(3/17) Intelligence Squared - We would be better off without religion

[Klash92]

Hitchens speaks so well.

[1993CorradoSLC]

Religion is deleterious, surely. Marxism is no better.

[WritingJenny73070]

is it that he's sexy or is it that his mind is sexy? I can't tell.

[HalfFullYeah]

Religion is man-made, superstition is not...

[LichQueenKathie]

@HalfFullYeah What the hell? o.o Explanation, now please.

[HalfFullYeah]

@LichQueenKathie

Superstition is natural, instinctive, «more uncontroled»; it's the natural roots of religion. We humans built our religions upon that superstitious instinct.

To put it another way : superstition is natural, religion is cultural.

It was also not that clear when I re-read myself...!!! And I do not claim to hold the truth here!

Cheers!

[LichQueenKathie]

@HalfFullYeah You're entirely correct in that case; superstitious behaviours occur naturally in humans. I seem to recall, in my college days, reading about an experiment which was done with pigeons, in which food was given at random intervals. The pigeons would mimic previous behaviours in an effort to get food.

I wish I could remember the name of the study, but it was something to do with Operant Conditioning, if you want to look it up.

[HalfFullYeah]

@LichQueenKathie

Cheers!

I consider myself a pretty rational boring guy, who thinks that love is somehow biological (wow romance!), and not long ago, I was deluding myself sweetly by wishing-thinking that if I arrived at the street corner before the next car, then my ex girlfriend would come back to me... sweet and naive, but still dangerous because it means I do not take control of my life, but let «destiny» do it.

Humans have to be in control, even if it means... (cont.)

[HalfFullYeah]

@LichQueenKathie

... even if it means that we give irrational explanations to what we do not understand, like the primitive nature gods.

It's sad to see we still have horoscope in Western newspapers in 2011...

When our species will take confidence in itself and use its head connected with its heart, then we will be a more mature species. Until then, we have to be more mature to counterbalance our religious (mostly the extremist ones) harmless for our own survival.

Cheers again LichQueen!

[LichQueenKathie]

@HalfFullYeah You're welcome dear ^^

[llkdll]

gotta love the Hitch ;)

[beautyinbreakdowns2]

@Gazdo01 @kasad9 I see what each of you are saying but side more with kasad. The good that religion has done has to be viewed the broader context to include how it was done-often forcibly. Here in the states, Christians actively obstruct learning. To gazado, We must get rid of duality-the context for this whole debate. That is what will make us all behave much better. We have to give up all of the "us & them."

[Gazdo01]

Religion is not the probleme. Humans are the problem. Chronic and pathogical stupidity which endoctrinates minds into blindly believing in something. This applies to atheists too.

Does anybody REALLY think that by getting rid of religion, there will be no more war, no more irrationnal actions taken place... Do you really believe humans will start behaving perfectly??

Religion is not the problem, the extremist mind is.

[Kasad9]

@Gazdo01 I don't think anybody thinks that by getting rid of religion there will be no more war, but as Hitchins said, it would no longer be such an exacerbating factor.

[Gazdo01]

@Kasad9 Yeah... but unfortunately, these are some of the atheists favorite arguments...

Why can't any atheist appreciate all the immense GOOD christianity, and specially Catholicism, has done for the world?

I never hear atheists refer to the life of SAINTS, who truly are the ones we should judge religion upon.

The attack on religion is a big show, based on the people who call themselves believers but don't act like ones. That's call endoctrinated people, i.e. most of the people.

[Kasad9]

@Gazdo01 Unfortunately that argument has never held any weight for me. "Look at all the good religion has done" yes, but look at all of the terrible things it has unleashed upon the world, as Hitchins describes in this very debate. Of course, you are familiar with the Atheist's favourite arguments, so I feel no need to repeat them, though personally I'd immediately bring up the "think of all the good science has done" argument.

