Hitch takes a slight dip in my estimation when he says that he values the dialectic of religious argument above winning the argument and moving on!.. Have to side with Dawkins on that
I agree with Dawkins mostly...All of them makes sense of course. But i want to live in a world based on reasoning..."Asking for evidence" doesn't require a debate (But in order to be able to keep this "asking for evidence" principle alive, you need to remind people the opposite also.)
And as far as i could understand Hitch, he doesnt want people to "not believe" because of his interference. He wants it to be because people see what he saw, not what he said as it would be another kind of belief.
Hitchens is essentially making Mill's argument that the death of the debate leads to the decay of the winning side's reasoning. He's just had a few too many to articulate it.
This is the second time I've seen this conversation and I think I get what Hitchens is saying now. He gave a talk recently about how it wasn't a silly question to be asked "well how do you know the Earth is round?" It's always important to re-assess why we know what we know. And I think he's saying it's important for the faithful to be present so we continually check ourselves and keep ourselves as sharp as we can. Otherwise we might stagnate without the conflict.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
I believe what he is trying to say that he love the sort of arguments and battles(kinda) that comes with belief. If theres no war a soldier got nothing to do, thus no honor and glory to be attained
Hitchens' main problem, for me as an atheist liberal, is that he has sided with the American Taliban.
That is the main reason why I don't agree with destroying the Taliban - because of course it's not actually possible & will kill & radicalize more children than anything else, & because his allies are fundamentalist christians who're no better (the right wing christian cult is by far the biggest killer out of all aggressive fundamentalist forces) - and Hitchens has naively sided with them.
Bible 4 Horsemen were Failed Saviors Equestrian Knights on crusade in the 70AD Armageddon of Zion, not bad guys but blundering, bearing brave IQ errors.
Their basic religo-philosophy ideas include failures to:
Separate true from false versions of anything: 9th
@cinesimonj Well I don't know what I'm being "dishonest" about here. As for ignorance I can only admit I'm ignorant regarding what you're referring to. Feel free to drop the knowledge here on youtube.
@S2Cents Yeah feel free to read a book about that which you seem to think you know something.
Your dishonesty obviously comes from all your claims that are backed up by zero actual evidence.
But that kind of obviousness can only be seen by someone who actually cares about such things as honesty and reality. Clearly, you don't. You even seem proud of it. Truthiness will endure.
And your childish request for education on YouTube says it all, really.
@cinesimonj Read a book? I like books. Do you have a good suggestion for me? I might read it, seriously. And then I'll give you my 2 cents. And you can grade my reply.
Hitchens, perhaps unconsciously, has defined his reason for existence: to piss off religious people. Without religion, it seems, Hitchens would not be Hitchens.
@cinesimonj I never I claimed to know his motivation, this is just my observation. You need to go back and reread my comment to make sure you understood the message correctly. S2Cents got what I was trying to say. Read that reply.
@Emaniac69 Hitch is a gift to religious people. They NEED to feel like they MATTER more than EVER because secularization is indeed on the rise in the West anyway (if not in the Third World shitholes and medieval Muslim World). They like to get worked up and feel all 'persecuted' because 'they Love Gawd".
I perfectly picture Hitch in a Roman soldier's uniform flogging Christians in the Forum and pausing only to chug wine from a clay pticher, it spilling on himself as he pisses on christian child
And not because I like a good spirited fight or because I want people to admire the beauty of the universe. Those things are nice, I suppose, but I think it's our highest duty not to be complacent and lax about the pursuit of knowledge.
Education breeds wisdom. Anybody who doesn't think knowledge *IS* wisdom is a fool who who only learns enough to muddle by in life.
It's evident that Dawkins is getting very frustrated with Hitch here because it seems like Hitchens is gettting all melancholy and having his own bout of cognitive dissonance about the "war on faith" and the future of it. I believe that Hitchens might be trying to get at the idea that without proper discussion, skepticism, critical analysis, and argument, less may actually be discovered about what's true and what's fallacy pertaining to this subject.
Haha! It's not very difficult to see who's starting to get a little drunk here. Just see how Hitchens is in it less and less for the arguement and more for the quarrel :)
He wants to extirpate jihadists. He doesn't know why these people feel disenfranchised. For such a rational person, Mr. Hitchens is exceptionally irrational
Hitchens clearly has very different views from Jihadists (and they with him) so in that sense, yes, he does have difference of opinion. But I suspect that for Hitchens, "difference of opinion" suggests reaching a certain point in actual discussion or argument. Because rational discourse is not possible with jihadists, it probably strikes Hitchens as inadequate to characterize this fundamental division as a "difference of opinion."
@adtl5555 I think he means that he doesn't even want to bother arguing with them, just get rid of them. I think he's a bit drunk. If you do read his books (which I would highly recommend), I think it's clear he does have a very big difference of opinion with them.
"I said we should extirpate them. I want them destroyed." Hitchens bizarre, drunken rant is hilarious. The outrage and disbelief on Dawkins face, and the condescending soundbite from Dennett makes it priceless.
Is it any surprise, hitchens's position reflects more the journalistic background and not one of a true scientist...however I do like his prose and style.
Here in part 8, the scotch kicks in and annihilates what was left of Hitchens's already-infinitesimal brain rather suddenly.
It's not easy to be the dumbest person in the room when half that room is Dennett and Dawkins, but Hitchens manages it here:
"Jihadists should die just cause they (hic) threaten me. Opponents should (hic) survive just cause they entertain me. (hic) Horoscopes equal (hic) Salem witch trials because..."
I'm 12 times drunker than Hitch & even I know that's crap!
Indeed, healthy discourse is an essential aspect of any successful society but if we could theoretically solve an issue we should graduate from discussion if it results in meaningful reform. I 'm sure the other three men also realize that the abolition of religion is unlikely but the question was a bit hypothetical, if not fantastical in its nature to begin with. Dawkins' reaction says it all but I suppose you're right, Hitchens just didn't want to play the game.
Just imagine a world where we didn't need lawyers, scientists, economists (or any occupation or job at all) e.t.c because all the problems had been solved. I think that's similar to what Hitchens was saying.
Well that world would be a better one - I think what some people who make this sort of argument aren't realizing, is that this sort of utopia is highly, highly inconceivable in this reality we live in, that we can (even if only subconsciously) only imagine it as some sort of false paradise like Teletubbieland, or the First Matrix - and if you watch Teletubbies, you DO get this creepy feel of sugar-coated mental prison - and that's obviously a very sinister thought.
