barbarism commited by most atheist is not commited because they dont believe,I dont think Stalin thought "I´m gonna kill millions because I am an atheist", whereas religion barbarism is commited by belief, "I´ll burn you in the name of god because you are a good astronomer and you are gonna mess up genesis."
@wirikuta14 Agreed. The fact that some leaders like Mao or Stalin were atheists is besides the point because "atheism" did not motivate them to issue orders that led to the death of millions. Compare this to the Crusades, the Spanish wars in the Americas or the Arabic wars lead by the prophet Muhammed later Islamic generals, inb both cases the primary motivation for conquering was religious fervor, supplemented by material greed (which is justified as long as one is stealing from infidels).
Hitchens is the audio for the science community. Most scientists dont debate over theism and atheism, and therefor people like hitchens are profoundly important so science isnt deluded by religious beliefs and stays objective. Look at america, science there is constantly being watered down with religion, the same with education.
Wow...this is like playing chess with a retard...not too challenging! Sharpton is a moron..where would he be without a self-imposed title of Reverend?
not being morbid guys...but does anybody know if the hitch has been burried/ creamated, or what...googled his funeral and not much is said about it...just wondering where he lies, i owe him a double brandy...sleep well chris, you have made me complete.
@euroman32589 i think he's been cremated. his last wish was that the water of his body be used to make scotch and his ashes be used to fertilize tobaco plant. that way his children will be able to get drunk with him one last time...(get it...its a joke)...XD
To focus this back to the video, Hitchens has to ignore history in order arrive at the conclusion that the US invasion of Iraq has moral merit. It is painfully obvious that Sadaam's brutality was irrelevant to the US when they supported Sadaam for a decade. Some call this a mistake. No. A mistake is adding fractions incorrectly, or bombing the wrong target. A dictator who is gassing his own people is an irrelevancy within a larger US Middle East policy.
@indoctus41 That being said, does "feigning" ethical behavior prevent that behavior from being ethical? I'm finding a hard time trying to find your line of reasoning.
@movcrit I like your question a lot. There is a difference between a positive result and an ethical act. Let's say you accidently trip over someone who's heart has stopped, and your knee hits their chest causing the heart to start beating, saving their life. That is a positive result but the act itself is not ethical, but accidental. The US ousted Sadaam, again a positive result, but he was in the way of US access to Iraqi oil. Therefore the act was not ethical. It was made to appear ethical.
@indoctus41 The only difference is that the invasion was intended to oust Saddam and his regime. There was nothing accidental or collateral about that. This would be more saving someone from a heart attack for reward money rather then purely to save him. Ulterior motives don't dictate whether or not an is moral or immoral from a consequent point of view if the same outcome occurs.
@movcrit That's right. There was nothing accidental about Sadaam being ousted by US forces. However that was not the goal, only a means to a goal, access to resources. Remember the US supported Sadaam through his most heinous crime, gassing the Kurds. That was in 1988. He fell out of favour with the US in 1991, 3 years AFTER his worst offence. Logic says the principle reason for the US invasion could not be his brutality against his own people, or they would not have waited 15 years to invade.
@indoctus41 In this case, the intentions was the same, ouster of Saddam. From a utilitarian point of view personal gain from doing acts that would already be considered "good" makes such an act even more moral then if there were no reward. There is no moral theory that I can think that requires only philanthropic actions to be moral (actions done without personal gain) if such actions would ever to exists.
@movcrit The initial reason given for the invasion was WMD's. Sadaam's brutality was a side issue that only became a principle 'concern' when no WMD's were found. As for personal gain, if that is the principle motivation for an act, then the act is either unethical (if harm is done to others) or neutral (if there is no harm done to others). If an act is principally for personal gain, I don't think that could fall under the definition of morality.
@indoctus41 A good thought experiment would be this: if a baby was drowning in the river. You would feel an obligation to... blah blah etc. But what if you were also motivated to save the baby for monetary rewards. Now you have a slight dilemma (though not contradicting) situation. Because you are motivated by money it is no longer the correct thing to do? If you conclude that saving a baby purely to save it is more moral then doing so for monetary gain then I would agree however....
@movcrit The baby puzzle is interesting and can be solved this way. If you would have saved the baby even if there were no reward, then saving the baby knowing money is involved would not weaken the morality of the act. If you would have let the baby drown if, hypothetically, no money was involved, then saving the baby could not be a moral act. It is not immoral either, since you saved the baby. Of course It would be immoral to let the baby drown in any circumstance.
@indoctus41 ...however it would seem to me (correct if I've been wrong or misconstrued your contentions) that you imply that saving the baby for monetary gain is actually immoral rather then just being less moral.
@movcrit Actually no. Saving the baby, depending on the circumstances involving money, is either moral or neutral. It could never be immoral. An act that is not moral does not mean the act is immoral. An act that is not moral could simply be one that does not involve morality at all, e.g. buying a sandwich is not a moral act but it is not immoral either. It does not involve morality.
@indoctus41 It seems our difference in ethical systems is that I do not adhere to a system of morality that contains "neutrally" moral acts but rather that those acts are more moral then the immoral and less moral then other acts. I do this because I believe that an ethical system should be able to validate our daily life, where acts and decisions contain only personal benefits such as buying a sandwich.
My personal beliefs are quite different from the societal ones I was talking about. For me morals are a human construct and don't really exist, just as good and evil don't really exist. Why does e.g. kindness occur? Perhaps a stimulus, like a suffering animal, releases chemicals in the body that produce a feeling that motivates us towards an act of kindness. In any case morals appear subjective, not objective.
History has shown that nations do not invade because of altruism, because they take pity on the oppressed, because they feel empathy for the sufferers. The invader will be motivated by self-interest, e.g. access to resources, markets, etc. If any benefits do arrive to the victims this is serendipitous. On top of that, every invasion in history, with one exception, has been characterized as a benefit to the victims by the invader. There is no evidence that the US is any different.
Hitchens picks easy targets. Notice he never debates Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal or any other intellectual that can point out Hitchens' factual errors.
@indoctus41 Are you familiar with the disagreements that he has with both of them, particularly over the issue of 9/11 and the Afghanistan as well as Iraq war? Just because Hitch hasn't been in an in person debate with you're selected challengers does not mean that he picks easy targets. Is Tony Blair an easy target? Do you think most people consider William Lane Craig an easy target?
@SpinyNorman416 Yes I am. Hitchens is a promoter of state terror (invasions, torture) where as Vidal and Chomsky are aware of the destructive nature of such actions. Don't misunderstand me. I think Hitchens' strategy is sound, to avoid discussing matters with genuine intellectuals. As for Blair (hardly an intellectual), they're on the same page. As for Craig, that might have been a mistake that he only made once. I see Hitchens as a clever raconteur of fairy tales. He just makes stuff up.
And as well Chomsky has said he will not debate Hitch on the merits of the Iraq war, not the other way around. And we know why too; he would get destroyed. Hitch has never declined to debate anyone. Prove me wrong.
Also, a supporter of torture? State sponsored terror? You obviously know nothing about the man or misinterpret him completely...
@Territomauvais I don't go by what you think he says but what he actually says. He's on record supporting the invasion of Iraq and the torture in Guantánamo. He recanted on the second because of his ridiculous circus act (waterboarding), pretending he had undergone torture when in fact he did nothing of the kind. As far as I know he still supports the US crimes in Iraq. You can support his blood-lust if you like. There are many that do. As for your views on Chomsky, well, nuf said.
@indoctus41 He does support the war in Iraq, and if u read or watch any of his thoughts on the subject you would know why he supports the war. It's not because he like terrorizing people. You don't know what you're talking about.
