Problems with deism: There are no logically valid inference that can be made which favor the idea of 1 creator vs. 17 or more creators being the "architects" of the universe. And as for the "all powerful" nature of this creator(s) - no. This is also not implied. The "architects" may very well have their own limitations.
It's all speculation, my friends. Reserve judgment until we have better data. Don't rush off to certainty because your position is untenable, divisive & dangerous.
@ratonL how do you define deism? As I understand it, a creator sets the rules of evolution and then doesn't intervene. Not a personal god but still the original creator of the universe. Thoughts?
He is wrong on Deism. Atheists are the opposite of, Christians, for example. They are so sure God does not exist. You are going to die and rot in the grave, the end! This is pure ignorance. You can't proove a great Power does not exist. We humans think we know it all. Science is ever growing and changing. Physics could be totally different elsewhere. Always question. Keep an open mind. I agree that religions are BS. Science, reason and healthy spirituality is good.
@JorEl7771 A fellow deist? Chris like any debater they'll go to any argument that will prove their cases definitely if their cases example makes the other end of the argument look like a babbling fool. In my opinion believe in Deism because I strongly feel there is something out there. Religion has messed up it up, atheist or agnostics usually believe in science which can't completely disprove it.. Who is completely right.. there is no answer until death.. Unfortunately this is just a theory...
As much as I respect this man, his definition of Deism is completely off base. He seems to be misrepresenting Deism in an attempt to further his point.
@HomuncuIus I'm not quite sure how you can come up with the words “failed writer” to describe Christopher Hitchens. How many of your books have made it to the top of the New York Times best seller list? I'm sure magazines are lining up to print all your “sucking cock” references.
I'm a deist yet I have no personnel God. I LIKE THIS SPEECH. He is wrong though, because it is his beliefs. His facts are the facts that he needs to prove his case. I like his thoughts yet he's just another intelligent man claiming an intelligent defense for his beliefs. This is a cycle that will never end. I'm happy I stumbled on this video.
@senrac85 Hello. I am very curious about what a deist believes! I cannot find agreeable definitions. Do you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient but does not personally intervene i.e. sets the laws of nature and leaves it to its own devices?
@tobo86 I am really saddened that this brilliant thinker was killed by cancer, he was an amazing debater to watch. I'm am also sorry that I am just responding. I really have been busy and just forget to look at this all the time. Deism such as any religious or nonreligious train of thought has many tentacles of thinking. One definition will always be erased or challenged by another.
As for me, my thought of God primarily falls under deism and why I am not atheist or agnostic, as such: 1) It's impossible for anyone religion to prove another 100% wrong...even if books are written by man. There are other supernatural experiences that once these types of experiences you come to the realization that there has to be something out there.
2) Science also has it's flaws in many of it's theories, nothing is a hundred percent correct. much of science is educated guesses, mainly because no one is there to prove it or completely document it 100%. Therefore "can't see it, don't believe it" theory comes in.
3) Desist for the most part come to a reasonable understanding that "God" cannot be defined by one religion . That God is good and we as a people have to reach a reasonable understanding what what is right and wrong.(killing-bad, helping homeless- good, etc etc
4) In my opinion of God I don't think he would punish a soul (Hell, Hades, etc etc) just because he doesn't believe in Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, or nothing at all. Man had distorted things so bad that I feel that God looks completely at ones heart and actions. to shorten this opinion down.
If God's creation is so complicated, wouldn't his (in the spiritual realm be as just complicated if we are created in his image?) Like we have courts, organzation, laws, etc etc. Wouldn't the spirirtual realm have the same? Why would God punish a "adulterer the same as a serial killer" He simply would not, so why would God judge a human being on how they were raised or the opinions they gained out of their free will. He simply wouldn't, in my opinion. I could go on, but I am sleepy.
@senrac85 No problem (about the delayed reply). Conflicting definitions? I suppose my next question is this: Supposedly, deistic thinking is based on the "clockwork universe theory", which is say that the supreme architect set up natural deterministic laws i.e. cause and effect. However, since discovery of quantum mechanics, this idea is no longer valid as randomness has been found to exist. To me, this fact renders deistic belief obsolete. Unless there's a reason I'm missing?
@tobo86 There is the argument of whether the probability that the whole of existence could spring from nothing is greater or lesser than there being something there in the first place that exists as some kind of intelligence. I think something springing from nothing has the lesser probability right now and do not share the confident that a cosmological 'darwinian revolution' is almost an inevitability that some do, although don't rule it out.
@Underground906 Whoa. I really didn't understand those 2 sentences. Are you saying the argument is 'something from nothing' vs 'something from something', and you also believe the latter is more probable, which you attribute to an intelligent designer?
@tobo86 Excuse my poor grammar. You managed to get what I meant anyway. I don't necessarily attribute it to a 'intelligent designer', just some kind of intelligence/providence that may have always been there. We can't airbrush eternity out of the equation. And yes, the existence of some form of intelligence begs certain awkward question, but no less so than the answers to the 'what came before the big bang' question. I can't see how the odds of an intelligence would be greater than it not.
Hitchens undeniably does not believe in any form of a deity without using any evidence that disproves the possibility of a deity existence, he bases his point of the irrationality of believing in a deity, but there makes his views hypocritical, cause after all there is no evidence to deny any existence. Belief in anything accommodates the logic of the individual.
I believe that love is the force which, in human society, binds us together in meaningful ways, as atoms are bound together by energy in the meaningful form of matter. What interferes with this process is our neurosis. I believe that Jesus, as a rare non-neurotic individual, had much of relevence to say about us and the neurosis which stands between us and our capacity to love all of our fellows unconditionally. But one, of course, has to ignore the superstition which has accrued around him.
Deists don't believe any gods on any list are the "right one". They don't believe in a personal or superior deity. Hitchens needs to learn more about Deism imo. And how was Darwin a better emancipator than Lincoln? What a messed up comment.
@JasonHouston77 Hitchens certainly knows well enough what deism is, he makes no statement that contradicts its most common meaning. Darwin is certainly the greater emancipator. Hitchens means that he freed us from not understanding how life came about, which greatly assists rejecting the falsehood of religion, while Lincoln merely facilitated the existing zeitgeist of abolition.
@arcadesj all I hear at 2:30 is audible feces. Deists don't believe in a God of their very own. And as another comment from 5 months ago points out, he makes this statement that he should know not to be true, and never takes the time to clarify it. Then he goes on to call it wishful thinking and ignorance, which is the opposite of what Deists believe (try visiting the website some time). Seems Hitchens, like so many others that debate religion, is willing to misrepresent a group to make a point.
Deism for me is the best explanation for the world we live in. I will always believe in GOD because it is the best explanation for me. But being a Deist I can also believe in science, logic, and reasoning. We don't know how GOD created the universe that's what we have science for. Deists believe that GOD gave us reason to help better understand how the universe works. Because of science we have made so many beautiful discoveries. Science has done more for humanity than organized religion has.
Doug Stanhope does a good piece on that. Search "Doug Stanhope "You make your own christianity" ". To summarize, why cry when people die and why wear seat-belts?
AFAIK there are about 38,000 denominations of Christianity. So even if there is just *one* God, and even if god is the *Christian* God, any one of us who chooses Christianity as their religion has a 37999:1 chance of getting it wrong ANYWAY.
And for those who say that denomination doesn't matter... try telling an evangelical pastor that his brand of Christianity is purely optional, and he can go Catholic any time he wants.
The problem with antitheism (and it's not much of one) is that the arguments of the supporters of religion are so feeble they're just too easy to rebut!
@903gamefreak I don't know what you meant when you just posted "non-Religious". If that was in response to my comment about agnostics, atheists and deists being classified as nontheists, then yes the term non religious would apply but so would the term nontheist. The way you phrased your other statement could be interpreted to suggest that you think muslims are uneducated. IF that's how YOU feel, I suggest you learn more about nontheistic philosophical thought. It's just a suggestion.
