+TheShells Who new the death of a stranger could feel so much like the loss of a friend. So strange. The fact that so many miss this man is a testament to his mind, his humanity, and his commitment to truth and justice. +Retro Workshop Admirable and insightful approach.
I did not know of Hitchens when he was alive. And I miss him more then everyone I did know and lost. And at times I feel a sense guilt for not getting the opportunity to watch him live...like a tremendous waste of time.
His writings and debates have helped me put words to what I feel to be obviously true about humanity....and what is valuable in our culture. I keep his memory alive through fighting against those that would restrict our very hard won freedom of speech. All fundamentalists will try to tell you what you can and cannot say....using "that's offensive" as a club to beat down those that would challenge their beliefs. We must never allow them to drag us back into the dark ages!
Marguerite Farrell Yes I regret that I never had that opportunity either....it would have been best to have seen him in the bible belt. He seemed to thrive under the most adverse conditions :-)
+seaglider844 One of my favorite Christopher Hitchens debates is the one in which he, alone, defended his position against four Christians, including William Lane Craig. Hitchens prevailed heartily against them, in my opinion, even when outnumbered four to one.
Do you remember the name of that debate? I would watch it again. My favorite is when he debates one of the bishops from the catholic church, and when someone asks what we should do about all the molested kids, a church official says we should give them pastoral care. Hitch says, "No, they have already had that!!
What an amazing and incredible mind this man had. I envy his ability to quote chapter and verse of almost anything without aid of notes or teleprompters. He embodied the highest form of an educated person. Brilliant is the word which comes to mind when I think of Christopher Hitchens.
A true intellectual giant of the 20th/21st centuries and a man who to all aspiring non-idiots, represents courage and reason. I love how utterly burnt he leaves those who are still infantile and delusional enough to be religious, and how utterly pathetic they prove themselves to be in their wounded and reactionary attempts to drag everyone down into the puss-pit of obscenely self-centered stupidity, wherein they wallow.
Wow! Thanks for uploading video in its totality. Had seen many of the segments, so it was great to see uninterrupted. My greatest satisfaction in my twilight years is to hear and read Hitchens, Dawkins, Sagan, Shermer, Barker, Harris, Krause, Russell, etc. etc. Hitchens was an extraordinary intellectual and sad that he left us far to soon.
Among Hitch's great attributes his use of irony and humor at the expense of others keeps me hungry every day know more of him and to hear him speak about any topic, although this topic is my favorite.
I hereby declare Professor Christopher Hitchens my Hero!! Hitch throughout his books, debates, Hitch-Slaps has provided me with more consolation, Wit and knowledge than any Church ever did, I will forever and until the day I die treasure Hitchens teachings, as far as I'm concern his echo and resonant brilliance will never die, he was indeed the ultimate Polymath.
Has anyone else ever noticed that secular/atheist speakers always have a more captive audience in Australia compared to when they speak in America or England?
Hitchens was so famous (or infamous to some) when he was alive. When he died however, the man became legend. I really wish I could of seen him at one of these before his passing.
This man's brilliance is astounding. Mr. Hitchens' propensity for goodwill towards Earth and all of the creatures which co inhabit it with us is truly admirable, what a loss to have him gone. Thank you for preserving and posting these videos.
Hitchens smacks the issue dead centre in this very well hosted presentation of his notorious arguements on the toxic effects of religion. If you like Hitch, you'll love him here.
1:26:28 Hitchens was so close to explaining quantum theory! E=MC (squared) describes a particle instantly converting to energy then instantly converting back to matter. On a quantum or molecular level, equivalent energy and equivalent matter are the same thing. So they can instantly convert to one state and instantly revert back. There are 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in an adult human body. All would have to switch to the same state at the exact same time, to see yourself phase into energy and back again.
@@woodytheduke Kind of. The transporter would need to record the state and configuration of every molecule, atom and subatomic particle. It would then atomize you. Send your matter to a location. Then reconstruct you using your saved data. Hitchens was more or less describing a simultaneous quantum leap. While orbiting a nucleus, Electrons simply disappear, and instantly reappear at higher or lower orbits relative to the nucleus (known as a 'quantum leap'). He was saying, if every subatomic particle in your body were in sync, when a quantum leap occurs, you would phase through an object or teleport from one location to the next. Even though it is theoretically possible, the odds the Sextillions of particles within your body would all naturally synchronize together to make it happen, is simply numerically impossible.
Martin Ellacott Hitchens would probably argue that your sentiment is EXACTLY what gives our lives meaning. i.e. the transient nature of our existence and the unique relationships fostered therein, is what makes it all so fascinating!
CH was a man with true understanding. Before I ever heard of Hitch I spent time with similar thoughts. If these are true we'll never know. The realization that the world is a speck in the visible universe that is continually changing will have to suffice.
