Hedges is the only person arguing on the other side that I've had to skip through in any debate. And that's saying something since I've sat through William Lane Craig.
"Faith is not in conflict with reason. Faith does not conflict with scientific truth, unless faith claims to express a scientific truth. Faith can neither be affirmed nor denied by scientific, historical, or philosophical truth. And here I think Sam confuses the irrational which he sees as a part of faith, with the non-rational. There is a reality which is not a product of rational deduction, it is not accounted for by strict rational discourse. There is a dimension to spiritual human existence"
@dvzqz87 "in the universe but this is not irrational, it is non-rational. Faith allows us to transcend our mania for conclusions, a mania which is one of humanities most useless and sterile drives." - Hedges.
It laid the foundation for our civilizations? Apparently, no one before these religions had a civilization & no one survived. Does he not think about the Greeks? They had probably the biggest impact on the blue print of how future 'empires' would be built, much more so than those religions. Unless you mean foundation as in, the dark ages, witch hunts, inquisition, ethnic cleansing, the raping of children, slavery of men, oppression of women, then yeah, they certainly laid a foundation alright.
Love your neighbor, not you tribe? Love your neighbor and kill all of the other tribes. . .
What the fuck. . . the word god does not equal "life has meaning." Why can't you quantify this "mysterious force?" A "process" of what? "Life force?" Is this star wars now or something?
2:15. Really. Is this guy really going to stand behind a podium and read his entire statement? That's a big contrast from watching Sam Harris sit back in a chair and eloquently make his points with logic, reason, and ease.
@TonyRush "That's a big contrast from watching Sam Harris sit back in a chair and eloquently make his points with logic, reason, and ease."
Simple minds present simple ideas in a simplistic manner. Obviously Hedges' presentation was too complex and nuanced for you, as well as the dozens of Harris' fanboys posting on this vid.
So what that Hedges reads his statement? What does such an observation say about its content?
@bapyou They ARE simple ideas. Hedges, on the other hand, seems intent on overcomplicating them as a way of obscuring the fact that he's presenting a losing case. It seems to be a case of, "If you can't beat 'em, baffle them with rhetoric". I'm not saying that Hedge had no good points. But, no....reading a prepared statement is not the same as "responding" to what the other speaker said.
@bapyou Perhaps you should watch the video 'hitchens ends hedges career.' Hitchens basically back him into the corner he made for himself, then lays the hitch-slap on him haha It's almost one of those awkward moments where you feel bad, but at the same time so awesome you cannot look away lol
None of us could have ever learned to ride a bike without training wheels. Therefore, we should never get rid of our training wheels. Even if we can bike perfectly well without them. If you try to convince me that it might make my bike ultimately safer and more maneuverable to dispense with the training wheels, you are obviously an incipient fascist who is no better than Al Queda.
The Abrahamic religions created 'the concept of the individual' and 'the separation of powers'. So, on this account, the Athenians had no notion of self outwith their tribe? And all those centuries of European absolutist monarchs claiming to rule by divine mandate recognised by the Pope was... a joke?
Here he tells us moralists eschewed writing for fear of codification; in his recent TruthDigg article he tells us "morals and ethics never change". This guy is like a intellectual cargo cult.
by Hedges definition, Sam Harris is a prophet! Love how he is more comfortable preaching from a pulpit than engaging in a true debate. He has a weak mind.
The Abrahamic religions are responsible for the concept of the individual? Tell that to Muslim women, who aren't allowed to be individuals. What about blacks under slavery, and even Western women up to a couple hundred years ago?
What a load of poorly articulated, empty word salad Chris Hedges produces here. Its all assertion without reason, straw men arguments and obfuscation. I had to hit thumbs down for this part of the debate. :(
I don't admire fundamentalists, but I almost prefer it to the incomprehensible New Agey drivel spouted by Hedges. What the hell is he blathering about?
I've never heard such a long string of unsubstantiated claims. Sam should have just gotten up after this opening statement and explained the burden of evidence to the audience then left the room.
HUMANITY must be "our ultimate concern, that in which we should place our highest hopes, confidence and trust" not some ancient mythology that focuses on separating 'us' from 'them' and allows us to brush under the cosmic rug all the bad things that we do to one another. Face it CH, all we have is each other when the chips are down.......your god didn't help those people in the World Trade Centre, nor did he stop the mass shooting of children in Norway last week.
So the Abrahamic religions endowed individualism? Wrong. It fuelled tribalism. It fuelled groupthink methodologies on the world we see and no more so in the US. Individualism was determined in China long before Christianity or Judaism came on the scene. It sounds like Chris Hedges is making an argument for religious intervention towards Communist principles. Poor reasoning.
If writing something down "kills" it and makes it less valid than something that was merely said, how can a belief in God be justified? Belief in God is derived from the Bible, so wouldn't that make the information contained therein less valid, and therefore, a belief that the information is true, also less valid?
He does actually make a lot of sense, but I cannot endorse a lot of his views. As an aside, I like how he has spent so much time with muslims, yet continues to incorrectly pronounce the word as ‘muzz–lims’.
samharris*org/blog/item/why-id-rather-not-speak-about-torture1/ Please replace the * with a period, and thumbs up my comment if you'd like to reduce the idiotic notion that Sam is pro-torture, because this is getting ridiculous.
Harris is clearly of a much higher IQ than the other guy...which has me thinking....how many IQ spots would a random sample of Atheists be above a random sample of believers?
religious debates these days are stuck between morons who belive in mysticism and fairy tales, and annoying asperger nerds that have absolutely no ability to comprehend spirituality in any sense. Most atheists reason that no religious text is literally true and think the argument is over. All thats left to do is look smug and tell unfunny jokes. Chris Hedges is a really smart and well read guy, and his arguments are light years beyond sam harris.
This Hedges dude has delivered the most autistic rhetoric ploy that I ever heard from a debater of Harris. Otherwise, the same vagaries, ambiguities, non-sequiturs, etc. from the religious arsenal.
@GermyJer He is making the distinction that some things are irrational in the sense that they break the rules of reason, and there are other things that are outside the realm of reason altogether. If you can`t comprehend this you are far too uneducated to debate these things.
@version191 I understood his point... the point I'm questioning was his idiotic choice to use "ir-" and "non-" as if they meant something different. Ad hominems are not necessary.
@version191 Wow... did I just experience... kindness and polite discourse on a youtube comment thread? That was unexpected! Thank you for helping me to believe in humanity again!
@GermyJer Well actually, irrational and non-rational may well be different words. While it is true that the prefix ir- more or less means the same as the prefix non-, when you use them to create complex words, the complex words no longer necessarily mean the same, because of lexicalization of words. The meanings of the words we used aren't a sum of the morphemes that make up the word in predictable ways. In this case, I don't know if non-rational is already lexicalized on its own... contd-
@GermyJer contd- but if it is, it might mean something like "not related to the rational" as opposed to the meaning of irrational as "inconsistent with the rational". And if it is not, then he might just be using the prefix non- to contrast with ir- to illustrate that distinction in meaning, which, in the context, one can take from what he is saying otherwise.
I love how Sam Harris, sits back in his chair, with NO notes, and just articulates his point in a humourous and powerful way. His opponent is forced to read his lecture notes.
@version191 So, it should be easy for you to simply dismantle at least one of his arguments for us to fall in awe in front of your intelligence, rather than just the sterile tirade you served us... Please, go on.