@903gamefreak Deism does not = theism, that's why there are two different words. Theism refers to the claim of having personal esoteric knowledge about a deity that they know for a fact exists. Deism is an agnostic claim in that deists don't claim esoteric and factual knowledge like theists do. Like atheism, deism is simply a singular philosophical conclusion and that is why I have no problem with atheism or deism. Yes I am arguing against religion. Who said I wasn't???
Well im going to stop you right here hitchen. DEISM IS BELEVE IN A GOD FROM A SCIENTIFIC OR OBSERVATIONAL STATE. So for all you atheist and theist stop with your stupid comments and retarded thought process. Thank you
Deism seems to be the most logical belief, and I'm not trying to deny anyone of their belief/perspective on "God". But I think that's rational that "God" doesn't intervene with human affairs, and we have the will to make our own decisions.Meaning that we are responsible for our actions, and what goes on in the Earth.So if anyone is to blame on why Earth is in the condition it's in is our doing.
how can we discuss logic and rationality with people whose source of ''information'' is a fictional book with talking snakes, zombies, miracles, angels and humans who lived up to the age of 900? it is a lost cause. we might as well sit back and mock them, that's all we can do against mass-delusion.
For as well read and erudite as Hitch is, I am really surprised that he always uses the subjunctive tense inappropriately. Hitch- I wish I was... (I wish I were is correct) Hitch- If I was in your position... (If I were in your position is correct)... not hatin' just surprised.
@JoshuaSummerside I have found that intellectuals do NOT necessarily have to be literate nor intelligent. I know a bunch that find it difficult to construct a sentence and yet they hold the audience on the edge of their seat. Many can not even spell or proofread. Funny, don't you think?
As a longtime Hitchens fan, I'm somewhat shocked that Hitchens doesn't make the distinction that Deism does not believe in a personal god. Period. Most Deists ascribe to the clockmaker philosophy, as he states later; not the personal, "God helped me score a touchdown" God. He doesn't go back to clarify that point, but rather lets it slide.
I am convinced that all atheists know at the deepest level of their beings there is a God. But they fear the judgment of that God because they know the ugliness of their hearts. If they can convince themselves there is no God they are free to live in whatever manner of immorality they wish and escape the wrath to come. I pray that they may come to themselves before that day. I enjoy the eternal demise of no man.
@rosmia2 right, because every atheist is a dirty sinner. what then of the atheists that live good lives free of sin (apart of apostasy)? I don't believe in God because there is no reason or piece of evidence to, not because I want to sin all the time and get away with it. You enjoy the demise of no man, yet you are so convinced that hell exists and we are going there. you even think we DESERVE to go there.
@rosmia2 haha great speech,to bad your a total idiot i know one thing in the deepest sence of my being and thats the fact that you got the iq of demented carrot
@rosmia2 Oh thats so fucking nice of you. Keep your'e opinionated holy crap go preach at the wind. Most people who read your'e comment know you to be so afraid of death you deny your'e nature.
I'm not interested in disputing your'e belief my only interest here is to tell you Fuck off.
Hitchens makes a powerful point here, one which tends to be overlooked by both sides of this argument. Christian apologists, such as WL Craig for example, will commonly use as "evidence" for God, arguments from existence, vague cosmological arguments and such, that AT BEST, are arguments in favor of Deism. All of the philosophical arguments they make never amount to a hill of beans as evidence toward their specific theistic beliefs!!!
where is the counter to this debate. I sat and listened to Hitchens make his tired old argument and then the video ends. pretty liner presentation of one mans argument. with no combatant. Glad to hear your side of things sir, but post the rebuttal so your words can elevate beyond cyber masturbation.
@estarmes atheism is not only lack of belief, if only would be that, then there wouldn't be so much atheists arguing about their position. they are so interested in showing their lack of belief, you can see it on their channels.
if they were wise, they would respect others beliefs, since they lack a belief why is so important for them calling themselves atheists?
@kybernes23 I am an atheïst and I do not propagate it in any sense. To me it is not important to call myself an atheïst. It is more easy to say ''I am an atheïst'' instead of ''I do not believe the claims about God(s)''. Obviously..... It is just a word which regards your position on that matter. Besides, I do not see how religion should earn my respect. Yes! Respect is something you earn.
@estarmes ok, it is arrogant because he is trying to make an argument based on reason, but of course for me is not reasonable.
arrogant because most of the youtube atheist say they want proves.
and that is ok against theism , but not Deism, Deism see there is a force, something that gives intelligence to our sistems of live. atoms behaves like that obeying to something.
how in the world they want me to prove what i can't see but obviously exists.
For a Deist, God doesn't have to be a being, but it also can be a higher energy above our Universe, or any anything that is in our Universe. The prime mover, in the atheistic sense, can be said that is the Big Bang. However, some deists say that God sacrifice himself to do the Big Bang, which is most like called pandeism.
well then what about all of the hundreds of peoples in asylums who have been conceiving hundreds of different strange things? why dont any of their conceivements exist? answer: because aquinas was a mental midget.
@greenrate I have read his book...You ask him to establish a difference between religion and spirituality...Have you ever seen a spirit in your life?? A ghost or a phantom? Did you talk to him, her, it? If you put attention to these videos, it is those who believe in spirits and gods who should bring proof of the matter, because they are the ones who claim the existence of such things. If there is proof then faith is unrequired.
In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides.
@HybridD91 I think It bother with creation, evolution still continues. God only doesn`t intervene our personal life. We have free will, we have reason... God is God with, or without us.
I am Deist. Why God should not be called God? I do not understand your question. ??? If God doesnt bother with creation It is not God????
@karlawachsmann I think my brain would implode if I tried to reconcile god like you do. Grow up. There is no invisable protector in the sky for you. Live this life with logical morals, love and cherish the ones deserving of you and leave the planet a better place because you existed.
@crazyboyxx sorry i didn't hear that exact comment by him in this video... not being confrontational just wondering if you can tell me at what minute/sec where he states this
"can anybody prove .. bal bal bal " .. Can anybody prove that it never happened? Well, can anybody prove to me that this man is not an idiot insane? I need to see a paper from the supreme court saying he is not insane.
Deist don't believe in a personal God. One of the reason of not me being an atheist is The Simulation Hypothesis. The programs' realm or laws of physics doesn't necessarily have to be the same as that of its programmer like all creator needing a creator
That is true, however take a moment to comprehend how something as fundamental as Time itself could not exist. Or rather, how anything could happen without such a thing. It is totally contrary to logic, as time is itself change.
More to the point... an atheist is only one who does not believe in a god. It isn't a position of certainty by any means (not generally), but rather of doubt.
It is probable (even definite) that something caused the BB. Calling it 'god' though is just silly.
@Vire70 We could create AIs in a simulation/program with very different fundamental reality/laws than our own. like objects flying up, immortality etc.. we could make it simpler or more complex. "Simulation Hypothesis" closely resembles that of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave", look it up. Anyway it's just my personal analogy of our existence.
Pagans, and Christians have their own definition of their god. The thing/event/cause behind the BB is the deist's own definition of a god.
@crazyboyxx Deists are not theists. Deism is the belief in a God that does not directly intervene in people's personal lives in any way. This is contrary to theism, which is the opposite.
It does not necessarily entail a god which interferes with reality... although it certainly is the case that most theists when approached do have beliefs of that nature.
The belief that Hitchens doesn't address is that God is not a designer but an intrinsic potential which unfolds blindly but in an orderly and interconnected way leading to humans with a capacity to love each other and thus unite into a single entity that Jesus called The Kingdom of God. Teilhard De Chardin was one of the proponents of this belief. It is antithetical to reductionist science which denies meaning and purpose in nature, but is needed to explain the increase in complexity.
What does that even mean? Looks like nothing but vague nonsense to me.
Complexity is quite easy to explain in Nature. At any rate, using something even more complex to explain complexity is not a pretty piss poor strategy.
@Vire70 What I'm saying is that unfolding complexity is an inherent potential in all energy which is realised when conditions allow, in the same way that a seed has the inherent potential to grow into a tree, and can't help but to do so when conditions are right, e.g. fertile soil, sunlight and water, etc. Similarly, a creative human society develops out of our inherent capacity to love each other which is only inhibited by our degree of neurosis. Is that so complex an explanation?
