With great intuitive presence, they wrap up their discussion by referring to some of the most difficult and paradoxical ethical issues which all caring, thinking people must face. As one poignant example, Hitch at 2:50 complains that the Quakers preached nonresistance to evil, but then later at 8:00 cautions us to refrain from criticism of evil, for fear of being accused of undue conceit. Well, that was the same dilemma faced historically by the Quakers, just as today by Tibetan Buddhists.
this is great. i must say though, that after 12 videos it became a little annoying to see Hitchens constantly interrupt Dennett, who is perhaps the smartest guy there.
2 hours of eloquent conversation between four men without (too much) interruption - what a nice change. the arguments are well constructed, more cultural sources are cited than one outdated book, and no one is raising their voice. refreshing.
@TheBiddleMan I find Dawkins as a victim of severe rectal discomfort. Certainly not my favorite. Harris evolves into a student of sorts, as the discussion goes on. I appreciate that. Overall, however, Hitchens stole the show for me. He understands the severity of religious/nonreligious dialogue. When these guys began the discussion, the gossip guns had immediately been pulled from their holsters. Hitchens understands something much deeper going on.
@Slavmorlty1985 I disagree. His cheer-leading of some of the most extreme U.S foreign policy and their aims of supremacy, which he naively sees as nothing more than a fight against theocracy, shows just how little he understands what is to me the greatest threat to the secular world: the neo-fascism of right wing America.
Radical Islam will continue to kill people on a relatively low scale. Tragic yes, but it pales in comparison to what a Dick Cheney or a Rick Perry can do.
@cinesimonj "nothing more than a flight against theocracy" ? He is very well educated in the liberal arts, giving him an upper hand against the clean quantitative universal swipes that Dawkins and Harris make with a wave of their wand. There is much more going on in "right-wing America" than assumed. A tradition older than the amorphous left - springing from a pseudo-egalitarianism. Something Hitchens may not agree with but certainly understands. He doesn't "cheer-lead" any one movement.
@masusomasuso why would you kill Dawkins? I would fuck Hitchens because he's boss as fuck, marry Dawkins because i think he's the smartest and most pleasant and probably kill Dennett because i like him the least, even though he looks like santa. and for Harris i'd probably be best buds because he's young and pretty cool. also i call no homo for all of the above...
@rememberthename33 well dawkins is of great value to humanty, but in an a-sexual way (irony?). and hitchens for the intellectual foreplay would really work. but then i'd start thinking what are the odds he doesn't have herpes? and would it be more awesome to fuck or marry santa?? and with harris i would just feel unworthy in any case. this is all verry confusing to me....
@rememberthename33 one thing i forgot: dawkins is not the smartest! he doesn't understand that a/any natural phenomenon should not be destroyed (just made harmless). religion still tells us something about who we are. and people should be allowed a little crazy anyway. the hitch knows :)
@masusomasuso but dawkins says constantly that people should know about religion because is such a big part of literature and music and art but he doesn't think people should actually believe is. i think hitch agrees with him during this discussion. hitch is awesome though
@rememberthename33 not the documentation and study of it, but actual believers (8/12). if you stop fighting the fight, you lose your strength. and the fun is over. and it is like a test, quickly revealing the way another persons mind works. either being a brilliant spin doctor (subconsciously), or easily mislead. or a whishfull thinker, or no desire to think at all. or just young. (what do i know?)
anyway... somehow dawkins annoys the shit out of me. like him wanting to be called 'the brights'.
@Alexdurrant7 Agreed. I so frequently wanted him to stop talking and let the others say something, but he kind of dominates, simply by talking louder.
C'mon, Hitch. Listening is 9/10 of good communication.
@renegadeoboe Plus Dawkins pretty much shows him up logically when they have their spat over whether or not they would want religion completely gone.... I think Hitch is great, but just weak in comparison to the others.
@Alexdurrant7 I don't think it's a competition, why place titles like 'weakest' on someone, when they are expressing their point of views in a civil manor?
Can we do another one of these with Shermer, Tyson, Dillahunty and maybe some high-class youtube atheist? Qualia Soup, Theramin Trees, Phil Hellenes...?
And Julia Sweeney as the first horsewoman.
Damn, I can't get enough of listening to intelligent people talking. It's like a brain's runner's high.
Great video. Hitchens is terrific as usual even as the whiskey flows but I do have a quibble. He's attracted to dialectical theme of Athens vs. Jerusalem, but as a historical matter, he's off the mark if he imagines the Hellenistic Greeks to be the bastions of secular humanism. The Hellenistic forces fighting the Jewish zealots were not seeking to banish theoracy, religion or animal sacrifice. They were petty local tyrants who sought to impose their OWN religious rituals and animal sacrifice.
brave brave dudes. i don't know who all felt that half way through the 11th video, where it seemed like they were having a conflict with there athiesm. that was pretty badass, very good presence of mind, these guys are good.
but how to go to heaven." -- St. Robert Bellarmine
"Beware the man of one book." -- St. Thomas Aquinas
I think, perhaps atheism has been evolved by God to critique religion. More thought on the moral dimension would have been interesting in these videos. Moral sentiment should be something shared by those with the heart for it.
@greatbookie A creator who MADE the physical universe traverses over scientific turf, just like meddling around with the physical laws of the universe (i.e. miracles). "Spiritual experience" is one thing, but even then, that's completely subjective. I could be tripping balls on a hot dose of 'shrooms or LSD and consider that to be a spiritual experience. Nothing divine about it. And that quote by Bellarmine is admirable, but most religious people consider scripture to explain EVERYTHING
@greatbookie Furthermore, "moral sentiment" does not engender spirtuality or faith. Simple example: Immanual Kant. "Moral sentiment should be something shared by those with the heart for it." -- So by implication, you're saying those without religion are necessarily immoral? Come on, now . . . ; )
@billbenblue I intended to say that religious and non-religious can share in common a moral sentiment. I honestly don't know the difference between the moral and the spiritual, because the moral transcends the material. The term "anonymous Christian" has been given to those who say they don't believe in God, but act as if they do. Why they do -- to me -- seems only the product of grace. Would love to hear back from you.
Will civilization necessarily be destroyed by theocracy? Isn't there an excellent chance that civilization will be destroyed by atheistic, technology-obsessed scientists?
There's an exciting competition going on to see who can destroy everything faster, and the Four Horsemen's moronic scumbag enemies won't necessarily beat their moronic scumbag allies to the prize.
A video of three men listening to Hitchens talks and talk and talk. Like usual, he has a lot of great things to say, but he pushes his agenda so brashly. He is not one to listen to three equally relevant minds. You could say Hitchens never loses debates. But he doesn't debate. He just slams his view down your throat by over talking everyone else. However, I can appreciate how his loudness makes a lot of noise and gets people to take notice.
Who the hell does Hitchen's think he is thinking that the US should fight his bullshit war of civilizations grand crusade? If he and his NeCon buddies want to fight 'Theocracy' then let them pay for it and fight it. My country is not a tool to up hold his 21st century version of 'The White Man's Burden'. It was his the country of his birth that started this bullshit and now he wants us to clean up the mess. Thanks, but no thanks.
Please don't point this out as a fatuous question, or though you be correct to think so, and in fact I would probably agree with you! But what is Sam drinking, any ideas?
I was sad to see this end. This should have been a series. Perhaps not always these four, but where is television like this? I'm tired of the Jersey Shores of the world. These are the kinds of things that should be all over airwaves.
@Devoti I disagree. The average person is no dumber today than 50 years ago. More knowledgeable, maybe, but intellectual capacity is the same.
I think the reason we have things like Jersey Shore on tv is that the stigma and laws surrounding decent television etc have been relaxed. I'm convinced Jersey Shore would've been watched had it been on the air when our great grandparents lived.
@nkennedy09 Appreciate that you wrote your comment over a year ago (so you may already have found an answer), but there's: /user/richarddawkinsdotnet
You can see Dawkins and Harris giving a lecture. Also there was Dawking's fascinating Channel-4 series, "The genius of Charles Darwin" - featuring many interviews with like- and unlike-minded people. Available on the 4oD channel but, unfortunately for you, only in the UK. (You may be able to find ways around this problem.)
I am confused as to who managed to watch all 12 video clips before deciding the Thumbs down it. Surely if they didn't like it wouldn't they have stopped by now and watched something more enjoyable?
