Kilox1000 That's actually far from the truth. Hitch was one of the few debaters who actually catches the theists out on unjustified propositions, whereas most debaters let them get free points by merely asserting things and shifting the burden of proof. Hitchens was one of the best debaters.
***** Wrong? That is one of the reasons I appreciate Hitchens the most, because it is what is most needed in debates where the burden of proof is moved from the person making the claim to the person who rejects the claim. That isn't to say he isn't the most well known for his aggressive, merciless and eloquent debating style with powerful use of imagery, but it isn't what I appreciate the most about him. I very much dislike how you take one statement from me concerning what I personally appreciate the most about him and call it shallow, when it ironically reveals your shallow straw man. Also you are contradicting yourself, if he makes no hesitation to reject unjustified propositions, this has to do with simple logic, not the fact that he is a wordsmith. The sad part is that we both agree about the qualities of Christopher Hitchens, but you fail to see that what I personally prefer is not me stating that he is nothing more than that.
***** I've never seen Hitchens make a convincing case or argument for atheism. I understand you obviously like him, but lets try to be objective here and cut the "speaker of truth" crap. He is a talanted orator and wordsmith, I'll give him that. Everyone sounds intelligent with that accent. But theres just no substance. All he uses is cliched objections to theism (god is santa claus, god is a fairy tale, god is mean I don't like him, evolution happened)
"Knock knock". "Who is there?" "It's me, Jesus, let me in". "Why should I let you in?". "So, I can save you". "Save me from what??" "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in".
This is funny, precisely because the one thing missing in this joke (im glad its a joke) is the issue of human evil. Yes He stands at the door, but he is more a fireman trying to rescue the individual from a fire that they themselves started. And to add to the insult, its His house they willfully set fire to - on purpose, for such is the nature of human evil, both small and large. But of course, how dare God call us to account for the behaviour we display in His universe. But who really wants to be held to account? Our pride is so great we refuse it at almost every turn. And that is the true face of evil. Knock knock Whos there? Personal responsibility. Personal responsibility - Who??? Exactly.
@@xanderduffy6461 Personal responsibility? Are we talking about the same Jesus here? The guy who comes down to earth and just exonerates every rapist, murderer, genocidal maniac, robber, wifebeater, etc. etc. who has ever existed up until that moment from the eternal punishment that they before inflicted upon themselves by commiting these gruesome acts, thereby depriving their victims of the final justice they had hoped for and deserved? I am glad that this is fiction, but you have some reading up to do, both in theology and ethics.
If it wasn't for people like Hitchens and Dawkins, I would've never or taken much longer to explore this different perspective towards human life. I'm deeply grateful.
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ― Epicurus
“If God did exist, then God would make the world perfect. But the world is not perfect, according to my own subjective view of what perfect is, and therefore God must not be real” - You
They put this dogma back into the bible itself. They will argue that God allows pain and suffering. Most of the old testament or Torah lays this out simply. Well according to them. Job comes to mind but honestly most maim characters go through trials and tribulations that greatly mimic every other religion or cults of our past. Like the Greeks and Roman's. Hercules comes to mind in particular. It's their hale Mary...we have to trash this point and work a different angle.
+jennbeth1 a one of a kind echo. the platitudes of orthodoxy need more stylized jerks to repeat that mother teresa took money from the proles of port au toilet? when did the proles from port au toilet have money for a time period greater than that which would elapse while walking to the liquor store?
He was born at the perfect time in order to help the spread of rationality whilst still being able to spread his knowledge that will be forever accessible for generations to come.
A world without religion is just as bad as a world of religion... both are extremes of a spectrum, both are mechanisms of control with an inherent quality of keeping the truth from you which ultimately takes knowledge and power from you transferring it to someone else, be it the Vatican or a communist leader... religion hides truth in fictional representations of universal truth, religions are occult by nature and "no religion" hides truth by complete omission... like visible light is in the centre of the electromagnet spectrum, the truth is seen on the middle path. In the middle of the "left and right" paradigm there is a unified political structure where all the control and power is. There is more force and energy at the centre of a magnetic field, between north and south poles at the absolute centre, there is no north and south pole... at the centre of an atomic field there is more mass than outside of the nucleus. The coin exists between the head and tail faces, the faces are but the surface. Belief is our enemy... to believe in one extreme creates disbelief in the other, discounting the tails in favour of the heads hides the whole coin from our perspective and makes us ignorant of its true nature. Be eclectic in your learning, choose your teachers wisely, a jack of all "trades" and master of none is better at giving a broad perspective than being a biased and unwise master of one subject. you look both ways to cross a road safely because you're marrying opposites... look at sciences, religions, math, sacred geometry, astrotheology, law, language, physics and metphysics... the truths discovered in the past, at least since plato, have been hidden.... until school practically teaches you nothing but how to slave. seek and ye shall find.
"Seek and ye shall find." is a two edged sword. If you are looking for something, you will find it. Even if it is not there. Just look at all the conspiracy nuts. Try this one, "Observe to find the proof." - me
"A grim pattern is visible in history: When religion is the ruling force in a society, it produces horror. The stronger the supernatural beliefs, the worse the inhumanity. A culture dominated by intense faith invariably is cruel to people who don't share the faith--and sometimes to many who do." James A. Haught
Hitchens is addictive, when I walk outside listening to music and search for a band with great vocals on my iPod, I sometimes end up wanting to listen to Christopher's voice. He makes conversation an art form, my true hero. May he rest in wisdom.
I too often find myself listening to Hitchens debating religious people. However, i beg to differ when it comes to your wish about Hitchens resting in wisdom, for I think Hitchens would have wanted but to rot and return to nil. If we are to remember and honor him, we might as well do it within a frame that he thought to be his faith. Thank you.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg
@@carlfrye1566 well religion never turns evil people into good. There's a reason nazi party and hitler were outspokenly catholics and propagated Catholicism.
When somebody spends their entire life studying religion, and still believes in a magic guy in the sky, I cannot respect them as a serious academician.
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
But the much venerated big bang theory is based also on magic, all of a sudden in under a second the whole universe was created sounds like magic to me ask any school kid they would agree!!!
@@davidgray9897 ask a physicist and you’ll get an actual explanation. Just because school children and you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
I want to say thank you sir. I think too many "New Atheists" are riding off the backs of those who started the movement and in turn becoming "Religious Atheists." Basically not thinking for themselves, only looking at issues through very narrow frames, only listening certain ideas, not considering any possible counter arguments, and often times just being cruel and wicked for no reason. We worked, oh, 10,000 years to gain ground on supernatural belief, that doesn't give us a right to start acting like chimps again. Religion can always make some good points because, as Sean Caroll puts it, religion is not well defined. Religion is always changing "What it means" to cater to scientific evidence but never vice versa. That's not when we get to go back to second grade name calling and cursing for the trade off of being told we're going to be getting laughed at when we're in hell. That's the the time where we can honor the current and past leaders of this revolution by formulating more reasonable, rationale, falsifiable, testable, empirical, and moral arguments and lay them flat out. And if people start saying we're going to burn in hell or start acting childish in some other way, we ignore them and continue to evolve the conversation without them. The goal is still evolution.
I mostly agree. A bit off your main point, but very much relevant: There's a distinction between being religious, and being inept. I for example, on many subjects, am inept. I don't have the time, inclination, or mental acuity to learn about nuclear reactors. I've done my best to become exposed to literature and debates describing world models around the influence of nuclear reactors, but I rely on other people's perspective in order to establish my own opinion. (my brother served as a nuclear technician aboard a nuclear submarine for the US Navy...) Christopher Hitchens was a fantastic orator. Thus far, I have never seen his equal. Is it wrong for him to have moved people? and many of these people are not capable of forming a thought half as complete, and resolute, or present it in such a method as to be metaphorically colorful, but clear in it's interpretation and reception. By this, I mean that some people who are atheists lack any means to express their beliefs to theists, other than to degrade to second grade level name calling.. in one notion, I wish those people would keep their mouth shut, on a second notion, I wish they'd learn to have better arguments, on a third notion, I wonder which is better: Silence, or an expression from ignorance? At the end of the day, I think expression of ignorance is better, since it furthers Atheist goals. Once we've moved past religious perspectives, then we can get on to teaching people correctly... (slippery slope that one)... do the ends justify the means? I say "no", but I'd rather fight in an open forum, than in my own world in my head (expression= open forum). Also, the less you know, the less you are aware that you don't know, and therefore the louder you get. These people will be so very loud regardless of what you tell them. so I'm not sure it matters either way. Your thoughts?
Easily answered, simply put people are not that incapable, people are just people. When I think of people being moved due to the connotation of words, which is a phenomena we don't quite fully understand yet, I feel apprehension and dismay. For what great fascist leader or swindler could not speak without the deliberate use of such language? Luckily such language is used broadly as a means of expression but In my submission, if your intelligent enough to understand the arguments being presented on both sides then your intelligent enough to form your own opinion hands down. That being said, Christopher Hitchens has different levels of temperament during different debates and interviews. Anybody of average level intelligence (IQ = 100) is capable of understanding any of these debates. The fact of the matter is most people who receive education with some religious background tend to score better on standardized tests during primary and secondary education. They are taught to reason perhaps in what many would call a less than intellectually honest manner. In my submission, those who are "New Atheists" also have a better education than the Statistically Standard population for whatever reason. The significance is that both groups. The point is that New Atheists (in general) aren't only capable of understanding both perspectives adequately, they far surpass the ability to expand upon such. In general people are much more intelligent and capable than you may be giving them credit for. The difference to me is that Theists are always willing to look at both sides and let their arguments evolve, though not always rationally. New Atheists tend to have an attitude that the age old war has been won and are starting to becoming unnecessarily arrogant at times instead of taking time to refute any irrational arguments. This is intellectual laziness pure and simple. So to answer your question without being verbose: People are intelligent and capable on either end of the issue, it's just that new atheists tend to rather assume ignorance is inherent in the other positions argument which, ironically ultimately is an argument from ignorance and they owe it to themselves to keep New Atheism alive if it means something to them.
87nicoh I said "think for yourself", that is different from just "thinking". And as for "I came BACK to my religion" well there you go - the religion you were raised in. My parents weren't religious or atheist - they weren't really bothered. So when I was a kid I asked questions and the answers didn't satisfy me, so I thought about it myself. When I realised Santa Claus was made up I realised god was also made up; its simply a story passed down from generation to generation. Luckily kids now have more access to information and in the UK religion's days are numbered.
