Funny - Christopher Hitchens Dodging the question (comments enabled)

[shamayaify]

Dumbest video ever, go buy a 'philosophy for dummies' book. You either believe in a god out of faith like a theist or out of logic like a deist or you reserve judgement like an agnostic or you go all the way in stating the lack of evidence for 'god' makes it not true and are therefore an atheist.

[1969Bourne]

This video is dishonest, evasive, misleading, and utterly bankrupt of integrity. Just like religion.

[GluttonForSex]

Aw. Did Hitchens say something wrong about the magical sky daddy? :-)

[funcpl2741054]

Craig offers a meaningless question. Essentially he asks "Why dont you beleive in my a-priori assumptions?' and then trying to force Hitchens to claim whether he actively or inactively rejects the assumption...the question is meaningless. Craig is not very bright so doesnt understand that rejecting assumptions dont really need further quantification.

[Fray2221]

Hitchens is trying to explain why it is a stupid distinction. Everything we believe, we believe on the balance of probabilities. I am almost completely certain that 9/11 was not an inside job, for example. I can't prove that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but the theory to me simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This is how sane people think about things, and form beliefs.

[LordTyrannus]

The question is quite stupid. How hard is it to understand that Atheism means absence of belief, not belief in the disbelief. The latter is a contradiction and thus would make no sense. Craig is convinced that Atheism is a position of faith akin to theism and if he can get such a simple thing wrong imagine how wrong he is about the rest of his argument.

[abortfailure7646]

I have an idea, why don't you run the clip without interruption so we can make up our own minds you fucking moron.

[ilovenarwhales]

How do you feel? You posted a video. The top comments are against you and your video. Your video has a majority of dislikes. People obviously hate your video and find it erroneous. Perhaps you are wrong?

[LordTyrannus]

@ilovenarwhales

For someone who is likely a rational thinker I find this comment ridiculous. Imagine if roles were reversed...this video attacked craig and his stupid question to which thousands of theists would flood the video and vote negatively.

[ilovenarwhales]

@LordTyrannus I don't care if you find it ridiculous. All I stated was the facts. More people disagree with you and just think that you are wrong. That's the truth.

I'm sorry that people don't like you, but that is not my fault.

[LordTyrannus]

@ilovenarwhales

There is nothing factual about your comment, hence my response. Perhaps you are a closet theist.

This last bit doesn't even relate to the video or the comment I made. Where exactly are you going with this?

EDIT- Doesn't take a genius to realize I'm NOT the uploader..

[shandcunt]

@sooperfukker "atheist" originally wasn't a statement about a random non-belief, but a firm statement "god doesn't exist".

Actually A-Theist is non theist, in the same vein that A-gnostic is non gnostic

Theism is to do with belief - if you wouldnt call yourself a theist or a deist then what would you call yourself?

ie. If i cant honestly profess that i have faith that a god exists - whats the term for that? Non - theist? Un-theist? nega-theist? A-theist?

[mehico33]

A dodge? You rediculous buffoon. He was clarifying his stance, Craig was being rude (then again there may have been time constraints). Hitchens was just explaining the failings of the word "agnostic" as it has many meanings, strictly meaning that Gods factuality is unknowable.

Craigs assertion that 'atheism = asserting gods nonexistence' is ignorant because most people who call themselves atheists (Dawkins included) believe god doesnt exist, but are strictly teapot agnostics. Its tricky you see

[socalcraigster]

Dr. Craig? Ha!

He's got a degree in bologna.

[ReasonFirst8]

Hitch wins again.

[WDTripps]

Craig slapped

[johnnyride12]

i know that in all fairness we should let religious people talk but maybe it should be to a therapist or someone who could actually help them

[pawndominance1]

usually when religious ppl try this garbage their smart enough to disable likes and disable commenting/ or only allow comments they approve of get posted...and the videos are almost always deceptively edited

[XXXXNanoXXXxxx]

Chris not dodging the question you fucking moron who host this video!!! He is clearly trying to answer that idiot Craig question! And he did lol....

