Christopher Hitchens on Think Tank 25-Apr-02 (Part 1)

[magicpony9]

Thanks for uploading these, I hadn't seen them before, and a new Hitch video pretty much makes my day:)

[AutoBahnForever]

Christopher Hitchens speaking or debating is akin to watch Babe Ruth, Micheal Jordan or Brent Farve in their prime.........RIVETING transmission of message with state of the art use of the English language. His books are even more elaborate, but also include a biting honesty that is compelling (wordsmith).  My best to Hitch if he reads this....cancer survivors are very common nowadays.....medical science is impressive. English stiff upper lip comes in real handy about now,....this is doable

[robert1268]

Amen.

[umbrellaman75]

Hitch looks like shit here

[jackhowiedocherty]

i have studied world religions

i accept none of them

this does not mean that i do not believe in a relationship between man and god

i am an absolute monist

i do not accept monotheism

monotheism is god and its creation

monism is god and its own self

what did george believe

was he a coward presenting no belief

[AspiringPotato]

@jackhowiedocherty

Orwell was many things but certainly no coward...

[wickedceltics]

Excellent. Thanks for posting Hitchens.

[eyehear10]

Let Hitchens speak old man.

[Ragnaros12345]

Wow, I didn't think it would be very bad, but shit. You're right.

[norb1937]

Orwellian philosophy: Keep the mass mind of the proletariat occupied with nonsense and they will ignore the real issues.

[thorsgade26]

And the philosophy of every TV channel in my area (Europe). Its unbelievable how much crap there is on TV. Even with, like, news programs and such, they never dig deep, and even if they do, they only have like 15 minutes or half an hour tops, to talk it over. Fuck those dudes that decide what should come on TV.

[jazzjackrabbits]

wish hitchens wasn't fucking cut off so much... fucking old bastard

[zuesthelessor]

just another authorized author who btw was schooled under Huxley at Eton. He didn't predict anything...it was all predictive programming. Surrendering to the supposed inevitable makes for a quick turn of the screw.

[BARCACROSSESTHEALPS]

ten minutes in and Hitchens is cut off twice by the old man....hope this gets better...

[rcarass1]

hehe hitchens hair looks even dafter back then xD

[Chill398]

Look up pigheaded in a dictionary and you'll see Ben Wattenburgs picture.

[gnomit]

These 3 square old men, ties done up to noon, thinking they are talking over such serious things. In fact, all they are doing is parroting history lessons in glossed over, filtered perspectives. Hitchens is a cold machine, who's ever colder rationality has no purpose in a human community. The other guy is a meer moron little dweeb. The old man is a dumb ass who seems to have no knowledge of even the topic they are discussing.

[GillerMonster]

You sir are retarded. Simple enough for even you to understand.

[gnomit]

oh another of christophers' fanboys. Why not give him a call maybe he'll invite you over to lick some of his envelopes... twat.

[GillerMonster]

How much do I owe you for making my point. Thanks again.

Was Chill refering to u?

[gnomit]

Um, no. What does he have to do with this?

[GillerMonster]

It sounded like he may know something or "SOMEONES" we don't, that's all no big deal.

[gnomit]

It sounds like you're a daft twat.

[emmaxmusic]

umm...you have no idea what your talking about, shut the fuck up. THANKS.

[historywillabsolve]

hitchens is definitely not a communist. he may still have some trotskyite sympathies but he no longer calls himself a socialist even. have you not watched this interview? one of the reasons he admires orwell so much is because he was opposed to both ideologies after his experience in the spanish civil war.

[ophuchew]

Hitchens loves Orwell and he's a commie/atheist? Well Orwell was all for Commieism untill he saw it in action. They where keeping all the good stuff for themselves and mercilessly imprisoning anyone that opposed them even a little. T^hats why he felt the need to write "Animal Farm" and "1984".

[johnclavis]

I don't believe Hitchens describes himself as a communist.