@dweeper1020 "Sam Harris, sits back in his chair, with NO notes, and just articulates his point in a humourous and powerful way. His opponent is forced to read his lecture notes."
No one "froced" Hedges to read from notes. You misrepresent him. Hedges used notes, I think, because his argument is far more nuanced, provocative and historically situated than Harris's argument, which, next to Hedges' argument, in my opinion seems one-dimensional, pedantic and churlish.
@bapyou Wow, dude. 'No one "froced" Hedges to read from notes.' No one is saying that literally someone required that Hedges read from his notes. However, Harris's ability to just sit back and chat with the audience without the assistance of extra notes means that when Hedges DID get up and go to the podium with his notes, everyone in the audience perceived an inequality between the two. @dweeper simply suggested that this inequality cast Hedges in a negative light in comparison.
@dweeper1020 It is admirable but, of course, having or not having the ability to debate without notes is no indication of whether someone's position is correct or reasonable.
@dweeper1020 Like many public intellectuals, Sam's deep well of rhetorical fluency draws from his writing. In fact, if you read his books you will find he often repeats long tracts of argumentation from them almost verbatim. As well he should. Writers and thinkers like Sam have worked very hard to assemble precisely the right words and ideas to engage the topics they find it important to address.
He doesn't need notes because he has thought, written, and repeated the same words countless times.
@williamhcarlton Yes, I understand that. I didn't think he was developing these well thought-out, deep and insightful ratiocinations spontaneously. I just like to listen to somebody who is articulate, with well reasoned arguments, and who isn't pausing to refer to his or her notes, or reading from them altogether.
@dweeper1020 He is an uncommonly good speaker. My comments were more for other viewers than for you, because your original comments will get so many views being at the top. I think I knew what you were really trying to get at and I agree. Sam doesn't dissemble. Every word counts. The contrast with Hedges could not be more complete.
"I love how Sam Harris, sits back in his chair, with NO notes, and just articulates his point in a humourous and powerful way."
The reason for this is Harris' argument is one of simplicity and ideology. OTOH, Hedges' argument is far more complex and historically inclusive.
Harris -- sorry to tell his many fan boys here on this post -- is out of his depth. The mere fact that Hedges has spent considerable time living in the Muslim world gives his thoughts far more moral weight.
Yea...Unfortunately his argument is "historically" false.
"has spent considerable time"
Does it really matter? Because "we" can easily refer to other people who spent time living there. As foreigners, as locals. Im sure many would draw a completely different picture.
"gives far more moral weight"
Even if he is objectively wrong? Of course not (e.g. it does NOT give his rambling thoughts more weight at all).
@dweeper1020 Add to it that it was clearly not part of the planned debate that Hedges went to the podium.
This tells me that Hedges is arrogant, and yet insecure. Arrogant for attempting to elevate himself above Harris and the moderator. Insecure for having taking the crutch of the podium and using it to shield or distance himself from the audience.
And he comes across as a poorly prepared speaker as well.
I like how Sam Harris was relaxed, sitting on a chair and basically butchering the arguments for religion one after another. This guy has his speech prepared and written down, reading of a piece of paper and using one fallacy after another.
There is no coherence to what Chris has said... I pity the audience members that had to sit through this blurb... would have been better to get on the podium and spout; " Blah Blah Blah! Blah Blah Blah!
He credits the Abrahamic relgions with creating the concept of the individual. That is so fucking stupid I want to punch myself in the face instead of the classic facepalm
Chris hedges says some very important things. I wish more people thought like him. However most people do see their God as a noun, and not a verb. This is the tragedy that Sam is trying to convey. Excellent vid.
Interesting that he points out as one of the first things his what he understands religion to be, and he does tend to take a very positive view of religion, while in Harris' estimation, religion seems to be that which is wrong with the world. Both of these men are speaking from personal experience with religion, and both are seeing the same reality, but interpret that reality in light of their personal experiences, I think.
His assertion that personal responsibility as coming from a holy book has been torn apart so long now I can't believe he actually brought it up. W/O god we can't be good?
So Chris' main argument seems to me to be "god equals everything good, goodness exists, therefore religion is true."
Total nonsense! He then proceeds into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, by defining anything bad as not real religion, therefore exempting "real" religion from any kind of criticism. Again, nonsense.
Also, this "god is a verb, not a noun" stuff is something I've heard other theists say before. I have no clue what that means, and I suspect anyone making that point doesn't either.
Islam, in its doctrine, holds respect for all other religion my , my. No surprise Hedges worked for NY Times. We have here ignorance and/or political correctness: a being who derives self-worth by degrading his own culture and civilization and exclaiming the virtues of others even where they do not exist. It's pathetic to watch. As Chris Hitchens has said, makes me want to throw up food I've forgetten I've ever eaten!
@12ut5 "As Chris Hitchens has said, makes me want to throw up food I've forgotten I've ever eaten!" wiping coffee off my screen.. I had forgotten that one thanks...
I think the flaw is in viewing it as an East - West dichotomy. There are currents in most societies that push, fight, organize and eventually win degrees of civility in an uncivilized world. This struggle is what unites people across religious or cultural background. I am an atheist but I have worked with so many deeply religious people making real differences (within the field of social work). Forming meaningful connections in this world is the real game, it's a shame we don't do it so well.
Wake up, Hedges. Most Christians believe in exactly that: an anthropomorphic god who sacrificed himself for them. Glad that, secretly, you're just as big of an atheist as Sam Harris, only you haven't come to terms with it.
@Narwal88 I think it is brave to acknowledge the complexity and uncertainty of such a sprawling issue. The point is that Harris distorts religion, Islam in particular, as he characterizes it as the primary source of numerous violent conflicts. Hedges illuminates what would be the elephant in the room for a society willing to recognize the role it plays in the world. It is brave to expose our (US) repressive actions, it is not brave to point the finger at Islam.
Fine. Harris distorts Islam. I'm fine with that assessment. The issue is: Hedges is a phony. It's obvious that he is an atheist himself in every conceivable definition of the word. And there is no justification for people murdering individuals who write books or cartoons that "offend" a religion. No analysis of US intervention in the Middle East/control of oil/support of dictators can ever justify the fact that maniacs kill over a stupid cartoon...
One thing that complicates the issue is that, whenever I feel moved to proclaim the superiority of Western 'civilization," I think of Auschwitz, the Nazis, millions of people killed in concentration camps, etc. It's hard to look at that evidence and suggest that Westerners are superior to people who kill over cartoons. The Holocaust was only 60 years ago. It's doubtful that we can reasonably state that we are considerably different now.
Hedge's argument is irrelevant because it's not representative of what we're dealing with. If everybody believed god is what Hedges thinks god is, then we wouldn't be going to sleep at night worried that a jihadist might get on the subway tomorrow morning. We have to confront what the vast majority of people in this world believe instead of talking about god in flowery, vague terms that bear no resemblance to the gods that 90% of the world believe in.
@mrw21 OK, but Hedges is trying to add the necessary economic and political context to understand why a religion may be contorted to justify certain actions. Religion does play many roles depending on the particular societal circumstances. Perhaps you should examine the economic policies, the status of forces agreements we have with countries around the world in so far as they contribute to global inequity. Wouldn't this be a more rational approach to your fear? We can impact these policies.
