Christopher Hitchens -- Religion
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Christopher Hitchens gives a talk in Canada on Free Speech in November 2006. This is the end of the twenty minute speech originally from One Good Move: onegoodmove.org...
Hitchens is right that religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt.
We need more Christophers in this world
A truly brilliant mind! Love to have had a drink and a smoke with him!
There is very little to make me want to go to church, and/or want to be around "religious" people.
Too bad you can't 'favorite favorite' a video because this one deserves a shiny spot.
This man has courage and brains. I hope he gets work done. I for one would welcome a change he's fighting for.
And I dread the change that he's fighting against.
Dude... I can't believe this guy used to exist
I must admit that he is being very cordial when he calls for ridicule,hatred, and contempt. Very endearing man.
It was a great tragedy that this man was taken away from us. Aside from the fact that he was a great man, his staunch defense of free speech and western values is arguably unique. Yes we have Wilders and many others, but this man was special. He brought something to the table that none other has: Brutal and, almost superhuman, perfect logic.
At any rate, his message of freedom, and protest against irrationality will stand the test of time, even if the brutes of islam win.
@VinVig
Sorry I just realized I did it again. My prior comment was not meant to you. (damn the 500 character limit) However please do tell me the difference between a curse and praying for something to happen to somebody. Could praying for an atheist to "Find God" be perceived by non religious as a curse? Or is it justified because you think you know better? And can you provide any direct evidence to quantify the effectiveness of both prayer and curse. I'm pretty sure either are equally dubious.
One of his best speeches.
How can you help but admire a man who has made a career out of simply having an opinion that is more worth-listening-to than the next guy's? What a legend.
Looks like you touched a raw nerve there with our dearly missed Dr Sagan's quote... Nice rebuttal!
This guy is so smart (and I really mean that) that he outsmarts himself. He sais - paraphrasing - that god's existence isn't necessary for a good deed. But he sais that religion makes good people do bad things. But he isn't fair in saying that the opposite is also true. God's existence isn't necessary for bad deeds either. So his point is neither here nor there.
This guy is wonderful... I've just started seeing his name around, heard him mentioned on NPR yesterday.
Thanks for posting it
You know, Hitchens had his flaws, but he was SUCH A GOOD SPEAKER. This and his closing speech v. William Dembski are my favorite speeches of his. Here he is angry and fearless against his foes, but v. Dembski he is sage-like and fearless in the face of death.
Love that he says stay cool at the end, made me laugh out loud, Hitchens is the man.
You're right; those are separate points. The "truth" of religious beliefs is not susceptible to complete explanation within a rational framework - this is precisely why they are religious beliefs. And the "moral fiber" of religious people is just as variegated as those of scientifically-oriented people. But the point I was making was a general antidote to CH's irrational absolutism.
wow.. hitch really does know how to express himself. Im still learning more about what this guy believes in concerning more general and different topics. You can usually extract useful information and enlightening perspectives from his speeches.
Anyone know other speakers like hitchens, sam harris or dawkins?
Love him or hate him you got to admit he has a unique style and that is what makes him so cool.
im so glad that bright people like him fight for freedom and reason. im also afraid that it is bitterly needed.
You are so missed, and have been never more needed x
Rip what a loss!! Great great man!!
they all have their mythologies, the egyptians, the sumerians, greeks, they all had their own understanding about right and wrong. and this is how it should be.
we, as human beings, with our reasoning abilities, we live in our own time and space and have to interact and react with our environment. nowadays we know so much more, than anyone before us knew..
Hitchens changed my life. Thank you. Rest In Peace you exemplary human being.
Thanks mrfallenstar. it's a great quote, and sorry to correct you, but the whole quote is: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it good people do good things and evil people do evil things, but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
I miss him greatly. I know of no other tongue that is so accurate and sharp. Who will be his substitute now?
everything apart from the last sentence. he's dead, not resting. that's a super-natural sentiment. but apart from that i echo everything you said. unfortunately, i only discovered him after the newsnight interview discussing his cancer. i got a year, but thankfully, like you say, what he did in life lives on.
