While the Hitchens brothers may be opposites of each other on some subjects, it is very clear that they do share one strong common bond. They are both highly educated and thoughtful.
+JACKnJESUS Many people are highly educated and thoughtful...................... They literally share nothing in common except that their voice sounds similar
I don't care what anyone says, and I say this as someone who is on the left of politics - I have a lot of respect for Peter. He is by no means the "lesser" of his brother, I really find that kind of remark contemptible.
+T800System This is simply bullshit. Peter Hitchins is intellectually vastly inferior to his brother. He is crazy and believes a huge amount of nonsense. Number one of these things being that God exists, he was a carpenter born of a virgin, died and rose 3 days later. Amongst his other dumb beliefs are: Vaccines cause autism, any sex outside marriage is wrong, women should not have birth control, he defends intelligent design and doubts evolution, rationalises rape in certain cases and is the most horrible snob out there.
You are deluding yourself if you think that. Christopher hitchens is 1 of a kind, the man was absolutely brilliant. Peter hitchens is very intelligent no doubt, but he's no Christopher Hitchens. And you can see that bright as day in the debates he had with his brother.
+T800System Peter (for all that I disagree with his views) is a great opinion writer. As he refers to in this interview, it's quite a shame for him that his brother is such a giant to make him look small only in comparison. And both of them can be great to listen to, especially when I disagree with them. Listen to the best of your enemies - only if you can understand their arguments and then refute them, can you consider your view solid. The Hitchens brothers both serve to sharpen all our minds.
+MyName Jeff Christopher Hitchens was a better showman, with more charisma. He was sometimes brilliant with words, but he was also an opportunist. And he took a lot of easy deabtes, against religious American nuts. Those debates are pretty much impossible to lose.
I agree that's sometime the case. I suppose it all depends upon what is the object of ones optimism. Not all things are worthy of it, God alone being Good, only things truly good therefore satisfy as the object of, or basis for, true Optimism. "Christ is the head of every man" and only He keeps us in our right mind, a proper state of which could be termed 'optimism'.
Peter Hitchens is great. An intellectual, rational person who believes in God. Of course, Christians realize there is no contradiction between faith and reason. But he is certainly a quandary for atheists and anti-theists, because refuse to believe that such rational thinking people exists in the religious world.
Don't agree with him on everything but I do respect him. Both him and his late brother are both very interesting and intelligent people and the world would be a better place with more people like them.
the brothers hitchens were a lot more similar than they separately exhibit - I think it was a joke that they played on the world - I think when debating each other that I've caught the elder suppressing an approving smile when the younger was making a point more than once imo
As an American I love listening to Peter. So much applies to what is occurring in modern America. Such a good critical thinker. He bases his thoughts on the facts. He looks at the causal and works to the possible solutions.
This was a very, very respectable interview. The interviewer is EXACTLY what we need to see on the BBC. He asked provoking questions, he didn't interrupt and importantly he teased answers from the subject, rather than interrogate him. A real pleasure, thank you for this.
Jez2008UK He was wrong on every argument he put forward Conservatives did win a majority Scotland voted to stay in the union,violent crime has fallen.So he believes in fairy tales IE god no real reason given to believe.
I think Peter's arguments may gain more merit as the generation brought up with the effects of rampant social liberalism get older and see the negative consequences. We will realise what we have lost.
13:19 Peter is a smart man, but when it comes to religion he makes all the lame arguments that other religious people do. He makes it perfectly clear that he believes in a god because he wants the universe to be purposeful and just and not the alternative, as he sees it, which is pointless, purposeless and unjust. The truth is what it is, not what one wants it to be and sometimes it is not pleasant, or just. He also asserts that agnosticism is the only logical conclusion from reason and logic, as if the existence, or non-existence of a god, as is described by scripture, were a 50:50 probability. He then rolls out the old canard that atheists' disbelief in a god is equal to a belief in god and every bit as emotional and irrational and that they don't want there to be a god because they're hiding personal defects/perversions that they're profoundly ashamed of. I mean, what a filthy and emotional trick to dismiss an opponent's argument.
God Sloth His God position does matter because it influences others who might not know better. And it matters because for several other reasons, including the evils perpetrated in the name of God, and that our society ought to value truth and science.
David Morgan People are allowed to think different things to you. If he influences other people then good for him, he's a charismatic guy, however Christianity is a very mild form of religion and spreading it will not cause the evils you think it will. Regardless, I think its quite totalitarian to declare that people cannot believe something because of your own beliefs.
God Sloth I'm not saying he or anyone shouldn't be allowed to believe in God or a religion; instead, I was saying that Peter defending his religious views does MATTER. I was raised as a Christian. I know it's relatively innocuous. The evils that I mentioned are probably more subtle than what you have in mind. For example, I hated my Mom when I was a child because she forced Catholicism on me, but fortunately I grew up and learned to forgive her and respect her religious views. Anyhow, to put my point differently, I think religion does far more harm than good.
David Morgan I'm sure religion does do far more harm than good. I'd say the same for alcohol, fatty foods and computer games too, however I'm not going to campaign against them. If you want to do something in your own home, it does not matter. When it becomes an issue like forcing their beliefs on someone else then I will stand by you and try to stop it. However as you said, Peter is defending his beliefs, he is not forcing them on someone else, but more trying to prevent another thrust theirs upon him, and so it does not matter, It matters when someone is not defending, but is forcing their beliefs.
Damn, so many people up the anal about Christopher and how Peter is not. A man with his life experience comes to God off a life of no God in the most reasonable actions of choice should be seen other but Logical Reasoning. Im not crying religious fanaticism but Peter Hitchens is an intellectual person regardless of your choice not to belive in a deity.
Fantastic young interviewer. Very mature and the way he allowed Peter Hitchens to explain his point even after what could be seen as awkward pauses was brilliant.
Logic and reason will always bring us to agnosticism! There is simply no way of knowing. At that point we each have to decide for ourselves which road we take. It appears that the majority of atheists have used their intelligence to reach that point of agnosticism whereas the majority of believers in one god or another have not! Overcoming childhood indoctrination is the true victory! What you believe after that is as close to the personal truth as you can possibly get!!!🙂
And that’s the issue with “God’s word” being conveyed through literature; it’s open to interpretation. Some people think it abolishes the death penalty, some think it outlaws murder for adultery and some think it condemns mob rule. How practical for an all-perfect god to gift us this book… this has led to every different interpretation possible(!)
@@duderyandude9515 everything is open to interpretation and likely it is a big part of why we are here....as a chance to learn to interpret our existence more clearly.
@@chtomlin But if you are god that wants to convey a concrete message and wants a relationship with one specific species of ape on one of many trillions of rocks, you can do better than the Bible that is indistinguishable from some primitive scribbles of superstitious savages.
@@duderyandude9515 if you believe in physical evolution, then why not that God could be using the same process with information? Clearly he didn't want a concrete message, right? He wanted one that required effort and faith.
