(15/17) Intelligence Squared - We would be better off without religion

[reznor12]

Nigel Spivey is a a bit of a git, thats not why he is wrong, just an observation.

[gymgymgymgym]

What a pathetic closing statement from Nigel Spivey. He couldn't produce one remotely convincing point. Julia Neuenberger and Roger Scruton must have been embarrassed to be on his side.

[Fly2Azeroth]

We would be better off without religion - Yes

that's my vote

[zerobeat18]

Well, there you have it. Case closed. Because humans do some things that aren't completely functional or rational (like watch sports, eat Doritos, kiss photographs, wear jewelry) this MUST mean that religion is a necessary biological imperative.

Is Nigel an undercover athiest trying to make the religious side seem even more ridiculous?

[Gearsmeister]

@zerobeat18 haha it would seem that way!

[zerobeat18]

Wow, here's a phrase you'll never hear spoken: "the excellent debate skills of Nigel Spivey".

He seems smart enough and eloquent enough to be self-aware, and know that his arguments are quite weak. I wouldn't be surprised if he even changed his mind!

[livedandletdie]

Nigel's speech reminded me of a sketch were a lost soul walks into a church were the sing psalms and they start singing although in swedish. You shall never masturbate with the lord jesus Christ cause he will always "arrive" first. And after They had sung that song which they sang. He walks out as a happy man. Enlightened not by the fact that he heard god's voice but that he had some fun together with other people instead of being lonely on the street.

[twiggy120]

"When you feel uneasy and want to connect to some form of hope..." You don't need a 'higher power' or any of the gods. All you need to do is look at the stars and know that they die and all life is made from dead stars, and when that life dies it will decompose and become part of the Earth. Look at the wonders of nature, science and art and an understanding that the gods only exist in the imagination and we need no longer to fear death. And the amoral atheist argument is just offensive to all. X

[Necrobutcher82]

And people masturbate to a photo , the point?

[ZF1000]

LMAO at Hitchens with two hands up when asked who has kissed a photograph!!

[azdv]

This Spivey guy is awful! Couldn't they have found someone who actually makes a persuasive argument? He keeps saying we need religion, we have religion and all these personal stories. Irrelevant! Superfluous!

[mikemurphy383]

0:52 "Yeah, well it's ok Christopher..."

Was she talking to Hitchens? 

[Azuresong]

is he related to gary spivey, psychic medium, healer?

[MrLogic56]

I can't get over how awful Spivey's suit is...

[howler95uk]

I've licked a photo of Marilyn Manson

[morrossey]

apparently its fairly normal to kiss photographs...

[EdgePitSwing]

Spivey is clinically depressed. It's quite clear. The dude has problems.

[uknichu]

oooo hitchslap came down so hard at 1:50

[areyouquitemad]

Wow...what a terrible argument! Because 'filling your basket at tesco' is mundane, that makes believing in a burning bush, the garden of eden, that the earth was made is 7 days okay??!!

That might be a perfect example of a non-sequiter

[pawndominance1]

how come spivey cant see the huge holes in his arguments

[111E982a]

I kiss the photo of my idol all the time, does that means she's a goddess? WOW!

[OverFjell]

Gotta love Hitchens' sense of humour

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Science can explain such things, in fact there's a whole branch related to it, it's called psychology.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

@Whatsifsowhatsit (Well, not just psychology, mrfrankincense also gave some good examples of such explanations.)

[admiralmachine]

@Whatsifsowhatsit exactly.

[AsifIcarebear3]

I feel bad for Spivey. He seems so out of place and so incredibly out matched. The religious people should've put forth some bigger guns, because shooting water at that atheist trio won't do much good.

[Hume77]

@AsifIcarebear3 I don't see many bigger guns out there unfortunately at least known to me who are much better. Hitchens debated Timothy Jackson of Emory University in Atlanta and that was the best I saw in terms of having a strong religious adversary though I think he still came out on the short end of the discussion. Perhaps Alvin Plantiga or Alasdair McIntyre would be better though I doubt they would be interested.

