The thing I always loved about Hitch was that he was never there for the person he was debating; he was there to talk to the audience. That's why he always looked at THEM when he talked. Wonderful stuff.
That's because he knows he can't convince the irrational delusional guy he is debating with rational reasoning, but he can convince people in the audience.
Yes, and I'm a bit surprised that Hitch went to rhetoric instead of calling out the obvious equivocation fallacy put to him. No, "faith" used to denote a sufficient level of confidence based in weighing of evidence under rationally consistent inference is very different than "faith" meaning a celebrated adherence to beliefs even when confronted by contrary evidence. Both are beliefs, sure, meaning states of mind regarding some proposition. But they are hardly equal. The difference is that one is justified and one is not. On the other hand, we have the luxury of more than one path to a given truth. Rhetoric it may be to go around the immediate fallacy and choose another - in this case appeal to authority or special pleading - but these serve just as well in the end.
That's bullshit. You have faith your going to live tomorrow. Is there evidence you will? Yes. Is there evidence you might not. Yes. Is it certaim? No. Yet you plan your days with the faith your going to be around to see those plans through. I had faith my parachute would open when I jumped. Is there evidence supporting it would? Yes. Vast majority ty y of the time it opens. Does it mean it will? No. I have to have faith that it will based off of the evidence. You need a better grasp of the english language. Faith is not indicative to religion.
@@davidwillis44 " I had faith my parachute would open when I jumped. Is there evidence supporting it would? Yes. Vast majority ty y of the time it opens. Does it mean it will? No. I have to have faith that it will based off of the evidence. ..... ..... Faith is not indicative to religion." To compare religious faith with your parachute example of faith is laughable. The key word in your parachute example is the word EVIDENCE. The religious faithful have presented no evidence at all for the existence of their deity or deities. If you want your parachute example of faith to be consistent with the religious meaning of faith you will need to correct your example. Here is the corrected version: "I have faith that a parachute I have never seen, never touched, do not have with me to show you and for which I have no evidence exists will open and prevent my death when I jump."
@@cnault3244 there are a lot of things science cant explain. People being miraculously healed through faith is a scientific mystery. From faith in god to faith in a medicine they thought was real but wasnt. I chose what I said correctly. Faith is faith dumbass. Just because your faith is limited doesmt change the fucking definition.
he talked against God all his life,,,,,he will burn in Hell,,right now he is in the torment of the lower half of the Hadean Realm awaiting Judgement ,,then he will go to Hell
Sheo Gorath it is also the thing that answers questions, makes things like flight and medical care possible...If you want to dismiss science so easily, I suggest when you or someone you know is seriously ill...don't go to the hospital...just ask God to sort it out and see where that gets you.
James Riley Hahaha yes the vowel stress is the same.... interesting considering that Dinklage is American and doesn't naturally speak like that. I always thought Tyrion sounded like a bastard child of Alan Rickman but perhaps he did steal some affect from Hitch. :)
Sammy Unwin Hitchens WAS English by birth - born in Portsmouth, Hampshire - but a long term US resident and he became a US citizen in 2007. His accent wasn't faked although probably refined by his Public School and university education. (Public School in the U.K. means something very different to the US - i.e. private & privileged!)
I love this man. Mr. Hitchens was one of the great hero's and educators of my life and was one of the few people who I genuinely wept for when he past. I miss you Chris, you are a true profit.
I don't think he's a moralist...but I agree with you. He get to the point, the autority of religious people arguments is something that has no value except if you ASSUME that God exist...then it is logic (but you ASSUME first the existence of something that no clue tends to it at first)
Laurent Robichaud You don't have to be a moralist to have moral superiority over the claims of many religious think morality is. In fact a moralist (especially in relation to religion), I find, is usually a code word for a puritan who thinks threatening someone with eternal damnation for minor things or reward is a great way to make people moral. If you look up things statistically in relation to crimes committed in countries etc the more secular atheistic countries have lower rape and murder rates and more support for women's and gay rights. Whereas the more religious third world countries and the U.S etc have higher crime rates (for example you can trace the murder rate of certain states will be higher by how religious they are). For example Alabama is the most religious state and has the highest murder rate.
***** You commentary is bloody well right, and your way to connect those fact is, from my point of view, exact. Religion, or how to constrain yourself against yourself with others. I like to think that someone balanced in life without a god will never ever EVAR need to believe in those historical crap and tradition. Even if it was needed in a certain period of time, there is now a way to live without that, and I like the existence for that
I wish Hitch had told him that you don't need faith to accept the usefulness of Reason. With regards to 'reason', we have a reasonable expectation based on past experience and evidence that 'reason' works and it is useful in predicting future events. 'Faith' on the other hand asks that you accept claims that make NO sense and are based on NO credible evidence and offer NO chance of predicting any future events. Faith is shit. Reason is king.
R Stone You do not have a clear understanding of the definition of 'faith'. You also do not understand the scientific method or the definition of scientific theories or have an understanding that we talk about the reality in which we live and use science to help describe it. My prescription for you is to enroll in a couple basic science classes, a world religion class, and a basic class in formal and informal logic. This will help you start to have a logical internal dialogue based in reality that will keep you from wasting your time and ours with superstitious religious nonsense.
R Stone "Whether or not you choose to recognize it, science nd theology really aren't all that different. One just attempts to reveal truth in the physical, the other the metaphysical." Apologies, are you trying to demonstrate they are not different with an example clearly demonstrating a difference? "But neither has all the answers by itself." This is true. However Science makes progress, continuously, where Religion, and as a direct result, becomes more and more obsolete. The result is inevitable, the only question is time.
***** "I hope to incur a discussion rather than a feeding frenzy". "You’re afraid" Accusing me of being afraid is, as we both know, baseless and antagonistic. Exactly the kind of behaviour/language that starts the "frenzy" you are so desperate to avoid. "you’re just picking at a superficial argument," Whether you can reasonably compare Scientific methods and practices with the methods and practices of faith as R Stone attempted is quite clearly not superficial. "You’re afraid to go for the meat of the argument… which is… 'you don’t know anything with absolute certainty.'". Again you are mistaken. I could not be more aware that we can not know anything with absolute certainty. Any person who understands and adopts a scientific approach to the unknown will tell you the same. We are left with probability and given that there hasn't been any major development that supports the notion "Is there a God?" the probability of it holding true is ever dwindling. This is a big problem for the religious camp. Does that clarify my position on the apparent "meat of the argument"? "Jokul’s rebuttal has by far the most substance. I think further discussion on his points would prove the most beneficial." Agreed, I also put forward the motion that you should leave as you haven't added anything meaningful, rather attack two people whilst proclaiming your moral high ground, not to mention rather bizarrely electing yourself as adjudicator of this comments section. Yes, you should be apprehensive as I will continue to dismiss comments that don't adopt reason. That's reasonable is it not?
***** I love the comments from you and Dreadwyn.. and I understand like you that ad hominem attacks are literally the lowest form of argument. I would say they're not actually even an argument. I simply don't have the patients to deal with dipshits like RStone and 3t3rnal who are clearly a couple of the most poorly equipped apologist I have ever come across. I cant stand when these guys try to redefine basic words in the English vocabulary. Like there are more alternative definitions of "Faith" that every lexicographer out there has missed. When I hear that my "narrow definition of faith" doesn't include his made up made up definitions I have to shut down and bail because I can see that this is going no where quick. I understand that the ad hominem attacks don't help our cause of trying to spark a desire for truth in the minds of these guys but I just don't think that their sopping wet minds, flooded with delusion, are capable of catching the spark.
Jung Contrarian Whilst I feel your pain brother, capability is not the question. If they are able to adopt a reality based on no evidence, I believe they are capable of understanding and adopting a reality based on reason and evidence. That said, for those that have already been infected with Religion it's a tough nut to crack much like a heroin addict, they become dependant on it and will do anything to defend it moral or otherwise and without question. All the more reason for us to demonstrate our morality outside of Religion, easier said than done at times. Remember, in their minds, the possibility of the worst punishment imaginable, for eternity, would await them if they were wrong perhaps even 'seen' to question - I personally would need extraordinary clarity and evidence to overcome that 'reality' if I were infected such and at this moment in time, we can't offer them that clarity, according, at least, to them. Still, Scientific understanding can only improve where as Religious 'understanding' has not developed at all since it's creation. in fact, and as the various different camps of the same Religion demonstrate, if anything it has become more nebulous in nature over time. The outcome is inevitable. The only question is time. x
That theist made an argument so bad that a reasonably inquisitive child could poke holes in it. That makes this Hitchslap considerably less impressive.
