good night opener of minds,savior of the chained, hero of the enlightened you were no god but you stood for ideals that would make you the fairest one conceived.
hopefully he will see the error of his ways and turn to the ONLY true voice...jesus christ!!! i'll be praying for his soul to be saved and all of you should too!! praise god!!!
@nilbog44 If that's what you really believe, you probably don't know anything that anyone should care to hear. If you'd been born in Medina, you'd say "praise Allah." In Mumbai, perhaps "praise Krishna" would be the required incantation. It is all the same and, most importantly, it is all FALSE. Seek real consolation in reason and you shall find a wealth of meaning that your religious stultification has denied you.
@uscjd2004 i was actually kidding. that was 5 months ago and i was in a weird mood. i'm actually an atheist. i was just being annoying trying to get a rise out of people. my bad
@Asparagusville Considering he's the world's most distinguished and accomplished journalist, I'd say America should be proud of being the country he chose to emigrate to.
With historical revisionist Hitchens: Perversity = Compassion. His desire for a planetary government founded & run by Luciferians & eugenicists won't be a family-friendly paradise.
@Asparagusville Do I fear knowledge? Do me a favour! You obviously labour under some strange delusion - let me guess, Christianity. Hence your obligatory distaste for a man who continually exposes the stupidity and outrages of religion.
@Asparagusville Considering he's the world's most distinguished and accomplished journalist, I'd say America should be proud of being the country he chose to emigrate to.
Degenerated dipsomaniac Hitchens promotes the Rockefeller-Kissinger model of American-Anglican empire that will last into the 22nd century. It is a modernist/cor-poratist feudal system, with elements of mercantilism, designed to destroy federalism, and the free market economies they beget, planetarily.
@Asparagusville How do you account for the fact that Hitchens wrote an entire book dedicated to tearing Kissinger apart? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Obscurantist/plagiarist/historical revisionist Christopher (bearer of Christ) Hitchens supports the eugenic policies of the modern-day Western World: carbon taxes (which'll double the price of grain); abortion (infanticide/genocide); endless warfare (as Orwell had warned us of in "1984"); confiscatory taxation; Z.P.G.; "atheism"/Darwinism (the denigration of personhood/self-sovereignty) & internationalism (planetary govt.). If anyone is then surely: he's deserving of deportation.
@Asparagusville Hitchens is a US citizen. Is deportation your response to somebody who deliberately moved to and was nationalised in the US because of his unwavering love for the US constitution and the rights enshrined therein? I'm not American but I can respect his pursuit of freedom, democracy and human rights. You seem to represent much of what's wrong with America today!
@Tapiola2007 : Hitchens has never professed his reverence for the Constitution in his rhetoric. He supports the Anglo-American Alliance (New World Order) whole-heartedly. Hitchens supported Obama. What's wrong with America is that her citizens are woefully & willfully ignorant. How is it that you are completely upside-down on neo-con Hitchens? Do you fear knowledge?
@Asparagusville WTF are you talking about! Hitchens is on record defending the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He is fundamentally a defender of democracy and emancipation from totalitarian regimes (including the evil of religion). Whilst he advocates values that are essentially liberal, he takes a hard-line Conservative approach to intervention and action against those out to destroy liberal society - i.e. he won't suffer fools gladly!
Why would anyone believe that? Of course it didn't pop out of nowhere, but that doesn't mean an all mighty god created it either. We cant speak of something we don't know of, but we can speculate. I for one don't believe that a god created the universe, it's just way too simple of an answer. I think it's something much more complex in terms of science.
hitchens is a treasure amongst an expansive ocean of evil religious zealotrous plankton who are unwittingly focused on ending our planet with their ridiculous unfounded unprovable beliefs. Down with religious subhumans.
It's a relative statement. Bush was appallingly bad and by far the worst president ever.
Obama's doing quite well to catch him up though.
This is America's trouble, it's so sectarian and people invest themselves so heavily in political heroes that ultimately they're just digging themselves down deeper and deeper.
The democrats understand this sentiment and hide their ineptitude behind "constitutional compliance".
Barack Obaama is nothing like the product people were sold by the PR companies.
"hero" comment some truth, but kiwi conclusions rather odd.
it's right operates like hive to carefully curry/manipulate public to agenda. us media (owned by reg averse mega-corps) casual about reporting what's what.
dems operate like herd of cats (veto-proof maj can't pass leg). cats vs hive & lame advisors r obama's main probs. unless o lies us into war, declares martial law or lets am city drown/rot, 8 mo/8 yr comparison bizarre.
better to "hide" behind constitution than violate it.
that's Australians though you might as conflate the two as we all leave the socialist paradise of Aotearoa in droves. - microcosm.
Why did you put the word observation inside of quotation marks, that's what I'm doing: i'm observing.
There are a lot of the dregs of the PR industry hanging out here who like to test out Obama hysteria, so you're guaranteed to meet plenty of antipodean non-critical thinkers.
So long as he's a democrat no-one will care, we just need the media to tell us he's good.
hi, just curious- which commercial interests would you say that obama is a pawn of? I only ask because (and i must confess my knowlege is far from commanding on the subject) I was given to understand the lion's share of his campaign funds came from private citizen's donations of under $200 each, and that this represented something of an anomaly (to put it mildly) in US politics.
The bulk of large private campaign contributions moved from republican party coffers to the democratic party. This is because lobbyists hedge their bets on who will win power. It was obviously going to be Obama from about April 2008.
There were a lot of people who donated money to Obama's campaign, and you're right about it being an anomaly, but the reality is that his party is the entity which is controlled by the same interests who run whoever happens to be at the head of the 2 party monster.
you are referring to utilitarianism, liberalism is simply the fundamental principle of individual freedom. I think that where these principles have been upheld the opposite of what you are suggesting has been the case, that of a deep cynicism of, as you put it demogogues.
And so is liberalism. Rawls' system is a modified utilitarianism, likewise the distinguishing factor that the left has over the right is that it's anti-institutional: for instance, if a principle enshrined in the constitution impedes "progress" toward a normative outcome of greater utility according to liberal theory, then it is justified.
I would be embarrassed, but I'm aware that there are worse things someone can be. Like a pretentious snob on issues pertaining to the arts and humanities.
Hitchens is the only one of the 'four horsemen' that I appreciate. Mainly because he is also willing to criticise eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism.
Thank you Mr. Hitchens for inspiring me to be more intellectual, better spoken, and striving to attain the level of blunt intelligence you demonstrate in almost every video I've seen you in.
Brilliant interview. Doesn't sit there and argue, just gets out of the way so his subject can speak.
