I'm kind of dissapointed in Hitchens. I really think he aught to restrain himself from direct insults and try to get to the core of things. Both are discussing above the real questions.

What reason do you have for presuming that we need to have a creator to exist - could we not just always exist, etc?

Hitchens does make a very valid point, though he did perhaps not stress it enough: Why should we presume more than we know - why do we make up an explenation when we can agree that we just don't know yet.

It also dissapointed me that Hitchens does not get what Turek is asking, but keep pounding on organised religion istead of getting to the core. I think that Richard could've done a better job, but obviously, R can't do every debate out there.

Hitchens is a great intellectual, that I think we all can agree on, but I do think that he is somewhat lacking in empathy for people at a distance from him. A gleaming example of this is when he says religion is Evil. Evil is an expression that I hope we will read about in the historybooks one day.

Evil is a very wrong way to overly simplify some actions, when we instead can get to the core of the problems that face them and say that it's indoctrination, irrationallity or ignorance, but never evil for evil's sake.

I was disappointed in that Hitchens didn't mention the infinite regress problem that Turek and all theists have. If god is the answer to something out of nothing, then what's the explanation for god? To say "god did it" explains nothing.

Turek: Invisible unicorns fly. This gives our lives meaning.

Hitchens: Absurdly dumb and dangerous.

Hitchens 1
Turek 0

Hitchens doesn't quite answer all the questions directed at him fully. Here are my responses:

Where does morality come from?
Would you want to live in a society where murder is permissible? Would such a society function? The first question explains WHY it is immoral, and the second HOW it came to be innate in us. These questions can be universally applied to any action that can be defined universally (including even a specific context).

How did DNA come into existence by chance?
It didn't. Nucleobases can form spontaneously from simpler molecules, and this has been repeated in laboratories. No biotic material, no lightning, no divine will. Molecules have a natural affinity for one another because of the electromagnetic force. It is purely chemistry that explains why simple genetic molecules formed. It is evolution that explains why a fraction of these now extremely long chains of molecules contain what we might call information. Bits of genetic material that work against the reproduction of the whole string are deleterious, and remove themselves from the pool of possible combinations of nucleobases. MOST of our DNA means absolutely nothing. Simple bits that do mean something exist because they happened to end up in that configuration by chance (among other possible configurations that would also work). More complex bits usually come from other simpler bits that aren't very unlikely to form. Nowhere do we encounter any astronomical improbabilities. We've been here for billions of years, there are billions of us, and there are billions of base pairs in our DNA.
The fact that DNA is MOSTLY meaningless, and that it often mutates in ways that are harmful (most are meaningless) is a strong indication that it was not designed.

Regarding Turek's conclusion:

The panda's thumb bit refers to the "just good enough" principle of evolution. It is perfect for its environment, because it has been molded to fit it. It's not "better" because it doesn't need to be. This has nothing whatsoever to do with design or purpose. Cancer and SIDS are faults unless the purpose of the designer is to inflict suffering.

I wonder if he actually read the whole book...

"You don't need the Bible to know right from wrong"
A) Then why was the Bible even written?
B) But there are certain evil actions that require faith.

"There is a standard beyond ourselves"
Yes. But it is not divine. It is due to the universal fact that we are mortal and capable of suffering and happiness, and that it is impossible for any of us to live and act without affecting one another. This is what society is. We have to come to some consensus about morality because we have no choice but to live in a society.

"He has to borrow objective morality from Christianity"
No, Christianity borrows its morality from evolution. We evolved moral standards because they're beneficial to our survival and growth.

"Where did those come from in an atheistic worldview?"
Not God. That's all that atheism supposes, that they don't come from God, at least the theistic God. ANYWHERE ELSE works, and most of the things he mentions can be explained by natural means (consciousness etc).