The verse of John's 'Gospel' that Professor Hitchens makes an allusion to around 3:01-3:20, can someone help me to it? Been Google-ing it for weeks now and can't find it, maybe I'm just brain dead. Thanks in advance.
imo this is christopher hitchen's greatest speech. though i'd say his debate alongside stephen fry against the catholics released recently is a close second
Saying that religions need to be ridiculed maybe a stretch. Religion becomes clear when looking at history and science. Just today religion does separate people. While bringing people together, it also becomes a reason to combat other sects of belief. That isn't to say that all religious people engage in such activities. It is just the structure of church and religion.
The two biggest problems I have with Hitchens are:
a) he's not secular. He actually follows a religion called "State worship" .
b) he completely ignores the fact that although religion, just like any other human creation, has flaws, religious institutions and religious people have been the biggest advocates of human rights all over the world.
well sort off reminds me. Kind looks exactly like him.
Thanks for your comments man, you are definately big
The more I see of Hitch, while he is more abrasive than Dawkins, Dennett et al, the more I think he is right.
We need to stand up for free speech, and against religious intolerance.
Hitchens' views on religion are virtually identical to those expressed almost a century ago by atheists in the Soviet Union. There are strong parallels between then and now. I can certainly deal with atheists, but people like me are beginning to wake up to people like Hitchens. Nobody is threatening atheists right to exist, but religious speech is still free speech, and that will not change.
You are the one who made the statement, therefore fair game. you are trying to avoid debate.
"nowadays we know so much more, than anyone before us knew." These people went before us and I dare say they were quite a bit more knowledgeable than many today. Hitchens represents a movement that was specifically known for mind control and thought policing - the Bolsheviks. His words are quite reminiscent of those heard in Russia 80 years ago.
I believe that it is very possible to protect everyone's rights without sacrificing anyone's free speech. All organized religions have "mechanisms' within their creeds which allow their doctrines to be binding only to those who belong to that particular religion and anyone is allowed to walk away from any particular religion. Any rules which call for some sort of physical punishment (as some have) violate civil law and therefore are forbidden. Let the churches,synagoues,and mosques...
It is a shame that most of Hitchens' videos have far less than a million views. I feel as though the more people that see this man speak, the more people will lose their faith in the bogus religions of our species. Please spread his videos as often as you can.
A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. ~Carl Sagan
Even if you don't particularly like Christopher Hitchens, you have to admit that the man had the most colossal balls the world has ever seen...
The speech that he is using is no different than the reasoning Lenin used nor those after him. And there was a point in their early histories that the content seemed somewhat insignificant and harmless, but what grew out of it because it was allowed to take hold, resulted in tragedy. So Hitchens and those that take a similar approach need to be confronted. Very important.
I agree, arguing semantics is pointless. I am talking about the conclusions of the court not the verdict.
That's not what he said. The whole point was that people were/are trying to get laws passed banning the criticism of religion. The problem is that the religious texts themselves criticise and condemn all other religions, which means the speech laws are going to backfire on the religious and get their books banned.
The world seems even less safe now he's no longer here to point out the idiocy of much of mankind. He was never more missed/needed than he is now.
So I read your comment in my university's library and started laughing out loud.
when he died it was like dumbledore dying, when we still have so many voldemorts of religion left to defend ourselves from.
Couldnt phrase it more succinctly myself!!
Thank you "nomeemania".You are the perfect example of why close minded religious individuals are extremely violent and dangerous.I hope that in this era, these selfish and hateful people will fade away when others observe that they really accomplish nothing but death and destruction. It is really sad to see a human being with that level of hatred towards other humans for nothing more then their point of view, which is against hatred in the world. How can someone really be against that ?
who is dangerous, hitchens? why, because he is honest and speaks his mind out? there are some people i really respect morally, and he is one of them..
My information is not needed in order for you to understand what we are talking about. You asked for an example where something is fair for one but not another. I answered with several examples and the levels and ramifications of what is fair/unfair for people on opposite sides cascades even further on a personal level for any of these examples.
it is annoying, but not more so for unbelievers than for believers. Regardless, people can disagree without being ignorant. When people are blatantly rude about others and their beliefs, on either side of it, it speaks volumes about their character.
"We are afriad of the dark, and we are afraid to die" - that bit, for some reason, makes my hair stand on end.