Christopher's continued interruptions make me laugh. They'd be annoying if what he was saying weren't so damn true, pertinent, interesting, humorous and intelligent.
hitchens has a huge breadth of knowledge, he references literature, history, reason, science, religion, politics... he's the only one of them who has a grasp of the results of religion on (actual) people's lives. he applies theories to existing situations and he seems to have a better grasp of what man is and can be.
and, oh! that voice!!!!!!! the others seem to know nothing of politics.
@MrTonyInchpractice What you say is true to a degree, but the other three are scientifically (and, generally, philosophically) brilliant individuals. Albeit their fields are much narrower, but this doesn't mean that they have not delved even deeper in their own specializations, and that they are not just as intelligent- especially Harris, who, even IF he had no knowledge, his clear thinking and logic are innately useful and penetrating.
Dennet is always saying 'yes' 'uh-uh' SHUT UP! You're book is excellent, but you're not adding anything by grunting over and fucking over again. Secondly, I'm afraid Dennet is a better writer than speaker.
After viewing all 12 segments I give a cautious thumbs up. The problem, sad to say, is Hitch, particularly after the alcohol starts flowing. He interrupts and talks over the others too frequently, which is unfortunately wince-worthy at times, especially in the later segments. He's a great debater but overbearing in this sort of format (especially once the booze is flowing), and his grounding in the sciences is much weaker than any of the other three.
@misterdeadly1 i agree i came out of this with a much greater respect for Dawkins and Harris but less respect for Hitchens and just feeling sorry for Dennett cause he always got cut off.
I think Sam Harris does not appreciate how divisive state of Israel has been. We have now a nuclear state, which has been born out of the biggest religious nonsense that a god that does not exist promised a land to Jews, now any Jew from anywhere in the world can go and settle there as though the land was devoid of people.
@Mitza77Yorkster - the 82nd Airborne, who is fighting in Iraq. You do know of Hitchens' pro-Iraq stance, because he sees a democratic Iraq as a secular Iraq.
@Mitza77Yorkster He's referring to the airborne divisions of the US Army. Whether they were actually deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan when this was taped or not, a metaphor for elite American troops battling Islamist insurgenc(ies).
Dennet was just a nuisance in the debate frankly, he barely said anything, he struggled to speak and most of the points he made were benign and he got talked over by Hitchens the whole time. Hitchens does seem to have a problem with conceding to another speaker but he usually doesn't actually interrupt people, he just wont stop talking.
(cont) I don't always agree with that but I give him props for being so gung ho about it. Hitchens, I'm a little annoyed with. His conviction for what he believes in can sometimes come across as deluded and pompous. I usually enjoy watching him, but he sort of walks on the other three when it comes to letting them make their points. Sam Harris, however, was just as wonderful to watch as always. He can be so articulately barbed, but he knows how to be subtle about it and still make his point.
I just watched all 12 parts, and I have to say: Daniel Dennett seemed long-winded and boring, making only occasional side comments, and a point of his own every so often. I like the guy, he just doesn't seem to be as articulate or as well-spoken as the other three. Dawkins performed in true Dawkins fashion throughout, by which I mean he stood his ground as a cold-blooded atheist, professing, or wanting to reinforce the mantra of the atheist community.... (cont.)
@GenericGenerator This is not done by force and that makes all the difference in the world. It is miserably stupid of them but they fear a demographic war which Muslims are committed to. Doesn't change the stupidity of the policy but you condescend to people when you blame the church for a policy that people are free to accept or reject.
You are told if you don't believe you will be ostracized and burn in eternal hell by the people you grow up with, love and trust the most and you claim there is no force or coercion? You are incorrect. In fact most people would be severely depressed (even suicide) if they are separated from all their family and friends. And tell that to the Muslim girls who are beaten to death by their own brother's and fathers for talking to boys.
Your point of distinction in practice is minor and moot.
Yeah, and no one forces you to eat either, but it is a biological imperative and your comment suggests at least a strong naiveté and lack of clear thought process on this point.
As far as religion being a choice is also naive at best. Yes, people in the Liberal Western world have a lot of choices and many chose to adopt some sort of meaningless pantheism, but if you are in a a place like (eg) poor Africa and all your family, friends and community demand obedience then it is hardly a choice.
The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church so only relevant to Catholics and you have to follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church to the letter otherwise you will burn in eternal hell? You seem not to know what you're talking about
Either you believe the religion and follow their teachings, believe and don't follow and burn for eternity, or don't believe at all. Religion kills critical thought and pushes doctrine not education and this leads to millions of deaths.
@GenericGenerator He's actaully made that point on several occasions, for your information. Knowing that, I also reacted at the point where he said he wouldn't accuse the pope of being the most dangerous religious leader in the world. I guess it's relative.
@Jornev When you refer to "he" who do you mean - it's been almost a year since I watched the vid?
I'm not saying the Pope is the most dangerous religious leader (at least not at the micro level), what makes me laugh is when the Church's teaching say X and people think they can just suppose Y is better and not know/ignore that on the basis of their belief they will burn in eternal hell. It is intellectually lazy at best (intellectually dishonest and/or stupid at worst) and very self serving!
@GenericGenerator Uhm, I might have replied to the wrong person. I was probably quite drunk writing that comment. Sorry!
Anyway, I was referring to Hitch mentioning how he wouldn't call the pope the most dangerous religious leader in the world. I think someone posted a comment in protest of this. So I replied that sure; he's caused a lot of unnecessary deaths by discouraging the use of contraceptives for instance. Might still not be the most dangerous religous leader in the world, though.
No problems Jornev! Yes, it's probably an irrelevant question - people and their "top ten" lists. Certainly the Catholic Church's stances, teachings and wealth in the face of extreme poverty (meanwhile collecting donations from the poor) is what they would call evil, but there are more "evil" people around (Norway). So then it becomes a question of scale - who's responsible for the most harm. For those harmed I think this is an irrelevant question and we all should try and reduce harm.
@Hermoor each video has nearly the exact same amount so im guessing idiots who just wen through and thumbs them all down just seeing the names of the people in the video
@Hermoor I've noticed the number of dislikes as I've gone along and they are consistently between 249 - 257. So, it's obvious that there is a group who have systematically clicked the dislike button on this entire series--and probably without even watching the conversation, and certainly without giving any thought to the discussion.
Great videos thanks for uploading. Except for Hitchens's bullshit at the end, "I believe it to be an absolute fact..it is only because of the willingness of the United States to combat and confront theocracy that we have a chance of beating them"
I wonder what the ratio is of terrorists killed compared to the innocent in Iraq and Afghanistan who will never get to live and enjoy the fruits of a secular society.
btw i am buddhist, so i agree with both atheists and theists, and i also do not agree with both of them.. none of what either side has said ever completely satisfies me.. i think to become too obsessed about proving "what is there" or "what isnt there" just causes more dissatisfaction. especially when others are forced to believe/disbelieve what is/isnt, it just causes suffering.. wheres the enlightenment in that?
I don't think you could say that atheists 'force' believe to disbelieve in religion. They may certainly argue this point but its an important distinction.
If you are looking for complete satisfaction I don't think atheism will ever be acceptable for you. It is not an act of certainty to be an atheist, it is act of probability, while usually conceding agnosticism in some (usually minor) form.
Despite this, atheism does give me satisfaction. I feel compeled to live this life fully and ethically more so than if there was an afterlife for which we are all just waiting.
Btw, I have very little against buddhism. Its is one of the few idelogies (such as scepticism, humanism etc.) which I believe would create real change for good in the world if adopted by more individuals.
i think the philosophy part of buddhism is wonderful and perfect, but the group organization part is always prone to problems of human nature like corruption, greed, selfishness.. but this is natural to all human groups anywhere in the world.. well to me buddhism was like a proto-science that emerged 2500 years ago in the era of low technology, tradition and superstition.. it was a system of rational skepticism that developed independently without western empiricism.
While I agree that you can't lump all atheists together (like I probably did) and that many I know think they "know." Most feel it is incredibly unlikely almost to the point of impossiblity that theism is true.
I think ridicule should be minimised but if there is as much evidence for believing in a theistic god as there is for 'fairies and ghosts' then I don't think it is wrong to say that their beliefs are, thus, irrational and as with most irrational beliefs, sometimes dangerous.
"Western atheists and theists like to talk too much about what is or isnt actually there."
Do you not think it is a worthwhile debate to discuss the intellectual merits of both sides of this quite monumental question of the existence or non-existence of god?