***** That's the laziest, most absurd, and ignorant definition of God, "a man made invention." You "realised" it was a man made thing. But you don't know. You'd be amazed how rational thought can lead you to God.
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
It just proves that religious people are stupid. Now I'd like to say, I recently joined a debating group and I actually defended religious people from the notion that they're stupid until I began debating them regularly. I'm now convinced that I was wrong to defend them. Religion is stupid. Believing in something for which you have no evidence, believing in something as nonsensical as one particular god when humans have invented 18,000 gods in their history can only be described as stupid. Taking Noah's ark literally when animals are so clearly divided by Islands and continents is stupid. I listen to a debate between Dawkins and a Rabbi recently where the Rabbi picked and chose which parts of the Bible should be read literally and which parts are open to interpretation and are just fables. That's stupid. He also accused Dawkins' of antisemitism for mocking ALL gods and told him that it was child abuse to teach his daughter English in response to Dawkins calling religious indoctrination from birth child abuse. That was stupid.
I could literally listen to Hitchens speak for hours on end and still want more. What a gift he was to humanity. Its a real shame he’s no longer with us. Thankfully for me he existed in my lifetime, and I feel lucky to have had that privilege.
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
"My child is a doctor and he doesn't go to church" - well I think we can all be fairly relieved about that! Personally the idea of accepting medical advice from someone who believes in magic is one I find terrifying
It's such a shame that Christopher isn't with us any more!. His style of speaking and ability to smith words into a beautiful sentence that fell pleasantly into ones ear was truly one of a kind.
A world without religion is just as bad as a world of religion... both are extremes of a spectrum, both are mechanisms of control with an inherent quality of keeping the truth from you which ultimately takes knowledge and power from you transferring it to someone else, be it the Vatican or a communist leader... religion hides truth in fictional representations of universal truth, religions are occult by nature and "no religion" hides truth by complete omission... like visible light is in the centre of the electromagnet spectrum, the truth is seen on the middle path. In the middle of the "left and right" paradigm there is a unified political structure where all the control and power is. There is more force and energy at the centre of a magnetic field, between north and south poles at the absolute centre, there is no north and south pole... at the centre of an atomic field there is more mass than outside of the nucleus. The coin exists between the head and tail faces, the faces are but the surface. Belief is our enemy... to believe in one extreme creates disbelief in the other, discounting the tails in favour of the heads hides the whole coin from our perspective and makes us ignorant of its true nature. Be eclectic in your learning, choose your teachers wisely, a jack of all "trades" and master of none is better at giving a broad perspective than being a biased and unwise master of one subject. you look both ways to cross a road safely because you're marrying opposites... look at sciences, religions, math, sacred geometry, astrotheology, law, language, physics and metphysics... the truths discovered in the past, at least since plato, have been hidden.... until school practically teaches you nothing but how to slave. seek and ye shall find.
My jaw dropped when the first opponent speaker suggested that the audience would want to walk out after his speech because he would be so convincing. I think his ego was more and more visibly bruised as the debate waged on.
+Curtis Fowler a one of a kind echo. the platitudes of orthodoxy need more stylized jerks to repeat that mother teresa took money from the proles of port au toilet? when did the proles from port au toilet have money for a time period greater than that which would elapse while walking to the liquor store?
No, Humans can be the most vilest beings. Some christians claim to be above such things by sighting they are a christian. This whole debate is over atheists saying that christians say they are better "morally" than non-christians. The answers is very simple, we are humans before our religions and to live up to any moral code, sometimes we have to fight our human side.
That makes no sense. It's in our mature to want people to be punished for their crimes. I mean look at what we had before hell... Tartarus, Kasyrgan, Narak, Avici, Helheim, Irkalla and many, many more.
A totally unique man. Will never be even similar. C H is beyond brilliant & awesome. A orator who gives speaking a sheen & magnificence unlike anyone before. RIP - you are missed so much.
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
You don't need religion in order to be sensitive, righteous, and compassionate; in order to know what you should and shouldn't do. And the fact that us, people who don't believe in a god or a scripture, act accordingly, is proof enough. And there's greater virtue in that.
Religious people are so self-righteous, they think they are "morally superior" the second they start believing in a story in a book 😂- and because you don't, they will tell YOU what type of person you are, which according to jew Christian texts, makes you a unbelieving swine dog gentile that pearls shouldnt be tossed in front of. Subconsciously they absolutely believe it- since they are told this for years on end.
I, as an Non-Theist, have never understood the fear of death as a whole being part of the human condition. Logical perspective is all it takes to reverse this fear, which is no doubt one of the leading attractions of religion for most people. Billions of years have passed before our conscience ever became aware of itself, and only a few will pass before it will once again cease. This, for me, has never created even a sense of stress or anxiety. On the contrary, it's calming effect allows me to relish the present with a sense of awe at the unfathomable improbability of my own existence.
With respect, you don't know how improbable your existence is because we don't have a point of reference. And predicting a future of a few billion years of human existence is a very generous one. Sorry about my need for accuracy, that said, I enjoyed reading your comment :)
Regarding "logical perspective" (as you say), if recent neuroscience is to be believed, even when we think we're being cold and rational, we're mostly making decisions based on emotion, instinct, and a whole mess of cognitive biases. Most of the time, we humans are anything but logical.
***** Thank you good sir. I had said a few billion years BEFORE you and myself came to be and only a few until we are no more. You don't point out your beliefs so i wouldn't assume any meaningful or intelligible response to a point of reference
I'm not making any arguments for or against theism (I happen to be atheist, not that it matters), I am simply pointing out that most of the time none of us are particularly logical.
***** Thank you for your meaningful and intelligent response. I believe my mind is neither in a state of confidence or arrogance. I would describe it as a state of neutrality or stasis. I think the fear of death is probably like you said an evolutionary adaptation, and perhaps even our propensity for religious belief as well. Is the fear of death healthy though I ask? And why? I believe it diminishes our appreciation for all that is
The closing speech by Professor Grayling was beautiful. You know it's audibly pleasing to the ear when Christopher Hitchens claps like he's smashing play-doe in his hands lol.
+Butch R using words of violence to explain how stylized drivel is an argument? I think that supporters ought to be forced to wear the skins of drunk drivers heads like the romans wore wolf heads and live in cairo. because ... the only proof that christian morals are superior to other moral systems seems to be empirical models the size of nations or continents, and the supporters of such drivel seem to need empirical models of that stature surrounding them to understand a simple fact.
+Timothy Allen They are not attacking their personalities, just saying how absolutely absurd their idea's are. Also nothing Christians have is any different then anyone else do not call it christian morals. You know as well as i do that statement is willfully full of deceit.
Dylan MacAllister way to earn that F by not knowing how well christian morals have created nations of prosperity while pakistan wallows in pakistanis moral habits
"using words of violence to explain how stylized drivel is an argument? I think that supporters ought to be forced to wear the skins of drunk drivers heads like the romans wore wolf heads and live in cairo." Then you proceeded to say how christian morals are superior to other morals.
@@caIigula Hello, why would you put forth that opinion ? There are many individuals throughout history who met a certain end because their words and actions were so blasphemous, so erroneous, so malignant,, that swift judgment came upon them……. Learn from History 👋
@@maxprescott9371 First of all: Everybody dies sometime. No godly intervention needed. And you want to point to history? So after your logic, many murderous rulers were allowed by your god to live long a life, while he took away Christopher HItchens? Somebody who never killed anyone? What a crappy god that is, kills someone harmless, but let's somebody like Stalin live to 74 (a long life for someone born in 1878 like Stalin!) and murder countless millions? How cruel of a god is that, speak the wrong words and you'll get cancer, but murder millions and nothing more happens than a stroke at old age? And why was Hitler allowed to survive several attempts on his life? In November 1939, he survived an attempt that probably would've shortened (or even end) the 2nd World War, by getting lucky, he left just 13 minutes before the bomb exploded in the Munich Bürgerbräukeller. He thought god protected him. And if you are correct, that the moment and how you die is preordained by some god, then yes, Hitler was let go by god, probably because he still had millions to murder? No, it's very simple, there is nothing that sets our time and place of death. Modern medicine allows us to live an ever longer life. Not god. And to wish or believe that some force explicitly killed Christopher Hitchens with a painful sickness because he criticized this non-existent force is unbelievably cruel. But Hitchens himself said it, how can religion be a force for good, if people like you wish death and pain on others for simply not sharing their beliefs? This is utterly cruel!
@@caIigula Friend,, All things are being Fulfilled before our eyes ,, get on the right side of History,, turn to the LORD Jesus, He is the only way out for All people 💟✝️
Aristo Telian Hows it wrong, look faith up in any dictionary. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen Hebrews 11:1 Faith can be used to justify anything Appeals to faith are an admission of failure. Faith is the excuse people give when they believe something and don't have a good reason to believe
Poseidon63 Faith is more than that: This from Merriam Webster: 1. a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs By M-W, your definition is approximately one-sixth of the possible usages. Twain's is much less--it's deliberately misanthropic. We use faith all the time, every time we take a step, sit down, ride an airplane or a car, trust another person. The faith to which you object, I think, is the religious kind. Even there it is not without its evidence. While your quote from Hebrews seems to support your argument, it does not if you read the rest of Hebrews (you have, right?) and especially the rest of the New Testament: _For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made_ (Ro. 1:20) And the accounts of Christ in the Gospels. That you think that they are not 'good enough' as evidence is your conclusion. Mine is different. Things often look different from the inside, as you have found each time you have realized that a person was not as bad as you at first thought, or each time a friend betrayed you. The evidence you look for is most likely the wrong kind. You cannot demand history to be empirical, or logic, or personal knowledge. There are more kinds of knowledge than the empirical. Some of these kinds of knowledge are personal, which is the knowledge that God calls us to in the Bible. That kind of knowledge will not be proven or disproven in a laboratory. It can only be lived...or not. We trust (a synonym for 'faith') every day. Trusting in God is just another kind of the trust that we know well, whether we know that or not.
Aristo Telian "We use faith all the time, every time we take a step, sit down, ride an airplane or a car, trust another person." These are not based on faith, these are based on evidence, knowledge, proof and past experience.Faith is nothing like this, faith is believing something which has no evidence, proof or fact.