[Gazdo01]

@Kasad9 My position is:

1. There was FAR MORE good that was done compaed to the evil commited by "SO CALLED" christians

2. It's not religion that has been the probleme per say, it's the stupidity of the human nature, and it's tendency to be so easily endoctrinated. By eliminating religion, people will find new grounds to disagree on. Look at todays political conflits, and the absurdity of it all

3. I'm a scientific, you don't have to convice me of the good science has done :)

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 I judge religion based on the consequences of believing it. I don't judge it on the lives of saints, in part because it's easy to lie about your own religion's saints, but also because to the extent that, in my opinion of behaving rightly, when religious people do very good things, they are often violating the precepts of their religion.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 "I judge religion based on the consequences of believing it." Well that's just childish. You can't judge the TRUTH according to some so-called followers. In that case, EVERYTHING'S false and not worth believing in.

"easy to lie about your own religion's saints" Hahahahaha very WEAK argument

"they are often violating the precepts of their religion." Give be concrete examples concerning Catholicism.

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 People who didn't believe in killing witches, for the better part of the last 2000 years, were in violation of Catholic dogma, for one. For another, those today who support the rights of gay people to the legal rights of all other couples who love one another oppose Catholic teachings. I don't see why you consider the argument about it being possible to lie about saints for whom we have no other sources is weak. Do you believe the Muslims about Mohammad? I doubt it.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 Find me the "dogma" of "killing witches in the Catholic Cathecism or Canon. You wont, because there is NO SUCH DOGMA.

1. You've been endoctrinated with anti-catholic propaganda

2. You're are liar

As for the saints, you're talking out of your ass. I'm not saying ALL THE SAINTS have great historical sources, but A LOT OF THEM do. In proclaiming someone saint, the Church is proud to publically expose his life as an example. The Church doesn't just "make up" fictitious lives.

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 It's "indoctrinated". And I haven't been. Killing witches is in the Bible (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, and a few others which only condemn witches, mediums etc, but don't specifically call for their death), and the Church did it in the Medieval Inquisition and all the later Inquisitions. I guess I should be thankful that they eradicated them, because I haven't ever been able to find one. If you don't believe the Muslims, you and I both accept that people can lie about holy figures.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 Stoning people to death and restriction in eating pork is also in the Bible (Old Testament might I add). Even then, it's not part of the Catholic dogma. It is nowhere to be found in the Cathechism.

You have a very puerile view on the sujet I'm afraid.

And yes, you're absolutely right, people can "make up stories" about holy figures. That's why I don't ask you to read the story of St George killing a dragon... (sic)

But there are PLENTY of saints that have their lifes documented

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 It's not part of the dogma any more. It doesn't matter to you that the Church could have been so ludicrously wrong on the subject during the Inquisitions? The saints whose lives are documented had them documented by the Church primarily. And certainly the miracle claims belong only to the Church.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 It never was part of dogma. You can't declare solomnely a truth (dogma) one day, then the next day say it is not truth anymore.

"The saints whose lives are documented had them documented by the Church primarily"

???? Lol You say "The Church" as if "The Church" was a particular person or writer. WIth absolutely no credibility might I add...

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 The Soviet Union had many individual authors who all followed the party line. So does the Catholic Church. Their number proves nothing.

If you're trying to make a distinction between "dogma" and "things taught by the Church for centuries" I wish you'd come off it, because it's irrelevant. Pope John XXII authorized prosecution of witches, and Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal bull which provided for the writing of the Malleus Maleficarum, which spawned the witch hunts.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 "because it's irrelevant"

On the contrary, it's fundamental. This is the whole purpose of the "One True Holy Apostollic Catholic Church." There are dogmatic teachings, and there are pastoral teachings. Big difference. If you're going to attack "The Church", the let "The Church" defend itself properly.

Out of curiosity, I'd like your references for Pope John XXII

As for Innocent VIII, this is not dogmatic teaching. But I agree it is a dark age of Catholic history. I blame ignorance.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 What do you mean if I "do believe" Muslims about Mohammad? If you're talking about believing that Muhammed was visited by an angel, who recited him the Qu'ran, then of course not.