No, I understand. What I don't understand is what relevance this has to do with god, or Jesus. You are essentially explaining the mechanics of the universe - which is to say, to you, allegedly, the universe is god. If this is the case then you can save some time by just calling it 'the universe' and throwing out all the nonsensical garbage.
God is irrelevant, not non-existent. Wrap your mind around that
The way both of these people live their lives is such, regardless of their arguments on this podium: they try their best to be good to their fellow men because they know that's all that matters. Whether or not there is a god is irrelevant to them IN PRACTICE.
If god did exist, he would be frowning upon me right now for thinking about it so much rather than being outside helping my neighbor. Actually, I think I'll go do that!
I think I am beginning to see things your way. Yes, It's all making sense to me now. You are a God. The God of unbelief. And you spread unbelief where ever you go. And you are worshipped by all your disciples of unbelief. And they love you and want to serve you, by telling all their freinds that they must listen to you. Yeh, it's makes perfect sense. Thank you for enlightenment. oops, I think I've just started a new religion, please forgive me. You gotta serve somebody. b. dylan
I'm nearly over this debate, the religious are fucking downright stupid. So frustrating trying to debate them (which i have for years) when they come back with the same bullshit and/or quote a novel. I'm sorry to all the good religious folk who keep to themselves but please know you are either wrong or have mental health issues.
@speccwolf i really hate the mental disorder argument. People with mental disorders, it seems to me, are less objectionable than the religious because they genuinely have no say in the matter. Being religious is a choice. Sometimes its not an easy one because its rammed down our throats at a very early age. But, it's still a mindful choice adults ultimately have to make in western society. The severity of indoctrination does, however, depend of your geography (take Iran, for example)
@kvihma there is no need to as we don't need to define that which cannot be proven, anyone who thinks otherwise is intellectually dishonest. I will say though that the concept of god purely exists in the minds of believers and that's how I can define it.
@MrJuha82 there are evil people in both, there are also good people in both..... BUT IF YOU WANT A GOOD PERSON TO DO A EVIL THING - THAT REQUIRES RELIGION!
Personally, I consider myself a Deist or Unitarian but not a believer in any organized religion. I think Jesus really existed but not that he was divine.
Really? at 5:05 Hitchens states that there is no requirement for a belief in God in any aspect of creation, I would be most interested to hear his view on how the universe began being that there was not one in the first instance, I am a Deist and there are many aspects of the Universe that I would LOVE to hear explained from this man if there is no God whatsoever.
@khasseki The flaw lies in the assumption that there is a transition between nothingness and everything. Asking where the universe "came from" has no answer because the question makes no sense.
@crazyboyxx This isnt that complicated. Deism isn't a subset of either Atheism or Theism. Logically, deism and theism could be connected readily. However, it misses the point to take one trait that deism has in common with theism or atheism and say that its a subset of either. If anything theism is a subset of deism (that is if you must connect the concepts that way)
I think that if more of the general public knew what Deism is, then less people would become atheist/agnostic when leaving the religion of their upbringing. Since notions of God can be divorced from religious thinking.
There is no "order" in the Universe, as far as the logic and realism is employed. There is only a set of parameters making it possible for us to exist. We have no idea what different parameters would produce and what kind of "order" it would bring. It's an after-the-fact construction, rather than a "fine-tuning" ;)
You can't just simplify the Big Bang theory like that. And I like how you call theories suported by the most educated and brilliant scientists in the world stupid.
@TheLeutrimExperience If the Big Bang theory stated what you just did, you'd have a point. But since it doesn't, I suggest you refrain from calling it stupid, and try to figure out what it actually states.
@fearguis My bad. I've never really read terribly much into it. I've watched tons and tons of documentaries and countless clips on it though, and it's pretty much how I stated it? Unless you don't think so? Care to simplify it for me?
@TheLeutrimExperience The big bang theory is not simple. Simple is for anecdotes and mythology. Stephen Hawking explains it in a Brief History Of Time. Suffice it to say, something didn't come from nothing. It came from a singulariy, and will most likely return to it again.
ironically, this is exactly what people who think a god is necessary to explain the universes origins. presumably, he wouldve created it out of nothing, otherwise what do we need him for
i seem much discussion and confusion about which category deism is a subset of. the correct answer is in fact THEISM. in the broadest sense, of course. theism is the belief in at least one deity, but, although not a requisite, the word connotes allegorical description of it. deism is not allegorical belief at all. a similar relationship is agnosticism and atheism. while agnosticism is in fact atheism, no one calls it so, and it's understandable.
Power-hungry people purposely oppress common truth to prevent us from achieving great civilizations...because great civilizations don't reward power-hungry people.
They do this primarily through religion.
Compare early Egypt to later Egypt: watch?v=M23Y08cfyhY
Part 2 - Secondly, shouldn't we similarly view the scientific enterprise - where the majority of theories have been discarded in favor of one best theory? Should we conclude: "let us reject this theory of gravity, since all other theories have proven wrong.
@lourak No, it is the nature of science to constantly try to improve or disprove theories and offer better ones. Because scientist don't believe there is an absolute truth. If the same applied to religion, I would have no problem with it, because then it would truly be an instrument of good. Now it exist of an archaïc set of rules, that may have been noble or nessicary at the time of their conception. But simply should have no place in the world of today.
@lourak part4 The manlike seems to have originated simultaniously with coming of a warriorclass in tribalsocieties.
Religion should be about opening the minds to possibilties. To being openminded and considering all views. Not the oppisite as it had become: dogmatic. It is the search toward the ultimate answers: why are we here? And what comes next? Religion should always hold to its basis in philosophy. Or else it is not worth the paper it is written on.
@lourak part 2 For example there is nothing in the bible against slavery. Because the bible is mostly a Roman book and implenting that rule would have collapsed their economy.
About the many religions argument. Herein lies some irony. Religion used to improve on itself as the seperate tribes came in to contact with eachother, and became part of a growing world.
@lourak part 3 It is then no mere coïncedence that Christianity came about in a time where the Roman Empire grew so quickly and brought so many new people in contact with each other. Especially because Romans liked to explore other religions. It was kind of a fashion thing for them at the time.
About this higher entity always having been a manlike God, is simply not true. The origin of religion lies in the worship of nature and ancestors.
Part 1 - This argument is flawed on its face. What is decisive, is not the fact that so many god's have been consigned to the dust bin of history, and hence, we should so consign one more G-d - but, the fact of what all religions have historically shared in common - the claim for the existence of a transcendental realm that has explanatory power.
wrong...deists are not theists. deisim suggests there may have been a 'god' who started things off but doesn't intervene anymore. theism suggests you know this god's mind.
Although the measures of natural life and their complexities may have an explanation for the coming about of in a natural way, it isn't as though he has robbed Deists of their argument overall.
Let him now address the measures of physical matter, the percentages of atoms and the smaller units of existence and give a natural explanation for those. Why is matter not 46% iron? What set these percentages?
The complexity argument does not fall with the theory of evolution.
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book The World As I See It that the harmony of natural law Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.*
Hiltchens rocks! He has the balls to say it as it is. Stupefyingly idiotic and passively-aggressive religion deserves all the expository criticism heaped upon it.
He has balls as big as church bells.I think he is a bloody genius....AND he has real integrity and honesty........unlike 90%%% of religious maggots i have met.
@Brahmsfourth Is deism really THAT bad? Should not theism at least take priority over deism (i.e destroy theism and then go after deism)? Based on the facts, the existence of God(s) is a purely philosophical question with arguments on both sides but no evidence either way (obviously one can't prove a negative). As long as we pretty much agree on everything up to 4.5billion years ago, aren't we all on the same side? Deism shouldn't even count as a religion.
For one thing, if it's the wishy-washy idea that believing something, even an untrue thing, makes people moral and gives them consolation. Well, that's a horrible idea. I don't buy into the interfaith pluralism.