@490310001 You're listening to the wrong people. You should be listening to victims of US attacks whether they're being terrorized, not a clever raconteur of fairy tales like Hitchens. US attack helicopters wiping out Reuter journalists as well as a van with children that came in to rescue them on the streets of Baghdad (reference Wikileaks video), the official story from the US military being that they were under hostile fire, please explain to the Iraqi citizens how that is not state terror.
@indoctus41 You seem to be avoiding the question of Iraq under Sadaam or his sons as opposed to invasion and removal of Sadaam by the US. If you want to point out acts committed by US troops that are unacceptable, that's just fine and those people should absolutely be brought to the strictest justice, however this is being used as an argument that the US should have left Sadaam in power. Nothing the US has done has come close to the horror of Baathist Iraq.
@SpinyNorman416 How about this for a US foreign policy? Stay out of other people's business. In is no business of the US to be monitoring the world's leaders in order to pick targets for invasion. Let countries decide their own fate. And if you think this is too wild an idea, you might want to brush up on International Law that prohibits invasions based on what one country thinks of another country's leader. The Iraq invasion did not even get UN approval.
@indoctus41 This is just isolationism pure and simple. You could use this against any intervention from WWII to Bosnia. Fine everyone will stay out of everyone's affairs, It's fine if Sadaam gasses his own people. None of our business. It's fine if anyone wants to commit genocide they're just deciding their own fate. You may want to brush up on International Law as well particularly the Geneva Convention which requires signatories to punish or prevent genocide.
@SpinyNorman416 The US was 5 trillion in debt in 2000 and after Bush 10 trillion. It's now somewhere between 13 and 14 trillion. If you and Hitchens think that it is rational for Americans to spend their dwindling capital policing the world then I guess they'll have to live with the consequences. History has shown that what dissipates the power of an empire over other parameters is the erosion of wealth.
@indoctus41 It's amazing how you back away from the issue. First Hitchens won't debate anyone but intellectual inferiors because he's afraid- False. Then Hichens is a war hawk who supports torture- FALSE. Then the US used to support Sadaam therefore can't try to correct these idiotic mistakes later- Faulty Logic. Next the US shouldn't intervene in other nations affairs under any circumstances- Only works if genocide is okay. Now it seems that it's just a monetary argument. Funny.
@SpinyNorman416 UN inspectors COULD NOT FIND WMD's in Iraq. The US fell deaf. The US took its 'proof' of WMD's to the UN and they found the evidence unconvincing. So the US invaded anyway and didn't find WMD's. Then the propaganda machine switched gears drumming up Sadaam's evil ways, hoping we would forget that he was just as evil when we supported him. All of a sudden it was the poor oppressed people of Iraq who needed saving. You'd have to be insane to believe such a tall tale.
@indoctus41 Yet again this is just moving the goal posts. This argument was never about WMDs. It was about Hitchens support of Sadaam due to his running a dictatorial regime and his crimes against humanity. Yet again you want to say that US policy has been downright stupid in Iraq and the majority of the middle east. No argument here. However, saying that US policy has been stupid does not mean that Sadaam gets to commit crimes against humanity and break international law.
@SpinyNorman416 You're not the first neo-rationalist to live in a world of delusion and fairy tales. You & Hitchens want the US to meddle in everyone's affairs and police the world. Perhaps this kind of intrusion is needed so lets open it up to a vote. Let the nations of the world decide who this nosy nation will be, instead of the US appointing itself to the position. Unless of course you don't believe in democracy.
@indoctus41 And that is where you lose me. You've stopped responding to my points all together and you're argument has turned into a complete straw man. You want to turn a discussion about the removal of a dictator into a farce about the US being the world police. I suppose dictators are OK as long as they don't like the US. Have fun patting yourself on the back for trying the keep the US out of other countries internal war crimes, because you'll have no more discussion from me.
@indoctus41 There's obviously an ugly side to anything in life not specifically war, which wikileaks is very good at pointing out, but I would argue that Iraqis are more terrified of their own government and the terrorist group essentially running the country. Woman live in more fear of being beaten, raped or killed than they do of the US military accidentally killing them.
@indoctus41 Wait, are you saying that Hitchens did not in fact undergo waterboarding? Please supply evidence. If I follow your logic you are saying that he faked waterboarding only to then go and claim that it was torture. To what end? That might have worked if he was planning on saying it wasn't torture but why fake it in order to then claim that it was inhumane? Unless of course its just trying to say something that makes Hitchens look bad.
@indoctus41 On the Iraq War, he freely states that the invasion was not done properly tactically or logistically. However, he maintains that despite the state Iraq is in now it is far better than before the US arrived. Have fun trying to claim that the Bath Regime is morally equivalent to the US. Lastly, by US crime do you mean the invasion in itself or do you have documentation for other crimes specifically carried out by the US?
@SpinyNorman416 The US supported Sadaam in his darkest hour, the gassing of the Kurds. That was 1988. The US pulled their support of Sadaam in 1991. If the US was at all concerned about the evils of the Ba'ath Party, they would have spoken up when it happened, when they were supporting him, not 15 years later in 2003 when they were trying to drum up support for their invasion.
@indoctus41 Hitchens states that is was unforgivable that the US would support Iraq it's atrocities and that the US should never have helped Sadaam. It's funny how you've turned this from a "Hitchens supports the evil US in Iraq" to "The US has supported Sadaam in the past and therefore can never oppose him in the future" Am I to take from this that you are only upset about the invasion because it didn't occur sooner? You seem to be making an argument for earlier removal.
@indoctus41 You completely ignored my first question. I'll reiterate:
What stuff has he made up? You asserted this. Cite me something Hitchens has 'made up'.
Also, a citation for his support of torturing Guantanamo detainees would be appreciated.
I assume you don't consider waterboarding torture, then, if you don't consider that he has been tortured. [Which is nonsense. You know nothing about the Mammalian reflex to drowning.]
As for Chomsky? You said nothing about his cowardice
@Territomauvais Hitchens was NOT tortured. It was a circus act. Victims of torture don't freely submit to it nor do they have control over its termination. If he had come to the wrong conclusion it would have been meaningless. Ergo the right conclusion IS ALSO MEANINGLESS. The US already determined waterboarding as torture in WW2 when their soldiers were waterboarded by the Japanese. For Hitchens to assume that in 2008 he had to go through a mock torture to prove something is just inane.
@Territomauvais Hitchens stated that the US liberated East Timor. He also claimed that the CIA had nothing to do with the establishment of the Mujahideen (pre-cursors to al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan.
@indoctus41 Hitchens clearly states that torture is unequivocally wrong and went so far as to have himself water boarded and then stated that it was clearly torture. If invasions by are state terror by definition then I have no idea what to tell you but as I recall for all of its problems Iraq has a democratic constitution as well as an elected government. Real state terror is the use of torture and fear by the Iraqi Bath Party that was rampant before the US invasion.
@SpinyNorman416 One other point. Interesting to note that after Hitchens debate with Craig, where Hitchens was caught misrepresenting the views of Dostoyevski, Dawkins made his famous public refusal to debate Craig. For some odd reason the new rationalists seem to fear him, and I think it's because he is not your garden variety extremist Christian but has a background in the philosophical arguments.
The decision of right and wrong can be viewed by society in a different way given that the values of society change. What Christians believe is that there are objective values that don't change despite society's values. That objective morality is authored by God.
Hitchens is right; he is better off , like James Joyce, pairing his nails in indifference... I think he is kind to respond at all: that he does so with some enthusiasm is to his credit....
Like Hitch, I yearn for a decent argument from a Christian. Just one! I genuinely desire it because then the majority of my folk are not so sadly deluded. Christians out there, c'mon. Just one! Please. One!
hitchslapped! we need more militant atheists in the u.s. to combat the rise of fundamentalist christian bullshit. creationism is actually being taught in some SCIENCE classes here. george bush said god told him going into iraq was justified through prayer. this shit has got to stop.