Hardtalk guy could learn from this. His Dawkins interview is cringe-worthy. His questions on the Einsteinian god make me think he didn't even read the book, or if he did, he is promoting his own views
An intellectual powerhouse..Hitchens talks clearly, succinctly, with logic and reason: The enemies of religion. Watch him debating ANY religious 'intellectual'. They are invariably exposed as idiots. Rock on Chris!
Ha! I watched this video once made by some comedian who could make a fossil in just a few short years and that the explanation why we don't find fossilized dinosaur remains at the top of mountains is because they couldn't climb up there quick enough to escape Noah's flood! I thought it was hysterical and told him this... something along the lines of 'great parody'.
i have to admit. when i was a Christian i hated this man. Now that i am agnostic and leaning toward Deism i am really starting to respect his ideas. Imagine a world where people just sat down together to talk about their opinions and ideas. and not a world were someone flies an airplane into a building in the name of a jihad
I'm in the same boat, Matt. I was a deist for several years, and Hitchens seemed to me as fingernails on a chalkboard. I recently decided to denounce any kind of god, and I enjoy his arguments.
well...i dont know. i dont really see how he attacks a deistic form of god. But i suppose it really depends on what you want to call "god". What is "god" anyways? just an all powerful force. So maybe the laws of nature are "god". I just think when you say you reject all gods, by me saying i see "god" as the laws of nature. Do you reject the laws of nature?
No, I understand your position, totally! People like Hawking and Einstein refered to the same things as god because it's universally understood. That can get shakey though, since some take that reference as acknowledging Yaweh or Allah, which may not have been the case.
dude call nature by it's name...NATURE. don't confuse everybody or belittle nature by calling it god. nature has done a hell of a lot more than any "intelligence" has been shown to do. show some respect
hm, i dont think you are really understanding my point. "god" is just a term you could apply to something all powerful, beautiful and aw inspiring. i think you have a very small definition of "god". Is it the word you dont like? I think alot of people hear Christians and Muslims talk about "god" so much, whenever you hear the word you think of Jesus Christ or Allah. It can really be seen a number of different ways.
I think calling nature god makes a huge mess...look at the controversy with Hawkings. Why not call it nature? I find a SR71 Blackbird to be powerful and inspiring but I don't call it god. I see why you would address nature god but that word always has had the meaning of a creator or law giver. I think credit should be given where credit is do. If you are a deist then god made nature... so you should address thing accordingly otherwise ideas get twisted and people are falsly labeled.
Most outspoken atheists will not try to disprove a deistic god
It is the religions that they are speaking out against the dogma, brainwashing and (in america mainly) the threat of creationism to schools and science
i am embarrassed to admit i used to be a creationist. But now i realize that these people are absolutely insane if they want their views taught in science classes.
Separating the church and state is a tradition???? It's part of the fucking constitution you prick!! This host is a clueless imbecile.... the HITCH ROCKS!!!
Here's a question for the religious retards reading this atm:
Let's pretend for a minute that God really does exist. My question to you is why does everyone need to be God's friend? Why does God need 7billion+ friends anyway? For what? And if you refuse to be God's friend then your going straight to hell to suffer for eternity in terrible agony. How absurd, boring, and pointless.
I'm Jim'll Fix It was still on the TV, I'd ask for a few whiskies with the Hitch.
Also bear in mind this is a book interview, so inevitably he's going to be talking about points he put in his book. So maybe we have seen it all before - but any Hitch footage is always awesome. It's like bird-watching.
Man that must be painful to listen to if your brought up fearing your going to a place called hell ( 100% unempirical )for agreeing with Hichens sober reasoning.
I love Hitchens, but in every interview he has stock answers and stock canards he whips out from his bag 'o tricks. For once I'd like to see an interview or debate where he actually has to think on his feet. I get the feeling he is very bored with this stuff.
Excommunicate1979, I think that Hitchens' strength is that he has been thinking about the issue for, as he said, 30 years now and the fact of the matter is that he has a lot more to draw upon than any theologian. If you want to hear the contrary, go to a proselytizing christian website; all they have are born again testimonials and scripture verses. Hitchens has referenced 100s of books, his opponents only reference one.
And canards are false statements, he doesn't really make those.
You're right - canard is the wrong word. "Anecdotes" is the word I was looking for. I am well aware of the lame Christian apologetics. I can handily refute 99% of them, the same as Hitchens and most other Atheists. My forlorn wish would be for an Apologist to come around that would force Hitchens to come up with a new line of attack. The man has a keen mind, and lately he seems a bit bored. Or maybe I'm the bored one.
Bored is probably exactly it - he's heard all this nonsense a lot of times. Don't know what the solution would be - we need a kind of theist/atheist Love Island, and we could vote them off. All right, that's tacky...
Gimme a break. You can do a non-productive philosophical argument on the essence of truth but the fact remains that science can send satellites to space, and prolong man's lifetime beyond age 30
Exactly, i would add not only that it cannot determine basic geology, it MAKES predictions that are false. God is simply a theory that has been supplanted by a newer better one, namely science's naturalistic view.
The official Oxford American Dictionaries definition of "FAITH" (capitals not needed thank you) is trust or confidence in something or someone. So do, please, shut up.
Granted, but that is not how it is used in the common vernacular. Theists consider it a great victory if they can reduce the atheistic world view to "faith based" (which via the problem of induction it really is). However, would you consider them the same thing? I think we can agree that there is something fundamentally different between religious and scientific faith. How then would you suggest we handle this distinction linguistically in regard to the word "faith"
I agree with Mr. Hitchens on his philosophical and intellectual level albeit I oppose him spiritually (I am a Christian). Hitchens is wiser than most of my Christian bretheren on a political level... he thinks.
I hate his blasphomy but I fully support him... and like him.
I am a Christian who is favoring atheists more than my fellow Christians more and more... mostly because of both my faith and reason... what is wrong with me? (rhetorical Q)
I am a strong supporter of the secular US American founding ideals... so I guess that makes me a secularist Christian. I do know that I am a fanatic in my beliefs... and if the line was drawn in the sand... I (currently) would side against my Christian brothers and sisters BECAUSE of my Christian beliefs. My Christian morality is the reason why I favor bright atheists more than my Christian bretheran majority.
Perhaps I can call myself a "secularist" as an accurate term.
Actually the things I mentioned r 'faith' by various definitions of the word (u may confirm this for urself too by looking it up in dictionaries online & off), one of which is, of course, "belief w/o evidence". Words r slippery & wild things, to be sure, but I think the redefinitions u mention r inevitable, may well be indicators of mans/evolutions progress as knowledge piles upon knowledge... Incidentally, like u, I'm a huge fan of the dictionary.....
