Hitchens V Turek - VCU - 1 of 15

GOD EXISTS!!!! - GO FRANK!

I'd define atheism as its literal translation, "not theism," a rejection of theism. I reject all theism, I am an atheist yet wouldn't say with certainty a god(s) do/does not exist.

Well Turek gave arguments for theism, even if Hitchens (or any other atheist) think they're weak arguments, he still should have tried to refute them,if he wants to win the debate.

If they really are bad arguments, then the more easy it would be for Hitchens to show Turek was wrong, but I didn't hear any decent objection / answer/ argument from Hitchens.

Besides atheism itself is traditionally defined as the view that "God does not exist" which is a claim to knowledge and needs justification

Turek's opening comments here are embarrassing. Everything else he says is too, but his attempts at standup are as bad as the attempts of Shmuley Boteach.

I agree. It's too bad that we are still having to do this. We are never going to advance much beyond our current level of civilization if we do not jettison this superstitious nonsense permanently.

These guys often get pretty shrill when they know they haven't a leg to stand on.

As Isaac Asimov said, the complexity of the universe and our inability to explain it in full is not itself an argument for a creator. Even if we can never answer this question, that is not in itself even the beginning of a proof for God's* existence.

*It's interesting to note that the religious always just assume we're talking about a monotheistic deity as though monotheism is inherently superior.

"...it was up to Hitchens to show that Turek was wrong..."


How so? Turek claims supernatural intervention. Isn't it then up to him to show that this is the case?

It's sad to see all these people saying Turek is wrong, while it's Hitchens himself who did a very poor job defending atheism.

Even if you think Turek his arguments were weak, it was up to Hitchens to show that Turek was wrong, and that he could not do.

You don't know wheter Turek could or could not deal with the objections that are raised here. The fact is that Hitchens couldn't refute any arguments and Turek knew how to answer Hitchens'. So I think Turek won the debate!

Yes a2tis, I would put it like this: No scientist suggests something from nothing as an origin of the universe. That is a cheap christian debating tactic. Clearly the big bang had the potential to occur, since it did. The question is, what was this potential ? The idea of before is nonsense since the BB created space and time. There was no before in the way we think of time.

Dear Mr Turek, Please stop shouting so much and trying to be funny, when you're not. And stop being so daft as well.

I realise this, i'm not saying it doesnt need to be done. What i'm saying is i can't believe we still have to do it. I just find it embarrassing for us in general.

" I mean really, its 2008 and we are spending time debating the existance of talking snakes."

We are still debating this because the religious people are once again trying to destroy civilization and drag us into another Dark Age. In Rome, it was a race between the barbarians and the Christians - they destroyed Rome together.

Today, we have Christians at home and Islam abroad. But the threaten us with a new Dark Age all the same.

I find these lectures very interesting and i love listening to hitchens. However when i start to watch one of these debates i always find myself thinking "why the hell are we still debating this embarrassing nonsense". I mean really, its 2008 and we are spending time debating the existance of talking snakes.

7:30 Coy start from Turek. To make it look like there is an even split of the onus of proof when there is not. It makes you look fair when in fact you are supporting an evidenceless position and your opponent you are trying to force to prove a negative.

On the face of it a fair thing to say. In reality a really twisty and dishonest (but skillful) twisting of the onus to his advantage.

I do not know this guy before now, but it is clear he has to be watched closely for tricks of this nature

To include the creator in the Big Bang is a pseudo-explanation - it's just another "hand from the sky" - mystic superb being that does not require explanation himself (herself, whatever). This "theory" is simply wishful thinking and has nothing to do with science: it does not explain observations (only strips the need to explain them off itself and shifts it to the supposed authority of the above mentioned "hand from the sky") and it makes predictions that has been rebutted.