Poseidon63 Experience, yes. And it doesn't always turn out as we think it will, as auto accidents, climbing accidents, drownings, airline tragedies and a host of other unexpected occurrences remind us. We live by faith every day. Faith has evidence--historical and experiential, whether it's 'this chair will hold me when I sit on it,' or 'Following God's directions will result in a good life for me and for those around me because it and He are true.'
Old blonde lady says atheists don't have doubt I understand why she said that, to mislead the audience, but it's pretty insulting considering atheism literally means you doubt theism to the point that you no longer believe in any of it
she also says in the same sentence atheists didn't have uncertainty. uncertainty is the basis of the whole scientific method, and a huge part of the scientific community consists of atheists. theists actually are the ones who are certain about the existence of their god(s), while most atheists are actually agnostic about the existence of any gods. even dawkins defines himself as a 6 out of 7, when 7 means you know there is no god. agnosticism literally means "not knowing", in other words, uncertainty. i find this part of the sentence much more insulting. i have no doubt about the nonexistence of the flying spaghetti monster, but i can never be certain it does not exist.
No it doesn't. Atheism is the belief in no deities. It is a belief. Which is why Dawkins particularly says he is 99% agnostic, but practically an atheist. He says he is prepared to change his mind on evidence, but as he does with evolution, he is prepared to take a leap (of faith, you might say) that he can be certain. Atheism has nothing to do with doubt. A moderate Christian most likely doubts his belief structure more than most atheists. It is quite evident from how most atheists behave (especially the newly converted) that they feel certain they are right. The scientific position is agnosticism, since you have no proof that you are correct. You just have logic. That might be enough. Atheism is a belief. A belief that God does not exist. Something you believe in spite of not knowing for sure.
You are very wrong. Atheism only means disbelief in a deity, in most cases disbelief in supernatural altogether. You may not say atheism is a belief system, when by definition atheism is lack of belief. The reason Dawkins made the scale where 1 is certain there is a god, and 7 is certain there isn't, was to demonstrate that atheists don't claim to know there is no god. There is no way of knowing, and to claim one does know something there is no way of knowing is an intellectual suicide. In evolution there is no need for a leap, it has a pile of evidence the size of a mountain for it, and no contradictory evidence at all. A moderate Christian that doubts his beliefs is what most atheists were at some point, and after doing their research or reading the thoughts of the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, found out there is no reason to believe in god. I feel agnosticism is a boring term that only has use if you really feel like it's 50% chance god exists, and an equal chance he doesn't. However there is no evidence for a personal god at all. Now when you have no evidence for anything, using Occam's Razor you should get rid of unnecessary assumptions, and god is an unnecessary assumption. Atheism is a disbelief. You may not say that a lack of belief is in itself a belief, that's just not true. Looking forward to your response.
Eemeli Haarala The point with the scale from 1 to 7 proves my point exactly. It shows that if you are a 7 and can claim to not just be an atheist for practical purposes, but really stand firmly on the 7, as opposed to the 6.9 Richard claims for himself, then you commit to the belief that there is no God, without having evidence that makes you certain. Atheism IS a belief. There is no two ways around it. Until the existence of God is proven or disproven atheism remains a belief. After which it will probably just fade away as a pointless term. Something it possibly should have done already. Do you need a terminology for believing that Santa doesn't exist? Of course not. So why do you need to wave a flag because you don't believe in God?
As an American it's really interesting how moderate many of Europe's religious people are. I really enjoyed this debate because both sides brought up a lot of intelligent points, which I honestly was not expecting from the religious side.
Hitchens at 16:00: "Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of idiots who may try to tell you that Hitler was a secularist, or that Stalin's crimes were the result of rational humanism." Roger Scruton 1:55:23: "Now what about Hitler and Stalin, who committed their crimes in the name of atheism? This is a vulgar argument that my side would never make, mind you, but...." I can't believe he called it a vulgar argument a second after he made the argument. Tells you all you need to know about the bad faith there.
Aristo Telian wouldnt you have to be inside his head to know his intentions and be able to know the he was being intellectually dishonest? short of him admitting it, i do not think that you can. you can, however, use observation and reason to deduce that it is likely that he is. but....how could you know?
At my time in school (Germany, 25 or so year ago), for those who did not want to participate protestantic or catholic "religion education", there was the alternative called "Ethics". And I think that is exactly what should be tought in school to everyone instead of religious indoctrination of whatever kind: What kind of things are ethically good or bad, based on human rights and so on. That one might get deep satisfaction out of helping other human beings - some might try it.
@@lannipie "Which is more likely, that a the entire natural order should be suspended AND in your favour, or that a jewish minx should tell a fib?" -David Hume (Fib=Lie) Christopher Hitchens did say it, but he was quoting our dear Hume.
"The idea of the secret policeman who sees what you do in the dark it's a wonderful instrument of control over people's minds" - Anthony Clifford Grayling
It's also complete nonsense. Our conscience is equivalent to an absolute judge, observing and judging us absolutely. Everybody has that, wants it, understands it. But an ultimate conscience? The notion is ideal for any thinking human being: there is an ultimate arbiter, beyond all vice and pettiness of bias. To equate God to a police state is retarded. All they mean when they deny the absolute is they want to be the arbiter. I'd certainly rather have God than goons like Hitchens deciding affairs. Thankfully, God exists and we don't have to rely on pathetic human egos.
Hear ye...! Scruton is a genius...and is a thinker to whom one should listen. Just that he doesn't seek applause, with an orator's exit of 'thank you', ought to apprise all. A deep thinker of immense profundity is here. What a luxury his wisdom and modesty is....
Wow, that was a wonderful speech from Grayling to start his argument off... I'll have to keep an eye out for his work and pick up a book or two. Thanks for uploading this!
lol wow, i can not believe someone actually agreed to sit down to debate with hitchens and dawkins expecting anything other than having their ass handed to them on a silver platter
When Christopher Hitchens died he found himself outside the gate to heaven. The deity awaited him and beckoned him to enter. Hitch paused stating he had long preached against the deity's existence and asked why the deity was inviting him to enter heaven? The deity responded, many people are taught religion in their youth and accept their version of me without question. Those folks I send to hell. Your kind questions my existence, using the mind I gave you to think. As a reward for using this most precious gift I bestowed on you, you are welcomed into everlasting bliss. Well, maybe it happened.
In one clip, Hitchens made the claim that if he died and he woke at the golden gates and God asks why he didn't believe, then he would proceed to say that he wasn't given enough evidence.
@@karrytentertainment5063 Hardly. He was a powerful force for rationality, solidarity, and morality. Such a force was a good thing, therefore, the lack of it leaves us worse off.
@@PickledShark I agree with everything you said. I simply was making a joke based on his stance of there not being a heaven or hell. Thus it would be impossible for him to be in a better place. Otherwise yes. The world desperately needs a Hitch-esq figure and is made much worse by his absence.
Zeus a gay man ? HAHA. Bisexual maybe, but only James bond can put him to shame. The short answer to this entire debate.. Religion, as it stands, has had its time. It served a purpose at one time, but now we're growing out of that need and its time to move on.
***** Thats a reality that is faced by religion as well... even other muslims, for following the wrong version, such is the face of religious extremism. There are Atheists around the world, even in Islam. What will replace religion ? once the dogma and supernatural benefactors are a footnote in history, reason, philosophy, spirituality and genuine creativity will take their rightful place.
While I take the position opposite his, I must say his brand of arguments would be the ones that might move me. Although at the end I nearly spat out my drink. Atrocities committed in the NAME of atheism? To completely deny any link between religiosity and the men he named is to absolutely misunderstand history. A very, very gross thing to say.
Absolutely incorrect. God is unbeatable. Jesus left a longer lasting, much more better legacy. Hitchens has left nothing compared to Jesus. Jesus has left an indelible positive mark on the world. "We be better off without religion" Agreed we would be, but we are not better off without Christ and Christ is not about religion...
It's not too late to question the values in and about all religions. It's about time we take a much closer look at the word faith as opposed to trust. The words of C. Hitchens are still spot on valid today.
Professor Grayling spoke very well in this debate. I came expecting to be moved more by Hitchens and Dawkins, but Grayling's remarks sounded quite sincere and hopeful -- especially in his closing. A good debate overall.
biomechomegapsi it's just my opinion that creationists are more appreciative of the beauty that surrounds them because they can relate music, poetry, movies all have a designer/creator ... hence beauty in mother nature is likely a work of art by the grand designer.
TheWiseOldChinaman maybe for most but i am the furthest thing from a creationist and appreciate ALL works of art, music and poetry. PEOPLE create art music and poetry NOT god.
I totally understand your point, and i did not imply atheists can not appreciate beauty ... merely correlating that when one can appreciates the beauty of creations by man, how can one not wonder about the beauty of nature? ... is it because beauty in nature is just how it is, evolved by accident, or possibly due to a grand designer?
Hitch was such a star. Plus he died with grace, courage and dignity. Thank goodness, Rich, Sam, Daniel, Ricky and Stephen are still carrying on the fight against superstitious darkness. 😊
@@brandod.huamandaga4534 well I don't know but they still do exist. Plus you theists have not yet shown us any evidence of God. The bible is written by person's. So it is something akin to propaganda of a biased Luke or Paul. With millions accepting atheism, a number more than the combined population of the Roman world, it is time to have a man walk on water in the 21 century. Show miracles and other supernatural powers.
A. C. Grayling was splendid, I've recently started following his work and it's great to further hear his thoughts. Dawkins and Hitchens were, of course, amazing as always. Although I didn't agree much with the other side Scruton and Julia were still rather interesting to hear :D
+Josh “DimeADuzen” Abernathy I don't think you strictly need to understand science to not be religious. Just don't fill in gaps in your own knowledge with god did it.
+Eric Jewell are we talking about a theistic or deistic God? Are we taking the bible literally(fundamentally), or figuratively? Are we talking about the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Quran, or other scriptures?