----> so I too believe that the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms, it's clear that without a common lexicon communication suffers immensely. But at the same time we must keep in mind the impermanence of these things. Words, ideas & belief-systems r all subject to the same processes of cognitive slipperiness. Nothing exists in a vacuum. It's all connected, everything affects everything else. [eeek, & now my own spiritualist superstitions r showing!]
I would agree that scientific and religious faith are NOT the same thing and should not be grouped together. Like ALogicalConstruct said, its a matter of linguistic difference.
Mind you I am not either theistic or atheist. An atheist says that in all of the magnitude of the universe there is no god. A theist says that in all of the magnitude of the universe, there is a god.
I am not arrogant enough to say I'll ever understand the magnitude of the universe. It's certainly not in the Bible
To be intellectually honest atheists cannot be 100% certain, i just feel the preponderance of evidence is on the side of a naturalistic universe, i see agnosticism as clear cut 50/50. I see atheism at 51% or more on the no-god side, but here we go again with the connotative differences of language. I agree with you: i don't know. I hope there is a god because of what that means for freewill and an afterlife, but i see no evidence is support of that, so i am forced to accept grim reality
I agree that the evidence is heavily swayed towards a naturalistic universe. Religion was created off of a human's need to understand the universe in which he or she dwells. As we can explain more and more about the universe through science and reason, religion starts to disappear.
Is there a God? Hell if I know. But it's not the God of the bible any more than it is Thor. "God" for all we know could be the sum total of the laws of the universe, or = science.
I find the US fascination with Hitchens amusing, in England most people refrain from being ostentatiously religious from fear of looking a bit naive or foolish, atheism is pretty much considered the norm, I was at a diner party the other night and raised the question of "god" most dismissed the notion of a "god" immediately and only one woman was of the opinion "well, I think there's must be something else, but I don't know what?" Hitchens is good value though and oozes intellect and rationality
This is why anyone who believes in freedom from religious tyranny must vote for a Democrat in 08, regardless of political position. The thought that McCain or Romney could replace Justice Stevens with a new Scalia/Roberts/Thomas/Alito ally is the most dangerous future for our country. Far more important than any 'weak on defense' or 'tax and spend' soundbite.
The first question he asks is outright silly - I wish they would just ignore that survey. Being atheist, black, woman or any of the things tell nothing about persons morales or standing in any political issues.
The honest question would be "Which group do you owe the most?", dealing with the guilt of the white man.
Great interview. Thanks for sharing this. I haven't read the book yet, but I have seen it in book stores. I'll have to read the book sometime. The God Delusion is a great book, too. :)
I (and most people) have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow and the next day and one hundred years from now; because it has done the same thing for millennia (technically we spin but you get the point). Faith can be biased on evidence.
Blind faith is the problem; faith in a belief that is held in spite of evidence against it.
As i mentioned to TheNewHumanist i think we need to be careful of the false equivocation that can be drawn linguistically between scientific and religious faith. I propose we use "inductive faith" to describe scientific faith. Inductive faith is not blind, nor is it dogmatic.
But faith isn't "an unfounded belief in physical impossibilities" it's simply a belief in something that is not certain. Gravity is a theory much like evolution and the big bang because we cannot prove them, yet I have faith in them because there is sufficient evidence. Are they in any way illogical?
A strongly held belief or theory, complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Faith does not only encapsulate religion, that is the problem.
Faith relies on you to accept information verbatim, without any logical backing by definition. If it was backed by logic, then you wouldn't need to "take it on faith." You would be able to comprehend it.
Therefore faith is counter to logic in that it is not logical.
Without any logical backing by definition? Why do you assume that? Faith is often based on logic, for example you cannot prove the universe was created by a massive explosion, but the fact that all galaxies and stars are moving away from each other and the patterns in radiation from the outer limits of the universe are evidence to this. We believe it despite a lack of proof which would make it faith.
Are you claiming that everything we believe in despite empirical evidence and indisputable proof is wrong? What about evolution? Carbon dating? Gravity?
If you mean religion then I agree, and I had a video not so long ago about exactly that, but it is your misuse of the word "faith" that is wrong.
I think that there needs to be a line drawn between Religious faith and scientific faith, because they are not linguistically equivalent. The problem of induction does raise issues about what is truly knowable, but at some point it becomes the same type of mental mastribation as Cartesian doubt. I think we should call scientific faith "inductive faith" as opposed to just plain faith. To prevent the common fallacy that ensues.
I agree with that exactly, but as I said, "faith" encapsulates both scientific faith and religious faith. What is "logical" is in the end relative to each of us. As you cannot prove god does not exist (despite the overwhelming evidence against his existence) it means he does not contradict logic, although he is a disgusting insult to our intelligence.
Something i have been toying with for my Honors Thesis for my Philosophy BA (which i should make a video about):
"Disproving God", I feel theists argue about the existence of god in much the same way that you can argue about whether a magician used supernatural powers to preform a trick. If this is the case then by showing how the trick is preformed you can show that it has naturalistic origins. I have been doing research about the potential of explaining religion.....
.... via the evolution of memeplexes to support in-group survival. This is nothing new, however many recent studies have pointed to the "abiogenesis" of religion via hyper active discernment and (to put it simply) personification of inanimate objects. This created he initial "RNA" of religion in the form of tribal animism (which is the initial state of all spiritual beliefs). From there i have been looking at the development from animism into the various world religions, and it all fits.
"God" is often the easiest answer to the questions about our existence and it's flaw is that it avoids the entire process of evidence, thought and logic. They have no evidence of god, yet conclude he exists and that is contrary to logic. But his existence may not be. I would agree with you completely had you said "religious faith" rather than faith because lexically "faith", is too generic.
With the switch from scientific faith to something like inductive expectations i am more seeking to avoid connotative associations.
Who hasn't, when arguing with a theist, been told "atheism is just a religion" or "they are both faith based", while lexically the latter is correct i feel it is connotatively different.
They are both faith based whether it pleases you or not. We should stop our own mental masturbation trying to place our beliefs beyond confidence. Most of what we believe we accept because we read it or simply because it is the most logical or satisfying answer, even if we don't know it for certain. It is a more plausible faith perhaps but it's still faith.
Very well put (in both the lexical and connotative meaning of faith) the question is how do you arrive at one as opposed to the other? Is it as the prepositionalists state, that our ability to know truth is completely relative? I would argue not, i would say that there are things we can safely assume based on experience, i have expectations based on induction (which is an imperfect science) but based on results the universe IS uniform, logic EXISTS, reality IS objective, i am self aware....