He's essentially saying he'd rather there be ignorance and irrationality but someone to argue with than there be no one to argue with in a world of rational logical people. Still love him though.
I think Hitchens point is deeper than that. It's not so much about missing the argument personally but realizing that human understanding and progress itself is rooted in this dialectic process.
I suspect too that Hitchens is uncomfortable wishing for a world that can't (in his view) be attained. It's another form of the utopianism - the sort of "wish thinking" that Hitchens argues against all the time.
I'm a huge Hitchens fan but I think this is the first time I've ever heard him say something rather unintelligent. He doesn't want the United States to be mostly or irrevocably secular because he then would have no one with whom to engage in argument?! I feel like he realized how silly he sounded but come on, it tarnishes his efforts to say something like that as though he doesn't do what he does to help improve the nation or the human race but is only here for his own comforts and preferences.
I don't see what's so wrong with trying to keep an argument alive that has so much history and so many layers. It's just interesting, like a game. It's fun, so long as it's not dangerous.
Dawkins is worried about the poor Christian's impoverished mind? You'd have to be living in a near utopia for this to be an issue of great importance.
@ejohnwright As Dawkins says, there are plenty, plenty more arguments to join in on. It'd be better for this particular argument to end because of all the bad stuff religion brings to the world.
Damn it Hitchens, you just admitted that the only reason you enjoy being an atheist is because you like to make people look stupid, but consequently to admitting that YOU LOOK STUPID!!! NOOOOOOO
This is the first in my life I have ever disagreed with Hitchens. On the other hand, I do realise he has had a lot of the bottle and loves the argument, contrarian. It's difficult.
On the matter of witchcraft, the hunting and killing of albinos in some part og africa(especially Tanzania) is still practiced. They are killed in the most brutal ways so people can drink their blood and/or use their bodyparts to achieve better health or wealth. Does this qualify as witchcraft? Anyways it's unbelievable
I love Hitchens, I mean love him. He is one of the most valuable intellects of our time, he's an absolute hero, one of my favorite authors, whenever I read a new story about international affairs I wonder what Christopher would have to say about it.
But he is wrong here and is being rightly grilled by the others at the table. Its actually kind of funny.
@spacecowboy95 I'm not exaggerating here, this is LITERALLY, the ONLY time, I have EVER, disagreed with Hitchens. And I've watched and read everything of his!
@spacecowboy95 I'm not exaggerating here, this is LITERALLY, the ONLY time, I have EVER, disagreed with Hitchens. And I've watched and read everything of his!
@spacecowboy95 I'm not exaggerating here, this is LITERALLY, the ONLY time, I have EVER, disagreed with Hitchens. And I've watched and read everything of his!
I have to go with dawkin's on this one, never the less Hitchens has a point because discussion make you understand other views ridiculous as they might be. And where as Dawkins an Dannet are getting anoyed facing ignorance especially from the religios point of views hitchens enjoys intellectually disproving them. So his ego shines and he still can do talk shows, make fun of believers and sell books.
Hitchens is one of my heros but he acts pretty rude here. These guys are all his intellectual equals and he should give them the respect they deserve.
@jerzy862 notice though that he's downing a bit more than the others. that'll make you talk a bit too much. in the beginning (part one) he's more quiet......by part eight i noticed his drink was once again mysteriously "half full" and he talked much more. blame it on the holy "spirits" i guess :D
@Dymdez I think hes just as intelligent, but he wants to be the rebel bad ass of the discussion "I dont want those idiots to go away, otherwise I'll have no one to humiliate"
@spacecowboy95 Completely agree. A friend of mine smokes weed but wants to keep it illegal because he says he wouldn't enjoy it as much if it wasn't illicit. Bullshit. People are imprisoned, criminalised and then there is the whole murderous, exploitative drug trade that thrives on being illegal and thus, the only game in town. All so someone can get an extra thrill...
Hitchens got some scotch in him, grew tired of all the favorable agreements everyone was churning out, and decided to be a bit (just a bit) contrarian for a moment to keep things interesting. He's awesome.
You should base the legitimacy of your opinion on whether or not it conforms with Sam Harris'. He is the flag bearer of reason and articulation. Sorry Hitchens.
but I do understand the pleasure that hitchens gets from arguing with ridiculous beliefs, honestly growing up in the church I guess it would just be a nastalgic feeling that makes me think of the world more empty without the nutcases I grew up with (my dad is a preacher), however dawkings is absolutely right, going through life and not understanding it and being ignorant about it is a gigantic loss of experience that you will only have the opportunity for once
What I love about this meeting is how it reveals the diversity of their respective motivations. I especially love Dawkins' shake of incredulity at 7:33 in response to Hitchens' position. I think Hitchens later reflected how this moment stays with him (in the documentary 'Collision') .
are y'all deaf? the hitch said he likes argument because it sharpens his reasoning and forces him to continually question his own stance on a very interesting subject.
and yeah, he drinks alcohol: get over it. it's not shocking, he's not a drunk, he's not slurring or slumped in his seat, and thank jebus he talks over other people- he's far more eloquent and able to frame his opinions than his fellows.
While I disagree with Hitchens here, I find that my respect for him has risen. I've always seen him as someone not afraid to profess his innermost beliefs about certain issues, and yet he acknowledges that he could be wrong when he says that he perhaps contradicts himself. Maybe I'm a little starstruck, but that's my impression of him here.
ACCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR GOD AND SAVIOUR, ACCEPT HIS AMAZING GIFT OF SALVATION THROUGH HIS SUFFERING, HIS AMAZING GIFT GRANTED BY THE MERCIFUL GOD ALMIGHTY, OR SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL WITH YOUR WORM THAT DOESN'T DIE, WHERE THE FIRE IS NEVER QUENCHED
We don't want to eradicate peoples beliefs, per se, but rather the modes of thinking that lead them to these beliefs, chief among these being irrationality. Some call religion a virus, a pestilence, a disease. I disagree. It is a symptom of the virus of irrationality, gullibility, and fear. When we challenge, for example, the resurrection of Lazarus, we aren't trying to prove it wrong simply to say "haha, aren't we clever, that obviously didn't happen." we are doing it so we can s
It's scary when ANY body of people are discussing eradicating anyone else's beliefs. Maybe we should eradicate the belief of science. "Atheists" my foot! "Science" is these people's deity/religion/truth and they sound just the same as any other religious body trying to claim they are the one truth only. This discussion proves people are all really the same.