Let's not cherry pick here. The argument was for whether or not the bible, as a whole, and science in general can coincide without any direct confliction. The excerpt that you've chosen to isolate is only a small fraction of the claims that genesis makes. Most of it is quite absurd. If you take that specific passage in genesis litterally then in order for your argument to be valid, you must regard the rest of genesis as true also. The evidence for evolution is so astoundingly vast and astronomically accurate. The amount of direct, irrefutable data we have that supports evolution could fill multiple books that are equal in size to the entire book of genesis, let alone the small passage you referenced. Although I have never read genesis, it is completely irrational to suggest that such a small volume of information could derail the the theory of evolution via the scientific method, despite countless preices of evidence that all point to the same conclusion. However, that fact is actually insignificant in context, because the argument is about whether the book of genesis and science can exist in a harmonious fashion. And, if taken litterally, there are many things that genesis asserts that are in direct conflict with almost all of science. You will not win this argument.
Marc Axelrod It's not easy to understand because it doesn't make sense. The "holy trinity for example. Jesus is the son of god but he is also god. God is the father of Jesus bur also Jesus. But in fact Mary conceived Jesus with the holy ghost. Must have been a threesome.
God damn I miss this magnificent man! As an old man well beyond his seventies and being in awe of Beethoven, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Darwin and Einstein, I cannot dismiss Hitch as anything less than suburb.
I love how Hitch didn't notice the podium set aside for their arguments until after his opening speech. He notices it around 28:10 after Dawkins points to it!
I find it bizarre how Richard and the most straight forward and eloquent man Chris hitchen are frowned upon it's just such basic truth they put forward ,there isn't really any argument.
darkblood626 It can be achieved much more easily. It would be possible to make a philosophical argument that doesn't involve the supernatural, but the same effort could construct a similar argument for almost any cause, good or bad. God alone doesn't make collective belief systems bad, it's the collectivism.
Love, its impossible for an atheist to love, except himself..survival of the fittest, remember.He'd rather kill you..more for him If you have an atheist neighbor thats running out of food and he's walking towards you with a smile, be aware of the glock in the small of his back,he will use it.
FXNorm Even if you were right that survival of the fittest is the single motivating philosophy of every atheist, which you're not, survival of the fittest in Darwinian terms can refer to the species-level or individual level. Love is a competitive advantage, as is sharing food in hard times. We're similar to pack animals, if that makes sense. Distrust and fear of those different from you is also a competitive advantage, at least in the strictest survivalist terms. It's not exactly a virtue, but you appear to be better at it than most atheists. Try to remember others are human. While we may disagree, I don't hate you for it and I suspect most atheists wouldn't either. Try to find a reason not to hate us.
I truly enjoyed this video! Unfortunately it made me think of a work friend from many years ago, who one day I asked, why did you leave Belfast for Canada? I was completely floored when he started crying in a split second, from laughing to tears streaming down his face and a look of utter devastation. I was totally confused until he told me as a kid he watched a man have his hand cut of with a hacksaw to obtain information about the other side so to speak. The animals forced him and his mom, a nurse, to be there in order to stop the bleeding, and keep the poor guy alive just in case he didn't give up all the information they wanted right away. Christian against christian. Religion is like a form of mass insanity in my view!
I just finished watching Spivey, who said he was half afraid that after his speech people would walk out thinking the argument was won, and he was right! His side lost!!!
adios baby! Speaking about adios, say your goodbyes to Saudi Arabia as they will become a parking lot. Iran will destroy them soon. sad. anyway you shouldn't call people names atheist are suppose to be moral i thought.
They did misunderstand. He was using the voice of a believer and they took it literally, as if he were saying it. Nice catch! In fact, I've seen that clip taken out of context in pro-theistic videos to try and make him look bad.
moron? atheist love calling people names. they try and get self worth this way. sorry, the labels you use on people are to control them, just like you say religion does. you are empty and need love.
LOL Atheists like calling people names? Christians do just the same and it's pretty much the worst word they know: sinner. That's the all encompassing bad name. Your peek in to an atheists psyche is mundane and false. Calling people names in observance of subjective discourse doesn't bolster self worth, it's a knee-jerk reaction to what one finds stupid. I've taken the time to say that your assessment is mundane and false. Put more simply, I think your comment is stupid. The most base reaction to your comment would have just been to say "You're a moron." See the reduction there? I shouldn't expect critical thinking from a theist. A label doesn't control anything, it groups and identifies. mostly so we can say "hey, there's a moron. I'm going to proceed with the knowledge that someone thinks that person is a moron and prepare for moronic actions to ensue." Moron
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
As Dawkins himself once put it: "If you are ever invited to debate with Christopher Hitchens, decline."
But he isn't a very good debater...hes just a wordsmith no substance behind it
Kilox1000
That's actually far from the truth. Hitch was one of the few debaters who actually catches the theists out on unjustified propositions, whereas most debaters let them get free points by merely asserting things and shifting the burden of proof.
Hitchens was one of the best debaters.
***** Wrong? That is one of the reasons I appreciate Hitchens the most, because it is what is most needed in debates where the burden of proof is moved from the person making the claim to the person who rejects the claim. That isn't to say he isn't the most well known for his aggressive, merciless and eloquent debating style with powerful use of imagery, but it isn't what I appreciate the most about him.
I very much dislike how you take one statement from me concerning what I personally appreciate the most about him and call it shallow, when it ironically reveals your shallow straw man. Also you are contradicting yourself, if he makes no hesitation to reject unjustified propositions, this has to do with simple logic, not the fact that he is a wordsmith.
The sad part is that we both agree about the qualities of Christopher Hitchens, but you fail to see that what I personally prefer is not me stating that he is nothing more than that.
Alexiaden93 Guess we'll have to agree to disagree
***** I've never seen Hitchens make a convincing case or argument for atheism.
I understand you obviously like him, but lets try to be objective here and cut the "speaker of truth" crap. He is a talanted orator and wordsmith, I'll give him that. Everyone sounds intelligent with that accent. But theres just no substance. All he uses is cliched objections to theism (god is santa claus, god is a fairy tale, god is mean I don't like him, evolution happened)
"Knock knock". "Who is there?" "It's me, Jesus, let me in". "Why should I let you in?". "So, I can save you". "Save me from what??" "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in".
This is amazing.
Jesus sounds very evil in this sentence.
@@davidesantucci4908 Go figure
This is funny, precisely because the one thing missing in this joke (im glad its a joke) is the issue of human evil. Yes He stands at the door, but he is more a fireman trying to rescue the individual from a fire that they themselves started. And to add to the insult, its His house they willfully set fire to - on purpose, for such is the nature of human evil, both small and large.
But of course, how dare God call us to account for the behaviour we display in His universe. But who really wants to be held to account? Our pride is so great we refuse it at almost every turn. And that is the true face of evil.
Knock knock
Whos there?
Personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility - Who???
Exactly.
@@xanderduffy6461 Personal responsibility? Are we talking about the same Jesus here? The guy who comes down to earth and just exonerates every rapist, murderer, genocidal maniac, robber, wifebeater, etc. etc. who has ever existed up until that moment from the eternal punishment that they before inflicted upon themselves by commiting these gruesome acts, thereby depriving their victims of the final justice they had hoped for and deserved? I am glad that this is fiction, but you have some reading up to do, both in theology and ethics.
If it wasn't for people like Hitchens and Dawkins, I would've never or taken much longer to explore this different perspective towards human life. I'm deeply grateful.
and grayling - an excellent mind also
@@haydenwalton2766 video isnt about him?
@@levigivens he's the third speaker, and may well have outperformed both Dawkins and hitch here.
watch it again
Yes they awaken us to the truth of evolutionary theory. And how religion is a human construct.
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
Hitchens took a huge library of knowledge with him when he left..
RIP
No, he left us a large library of knowledge. His legacy lives on in us.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus
Brilliant
“If God did exist, then God would make the world perfect. But the world is not perfect, according to my own subjective view of what perfect is, and therefore God must not be real”
- You
@@heisenberg9494 what lmao, theres no sky daddy, no matter how bad your interpretation is.
They put this dogma back into the bible itself. They will argue that God allows pain and suffering. Most of the old testament or Torah lays this out simply. Well according to them.
Job comes to mind but honestly most maim characters go through trials and tribulations that greatly mimic every other religion or cults of our past. Like the Greeks and Roman's. Hercules comes to mind in particular.
It's their hale Mary...we have to trash this point and work a different angle.
I can watch Hitch every day and still be in awe of his intelligence. What a great mind. You are missed.
+jennbeth1 a one of a kind echo. the platitudes of orthodoxy need more stylized jerks to repeat that mother teresa took money from the proles of port au toilet? when did the proles from port au toilet have money for a time period greater than that which would elapse while walking to the liquor store?
He was born at the perfect time in order to help the spread of rationality whilst still being able to spread his knowledge that will be forever accessible for generations to come.
A world without religion is just as bad as a world of religion... both are extremes of a spectrum, both are mechanisms of control with an inherent quality of keeping the truth from you which ultimately takes knowledge and power from you transferring it to someone else, be it the Vatican or a communist leader... religion hides truth in fictional representations of universal truth, religions are occult by nature and "no religion" hides truth by complete omission... like visible light is in the centre of the electromagnet spectrum, the truth is seen on the middle path. In the middle of the "left and right" paradigm there is a unified political structure where all the control and power is. There is more force and energy at the centre of a magnetic field, between north and south poles at the absolute centre, there is no north and south pole... at the centre of an atomic field there is more mass than outside of the nucleus. The coin exists between the head and tail faces, the faces are but the surface. Belief is our enemy... to believe in one extreme creates disbelief in the other, discounting the tails in favour of the heads hides the whole coin from our perspective and makes us ignorant of its true nature. Be eclectic in your learning, choose your teachers wisely, a jack of all "trades" and master of none is better at giving a broad perspective than being a biased and unwise master of one subject. you look both ways to cross a road safely because you're marrying opposites... look at sciences, religions, math, sacred geometry, astrotheology, law, language, physics and metphysics... the truths discovered in the past, at least since plato, have been hidden.... until school practically teaches you nothing but how to slave. seek and ye shall find.
+N Reedus
Why no religion is equal to communism? Or how with no religion information would be omitted?
"Seek and ye shall find." is a two edged sword. If you are looking for something, you will find it. Even if it is not there. Just look at all the conspiracy nuts. Try this one, "Observe to find the proof." - me
"A grim pattern is visible in history: When religion is the ruling force in a society, it produces horror. The stronger the supernatural beliefs, the worse the inhumanity. A culture dominated by intense faith invariably is cruel to people who don't share the faith--and sometimes to many who do."
James A. Haught
Christopher's opening should be shown in every school.
Such a great public speaker. Public speaking classes should show his openings, they're some of the best.