....what can i make of this? i don't know but i know that i do not NEED certainty, there is no certainty, to claim you have it is to lie. The claim to certanty is what is wrong with religion. Not that it provides answers but that it claims absolute unquestionable truth that is not effected by observable REALITY or LOGIC. Religion does not fit with what i perceive to be reality via my senses, it must account for this. The burdon of proof rest squarely on religion. I am open to it making it's case
good night opener of minds,savior of the chained, hero of the enlightened you were no god but you stood for ideals that would make you the fairest one conceived.
theDerailled1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
244 people are cretins.
LondonPride25 1 year ago 2
Stand for nothing and be nothing. Live your life as a cipher.
Asparagusville 1 year ago
hopefully he will see the error of his ways and turn to the ONLY true voice...jesus christ!!! i'll be praying for his soul to be saved and all of you should too!! praise god!!!
nilbog44 1 year ago
@nilbog44 If that's what you really believe, you probably don't know anything that anyone should care to hear. If you'd been born in Medina, you'd say "praise Allah." In Mumbai, perhaps "praise Krishna" would be the required incantation. It is all the same and, most importantly, it is all FALSE. Seek real consolation in reason and you shall find a wealth of meaning that your religious stultification has denied you.
uscjd2004 7 months ago
@uscjd2004 i was actually kidding. that was 5 months ago and i was in a weird mood. i'm actually an atheist. i was just being annoying trying to get a rise out of people. my bad
nilbog44 7 months ago
I love him...fuck cancer
bfoaliali 1 year ago 2
Did'nt know Bill Gates did interviews.
speccwolf 1 year ago
Clown prince prissy-Chrissy Hitchens makes a good point as to why the U.S. shouldn't naturalize British subjects.
Asparagusville 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asparagusville Considering he's the world's most distinguished and accomplished journalist, I'd say America should be proud of being the country he chose to emigrate to.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
With historical revisionist Hitchens: Perversity = Compassion. His desire for a planetary government founded & run by Luciferians & eugenicists won't be a family-friendly paradise.
Asparagusville 1 year ago
@Asparagusville Do I fear knowledge? Do me a favour! You obviously labour under some strange delusion - let me guess, Christianity. Hence your obligatory distaste for a man who continually exposes the stupidity and outrages of religion.
Tapiola2007 1 year ago 2
@Tapiola2007 : Why do you beg for favors? Isn't it enough that I have tried, where your parents have failed?
Asparagusville 1 year ago
@Asparagusville Considering he's the world's most distinguished and accomplished journalist, I'd say America should be proud of being the country he chose to emigrate to.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
@Alexdurrant7 : Non-readers are easily swayed.
Asparagusville 1 year ago
Degenerated dipsomaniac Hitchens promotes the Rockefeller-Kissinger model of American-Anglican empire that will last into the 22nd century. It is a modernist/cor-poratist feudal system, with elements of mercantilism, designed to destroy federalism, and the free market economies they beget, planetarily.
Asparagusville 1 year ago
@Asparagusville How do you account for the fact that Hitchens wrote an entire book dedicated to tearing Kissinger apart? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
uscjd2004 7 months ago
Obscurantist/plagiarist/historical revisionist Christopher (bearer of Christ) Hitchens supports the eugenic policies of the modern-day Western World: carbon taxes (which'll double the price of grain); abortion (infanticide/genocide); endless warfare (as Orwell had warned us of in "1984"); confiscatory taxation; Z.P.G.; "atheism"/Darwinism (the denigration of personhood/self-sovereignty) & internationalism (planetary govt.). If anyone is then surely: he's deserving of deportation.
Asparagusville 1 year ago
@Asparagusville Hitchens is a US citizen. Is deportation your response to somebody who deliberately moved to and was nationalised in the US because of his unwavering love for the US constitution and the rights enshrined therein? I'm not American but I can respect his pursuit of freedom, democracy and human rights. You seem to represent much of what's wrong with America today!
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
@Tapiola2007 : Hitchens has never professed his reverence for the Constitution in his rhetoric. He supports the Anglo-American Alliance (New World Order) whole-heartedly. Hitchens supported Obama. What's wrong with America is that her citizens are woefully & willfully ignorant. How is it that you are completely upside-down on neo-con Hitchens? Do you fear knowledge?
Asparagusville 1 year ago
@Asparagusville WTF are you talking about! Hitchens is on record defending the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He is fundamentally a defender of democracy and emancipation from totalitarian regimes (including the evil of religion). Whilst he advocates values that are essentially liberal, he takes a hard-line Conservative approach to intervention and action against those out to destroy liberal society - i.e. he won't suffer fools gladly!
Tapiola2007 1 year ago
I still dont think an entire universe can pop out of no where.
isakpeter13 1 year ago
Even to think that there was a entity before that that made the universe exist.
MarcoMeerman 1 year ago
Why would anyone believe that? Of course it didn't pop out of nowhere, but that doesn't mean an all mighty god created it either. We cant speak of something we don't know of, but we can speculate. I for one don't believe that a god created the universe, it's just way too simple of an answer. I think it's something much more complex in terms of science.
CaptEm1 1 year ago
nice fake laugh there
LongliveSnak2e 1 year ago
hitchens is a treasure amongst an expansive ocean of evil religious zealotrous plankton who are unwittingly focused on ending our planet with their ridiculous unfounded unprovable beliefs. Down with religious subhumans.
699backstab 2 years ago 5
Did they film the debate mentioned in this video?
blahblahhuh1 2 years ago
or very close to it .
adlerbr12 2 years ago
It's funny that a secular leftist cites Jefferson so much.
I always thought they found his ideals a bit of a pain.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
?? perhaps you don't know enough about jefferson.
tessler6868 2 years ago
I'm referred to his ideas on the divulgence of power.
Lefties usually want to elect a superman who can't give them everything, but who inevitably take it all away.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
right. you cherry pick history. typical right of wingnuts.
and i think your "superman" fits description of hitler. hardly a lefty ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
Don't you think that this proves that there's a false dichotomy happening?
Right wing libertarianism is against protectionism, corporatism and welfarism - yet they are the ones who are compared with the national socialists?
I don't think Barack Obama's a nazi but of all the administrations the US has had his is the least constitutionally minded.
Liberalism is defined as the greatest good for the greatest many which is why political people love demagogues who promise them bread and circuses.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
"I don't think Barack Obama's a nazi but of all the administrations the US has had his is the least constitutionally minded."
wow. congrats on regaining conciousness after 8 year coma, but you might wanna catch up on events while you were "out."
tessler6868 2 years ago
It's a relative statement. Bush was appallingly bad and by far the worst president ever.
Obama's doing quite well to catch him up though.