I agree with his brother over him on every subject except death penalty and iraq, I'm against a lot of peter's views but still respect his intellect. Only man of the right I can say that about.
those of you who are mocking the interviewer...you are aware that Peter is the elder statesman who will eventually pass on and that someone from the younger generation will step up to fill his shoes. It's the whole concept between teacher/student, master/apprentice, etc. No one is born a master...they become so by being around those who can impart knowledge on them. Those of you who have young children in school; it would be the same if I showed up and mocked them as ignorant dummies who are only interested in recess and story time. That would be quite ignorant don't you think?
In your humble opinion lol Are you British? I am and although I don't agree with many things he thinks, he's genuine and morally decent, and I would definitely consider him a statesman.
Ah I love P.Hitch. Disagree with him on so many things but if there's one thing he shares in common with his brother, it's his ability to say what he thinks with eloquence and without fear of who may or may not like it. I respect him for that.
I'm fast becoming a Peter Hitchens fan ! What an articulate, cultured yet humble Christian he is - in the tradition of CS Lewis & the contemporaneous Oz Guiness. May the Lord continue to raise more champions of the Faith like them !
Love Peter Hitchens...interesting to see what he was wrong about though. What would happen after a Brexit referendum, prospects of a Tory majority. I love his view of the Conservative Party though: the replacement he describes would be way better. (Agree with the compliments I have seen regarding the interviewer. )
I have no ides why this wonderful young interviewer isn't mentioned by name. I have seldom seen, even on BBC etc, such attentive & intelligent reactions to Peter Hitchens many diverse offerings. Peter is a bizarre mix of Old school anti-Soviet Trotskyism & ultra right Conservatism, he could come out with anything! A great interview - well done! Why don't you interview us soon, we're no so bizarre but we have a lot of interesting views? Get in touch!
Hi, cheers for your question - I'm 20 (about to embark on 3rd year at university rather than sixth form!) and Philip & I organise, film and upload our videos with various political figures. We get in touch with them without any prior connections - we're not "important" paha! I love meeting & learning from them all and am pretty excited for the future of the project
Peter Hitch: if Jesus was not executed he couldn’t have become Saviour - because his Saviour-hood depended on offering him as ultimate perfect Sacrifice to his Father ¿
7:00 - Unless Peter is reading a different Bible (and there are many versions) but as far as I can see it says "He who is without sin" Not "He who has committed adultery" So as far as I read, Jesus WAS talking about a sin in general, not just referencing adultery in particular on this singular occasion.
I didn't agree with everything that Christopher Hitchens said, by any means, but I never found him boring; Peter, on the other hand... wow... just wow. (I clicked to see what he said about his brother, by the way).
No matter what you think of Peter Hitchens, he will always be measured against his late brother, and will always fall short in most peoples' eyes. That not an indictment of him.. I doubt there are half-dozen people in the world to match Christopher's unique wit and polemic. I feel a bit sorry for Peter for that reason.
Christopher was indeed unique, very witty and had a beautiful command of the English language, but Christopher was a contrarian. I feel Peter is far more logical and has found his own views and opinions without the influence of Christopher.
Deep Zepp Fair point. As a non-English person I am a lot more familiar with Christopher's views, which were global and grandiose in scope, as opposed to Peter's which are more domestic. Having said that I quite enjoy listeing to Peter's views (which are applicable to the country I live) even though I only agree with about 50% of them. And the 2008 battle, oops I mean "debate", between the Brother Hitchens was *epic*, and I was pleased to see Peter held his own on the subject of Iraq. AND, 6 years on, we see he was dead right ;)
jq747 I agree with you on all of what you just said. The problem is that a majority of English people(especially left wing liberals) have a very narrow closed mind in this country, and if they don't agree with someone's views like Peters, they just wont listen or will try and mock you for your beliefs and views. So you saying that enjoy listening to Peter, even though you only agree with 50% of what he says, can only be a good thing. I only wish more people were as tolerant and open minded.
Deep Zepp Don't feel bad, the lefties down here in Australia ain't much better ;) I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.. as Peter pointed out in a blog post, it's highly curious that Christopher remained the leftist's darling in spite of supporting the Iraq war. "He hates religion.. but he supported George W!! Does not compute/....///"
I get the impression that he's really an atheist deep down but like any good nihilist he knows nothing matters, not even the truth and that he's got a certain personality prone to romantic fatalism which drives him to his current positions for the sheer fun of it. That's not to say he doesn't believe any of what he says, but I do think truth is a secondary motivation, like it is for most people.
Chester Belloc Intersting opinion. As someone who is drawn to truth it is hard for me to understand why you would want to live outside of it. I think that's something many atheists struggle with when it comes to religous folk.
Chris Hitchens lived and died by his principles, Peter Hitchens is fluid and comes at every topic from the angle of his own personal experience. The two brothers are in stark contrast. Good job by the interviewer.
I disagree. Both brothers had strong principles, unafraid to express their honest and considered opinion even when going against majority wisdom. Their political positions evolved over the course of their respective lives, and this isn't particularly unusual. My own politics are much closer to Christopher's, but I respect Peter for his refusal to sway with the wind, because it's always more interesting to listen to someone making a sincere case that you disagree with than it is to listen to someone parroting a party line.
Christopher held moral principals he couldn’t possibly objectify. At least Peter, acknowledging the existence of God, can justify his version of right/wrong.
Christopher died from the very weakness his father had. At a younger age. Those complaining about the wrong brother dying be mindful of that. You can call Peter the dumb one till you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that Peter is the one still here due to his ability to resist the crutch of 24/7 chemical dependence. Christopher, for all his wit, could not. Christopher proved he could have been a great speaker without being a lush. Just listen to his last few debates when on chemo. No hair. No eyebrows. No drink by his side. Nothing but a dying man giving a great speech.
Peter has the pessimism that only a true believer who actually view's the world through our professed beliefs can have. The only hope of salvation for the Western world is enormous, miraculous Christian revival. Barring that like he says all we can do is watch the slow inevitable decline and bemoan our fates.
I disagree with him on several issues, I think I couldn´t politically agree with him on several things. That said, I think it is very nice to see an intelligent person that actually argues correctly, even if I disagree with him on most things.
I cannot see an indication anywhere of the interviewer's name, which is a shame, because he is quite simply brilliant. With his quiet, empathetic, intelligent approach he gets more out of his interviewee than a inquisitorial Paxman or a badgering Peter Snow. Well done, young man, you have a bright future ahead of you. This is one of the best interviews I have ever seen.
He's a remarkably intelligent and perceptive man and I feel that, put in a position to advise he could do a great deal of good. However I've noticed he has a lot of trouble putting himself into the position of others. For instance when he states that atheists 'choose' to deny God he completely disregards the concept that an atheist may simply find it impossible to believe in God. The same with his argument against abortion - he states that supporters of abortion are trying to justify their misdeeds and guilt and fails to consider that some people consider abortion legitimate from a scientific standpoint. An intelligent man, but far too stubborn and blind to the realities of others.
