In my opinion, amongst other top atheists, in so interesting. Never tire of listening to his debates on TH-cam. His legacy lingers on, Thankfully, cheers SBM.
@@JoHn-if6wyHe Was Absolutely One Of The Top 3 Sharpest Minds Of His Time. The Fact That Questionable Minds Demean Themselves By Disagreeing Is Meaningless. Attempting To Reduce Christopher Hitchens By Calling Him Angry, Drunken, And Afflicted With Cancer Are Marks Of A Clueless, Arrogant Doofus ... Probably An Albino Dwarf.
@@stevelocke3667 This discussion was in 2007. It is 2024 now. Perhaps you ought to get up to date with the new discussions regarding evolutionary theory and materialism.
@@stevelocke3667 this was in 2007. Learn about the new theories regarding evolution and materialism in 2024. Don’t be afraid to challenge past assumptions. Try the discussions with Denis Noble and David Berlinski.
The Hitch was masterful at getting his religious opponents to express their childish make-believe with maximum detail, so we get to observe the entire animal.
I would and I wouldn't like to hear both sides. Firstly to observe how ridiculous Religion is in light of its claims of knowing finsl truth and secondly in light of Science never ceasing in its quest of truth.
@@Martin-tn5lm this discussion was in 2007. Perhaps you need to try updating your beliefs to 2024 with new the revelations concerning the Darwin theory and materialism. The cell was once called protoplasm but it isn’t described in that way presently . The earth was once considered flat too..
@@Geezerelli *_"the revelations concerning the Darwin theory"_* The are no new "revelations" about Darwin's theory. It's been updated and expanded into neo-Darwinism. {:o:O:}.
If I were a _true believer_ in any religious doctrine, why then pray for the better. Praying is the ultimate expression of mistrust and disbelieve into what this so called _magnificent god_ has set up and decided for you.
@@willmpet try Denis Noble and David Berlinski regarding your past beliefs on evolution and materialism. Also Dr. Iain McGilchrist. More is known in 2024 than in 2007 regarding evolutionary theory and materialism. The cell was once considered protoplasm too but now considered a complex living thing..
@@Geezerelli *_"try Denis Noble and David Berlinski"_* Why would anyone try demonstrable liars, charlatans and frauds like them? You might as well cite Jonathan West or "Doctor" Kent HoHo! {:o:O:}
@@James-ns3ziHe didn’t say Gods or goddesses don’t exist but that there is no evidence for them. His argument is that there is no reason to believe they do exist.
Comrade 🎉 I have many friends across the world;; some I would say are stupid or sllly. This is because I was in the RAF for 28 yrs. We are all suffering from PTSD to one degree or other. I've been Capt Jester Moon of The Wizard of Silly. (Shameless advert coming up...) My new podcast beginning 1st November 2024. Facebook page is funny or not however; we All start and, we All die in The End. Just don't put it about, you will see 😎 Stay Safe Stay Free worldwide x peace and love etc No gods seen in my foxhole for 42 yrs. As a Jewish Atheist I find the hole thing is made up. I think you are right🎉😂
What a perfect rebuttal to precisely the kinds of things Ayaan Hirsi Ali started saying earlier this year. Hitchens comes right out and says it, albeit not in so many words: Islamism will not be defeated by turning the other cheek, so how on earth does the adoption of the faith that espouses this notion help us combat it?
I'm not sure if I'm heading for heaven hell purgatory or oblivion but I'll go to my grave quiet certain that despite the horrors of this world and history and apparent indifference of the universe it's an incredibly beautiful and awe inspiring place even when I'm too stupid to appreciate it and that love is real and that humans are fallen yet often inspiring and heroic and noble and that even the smartest most articulate of the atheists haven't really got a clue
What value has half a debate? Why is the counterargument of an Oxford Professor deleted from this? Such censorship diminishes the case that CH makes. No one seeking truth or understanding would listen to only one side of a debate.
Because you can listen to the debate if you think you're on the fence and it will help you sort things out. This video is entertainment for fans, nothing else. A legacy video. I wouldn't begrudge anyone the opportunity to do the same for the other side.
Criminality is higher in the US whatever point of view you want to look at it from. Same on homeless number. I live in spend but spend sometime in the US every year
And what does that mean? That we should allow religion to poison our minds so that we can be a bit more safe in terms of criminals and homeless people? Politics should be what changes that. It doesn't because we have capitalism. But politics should deal with that - not imaginary beings.