If on, the whole, Deism is just a kind of academic philosophical position for you, and you're as much an anti-theist as I am, then I have no criticism that isn't academic. That is a civil enough conversation in of itself.
Hope for sale! It only cost 10% of your annual income. Hurry now before you die! Send you gift of payment now so you can get your ticket to heaven while supplies still last. Plus $19.95 shipping and handling.
@incomprehensible14 Deism is not a religion and it might be that it is more likely than theism, but deities are still man-made constructs and how often have imaginary creatures arisen within the human mind and then found to actually exist? Pretty much never.
@M3t4lManiac I never suggested deism was a religion, @903gamefreak did. Deism is a singular philosophical theory on one subject. All deists are agnostic deists because a gnostic deist would be considered theist. Likewise all atheists are agnostic because a gnostic atheist might be considered a god (and then they'd still be theist). Pretty much is not the same thing as never. Remember the giant squid.
@incomprehensible14 No hold it, you have the definitions confused, look it up again. A/Gnosticism deals with whether you claim that knowledge on the existence of deities is attainable, while a/theism deals with whether you believe or not. A deist must hold a degree of theism, since they claim that there is a creator, in other words a supernatural deity which is responsible for the creation of the universe.
@M3t4lManiac No hold it, you have the definitions confused look it up again because your definition of atheist seems to include babies and cattle. Or better yet, go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "Definition of Atheism". They've looked it up for you and have even provided links. There is no gnostic atheist. It's practically a contradiction in terms. Gnosticism is a practice by cults and demands that gnosis is necessary for emancipation. Gnosis is esoteric spiritual knowledge held by gnostics.
@behemuth I don't know what you mean by *slap*, but the definition most reputable dictionaries have is "one who believes there is no god". Please go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "definition of atheism".
@behemuth I literally have no clue as to how my comment that: "Deism shouldn't even count as a religion", or my other comment: "deists should all be classified as non-theists", led you to conclude that I didn't understand the difference between deism and theism. The most popular definition of "atheist" is one who believes there is no gods. Please go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "Definition of Atheism". If you still have a problem with that, take it up with the dictionary companies.
@behemuth The word non theist is characterised by the rejection or absence of theism or belief in a personal god(s) (who watches you while you masturbate, hates condom use or has the first name of Jehovah for example). This would indeed include deists. Irreligious would also include deists. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
@behemuth Furthermore,I actually googled the word "adeist". According to adeistDOTcom, an adeist is simply a person who's not deist. This definition includes atheists, theists, agnostics and (I would assume) pandeists. Your definition of atheist sounds more like the definition of agnostic. Since agnostics believe the existence/nature of god(s) is unknown and most likely unknowable to humans (including theists), they acknowledge the possibility of a deistic god(s) while totally dismissing theism.
Problems with deism: There are no logically valid inference that can be made which favor the idea of 1 creator vs. 17 or more creators being the "architects" of the universe. And as for the "all powerful" nature of this creator(s) - no. This is also not implied. The "architects" may very well have their own limitations.
It's all speculation, my friends. Reserve judgment until we have better data. Don't rush off to certainty because your position is untenable, divisive & dangerous.
mouthyweasel 1 hour ago
yeah actually most deist don't believe in a personal god.
bagamer13 12 hours ago
@bagamer13 so im not sure about the wishful thinking part.
bagamer13 12 hours ago
Someone explain how deism is wishful thinking...
sunonthewindow 1 week ago
Oops, he seems not to understand deism.
ratonL 1 month ago
@ratonL how do you define deism? As I understand it, a creator sets the rules of evolution and then doesn't intervene. Not a personal god but still the original creator of the universe. Thoughts?
tobo86 4 weeks ago
He is wrong on Deism. Atheists are the opposite of, Christians, for example. They are so sure God does not exist. You are going to die and rot in the grave, the end! This is pure ignorance. You can't proove a great Power does not exist. We humans think we know it all. Science is ever growing and changing. Physics could be totally different elsewhere. Always question. Keep an open mind. I agree that religions are BS. Science, reason and healthy spirituality is good.
JorEl7771 1 month ago
@JorEl7771 A fellow deist? Chris like any debater they'll go to any argument that will prove their cases definitely if their cases example makes the other end of the argument look like a babbling fool. In my opinion believe in Deism because I strongly feel there is something out there. Religion has messed up it up, atheist or agnostics usually believe in science which can't completely disprove it.. Who is completely right.. there is no answer until death.. Unfortunately this is just a theory...
senrac85 1 month ago
@senrac85 and a drunken one at the moment..
senrac85 1 month ago
As much as I respect this man, his definition of Deism is completely off base. He seems to be misrepresenting Deism in an attempt to further his point.
Zyrallus 1 month ago
RIP Hitch.
wuzzerwhallen0 2 months ago
@wuzzerwhallen0 Sad....
senrac85 1 month ago
Comment removed
HomuncuIus 3 months ago
@HomuncuIus classy. Pickin' on a dead guy.
AlexKikuchi 2 months ago
@HomuncuIus I'm not quite sure how you can come up with the words “failed writer” to describe Christopher Hitchens. How many of your books have made it to the top of the New York Times best seller list? I'm sure magazines are lining up to print all your “sucking cock” references.
deadarb 1 month ago
I'm a deist yet I have no personnel God. I LIKE THIS SPEECH. He is wrong though, because it is his beliefs. His facts are the facts that he needs to prove his case. I like his thoughts yet he's just another intelligent man claiming an intelligent defense for his beliefs. This is a cycle that will never end. I'm happy I stumbled on this video.
senrac85 4 months ago 2
@senrac85 what do you beleive in what is this god or gods or whatever is out there
Abbadon380 3 months ago
@Abbadon380 read my post below this. Sorry it took me so long to get back.
senrac85 1 month ago
@senrac85 Hello. I am very curious about what a deist believes! I cannot find agreeable definitions. Do you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient but does not personally intervene i.e. sets the laws of nature and leaves it to its own devices?
tobo86 1 month ago
@tobo86 I am really saddened that this brilliant thinker was killed by cancer, he was an amazing debater to watch. I'm am also sorry that I am just responding. I really have been busy and just forget to look at this all the time. Deism such as any religious or nonreligious train of thought has many tentacles of thinking. One definition will always be erased or challenged by another.
senrac85 1 month ago
As for me, my thought of God primarily falls under deism and why I am not atheist or agnostic, as such: 1) It's impossible for anyone religion to prove another 100% wrong...even if books are written by man. There are other supernatural experiences that once these types of experiences you come to the realization that there has to be something out there.
senrac85 1 month ago
2) Science also has it's flaws in many of it's theories, nothing is a hundred percent correct. much of science is educated guesses, mainly because no one is there to prove it or completely document it 100%. Therefore "can't see it, don't believe it" theory comes in.
senrac85 1 month ago
3) Desist for the most part come to a reasonable understanding that "God" cannot be defined by one religion . That God is good and we as a people have to reach a reasonable understanding what what is right and wrong.(killing-bad, helping homeless- good, etc etc
senrac85 1 month ago
4) In my opinion of God I don't think he would punish a soul (Hell, Hades, etc etc) just because he doesn't believe in Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, or nothing at all. Man had distorted things so bad that I feel that God looks completely at ones heart and actions. to shorten this opinion down.
senrac85 1 month ago
If God's creation is so complicated, wouldn't his (in the spiritual realm be as just complicated if we are created in his image?) Like we have courts, organzation, laws, etc etc. Wouldn't the spirirtual realm have the same? Why would God punish a "adulterer the same as a serial killer" He simply would not, so why would God judge a human being on how they were raised or the opinions they gained out of their free will. He simply wouldn't, in my opinion. I could go on, but I am sleepy.
senrac85 1 month ago
@senrac85 No problem (about the delayed reply). Conflicting definitions? I suppose my next question is this: Supposedly, deistic thinking is based on the "clockwork universe theory", which is say that the supreme architect set up natural deterministic laws i.e. cause and effect. However, since discovery of quantum mechanics, this idea is no longer valid as randomness has been found to exist. To me, this fact renders deistic belief obsolete. Unless there's a reason I'm missing?
tobo86 4 weeks ago
@tobo86 There is the argument of whether the probability that the whole of existence could spring from nothing is greater or lesser than there being something there in the first place that exists as some kind of intelligence. I think something springing from nothing has the lesser probability right now and do not share the confident that a cosmological 'darwinian revolution' is almost an inevitability that some do, although don't rule it out.