Do I believe Muhammed existed, and commited a series of actions I consider to be immoral and criminal, then yes. I don't think Muhammed is the greatest human being that ever existed, and I only have to study islamic tradition to convince me of that.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 "I judge religion based on the consequences of believing it"

Maybe you should judge religion on whether it's true or not... Here a great quote from St Paul:

But we have this TREASURE in EARTHEN vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. (2 Cor 4.7)

Are you really surprised some Christians gave the Church a bad name? Even if the Church is made of sinners (earthen vessels), it's purpose remains to bear the Truth revealed by God.

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 Of course I judge religion first on whether it's true, which I think it's pretty clear that Christianity isn't. Beyond that though, how much I care is based largely on the consequences of that belief.

Whether the teaching about killing witches was pastoral or dogmatic is irrelevant to the people who were killed based on it, or those who care about such injustices. And it's a pastoral teaching firmly grounded in the Bible.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 " it's pretty clear that Christianity isn't" There are plenty of fine minds, spread through 2000 years, who would disagree with that very simplistic statement.

"Whether the teaching about killing witches was pastoral or dogmatic is irrelevant" Well no, that's the CENTRAL subject of debate. Are christians behaving bad BECAUSE of Christianity, of DESPITE of it?

Remember what Paul said... we hold a TREASURE in EARTHEN vessels... (2 Cor 4.7)

Bad christians doesn't mean bad christianity

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 John XXII issued the bull "Super illius specula" in 1320, which excommunicated all those who practiced witchcraft. It isn't the death order that came later, but in a culture riddled with "ignorance", as you put it, promoting superstitious hatred most certainly validated the killing which was done by local non-religious courts. Modern Catholicism is better, of course, but it's hard not to be appalled by the Europe in which the Church had its way.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 You REALLY believe if Europe hadn't been christian, things would have been better? These were DARK ages. Civilisation had been destroyed by barbaric conquests. People were IGNORANT for the most part.

You (and many atheists) have a (too) simplistic view on the subject. I would postulate the exact opposite: God bless Europe for being christian, at LEAST there was tons of good stuff that came out of the Dark Ages. Imagine medieval Europe without the monks: nightmare

/watch?v=AWPrTdK3EN0

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 So you're saying that pastoral teachings don't count? I presume you reject the current teachings on gay rights then? If you want to go that way, take it up with the Vatican, not with me. The distinction doesn't seem to matter to the Church's political activities.

And the Dark Ages were dark not just because of the barbarians. The Catholic Church also worked hard to suppress any philosophy or other investigation which disagreed with its teachings (such as its geocentric cosmology).

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 Watch the 12 part series on How The Catholic Church Built Civilisation, then we'll talk. It's ok to be critical, but at least be fair.

... we hold a TREASURE in EARTHEN vessels... (2 Cor 4.7)

Bad christians doesn't mean bad christianity

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 And now you're back to dodging points. I'll watch "How The Catholic Church Built Civilization" under some conditions: You don't cite 2 Cor 4.7 at me for a fourth time, you answer whether you think that the Catholic Church should have some accountability for pastoral teachings, and you tell me whether you feel free to throw away pastoral teachings with which you disagree, such as the teachings on homosexuality and contraceptive use. These aren't unfair points.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 1. Ok, but you do get the point I hope

2. Yes they should be accountable. And they are.

3. What view exactly on homosexuality? It depends of what you're talking about. I don't think gay mariage IN A CHURCH should be authorised.

And I do support the Church's view on contraceptive, to a certain extent. I don't think "more condom" = "less HIV or STD", and the empirical evidence is there to show. I don't believe in oral contraceptive, because I'm against abortion.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 The Church isn't "against contraceptive use" per say. If it was, then any family of less than 25 children would be "bad catholics". That's not the point. There's no problem between you and your wife using a condom, for example.