"He rebels against the divine dictatorship"
He WOULD rebel IF God existed.
"Christopher in effect wants to replace God"
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

"We're something beyond chemicals"
Well, then this 'something' should be detectable, because it affects us, and/or we affect it. There is no place in the brain where energy appears out of nowhere or disappears. Information does not enter the brain from any immaterial source. Consciousness is absolutely confined to the brain.

I can't really make sense of the rest of his conclusion.

I'm not a native to the US, excuse my short English.

I really don't want to get humorous or anything but it's just there for anyone to see: for example the person who addresses the event has no idea why he's standing there. I presume that he lacks the confidence to face the theist Virginians that are sitting with watchful eyes.

First off, Dr. Turek has a fault in reasoning. At least in trying to explain that God does exist.

Dr. Turek concludes in his first argument that if science cannot give evidence to truths about reality from an atheist perspective, saying that if “Christopher” stays unsupported (directing the questions solely to him) and speculative to the possibilities that rely on “faith”, theism is a more reasonable world view.

I don't know about you guys but this is just laughable.

Let’s analyze how Dr. Turek makes his point. (I’m not so informed about the terminology of the english grammar but I understand how he reaches to his conclusion) He starts his argument with the questions that theists cannot answer themselves and throws it to atheists and tells them if they cannot answer that, there is no better solution than to believe in God.

Dr. Turek wholly ignores the the hypocritical events that happen within the world under theism. He only comes to present the questions that are difficult to answer and suggests god exists just because scientists cannot answer them. (although they have answered some incredible life-altering questions like the theory of relativity)
Dr. Turek’s arguments are not only faulty but weak and pathetic.

Christopher Hitchens, however starts within the world of theism. He points out the absurdities and complete nonsense that occur under the name of God. He gathers all the evidence and current situations to point to a reasonable solution: not believing in god, that god does not exist.

Christopher Hitchens probably thought of the debate as childish as anyone would suspect.

I also think psychologically when someone speaks louder and more aggressively, they sound more persuasive. That's just a simple example of how the human mind works I guess. But just look at his face expressions and gestures, listen closely and analyze what he's saying and you'll see that he just looks like a freshmen college student trying to shout through the speech quickly wanting it to end.

Secondly, I really don't give how the universe works. To tell you the truth, it doesn't really advance my quality of living.

But look at religion in a world-wide view.
The thing is each country and region says that their god is the only god. Buddha is the savior from India, Allah is the savior from Islam and Jesus, the "rock-star of a god" is the popular among them. I guess that's because Jesus is a moderate god compared to the other ones.

Here’s my critique of some of Dr. Turek’s cosmological arguments.

Stephen Hawking: “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” A Brief History of Time p127.
“But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” A Bief History of Time p141.

Richard Dawkins: “Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” The Blind Watchmaker p 116
“How long would we have to wait before random chemical events on the planet, random thermal jostling of atoms and molecules, resulted in a self-replicating molecule? ... There are probably more than a billion billion available planets in the universe. If each of them lasts as long as Earth, that gives us about a billion billion billion planet-years to play with. That will do nicely! A miracle is translated into practical politics by a multiplication sum.” The Blind Watchmaker p144-145.

Earth’s day of 24 hours is just right for life?
Earth’s rotation is slowing down due to tides on the Earth. A day was 21.9 hours 620 million years ago (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day).

The Earth’s axial tilt of 23.5 degrees is just right for life?
Due to the process of nutation, Earth’s tilt varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees over a 42,000 year cycle. It has therefore gone through more than 4 such cycles since the appearance of modern humans about 200,000 years ago (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapien).

Jupiter stops bombardment of the Earth?
Earth would suffer fewer impacts without the influence of Jupiter's gravity as it pulls comets into the inner solar system as well as clearing them away. Furthermore, 95% of the impacts on Earth are due to asteriods (space.newscientist.com/channel/solar-system/comets-asteroids/dn12532).