Sam and Chris are of a different class even though they are acedemics and thinkers. One far superior and genuine in every sense of meaning and reason. It doesn;t not take much to know Sam is the better one.
@HappyRogueStatus I guess he mostly wanted to state his general arguments since they are just at the beginning of the debate. He later on debates Sam.
The truth is they were both reciting things they'd written before. They completely spoke past one another. Sam Harris gave that EXACT speech elsewhere - and you can find it on youtube.
The biggest telling factor, in my mind, here is that Sam speaks from the heart and mind. he has no pre-written speech to give, he can simply speak what is in his mind without fear of 'getting it wrong'. Chris depends on his well-written speech to divert the audience's attention completely away from the subject of the debate, turning it instead into a very rational-sounding defense of personal beliefs. he shies away completely from the over-riding fact that religion preaches intolerance and hate
While I generally agree with Sam Harris, the reality is that he's delivered this exact speech before - you can find it on youtube. He just had it memorized, and pretended to be delivering it spontaneously.
Is it just me or does it seem like Sam Harris just figures out what he's going to say as he says it, no pre-written speeches? I don't ask that sarcastically, I'm genuinely impressed.
Wow, at 4:08 God used the quote, "I yam what I yam." Holy moley, as it turns out the source of all universal transcendent holt wisdom is.......Popeye the sailor man!?
What I find interesting is Sam is quiet, softly spoken and refers to his notes once in a while. This guy reads from a text, from a lectern... basically preaching...again.
How does writing something down kill the message? That is utter nonsense. And why does God need to utilize prophets instead of just telling us his messages himself? Hedges disappoints me because he is so smart otherwise. This is a perfect example of using a different set of standards for religion than other disciples.
I thought Sam won this contest when I first watched it as a logical positivist. On a careful reading of Hedges a year later, I note just how abominably facile are the scribblings of Sam, how politically innocent, how analagously right-wing. Like Hitchens the man trumpets the Afghanistan war and supports the belligerent militarism against Iran. Final result: Sam wins theologically, but Hedges prevails politically.
Chris thinks he is a Jedi. LOL His ramblings are such white noise, no rational or reasoned thinking. Lots of wishful embellishments on existence that do not exist. People who live by any of this crap are more prone to be disappointed in reality instead of being able to appreciate reality's awesomeness. Just cover it up with blah blah and ignor what devastating things that belief in the supernatural has done and is doing to our species and our tiny planet.
3:28 "the question is not whether god exists" actually, it IS the question. But Mr. Hedges would rather not have it be the question because he full well knows that the answers to the question would pull the plug on his entire magical mystery show.
@salro99 Harris is a much better speaker, one of the best I've ever come across, and he's funny, too. I disagree with this assessment though - I thought Harris did the best job, because he makes a lot more sense even though he's not recognizing any of the good that religion can do and how it's been pivotal to our development. Along with the development has come lots and lots of suffering that is divinely endorsed though, and Hedges makes no mention of it. Advantage: Sam.
Wow is Chris boring, and he comes with a prepared speech. No power point demonstration? But the kicker is that he doesn't respond to Sam but his book! Sorry Chris, Sam doesn't conflate tribalism and faith. It's you who conflates faith (no evidence) with spirituality.
He sounds insane. I agree with you, and you have to recognize that these people argue for the book, so they can only argue against other's set words. Not what they're talking about at the moment.
If imcompetence should make us refrain from insults, I'll bite my tongue in regards to your incompetence as to what Hedges is promoting here. Sounds like you think Hedges is a Bible-beater who's looking to justify his faith. As a longtime reader of his (and an agnostic) I can confidently say he's not trying to convert people. Here, he is clearly not attacking atheism itself, but people who would pervert it into a dichotomy to justify the oppression of others.
The more you type, the more you expose just how little you understand of what is going on. Not only did you just patronize me whilst proclaiming that you would not insult me, you completely misinterpreted a conversation that you had nothing to do with in the first place. Again, read it more carefully.
Anyway, you have two comments here that I came upon. Neither is directed at anyone but neither make sense by themselves since they are replying to someone. So I asked, "Who are these people?" to clarify. You decided, without insult of course, I was too incompetent for you to just inform me. So, I apologize for ruining your ad hominem attack on the guy who "sounds insane" and the "people" who "argue for the book". I'm sure you would eviscerate them.
Why don't you look at WHAT those comments are responding to? Maybe then you might be able to actually understand what's going on? They weren't ambiguous jabs, they were very concise, it just has -nothing- to do with you whatsoever. Sorry if you're incapable of understanding that I was conversing with someone else.
I assumed you were responding to Hedges "gifts of the Abrahamic Faiths" comment, like TheAstral1. I don't agree with that particular part of his case, either. But your comments stood out because they exemplify how people, atheists, in this case, make no effort to understand the other side's point but rush to marginalize on off-topic issues. Hedges' point is simple, "The problem is not religion, but the human heart." Do you really think that's an "insane" sentiment?
Absolutely. If it were inherently human than all people would have the same religious insanity that's in the world. Nevermind that Hedges is CHRISTIAN, he's just arguing that it's humans that subject themselves to the religious upbringing! People are brainwashed from a very young age, that's -all- religion is. When you're in trouble, reach your hand out to the Godhead to save yourself. "I will be what I will be." That doesn't sound like a person who's trying to convert others...
This first few minutes of Chris Hedges speech is not true at all. Everything he claims was given to us by the Abrahamic Faiths (individual responsibility) existed before those faiths had even emerged.
I never understand how Christians claim humility or any other virtue is a Christian virtue when these virtues existed before Christianity.
Well before it. You forget that the earth has only been around for 5,500 years and none of the ancient races seem to remember this God fellow quite as clearly as these Christians and Jews.
Moral philosophy was highly developed in ancient Greece. And even if it were true that the philosophy of personal responsibility originated as part of Abrahamic religion, it does NOT follow that Abrahamic religion was necessary for this development. Hedges assumes an awful lot!
Exactly. It's a totally ignorant claim. Moral philosophy was highly developed in ancient Greece. And even if it were true that the philosophy of personal responsibility originated as part of Abrahamic religion, it does NOT follow that Abrahamic religion was necessary for this development. Hedges assumes an awful lot!
@TheAstral1 Sure, he;s wrong about that, but then for argument's sake, even if those Faiths did help bring about what he claims... The world has changed a great deal since then (particularly just in the last few centries!) and we have science and reason and moral philosophy like never before to help us reasses what it means to be human and to evolve our cooperation. Sam Rocks - he's kicking everyone's arse.
@TheAstral1 well it seems that what he says Sam says is exactly what religion is. Superstition. There is no difference between belief in the major gods (read Abrahamic) is no better then believing in walking under a ladder is bad luck. it is all built upon a primitive mind set that had no way to apprehend what was really happening when it comes to illness, physics, psychology so it grasped at the best straws it could and some superstitions became "God".
@TheAstral1 Had enough people been bopped on the head walking under ladders we may well be worshiping the ACME step ladder idol. "Blessed is he walks upon this Holy Ladder that he may be lifted up. Woe to those who walk beneath, for they shall ere be smote into ruin. Sears Catalog Book of Hardware's chpt 5: 5-7 (and please only the pre-1944 WWII version is the true version of this Holy Catalog
@TheAstral1 It's no different than saying "freedom is an American value" when freedom clearly existed beforehand as well. I don't have a problem with Christians claiming humility or other virtues as Christian, as long as they don't claim them as EXCLUSIVELY Christian or as originating from Christianity.