I miss this man. His was a singular intellect and wit. The rapidity at which he would see through his opponents arguments and expose their flaws was truly inspiring. RIP, Mr. Hitchens
A fool would put "faith" into science. Science is skepticism, otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere with it. Science progresses with skepticism and learning.
Yes! Well-said! Science could take an approach to understand a given data point, from across the globe, and if undertaken with the same measures and controls, arrives at the same resolution and result no matter where it was done. I don't however know one damned religion that agrees on ANYTHING with any other religion, despite how they all proclaim to have originated from god.
@@albinajeta8882 You can't put faith in science, Faith is not evidence based. Science has proved throughout centuries (and ever so increasing) it is the single best method we have developed to determine what's true. The method of science itself has provided innumerable examples that it works. We have evidence that science works. It can't be a faith position per definition.
@@Dennis19901 I wouldn’t invoke “definition” since your definition of faith is a vary narrow one. Faith is a strong belief, or trust. Some faith is derived from past experience, which includes the scientific method: we’ve tested it repeatedly and understand that this is how it behaves. There are ‘good faith’ agreements in which each party strongly believes in the integrity of the word of the other, though these are rare in these days as there are large subsets of humanity that have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, trust being a synonym for faith. Your objection isn’t really with faith so much as it is the object of that faith.
Every video I see of hitch just keeps getting better n better.. ! My life had no meaning I felt but through Christopher hitchens logic and his look on life and understanding has helped change my life I never got to meet him but feel I was related to him
"If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" -Sam Harris (Neuroscientist, Philosopher, Author)
Hitch had an amazingly agile mind. In the heat of debate he comes up with perfect slamdunk responses that most of us would only (maybe) arrive at after several days of "What I should've said was..."
I believe that all Hitchens wanted was for people to treat each other with kindness. When people shove their opinion down your throat and then top it off by saying ‘you’ll go to hell if you don’t think this way, that’s unkind. And it’s extortion. Whether it comes from a holy book or from one person on a street corner: it’s simply unkind. I think that’s what Hitchins was standing up for.
Thanks. That really clarified it. We know reason and logic are a good way to find the truth because in the past it has. Thanks for that. I had been questioning the validity of reason and logic for a few hours after watching this video. Thanks for reassuring me.
Religious people claim it is all based on "faith" and then defend it as if it were "fact". If you hide behind an imagined god and dreams of eternal life, you are lying to yourself and to everyone else, which, morally speaking, is reprehensible. If there were a supreme being who was all-powerful, it would not need or want puny humans to defend it, and it would most likely be insulted by those who attempted to do so.
thirdly, would it be morally wrong if it made people happy. Fourthly, how do you know what would offend a supreme being that you don't even believe exists?
mmmail1969 1. Who doesn't? . . . . how can you worship something you have never imagined? 2. A mutually inclusive idea that if no god existed, no morals could exist? I would love to see proof of such a claim. That you cannot provide.
@Simon Reye 1. Based on that line of thought, if I lie to you and tell you that you have won a million dollars, and it makes you happy, it is therefore right? 2. Common sense. Of course that has no weight to those who do not exercise it, and, contrary to your implication, whether I believe or not has no bearing on whether I am a good judge of what a supreme being might be like. You would be no better at that than I would be.
Shawn Irwin Firstly, that wouldn't make me happy because my follow up question would be where is it and no answer other than in my bank account would suffice to continue my happiness. Secondly, I asked you if it were right or wrong, why turn it back to me? So if we are equally as good as each other (as you claim) at imagining a supreme being and how it would act and react and yet our imaginations contradict each others how is it that you appeal to COMMON sense?
Will somebody PLEASE stop fucking up this argument. It's much simpler than that. The simple retort to the Faith in Reason argument is this: Reason is a collection of methods surrounding that which has been DEMONSTRATED reliably (Also works for science [consult scientific method]). Faith is accepting as true BY VIRTUE of having no demonstration. As a matter of fact, if your faith was demonstrated, it would no longer be faith. It would be reasonable. TAKE NOTES!!! It's not a hard argument to conquer!!!!
No offence, but why does anyone need to "conquer" an argument? This isn't about truth, or science, or anything with a purpose is it? This is about people with differing beliefs trying to justify them to themselves, or worse yet, trying to prove they are "right" about their argument. It's a silly argument and is a waste of time. So here's my argument about debating a topic that doesn't need a debate on a website that is well known for pointless debates. You get all your information from google, you are neither a scientist nor a theologist, nor a historian, nor a person who was alive to experience any of the events (Biblical or scientific) that were talked about, and a lot of your arguments will devolve from science into semantics. This is true for both sides of this argument keeping in mind. People in this debate are no more than junior detectives and philosophers trying to defend their beliefs because they are either afraid of being wrong, or they just can't keep themselves from arguing over something. To summarize, if you're an atheist, use your "logic and reason" that you learned in the youtube comments section and stop debating this. If you're a Christian, then you should be spending your time doing good deeds for others, not trying to convert people over the internet. As for myself, yes some of this stuff did and does apply to me too. But you know what? At least I took the time to realize how perfectly stupid I am for this and how glad I am that my main youtube account can't comment any longer. This stuff is a waste of time and life, and I'm sure many of you probably won't even pay attention to this. That said, carry on your great comments war crusade, I'm sure it will bring you much happiness. Or not. Actually, definitely not.
You already fail in the second paragraph. My argument was definitional, not logical nor scientific. Faith is one thing BY DEFINITION. Science, BY DEFINITION is the opposite. One requires demonstration. The other requires that demonstration is absent. As for the rest... it's a good thing you can't comment anymore then... oh wait... you... are stunningly ridiculous.
bigstudwithaguitar I failed in the second paragraph? How exactly? By definition, you are not a scientist, nor a theologist, nor a philosopher, ergo what I said was completely true! More than that, I'm not arguing faith vs. science, because it's a rediculous argument that, as always, devolves into petty battles of semantics, NOT logic. You may start with logic, but by the end you are debating anti-antis, or anti-anti-antis, etc. But let's talk about science vs. religion quickly. If science is based on something requiring demonstration, then you can't say that God does or does not exist based on science. That said, science is totally irrelevant to the debate to whether God does or does not exist. The only relevance science would have in such a debate is determining whether certain events in the Bible did or did not occur, which still doesn't disprove or prove the existence of a higher power. But this is quite beside the point, so let's get back on the topic. Give me one good reason, a truthfully justifiable reason, why this debate needs to happen. Not why atheists need to debate it, but why does this debate need to exist? What benefit does it have to mankind to have religious and non-religious people fighting about beliefs they do or don't believe in? Stunningly ridiculous? The fact that you detracted my comment from being about how stupid and petty this "debate" is to trying to define science and faith is what is stunningly ridiculous. What part of my first comment gave you ANY idea that you needed to define science and faith? More than that, because I can't see where you got the idea from, why does defining either matter? What possible reason could you have had for saying anything about that, because my comment had nothing to do with the sides of the debate, it had to do with how stupid the debate is. I have no idea why someone gave you a thumbs up either, because your comment had nothing to do with anything I said, and neither did this second half of your comment, other than a petty attempt at insult. Oh, and one last thing, yes, I know that I indulged in replying to the first part of your comment (frankly a stupid and pointless move on my part), but at least I'm still willing to admit it's a senseless and logically baseless move on my part to try and keep this debate moving. I can only hope that one day that reality will finally click in for more people.