This debate centered mainly around cosmology. All knowledge,including cosmology, presupposes a realist ontology. God created the universe according to Turek. By what materials did he create it from? Did this creation happen within space and time? Consciousness is awareness of something. What was God aware of in the beginning? How can one talk intelligibly about such things without contradiction? Well, you can't. There's much more that can be said about the numerous mistakes made by Turek. An objective morality can exist without an external moral law giver. It's called reality. You and I can die. We have a nature. We possess the capacity to reason and we have volition.

Objective morality cannot exist without an external moral law giver as Turek explained so well. If we are only a collection of molecules, than we have no authority to determine that actions other people commit are wrong (such as 9/11). If there is no objective truth outside of ourselves than the only authority we have to claim an action is wrong is of ourselves and no one else.
Otherwise we ourselves claim to be god by deciding what is right and wrong for others. God is God and by definition needs no further explanation. This as previously noted would only lead an infinite regression. God created the materials the universe is created from, God created the time and space we now live in. We may further explore the way in which he created it by means of open minded science that does not exclude the possibility of supernatural explanations.

Mister Turek certainly gives some diversity to the range of people Christopher Hitchens has debated over the last couple of years and it has been an interesting debate to watch. I still say the debate was won by Christopher Hitchens, as has been the case in all debates I have watched in which he has participated. Of course not all credit for this must go to Hitchens because, if represented by a good debater, a system based on reality, science, facts and humanism will always win any debate on religion with anyone.
Though I must say that the question from mister Turek regarding where the morality of the atheist comes from was not very strongly answered by Hitchens. This is not because he is wrong in his argument on this subject but rather I feel because his knowledge of biology (or lack thereof) failed him in this instance, this was the sort of question which could have probably gotten (and deserves) a very sound answer to by Richard Dawkins.

Rather easy victory for Frank Turek. Hitchens is a poor debater, but being that he's an alcoholic, that's not surprising.

Hitchens Argument: I'm a lousy human being with no self-control and a drug an drinking problem, therefor God doesn't exist.

I'd grade Turk an A, close to an A+ but there were a few spots where he could've been better.

I'd grade Hitchens an F. He was all over the place. Irrational, illogical, incoherent at times...just all-around terrible. If he's the best the new age atheist cult has to offer (sadly he is) then it's no wonder you people are embarrassing yourselves.

Of course studies show theists believe based on evidence, whereas atheist's disbelieve for philosophical reasons, usually because they have drug issues and/or their father abandoned them as a child.

Turek did well in his opening statements but as soon as Hitchens drew him into discussion about Christianity, the ridiculous nature of that religion rather destroyed his credibility. Hitchens, for his part, acted rather lazily in front of a largely secular audience and did not rebut some of Turek's questions and assertions fully or fairly.

Overall, I think this debate would not have swung anyone's opinion in any way other than their own incoming bias.

While I like Mr. Hichens it's obvious he has a serious drinking and/or drug problem. What makes him an expert on atheism anyhow?

Anytime someone knows they're wrong but denies it to himself he becomes angry when confronted about this. I have done this and it's definitely a typical human tendency. This happens every time that I've seen Mr. Hitchens debate. Full of himself and arrogance shows that he knows deep down he's wrong but can't deny his position because it's all he hangs on to. Sad really, he's even more belligerent than Richard Dawkins. It's obvious his god is actually himself, alcohol, and various drugs he must use to numb himself...I speak from experience.

Hats off to brave Dr. Turek. It almost brings me to tears: the dry martyrdom we all must face these days.

A crowd of people falling under the spell of the pure, unadulterated rhetoric of Dr. Hitchens. He just digressed and rambled like a raving lunatic. Literally. Ask any professor of logic philosophy. Dr. Turek used sound, dispassionate logic and reason and Hitchens failed to adequately address any of his arguments.

Dr. Turek, we need you in the Catholic Church. We need a fighter like you. Truth is truth. How many truths are there?

Maybe the one logical stand Dr. Hitchens took in the entire debate was addressing Christianity as the Church of Rome. He adopted this stance, as do all secularists, because he and they are on the outside looking in. Speaking in the context of an argument on Catholicism and Protestantism, his stance would be purely unbiased and historical. And from this, his perspective, the secular perspective, the Catholic Church is the one church started by Jesus Christ.