Hedges believes religion should be a nice, wishy washy, non-literal ethical system. God may not even exist to him.
Well unfortunately for you Chris, the majority of American Christians do not believe as you do. And unlike Hedges, those Christians get their religion directly from the Bible.
As Sam says, "moderates" like Hedges are not only intellectually dishonest, but theologically dishonest.
It's a shame hedges' doesn't revere truth as much as Harris does. How else could he not see religion for what it really is. Tradition would be a better description of people's stubborn adherence to their faith.
Hedges tells us that Jesus didn't make use of the written word in case it got into the wrong hands.....why, i wonder did God think it was a good idea, not merely to have his word written down but have various humans write it down for him. Seems to me one only needs to say something often enough in order to have your view given credence. I'm no philosopher or great intellectual, but i'd have more respect for an audience than to spew this crap.
What hedges is implying is that it is not moral nor immoral to believe or not believe in a god. Believing in a theist god is in itself not immoral but becomes immoral when one adopts doctrines.
Chris Hedges makes me want to kill myself.
orbital92hotmail 3 days ago
Hedges is the only person arguing on the other side that I've had to skip through in any debate. And that's saying something since I've sat through William Lane Craig.
WolfgangBrozart 3 days ago
"Faith is not in conflict with reason. Faith does not conflict with scientific truth, unless faith claims to express a scientific truth. Faith can neither be affirmed nor denied by scientific, historical, or philosophical truth. And here I think Sam confuses the irrational which he sees as a part of faith, with the non-rational. There is a reality which is not a product of rational deduction, it is not accounted for by strict rational discourse. There is a dimension to spiritual human existence"
dvzqz87 1 month ago
@dvzqz87 "in the universe but this is not irrational, it is non-rational. Faith allows us to transcend our mania for conclusions, a mania which is one of humanities most useless and sterile drives." - Hedges.
dvzqz87 1 month ago
Chris Hedge's entire speech: Umm, err, umm, err, uh, ya know, err, umm.
Stick to writing Chris.
cyberslick18 1 month ago
@cyberslick18 words of someone who watched the first 40 seconds of his speech and x'ed out of the window
dvzqz87 1 month ago
@dvzqz87 Yes, you're right, I didn't watch all 9 videos, only this 30 seconds and made an angry comment.
cyberslick18 1 month ago
It laid the foundation for our civilizations? Apparently, no one before these religions had a civilization & no one survived. Does he not think about the Greeks? They had probably the biggest impact on the blue print of how future 'empires' would be built, much more so than those religions. Unless you mean foundation as in, the dark ages, witch hunts, inquisition, ethnic cleansing, the raping of children, slavery of men, oppression of women, then yeah, they certainly laid a foundation alright.
allfitch84 2 months ago
Pat Robertson is America's Osama and his 700 Club is America's Taliban!
BigFatHeretic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hedges is so stupid, he's been to the shitholes where fairtales are in charge. But he doesn't see the problem.
Maybe because injustice provides his global mealticket and he's a reli-muppet himself.
Hey, at least the mosquedwellers believe in a god, better than nothing right?
I hear him think it....
sonykroket 3 months ago in playlist Truthdig Debate: Sam Harris vs Chris Hedges
Comment removed
sonykroket 3 months ago in playlist Truthdig Debate: Sam Harris vs Chris Hedges
Love your neighbor, not you tribe? Love your neighbor and kill all of the other tribes. . .
What the fuck. . . the word god does not equal "life has meaning." Why can't you quantify this "mysterious force?" A "process" of what? "Life force?" Is this star wars now or something?
What the fuck is this guy talking about?
<3 Sam Harris
TheSH1N1GAM1 4 months ago
this dude looks like an alien's boiled foreskin
maryamelena 5 months ago 2
Holy shit, this guy is talking absolute rubbish.
ImperialUSA 5 months ago 5
2:15. Really. Is this guy really going to stand behind a podium and read his entire statement? That's a big contrast from watching Sam Harris sit back in a chair and eloquently make his points with logic, reason, and ease.
TonyRush 5 months ago 4
@TonyRush "That's a big contrast from watching Sam Harris sit back in a chair and eloquently make his points with logic, reason, and ease."
Simple minds present simple ideas in a simplistic manner. Obviously Hedges' presentation was too complex and nuanced for you, as well as the dozens of Harris' fanboys posting on this vid.
So what that Hedges reads his statement? What does such an observation say about its content?
Our society is awash with simplistic buffoons.
bapyou 3 months ago in playlist CHRIS HEDGES
@bapyou They ARE simple ideas. Hedges, on the other hand, seems intent on overcomplicating them as a way of obscuring the fact that he's presenting a losing case. It seems to be a case of, "If you can't beat 'em, baffle them with rhetoric". I'm not saying that Hedge had no good points. But, no....reading a prepared statement is not the same as "responding" to what the other speaker said.
TonyRush 3 months ago
@bapyou Perhaps you should watch the video 'hitchens ends hedges career.' Hitchens basically back him into the corner he made for himself, then lays the hitch-slap on him haha It's almost one of those awkward moments where you feel bad, but at the same time so awesome you cannot look away lol
allfitch84 2 months ago
...and your point is what, Mr. Hedges?? My head hurts. His thinking is so convoluted.
windspinnyfarm 5 months ago 6
he mentions the Tamils as the originators of martyrdom,what about the Japanese "Kamikazes" in WW2?
SuperCorycory 5 months ago 2
@SuperCorycory you misheard. He said "suicide bombing", as we understand it today I assume. 09:20
woodbell67 3 weeks ago
None of us could have ever learned to ride a bike without training wheels. Therefore, we should never get rid of our training wheels. Even if we can bike perfectly well without them. If you try to convince me that it might make my bike ultimately safer and more maneuverable to dispense with the training wheels, you are obviously an incipient fascist who is no better than Al Queda.
pentopia 5 months ago
Hedges lost all credibility as he got up out of his chair to read points from the podium. He pales in comparison to Harris' clarity.
brianALL58 5 months ago 4
Chris Hedges is the literal embodiment of sanctimonious stupidity.
rastaenzocat 6 months ago 5
The Abrahamic religions created 'the concept of the individual' and 'the separation of powers'. So, on this account, the Athenians had no notion of self outwith their tribe? And all those centuries of European absolutist monarchs claiming to rule by divine mandate recognised by the Pope was... a joke?
Here he tells us moralists eschewed writing for fear of codification; in his recent TruthDigg article he tells us "morals and ethics never change". This guy is like a intellectual cargo cult.
Faboba 6 months ago 2
stop saying what SAM says, and say what you mean.
smellyfooty 6 months ago 2
It's Max Headroom! I was wondering what happened to him ...
kelco93 6 months ago
He looks and sounds like he is making a sermon. No rapport with the audience and empty platitudes, yawn ...
tyroy57 6 months ago
by Hedges definition, Sam Harris is a prophet! Love how he is more comfortable preaching from a pulpit than engaging in a true debate. He has a weak mind.
nurseratchit 6 months ago
man what load of bullshit
MrCarelo 6 months ago
If you stop tolerating the intolerant, don't you then have to stop tollerating yourself?