For all those religious people that want us atheists to explain: "What created matter-energy?" - We do not know (yet). However, not knowing, does not mean we need a "spoonfed answer" - God made it. We just don't know. When you dont know something there is no reason to create your own answer which has no logical explanation (that's exactly what every religion does). Try to prove a theory or just avoid giving an answer, but don't give me some bullshit story some guy invented a very long time ago to which naive people just stuck to and used it as fact ... There is as much reason to believe in fairy tales as to believe in God and untill you find at least one reason to doubt that, God should not be considered real. So do not try to enforce your belief onto others, ever!
David N as far as i've read, we've traced it back to a very small point and assume the rest. if we assume this point did pop into existence it still may not have "had a beginning", it may have been squeezed through a very small aperture (i'm making this up now, just like the people who posit a god do) and still not "had a beginning" etc
great statement, but theres a lot of brainwashed sheep that will not actually let there brain let go of there fairytales. it's not easy .theres new science in neuroplasticity that helps explain what repetition thinking does to the neural circuitry. and it takes time to fix but can be done. repairing the lies gives the brain a chance to become free thinking. which is the true enlightenment. push for truth,challange beliefs
It seemed to me that CH was appreciated the most in both Australia and Canada by audience reactions. This video plus Ch Vs Tony Blair in Toronto shows the crowd really engaged with his thoughts
Goodness, Hitchens punctures the inflated self-importance of religious belief quite mercilessly here. What I love most about what Hitchens is offering, and I believe I can detect the audience's realization of this, is that it is a free enterprise where anyone can join and be an expert. In the world of reason, science, scepticism, the possibilities are endless!
I really like how Tony Jones grills Hitchens on the issue of Asian Religions and their cultural role, who reveals in his evasive responses that he knows very little about them, and unduly dismisses them in virtually every debate on religion. Hinduism as well as Budhism believe in gods and hells, and believe that these gods, or devas, are to be worshiped and these hells are to be feared. To assert as Hitchens does that these beliefs are not religions reveals that he knows nothing about them.
In fairness he very often clarifies that he's an anti-thiest. As in the monotheisms. So he doesn't really claim to know the other few thousand religions that exist. Though I do agree that when he drifts in to them he often gets lost.
Well, as it turns out, as science advances, quantum mechanics with all it's apparent weirdness is not so inexplicable after all. Imagine you were a 2d person. Your world would be a sheet of paper. Suppose a particle would travel in the 3d world, piercing your paper space. You would see it popping in and out of existence, while it was there all the time. You just don't have the means to measure it's speed, direction and so on. We are essentially blind to the universe hence use logic deduction.
Hitchens clearly and correctly states that there are no repercussions to disobeying the cultural clockwork that Jones describes (however where it is present in it's true form, those religions do impose).As you say,Hinduism and Buddism to a much lesser degree contain significant violent aspects.Jones was not referring to those.Point is: where religion is enforced, it's bad.Where it's a backdrop,it's not religion.In Bali,the example was that of a situation where their religion isn't one.
I found it odd that Jones pressed Hitchens so hard on whether or not the religion of the Balinese can really be called a proper religion. It seemed like Hitchens more than adequately responded to his probing, yet he continued. Strange, when their world views on religion as a whole seem so aligned, at least from where I'm sitting.
CH was seeking the truth, wherever he found it, not constrained by any dogma; feeling manmade religion restrained truth. As John Lennon said. "just give me some truth".
DrChicago People are obviously ignorant about this including myself. Please put forward these "lies" so we can all see what a liar hitchens supposedly was, You have peaked my interest but does this dogs bark have a bite? or is it just frustrated with living behind doors hearing the others have fun? we will see. Please mail me.
ok so the next stage in this conversation would be me asking for your reference...please pm me chicago....i would like to see this through. Also please qualify how this possible "mistake" qualifies as "lies alot"? i keenly await your response
adamspun That's a lot of work! But I'll find some for you. Here's what you can do: check out his videos here. I'm reasonably well informed and I can find at least one glaring error in every talk. But the "Stalin was a Christian" tickled me the most.
You are exactly right; it's all about questioning the cause of matter! God, however, is not really a satisfactory answer to that question. In fact, adding a Creator to the mix seems to make more questions that it actually answers. You need to also be careful you aren't committing a logical fallacy by assuming that because it is technically possible for God to have been somehow involved in the creation of matter, the rest of the beliefs surrounding God are also true by default.
Since it seems that no one has replied to your query I shall. I try my best to seek the truth whatever that may be, even if it undermines my long held beliefs, I don't care to conform to social beliefs or be a sheep just to fit in with the crowd. What is the point in believing something if you know that it is false?
