Christopher Hitchens (2) - La Ciudad de las Ideas 2009 [11]

[toxycola]

Oh, i love You Mr. Hitchens. We'll be missing You!

[cheshiesgrin]

Oh my gawd intelligence is sexy

[amalgamatedman]

HITCH SLAP

[DonRico333]

which is why evidence is a casual thing with them- owned!!

[AROtotheN]

Aids may be bad, but condoms are worse!!! lol

[D3ltra]

What a trio. The opposition didn't stand a chance.

[ennuiandthensome]

and given his history, Hitch was probably smashed in this.

simply stunning. Hitch is friggin awesome, especially when juxtaposed next to ignoramuses like D'Souza

[jarroddudley]

Simply beautiful

[Rozy02]

Unfortunately i must say that the people there seem not worth or uninterested in what he has to say but his genius is almost unrivaled in our time !

[GDATERRY]

I think it was the best turn of events that Hitchens was immediately after the longwinder drivel that D'Souza spat out. Totally destroyed.

[wonkothemagicelf]

Hitch lays the smackDOWN !

[Hisseefits]

hitchens kicks ass again!

[terry4144]

If god really exists when Hitchen dies he will kick gods arse

[Brahmsfourth]

Was this being simultaneously translated for the audience? Why would Puebla, Mexico sponsor such an event if the majority of the audience does not fully comprehend the dialogue? The last time I was in Mexico I couldn't find The God Delusion in its Spanish edition anywhere in the country. It is odd to see Hitchens speaking to such a quiet and passive audience.

[msalazarx]

@Brahmsfourth I want that book so much, i am mexican,I went to last Show in Puebla, i had the opportunity to meet and actually talk with Dennet and Krause, one of the greatest moments of my life. Andres Roemer is helping Mexico to do this kind of events with the most greatest minds of our time, hope next time we can have Dawkins. I think most of the jokes and humor are lots in translation, the translation was not so good, i checked it. You cant be literal with yokes because culture differences.

[sswindgassen]

clearly hitchens, and then harris, are the intellectual heavy hitters. everyone else either makes me yawn (dennet, wright), laugh (boteach, d'souza) or recoil in disgust (taleb)

[samusssbm85]

Learn something from your Good Book Tylernull; be humble. You clearly think you are superior to non believers. Pride goeth before a fall

[TylerNull]

"

The Atheist Hoax

A secular perspective

The gimmick used in Atheist proselytism is to establish the frame of discussion as belief vs. no belief. When, in reality, Atheists simply hold different beliefs and form different conclusions. The full wad of notions upon which theirs are based remains hidden by the Atheists' closed-loop idiocy of claiming such are nonexistent or irrelevant due to the label they hide theirs behind. When questioned on this, the Atheist defense is ...

"

[maddtappin]

as Sam Harris says atheist is a word of no content. You are an atheist Tyler Null when it comes to Thor being God.

Secondly, to be an atheist you don't need to believe anything. All you need to do to reject the Christian faith per say is to reject the silly idea that Jesus was born from a virgin. No belief needed.

[TylerNull]

One of the most hilarious of all their attempted sanctuaries from reality is when devout socialists keep announcing their own non-existence.

It's fitting. Abject depravity is a prerequisite of their political theology, and so tends toward self-extermination. As their relatively brief history evidences.

Recurrently.

The full wad of beliefs sloshing about, unexamined, in the devout Atheists' skulls is damn near infinite.

Hey, how's that prophesy of Thermal Armageddon going for you guys?

[maddtappin]

Using big words don't strengthen a non-argument.

Which Atheist are you referring too? The word atheist is a word with no content. It tells you nothing of what "unexplained beliefs" might be in their head.  You fail.

[TylerNull]

There is no word or set of words tiny enough to slip through the realities you desperately attempt to avoid.

Self professed Atheists are ... just that. And they exist.

Leaning on your "no content" contrivance, as you did again, doesn't alter that reality.

Beyond that, your inability to witness the mysticism permeating the gibberish spewed by Atheist devotees is just that; YOUR inability. No one else's.

And I would never hope to not "fail" to dissuade a devout Atheist, such as yourself.

[maddtappin]

what reality are you referring to exactly?