Iamnotadolan Nobody said God doesn't exist. I said that faith is not science, so paragraph 1 is completely pointless and uncontested. Atheist's do NOT claim that God does not exist. Atheist's simply do not believe in god. belief is active. Non-belief is not a claim. It's a rejection of a claim. Why is it that everybody assumes you have to have beliefs about the supernatural. You are allowed to have no opinion politically, artistically, or pretty much anything else, but if you have no religious beliefs, suddenly you have to disprove someone-else's beliefs in order to not accept them? Ridiculous. As for your second paragraph, it takes two to tango. There is a Christian apologist participating in this debate too. Why don't you ask HIM why this debate is necessary? Could it be because you agree with him. therefore you are okay with him expressing himself? Paragraph 3: it's called a definitional argument. Look it up. The claim being refuted was that having faith in science is possible. The two are definitively opposed. THAT is why the Definitional argument was appropriate. Paragraph 4: you indulged me? it's my thread. You are in no way obligated to "indulge" me. Consider this your discharge from duty. I would prefer not to be "indulged" with senseless alogical blather.
bigstudwithaguitar I really don't care what you said, if faith is not science, great! Now let's get on with life! "Atheist's do NOT claim that God does not exist. Atheist's simply do not believe in god. belief is active. Non-belief is not a claim." This is in no way a factual claim, this is a claim based on semantics and your interpretation of a belief. Basically, everyone pretty much knows this is a rubbish statment. You believe there is no God, but if you believe that, that means you're on the same level as the believers. Basically, you just "changed" your beliefs to fit with the rhetoric so it would make your arguments seem more realisitic. But at the end of the day, it's just senseless rhetoric with no evidence being used to win a debate that, to be frank, lacks logic and reason. "It's a rejection of a claim. Why is it that everybody assumes you have to have beliefs about the supernatural." Better question, why is it people change their beliefs to fit their rhetoric? Face it, if you really had no beliefs in terms of the supernatural or spiritual, you would probably just be an agnostic, but even then, if you truly didn't you still probably wouldn't call yourself an agnostic, you'd probably just not care about the subject altogether, which clearly you do since you're trying to create argumental points for this "debate". "You are allowed to have no opinion politically, artistically, or pretty much anything else, but if you have no religious beliefs, suddenly you have to disprove someone-else's beliefs in order to not accept them? Ridiculous." Oh no, you're more than welcome to have no spiritual beliefs, but what is ridiculous is saying you have none and then doing things (like debating, commenting, etc) that are totally opposite to the state of having no beliefs. "As for your second paragraph, it takes two to tango. There is a Christian apologist participating in this debate too. Why don't you ask HIM why this debate is necessary?" I only made my reply to your comment, that doesn't mean it was only directed at you or your beliefs. As I stated in my comment, this is how I feel about BOTH sides of the debate, I just frankly didn't feel like replying to him (partly because some "Christians" (I have my own thoughts on how real their claim to be Christian is) take criticism of their actions a little too far, some of them at least). Sorry for the double ( )'s in that. "Could it be because you agree with him. therefore you are okay with him expressing himself?" Nope. Firstly, I don't think there is a need for Christians to debate God on the internet. Secondly (and I haven't read much of his comments, but others have commented like this), many "Christians" that comment on these videos make claims that I frankly don't agree with, mainly because the claims feel too presumptuous. So no, I don't agree with him. He has no reason to be commenting here and continuing a senseless debate. "Paragraph 3: it's called a definitional argument. Look it up. The claim being refuted was that having faith in science is possible." The issue here is that there are two definitions to faith; one being the religious definition, the other being strong trust in something or someone. Having faith in science is totally possible. Like we have faith in the scientists that are looking for a cure for AIDS, we trust that they are doing their best to find it. The claim that faith in science is impossible (or vice versa) is silly because it is nothing more than a debate over semantics, and semantics is not a logical debate point. Some people have "faith" in science, some people don't. Making an overly generalized statement on something that is (like I said) nothing more than semantics, and then saying it is a factually based statement, is not only silly, it's impossible to be perfectly honest. Semantics is outside the realm of science, logic, and evidence, and is in the realm of opinions. "Paragraph 4: you indulged me? it's my thread. You are in no way obligated to "indulge" me. Consider this your discharge from duty. I would prefer not to be "indulged" with senseless alogical blather." Sorry, I was trying to say that I indulged myself, not you. I apologize for the misunderstanding. As for "alogical blather", sorry, but that too is nothing more than a semantics based statement, or in other words your opinion. Facts and evidence not included. But let's not get into a debate on whether it was factual or not, that will just turn into a very messy discussion that I don't want to get into, and I hope you also don't want to get into. XD
@111781530448043784335 He says reason is man made, That means reason is as malleable as the individual's brain or mind, which breaks down to relativism, which means all beliefs are justified, which means the thing Hitchens is arguing against is justified. He dug his own hole.
Legendary Hitchens's confidence in his firm belief about atheism and the certainity that those arguing against him will inevitably make some baseless statement, gives him his dignified persona!
This reminds me so much of Tim Minchin's song "The Good Book" "I know the Good Book's good because... the Good Book says it's good, and the Good Book knows it's good because a really good book would..." Shows the circularity of the appeal to the "authority" of the Bible really spot on. I love Tim Minchin.
Hitch dies, and to his eternal surprise ends up at the pearly gates. St Peter is kinda pissed that this non believer is here, but the guy's done nothing much wrong, so he gets a pass. Now the fun begins, because now Hitch gets his 15 minutes with the great bearded one. Hitch uses his superior logic, reason, and sense, and talks God out of existence. Atheism, not just a concept.
flopperdilly9 Except atheism is also just a belief, based on the thought that there is no God or other higher being. Atheism does not trump religion anymore than religion trumps atheism, neither side can prove it's point with physical science. And evolution and carbon dating are very much beside the point I think. The Bible, as well as many other religious texts, are written in a very open and almost debatable way, many things are not written as certainties. We can't say evolution proves the Bible is wrong because the Bible said nothing against evolution. We also can't say the same for carbon dating because the Bible says nothing concrete enough about the age of the Earth (yes, I know about the "begets", and one could also say that that still doesn't tell us anything truly concrete about the age of the Earth, it's really kinda open to interpretation, which is probably where Young Earth Creationism comes from, an interpretation). That said, nothing trumps anything, and I find it insulting that people keep this debate going rather than using science and reason, or faith on the other hand, to do something more useful for this world.
I like the way you think. I'm curious on what you think about the Bible being used as a way of teaching "truth" to the youth? Is it intellectually repugnant for people to hate others who have chosen to question or doubt their respective God?
Iamnotadolan But the Bible does say many things which science and common sense CAN prove wrong, like the biblical flood, resurrection from the dead, influencing goat appearance by mating their parents in front of STICKS, people walking on water, and so on. If your only reason for believing in something when what tells you this something is a book that also tells you all these utterly ridiculous things, is that those ridiculous things are actually not meant to be taken literally but are open to interpretation, then you may as well not have a religion, because your cause for believing in it is so weak. You may just as well follow a different religion, arguing its holy scripture is also open to interpretation. You may just as well start a religion based on the Harry Potter books and argue they are also open to interpretation. Or you may decide to take the stance that there is no reason to interpret silly stories as if some aspect of them might be true, when we have science and logic to use to make sense of the world based on evidence and observation. Atheism does trump religion because what it rejects is far more reasonable based on current scientific knowledge than what religion accepts based on faith and scripture, moreover, a certain interpretation of scripture. The idea that atheism and religion are equally plausible because neither can scientifically prove the other wrong, I find frankly nonsensical.
flopperdilly9 Well here's the thing with Christianity (from my experience) that many people (Christian or atheist) end up missing. Christianity is not just about the "truth" of it, it's about your personal relationship with God, or more generally your experience with your faith and beliefs. You can't (or shouldn't) just teach people these "truths" because that's not how Christianity is supposed to work, in my eyes. You are supposed to choose to believe in God based on your experience, not based on what people have taught you. I think that there is no issue with teaching youth (within your family let's say) that you believe what is written in the Bible is true, but ultimately the choice of whether to believe or not lies solely on the youth's shoulders. As for hating people, I myself do not hate any person for not believing in God, or even making fun of him. What I do hate is people forcing a view or a belief on someone, be it a religious or non-religious person. I also hate many of the evils being committed in the world today, and the fact that no one is trying to fix these things. It's easy to blame the worlds problems on someone who won't defend themself (God), but it's insulting that people will blame him or use that as an argument to "prove" he doesn't exist, rather than trying to fix the problem themselves. I'm not coming down on you just so you know, just the things that many people (Christian, Atheist, or otherwise) do.
Why don't Atheists believe in god? Same reason why you don't believe in Zeus, Rah and the millions of other gods of different faiths. We just go one step further.
another person that that never studied the Bible and doesn't know why they need Jesus ,,ignorance at its best ,,,and watching atheist speakers,,so ridiculous ,,,.you probably think we never landed on the Moon either ,that's Hoax too right???and just so you know he was not totally white
Just because I don't believe in God does not mean I don't trust anything . That's a very ignorant thing to say , you can't judge all of a person's believes just by a comment on RUclips
0:18 he tries to obfuscate the usage of "faith" in the context of religious foolery by conflating it with "confidence"... a very dishonest tactic there.
Logic demonstrates its reliability and efficacy all the time. Hitchens' opponent is trying to equivocate faith meaning "confidence or trust" and "The excuse people give for believing things without good reasons". Transparent AF.
This may just be the best Hitchslap. I have seen most of them, but this one may take the cake. I miss seeing this beauty go on Fox, MSNBC, CNN and all other "News" networks and absolutely tare the shit out of the Right, the Left, and best of all The Religious!!