Indeed, the notion atheists are so minded because of they simply choose not to believe, or because they have some skeleton in a closet seems very bizarre. Can he not understand that possibly it's because it's where the evidence just leads them, and indeed what they percieve the bible and world shows about religion just further lends to this point of view? If choosing to believe his brother is now spending an eternity in hell, simply because Chris' mindset told him God didn't exist, seems to be the work of a loving and wise God... Oh well...
Yes and no... It is indeed a moral issue, but which must be made on the back of scientific facts/understanding? eg: If it transpires a fetus at stage X is viable and can feel pain etc it may result in a different moral outcome to if science can instead tell us it is not viable and cannot feel pain etc.
Nearly everything Peter Hitchens says is wrong but it's probably necessary to hear cogent expression of what you don't think every once in while. Interviewer did a really good job.
I appreciate Peter Hitchen's views. He has a deep understanding about politics. And I think to deny that is to delude oneself. This is coming from a Marxist by the way, who disagrees with Hitchen's on so many levels. The only area that I am disappointed by here is his refusal to admit that Daily Mail readers probably aren't the rational and reasonable thinkers that Hitchens hopes to see in British society. That is to be expected unfortunately because they are paying him.
10:35 except that there have been people wrongfully convicted even when the jury was convinced that that person was guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. Are those lives just an unfortunate remainder in Peter's advocacy?
I`m a gnostic , and we discover our truths as we go , we write our books ( that are never complete ) while we live , we listen to everyone but follow no one , and we try not to fall into the traps that this physical illusion tempts and tests us with , but we still do , because we are human . My god is the god of love whom is the keeper of my soul , and the god that created this physical realm , is the god of fear and deception , trying hard to keep your soul , in this prison , so it can feed off your fear and suffering . It`s seems to be doing a fantastic job so far . p.s . I love Peter , and his brother Christopher . I love their minds , I love their perspective , and enjoy most of all , their complete honesty and incredible intellect . Always gives me fantastic insight .
I don't generally consider conservatives to be morally bad, but I do consider them to be ill informed on a lot of issues and that their opinions are not pure and are influenced by their personal prejudice. However, I also believe that they are not aware of this and therefore I can't say that they are morally bad or that their opinions come from a place of malice.
I don't generally consider liberals to be morally bad, but I do consider them to be ill informed on a lot of issues and that their opinions are not pure and are influenced by their personal prejudice. However, I also believe that they are not aware of this and therefore I can't say that they are morally bad or that their opinions come from a place of malice.
Yes, I knew someone would do that rather than try and come up with some ideas of their own. If it isn't prejudice that drives conservative thinking then what is it? Tell me? Also, give me some examples.
You seriously think these flaws are specific to conservatives? I'd more or less call myself a liberal but liberals are every bit as bad as conservatives, it's just on different issues. Essentially what happens is that when the sacred values of a political tribe conflict with the facts of reality, they just deny the facts. With conservatives, sacred values are often centered around security, loyalty and purity. You can clearly see Peter's bias creep through on these issues and I fundamentally don't trust his fact checking on these areas at all. However, liberal sacred values are based around openness, equality and purity (a very different kind of purity). Some examples where liberals are clearly incapable of dealing with facts: differences in gender and race intelligence, differences between religions AND the whole alternative medicine/natural foods scene is almost entirely liberal and contains more dogma and denial of evidence than any single religion does.
Peter Hitchens: "Don't insult politicians", aslo Peter Hitchens: "That politician is slippery" Peter Hitchens: "Don't listen to those opinion polls, they are not accurate", also Peter Hitchens: "This poll, which supports my conclusion, is accurate even though it uses the same base as the other poll". There are stark differences between the brothers.
For our interview with Nigel Farage, in which we put Peter Hitchens' question to him, please follow the link in the description. And remember to hit subscribe, so that you can be notified of future interviews!
Interesting to have him say that he believes in God as a matter of wish fulfillment of the question "Which sort of universe do you desire?" He prefers that the universe be a certain way, believes that God is necessary for that universe, therefore believes in God.
I think it's the same for most atheists, though usually we wouldn't be so ready to admit it. I think the ultimate reason I don't believe in God is because God would make the universe more mysterious and less under control. A Godless universe is more predictable, more knowable, and that gives me consolation. My atheism is just as wishful as Peter's faith. Though I think his wishes are more noble than mine. Desiring control vs. desiring justice.
***** Yes, I also used to think that. I used to think that I'm an atheist because of unbiased reasoning and and an independent spirit. But I was patting myself on the back, inflating my own ego. It's very nice to think that one is an independent mind, a rational person who isn't as easy to trick as those religious fools. It gave a boost to my self-esteem. Another reason why I found atheism satisfying. It comforts me and my pretensions. My point is that I think this idea that people can become fundamentally rational creatures is mistaken from the get go. Reason is what we use to construct fine sounding excuses for what we actually intuit and feel and desire deep down. Instead of having to admit to ourselves and to others that the reasons for our views, opinions and practices are based on emotion, desire, and intuition, we can present sophisticated lines of reasoning in place of the truth.
You're right. I'm no relativist. The Truth is the Truth. And people's views can be close to the Truth or far from it. But when I say that people are "irrational" it is not a slight. I'm not suggesting that we are low animals that simply follow their urges, though certainly that too can at times be the case. Rather, I'm talking about our values, morals, nobility, sense of what is beautiful and proper, dignity, honor, authority, the sacred and the profane etc. These are what drive us, and these are based on our genes, the surrounding culture, emotion, instinct and intution. Rationality is a powerful tool that we can use, something that helps to make us wonderful and unique, but it is not what drives us. If we expect it to be the driving force, and base our expectations on that assumption, we are bound to be disappointed time and again. Ultimately, when I say that I don't believe God exists, I can say that it is because I haven't been convinced by the evidence. But this is only a superficial explanation - many people have exactly the same evidence in front of them yet they reach a completely different conclusion. When I dig deeper, I find the much more meaningful reasons for my belief, reasons which are all about emotions and intuitions.
***** It may be silly, but I think that is exactly how we tend to land on our beliefs. We choose to believe things that match with our intuitions and values, and then construct rational arguments to support these decisions. Much of this happens subconsciously. It took me a long time to realize why I'm actually an atheist. I thought it was because of cool-headed, independent reasoning and objectivity. But all the reasoning and cool-headedness had in truth come rather late. The subconscious emotional reasons were there first, without me being really aware of them.
"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" is not Jesus saying everyone there was guilty of adultery, it's him saying that everyone there was guilty of sin and had no right to judge the woman that had commited adultery.