Hitchens is addictive, when I walk outside listening to music and search for a band with great vocals on my iPod, I sometimes end up wanting to listen to Christopher's voice. He makes conversation an art form, my true hero. May he rest in wisdom.
I too often find myself listening to Hitchens debating religious people. However, i beg to differ when it comes to your wish about Hitchens resting in wisdom, for I think Hitchens would have wanted but to rot and return to nil. If we are to remember and honor him, we might as well do it within a frame that he thought to be his faith. Thank you.
Same
Me too but also it’s so key not to idolise anyone. He wasn’t perfect. He didn’t believe in idolatry.
Lovely comment, mate. He was (and continues to be via TH-cam etc) a great man and dearly missed.
You think Hitchens is addictive. Wait til you meet Christ in person. His love is even more strongly addictive.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg
I guess you said it so I don't have to and it was Christopher Hitchens who I first heard referenced that quote.
Religion tmalso turns evil people into good people, but I guess your idol(s) didn't meet anyone like that.
One of the most Astute statements Christopher Hitchens ever said wich goes with
Religion Poisons Everything
@@carlfrye1566 well religion never turns evil people into good. There's a reason nazi party and hitler were outspokenly catholics and propagated Catholicism.
@@richardgoodall8614 And he got it off Weinberg.
Really glad to see 1.1m views on this, gives me a little hope for humanity.
When somebody spends their entire life studying religion, and still believes in a magic guy in the sky, I cannot respect them as a serious academician.
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
But the much venerated big bang theory is based also on magic, all of a sudden in under a second the whole universe was created sounds like magic to me ask any school kid they would agree!!!
@@davidgray9897 Maybe if you ask a "home-schooled" kid.
The truth your gonna be so shocked when you die forever
@@davidgray9897 ask a physicist and you’ll get an actual explanation. Just because school children and you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
I think A. C. Grayling also deserves to be mentioned in the title, he was great in this debate.
I want to say thank you sir. I think too many "New Atheists" are riding off the backs of those who started the movement and in turn becoming "Religious Atheists." Basically not thinking for themselves, only looking at issues through very narrow frames, only listening certain ideas, not considering any possible counter arguments, and often times just being cruel and wicked for no reason. We worked, oh, 10,000 years to gain ground on supernatural belief, that doesn't give us a right to start acting like chimps again.
Religion can always make some good points because, as Sean Caroll puts it, religion is not well defined. Religion is always changing "What it means" to cater to scientific evidence but never vice versa. That's not when we get to go back to second grade name calling and cursing for the trade off of being told we're going to be getting laughed at when we're in hell. That's the the time where we can honor the current and past leaders of this revolution by formulating more reasonable, rationale, falsifiable, testable, empirical, and moral arguments and lay them flat out. And if people start saying we're going to burn in hell or start acting childish in some other way, we ignore them and continue to evolve the conversation without them.
The goal is still evolution.
His closing statement seemed superfluous, although his arguments sans that were noteworthy, I get your point
I mostly agree.
A bit off your main point, but very much relevant:
There's a distinction between being religious, and being inept.
I for example, on many subjects, am inept.
I don't have the time, inclination, or mental acuity to learn about nuclear reactors. I've done my best to become exposed to literature and debates describing world models around the influence of nuclear reactors, but I rely on other people's perspective in order to establish my own opinion.
(my brother served as a nuclear technician aboard a nuclear submarine for the US Navy...)
Christopher Hitchens was a fantastic orator. Thus far, I have never seen his equal. Is it wrong for him to have moved people? and many of these people are not capable of forming a thought half as complete, and resolute, or present it in such a method as to be metaphorically colorful, but clear in it's interpretation and reception.
By this, I mean that some people who are atheists lack any means to express their beliefs to theists, other than to degrade to second grade level name calling..
in one notion, I wish those people would keep their mouth shut, on a second notion, I wish they'd learn to have better arguments, on a third notion, I wonder which is better: Silence, or an expression from ignorance?
At the end of the day, I think expression of ignorance is better, since it furthers Atheist goals. Once we've moved past religious perspectives, then we can get on to teaching people correctly... (slippery slope that one)... do the ends justify the means? I say "no", but I'd rather fight in an open forum, than in my own world in my head (expression= open forum).
Also, the less you know, the less you are aware that you don't know, and therefore the louder you get. These people will be so very loud regardless of what you tell them. so I'm not sure it matters either way.
Your thoughts?
Easily answered, simply put people are not that incapable, people are just people. When I think of people being moved due to the connotation of words, which is a phenomena we don't quite fully understand yet, I feel apprehension and dismay.
For what great fascist leader or swindler could not speak without the deliberate use of such language? Luckily such language is used broadly as a means of expression but In my submission, if your intelligent enough to understand the arguments being presented on both sides then your intelligent enough to form your own opinion hands down.
That being said, Christopher Hitchens has different levels of temperament during different debates and interviews. Anybody of average level intelligence (IQ = 100) is capable of understanding any of these debates. The fact of the matter is most people who receive education with some religious background tend to score better on standardized tests during primary and secondary education. They are taught to reason perhaps in what many would call a less than intellectually honest manner.
In my submission, those who are "New Atheists" also have a better education than the Statistically Standard population for whatever reason. The significance is that both groups. The point is that New Atheists (in general) aren't only capable of understanding both perspectives adequately, they far surpass the ability to expand upon such. In general people are much more intelligent and capable than you may be giving them credit for.
The difference to me is that Theists are always willing to look at both sides and let their arguments evolve, though not always rationally. New Atheists tend to have an attitude that the age old war has been won and are starting to becoming unnecessarily arrogant at times instead of taking time to refute any irrational arguments. This is intellectual laziness pure and simple. So to answer your question without being verbose: People are intelligent and capable on either end of the issue, it's just that new atheists tend to rather assume ignorance is inherent in the other positions argument which, ironically ultimately is an argument from ignorance and they owe it to themselves to keep New Atheism alive if it means something to them.
Oh right, the typical argument that "atheism is just another religion". Gee, we havn't heard that a million times before. So edgy.
We miss your Genius Hitch!
Richard Dawkins, the late great Christopher Hitchens and A. C grayling. Three brilliant orators and intellectuals. Great stuff! ❤️💡
"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. The grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
Christopher Hitchens
Phil.
We need more people like Hitchens and Dawkins.
To do what? "End" with religion?
87nicoh No. Educate people to think for themselves instead of believing what their mammy and daddy and the media told them to think.
***** Well, my mammy and daddy tought me to think, and after years of thought and books and 3 years of being an atheist I came back to my religion.
87nicoh I said "think for yourself", that is different from just "thinking". And as for "I came BACK to my religion" well there you go - the religion you were raised in.
My parents weren't religious or atheist - they weren't really bothered. So when I was a kid I asked questions and the answers didn't satisfy me, so I thought about it myself. When I realised Santa Claus was made up I realised god was also made up; its simply a story passed down from generation to generation. Luckily kids now have more access to information and in the UK religion's days are numbered.
***** That's the laziest, most absurd, and ignorant definition of God, "a man made invention." You "realised" it was a man made thing. But you don't know. You'd be amazed how rational thought can lead you to God.
1:18:54 Hitchen's response to the question and then Dawkins reaction to it are ABSOLUTE GOLD.
How could the debate go on after Hitchen's first speech? Damn! I would've left the stage if I had to respond to that. The man's a legend.
Hitchens does a double front-flip , nuts-in-the-face, break the backboard slam dunk on anyone he debates
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
It just proves that religious people are stupid.
Now I'd like to say, I recently joined a debating group and I actually defended religious people from the notion that they're stupid until I began debating them regularly. I'm now convinced that I was wrong to defend them. Religion is stupid. Believing in something for which you have no evidence, believing in something as nonsensical as one particular god when humans have invented 18,000 gods in their history can only be described as stupid. Taking Noah's ark literally when animals are so clearly divided by Islands and continents is stupid.
I listen to a debate between Dawkins and a Rabbi recently where the Rabbi picked and chose which parts of the Bible should be read literally and which parts are open to interpretation and are just fables. That's stupid.
He also accused Dawkins' of antisemitism for mocking ALL gods and told him that it was child abuse to teach his daughter English in response to Dawkins calling religious indoctrination from birth child abuse. That was stupid.
Hitchens AND Dawkins?! The theists didn't stand a chance.
Because you are regarded, some are not
Bravo, my heros, Christopher and Richard.
Christopher Hitchens showed me and many others that 1 single person really can change the world.
"HOW DARE YOU!" Just gotta love Hitch!
I could literally listen to Hitchens speak for hours on end and still want more. What a gift he was to humanity. Its a real shame he’s no longer with us. Thankfully for me he existed in my lifetime, and I feel lucky to have had that privilege.
Absolutely, he’s got a great voice too, which makes him such a great person to listen to.
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
Listen to his memoir Hitch-22, the audiobook is on youtube. Like 15 hours of hitch as he reads it himself.
"My child is a doctor and he doesn't go to church" - well I think we can all be fairly relieved about that! Personally the idea of accepting medical advice from someone who believes in magic is one I find terrifying
Spot on
And the comments section just illustrates their point exactly. RIP Mr.Hitchens. Keep up the great work Mr.Dawkins
maybe dawkins will join you soon..actually i'm sure of it.
@@FXNorm still sure clueless?
@@FXNorm looks like he is still around ;)
It's such a shame that Christopher isn't with us any more!. His style of speaking and ability to smith words into a beautiful sentence that fell pleasantly into ones ear was truly one of a kind.
It's not a shame.
I will say it is a shame he was not a Christian. Now that is a shame.
@@daveross7731 There's no hate like Christian love
@@willv1079 its so ironic, like they prove numerous points we have addressing the problems with religion in their own sentences
The light ceases not to exist so he lives.
@@willv1079 There's no smug patronizing hubris like atheism.
Religion requires a closed mind and an open check book.
+Freshwaterboy - Don't forget yoga practice. You have to grab those ankles.