Guffington 6 months ago 3
Harris comes across as a intellectual heavyweight and Hedges as a lightweight
VINYLTROUSERS1 6 months ago 7
Comment removed
riderowned 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VINYLTROUSERS1 Hedge doesn't have any intellectual weight
riderowned 6 months ago
Wow, I kind of want to hate Hedges, but he's so boring, so lacking in charisma and rhetorical skill, that I just wind up feeling bad for him.
afetherw8 6 months ago 13
The Abrahamic religions are responsible for the concept of the individual? Tell that to Muslim women, who aren't allowed to be individuals. What about blacks under slavery, and even Western women up to a couple hundred years ago?
jmwooldridge60 6 months ago 16
Hedges = insanity
afkmofo 6 months ago 4
What a load of poorly articulated, empty word salad Chris Hedges produces here. Its all assertion without reason, straw men arguments and obfuscation. I had to hit thumbs down for this part of the debate. :(
DanDare2050 6 months ago 2
I don't admire fundamentalists, but I almost prefer it to the incomprehensible New Agey drivel spouted by Hedges. What the hell is he blathering about?
jdawgmcdawg 6 months ago 5
I've never heard such a long string of unsubstantiated claims. Sam should have just gotten up after this opening statement and explained the burden of evidence to the audience then left the room.
irreverent79 6 months ago
hedges....what a idiot
bcbk93 6 months ago
"In Exodus, God says by way of identification, 'I am that I am.'" It all makes sense now -- Popeye is God.
doctorphantasm 6 months ago 5
@doctorphantasm xD
patrick112590 6 months ago
I wish I could be even half as articulate as Sam Harris. I'll pray for it!
wlym 6 months ago 3
HUMANITY must be "our ultimate concern, that in which we should place our highest hopes, confidence and trust" not some ancient mythology that focuses on separating 'us' from 'them' and allows us to brush under the cosmic rug all the bad things that we do to one another. Face it CH, all we have is each other when the chips are down.......your god didn't help those people in the World Trade Centre, nor did he stop the mass shooting of children in Norway last week.
wildheartmuse 6 months ago
So the Abrahamic religions endowed individualism? Wrong. It fuelled tribalism. It fuelled groupthink methodologies on the world we see and no more so in the US. Individualism was determined in China long before Christianity or Judaism came on the scene. It sounds like Chris Hedges is making an argument for religious intervention towards Communist principles. Poor reasoning.
vjohn82 6 months ago
If writing something down "kills" it and makes it less valid than something that was merely said, how can a belief in God be justified? Belief in God is derived from the Bible, so wouldn't that make the information contained therein less valid, and therefore, a belief that the information is true, also less valid?
SlaughterMeister 6 months ago
What a clown.
AmbroseEpeeMaster 6 months ago 2
He does actually make a lot of sense, but I cannot endorse a lot of his views. As an aside, I like how he has spent so much time with muslims, yet continues to incorrectly pronounce the word as ‘muzz–lims’.
Rascaduanok 6 months ago
Sam wins this section of the debate without saying a word
iansaidhi 6 months ago 5
samharris*org/blog/item/why-id-rather-not-speak-about-torture1/ Please replace the * with a period, and thumbs up my comment if you'd like to reduce the idiotic notion that Sam is pro-torture, because this is getting ridiculous.
ArgoSG 9 months ago
Harris is clearly of a much higher IQ than the other guy...which has me thinking....how many IQ spots would a random sample of Atheists be above a random sample of believers?
13tigertim 9 months ago
@13tigertim There are stats on this question. Athiests score about 15 points higher. Just google it.
johneamer 8 months ago
Comment removed
13tigertim 9 months ago
Harris is terrific...Hedges has nothing but flowery meaningless words....
funcpl2741054 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
my god, sam harris is mind-numbingly stupid and ill-informed.
shankyxyz 11 months ago
@shankyxyz I'm interested in seeing your rebuttal to Harris's words.
GoddessFourWinds 10 months ago
i just watched sam harris's parts
Dpesh7 11 months ago
Chris Hedges is brilliant in political perspective - i have no idea what his religion talk is about
johnpotter26 11 months ago 2
Why does he stand at a podium while Sam didn't?
Nemesis000000 11 months ago
religious debates these days are stuck between morons who belive in mysticism and fairy tales, and annoying asperger nerds that have absolutely no ability to comprehend spirituality in any sense. Most atheists reason that no religious text is literally true and think the argument is over. All thats left to do is look smug and tell unfunny jokes. Chris Hedges is a really smart and well read guy, and his arguments are light years beyond sam harris.
version191 11 months ago
This Hedges dude has delivered the most autistic rhetoric ploy that I ever heard from a debater of Harris. Otherwise, the same vagaries, ambiguities, non-sequiturs, etc. from the religious arsenal.
entropia34332 11 months ago 5
Did he actually try to claim that irrational and non-rational are different words? The stupid... it hurts!
GermyJer 11 months ago
@GermyJer He is making the distinction that some things are irrational in the sense that they break the rules of reason, and there are other things that are outside the realm of reason altogether. If you can`t comprehend this you are far too uneducated to debate these things.
version191 11 months ago
@version191 I understood his point... the point I'm questioning was his idiotic choice to use "ir-" and "non-" as if they meant something different. Ad hominems are not necessary.
GermyJer 11 months ago
@GermyJer You're right, it was a bad word choice and my comment was uncalled for
version191 11 months ago 3
@version191 Wow... did I just experience... kindness and polite discourse on a youtube comment thread? That was unexpected! Thank you for helping me to believe in humanity again!
GermyJer 11 months ago
@GermyJer Well actually, irrational and non-rational may well be different words. While it is true that the prefix ir- more or less means the same as the prefix non-, when you use them to create complex words, the complex words no longer necessarily mean the same, because of lexicalization of words. The meanings of the words we used aren't a sum of the morphemes that make up the word in predictable ways. In this case, I don't know if non-rational is already lexicalized on its own... contd-
Whatsifsowhatsit 8 months ago
@GermyJer contd- but if it is, it might mean something like "not related to the rational" as opposed to the meaning of irrational as "inconsistent with the rational". And if it is not, then he might just be using the prefix non- to contrast with ir- to illustrate that distinction in meaning, which, in the context, one can take from what he is saying otherwise.
Whatsifsowhatsit 8 months ago
I love how Sam Harris, sits back in his chair, with NO notes, and just articulates his point in a humourous and powerful way. His opponent is forced to read his lecture notes.
What a bright and rational man, Sam Harris is.
dweeper1020 11 months ago 146
@dweeper1020 You don`t need notes when your entire speech consists of one single-minded argument and a bunch of unfunny and smug jokes
version191 11 months ago
@version191 So, it should be easy for you to simply dismantle at least one of his arguments for us to fall in awe in front of your intelligence, rather than just the sterile tirade you served us... Please, go on.
Acrimonator 9 months ago
@dweeper1020 "Sam Harris, sits back in his chair, with NO notes, and just articulates his point in a humourous and powerful way. His opponent is forced to read his lecture notes."