Look how many dislikes there are !!!!!! LMFAO

[TheSkunkCat]

The vast majority of atheists do NOT claim that a god doesn't exist, but they simply don't believe in a god. Agnostics say it's unknowable wether or not there is a god, and it's compatible with theism and atheism alike.

Now I personally AM one of the FEW atheists who claims that god doesn't exist, because I think omni-powers are logically contradictory and because I don't fucking buy the inane notion of 'god is above logic! DERP!' that theists spout in response.

[TheSkunkCat]

@TheSkunkCat

In also in addition am fully aware of the archaelogical history behind the biblical god specifically and I know how that deity was invented. So I can tell that particular god for the leprechaun it is. And thus also will happily assert that god doesn't exist.

All the religious ever do in response is weasel words though. Religious apologists are all a bunch of dishonest spindoctors for religion anyway. They frankly disgust me to the core.

[RebelWrestler45]

It is not in your power to change definitions to cast aspersions on those who actually know what they're talking about. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not a supernatural being exists, and atheism is the belief that no Gods exist. Atheism is not an 'assertion' that no God exists; because by definition, the supernatural cannot be 'proven' to exist, as we only have secular mechanisms of reason and evidence. Atheism is disbelief, not the assertion of one contrary

[BadHabit202]

@RebelWrestler45 I would rather someone ask Hitchens if he believes in 'justice'. That would be a far more difficult question to answer and would lead to a more interesting discussion. The fact of the matter is that much of human society is built around 'concepts' that have no empirical basis. Justice being the must profound. So if we are to deny the visceral and tame it with intellect, we should be willing to take it to its conclusion.

If God doesn't exist then neither does justice or love.

[RebelWrestler45]

@BadHabit202 Of course Hitchens believes in justice, but said concept is malleable; unique to each society and circumstance. Religion, being defined as an ideological system which professes a belief in the supernatural, has no mechanism of external reinforcement, and therefore no empirical basis. To say that the existence of love is predicated upon the belief in an omnipotent being, is laughably ridiculous, and has no valid philosophical basis.

[BadHabit202]

@RebelWrestler45 I never said love was predicated upon the belief in an omnipotent being. In many ways you made my point, concepts are simply ideals and have no science behind them. Religion is also unique to each society and culture as well as concepts such as justice.

If justice is malleable then people are pliable and that to me is a nihilistic world.

The further you go down this road, the more you will find the limitations of dialectics in these matters.

[RebelWrestler45]

@BadHabit202 Let me expound, justice is malleable insofar as its administration exceeds the boundaries of natural law; that is, the right to life, liberty, and property. Justice, in regard to the administration of relative social statutes (which by definition are relative), is dynamic, as are people. Natural justice (i.e. justice predicated upon natural law) is constant and does not provide any basis for a nihilism. It is independent of the existence of any supernatural entity.

[BadHabit202]

Natural Law is anything but natural. It is created by man for man's purpose. The definition you gave to 'natural law' is a Western interpretation that is anthropocentric and gives 'homo sapient' a unique place in the universe. Which, according to science humans don't have. We live in one universe among many and aren't even the center of our own universe.The rabbit hole which Hitchens would like us to follow inevitably leads to a cultural malaise which Europe is all to familiar with.

[HarrynJessie]

Obviously you, and Craig apparantly, don't understand that theism has nothing to do with facts. The theist "believes" in God, or gods, but does not claim to have conclusive proof of his/their existence (although many like Craig do happen to assert such proof... lol.). The atheist simply rejects this belief. I don't understand how a guy with a PhD in philosophy cannot understand that being "a-something" cannot, by definition, involve making a positive statement!

[314Aurelius]

Alright, the rhetoric of this video sucked ass, but big thumbs up on the "Mike Tyson's punchout" clip.