This is America's trouble, it's so sectarian and people invest themselves so heavily in political heroes that ultimately they're just digging themselves down deeper and deeper.
The democrats understand this sentiment and hide their ineptitude behind "constitutional compliance".
Barack Obaama is nothing like the product people were sold by the PR companies.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
"hero" comment some truth, but kiwi conclusions rather odd.
it's right operates like hive to carefully curry/manipulate public to agenda. us media (owned by reg averse mega-corps) casual about reporting what's what.
dems operate like herd of cats (veto-proof maj can't pass leg). cats vs hive & lame advisors r obama's main probs. unless o lies us into war, declares martial law or lets am city drown/rot, 8 mo/8 yr comparison bizarre.
better to "hide" behind constitution than violate it.
tessler6868 2 years ago
Just think of me as an objective observer.
It's so startling think of how many people get carried away by a myth!
Obama is nothing, just another president and in this day and age it means he's just a pawn for commerical interests.
How far does he have to go before you suddenly say: " hey, shit stop!"
Bill Maher is totally in his thrall, that's why he had no compelling guests to criticize the bailouts besides Meghan McCain.
Watch out she left her diaphragm under Bill's chair!
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
well, your "observations" are colorful, if nothing else.
g'day, mate
tessler6868 2 years ago
that's Australians though you might as conflate the two as we all leave the socialist paradise of Aotearoa in droves. - microcosm.
Why did you put the word observation inside of quotation marks, that's what I'm doing: i'm observing.
There are a lot of the dregs of the PR industry hanging out here who like to test out Obama hysteria, so you're guaranteed to meet plenty of antipodean non-critical thinkers.
So long as he's a democrat no-one will care, we just need the media to tell us he's good.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
whatever. are we done?
good.
tessler6868 2 years ago
Sure thang partner, back to your kool -aid.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
hi, just curious- which commercial interests would you say that obama is a pawn of? I only ask because (and i must confess my knowlege is far from commanding on the subject) I was given to understand the lion's share of his campaign funds came from private citizen's donations of under $200 each, and that this represented something of an anomaly (to put it mildly) in US politics.
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
The bulk of large private campaign contributions moved from republican party coffers to the democratic party. This is because lobbyists hedge their bets on who will win power. It was obviously going to be Obama from about April 2008.
There were a lot of people who donated money to Obama's campaign, and you're right about it being an anomaly, but the reality is that his party is the entity which is controlled by the same interests who run whoever happens to be at the head of the 2 party monster.
fomastephanovitch 1 year ago
you are referring to utilitarianism, liberalism is simply the fundamental principle of individual freedom. I think that where these principles have been upheld the opposite of what you are suggesting has been the case, that of a deep cynicism of, as you put it demogogues.
pompeyblues 2 years ago
"Liberalism is defined as the greatest good for the greatest many"
No, that is the definition for utilitarianism - your whole idea of what "the left" is, is so obviously misinformed you ought to be embarrassed...
MattyJames25 2 years ago
And so is liberalism. Rawls' system is a modified utilitarianism, likewise the distinguishing factor that the left has over the right is that it's anti-institutional: for instance, if a principle enshrined in the constitution impedes "progress" toward a normative outcome of greater utility according to liberal theory, then it is justified.
I would be embarrassed, but I'm aware that there are worse things someone can be. Like a pretentious snob on issues pertaining to the arts and humanities.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
Jefferson was an atheist
adlerbr12 2 years ago
Hitchens is the only one of the 'four horsemen' that I appreciate. Mainly because he is also willing to criticise eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
he inspires me too
janjanjan0 2 years ago
Hitch gave me the courage to quit believing in something that I had been doubting for many years.
I would love to buy him a beer someday.
tylerjamesstephens 3 years ago 35
@tylerjamesstephens You mean Johnnie Walker Black, the breakfast of champions. :)
santajimi 1 year ago
@tylerjamesstephens
He's mostly a fan scotch whiskey XD.
SirKickz 6 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens 2
@tylerjamesstephens
Too late now unfortunately. Hope you bought him that drink in the last few years.
lordtalon69 1 month ago
@lordtalon69 I literally just signed on to say pretty much the same thing. I am so sad by Hitch's passing. No, I never got the chance.
tylerjamesstephens 1 month ago
Thank you Mr. Hitchens for inspiring me to be more intellectual, better spoken, and striving to attain the level of blunt intelligence you demonstrate in almost every video I've seen you in.
vetteluvnh 3 years ago 29
haha oohrah!
rcarass1 3 years ago
Hitchens made posh cool
Freshhhhh1982 2 years ago
Mr. Hitchens is brilliant!
Roaddogg666 3 years ago 16
amazing how Hitch can call Democritus, Hume, Jefferson etc... to mind during a debate when he's clearly been up for three days straight.
ChocolateExplosion 3 years ago 8
Why do you think he's been up for three days straight? (Just curious).
PiroNiro 3 years ago
look at him!
jameswp266 2 years ago
@PiroNiro
Maybe he's just drunk. I empathize with him. My roommate is pretty stupid and it's much easier to tolerate him after I've had a few drinks ;-)
JazzyJonas 1 year ago
@PiroNiro
This is Hitchens, he just needs Booze to function, not sleep. That is for lesser men.
Surells 1 year ago 2
haha 4:40 was such a fake laugh it's painful
ElJefer 3 years ago 3
LMAO yes that was painfuly fake
stinsgrunter 3 years ago
Yep. He didn't get the reference I think. It was kind of more an embarrassed laugh (because he didn't get it) than a fake one.
x362436 3 years ago
Oooooooh deary me, that was uncomfortable.
holydave 2 years ago
I love The Hitch, but he has got to start taking better care of himself.
evolve749 3 years ago 6
go to vanity fair site and look up hitchens, find his articles of rehabilitation, has some rather funny pictures of him.
plus a fantastic article :)
but yah, he could mind his health, but alas his choice :)
beebobox 3 years ago
I friggin love this crusty old scinic names Hitchens
Domzdream 3 years ago 2
Cynic
Borbnert 3 years ago
Brilliant interview. Doesn't sit there and argue, just gets out of the way so his subject can speak.
Hardtalk guy could learn from this. His Dawkins interview is cringe-worthy. His questions on the Einsteinian god make me think he didn't even read the book, or if he did, he is promoting his own views
bustertreasure 3 years ago 6
As if TV commentators ever read most books of their guests. They're just given a summary of the issues they address and go off on that tangent.
angrymallard 3 years ago
An intellectual powerhouse..Hitchens talks clearly, succinctly, with logic and reason: The enemies of religion. Watch him debating ANY religious 'intellectual'. They are invariably exposed as idiots. Rock on Chris!
funkyrimpler 3 years ago 2
hahaahhaaha 4:41 = the most awkward laugh of all time.