The beautiful thing is that after awhile Al shuts up and just lets Hitch have the floor. Although Al may have only caught every 3rd word and probably few of the concepts, even his meager brain recognized Hitchens' superior logic and just got out of the way. Intellect, reason and wit easily conquering superstition and prejudice........
Didn't Sharpton say "to think that the whole world was waiting on one's birth, your birth or mine, or death, to set the framework of morality, I think that is very arrogant. It's also delusional, but it is very arrogant"
Isn't that the definition of Jesus? Was he not born to save us, did he not die to save us, was his mere existence not to change the Old Testament morality and give the world a new chance? Al Sharpton has given a great argument against the human deity here.
The notion of objective morals is so clearly false as moral standards have shifted with the times. They are decided by society - inter-subjective morals and ethics are decided by men (occasionally women) for better or worse as shown by the different times and different rules people are governed by.
i dot get it, the question "where do we should get our morals from?", implying that we need religious scripture is kinda ridicilous in two ways. The first reason why its nonsense, lays on the claim of absolute morality, the second is the act that we in the 21th century already have written down a decleration of universal human rights that is not alterable. If they want a book read the United nations decleration of human rights UN(dot) org
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
0:28 Ehh, and if there is a supernatural being, aren't you just basing your morality on his might? How is it more noble than basing morality on human feelings?
There's NO morality. There are rules of engagement but they are not natural. I had it with people that think human beings are any different from any other animal, as if we were some kind of freak of nature that deserves different and that has magical powers to tell right from wrong. We know what we do not like... most emotionally and phisycally sane humans would agree on a series of things, this is what we call moral. No metaphysical nothing involved. GROW UP.
@artwdog Sorry mate youre wrong this "debate" wouldnt even happen in the UK its laughable the UK and most of Europe despair when watching these american fundamentalists its hocus pocus and superstition, by the way im from the UK and of Irish heritage, makes the states look very bad to the rest of the world. . .
@dixon97a This debate wouldn't happen in the United Kingdom or most of Europe because social homogeneity prevents serious discussions about differences of opinion and ideas, as it is not possible to engage them without facing public ridicule and social intimidation. The amount of narcissistic nonsense Europeans spout is enough to make any rational person puke, especially when they're only 70 years from their attempt, the most serious ever taken, to destroy the civilized world.
What a rambling idiot!! Why do you need a creator to have morality?! Awful, awful question. He does not explain why this is the case at all. He merely states it as fact. How is it fact?..It simply is not!
Sharpton is an idiot, but he raises a good question. What do atheists base morality on?
Hitchens never answers the question. If you listen, he never gets to it. He assumes that morality has some basis and then rips on the religious. The reason he does not answer is because atheism requires morality to be based on species preference... just a subjective matter of taste.
@Cilence13 Oversimplified answer: Atheists base morality on rational thought and experience. Rational thought- it is an objective fact that happiness, pain, suffering, etc exist. They are also BY DEFINITION either inherently good or bad. As such, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that increasing the happiness in the world is moral. As for experience- evolution, cultural evolution, and personal experience help us determine what things are conducive to societies we want to live in.
@PBDPBD I think you make a mistake in saying that suffering is "by definition...bad". I would say that your suffering may be not-preferable most of the time. However, it could also be preferable, (for someone torturing you and liking it)..
Clarify what you mean by "bad".. The universe as a whole (as far as I know) has not told us that torture should not happen. You may not like torture, but it does not violate any objective rule of action.. All it violates is your preferences.
@Cilence13 As I said, I oversimplified. Stupid character restrictions.
By suffering I mean actual suffering. NOT bearable pain administered by someone you find sexually attractive in a sexual situation (or something like that, where the good feelings outweigh the bad).
Suffering/etc by definition violates ANY entity sentient enough to experience them. Whether it's a dog, a worm, or a human, it by definition does not prefer to suffer.
We're sentient beings capable of empathizing with others.
@Cilence13 If you meant that some people are psychopaths and enjoy seeing others suffer, that's where experience comes in. If you torture other people, they will do things that you won't like. Even if they don't lock you up, they won't help you when you need help. Google game theory for examples
Point is, secular thinkers (there is a LONG history of 100% secular ethics) have many facts and philosophies to base their morality on. It's hard to go into much detail in a youtube comment box though.
i still don't know why anyone turns up for a debate with hitchens. they should know by now they'll be destroyed. it must be so wearying to to have to deal with the same idiotic arguments every single time. i've watched a hell of a lot of debates of this nature and it's the same handfull of arguments all the time. it's as if religious people have no memories. all their arguments have been destroyed over and over again. i just hope it sinks in eventually. i won't hold my breath though.
The biggest issue for me is when i try to watch these videos and that FUCKING ad in the corner pops up and i have to mute it. This people, is a major issue. I think Atheist and Religiasist need to band together against these ads. Together we can silence them and watch our videos without having to mute Lysol ads. "And God said unto thee, Thine internets will produce annoying ads, believers and non believers shaltith bandith togetherith", first Corinthilogians, verse 3.7, look it up bitches
Sharpton is an idiot, a highschool student who studied basic psychology/biology would understand why morality is a natural part of nature and civilized societies.
It just seems that no christian has knowledge of previous debates, asking the same questions that hitchens (and other atheists) have all answered hundreds of times before publicly (or maybe they do and their just fucking idiots).
I'm glad though that hitch tried a different response other than the obvious "people don't do bad things in the name of atheism"
Having a religion is much like having a penis, its all very well to covert it, even be proud of it but you do not have the right to either wave it about in public, or worse, to try and ram it down the throat of everyone you meet.
@sheikhyaboooty "Having a religion is much like having a penis, its all very well to covert it, even be proud of it but you do not have the right to either wave it about in public, or worse, to try and ram it down the throat of everyone you meet."
Hitchens missed the point, he says good people to good things and bad people to bad things, what makes "good" people "good" and "bad" people "bad"? And if he takes the normal athiest posistion that morality is created by the people living in the given area, then Hitler was a hero, he simply carried out what was seen as "good" in Germany at the time.
@Steelers2417 You seem to be missing the point that what happened in Germany was in a large part fueled by religion. If there was no religion it wouldn't have happened anyways.
@halosmyth First of all what happened in Germany was mainly fueled by the humiliation Germany suffered after WW1 and although Hitler killed 6 million Jews he also killed blacks, gays, gypsys, and communisists; so no it couldn't have been avoided if there was no religion. My point about Hitler, however, was not my main point but just an example used to show the irrationality of the thought that one can have morality without a moral absolute.
Sharpton's such a douche, like all religious people. Isn't it sad that religious people have to look upon an invisible man in the sky for morals? Religious people have no trust in human beings. That to me is so pathetic.
So you do not believe that Atheists ever did anything evil.... this is what we call a non-sequitur (in real universities, Rev Sharpton) and I feel the bullshit Mao/Stalin/Polpot argument coming... let's see if I'm right!!!!
@2001Horatio Yeah, I saw that one coming a mile away. Considering that atheism under Mao and Stalin was the result - not the cause - of their despotism and consolidation of power, the suggestion that it somehow invalidates atheism is crap.
Since when is Christopher Hitchens the "most intelligent" living philosopher?
Hitchens is accessible to the laymen, but he's far from being the most brilliant philosopher today. There's Smith, Armstrong, Swinburne, Plantinga, Blackburn, Martin, etc.
Hitchens is just articulate and quite frankly, condescending. That's why so many atheists like him. It's become popular to diatribe religion and assume you are smarter if you are an atheist, so Hitchens is loved because of his demeanor.
@SarahB360 If his views have changed, how can he always have been right? Is a man who first believes homosexuality is wrong then believes it is right "always right"? That makes no sense.