If you watch Christopher Hitchens' interviews, this interview with his brother Peter is fascinating. They sound similar, both have similar speech patterns and pacing and both are very well spoken and articulate and sound interesting regardless of what they discuss. Peter is much less exposed vs his brother, and he has perhaps the best and most accurate insight into what made his brother tick - a rare insight. Peter really is more rational and logical in his arguments - and less of an obvious contrarian than his brother was "My brother loved a good fight" he said of Christopher. That's the key to understanding Christopher, he'd pick obscure fights with totally decent people and find a way to fight with them - just to be contrarian. Peter Hitchens is worth the time to listen to.
+Classical Music11 UKIP is a joke. A public outcry against establishment politics, true, but still, a joke. Nigel Farage, Godefry Bloom (the abundant litany of scandals in the 2015 election). UKIP is a joke.
UKIP is indeed a joke, a bad joke that has possibly set the UK on a rigid course down hill with poverty and hardship coming back again as was the case pre 73... unless the UK can perform some sort of miracle. So far it's all just bravado, promises, claims of what will happen and a GBP that has been at some 1:1.12 against the Euro ever since the vote. Let's see what happens post 2019 and then the mass masturbation of the UKIP result can continue on the island.
What Hitchens says about the full separation of Scotland did somewhat come true in 2015. The 50 some seats won by the SNP did solidify the Conservative vote in England itself.
Yup. You don't choose atheism over theism; you arrive at atheism--if you began as a theist, that is. I'd very much like some kind of Heaven to go to after death; eternal life, or at least the ability to choose when to cease existence, would be much more ideal than seventy or so years of consciousness, so if I could choose the comfort of such beliefs, I might. But the evidence points towards materialism; we don't need God for the universe to work the way it does.
Freddie Fiasco But that is based upon the imposed reality, once you travel into the spirit realm, via drugs, meditation or near death experiences, god consciousness becomes prevalent. As a human, you experience less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum in day to day reality, yet the atheist is arrogant enough to claim nothing exists in the 99% he cannot perceive
zephiloyd That was a lovely straw man you attacked in the last part of your comment. I can't engage with your current argument. If that's what you believe and what makes you happy, then congratulations. Once you have actual proof and not a bunch of drug-fueled anecdotes, send me a message and we'll talk.
It's nice how, when you get to actually marry the person you love, how "frivolous" and unimportant gay marriage is. It's almost as if when you get to have your rights, other people having theirs just seems a little...banal.
While the Hitchens brothers may be opposites of each other on some subjects, it is very clear that they do share one strong common bond. They are both highly educated and thoughtful.
+JACKnJESUS Many people are highly educated and thoughtful......................
They literally share nothing in common except that their voice sounds similar
Pierzing.glint1sh7
Then I suggest you do some research into them. They were both Marxists in their early years btw.
+JACKnJESUS yes I know that. we're talking about today. well not today bcoz one of them is dead
Pierzing.glint1sh7
lol...yes. However all i said was both were thoughtful and highly educated. I doubt you can take that away from either one of them.
yeah apart from that they're polar opposites. you seen their head to head debate at gr?
I don't care what anyone says, and I say this as someone who is on the left of politics - I have a lot of respect for Peter. He is by no means the "lesser" of his brother, I really find that kind of remark contemptible.
+T800System This is simply bullshit. Peter Hitchins is intellectually vastly inferior to his brother.
He is crazy and believes a huge amount of nonsense. Number one of these things being that God exists, he was a carpenter born of a virgin, died and rose 3 days later.
Amongst his other dumb beliefs are: Vaccines cause autism, any sex outside marriage is wrong, women should not have birth control, he defends intelligent design and doubts evolution, rationalises rape in certain cases and is the most horrible snob out there.
+thehorrorification "I think religious people are dumb and stupid and I don't like him."
See how much time you could've saved yourself?
You are deluding yourself if you think that. Christopher hitchens is 1 of a kind, the man was absolutely brilliant. Peter hitchens is very intelligent no doubt, but he's no Christopher Hitchens. And you can see that bright as day in the debates he had with his brother.
+T800System
Peter (for all that I disagree with his views) is a great opinion writer. As he refers to in this interview, it's quite a shame for him that his brother is such a giant to make him look small only in comparison.
And both of them can be great to listen to, especially when I disagree with them. Listen to the best of your enemies - only if you can understand their arguments and then refute them, can you consider your view solid. The Hitchens brothers both serve to sharpen all our minds.
+MyName Jeff Christopher Hitchens was a better showman, with more charisma. He was sometimes brilliant with words, but he was also an opportunist. And he took a lot of easy deabtes, against religious American nuts. Those debates are pretty much impossible to lose.
"Generally I find optimism lets you down"
I agree that's sometime the case.
I suppose it all depends upon what is the object of ones
optimism.
Not all things are worthy of it, God alone being Good,
only things truly good therefore satisfy as the object of, or basis for, true Optimism.
"Christ is the head of every man" and only He keeps us in our right mind, a proper state of which could be termed 'optimism'.
"My job is writing the 'official obituary for Britain' - I'm just trying to make it accurate !"
- Peter Hitchens, quoted herein.
It's nice to see an interview with Peter where he isn't being shouted down by a left wing and audience. He's a very insightful and principled man.
Peter Hitchens is great. An intellectual, rational person who believes in God. Of course, Christians realize there is no contradiction between faith and reason. But he is certainly a quandary for atheists and anti-theists, because refuse to believe that such rational thinking people exists in the religious world.
Abigail Miller One does not simply be "rational" and "believe in God".
Christopher > Peter
There is fundamental contradiction between faith and reason, hence why one is called faith and one is called reason.
Jack No, there is no such contradiction, and that stands to reason if there is a God who created both.
Alasdair Boswell Opinion. And I disagree.
Don't agree with him on everything but I do respect him. Both him and his late brother are both very interesting and intelligent people and the world would be a better place with more people like them.
It could make one curious about Mommy and Daddy Hitchens.
Christopher was immeasurably more intelligent and fascinating.
the brothers hitchens were a lot more similar than they separately exhibit - I think it was a joke that they played on the world - I think when debating each other that I've caught the elder suppressing an approving smile when the younger was making a point more than once imo
Thanks for the time stamps. Very helpful!
As an American I love listening to Peter. So much applies to what is occurring in modern America. Such a good critical thinker. He bases his thoughts on the facts. He looks at the causal and works to the possible solutions.
This was a very, very respectable interview. The interviewer is EXACTLY what we need to see on the BBC. He asked provoking questions, he didn't interrupt and importantly he teased answers from the subject, rather than interrogate him. A real pleasure, thank you for this.
In reference to his comments on the death penalty, I can testify to the fact that it does not, in fact, deter people from committing violent crimes.
This is an absolute brilliant interview - well done to you and to Peter, really loved listening to this :) Thanks.
Jez2008UK He was wrong on every argument he put forward Conservatives did win a majority Scotland voted to stay in the union,violent crime has fallen.So he believes in fairy tales IE god no real reason given to believe.