Hitchens you the man.
LightsFadingEast 3 years ago 7
hahaahhaaha 4:41 = the most awkward laugh of all time.
Hitchens you the man.
LightsFadingEast 3 years ago
The interviewer is gay. Nothing against him, just pointing it out.
devourerofbabies 3 years ago
And Mr. Saturn, is this the only note-worthy observation that you found from the interview?? ;-)
whirlpoolzend 3 years ago
Nope, just the only one I felt like typing.
devourerofbabies 3 years ago
Ha! I watched this video once made by some comedian who could make a fossil in just a few short years and that the explanation why we don't find fossilized dinosaur remains at the top of mountains is because they couldn't climb up there quick enough to escape Noah's flood! I thought it was hysterical and told him this... something along the lines of 'great parody'.
He blocked me.
whirlpoolzend 3 years ago
I find that christians make excellent censors.
devourerofbabies 3 years ago
pissed again christopher???....
chrish12345 3 years ago
if so, a very eloquent drunk.
6bobjohnson9 3 years ago 2
heard that man drinks like a fish lol.
i have to admit. when i was a Christian i hated this man. Now that i am agnostic and leaning toward Deism i am really starting to respect his ideas. Imagine a world where people just sat down together to talk about their opinions and ideas. and not a world were someone flies an airplane into a building in the name of a jihad
Matt482942 3 years ago
I'm in the same boat, Matt. I was a deist for several years, and Hitchens seemed to me as fingernails on a chalkboard. I recently decided to denounce any kind of god, and I enjoy his arguments.
stweep 3 years ago
well...i dont know. i dont really see how he attacks a deistic form of god. But i suppose it really depends on what you want to call "god". What is "god" anyways? just an all powerful force. So maybe the laws of nature are "god". I just think when you say you reject all gods, by me saying i see "god" as the laws of nature. Do you reject the laws of nature?
just my opinions. :)
Matt482942 3 years ago
No, I understand your position, totally! People like Hawking and Einstein refered to the same things as god because it's universally understood. That can get shakey though, since some take that reference as acknowledging Yaweh or Allah, which may not have been the case.
I guess it's all in the syntax, hehe.
stweep 3 years ago
dude call nature by it's name...NATURE. don't confuse everybody or belittle nature by calling it god. nature has done a hell of a lot more than any "intelligence" has been shown to do. show some respect
andresq4545 3 years ago
hm, i dont think you are really understanding my point. "god" is just a term you could apply to something all powerful, beautiful and aw inspiring. i think you have a very small definition of "god". Is it the word you dont like? I think alot of people hear Christians and Muslims talk about "god" so much, whenever you hear the word you think of Jesus Christ or Allah. It can really be seen a number of different ways.
Just my opinions
Matt482942 3 years ago
I think calling nature god makes a huge mess...look at the controversy with Hawkings. Why not call it nature? I find a SR71 Blackbird to be powerful and inspiring but I don't call it god. I see why you would address nature god but that word always has had the meaning of a creator or law giver. I think credit should be given where credit is do. If you are a deist then god made nature... so you should address thing accordingly otherwise ideas get twisted and people are falsly labeled.
andresq4545 3 years ago 2
i agree with you there. :)
Matt482942 3 years ago
if i am sure of anything its that i am not belittling nature. In my eyes nature is a very fascinating and beautiful thing.
please try to understand a point before you attack it. no offense intended :)
Matt482942 3 years ago
Most outspoken atheists will not try to disprove a deistic god
It is the religions that they are speaking out against the dogma, brainwashing and (in america mainly) the threat of creationism to schools and science
666daedsidog 3 years ago 5
i am embarrassed to admit i used to be a creationist. But now i realize that these people are absolutely insane if they want their views taught in science classes.
Matt482942 3 years ago 12
Matt, I am glad that you realize. And I think you will be surprised that how many more like u exist.
statickk14 3 years ago 3
what made you turn?
DanHipp 3 years ago
not sure....just clicked i guess
Matt482942 3 years ago
hitchens is GANGSTA!
Bockatadi 3 years ago 4
Separating the church and state is a tradition???? It's part of the fucking constitution you prick!! This host is a clueless imbecile.... the HITCH ROCKS!!!
chewroot 4 years ago 9
kinda mean, i didn't see him as an imbecile. Maybe he is religious and just feels a little uncomfortable interviewing him.
just my opinions :)
Matt482942 3 years ago
he wear's that gut incredibly well.
blatspanner 4 years ago 2
Hitchens......:)
Jbear9 4 years ago
Does he only do interviews at restaurants outdoors?
junicorn 4 years ago
Christopher Hitchens is so slick! hehehe.
Here's a question for the religious retards reading this atm:
Let's pretend for a minute that God really does exist. My question to you is why does everyone need to be God's friend? Why does God need 7billion+ friends anyway? For what? And if you refuse to be God's friend then your going straight to hell to suffer for eternity in terrible agony. How absurd, boring, and pointless.
FuckAllReligions 4 years ago 13
Horrible sunglasses. Great content.
mille666 4 years ago
Hitch!!
I'm Jim'll Fix It was still on the TV, I'd ask for a few whiskies with the Hitch.
Also bear in mind this is a book interview, so inevitably he's going to be talking about points he put in his book. So maybe we have seen it all before - but any Hitch footage is always awesome. It's like bird-watching.
stevebritgimp 4 years ago 4
I just can't get enough of the Hitch!
pos777 4 years ago 6
Man that must be painful to listen to if your brought up fearing your going to a place called hell ( 100% unempirical )for agreeing with Hichens sober reasoning.
Atheisms the majority in the educated world.
brotherjupiter 4 years ago 4
I love Hitchens, but in every interview he has stock answers and stock canards he whips out from his bag 'o tricks. For once I'd like to see an interview or debate where he actually has to think on his feet. I get the feeling he is very bored with this stuff.
eXcommunicate1979 4 years ago
Excommunicate1979, I think that Hitchens' strength is that he has been thinking about the issue for, as he said, 30 years now and the fact of the matter is that he has a lot more to draw upon than any theologian. If you want to hear the contrary, go to a proselytizing christian website; all they have are born again testimonials and scripture verses. Hitchens has referenced 100s of books, his opponents only reference one.
And canards are false statements, he doesn't really make those.