Watching you made me pray for your conversion. It would be great if one day we could welcome you to Rome, sweet home.

Via Con Dios!

To his credit, Turek admits that this is his first formal debate. Hitchens does this constantly, and it clearly shows. Tureks use of histrionics is overbearing and anguishing. Hitchens wins hands down again, though I swear I do not know why he took the time against this opponent and his age-old arguments that have been around since man was capable of asking "why" and "how". Any basic freshman course in the philosophy of religion will introduce one to the ontological, teleological, cosmological, moral, and revelation arguments for the existence of God by great theologians and scholars. As well as how they have been refuted by other great intellectuals. Both so you can have an intelligent discussion/debate, either internally or openly with friends, about your personal beliefs. Hitchens arguments transcend these intellectual "unsolvable" debates by simply attempting to demonstrate how such fervid and zealous beliefs in a monotheistic "GOD", indeed, poison everything.

Gnosticism was a religious movement of antiquity wherein its followers subscribed to an almost divine knowledge of all things, or a "we know it all" philosophy. When you add the prefix "a" to any word, you get the negative or null state of that word. Thus, "agnostics" are a group who "knows nothing".

Though interesting, ultimately, this debate, like many with similar themes, is futile. One might as well debate art or love. To explain them with science, logic, and even philosophy does not do them justice or offer proof of their existence. But whereas these two are purely subjective, God is objective and not subject to or altered by personal feeling. Equally as interesting and pertinent is the fact that this subject is still being debated after countless centuries. That means more than the specifics of the debate itself.

Both love and art define themselves by their effects on the affected. To say you have no humor because you have never laughed does not mean humor does not exist, even if you have heard every thing about it. Perhaps you have not experienced anything funny, but when you do laugh, you will discover humor. You will recognize it from then on as it grows to become a living part of you. Those who don't know God have never truly sought Him or desired His presence in their lives. When they do, their lives are never the same again.

The greatest testament to the existent of God is revealed through changed lives, not scientific, philosophical, or even religious jargon. The second greatest testament comes from God's own mouth--His Word--presented via the person of Jesus and the Bible. To discredit the Bible is to ignore both historical and archeological evidence, as well as oral tradition. If you do this, then nothing we "know" of history can be stated as fact.

Science is not the enemy of religion or the antithesis of Creation. It is the method by which we understand and further appreciate both. It is poor methodology to fill in the gaps of our scientific knowledge with conjecture and then base both future and past studies on this hypothesis. In science your results define your conclusions, not the other way around.

True atheism should be apathetic toward religion, not hostile. And true agnosticism should be exploratory, not apathetic. Unfortunately, both groups' true motive for denying the existence of God has nothing to do with lack of evidence (or even lack of faith) but instead, lack of desire. Accountability for their actions to their Creator is something they would rather not think about or admit. Thus is the nature of all mankind.

If you truly seek answers to the existence of God, do what the Bible says. "Seek and ye shall find; knock and the door shall be opened to you." God will revel Himself to those who earnestly seek Him. That is why He made us to begin with--for fellowship.

Time is a huge factor here. For atheists it conveniently explains all change in the universe and the reasons we do not know everything yet. But is also defines, until their moment of death, how long they have to make a permanent decision about eternity.

Hitchens is an Anti-theist. Not an Atheist. He doesn't like religions. I don't either. I agree with him. It's like saying Santa Claus exists. He doesn't. Talking to people who believe in Santa Claus gets boring. He looked bored to me.

I do take issue with Hitchens not being able to provide ANY example for "what would make him change his view".

