

@@firstnamett4656 Atheist would be better. Would you rather take your family to Sweden or Denmark (mostly atheist) or the Middle East (religious)?

[@beefcakepantiehoes]

How exactly would a god give meaning to life? Couldn’t a god just as easily create a universe where our lives really amount to nothing in the end and would have made no difference?

[@joemama6557]

That's more of a idealistic God lmao. If God exists then I'm sure that he probably isn't the way that you describe him to be.

[@beefcakepantiehoes]

@@joemama6557 Exactly HOW do you know that for sure?

[@joemama6557]

@@beefcakepantiehoes If God wasn't interested in humans and life in general why would God create anything?

[@arthurlecuyer1906]

It has been claimed that Peter is just riding the coattails of his older, smarter, more famous, brother. I believe that just the opposite is true. His brother Christopher may be more famous but he was long ago passed, by his younger sibling, for many of the reasons that Peter explained. Peter realized, as he grew up, something his more notable brother never really did, that he needed to have faith in something, that he had to believe in something other than (and greater than) himself and his intellect. Christopher never really grew up beyond his worship of his own intelligence and his unwavering commitment of scholarship as the Alpha and Omega of life itself. The notion of Man’s superiority is found solely in intellectual curiosity, as if that abstraction can actually explain what is is to be that thing. Analyzing something isn’t the same as being something. So Peter rightly concluded that Scientism, atheism and nihilism, based on the fiction of Man being the center of the universe, could not begin to explain all that surrounds us, nor could it even explain what happens to us, our essence, to that which animates us, when we die. Yes, Peter long ago surpassed his brother. Not because he had all the answers but because he knew that he did not, but knew that if there is to be any meaning to be found in our lives, it has to come from outside ourself and in recognition of all those things that we are not. We are not alone. Does that mean that there’s a God? No. But it does mean that there’s much beyond our comprehension. It also, certainly, does NOT mean that there ISN’T a God. Peter nailed it.

[@samuelbishara2004]

I wouldn't argue for or against God. I would argue that most humans do not use their intelligence to see that God exists.

[@theamalgamut8871]

Yup, that must be it.... Intelligence..

[@thiccviener825]

Shut up

[@someoneontheinternet1516]

Yea good facts just saying that the other person is dumb sooo good fucking facts dude

[@luigicastillo5668]

he said something about the opposition not really arguing about the concept of god's existence and then proceeds to talk about justice and stuff about living for a reason... sigh im getting tired of these people

[@just-some-menace6138]

Yeah all that stuff about living life with meaning is rather pointless. Why would you ever want to do that? Not everyone has your attention span of 5 minutes.

[@Darckfire43]

@@just-some-menace6138 ​ Life is so much without God. Why there has to be a god to find points in your life? And the biggest problem with Peter Hitchens' was that he actually said that atheists want no justice by a stupid reasoning process. First of all many atheist want God to exists they are just not convinced. And with that sentence the argument of Peter is wrong. But even if atheist wouldnt want God to be real why wouldnt they want justice? Peter implied that all human achievements that led the world to what it is today (the good things ofcs) happened because of God or because of the belief that there is a God. I enjoy listening to people who believe with good arguments but this was just disappointing.

[@Inventeeering]

1st mistake, we do not directly choose our beliefs. They are the result of multiple indirect factors.

[@drewbeedoobeedooooooo4821]

This gives me Sherlock and Mycroft vibes

[@m.d.d4250]

"Man hates the truth (God) because it exposes him for what he is, and troubles what still remains of his conscience" Paul Washer

[@MrKit9]

Truth has nothing to do with your imaginary god. Atheists seek truth not comfort. Religious inbreds seek comfort not truth.

[@butwere3-0wou]

Kit Cumbie sPeWiNg iNsULts mAkEs mE rIgHt.

[@PerplexTV1]

Peter Hitchens is the most intelligent debater I have ever disagreed with

[@GaudyGabriev]

+PerplexTV1 I hope you're not talking about this specifically, because DAMN was this moronic.

[@tafftastic]

+PerplexTV1 A common mistake people make is believing that someone with a posh English accent is intelligent.

[@Sam-yp1pe]

+PerplexTV1 most intelligent? BULLSHIT!!!!!

[@shway1]

"it's a matter of choice" "these guys are evil! they don't want justice and they want death to be the end!" YOU CALL THIS INTELLIGENT? (you can be religious and be intelligent, but this isn't it.)

[@WolfHeathen]

+PerplexTV1 No. He's the most academic, not the most intelligent.

[@bluebird4667]

belief in god and everlasting life is a cop out for those who can't abide the finality of death.