Also, don't be too harsh on the west, each "civilisation" if you will, has their own majestically large faults. However, there is very few (if any) "good" moral teachings that buddhism espouses that "western" humanism does not contain
it depends if talking too much in a debate can lead to mutual self improvement and harmony, or to mutual insecurity and stressful feelings toward each other.
i was raised to belive that there is no good or bad people, no good and no evil.. but by finding enlightenment we find the natural goodness in ourselves, as in harmony and mutual understanding.. but this is not the same as christian idea of good jesus and evil devil..
buddhists do not want to be "good", they want to be enlightened.
and this view is why i like buddhism much more than other religions or ideologies. However, I don't think that debate is something that should be stiffled. I believe it's very important to discuss ideas to give light to reason and allow us all to improve and refine our own beliefs, which is why I watch videos such as these.
there is more than one kind of atheist.. some just accept high possibility that there likely isnt any god, not wanting to comment about theists.. this is different from atheist who want to confront theists and say they are wrong, crazy, childish, irrational to believe in fairy, ghost or god
there is instant anthropomorphization of god concept in the 3 main monotheistic religions. i agree with western atheist criticism of god as delusion. but my criticism is particular to anthropomorphic concept. ie. eternal yet human traits. why is there obsession in monotheism to talk about a "him"? it is the eternally unimaginable principle? non-west is more prepared to accept shutting up.. but both western atheists and theists like to talk too much about what is or isnt actually there.
"atheist" is a natural consequence of centuries of western obsession with judeo-christian god.. the side of theists has been pushed openly for centuries and the current negative reaction to the god idea is the result.. the (rational) atheist vs (irrational) theist arguement is a natural consequence of western modernism..
the problem is the assumption of rationalism being only western origin.. there should be more consideration of systems of rationalism that did not come from west..
god is perfect means all is perfect. but for some reason this had to change at some point. so god created the universe. was god bored? was god lonely? was god insecure and want beings to worship him? did he want to
experiment? what was he trying to learn? doesn't god know everything already? is this all god imagining what would happen? his big what if?
@brody1kenobe None of what you post was God's intent. God is Love. Love is not an emotion by an act of Will for the well-being of the other. God gives not because God needs to but because God is Love.
if god wanted anything he lacked something. god's perfection is in his imperfection.
if he wasn't imperfect he would lack imperfection then we are back where we began. pointless justifying intentions on which you cannot impose intention.
@Xpistos2 Scientific evidence is actually the end all and be all of evidence, because the "scientific" just means checkable, as in make sure it wasn't a fluke.
And to return to your disapproval of my earlier assertion that spreading happiness is the highest morality one can hope to achieve. I think I might should define happiness to help you understand what I meant. I did not just mean instant gratification, I also include the joy of family and the righteous feeling of charity and such.
the jews need to be able to claim that judaism is the true religion in order to enslave all of the non-jews of the world. The bible was manufactured to teach subsequent generations of jews how to defeat all non-jews thru usery and slavery. Judaism is only valid when the jews have control of Palestine so the jews created the USA empire in order to use military might to achieve their goal which became reality in 1948. The other reason the jews stole Palestine was to control those trade routes.
Read online "the bible view of slavery" written by the famous rabbi Morris Raphall to learn about why the jews always plot to enslave all of the non-jews. Bertram Korn was another famous rabbi and historian who wrote about how the jews controlled the entire african slave trade from 1602 to 1888. The jewish bible was manufactured to legitimize slavery and usery as acceptable sources of great wealth which shows that the real god of the jews has always been mammon. Judaism is evil incarnate.
The elephant in the room is this and Hitchens alighted upon it in the video. There will be no universal reversal of religious beliefs. Atheism will not triumph. The people of the world, despite the scientific developments, will not establish a world of peace and rationality. We will not travel to the stars and inhabit other planets. We are quaranteened on planet earth which we shall continue to destroy.
Now that's a cynical and despairing thought: to be stuck forever as a species on this lone war-torn planet without evolving past irrationality. I doubt religion will ever be extirpated without destroying humanity, but looking at Scandinavia I'd say the next best thing is possible.
Homosexuals are not "disordered." I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
ABC sex ed (Abstinence, Be faithful, Condoms) was been proven far more effective at reducing HIV than Abstinence only.
@darkmiles22 Scandanavia isn't quite the world you imagine. "disordered" refers to the obvious misplacement of the clearly, from an evolutionary standpoint, the generative organs. Need I be more graphic? Avoidance of evil at any price is not sound moral teaching (re: condoms and sex outside marriage).
what? butt sex? oral sex? Your problem is not being to graphic but too convoluted. And besides, nothing wrong with it if it makes you happy. I am however very sad that your religion is so ingrained that you see other peoples happiness as a bad thing.
Life is not a quest for happiness at any cost. If life is just about what you call 'happiness,' you are missing the boat. Happy are the poor in spirit...Matthew 5. But I disagree with you with all my being that "nothing is wrong if it makes you happy." We shall not likely see eye to eye on this. Your world view consist only in this life which in your belief ends with utter finality; therefore eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.
Scientific evidence on whether there is an afterlife or if the universe had a creator is severely lacking. That does not mean both possibilities are serious contenders; it is more than just a big hit to a theory if there is no evidence supporting it. Does it not strike you as more likely that bronze age shephards who didn't know whether the sun would rise the next day or if the earth was round and were waiting for the invention of the wheelbarrow were just scared and made up comforting stories?
Scientific evidence is not the end and be all of evidence. The subject of scientific study is matter and energy and the language of science is formulaic and the explication of science is in the form of mythic representations....for example look at the changing concept of the atom from the 19th to the 21st century. Science is limited. God is not the subject of it.
There isn't any form of evidence that can be intellected by the limited engine that processes the information(i.e.,the BRAIN) that can't be called 'limited'.Science is first and foremost is accretionary,a limiting principle to be strived for owing revision.
science is limited to what we can know as humans. Asserting anythying without science is pointless because it is the only way we can sort out fact and fiction. There is no other way.
You assert that there "is no other way." You have merely declared that there "is no other way," as if that is obvious, self-evident, common sensical. The men who wrote the Declaration of In dependence declared that "it is self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." People hold different views on what is self-evident. I assert that GOD is self-evident.
No i assert there is no other way of knowing apart from science because we are human. Humans are science. If we know anything it's because of senses. Senses are science. If god manifests himself in any way it can be shown with science. This has never happened.
That is merely your assertion. God to be God is wholly other than what can be perceived by the senses. But since God is the Creator of all things, God is able to communicate directly to the intellect without the use of the senses. I assert this is called infused Faith. As for God manifesting Himself, the very existence of creation manifests His Being.
@happyhappy85 The intellect is not one of the senses nor is it merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. We know of NOTHING that is not contingent. We do not know things can exist without a Creator. You merely assert that. All that is is impossible without a First Cause which itself is Uncaused.
Yes it is part of the brain. We know life can form on its own. We know energy can convert. You are the one asserting there needs to be a minded creator who can create something from nothing and needs no cause himself. That is a huge assertion that holds a burden of proof.
@happyhappy85 Science has never shown life forming on its own. That energy can convert from matter (I suppose you refer to E=mc2), how is that germane to what you posit? Since you deny the Creator, you have the burden to answer: How is there anything rather than nothing?
Yes it has. With the right chemicals the potential for life is VERY possible. Again you're a god of the gaps person who thinks just because science hasn't figured it out it must mean a magical sky wizard did it.
Yes i do have the burden to answer how is the something rather than nothing but i am not going to just guess that a wizard did it like the average theist moron i'm actually going to try and find out.
@happyhappy85 NO, it hasn't. "With the right chemicals etc is your leap of faith in science! "God of the gaps" position is not necessarily my position. Again, you are just putting me in that box. God is not a magical sky wizard. That term is just your way of disparaging and doesn't approach the subject of God reasonably. Keep trying to find out why there is something rather than noting; keep asking, seeking and probing. I know why and it isn't any wizard.
You know nothing. Why would it be "god" that there is something rather than nothing? You define god to me instead of making me put words in your mouth. If you're not going to define it who is? Define god and then we have some grounds to start the conversation.
@happyhappy85 God is Uncaused, Eternal Being, creator and ground of all that is. God is perfection, without defect or error. God is One. God is not any THING. God has no parts, no division, no dependency, no contingency. God always was and is and will be. But bear in mind and ponder: God is NOT any THING whatsoever. Hey, it is Lent, so I will get back to you in early April.