[Madman1234855]

impressive in the last minutes he just managed to break godwin's law.

[ErikeRKK]

@Madman1234855

Would not breaking Godwin's law mean that he didn't bring up the nazis..?

[alexander211974]

the hitch is awesome

[SpaceAnimals89]

wow, Spivey's a fucking idiot.

[mrfrankincense]

So Spivey's argument is;

People do things that have no point, such as dieing for a friend.

Science cannot explain this behaviour.

Religion can.

Therefore; God exists.

However I can quite easily destroy this argument and if this argument is destroyed then has he no reason to support his beliefs or did he just fail to mention this reason?

Science has explained why people behave seemingly pointlessly, such as dieing for a friend; evolved altruism, proof; The Selfish Gene. Religion can't explain it.

[Awenek]

Nigel is so dull and slow minded. Not very impressive or deep minded. His attempts at proving the validity of religion is weak and ill-thought out.

[le5an]

I love how pleased Christopher looks after he makes his 'mind-forged manacle' point haha. Win

[23codyy23]

@MrTickleparty

That sir, is the exact point Dawkins tries to make time and time again. Ignorance. Bliss ignorance.

It's pathetic.

[LambdaQuarks]

I kissed Jennifer Love Hewitt photo. When I was a horny teenager, clearly religion wins this debate.

I love how Hitchens throws both hands up in the air. LoL

[GermanChocolateCake]

Nigel's kissing conclusion is fallacious and glosses completely over an entire armada of human emotions, reactions, drives, and psychology.

[Experiment47]

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions." -- Karl Marx

[ayesoundmate]

so we do silly things, let's not worry about it? is that it?

[Ematched]

So, if I interpret Spivey correctly, We would not be better off without the ridiculous things we do because of religion, because we would do ridiculous things anyway. He's not completing the syllogism. The point is that the ridiculous things we do because of religion are even more ridiculous than other ridiculous things we do, because perform religious acts because we are conditioned to do so under the threat of hell and damnation. The "ridiculous" is not the point. Being free is the point.

[cleaboy1]

Spivey deteriorates to the embarrassing and pointless here

[SGRollingStone]

Soooo Spivy thinks that without suffering and sorrow there is no need for religion?

Well apart from hte fact that that doesn't support his notion, it's downrigt stupid.

[SethWreckLollis]

Aaand Godwin's law hits home again. Well, maybe it had before, now I think about it. Pity, Spivey's argument would have been a lot better without ending on a crude "You are a nazi".

[Megmanitee]

"We do things that don't have reason behind them". Just because you can't comprehend the reason, that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean it isn't there.

[ArrogantAtheism]

I love when Hitchens fixed the Dr.'s quote mining by reciting quite beautifully the words Karl Marx

[juikm]

Loving the demeanor of Hitch as he sits back. He knows he's owned.

[111E982a]

was there a mad woman shouting something during Hitchen's conclusion? near the end of his conclusion... like "no"

[bethnor]

that was an especially cheap and unworthy dig by spivey at the beginning.

has he written no books? made no documentaries?

[jogeryjogo]

If religion is responsible for all of human suffering, then why have atheists killed far more people in the name of their lack of faith, than al-qaeda, or other practicionars of false religion could ever hope to?

[kejacoon]

@jogeryjogo wow, here's a re-hashed argument that's been refuted over and over. I'm going to assume that you're referring to the atrocities near/of W.W.2.

Hitler, roman catholic. and performed many of his actions with the support of the roman catholic church.

Stalin and Mussolini, killed practically anyone who they thought were going to oppose them. death for political reasons, to quote Dawkins, they had mustaches but we don't blame those do we?

Hirohito, was considered a god, oh, religion, oops

[domthomson]

@jogeryjogo i cant think of any deaths which have occured *in the name of* atheism. if you're thinking of stalin and hitler, hitler was a catholic and the vatican supported facism until after its decline. stalin just happened to be an atheist, hitler happened to be a vegetarian, they both had mustaches... so what? i think hitler and stalin were incredibly evil people but i dont have anything against vegetarians or mustachioed men...