Church is against abortion, and all for the respect of the dignity of life. It believes in the sanctity of mariage, in a sane and healthy society.

The Church just said that fornication is the path to social chaos AND HIV spread, even with condoms.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 But honestly, I really don't see why people are getting excited over the issue... Do you really think that a person would follow the Church's teaching on condoms *only*, but at the same time engage in casual random sex? If you're pro-fornication, then of course you have no respect for the Church, and of course her teachings on condoms is not going to stop you from using them.

Look at Uganda, were the rate of HIV infection was incredible high in the 90s. Have you hear of the ABC plan?

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 I'm tired of the Uganda argument. The condom usage in Uganda jumped massively while the HIV infection rate fell from 15% to 5%. You're delusional if you think those are unrelated.

As to your thoughts on condoms and fornication: People can be good Catholics in one moment and bad Catholics in another. They can fail to buy or carry condoms because of Church teachings, but in a moment of weakness, fornicate (while inebriated, for instance). This isn't even uncommon.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 Well get used to the Uganda argument, until you can "falcify" it :)

The ABC... C stands correctly for condoms.

As for the "moment of weakness", but fail to buy or carry condoms, I really don't believe such an example plays a major role at the global level. Saying this isn't uncommon is, unless I'm mistaken, just an opinion.

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 I can't "falcify" anything because that isn't a word. It's "falsify". You're just wrong about condoms. There is a ton of literature showing the effectiveness of condoms. I'm not going to bother to link it to you. Look it up. As a quick example: Cuba has virtually free condom distribution, and a great deal of promiscuity. They have one of the lowest infection rates in the world.

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 The Church isn't just against gay marriage in its churches. It has total control over that anyway, so it wouldn't need any political involvement. It is against any civil recognition of gay marriage, and frankly that's none of its business. By the way, the 'C' of the ABC plan is 'condoms'. And it's the part that actually works. The empirical evidence is actually all in that direction, so I don't know what "empirical evidence" you're talking about.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 Well the Church has the right to say what she believes to be morally right. Whether or not you agree with the position of the Church of mariage is one thing, but to say it's not of her business is another.

The Church is not some kind of distant "Big Brother", it's the COMMUNITY of 1 billion people. These people can vote. So what "the Church" has to say makes a difference in the political world.

[FupLowdown]

@Gazdo01 A scary thought that immoral nutjobs should dictate what other people do

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 "And it's the part that actually works"

Not at all. It's the A and B parts that make all the difference. The C is common all over Africa. Nontheless, you don't see results. In fact, in some places were the C has being implanted, the HIV rates even went up!

That's all because the condom is presented as a safe and effective way to prevent the disease (it is NOT on a LARGE SCALE). Massive condom distribution only favorises fornication because people feel safe and protected from HIV.

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 I passed on this earlier, because I don't even know where to start, but you seem completely ignorant of the effectiveness of condoms. You cited the effectiveness rate for condoms used correctly or incorrectly, over the course of a year, as the effectiveness at preventing pregnancy when used one time. And that's still not the same as the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV, which is the issue at hand. Condoms work, and that's a fact.

[Gazdo01]

@ralph489 Did you know the condom's practical rate of succes for contraception is about 85%. That means that if you and your wife, for the reste of your lives, use condoms every time you have intercourse, you still have 15% chance that your wife will get pregnent. If a spermatozoid can reach in, imagine what a virus (HIV) can do. Of course, from an individual, 1 time only, point of view, it works. But on on the large scale, condom usage is not a efficient way to stop HIV. The Church isnt AGAINST

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 You're also right that the Church can voice whatever horrible opinions about gay people that they want. And their followers can believe those and vote on them. And you're right that they have a great deal of influence. That's also why they are immoral asshats who shouldn't retain any influence over such a large number as a billion people. And it is none of the Church's business whether gay marriage is legal. If Catholics don't like gay marriage, they shouldn't get them.