So, the great anti-theist does not want superstition banished from our species after all. The greater good of humanity vs christopher's love of argument. Still, get well soon hitch.
Dawkins will always have my respect for his love of science, which ironically enough is something that allowed to him instantly start owning even Christopher Hitchens, wow.
If you TRULY BELIEVE in God, and you come to believe also that God wants you to blow up a building full of people-would you do it? If you really believe, you would have to wouldn't you? You can't say it would never happen because in the Bible God has commanded horrible crimes. The believers claim that without God anything is allowed, even murder. I would say the opposite-WITH GOD, any imaginable unspeakable crime is possibly allowed . google Doe's Account.
The same argument could be used to argue against those that say there is a moral law given by god and that morals cannot exist without god.
If he asks you to blow up a building or kill your kids, and you say yes, then you are dangerous and I want you (Not your personally Copachick) to stay away from me. If you say no to god, then you demonstrate that you have your own morals and that morals come from yourself and society.
There was an interesting article today in the Guardian about Hitchens, talked a little about his background and life growing up and the author/interviewer tried to make the argument that Hitchens just likes arguing, likes fighting, needs an enemy. He kinda agreed. This section of the interview supports this..
As Dawkins said. He like s the theater of it. He likes the intellectual gymnastics and superiority. The domination of another. Ive seen most of his 'fights', and he seems to always portay this alpha male character. Look, the guy has a massive ego, no doubt, but I'm sure most of us can agree on this, we LOVE to listen to the HItch.
Fascinating how Hitchens suddenly goes off the rails here: he wants the theism/atheism debate to continue indefinitely because he thinks that the one will set the other in relief, whereas of course the end result of that is realising that theism is redundant, which we already know! It's like needing to repeat your own name to yourself all the time so you don't forget who you are!
Yeah hitchens is drunk at this point. I couldn't believe that he said he" wouldn't want to see religion gone." You can see everyone else looking at this guy like "you schmuck leave that wine glass alone you boozehound." Religion only encumbers are progression as humans if it wasn't for religion we be centuries ahead of where we are now.
I'm pretty sure Hitchens' argument isn't that he loves the theater of the argument, as Dawkins says and many here seem to deduce, but that perhaps the best way to ensure anything good or true is for its contrast to exist and be available for argument.
Sort of a cognate to: 'without any fascist governments, the chances of more fascist governments cropping up rises.'
I'm not sure it's demonstrably true, but I do think it's a proposition to take seriously.
@Saerain Well, Hitchens has admitted that he gets bored easily, so I actually wouldn't be surprised if a large reason why he doesn't want to see religion evaporated is that he would miss the challenge. Regardless, his statement is more contemptible than he realizes. If religion is the cause of much of the violence in the world (as Hitchens believe), then his wanting to keep it alive soley to sharpen his rhetorical skills is actually a very selfish reason (and a bad one at that).
Interesting argument that Mr. Hitchens makes there: he doesn't want faith to be eradicated because he would be left with anyone to argue with. He is honest about it although it's paradoxical. I think that he dedicated his whole life to this and would feel empty without people to debate with.
@ruirodtube No, what Hitchens is trying to say is that in theory no one should have faith in religion, but in practice that wouldn't be preferable. It is like capitalism, no matter how hard everyone try, there will still be many losers, but you still want as many people as possible to try don't you.
I believe what Hitchen's is saying is that humans build out before they build up. Philosophical thought begins when we ask the most basic questions which can be answered by the supernatural or by reason. If humans just excepted only facts and acted accordingly we wouldn't be human at all, we would be automatons.
We survive as we are by dreaming.
Some of these dreams have been realized (e=mc2) and some have not ...yet
@omgimontheinternet holy shit dude...... you came to the same conclusion and I didn't even read your comment... you can see him hittin on the booze and gulping down much more than the other dudes
I can sort of empathize with Hitchens. His best point concerns the dialectic process. Arguing against faith will not necessarily eradicate it but will force the faithful to (hopefully) come up with more interesting arguments. I have encountered differing arguments from theologists and not found them of equal profundity. The persistence of a kind of faith will continue to force different arguments from the empirical/rationalists side and may shed light on the phenomenon of knowledge itself
@bcfcmattyp1 I don't see it as interrupting. It seems to me it's more a case of others starting to talk before Hitchens has fully finished vocalising his thought process. Usually when he "interrupts" people, he's really just tacking on after-thoughts to what he was just talking about.
Hitchens loses this and, becuase his Achilles heel is to NEVER give way to anybody else, he ends up sounding stupid.
He should really try to acquire just AN IOTA of self-doubt. It's fine shouting down idiots at most forums and public discussions, but faced with these three you'd think he might adapt his attitude of superiority. Superiorit, which I should add, is usually throroughly justified (but not here!)
agreed. he really just wants an argument it seems. doesn't matter with who or what, because these are three of the only people on the same level of agreement with understanding and intellect as him, and he just can't let that happen.
Yes. This bit always makes me wince a bit at what Hitchens says. Totally wrong here! I think it's the booze talking, no him. I wonder if he's watched this discussion on youtube and (being sobered up) had perhapse wanted to retract what he said here. Dawkins made and excellent point. There are tons of things to argue about. I also think Hitchens LOVES the lime light of having the upper hand over religious discourse.
So to just to add. Yes, Hitchens ended up looking stupid, as you've put it. Then I noticed he was trying to backtrack, and sort of get back onto the horse after falling off it.
@ryko26 Well you said hitchens lost this. What do you mean by that? and you say that his attitude is somehow ''superior'' but I dont c it like that at all.
@TomValedro not a debate, not a sporting event - but he loses in terms of not getting away with his usual blundering over people, shouting them down and sneering (usually deservedly) at their arguments. He certainly lost my respect in this clip.
@ryko26 I dont think hitchens in trying to blunder over these other intellectuals I mean why would he do that? They are friends. He is just disagreeing with some points that the others have which is normal.
I think Hitchens certainly is the most antagonistic member of the panel - former marxist, anti-theist, for violent defense, for argument as a method of improving rhetorical skill - but I wouldn't say loopy. Personally I think he goes over best in red state America for his willingness to plunge into conflict headfirst, though as a red stater I'm probably biased.
I agree, and that's why he might be my favorite! He's great at taking the piss.
Although it's funny seeing Dawkins's amazement that he wouldn't want a world without theism. Watching them argue on that point makes this part awesome.