[ophuchew]

clavis--Hitchens was on Booknotes awhile back and he had no problems with tooting the virtues(sic) of Godless Commie-ism. Whether he calls himself one or not? He believes it's the way to go. Psalm 14 & Psalm 53

[FrankCoffman]

ophuchew,

Hitchen isn't a communist. I don't know where you get your (mis)information, but you should check your facts before posting. Otherwise, "lies become truth" a la 1984.

Hitchens rejects religion -- and rightly so, because religion is a form brainwashing and thought-control.

[ophuchew]

franky--yeah, yeah, yeah! tell that to stalinist russia, China under mao and cambodia under (poo pot). Are you tryin to brainwash people to your way of godless thinking? And Hitchens did toote the (twisted) virtue of godless commie-ism. AKA Militant, Marxists, Atheism. Go find the interview and watch it for yourself. PSALM 14 & PSALM 53

[KillerOfTheSun2008]

Those dictators took advantage of a poor people and an economically declining country where the dictator was thought of as god.Nothing about where atheisim was used as a tool in the communist regime.Its a very used up arguement with no base whatsoever.

[lombard34]

Now now, it's very cute when Atheists try to use the Inquisition or the Crusades as a way to bash peaceful religious in the present, but they seem to run and hide when someone points out that not very long ago there were governments that destoryed churches, killed clerics, and told the people that religion was the opium of the masses. The populations living under those governmenets became mostly Atheistic and most remain so to this day. These government's were Atheistic, and what it shows is

[Killer0fTheSun]

Please show me an atehistic government?And dont say communist russia or japan.That is communsisim.And i dont need just the crusades or the inquisition to bash hateful religions,all i need to do is open their own book and you can see for yourselves the murder,rape,genocide and slavery that is often in their religion.

[lombard34]

I commend your fast typing, but the second part of my thought is above.

Religious people have more than one book. I suppose by that logic I should run and hide every time I see a Jewish person, because they might stone me? Nonsense.

[lombard34]

that Atheism does not somehow make a person more rational; as many Atheists claim. The notion that many Atheists hold, that the religious are somehow more prone to violence or more prone to irrational behavior is utter nonsense; Atheists have done the same sort of things that they accuse the religious of. Mankind has a tendency to revert to violence, to factionalism, to repressing others; it doesn't matter what the ideology is, whether it is religious or not.

[Killer0fTheSun]

Well atheisim is just a disbelief in god and its nothing more,nor can it lend any creedence to violence when its just a DISBELIEF.I have never heard of any person at any time frame say "I will kill for the disbelief in god",but i have heard of people killing opposite of that sentence.But atheisim doesnt automatically mean that you are a better person as a whole that i can agree with you there.

[lombard34]

Right, that is my point. Not that Atheism makes you worse, but rather that it does not make you better or more rational.

And yes, there were people who were imprisoned or died in Communist nations for their religious beliefs. It is estimated that more than 2 million people died in the Soviet Union because of persecution of religion.

[Killer0fTheSun]

Communisim is what imprisoned them not atheisim.But we agree on certain issues.

[lombard34]

But, again, if the question is has someone been killed for believing in a God; the answer is yes. The Soviets were killing and persecuting religious people in an attempt to create an Atheistic society.

[Killer0fTheSun]

Lombard that is incorrect,communisim has nothing to do with atheisim.

[lombard34]

Well, as you say, all Atheism is is the belief that there is no God. That is what the Communists believed, that God does not exist; they also described themselves as Atheists and they imprisoned and killed many who were religious believers. Belief in a religion was the reason why those people were being imprisoned and killed.

Again; my main point is that human beings are capable of murder, and it does not matter what their motivation is, whether it is religion or not.

[Killer0fTheSun]

Yes i agree but communisim and atheisim has nothing to do with the other and those that were imprisoned in russia at that time werent imprsioned because of their religious denomination it was because they economically oppressed by a tyrannical party that thought it was god.