Underground906 3 weeks ago
@Underground906 Whoa. I really didn't understand those 2 sentences. Are you saying the argument is 'something from nothing' vs 'something from something', and you also believe the latter is more probable, which you attribute to an intelligent designer?
tobo86 3 weeks ago
@tobo86 Excuse my poor grammar. You managed to get what I meant anyway. I don't necessarily attribute it to a 'intelligent designer', just some kind of intelligence/providence that may have always been there. We can't airbrush eternity out of the equation. And yes, the existence of some form of intelligence begs certain awkward question, but no less so than the answers to the 'what came before the big bang' question. I can't see how the odds of an intelligence would be greater than it not.
Underground906 3 weeks ago
Hitchens undeniably does not believe in any form of a deity without using any evidence that disproves the possibility of a deity existence, he bases his point of the irrationality of believing in a deity, but there makes his views hypocritical, cause after all there is no evidence to deny any existence. Belief in anything accommodates the logic of the individual.
eskdalepicciau 4 months ago
I believe that love is the force which, in human society, binds us together in meaningful ways, as atoms are bound together by energy in the meaningful form of matter. What interferes with this process is our neurosis. I believe that Jesus, as a rare non-neurotic individual, had much of relevence to say about us and the neurosis which stands between us and our capacity to love all of our fellows unconditionally. But one, of course, has to ignore the superstition which has accrued around him.
Aussiescribbler 5 months ago
I'm a Theist, but I'd rather be Deist than Atheist
gogolplex74 6 months ago
Deists don't believe any gods on any list are the "right one". They don't believe in a personal or superior deity. Hitchens needs to learn more about Deism imo. And how was Darwin a better emancipator than Lincoln? What a messed up comment.
JasonHouston77 6 months ago 2
@JasonHouston77 Hitchens certainly knows well enough what deism is, he makes no statement that contradicts its most common meaning. Darwin is certainly the greater emancipator. Hitchens means that he freed us from not understanding how life came about, which greatly assists rejecting the falsehood of religion, while Lincoln merely facilitated the existing zeitgeist of abolition.
arcadesj 5 months ago
@arcadesj all I hear at 2:30 is audible feces. Deists don't believe in a God of their very own. And as another comment from 5 months ago points out, he makes this statement that he should know not to be true, and never takes the time to clarify it. Then he goes on to call it wishful thinking and ignorance, which is the opposite of what Deists believe (try visiting the website some time). Seems Hitchens, like so many others that debate religion, is willing to misrepresent a group to make a point.
JasonHouston77 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=o9ktS2U53Qg Write "Logical Evidences for Islam" and watch it...
There is A Creator. There a religion. Islam is the true religion.
shncsr 6 months ago
This man is a legend!!!
jjoneil73 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, Melvin6566842.
writersblock26 7 months ago
@xboxboy40 Are you talking from personal experiences that you have had with religious people?
writersblock26 7 months ago
Deism for me is the best explanation for the world we live in. I will always believe in GOD because it is the best explanation for me. But being a Deist I can also believe in science, logic, and reasoning. We don't know how GOD created the universe that's what we have science for. Deists believe that GOD gave us reason to help better understand how the universe works. Because of science we have made so many beautiful discoveries. Science has done more for humanity than organized religion has.
MrSammy2014 7 months ago
@MrSammy2014
well said. but as a deist, should you be capitalizing god? ;P
Tartersauce101 7 months ago
The "Portable Atheist" kicks ass!!
connerjd 7 months ago
@xboxboy40
Doug Stanhope does a good piece on that. Search "Doug Stanhope "You make your own christianity" ". To summarize, why cry when people die and why wear seat-belts?
Hirnlego999 7 months ago
So what if there is a huge list of gods?
AFAIK there are about 38,000 denominations of Christianity. So even if there is just *one* God, and even if god is the *Christian* God, any one of us who chooses Christianity as their religion has a 37999:1 chance of getting it wrong ANYWAY.
And for those who say that denomination doesn't matter... try telling an evangelical pastor that his brand of Christianity is purely optional, and he can go Catholic any time he wants.
Rabboleth 7 months ago
Ooh, that stung!
XlXKrampusXlX 7 months ago
@xboxboy40 I agree, otherwise they wouldn't be just as afraid of dying as anybody else. They know very well it's likely the only life we have.
dutchbb1979 8 months ago
The problem with antitheism (and it's not much of one) is that the arguments of the supporters of religion are so feeble they're just too easy to rebut!
247custard 8 months ago
@903gamefreak I don't know what you meant when you just posted "non-Religious". If that was in response to my comment about agnostics, atheists and deists being classified as nontheists, then yes the term non religious would apply but so would the term nontheist. The way you phrased your other statement could be interpreted to suggest that you think muslims are uneducated. IF that's how YOU feel, I suggest you learn more about nontheistic philosophical thought. It's just a suggestion.
incomprehensible14 8 months ago
@903gamefreak Deism does not = theism, that's why there are two different words. Theism refers to the claim of having personal esoteric knowledge about a deity that they know for a fact exists. Deism is an agnostic claim in that deists don't claim esoteric and factual knowledge like theists do. Like atheism, deism is simply a singular philosophical conclusion and that is why I have no problem with atheism or deism. Yes I am arguing against religion. Who said I wasn't???
incomprehensible14 8 months ago
NOOOOOOOOOOO that not what deism is please stop your emnarrising us. Different for every1 pllease shut up!!!
pliskin543 9 months ago
Well im going to stop you right here hitchen. DEISM IS BELEVE IN A GOD FROM A SCIENTIFIC OR OBSERVATIONAL STATE. So for all you atheist and theist stop with your stupid comments and retarded thought process. Thank you
pliskin543 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
prove god doesnt exist now.
TheZigzagSmoke 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, but I reckon you are talking about Bush and I am talking about the Hitch
JoshuaSummerside 10 months ago
Deism seems to be the most logical belief, and I'm not trying to deny anyone of their belief/perspective on "God". But I think that's rational that "God" doesn't intervene with human affairs, and we have the will to make our own decisions.Meaning that we are responsible for our actions, and what goes on in the Earth.So if anyone is to blame on why Earth is in the condition it's in is our doing.
thedeadlyflow 10 months ago
people answer their own prayers, that's the big secret.
Samuelthemule 10 months ago
how can we discuss logic and rationality with people whose source of ''information'' is a fictional book with talking snakes, zombies, miracles, angels and humans who lived up to the age of 900? it is a lost cause. we might as well sit back and mock them, that's all we can do against mass-delusion.
marcohorowitz8 10 months ago
For as well read and erudite as Hitch is, I am really surprised that he always uses the subjunctive tense inappropriately. Hitch- I wish I was... (I wish I were is correct) Hitch- If I was in your position... (If I were in your position is correct)... not hatin' just surprised.
JoshuaSummerside 10 months ago 2
@JoshuaSummerside I have found that intellectuals do NOT necessarily have to be literate nor intelligent. I know a bunch that find it difficult to construct a sentence and yet they hold the audience on the edge of their seat. Many can not even spell or proofread. Funny, don't you think?
ThinkPureTruth 10 months ago
Why does hitchens keep putting his glasses on and taking them back off. lol
Wordlaw12 10 months ago
@Wordlaw12 He does play with his glasses a lot, in almost every debate.
VicVinegar 10 months ago
@Wordlaw12 they are called reading glasses.
hotmercedes 10 months ago
As a longtime Hitchens fan, I'm somewhat shocked that Hitchens doesn't make the distinction that Deism does not believe in a personal god. Period. Most Deists ascribe to the clockmaker philosophy, as he states later; not the personal, "God helped me score a touchdown" God. He doesn't go back to clarify that point, but rather lets it slide.