What's shocking to me is that Dawkins can hold his tongue and listen to Hitchens rant about his bizarro belief that he WOUDLN"T want a world without theism because there would be no one to sharpen his mental acuity and rhetorical whit over. As if there aren't enough OTHER subjects that would be so much WORTHIER of discussion. It's as if Hitchens feels other subjects would not be as fun to argue because he yields his area of most studied expertise. If this is not sheer ego, then what?
lol hitchens just wants the ultimate debate to go on knowing it's a slaughter fest
Sconezeta 1 week ago
Hitch takes a slight dip in my estimation when he says that he values the dialectic of religious argument above winning the argument and moving on!.. Have to side with Dawkins on that
Tj930 1 week ago in playlist More videos from PiroNiro
Oh my goodness I would totally have sex with Richard Dawkins' voice.
hbknutjack 3 weeks ago
@hbknutjack Dawkins or Hitchens?! :Os
Tj930 1 week ago in playlist More videos from PiroNiro
I agree with Dawkins mostly...All of them makes sense of course. But i want to live in a world based on reasoning..."Asking for evidence" doesn't require a debate (But in order to be able to keep this "asking for evidence" principle alive, you need to remind people the opposite also.)
And as far as i could understand Hitch, he doesnt want people to "not believe" because of his interference. He wants it to be because people see what he saw, not what he said as it would be another kind of belief.
ertansaygi 1 month ago
Harris, you utter genius! Beautiful analogy.
dingusmcgandhi 1 month ago
Hitchens is essentially making Mill's argument that the death of the debate leads to the decay of the winning side's reasoning. He's just had a few too many to articulate it.
PossessDismiss 1 month ago 3
This is the second time I've seen this conversation and I think I get what Hitchens is saying now. He gave a talk recently about how it wasn't a silly question to be asked "well how do you know the Earth is round?" It's always important to re-assess why we know what we know. And I think he's saying it's important for the faithful to be present so we continually check ourselves and keep ourselves as sharp as we can. Otherwise we might stagnate without the conflict.
BlueThunderFlik 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
I believe what he is trying to say that he love the sort of arguments and battles(kinda) that comes with belief. If theres no war a soldier got nothing to do, thus no honor and glory to be attained
LamerH 3 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens
Agreed, I just don't get why Hitchens is saying that.
DuskOnVega 4 months ago
Hitchens' main problem, for me as an atheist liberal, is that he has sided with the American Taliban.
That is the main reason why I don't agree with destroying the Taliban - because of course it's not actually possible & will kill & radicalize more children than anything else, & because his allies are fundamentalist christians who're no better (the right wing christian cult is by far the biggest killer out of all aggressive fundamentalist forces) - and Hitchens has naively sided with them.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj this is one thing i don't understand about Hitchens!
jadagod 4 months ago
@cinesimonj this is one thing i don't understand about Hitchens!
jadagod 4 months ago
Cant believe hitchens just wants to argue like a teenager. With no particular Goal . purely selfish
ThanksDoctorThoctor 5 months ago
Bible 4 Horsemen were Failed Saviors Equestrian Knights on crusade in the 70AD Armageddon of Zion, not bad guys but blundering, bearing brave IQ errors.
Their basic religo-philosophy ideas include failures to:
Separate true from false versions of anything: 9th
Recognize demonizing as eradic/harm-inciting: 1st
Separate religion from cults (always using the Devil 1-sidedness defect)
Place dynamic logic/hypotheses prior to matter data,
UseJesus-Gospel as Only official Fact of God, of higher love.
cloudbusterman 5 months ago
Hitch is drunk :P
kragoon 5 months ago
A prestigious circle jerk.
S2Cents 6 months ago
@S2Cents You enjoy your ignorance and dishonesty, don't you?
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj Well I don't know what I'm being "dishonest" about here. As for ignorance I can only admit I'm ignorant regarding what you're referring to. Feel free to drop the knowledge here on youtube.
S2Cents 5 months ago
@S2Cents Yeah feel free to read a book about that which you seem to think you know something.
Your dishonesty obviously comes from all your claims that are backed up by zero actual evidence.
But that kind of obviousness can only be seen by someone who actually cares about such things as honesty and reality. Clearly, you don't. You even seem proud of it. Truthiness will endure.
And your childish request for education on YouTube says it all, really.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj Read a book? I like books. Do you have a good suggestion for me? I might read it, seriously. And then I'll give you my 2 cents. And you can grade my reply.
S2Cents 5 months ago
Hitchens, perhaps unconsciously, has defined his reason for existence: to piss off religious people. Without religion, it seems, Hitchens would not be Hitchens.
Emaniac69 6 months ago 2
@Emaniac69 Eh? I guess if you've not read much of his work, you might think that.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj I have read some of it
Emaniac69 5 months ago
@Emaniac69 So you've read some of it, yet claim to know his motivation - his reason - for existence.
Gee. You honestly don't see that as rather a ridiculous claim to make, devoid of any substantive input from the real world?
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj I never I claimed to know his motivation, this is just my observation. You need to go back and reread my comment to make sure you understood the message correctly. S2Cents got what I was trying to say. Read that reply.
Emaniac69 5 months ago
@Emaniac69 Hitch is a gift to religious people. They NEED to feel like they MATTER more than EVER because secularization is indeed on the rise in the West anyway (if not in the Third World shitholes and medieval Muslim World). They like to get worked up and feel all 'persecuted' because 'they Love Gawd".
I perfectly picture Hitch in a Roman soldier's uniform flogging Christians in the Forum and pausing only to chug wine from a clay pticher, it spilling on himself as he pisses on christian child
S2Cents 5 months ago
@S2Cents You really are that childish and gleefully ignorant, aren't you kiddo.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
i always knew hitch was a masochist :D here is the proof on tape :D
robertgaudlitz 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think this video is a good example of the difference between the style of Dawkins & Hitchens.
BallerT 6 months ago
Comment removed
BallerT 6 months ago
I loved Hitch in this bit. He really wants to talk about meaning....and Dawkins wants to talk about how stars are formed.hehe
helenmarplehorvat 6 months ago
Drunk Hitchens is hilarious.
Propagandhi900 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
He is pretty smart after 3 glasses of rum
quidproquomar 6 months ago 3
If I could only be intelligent enough to sit with those people.
tabibitosama 7 months ago
Hitch is saying some crazy stuff, I really don't agree with a lot of what he says in this one.
magucheapololkop 7 months ago
Hitch's views are a bit loopy in this section.
flaggerify 7 months ago
LOL, what is Hitchens doing at 6:39
saidox 8 months ago 10
@saidox Communicating with someone, apparently. It's in his house, it may have been his wife daughter.
zyxek 8 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens
@saidox killing himself :O(
Oh well, he'll be sadly missed.