+Taylor Lords LOL
+Taylor Lords lmao
A world without religion is just as bad as a world of religion... both are extremes of a spectrum, both are mechanisms of control with an inherent quality of keeping the truth from you which ultimately takes knowledge and power from you transferring it to someone else, be it the Vatican or a communist leader... religion hides truth in fictional representations of universal truth, religions are occult by nature and "no religion" hides truth by complete omission... like visible light is in the centre of the electromagnet spectrum, the truth is seen on the middle path. In the middle of the "left and right" paradigm there is a unified political structure where all the control and power is. There is more force and energy at the centre of a magnetic field, between north and south poles at the absolute centre, there is no north and south pole... at the centre of an atomic field there is more mass than outside of the nucleus. The coin exists between the head and tail faces, the faces are but the surface. Belief is our enemy... to believe in one extreme creates disbelief in the other, discounting the tails in favour of the heads hides the whole coin from our perspective and makes us ignorant of its true nature. Be eclectic in your learning, choose your teachers wisely, a jack of all "trades" and master of none is better at giving a broad perspective than being a biased and unwise master of one subject. you look both ways to cross a road safely because you're marrying opposites... look at sciences, religions, math, sacred geometry, astrotheology, law, language, physics and metphysics... the truths discovered in the past, at least since plato, have been hidden.... until school practically teaches you nothing but how to slave. seek and ye shall find.
That's not fair. It can be an open wallet or purse too.
Everyone's talking about how great Hitchens and Dawkins are.. where are my fellow A.C. Grayling enjoyers at?
My jaw dropped when the first opponent speaker suggested that the audience would want to walk out after his speech because he would be so convincing. I think his ego was more and more visibly bruised as the debate waged on.
That and he has the personality of a damp digestive biscuit
Especially as he was going against Hitchens!
I'm pretty sure that was tongue-in-cheek.
1:42:33
Hitchens was one of a kind
+Curtis Fowler a one of a kind echo. the platitudes of orthodoxy need more stylized jerks to repeat that mother teresa took money from the proles of port au toilet? when did the proles from port au toilet have money for a time period greater than that which would elapse while walking to the liquor store?
Hahaha, funny. I'm only commenting to piss him off more.
Christians can be the vilest of beings when their "faith" is questioned.
No, Humans can be the most vilest beings. Some christians claim to be above such things by sighting they are a christian. This whole debate is over atheists saying that christians say they are better "morally" than non-christians.
The answers is very simple, we are humans before our religions and to live up to any moral code, sometimes we have to fight our human side.
That makes no sense. It's in our mature to want people to be punished for their crimes. I mean look at what we had before hell... Tartarus, Kasyrgan, Narak, Avici, Helheim, Irkalla and many, many more.
A totally unique man. Will never be even similar. C H is beyond brilliant & awesome. A orator who gives speaking a sheen & magnificence unlike anyone before. RIP - you are missed so much.
The fundamental risk all academics face is this, they may enter the academic space indifferent and objectively willing to think critically, especially about their own beliefs ( as they should) then they write a book, then they get popular, and this feeling feels good they have never felt this before, then they go on talk shows and form a cult-like following then no matter what evidence they find to the contrary they will refuse to accept because now they are more concerned with their ego and self-importance rather than the reality they set out for all those years ago. This is the story of Richard Dawkins.
You don't need religion in order to be sensitive, righteous, and compassionate; in order to know what you should and shouldn't do. And the fact that us, people who don't believe in a god or a scripture, act accordingly, is proof enough. And there's greater virtue in that.
Religious people are so self-righteous, they think they are "morally superior" the second they start believing in a story in a book 😂- and because you don't, they will tell YOU what type of person you are, which according to jew Christian texts, makes you a unbelieving swine dog gentile that pearls shouldnt be tossed in front of.
Subconsciously they absolutely believe it- since they are told this for years on end.
I, as an Non-Theist, have never understood the fear of death as a whole being part of the human condition. Logical perspective is all it takes to reverse this fear, which is no doubt one of the leading attractions of religion for most people. Billions of years have passed before our conscience ever became aware of itself, and only a few will pass before it will once again cease. This, for me, has never created even a sense of stress or anxiety. On the contrary, it's calming effect allows me to relish the present with a sense of awe at the unfathomable improbability of my own existence.
With respect, you don't know how improbable your existence is because we don't have a point of reference. And predicting a future of a few billion years of human existence is a very generous one. Sorry about my need for accuracy, that said, I enjoyed reading your comment :)
Regarding "logical perspective" (as you say), if recent neuroscience is to be believed, even when we think we're being cold and rational, we're mostly making decisions based on emotion, instinct, and a whole mess of cognitive biases. Most of the time, we humans are anything but logical.
*****
Thank you good sir. I had said a few billion years BEFORE you and myself came to be and only a few until we are no more. You don't point out your beliefs so i wouldn't assume any meaningful or intelligible response to a point of reference
I'm not making any arguments for or against theism (I happen to be atheist, not that it matters), I am simply pointing out that most of the time none of us are particularly logical.
***** Thank you for your meaningful and intelligent response. I believe my mind is neither in a state of confidence or arrogance. I would describe it as a state of neutrality or stasis. I think the fear of death is probably like you said an evolutionary adaptation, and perhaps even our propensity for religious belief as well. Is the fear of death healthy though I ask? And why? I believe it diminishes our appreciation for all that is
The closing speech by Professor Grayling was beautiful. You know it's audibly pleasing to the ear when Christopher Hitchens claps like he's smashing play-doe in his hands lol.
Yo, that’s exactly how he claps, fuckin lmao
It has taken years for me to understand and appreciate what Scruton has to say here.
All good things take time
Christopher Hitchens.. Idol idol!!! 😂😂 Beast! Hahahaha.
His eloquence and on-point thought process. What an intellectual! 😂
The debate was lost before the opposition opened their mouths. Hitchens, Dawkins and Grayling crucified them! XD
+Butch R using words of violence to explain how stylized drivel is an argument? I think that supporters ought to be forced to wear the skins of drunk drivers heads like the romans wore wolf heads and live in cairo. because ... the only proof that christian morals are superior to other moral systems seems to be empirical models the size of nations or continents, and the supporters of such drivel seem to need empirical models of that stature surrounding them to understand a simple fact.
+Timothy Allen They are not attacking their personalities, just saying how absolutely absurd their idea's are. Also nothing Christians have is any different then anyone else do not call it christian morals. You know as well as i do that statement is willfully full of deceit.
Dylan MacAllister
way to earn that F by not knowing how well christian morals have created nations of prosperity while pakistan wallows in pakistanis moral habits
*****
it is odd how I don't see any slaves in the U.
S. blindness equals F
"using words of violence to explain how stylized drivel is an argument? I think that supporters ought to be forced to wear the skins of drunk drivers heads like the romans wore wolf heads and live in cairo." Then you proceeded to say how christian morals are superior to other morals.
How does someone even learn how to talk like Hitchens. Nobody speaks with such a way with words, I've never heard anything like it.
Richard Dawkins for prime minister!
Two great men.
RIP Hitch. 👍
I wish I would have been able to see Hitchens give a speech in person. Such a shame we had to lose such a great person.
GOD took him out , he was too blasphemous !!!
@@maxprescott9371 The all-loving god? Seems quite petty and revengeful to me, if he felt so challenged by a single human...
@@caIigula Hello, why would you put forth that opinion ? There are many individuals throughout history who met a certain end because their words and actions were so blasphemous, so erroneous, so malignant,, that swift judgment came upon them……. Learn from History 👋
@@maxprescott9371 First of all: Everybody dies sometime. No godly intervention needed.
And you want to point to history? So after your logic, many murderous rulers were allowed by your god to live long a life, while he took away Christopher HItchens? Somebody who never killed anyone? What a crappy god that is, kills someone harmless, but let's somebody like Stalin live to 74 (a long life for someone born in 1878 like Stalin!) and murder countless millions?
How cruel of a god is that, speak the wrong words and you'll get cancer, but murder millions and nothing more happens than a stroke at old age?
And why was Hitler allowed to survive several attempts on his life? In November 1939, he survived an attempt that probably would've shortened (or even end) the 2nd World War, by getting lucky, he left just 13 minutes before the bomb exploded in the Munich Bürgerbräukeller. He thought god protected him. And if you are correct, that the moment and how you die is preordained by some god, then yes, Hitler was let go by god, probably because he still had millions to murder?
No, it's very simple, there is nothing that sets our time and place of death. Modern medicine allows us to live an ever longer life. Not god. And to wish or believe that some force explicitly killed Christopher Hitchens with a painful sickness because he criticized this non-existent force is unbelievably cruel. But Hitchens himself said it, how can religion be a force for good, if people like you wish death and pain on others for simply not sharing their beliefs? This is utterly cruel!
@@caIigula Friend,, All things are being Fulfilled before our eyes ,, get on the right side of History,, turn to the LORD Jesus, He is the only way out for All people 💟✝️
Thank you for sharing this debate. Always a joy to explore the passionate and enlightening Christopher Hitchens. A gentleman that is very much missed.
Please put Grayling in the title too.
Indeed. Credit where it is due. Grayling is quite as masterful as the other atheist gentlemen.
+Alex Henderson Yes! It's absurd he's left out!
+Stoic0n3 Hear, hear! That final statement was marvellous.
Metamusik Indeed - I've wrote it down to remember forever. So well put.
as an ex muslim who lives in a very extreme society, his last speech had me in tears!
That opening monologue from hitch. Amazing.
Faith is believing in what you know is not true.
That's a quote from _Huckleberry Finn_, a work of fiction, and it's wrong.
Aristo Telian
Hows it wrong, look faith up in any dictionary.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen Hebrews 11:1
Faith can be used to justify anything
Appeals to faith are an admission of failure.
Faith is the excuse people give when they believe something and don't have a good reason to believe
Poseidon63 Faith is more than that:
This from Merriam Webster:
1.
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
By M-W, your definition is approximately one-sixth of the possible usages. Twain's is much less--it's deliberately misanthropic.
We use faith all the time, every time we take a step, sit down, ride an airplane or a car, trust another person.
The faith to which you object, I think, is the religious kind. Even there it is not without its evidence. While your quote from Hebrews seems to support your argument, it does not if you read the rest of Hebrews (you have, right?) and especially the rest of the New Testament:
_For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made_ (Ro. 1:20)
And the accounts of Christ in the Gospels.
That you think that they are not 'good enough' as evidence is your conclusion. Mine is different. Things often look different from the inside, as you have found each time you have realized that a person was not as bad as you at first thought, or each time a friend betrayed you.