Jez2008UK Agreed, the interviewer was excellent.
I think Peter's arguments may gain more merit as the generation brought up with the effects of rampant social liberalism get older and see the negative consequences. We will realise what we have lost.
The opposite really.
Its been 5 years David do you still think that?
David Dibben like the ability to eat meat without being judged by a bunch of self righteous clean eating fanatics.
He's had his choice of party in power for the majority of the last 40 years.
They're not very good are they?
13:19 Peter is a smart man, but when it comes to religion he makes all the lame arguments that other religious people do. He makes it perfectly clear that he believes in a god because he wants the universe to be purposeful and just and not the alternative, as he sees it, which is pointless, purposeless and unjust. The truth is what it is, not what one wants it to be and sometimes it is not pleasant, or just. He also asserts that agnosticism is the only logical conclusion from reason and logic, as if the existence, or non-existence of a god, as is described by scripture, were a 50:50 probability. He then rolls out the old canard that atheists' disbelief in a god is equal to a belief in god and every bit as emotional and irrational and that they don't want there to be a god because they're hiding personal defects/perversions that they're profoundly ashamed of. I mean, what a filthy and emotional trick to dismiss an opponent's argument.
Except he actively said that he doesn't agree with trying to force your opinion on someone else. What he believes in his home doesnt matter.
God Sloth His God position does matter because it influences others who might not know better. And it matters because for several other reasons, including the evils perpetrated in the name of God, and that our society ought to value truth and science.
David Morgan People are allowed to think different things to you. If he influences other people then good for him, he's a charismatic guy, however Christianity is a very mild form of religion and spreading it will not cause the evils you think it will. Regardless, I think its quite totalitarian to declare that people cannot believe something because of your own beliefs.
God Sloth I'm not saying he or anyone shouldn't be allowed to believe in God or a religion; instead, I was saying that Peter defending his religious views does MATTER. I was raised as a Christian. I know it's relatively innocuous. The evils that I mentioned are probably more subtle than what you have in mind. For example, I hated my Mom when I was a child because she forced Catholicism on me, but fortunately I grew up and learned to forgive her and respect her religious views. Anyhow, to put my point differently, I think religion does far more harm than good.
David Morgan I'm sure religion does do far more harm than good. I'd say the same for alcohol, fatty foods and computer games too, however I'm not going to campaign against them. If you want to do something in your own home, it does not matter. When it becomes an issue like forcing their beliefs on someone else then I will stand by you and try to stop it. However as you said, Peter is defending his beliefs, he is not forcing them on someone else, but more trying to prevent another thrust theirs upon him, and so it does not matter, It matters when someone is not defending, but is forcing their beliefs.
Good job with the video description, wish more uploaders would take the time to do that.
Damn, so many people up the anal about Christopher and how Peter is not. A man with his life experience comes to God off a life of no God in the most reasonable actions of choice should be seen other but Logical Reasoning. Im not crying religious fanaticism but Peter Hitchens is an intellectual person regardless of your choice not to belive in a deity.
Both are/were very intelligent. I happen to be partial to Christopher, but Peter is very interesting.
I like your comment stranger but apparently there are some folks in these comments that think you’re nuts..NVTS.
@@tbone0785 This is exactly how I feel.
27:55 - 28:56 Peter Hitchens proved to be prophetic with disturbing accuracy way back in 2013 👀🤙🏾 Current date: October 20th 2019
YOU NICK he was completely inaccurate about the conservatives never achieving a majority unless Scottish independence happened though.
This is how a proper interview is conducted. Good stuff.
Fantastic young interviewer. Very mature and the way he allowed Peter Hitchens to explain his point even after what could be seen as awkward pauses was brilliant.
He predicted the Brexit mess spot on 3 years before the vote even occurred. Amazing
I disagree with Peter on many things but I respect his thoughtfulness.
Thanks for uploading - manna from heaven for us Hitchens followers who reside outside the UK.
Logic and reason will always bring us to agnosticism! There is simply no way of knowing. At that point we each have to decide for ourselves which road we take. It appears that the majority of atheists have used their intelligence to reach that point of agnosticism whereas the majority of believers in one god or another have not! Overcoming childhood indoctrination is the true victory! What you believe after that is as close to the personal truth as you can possibly get!!!🙂
I had to laugh at 26:08 *"...Won't be long now."* Sounds so dark and sinister.
V C : Actually it'll take another 35 years or so to be completed in the 2050s, unless the Grand Solar Minimum interrupts the process.
Please see the video of him saying people should emigrate as soon as possible
I wonder if Peter Hitchens ever gets tired of being completely wrong about absolutely everything...
Best line: "I'm not some kind of sinless...freak". LOL
Just what i was thinking lol
causeimbatmaaan yes put a smile on my face
34:54 'My late brother just loved having rows' Haha. That made me laugh.
"without sin cast the first stone" isn't about adultery either....it is about condemning mob justice...
And that’s the issue with “God’s word” being conveyed through literature; it’s open to interpretation. Some people think it abolishes the death penalty, some think it outlaws murder for adultery and some think it condemns mob rule. How practical for an all-perfect god to gift us this book… this has led to every different interpretation possible(!)
@@duderyandude9515 everything is open to interpretation and likely it is a big part of why we are here....as a chance to learn to interpret our existence more clearly.
@@chtomlin But if you are god that wants to convey a concrete message and wants a relationship with one specific species of ape on one of many trillions of rocks, you can do better than the Bible that is indistinguishable from some primitive scribbles of superstitious savages.
@@duderyandude9515 if you believe in physical evolution, then why not that God could be using the same process with information? Clearly he didn't want a concrete message, right? He wanted one that required effort and faith.
Excellent breakdown in the description, thank you very much for that, I would hope other up-loaders would follow suit!
So thoughtful and articulate. I had the pleasure of bumping into him recently and he was still on his bike
I agree with his brother over him on every subject except death penalty and iraq, I'm against a lot of peter's views but still respect his intellect. Only man of the right I can say that about.
those of you who are mocking the interviewer...you are aware that Peter is the elder statesman who will eventually pass on and that someone from the younger generation will step up to fill his shoes. It's the whole concept between teacher/student, master/apprentice, etc. No one is born a master...they become so by being around those who can impart knowledge on them. Those of you who have young children in school; it would be the same if I showed up and mocked them as ignorant dummies who are only interested in recess and story time. That would be quite ignorant don't you think?
In your humble opinion lol Are you British? I am and although I don't agree with many things he thinks, he's genuine and morally decent, and I would definitely consider him a statesman.
Ah I love P.Hitch. Disagree with him on so many things but if there's one thing he shares in common with his brother, it's his ability to say what he thinks with eloquence and without fear of who may or may not like it. I respect him for that.
8:59 "It (the death penalty) deters the carrying of lethal weapons". Supports capital punishment opposes gun control.
???