Tj930 1 week ago in playlist More videos from PiroNiro
8:20 great argument by Dawkins against HItchens' wish to keep religion in a zoo for the sake of diversity.
juujuuuujj 8 months ago
I do want the destruction of religion.
And not because I like a good spirited fight or because I want people to admire the beauty of the universe. Those things are nice, I suppose, but I think it's our highest duty not to be complacent and lax about the pursuit of knowledge.
Education breeds wisdom. Anybody who doesn't think knowledge *IS* wisdom is a fool who who only learns enough to muddle by in life.
dhx84 9 months ago
I didn't know Ben Stiller was an Atheist
smurfieboo 9 months ago 2
This is my definitely one of my favourite discussions. But 6:11 is just too funny :P
pk2791 9 months ago
Alright, Dawkins is Vulcan (Star Trek Reference)...
He is boring :)
2Draco39 9 months ago
Alright, Hitchens became the bad guy, i like him...
long live the force of neutrality...
2Draco39 9 months ago
It's evident that Dawkins is getting very frustrated with Hitch here because it seems like Hitchens is gettting all melancholy and having his own bout of cognitive dissonance about the "war on faith" and the future of it. I believe that Hitchens might be trying to get at the idea that without proper discussion, skepticism, critical analysis, and argument, less may actually be discovered about what's true and what's fallacy pertaining to this subject.
ragzy02 10 months ago 2
Haha! It's not very difficult to see who's starting to get a little drunk here. Just see how Hitchens is in it less and less for the arguement and more for the quarrel :)
jonsen82 10 months ago
Richard Dawkins is such a great man and a Gentleman too boot. I aspire to his level of intellect
grikes3838 10 months ago
yeah sorry he isn't making sense. poor CH . i think alcohol brings out combinations of thoughts that when put together can mislead even the speaker.
BLUEEYESSEVEN 10 months ago
Dawkins' voice is like butter.... :-)
Webbess10 11 months ago
He wants to extirpate jihadists. He doesn't know why these people feel disenfranchised. For such a rational person, Mr. Hitchens is exceptionally irrational
johnpotter26 11 months ago
What does Hitch mean at 1:43 when he says "I don't have a difference of opinion with the Jihadists"?
adtl5555 11 months ago
@adtl5555
Hitchens clearly has very different views from Jihadists (and they with him) so in that sense, yes, he does have difference of opinion. But I suspect that for Hitchens, "difference of opinion" suggests reaching a certain point in actual discussion or argument. Because rational discourse is not possible with jihadists, it probably strikes Hitchens as inadequate to characterize this fundamental division as a "difference of opinion."
But on this point, he's not as sharp as usual.
citizenghosttown 11 months ago
@adtl5555 it would be giving the jihadist position too much credit to call it an opinion, I think he means.
georgek19 9 months ago
@adtl5555 I think he means that he doesn't even want to bother arguing with them, just get rid of them. I think he's a bit drunk. If you do read his books (which I would highly recommend), I think it's clear he does have a very big difference of opinion with them.
mk2escortvan 1 week ago
"I said we should extirpate them. I want them destroyed." Hitchens bizarre, drunken rant is hilarious. The outrage and disbelief on Dawkins face, and the condescending soundbite from Dennett makes it priceless.
indiegoblue 11 months ago
Is it any surprise, hitchens's position reflects more the journalistic background and not one of a true scientist...however I do like his prose and style.
trancendence1 11 months ago
Is it any suprise, hitchens's position reflects the journelistic background and not one of a true scientist...however I do like his prose and style.
trancendence1 11 months ago
I love hitchens, but holy crap he is so wrong about eliminating religion ha ha.
youfail2009 11 months ago
Here in part 8, the scotch kicks in and annihilates what was left of Hitchens's already-infinitesimal brain rather suddenly.
It's not easy to be the dumbest person in the room when half that room is Dennett and Dawkins, but Hitchens manages it here:
"Jihadists should die just cause they (hic) threaten me. Opponents should (hic) survive just cause they entertain me. (hic) Horoscopes equal (hic) Salem witch trials because..."
I'm 12 times drunker than Hitch & even I know that's crap!
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@hazydavey
Indeed, healthy discourse is an essential aspect of any successful society but if we could theoretically solve an issue we should graduate from discussion if it results in meaningful reform. I 'm sure the other three men also realize that the abolition of religion is unlikely but the question was a bit hypothetical, if not fantastical in its nature to begin with. Dawkins' reaction says it all but I suppose you're right, Hitchens just didn't want to play the game.
adtl5555 1 year ago
@adtl5555
Just imagine a world where we didn't need lawyers, scientists, economists (or any occupation or job at all) e.t.c because all the problems had been solved. I think that's similar to what Hitchens was saying.
ItsameAlex 11 months ago
@ItsameAlex
Well that world would be a better one - I think what some people who make this sort of argument aren't realizing, is that this sort of utopia is highly, highly inconceivable in this reality we live in, that we can (even if only subconsciously) only imagine it as some sort of false paradise like Teletubbieland, or the First Matrix - and if you watch Teletubbies, you DO get this creepy feel of sugar-coated mental prison - and that's obviously a very sinister thought.
twooffour 9 months ago
dig that hole deeper
TheSirPsych0 1 year ago
He's essentially saying he'd rather there be ignorance and irrationality but someone to argue with than there be no one to argue with in a world of rational logical people. Still love him though.
adtl5555 1 year ago
@adtl5555
I think Hitchens point is deeper than that. It's not so much about missing the argument personally but realizing that human understanding and progress itself is rooted in this dialectic process.
I suspect too that Hitchens is uncomfortable wishing for a world that can't (in his view) be attained. It's another form of the utopianism - the sort of "wish thinking" that Hitchens argues against all the time.
hazydavey 1 year ago
I'm a huge Hitchens fan but I think this is the first time I've ever heard him say something rather unintelligent. He doesn't want the United States to be mostly or irrevocably secular because he then would have no one with whom to engage in argument?! I feel like he realized how silly he sounded but come on, it tarnishes his efforts to say something like that as though he doesn't do what he does to help improve the nation or the human race but is only here for his own comforts and preferences.
adtl5555 1 year ago
Wow, Hitchens actually loses an argument. It only took three of the top intellectuals in the world
finalflash66 1 year ago
I don't see what's so wrong with trying to keep an argument alive that has so much history and so many layers. It's just interesting, like a game. It's fun, so long as it's not dangerous.