No one "froced" Hedges to read from notes. You misrepresent him. Hedges used notes, I think, because his argument is far more nuanced, provocative and historically situated than Harris's argument, which, next to Hedges' argument, in my opinion seems one-dimensional, pedantic and churlish.
bapyou 10 months ago
@bapyou Wow, dude. 'No one "froced" Hedges to read from notes.' No one is saying that literally someone required that Hedges read from his notes. However, Harris's ability to just sit back and chat with the audience without the assistance of extra notes means that when Hedges DID get up and go to the podium with his notes, everyone in the audience perceived an inequality between the two. @dweeper simply suggested that this inequality cast Hedges in a negative light in comparison.
nickr753 9 months ago
@dweeper1020 To bad he is so freaking wrong-and a neocon war monger.
RPenta 7 months ago
@dweeper1020 It is admirable but, of course, having or not having the ability to debate without notes is no indication of whether someone's position is correct or reasonable.
Strangerinasland 6 months ago
@dweeper1020 Like many public intellectuals, Sam's deep well of rhetorical fluency draws from his writing. In fact, if you read his books you will find he often repeats long tracts of argumentation from them almost verbatim. As well he should. Writers and thinkers like Sam have worked very hard to assemble precisely the right words and ideas to engage the topics they find it important to address.
He doesn't need notes because he has thought, written, and repeated the same words countless times.
williamhcarlton 6 months ago 2
@williamhcarlton Yes, I understand that. I didn't think he was developing these well thought-out, deep and insightful ratiocinations spontaneously. I just like to listen to somebody who is articulate, with well reasoned arguments, and who isn't pausing to refer to his or her notes, or reading from them altogether.
He's a good speaker.
dweeper1020 6 months ago
@dweeper1020 He is an uncommonly good speaker. My comments were more for other viewers than for you, because your original comments will get so many views being at the top. I think I knew what you were really trying to get at and I agree. Sam doesn't dissemble. Every word counts. The contrast with Hedges could not be more complete.
williamhcarlton 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@dweeper1020
"I love how Sam Harris, sits back in his chair, with NO notes, and just articulates his point in a humourous and powerful way."
The reason for this is Harris' argument is one of simplicity and ideology. OTOH, Hedges' argument is far more complex and historically inclusive.
Harris -- sorry to tell his many fan boys here on this post -- is out of his depth. The mere fact that Hedges has spent considerable time living in the Muslim world gives his thoughts far more moral weight.
bapyou 6 months ago
@bapyou
"more complex and historically inclusive"
Yea...Unfortunately his argument is "historically" false.
"has spent considerable time"
Does it really matter? Because "we" can easily refer to other people who spent time living there. As foreigners, as locals. Im sure many would draw a completely different picture.
"gives far more moral weight"
Even if he is objectively wrong? Of course not (e.g. it does NOT give his rambling thoughts more weight at all).
Wrath0fKhan 6 months ago
@dweeper1020 Add to it that it was clearly not part of the planned debate that Hedges went to the podium.
This tells me that Hedges is arrogant, and yet insecure. Arrogant for attempting to elevate himself above Harris and the moderator. Insecure for having taking the crutch of the podium and using it to shield or distance himself from the audience.
And he comes across as a poorly prepared speaker as well.
AGrandt 6 months ago 3
@dweeper1020 "Writing freezes speech." Indeed it does, Mr. Hedges.
buckminsterhn 6 months ago
Comment removed
sincerelyskeptical 6 months ago
@dweeper1020 and 5:13 = irony
sincerelyskeptical 6 months ago
@dweeper1020 It's as if the guy has no ideas of his own; he just keeps paraphrasing other, better thinkers.
DaToNyOyO 4 months ago
I like how Sam Harris was relaxed, sitting on a chair and basically butchering the arguments for religion one after another. This guy has his speech prepared and written down, reading of a piece of paper and using one fallacy after another.
DrInfidel 11 months ago 4
There is no coherence to what Chris has said... I pity the audience members that had to sit through this blurb... would have been better to get on the podium and spout; " Blah Blah Blah! Blah Blah Blah!
kennydaluz 11 months ago 3
He credits the Abrahamic relgions with creating the concept of the individual. That is so fucking stupid I want to punch myself in the face instead of the classic facepalm
InnerSmile72 11 months ago 93
@InnerSmile72 Yep. It would be more reasonable to say Abrahamic religions created the concept of the Borg.
Strangerinasland 6 months ago
@InnerSmile72
Yeah, I guess before Moses came along, we were all Borg.
Joeofiowa 4 months ago 3
wait.. "love thy neighbor" is not tribalistic? isn't it THE epitome of tribalism? why only your neighbor and not every living creature?
because it represents: Care only for the ones close to you. AKA Tribalism!!!!!!!
HolyFictionOrg 11 months ago
Comment removed
version191 11 months ago
Chris hedges says some very important things. I wish more people thought like him. However most people do see their God as a noun, and not a verb. This is the tragedy that Sam is trying to convey. Excellent vid.
isisdron 11 months ago
Chris's speech goes something like this...."Uh Uh And Um, Uhhh *read notes word for word* uH and Um".
BadMannerKorea 11 months ago
What a faggot. Not gay, just faggot.
88Savant 1 year ago
Interesting that he points out as one of the first things his what he understands religion to be, and he does tend to take a very positive view of religion, while in Harris' estimation, religion seems to be that which is wrong with the world. Both of these men are speaking from personal experience with religion, and both are seeing the same reality, but interpret that reality in light of their personal experiences, I think.
Lefeurouge 1 year ago
His assertion that personal responsibility as coming from a holy book has been torn apart so long now I can't believe he actually brought it up. W/O god we can't be good?
eahazell 1 year ago
So Chris' main argument seems to me to be "god equals everything good, goodness exists, therefore religion is true."
Total nonsense! He then proceeds into the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, by defining anything bad as not real religion, therefore exempting "real" religion from any kind of criticism. Again, nonsense.
Also, this "god is a verb, not a noun" stuff is something I've heard other theists say before. I have no clue what that means, and I suspect anyone making that point doesn't either.
dgumbrecht 1 year ago
Islam, in its doctrine, holds respect for all other religion my , my. No surprise Hedges worked for NY Times. We have here ignorance and/or political correctness: a being who derives self-worth by degrading his own culture and civilization and exclaiming the virtues of others even where they do not exist. It's pathetic to watch. As Chris Hitchens has said, makes me want to throw up food I've forgetten I've ever eaten!
12ut5 1 year ago
@12ut5 "As Chris Hitchens has said, makes me want to throw up food I've forgotten I've ever eaten!" wiping coffee off my screen.. I had forgotten that one thanks...
eahazell 1 year ago 2
@eahazell Any time. I won't be held responsible for replacing any part of your computer, though, be it screen or keyboard, etc.
12ut5 1 year ago
Faith cannot be affirmed, nor denied... lol
naneux 1 year ago
Wow, his whole statement was an inadverdent creation of a dogma. Hey mr. Hedges, tell it to the religious.
Pacinofan78 1 year ago
I think the flaw is in viewing it as an East - West dichotomy. There are currents in most societies that push, fight, organize and eventually win degrees of civility in an uncivilized world. This struggle is what unites people across religious or cultural background. I am an atheist but I have worked with so many deeply religious people making real differences (within the field of social work). Forming meaningful connections in this world is the real game, it's a shame we don't do it so well.
1canondocre 1 year ago
I find it funny that the best debate partners to people like Sam are always super moderates who take no firm stances or make any definitive points.
inademv 1 year ago
Hedges is so disingenuous, it is beyond belief.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
I hate how these religious defenders talk so much but say so little!!