"Lethal weapons" do not instantly mean guns though.
Deep Zepp but surely lethal weapons include guns
logical fruit But surely guns are not the only lethal weapons?
Has anyone said guns are the only lethal weapons? Do you not agree guns are lethal weapons?
Of course they are. But they are one offensive weapon among an array of many.
"Has anyone said guns are the only lethal weapons?" Yes. You.
Great interview - thanks for uploading!
I'm fast becoming a Peter Hitchens fan !
What an articulate, cultured yet humble Christian he is - in the tradition of CS Lewis & the contemporaneous Oz Guiness.
May the Lord continue to raise more champions of the Faith like them !
Amen !
Why are religious people always so obsessed with what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
Love Peter Hitchens...interesting to see what he was wrong about though. What would happen after a Brexit referendum, prospects of a Tory majority. I love his view of the Conservative Party though: the replacement he describes would be way better. (Agree with the compliments I have seen regarding the interviewer. )
I have no ides why this wonderful young interviewer isn't mentioned by name. I have seldom seen, even on BBC etc, such attentive & intelligent reactions to Peter Hitchens many diverse offerings. Peter is a bizarre mix of Old school anti-Soviet Trotskyism & ultra right Conservatism, he could come out with anything! A great interview - well done! Why don't you interview us soon, we're no so bizarre but we have a lot of interesting views? Get in touch!
Poor Peter, forever to languish in the shadow of his much more accomplished brother. RIP Hitch :'(
Peter Hitchens and UKIP are the voice of reason in British politics and culture.
You didn't watch the video then.
You didn't watch it actually.
Peter mocks ukip
I know he does. Only based on the fact that at this time their chances of being a force to be reckoned with were slim. Now he is a UKIP voter.
I see
Hi, cheers for your question - I'm 20 (about to embark on 3rd year at university rather than sixth form!) and Philip & I organise, film and upload our videos with various political figures. We get in touch with them without any prior connections - we're not "important" paha! I love meeting & learning from them all and am pretty excited for the future of the project
Brilliant man. The spirit of Gladstone lives on.
excellent breakdown of the sections! v helpful!!
I strongly agree with him on some things and I disagree with him on alot more, but he's very interesting.
thank you so much for putting it into sections!
Peter Hitch: if Jesus was not executed he couldn’t have become Saviour - because his Saviour-hood depended on offering him as ultimate perfect Sacrifice to his Father ¿
I agree. This may have been better. At mark 6:30 onward one might read these Bible verses for further review. Matthew 5:17 - 5:20, 1Timothy 1:8-10.
A claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
7:00 - Unless Peter is reading a different Bible (and there are many versions) but as far as I can see it says "He who is without sin" Not "He who has committed adultery"
So as far as I read, Jesus WAS talking about a sin in general, not just referencing adultery in particular on this singular occasion.
he's his brother through and through - except the opposite in some of his views, and a much more positive speaker
Opposite in some of his views? 🤓They are like polar opposites. Do you know what opinions they shared?
I didn't agree with everything that Christopher Hitchens said, by any means, but I never found him boring; Peter, on the other hand... wow... just wow. (I clicked to see what he said about his brother, by the way).
I love you, Peter Hitchens!
No matter what you think of Peter Hitchens, he will always be measured against his late brother, and will always fall short in most peoples' eyes. That not an indictment of him.. I doubt there are half-dozen people in the world to match Christopher's unique wit and polemic. I feel a bit sorry for Peter for that reason.
Christopher was indeed unique, very witty and had a beautiful command of the English language, but Christopher was a contrarian. I feel Peter is far more logical and has found his own views and opinions without the influence of Christopher.
Deep Zepp
Fair point. As a non-English person I am a lot more familiar with Christopher's views, which were global and grandiose in scope, as opposed to Peter's which are more domestic. Having said that I quite enjoy listeing to Peter's views (which are applicable to the country I live) even though I only agree with about 50% of them. And the 2008 battle, oops I mean "debate", between the Brother Hitchens was *epic*, and I was pleased to see Peter held his own on the subject of Iraq. AND, 6 years on, we see he was dead right ;)
jq747 I agree with you on all of what you just said. The problem is that a majority of English people(especially left wing liberals) have a very narrow closed mind in this country, and if they don't agree with someone's views like Peters, they just wont listen or will try and mock you for your beliefs and views.
So you saying that enjoy listening to Peter, even though you only agree with 50% of what he says, can only be a good thing. I only wish more people were as tolerant and open minded.
Deep Zepp
Don't feel bad, the lefties down here in Australia ain't much better ;) I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.. as Peter pointed out in a blog post, it's highly curious that Christopher remained the leftist's darling in spite of supporting the Iraq war. "He hates religion.. but he supported George W!! Does not compute/....///"
jq747 Haha. Agreed.
0:46 he held that position for 14 seconds, that's brilliant
Glad I could stay here for 41 minutes to also listen to Peter Hitchens speak.
BTW, I just realised that Peter's beliefs about religion are based on Pascal's Wager.
I get the impression that he's really an atheist deep down but like any good nihilist he knows nothing matters, not even the truth and that he's got a certain personality prone to romantic fatalism which drives him to his current positions for the sheer fun of it.
That's not to say he doesn't believe any of what he says, but I do think truth is a secondary motivation, like it is for most people.
Chester Belloc Intersting opinion. As someone who is drawn to truth it is hard for me to understand why you would want to live outside of it. I think that's something many atheists struggle with when it comes to religous folk.
Chris Hitchens lived and died by his principles, Peter Hitchens is fluid and comes at every topic from the angle of his own personal experience. The two brothers are in stark contrast. Good job by the interviewer.
I disagree. Both brothers had strong principles, unafraid to express their honest and considered opinion even when going against majority wisdom. Their political positions evolved over the course of their respective lives, and this isn't particularly unusual. My own politics are much closer to Christopher's, but I respect Peter for his refusal to sway with the wind, because it's always more interesting to listen to someone making a sincere case that you disagree with than it is to listen to someone parroting a party line.
Christopher held moral principals he couldn’t possibly objectify. At least Peter, acknowledging the existence of God, can justify his version of right/wrong.
There is such a different spirit to Peter than there was to Christopher. So much more gentle and kind.
Christopher highlighted the injustices that religion brings. Truth isn't always pretty.
I hope there is never an issue on which I find myself agreeing with the brother of the late, great Christopher Hitchens.
i like interviewers like this, someone who doesn't ask pointless questions, doesn't get angry and allows people to finish.
Christopher died from the very weakness his father had. At a younger age. Those complaining about the wrong brother dying be mindful of that. You can call Peter the dumb one till you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that Peter is the one still here due to his ability to resist the crutch of 24/7 chemical dependence.
Christopher, for all his wit, could not. Christopher proved he could have been a great speaker without being a lush. Just listen to his last few debates when on chemo. No hair. No eyebrows. No drink by his side. Nothing but a dying man giving a great speech.