Dawkins is worried about the poor Christian's impoverished mind? You'd have to be living in a near utopia for this to be an issue of great importance.
ejohnwright 1 year ago
@ejohnwright As Dawkins says, there are plenty, plenty more arguments to join in on. It'd be better for this particular argument to end because of all the bad stuff religion brings to the world.
rawssremix 1 year ago
Damn it Hitchens, you just admitted that the only reason you enjoy being an atheist is because you like to make people look stupid, but consequently to admitting that YOU LOOK STUPID!!! NOOOOOOO
LoveandPeace1983 1 year ago
Hitchens dropped the ball.
WillFoShizzle 1 year ago
Hitchens made a bit of a ass of him self here.
xbox1768 1 year ago
One too many drinks Hitchens, one too many...
ai1888 1 year ago
One too many drinks Hitchens, one too many...
ai1888 1 year ago
This is the first time in my life I find myself somewhat agreeing with Hitchens.
TheAlan39 1 year ago
This is the first in my life I have ever disagreed with Hitchens. On the other hand, I do realise he has had a lot of the bottle and loves the argument, contrarian. It's difficult.
cooperjc8 1 year ago
hey, be fair he's drinking the hard stuff:)
buktomsin 1 year ago
On the matter of witchcraft, the hunting and killing of albinos in some part og africa(especially Tanzania) is still practiced. They are killed in the most brutal ways so people can drink their blood and/or use their bodyparts to achieve better health or wealth. Does this qualify as witchcraft? Anyways it's unbelievable
EivindTM 1 year ago
Huge fan of Hitchens but he comes up short on this one.
ManOlantern12 1 year ago
I love Hitchens, I mean love him. He is one of the most valuable intellects of our time, he's an absolute hero, one of my favorite authors, whenever I read a new story about international affairs I wonder what Christopher would have to say about it.
But he is wrong here and is being rightly grilled by the others at the table. Its actually kind of funny.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95 I'm not exaggerating here, this is LITERALLY, the ONLY time, I have EVER, disagreed with Hitchens. And I've watched and read everything of his!
I agree with you on this.
cooperjc8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spacecowboy95 I'm not exaggerating here, this is LITERALLY, the ONLY time, I have EVER, disagreed with Hitchens. And I've watched and read everything of his!
I agree with you on this.
cooperjc8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spacecowboy95 I'm not exaggerating here, this is LITERALLY, the ONLY time, I have EVER, disagreed with Hitchens. And I've watched and read everything of his!
I agree with you on this.
cooperjc8 1 year ago
I have to go with dawkin's on this one, never the less Hitchens has a point because discussion make you understand other views ridiculous as they might be. And where as Dawkins an Dannet are getting anoyed facing ignorance especially from the religios point of views hitchens enjoys intellectually disproving them. So his ego shines and he still can do talk shows, make fun of believers and sell books.
Jerrez 1 year ago
lol. Hitchens is attached to argument. Can't dislike him for that though, who isn't?
Chrysaetos11 1 year ago
Hitchens is a fabulous speaker. All three others tried to cut in, and he just kept going.
voodoocigam 1 year ago
Hitchens is one of my heros but he acts pretty rude here. These guys are all his intellectual equals and he should give them the respect they deserve.
jerzy862 1 year ago
@jerzy862 notice though that he's downing a bit more than the others. that'll make you talk a bit too much. in the beginning (part one) he's more quiet......by part eight i noticed his drink was once again mysteriously "half full" and he talked much more. blame it on the holy "spirits" i guess :D
withfootnotes 1 year ago
@jerzy862
Just to add... hes one of my heroes too, but I don't think he is as intelligent as these other men...
Dymdez 1 year ago
@Dymdez I think hes just as intelligent, but he wants to be the rebel bad ass of the discussion "I dont want those idiots to go away, otherwise I'll have no one to humiliate"
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95 Completely agree. A friend of mine smokes weed but wants to keep it illegal because he says he wouldn't enjoy it as much if it wasn't illicit. Bullshit. People are imprisoned, criminalised and then there is the whole murderous, exploitative drug trade that thrives on being illegal and thus, the only game in town. All so someone can get an extra thrill...
1883ross 1 year ago
Hitchens got some scotch in him, grew tired of all the favorable agreements everyone was churning out, and decided to be a bit (just a bit) contrarian for a moment to keep things interesting. He's awesome.
marredsun 1 year ago
HItchens had his third glass of Captain Morgan's... give the man a break!.. he's just enjoying a free time with good buds! tee hee
jdcp76 1 year ago 14
@jdcp76 I thought he drank Johnnie Walker Black Label ("The breakfast of champions"). :-)
AussieEvonne 9 months ago 9
You should base the legitimacy of your opinion on whether or not it conforms with Sam Harris'. He is the flag bearer of reason and articulation. Sorry Hitchens.
shorttrackaustralia 1 year ago
but I do understand the pleasure that hitchens gets from arguing with ridiculous beliefs, honestly growing up in the church I guess it would just be a nastalgic feeling that makes me think of the world more empty without the nutcases I grew up with (my dad is a preacher), however dawkings is absolutely right, going through life and not understanding it and being ignorant about it is a gigantic loss of experience that you will only have the opportunity for once
hempartist420 1 year ago
What I love about this meeting is how it reveals the diversity of their respective motivations. I especially love Dawkins' shake of incredulity at 7:33 in response to Hitchens' position. I think Hitchens later reflected how this moment stays with him (in the documentary 'Collision') .
babuwhite2010 1 year ago
Wow, Hitchens was just outclassed
ClintSevilla 1 year ago
are y'all deaf? the hitch said he likes argument because it sharpens his reasoning and forces him to continually question his own stance on a very interesting subject.
and yeah, he drinks alcohol: get over it. it's not shocking, he's not a drunk, he's not slurring or slumped in his seat, and thank jebus he talks over other people- he's far more eloquent and able to frame his opinions than his fellows.
MrTonyInchpractice 1 year ago
While I disagree with Hitchens here, I find that my respect for him has risen. I've always seen him as someone not afraid to profess his innermost beliefs about certain issues, and yet he acknowledges that he could be wrong when he says that he perhaps contradicts himself. Maybe I'm a little starstruck, but that's my impression of him here.
Yesman812 1 year ago
Dawkins' lack of hubris is endearing.