[TomPiltoff]

Atheism doesn't make one better, but religion certainly does make one worse.

[lombard34]

That is a baseless claim, and I have illustrated why it is. There is no crime that a theist has perpetrated that a non-believer in power has not. Rejection of religion clearly does not make one a more moral person, though it does not necessarily make one a less moral person. And that claim also flies in the face of all the people who have bettered themselves because of religion.

[TomPiltoff]

You're undermining a position I never claimed to hold. As I said, atheism DOES NOT make one necessarily a better person. As you rightly point out there is no crime an atheist cannot commit. However, only WITH religion would you see circumcision, rejection of science in schools, etc. Being religious doesn't automatically make anybody a zealot but there are a large amount of unsavory activities that could only be accepted in society due to religion.

[lombard34]

That is one of Hitchens' arguments, that circumcision could not happen without religion. Which is untrue. Rights of passage exist in many societies, and they don't always have to do with religion. The origins of circumcision, for example, are unclear, and might not have a religious origins. Circumcision exists today for secular reasons as well; some believe that it is improves hygiene, which may or may not be true.

[lombard34]

It does not take much of an imagination to picture why someone, without religious motives, might prohibit the teaching of some scientific facts. Prohibition of science can exist without religion. I, on the other hand, am a Christian and believe that big bang and human evolution occurred.

Anything that a religious person might do that would be considered unsavory could easily be done by a secularist for any given non-religious reason.

[TomPiltoff]

Circumcision is not a rite of passage. It's mutilation to the genitals of infants who have no say in the matter and it originates from religion.

Again you miss the point. Of course not ONLY through religion would you see suppression of science (just look at the suppression of global warming facts). But religion certainly doesn't help in any sense.

And I still contend that there ARE certain barbaric acts that could only happen through belief.

[lombard34]

Circumcision is a sort of rite of passage and can be defined as one. Either way, we do not know that it was originally done as a religious ceremony and neither is it something that secular people abstain from. It is not a practice exclusive to theists.

And it seems that you are now changing your position. You originally said "only WITH religion would you see circumcision, rejection of science in schools." Now you say "of course not ONLY through religion would you see suppression of science."

[TomPiltoff]

Circumcision is not a rite of passage, unless a father counts his son being born alive as an achievement. Regardless, it DOES have its origins rooted in religion.

Don't attempt to twist my words. If you'll care to look, I originally said that only with religion would you see a rejection or suppression of science IN SCHOOLS. *only* due to religion would anybody even think of dismissing the clear evidence of evolution. Religion has nothing good exclusive to it and plenty of bad.

[lombard34]

We can wrangle for as long and as much as you like, but circumcision's origins are disputed, and the practice of circumcision is not exclusive to religious believers. Secular people might circumcise their children for the perceived sake of hygiene.

[lombard34]

I did not twist your words. You stated that only through religion is science suppressed in schools. Then, when I challenged you, you conceded that other forces besides religion can suppress science. When I pointed out this shift in your reasoning, you now tried to distinguish them. But what exactly is the difference? Are you suggesting that suppression of science can occur without religion, but suppression of science in schools occurs only with religion? If so, that is not a logical conclusion.

[lombard34]

Again, I repeat, there is nothing exclusively bad about religion. To counter Hitchens' claim, there is nothing that a theist can do that a secular person cannot. And on these three points- government repression, circumcision, and repression of science- I think I have demonstrated that, and I have not seen you or anyone else show otherwise.

[TomPiltoff]

No serious secular doctor would recommend circumcision. It's like ripping the lips off to keep the teeth cleaner.

If you aren't twisting my words then you simply don't understand them. So I will, for the last time, repeat myself: only through religion could something as obvious as the theory of evolution be considered controversial. Got it?

Nothing exclusively bad about religion? Did you really say that? Honor killings. Frightening children with hellfire. Abolishing birth control.

[lombard34]

I get it. I get that you're waffling.