Peter has the pessimism that only a true believer who actually view's the world through our professed beliefs can have. The only hope of salvation for the Western world is enormous, miraculous Christian revival. Barring that like he says all we can do is watch the slow inevitable decline and bemoan our fates.
I disagree with him on several issues, I think I couldn´t politically agree with him on several things. That said, I think it is very nice to see an intelligent person that actually argues correctly, even if I disagree with him on most things.
Who is this lad doing the interview?
Thank you for breaking down the topics in the description section
Thank God for Peter Hitchens! A much needed voice of reason in this socialist age.
I cannot see an indication anywhere of the interviewer's name, which is a shame, because he is quite simply brilliant. With his quiet, empathetic, intelligent approach he gets more out of his interviewee than a inquisitorial Paxman or a badgering Peter Snow. Well done, young man, you have a bright future ahead of you. This is one of the best interviews I have ever seen.
He's a remarkably intelligent and perceptive man and I feel that, put in a position to advise he could do a great deal of good. However I've noticed he has a lot of trouble putting himself into the position of others. For instance when he states that atheists 'choose' to deny God he completely disregards the concept that an atheist may simply find it impossible to believe in God. The same with his argument against abortion - he states that supporters of abortion are trying to justify their misdeeds and guilt and fails to consider that some people consider abortion legitimate from a scientific standpoint.
An intelligent man, but far too stubborn and blind to the realities of others.
No science supports abortion. Second he was an atheist so he knows how they think. For goodness sake look at his brother.
Indeed, the notion atheists are so minded because of they simply choose not to believe, or because they have some skeleton in a closet seems very bizarre.
Can he not understand that possibly it's because it's where the evidence just leads them, and indeed what they percieve the bible and world shows about religion just further lends to this point of view?
If choosing to believe his brother is now spending an eternity in hell, simply because Chris' mindset told him God didn't exist, seems to be the work of a loving and wise God... Oh well...
abortion is a moral issue, not scientific.
Yes and no... It is indeed a moral issue, but which must be made on the back of scientific facts/understanding? eg: If it transpires a fetus at stage X is viable and can feel pain etc it may result in a different moral outcome to if science can instead tell us it is not viable and cannot feel pain etc.
scientific facts can never inform how we value human life, it is simply not a scientific issue at all.
He is a good man and shows the diversity of men that are good. And you can tell he loved his brother.
I really like this interviewer!
There aren't enough Peter Hitchens videos on YT.
Nearly everything Peter Hitchens says is wrong but it's probably necessary to hear cogent expression of what you don't think every once in while. Interviewer did a really good job.
I appreciate Peter Hitchen's views. He has a deep understanding about politics. And I think to deny that is to delude oneself. This is coming from a Marxist by the way, who disagrees with Hitchen's on so many levels. The only area that I am disappointed by here is his refusal to admit that Daily Mail readers probably aren't the rational and reasonable thinkers that Hitchens hopes to see in British society. That is to be expected unfortunately because they are paying him.
I don't understand how someone can 'choose' to be believe in god
?
??
it's not possible to choose what to believe in.
ploperator I don't think it's possible to choose what to believe in at least not if you're rational.
ploperator lol it seems to be they only think you 'choose' *not* to believe in god.
It's nice to see Peter Hitchens in a comfortable position, not having to constantly defend or attack.
Peter is a boss politically.
10:35 except that there have been people wrongfully convicted even when the jury was convinced that that person was guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. Are those lives just an unfortunate remainder in Peter's advocacy?
They say Peter Hitchens' smile can cure cancer
too bad he never smiles, not even for his own brother
I`m a gnostic , and we discover our truths as we go , we write our books ( that are never complete ) while we live , we listen to everyone but follow no one , and we try not to fall into the traps that this physical illusion tempts and tests us with , but we still do , because we are human . My god is the god of love whom is the keeper of my soul , and the god that created this physical realm , is the god of fear and deception , trying hard to keep your soul , in this prison , so it can feed off your fear and suffering . It`s seems to be doing a fantastic job so far . p.s . I love Peter , and his brother Christopher . I love their minds , I love their perspective , and enjoy most of all , their complete honesty and incredible intellect . Always gives me fantastic insight .
I don't generally consider conservatives to be morally bad, but I do consider them to be ill informed on a lot of issues and that their opinions are not pure and are influenced by their personal prejudice. However, I also believe that they are not aware of this and therefore I can't say that they are morally bad or that their opinions come from a place of malice.
I don't generally consider liberals to be morally bad, but I do consider them to be ill informed on a lot of issues and that their opinions are not pure and are influenced by their personal prejudice. However, I also believe that they are not aware of this and therefore I can't say that they are morally bad or that their opinions come from a place of malice.
Yes, I knew someone would do that rather than try and come up with some ideas of their own. If it isn't prejudice that drives conservative thinking then what is it? Tell me? Also, give me some examples.
...but his views do.
You seriously think these flaws are specific to conservatives? I'd more or less call myself a liberal but liberals are every bit as bad as conservatives, it's just on different issues. Essentially what happens is that when the sacred values of a political tribe conflict with the facts of reality, they just deny the facts. With conservatives, sacred values are often centered around security, loyalty and purity. You can clearly see Peter's bias creep through on these issues and I fundamentally don't trust his fact checking on these areas at all.
However, liberal sacred values are based around openness, equality and purity (a very different kind of purity). Some examples where liberals are clearly incapable of dealing with facts: differences in gender and race intelligence, differences between religions AND the whole alternative medicine/natural foods scene is almost entirely liberal and contains more dogma and denial of evidence than any single religion does.
Peter Hitchens: "Don't insult politicians", aslo Peter Hitchens: "That politician is slippery"
Peter Hitchens: "Don't listen to those opinion polls, they are not accurate", also Peter Hitchens: "This poll, which supports my conclusion, is accurate even though it uses the same base as the other poll".
There are stark differences between the brothers.
The atheists and the love for arguing just about everything and really nothing.
For our interview with Nigel Farage, in which we put Peter Hitchens' question to him, please follow the link in the description. And remember to hit subscribe, so that you can be notified of future interviews!
What is the name of the jazz tune? (I read somewhere that your friend's father composed it) Thanks!
What he said about referendums is bang on
I like Peter Hitchens
Me too. How can you not? Well, if you have to agree with everybody you like, I suppose
Great Interview - I disagree with a lot of what Peter has to say, but I appreciated his answers and the interviewer seemed very professional.
Interesting to have him say that he believes in God as a matter of wish fulfillment of the question "Which sort of universe do you desire?"
He prefers that the universe be a certain way, believes that God is necessary for that universe, therefore believes in God.
I think it's the same for most atheists, though usually we wouldn't be so ready to admit it. I think the ultimate reason I don't believe in God is because God would make the universe more mysterious and less under control.