Tarwater03 10 months ago
I am convinced that all atheists know at the deepest level of their beings there is a God. But they fear the judgment of that God because they know the ugliness of their hearts. If they can convince themselves there is no God they are free to live in whatever manner of immorality they wish and escape the wrath to come. I pray that they may come to themselves before that day. I enjoy the eternal demise of no man.
rosmia2 11 months ago
@rosmia2 right, because every atheist is a dirty sinner. what then of the atheists that live good lives free of sin (apart of apostasy)? I don't believe in God because there is no reason or piece of evidence to, not because I want to sin all the time and get away with it. You enjoy the demise of no man, yet you are so convinced that hell exists and we are going there. you even think we DESERVE to go there.
grow up you ignorant fuck.
AnonyMOUSE1177 11 months ago 14
@rosmia2 haha great speech,to bad your a total idiot i know one thing in the deepest sence of my being and thats the fact that you got the iq of demented carrot
TheMaximusmacro 11 months ago
@rosmia2 Oh thats so fucking nice of you. Keep your'e opinionated holy crap go preach at the wind. Most people who read your'e comment know you to be so afraid of death you deny your'e nature.
I'm not interested in disputing your'e belief my only interest here is to tell you Fuck off.
flight1100 9 months ago
This is at VCU, maybe God is on their side, they made the Final four ;)
shortfuse41 11 months ago
Hitchens makes a powerful point here, one which tends to be overlooked by both sides of this argument. Christian apologists, such as WL Craig for example, will commonly use as "evidence" for God, arguments from existence, vague cosmological arguments and such, that AT BEST, are arguments in favor of Deism. All of the philosophical arguments they make never amount to a hill of beans as evidence toward their specific theistic beliefs!!!
DandAinTac 11 months ago
where is the counter to this debate. I sat and listened to Hitchens make his tired old argument and then the video ends. pretty liner presentation of one mans argument. with no combatant. Glad to hear your side of things sir, but post the rebuttal so your words can elevate beyond cyber masturbation.
biznatchio 1 year ago
are there any videos explaining or hypothesizing why there is existence rather than not? preferably scientific videos.
thepickletrain 1 year ago
I had some respect for hitchens, not anymore after watching this video agains Deism.
Deism is more respectable than religions, never imposing the idea over others.
Deism is not wishful thinking is philosophy (questioning about our existance)
Deism is to be humble to accept that we can't prove everything
and Atheism is arrogance , most of them trying to be "intelligent" failing each time.
kybernes23 1 year ago
@kybernes23 What is arrogant about not believing claims about a God or Gods?
estarmes 1 year ago
@estarmes atheism is not only lack of belief, if only would be that, then there wouldn't be so much atheists arguing about their position. they are so interested in showing their lack of belief, you can see it on their channels.
if they were wise, they would respect others beliefs, since they lack a belief why is so important for them calling themselves atheists?
kybernes23 1 year ago
@kybernes23 I am an atheïst and I do not propagate it in any sense. To me it is not important to call myself an atheïst. It is more easy to say ''I am an atheïst'' instead of ''I do not believe the claims about God(s)''. Obviously..... It is just a word which regards your position on that matter. Besides, I do not see how religion should earn my respect. Yes! Respect is something you earn.
estarmes 1 year ago
@estarmes ok, it is arrogant because he is trying to make an argument based on reason, but of course for me is not reasonable.
arrogant because most of the youtube atheist say they want proves.
and that is ok against theism , but not Deism, Deism see there is a force, something that gives intelligence to our sistems of live. atoms behaves like that obeying to something.
how in the world they want me to prove what i can't see but obviously exists.
kybernes23 1 year ago
@kybernes23 the aproach of the meaning of God is different that religion.
that what annoys me a little bit when they pretend we are talking the same god.
if they read what a deist belief and what are the reasons for believing it, they would not compare it with the any god of theism.
kybernes23 1 year ago
@kybernes23 arrogant for believing what you consider true on your head, as for example by saying that religion does not deserve any respect.
you are talking as if in the name of Deism there were bad things.
Deism is a personal religion if only you understand the difference between theism and deism you would realized
kybernes23 1 year ago
@kybernes23 Since those people are angry at religious people who showe down their beliefs down their throats.
warmsteel 10 months ago
Bottom Line? St. Thomas Aquinas proves God's existence in the Summa. Hitchens can't defeat Aquinas. God wins again :)
helpyouseeit 1 year ago
For a Deist, God doesn't have to be a being, but it also can be a higher energy above our Universe, or any anything that is in our Universe. The prime mover, in the atheistic sense, can be said that is the Big Bang. However, some deists say that God sacrifice himself to do the Big Bang, which is most like called pandeism.
NobiscumDeus1 1 year ago
so conceiving = existing huh?
well then what about all of the hundreds of peoples in asylums who have been conceiving hundreds of different strange things? why dont any of their conceivements exist? answer: because aquinas was a mental midget.
JazistheGreatest 1 year ago
IC XC
NI KA
nicubucurestiromania 1 year ago
HItchens is eminently worth talking and listening to -- no doubt about it.
But . . . when it comes to religion, I have yet to see him engage with anyone who really knows his stuff.
Here's what's necessary:
First, distinguish between religion & spirituality . . .
Next, establish evidence for the latter . . .
Then, consider the necessary historical relationship, both bad AND good, between the two . . .
And only then . . . make your evaluation of what Hitchen's has to say in his book.
greenrate 1 year ago
@greenrate I have read his book...You ask him to establish a difference between religion and spirituality...Have you ever seen a spirit in your life?? A ghost or a phantom? Did you talk to him, her, it? If you put attention to these videos, it is those who believe in spirits and gods who should bring proof of the matter, because they are the ones who claim the existence of such things. If there is proof then faith is unrequired.
alobo2000 1 year ago
@greenrate By the way, there is not historic evidence of spirits or evidence that humans have soul.
alobo2000 1 year ago
In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides.
Heinrich Heine
pumasgol89 1 year ago
Why do deists call their god a god if he/she/it doesn't bother with its creation?
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 I think It bother with creation, evolution still continues. God only doesn`t intervene our personal life. We have free will, we have reason... God is God with, or without us.
I am Deist. Why God should not be called God? I do not understand your question. ??? If God doesnt bother with creation It is not God????
karlawachsmann 1 year ago
@karlawachsmann I think my brain would implode if I tried to reconcile god like you do. Grow up. There is no invisable protector in the sky for you. Live this life with logical morals, love and cherish the ones deserving of you and leave the planet a better place because you existed.
ShogMan 1 year ago
Hitchen rapes christianity in the last minute, so awesome :D
Go reason and down with religion!
thetruelie 1 year ago
@crazyboyxx sorry i didn't hear that exact comment by him in this video... not being confrontational just wondering if you can tell me at what minute/sec where he states this
IXianGriffin 1 year ago
this man is a great intellect, its edifying listening to his arguments...all of them
faustus999 1 year ago
"can anybody prove .. bal bal bal " .. Can anybody prove that it never happened? Well, can anybody prove to me that this man is not an idiot insane? I need to see a paper from the supreme court saying he is not insane.
jomanjy09 1 year ago
Deist don't believe in a personal God. One of the reason of not me being an atheist is The Simulation Hypothesis. The programs' realm or laws of physics doesn't necessarily have to be the same as that of its programmer like all creator needing a creator
call me a deluded deist
ixataca 1 year ago
@ixataca
That is true, however take a moment to comprehend how something as fundamental as Time itself could not exist. Or rather, how anything could happen without such a thing. It is totally contrary to logic, as time is itself change.
More to the point... an atheist is only one who does not believe in a god. It isn't a position of certainty by any means (not generally), but rather of doubt.
It is probable (even definite) that something caused the BB. Calling it 'god' though is just silly.
Vire70 1 year ago
@Vire70 We could create AIs in a simulation/program with very different fundamental reality/laws than our own. like objects flying up, immortality etc.. we could make it simpler or more complex. "Simulation Hypothesis" closely resembles that of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave", look it up. Anyway it's just my personal analogy of our existence.