I wish I could be as smart as CH. He put in a LOT of time reading, studying, etc but there still seems to be a level of intelligence that I do it possess
Obviously the title is misleading but it's still a pretty good "Hitchslap" as its affectionately called. Christopher Hitchens, while in a debate or in his writing, never made a comment or point without carefully choosing his words. He's wasn't brash like Richard Dawkins and wasn't the type to keep his emotions subdued like a Sam Harris. He was passionate about the topics he spoke of and did so in a poetic fashion. I mean look at the guy he's debating with here. This guy had that smirk as though he caught Hitchens in a logical contradiction. Hitchens takes a breath then delivers a rebuttal that only a man who knew exactly what he was talking about could. You will never win a debate against a person who has researched the topic and has seen the facts if all you bring to the table is your own personal beliefs bundled with very little evidence. That's what made Hitchens unbeatable in religious debates. He had passion, evidence, and a charismatic wit that is rarely seen!
CoZm085 Beautifully said. I was invariably amused when his opponents arrived, clothed intellectually in only the undergarments of their ‘faith’ and with the conviction of victory because ‘God’ was presumably on their side, only to be elegantly ravaged by the man, and left looking at best threadbare and worst, mindless.
If that was MMA or boxing, even if I wasnot on his corner, i'd throw in the towel and yell AND STIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLL! THE CHAMPION OF THE WORLD! Christopher ...HITCHENS!!!!
The reason we trust in reason and logic, and science, is because it produces results consistently enough for us to have made predictions that have lead to all of the improvements of life and equality, as well as our technological progression and increase of overall health and survivability for the human species. To say that we have "faith" in this is completely wrong. We KNOW that it works. There's no faith involved.
Good title HitchPaine3! It's got to be one of the most convincing and most crucial in a way arguments won by Hitch, because his opponent wasn't exactly as stupid as most of his opponents, like for eg. turek, or turk, can't remember. The question what we base our knowledge on, in this case reason or some pre-medieval text, is one of the most valid ones one could ask, when attempting to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I had an intense dream about a pink elephant telling me what to do, so my claims are just as valid as scientists who believe in their repeatedly verified beliefs ? Aww .. wtf
people are religous because their ancestors were forced to become religious, doesnt means they actually believed in religion! even today the majority of people who claim to be religious dont know alot about their religion! how can you belive in something if you dont know it 100%...
raveeno2005 Agree with everything apart from that last sentence. There's not a lot of things we know about 100% so by that logic we should believe in barely anything.
raveeno2005 Religion is not divinely inspired, it is environmentally inspired, which is shaped by the geography , resources and ethnicity of what humans have on their disposal. To tell you the truth if Christianity did not come to being we would have been born in the religion of Mithra . I'm not lying , we are bound to the laws of probability and natural selection.
Web -Trawler well said bro, it is fascinating how religion EVOLVES from one form to another. ^_^ From one point they said its bad to eat meat on a friday and then on the following day it was revoked. propably the pope wanted a friday night steak with the bros :) Cant deny Steak on a friday :)
Science is rigor - understanding the world by exacting measurement. Logic is a sub-set if science that describes relationships which always replicate. Literally nothing can be more certain. The problem with holy texts, on the other hand, doesn't lie in how they're interpreted, but in that they must be. And they flatly contradict that of which we can be most certain.
Ravi Chaudhary Study the rules of logic and you will be well on your way. It is actually an area of study. Also study ethics and philosophy! I'd recommend looking for an "Intro to Logic" book, I bet you could find one on Amazon for decently cheap :)
The Hitch Strategy:
Remain calm and destroy your opponent with ungodly precision.
daammn thats perfect
yeah ... wiped the floor with him
ungodly to be taken literally, of course
It’s his calmness that destroyed his opponents, that’s for sure. Most would get riled, Hitch just got more focused.
"Does that mean logic is man made?"
"Logic is man made"
*silence*
Lol
Pown
His own seems to have failed him at that moment of silence...
Everything is God made. Even the plague.
@@Kitiwake uh yeah. Prove it.
If logic came from God, we'd all have it.
The thing I always loved about Hitch was that he was never there for the person he was debating; he was there to talk to the audience. That's why he always looked at THEM when he talked. Wonderful stuff.
I never noticed that so true man !!!
That's because he knows he can't convince the irrational delusional guy he is debating with rational reasoning, but he can convince people in the audience.
“Faith is the excuse for not having evidence”
Yes, and I'm a bit surprised that Hitch went to rhetoric instead of calling out the obvious equivocation fallacy put to him.
No, "faith" used to denote a sufficient level of confidence based in weighing of evidence under rationally consistent inference is very different than "faith" meaning a celebrated adherence to beliefs even when confronted by contrary evidence. Both are beliefs, sure, meaning states of mind regarding some proposition. But they are hardly equal. The difference is that one is justified and one is not.
On the other hand, we have the luxury of more than one path to a given truth. Rhetoric it may be to go around the immediate fallacy and choose another - in this case appeal to authority or special pleading - but these serve just as well in the end.
That's bullshit. You have faith your going to live tomorrow. Is there evidence you will? Yes. Is there evidence you might not. Yes. Is it certaim? No. Yet you plan your days with the faith your going to be around to see those plans through. I had faith my parachute would open when I jumped. Is there evidence supporting it would? Yes. Vast majority ty y of the time it opens. Does it mean it will? No. I have to have faith that it will based off of the evidence. You need a better grasp of the english language. Faith is not indicative to religion.
@@davidwillis44 " I had faith my parachute would open when I jumped. Is there evidence supporting it would? Yes. Vast majority ty y of the time it opens. Does it mean it will? No. I have to have faith that it will based off of the evidence. ..... ..... Faith is not indicative to religion."
To compare religious faith with your parachute example of faith is laughable. The key word in your parachute example is the word EVIDENCE.
The religious faithful have presented no evidence at all for the existence of their deity or deities.
If you want your parachute example of faith to be consistent with the religious meaning of faith you will need to correct your example.
Here is the corrected version:
"I have faith that a parachute I have never seen, never touched, do not have with me to show you and for which I have no evidence exists will open and prevent my death when I jump."
@@cnault3244 another dumbad
Ss. Faith is faith. You wrote a paragraph proving you dont understand English. Faith is faith dumbass
@@cnault3244 there are a lot of things science cant explain. People being miraculously healed through faith is a scientific mystery. From faith in god to faith in a medicine they thought was real but wasnt. I chose what I said correctly. Faith is faith dumbass. Just because your faith is limited doesmt change the fucking definition.
The world needs this man now more than ever. Truly missed.
Don't miss Hitchens. Become a Hitchens. Become an advocate of reason.
Christopher Hitchens had a clear and clever mind. His oratory gifts were amazing. I miss him and his gift terribly.
Hitch, you were taken from us WAY too soon! We need your wisdom more than ever before!
...Baar prays to his god. At least he is an honest atheist. The rest of you are self-deluded. LOL
@@Trifecta3x3 self deluded? Please, continue
“I wrote a book on logic, does it mean logic is man made!” Goes to show how good that book must be.
@M PW what?
@M PW Where did you train in logic?
I've been keeping an eye out for a course near me but the socket started to itch so I put it back in.
1:12 my favourite moment. That smile, like "oh, i've broken Hitchens" man clearly didn't suspect what was coming next
That was more of a "Oh shit, time for damage control!" smile.
Dude Hitchslapped himself by tripping on his own question. LOL
Love how Hitchens just lays back in his chair all chilled out. True confidence in his words. Can't say the same for other side.
Hitch is brilliant.. the end ! 😸
Every one looks brilliant contrasted against the stupidity of fairy tales.
Someone is on ice........
he talked against God all his life,,,,,he will burn in Hell,,right now he is in the torment of the lower half of the Hadean Realm awaiting Judgement ,,then he will go to Hell
@@plasticmoon222 doubt that very much , God would not do that
@@plasticmoon222 This folks is the reason people laugh at the crazies .. comments from @plasticmoon
Hitchens set the bar for demolishing silly superstitions that have kept us in the dark ages. Religion deserves every form of mockery imaginable.
Including Socialism.
@@sheogorath1842 nobody has that's why there is no reason to belive in him
Sheo Gorath and you know because...oh wait......you dont!
Sheo Gorath science has just aboit proven most things in religion to be false...soooo good luck with that
Sheo Gorath it is also the thing that answers questions, makes things like flight and medical care possible...If you want to dismiss science so easily, I suggest when you or someone you know is seriously ill...don't go to the hospital...just ask God to sort it out and see where that gets you.