DarkAngelSupreme 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PEOPLE OF THIS PAGE
ACCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR GOD AND SAVIOUR, ACCEPT HIS AMAZING GIFT OF SALVATION THROUGH HIS SUFFERING, HIS AMAZING GIFT GRANTED BY THE MERCIFUL GOD ALMIGHTY, OR SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL WITH YOUR WORM THAT DOESN'T DIE, WHERE THE FIRE IS NEVER QUENCHED
JESUS LOVES YOU ALL
ACCEPT YOUR SAVIOUR
AVOID THE HORRORS OF AN ETERNAL HELL
yington 1 year ago
@stephconkle
We don't want to eradicate peoples beliefs, per se, but rather the modes of thinking that lead them to these beliefs, chief among these being irrationality. Some call religion a virus, a pestilence, a disease. I disagree. It is a symptom of the virus of irrationality, gullibility, and fear. When we challenge, for example, the resurrection of Lazarus, we aren't trying to prove it wrong simply to say "haha, aren't we clever, that obviously didn't happen." we are doing it so we can s
pixi6666 1 year ago
It's scary when ANY body of people are discussing eradicating anyone else's beliefs. Maybe we should eradicate the belief of science. "Atheists" my foot! "Science" is these people's deity/religion/truth and they sound just the same as any other religious body trying to claim they are the one truth only. This discussion proves people are all really the same.
stephconkle 1 year ago
So, the great anti-theist does not want superstition banished from our species after all. The greater good of humanity vs christopher's love of argument. Still, get well soon hitch.
billbillysparks 1 year ago
i think hitchens has had about half a bottle of scotch by this point.
thousandlegger 1 year ago
Dennett looks lke Darwin, makes him even cooler.
jazz4 1 year ago
so Hitchens still wants the "earth is flat" argument to go on too, and we shouldn't move on to other issues?
HugNow 1 year ago
I smile whenever Richard Dawkins speaks. It's just like, "Yes! Yes Richard! You said my thoughts before I had time to think them"
ya know?
disturbedshawn 1 year ago 29
@disturbedshawn you mean christopher?
robertgaudlitz 6 months ago
@robertgaudlitz
Him too, but I'm more of a Richard Dawkins kinda guy. lmao
disturbedshawn 6 months ago
Dawkins will always have my respect for his love of science, which ironically enough is something that allowed to him instantly start owning even Christopher Hitchens, wow.
xSolraccarloSx 1 year ago 2
@xSolraccarloSx
He didn't ''own'' Christopher Hitchens. All the patting on the back was nauseating. Good on Hitchens for spicing things up.
ItsameAlex 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you TRULY BELIEVE in God, and you come to believe also that God wants you to blow up a building full of people-would you do it? If you really believe, you would have to wouldn't you? You can't say it would never happen because in the Bible God has commanded horrible crimes. The believers claim that without God anything is allowed, even murder. I would say the opposite-WITH GOD, any imaginable unspeakable crime is possibly allowed . google Doe's Account.
Copachick 1 year ago
@Copachick
The same argument could be used to argue against those that say there is a moral law given by god and that morals cannot exist without god.
If he asks you to blow up a building or kill your kids, and you say yes, then you are dangerous and I want you (Not your personally Copachick) to stay away from me. If you say no to god, then you demonstrate that you have your own morals and that morals come from yourself and society.
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
There was an interesting article today in the Guardian about Hitchens, talked a little about his background and life growing up and the author/interviewer tried to make the argument that Hitchens just likes arguing, likes fighting, needs an enemy. He kinda agreed. This section of the interview supports this..
TerryDBlack 1 year ago
@TerryDBlack
@TerryDBlack
As Dawkins said. He like s the theater of it. He likes the intellectual gymnastics and superiority. The domination of another. Ive seen most of his 'fights', and he seems to always portay this alpha male character. Look, the guy has a massive ego, no doubt, but I'm sure most of us can agree on this, we LOVE to listen to the HItch.
Domzdream 1 year ago
Hitchens is a drunk! He should come to Jesus and kick the habit!
unicorn187 1 year ago
its quite funny.... 4 fools sitting around a table, thinking theyre the dog's bollox.... lol...
We will find out the truth very soon....
boef0308 1 year ago
- What Richard Dawkins says at the end is one of the best statements ever made about religion.
adamscott 1 year ago
Hahahaha i love Richard's reaction at around 7:32
Slacktoo2010 1 year ago
Only time I've ever seen Hitchens suck.
sherylann312 1 year ago
Fascinating how Hitchens suddenly goes off the rails here: he wants the theism/atheism debate to continue indefinitely because he thinks that the one will set the other in relief, whereas of course the end result of that is realising that theism is redundant, which we already know! It's like needing to repeat your own name to yourself all the time so you don't forget who you are!
flibbertergibbet 1 year ago
Ah alcohol....the bane of all intellectuals.
indigomist 1 year ago
Yeah hitchens is drunk at this point. I couldn't believe that he said he" wouldn't want to see religion gone." You can see everyone else looking at this guy like "you schmuck leave that wine glass alone you boozehound." Religion only encumbers are progression as humans if it wasn't for religion we be centuries ahead of where we are now.
Wordlaw12 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure Hitchens' argument isn't that he loves the theater of the argument, as Dawkins says and many here seem to deduce, but that perhaps the best way to ensure anything good or true is for its contrast to exist and be available for argument.
Sort of a cognate to: 'without any fascist governments, the chances of more fascist governments cropping up rises.'
I'm not sure it's demonstrably true, but I do think it's a proposition to take seriously.
Saerain 1 year ago 8
@Saerain "Sort of a cognate to: 'without any fascist governments, the chances of more fascist governments cropping up rises.' "
I think you nailed it there... but it is still kind of self contradicting, I think I understand it perfectly well, it is just hard to put words on it.
LOLLYPOPPE 1 year ago
@Saerain Well, Hitchens has admitted that he gets bored easily, so I actually wouldn't be surprised if a large reason why he doesn't want to see religion evaporated is that he would miss the challenge. Regardless, his statement is more contemptible than he realizes. If religion is the cause of much of the violence in the world (as Hitchens believe), then his wanting to keep it alive soley to sharpen his rhetorical skills is actually a very selfish reason (and a bad one at that).
writersblock26 9 months ago
Interesting argument that Mr. Hitchens makes there: he doesn't want faith to be eradicated because he would be left with anyone to argue with. He is honest about it although it's paradoxical. I think that he dedicated his whole life to this and would feel empty without people to debate with.
ruirodtube 1 year ago
@ruirodtube No, what Hitchens is trying to say is that in theory no one should have faith in religion, but in practice that wouldn't be preferable. It is like capitalism, no matter how hard everyone try, there will still be many losers, but you still want as many people as possible to try don't you.