@@colinellicott9737 better check yours. I live in the EU (Spain) and visit the US every year. This year I have spent 3 months in Florida.I Know quite well the difference, not only because I have read about it, but because I have seek it with my own eyes
Yes, Christopher has it right. It is clear, and there are reams of evidence throughout multiple branches of biological science, how ‘Social Behavior’ in wide numbers of higher species is to a greater or lesser extent an evolutionary adaptation that helps the survival of the group, and thus the individuals. Acts of clear altruism, where demonstration of care for others, cooperation, pack behavior, generosity, self-sacrifice, and even forward-thinking, demonstrate values that seem innate to the majority within that species. From this reality it can be determined how our tendency towards moral behavior is an inherited evolutionary adaptation that we’ve discovered improves our chances for survival. On top of this is our rational analysis of how a structured and regulated society allows us to function better than a society built on chaotic anarchy would provide. This doesn’t mean there aren’t many among us who try to push the limits of moral and ethical behavior for their own benefit. Some of this anti-social behavior can be attributed to poor environmental influences, and various degrees of mental illness, such as psychotic behavior. People have free will to choose their behavior. It's clear how so many Christians do what The Church has done for centuries - deny the reality that science is our only method that actually searches for evidence that reveals 'truth'. Faith is by definition - a CHOICE to believe in that which there isn't sufficient evidence to claim is 'fact'. (Otherwise it would not be called 'faith' but instead 'fact', which it clearly cannot do...) I get tired of religious proponents claiming to have 'the truth' because their faith tells them so, and all the evidence from the natural world points to completely different answers...
How does anyone manage the psychological process of believing in supernatural phenomena? No one has ever been able to talk me through how to do it. They just expected me to somehow get on and do it. I can swim, ride a bike, do long division, bake a cake, write a poem, and i got guidance on all of these challenges, but how to 'believe' in supernatural religious beings? - no. I'm 71 years old and still in the dark on how its done. Reality is clearly already full to the very brim being itself, how am I supposed to invoke or conjure an angel or a devil and somehow insert it in here. Trying to do so would mean breaking the infinite miniscus of the continuous moment which we all dodge about in. I just cannot see how believers manage to do it. By the way, i was reared in Northern Ireland, where believing in supernatural religious phenomena was freighted with other dangerous layers of meaning.
@@colinellicott9737 No Colin, I don't. I remember trying to believe in Santa because it was expected of me, and I'm a bit of a people pleaser . No, I'm curious about the experience of the process that believers might be able to shed some light on and articulate for those of us who haven't mastered the skill. Or maybe believing is just sustained wilful pretence - what do you think?
@@colinellicott9737 I think you mean you do not trust me to be telling the truth - believing does not come into it, as there is nothing supernatural about telling the truth or not telling the truth. And I have no reason not to tell the truth here, Colin. When I was about 4 or 5, I distinctly remember the discomfort of my older brother trying to convince me that a red flashing light in the night sky over east Belfast was Santa's sleigh. I remember the discomfort of unconvincingly trying to will it to be true, and failing, and having neither the vocabulary nor the agency to actually express my own thinking. I think in the end, I probably pretended and went along with it that night, just to get out of the difficult situation. Kid's lives are full of such compromises. But given the nature of this strange phenomenon we call belief, it appears to me there are no objective criteria that can be applied to distinguish between pretending to believe, and, believing. What do you think Colin? I'm grateful to you for the exchange.
@@dugaldmccullough You are correct, I already said I don't believe you. Every adult today was a child, being a child includes an age when you believed what you were told without question because you had no skills to guide you through the difference, including me at age 5 in Liverpool. Suspending critical thinking is the equivalent of willful ignorance, and are the equivalent of actual ignorance and actual lack of critical thinking. Children develop these skills to different degrees over time. There was a time when you did not have those skills. That is how you and all other children have accepted extraordinary claims without questioning anything. That is the mindset adults must reach to do the same.
In my opinion, amongst other top atheists, in so interesting. Never tire of listening to his debates on TH-cam. His legacy lingers on, Thankfully, cheers SBM.
“If god really wanted people to be free of wicked thoughts, he should have taken more care to invent a different species.”- Christopher Hitchens
Christopher was bitter. He was a alcoholic who died of cancer.
Dont let him destroy you.
🎉🎉😂🎉 49:17 so I 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🎉😂😂😂😂😂🎉😂😂😂🎉🎉So 😂😂😂😂😂😂🎉🎉😂😂😂🎉😂🎉😂😂🎉In 😂❤ 51:24 😂😂😂😂🎉😂😂😂😂
@@JoHn-if6wy😂😂
@@JoHn-if6wyWe have different definitions of what it means to destroy something. Sounds something that religions do.
@@JoHn-if6wyHe Was Absolutely One Of The Top 3 Sharpest Minds Of His Time. The Fact That Questionable Minds Demean Themselves By Disagreeing Is Meaningless. Attempting To Reduce Christopher Hitchens By Calling Him Angry, Drunken, And Afflicted With Cancer Are Marks Of A Clueless, Arrogant Doofus ... Probably An Albino Dwarf.