1:05 Says, "I wrote a logic textbook", then follows up by constructing a completely illogical argument.
which was what?
shilohwillcome You've gone around commenting "what?" on all comments dude. How fucking lost are you?
Saksham Srivastava Sorry, what else can I say to someone who says something incomprehensible?
I think we can downgrade his book to, "textbook" or "The book of text".
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Wow. You are seriously thick.
Damn he was awesome. We could really use him fighting for us right now. All of humanity lost something when he died.
He was a hero of our times. And we are stuck with Kissinger at 100 years old now
Fast becoming my favorite person. RIP, sir.
Never realised how Similar Hitch's voice and the one Peter Dinklage uses when playing Tyrion Lanister are until now.
James Riley Hahaha yes the vowel stress is the same.... interesting considering that Dinklage is American and doesn't naturally speak like that. I always thought Tyrion sounded like a bastard child of Alan Rickman but perhaps he did steal some affect from Hitch. :)
ellystripes Oh wow, he pulls of a convincing English accent, I had no idea :o
+Sammy Unwin off*
+James F Wow.. Mind. Blown.
Sammy Unwin Hitchens WAS English by birth - born in Portsmouth, Hampshire - but a long term US resident and he became a US citizen in 2007. His accent wasn't faked although probably refined by his Public School and university education. (Public School in the U.K. means something very different to the US - i.e. private & privileged!)
I love this man. Mr. Hitchens was one of the great hero's and educators of my life and was one of the few people who I genuinely wept for when he past. I miss you Chris, you are a true profit.
He did hate being called Chris though
Thank you Christopher Hitchens - intellectual and moral superiority!
I don't think he's a moralist...but I agree with you. He get to the point, the autority of religious people arguments is something that has no value except if you ASSUME that God exist...then it is logic (but you ASSUME first the existence of something that no clue tends to it at first)
Laurent Robichaud You don't have to be a moralist to have moral superiority over the claims of many religious think morality is. In fact a moralist (especially in relation to religion), I find, is usually a code word for a puritan who thinks threatening someone with eternal damnation for minor things or reward is a great way to make people moral. If you look up things statistically in relation to crimes committed in countries etc the more secular atheistic countries have lower rape and murder rates and more support for women's and gay rights. Whereas the more religious third world countries and the U.S etc have higher crime rates (for example you can trace the murder rate of certain states will be higher by how religious they are). For example Alabama is the most religious state and has the highest murder rate.
Exactly
***** You commentary is bloody well right, and your way to connect those fact is, from my point of view, exact. Religion, or how to constrain yourself against yourself with others. I like to think that someone balanced in life without a god will never ever EVAR need to believe in those historical crap and tradition. Even if it was needed in a certain period of time, there is now a way to live without that, and I like the existence for that
Laurent Robichaud
Your words and comment: excellent!
I wish Hitch had told him that you don't need faith to accept the usefulness of Reason. With regards to 'reason', we have a reasonable expectation based on past experience and evidence that 'reason' works and it is useful in predicting future events. 'Faith' on the other hand asks that you accept claims that make NO sense and are based on NO credible evidence and offer NO chance of predicting any future events. Faith is shit. Reason is king.
R Stone
You do not have a clear understanding of the definition of 'faith'. You also do not understand the scientific method or the definition of scientific theories or have an understanding that we talk about the reality in which we live and use science to help describe it. My prescription for you is to enroll in a couple basic science classes, a world religion class, and a basic class in formal and informal logic. This will help you start to have a logical internal dialogue based in reality that will keep you from wasting your time and ours with superstitious religious nonsense.
R Stone "Whether or not you choose to recognize it, science nd theology really aren't all that different. One just attempts to reveal truth in the physical, the other the metaphysical." Apologies, are you trying to demonstrate they are not different with an example clearly demonstrating a difference?
"But neither has all the answers by itself." This is true. However Science makes progress, continuously, where Religion, and as a direct result, becomes more and more obsolete. The result is inevitable, the only question is time.
***** "I hope to incur a discussion rather than a feeding frenzy". "You’re afraid" Accusing me of being afraid is, as we both know, baseless and antagonistic. Exactly the kind of behaviour/language that starts the "frenzy" you are so desperate to avoid.
"you’re just picking at a superficial argument," Whether you can reasonably compare Scientific methods and practices with the methods and practices of faith as R Stone attempted is quite clearly not superficial.
"You’re afraid to go for the meat of the argument… which is… 'you don’t know anything with absolute certainty.'". Again you are mistaken. I could not be more aware that we can not know anything with absolute certainty. Any person who understands and adopts a scientific approach to the unknown will tell you the same. We are left with probability and given that there hasn't been any major development that supports the notion "Is there a God?" the probability of it holding true is ever dwindling. This is a big problem for the religious camp. Does that clarify my position on the apparent "meat of the argument"?
"Jokul’s rebuttal has by far the most substance. I think further discussion on his points would prove the most beneficial." Agreed, I also put forward the motion that you should leave as you haven't added anything meaningful, rather attack two people whilst proclaiming your moral high ground, not to mention rather bizarrely electing yourself as adjudicator of this comments section. Yes, you should be apprehensive as I will continue to dismiss comments that don't adopt reason. That's reasonable is it not?
*****
I love the comments from you and Dreadwyn.. and I understand like you that ad hominem attacks are literally the lowest form of argument. I would say they're not actually even an argument. I simply don't have the patients to deal with dipshits like RStone and 3t3rnal who are clearly a couple of the most poorly equipped apologist I have ever come across. I cant stand when these guys try to redefine basic words in the English vocabulary. Like there are more alternative definitions of "Faith" that every lexicographer out there has missed. When I hear that my "narrow definition of faith" doesn't include his made up made up definitions I have to shut down and bail because I can see that this is going no where quick. I understand that the ad hominem attacks don't help our cause of trying to spark a desire for truth in the minds of these guys but I just don't think that their sopping wet minds, flooded with delusion, are capable of catching the spark.
Jung Contrarian Whilst I feel your pain brother, capability is not the question. If they are able to adopt a reality based on no evidence, I believe they are capable of understanding and adopting a reality based on reason and evidence.
That said, for those that have already been infected with Religion it's a tough nut to crack much like a heroin addict, they become dependant on it and will do anything to defend it moral or otherwise and without question. All the more reason for us to demonstrate our morality outside of Religion, easier said than done at times.
Remember, in their minds, the possibility of the worst punishment imaginable, for eternity, would await them if they were wrong perhaps even 'seen' to question - I personally would need extraordinary clarity and evidence to overcome that 'reality' if I were infected such and at this moment in time, we can't offer them that clarity, according, at least, to them.
Still, Scientific understanding can only improve where as Religious 'understanding' has not developed at all since it's creation. in fact, and as the various different camps of the same Religion demonstrate, if anything it has become more nebulous in nature over time. The outcome is inevitable. The only question is time.
x
He's so pissed in this video. And yet he still wipes the floor with this guy....
dude... this comment is so underrated
You may be better off using 'drunk' instead. Otherwise our American friends may think that you meant he was angry. :)
@@Codex7777 Exactly!
@@Codex7777 if they don’t get it, fuck em
@@Codex7777 Thanks!
The whole world misses Christopher. A few more brave, educated and smart people like him and the religion would vanish for ever.
It would take billions of people like him
Earth's loss is Hell's gain.
That theist made an argument so bad that a reasonably inquisitive child could poke holes in it. That makes this Hitchslap considerably less impressive.
I miss this man. His was a singular intellect and wit. The rapidity at which he would see through his opponents arguments and expose their flaws was truly inspiring. RIP, Mr. Hitchens
The man could talk his way out of anything and make it sound so convincing.
Dont you just miss Hitches wit, his speed,his eloquence and his sense in this morass of fairy tales. He was great. He really was!
A fool would put "faith" into science. Science is skepticism, otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere with it. Science progresses with skepticism and learning.
Yes! Well-said! Science could take an approach to understand a given data point, from across the globe, and if undertaken with the same measures and controls, arrives at the same resolution and result no matter where it was done. I don't however know one damned religion that agrees on ANYTHING with any other religion, despite how they all proclaim to have originated from god.
As an atheist I don't put my faith in science or anything.
I just find ridiclous the idea of Gods existence.
@@albinajeta8882 You can't put faith in science, Faith is not evidence based.
Science has proved throughout centuries (and ever so increasing) it is the single best method we have developed to determine what's true. The method of science itself has provided innumerable examples that it works. We have evidence that science works. It can't be a faith position per definition.