I recently came across a set of lectures by a "free-thinking" British philosopher., who seems to have been popular on the west coast in the early 60's. Now I forgot his name and can't find the videos anymore. Can anyone help me?
Beautifully said. Absolutely inspirational.
why should a proper debate not involve taking a stance or acting out? is it a debate or not? this is how it goes.. acting out doesn't mean to scream and yell, it means admitting your thoughts and beliefs.. just to play it safe and hide behind agnosticism isn't a debate, it's a consensus..
Christopher Hitchens is the only person who could say "This is really serious" and not be laughed at.
I think commenters below are forgetting that it's not necessarily about atheism vs. religion, it's truth vs. falsehood. It matters what people believe; i.e., if a person really believes prayer works, and they use that to heal their terminally sick kid instead of medicine, then the morality of their action depends on whether or not their belief is true. If the belief isn't true, then their action is immoral. That's all people are arguing; that truth matters. If atheism is a consequence, so be it.
He loves me so much that if I fail his egotistical test of faith and don't worship him he will condemn me to hell. As they say, with friends like that ...
I'd be really interested to read your justification for that assertion. I mean, there may be little practical difference between political and religious extremists, but that doesn't invalidate the differences between a political ideology and a religious one. Please, elaborate (if you feel like chatting to me, that is)
There are Muslim farmers who have lived in North Dakota for a century or so, showing that all are not extremists. however, I agree with you that there are extremists out there and yes there are enablers, too. Not all extremists are Muslim and not all are religious.
I'm from Yorkshire. And you could've chatted with me any day of the week Hitch.
When those critics go beyond criticism to contempt, it's time to call it bigotry.
Yes I have read much of what he has written and I consider him to be very articulate and well educated. I also think he is right on some issues. But he is a fanatic in the sense that he calls for hatred and intolerence against religion but he denies the historical facts that atheism and nationalism and racism,too, have their fanatical elements.
You are rationalizing. Hitchens promotes bigotry by his exhortation for hatred, ridicule, and contempt. Organized radical atheism is and was extreme in its condemnation of religion. That's my point. Radical atheism has elevated itself to the level of a religion complete with the influence and the ability to motivate followers to pursue its purposes.
I agree with all religious people when they say that all other religions are false.
where did I say he didn't have a right to speak his mind? what I said had nothing to do with free speech. I've noticed that some radical atheists have a lot of trouble with free speech too. In particular, religious speech, which they often try to interfere with and limit or restrict. Also, I never said he was violent , I said he was extremist, by calling for ridicule, hatred,and contempt for religion. Atheism itself has an extremely violent history. so to be accurate he needs to include it too.
It was certainly not just in the Soviet Union. Their model was followed in China, South Asia, and Eastern Europe. And the violence was extremely organized. An estimated 130 million died.
I miss this man, he's one of the founders of new atheism and one of the few sane people.
The problem is not religion. The problem is human extremism in all of its manifestations. Hitchens is one of those manifestations.
All fanaticism needs to be treated with "ridicule, and contempt". I love the way this man justifies his own bigotry (and yes it is bigotry). An attack against a religion is an attack against a culture and Hitchens is dangerous in that regard. He is a hatemonger.
I never said that that they did it "because they were atheists". I only said that their governments were officially atheistic( by their own admission), ergo there is no logical fallacy. Also, the fact that religion was not the causal factor here proves your statement "It takes religion to make a good person do bad things" untrue.
Now if it is both religious groups and non-religious groups committing all of these atrocities,then I can only deduce that it is wayward humanity that is to blame and not religion nor the absence of it.
IF the 279.000 that watched this think about what he just said and maybe learn to accept / tolerate other cultures then Mr. Hitchens has done all he could do
please forgive my horrible english
This man is a great individual, a genius, and a brave brave man !
how does being hurtful or rude or cursing even help get a point across? The method with which a point is put across to others matters a lot. For me, when someone starts off swearing and/or trying to debase someone/thing I shut them right out. There's no point in trying to have a rational debate because I know there isn't going to be anything rational about it.
Thank you Christopher Hitchens. You are entirely correct!!
I agree with you about the incitement to hatred. Hitchens crossed the line there.