[ralph489]

@Gazdo01 As to my point that people often don't carry condoms, then go cheat on their spouse, it is common, it is important to the infection rate of HIV, and you and the bishops should do some more studying before you come up with your opinions.

[WritingJenny73070]

@ralph489 then that isn't correct use of condoms, is it? 

[ralph489]

@WritingJenny73070 I don't follow. What isn't correct use of condoms, and what is the relevance? My last comment was a month ago or more, so I'm not in the swing of this argument. If you clarify, I'll answer your question.

[basselyrique]

IT'S MAN-MADE NAD IT SHOWS!!!!! AMEN!!!

[TheCarpecarp]

ever heard the word at 1:29? Hitch is the man

[Menla1]

he probably had tumors growing, wish i had a time machine to go and make him get a test.

he will be so badly missed. there will be no one like hitchens again :(

[ilytopy]

It feels fucking good to be right.

[mcmuffin55555]

God damn dude hitchens just fucking owned

[uscjd2004]

@pynic29 He possesses an outrageous breadth and depth of learning and experience, doesn't he? Truly a remarkable man -- one of the most valuable humans alive on the planet today.

[adzyhere]

she never told him when he had a minute!

tut.

[jerryhello100]

I'm eating some quinoa with egg and hot sauce for breakfast, in Canada. It is truly gorgeous.

[SoaringTrumpet]

Chris Hitchens, the bane of all "god botherers"!

[kirked007]

This is a fascinating debate. It is also worth looking at another Intelligence Squared Debate with Hitchens and Stephen Fry, the proposal was 'The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world'. Hitchens and Fry are superb in that debate and convincingly thrash Anne Widdicombe and the Arch Bishop of Aruja by a heavy margin. Try to watch the unedited version on you tube - it is Hitchens at his best.

[Dodo251]

"For many years protected by secular constitution and the remains of what had been a secular and democratic republic..." Hitchens on the position of Bosnia in Yugoslavia. Is he mad? Is he totally oblivious to what Yugoslavia did to fundamental freedoms of its citizens by prosecuting anyone who went against that demonic communist government by openly criticizing it or even declaring he was a christian? Democratic republic? WHAT?! He really is a misinformed shithead.

[kaiohare]

hitchens is an arrogant ill-informed arsehole

[kirked007]

@kaiohare I am staggered by your coarse comment. Hitchens articulates superbly the views of most intelligent free thinking people. I assume that you don't understand the issues. Or perhaps you are religious and close minded to the issues under discussion?.

[uscjd2004]

@kaiohare lol. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is often said that once an opponent stoops to employ the lowly ad hominem, that's when you know that you've got him. Looks like Hitch has you by the short hairs.

[LalEnuNoah]

Can I get a Hitch Slap?!?!

[thekatimageneral]

@LalEnuNoah

/Hitchslap

[smujismuj]

There is no need to hold the teachings of any belief system for the behavior of all who claim to be adherents to that belief system, unless the behavior is a result of the teachings.

There are plenty of contradictions and objectionable material within the religious documents themselves, the mutually exclusive sentiments between the old and new testaments of the Bible for instance.

[nurbSoldier]

Hitchens mistake here is that he criticizes the argument from certainty. It is clear that Hitchens is quite certain that religion is wrong and that fascism is wrong. I bet Hitchens would be quite off put by someone being wishy washy about religion or fascism. He is correct to criticize the argument from faith, however.

[563421094]

How is it possible that these gentlemen Chris,Richard + Sam + Daniel are in the minority.........religion should be in the background grovelling for forgiveness....and then left behind to rot in the place it came from......

[JordanMargetts]

@563421094 Careful, he gets mad when called Chris :S see his memoir

[IneffableLifestyle]

@563421094 Im glad i live in scandinavia, religion is doing just that for us :)

[mishy88]

but even if religion was taken out of the equation, I think people will still find things to disagree on and use that as a basis on which to spread hate :/ pretty depressing. It's just part of human nature, I think. Most religions preach peace as far as I know but it is humans that use their scriptures to further their evil intentions, thats what I think.