Sam Harris is not a professed atheist nor am I. Using that word against someone is silly wordplay, filled with no content, save that which YOU fill it. Its an empty term he nor I identify with.

Why do you assume I can't witness mysticism?

Again, you're showing me that you are acting and speaking on "loads of assumptions."

[TylerNull]

"what reality"

Posing as an imbecile, even of the topic of your own choosing, doesn't alter reality any more than pretending you don't exist. The fact that you do both is just hilarious.

Shame of your Atheist devotions is your lone sign of mental health. Beyond that, I never made the claims you invented, and my observations are just that, not "assumptions".

Instead of publicly debasing yourself in defense of your non-mysticism, perhaps you should simply rethink your silly notions.

[maddtappin]

Im posing as an imbecile. that's a reality?

I will tell you again I'm not an atheist. Man with all your big words you can't read.

I'm also not a non-mystic.

You're full of insults I'll give you that.

[TylerNull]

Huh?

You're not a what?

I don't understand.

(See, I can do it too.)

For someone who's notions don't exist even as they attempt to proselytize them, even while simultaneously distancing themselves from them, you sure have a big wad of them.

In case you're confused again, that too demonstrated your insult to reason.

[maddtappin]

I'm not pretending to misunderstand you. You think I wanna convert you? I can't . No one can. Your mind is closed.

[bkishar]

compartmentalization of various areas of knowledge is quite common and to me it amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

There are hordes of medical doctors in Saudi Arabia, for example, who are brilliant in their field yet believe in genies, ghosts, and magic in accordance with their scripture.

[MrJayintray]

Man that audience either didn't understand or that was held in a church.

Hitchens for World Leader !!

[lepolemicist]

They're uneducated sods, no doubt.

[Clifton100]

@MrJayintray thats why we have youtube so that an illiterate or non-english speaking audience would let Hitchens' efforts go to waste!

[msalazarx]

@MrJayintray its because the jokes are lost in translation. Mexican humor is too diferent to the average sarcastic Intelectual American Humor. The same would happen if a mexican intelectual says a joke in spanish then translated to english in America. Do you realize that the most of the people in the audience paid $2,000 dlls (not pesos) to hear these minds speak.

[pomeroy82]

TOTAL OWNAGE!!!!! Take your stupid little books full of fairy tale and crawl buck under the rock from which you came from you ignorant little mental midgets! Hitchens is the MAN!

[Kubota71]

I agree. I almost feel sorry for the religious panel. If this is the best speakers for the religious community, what a joke. They didn't even stand a chance............... lol

[jeremyemilio]

Except that Taleb is a whole other species of genius in comparison to Hitchens. Sorry, but it's true... and if you knew your geniuses, you wouldn't need me to tell you it's true.

[bkishar]

@ Jeremyemillio

I am very much familiar with Taleb's work and was literally shocked to see him this debate on this side.

His failure to apply the same critical method (i.e. scientific) that he uses on economics and social science on the dogma that was stuffed in his head by the Greek Orthodox Church in Lebanon amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

[jeremyemilio]

I'm not surprised. Taleb's work invokes uncertainty theory. God's a perfect "black swan." Taleb's remaining consistent in suggesting it's a stretch to say God doesn't exist based on our limited human experience. He's a statistician who's articulated, better than anyone since Hume, exactly how infinitesimal our scope of experience is (statistically speaking), and therefore understands that modern humans debating the existence of God is akin to Neanderthals debating the existence of black holes.

[bkishar]

1) Are you really that oblivious as to which side in this debate comprehends the inherent uncertainty in all knowledge and the open-ended nature of our acquisition and organization of it, and which side champions THE complete unchanging truth as "revealed" and laid down in inerrant and infallible scriptures? Taleb is in a giant glasshouse of certainty about God and his nature, how does that fit with his uncertainty theory?

[jeremyemilio]

Your description of religious persons is a caricature. Does it apply to some prominent religious leaders? Sure. But prominent as Hitchens is, I realize most atheists share nothing in common with his snarling, snide, dismissivness. Likewise, most religious people have as much awareness of the uncertainty of their beliefs as any atheist. And scripture as the 'revealed' and 'inerrant and infallible' word of God? Sorry, but literalists aren't so easy to come by as you may think; never were.