@BraunBrothers I agree here too. Atheists like him because he puts theistic fuckwits in their place - their proper place, with the other delusional Fascists!!!! LOL
I know more immoral Christians than I do Atheists. I've never had an Atheist tell me women deserve to be raped, or that black people aren't equal to every other ethnicity. I've only heard that from Christians.
@xjedixwarriorx You've heard Christians say that women deserved to be raped? I've lived in the conservative south for years and years, and I've never heard any such thing. I am dying to hear a Christian say that women deserve to be raped, but I never have...
@BraunBrothers In the area I am in I often hear them say that they themselves wouldn't rape a woman, but that if it does happen to one, then it is god's wrath. They believe she deserved it for living an "immoral" lifestyle. The thing that pisses me off is less of their religious conviction and more their sheer immorality in saying that about a human being.
Strange that Hitchens didn't give the obvious answer to Sharpton's old canard about atheists doing bad things, which is that atheists don't do bad things *in the name of atheism*. There are bad people everywhere and any time, irrespective of their religion, so of course there are bad atheists. But their atheism is irrelevant, they don't do bad things *because they are atheists*.
@CaptainChaos maybe he got sick and tired of making that point, since has made that point quite a few times in debates and interviews allready :) but your statement stands :)
@CaptainChaos Indeed. A simple supporting example is the fact that Hitler, Stalin and Hussein, Vlad the Impaler and Ghengis Khan all had mustaches. This was not the common motivating factor in their evil deeds, however.
@CaptainChaos whether or not atheists do bad things "in the name of atheism", the point is they often do bad things, and often do so due to an atheistic worldview.
@FuroraCeltica I'm an atheist, and according to you I often do bad things? Well fuck you too. Provide some evidence for this assertion (which you can't, since it's bullshit), or shut the fuck up.
@CaptainChaos did say anything about you personally? No, I think you'll find I didn't. Atheists do indeed often do bad things, whether or not they say "Thus sayeth the Darwin" after they do it. Ask the people communism/atheism killed in the 20th century
@FuroraCeltica I'll think you find that you said "atheists often do bad things". Twice now. Not "some atheists". Not "a few atheists". "Atheists". So once again: fuck you too.
As regards your communism/atheism conflation: communism is not the same thing as atheism, you moron. And even if it were that would be besides the point, since while communists have indeed done many bad thing, they didn't do them *because they were atheists*. If you think they did, provide some evidence, otherwise STFU.
@visigrog I know right? Hitchens didn't answer the question at all!! All he did was dance around and say religious people are immoral. But the real question was: Where do atheists get their morality from? He could have answered, but typical of Hitchens, he avoided the real conflict and instead turned the question around on the religious. Gotta love it
The morality argument is quite asinine. How do humans being no whether it is hot or cold outside? The Bible provides no guidance. We have to use our judgment to determine whether or not it is 'hot' or 'cold.' Nearly all rational people would agree that 100 fahrenheit is hot and 20 fahrenheit is cold. There are some grey areas, but for the most part, rational people agree. The same is true with morality. It is "subjective," but rational people agree in most cases.
sorry i mean he's a prick
Seldomsleeper 1 week ago
Sharpton is just a showman
Seldomsleeper 1 week ago
barbarism commited by most atheist is not commited because they dont believe,I dont think Stalin thought "I´m gonna kill millions because I am an atheist", whereas religion barbarism is commited by belief, "I´ll burn you in the name of god because you are a good astronomer and you are gonna mess up genesis."
wirikuta14 1 week ago
@wirikuta14 Agreed. The fact that some leaders like Mao or Stalin were atheists is besides the point because "atheism" did not motivate them to issue orders that led to the death of millions. Compare this to the Crusades, the Spanish wars in the Americas or the Arabic wars lead by the prophet Muhammed later Islamic generals, inb both cases the primary motivation for conquering was religious fervor, supplemented by material greed (which is justified as long as one is stealing from infidels).
fluffsies1 3 days ago
Hitchens is the audio for the science community. Most scientists dont debate over theism and atheism, and therefor people like hitchens are profoundly important so science isnt deluded by religious beliefs and stays objective. Look at america, science there is constantly being watered down with religion, the same with education.
Shame we have lost such a sharp mind as hitchens.
RawSwedishMeatball 2 weeks ago
Wow...this is like playing chess with a retard...not too challenging! Sharpton is a moron..where would he be without a self-imposed title of Reverend?
safetydude65 2 weeks ago
Oh Hitch that guy was a pres. candidate? HITCHSLAPPED.
wanabenerd 2 weeks ago
Sharpton still has a career? I thought we got rid of this guy years ago.
T0PSLAYER117 3 weeks ago
Sharpton is out of his league here. If it were a heavyweight fight, they'd have to stop it.
tanger335 3 weeks ago
Hitchins is God... well you know what i mean..
alzibub60 4 weeks ago 6
@alzibub60 Nietzsche talked about Hitchens and he's right.
GLANL 4 weeks ago
@euroman32589 "Christopher, please" - he promised his mother ;-)
maxpsycho 4 weeks ago
rhetoric vs. reason... the latter won.
EgoNamahaNemoRex 1 month ago 3
not being morbid guys...but does anybody know if the hitch has been burried/ creamated, or what...googled his funeral and not much is said about it...just wondering where he lies, i owe him a double brandy...sleep well chris, you have made me complete.
euroman32589 1 month ago
@euroman32589 i think he's been cremated. his last wish was that the water of his body be used to make scotch and his ashes be used to fertilize tobaco plant. that way his children will be able to get drunk with him one last time...(get it...its a joke)...XD
burny6666 3 weeks ago
@euroman32589 His body was donated to science.
AlyxInvalid 3 weeks ago
To focus this back to the video, Hitchens has to ignore history in order arrive at the conclusion that the US invasion of Iraq has moral merit. It is painfully obvious that Sadaam's brutality was irrelevant to the US when they supported Sadaam for a decade. Some call this a mistake. No. A mistake is adding fractions incorrectly, or bombing the wrong target. A dictator who is gassing his own people is an irrelevancy within a larger US Middle East policy.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 So what is ethical is what is beneficial to Americans? If it doesn't benefit American interest then it should not be done?
movcrit 1 month ago
@movcrit The US Gov't feigns ethical behavior, but all their actions are out of self-interest. Si yes, I agree with you.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 That being said, does "feigning" ethical behavior prevent that behavior from being ethical? I'm finding a hard time trying to find your line of reasoning.
movcrit 1 month ago
@movcrit I like your question a lot. There is a difference between a positive result and an ethical act. Let's say you accidently trip over someone who's heart has stopped, and your knee hits their chest causing the heart to start beating, saving their life. That is a positive result but the act itself is not ethical, but accidental. The US ousted Sadaam, again a positive result, but he was in the way of US access to Iraqi oil. Therefore the act was not ethical. It was made to appear ethical.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 The only difference is that the invasion was intended to oust Saddam and his regime. There was nothing accidental or collateral about that. This would be more saving someone from a heart attack for reward money rather then purely to save him. Ulterior motives don't dictate whether or not an is moral or immoral from a consequent point of view if the same outcome occurs.
movcrit 1 month ago
@movcrit That's right. There was nothing accidental about Sadaam being ousted by US forces. However that was not the goal, only a means to a goal, access to resources. Remember the US supported Sadaam through his most heinous crime, gassing the Kurds. That was in 1988. He fell out of favour with the US in 1991, 3 years AFTER his worst offence. Logic says the principle reason for the US invasion could not be his brutality against his own people, or they would not have waited 15 years to invade.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 In this case, the intentions was the same, ouster of Saddam. From a utilitarian point of view personal gain from doing acts that would already be considered "good" makes such an act even more moral then if there were no reward. There is no moral theory that I can think that requires only philanthropic actions to be moral (actions done without personal gain) if such actions would ever to exists.