[TheJimbojones1980]

@jogeryjogo sources please.

[GoddessOfAtheism]

@jogeryjogo I’m genuinely curious. Which group of atheists have killed people for their “lack of faith”?

[111E982a]

@GoddessOfAtheism no group, neither an individual..

atheism was maybe just a part of the reason that stalin kill those religious nutcases..

Although we kill them with words, but we never did with weapons.

[111E982a]

@jogeryjogo name those atheists then... LOLS.

[Bumblybee256]

@jogeryjogo How can you kill someone in the name of 'lack of faith'. How retarded of you.

[SvendsenAtheist]

hitchens is boss

[faustus999]

spivey is a fekin retard. hitchens is an intellectual giant. scruton a pigmy

[Acoustiic]

yes, mr. spivey. however, nobody gets beaten, raped or killed in the name of kissing photographs.

[stevethemongolian]

@babuwhite2010 "Our ranks"? Really? Do you honestly think atheism is some sort of club, army, or some shit like that? You are acting like a prick that is basically saying, "I was doing it before it was popular!"

I disagree with you on barring people from certain papers, books, or documents based purely from the idea of intellectual prowess is unethical.

tl;dr fuck you, and (in defense of drche420) learn to sarcasm

[TheLiberalSoup]

actually peoplekiss photographs because it's the closest thing to kissing them. Sit down, Nigel.

[Loew01]

@TheLiberalSoup You missed his point. The point is that it is irrational. You know it's just a piece of paper. Explain how kissing a piece of paper is 'closer' to kissing someone than kissing a rock?

[TheLiberalSoup]

@Loew01

What's the pooint of kissing someone? Pleasure, love; you kiss a photo to get the same effect. It's not irrational. The point of kissing a photo is the effect, and it works for some people. Rational.

[JZ0314144]

I feel bad for the mediator she got owned a few times.

[areyouquitemad]

Other than a nice comment here and there, the opponents are completely devoid of an argument!

[ivanmikhailov]

And how many of you have masturbated to a photograph? Hands up now. Don't be shy. Praise be to god.

[8thArmada]

LOL HITCHENS!!

[grebrim]

Himmler was deeply religious, if not a christian. Is this propaganda or ignorance by the defender ?

[davidmichael3d]

Hmm. As much as I agree with the proposition, it does frustrate me that they don't seem to be properly dealing with the opposition's beauty and transcendence argument. To prove that religion is not necessary for these things, you need only cite Shakespeare, whose plays are about as un-religious as you can get, and are light years more sublime than the Koran and most of the Old and New Testaments.

[Vidar1979]

"Religion is a mind forged manacle!" Bravo!

[LordCustard]

@Vidar1979: You may already know this, but just in case, he's quoting William Blake's poem 'London'.

Also, Hitchens was ON FIRE (metaphorically) during his closing statement. That smug grin at the end was well earned.

[Vidar1979]

@LordCustard I did not know that and would have gone my lifetime not knowing ( if not for you ). Thanks. However, his closing argument almost makes me feel like I speak in grunts and whistles in comparison.

[johnnyd101]

higel is a bit of a tool. hitchens hilarious putting his hand

[Kyusoath]

pretty much everything the 'idiot' side said had nothing to do with the debate at hand. what a surprise

[flabbyhabbybabby1]

I've done a lot more to a photograph than just kiss one, but it was asking for it.

[5147848amp]

Who wants to defend culture, Christopher? Culture is not your friend. If Hitchens wants to defend culture, he's defending the religious impulse too.

[Vidar1979]

@5147848amp We should look on religion as that funny part of history that we laugh at like the drunk uncle at thanksgiving. A part of our family no doubt.

[5147848amp]

@Vidar1979

"A part of our family, no doubt."

Very well put..!

[Vidar1979]

@5147848amp Please let me remove all doubt. While religion is a part of our family. It IS the drunk uncle that we hope has not succeded in propagating our species. Culture and religion are not synonymous. I hope I have still earned a friend and not dashed one.