Will never get tired of Hitch in this life. Absolute legend!
I so miss Christopher Hitchens. The insight, humor and razor sharp approach to debate.
"If I can't be erect at least I can be upright."
"I'm not looking for consensus, baby. I'm just not in the mood."
I'm going to use that.
Thanks for this. There are so many debates with Hitchens that would be so much better with the blathering drivel from other guy edited out.
{:o:O:}
“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything” -Friedrich Nietzsche
😂
Not a orginal thought 😢
@@AFMMD-q8 He predicted the coming tragedy of war in the next century due to the loss of religious belief .
@@AFMMD-q8 Neither do theories.
@@samuelmatz But witty.
What a brilliant and brave man, no one can say it so bluntly and clearly as Cristopher Hitchens!
@@Johanvanderschelling David Berlinski?
Terrifyingly accurate description of Christianity.
The Hitch at his imperial best.
@@stevelocke3667 This discussion was in 2007. It is 2024 now. Perhaps you ought to get up to date with the new discussions regarding evolutionary theory and materialism.
@@stevelocke3667 this was in 2007. Learn about the new theories regarding evolution and materialism in 2024.
Don’t be afraid to challenge past assumptions.
Try the discussions with Denis Noble and David Berlinski.
These words are proven true and with evidence today
The Hitch was masterful at getting his religious opponents to express their childish make-believe with maximum detail, so we get to observe the entire animal.
I'd love to watch the whole debate...
I would and I wouldn't like to hear both sides. Firstly to observe how ridiculous Religion is in light of its claims of knowing finsl truth and secondly in light of Science never ceasing in its quest of truth.
@@Martin-tn5lm this discussion was in 2007. Perhaps you need to try updating your beliefs to 2024 with new the revelations concerning the Darwin theory and materialism.
The cell was once called protoplasm but it isn’t described in that way presently .
The earth was once considered flat too..
@@Geezerelli
*_"the revelations concerning the Darwin theory"_*
The are no new "revelations" about Darwin's theory. It's been updated and expanded into neo-Darwinism.
{:o:O:}.
If I were a _true believer_ in any religious doctrine, why then pray for the better.
Praying is the ultimate expression of mistrust and disbelieve into what this so called _magnificent god_ has set up and decided for you.
It's a form of mindfulness - a coping mechanism
Brilliant!
My priest was asked whether he believed in “the virgin birth”…he hesitated for a very long time then said, “NO”. He is the reason I am a non-believer.
Oof!
@@willmpet try Denis Noble and David Berlinski regarding your past beliefs on evolution and materialism.
Also Dr. Iain McGilchrist. More is known in 2024 than in 2007 regarding evolutionary theory and materialism.
The cell was once considered protoplasm too but now considered a complex living thing..
@@Geezerelli
*_"try Denis Noble and David Berlinski"_*
Why would anyone try demonstrable liars, charlatans and frauds like them? You might as well cite Jonathan West or "Doctor" Kent HoHo!
{:o:O:}
his arguments are so convincing that only the least gifted would disagree. This unfortunately includes most of the faith based
Silliness. Tell me what he said that convinced you God does not exist?
@@James-ns3zi why bother, you are obviously faith based and less gifted,try watching again !!
@@James-ns3ziHe didn’t say Gods or goddesses don’t exist but that there is no evidence for them. His argument is that there is no reason to believe they do exist.
Comrade 🎉
I have many friends across the world;; some I would say are stupid or sllly.
This is because I was in the RAF for 28 yrs.
We are all suffering from PTSD to one degree or other.
I've been Capt Jester Moon of The Wizard of Silly. (Shameless advert coming up...)
My new podcast beginning 1st November 2024.
Facebook page is funny or not however; we All start and, we All die in The End. Just don't put it about, you will see 😎
Stay Safe
Stay Free worldwide x peace and love etc
No gods seen in my foxhole for 42 yrs. As a Jewish Atheist I find the hole thing is made up. I think you are right🎉😂
What about David Berlinski?😢
Gods are definitely NOT great! Let’s grow up, shall we?!
What a perfect rebuttal to precisely the kinds of things Ayaan Hirsi Ali started saying earlier this year. Hitchens comes right out and says it, albeit not in so many words: Islamism will not be defeated by turning the other cheek, so how on earth does the adoption of the faith that espouses this notion help us combat it?
I'm not sure if I'm heading for heaven hell purgatory or oblivion but I'll go to my grave quiet certain that despite the horrors of this world and history and apparent indifference of the universe it's an incredibly beautiful and awe inspiring place even when I'm too stupid to appreciate it and that love is real and that humans are fallen yet often inspiring and heroic and noble and that even the smartest most articulate of the atheists haven't really got a clue
How did Mr McGrath get through that event without having to get up to pee several times for as much water he was drinking?