Pagans, and Christians have their own definition of their god. The thing/event/cause behind the BB is the deist's own definition of a god.
ixataca 1 year ago
@crazyboyxx Deists are not theists. Deism is the belief in a God that does not directly intervene in people's personal lives in any way. This is contrary to theism, which is the opposite.
DevoutSkeptic 1 year ago
@DevoutSkeptic
I'm not sure that's strictly true.
Theism=belief in god(s).
It does not necessarily entail a god which interferes with reality... although it certainly is the case that most theists when approached do have beliefs of that nature.
Vire70 1 year ago
The belief that Hitchens doesn't address is that God is not a designer but an intrinsic potential which unfolds blindly but in an orderly and interconnected way leading to humans with a capacity to love each other and thus unite into a single entity that Jesus called The Kingdom of God. Teilhard De Chardin was one of the proponents of this belief. It is antithetical to reductionist science which denies meaning and purpose in nature, but is needed to explain the increase in complexity.
Aussiescribbler 1 year ago
@Aussiescribbler
What does that even mean? Looks like nothing but vague nonsense to me.
Complexity is quite easy to explain in Nature. At any rate, using something even more complex to explain complexity is not a pretty piss poor strategy.
Vire70 1 year ago
@Vire70 What I'm saying is that unfolding complexity is an inherent potential in all energy which is realised when conditions allow, in the same way that a seed has the inherent potential to grow into a tree, and can't help but to do so when conditions are right, e.g. fertile soil, sunlight and water, etc. Similarly, a creative human society develops out of our inherent capacity to love each other which is only inhibited by our degree of neurosis. Is that so complex an explanation?
Aussiescribbler 6 months ago
@Aussiescribbler
No, I understand. What I don't understand is what relevance this has to do with god, or Jesus. You are essentially explaining the mechanics of the universe - which is to say, to you, allegedly, the universe is god. If this is the case then you can save some time by just calling it 'the universe' and throwing out all the nonsensical garbage.
Vire70 6 months ago
God is irrelevant, not non-existent. Wrap your mind around that
The way both of these people live their lives is such, regardless of their arguments on this podium: they try their best to be good to their fellow men because they know that's all that matters. Whether or not there is a god is irrelevant to them IN PRACTICE.
If god did exist, he would be frowning upon me right now for thinking about it so much rather than being outside helping my neighbor. Actually, I think I'll go do that!
tpstrat14 1 year ago
How atheist's feel:
1 Hi, there's a god who loves you!
2 Really? Where?
1 Well he's invisible.
2 Oh, well can I meet him?
1 Not till your dead.
2 Well can he say hi, so I can hear him?
1 Nope, but 2000 years ago some unknown persons wrote this book saying....
2 (walks away mid-sentence)
SGTRandyB 1 year ago 5
I think I am beginning to see things your way. Yes, It's all making sense to me now. You are a God. The God of unbelief. And you spread unbelief where ever you go. And you are worshipped by all your disciples of unbelief. And they love you and want to serve you, by telling all their freinds that they must listen to you. Yeh, it's makes perfect sense. Thank you for enlightenment. oops, I think I've just started a new religion, please forgive me. You gotta serve somebody. b. dylan
digital0707neo 1 year ago
I'm nearly over this debate, the religious are fucking downright stupid. So frustrating trying to debate them (which i have for years) when they come back with the same bullshit and/or quote a novel. I'm sorry to all the good religious folk who keep to themselves but please know you are either wrong or have mental health issues.
speccwolf 1 year ago
@speccwolf i really hate the mental disorder argument. People with mental disorders, it seems to me, are less objectionable than the religious because they genuinely have no say in the matter. Being religious is a choice. Sometimes its not an easy one because its rammed down our throats at a very early age. But, it's still a mindful choice adults ultimately have to make in western society. The severity of indoctrination does, however, depend of your geography (take Iran, for example)
PaGaNM0nK 1 year ago
How atheists define god?
kvihma 1 year ago
@kvihma there is no need to as we don't need to define that which cannot be proven, anyone who thinks otherwise is intellectually dishonest. I will say though that the concept of god purely exists in the minds of believers and that's how I can define it.
OMGBBQ1one 1 year ago
reserrections do occur (viagra)
thekidofva 1 year ago
I love the end. "Good, not sure I'm going to need allll that." Haha, he could have demolished Turek in under a minute probably.
scooter9023 1 year ago
Not all peoples who are in religion arent mean, bad persons!!
I see 2 points, in both atheism and Religion; is evil peoples in both.
MrJuha82 1 year ago
@MrJuha82 there are evil people in both, there are also good people in both..... BUT IF YOU WANT A GOOD PERSON TO DO A EVIL THING - THAT REQUIRES RELIGION!
diceyLee 1 year ago
@diceyLee okay. your point was ok.
MrJuha82 1 year ago
Personally, I consider myself a Deist or Unitarian but not a believer in any organized religion. I think Jesus really existed but not that he was divine.
mcmchugh99 1 year ago
Really? at 5:05 Hitchens states that there is no requirement for a belief in God in any aspect of creation, I would be most interested to hear his view on how the universe began being that there was not one in the first instance, I am a Deist and there are many aspects of the Universe that I would LOVE to hear explained from this man if there is no God whatsoever.
khasseki 1 year ago
@khasseki Watch 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss". Its pretty eye opening.
NoBitchASSnes1 1 year ago
@khasseki The flaw lies in the assumption that there is a transition between nothingness and everything. Asking where the universe "came from" has no answer because the question makes no sense.
breaneainn 1 year ago
@crazyboyxx This isnt that complicated. Deism isn't a subset of either Atheism or Theism. Logically, deism and theism could be connected readily. However, it misses the point to take one trait that deism has in common with theism or atheism and say that its a subset of either. If anything theism is a subset of deism (that is if you must connect the concepts that way)
dmcgraye 1 year ago
I think that if more of the general public knew what Deism is, then less people would become atheist/agnostic when leaving the religion of their upbringing. Since notions of God can be divorced from religious thinking.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
There is no "order" in the Universe, as far as the logic and realism is employed. There is only a set of parameters making it possible for us to exist. We have no idea what different parameters would produce and what kind of "order" it would bring. It's an after-the-fact construction, rather than a "fine-tuning" ;)
armelix73 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheLeutrimExperience 1 year ago
@TheLeutrimExperience
You can't just simplify the Big Bang theory like that. And I like how you call theories suported by the most educated and brilliant scientists in the world stupid.
Maybe you should open a book on the Big Bang.
SigDrums 1 year ago
@TheLeutrimExperience If the Big Bang theory stated what you just did, you'd have a point. But since it doesn't, I suggest you refrain from calling it stupid, and try to figure out what it actually states.
fearguis 1 year ago
@fearguis My bad. I've never really read terribly much into it. I've watched tons and tons of documentaries and countless clips on it though, and it's pretty much how I stated it? Unless you don't think so? Care to simplify it for me?
TheLeutrimExperience 1 year ago
@TheLeutrimExperience The big bang theory is not simple. Simple is for anecdotes and mythology. Stephen Hawking explains it in a Brief History Of Time. Suffice it to say, something didn't come from nothing. It came from a singulariy, and will most likely return to it again.
fearguis 1 year ago
ironically, this is exactly what people who think a god is necessary to explain the universes origins. presumably, he wouldve created it out of nothing, otherwise what do we need him for
Pelonetillo 11 months ago
There is something incredibly sexy about Hitch's brilliance.
Peccatore666 1 year ago 2
a wise man said... if i can know the mind of God, then God isn't God :)
ott0Kitam 1 year ago 2
i seem much discussion and confusion about which category deism is a subset of. the correct answer is in fact THEISM. in the broadest sense, of course. theism is the belief in at least one deity, but, although not a requisite, the word connotes allegorical description of it. deism is not allegorical belief at all. a similar relationship is agnosticism and atheism. while agnosticism is in fact atheism, no one calls it so, and it's understandable.