There might not be much secular opposition to evolution in particular. But, I repeat, the notion which you stated, that suppression of scientific facts, in or out of schools, could not occur without religion is absurd. Science can be suppressed without religion being involved.

I see you're back to repeating Hitchens' lines. Honor killings? That can obviously occur without religion being involved.

[lombard34]

Abolishing birth control? That is indeed much less likely to occur without religion. It might still be possible on philosophical grounds, perhaps. I would agree that this one would be a good example of your claim that religion makes something unsavory more likely. But as for frightening children; children could just as well be frightened by the notion that everything ends at death, as most Atheists would believe. That, in and of itself, does not make the proposition itself true or false.

[lombard34]

You can repeat Hitchens' line about circumcision from now to eternity; it is still incorrect. Circumcision is endorsed by some secular institutions that have no link to religion, on the basis that it improves hygiene or prevents AIDS. Whether it really does or not is besides the point. And there are cultures that perform circumcision or other kinds of genital mutilation for non-religious reasons. Therefore; the notion that circumcision would not happen without religion is nonsense.

[TomPiltoff]

I never denied that circumcision is touted in some circles for its hygienic aid, I'm aware that it is. It got here by religion, however.

[TomPiltoff]

I WILL, however, continue to point out how much you're missing the point. Fearing death is part of the human experience. Children will always fear death, and they'll keep being afraid of it until they die.

Death from the point of view of an atheist, however, would never be used by any moral person to frighten children into behaving. You could only get that with, survey says? Religion.

[TomPiltoff]

I promised I wouldn't repeat myself and I'm holding to that. I would suggest you continue to re-read what I said regarding science until you understand.

Honor killings can occur without religion? Well, technically, yes. It's not physically possible for a father to murder his daughter without religion. But he wouldn't. Only with religion could you possibly have such a barbaric concept in the 21st century.

[lombard34]

I did read your words, and you waffled.

Honor killings can occur without religion. It is ridiculous to say otherwise. Religion might make it more likely, but that is another argument.

Circumcision can, could, and would exist without religion. You can repeat that Hitchens talking point as much as you like, it is utterly baseless.

As for Hell; two points. A) there is nothing particularly wrong in my mind with the concept of Hell. This, however, is simply my opinion. I mention that

[lombard34]

however because some, like Hitchens and apparently yourself, believe that the concept of Hell itself is wrong and immoral. He might say, for example, that the New Testament is more "evil" than the Old simply because it teaches the concept of Hell. Others find the concept of Hell to be morally useful because they believe that there should be a place where people like Hitler go to.

I bring this up because this is more of a subjective question. Most rational people can agree that honor killings

[lombard34]

are immoral; the question is whether or not religion is the only source of it. You would say it is, I would say it is not. In regards to the concept of Hell, however, some view the concept of Hell as immoral, some view the concept as good, and so though it is true that the concept of Hell cannot exist without religion, it can be argued whether or not this concept is a bad thing. I hope this explanation is clear.

B) Now; to the question about frightening children. Firstly, religion does not

[lombard34]

teach that death does not occur. The question is about afterlife and whether there is one or not. I think those are two easy concepts to distinguish; maybe you should pay closer attention.

My point was that while the possibility of Hell may frighten children, children may just as well be frightened by the alternative that Atheism provides. Hence the question of scaring children in regards to our speculations about afterlife is not something that applies only to religion.

[TomPiltoff]

The difference between us is that I understand what you're saying, the same cannot be said for you. YES children and adults may very well be frightened by the concept of nothingness after death. No moral atheist could ever use infinity as a behavioral device. A religious person could (and does).

[lombard34]

Honor killings do not always have to do with religion. They are not just about 'pleasing God.' You don't even know what you're talking about or what honor killing means. Honor killing can occur and does occur with or without religious influence. Many of the things that you are trying to pin solely on religion can also be linked to tribalism.