movcrit 1 month ago
@movcrit The initial reason given for the invasion was WMD's. Sadaam's brutality was a side issue that only became a principle 'concern' when no WMD's were found. As for personal gain, if that is the principle motivation for an act, then the act is either unethical (if harm is done to others) or neutral (if there is no harm done to others). If an act is principally for personal gain, I don't think that could fall under the definition of morality.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 A good thought experiment would be this: if a baby was drowning in the river. You would feel an obligation to... blah blah etc. But what if you were also motivated to save the baby for monetary rewards. Now you have a slight dilemma (though not contradicting) situation. Because you are motivated by money it is no longer the correct thing to do? If you conclude that saving a baby purely to save it is more moral then doing so for monetary gain then I would agree however....
movcrit 1 month ago
@movcrit The baby puzzle is interesting and can be solved this way. If you would have saved the baby even if there were no reward, then saving the baby knowing money is involved would not weaken the morality of the act. If you would have let the baby drown if, hypothetically, no money was involved, then saving the baby could not be a moral act. It is not immoral either, since you saved the baby. Of course It would be immoral to let the baby drown in any circumstance.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 ...however it would seem to me (correct if I've been wrong or misconstrued your contentions) that you imply that saving the baby for monetary gain is actually immoral rather then just being less moral.
movcrit 1 month ago
@movcrit Actually no. Saving the baby, depending on the circumstances involving money, is either moral or neutral. It could never be immoral. An act that is not moral does not mean the act is immoral. An act that is not moral could simply be one that does not involve morality at all, e.g. buying a sandwich is not a moral act but it is not immoral either. It does not involve morality.
Your scenarios are excellent moral paradigms.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 It seems our difference in ethical systems is that I do not adhere to a system of morality that contains "neutrally" moral acts but rather that those acts are more moral then the immoral and less moral then other acts. I do this because I believe that an ethical system should be able to validate our daily life, where acts and decisions contain only personal benefits such as buying a sandwich.
movcrit 1 month ago
@movcrit My compliments to you as well.
My personal beliefs are quite different from the societal ones I was talking about. For me morals are a human construct and don't really exist, just as good and evil don't really exist. Why does e.g. kindness occur? Perhaps a stimulus, like a suffering animal, releases chemicals in the body that produce a feeling that motivates us towards an act of kindness. In any case morals appear subjective, not objective.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 Also, I would like to compliment you on making logical responses rather then emotional responses that I get on you-tube.
movcrit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
History has shown that nations do not invade because of altruism, because they take pity on the oppressed, because they feel empathy for the sufferers. The invader will be motivated by self-interest, e.g. access to resources, markets, etc. If any benefits do arrive to the victims this is serendipitous. On top of that, every invasion in history, with one exception, has been characterized as a benefit to the victims by the invader. There is no evidence that the US is any different.
indoctus41 1 month ago
Comment removed
indoctus41 1 month ago
Comment removed
indoctus41 1 month ago
Hitchens picks easy targets. Notice he never debates Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal or any other intellectual that can point out Hitchens' factual errors.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 Are you familiar with the disagreements that he has with both of them, particularly over the issue of 9/11 and the Afghanistan as well as Iraq war? Just because Hitch hasn't been in an in person debate with you're selected challengers does not mean that he picks easy targets. Is Tony Blair an easy target? Do you think most people consider William Lane Craig an easy target?
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@SpinyNorman416 Yes I am. Hitchens is a promoter of state terror (invasions, torture) where as Vidal and Chomsky are aware of the destructive nature of such actions. Don't misunderstand me. I think Hitchens' strategy is sound, to avoid discussing matters with genuine intellectuals. As for Blair (hardly an intellectual), they're on the same page. As for Craig, that might have been a mistake that he only made once. I see Hitchens as a clever raconteur of fairy tales. He just makes stuff up.
indoctus41 1 month ago
Comment removed
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 What stuff has he made up?
And as well Chomsky has said he will not debate Hitch on the merits of the Iraq war, not the other way around. And we know why too; he would get destroyed. Hitch has never declined to debate anyone. Prove me wrong.
Also, a supporter of torture? State sponsored terror? You obviously know nothing about the man or misinterpret him completely...
Territomauvais 1 month ago
@Territomauvais I don't go by what you think he says but what he actually says. He's on record supporting the invasion of Iraq and the torture in Guantánamo. He recanted on the second because of his ridiculous circus act (waterboarding), pretending he had undergone torture when in fact he did nothing of the kind. As far as I know he still supports the US crimes in Iraq. You can support his blood-lust if you like. There are many that do. As for your views on Chomsky, well, nuf said.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 He does support the war in Iraq, and if u read or watch any of his thoughts on the subject you would know why he supports the war. It's not because he like terrorizing people. You don't know what you're talking about.
490310001 1 month ago
@490310001 You're listening to the wrong people. You should be listening to victims of US attacks whether they're being terrorized, not a clever raconteur of fairy tales like Hitchens. US attack helicopters wiping out Reuter journalists as well as a van with children that came in to rescue them on the streets of Baghdad (reference Wikileaks video), the official story from the US military being that they were under hostile fire, please explain to the Iraqi citizens how that is not state terror.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 You seem to be avoiding the question of Iraq under Sadaam or his sons as opposed to invasion and removal of Sadaam by the US. If you want to point out acts committed by US troops that are unacceptable, that's just fine and those people should absolutely be brought to the strictest justice, however this is being used as an argument that the US should have left Sadaam in power. Nothing the US has done has come close to the horror of Baathist Iraq.
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@SpinyNorman416 How about this for a US foreign policy? Stay out of other people's business. In is no business of the US to be monitoring the world's leaders in order to pick targets for invasion. Let countries decide their own fate. And if you think this is too wild an idea, you might want to brush up on International Law that prohibits invasions based on what one country thinks of another country's leader. The Iraq invasion did not even get UN approval.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 This is just isolationism pure and simple. You could use this against any intervention from WWII to Bosnia. Fine everyone will stay out of everyone's affairs, It's fine if Sadaam gasses his own people. None of our business. It's fine if anyone wants to commit genocide they're just deciding their own fate. You may want to brush up on International Law as well particularly the Geneva Convention which requires signatories to punish or prevent genocide.
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@SpinyNorman416 The US was 5 trillion in debt in 2000 and after Bush 10 trillion. It's now somewhere between 13 and 14 trillion. If you and Hitchens think that it is rational for Americans to spend their dwindling capital policing the world then I guess they'll have to live with the consequences. History has shown that what dissipates the power of an empire over other parameters is the erosion of wealth.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 It's amazing how you back away from the issue. First Hitchens won't debate anyone but intellectual inferiors because he's afraid- False. Then Hichens is a war hawk who supports torture- FALSE. Then the US used to support Sadaam therefore can't try to correct these idiotic mistakes later- Faulty Logic. Next the US shouldn't intervene in other nations affairs under any circumstances- Only works if genocide is okay. Now it seems that it's just a monetary argument. Funny.
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@SpinyNorman416 UN inspectors COULD NOT FIND WMD's in Iraq. The US fell deaf. The US took its 'proof' of WMD's to the UN and they found the evidence unconvincing. So the US invaded anyway and didn't find WMD's. Then the propaganda machine switched gears drumming up Sadaam's evil ways, hoping we would forget that he was just as evil when we supported him. All of a sudden it was the poor oppressed people of Iraq who needed saving. You'd have to be insane to believe such a tall tale.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 Yet again this is just moving the goal posts. This argument was never about WMDs. It was about Hitchens support of Sadaam due to his running a dictatorial regime and his crimes against humanity. Yet again you want to say that US policy has been downright stupid in Iraq and the majority of the middle east. No argument here. However, saying that US policy has been stupid does not mean that Sadaam gets to commit crimes against humanity and break international law.