ScaryKid1015 1 year ago
Power-hungry people purposely oppress common truth to prevent us from achieving great civilizations...because great civilizations don't reward power-hungry people.
They do this primarily through religion.
Compare early Egypt to later Egypt: watch?v=M23Y08cfyhY
TheGoalSetter 1 year ago 2
I want to bear that mans children.
And I'm a straight guy. THATS how awesome Hitchens is.
tipoomaster 1 year ago 2
Part 2 - Secondly, shouldn't we similarly view the scientific enterprise - where the majority of theories have been discarded in favor of one best theory? Should we conclude: "let us reject this theory of gravity, since all other theories have proven wrong.
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak No, it is the nature of science to constantly try to improve or disprove theories and offer better ones. Because scientist don't believe there is an absolute truth. If the same applied to religion, I would have no problem with it, because then it would truly be an instrument of good. Now it exist of an archaïc set of rules, that may have been noble or nessicary at the time of their conception. But simply should have no place in the world of today.
Sander198422 1 year ago
@lourak part4 The manlike seems to have originated simultaniously with coming of a warriorclass in tribalsocieties.
Religion should be about opening the minds to possibilties. To being openminded and considering all views. Not the oppisite as it had become: dogmatic. It is the search toward the ultimate answers: why are we here? And what comes next? Religion should always hold to its basis in philosophy. Or else it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Sander198422 1 year ago
@lourak part 2 For example there is nothing in the bible against slavery. Because the bible is mostly a Roman book and implenting that rule would have collapsed their economy.
About the many religions argument. Herein lies some irony. Religion used to improve on itself as the seperate tribes came in to contact with eachother, and became part of a growing world.
Sander198422 1 year ago
@lourak part 3 It is then no mere coïncedence that Christianity came about in a time where the Roman Empire grew so quickly and brought so many new people in contact with each other. Especially because Romans liked to explore other religions. It was kind of a fashion thing for them at the time.
About this higher entity always having been a manlike God, is simply not true. The origin of religion lies in the worship of nature and ancestors.
Sander198422 1 year ago
Part 1 - This argument is flawed on its face. What is decisive, is not the fact that so many god's have been consigned to the dust bin of history, and hence, we should so consign one more G-d - but, the fact of what all religions have historically shared in common - the claim for the existence of a transcendental realm that has explanatory power.
lourak 1 year ago
wrong...deists are not theists. deisim suggests there may have been a 'god' who started things off but doesn't intervene anymore. theism suggests you know this god's mind.
zanzibartraveler09 1 year ago
My fellow atheists, you are not alone.
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
thank god for Christopher!!!!!!!! (no pun intended)
joeylodes 1 year ago
Although the measures of natural life and their complexities may have an explanation for the coming about of in a natural way, it isn't as though he has robbed Deists of their argument overall.
Let him now address the measures of physical matter, the percentages of atoms and the smaller units of existence and give a natural explanation for those. Why is matter not 46% iron? What set these percentages?
The complexity argument does not fall with the theory of evolution.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book The World As I See It that the harmony of natural law Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.*
majorl31 2 years ago
jesus christ he's good.
joejjohnston 2 years ago
yup the deist to theist translation has baffled me to be honest
halcyondaze82 2 years ago
Hiltchens rocks! He has the balls to say it as it is. Stupefyingly idiotic and passively-aggressive religion deserves all the expository criticism heaped upon it.
Brahmsfourth 2 years ago 36
Brahmsfourth = rentaquote
Brahms fifth for me ...Hungarian Dance that is
jonnylazer 2 years ago
@Brahmsfourth
He has balls as big as church bells.I think he is a bloody genius....AND he has real integrity and honesty........unlike 90%%% of religious maggots i have met.
blutobelushi 1 year ago 2
@Brahmsfourth Is deism really THAT bad? Should not theism at least take priority over deism (i.e destroy theism and then go after deism)? Based on the facts, the existence of God(s) is a purely philosophical question with arguments on both sides but no evidence either way (obviously one can't prove a negative). As long as we pretty much agree on everything up to 4.5billion years ago, aren't we all on the same side? Deism shouldn't even count as a religion.
incomprehensible14 1 year ago 69
@incomprehensible14
Yes and no.
For one thing, if it's the wishy-washy idea that believing something, even an untrue thing, makes people moral and gives them consolation. Well, that's a horrible idea. I don't buy into the interfaith pluralism.
If on, the whole, Deism is just a kind of academic philosophical position for you, and you're as much an anti-theist as I am, then I have no criticism that isn't academic. That is a civil enough conversation in of itself.
dhx84 9 months ago
Hope for sale! It only cost 10% of your annual income. Hurry now before you die! Send you gift of payment now so you can get your ticket to heaven while supplies still last. Plus $19.95 shipping and handling.
Praise jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
scotttebben 8 months ago
Nine retards found this video.
scotttebben 8 months ago 4
@incomprehensible14 Deism is not a religion and it might be that it is more likely than theism, but deities are still man-made constructs and how often have imaginary creatures arisen within the human mind and then found to actually exist? Pretty much never.
M3t4lManiac 8 months ago
@M3t4lManiac I never suggested deism was a religion, @903gamefreak did. Deism is a singular philosophical theory on one subject. All deists are agnostic deists because a gnostic deist would be considered theist. Likewise all atheists are agnostic because a gnostic atheist might be considered a god (and then they'd still be theist). Pretty much is not the same thing as never. Remember the giant squid.
incomprehensible14 8 months ago
@incomprehensible14 No hold it, you have the definitions confused, look it up again. A/Gnosticism deals with whether you claim that knowledge on the existence of deities is attainable, while a/theism deals with whether you believe or not. A deist must hold a degree of theism, since they claim that there is a creator, in other words a supernatural deity which is responsible for the creation of the universe.
M3t4lManiac 8 months ago
@M3t4lManiac No hold it, you have the definitions confused look it up again because your definition of atheist seems to include babies and cattle. Or better yet, go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "Definition of Atheism". They've looked it up for you and have even provided links. There is no gnostic atheist. It's practically a contradiction in terms. Gnosticism is a practice by cults and demands that gnosis is necessary for emancipation. Gnosis is esoteric spiritual knowledge held by gnostics.
incomprehensible14 8 months ago 3
Agnostics, atheists and deists should all be classified as non-theists.
incomprehensible14 1 year ago 31
@incomprehensible14 *slap*
A-theist... which is a non theist. someone not believing in any gods at all would be an adeist. atheism just reject theistic gods.
behemuth 9 months ago
@behemuth I don't know what you mean by *slap*, but the definition most reputable dictionaries have is "one who believes there is no god". Please go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "definition of atheism".
incomprehensible14 9 months ago
@incomprehensible14 theism is a specific kind of god, not the same as deism. atheist is not == adeist.
behemuth 9 months ago
@behemuth I literally have no clue as to how my comment that: "Deism shouldn't even count as a religion", or my other comment: "deists should all be classified as non-theists", led you to conclude that I didn't understand the difference between deism and theism. The most popular definition of "atheist" is one who believes there is no gods. Please go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "Definition of Atheism". If you still have a problem with that, take it up with the dictionary companies.
incomprehensible14 9 months ago
@behemuth The word non theist is characterised by the rejection or absence of theism or belief in a personal god(s) (who watches you while you masturbate, hates condom use or has the first name of Jehovah for example). This would indeed include deists. Irreligious would also include deists. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
incomprehensible14 9 months ago
@incomprehensible14 no... theist is not = deist. theist = god who intervenes, deist = a force we label as god.
behemuth 9 months ago
@behemuth Furthermore,I actually googled the word "adeist". According to adeistDOTcom, an adeist is simply a person who's not deist. This definition includes atheists, theists, agnostics and (I would assume) pandeists. Your definition of atheist sounds more like the definition of agnostic. Since agnostics believe the existence/nature of god(s) is unknown and most likely unknowable to humans (including theists), they acknowledge the possibility of a deistic god(s) while totally dismissing theism.
incomprehensible14 9 months ago