My point is that what you have just said up there is a VERY wild assertion and i see no reason to think such a being exists. Even more so if you think that being has a creative mind, and even more so if you think that being wants anything to do with us. How do you KNOW any of this? Why do you think anyone should take that claim seriously? To me that claim is still just as serious as a magical sky wizard.
@happyhappy85 It can't be any wilder than the stuff put forth as hypotheses by modern physics, come on....seriously...string theory, quarks, parallel universes, upteen dimensions, come on! Fanastic convolutions straining credulity. God to be God must (you can reason to this) love 'His' creation. I know this because I can reason to its reasonableness and I have confirmation because of a personal relationship with the Deity. :-) A magical sky wizard does not qualify as God. God is not any THING.
Those things are metaphysics and i don't really take them to seriously either, the thing is that they can be tested and we can make predictions that are almost right every time using modern physics. Like you said, they are mearly hypotheses. I don't take a hypotheses seriously until it becomes a theory. If you have a "personal relationship" with it (i'm not sure what that means explain?) then you should know what it is. Is this God minded? Does it think? Or is it just a cause, or everything?
@happyhappy85 When man speaks of God he must use human terms which can not really grasp God. God is spoken of as having Intellect, but one can not suppose that it is like ours. God has no brain. God is spoken of as having thoughts, but God does not have thoughts like we do. God does not think as we do; God does not ponder, consider, change 'His mind.' Yet God has intellect and will, but not like ours. Rather we are like God in having intellect and will.
I see. What you are saying is still a massive assertion with no grounds of evidence. If you had just said god was the cause of our universe and i know nothing else i just call it god because that's the the word i use, i might have respected your opinion but when you pretend to know specific things about this cause like that it has a mind, i'm afraid i can't take you seriously. You may be justified if you have personal experience but i see no evidence for what you are proposing.
@happyhappy85 Kind of amusing. You are free to respect or disrespect. I assert that, apart from whether there is God or not, one can by reason alone postualte God and reasonably, logically, unfailingly speak of certain necessary attribute that must pertain to the postuated God. My personal experience is not really the subject matter but I spoke of it as answer to some query. Fact is REASON CAN postuate God and infer certain infallibly necessary attribute of such a Being.
@happyhappy85 The short of it is this: If there is any defect postulated to God, then God would not be God. God is not a creature. If God was any THING, God would be contingent. God can not be contingent since that would require a dependency. the Greater can not be dependent upon the lesser; the Creator upon the creature since the latter has all being from the Former. One can reason that God to be God must be One, Simple, without parts. Read St Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Spare me.
You do realise this explains nothing and the assertion is just getting wilder and wilder. Believeing in something like that for no reason seems very intellectually dishonest. The point is if you don't even know what you're claiming god to be then why do you even assert it. If god is so perfect then why would he bother creating anything.
Non sequitur. Not proving is not proof that "it" never happened. There are many 'whatevers' that have happened dor which there is neither proof not even an inkling. No one really has proven with perspicasity the world of quantum reality, for instance.
@happyhappy85 Hypotheses, predictions, testing, conclusions are in the realm of science and deal with matter/energy. As for physics being right almost every time, I beg to differ. The history of physics and of the sciences in general (and this is no criticism) is always being revised, each new theory is acclaimed as if it were the Truth only to fall in time to new theories. That I have a personal relationship with God doesn't give me access to God's Essence.
If GOD is, then God may not be held to any empirical standard. If God could be held to an empirical standard of evaluation, God would not be God. Nuff answered. :-)
Not at all, since God can not be any THING whatsoever. Things are contingent and are made up of other things as far as we have 'seen.' To posit that all that is is things, ie matter/energy, is to run into a serious problem. From whence is anything? If things always were in one configuration or another, how did we ever arrive at the present configuration?
With great intuitive presence, they wrap up their discussion by referring to some of the most difficult and paradoxical ethical issues which all caring, thinking people must face. As one poignant example, Hitch at 2:50 complains that the Quakers preached nonresistance to evil, but then later at 8:00 cautions us to refrain from criticism of evil, for fear of being accused of undue conceit. Well, that was the same dilemma faced historically by the Quakers, just as today by Tibetan Buddhists.
drazzellstarfish 1 week ago
Comment removed
Intellectual4God 2 months ago
toooo short :(
ceclovitch 2 months ago
Damn it's over!
SonDudu2 3 months ago
this is great. i must say though, that after 12 videos it became a little annoying to see Hitchens constantly interrupt Dennett, who is perhaps the smartest guy there.
trin1721 3 months ago
Oh, to have been the fifth person at the table! Mind you, I probably would've looked like a fly surrounded by four lions.
Varrik88 4 months ago
although dawkins and Hitchens made me pay more attention to my atheism, i think Sam Harris stole the show here!
jadagod 4 months 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
This kind of conversation is so much better to listen to than one of these guys debating some thiest with the same recycled refutable arguements.
MrJonniNixon 6 months ago
2 hours of eloquent conversation between four men without (too much) interruption - what a nice change. the arguments are well constructed, more cultural sources are cited than one outdated book, and no one is raising their voice. refreshing.
Pemphetru 8 months ago
My personal favourites are Dawkins and Harris. Harris is probably the most clear-minded, well thought out of the lot I think.
TheBiddleMan 8 months ago
@TheBiddleMan I find Dawkins as a victim of severe rectal discomfort. Certainly not my favorite. Harris evolves into a student of sorts, as the discussion goes on. I appreciate that. Overall, however, Hitchens stole the show for me. He understands the severity of religious/nonreligious dialogue. When these guys began the discussion, the gossip guns had immediately been pulled from their holsters. Hitchens understands something much deeper going on.
Slavmorlty1985 5 months ago
@Slavmorlty1985 I disagree. His cheer-leading of some of the most extreme U.S foreign policy and their aims of supremacy, which he naively sees as nothing more than a fight against theocracy, shows just how little he understands what is to me the greatest threat to the secular world: the neo-fascism of right wing America.
Radical Islam will continue to kill people on a relatively low scale. Tragic yes, but it pales in comparison to what a Dick Cheney or a Rick Perry can do.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj "nothing more than a flight against theocracy" ? He is very well educated in the liberal arts, giving him an upper hand against the clean quantitative universal swipes that Dawkins and Harris make with a wave of their wand. There is much more going on in "right-wing America" than assumed. A tradition older than the amorphous left - springing from a pseudo-egalitarianism. Something Hitchens may not agree with but certainly understands. He doesn't "cheer-lead" any one movement.
Slavmorlty1985 5 months ago
Comment removed
masusomasuso 8 months ago
@masusomasuso why would you kill Dawkins? I would fuck Hitchens because he's boss as fuck, marry Dawkins because i think he's the smartest and most pleasant and probably kill Dennett because i like him the least, even though he looks like santa. and for Harris i'd probably be best buds because he's young and pretty cool. also i call no homo for all of the above...
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 well dawkins is of great value to humanty, but in an a-sexual way (irony?). and hitchens for the intellectual foreplay would really work. but then i'd start thinking what are the odds he doesn't have herpes? and would it be more awesome to fuck or marry santa?? and with harris i would just feel unworthy in any case. this is all verry confusing to me....
masusomasuso 8 months ago
@masusomasuso hahah intellectual foreplay
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 one thing i forgot: dawkins is not the smartest! he doesn't understand that a/any natural phenomenon should not be destroyed (just made harmless). religion still tells us something about who we are. and people should be allowed a little crazy anyway. the hitch knows :)
masusomasuso 8 months ago
@masusomasuso but dawkins says constantly that people should know about religion because is such a big part of literature and music and art but he doesn't think people should actually believe is. i think hitch agrees with him during this discussion. hitch is awesome though
rememberthename33 8 months ago
@rememberthename33 not the documentation and study of it, but actual believers (8/12). if you stop fighting the fight, you lose your strength. and the fun is over. and it is like a test, quickly revealing the way another persons mind works. either being a brilliant spin doctor (subconsciously), or easily mislead. or a whishfull thinker, or no desire to think at all. or just young. (what do i know?)
anyway... somehow dawkins annoys the shit out of me. like him wanting to be called 'the brights'.
masusomasuso 8 months ago
@masusomasuso yeah i like both of them, hitch is more entertaining though because he makes the other person look like an idiot
rememberthename33 8 months ago
Comment removed
RocknGrohlBaby 8 months ago
@masusomasuso Fuck Harris, Marry Dawkins, Kill Dennett- beards freak me out.
RocknGrohlBaby 8 months ago
this was too short! I want at least.... 24 more hours of this!