It's a total cop-out to say that there is nothing that would change his mind. Come on.... there isn't ANYTHING that could make him see things in a different light??? His own argument that over the course of time, new "facts" come into existence... that at one time no one knew about DNA..... but now it is accepted that DNA "exists" seems to point to an opening there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no God fearing soul, but be honest about the question..... if Jesus walked through my front door, grabbed a beer out of the fridge and plopped down of the couch to watch the game with me, I think I might, just might, have to reconsider my beliefs....... maybe :-)

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~Christopher Hitchens

You do not need to disprove absurdities. I have never been asked to disprove unicorns, fairies, trolls, Zeus, or Medusa. I view someone asking my to disprove God in exactly the same way. Perhaps Hitchens does as well.

It just seems that Hitchens doesn't like the Christian God. That says nothing of whether 'a' god exists.

As far as I can see, science is only concerned with regular, repeatable phenomena. It is not at all clear that it can explain the appearance of genuine novelty. On the other hand, that does not imply that we must accept some particular conception of a god. We should frankly acknowledge our ignorance on the point, and continue to extend our definite, rational knowledge wherever we can.

I should add that Hitchens undermines his argument at the end by answering the question "What evidence would change your mind" with, roughly "I'm sure glad the evidence hasn't, because if it did I'd feel I was living under a tyranny." In contrast, the other guy named specific things that could change his mind.

It is unfortunate, but most of Mr. Hitchens's concerns about the evils caused by "religions" may be with justification. I only wish he saw the difference between true Christianity and mere "religions." "Religion" has been the source of many atrocities in the world, but NOT CHRISTIANITY. Rather, the Christian faith has resulted in the building of hospitals, educational facilities, and many other institutions for the benefit of mankind. (Most of the well known colleges and universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Duke, William and Mary, etc., were begun by Christians.) The Christian faith produces love and compassion for our fellow man.

Mr. Hitchens mentioned the lady who believed the teachings of the church that a grandchild who had died without having been baptized had been consigned to limbo. Later, church officials changed their minds and determined there was no such place as limbo. Christians, who take the Bible (and not the teachings of the church) as the sole source of authority, do not find it necessary to change major beliefs in this manner.

It also seems that much of Mr. Hitchens's hostility towards God resulted from the death and destruction caused by radical "religious" muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Centers under the delusion that this would gain them higher seatings in paradise. But here again, it cannot be stated too plainly that the god of the Muslims is not the God of the Bible.

Mr. Turek concluded with, "Christopher may think there is no God and hates Him, but God thinks there is a Christopher Hitchens and God loves him." That was an absolutely awesome conclusion! That is just the way God is. Even while dying on the cross, Jesus prayed for His persecutors, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." I prayed, and will pray, in faith for Christopher Hitchens, that the great God Who created him and all things will manifest His great love to him in such a way that he will be melted by the warmth of His love and come to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom He has sent, for this constitutes eternal life (John 17:3). I encourage other believers to join with me in this prayer. Mr. Hitchens can be subdued by the mighty power of God in the same manner as was Saul of Tarsus, who later became Paul! Even so, let it be, Lord Jesus.
D. Thompson

It is a shallow debate, does God exist or does he not because nothing exists without. The question is much more about the texture of God. What is God and what is he like? And would we be able to understand. Are we equipped in our dimension, the dimension we live in with our concience to experience close to anything which we call the real truth?
Uwe Jansch

I'm so used to the soft voice of Hitchens and Dawkins, Dennett, etc, so it was very hard to listen to the very loud, agressive, and ranting like Turek. I see his whole spiel as nothing more than preaching....and to the choir, at that. I'm sure Hitchens was bored out of his skull.