[shantih433]

Hitchens doesn't dodge. He often answers questions indirectly, via story and analogy. I know this is difficult for people who are used to having their answers spoon-fed to them. It requires some thinking, some patience, and some imagination.

[Ncyim]

A waste of time piece of junk video.

[stiggiethefirst]

Freeabeliangroup is a moron, Christopher answers the question beautifully and with his trademark eloquence while some dumb fuck is interrupting him every few sec. Hitchens doesn't answer with yes or no, he understands that things aren't that simple.

[ebooklibrary27]

@stiggiethefirst yea really, thanks for telling it like it is, the creator(s) of this have a screw loose.

[sonninnos]

Only the maker of this video got owned

[SirArghPirate]

Demanding proof that something doesn't exist is nonsense, and it's strange that some people don't seem to understand that.

[fakirJ]

@SirArghPirate Of course, if God wouldn't be the default position. But since it is illogical to believe the Universe, which had a beginning in the finite past was self-caused, therefore a self-caused cause outside of Universe, immaterial, out of space, timeless, boundless is more likely to exist and be the cause of all this, than the Universe itself. Something needs to be ever-existent: this is either the Universe (impossible, infinite amount of events) or the Cause of Universe.

[SirArghPirate]

@fakirJ Why is it illogical to assume that the universe (spatial and expanding as we know it today) hasn't existed forever in another form of energy, and why is it more logical to assume that a god (and which one?) could have existed forever and outside of space/time and what not in order to create something that doesn't exist from parts that don't exist?

Doesn't make sense to me, perhaps I should have skipped philosophy and physics, and spent more time listening to Kent Hovind after all.

[fakirJ]

@SirArghPirate Well, I don't know about physics but it's quite obvious you skipped philosophy to be honest...

first of all.. i don't know what exactly do you mean by 'another form of energy', but if you want to say that this 'another form of energy' existed forever, eternally... than that's the same attribute I apply to an Intelligent Being, so after all you can't use this argument against God anymore, can you?

[SirArghPirate]

@fakirJ Yes I can, because even if the universe did in fact exist forever, or if it didn't, it wouldn't invoke the need for a god in order to explain anything. And if it did (which it doesn't), what god would it imply?

Your chain of argument is this:

1: If the universe is eternal, in some form, so are the gods. Why?

2: If the universe is not eternal, it has been created by the gods (preferable the christian one, and which of course existed outside it in the first place). Why?

[fakirJ]

@SirArghPirate It's quite simple my friend... If the Universe is infinite/eternal in the past then it would have been impossible for us to reach this point in time because for us to reach this very moment in time it is required that an infinite amount of time passes, and an infinite amount of time can never pass. The Universe is growing cold, matter and energy dispersing, everything will, at some point cease to exist: NOTHING that is eternal can cease to exist.

[fakirJ]

@SirArghPirate Imagine this is the Universe timeline:

Infinite <-----------------------------­-----] Ending. How could it be? How could something that is eternal have an ending? If it has an ending, it must have had a beginning. Therefore, if something has a beginning, cannot exist without a cause. Tell me ONE self-caused thing that had a beginning ?... The universe did had a beginning at some point in the finite past... therefore it has a cause. This is my argument, simple.

[SirArghPirate]

@fakirJ Sorry, but I don't know how the universe formed, how it will end (if it will), or if it will collapse into another dimension or explode again. I don't really know, and if I did I probably would be an astrophysicist. What I do know however is that applying 'everyday' properties (like everything needs a beginning and end, like all living beings and materials inside these 3 dimensions we experience with our 5 senses), is pretty useless.

[fakirJ]

@SirArghPirate Matter, time and space had a very beginning in the finite past. Whatever was that ’created’ these could not have had the same dimensions because otherwise the beginning of these dimensions at a point in the finite past wouldn’t really be the VERY beginning of these dimensions. Matter, time and space are isseparable.. Matter is changeless without time, matter cannot exist without space. So, whatever was that created these dimensions was either something made OF this dimensions[..]