My concept of Hell is quite clear and your explanation was both unneeded and irrelevant, not surprisingly.

[lombard34]

It can be argued, as I would argue, that there is nothing wrong with teaching children about Hell or about the possibility that they will go to Hell. Atheists or those who do not believe in Hell will disagree. I know that you are getting all your examples from Hitchens, but this is not a good one because, again, the question of its morality is more debatable. The concept of Hell cannot exist without religion, yes, but to me this is not an example of something bad that cannot happen without

[lombard34]

religion because, to me and to many, there is nothing wrong with the concept of Hell itself.

Now, to your point. Children are not necessarily taught about Hell to deliberately frighten them. If children do become afraid of this concept; they could just as well become afraid of the Atheist alternative. Speculations about the afterlife can frighten children, regardless. That said, there is nothing wrong with using something to discourage negative behavior. So your point is null.

[TomPiltoff]

The difference that you continue to miss is that eternal nothingness is not something invented to control anybody. The idea of nothingness after death is not something atheists really instill in children. It's a belief based on the reality, it isn't something we WANT to believe.

Finally, it's laughable that you believe hell is anything but a tool used to frighten people into behaving.

[TomPiltoff]

It cannot be morally argued, no. This is another area where you and I part ways. I do not find anything moral about telling children that if they break a set of rules they'll be eternally roasted in fire after they die.

[lombard34]

You seem to be unable to understand the concept of "tribalism." Mutilation, for example, occurs in many societies because of affiliation to a tribe and not necessarily because of religion. Honor killings often occur because of tribal and not religious affiliations. Basically, you are condemning religion first and asking questions later; you do not have any understand of what the

[lombard34]

examples you are using are, you are simply ripping them off from Hitchens and are assuming that they are right. They are not.

[lombard34]

As for Hell; well, I would rather be an 'idiot' Christian than a seemingly sophisticated Atheist. As a Christian I expect hatred and hostility, and so have at it with the ad hominem remarks. All you are doing is proving the point that some would make, not a point that I would make, that without religion people are free to act immorally.

[lombard34]

But in regards to the topic; this is why using Hell is not a good example. Your argument is that there are clearly immoral things that come out of religion that do not have a root in anything else. The immorality of the notion of Hell is disputable, and so you cannot claim that this is a clear evil that is produced by religion.

[lombard34]

I do enjoy your comment that it is "reality" that nothing happens to a person after they die. I suppose you say this based on experience? No, it seems you are speaking out of faith.

You can laugh as loud as you like, friend, Hell is a serious concept. To the believer, if a person lives an immoral life, disobeys the will of God who is the source of goodness and law, then he deserves punishment. Atheists may not like the concept, but that is to be expected.

[TomPiltoff]

Honor killings occur without religious influence today? I would LOVE an example of this.

You make yourself look like an idiot when you are seemingly unable to differentiate between a fictional idea designed to be as frightening as possible and the atheist belief of nothingness after death.

[Chill398]

Well if someone calls somoenes moma a fat crack whore and they shoot the person for it wouldnt that be an honor killing without religious influence? Smart ass.

[TomPiltoff]

That is the *entire* point I am making. Of course the act of murder isn't physically impossible without religion. But unless a father believed he had to please god, he'd never murder his daughter for showing too much hair.

Your concept of hell is different from reality. It isn't just used as a place where bad people go. It's used as a place where YOU can go if you don't listen to your elders.

[dubzy81]

Hitchens used to be a Trotkyist till he woke up

[ophachew1]

Even worse hitchens is an atheists.

[dubzy81]

that is ok as long as he isn't a bolshevik

[ophachew1]

Yeah, its the Lennonist, stalinist, marxist yeah really want to worry about.

[david552]

I'm more of a McCartneyist myself.

[ophachew1]

Glad to hear it. I'm more of Conservative Democrate.

[niginit]

don't say that, it's ignorant to say the least.

[ophachew1]

Yes you are ignorant to say that.