At a fundamental level the atheist says, "One cannot know where immaterial God came from, therefore materialism;" The theist says, "One cannot know where the material universe came from, therefore God." Each has the same issues with explaining the so-called Cause of the Causes. I am a Christian, but I think the materialistic view that is most cogent is that the universe has always existed, that is really what atheists are really saying anyway. Working under the pretense that a rational mind can come to an understanding of the creation of something out of nothing is ridiculous to me. At least God, by definition, exists outside of the material world and has no explaination. The fact that a finite mind cannot explain the existence of God is not His fault.
Hitchens chided Turek for not arguing from faith, and I feel that this is the case because Hitchens, in his heart of hearts, realizes that the foundation of his worldview is faith; Hitchens' views are that the universe exists in and of itself, and has no explaination- and he frankly doesn't care. To say that you don't care about the origins of the universe does not close the case (and, I believe, is intellectually dishonest and self-deceptive).
What I heard Hitchens say is that he is an "Anti-theist." He is either saying that he is anti-religion or, what I truly believe he is saying, that he believes in God and he just does not except Him because He interferes with his ideas of morality and free will. He granted Turek the virgin birth, the existence of "the Nazarene" and resurrection of the dead. He does not believe in God because of His dictatorial nature (paraphrase) so he choses to believe in a different omnipotent ambivolent god (ie the universe) because he is then permitted to do whatever he wants.
On morality, Turek charged Hitchens with "sitting in God's lap to slap Him." To which, Hitchens never gave an answer. An athiest CANNOT use a moral arguement against God because without Him all laws of morality are relative. What I believe about morality is absolute to me and only me. If you believe something different I cannot say that I am right and your are wrong unless there is a "gold standard" by which we both compare these beliefs to. One cannot say that a benevolent, all-loving God is any better than a dictatorial, wrathful God. Benevolence is not intrinsically desirable. We understand it as such because God has said it was the case. Hitchens is condemning God by the moral laws which He created.
Hitchens argues that free will is removed by God because we really can't do whatever we want; if we really have to chose to do the right thing because we will be punished otherwise is to, in essence, take away our choice. I don't agree with his definition. Being given the ability to make a choice is the very definition of free will, and people obviously do this every day. Turek never challenged him on this point. To be made in the image of God is to be made with the capacity of free will.
The irony to me is that an atheist worldview takes away free choice. Atheism eliminates the presence of the human soul. Without a soul, our thoughts are the result of chemical processes in the brain. In theory, if we knew enough about how the brain worked and the individual structure of Hitchens' brain, we could predict all of his actions and the things he is going to say. You can argue that quantum physics introduces a certain amount of uncertainty into the situation, but that just produces a certain amount of unpredictabilty to his brain and says nothing about where a free will would possibly come from. Regardless, Mr. Hitchens does not have the free will to which holds so dearly and of which he is so angry with God for interfering.

I just watched this whole thing and found it incredibly frustrating. Turek is a scientific illiterate quoting scientific concepts he barely understands. Rather than challenge him directly, Hitchens tries to redirect the debate. The glaringly obvious refutations to each of Turek's points are not (and should not have to be) given as Hitchens is not a trained scientist either. In the end it is Hitchens who makes the most valid point: religion is a matter of faith, not proof.

I wish Hitchens said one last thing after Turek's closing statement: "Only if I obey him, otherwise he's sending me to hell"

Turek...
Wow. What to say about the guy?

He managed to be all over the place and repeating the same phrases all at the same time somehow.

He did himself a disservice by taking that last word.

The matter in the universe is rapidly expanding into the nothing of the universe. At some point the expanding will stop and gravity will start the contraction of matter back from the nothingness. All the while time exists. Time moves forward. Like a vibration. Once the point of singularity is reached time and matter take on unknown properties. In my understanding of this I envision all matter being converted back to particles, the vibration of time ceases until the next TICK.
That is what I believe. It does not include a god.

Now for those who believe god created the unverse and everything in it I have one problem for you.
What proof do you have that god loves you?
Your god kills millions each year on the planet.
Every storm, earthquake, eruption what some people call natural disasters and others call acts of god. Are all killings committed by god. A complete and total lack of regard for human life.

This is the proof that there is no god. Its a made up story to control you and you were seduced by it.
Love is a chemical event in your brain. The thought of something that I cannot touch loving me just does not make any sense. I love my cat. I can feel for a LIFEFORM not a magical imaginary enity that has not been proven to exist. Stop making excuses, stop being seduced by the promise of life after death.