@@Dennis19901 I wouldn’t invoke “definition” since your definition of faith is a vary narrow one. Faith is a strong belief, or trust. Some faith is derived from past experience, which includes the scientific method: we’ve tested it repeatedly and understand that this is how it behaves. There are ‘good faith’ agreements in which each party strongly believes in the integrity of the word of the other, though these are rare in these days as there are large subsets of humanity that have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, trust being a synonym for faith. Your objection isn’t really with faith so much as it is the object of that faith.
@@CarlosBenjamin Go talk to people who make dictionaries and who work on epistemology.
Your religious apologetics are useless here.
Every video I see of hitch just keeps getting better n better.. ! My life had no meaning I felt but through Christopher hitchens logic and his look on life and understanding has helped change my life I never got to meet him but feel I was related to him
At 1:30 Hitch nails it, the opponent it fucked and he knows it !
I love how these 2 were friends. It's inspiring to know you can argue and oppose each other yet still respect each other outside of the argument.
Christopher Hitchens. Legend.
trying to debate with a brick. hats off to you again Christopher, I wouldn't have the patience you never cease with.
He had a way with words that really made you smile. Thanks Christopher
Christopher Hitchens, you legend. You will live on. Your legacy... not your soul, of course.
"If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" -Sam Harris (Neuroscientist, Philosopher, Author)
If someone doesnt value logic, they do not think logically. It is useless to attempt teaching such people.
Hitch had an amazingly agile mind. In the heat of debate he comes up with perfect slamdunk responses that most of us would only (maybe) arrive at after several days of "What I should've said was..."
How can he be so patient with a morron who believes in a supreme being. Respect !
there is no position that cannot be taken on "faith".
"faith" is self proclaimed gullibility.
Arguing against reason is like cutting off the branch you're sitting on.
I believe that all Hitchens wanted was for people to treat each other with kindness. When people shove their opinion down your throat and then top it off by saying ‘you’ll go to hell if you don’t think this way, that’s unkind. And it’s extortion. Whether it comes from a holy book or from one person on a street corner: it’s simply unkind. I think that’s what Hitchins was standing up for.
Brilliantly walking the walk and talking the talk, making total sense.
Christopher Hitchen's words we live longer than all Abrahamic texts together.
OMG!! "Logic is man made. Yes." LMMFAO 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Of course it is!!! Logic wins!!!!!!! Yay!!!! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
i love Hitchens.. he was such a clever and witty person.. i really admire the way he thinks
Thanks. That really clarified it. We know reason and logic are a good way to find the truth because in the past it has. Thanks for that. I had been questioning the validity of reason and logic for a few hours after watching this video. Thanks for reassuring me.
Religious people claim it is all based on "faith" and then defend it as if it were "fact". If you hide behind an imagined god and dreams of eternal life, you are lying to yourself and to everyone else, which, morally speaking, is reprehensible. If there were a supreme being who was all-powerful, it would not need or want puny humans to defend it, and it would most likely be insulted by those who attempted to do so.
firstly, who says God is imagined? secondly, if there is no God, what's this "morally" that you speak of?
thirdly, would it be morally wrong if it made people happy. Fourthly, how do you know what would offend a supreme being that you don't even believe exists?
mmmail1969 1. Who doesn't? . . . . how can you worship something you have never imagined? 2. A mutually inclusive idea that if no god existed, no morals could exist? I would love to see proof of such a claim. That you cannot provide.
@Simon Reye 1. Based on that line of thought, if I lie to you and tell you that you have won a million dollars, and it makes you happy, it is therefore right? 2. Common sense. Of course that has no weight to those who do not exercise it, and, contrary to your implication, whether I believe or not has no bearing on whether I am a good judge of what a supreme being might be like. You would be no better at that than I would be.
Shawn Irwin Firstly, that wouldn't make me happy because my follow up question would be where is it and no answer other than in my bank account would suffice to continue my happiness. Secondly, I asked you if it were right or wrong, why turn it back to me?
So if we are equally as good as each other (as you claim) at imagining a supreme being and how it would act and react and yet our imaginations contradict each others how is it that you appeal to COMMON sense?
This is such a beautiful argument.
2019 Christopher you are missed, but grateful for your presence in the form of RUclips videos.
love Christopher's thought process!!
Will somebody PLEASE stop fucking up this argument. It's much simpler than that. The simple retort to the Faith in Reason argument is this:
Reason is a collection of methods surrounding that which has been DEMONSTRATED reliably (Also works for science [consult scientific method]). Faith is accepting as true BY VIRTUE of having no demonstration. As a matter of fact, if your faith was demonstrated, it would no longer be faith. It would be reasonable.
TAKE NOTES!!! It's not a hard argument to conquer!!!!
No offence, but why does anyone need to "conquer" an argument? This isn't about truth, or science, or anything with a purpose is it? This is about people with differing beliefs trying to justify them to themselves, or worse yet, trying to prove they are "right" about their argument. It's a silly argument and is a waste of time. So here's my argument about debating a topic that doesn't need a debate on a website that is well known for pointless debates.
You get all your information from google, you are neither a scientist nor a theologist, nor a historian, nor a person who was alive to experience any of the events (Biblical or scientific) that were talked about, and a lot of your arguments will devolve from science into semantics. This is true for both sides of this argument keeping in mind. People in this debate are no more than junior detectives and philosophers trying to defend their beliefs because they are either afraid of being wrong, or they just can't keep themselves from arguing over something.
To summarize, if you're an atheist, use your "logic and reason" that you learned in the youtube comments section and stop debating this. If you're a Christian, then you should be spending your time doing good deeds for others, not trying to convert people over the internet.
As for myself, yes some of this stuff did and does apply to me too. But you know what? At least I took the time to realize how perfectly stupid I am for this and how glad I am that my main youtube account can't comment any longer. This stuff is a waste of time and life, and I'm sure many of you probably won't even pay attention to this. That said, carry on your great comments war crusade, I'm sure it will bring you much happiness. Or not. Actually, definitely not.
You already fail in the second paragraph. My argument was definitional, not logical nor scientific. Faith is one thing BY DEFINITION. Science, BY DEFINITION is the opposite. One requires demonstration. The other requires that demonstration is absent.
As for the rest... it's a good thing you can't comment anymore then... oh wait... you... are stunningly ridiculous.
bigstudwithaguitar I failed in the second paragraph? How exactly? By definition, you are not a scientist, nor a theologist, nor a philosopher, ergo what I said was completely true! More than that, I'm not arguing faith vs. science, because it's a rediculous argument that, as always, devolves into petty battles of semantics, NOT logic. You may start with logic, but by the end you are debating anti-antis, or anti-anti-antis, etc. But let's talk about science vs. religion quickly. If science is based on something requiring demonstration, then you can't say that God does or does not exist based on science. That said, science is totally irrelevant to the debate to whether God does or does not exist. The only relevance science would have in such a debate is determining whether certain events in the Bible did or did not occur, which still doesn't disprove or prove the existence of a higher power.
But this is quite beside the point, so let's get back on the topic. Give me one good reason, a truthfully justifiable reason, why this debate needs to happen. Not why atheists need to debate it, but why does this debate need to exist? What benefit does it have to mankind to have religious and non-religious people fighting about beliefs they do or don't believe in?
Stunningly ridiculous? The fact that you detracted my comment from being about how stupid and petty this "debate" is to trying to define science and faith is what is stunningly ridiculous. What part of my first comment gave you ANY idea that you needed to define science and faith? More than that, because I can't see where you got the idea from, why does defining either matter? What possible reason could you have had for saying anything about that, because my comment had nothing to do with the sides of the debate, it had to do with how stupid the debate is. I have no idea why someone gave you a thumbs up either, because your comment had nothing to do with anything I said, and neither did this second half of your comment, other than a petty attempt at insult.
Oh, and one last thing, yes, I know that I indulged in replying to the first part of your comment (frankly a stupid and pointless move on my part), but at least I'm still willing to admit it's a senseless and logically baseless move on my part to try and keep this debate moving. I can only hope that one day that reality will finally click in for more people.
Iamnotadolan
Nobody said God doesn't exist. I said that faith is not science, so paragraph 1 is completely pointless and uncontested. Atheist's do NOT claim that God does not exist. Atheist's simply do not believe in god. belief is active. Non-belief is not a claim. It's a rejection of a claim. Why is it that everybody assumes you have to have beliefs about the supernatural. You are allowed to have no opinion politically, artistically, or pretty much anything else, but if you have no religious beliefs, suddenly you have to disprove someone-else's beliefs in order to not accept them? Ridiculous.