Hitchens argument against secular Christianity is that it is in fact invasive and in your face. That it affects education, politics (boy does it!) and societal practices. He has always stated that as long as it's kept away from him/children, he doesn't care. This is a departure from Dawkins/Harris(and I agree with them here)that "moderate belief is the shade under which (fundamentalism) rests".Moderate Christianity in America is more influential than secular Dharmism in general and in that case.
I guess there's on ongoing need to explain that just because words with "deep" implications can be strung together into question form, does not validate an inquiry as meaningful or, as you offer, at all answerable. The idea that difficulty in coming up with a concise answer to an enigmatic, usually vague, if spiritually evocative question indicates the existence of a god, is proof mainly of a lack of imagination.
It then depends on what you define as a backdrop. Some would say that mainstream Christianity in North America for example has been secularised to the point of being a mere harmless backdrop, and by that logic, most of Hitchens' arguments against Christianity too, would be invalidated.
Yes..."Knowing" is an ironclad position one lays claim to just by saying "I believe". Joining that club entitles the faithful the use of circular logic to rationalize the mysterious ways of God as "moral", while fellow believers cheer, secure in their absolute knowledge. Absolute is the thing, right? I maintain that two members of the same church may be decent humans, yet harbor differences in faith more extreme than a Jew to a Muslim. But they're saved by the same God and they "know" the truth.
@ 32:42--33:31 Professor Hitchens explains he doesn't understand that in the Judeo-Christian tradition we are commanded to love, including to love God. Well, one simplistic egocentric reason could be that there is no more enjoyable feeling. And so to the extent that a person can aspire to and eventually achieve a level of emotional mastery to love on command the love one feels is a gift to the one who loves. And beyond that, isn't being able to love on command a worthy accomplishment indeed, from every point of view?
Atheists, none I know with a minimal understanding of physics, thinks matter is eternal, at least in its beginning state. Nevertheless, this god of the gaps progresses nothing. For instance, Isaac Newton, who created Calculous practically on a bet, found out that the planets move in elliptical orbits. He couldn't understand how so he threw god in as the cause and it ended there. Had he not, being as brilliant as he was, he could've understood why no god was needed.
1:35:10 Much as I dislike "brights" as an alternative name for "atheists", I like where Prof Dawkins was trying to go with that idea. The very term "atheist" frames it as the "lack" of a god, reinforcing the idea that belief in a god is the normal and desirable state, and atheism is somehow aberrant. "Brights" was an attempt to flip it back on them with a name that implies atheists possess some quality that theists lack. But I think "normal" will do :)
Humans have the cognitive and communication capacity to asks questions we often don't have answers for.... ......we also have the desire to demand answers for those that we don't know............ It is an unwise to establish any answers just to placate our desire and demand. That is the essence of faith...........and the antithesis of science. Debate over...........
You got trolled, are you unfamiliar with Lilith? god made Adam and Lilith at the same time, when Lilith refused Adam the "rights of a man" god created Eve to replace her. Why would you conceive the idea that it is okay to treat another human being with such disgrace? I assume you are Christian, isn't your religion suppose to be one of love and respect for another? Do you believe that incest is moral? Thank you for expressing your belief. I would also like to offer the perspective that Christopher Hitchens is not burning in hell. The only way a hell can exist in a rational world is if the person harboring the view creates it. With that being said, you are the only one capable of creating your own hell. Think not about the promise of an afterlife, think more about the presence of hostility you manifest towards others with your statements of righteousness.
If he is in Hell it would probably be where a load of religious people preach at him for all eternity singing the praises of God. Ergo, if God was daft enough to want to punish him he would send him to Heaven.
cause and effect is a linear observation in time most often in the macro world...........from a quantum reality cause and effect becomes blurred in an eternal fluctuation of time itself.......... ..........it is beginning to look like the quantum vacuum is eternal, uncaused and fluctuates with no linear cause/effect relationship........... If we find this holds to further investigate it is the last straw of a reason for a creator once again overturned by natural process.
....or the fact that the 80,000+ people butchered in Bali during the anti PKI massacres were mainly murdered by hindus on the instruction of their leader, Ida Bagus Oka.
AND... If my answer is hard for you to contemplate at least it is plausible, and i assure you it is entirely more realistic than inventing a 'Superman' theory. I may not be right BUT not having the answer will never make me invent a 'quick fix' theory. 2 things religion can ONLY exist by... Delusion and ignorance.