[bkishar]

Interpretation of a text implies a critical evaluation. It is the critical evaluation of scripture that leads most atheists to believe that they are not best suited to guide us morally. The texts themselves claim to be the inerrant and infallible word of god, and we take them at their word.

You conclude a priori that these are revelations, and then attempt to use "interpretation" to deal with the contradictions, cruelty, political interests, and outright absurdities that fill the text.

[jeremyemilio]

"The texts themselves claim to be the inerrant and infallible word of god."

Except they DON'T. Half of the NT is made up of Paul's letters to specific churches. Paul would role over in his grave if he knew people would try to characterize his words as the absolute truth of God. Ditto for the OT prophets, or chroniclers of History, or song writers. The Bible has no more contradictions or absurdities than any sane person would expect from a text its size and scope written by as many authors.

[bkishar]

2) The atheist position is not that there is no possibility of higher powers or greater forces in the universe that we do not know about. It is that the Abrahamic god does not exist in the same way Zeus, Jupiter, and Baal do not. We work with what we have and until we encounter, with our limited knowledge and method, evidence for such forces or powers we cannot simply assume them there and organize our lives around them.

[jeremyemilio]

It's not the atheist 'position' I have a problem with. It's the nature of the debate. Religion isn't science; it's culture. To debate the existence of God in scientific terms is like debating Hamlet's sanity in scientific terms. You can try, but it's a silly argument. Hamlet's sanity is a literary debate. There is no scientific evidence for Hamlet's state of mind, only literary evidence. Likewise, there's no scientific evidence for the existence of God, only religious evidence.

[bkishar]

Phenomenal knowledge is one. Religion is the worldview of cultures past, this is their best attempt at explaining the cosmos and the forces within it. I think, on the other hand, that the scientific method and critical thinking - despite all their shortcomings - are our most accurate and honest tools to tackle our condition.

The debate on ethics and causality is better done through philosophy - which is not science either - than religious dogma.

[jeremyemilio]

"I think [...] the scientific method and critical thinking [...] are our most accurate and honest tools to tackle our condition."

That's reasonable. But I think the human condition is best understood through arts and culture, which is also reasonable. And religion belongs to art and culture, so don't be shocked that when it's dragged into the scientific domain it becomes a jumbled mess. As Galileo could attest, when forced to play by the rules of religion, science doesn't do so well either.

[bkishar]

3) God is a priori knowledge for religion which is asserted prospectively and as such is no hard-to-predict "black swan."

[Kubota71]

@jeremyemilio How is he a genious??? Tell me.

[jeremyemilio]

Let's see... BA, MA, MBA, PhD. (Hitchens: 3rd class undergrad - 3rd friggin' class!) He writes in English, French, & Arabic; speaks Italian & Spanish; reads ancient Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, & Canaanite. His book, _The Black Swan_, was named by the Times 1 of the 12 most influential books since WWII, and has changed how all serious scholars view chance and probability. And he's been considered for the Nobel but rejected out of concerns he'd refuse the prize he's repeatedly ridiculed.

[Kubota71]

Wow !!! He is well educated. With ALL that education backing him up , he still has no evidence or proof of god. No one does. He is VERY well educated though.

[jeremyemilio]

Did you even read the post? I only mentioned his education so we could measure him against Hitchens. PhDs are a dime a dozen. I'm working on one right now... but: A) Hitchens doesn't have one... and not because he didn't want one either (although he may not have) but because with a 3rd class undergrad degree, grad school was not an option.; B) Taleb isn't just a PhD... he's the PhD that every other PhD in his field and a number of related fields has read... and that IS something, my friend.

[Kubota71]

I know it's something. He obviously is well educated. I'm just saying it still has nothing to do with proving or disproven there is a god or not...

[jeremyemilio]

Reread the thread. I never tried to prove God. I was simply rebutting pomeroy82's proposition that the panellists defending religion, and by extension all believers, are 'mental midgets.' You seconded his baseless assertion; I responded. God's un-provable; fine. But just as I don't pass aspersions on atheists, I won't abide being called stupid simply because I'm a person of faith... and your continued focus on Taleb's being 'well educated' displays a very shallow understanding of genius.