RaggedM88 8 months ago
Why did this have to end?
They need to have another meeting!
jajmjbylso 9 months ago
Hitchens is definitely the weakest (intellectually, not orally) of the 4.
Alexdurrant7 9 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 Agreed. I so frequently wanted him to stop talking and let the others say something, but he kind of dominates, simply by talking louder.
C'mon, Hitch. Listening is 9/10 of good communication.
renegadeoboe 9 months ago
@renegadeoboe Plus Dawkins pretty much shows him up logically when they have their spat over whether or not they would want religion completely gone.... I think Hitch is great, but just weak in comparison to the others.
Alexdurrant7 9 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 I don't think it's a competition, why place titles like 'weakest' on someone, when they are expressing their point of views in a civil manor?
DjLumbee 9 months ago
Can we do another one of these with Shermer, Tyson, Dillahunty and maybe some high-class youtube atheist? Qualia Soup, Theramin Trees, Phil Hellenes...?
And Julia Sweeney as the first horsewoman.
Damn, I can't get enough of listening to intelligent people talking. It's like a brain's runner's high.
GreyLabyrinthine 10 months ago
Great video. Hitchens is terrific as usual even as the whiskey flows but I do have a quibble. He's attracted to dialectical theme of Athens vs. Jerusalem, but as a historical matter, he's off the mark if he imagines the Hellenistic Greeks to be the bastions of secular humanism. The Hellenistic forces fighting the Jewish zealots were not seeking to banish theoracy, religion or animal sacrifice. They were petty local tyrants who sought to impose their OWN religious rituals and animal sacrifice.
citizenghosttown 11 months ago
Great talk, would have liked to hear more of Dennett, but excellent nevertheless.
Twinroads 11 months ago
nooo, i want more ;[ were's ending?
rintintinas 11 months ago
excellence
stressnadiction 11 months ago
brave brave dudes. i don't know who all felt that half way through the 11th video, where it seemed like they were having a conflict with there athiesm. that was pretty badass, very good presence of mind, these guys are good.
brookscorlen 11 months ago
welcome to the greatest show on earth. i feel like i just took a semester of courses in an hour and half.
robelstable 11 months ago
that conversation could have gone on forever and i probably would never have diverted my attention from it.
youfail2009 11 months ago
Hi. Comments here from a Catholic:
Science is about the physical universe;
religion is about spiritual experience.
"Scripture does not tell us how the heavens go,
but how to go to heaven." -- St. Robert Bellarmine
"Beware the man of one book." -- St. Thomas Aquinas
I think, perhaps atheism has been evolved by God to critique religion. More thought on the moral dimension would have been interesting in these videos. Moral sentiment should be something shared by those with the heart for it.
greatbookie 1 year ago
@greatbookie A creator who MADE the physical universe traverses over scientific turf, just like meddling around with the physical laws of the universe (i.e. miracles). "Spiritual experience" is one thing, but even then, that's completely subjective. I could be tripping balls on a hot dose of 'shrooms or LSD and consider that to be a spiritual experience. Nothing divine about it. And that quote by Bellarmine is admirable, but most religious people consider scripture to explain EVERYTHING
billbenblue 1 year ago
@greatbookie Furthermore, "moral sentiment" does not engender spirtuality or faith. Simple example: Immanual Kant. "Moral sentiment should be something shared by those with the heart for it." -- So by implication, you're saying those without religion are necessarily immoral? Come on, now . . . ; )
billbenblue 1 year ago
@billbenblue I intended to say that religious and non-religious can share in common a moral sentiment. I honestly don't know the difference between the moral and the spiritual, because the moral transcends the material. The term "anonymous Christian" has been given to those who say they don't believe in God, but act as if they do. Why they do -- to me -- seems only the product of grace. Would love to hear back from you.
greatbookie 4 months ago
Will civilization necessarily be destroyed by theocracy? Isn't there an excellent chance that civilization will be destroyed by atheistic, technology-obsessed scientists?
There's an exciting competition going on to see who can destroy everything faster, and the Four Horsemen's moronic scumbag enemies won't necessarily beat their moronic scumbag allies to the prize.
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
That was great. Thanks.
KokotTheMonkey 1 year ago
A video of three men listening to Hitchens talks and talk and talk. Like usual, he has a lot of great things to say, but he pushes his agenda so brashly. He is not one to listen to three equally relevant minds. You could say Hitchens never loses debates. But he doesn't debate. He just slams his view down your throat by over talking everyone else. However, I can appreciate how his loudness makes a lot of noise and gets people to take notice.
deadzeppelin 1 year ago
What happened after?! I would have liked to hear closing words from the party members...
rsgirl10 1 year ago
Who the hell does Hitchen's think he is thinking that the US should fight his bullshit war of civilizations grand crusade? If he and his NeCon buddies want to fight 'Theocracy' then let them pay for it and fight it. My country is not a tool to up hold his 21st century version of 'The White Man's Burden'. It was his the country of his birth that started this bullshit and now he wants us to clean up the mess. Thanks, but no thanks.
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 year ago
This was starting to get political, at a matter in which I think Hitchens would of destroyed the rest. Just put another tape in lol
cooperjc8 1 year ago
Please don't point this out as a fatuous question, or though you be correct to think so, and in fact I would probably agree with you! But what is Sam drinking, any ideas?
cooperjc8 1 year ago
I was sad to see this end. This should have been a series. Perhaps not always these four, but where is television like this? I'm tired of the Jersey Shores of the world. These are the kinds of things that should be all over airwaves.
nkennedy09 1 year ago 20
@nkennedy09 it's the retardation of the populace. :(
Devoti 1 month ago
@Devoti I disagree. The average person is no dumber today than 50 years ago. More knowledgeable, maybe, but intellectual capacity is the same.
I think the reason we have things like Jersey Shore on tv is that the stigma and laws surrounding decent television etc have been relaxed. I'm convinced Jersey Shore would've been watched had it been on the air when our great grandparents lived.
Norwification 3 weeks ago
@nkennedy09 Appreciate that you wrote your comment over a year ago (so you may already have found an answer), but there's: /user/richarddawkinsdotnet
You can see Dawkins and Harris giving a lecture. Also there was Dawking's fascinating Channel-4 series, "The genius of Charles Darwin" - featuring many interviews with like- and unlike-minded people. Available on the 4oD channel but, unfortunately for you, only in the UK. (You may be able to find ways around this problem.)
Tj930 1 week ago in playlist More videos from PiroNiro
I am confused as to who managed to watch all 12 video clips before deciding the Thumbs down it. Surely if they didn't like it wouldn't they have stopped by now and watched something more enjoyable?
kairobinson 1 year ago 5
I would in confidence state that Hitchens loud nature in this discussion is because he is drinking.
thomasalwyndavisj 1 year ago
@thomasalwyndavisj aka he is drunk
thomasalwyndavisj 1 year ago
Christopher's continued interruptions make me laugh. They'd be annoying if what he was saying weren't so damn true, pertinent, interesting, humorous and intelligent.
WMM180 1 year ago 4
Hitchens doesn't know when you shut up
ClintSevilla 1 year ago
@ClintSevilla how can he moron? He dosn't watch over your fucking shoulder now does he?
finkelshteyna 1 year ago
@finkelshteyna meant to put "to" instead of "you"
ClintSevilla 1 year ago
hitchens has a huge breadth of knowledge, he references literature, history, reason, science, religion, politics... he's the only one of them who has a grasp of the results of religion on (actual) people's lives. he applies theories to existing situations and he seems to have a better grasp of what man is and can be.
and, oh! that voice!!!!!!! the others seem to know nothing of politics.
MrTonyInchpractice 1 year ago
@MrTonyInchpractice What you say is true to a degree, but the other three are scientifically (and, generally, philosophically) brilliant individuals. Albeit their fields are much narrower, but this doesn't mean that they have not delved even deeper in their own specializations, and that they are not just as intelligent- especially Harris, who, even IF he had no knowledge, his clear thinking and logic are innately useful and penetrating.
aptanalogy 1 year ago
I think that religion is the result of humans being highly social animals.
We a hardwired to be socialized, conform and bond to our group identity.
Religion and god are mental social structures for controlling the mind to affect our
behavior in our group. God is a mental hierarchal construct for group control.