[@Samantha-jd6hv]

A purposeless chaos??, he’s claiming there’s a reason to believe in god because he wants no free will and he wants to live in a picture perfect society with no opposition of a singularly idea, he’s essentially saying he wants the false idea of purpose, a fake idea that this isn’t it, as comforting as it is, there’s no reason to base your life on a false idea of purpose and eternal life. Edit: DID HE LITERALLY SAY ACT??, Yeah he did, he wants to literally just act like there’s a god for morality and purpose. Good grief.

[@johnjohnson8192]

A picture perfect society is certainly preferable to the alternative. It's hard to imagine you consider that a bad thing. And if belief in God leads to a more ideal society, that certainly lends credence to the idea that there is a God, no? In a perfect world, people would treat each other with dignity, and this only happens with a belief in God, a higher design, and an afterlife.

[@daisick7953]

John Johnson The Problem is that there's too many gods and everyone believes their god is the one. That's been the biggest cause of wars for centuries. So if there were ONLY one God or even better NO god at all then the world must surely be a better place.

[@Samantha-jd6hv]

@@daisick7953 You are so right and I love it >3

[@johnjohnson8192]

@@Samantha-jd6hv you are so gay and I hate it

[@johnjohnson8192]

@@daisick7953 When it comes to everyone thinking their religion is the true one, that much I will give you, so in that regard you just have to do your own research. I am Catholic because the Bible was written and the events therein were confirmed by multiple primary sources, which I believe gives it precedence over something like Islam, which is based almost exclusively on visions Muhammad had in a cave. However, when it comes to your remark about all wars being religious, that is plainly false. Wars are started and justified for any number of reasons, and there hasn't been a major religious war outside of the Middle East for at least 200 years.

[@redoe165]

I came to this video hoping to be convinced that there could be a god. He has not made any valid point but to say why he thinks there should be a god

[@Koubles]

Henry Discipline Sure, it is a man made concept, but it is rooted in concrete history. No matter what religion you look at, there was a historical event or a person that actually existed and was a catalyst for that religion or set of beliefs. It’s important to respect these beliefs whether you choose to follow them or not because there is concrete evidence of these things, and of course everything after that is rooted in belief. The choice that people make though is whether to accept the proof and the idea that there is more to it. Or to state that the only thing that exists is the concrete proof and nothing more. So it it very much possible that there is a god, or some being or force that has a will and created man, however there is the possibility that there is no god of any kind and never has been. Granted, so far most of the evidence that has cone up around the topic of religion or higher beings points to the possibility of something like this. Ex: Jesus, Muhammad, Mother Mary, and many more plus their respective historical events. All being real people that existed and seemed to have evidence that God exists. But of course it is ultimately choice to believe these historical figures and events. So would you rather believe in something that has some chance of being wrong, or just believe in nothing at all?

[@alexnorth3393]

@@Koubles Pascal's wager...

[@plasstic4752]

redoe165 yup there is no real evidence of a god it’s just if we can’t explain something we blame it on a higher power, all this guy did was try and offend the atheist and questioned there morals, not much of an argument

[@plasstic4752]

Awesomekk hey guy I wonder why a historical event recorded in a book after the event occurred is correct

[@hellmes1826]

Because this argument rests on indisputable premise that it is completely and utterly impossible for us to ever know. Therefore as kant said if you cannot know something, like if God exists , it becomes a choice that someone makes based on if it is in his interest.

[@MrExsasperated]

Poor and some what desperate , not a patch on his brother, all he could do was insinuate that all atheists want is for there to be no God so they can sin without fear.........pathetic Peter , absolutely PATHETIC.

[@MrExsasperated]

Tom Edwards I understand what you are saying Tom, I was merely stating that instead of answering the question he chose to come out with the moral stance, to often used to try to lower the standing of his opposition, insinuating that you can only have morals if you believe that a divine being is watching everything you do! I have heard this nonsense so many times. Try to imagine if nobody on this planet believed in any god, do you seriously think that we would all go mad and start to rape and pillage and murder and completely run amok leading to the complete breakdown of all society.... or would it be more or less the same except that perhaps life would become more precious , knowing that it was just up to us to make the best of what we have now and for future generations, and we might be free of our religious prejudices and bigotry , and as for governments all over the world ,many are influenced by religion or hide behind it or use it to control the population, or have started wars because of it (all still happening now!) I believe the people of this world will never be truly free until we drop our stupid superstitions educate ourselves and stand up to these religious control freaks. No Tom I am not glad it exists.

[@Anonymous-gt9qp]

The key toi believing in God is yourself because each and everyone of us are very unique

[@mohibkhan3473]

Daamn... I love it.