I don't understand how you can think an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being that is also transcendent to have been more likely to been eternal than just energy. First because so far off from anything we have evidence for in the universe. We've never had an example of absolute nothing within our universe and second we've never had evidence of a mind that exists without a brain. You're making claims that are beyond anything we've ever seen in the universe to excuse your religious belief
How is bringing someone to a church moral? Under that reasoning it must be said for all religions. Is it moral to bring up a child in a religion they do not understand? Or to bring someone into Wahhabism? Or Scientology? Or another cult? If you brought someone into a church and fed and clothed them the feeding and clothing would be the moral part. Doing it only because you'll get something in another life, I'd say, is not moral. Reply so we can continue.
Matter and nothing are two different states of the same thing..............there is not ulitimate solid just as if there is no ultimate nothing in reality......they both are the same but in different dimensional states and time.
What is the prime cause of reality? Want to know the answer? I actually know THE answer and I'm 100% sure I'm right. Here goes... The answer is: No one knows. No one. At all. Some people will now go on to dedicate their lives and work hard to find the answer. Others will get uncomfortable with not knowing and will believe whatever feels best. Which camp do you fall in to?
balinese people are enslaved by their religion... it looks pretty to outsiders but for the Balinese it is all about social exclusion if they weren't religious.
That's ridiculous. You think that just because I don't accept the claim that a god exists or created the universe I automatically need to demonstrate you how all the energy/matter got here?. I am okay with the fact that we don't know that yet and perhaps I'll never know if it was always here or not but I'm not going to accept your incredible claim without any evidence just because I don't know.
I'm no expert but I don't think you can have motion and change with matter alone, you need space and time. I'm going to explain you this one more time. The reason I don't accept your claim that an eternal intelligent entity created the universe is because you have no evidence to prove it. I'm not trying to argue for an eternal universe. I'm humble enough to say that I don't know but if there is no proof for a god I have no reason to believe in one.
Concerning your "atheists think matter is eternal": No true. Don't make bold claims with no evidence. Did you hear this at church or did you come up with that one on your own? How are we delusional? Because we say "sorry, we don't buy into your god or the thousands of others. Bring us some evidence and we'll consider it but until then please do not speak to us as if you know what "god" knows and has in store"?
Dear Mr. Christopher Hitchens I do respect you because I believe you are seeking the truth and if you keep seeking the truth you will find it. Actually you should change your first name since the name of Christ is part of your name. I believe that God enjoys listening to you and reading your books. If you really stand for justice and truth, you will find that the creator of this Universe is interested in us. We are not evolved from some lower form of life, if we are, show us the missing link. There is no missing link. There is a force in this world which causes people to be deceptive and contrary to all good and justice. However there is also a spirit which brings love, peace, and joy into this world. Who creates the places where people find help and healing? Most places that help people are created by Christians not by atheists. I do believe that many atheists are people who are looking for truth and justice and see all the faults and weaknesses in religion. If you ever experienced the presence of God, you would know that there is a real God, who is a spirit, who is love. The big bang cannot create peace, love and joy, you need to come out of your three dimensional thinking and ask the God of the Universe to reveal himself to you, he will.Experiencing God and true love and peace is evidence, You are going to find God and I believe that your seeking the truth will bring you to the reality of God.
That was a lovely speech and all, and you go right ahead and keep believing in a super-power if that is the crutch you require. However, preaching to Hitchens on this matter would never have gotten you anywhere, and it certainly isn't going to do any good now that the man has been dead for over two years.
WAIT!!! It HAS to be the christian god!!! No other god is more important and delivers more "evidence" for his existence, no matter how large the groups of followers they (those other gods) have. Its AMAZING how much we know about god!!! W're closed minded and ignorant theists, yet we dont CARE, as long as OUR god answers OUR pointless requests/prayers!! ---- this right here just proves Hitches point that its all man-made outdated silliness.
I'm pleased American "Hitch" fans have freed themselves from their churches, but don't be seduced by his Burton-like tones. He was a great speaker, not great thinker. For most of his life he was a fanatical Trotskyist, and then overcompensated by becoming a baiting neoconservative. He was a political idiot his entire life, and reversed everything he had "believed in" and fought for to back Bush's invasion of Iraq. He died apologizing for it, conjuring an obsession with "dictatorship."
You are off your rocker. Maybe you should watch the debate Hitchens did about the Iraq war and his reasons for a change of heart on the subject. Grab your knife and fork. You'll be eating crow for the next month.
Can you provide some evidence of your claim that Wolpe "battered him"? I've watched all of their debates, numerous times, and haven't seen anything remotely close to your claim.
This guy is nuts. The banksters were given US$14 Trillion dollars and he worries about this idoicy? I listened to his drivel and can see that this is irrelevant. It is the economy stupid, the system of allocation of resources is all that matters. The financialization of life is the truth. If you don't have enough to eat and are a slave then all his drivel is just rubbish. So we have corporate socialism with a plutocracy and the recreation of feudalism. Yes I did listen to him but I was disappointed. I am frequently disappointed. R.I.P Christopher.