What value has half a debate? Why is the counterargument of an Oxford Professor deleted from this? Such censorship diminishes the case that CH makes. No one seeking truth or understanding would listen to only one side of a debate.
Because you can listen to the debate if you think you're on the fence and it will help you sort things out. This video is entertainment for fans, nothing else. A legacy video. I wouldn't begrudge anyone the opportunity to do the same for the other side.
The original date, please.
Criminality is higher in the US whatever point of view you want to look at it from. Same on homeless number. I live in spend but spend sometime in the US every year
Not true. Check your sources.
And what does that mean? That we should allow religion to poison our minds so that we can be a bit more safe in terms of criminals and homeless people?
Politics should be what changes that. It doesn't because we have capitalism. But politics should deal with that - not imaginary beings.
@@colinellicott9737 better check yours. I live in the EU (Spain) and visit the US every year. This year I have spent 3 months in Florida.I Know quite well the difference, not only because I have read about it, but because I have seek it with my own eyes
Yes, Christopher has it right.
It is clear, and there are reams of evidence throughout multiple branches of biological science, how ‘Social Behavior’ in wide numbers of higher species is to a greater or lesser extent an evolutionary adaptation that helps the survival of the group, and thus the individuals. Acts of clear altruism, where demonstration of care for others, cooperation, pack behavior, generosity, self-sacrifice, and even forward-thinking, demonstrate values that seem innate to the majority within that species.
From this reality it can be determined how our tendency towards moral behavior is an inherited evolutionary adaptation that we’ve discovered improves our chances for survival. On top of this is our rational analysis of how a structured and regulated society allows us to function better than a society built on chaotic anarchy would provide.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t many among us who try to push the limits of moral and ethical behavior for their own benefit. Some of this anti-social behavior can be attributed to poor environmental influences, and various degrees of mental illness, such as psychotic behavior. People have free will to choose their behavior.
It's clear how so many Christians do what The Church has done for centuries - deny the reality that science is our only method that actually searches for evidence that reveals 'truth'. Faith is by definition - a CHOICE to believe in that which there isn't sufficient evidence to claim is 'fact'. (Otherwise it would not be called 'faith' but instead 'fact', which it clearly cannot do...)
I get tired of religious proponents claiming to have 'the truth' because their faith tells them so, and all the evidence from the natural world points to completely different answers...
How does anyone manage the psychological process of believing in supernatural phenomena? No one has ever been able to talk me through how to do it. They just expected me to somehow get on and do it. I can swim, ride a bike, do long division, bake a cake, write a poem, and i got guidance on all of these challenges, but how to 'believe' in supernatural religious beings? - no. I'm 71 years old and still in the dark on how its done. Reality is clearly already full to the very brim being itself, how am I supposed to invoke or conjure an angel or a devil and somehow insert it in here. Trying to do so would mean breaking the infinite miniscus of the continuous moment which we all dodge about in. I just cannot see how believers manage to do it. By the way, i was reared in Northern Ireland, where believing in supernatural religious phenomena was freighted with other dangerous layers of meaning.
Do you recall a time in your youth when Santa was real? That is how.
@@colinellicott9737 No Colin, I don't. I remember trying to believe in Santa because it was expected of me, and I'm a bit of a people pleaser . No, I'm curious about the experience of the process that believers might be able to shed some light on and articulate for those of us who haven't mastered the skill. Or maybe believing is just sustained wilful pretence - what do you think?
@@dugaldmccullough I don't believe you. Unless you cannot remember when you were five years old.
@@colinellicott9737 I think you mean you do not trust me to be telling the truth - believing does not come into it, as there is nothing supernatural about telling the truth or not telling the truth. And I have no reason not to tell the truth here, Colin. When I was about 4 or 5, I distinctly remember the discomfort of my older brother trying to convince me that a red flashing light in the night sky over east Belfast was Santa's sleigh. I remember the discomfort of unconvincingly trying to will it to be true, and failing, and having neither the vocabulary nor the agency to actually express my own thinking. I think in the end, I probably pretended and went along with it that night, just to get out of the difficult situation. Kid's lives are full of such compromises. But given the nature of this strange phenomenon we call belief, it appears to me there are no objective criteria that can be applied to distinguish between pretending to believe, and, believing. What do you think Colin? I'm grateful to you for the exchange.
@@dugaldmccullough You are correct, I already said I don't believe you. Every adult today was a child, being a child includes an age when you believed what you were told without question because you had no skills to guide you through the difference, including me at age 5 in Liverpool. Suspending critical thinking is the equivalent of willful ignorance, and are the equivalent of actual ignorance and actual lack of critical thinking. Children develop these skills to different degrees over time. There was a time when you did not have those skills. That is how you and all other children have accepted extraordinary claims without questioning anything. That is the mindset adults must reach to do the same.