[@pigflatus7434]

Nice intro; I can’t wait to hear your argument.

[@jeffreykalb9752]

You just didn't understand the argument.

[@theamalgamut8871]

@Bandera's Greatest Disciple Say what? Can you read your post without laughing?

[@jeremiahsilva7458]

@@jeffreykalb9752 Just like devout christians seldom understand science. He didn't make any arguments... only appeals

[@vlad516]

@@jeremiahsilva7458 he explained it clearly, atheism is nothing but your desperation to fit in or your narcissism making you believe you're above others. Science has no way of providing God doesn't exist, same we have no way of providing he exists. This is why it's called faith

[@stumpDD978]

I’d rather die in the hope of the after life then die with no thought of after life and find out that I was wrong

[@andrewoliver8930]

If you pick the wrong God, it's fire for you. Which one are you picking?

[@xxxmmm3812]

@@andrewoliver8930 fairly easy, itd be the one who in detail describe the world we currently live in ca few thousand years before time aka YHWH

[@andrewoliver8930]

@@xxxmmm3812 the one created a day before the sun? Oh dear.

[@pickleddolphinmeatwithhors677]

I'd rather die thinking that I just wouldn't exist after I die (as I hadn't for billions of years), than thinking that I would get an eternity of bliss (assuming god lets me go to heaven) whilst dozens of my friends and family members were burning in hell.

[@pickleddolphinmeatwithhors677]

@OLIOB 1 I don't see any point in replying if you're not going to explain. I'm well aware there's people that disagree, so saying "that's not how it works" is pretty pointless.

[@davy_K]

Christopher admired the fierce intelligence of his brother though they were not particularly close. After reading his book I always took Christopher's position on God as hatred of the things done in God's name by human beings and organisations. I never took that as a hatred (or even rejection) of God. Hitchens asked Christopher once if there was one believer left and he could change his mind would he do it....and Christopher said that he wouldn't, much to Hitchen's dismay. I think Christopher hated imposing beliefs on others. That would explain his hatred of religion but also his answer to Hitchen's question.

[@steelman1506]

Wow I love Christopher. Peter just keeps asserting atheists beleive such and such, rather than making any argument

[@kw8757]

Thats because he, or any other theist for that matter, do not have any valid arguments. They have no evidence or proof to backup their ridiculous claims. The best they can do is twist what atheism actually means.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

Peter Hitchens was making a point about how people don’t want God to exist and love their sinfulness and are happier in wanting Him to not exist. Now, he’s not saying that he wants God to exist for the very opposite of the reasons I’m about to mention, he’s countering the fact that atheists would prefer there to not be a God, that life is better without Him, and he’s saying that without God, there’s no purpose, no objective morality, no hope, once you die it’s the end and so on, and he’s saying, “Why would you want those things?” There are MANY atheists out there who do not want God to exist and just want their sins, I used to be one of those people. I’ve talked to many people on KZbin who just don’t want God to exist and haven’t exactly been respectful in their comments, but we’ll leave it at that.

[@kw8757]

@@Nameless-pt6oj O’dear, another confused bible basher trying to tell me what I think and believe. Being atheist means I don’t believe that a god exists…period. I don’t think that god is real but hope or wish he wasn’t…..as far as I’m concerned there is no god. If you want to delude yourself that your magic sky daddy is looking out for you go ahead but as far as I’m concerned it’s childish bullshit.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

Watch your language please. I’m not telling you what you think, I didn’t know that you didn’t want God to exist until you admitted it in your comment. I said that MANY atheists don’t want God to exist, not MOST don’t want Him to exist. I was merely trying to explain what Peter Hitchens’ argument was.

[@parati1309]

"...restraint on power which Christian belief provides". I love that.

[@aue82a]

I love it as well, insofar as it is a blatant lie. Christianity , and almost every other organised religion is all about power.

[@Lrapsody27]

@@aue82a our faith isn't a religion, but a relationship with Jesus which drives us to be exalted only when we serve.

[@colinjohnson2221]

@aue82a Christianity is clearly not about power. That would be the Catholic church. The lack of worldly power is evidenced by the persecution of Christians throughout history. Does anyone really think that the average church goer seeks to "advance through the ranks" on their way to world domination as they tithe their money each week? Or that the church pastor, having recieved his modest salary has any power. Or that the voulenterr run church plans to take their tithes and finance some new world order. Come on back to reality

[@GODCHRISTmadeTheBigbang]

The Huge Strong Demons Torture the atheists agnostics sorcerers in Hell Forever. Because the atheists agnostics sorcerers Rejected and did not accept God. In Revelation God throws the atheists agnostics sorcerers into Hell to burn forever.