SlayingMinion 1 year ago
"Childish notion of an anthropomorphic god."
Wake up, Hedges. Most Christians believe in exactly that: an anthropomorphic god who sacrificed himself for them. Glad that, secretly, you're just as big of an atheist as Sam Harris, only you haven't come to terms with it.
Narwal88 1 year ago
1:00: "In some vague way I consider myself religious."
Way to clearly define and defend your position, Hedges....
How brave...
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88 I think it is brave to acknowledge the complexity and uncertainty of such a sprawling issue. The point is that Harris distorts religion, Islam in particular, as he characterizes it as the primary source of numerous violent conflicts. Hedges illuminates what would be the elephant in the room for a society willing to recognize the role it plays in the world. It is brave to expose our (US) repressive actions, it is not brave to point the finger at Islam.
1canondocre 1 year ago
@1canondocre
Fine. Harris distorts Islam. I'm fine with that assessment. The issue is: Hedges is a phony. It's obvious that he is an atheist himself in every conceivable definition of the word. And there is no justification for people murdering individuals who write books or cartoons that "offend" a religion. No analysis of US intervention in the Middle East/control of oil/support of dictators can ever justify the fact that maniacs kill over a stupid cartoon...
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88
One thing that complicates the issue is that, whenever I feel moved to proclaim the superiority of Western 'civilization," I think of Auschwitz, the Nazis, millions of people killed in concentration camps, etc. It's hard to look at that evidence and suggest that Westerners are superior to people who kill over cartoons. The Holocaust was only 60 years ago. It's doubtful that we can reasonably state that we are considerably different now.
Narwal88 1 year ago
Hedge's argument is irrelevant because it's not representative of what we're dealing with. If everybody believed god is what Hedges thinks god is, then we wouldn't be going to sleep at night worried that a jihadist might get on the subway tomorrow morning. We have to confront what the vast majority of people in this world believe instead of talking about god in flowery, vague terms that bear no resemblance to the gods that 90% of the world believe in.
mrw21 1 year ago
@mrw21 EXACTLYLY. my dad is just like that. YOUR INTERPRETATION IS NOT THE SAME AS THE OTHER BILLIONS LOL
cnestudy1 1 year ago
@mrw21 OK, but Hedges is trying to add the necessary economic and political context to understand why a religion may be contorted to justify certain actions. Religion does play many roles depending on the particular societal circumstances. Perhaps you should examine the economic policies, the status of forces agreements we have with countries around the world in so far as they contribute to global inequity. Wouldn't this be a more rational approach to your fear? We can impact these policies.
1canondocre 1 year ago
lol religious people always come up with crap to debate about
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
Sam and Chris are of a different class even though they are acedemics and thinkers. One far superior and genuine in every sense of meaning and reason. It doesn;t not take much to know Sam is the better one.
sgpquek 1 year ago
What the bollox is Chris Hedges going on about? Blah , blah fucking blah! What a waste of what appears to be an otherwise intelligent mind.
rooflee 1 year ago
why can't he just debate instead of reading something he wrote sometime before
HappyRogueStatus 1 year ago
@HappyRogueStatus I guess he mostly wanted to state his general arguments since they are just at the beginning of the debate. He later on debates Sam.
astronivo20XX 1 year ago
@HappyRogueStatus
The truth is they were both reciting things they'd written before. They completely spoke past one another. Sam Harris gave that EXACT speech elsewhere - and you can find it on youtube.
Politicimo 1 year ago
The biggest telling factor, in my mind, here is that Sam speaks from the heart and mind. he has no pre-written speech to give, he can simply speak what is in his mind without fear of 'getting it wrong'. Chris depends on his well-written speech to divert the audience's attention completely away from the subject of the debate, turning it instead into a very rational-sounding defense of personal beliefs. he shies away completely from the over-riding fact that religion preaches intolerance and hate
ThePassiveFist 1 year ago
@ThePassiveFist
While I generally agree with Sam Harris, the reality is that he's delivered this exact speech before - you can find it on youtube. He just had it memorized, and pretended to be delivering it spontaneously.
Politicimo 1 year ago
Is it just me or does it seem like Sam Harris just figures out what he's going to say as he says it, no pre-written speeches? I don't ask that sarcastically, I'm genuinely impressed.
sakkamarra 1 year ago
Comment removed
kasuskasus 1 year ago
With a head that big you would think he has more brains in it
hesh2 1 year ago
Notice how Sam Harris didn't need any papers to express himself and get his point across ulike this God.
Wordlaw12 1 year ago 2
Wow, at 4:08 God used the quote, "I yam what I yam." Holy moley, as it turns out the source of all universal transcendent holt wisdom is.......Popeye the sailor man!?
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
What I find interesting is Sam is quiet, softly spoken and refers to his notes once in a while. This guy reads from a text, from a lectern... basically preaching...again.
ospTube 1 year ago
Spiritual science is better than religion.
Whyisthat101 1 year ago
How does writing something down kill the message? That is utter nonsense. And why does God need to utilize prophets instead of just telling us his messages himself? Hedges disappoints me because he is so smart otherwise. This is a perfect example of using a different set of standards for religion than other disciples.
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
I thought Sam won this contest when I first watched it as a logical positivist. On a careful reading of Hedges a year later, I note just how abominably facile are the scribblings of Sam, how politically innocent, how analagously right-wing. Like Hitchens the man trumpets the Afghanistan war and supports the belligerent militarism against Iran. Final result: Sam wins theologically, but Hedges prevails politically.
PhilosopherSY 1 year ago
Chris thinks he is a Jedi. LOL His ramblings are such white noise, no rational or reasoned thinking. Lots of wishful embellishments on existence that do not exist. People who live by any of this crap are more prone to be disappointed in reality instead of being able to appreciate reality's awesomeness. Just cover it up with blah blah and ignor what devastating things that belief in the supernatural has done and is doing to our species and our tiny planet.
RhondaH 1 year ago
@RhondaH I agree. I found it very hard to get through his portion of the debate. He's just missing the point.
Zeuts85 1 year ago
3:28 "the question is not whether god exists" actually, it IS the question. But Mr. Hedges would rather not have it be the question because he full well knows that the answers to the question would pull the plug on his entire magical mystery show.
fctchk 1 year ago
Chris Hedges wins this one. New Atheists like Sam Harris' forays into politics invariably end up degenerating into Islamophobia.
tneal86 1 year ago
@tneal86
Lmao
Wordlaw12 1 year ago
I've read transcripts of this, and in the written transcript, Chris completly dominates Sam utterly.
However, actually seeing Chris reveals that , oh lord, he really isn't the best speaker, is he?
however, this is a debate about ideas, not a beauty pageant.
advantage: Chris
sorry fanboys.
salro99 1 year ago
@salro99 Harris is a much better speaker, one of the best I've ever come across, and he's funny, too. I disagree with this assessment though - I thought Harris did the best job, because he makes a lot more sense even though he's not recognizing any of the good that religion can do and how it's been pivotal to our development. Along with the development has come lots and lots of suffering that is divinely endorsed though, and Hedges makes no mention of it. Advantage: Sam.
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
Why the fuck does he have a podium?
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
1:07 I think you'll find you are the one doing the conflation.
1:45 to 2:12 and 4:55 Socrates was an Abrahamic prophet.
2:27 There's not thing about tribalism in the Torah.
Aletheophile 1 year ago
this guys cherry picking already, what a joke!