[niginit]

good one......

but really, you are a fool.

quiet now.

[ophachew1]

Read Psalms 14 & Psalms 53 to find out what God thinks about you.

[niginit]

read the god delusion and the end of faith to find out what I (a real person) think of you and your kind.

reading the bible can only reduce our ability to comprehend and understand.

[ophachew1]

Read "The Dawkin Delusion" & "Darwins God" & "Answers for Atheists" to find out what true people with true faith think about you and yer kind.

reading the Bible is really the only true way to increase the "ability to comprehend and understand" Psalms 14 & Psalms 53 and Colossians 2:8!

[kennebacasiskyle]

I am reading The Dawkins Delusion right now, and I have to say: It is really NOT very good, and does NOTHING to promote the argument it proposes. It has about 3-5 interesting, very MINOR points to make, and the rest is just weak. Sorry!

[ophachew]

interesting. Thats exactly what I think about "the god delusion" well don't just stop there I've made a couple of other reading suggestions(above) also.

[marsCubed]

Your bible quotes speak of your ignorance and abuse by your parents. The truth is the truth, it is something you can discover through critical analysis. The scriptures are man made crap. They are not historical except that we know the old testament was written in 600BC in Judah. a provable fake, and the new testament was constructed by the Romans.

 To have faith is nothing but admitting mental illness.

[ophachew]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Someone hurt you way down deep. Science is all man-made crap. And pilt-down man etc. is a provable fake. Do you have faith in that? "critical analysis?" yeah riigghhtt just like the "critical anal-ysis" is took to come up with crypto-zoology and parapsychology. (bbuurrpp)

[marsCubed]

Yes someone did run me down with crap, that was my childhood, full of authoritarian creeps who spouted ignorance and bigotry , aka religion. The world is the way it is, the first two commandments tell you to STFU about truth, it is to be discovered and understood. The whole point is that God is indivisible.

people like you who tell God what to do ARE the sin, you are the bigots proud of your your things and lies. you are the ultimate death. It is satan to not know reason and live in pride

[marsCubed]

Your words are meaningless drivel, the work of ignorant bronze age genocidal peasants. Archaeology finds no old testament history, the whole of your faith is a pack of superstitious babbling and lies. Why on earth should I read such crap?

Go get a decent education and stop polluting people with your anti intellectual trash.

Seriously, Bush has gone now, crawl back under your rock with the rest of your war warmongering voodoo.

[atheistdawn]

@marsCubed Oh yes dude, atheism is growing everyday!

[ldhablo666]

exactly. I take no religious man seriously. they are insane.

[whauffend]

Religion is organized hallucination. Part of its nastiness is that it is a top-down organization, pretending to be bottom-up. They (the herdsmen as well as the sheep) are indeed insane, as we see over and over again.

[ThePissedOffAtheist]

That not make sense.

[ophachew1]

You not make sense. hehehehehehehehehehehe

[ThePissedOffAtheist]

I know, me not trying to make sense. me making joke. Have happy rife chief.

[ophachew1]

Ahh...yeah. Whatever.

[j7hope]

Hitchens is the man and absolutely 'get's Orwell. Thanks for posting these!

[avion85]

it was like saying "hush hush hitchens"

damn:D

[wp1972]

Why is the anniuncer up the ass of the guest to his left so much. I know for a fact Hitch has just as much (if not more) quality info about George Owell. How Dare he...

[ArmyJames]

How dare this old asshole cut off the Hitch like that? Who is this idiot?

[aeonflux79]

Exactly my thought...

[redwine4545]

Oh get over it.

[moneyline]

The idiot is Ben Wattenberg, one of the first and most prominent neocons. His books influenced Nixon's "silent majority" philosophies.

[ArmyJames]

This guy is the worst television announcer I have ever seen. God, learn how to speak properly, you're not on stage man.

[emmaxmusic]

thats my grandpa!

[iambrianjenkins]

Thanks for the great uploads.