On morality, there is truly no such thing as "absolute" or "objective" morality. It is a social construct, a implicit agreement within society. It is the society that defines it, not an external force.

There have existed societies where human sacrifice was a moral norm. As outside observers, we can say human sacrifice is immoral, but from within, if it's something that all the members of that society accept, they have their own right to call it moral.

Are the stonings, incest, and all the other praiseworthy abberrations in the bible "moral"? Yes, by the standards of the time, but not by any reasonable standard of today.

It would seem to me that Christians have turned away from the standards of morality that were defined by their own religion, and to some extent accepted the moral standards of humanism instead.

How can Turek argue that Christian morality is objective?

PS, I don't think Hitchens did his argument any favours with the ad hominem attacks and general smugness.

Watching this debate was a frustrating experience. As a Christian, I enjoy when an intelligent atheist gives good food for thought. Hitchens failed on every account. He never answered a straight question. He railed against evil without ever defining it. When asked about celluar irreducible complexity, he non sequiters by saying there was a time we didn't know about cells. When asked about the purpose of life, he makes jokes. He attacks organized religion when asked about biology. He rejects what he feels is an intangible, unprovable God, replacing it with an intangible, unprovable inner daemon. No logic, no scientific appeals, only harrumphing, snide remarks, empty witticisms, ad hominem attacks, a deplorable lack of eye contact, and an apparent ignorance of the causality of lavalier microphones. I find Hitchens' so-called intellect to be simply incredible.

Thank you for posting this whole debate. I'm a big Hitchens fan. I think his position is much easier to defend because the burden of proof doesn't fall at his feet. He doesn't claim to have all of the answers to the universe. Turek does.

Well, There is so much moronic content in the arguments of Turek that I wonder if Hitchens is doing this just for the money. Why bother with people like this. It must be so demotivating for Hitchens. Turok is recycling arguments that have been destroyed a milion times over, but it doesn't matter to people like Turek.
I'm not going into debate here, but take for example Turek's inability to distinguish natural laws from legalistic laws. His argument 'when there is a natural law there must be a lawgiver' is such incredible infantile crap. It betrays his level of child-like reasoning.
And there is much, much more like this in almost every sentence he utters. This is so depressing.

This is the second time I've seen the Deist defense used against Hitchens which is based on "scientists believe that before the big bang there was nothing". That's a false premise on which to base your argument because it's not what scientists believe. I refer you to The Universe in a Nutshell by Steven Hawking. Or Google The Pea Instanton.

I'm not an atheist, I'm a deist; I am not a theist. An incredible jump is necessary from deism to theism and Turek didn't even come close. In fact, he could have made a better case for deism if he concentrated more on that.

Sigh, structured debates like these are so tiring. I can fully imagine why for example Dawkins has stopped taking part in structured debates and prefers just conversations.

Hm Turok banging on 'something out of nothing'... so because our extremely limited and earthly-conditioned human intuition cannot grasp nothingness, it cannot be?

Watched the whole thing. Turek was totally destroyed. I enjoy these debates but sometimes it makes me sad to see such a massacre. Like inviting a 1st grade child to debate a graduate student.

So at the absolute worst, Atheism is on the same level as theism. I don't think that's a very good argument for theism.

Hitchens is going to have a heart attack. He's so angry. Most atheists are militant and angry people it seems.

The Catholic church has done some terrible thing, no doubt, that does not mean all religion is evil. Humans are corrupt and Catholics are human too and they've done some terrible things.

Attacking Catholics does not make a good defense.

There are atheists that have done some terrible things, stalin, mao, pol pot and that's not to mention individual killer whom are their own gods.

Hitchens doesn't answer anything. His British accent makes him sound more intelligent than he truly is.

Hitchens sarcastically says, "Too bad we have to earn our emancipation." Christians don't earn anything.

I really do not find him saying anything really interesting so far.

Hitchens continually interrupts. His ego is huge. He is god in his own life.