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
Wow is Chris boring, and he comes with a prepared speech. No power point demonstration? But the kicker is that he doesn't respond to Sam but his book! Sorry Chris, Sam doesn't conflate tribalism and faith. It's you who conflates faith (no evidence) with spirituality.
mofofosho13 2 years ago
He sounds insane. I agree with you, and you have to recognize that these people argue for the book, so they can only argue against other's set words. Not what they're talking about at the moment.
SocialDissimulation 2 years ago 2
@SocialDissimulation
Who are "these people"?
mutefx 1 year ago
@mutefx Harris and Hedges, who did you think the speakers were?
holio84 1 year ago
I shan't insult when there's a modicum of incompetence. Just read it a little more carefully.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation
If imcompetence should make us refrain from insults, I'll bite my tongue in regards to your incompetence as to what Hedges is promoting here. Sounds like you think Hedges is a Bible-beater who's looking to justify his faith. As a longtime reader of his (and an agnostic) I can confidently say he's not trying to convert people. Here, he is clearly not attacking atheism itself, but people who would pervert it into a dichotomy to justify the oppression of others.
mutefx 1 year ago
The more you type, the more you expose just how little you understand of what is going on. Not only did you just patronize me whilst proclaiming that you would not insult me, you completely misinterpreted a conversation that you had nothing to do with in the first place. Again, read it more carefully.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation
Anyway, you have two comments here that I came upon. Neither is directed at anyone but neither make sense by themselves since they are replying to someone. So I asked, "Who are these people?" to clarify. You decided, without insult of course, I was too incompetent for you to just inform me. So, I apologize for ruining your ad hominem attack on the guy who "sounds insane" and the "people" who "argue for the book". I'm sure you would eviscerate them.
mutefx 1 year ago
Why don't you look at WHAT those comments are responding to? Maybe then you might be able to actually understand what's going on? They weren't ambiguous jabs, they were very concise, it just has -nothing- to do with you whatsoever. Sorry if you're incapable of understanding that I was conversing with someone else.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@SocialDissimulation
I assumed you were responding to Hedges "gifts of the Abrahamic Faiths" comment, like TheAstral1. I don't agree with that particular part of his case, either. But your comments stood out because they exemplify how people, atheists, in this case, make no effort to understand the other side's point but rush to marginalize on off-topic issues. Hedges' point is simple, "The problem is not religion, but the human heart." Do you really think that's an "insane" sentiment?
mutefx 1 year ago
Absolutely. If it were inherently human than all people would have the same religious insanity that's in the world. Nevermind that Hedges is CHRISTIAN, he's just arguing that it's humans that subject themselves to the religious upbringing! People are brainwashed from a very young age, that's -all- religion is. When you're in trouble, reach your hand out to the Godhead to save yourself. "I will be what I will be." That doesn't sound like a person who's trying to convert others...
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
This first few minutes of Chris Hedges speech is not true at all. Everything he claims was given to us by the Abrahamic Faiths (individual responsibility) existed before those faiths had even emerged.
I never understand how Christians claim humility or any other virtue is a Christian virtue when these virtues existed before Christianity.
TheAstral1 2 years ago 78
Well before it. You forget that the earth has only been around for 5,500 years and none of the ancient races seem to remember this God fellow quite as clearly as these Christians and Jews.
SocialDissimulation 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
JohnColt 1 year ago
Moral philosophy was highly developed in ancient Greece. And even if it were true that the philosophy of personal responsibility originated as part of Abrahamic religion, it does NOT follow that Abrahamic religion was necessary for this development. Hedges assumes an awful lot!
JohnColt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAstral1
Exactly. It's a totally ignorant claim. Moral philosophy was highly developed in ancient Greece. And even if it were true that the philosophy of personal responsibility originated as part of Abrahamic religion, it does NOT follow that Abrahamic religion was necessary for this development. Hedges assumes an awful lot!
JohnColt 1 year ago
@TheAstral1 I agree. Did you know... "The Good Samaritan" was an Atheist? I find that really interesting.
ospTube 1 year ago
@TheAstral1 Sure, he;s wrong about that, but then for argument's sake, even if those Faiths did help bring about what he claims... The world has changed a great deal since then (particularly just in the last few centries!) and we have science and reason and moral philosophy like never before to help us reasses what it means to be human and to evolve our cooperation. Sam Rocks - he's kicking everyone's arse.
MrDarkbloom 1 year ago
@TheAstral1 well it seems that what he says Sam says is exactly what religion is. Superstition. There is no difference between belief in the major gods (read Abrahamic) is no better then believing in walking under a ladder is bad luck. it is all built upon a primitive mind set that had no way to apprehend what was really happening when it comes to illness, physics, psychology so it grasped at the best straws it could and some superstitions became "God".
eahazell 1 year ago
@TheAstral1 Had enough people been bopped on the head walking under ladders we may well be worshiping the ACME step ladder idol. "Blessed is he walks upon this Holy Ladder that he may be lifted up. Woe to those who walk beneath, for they shall ere be smote into ruin. Sears Catalog Book of Hardware's chpt 5: 5-7 (and please only the pre-1944 WWII version is the true version of this Holy Catalog
eahazell 1 year ago
@TheAstral1 It's no different than saying "freedom is an American value" when freedom clearly existed beforehand as well. I don't have a problem with Christians claiming humility or other virtues as Christian, as long as they don't claim them as EXCLUSIVELY Christian or as originating from Christianity.
paolung 11 months ago
our drive to require conclusion is "one of humanities most useless and sterile drives"
I think that is probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
deloford 2 years ago 4
Hedges with the typical Christian bs argument.
Hedges believes religion should be a nice, wishy washy, non-literal ethical system. God may not even exist to him.
Well unfortunately for you Chris, the majority of American Christians do not believe as you do. And unlike Hedges, those Christians get their religion directly from the Bible.
As Sam says, "moderates" like Hedges are not only intellectually dishonest, but theologically dishonest.
jsampras3 2 years ago 5
Abraham gave us the ability to chose to be different and defy authority? Dumbass.
Atheists are the one's being persecuted. Atheists are trying to defy the current Christian authority!
drche420 2 years ago 4
It's a shame hedges' doesn't revere truth as much as Harris does. How else could he not see religion for what it really is. Tradition would be a better description of people's stubborn adherence to their faith.
toelesshoe 2 years ago 3
Hedges tells us that Jesus didn't make use of the written word in case it got into the wrong hands.....why, i wonder did God think it was a good idea, not merely to have his word written down but have various humans write it down for him. Seems to me one only needs to say something often enough in order to have your view given credence. I'm no philosopher or great intellectual, but i'd have more respect for an audience than to spew this crap.
gallus1 2 years ago 2
Well, 3min in and this guy has already failed.
How many times must religious goofballs give credit to the Abrahamic religion for developing things that came from the Greeks?
America is as it is because of Plato, Aristotle, Athens, and then Rome (where the Greek legacy was consciously fostered).
Rome falls and for a thousand years religion and the Church rule. We call that time the "Dark Ages."
The Greeks are reintroduced to Europe and we have the Rennaisance.
TBlake34 2 years ago 34
What hedges is implying is that it is not moral nor immoral to believe or not believe in a god. Believing in a theist god is in itself not immoral but becomes immoral when one adopts doctrines.
stravisc 2 years ago