Ancient peoples knew that their rulers were gods. Stalin and Hitler were gods.
humansaretheworld 1 year ago
What is this "hillionist" that Hitch is talking about? Or something that sounds like that... How do you spell that?
domrowland 1 year ago
@domrowland "zionist"?
nervabasel 1 year ago
@domrowland Hellenistic i believe it is
TheAteapotist 1 year ago
The irony of it all,
Our existence may become exstinct over something that never existed at all.
eoo8 1 year ago 3
@eoo8 very well put.. gonna use that if you don't mind... will probably use it if you do mind regardless : P
HappyRogueStatus 1 year ago
Dennet is always saying 'yes' 'uh-uh' SHUT UP! You're book is excellent, but you're not adding anything by grunting over and fucking over again. Secondly, I'm afraid Dennet is a better writer than speaker.
odst77177 1 year ago
@odst77177 Meant to type 'your' rather than 'you're.'
odst77177 1 year ago
After viewing all 12 segments I give a cautious thumbs up. The problem, sad to say, is Hitch, particularly after the alcohol starts flowing. He interrupts and talks over the others too frequently, which is unfortunately wince-worthy at times, especially in the later segments. He's a great debater but overbearing in this sort of format (especially once the booze is flowing), and his grounding in the sciences is much weaker than any of the other three.
misterdeadly1 1 year ago
@misterdeadly1 i agree i came out of this with a much greater respect for Dawkins and Harris but less respect for Hitchens and just feeling sorry for Dennett cause he always got cut off.
aortavi 1 year ago
@misterdeadly1 that's kind of a ridiculous thing to ...say
HappyRogueStatus 1 year ago
I think Sam Harris does not appreciate how divisive state of Israel has been. We have now a nuclear state, which has been born out of the biggest religious nonsense that a god that does not exist promised a land to Jews, now any Jew from anywhere in the world can go and settle there as though the land was devoid of people.
47saeed 1 year ago
I am curious . Why did hitchens make a reference to the 82nd and 101st? Requesting explicit reply. XP
Mitza77Yorkster 1 year ago
@Mitza77Yorkster - the 82nd Airborne, who is fighting in Iraq. You do know of Hitchens' pro-Iraq stance, because he sees a democratic Iraq as a secular Iraq.
floydclaptonblues 1 year ago
@Mitza77Yorkster He's referring to the airborne divisions of the US Army. Whether they were actually deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan when this was taped or not, a metaphor for elite American troops battling Islamist insurgenc(ies).
misterdeadly1 1 year ago
Wow, hitchens shut up!
GDATERRY 1 year ago
Dennet was just a nuisance in the debate frankly, he barely said anything, he struggled to speak and most of the points he made were benign and he got talked over by Hitchens the whole time. Hitchens does seem to have a problem with conceding to another speaker but he usually doesn't actually interrupt people, he just wont stop talking.
captain3xtreme 1 year ago
(cont) I don't always agree with that but I give him props for being so gung ho about it. Hitchens, I'm a little annoyed with. His conviction for what he believes in can sometimes come across as deluded and pompous. I usually enjoy watching him, but he sort of walks on the other three when it comes to letting them make their points. Sam Harris, however, was just as wonderful to watch as always. He can be so articulately barbed, but he knows how to be subtle about it and still make his point.
migduh 1 year ago
I just watched all 12 parts, and I have to say: Daniel Dennett seemed long-winded and boring, making only occasional side comments, and a point of his own every so often. I like the guy, he just doesn't seem to be as articulate or as well-spoken as the other three. Dawkins performed in true Dawkins fashion throughout, by which I mean he stood his ground as a cold-blooded atheist, professing, or wanting to reinforce the mantra of the atheist community.... (cont.)
migduh 1 year ago
Hitchens - Catholic Church murders more then any religion with their refusal to accept condoms - the millions infected and dieing because of this!
GenericGenerator 1 year ago 67
@GenericGenerator This is not done by force and that makes all the difference in the world. It is miserably stupid of them but they fear a demographic war which Muslims are committed to. Doesn't change the stupidity of the policy but you condescend to people when you blame the church for a policy that people are free to accept or reject.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
Yes it is! If a Catholic rejects this edict from the Pedophile in chief then they are damned to eternal hell! How more coercive can you get?
GenericGenerator 1 year ago
@GenericGenerator Ah, stick a gun in your face. Believing in a religion is a choice. Not to be equated with the use of force like a gun at your head.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
You are told if you don't believe you will be ostracized and burn in eternal hell by the people you grow up with, love and trust the most and you claim there is no force or coercion? You are incorrect. In fact most people would be severely depressed (even suicide) if they are separated from all their family and friends. And tell that to the Muslim girls who are beaten to death by their own brother's and fathers for talking to boys.
Your point of distinction in practice is minor and moot.
GenericGenerator 1 year ago
Comment removed
GenericGenerator 1 year ago
@GenericGenerator no one forces people to fuck.
antoireland09 1 year ago
Yeah, and no one forces you to eat either, but it is a biological imperative and your comment suggests at least a strong naiveté and lack of clear thought process on this point.
As far as religion being a choice is also naive at best. Yes, people in the Liberal Western world have a lot of choices and many chose to adopt some sort of meaningless pantheism, but if you are in a a place like (eg) poor Africa and all your family, friends and community demand obedience then it is hardly a choice.
GenericGenerator 1 year ago
@GenericGenerator
noo....you're wrong. The pope says this crap but most don't obey.
ItsameAlex 11 months ago
The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church so only relevant to Catholics and you have to follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church to the letter otherwise you will burn in eternal hell? You seem not to know what you're talking about
Either you believe the religion and follow their teachings, believe and don't follow and burn for eternity, or don't believe at all. Religion kills critical thought and pushes doctrine not education and this leads to millions of deaths.
GenericGenerator 11 months ago
@GenericGenerator He's actaully made that point on several occasions, for your information. Knowing that, I also reacted at the point where he said he wouldn't accuse the pope of being the most dangerous religious leader in the world. I guess it's relative.
Jornev 6 months ago
@Jornev When you refer to "he" who do you mean - it's been almost a year since I watched the vid?
I'm not saying the Pope is the most dangerous religious leader (at least not at the micro level), what makes me laugh is when the Church's teaching say X and people think they can just suppose Y is better and not know/ignore that on the basis of their belief they will burn in eternal hell. It is intellectually lazy at best (intellectually dishonest and/or stupid at worst) and very self serving!
GenericGenerator 6 months ago
@GenericGenerator Uhm, I might have replied to the wrong person. I was probably quite drunk writing that comment. Sorry!
Anyway, I was referring to Hitch mentioning how he wouldn't call the pope the most dangerous religious leader in the world. I think someone posted a comment in protest of this. So I replied that sure; he's caused a lot of unnecessary deaths by discouraging the use of contraceptives for instance. Might still not be the most dangerous religous leader in the world, though.
Jornev 6 months ago
No problems Jornev! Yes, it's probably an irrelevant question - people and their "top ten" lists. Certainly the Catholic Church's stances, teachings and wealth in the face of extreme poverty (meanwhile collecting donations from the poor) is what they would call evil, but there are more "evil" people around (Norway). So then it becomes a question of scale - who's responsible for the most harm. For those harmed I think this is an irrelevant question and we all should try and reduce harm.
GenericGenerator 6 months ago
who are the people who thumb these videos down? Idiots?
Hermoor 1 year ago 111
@Hermoor i am a catholic but i really like these guys, not that they going to convince me but they make some good points
laaaguna13 1 year ago
@Hermoor yes
TomValedro 1 year ago
@Hermoor the more dangerous ones are those of high intelligence. I only fear idiots in LARGE groups. Like congress.
DeusExMach 1 year ago
@Hermoor Gee, that's a tough one . . . Come on, who do you think?
billbenblue 1 year ago
@Hermoor most likely people who haven't read one lick of these gentlemen's works
meanmark1 10 months ago
@Hermoor each video has nearly the exact same amount so im guessing idiots who just wen through and thumbs them all down just seeing the names of the people in the video
WarMasterX6 10 months ago
@Hermoor Close, creationists. :)
DjLumbee 9 months ago
@Hermoor I've noticed the number of dislikes as I've gone along and they are consistently between 249 - 257. So, it's obvious that there is a group who have systematically clicked the dislike button on this entire series--and probably without even watching the conversation, and certainly without giving any thought to the discussion.