Edmund18021988 4 years ago 2
You're right - canard is the wrong word. "Anecdotes" is the word I was looking for. I am well aware of the lame Christian apologetics. I can handily refute 99% of them, the same as Hitchens and most other Atheists. My forlorn wish would be for an Apologist to come around that would force Hitchens to come up with a new line of attack. The man has a keen mind, and lately he seems a bit bored. Or maybe I'm the bored one.
eXcommunicate1979 4 years ago 2
Bored is probably exactly it - he's heard all this nonsense a lot of times. Don't know what the solution would be - we need a kind of theist/atheist Love Island, and we could vote them off. All right, that's tacky...
stevebritgimp 4 years ago
Gimme a break. You can do a non-productive philosophical argument on the essence of truth but the fact remains that science can send satellites to space, and prolong man's lifetime beyond age 30
Religion can't even determine basic geology.
SenorMoo 4 years ago 7
Exactly, i would add not only that it cannot determine basic geology, it MAKES predictions that are false. God is simply a theory that has been supplanted by a newer better one, namely science's naturalistic view.
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Christopher Hitchens is a war hog! Oik! Oik! Oik! Ziggy piggy ziggy piggy.
TheRealBladeRunner 4 years ago
TheNewHumanist:
YT fucked up where those comments should have gone.
The two farthest from here refer to your two comments about the definition of faith.
The last two refer to this one:
They are both faith based whether it pleases you or not.
Also i got a e-mail saying you responded to one of my comments, but i couldn't find it.
Chao
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
Yeah i didn't get that...
It's all just useless semantics anyway.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
I am growing tired of the the god debate.
There is not a shred of empirical evidence for the existence of god, let alone the whole jesus thing.
it will be nice when people can be honest with themselves.
sun2515 4 years ago 6
The official Oxford American Dictionaries definition of "FAITH" (capitals not needed thank you) is trust or confidence in something or someone. So do, please, shut up.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
Granted, but that is not how it is used in the common vernacular. Theists consider it a great victory if they can reduce the atheistic world view to "faith based" (which via the problem of induction it really is). However, would you consider them the same thing? I think we can agree that there is something fundamentally different between religious and scientific faith. How then would you suggest we handle this distinction linguistically in regard to the word "faith"
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
I agree, it should be changed, but it still is regarded as faith from a linguistic standpoint.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
Exceptional response Sheldonwh! I agree totally.
DarkOnyx 4 years ago
the best point hitchens make, is that belief in god is a belief in totalitarianism..
hitchens rock!
pornoopel 4 years ago
I agree with Mr. Hitchens on his philosophical and intellectual level albeit I oppose him spiritually (I am a Christian). Hitchens is wiser than most of my Christian bretheren on a political level... he thinks.
I hate his blasphomy but I fully support him... and like him.
I am a Christian who is favoring atheists more than my fellow Christians more and more... mostly because of both my faith and reason... what is wrong with me? (rhetorical Q)
That80sGuy1972 4 years ago
Not at all. You dont have to not beleive in god to be a secularist, which it sounds like you might be.
irishmauddib 4 years ago
I am a strong supporter of the secular US American founding ideals... so I guess that makes me a secularist Christian. I do know that I am a fanatic in my beliefs... and if the line was drawn in the sand... I (currently) would side against my Christian brothers and sisters BECAUSE of my Christian beliefs. My Christian morality is the reason why I favor bright atheists more than my Christian bretheran majority.
Perhaps I can call myself a "secularist" as an accurate term.
That80sGuy1972 4 years ago
Actually the things I mentioned r 'faith' by various definitions of the word (u may confirm this for urself too by looking it up in dictionaries online & off), one of which is, of course, "belief w/o evidence". Words r slippery & wild things, to be sure, but I think the redefinitions u mention r inevitable, may well be indicators of mans/evolutions progress as knowledge piles upon knowledge... Incidentally, like u, I'm a huge fan of the dictionary.....
EpicHiroDJ 4 years ago
----> so I too believe that the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms, it's clear that without a common lexicon communication suffers immensely. But at the same time we must keep in mind the impermanence of these things. Words, ideas & belief-systems r all subject to the same processes of cognitive slipperiness. Nothing exists in a vacuum. It's all connected, everything affects everything else. [eeek, & now my own spiritualist superstitions r showing!]
peace.
EpicHiroDJ 4 years ago
lol true.
linvalideX 4 years ago
Great comments posted in this thread, really interesting discussion. Thank you, Piro, and thank you, TheYouTubeMassive!
<3 : )
EpicHiroDJ 4 years ago
I would agree that scientific and religious faith are NOT the same thing and should not be grouped together. Like ALogicalConstruct said, its a matter of linguistic difference.
Mind you I am not either theistic or atheist. An atheist says that in all of the magnitude of the universe there is no god. A theist says that in all of the magnitude of the universe, there is a god.
I am not arrogant enough to say I'll ever understand the magnitude of the universe. It's certainly not in the Bible
DarkOnyx 4 years ago
DarkOnyx
To be intellectually honest atheists cannot be 100% certain, i just feel the preponderance of evidence is on the side of a naturalistic universe, i see agnosticism as clear cut 50/50. I see atheism at 51% or more on the no-god side, but here we go again with the connotative differences of language. I agree with you: i don't know. I hope there is a god because of what that means for freewill and an afterlife, but i see no evidence is support of that, so i am forced to accept grim reality
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
I agree that the evidence is heavily swayed towards a naturalistic universe. Religion was created off of a human's need to understand the universe in which he or she dwells. As we can explain more and more about the universe through science and reason, religion starts to disappear.
Is there a God? Hell if I know. But it's not the God of the bible any more than it is Thor. "God" for all we know could be the sum total of the laws of the universe, or = science.
DarkOnyx 4 years ago
I agree, though i think that the stark contrast of atheistic "real death" to life makes life a lot more profound and beautiful.
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
I find the US fascination with Hitchens amusing, in England most people refrain from being ostentatiously religious from fear of looking a bit naive or foolish, atheism is pretty much considered the norm, I was at a diner party the other night and raised the question of "god" most dismissed the notion of a "god" immediately and only one woman was of the opinion "well, I think there's must be something else, but I don't know what?" Hitchens is good value though and oozes intellect and rationality
hughjarrse 4 years ago
Anything other than atheism is ignorance. Ignorance of science, history and anthropology.
gfguunfg 4 years ago
Atheism IS common sense... they should be synonyms for christ's sake. ;)
siciliano29 4 years ago 2
This is why anyone who believes in freedom from religious tyranny must vote for a Democrat in 08, regardless of political position. The thought that McCain or Romney could replace Justice Stevens with a new Scalia/Roberts/Thomas/Alito ally is the most dangerous future for our country. Far more important than any 'weak on defense' or 'tax and spend' soundbite.
eirefrance 4 years ago
Lovely..like the line about lack of money being the root of evil =)
NurseDischord 4 years ago
The first question he asks is outright silly - I wish they would just ignore that survey. Being atheist, black, woman or any of the things tell nothing about persons morales or standing in any political issues.