A Godless universe is more predictable, more knowable, and that gives me consolation. My atheism is just as wishful as Peter's faith. Though I think his wishes are more noble than mine. Desiring control vs. desiring justice.
*****
Yes, I also used to think that. I used to think that I'm an atheist because of unbiased reasoning and and an independent spirit. But I was patting myself on the back, inflating my own ego.
It's very nice to think that one is an independent mind, a rational person who isn't as easy to trick as those religious fools. It gave a boost to my self-esteem. Another reason why I found atheism satisfying. It comforts me and my pretensions.
My point is that I think this idea that people can become fundamentally rational creatures is mistaken from the get go. Reason is what we use to construct fine sounding excuses for what we actually intuit and feel and desire deep down.
Instead of having to admit to ourselves and to others that the reasons for our views, opinions and practices are based on emotion, desire, and intuition, we can present sophisticated lines of reasoning in place of the truth.
You're right. I'm no relativist. The Truth is the Truth. And people's views can be close to the Truth or far from it.
But when I say that people are "irrational" it is not a slight. I'm not suggesting that we are low animals that simply follow their urges, though certainly that too can at times be the case. Rather, I'm talking about our values, morals, nobility, sense of what is beautiful and proper, dignity, honor, authority, the sacred and the profane etc. These are what drive us, and these are based on our genes, the surrounding culture, emotion, instinct and intution.
Rationality is a powerful tool that we can use, something that helps to make us wonderful and unique, but it is not what drives us. If we expect it to be the driving force, and base our expectations on that assumption, we are bound to be disappointed time and again.
Ultimately, when I say that I don't believe God exists, I can say that it is because I haven't been convinced by the evidence. But this is only a superficial explanation - many people have exactly the same evidence in front of them yet they reach a completely different conclusion. When I dig deeper, I find the much more meaningful reasons for my belief, reasons which are all about emotions and intuitions.
*****
It may be silly, but I think that is exactly how we tend to land on our beliefs. We choose to believe things that match with our intuitions and values, and then construct rational arguments to support these decisions.
Much of this happens subconsciously. It took me a long time to realize why I'm actually an atheist. I thought it was because of cool-headed, independent reasoning and objectivity. But all the reasoning and cool-headedness had in truth come rather late. The subconscious emotional reasons were there first, without me being really aware of them.
But Hitchens is explicitly invoking wishful thinking (a longing for objective standard of justice) as an argument for god. That's silly, not noble.
jesus a minute in his rebuttal is "no, its ok if i do it, who I'm talking about is the 'left'" 1:20
That lads suit is definately from primark
Don't be a burk.
LOl
+John Harwood It's a fuckign horrible suit.
+Stephen Lord I'm thinking Matalan
His suit will have faded in a few years, and you still won’t employ apostrophes properly.
"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" is not Jesus saying everyone there was guilty of adultery, it's him saying that everyone there was guilty of sin and had no right to judge the woman that had commited adultery.
34:25 talks about Christopher
Thankyou
If you watch Christopher Hitchens' interviews, this interview with his brother Peter is fascinating. They sound similar, both have similar speech patterns and pacing and both are very well spoken and articulate and sound interesting regardless of what they discuss. Peter is much less exposed vs his brother, and he has perhaps the best and most accurate insight into what made his brother tick - a rare insight. Peter really is more rational and logical in his arguments - and less of an obvious contrarian than his brother was "My brother loved a good fight" he said of Christopher. That's the key to understanding Christopher, he'd pick obscure fights with totally decent people and find a way to fight with them - just to be contrarian. Peter Hitchens is worth the time to listen to.
Peter is correct on all counts.
Nahh his own brother could destroy him on quite alot he said here ..
@@declanfoley7562 he may well destroy him but Peter wouldn't be any less right.
@@RUfrikkinkiddinME lmao typical religious nuthead
5:10 " the conservatives have no chance." Yet here we are in 2020 after a full decade of conservative leadership
UKIP is not a joke, Peter. I hope you've since retracted that view.
No, it is not.
+Classical Music11 UKIP is a joke. A public outcry against establishment politics, true, but still, a joke. Nigel Farage, Godefry Bloom (the abundant litany of scandals in the 2015 election). UKIP is a joke.
+Classical Music11 Do you mean you hope he's changed his opinion? If that's his view, why would he want to retract it?
UKIP is indeed a joke, a bad joke that has possibly set the UK on a rigid course down hill with poverty and hardship coming back again as was the case pre 73... unless the UK can perform some sort of miracle. So far it's all just bravado, promises, claims of what will happen and a GBP that has been at some 1:1.12 against the Euro ever since the vote.
Let's see what happens post 2019 and then the mass masturbation of the UKIP result can continue on the island.
Great interview, interviewer, and of course interviewee.
His voice resembles his brother's.
@Henry Discipline What's trurly shocking is that you've bothered to teply to a 6 year old comment. Sad.
@@boringname3657 what's really sad is that you misspelled reply
@@austinbyrd4164 What's trurly sad is that you think it's sad to make a typo.
@@boringname3657 what's truly sad is that you think it's sad to think it's sad to make a typo
@@austinbyrd4164 What's trurly sad is that you think it's sad to think it's sad to think it's sad to make a typo.
What Hitchens says about the full separation of Scotland did somewhat come true in 2015. The 50 some seats won by the SNP did solidify the Conservative vote in England itself.
Theists seem to think theres a choice to believe, Atheists have no choice, i could not make myself believe.
Yup. You don't choose atheism over theism; you arrive at atheism--if you began as a theist, that is.
I'd very much like some kind of Heaven to go to after death; eternal life, or at least the ability to choose when to cease existence, would be much more ideal than seventy or so years of consciousness, so if I could choose the comfort of such beliefs, I might. But the evidence points towards materialism; we don't need God for the universe to work the way it does.
Freddie Fiasco
"we don't need God for the universe to work the way it does. "
depends on how you define God.
Clarence Daniel I define God the way you think I do. Do you have some other definition of God that makes its existence necessary?
Freddie Fiasco
But that is based upon the imposed reality, once you travel into the spirit realm, via drugs, meditation or near death experiences, god consciousness becomes prevalent. As a human, you experience less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum in day to day reality, yet the atheist is arrogant enough to claim nothing exists in the 99% he cannot perceive
zephiloyd That was a lovely straw man you attacked in the last part of your comment. I can't engage with your current argument. If that's what you believe and what makes you happy, then congratulations. Once you have actual proof and not a bunch of drug-fueled anecdotes, send me a message and we'll talk.
It's nice how, when you get to actually marry the person you love, how "frivolous" and unimportant gay marriage is. It's almost as if when you get to have your rights, other people having theirs just seems a little...banal.
There is a great hope for a future generation... it lies in the return of Jesus Christ as foretold in the Bible.
Peter was always in his brothers shadow. Two very powerful intellects, but Christopher possessed wit and charm, both of which passed Peter by.