[bkishar]

Too bad all that education did not induce him to critically evaluate something as absurd as the claims of Greek Orthodox Christianity, to which he still clings dearly.

As I mentioned below there are hordes of Muslim PhD.'s, medical doctors, and engineers who very much believe in the existence of genies and their influence on our lives. Clearly education is not the same as enlightenment. Education does not guarantee one's willingness to question the most essential dogmas of childhood.

[jeremyemilio]

Yeah... and too bad Hitchens was never induced to critically evaluate something as absurd as wearing a plastic poppy, or combing his hair to the side, or shaving his beard... or leaving those top buttons unbuttoned. ALL culture is absurd. We still cheer when our team scores and cry when Ophelia drowns (she's not really dead, you know; she's just acting. Shell out another $80 and you can see her again tomorrow night). The world isn't a laboratory. If you live like it is, I'm sad for you.

[bkishar]

If religion and scripture are that trivial to you, and are mere cultural artifacts, most the religious would disagree. In fact, most would condemn you to heresy. They are presenting themselves as absolute revealed truths and we take them at their word.

Combing hair is not inducing anyone to kill others or ostracize them for their life choices; it is not marshaling massive resources to build "creation museums" simply because the scientific consensus does not agree with its scriptures.

[bkishar]

You can be sure that I do not live my life in a laboratory. I am fully capable to engaging in art-for-its-sake. When it comes to collective knowledge, however, I do not expect others to take at face value assertions made solely on my gut feeling and subjective emotional experiences.

The collective knowledge we've harnessed is a product of the scientific method and critical thinking. Surely physics, chemistry, and modern engineering are not mere absurdities to you.

[jeremyemilio]

Just a few 'ignorant little mental midgets':

... Newton... Shakespeare... Pasteur... Byron... Wright & Wright... Gandhi... Ali... Lincoln... Sartre... Bacon... MLK... Pascal... Tolkien... Washington... Cohen... Maxwell... Carroll... Jefferson... Pascal... Cash... Joule...

Bet they all wish they could've been more like Hitchens...

[bkishar]

1) An argument from authority is not a valid one. Just because someone is great at something does not give all his or her views validity at face value. Newton spent a good part of his life trying to turn lead into gold using alchemy and medieval magic. Each statement must be considered on the merit of its logic and evidence.

2) Jefferson was more of a deist and not a Christian, and Sartre was certainly an atheist.

3) You listed Pascal twice, although his argument for religion is disgraceful!

[jeremyemilio]

I didn't suggest just because certain geniuses believed God it followed that God must therefore exist. Atheists could assemble an equally impressive list. I was simply pointing out that believing in God doesn't make you a "mental midget" as pomeroy82 suggested. Instead of making a convoluted, abstract theoretical argument, I provided concrete evidence... which I would think would be right up your ally... no? (As for Sartre, his beliefs in his final years are a complex, but I'll withdraw him.)

[pomeroy82]

@jeremyemilio It is true that even brilliance has the ability to compartmentalize their reasoning its part of the reason why we still have scientists and doctors today that believe this nonsense. And by the way 50% of those people we're deists at best when it comes to believing in god.

[jeremyemilio]

"Brilliance," eh? So is this your round about way of taking back the proclamation that being religious makes one a "mental midget"?

Apology accepted.

[pascalecake]

I love when the comments are still idiot-free. Let's bask in the awesomeness.

[xTRUExHATEx]

I noticed that no religious people have commented on any of these videos. I think most of them have a terrible fear of losing their faith and therefore avoid anything that would crack the facade.

[tekproxy]

DOMINATING

[Kubota71]

Hitchens slays again...................... Religion is for the stupid and ignorant..

[chbrules]

I think it's a bit of a farce to suggest you have to be stupid to accept religious faith. I think it would more aptly be placed with ignorance until that individual makes claim to adhere to their faith regardless of contradicting evidence and such.

[xamot27]

ALL of the religious people I have debated with have done this. This is why they are ALL stupid to me.....

[chbrules]

Well that's fine if that's the supposed outcome of the people you've talked with, but religion != stupid people. That is simply a stereotype.

[CrownRoyalSociety]

Slap!