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@SpinyNorman416 You're not the first neo-rationalist to live in a world of delusion and fairy tales. You & Hitchens want the US to meddle in everyone's affairs and police the world. Perhaps this kind of intrusion is needed so lets open it up to a vote. Let the nations of the world decide who this nosy nation will be, instead of the US appointing itself to the position. Unless of course you don't believe in democracy.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 And that is where you lose me. You've stopped responding to my points all together and you're argument has turned into a complete straw man. You want to turn a discussion about the removal of a dictator into a farce about the US being the world police. I suppose dictators are OK as long as they don't like the US. Have fun patting yourself on the back for trying the keep the US out of other countries internal war crimes, because you'll have no more discussion from me.
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@SpinyNorman416 All the best.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@SpinyNorman416 ya, don't worry spiny. I'm with ya. Indoctus is running the Gish Gallop on you. Logic will prevail in time! We'll miss you HItch!
marting1984 1 month ago
@indoctus41 There's obviously an ugly side to anything in life not specifically war, which wikileaks is very good at pointing out, but I would argue that Iraqis are more terrified of their own government and the terrorist group essentially running the country. Woman live in more fear of being beaten, raped or killed than they do of the US military accidentally killing them.
490310001 1 month ago
@indoctus41 Wait, are you saying that Hitchens did not in fact undergo waterboarding? Please supply evidence. If I follow your logic you are saying that he faked waterboarding only to then go and claim that it was torture. To what end? That might have worked if he was planning on saying it wasn't torture but why fake it in order to then claim that it was inhumane? Unless of course its just trying to say something that makes Hitchens look bad.
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@SpinyNorman416 I really haven't a clue what you are saying. Sorry.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 On the Iraq War, he freely states that the invasion was not done properly tactically or logistically. However, he maintains that despite the state Iraq is in now it is far better than before the US arrived. Have fun trying to claim that the Bath Regime is morally equivalent to the US. Lastly, by US crime do you mean the invasion in itself or do you have documentation for other crimes specifically carried out by the US?
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@SpinyNorman416 The US supported Sadaam in his darkest hour, the gassing of the Kurds. That was 1988. The US pulled their support of Sadaam in 1991. If the US was at all concerned about the evils of the Ba'ath Party, they would have spoken up when it happened, when they were supporting him, not 15 years later in 2003 when they were trying to drum up support for their invasion.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 Hitchens states that is was unforgivable that the US would support Iraq it's atrocities and that the US should never have helped Sadaam. It's funny how you've turned this from a "Hitchens supports the evil US in Iraq" to "The US has supported Sadaam in the past and therefore can never oppose him in the future" Am I to take from this that you are only upset about the invasion because it didn't occur sooner? You seem to be making an argument for earlier removal.
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@indoctus41 You completely ignored my first question. I'll reiterate:
What stuff has he made up? You asserted this. Cite me something Hitchens has 'made up'.
Also, a citation for his support of torturing Guantanamo detainees would be appreciated.
I assume you don't consider waterboarding torture, then, if you don't consider that he has been tortured. [Which is nonsense. You know nothing about the Mammalian reflex to drowning.]
As for Chomsky? You said nothing about his cowardice
Territomauvais 1 month ago
@Territomauvais Hitchens was NOT tortured. It was a circus act. Victims of torture don't freely submit to it nor do they have control over its termination. If he had come to the wrong conclusion it would have been meaningless. Ergo the right conclusion IS ALSO MEANINGLESS. The US already determined waterboarding as torture in WW2 when their soldiers were waterboarded by the Japanese. For Hitchens to assume that in 2008 he had to go through a mock torture to prove something is just inane.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@Territomauvais Hitchens stated that the US liberated East Timor. He also claimed that the CIA had nothing to do with the establishment of the Mujahideen (pre-cursors to al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan.
indoctus41 1 month ago
@indoctus41 Hitchens clearly states that torture is unequivocally wrong and went so far as to have himself water boarded and then stated that it was clearly torture. If invasions by are state terror by definition then I have no idea what to tell you but as I recall for all of its problems Iraq has a democratic constitution as well as an elected government. Real state terror is the use of torture and fear by the Iraqi Bath Party that was rampant before the US invasion.
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
@indoctus41 cont. Please state when Hitchens has declined to debate anyone. As I recall Chomsky refuses to debate Hitchens.
SpinyNorman416 1 month ago
Comment removed
indoctus41 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpinyNorman416 One other point. Interesting to note that after Hitchens debate with Craig, where Hitchens was caught misrepresenting the views of Dostoyevski, Dawkins made his famous public refusal to debate Craig. For some odd reason the new rationalists seem to fear him, and I think it's because he is not your garden variety extremist Christian but has a background in the philosophical arguments.
indoctus41 1 month ago
The decision of right and wrong can be viewed by society in a different way given that the values of society change. What Christians believe is that there are objective values that don't change despite society's values. That objective morality is authored by God.
MrItchyElbow 1 month ago
this is not a debate.Sharpton just want to be in front of the camera like usual.
mysanuty 2 months ago 13
Hitchens is right; he is better off , like James Joyce, pairing his nails in indifference... I think he is kind to respond at all: that he does so with some enthusiasm is to his credit....
sebreathnach 2 months ago
Like Hitch, I yearn for a decent argument from a Christian. Just one! I genuinely desire it because then the majority of my folk are not so sadly deluded. Christians out there, c'mon. Just one! Please. One!
MrMonkeyInk 2 months ago
@jpxvp as a british atheist (45% of the country is) it always makes me glad to see it taking root in america at last. Keep up the good work.
0TheGuru0 2 months ago
Jeez did hitches have to be so rough, he might as well shoved a pitchfork up Al's ass. It would've been less painful and less humiliating
ihavevideoatoo 2 months ago
poor poor Sharpton.......
lumpheadthump 2 months ago
hitchslapped! we need more militant atheists in the u.s. to combat the rise of fundamentalist christian bullshit. creationism is actually being taught in some SCIENCE classes here. george bush said god told him going into iraq was justified through prayer. this shit has got to stop.
jpxvp 2 months ago
oh dear Sharpton, talk about boxing above your weight.
ogdroadsong 2 months ago 22
@ogdroadsong He can't even put a fucking sentence together.
patrick112590 3 weeks ago
"Why am I debating this toad and where is my scotch?"
Hitchens
drudger6666 3 months ago
The beautiful thing is that after awhile Al shuts up and just lets Hitch have the floor. Although Al may have only caught every 3rd word and probably few of the concepts, even his meager brain recognized Hitchens' superior logic and just got out of the way. Intellect, reason and wit easily conquering superstition and prejudice........
wobrien007 3 months ago
it like kicken puppies around
lp000028 3 months ago
Fuck me, Sharpton is such a shit debater.
TheBomber15 3 months ago
Why is Hitchens being so nice to him?
ametcalf11 3 months ago
Hitchens Demolishes only himself.
virtualguitarist 3 months ago
@virtualguitarist
So you say. ;)
wretcherwretch 3 months ago
pwnd
butanerios 3 months ago
Hitch relaxed, having fun, making the audience laugh with his high levels of intellect, all the while "hitch slapping" Al Sharpton all over the room.
TheTacticalAtheist 3 months ago
Throw the idiot Sharpton a Thesaurus!!
Heelissrogue 3 months ago
Didn't Sharpton say "to think that the whole world was waiting on one's birth, your birth or mine, or death, to set the framework of morality, I think that is very arrogant. It's also delusional, but it is very arrogant"
Isn't that the definition of Jesus? Was he not born to save us, did he not die to save us, was his mere existence not to change the Old Testament morality and give the world a new chance? Al Sharpton has given a great argument against the human deity here.