[SirArghPirate]

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic (however I've encountered it numerous times before on creationist debates), so since nothing can exist without time (which really is nothing but a convenient definition), matter and space, it HAS to be created? And since this is the ONLY(?) explanation, it has to be a god? Same goes with the talk about dimensions and infinite/finite chain of events.

I mean, it's really hard not to mention the spaghetti monster when this is the so called evidense for god.

[fakirJ]

@SirArghPirate First of all you are debating on 2 sides right here... chose which one you want to talk about because I can't debate both in the same argument:

1) The existence/non-existence of a first Cause for the Universe (not "gods" my darling, we're not talking about paganism)

2) The truthfulness of the Bible/Christian God.

[SirArghPirate]

@fakirJ I'm not trying to argue two sides, only illustrating that whichever of those sides are argued you can spin arguments to validate either. My problem is that I'm not an astrophysicist, which I apparently have to be in order to argue against gods, while to the contrary you (or anyone else) can't give a commonly accepted proof in favor of gods. And regarding the truthfulness of the bible, I know it has historical facts, but so does most literature (and most holy books). Even older ones.

[fakirJ]

@SirArghPirate [...]or something outside of these dimensions. Now, if the Universe was made out of these dimensions, then that means that the universe is infinite in the past. Now, that is impossible if look’d at from a logical point of view. First, an infinite amount of finite things is self-contradictory... 2nd, if the Universe is infinite in the past, that means that to get in a point in time (for example this one), it must have passed an infinite amount time [...]

[fakirJ]

@SirArghPirate [...] an infinite amount of events... and that is impossible, because an INFINITE amount of events can never pass.

[hog660]

By posting this you're just showing the world what an idiot you are.

Hitch was refusing to be put in a pidgeonhole, and being kind enough to explain why to the weak minded, supersticious fool attempting to question him.

[KnowledgeThatFreesUs]

There have always been non- believers and there always will be.

Hitchens....Got.....OWNED!!!!

Peace, love, From a lover of Allah ;)))))

[sirpickles]

Hitchens was badly exxposed here. He let me down and I need to rethink my thoughts that he has built up in me. He looked ashamed, embarrased and nervous, his view is that Atheism, yet here he went against it. The truth is this: Hitchens could not PROVE that God exists, he merely does not have proof that He does exist, no more than a believer believes He does exist.

Hitchens, you are a believer in non-existence, just a believer is a believer in existence, essentially, we are all believers.

[humanfly78]

You're an idiot:

Agnosticism - An assertion that it is impossible to know whether a god or gods exist or do not exist.

Atheism - A lack of belief in a god or gods, NOT A TRUTH CLAIM THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. GET IT RIGHT.

Again, you're an idiot, and so is Craig.

[sooperfukker]

@humanfly78

Not only is Craig is educated, unlike you, he is also right. The historical source of atheism is the negating belief, that there is no god. That's a historical fact.

The intellectual dishonesty of todays' pseudo atheists is astonishing, trying to establish a henious lie. No mister, the sole disbelief in a god is only ONE form of many atheistic viewpoints. Live with it ! #FAIL

[humanfly78]

@sooperfukker Wrong.

[sooperfukker]

@humanfly78

I don't have time for people who think the earth is flat and I don't have time for people who can't get basic historical facts right.

You are hereby expelled from the discussion until you educated yourself on the matter.

[52111centrumcz]

@sooperfukker

Very poor argument. You are asserting a belief; there is a magic fairy in the sky who made everything in a garden where a rib-woman accepted and apple a talking snake and ate it with a man to create humanity. Like seriously, what the fuck?

The scientific method is to provide a statement and try to DISPROVE IT. Anything else, is NOT scientific as a search for answers. Therefore science can answer many things on what things are NOT, but not what they really are.

[sooperfukker]

@52111centrumcz

I haven't argued anything yet, just stated a historical fact.