Of course not all religionists are of the same mind, but at this point, enough of them are on issues like gay marriage, or the approval of millenarians like Sarah Palin, to worry me.
On atheism as religion, it depends on how you define religion...
Hitchens never once contradicted himself though.
When are you going to realize that it is meaningless to be against "hate".
That is like being against love, pain, or pleasure.
And yes he did need to spend the rest of the time supporting his main point, and restating it in different ways, because apparently people still manage too miss it because they are just too thick and full of misleading preconceptions.
He even re-stated his point earlier with the example of the witch prosecuter.
He makes many points in under 9 minutes!
I strongly hope that in a hundred years time, Hitchens first sentence in this video will be answered with a " Of course it was. How did they not see it? "
You are mistaken Trajan. Read God Is Not Great. His loathe is equal for all religions. A great book BTW, a must read for everyone, both believers and non.
@seventh77 well, firstly, it is true. Secondly, Hitchens may not pray everyday, but he's is just as fanatical as the people that he calls fanatics.
He has been an apologist for Western Imperialism and considers the United States and other Western nations the "bringers of democracy", who, according to him, have all the right to blow other countries to bits.
I read the illiad and the odyssey first, then I read the bible first paragraphs...
The art in the words of homer are pure magnificence, in comparison with the iliteracy and contradiction of our "god"
You brought up the example. And i still have some comments you have not answered. But if you feel the discussion is straying then by all means bring it back.
@Vindicated Vigilante
Right and this leads back to what I said originally about how a placebo works only in certain situations and with varying results depending on the individual and their mental and physical state. And how accounting for these factors actually has more to do with the success or failure for a placebo. In other words the placebo is completely anecdotal just like prayer and faith in someones recovery from illness. I would like to see the articles, please provide a link/source.
this guys very intelligent and great to listen to
His hatred is pointed towards religion - as it is the source for hatred against innocent humans.
If you can't fathom the difference between hating the cause (in this case religion) for hatred, and hating people based on their sexual preferences, religious belives etc. you really need to open your eyes.
great speech, great guy!
I generally make a rule out of hating things that I have a deep, deep dislike for. Love is not always the answer (At least not the unrepliable answer). If you think it is, ask Martin King, John Lennon, Ghandi, see how they're doing.
Incidentally, I do like your choice of persons to use as examples of those who dared to go against the status quo and teach us that life is more than 2-dimensional.
I never said that religious fanaticism did'nt exist - which it does. That does not mean that all religious people are prone to fanatical actions. Call it "fanatical", "radical", whatever. Overt nationalism is fanaticism, (ie.nazism). Political fanaticism is another. Racial fanaticism,still another. Without religion, you will still have fanaticism. If the whole world were atheistic and "rational" - still fanaticism would exist because humans exist.
you should read his book. he addresses that pretty thoroughly.
What a loss to free thinkers...a sigh of relief from the mideast haters
I like where you're going with this.
The epistemological stance of atheism is: if you cannot see,hear,smell,taste, or touch something - it does not exist. The epistemology used to justify religious belief is significantly more broad-minded than that.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
ban..when do you think it became figurative? or did you think it was always figurative? werent the "bibles" written literally?. wouldnt figurative scriptures diminish the credability of those very scriptures?
"The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism, in which social success largely required individuals to proclaim atheism and stay away from churches; this attitude was especially militant under Stalin."
My opinion is my opinionand it is based on fact. Agreed, not all fanaticism is bad,but when it fuels hatred it is a threat to all.
It's really sad that when you are laying on your death bed and soemone asks, "what would you ike to read?", and your answer will be the Bible. "Who would you like to talk too"? You will want tp speak to a believer in God. You will lay there looking out the window at the beautiful sky and think...."what if I'm wrong!!??" Don't waste what Jesus died for. The gift of eternal life is yours. All you have to do is knock....He will answer. This life is but a vapor. Act now. Honor God and Helo people.
Personally I like to keep my life private. I can draw my experiences from it but it is important to refrain from framing any arguments divulging specific personal information. It detracts from what is being said. As for examples... well take your pick. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Slavery, The colonization of the Americas, How about killing another man? Something as a military man you had to understand the ramifications of. Or are the lives of our enemy and their families not worth a thing?