LearnerChess 7 months ago 18
@LearnerChess Yea, otherwise very patient of them to sit through 2 hours of something they dislike ;)
ceclovitch 7 hours ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens
Great videos thanks for uploading. Except for Hitchens's bullshit at the end, "I believe it to be an absolute fact..it is only because of the willingness of the United States to combat and confront theocracy that we have a chance of beating them"
I wonder what the ratio is of terrorists killed compared to the innocent in Iraq and Afghanistan who will never get to live and enjoy the fruits of a secular society.
shallbeagain 1 year ago 2
Religion is just a word.
Peace.
Ashitakaandsan 1 year ago
@Ashitakaandsan Are you suggesting it has no semantic value? Using the same reasoning I could say murder is, "just a word".
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning
Murder IS just a word. Of course it has semantic value. But how far does that extend? How subjective is its comprehension?
Ashitakaandsan 1 year ago
btw i am buddhist, so i agree with both atheists and theists, and i also do not agree with both of them.. none of what either side has said ever completely satisfies me.. i think to become too obsessed about proving "what is there" or "what isnt there" just causes more dissatisfaction. especially when others are forced to believe/disbelieve what is/isnt, it just causes suffering.. wheres the enlightenment in that?
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
I don't think you could say that atheists 'force' believe to disbelieve in religion. They may certainly argue this point but its an important distinction.
If you are looking for complete satisfaction I don't think atheism will ever be acceptable for you. It is not an act of certainty to be an atheist, it is act of probability, while usually conceding agnosticism in some (usually minor) form.
iamdadodo 1 year ago
Despite this, atheism does give me satisfaction. I feel compeled to live this life fully and ethically more so than if there was an afterlife for which we are all just waiting.
Btw, I have very little against buddhism. Its is one of the few idelogies (such as scepticism, humanism etc.) which I believe would create real change for good in the world if adopted by more individuals.
iamdadodo 1 year ago
i think the philosophy part of buddhism is wonderful and perfect, but the group organization part is always prone to problems of human nature like corruption, greed, selfishness.. but this is natural to all human groups anywhere in the world.. well to me buddhism was like a proto-science that emerged 2500 years ago in the era of low technology, tradition and superstition.. it was a system of rational skepticism that developed independently without western empiricism.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
While I agree that you can't lump all atheists together (like I probably did) and that many I know think they "know." Most feel it is incredibly unlikely almost to the point of impossiblity that theism is true.
I think ridicule should be minimised but if there is as much evidence for believing in a theistic god as there is for 'fairies and ghosts' then I don't think it is wrong to say that their beliefs are, thus, irrational and as with most irrational beliefs, sometimes dangerous.
iamdadodo 1 year ago
"Western atheists and theists like to talk too much about what is or isnt actually there."
Do you not think it is a worthwhile debate to discuss the intellectual merits of both sides of this quite monumental question of the existence or non-existence of god?
Also, don't be too harsh on the west, each "civilisation" if you will, has their own majestically large faults. However, there is very few (if any) "good" moral teachings that buddhism espouses that "western" humanism does not contain
iamdadodo 1 year ago
it depends if talking too much in a debate can lead to mutual self improvement and harmony, or to mutual insecurity and stressful feelings toward each other.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
i was raised to belive that there is no good or bad people, no good and no evil.. but by finding enlightenment we find the natural goodness in ourselves, as in harmony and mutual understanding.. but this is not the same as christian idea of good jesus and evil devil..
buddhists do not want to be "good", they want to be enlightened.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
and this view is why i like buddhism much more than other religions or ideologies. However, I don't think that debate is something that should be stiffled. I believe it's very important to discuss ideas to give light to reason and allow us all to improve and refine our own beliefs, which is why I watch videos such as these.
iamdadodo 1 year ago
there is more than one kind of atheist.. some just accept high possibility that there likely isnt any god, not wanting to comment about theists.. this is different from atheist who want to confront theists and say they are wrong, crazy, childish, irrational to believe in fairy, ghost or god
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
there is instant anthropomorphization of god concept in the 3 main monotheistic religions. i agree with western atheist criticism of god as delusion. but my criticism is particular to anthropomorphic concept. ie. eternal yet human traits. why is there obsession in monotheism to talk about a "him"? it is the eternally unimaginable principle? non-west is more prepared to accept shutting up.. but both western atheists and theists like to talk too much about what is or isnt actually there.
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
"atheist" is a natural consequence of centuries of western obsession with judeo-christian god.. the side of theists has been pushed openly for centuries and the current negative reaction to the god idea is the result.. the (rational) atheist vs (irrational) theist arguement is a natural consequence of western modernism..
the problem is the assumption of rationalism being only western origin.. there should be more consideration of systems of rationalism that did not come from west..
pixusbubblejet 1 year ago
@pixusbubblejet Atheists have a conceit that they are rational and that theists are irrational.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
oh my god
Redbullscape 1 year ago
the following is an attempt to show how common questions are really a person projecting intention on the universe or god.
brody1kenobe 1 year ago
god is perfect means all is perfect. but for some reason this had to change at some point. so god created the universe. was god bored? was god lonely? was god insecure and want beings to worship him? did he want to
experiment? what was he trying to learn? doesn't god know everything already? is this all god imagining what would happen? his big what if?
brody1kenobe 1 year ago
@brody1kenobe None of what you post was God's intent. God is Love. Love is not an emotion by an act of Will for the well-being of the other. God gives not because God needs to but because God is Love.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
if god wanted anything he lacked something. god's perfection is in his imperfection.
if he wasn't imperfect he would lack imperfection then we are back where we began. pointless justifying intentions on which you cannot impose intention.
brody1kenobe 1 year ago
hey I thought this was a metallica song 0.o
fadetoGTR 1 year ago
Does everyone hate Hitchens by the end of this thing?
KnightXIXVII 1 year ago
@Xpistos2 Scientific evidence is actually the end all and be all of evidence, because the "scientific" just means checkable, as in make sure it wasn't a fluke.
And to return to your disapproval of my earlier assertion that spreading happiness is the highest morality one can hope to achieve. I think I might should define happiness to help you understand what I meant. I did not just mean instant gratification, I also include the joy of family and the righteous feeling of charity and such.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
the jews need to be able to claim that judaism is the true religion in order to enslave all of the non-jews of the world. The bible was manufactured to teach subsequent generations of jews how to defeat all non-jews thru usery and slavery. Judaism is only valid when the jews have control of Palestine so the jews created the USA empire in order to use military might to achieve their goal which became reality in 1948. The other reason the jews stole Palestine was to control those trade routes.
TheTurdTemple 2 years ago
Have you been neglecting your medication again?
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Read online "the bible view of slavery" written by the famous rabbi Morris Raphall to learn about why the jews always plot to enslave all of the non-jews. Bertram Korn was another famous rabbi and historian who wrote about how the jews controlled the entire african slave trade from 1602 to 1888. The jewish bible was manufactured to legitimize slavery and usery as acceptable sources of great wealth which shows that the real god of the jews has always been mammon. Judaism is evil incarnate.
TheTurdTemple 2 years ago
That certainly is a temple of turd
ryko26 2 years ago
They should've gone on for another 2 hours
Pwnagemerchant 2 years ago 8
The elephant in the room is this and Hitchens alighted upon it in the video. There will be no universal reversal of religious beliefs. Atheism will not triumph. The people of the world, despite the scientific developments, will not establish a world of peace and rationality. We will not travel to the stars and inhabit other planets. We are quaranteened on planet earth which we shall continue to destroy.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Now that's a cynical and despairing thought: to be stuck forever as a species on this lone war-torn planet without evolving past irrationality. I doubt religion will ever be extirpated without destroying humanity, but looking at Scandinavia I'd say the next best thing is possible.
Homosexuals are not "disordered." I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
ABC sex ed (Abstinence, Be faithful, Condoms) was been proven far more effective at reducing HIV than Abstinence only.
darkmiles22 2 years ago
@darkmiles22 Scandanavia isn't quite the world you imagine. "disordered" refers to the obvious misplacement of the clearly, from an evolutionary standpoint, the generative organs. Need I be more graphic? Avoidance of evil at any price is not sound moral teaching (re: condoms and sex outside marriage).