[BobbyRice2]

@mishy88

I fail to believe that ANYBODY who is an Atheist thinks the world would be a happy place without Religion, surely if they can accept logic & realism they have the brain to realise that MAN is the cause for war, not RELIGION - you are correct, we would find other reasons to cause war, it'd probably just boil down to colour of skin, as that's practically what it is nowadays anyway, just labeled through something else.

War will always exist as long as stupidity does.

[Unholyseer]

@BobbyRice2

The world will never properly be a happy place, entirely based on the fact that there are too many people to live comfortably together. While you're completely correct that Man is the cause for war, religion is most often used as the excuse to commit these horrific acts.

[BobbyRice2]

@Unholyseer

Without a doubt.

Though I do believe simply on a 'accept your fate, live your life & enjoy it for it's all you have' attitude, Religion should be removed - I still don't agree that Religion is fully to blame for war, as it's simply an excuse - and other excuses would be brought forward. I believe Religion should be removed for different reasons, and war is not one of them, as explained briefly above.

[Unholyseer]

@BobbyRice2

Personally, I think religion should be removed to allow people to think for themselves instead of being told what to think and what to do. Who knows we might have a world of immense beauty from the creativity and ingenuity of these otherwise "enslaved" people.

[HumaninSeoul]

So much win and so little time. The Hitch was on fire in this debate. ^_^

[1steve726]

@HumaninSeoul He is without doubt the greatest debater that I have ever heard.I believe in creationism in the fact that Christopher Hitchens created the "Hitch Slap"...and he isnt afraid to USE it..:-)

[Houdinitreehouse]

Great debate points by Hitchens!

[Bellantoni]

See the recrudescence in the europe of the late 20th and early 21st century of catholic fascist parties we thought we left behind at Nuremberg- poetry

[thebigeasy87]

dont think ive ever seen hitchens finish on time in any debate

[jimmycthatsme]

what a suave fuckin dresser.

[thewinterchill]

Don't think we can blame the political paralysis in Lebanon on religion but on how religion was manipulated by the French of all people to leave a legacy of sectarian division which is responsible for the current situation in Lebanon. Again Hitchens is over simplifying a situation to prove a point which is a lazy approach to say the least.

[brownbigb]

religion lends itself for use against the ignorant in such a way. the french exploited religion, because it is such a useful tool for it. still, religion is responsible. they would have had a hard time finding another tool so suited for the purpose.

[brownbigb]

you say you are not religious, but it is hard to believe. i would guess jewish or muslim based on your comments.

[dakotadenverdexter]

He over simplifies it because he is on a limited amount of time and doesn't have the luxury of elaborating on his points if he wishes to say all he wants too.

[QwidgyboMan]

The day I convert back to theism is the day you show me a believer who believes not out of fear or desire - I don't believe such a person exists or ever has.

[RealCreativeUsername]

@QwidgyboMan

That exists both as a simple notion and profound one. Well said!

[Damnitron]

@QwidgyboMan Um.. I know this isn't something I'd like to happen, but: What about those with temporal lobe epilepsy-caused faith?

[pjenkins93]

He's on the same side as Hitchens, so he can't get owned.

[currentslacker]

u list all my heros in this well done ! :o

[ali090]

Dawkins has only made a rule not to debate creationists. He is constantly involved in debates with scholars and educated members of the clergy etc. Just go to his website to find them.

[nemirn]

It;s rare to see Dawkins in a debate, since he has made a personal rule about not participating in them.

If anyone knows any more, please let me know!

And thanks to the OP.

[RintjeRitsma]

Then why have I found so many debates with him in it? He does not debate with everybody, that's true. He's too busy to debate with every creationist that lurks around the corner.

[uncypaolo]

Nice, thanks for the video... When was this aired?

[mirrorfreespeech]

This is an old one from 2007.

[Mike3303]

Great speech.