The evidence you look for is most likely the wrong kind. You cannot demand history to be empirical, or logic, or personal knowledge. There are more kinds of knowledge than the empirical. Some of these kinds of knowledge are personal, which is the knowledge that God calls us to in the Bible. That kind of knowledge will not be proven or disproven in a laboratory. It can only be lived...or not.
We trust (a synonym for 'faith') every day. Trusting in God is just another kind of the trust that we know well, whether we know that or not.
Aristo Telian
"We use faith all the time, every time we take a step, sit down, ride an airplane or a car, trust another person."
These are not based on faith, these are based on evidence, knowledge, proof and past experience.Faith is nothing like this, faith is believing something which has no evidence, proof or fact.
Poseidon63 Experience, yes. And it doesn't always turn out as we think it will, as auto accidents, climbing accidents, drownings, airline tragedies and a host of other unexpected occurrences remind us.
We live by faith every day.
Faith has evidence--historical and experiential, whether it's 'this chair will hold me when I sit on it,' or 'Following God's directions will result in a good life for me and for those around me because it and He are true.'
Grayling's hair is awesome.
Old blonde lady says atheists don't have doubt
I understand why she said that, to mislead the audience, but it's pretty insulting considering atheism literally means you doubt theism to the point that you no longer believe in any of it
she also says in the same sentence atheists didn't have uncertainty. uncertainty is the basis of the whole scientific method, and a huge part of the scientific community consists of atheists.
theists actually are the ones who are certain about the existence of their god(s), while most atheists are actually agnostic about the existence of any gods. even dawkins defines himself as a 6 out of 7, when 7 means you know there is no god. agnosticism literally means "not knowing", in other words, uncertainty.
i find this part of the sentence much more insulting. i have no doubt about the nonexistence of the flying spaghetti monster, but i can never be certain it does not exist.
No it doesn't. Atheism is the belief in no deities. It is a belief. Which is why Dawkins particularly says he is 99% agnostic, but practically an atheist. He says he is prepared to change his mind on evidence, but as he does with evolution, he is prepared to take a leap (of faith, you might say) that he can be certain.
Atheism has nothing to do with doubt. A moderate Christian most likely doubts his belief structure more than most atheists. It is quite evident from how most atheists behave (especially the newly converted) that they feel certain they are right. The scientific position is agnosticism, since you have no proof that you are correct. You just have logic. That might be enough.
Atheism is a belief. A belief that God does not exist. Something you believe in spite of not knowing for sure.
You are very wrong. Atheism only means disbelief in a deity, in most cases disbelief in supernatural altogether. You may not say atheism is a belief system, when by definition atheism is lack of belief. The reason Dawkins made the scale where 1 is certain there is a god, and 7 is certain there isn't, was to demonstrate that atheists don't claim to know there is no god. There is no way of knowing, and to claim one does know something there is no way of knowing is an intellectual suicide. In evolution there is no need for a leap, it has a pile of evidence the size of a mountain for it, and no contradictory evidence at all.
A moderate Christian that doubts his beliefs is what most atheists were at some point, and after doing their research or reading the thoughts of the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, found out there is no reason to believe in god. I feel agnosticism is a boring term that only has use if you really feel like it's 50% chance god exists, and an equal chance he doesn't. However there is no evidence for a personal god at all. Now when you have no evidence for anything, using Occam's Razor you should get rid of unnecessary assumptions, and god is an unnecessary assumption.
Atheism is a disbelief. You may not say that a lack of belief is in itself a belief, that's just not true. Looking forward to your response.
Precaseptica a negative belief is a doubt. You have fallen for your own trap, congrats.
Eemeli Haarala The point with the scale from 1 to 7 proves my point exactly. It shows that if you are a 7 and can claim to not just be an atheist for practical purposes, but really stand firmly on the 7, as opposed to the 6.9 Richard claims for himself, then you commit to the belief that there is no God, without having evidence that makes you certain.
Atheism IS a belief. There is no two ways around it. Until the existence of God is proven or disproven atheism remains a belief. After which it will probably just fade away as a pointless term. Something it possibly should have done already.
Do you need a terminology for believing that Santa doesn't exist? Of course not. So why do you need to wave a flag because you don't believe in God?
This was the first time Hitchens and Dawkins met each other. Fun fact.
because of this i am now a huge fan of Grayling, he didnt get to say much but the two times a talked during this it was great
He recently gave a talk at the Oxford Union. Well worth checking out if you haven't already.
As an American it's really interesting how moderate many of Europe's religious people are. I really enjoyed this debate because both sides brought up a lot of intelligent points, which I honestly was not expecting from the religious side.
Hitchens at 16:00: "Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of idiots who may try to tell you that Hitler was a secularist, or that Stalin's crimes were the result of rational humanism."
Roger Scruton 1:55:23: "Now what about Hitler and Stalin, who committed their crimes in the name of atheism? This is a vulgar argument that my side would never make, mind you, but...."
I can't believe he called it a vulgar argument a second after he made the argument. Tells you all you need to know about the bad faith there.
RVapes Post evidence for abiogenesis. Oh, and don't lie.
RVapes You would be more convincing if you gave us an example of Scruton's lying. Until then, your overstatement smacks of emotion, not reason.
Tim Spangler are you ready to give him a nobel prize? what other reason would such an obtuse request be asked here?
Aristo Telian wouldnt you have to be inside his head to know his intentions and be able to know the he was being intellectually dishonest? short of him admitting it, i do not think that you can. you can, however, use observation and reason to deduce that it is likely that he is. but....how could you know?
Brian b 'His'? Which 'his' is that?
And not necessarily. Most people try very hard to let others know what's inside their head.
"Religion acerbates or starts bloody conflicts everywhere across time and lands."
"Yeah but did you know religion made art sometimes?"
🤣😂😅👍👍👍
Religion is the Opiate for the Masses. I agree with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They are Both Great writers and awesome orators.
Thanks You Tube what a great debate....RIP Christopher Hitchens....you are so missed !
Watching the three proponents for the motion approve of each other gives me a lovely warm feeling.
At my time in school (Germany, 25 or so year ago), for those who did not want to participate protestantic or catholic "religion education", there was the alternative called "Ethics". And I think that is exactly what should be tought in school to everyone instead of religious indoctrination of whatever kind: What kind of things are ethically good or bad, based on human rights and so on. That one might get deep satisfaction out of helping other human beings - some might try it.
ethics...the opposite of religion. (how apropos)
Christianity.
A lie about adultery that got way out of hand.
+Tere Tapsell this comment is under valued lol
Fantastic!
Hitchens said something similar.. I can’t remember the exact quote but it ended with ‘or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?’
Brilliant.
@@lannipie "Which is more likely, that a the entire natural order should be suspended AND in your favour, or that a jewish minx should tell a fib?" -David Hume (Fib=Lie)
Christopher Hitchens did say it, but he was quoting our dear Hume.
T T
Yeah, thats why islam is taking over.
"The idea of the secret policeman who sees what you do in the dark it's a wonderful instrument of control over people's minds" - Anthony Clifford Grayling
It's also complete nonsense. Our conscience is equivalent to an absolute judge, observing and judging us absolutely. Everybody has that, wants it, understands it. But an ultimate conscience? The notion is ideal for any thinking human being: there is an ultimate arbiter, beyond all vice and pettiness of bias. To equate God to a police state is retarded. All they mean when they deny the absolute is they want to be the arbiter. I'd certainly rather have God than goons like Hitchens deciding affairs. Thankfully, God exists and we don't have to rely on pathetic human egos.
BRILLIANT MAN he was. He and Richard Dawkins are my kind of people.
Thank you for sharing this.
Hear ye...!
Scruton is a genius...and is a thinker to whom one should listen.
Just that he doesn't seek applause, with an orator's exit of 'thank you', ought to apprise all. A deep thinker of immense profundity is here.
What a luxury his wisdom and modesty is....
Completamente de acuerdo, y buen libro el de "sobre la naturaleza humana".
Wow, that was a wonderful speech from Grayling to start his argument off... I'll have to keep an eye out for his work and pick up a book or two. Thanks for uploading this!
One of the few debates where I can listen to all parties involved. Kind, knowledgable and clear. Would have liked to hear Hitchens a bit more.
lol wow, i can not believe someone actually agreed to sit down to debate with hitchens and dawkins expecting anything other than having their ass handed to them on a silver platter
💀
When Christopher Hitchens died he found himself outside the gate to heaven. The deity awaited him and beckoned him to enter. Hitch paused stating he had long preached against the deity's existence and asked why the deity was inviting him to enter heaven? The deity responded, many people are taught religion in their youth and accept their version of me without question. Those folks I send to hell. Your kind questions my existence, using the mind I gave you to think. As a reward for using this most precious gift I bestowed on you, you are welcomed into everlasting bliss. Well, maybe it happened.
In one clip, Hitchens made the claim that if he died and he woke at the golden gates and God asks why he didn't believe, then he would proceed to say that he wasn't given enough evidence.
We certainly aren't better without Hitch. :-(
Christopher Hitchens was a Great Man. I loved hearing his interviews and reading his posts on media. I know he is in a better place.
@@RicoCamacho I can't help but feel as though you've missed the point of part of what Christopher Hitchens stood for/against.
@@karrytentertainment5063
Hardly. He was a powerful force for rationality, solidarity, and morality. Such a force was a good thing, therefore, the lack of it leaves us worse off.
@@PickledShark I agree with everything you said. I simply was making a joke based on his stance of there not being a heaven or hell. Thus it would be impossible for him to be in a better place. Otherwise yes. The world desperately needs a Hitch-esq figure and is made much worse by his absence.
What a genius Hitchens was, RIP Sir!
Mr. Hitchens' opinions in these debates always won my approval. I appreciate how he helped influence the evolution of human intelligence...
Zeus a gay man ? HAHA.
Bisexual maybe, but only James bond can put him to shame.
The short answer to this entire debate.. Religion, as it stands, has had its time. It served a purpose at one time, but now we're growing out of that need and its time to move on.
we should have moved on 2,000 years ago.
*****
Thats a reality that is faced by religion as well... even other muslims, for following the wrong version, such is the face of religious extremism. There are Atheists around the world, even in Islam.
What will replace religion ? once the dogma and supernatural benefactors are a footnote in history, reason, philosophy, spirituality and genuine creativity will take their rightful place.
***** In biblical times, if you didn't follow Christianity, they sent an army to kill your whole race... Same story bro. Live with it.