Xpistos2 2 years ago
what? butt sex? oral sex? Your problem is not being to graphic but too convoluted. And besides, nothing wrong with it if it makes you happy. I am however very sad that your religion is so ingrained that you see other peoples happiness as a bad thing.
darkmiles22 2 years ago
Life is not a quest for happiness at any cost. If life is just about what you call 'happiness,' you are missing the boat. Happy are the poor in spirit...Matthew 5. But I disagree with you with all my being that "nothing is wrong if it makes you happy." We shall not likely see eye to eye on this. Your world view consist only in this life which in your belief ends with utter finality; therefore eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Scientific evidence on whether there is an afterlife or if the universe had a creator is severely lacking. That does not mean both possibilities are serious contenders; it is more than just a big hit to a theory if there is no evidence supporting it. Does it not strike you as more likely that bronze age shephards who didn't know whether the sun would rise the next day or if the earth was round and were waiting for the invention of the wheelbarrow were just scared and made up comforting stories?
darkmiles22 2 years ago
Scientific evidence is not the end and be all of evidence. The subject of scientific study is matter and energy and the language of science is formulaic and the explication of science is in the form of mythic representations....for example look at the changing concept of the atom from the 19th to the 21st century. Science is limited. God is not the subject of it.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
There isn't any form of evidence that can be intellected by the limited engine that processes the information(i.e.,the BRAIN) that can't be called 'limited'.Science is first and foremost is accretionary,a limiting principle to be strived for owing revision.
djnross 2 years ago
science is limited to what we can know as humans. Asserting anythying without science is pointless because it is the only way we can sort out fact and fiction. There is no other way.
happyhappy85 2 years ago
You assert that there "is no other way." You have merely declared that there "is no other way," as if that is obvious, self-evident, common sensical. The men who wrote the Declaration of In dependence declared that "it is self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." People hold different views on what is self-evident. I assert that GOD is self-evident.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
No i assert there is no other way of knowing apart from science because we are human. Humans are science. If we know anything it's because of senses. Senses are science. If god manifests himself in any way it can be shown with science. This has never happened.
happyhappy85 1 year ago
That is merely your assertion. God to be God is wholly other than what can be perceived by the senses. But since God is the Creator of all things, God is able to communicate directly to the intellect without the use of the senses. I assert this is called infused Faith. As for God manifesting Himself, the very existence of creation manifests His Being.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
God communicating with intellect is using senses. The intellect is a sense.
Existence of everything is not a manifestation because we know things can exist without God.
Point to something that would be impossible without a God, that's what would be a manifestation.
happyhappy85 1 year ago
@happyhappy85 The intellect is not one of the senses nor is it merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. We know of NOTHING that is not contingent. We do not know things can exist without a Creator. You merely assert that. All that is is impossible without a First Cause which itself is Uncaused.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
Yes it is part of the brain. We know life can form on its own. We know energy can convert. You are the one asserting there needs to be a minded creator who can create something from nothing and needs no cause himself. That is a huge assertion that holds a burden of proof.
happyhappy85 1 year ago
@happyhappy85 Science has never shown life forming on its own. That energy can convert from matter (I suppose you refer to E=mc2), how is that germane to what you posit? Since you deny the Creator, you have the burden to answer: How is there anything rather than nothing?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
Yes it has. With the right chemicals the potential for life is VERY possible. Again you're a god of the gaps person who thinks just because science hasn't figured it out it must mean a magical sky wizard did it.
Yes i do have the burden to answer how is the something rather than nothing but i am not going to just guess that a wizard did it like the average theist moron i'm actually going to try and find out.
happyhappy85 1 year ago
@happyhappy85 NO, it hasn't. "With the right chemicals etc is your leap of faith in science! "God of the gaps" position is not necessarily my position. Again, you are just putting me in that box. God is not a magical sky wizard. That term is just your way of disparaging and doesn't approach the subject of God reasonably. Keep trying to find out why there is something rather than noting; keep asking, seeking and probing. I know why and it isn't any wizard.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
You know nothing. Why would it be "god" that there is something rather than nothing? You define god to me instead of making me put words in your mouth. If you're not going to define it who is? Define god and then we have some grounds to start the conversation.
happyhappy85 1 year ago
@happyhappy85 God is Uncaused, Eternal Being, creator and ground of all that is. God is perfection, without defect or error. God is One. God is not any THING. God has no parts, no division, no dependency, no contingency. God always was and is and will be. But bear in mind and ponder: God is NOT any THING whatsoever. Hey, it is Lent, so I will get back to you in early April.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
My point is that what you have just said up there is a VERY wild assertion and i see no reason to think such a being exists. Even more so if you think that being has a creative mind, and even more so if you think that being wants anything to do with us. How do you KNOW any of this? Why do you think anyone should take that claim seriously? To me that claim is still just as serious as a magical sky wizard.
Look forward to your explaination.
happyhappy85 1 year ago
@happyhappy85 It can't be any wilder than the stuff put forth as hypotheses by modern physics, come on....seriously...string theory, quarks, parallel universes, upteen dimensions, come on! Fanastic convolutions straining credulity. God to be God must (you can reason to this) love 'His' creation. I know this because I can reason to its reasonableness and I have confirmation because of a personal relationship with the Deity. :-) A magical sky wizard does not qualify as God. God is not any THING.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
Those things are metaphysics and i don't really take them to seriously either, the thing is that they can be tested and we can make predictions that are almost right every time using modern physics. Like you said, they are mearly hypotheses. I don't take a hypotheses seriously until it becomes a theory. If you have a "personal relationship" with it (i'm not sure what that means explain?) then you should know what it is. Is this God minded? Does it think? Or is it just a cause, or everything?
happyhappy85 1 year ago
@happyhappy85 When man speaks of God he must use human terms which can not really grasp God. God is spoken of as having Intellect, but one can not suppose that it is like ours. God has no brain. God is spoken of as having thoughts, but God does not have thoughts like we do. God does not think as we do; God does not ponder, consider, change 'His mind.' Yet God has intellect and will, but not like ours. Rather we are like God in having intellect and will.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
I see. What you are saying is still a massive assertion with no grounds of evidence. If you had just said god was the cause of our universe and i know nothing else i just call it god because that's the the word i use, i might have respected your opinion but when you pretend to know specific things about this cause like that it has a mind, i'm afraid i can't take you seriously. You may be justified if you have personal experience but i see no evidence for what you are proposing.
happyhappy85 1 year ago
@happyhappy85 Kind of amusing. You are free to respect or disrespect. I assert that, apart from whether there is God or not, one can by reason alone postualte God and reasonably, logically, unfailingly speak of certain necessary attribute that must pertain to the postuated God. My personal experience is not really the subject matter but I spoke of it as answer to some query. Fact is REASON CAN postuate God and infer certain infallibly necessary attribute of such a Being.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
then show me the evidence. Show me why this assertion isn't retarded at the highest degree? You cannot assert things because of lack of knowledge.
happyhappy85 1 year ago
@happyhappy85 The short of it is this: If there is any defect postulated to God, then God would not be God. God is not a creature. If God was any THING, God would be contingent. God can not be contingent since that would require a dependency. the Greater can not be dependent upon the lesser; the Creator upon the creature since the latter has all being from the Former. One can reason that God to be God must be One, Simple, without parts. Read St Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Spare me.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
You do realise this explains nothing and the assertion is just getting wilder and wilder. Believeing in something like that for no reason seems very intellectually dishonest. The point is if you don't even know what you're claiming god to be then why do you even assert it. If god is so perfect then why would he bother creating anything.
happyhappy85 1 year ago
@Xpistos2 - prove it or it never happened.
acfacf4321 1 year ago
Non sequitur. Not proving is not proof that "it" never happened. There are many 'whatevers' that have happened dor which there is neither proof not even an inkling. No one really has proven with perspicasity the world of quantum reality, for instance.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@happyhappy85 Hypotheses, predictions, testing, conclusions are in the realm of science and deal with matter/energy. As for physics being right almost every time, I beg to differ. The history of physics and of the sciences in general (and this is no criticism) is always being revised, each new theory is acclaimed as if it were the Truth only to fall in time to new theories. That I have a personal relationship with God doesn't give me access to God's Essence.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@Xpistos2 - Also, if you held your god to the same standard as physics, then you would be an atheist. 'Nuff said!
acfacf4321 1 year ago
If GOD is, then God may not be held to any empirical standard. If God could be held to an empirical standard of evaluation, God would not be God. Nuff answered. :-)
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@Xpistos2 - By YOUR standard, anything non-existant could be a "god". You see how that works?
acfacf4321 1 year ago
Not at all, since God can not be any THING whatsoever. Things are contingent and are made up of other things as far as we have 'seen.' To posit that all that is is things, ie matter/energy, is to run into a serious problem. From whence is anything? If things always were in one configuration or another, how did we ever arrive at the present configuration?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
Moreover, God to be God would of necessity be existent. And further, there can only be One God if in fact God is.
Xpistos2 1 year ago