The honest question would be "Which group do you owe the most?", dealing with the guilt of the white man.
angrymallard 4 years ago
That guy looks like RabidApe!!!
fathead8489 4 years ago
thanks for the video
elvismilk 4 years ago
I love these videos! Keep me posted!
chbrules 4 years ago
as an atheist quaker I take offense. Nixon those raised as one should not taint the rest of the well meaning among them....
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
I can't wait for Hitchens to do a book on another topic. This spiel is starting to get stale.
Scrapheap71 4 years ago
google him for the many other topic'd books.
AtheistCitizen 4 years ago
Great interview. Thanks for sharing this. I haven't read the book yet, but I have seen it in book stores. I'll have to read the book sometime. The God Delusion is a great book, too. :)
HaleyMary 4 years ago
I love the interviewers awkward laugh after he says "Build up that wall".
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
Any news on this up coming debate? Or has it happened already?
ScottishAtheist 4 years ago
Religion teaches faith.
Faith is counter to logic.
Therefore religion is counter to logic.
Thus religion is stupid.
DarkOnyx 4 years ago
I'm an atheist but faith is not counter to logic.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
Can you expand on that point?
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
I (and most people) have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow and the next day and one hundred years from now; because it has done the same thing for millennia (technically we spin but you get the point). Faith can be biased on evidence.
Blind faith is the problem; faith in a belief that is held in spite of evidence against it.
paleosmoker 4 years ago 2
paleosmoker:
As i mentioned to TheNewHumanist i think we need to be careful of the false equivocation that can be drawn linguistically between scientific and religious faith. I propose we use "inductive faith" to describe scientific faith. Inductive faith is not blind, nor is it dogmatic.
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
Tell me what you dislike in that point.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
well if you think an unfounded belief in physical impossibilities is logical... it isn't.
CheeezMaster 4 years ago
But faith isn't "an unfounded belief in physical impossibilities" it's simply a belief in something that is not certain. Gravity is a theory much like evolution and the big bang because we cannot prove them, yet I have faith in them because there is sufficient evidence. Are they in any way illogical?
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
i don't have faith in the theories of gravity and evolution.
i accept said theories because sufficient evidence has been provided in favor of them.
that is not the case with religious myth. unless you count hearsay as evidence.
do you know what the definition of faith is?
CheeezMaster 4 years ago
A strongly held belief or theory, complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Faith does not only encapsulate religion, that is the problem.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
I disagree.
Faith relies on you to accept information verbatim, without any logical backing by definition. If it was backed by logic, then you wouldn't need to "take it on faith." You would be able to comprehend it.
Therefore faith is counter to logic in that it is not logical.
DarkOnyx 4 years ago
Without any logical backing by definition? Why do you assume that? Faith is often based on logic, for example you cannot prove the universe was created by a massive explosion, but the fact that all galaxies and stars are moving away from each other and the patterns in radiation from the outer limits of the universe are evidence to this. We believe it despite a lack of proof which would make it faith.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
Are you claiming that everything we believe in despite empirical evidence and indisputable proof is wrong? What about evolution? Carbon dating? Gravity?
If you mean religion then I agree, and I had a video not so long ago about exactly that, but it is your misuse of the word "faith" that is wrong.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
I think that there needs to be a line drawn between Religious faith and scientific faith, because they are not linguistically equivalent. The problem of induction does raise issues about what is truly knowable, but at some point it becomes the same type of mental mastribation as Cartesian doubt. I think we should call scientific faith "inductive faith" as opposed to just plain faith. To prevent the common fallacy that ensues.
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
A logical construct hit the nail right on the head. Scientific faith or a confidence interval let's say, is not equivalent to religious faith.
DarkOnyx 4 years ago
Exactly, i think as non-theists we need to do our best to remove faith from the rationalist vernacular.
My "Inductive Expectations" incline me to believe the sun will rise tomorrow.
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
I agree with that exactly, but as I said, "faith" encapsulates both scientific faith and religious faith. What is "logical" is in the end relative to each of us. As you cannot prove god does not exist (despite the overwhelming evidence against his existence) it means he does not contradict logic, although he is a disgusting insult to our intelligence.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
1:
Something i have been toying with for my Honors Thesis for my Philosophy BA (which i should make a video about):
"Disproving God", I feel theists argue about the existence of god in much the same way that you can argue about whether a magician used supernatural powers to preform a trick. If this is the case then by showing how the trick is preformed you can show that it has naturalistic origins. I have been doing research about the potential of explaining religion.....
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
2:
.... via the evolution of memeplexes to support in-group survival. This is nothing new, however many recent studies have pointed to the "abiogenesis" of religion via hyper active discernment and (to put it simply) personification of inanimate objects. This created he initial "RNA" of religion in the form of tribal animism (which is the initial state of all spiritual beliefs). From there i have been looking at the development from animism into the various world religions, and it all fits.
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
"God" is often the easiest answer to the questions about our existence and it's flaw is that it avoids the entire process of evidence, thought and logic. They have no evidence of god, yet conclude he exists and that is contrary to logic. But his existence may not be. I would agree with you completely had you said "religious faith" rather than faith because lexically "faith", is too generic.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
With the switch from scientific faith to something like inductive expectations i am more seeking to avoid connotative associations.
Who hasn't, when arguing with a theist, been told "atheism is just a religion" or "they are both faith based", while lexically the latter is correct i feel it is connotatively different.
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
They are both faith based whether it pleases you or not. We should stop our own mental masturbation trying to place our beliefs beyond confidence. Most of what we believe we accept because we read it or simply because it is the most logical or satisfying answer, even if we don't know it for certain. It is a more plausible faith perhaps but it's still faith.
TheNewHumanist 4 years ago
Very well put (in both the lexical and connotative meaning of faith) the question is how do you arrive at one as opposed to the other? Is it as the prepositionalists state, that our ability to know truth is completely relative? I would argue not, i would say that there are things we can safely assume based on experience, i have expectations based on induction (which is an imperfect science) but based on results the universe IS uniform, logic EXISTS, reality IS objective, i am self aware....
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago
....what can i make of this? i don't know but i know that i do not NEED certainty, there is no certainty, to claim you have it is to lie. The claim to certanty is what is wrong with religion. Not that it provides answers but that it claims absolute unquestionable truth that is not effected by observable REALITY or LOGIC. Religion does not fit with what i perceive to be reality via my senses, it must account for this. The burdon of proof rest squarely on religion. I am open to it making it's case
ALogicalConstruct 4 years ago