MBAYMZTU 3 months ago
Sharpton, you are a moron
stojadinovicdushan 3 months ago
The notion of objective morals is so clearly false as moral standards have shifted with the times. They are decided by society - inter-subjective morals and ethics are decided by men (occasionally women) for better or worse as shown by the different times and different rules people are governed by.
ricko1111 3 months ago
i feel bad for sharpton ! he was owned in such a way!
MrDasmaster 3 months ago
i dot get it, the question "where do we should get our morals from?", implying that we need religious scripture is kinda ridicilous in two ways. The first reason why its nonsense, lays on the claim of absolute morality, the second is the act that we in the 21th century already have written down a decleration of universal human rights that is not alterable. If they want a book read the United nations decleration of human rights UN(dot) org
so simple
Serpico261 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Sharpton probably didn't understand half of the words coming out of Hitchen's mouth...
rehetbutler 3 months ago 11
Hitchens is the best but...he sounds like Stewie from Family Guy sometimes... which is totally cool
andlyndav 4 months ago
Why is it so hard to believe that an atheist can be moral and ethical without believing in a god?
andlyndav 4 months ago 2
I find it very difficult to understand how an older man can have the thought process Sharpton has. I could have destroyed his arguments at 19...
PitchBlack696 4 months ago
Perfectly said/done Mr. Hitchens. ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 4 months ago
0:28 Ehh, and if there is a supernatural being, aren't you just basing your morality on his might? How is it more noble than basing morality on human feelings?
TheAbyrwalg 4 months ago
Hitchens >>>>> Sharpton
csmcmillion 4 months ago
There's NO morality. There are rules of engagement but they are not natural. I had it with people that think human beings are any different from any other animal, as if we were some kind of freak of nature that deserves different and that has magical powers to tell right from wrong. We know what we do not like... most emotionally and phisycally sane humans would agree on a series of things, this is what we call moral. No metaphysical nothing involved. GROW UP.
DrErkencho 4 months ago
Same old back and forth....God arguing with himself.
sd62t833 4 months ago
Al Sharpton is a fucking idiot. I agree with Hitchens, but talk about shooting fish in a barrel...
ReasonablyChic 4 months ago
I like how Rev Al thinks he's up on Hitch when he's not fit to make him a cup of tea.
IThinkImAloneNow 4 months ago 16
This isnt a black and white thing its a British and American thing. . . .
dixon97a 4 months ago
@dixon97a no, it's religious vs non religious thing. WAKE UP!
artwdog 4 months ago in playlist More videos from neotropic9
@artwdog Sorry mate youre wrong this "debate" wouldnt even happen in the UK its laughable the UK and most of Europe despair when watching these american fundamentalists its hocus pocus and superstition, by the way im from the UK and of Irish heritage, makes the states look very bad to the rest of the world. . .
dixon97a 4 months ago
@dixon97a This debate wouldn't happen in the United Kingdom or most of Europe because social homogeneity prevents serious discussions about differences of opinion and ideas, as it is not possible to engage them without facing public ridicule and social intimidation. The amount of narcissistic nonsense Europeans spout is enough to make any rational person puke, especially when they're only 70 years from their attempt, the most serious ever taken, to destroy the civilized world.
poolopis01 4 months ago
Wow, the alpha and omega of intelligence on the stage.
losghost 4 months ago
What a rambling idiot!! Why do you need a creator to have morality?! Awful, awful question. He does not explain why this is the case at all. He merely states it as fact. How is it fact?..It simply is not!
rossow88 4 months ago
Sharpton is an idiot, but he raises a good question. What do atheists base morality on?
Hitchens never answers the question. If you listen, he never gets to it. He assumes that morality has some basis and then rips on the religious. The reason he does not answer is because atheism requires morality to be based on species preference... just a subjective matter of taste.
Cilence13 4 months ago
@Cilence13 Oversimplified answer: Atheists base morality on rational thought and experience. Rational thought- it is an objective fact that happiness, pain, suffering, etc exist. They are also BY DEFINITION either inherently good or bad. As such, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that increasing the happiness in the world is moral. As for experience- evolution, cultural evolution, and personal experience help us determine what things are conducive to societies we want to live in.
PBDPBD 4 months ago
@PBDPBD I think you make a mistake in saying that suffering is "by definition...bad". I would say that your suffering may be not-preferable most of the time. However, it could also be preferable, (for someone torturing you and liking it)..
Clarify what you mean by "bad".. The universe as a whole (as far as I know) has not told us that torture should not happen. You may not like torture, but it does not violate any objective rule of action.. All it violates is your preferences.
Cilence13 4 months ago
@Cilence13 As I said, I oversimplified. Stupid character restrictions.
By suffering I mean actual suffering. NOT bearable pain administered by someone you find sexually attractive in a sexual situation (or something like that, where the good feelings outweigh the bad).
Suffering/etc by definition violates ANY entity sentient enough to experience them. Whether it's a dog, a worm, or a human, it by definition does not prefer to suffer.
We're sentient beings capable of empathizing with others.
PBDPBD 4 months ago
@Cilence13 If you meant that some people are psychopaths and enjoy seeing others suffer, that's where experience comes in. If you torture other people, they will do things that you won't like. Even if they don't lock you up, they won't help you when you need help. Google game theory for examples
Point is, secular thinkers (there is a LONG history of 100% secular ethics) have many facts and philosophies to base their morality on. It's hard to go into much detail in a youtube comment box though.
PBDPBD 4 months ago
i still don't know why anyone turns up for a debate with hitchens. they should know by now they'll be destroyed. it must be so wearying to to have to deal with the same idiotic arguments every single time. i've watched a hell of a lot of debates of this nature and it's the same handfull of arguments all the time. it's as if religious people have no memories. all their arguments have been destroyed over and over again. i just hope it sinks in eventually. i won't hold my breath though.
lordscully 4 months ago
The biggest issue for me is when i try to watch these videos and that FUCKING ad in the corner pops up and i have to mute it. This people, is a major issue. I think Atheist and Religiasist need to band together against these ads. Together we can silence them and watch our videos without having to mute Lysol ads. "And God said unto thee, Thine internets will produce annoying ads, believers and non believers shaltith bandith togetherith", first Corinthilogians, verse 3.7, look it up bitches
archenemy1124 4 months ago
The whole morality argument is so much horseshit. If you need religion to "Bribe" you into morality then what's the point?
jajacob410 5 months ago
@MrArpas123 Why did he need to have his son die to save us from the place he created? Couldn't he just forgive us?
ender003 5 months ago
@MrArpas123 you need a new job
HarrynJessie 5 months ago
hitchens' accent makes him seem even smarter
danosoprofanity 5 months ago
@MrArpas123 why you insist on forcing your doctrines onto people who couldn't care less is beyond me
bossmonkeykj 5 months ago
@MrArpas123 He should have given you a grammar book instead.
thewarriorsrok 5 months ago
Sharpton is an idiot, a highschool student who studied basic psychology/biology would understand why morality is a natural part of nature and civilized societies.
Just open a textbook.
ensittare 5 months ago 8
@ensittare What textbook?
rockyraccoon 2 months ago
this debate is like mike tyson repeatedly punching a small child in the face.
friskyjackdoff 5 months ago
Sharpton is as stupid as he looks and sounds.
holio84 5 months ago
It just seems that no christian has knowledge of previous debates, asking the same questions that hitchens (and other atheists) have all answered hundreds of times before publicly (or maybe they do and their just fucking idiots).
I'm glad though that hitch tried a different response other than the obvious "people don't do bad things in the name of atheism"
Kaldemic 5 months ago
Having a religion is much like having a penis, its all very well to covert it, even be proud of it but you do not have the right to either wave it about in public, or worse, to try and ram it down the throat of everyone you meet.
sheikhyaboooty 5 months ago 6
@sheikhyaboooty A horrible analogy. People have the right to wave about their religion in public.