[5147848amp]

@Vidar1979

I would almost agree. Except, aside from some of the cuisine, there's really nothing worth salvaging from Viking culture. We're a savage people, and I hope other - newer - ideas start assuming the psychic burden before our savagery puts the whole shithouse up in flames. There is no 'right' ideology: A culture, an ideology, goes about blissfully assuming it has the answers to everything. The strongest narcotic is culture - by nature, it opposes independent thought. Who needs that?

[Vidar1979]

@5147848amp I agree. Who needs culture instead of rational thought? We both would say no one. I do not see the two mutually exclusive. I truly do not see norse mythology and science at odds. We see one as a past mysticisim anda funny part of our past. Science is held in it's own seperate tower. Which is still open to debate.If only chritians jews and muslims had such foresight.

[5147848amp]

@Vidar1979

Ahh..! We like it like you put it...

[singring76]

A lot of pseudo-intellectual words strung together to form a series of increasingly and embarassingly superficial and vapid sentences.

[ArchRascal]

5:57 lol @ Hitchens

[temporaldisplacement]

I would like Mr Spivey for saying hi'M'ler rather than Hitler ....Hitler was a meth-addict, social climber, delusional narcssast, Himler was a Norse-God worshiping pshyco anti-humanist. (since aryans never existed it could only have ended in megacide.)

[zanzibartraveler09]

HA! AWESOME observation

[ogjimkenobi]

I can honestly say I have never even come close to kissing a photograph.

[Malsipots]

Nigel "That's just the way it is" Spivey.

[anabolicErik]

@Malsipots LMAO!! Good one!!!

[TC2642]

I like the fact Hitchen's raised both his hands at Dr Spivey's question.

[Torchmark]

@TC2642 and PRICELESS question from the audience "What were you kissing?"

[drche420]

Apparently kissing photos proves religion

[eggplantoverlord]

lol who da thought it :P!

[babuwhite2010]

@drche420 You're an idiot and give Atheists a bad name! The kissing analogy was not used to 'prove religion'. Anyway, religion EXISTS! That's why they've tabled the motion. Really, I can't stand people like you. People like you shouldn't be allowed to read Dawkins!!! You're not intelligent enough. You're just a sycophant with a very superficial understanding of atheism. Unfortunately, since 9/11, when Atheism suddenly became cool, your dumb kind has come to over populate our ranks.

[currentslacker]

wat is spivey on ?

[m0eb1us00]

@currentslacker

religion

[mironez]

kissing a photograph that itself couldn't care less is exactly what you would expect from the scientific perspective - a reinforcement of a bond with a person represented on it by repeating a behavior associated with this person, a side effect of our evolutionary adaptation to form such bonds between members of our group. thank you mister religious, you have just proved our point.

[mollkatles]

so what you are saying is that that particular evolutionary adaptation has been proven? realizing of course even dawkins doesn't agree with you? if that is what you are saying, please specifically cite evidence of that particular adaptation - otherwise you are merely speculating, and relying on your faith in what you think science is about

[mironez]

no, where does it say in my comment that it has been proven? But it follows from a line of reasoning that is based on similar mechanisms in nature and it can be proven (or disproved). I think you could say that it is a speculation (maybe hypothesis even) - but it is a testable and scientific speculation contrary to declaraing as fact: 'people kiss photographs because/therefore: GOD.' which is a bit like saying: children love their toys, therefore: SANTA.

[mironez]

also, this is not some religion where somebody high in the ranks has to agree for you to think, propose explanations and hypothesis. you do not have to rely on faith, because you can design an experiment and check, that is the main difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking, the former aims at solving and explaining and the latter at daydreaming about how the world works.

[mironez]

after all, you can check by survey why people kiss photographs (belief in mystical bonds, for the warm feeling they get, reflex (misfire), etc.) and conclude something based on that. Saying "god" whenever you don't know how something works is just stuffing your brain with abstract notions preventing further inquiry. it is even less than honest speculation - it is allowing for all explanations and for none at the same time and is leaving us nowhere.

[punnet2]

So kissing photographs proves that religion is good.

[villeppi]

So god of the gaps is Spivey's central point. Nicely done!