As for your second paragraph, it takes two to tango. There is a Christian apologist participating in this debate too. Why don't you ask HIM why this debate is necessary? Could it be because you agree with him. therefore you are okay with him expressing himself?
Paragraph 3: it's called a definitional argument. Look it up. The claim being refuted was that having faith in science is possible. The two are definitively opposed. THAT is why the Definitional argument was appropriate.
Paragraph 4: you indulged me? it's my thread. You are in no way obligated to "indulge" me. Consider this your discharge from duty. I would prefer not to be "indulged" with senseless alogical blather.
bigstudwithaguitar I really don't care what you said, if faith is not science, great! Now let's get on with life!
"Atheist's do NOT claim that God does not exist. Atheist's simply do not believe in god. belief is active. Non-belief is not a claim."
This is in no way a factual claim, this is a claim based on semantics and your interpretation of a belief. Basically, everyone pretty much knows this is a rubbish statment. You believe there is no God, but if you believe that, that means you're on the same level as the believers. Basically, you just "changed" your beliefs to fit with the rhetoric so it would make your arguments seem more realisitic. But at the end of the day, it's just senseless rhetoric with no evidence being used to win a debate that, to be frank, lacks logic and reason.
"It's a rejection of a claim. Why is it that everybody assumes you have to have beliefs about the supernatural."
Better question, why is it people change their beliefs to fit their rhetoric? Face it, if you really had no beliefs in terms of the supernatural or spiritual, you would probably just be an agnostic, but even then, if you truly didn't you still probably wouldn't call yourself an agnostic, you'd probably just not care about the subject altogether, which clearly you do since you're trying to create argumental points for this "debate".
"You are allowed to have no opinion politically, artistically, or pretty much anything else, but if you have no religious beliefs, suddenly you have to disprove someone-else's beliefs in order to not accept them? Ridiculous."
Oh no, you're more than welcome to have no spiritual beliefs, but what is ridiculous is saying you have none and then doing things (like debating, commenting, etc) that are totally opposite to the state of having no beliefs.
"As for your second paragraph, it takes two to tango. There is a Christian apologist participating in this debate too. Why don't you ask HIM why this debate is necessary?"
I only made my reply to your comment, that doesn't mean it was only directed at you or your beliefs. As I stated in my comment, this is how I feel about BOTH sides of the debate, I just frankly didn't feel like replying to him (partly because some "Christians" (I have my own thoughts on how real their claim to be Christian is) take criticism of their actions a little too far, some of them at least). Sorry for the double ( )'s in that.
"Could it be because you agree with him. therefore you are okay with him expressing himself?"
Nope. Firstly, I don't think there is a need for Christians to debate God on the internet. Secondly (and I haven't read much of his comments, but others have commented like this), many "Christians" that comment on these videos make claims that I frankly don't agree with, mainly because the claims feel too presumptuous. So no, I don't agree with him. He has no reason to be commenting here and continuing a senseless debate.
"Paragraph 3: it's called a definitional argument. Look it up. The claim being refuted was that having faith in science is possible."
The issue here is that there are two definitions to faith; one being the religious definition, the other being strong trust in something or someone. Having faith in science is totally possible. Like we have faith in the scientists that are looking for a cure for AIDS, we trust that they are doing their best to find it. The claim that faith in science is impossible (or vice versa) is silly because it is nothing more than a debate over semantics, and semantics is not a logical debate point. Some people have "faith" in science, some people don't. Making an overly generalized statement on something that is (like I said) nothing more than semantics, and then saying it is a factually based statement, is not only silly, it's impossible to be perfectly honest. Semantics is outside the realm of science, logic, and evidence, and is in the realm of opinions.
"Paragraph 4: you indulged me? it's my thread. You are in no way obligated to "indulge" me. Consider this your discharge from duty. I would prefer not to be "indulged" with senseless alogical blather."
Sorry, I was trying to say that I indulged myself, not you. I apologize for the misunderstanding. As for "alogical blather", sorry, but that too is nothing more than a semantics based statement, or in other words your opinion. Facts and evidence not included. But let's not get into a debate on whether it was factual or not, that will just turn into a very messy discussion that I don't want to get into, and I hope you also don't want to get into. XD
Reason works. The bible doesn't. No faith needed. Hitch-Slap!
But circular reasoning is about as bad as it gets. Hitchens unfortunately fails here.
And how is that?
@111781530448043784335 He says reason is man made, That means reason is as malleable as the individual's brain or mind, which breaks down to relativism, which means all beliefs are justified, which means the thing Hitchens is arguing against is justified. He dug his own hole.
Reason works... The bible doesn't ... It's not subjective. It's objective.
Iwould bekeen You're a master at not addressing my point.
What an amazing human being . So eloquent
Hitch is an amazing orator. one-up to you!
Perfectly said Hitch!!!
yeah guys i get it this isn't the coolest or best hitchslap out there i just made that the title for shock value... chill the hell out.
i liked it
Lee Urquhart According to your belief, he isn't resting in anything, he no longer exists.
When I'm dead, I'll be resting peacefully, can you think of anything more peaceful, than the absence of everything?
You used one of those commas correctly.
wanquan6549 Thank you for your extreme generosity.
Legendary Hitchens's confidence in his firm belief about atheism and the certainity that those arguing against him will inevitably make some baseless statement, gives him his dignified persona!
This reminds me so much of Tim Minchin's song "The Good Book"
"I know the Good Book's good because... the Good Book says it's good, and the Good Book knows it's good because a really good book would..."
Shows the circularity of the appeal to the "authority" of the Bible really spot on. I love Tim Minchin.
I love this guy.
Hitch dies, and to his eternal surprise ends up at the pearly gates. St Peter is kinda pissed that this non believer is here, but the guy's done nothing much wrong, so he gets a pass. Now the fun begins, because now Hitch gets his 15 minutes with the great bearded one. Hitch uses his superior logic, reason, and sense, and talks God out of existence. Atheism, not just a concept.
Oh i get it... Atheism trumps God.
flopperdilly9 Except atheism is also just a belief, based on the thought that there is no God or other higher being. Atheism does not trump religion anymore than religion trumps atheism, neither side can prove it's point with physical science. And evolution and carbon dating are very much beside the point I think. The Bible, as well as many other religious texts, are written in a very open and almost debatable way, many things are not written as certainties. We can't say evolution proves the Bible is wrong because the Bible said nothing against evolution. We also can't say the same for carbon dating because the Bible says nothing concrete enough about the age of the Earth (yes, I know about the "begets", and one could also say that that still doesn't tell us anything truly concrete about the age of the Earth, it's really kinda open to interpretation, which is probably where Young Earth Creationism comes from, an interpretation). That said, nothing trumps anything, and I find it insulting that people keep this debate going rather than using science and reason, or faith on the other hand, to do something more useful for this world.
I like the way you think. I'm curious on what you think about the Bible being used as a way of teaching "truth" to the youth? Is it intellectually repugnant for people to hate others who have chosen to question or doubt their respective God?
Iamnotadolan
But the Bible does say many things which science and common sense CAN prove wrong, like the biblical flood, resurrection from the dead, influencing goat appearance by mating their parents in front of STICKS, people walking on water, and so on.
If your only reason for believing in something when what tells you this something is a book that also tells you all these utterly ridiculous things, is that those ridiculous things are actually not meant to be taken literally but are open to interpretation, then you may as well not have a religion, because your cause for believing in it is so weak. You may just as well follow a different religion, arguing its holy scripture is also open to interpretation. You may just as well start a religion based on the Harry Potter books and argue they are also open to interpretation. Or you may decide to take the stance that there is no reason to interpret silly stories as if some aspect of them might be true, when we have science and logic to use to make sense of the world based on evidence and observation.
Atheism does trump religion because what it rejects is far more reasonable based on current scientific knowledge than what religion accepts based on faith and scripture, moreover, a certain interpretation of scripture. The idea that atheism and religion are equally plausible because neither can scientifically prove the other wrong, I find frankly nonsensical.
flopperdilly9 Well here's the thing with Christianity (from my experience) that many people (Christian or atheist) end up missing. Christianity is not just about the "truth" of it, it's about your personal relationship with God, or more generally your experience with your faith and beliefs. You can't (or shouldn't) just teach people these "truths" because that's not how Christianity is supposed to work, in my eyes. You are supposed to choose to believe in God based on your experience, not based on what people have taught you. I think that there is no issue with teaching youth (within your family let's say) that you believe what is written in the Bible is true, but ultimately the choice of whether to believe or not lies solely on the youth's shoulders. As for hating people, I myself do not hate any person for not believing in God, or even making fun of him. What I do hate is people forcing a view or a belief on someone, be it a religious or non-religious person. I also hate many of the evils being committed in the world today, and the fact that no one is trying to fix these things. It's easy to blame the worlds problems on someone who won't defend themself (God), but it's insulting that people will blame him or use that as an argument to "prove" he doesn't exist, rather than trying to fix the problem themselves. I'm not coming down on you just so you know, just the things that many people (Christian, Atheist, or otherwise) do.
hitchens was the defender of reason and clear thought in the face of assertions of 'belief'. a great man.