Completely agree.
Hitch was a genius who got his(brilliant) points across with wonderful humor.
Roger scruton's initial speech was spellbinding. He may not be here anymore but his ideas will be immortal
While I take the position opposite his, I must say his brand of arguments would be the ones that might move me.
Although at the end I nearly spat out my drink. Atrocities committed in the NAME of atheism? To completely deny any link between religiosity and the men he named is to absolutely misunderstand history. A very, very gross thing to say.
Hitchens is unbeatable. So good that he left such a vast intellectual legacy
Absolutely incorrect. God is unbeatable.
Jesus left a longer lasting, much more better legacy. Hitchens has left nothing compared to Jesus. Jesus has left an indelible positive mark on the world.
"We be better off without religion"
Agreed we would be, but we are not better off without Christ and Christ is not about religion...
@@daveross7731 TOTAL NONSENSE
Hitchens is now soil fertilizer. Religious people have eternal life.
@@artificialintelligence8388 not a very nice thing to say . Show some compassion like a religious person would do.
@@steelcityowl1 that is what he was espousing. Respecting his own point of view.
It's not too late to question the values in and about all religions. It's about time we take a much closer look at the word faith as opposed to trust. The words of C. Hitchens are still spot on valid today.
Hitchens bossing it as always.
I can listen to his lectures/opinions eveery day. I miss him terribly; he taught me so much!
I agree that we would be better off without religion. We would uphold the rule of law and embrace the secular principles of philosophical ideas.
Professor Grayling spoke very well in this debate. I came expecting to be moved more by Hitchens and Dawkins, but Grayling's remarks sounded quite sincere and hopeful -- especially in his closing. A good debate overall.
Hopeful is one thing.. truthful is another.
External Tooth Lmao at your profile pic
i LOVE music, art and poetry. i weep like a little girl ALL THE TIME to music i listen to, yet i'm not religious.
That is because you are a spiritual person :-)
TheWiseOldChinaman What does beauty with spirituality have to do?
biomechomegapsi it's just my opinion that creationists are more appreciative of the beauty that surrounds them because they can relate music, poetry, movies all have a designer/creator ... hence beauty in mother nature is likely a work of art by the grand designer.
TheWiseOldChinaman maybe for most but i am the furthest thing from a creationist and appreciate ALL works of art, music and poetry. PEOPLE create art music and poetry NOT god.
I totally understand your point, and i did not imply atheists can not appreciate beauty ... merely correlating that when one can appreciates the beauty of creations by man, how can one not wonder about the beauty of nature? ... is it because beauty in nature is just how it is, evolved by accident, or possibly due to a grand designer?
thank you hitchens for saving me from christian hypocrisy
Hitch was such a star.
Plus he died with grace, courage and dignity.
Thank goodness, Rich, Sam, Daniel, Ricky and Stephen are still carrying on the fight against superstitious darkness. 😊
Grace, courage and dignity have no foundation if atheism is true
@@brandod.huamandaga4534
How on earth do you work that out? 🙄
@@brandod.huamandaga4534 well I don't know but they still do exist. Plus you theists have not yet shown us any evidence of God. The bible is written by person's. So it is something akin to propaganda of a biased Luke or Paul. With millions accepting atheism, a number more than the combined population of the Roman world, it is time to have a man walk on water in the 21 century. Show miracles and other supernatural powers.
@@brandod.huamandaga4534 huh
@@brandod.huamandaga4534You can't prove that.
A. C. Grayling was splendid, I've recently started following his work and it's great to further hear his thoughts. Dawkins and Hitchens were, of course, amazing as always. Although I didn't agree much with the other side Scruton and Julia were still rather interesting to hear :D
Hawkins and Hich are unbeatable on this topic. The truth won't kill you. 🇦🇺 😊
I think that a large part of why religion is still so wide spread is because it is easier to understand than science.
+Josh “DimeADuzen” Abernathy And it requires you to work less. You only have to read one book instead of many hard ones.
+Josh “DimeADuzen” Abernathy I don't think you strictly need to understand science to not be religious. Just don't fill in gaps in your own knowledge with god did it.
+Eric Jewell are we talking about a theistic or deistic God? Are we taking the bible literally(fundamentally), or figuratively? Are we talking about the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Quran, or other scriptures?
Let's not cherry pick here. The argument was for whether or not the bible, as a whole, and science in general can coincide without any direct confliction.
The excerpt that you've chosen to isolate is only a small fraction of the claims that genesis makes. Most of it is quite absurd. If you take that specific passage in genesis litterally then in order for your argument to be valid, you must regard the rest of genesis as true also.
The evidence for evolution is so astoundingly vast and astronomically accurate. The amount of direct, irrefutable data we have that supports evolution could fill multiple books that are equal in size to the entire book of genesis, let alone the small passage you referenced. Although I have never read genesis, it is completely irrational to suggest that such a small volume of information could derail the the theory of evolution via the scientific method, despite countless preices of evidence that all point to the same conclusion.
However, that fact is actually insignificant in context, because the argument is about whether the book of genesis and science can exist in a harmonious fashion. And, if taken litterally, there are many things that genesis asserts that are in direct conflict with almost all of science. You will not win this argument.
Marc Axelrod It's not easy to understand because it doesn't make sense. The "holy trinity for example. Jesus is the son of god but he is also god. God is the father of Jesus bur also Jesus. But in fact Mary conceived Jesus with the holy ghost. Must have been a threesome.
God damn I miss this magnificent man!
As an old man well beyond his seventies and being in awe of Beethoven, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Darwin and Einstein, I cannot dismiss Hitch as anything less than suburb.
Lol
@@franzneubauer6877 Naughty Franz. You could have gently corrected his typo. That would have been the superb thing to do.
I love how Hitch didn't notice the podium set aside for their arguments until after his opening speech. He notices it around 28:10 after Dawkins points to it!
Lmao I just noticed that haha he had a sort of “ohhh we had our own podium” look on his face 28:06
This wasn’t a debate. It was a group of intelligent adults schooling a group of children in adult bodies.
I find it bizarre how Richard and the most straight forward and eloquent man Chris hitchen are frowned upon it's just such basic truth they put forward ,there isn't really any argument.
Name one beneficial thing that religion offers that cannot be achieved by secular means.
Inner peace with mortality, especially dealing with a person's impending death or the recent death of a loved one.
Thomas Reed and that can only be achieved through religion why?
darkblood626 It can be achieved much more easily. It would be possible to make a philosophical argument that doesn't involve the supernatural, but the same effort could construct a similar argument for almost any cause, good or bad. God alone doesn't make collective belief systems bad, it's the collectivism.
Love, its impossible for an atheist to love, except himself..survival of the fittest, remember.He'd rather kill you..more for him
If you have an atheist neighbor thats running out of food and he's walking towards you with a smile, be aware of the glock in the small of his back,he will use it.
FXNorm Even if you were right that survival of the fittest is the single motivating philosophy of every atheist, which you're not, survival of the fittest in Darwinian terms can refer to the species-level or individual level. Love is a competitive advantage, as is sharing food in hard times. We're similar to pack animals, if that makes sense.
Distrust and fear of those different from you is also a competitive advantage, at least in the strictest survivalist terms. It's not exactly a virtue, but you appear to be better at it than most atheists. Try to remember others are human. While we may disagree, I don't hate you for it and I suspect most atheists wouldn't either. Try to find a reason not to hate us.
Roger Scrutons view of transcendence is fascinating.
In 2007 I loved for first time
No one like him today. Hitchen is so right on.
I truly enjoyed this video! Unfortunately it made me think of a work friend from many years ago, who one day I asked, why did you leave Belfast for Canada? I was completely floored when he started crying in a split second, from laughing to tears streaming down his face and a look of utter devastation.
I was totally confused until he told me as a kid he watched a man have his hand cut of with a hacksaw to obtain information about the other side so to speak.
The animals forced him and his mom, a nurse, to be there in order to stop the bleeding, and keep the poor guy alive just in case he didn't give up all the information they wanted right away.
Christian against christian. Religion is like a form of mass insanity in my view!
1:53:00 - Hitchens looks increasingly awe-struck by Professor Graylings sublime closing speech.
I just finished watching Spivey, who said he was half afraid that after his speech people would walk out thinking the argument was won, and he was right! His side lost!!!
1:25:08 LOL and Hitchen's "Go on" absolutely killed me :D
Religous text should start with 'Once upon a time'
@@James-nq8eh whats your IQ 12?
@@James-nq8eh faith is based on lack of evidence, whereas evolution is studied and proven through scientific research.
@@James-nq8eh You're so stupid, it's funny.
Every time the rabbi says "homosexuals" I can't not hear Stewie Griffin's voice.
adios baby! Speaking about adios, say your goodbyes to Saudi Arabia as they will become a parking lot. Iran will destroy them soon. sad. anyway you shouldn't call people names atheist are suppose to be moral i thought.
What ?
hahahaha yes
I haven't gotten that far yet but now I'm excited
Johnny Khomlately oh. my. god. hes right rupert...
I love how at 1:25:08 the audience isn't quite certain if Dawkins is being a prick or if he's pointing out that someone else is being a prick.
They did misunderstand. He was using the voice of a believer and they took it literally, as if he were saying it. Nice catch! In fact, I've seen that clip taken out of context in pro-theistic videos to try and make him look bad.
Maria Callous
no, i meant the word prick though prig would work equally well.
oh, i can only imagine how often that's used out of context.
moron? atheist love calling people names. they try and get self worth this way. sorry, the labels you use on people are to control them, just like you say religion does. you are empty and need love.
LOL Atheists like calling people names? Christians do just the same and it's pretty much the worst word they know: sinner. That's the all encompassing bad name.
Your peek in to an atheists psyche is mundane and false.
Calling people names in observance of subjective discourse doesn't bolster self worth, it's a knee-jerk reaction to what one finds stupid.
I've taken the time to say that your assessment is mundane and false. Put more simply, I think your comment is stupid. The most base reaction to your comment would have just been to say "You're a moron."
See the reduction there?
I shouldn't expect critical thinking from a theist.
A label doesn't control anything, it groups and identifies. mostly so we can say "hey, there's a moron. I'm going to proceed with the knowledge that someone thinks that person is a moron and prepare for moronic actions to ensue."
Moron
January 2023. Danmark her. Hitchens is so so great :)
Magnificent. Hitchens the best