The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens (8/12)

I love that Hitchens smokes! Really interesting debate

I've watched 1-7 and now in video 8 and I think it's funny how Christopher Hitchens now brings up something they can argue over :)

I'd have to say I completely sympathize Dawkins' complete confusion here

But at the same time, weirdly, I can somewhat understand that Hitchens' concern that the argument of reason must persist forever so that everyone constantly appreciates the need to be cognizant of this important concept: free thought. Christopher directly refers to this when he speaks of the polarization and the need for a comparison. Its actually quite an interesting position, I think.

Well, for someone who is familiar with Chinese philosophy, particularly Taoist philosophy, I guess it's not difficult to figure out what Hitchens meant.

One cannot exist in isolation of the other. If u seek to completely wipe out religion, then it doesn't make sense to be an "atheist", because it's relative to "theist".

Due to the limited text space, I couldn't explain a lot. But if anyone is interested, I recommend reading a decently translated "I Ching" and/or "Tao De Ching".

For someone who has listened to and read alot of what Hitchens has produced, I think your interpretation is rather too convoluted. Hitchens is a self professed, and proud, contrarian. There's no deeper philosophical implication in what he's saying than that he'd very much miss the opposition because he enjoys the intellectual jousting. He quite clearly says so, refering to the dialectic.

Well, perhaps u r right. I'm not very familiar with Christopher Hitchens to begin with. However, only Hitchens himself knows what he meant with those seemingly contradictory statements. We r just comprehending them base on our own knowledge & interpretation. Thus, with my philosophical understandings, I'm just offering an alternative viewpoint. Since, u r more familiar with Hitchens & his literature, I've to accept that maybe u're right. :)

Christopher Hitchens wrote a book about how "Religion Poisons Everything," and in it he tells about how much better the world would be without religion.
Why is he saying here that he thinks its a good thing for faith and religions to exist? Just to argue against them?

I love Dawkins at 7:32 being baffled by the Hitch-man's statement.

i think hitch is being a drunk devils advocate at this point

What does he do then??? I don't get it.