Reason is not a form of faith, it is a tested and proved method which filters any statements that raise suspicion.
Why don't Atheists believe in god? Same reason why you don't believe in Zeus, Rah and the millions of other gods of different faiths. We just go one step further.
your an idiot
@@plasticmoon222 and you are very smart for believing in and invisible white man sitting in the clouds
another person that that never studied the Bible and doesn't know why they need Jesus ,,ignorance at its best ,,,and watching atheist speakers,,so ridiculous ,,,.you probably think we never landed on the Moon either ,that's Hoax too right???and just so you know he was not totally white
I totally trust that we landed on the moon ,
Just because I don't believe in God does not mean I don't trust anything . That's a very ignorant thing to say , you can't judge all of a person's believes just by a comment on RUclips
0:18 he tries to obfuscate the usage of "faith" in the context of religious foolery by conflating it with "confidence"... a very dishonest tactic there.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
I miss you terribly Mr Hitchens.
I wish he would stay longer to open more eyes!! Sob....Sob...., ;'{
1:12 Stupidest. Laugh. Ever.
As usual, the Jesus man confuses himself with his own arguments.
James C. Letts that is a classic hillbilly laugh.
Huh huh huh heh
@@christylinck4493 😆
Religious man used confuse. It hurt itself in its confusion
That was seriously a Patrick Star type laugh
Miss you a lot Christopher-you were a wonderful and witty voice against the hatred and stupidity of religion.
He generated a lot of stupidity and hate himself.
@@Kitiwake yes, religious people obviously hated him, he called religion for what it is. Man made.
@@Kitiwake Please provide even one example -- with link -- for your assertion that Hitch "... generated a lot of stupidity and hate himself."
Christopher Hitchens ....we miss you Buddy.
"I wrote a book on logic, does that mean logic is man-made?"
"Yes"
"Aha, I've got you!"
r/whooosh has entered the chat
He fix his hair like a champion.
Logic demonstrates its reliability and efficacy all the time.
Hitchens' opponent is trying to equivocate faith meaning "confidence or trust" and "The excuse people give for believing things without good reasons". Transparent AF.
This may just be the best Hitchslap. I have seen most of them, but this one may take the cake. I miss seeing this beauty go on Fox, MSNBC, CNN and all other "News" networks and absolutely tare the shit out of the Right, the Left, and best of all The Religious!!
Where's the rest of the video???? I'm tired of seeing mere fragments of the brilliance that is Christopher Hitchens!!
Hitch was the man!
The little hair flip at the end is just perfect :)
I wish I could be as smart as CH. He put in a LOT of time reading, studying, etc but there still seems to be a level of intelligence that I do it possess
It *was* a smackdown though. He didn't hit very hard but, still, the other guy didn't get back up.
You did not see the rest of this.
Obviously the title is misleading but it's still a pretty good "Hitchslap" as its affectionately called.
Christopher Hitchens, while in a debate or in his writing, never made a comment or point without carefully choosing his words. He's wasn't brash like Richard Dawkins and wasn't the type to keep his emotions subdued like a Sam Harris. He was passionate about the topics he spoke of and did so in a poetic fashion.
I mean look at the guy he's debating with here. This guy had that smirk as though he caught Hitchens in a logical contradiction. Hitchens takes a breath then delivers a rebuttal that only a man who knew exactly what he was talking about could.
You will never win a debate against a person who has researched the topic and has seen the facts if all you bring to the table is your own personal beliefs bundled with very little evidence. That's what made Hitchens unbeatable in religious debates. He had passion, evidence, and a charismatic wit that is rarely seen!
CoZm085 Beautifully said. I was invariably amused when his opponents arrived, clothed intellectually in only the undergarments of their ‘faith’ and with the conviction of victory because ‘God’ was presumably on their side, only to be elegantly ravaged by the man, and left looking at best threadbare and worst, mindless.
@@atticusfinch8652 Beautifully said as well!
Patsy Bailey You’re very kind :)
If that was MMA or boxing, even if I wasnot on his corner, i'd throw in the towel and yell
AND STIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLL! THE CHAMPION OF THE WORLD! Christopher ...HITCHENS!!!!
A truly great man
The reason we trust in reason and logic, and science, is because it produces results consistently enough for us to have made predictions that have lead to all of the improvements of life and equality, as well as our technological progression and increase of overall health and survivability for the human species. To say that we have "faith" in this is completely wrong. We KNOW that it works. There's no faith involved.
My point is that the man who is NOT Hitchens bases his argument on a fundamentally incorrect "comparison" of reason and the bible.
Why did everyone laugh when he said logic is man made
He was trying to undermine the "religion is man-made" angle. I think.
@Greg Brown 😂😂😂
Those are the numpties who believe
Good title HitchPaine3! It's got to be one of the most convincing and most crucial in a way arguments won by Hitch, because his opponent wasn't exactly as stupid as most of his opponents, like for eg. turek, or turk, can't remember. The question what we base our knowledge on, in this case reason or some pre-medieval text, is one of the most valid ones one could ask, when attempting to separate the wheat from the chaff.
A genuine pearl !!!
With reason and respect for evidence you can fly to the moon and beyond.
With religion, you can fly people into buildings.
1:41 Funny how he referenced a piece of Logic from Socrates just after he told him he wrote a Logic book
...it's my username btw
The Socratic Paradox and the theist probably missed it
hahaha ... I didn't know this one! how delightful.
He was extraordinary.
I miss Christopher Hitchens so much....
I had an intense dream about a pink elephant telling me what to do, so my claims are just as valid as scientists who believe in their repeatedly verified beliefs ?
Aww .. wtf
Love hitch,always have done.
I waited far too long to read Paine and Hitchens, but it's never too late !
people are religous because their ancestors were forced to become religious, doesnt means they actually believed in religion! even today the majority of people who claim to be religious dont know alot about their religion! how can you belive in something if you dont know it 100%...
raveeno2005 Agree with everything apart from that last sentence. There's not a lot of things we know about 100% so by that logic we should believe in barely anything.
raveeno2005 Religion is not divinely inspired, it is environmentally inspired,
which is shaped by the geography , resources and ethnicity of what humans have on their disposal.
To tell you the truth if Christianity did not come to being we would have been born in the religion of Mithra .
I'm not lying , we are bound to the laws of probability and natural selection.
Web -Trawler well said bro, it is fascinating how religion EVOLVES from one form to another. ^_^
From one point they said its bad to eat meat on a friday and then on the following day it was revoked.
propably the pope wanted a friday night steak with the bros :)
Cant deny Steak on a friday :)
Web -Trawler
Well they dont want to ruin their favorite toy :)
Web -Trawler
21st century has its own magic, 6 kegs of beer is one of them :)
That's a good hitchslap, nevertheless.
If I was a god ,i would want to heal hitch so I could listen to his higher mind ,it's sad that his illness led to his demise ,a true voice of reason
Science is rigor - understanding the world by exacting measurement. Logic is a sub-set if science that describes relationships which always replicate. Literally nothing can be more certain.
The problem with holy texts, on the other hand, doesn't lie in how they're interpreted, but in that they must be. And they flatly contradict that of which we can be most certain.
I could not agree more.
How do i learn to debate like him, he is amazing
Ravi Chaudhary Study the rules of logic and you will be well on your way. It is actually an area of study. Also study ethics and philosophy! I'd recommend looking for an "Intro to Logic" book, I bet you could find one on Amazon for decently cheap :)
Ravi Chaudhary join a debate club and work hard.
matt dillahunty has some good videos on tactics and strategies for debating theist - you tube has them
@@jonfromtheuk467 Matt's stategy is cussin' 'em out and hanging up.
So sad that some people give more value to superstition over evidence and logic.
Love that nod at the end lol.
"I wrote a logic textbook, does that make logic man-made?"
" Logic is man made, yes..."
"Uhuhuhuhuh,,,,,"
Case in point.