LOLLYPOPPE 1 year ago
I believe what Hitchen's is saying is that humans build out before they build up. Philosophical thought begins when we ask the most basic questions which can be answered by the supernatural or by reason. If humans just excepted only facts and acted accordingly we wouldn't be human at all, we would be automatons.
We survive as we are by dreaming.
Some of these dreams have been realized (e=mc2) and some have not ...yet
aarspears 1 year ago
Hitchens has become drunk at this time
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
IMO religion won't exist for too much longer.
Ashitakaandsan 1 year ago
I think Hitch is starting to get a little drunk... lol
omgimontheinternet 1 year ago
@omgimontheinternet
I think they all are :3
Ashitakaandsan 1 year ago
@omgimontheinternet holy shit dude...... you came to the same conclusion and I didn't even read your comment... you can see him hittin on the booze and gulping down much more than the other dudes
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
Why did he keep interrupting Dennett?
AtheistInsight 1 year ago
I can sort of empathize with Hitchens. His best point concerns the dialectic process. Arguing against faith will not necessarily eradicate it but will force the faithful to (hopefully) come up with more interesting arguments. I have encountered differing arguments from theologists and not found them of equal profundity. The persistence of a kind of faith will continue to force different arguments from the empirical/rationalists side and may shed light on the phenomenon of knowledge itself
Grayto 1 year ago
Yep, Hitchens Failed this one!
jimo1150 1 year ago
HEAR HERE
"OH MY GOD" - a secular song
astrologysongs 1 year ago
i love hitchens, but i hate it when he interupts people
bcfcmattyp1 1 year ago 67
@bcfcmattyp1 he's drunk, he's had alcohol which increases his courage
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@bcfcmattyp1 This is part 8 so he must be quite drunk already.
Kan2209 1 year ago
@bcfcmattyp1 I don't see it as interrupting. It seems to me it's more a case of others starting to talk before Hitchens has fully finished vocalising his thought process. Usually when he "interrupts" people, he's really just tacking on after-thoughts to what he was just talking about.
MassExtinctionEvent 1 year ago
@bcfcmattyp1 he is imperfect in his perfection.
bobnelly 1 year ago
@bcfcmattyp1
I love it when he interrupts people.
''How can you be so rude as to carry on talking while I'm trying to interrupt.''- Christopher Hitchens.
ItsameAlex 11 months ago
@ItsameAlex Classic! Do you happen to know where he said that? Or did you just make that up? Either way, epic! :)
ragzy02 10 months ago
@ragzy02
If he really said it I've never seen him say it...................although I wish he did, it seems like something he would say.
ItsameAlex 9 months ago
Hitchens wants to keep his position of superiority over the confused masses.
KnightXIXVII 1 year ago
And the only way of taking this position away from him is to educate the confused masses to a degree where it can be contended, is it not?
GronTheMighty 1 year ago 2
Hitchens loses this and, becuase his Achilles heel is to NEVER give way to anybody else, he ends up sounding stupid.
He should really try to acquire just AN IOTA of self-doubt. It's fine shouting down idiots at most forums and public discussions, but faced with these three you'd think he might adapt his attitude of superiority. Superiorit, which I should add, is usually throroughly justified (but not here!)
ryko26 2 years ago 35
agreed. he really just wants an argument it seems. doesn't matter with who or what, because these are three of the only people on the same level of agreement with understanding and intellect as him, and he just can't let that happen.
zanzibartraveler09 1 year ago
@ryko26 he has had quite a few booze glasses, he is a drunk
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@ryko26 Ya, I actually cringed a little bit when all three turned on him lol
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning hitchen is a master of debate, he loves it even with his boys
laaaguna13 1 year ago
@SimKoning
Yes me too.
Hitch, as much as i admire him, he is rude, tipsy, and embarassing here.
You can see that the boys realize that he is getting slowly drunk.
TheDerekdub 1 year ago
@ryko26
Yes. This bit always makes me wince a bit at what Hitchens says. Totally wrong here! I think it's the booze talking, no him. I wonder if he's watched this discussion on youtube and (being sobered up) had perhapse wanted to retract what he said here. Dawkins made and excellent point. There are tons of things to argue about. I also think Hitchens LOVES the lime light of having the upper hand over religious discourse.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@ryko26
So to just to add. Yes, Hitchens ended up looking stupid, as you've put it. Then I noticed he was trying to backtrack, and sort of get back onto the horse after falling off it.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@ryko26 spot on
TerryDBlack 1 year ago
Comment removed
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro what? That doesn't even make sense.
ryko26 1 year ago
@ryko26 Well you said hitchens lost this. What do you mean by that? and you say that his attitude is somehow ''superior'' but I dont c it like that at all.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro not a debate, not a sporting event - but he loses in terms of not getting away with his usual blundering over people, shouting them down and sneering (usually deservedly) at their arguments. He certainly lost my respect in this clip.
ryko26 1 year ago
@ryko26 I dont think hitchens in trying to blunder over these other intellectuals I mean why would he do that? They are friends. He is just disagreeing with some points that the others have which is normal.
TomValedro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
I think Hitchens certainly is the most antagonistic member of the panel - former marxist, anti-theist, for violent defense, for argument as a method of improving rhetorical skill - but I wouldn't say loopy. Personally I think he goes over best in red state America for his willingness to plunge into conflict headfirst, though as a red stater I'm probably biased.
darkmiles22 2 years ago 2
I agree, and that's why he might be my favorite! He's great at taking the piss.
Although it's funny seeing Dawkins's amazement that he wouldn't want a world without theism. Watching them argue on that point makes this part awesome.
bb6f44 1 year ago
What's shocking to me is that Dawkins can hold his tongue and listen to Hitchens rant about his bizarro belief that he WOUDLN"T want a world without theism because there would be no one to sharpen his mental acuity and rhetorical whit over. As if there aren't enough OTHER subjects that would be so much WORTHIER of discussion. It's as if Hitchens feels other subjects would not be as fun to argue because he yields his area of most studied expertise. If this is not sheer ego, then what?
Ydefinity 1 year ago
Hitchens is right
sebastianfpena 2 years ago
am i the only one who thinks that hitchens is the loopiest of the four?
fromis111 2 years ago
you think the four are "loopy"??
fuck, how sma