[@toxicj27]

@@GODCHRISTmadeTheBigbang lol there is no freaking evidence of heaven or hell or even god.. What rubbish are you talking about brother? 😂

[@johnnysprocketz]

Any Hitchens will do. More Hitchens please!

[@Mere_Christian]

Peter will do.

[@stephenlawrence4821]

I was very unimpressed. This is a, matter of evidence, not just opinion. And the idea that if it's a matter of opinion then it's a choice isn't sensible at all. It means just believing what you prefer, which Peter Hitchens seems to want to make a virtue of along with wanting to make a virtue of prefering to believe in God.

[@EternalVisionToday]

Excellent response!

[@tomwool1]

The number of views on these debates is 50% higher for the arguments AGAINST God's existence (opposed to FOR). Many of these people are not interested in listening to two-sided debates, they just seek more second-hand ammunition for their cause.

[@aerka0s760]

Maybe because most of the videos with arguments FOR God's existence are like this one, they do not give real arguments. He basically insulted, in a polite way for sure, the entire side of the atheist for 8 minutes straight, without giving any other argument than "it is a matter of choice", and even this argument he did not use him correctly. So why bother listening to arguments FOR God's existence when people are not giving arguments but opinions most of the time.

[@David-io9lp]

But he is right. The question of whether or not God exists is not a question that has an answer. What you will hear instead is based on opinions.

[@renocicchi7346]

@@David-io9lp but you have ignored the most important thing, and that is what should you believe? And if you care about truth, you will only believe things for good reasons. Not because you just want to believe it, like with Peter.

[@David-io9lp]

@@renocicchi7346 He does have good reasons for his beliefs. He even outlines them in the video. He is a Christian because of what it stands for: turning the other cheek rather than kicking the other guy in the crutch. I think you will have to answer the question of what constitutes a "good reason".

[@renocicchi7346]

@@David-io9lp I don’t mean good reasons as in believing in truth claims just because you think it makes people better. The truth of the claim and how believing the claim makes people behave are two entirely different things. When I say for good reasons, I mean through good reasoning and evidence the claim a god exists is demonstrated to be true. Do you care about truth?

[@eddieboggs8306]

I've always heard it said the directions to heaven are turn right then go straight.

[@mbrenner3629]

Hell is same, except turn left instead

[@1SpudderR]

I believe that all the signposts have been stacked up and in this pile it is called Alphabet. But whoever/whatever stacked it up was playing cards with them, and lost track of where the instructions were for assembling the flat pack and that is why we have a playing card set of 52......Plus Two jokers True and False....

[@Metalhead98793]

M Brenner I thought you go backwards to hell

[@eddieboggs8306]

@@Metalhead98793 Not that I ever heard. Smoking or non smoking either way the choice is yours.

[@elmarieking9590]

Both heaven and hell are not a geographic place, but a state of mind.

[@docmartin4989]

“God is the principal opposition to lawless, ruthless power…” Peter apparently hasn’t met any American evangelicals also known as the tools of lawless, ruthless power these days.

[@matthewwysocki5019]

I think you confused evangelicals with the progressive Democrats

[@charlessomerset9754]

Love to have been in that house on Christmas 🎄

[@terryrambarran5917]

Well said, It is amazing how many people who do not believe in God are trying their utmost best using time and energy to deny, denounce or disprove someone they don't believe in. Wow.

[@maxfontaine9001]

So true what a waste of life time.

[@jamesemerson4102]

Exactly. They are giving up sooo much of their time to talk about what is essentially "nothing" - a being that does not even exist!

[@anaccount8474]

Some of the most powerful people of Earth believe in God and dangerously believe that they are doing God's work - exposing the fact that God doesn't exist isn't trivial.

[@harry3balls]

Fundamentalism is dangerous, including in religion.

[@allenvideos1349]

Religious people are away with fairies! Mankind will forever be held back by delusional made up beliefs. Oh and by the way 10's of people have been killed, mutilated, sexually assaulted and blown to pieces in the time it took me to type this message because of "god".

[@jodo6329]

Wow. The Oxford Union can't even spell the word 'argument' correctly in the description. They're truly allowing anyone in these days.

[@Maximooch]

British way of spelling it?

[@ashghinn4630]

and "existance"!

[@rayrous8229]

Strange how he says that god provides a society where rape is less likely. There is no command against rape in the bible. The criminalization of rape came from a secular morality.

[@coreylee9342]

Its unfortunate that each speaker is separated in different videos, it pushes the algorithm to not get to a rebuttal argument.