LedZeppelinSongs 3 months ago
@LedZeppelinSongs
Not to my children you don't.
drudger6666 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sheikhyaboooty "Having a religion is much like having a penis, its all very well to covert it, even be proud of it but you do not have the right to either wave it about in public, or worse, to try and ram it down the throat of everyone you meet."
And if you show it to my children I'll kill you.
cvanunen 2 months ago
hey Al you got knocked the fuck out!
hotmercedes 5 months ago
6:45 hahahahaha
Kamen813 5 months ago
Hitchens missed the point, he says good people to good things and bad people to bad things, what makes "good" people "good" and "bad" people "bad"? And if he takes the normal athiest posistion that morality is created by the people living in the given area, then Hitler was a hero, he simply carried out what was seen as "good" in Germany at the time.
Steelers2417 5 months ago
@Steelers2417 You seem to be missing the point that what happened in Germany was in a large part fueled by religion. If there was no religion it wouldn't have happened anyways.
halosmyth 5 months ago
@halosmyth First of all what happened in Germany was mainly fueled by the humiliation Germany suffered after WW1 and although Hitler killed 6 million Jews he also killed blacks, gays, gypsys, and communisists; so no it couldn't have been avoided if there was no religion. My point about Hitler, however, was not my main point but just an example used to show the irrationality of the thought that one can have morality without a moral absolute.
Steelers2417 5 months ago
I am so pissed they put this uneducated blow hard, dimwitted charlatan on MSNBC. Sharpton now reveals his incompetents in yet another venue.
scotttebben 5 months ago
Isnt it sad black people are so devoted to Christianity, when it was enforced upon them during slavery.
aristurtle1 5 months ago
Thank you for posting this, neotropic9.
writersblock26 5 months ago
Sharpton's such a douche, like all religious people. Isn't it sad that religious people have to look upon an invisible man in the sky for morals? Religious people have no trust in human beings. That to me is so pathetic.
Tommyr 5 months ago
I feel so bad for all you blind people out there.
ianwilliams12 5 months ago
i never though of sharpton as an intelligent person before watching this video now i know for a fact he's a dumbass
blkthunderbolt 5 months ago
So you do not believe that Atheists ever did anything evil.... this is what we call a non-sequitur (in real universities, Rev Sharpton) and I feel the bullshit Mao/Stalin/Polpot argument coming... let's see if I'm right!!!!
2001Horatio 5 months ago
@2001Horatio Yeah, I saw that one coming a mile away. Considering that atheism under Mao and Stalin was the result - not the cause - of their despotism and consolidation of power, the suggestion that it somehow invalidates atheism is crap.
foxhole8063 5 months ago
@foxhole8063 I agree!
2001Horatio 5 months ago
Since when is Christopher Hitchens the "most intelligent" living philosopher?
Hitchens is accessible to the laymen, but he's far from being the most brilliant philosopher today. There's Smith, Armstrong, Swinburne, Plantinga, Blackburn, Martin, etc.
Hitchens is just articulate and quite frankly, condescending. That's why so many atheists like him. It's become popular to diatribe religion and assume you are smarter if you are an atheist, so Hitchens is loved because of his demeanor.
BraunBrothers 5 months ago
@BraunBrothers Hitchen's views may have changed across the years. But he has nevertheless always been right.
SarahB360 5 months ago
@SarahB360 If his views have changed, how can he always have been right? Is a man who first believes homosexuality is wrong then believes it is right "always right"? That makes no sense.
The homosexual comment was an example.
BraunBrothers 5 months ago
@BraunBrothers I agree here too. Atheists like him because he puts theistic fuckwits in their place - their proper place, with the other delusional Fascists!!!! LOL
2001Horatio 5 months ago
I know more immoral Christians than I do Atheists. I've never had an Atheist tell me women deserve to be raped, or that black people aren't equal to every other ethnicity. I've only heard that from Christians.
xjedixwarriorx 5 months ago
@xjedixwarriorx You've heard Christians say that women deserved to be raped? I've lived in the conservative south for years and years, and I've never heard any such thing. I am dying to hear a Christian say that women deserve to be raped, but I never have...
BraunBrothers 5 months ago
@BraunBrothers In the area I am in I often hear them say that they themselves wouldn't rape a woman, but that if it does happen to one, then it is god's wrath. They believe she deserved it for living an "immoral" lifestyle. The thing that pisses me off is less of their religious conviction and more their sheer immorality in saying that about a human being.
xjedixwarriorx 5 months ago
@xjedixwarriorx Ah I see. Thanks for the reply
BraunBrothers 5 months ago
@BraunBrothers You're welcome.
xjedixwarriorx 5 months ago
Strange that Hitchens didn't give the obvious answer to Sharpton's old canard about atheists doing bad things, which is that atheists don't do bad things *in the name of atheism*. There are bad people everywhere and any time, irrespective of their religion, so of course there are bad atheists. But their atheism is irrelevant, they don't do bad things *because they are atheists*.
CaptainChaos 5 months ago 39
@CaptainChaos maybe he got sick and tired of making that point, since has made that point quite a few times in debates and interviews allready :) but your statement stands :)
tweetdezweet 4 months ago
@CaptainChaos Indeed. A simple supporting example is the fact that Hitler, Stalin and Hussein, Vlad the Impaler and Ghengis Khan all had mustaches. This was not the common motivating factor in their evil deeds, however.
itsbadlarry 4 months ago
@itsbadlarry - But we can agree that mustaches are evil and should be done away with based on rational thought and discussion?
ricko1111 3 months ago
@CaptainChaos Well he kind of did when he quoted Weinberg, but I agree he should have just gone back and emphasized that point.
henryc2006 4 months ago
@CaptainChaos whether or not atheists do bad things "in the name of atheism", the point is they often do bad things, and often do so due to an atheistic worldview.
FuroraCeltica 3 months ago
@FuroraCeltica I'm an atheist, and according to you I often do bad things? Well fuck you too. Provide some evidence for this assertion (which you can't, since it's bullshit), or shut the fuck up.
CaptainChaos 3 months ago
@CaptainChaos did say anything about you personally? No, I think you'll find I didn't. Atheists do indeed often do bad things, whether or not they say "Thus sayeth the Darwin" after they do it. Ask the people communism/atheism killed in the 20th century
FuroraCeltica 3 months ago
@FuroraCeltica I'll think you find that you said "atheists often do bad things". Twice now. Not "some atheists". Not "a few atheists". "Atheists". So once again: fuck you too.
As regards your communism/atheism conflation: communism is not the same thing as atheism, you moron. And even if it were that would be besides the point, since while communists have indeed done many bad thing, they didn't do them *because they were atheists*. If you think they did, provide some evidence, otherwise STFU.
CaptainChaos 3 months ago
Wow. That was close. It was like watching a little girl's softball team take on the New York Yankees.
visigrog 5 months ago
@visigrog I know right? Hitchens didn't answer the question at all!! All he did was dance around and say religious people are immoral. But the real question was: Where do atheists get their morality from? He could have answered, but typical of Hitchens, he avoided the real conflict and instead turned the question around on the religious. Gotta love it
BraunBrothers 5 months ago
@BraunBrothers Sorry to disillusion the deluded, but he answered it!!! LOL
2001Horatio 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2001Horatio You see what you want to see.
BraunBrothers 5 months ago
@BraunBrothers No he didn't : have another look.
2001Horatio 5 months ago
@2001Horatio Will do.
BraunBrothers 5 months ago
The morality argument is quite asinine. How do humans being no whether it is hot or cold outside? The Bible provides no guidance. We have to use our judgment to determine whether or not it is 'hot' or 'cold.' Nearly all rational people would agree that 100 fahrenheit is hot and 20 fahrenheit is cold. There are some grey areas, but for the most part, rational people agree. The same is true with morality. It is "subjective," but rational people agree in most cases.
navid500 5 months ago
Comment removed
justgetsome 5 months ago