Sam Harris once told that he doesn't want to call himself "atheist", because he doesn't want to be labeled for something he doesn't believe in .. that it would be silly, because he also doesn't call himsellf an "a-fairyist" or whatever..

That's because he doesn't (want to?) understand that "atheist" originally wasn't a statement about a random non-belief, but a firm statement "god doesn't exist". Not too "bright".

[52111centrumcz]

@sooperfukker

Atheist means not theist...meaning no belief in god. And it is very true the meaning has mellowed over the years, and now the term used for this is Hard Athiest - meaning someone who takes a hard public stand that there is no god(s).

[sooperfukker]

@52111centrumcz I'm not going to repeat myself. If you want to keep repeating the outputs of your non-knowledge, so be it, I couldn't give a lesser damn...

Btw: In opposite to you, Hitchens IS actually aware that what I've said is the original atheist position.

[MrShoeguy]

@humanfly78 There is no word for anything as stupid as your definition of agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no god, and idiocy is the idea that a dumb fuck like you would know anything.

[humanfly78]

@MrShoeguy Thank you for your valued input, but you are still mistaken. :)

[jbooks888]

@humanfly78 LIAR - atheism IS and always has been a claim that God does not exist! You guys are SOOOOOOO dishonest, it's mind-boggling.

[jbooks888]

@humanfly78 If that's the case, why didn't Hitchens say so? Obviously he knows what the real meaning of 'atheism' is, and hence the dodging.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

He specifically denied "agnosticism", so it was not a dodge.

The religious view remains: "We are going to believe the most retarded thing we have ever heard unless you disprove it".

He also gave the scientifically correct answer. Religionists are making the claim and they have no good arguments. Sorry, not our burden.

Agnosticism is not just not knowing, it is the claim that the question can't be answered. That is technically true because definitions of god are so vague.

[jitsuman]

this is a stupid question, the maker of this video gets the very definition of 'atheism' wrong. Atheist means A = without, theism = belief in god. This is kids stuff, sad you dont know it.

[whorlo]

The person who posted this should revise the definitions of "Agnosticism" and "Atheism" to pluralize them. Agnosticism - "I don't believe in gods". Atheism - "I assert there are no gods". I know that it probably makes you feel better to try to assert that the Abrahamic god is the one and only "true" god, but to a great many people, he gets lumped in with all the rest. 2500 years ago, you would have probably said Zeus or Jupiter were the "true" gods.

[bazzul]

Craig knows he is beaten and that he has a weak position. It explains his nervousness and agitation. During this debate he comes across as a laughing stock, because he must declare Christian certainty when there simply is none. Hitchens has the superior position hands down. Craig probably can't get into the nuances he probably thinks about in his spare time...instead he must uphold the fundamentalist line in public..he would lose his career otherwise. I suggest the Huxley debate of 1860:-)

[harmonykrieg]

Its possible to assert things like "there is no god who answers prayers" because that can be, and has been, properly tested. But a lot of theists wriggle their way out and define their god as something unverifiable and untestable. So as Hitchens says, to assert that all the evidence in favour of God is fallacious is to put its existence on par with other things which WLC would agree are intuitively obviously nonexistent. He makes an irrational exception for his one god out of thousands.

[Iamfatbrain]

The definitions of agnosticism, atheism and verificationism, where did you get those?

[biggregg5]

@Iamfatbrain he made them up.

[kentamitchell]

THANK GOD FOR CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS!

(Irony)

[ManOnTheMoon09]

The point of Craigs question is so futile that hitchens is simply to bored to answer it directly... Craig doesn't get it AT ALL.

[ManOnTheMoon09]

Love the hitch

[ManOnTheMoon09]

And uses incidentally great humor to entertain everybody...

[ManOnTheMoon09]

Hitchens is a genius.

Simply because there are so stupid questions that have to be dogded. He elegantly explains his point but William Craig, and the one who posted this here, don't GET IT. Sad but true